P.Z. Myers vs Intelligent Design

The spokesperson for the modern intelligent design movement wrote a review on a NY Times article concerning some genes in fish which might give evolutionists ideas on how fins turned to feet. This prompted P.Z. Myers who uses evolution often to try and discredit the existence of God and creationism in general to respond to the review. Myers writes…

“Stop, Casey, and think. Here’s this fascinating observation, that we keep finding conserved genes and conserved regulatory regions between mice and fish, which ought to tell you something, and your argument against a specific example is that it isn’t rare? It really tells you something when your critics’ rebuttal to a piece of evidence is that you’ve got so much evidence for your position that they’re tuning out whenever you talk about the detais.”

Here is what Casey Luskin who is the spokesperson for the modern intelligent design movement wrote in his review…

“The real story isn’t quite that interesting. According to the Nature paper, a particular region of DNA associated with a Hox gene cluster in the coelocanth genome showed sequence homology with a stretch of Hox gene-related DNA in tetrapods. Hox genes are known to be widely conserved among vertebrates, so the fact that homology was found between Hox-gene-associated DNA across these organisms isn’t very surprising.”

“The authors aren’t sure exactly what this particular segment of DNA does, though it’s probably a promoter region. In mice the corresponding homologous region is associated with Hox genes that are important for forming the placenta. Ergo, we’ve solved the mystery of how the placenta evolved. Right?”

“Not really. Again, all that was found was a little homologous promoter region in Hox-gene related DNA in these two types of organisms. Given that we don’t even understand exactly what these genes do or how they work, obviously the study offered no discussion of what mutations might have provided an evolutionary advantage.”

“No evolutionary pathway was proposed, or even discussed. So there’s not much meat to this story, other than a nice little region of homology between two shared, functional pieces of Hox-gene-related DNA. But of course, such shared functional DNA could be the result of common design and need not indicate common descent or Darwinian evolution.”

Casey Luskin is correct in this regard, there isn’t much to the discovery. No knowledge on how these genes work or why they work. All this paper claims is “homology” which isn’t hard evidence for evolution. Why? For one, similarities between organisms that evolutionists don’t believe are closely related!

Next Myers attacks intelligent design referring to it as “creationism”…

“The Intelligent Design creationist explanation requires that every extant species was specifically and intentionally stocked with a set of genes hand-chosen by a designer. God magically inserted IgM into each vertebrate species, except that he missed the coelacanths, and he magically inserted IgW into each and every shark, ray, coelacanth, and lungfish, but he intentionally left them out of every tetrapod and teleost.” 

Of course the modern intelligent design movement denies any reference to God, because to them that wouldn’t be scientific. But they don’t define what an intelligent agent or agents is, thus anyone guessing what they mean by that would be considered an ad hominem argument. But when you use intelligent agent or agents within your framework in which you call science, it is reasonable to challenge or question who or what that is! Of course Myers assumes its God and labels it creationism because the courts outlawed it being taught in the public schools. Myers then also assumes how a mind (in this case, God) would create nature which is interesting.

Myers uses uniqueness as proof for a creator, because evolution uses “homology” for its framework or another words God wouldn’t have created that way so it was evolution. However, he is wrong! For example, a car company often times uses the same parts in different cars. Does that mean cars are not intelligently designed rather they naturally evolved? No! You can tell that Ford models are similar. The Ford company doesn’t make each model drastically different from other models that it produces in that same year. Conversely, most of the genetic code for all living things is universal, because for one, it indicates a lone designer not many different designers. Also, it has a purpose, this makes the code optimal for protecting against errors!

Here is a challenge for Myers! What scientific research has produced hard evidence that an intelligent designer would only produce each species using totally different parts? Didn’t you believe that creationism couldn’t be tested therefore not a science then how could you come up with such a conclusion on how God would create? Didn’t you believe only evolution could be tested therefore a science? Myers uses evolution exactly like a spiritual cult does in order to try and disprove in what he doesn’t want to believe in, and that is God! This is why his argument is a bluff of complexity rather than logical. Science has not disproved God neither has P.Z Myers version of evolution disproved God!        

Will Science Destroy People’s Beliefs In God?

In the world of atheism, evolution is treated as a cult that opposes the supernatural and in time as their gaps supposedly fall into place, it will destroy the faith of other non-believers into their world-viewpoint of denying the existence of God.  Which is why they believe “science” is a tool that is more than just obtaining knowledge or updating or replacing theories, rather using that knowledge obtained through science as a means for  disproving Christianity.

Physicist Sean Carroll is one of those who believes in just that, in a recent article in yahoo news from Natalie Wolchover who is from live science, Carroll suggests that science will rule out God…

“Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God. Much of what once seemed mysterious — the existence of humanity, the life-bearing perfection of Earth, the workings of the universe — can now be explained by biology, astronomy, physics and other domains of science.”

“Although cosmic mysteries remain, Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, says there’s good reason to think science will ultimately arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever.”

Does anyone think the likes of Carroll believe that science and religion are separate? More like Carroll is suggesting that science is at odds with religion. It is what one suggests or interprets as science which determines agreement or disagreement with religion.

Did Carroll explain how science could demonstrate that God doesn’t exist? No.  Does Carroll mean that science could in principle show God does exist or not? No. But what he saying is a common belief among certain intellectuals who are atheists  when people are educated (indoctrinated) in their world-viewpoint, people will side with them.

Issac Newton, one of the greatest scientists of all time (the inventor of calculus and theory about gravity) said this in his writings called, General Scholium to Principia where Newton accepts the cosmological argument to God.

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another.”

This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator , or Universal Ruler . . . .And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect…” 

“It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always, and every where.” 

Newton no doubt views God as the architect and creator of the cosmos and of its unfolding, such that the laws of nature are the decrees of God. While seeing those laws as the work of an intelligent being, Carroll attempts to use those same laws as a means to get rid of understanding the cosmos through the work of an intelligent mind, very advanced intelligent mind, beyond all human understanding (not that we don’t understand any of it but continue to learn about it).

Evolutionary science hasn’t even been able to explain the existence of humanity (it remains a puzzle to them) let alone being able to explain away the existence of God.  Even trying to explain a finely turned universe by inventing infinite number of multiple universes combined with the anthropic principle is neither scientific nor an explanation. How the big bang popped out of nothing is another ‘theory’ which is neither scientific nor an explanation, but has caused complexity as the data doesn’t hold to its principles so you have other invented ideas such as “inflation” to try to rescue it, but it too has its own problems with the data causing more complexity.

Will science ultimately destroy people’s beliefs in God so they turn into atheists? No! We are not talking about operational science but rather historical science. We have over 150 years of evolution (along with many new discoveries that overturn its explanations), and the minority still remains with the atheists when it comes to denying the supernatural verses believing in the supernatural!

Cosmology: “In The Beginining” Controversy

In honor of Stephen Hawking’s 70thbirthday a conference was held.  And in this conference, there were two proposals posed being featured and one of which posed the greatest threat to the existing ‘models’ in cosmology.  You see, back in the 1970’s there was an uproar over a book called; “God and the Astronomers” by astronomer Robert Jastrow.

What was the uproar about? In the book, astronomer Robert Jastrow suggested that the universe had a beginning and he was very surprised on how much opposition came from cosmologists as a result. This is because they knew fully well if the universe had a beginning, this would suggest it was created out of nothing and they found that to be implausible therefore leaving the door open for a creator.  So  secular cosmologists embraced the idea of an eternal universe or universes that have no beginning.

Not only was the conference honoring Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday but also it was a conference that was trying to carefully explain the universe with a beginning while being concerned about making any inferences towards God being the creator. In New Scientist, “the universe is not eternal, resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator.”

Stephen Hawking told his audience in a pre-recorded speech, “A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God,’   Sadly, Hawking is wrong, science doesn’t break for a creator, science has broken down for natural causes being the creator of the universe. Take the big bang ‘theory’ for an example, if it was true then scientists would be observing a chronological structure of different stages concerning galaxies development as one looks deeper into space. But like in biology, this hasn’t been the case, astronomers have discovered galaxies and stars that are more fully ‘evolved’ in a segment of distant space where it was thought to represent the early, immature universe. One such discovery was discovered not long ago, a cluster of galaxies known as CL J1449+0856.

Stephen Hawking likes to invoke the “M-theory” at the very core of his beliefs.  But calling “M” a theory is a bit misleading because currently M-Theory is really not a theory at all, rather it’s a collection of different ideas (stories) with no observational or experimental data. He also invokes physical laws as the origin for the beginning of the universe.

However…

“… physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.”  -Professor and creationist at Oxford, John Lennox

John is correct, giving natural laws such profound abilities is not science but merely a man-made story in attempt to replace an intelligent creator namely, God. Back to “in the beginning”, there is a reason why a proposal of this kind has come out despite many objections for suggesting similar things in the past. New Scientist states this about the current status about an eternal universe, “cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead.”

Here are some of the reasons why these models have failed and considered to be “dead”…

The “cosmic egg” model where the universe hatches out of an existing eternal state.  Last year, “Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time (arxiv.org/abs/1110.4096).” 

The universe bouncing eternally in an organized state from expansion to contraction. This doesn’t fit the laws of the physical universe, because “disorder increases with time.”  So after each cycle the universe increases in chaos, so given the old universe time frame, it would have already reached maximum disorder.

Inflation with eternal life.  Extrapolated from Alan Guth’s 1981 inflation proposal where universes forming and inflating spontaneously forever and ever. Why does this model fail? Because equations still require a boundary in the past as pointed out by Vilenkin and Guth back in 2003.

No model of an eternal universe has been shown to work. New Scientist calls it a “Genesis Problem”. Science has not broken down, it’s as good as ever and it is confirming God’s word! What is breaking here are these man-made stories from unbelievers who are bent on disproving God.

Disturbing Developments In Cosmology

Dark matter has always been a controversial subject in this blog, often times it’s refer to as a factual phenomena due to consensus in order to fill in a problem concerning secular cosmology. For years scientists have been looking for it with a vast amount of expensive research tools. With such very weak inferences, and then trying to make predictions (from the “cosmological standard model”) with something that hasn’t been discovered directly which makes it invalid for it to be considered as factual but rather it’s mere speculation.

CDM particles is something different than physics describing the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy. Then coming up with new particles that are defined very tightly constrained like quarks when previous data cannot explain observed phenomena. As creationists, we agree that particles of this nature do not behave arbitrarily because they were created by a God of order.

Observational data is becoming a problem for the gap filling model of dark matter. At the science festival in England, leading cosmologist Carlos Frenk and the BBC says that “research on dwarf galaxies suggests they cannot form in the way they do if dark matter exists in the form that the most common model requires it to.” CDM particles haven’t been proven despite what some would say. More disurbing developments in cosmology in relation to a possiblity, “that CDM does not exist, and the predictions of the standard model relating to it are false.” 

But the disturbing developments with observational data and the computer model, Frenk insists this is not a dead thing and no shift is required but rather he makes a bold prediction of his own, “Dark matter is poised for big developments in the next few months,” he said. Sorry Frenk, it’s highly unlikely that such results will come in a few short months that vindicates the model of dark matter. More like increasing complexity will begin to plague it even more because it is not matching up with observational data whether it be soon or later.

Michael Ruse Says Evolution Teaches Atheism

If Darwinism teaches atheism, can this be taught in the public schools? It’s a question that was brought up by a  philosopher of biology and atheist in the evolutionary framework. Michael Ruse has re-affirmed what creationists have been saying for years on this issue.

He writes…

“If “God exists” is a religious claim (and it surely is), why then is “God does not exist” not a religious claim? And if Creationism implies God exists and cannot therefore be taught, why then should science which implies God does not exist be taught?”

Like many evolutionists, they make the mistake of replacing Darwinism with the word, science. It’s meaning entails a broad definition that includes other areas.  In answer to his question, it addresses something religious as though it has the power to define what is or not about religious views. No machines create themselves into existence then build themselves afterwards into a highly advanced, finely tuned, system which resembles intelligently made machines.

Interpretation of what that data means is not science either rather it’s a subjective opinion based on a bias or knowledge at that point in time. Coyne who spends quite a deal of time on the creationism vs. evolution debate writes his angle on Ruse…

“I try to keep this website classy, so, in response to Michael Ruse’s latest public display of stupidity, I’ll refrain from calling him a “clueless gobshite”. Let’s just say that his brain has passed its sell-by date.  And just when you think his arguments can’t get any loonier, he comes up with a new one.  This time he argues that anyone who maintains that science and religion are at war, and are mutually exclusive constructs, is begging for the courts to ban science from public school classrooms.”

Evolution vs. Christianity as well as other religions are at war. Science, on the other hand is not at war with Christianity. Would it anti-biblical to know how the brain functions or the heart? Would it be anti-biblical to invent a particular electric car that doesn’t use massive amounts of energy or need gas? None of these things are anti-biblical yet they are based on the scientific method. It’s interpretation of evolution into everything that is called science.  A vast amount of things explain by evolution is not principles of logic, nor observation, experimentation and reason.

For instance, mutations play a significance role for demonstrating how evolution works in nature. An experiment was conducted by Peter A. Lind, Otto G. Berg, and Dan I. Andersson from Uppsala University on bacteria. Scientists had the flexibility to insert mutations in any area along the length of the genome. The results were surprising because it caused a reduction in fitness rather than an increase which evolution requires. While mutations can be tested in a lab, it doesn’t mean evolution is true, the experiment showed evidence against what is deemed to be an absolute fact by Coyne and others. However, it does show how nature actually works which is not anti-biblical at all.

Michael Ruse brings up another thing, could evolution be banned with it’s teaching atheism according to the church and state clause? Coyne and others say one can’t bring their beliefs in the lab, isn’t that restricting freedom of religion too? If a person concludes the brain for example is designed by God rather than random mutations being created then directed by natural selection, and the establishment telling you can’t believe that inside a lab while doing research, isn’t that a violation of church and state? Indeed it is, but what Michael Ruse fails to point out, judges are highly unlikely to ban evolution from public schools but the objections of it gets louder as more data falsifies it’s metaphysical premise!

What Is Your Favorite Scientific Debunked Belief?

Liberal blogger Richard Thaler, asked an interesting question about science theories going wrong and why it took so long for it to be corrected. He quite a response from scientists. One Physicist, writes…

“The earth is flat and the sun goes around it for the same reason that an apple appears to be more strongly attracted by the earth than a leaf, the same reason that when you add 20% and then subtract 20% you return to the same value, and the same reason that the boat is heavier than water. All of these statements appear to be correct, at first sight, and all of them are wrong…”

“The length of time it takes to figure it out is a matter of history and culture. Religion gets into it, psychology, fear of science, and many other factors. I do not believe that there is one parameter that determines how these things are found to be wrong…Religious people of all religions believe even more ridiculous things than all of the above. These are examples of the last 10 years, not of the middle ages.”

Here we go, the flat earth concept again, it has been used quite often by certain evolutionists to mock creationists or intelligent design proponents. One wonders how many years has this physicist really studied Christainity or religion? Most likely he has done some study, but ultimately he wrote a response that is based on a lie.

Isaiah 40:22…

“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:”

Suggesting the earth is a circle would not give the impression of it being flat! Rather than admitting their own faith in these conclusions they exalt evolution over God…

“The Great Chain of Being is another great example of a long-held, still not fully displaced, false view and also stems from the same kind of “wrongly centered ” thinking. Essentially the view is that humans stand at the pinnacle of creation (or just below God) and all other life forms are less perfect to a varying degree. Evolutionary theory teaches that all creatures are equally adapted to the niches in which they live; every branch of the tree is thus in a sense equally perfect.”

Who said Christianity and science were separate? First that say, it’s not a science, then they write in a blog that it’s a debunked science, which is of course is another lie coming from this particular camp of scientists. However, he does have a point about interpretation of the data, it’s based on a person’s logic or way of thinking. But his logic is clearly bias and outright wrong.

Science is a tool to learn with. On the other hand, evolution is a story that has been created by man. Take for example, Steven Taylor, a macro-invertebrate biologist from the University of Illinois who spent two decades studying the mysteries of cave life. His adventure was spending a lot of time in tight dark spots in numerous caves, observing bizarre creatures that live in these ecological “islands” cut off from the outside world. Now what he did in this project was about observing, recording data and studying the effects of the above-ground environment on the creatures below ground. It’s good science without a story about evolution. Science that confirms the Bible is another!

The cultists in evolution would like the public to believe that understanding these creatures without evolution would be impossible. The cultists in evolution would also like the public to believe that their truth is the way and the light and nobody can interpret nature but them. Answering the question about one’s favorite debunked scientific beliefs shows more than ever a need to open up science research, allow more views, creationist, intelligent design or otherwise!

Jack Krebs Conception of ID Proponent William Dembski

It’s been a mission for the likes of Jack Krebs to interpret Dembski as a “fundamentalist” christian who has been hiding in the closet for years about it until recently. In Panda’s Thumb, he quotes…

“Given this account of creationism, am I a creationist? No. I do not regard Genesis as a scientific text. I have no vested theological interest in the age of the earth or the universe. I find the arguments of geologists persuasive when they argue for an earth that is 4.5 billion years old…”

According to Krebs, this was a diabolical plan, a mastermind who was trying to take over the public schools, a lie by Dembski who he thinks is really a young earth creationist. Here is his evidence of this.

He quotes…

“I believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that as the initial pair of humans they were the progenitors of the whole human race, that they were specially created by God, and thus that they were not the result of an evolutionary process from primate or hominid ancestors.”

“Even though I introduce in the book a distinction between kairos (God’s time) and chronos (the world’s time), the two are not mutually exclusive. In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1- 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch.”

“Yet, in a brief section on Genesis 4-11, I weigh in on the Flood, raising questions about its universality, without adequate study or reflection on my part. Before I write on this topic again, I have much exegetical, historical, and theological work to do. In any case, not only Genesis 6-9 but also Jesus in Matthew 24 and Peter in Second Peter seem clearly to teach that the Flood was universal. As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality.”

Krebs then accuses Dembski (who responded to the accusation) of bowing to the text of the Bible and thus calls him a young earth creationist. But he is far from that, old earth creationists do the same thing, they claim to accept the Bible as historical and then add and subtract certain things to fit what the Bible says into billions of years. One doesn’t become a young earth creationist by believing that the Noah’s flood happened or believing that Noah’s flood happened 100 years or 4500 years ago. Because Dembski believes that the earth is old in terms of billions of years as an indisputable fact which he claims has no more interest in exploring. Nor is Dembski “bowing to the text” or to scientific evidence to the contrary because if he was, he would be a young earth creationist.

Krebs ends with “They’ve lost in the school systems, (for instance, Kansas) Dover in 2005…” What he failed to mention was the Texas Science Standards which he would rather forget than remember where it was a major setback for his camp while most if not all the major players in intelligent design and creationism praised it and declaring it a victory for science. Indeed it was!