Darwin's Deadly Legacy - Complaint Filed W/station

[Guest foolfromms]

I copied the below letter to Coral Rodge Ministries that I originally sent to my local TV station WDAM after their airing of Darwin's Deadly Legacy. Their (CRM) response is pasted below, any facts to rebuttal these letters appreciated. If nothing else it makes interesting reading.

 

http://www.coralridge.org

 

Thanks,

 

Will

 

From: William E. Wallace [mailto:@comcast.net]

Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 11:54 AM

To: 'letters@coralridge.org'

Subject: FW: Darwin's Legacy Airing Irresponsible

 

The letter says it all!

 

Will

 

From: William E. Wallace [mailto:@comcast.net]

Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 10:30 AM

To: 'VIEWPOINT@WDAM.COM'

Subject: Darwin's Legacy Airing Irresponsible

 

Gentlemen,

 

I am insulted with your grossly irresponsible airing of the program Darwin’s Deadly Legacy on Tuesday evening, December 5, 2006, as would any educated person who even remotely studied the Science of Biology. To suggest that Darwin’s theory is anything but solid science is an ignorant statement, especially when made by individuals with no biological background, evolution has withstood the test of the scientific method throughout the centuries, especially the past century.

 

When you challenge the very foundation of the Science of Biology, you better have something more concrete than a few Snake Oil Salesmen Ministers, Pseudo Scientist and an extreme right wing author’s Bronze Age babblings.

 

To air such a program to an audience of mostly uneducated superstitious individuals that would buy into such pseudo science as fact is completely wrong and grossly irresponsible. Probably 90% of your audience has no idea what the Theory of Evolution is, to present this bogus program to them with no rebuttal from the other side is just plain indecent and wrong. Why did you not air a program teaching just what evolution is prior to attempting to debunk it?

 

The facts are this, if Coral Ridge Ministries had any empirical evidence to the contrary concerning the Theory of Evolution that would withstand the test of the Scientific Method, it should and would be presented to a scientific panel for review. This has not happened because REAL scientist would throw it out in a heartbeat, they don’t believe in intelligent design, because there is no evidence supporting it in the scientific community.

 

The cool thing about science is, every theory has been challenged, some withstand the test over time, others don’t. The Theory of Evolution is the foundation of the Science of Biology, no ifs, ands, or buts about it! There are no other theories even being considered in the scientific community to replace it. Intelligent design is religion trying displace evolution, of course, pseudo science is never considered by any scientific review panel.

 

There is no place for religion in science, the two don’t mix, in fact science has pretty much disproved every outrageous claim in the bible, in another words, the bible has no scientific backing at all. The creation, the flood, among other biblical claims have no scientific evidence to back them up, and consist from myth and superstition. You cannot and should not base modern day science on Bronze Age babblings.

 

If you are going to air the side of myth and superstition, at least have the decency and fairness to allow science to present its side. Richard Dawkins has a wonderful documentary called “The Root of all Evil”, in all fairness it should be aired. I would be glad to purchase and provide the DVD.

 

As the great scientist and educator Carl Sagan once said, “Science, is the candle in the dark”.

 

Sincerely,

 

William E. Wallace

Hattiesburg, MS

 

------------------------------------

Their response:

 

 

From: CRM.Correspondence [mailto:Coral.Ridge.Ministries.Correspondence@CoralRidge.org]

Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 3:34 PM

To: William E. Wallace

Subject: KREP: Darwin's Legacy Airing Irresponsible

 

Dear Will,

 

Thanks for taking the time to view Darwin’s Deadly Legacy and to share your opinions with us.

 

Your speculation regarding the solid foundation of the Theory of Evolution is baseless. Shall we review the Theory of Evolution greatest discoveries in the past century?

 

Neandertal Man, Ramapithecus, Eoanthropus, Hesperpithecus, Pithecanthropus, Australopithecus africanus, Sinanthropus and Ota Benga.

 

ALL WERE FRAUDS.

 

“The idea that ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’, is discredited today.

 

Evolution has real problems – do you want a list of issues that evolution doesn’t have an answer to?

 

1). It cannot define what a species is.

 

2). It ignores the basic laws of physics, such as the second law of thermodynamics.

 

3). Shall we consider the fossil record - (Darwin said this would be the death knell of his theory).

 

4). Evolution cannot explain the irreducibly complex entities and systems. These include the eyeball, hearing, interdependent symbiotic relationships, the Kreb energy cycle, and Sex. No one ever explained to me what the sperm did for 50 million years while it waited for its tail to be formed by random processes, so it could get to where it wanted to go.

 

5). What about all the molecules and proteins found in organic, living beings are of “left handed” morphology or topology. If life had truly evolved via random processes, we would expect expressions of both left and right handed molecules!

 

The idea that if any organization that has empirical proof against evolution should go to a scientific review board is also absurd. Consider this - Scientists are objective, well not so fast . . .

 

A famous historian of science, Dr. Thomas Kuhn, MIT professor, wrote a famous book on this very subject. He was the first to coin the concept of a belief system or framework called the “paradigm” during his Harvard graduate work. In his classic book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, he points out that because people, even scientist, become fixated with a certain paradigm, that they cannot or will not see evidence that contradicts their presuppositions. (Thomas Kuhn, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, University Of Chicago Press, 1996 )

 

A perfect example of this mind set bias is illustrated in the March 2006 issue of BioScience Technology magazine [Angelo DePalma, “More than a Messenger: The Evolution of RNA”, Bioscience Technology, March, 2006, pp 14-16.]. The non-coding sections of RNA were once considered by evolutionary scientists as “nonsense” or molecular “junk”. Now to their amazement, this “junk” in the RNA has been discovered to have a key role to play as a genetic control element, or RNA “riboswitch”, that regulates gene expression.

 

You said in your email this statement:

 

“Probably 90% of your audience has no idea what the Theory of Evolution is, to present this bogus program to them with no rebuttal from the other side is just plain indecent and wrong. Why did you not air a program teaching just what evolution is prior to attempting to debunk it?”

 

You do not have any understanding of our audience to make that accusation. If the Theory of Evolution is so solid and can withstand any attack, then tell me why is it a protected curriculum in public schools and universities?

 

Let it stand or die on the merits, using the Scientific Method - and only the Scientific Method.

 

Using that criteria no one scientist can prove evolution (not micro-evolution).

 

Even Stephen J. Gould commented one time that evolutionists should stop debating creationists because evolutionists always lose the debate.

 

Another error in your email is the same old argument regarding Science vs. Religion. The Historical facts are clear that some of the greatest founding scientists were in fact CREATIONISTS. Please review the list below for proof:

 

Antiseptic Surgery Joseph Lister (1827-1912)

Bacteriology Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)

Calculus Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

Celestial Mechanics Johann Kepler (1571-1630)

Chemistry Robert Boyle (1627-1691)

Comparative Anatomy Georges Cuvier (1769-1832)

Computer Science Charles Babbage (1792- 1871)

Dimensional Analysis Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)

Dynamics Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

Electrodynamics James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)

Electromagnetics Michael Faraday (1791-1867)

Electronics Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945)

Energetics Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)

Entomology of Living Insects Henri Fabre (1823-1915)

Field Theory Michael Faraday (1791-1867)

Fluid Mechanics George Stokes (1819-1903)

Galactic Astronomy William Herschel (1738-1822)

Gas Dynamics Robert Boyle (1627-1691)

Genetics Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)

Glacial Geology Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)

Gynecology James Simpson (1811-1870)

Hydraulics Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)

Hydrography Matthew Maury (1806-1873)

Hydrostatics Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

Ichthyology Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)

Isotopic Chemistry William Ramsay (1852-1916)

Model Analysis Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)

Natural History John Ray (1627-1705)

Non-Euclidean Geometry Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866)

Oceanography Matthew Maury (1806-1873)

Optical Mineralogy David Brewster (1781-1868)

Paleontology John Woodward (1665-1728)

Pathology Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902)

Physical Astronomy Johann Kepler (1571-1630)

Reversible Thermodynamics James Joule (1818-1889)

Statistical Thermodynamics James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)

Stratigraphy Nicholas Steno (1631-1686)

Systematic Biology Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778)

Thermodynamics Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)

Thermokinetics Humphrey Davy (1778-1829)

Vertebrate Paleontology Georges Cuvier (1769-1832)

 

 

Carefully consider this:

 

However, Albert Einstein once observed that although he was a very bright man, he could not possibly have a grasp of more than a few percent of human knowledge and accomplishment. Astrophysicists tell us that about 90 % of the universe is undetectable and un-measurable, but must exist for the Universe to be in balance like it is. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7327050/)

 

If that is true how then any scientist with any confidence can say that God does not exist, since he has no comprehension or grasp of the vast percent of knowledge available, or to 90 % of the universe inaccessible to observation or measurement by him?

 

Lastly, you must recognize that your leading evolutionist leaders have shown there true colors when it comes to Religion and Science. Note well their own words:

 

Britain’s greatest evolutionist, Sir Arthur Keith said, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.” (quoted in Fred John Meldan's Why We Believe in Creation Not in Evolution , Christian Victory Publishing, 1959, p. 27.)

 

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p. 19. [Grandson of evolutionist *Thomas Huxley, *Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential writers and philosophers of the 20th century.]

 

"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the Creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion. Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any new form of life, there is no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution."—*Julian Huxley, "At Random, A Television Preview," in Evolution After Darwin, Sol Tax, Editor, University of Chicago Press, 1960, page 41.

 

Finally Thomas Paine and Sir Isaac Newton:

 

Paine's indictment of that philosophy is particularly significant in light of the fact that all historians today concede that Thomas Paine was one of the very least religious of our Founders. Yet, even Paine could not abide teaching science, which excluded God's work and hand in the creation of the world and of all scientific phenomena. Below is an excerpt from that speech.

Thomas Paine on "The Study of God"

Delivered in Paris on January 16, 1797, in a

Discourse to the Society of Theophilanthropists

It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.

When we examine an extraordinary piece of machinery, an astonishing pile of architecture, a well executed statue or a highly finished painting where life and action are imitated, and habit only prevents our mistaking a surface of light and shade for cubical solidity, our ideas are naturally led to think of the extensive genius and talents of the artist. When we study the elements of geometry, we think of Euclid. When we speak of gravitation, we think of Newton. How then is it, that when we study the works of God in the creation, we stop short, and do not think of God? It is from the error of the schools in having taught those subjects as accomplishments only, and thereby separated the study of them form the Being who is the author of them. . . .

The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of the creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of His existence. They labor with studied ingenuity to ascribe everything they behold to innate properties of matter; and jump over all the rest, by saying that matter is eternal.

Even Sir Isaac Newton believed in Creation, listen to this:

“Sir Isaac Newton had a skilled craftsman build him a scale model of our solar system which was then displayed on a large table in Newton’s home. Not only did the excellent workmanship simulate the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but it was a working model in which everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned.

One day while Newton was reading in his study, a friend came by who happened to be an atheistic scientist. Examining the model with enthusiastic admiration, he exclaimed: "My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?" Without looking up from his book, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody."

Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said, "Evidently you misunderstood my question. I asked who made this."

Newton, no doubt enjoying the chance to teach his friend a lesson, replied in a serious tone, "Nobody. What you see here just happened to assume the form it now has."

"You must think I’m a fool!" retorted the visitor. "Of course somebody made it, and he’s a genius. I want to know who he is."

Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend’s shoulder, saying: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"

Sincerely,

 

May God richly bless you,

 

Hugh

 

Internet Correspondence

 

For additional information check out our websites:

 

Coral Ridge Ministries - http://www.crministries.org/

Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church - http://www.crpc.org/2000/

Creation Studies Institute - http://www.creationstudies.org

D. James Kennedy Center for Christian Statesmanship - http://www.statesman.org

Evangelism Explosion International - http://www.eeinternational.org/

Knox Theological Seminary - http://www.knoxseminary.org/

Reclaiming America for Christ - http://www.reclaimamerica.org/

Westminster Academy - http://www.wacad.edu/

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and

 

From: CRM.Correspondence [mailto:Coral.Ridge.Ministries.Correspondence@CoralRidge.org]

Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 4:03 PM

To: William E. Wallace

Subject: MREP: Darwin's Legacy Airing Irresponsible

 

Dear William,

 

Thanks for sharing your reaction to Darwin’s Deadly Legacy with us. You end your dogmatic diatribe with a quote from Carl Sagan. Perhaps you are familiar with this quote from the beginning of his Cosmos television series as well, “The Cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever will be." Please, good sir, explain to me how such a statement is empirically provable. Don’t waste your time: it isn’t empirically provable. It is an axiomatic statement of faith. Oh ye who has argued that “religion has no place in science,” what have you to say to Carl Sagan’s religious statement of faith? You pompously pontificate as though you stand on a firm foundation of “proven fact” and “empirical evidence” and “peer reviewed scientific journals”, as so many of your fellow believers do, while you virulently denounce creation and Christianity with sheer, unadulterated dogma. Your entire belief system is built on faith statements about the past and the future that cannot be tested empirically, just as is ours. However, we are honest about that, while you and your fellow believers are not.

 

Furthermore, as you are a dogmatic believer in inductive reasoning, you are surely aware that the Almighty Scientific Method cannot tell us that which is true – it can only tell us what is possible and probable. Why then, you striking man, do you state your scientific probabilities and possibilities so adamantly and absolutely?

 

You may foolishly join with Carl Sagan in believing that “science, is the candle in the dark” and that “the Cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever will be" if you so desire. However, at least be honest about the fact that you are making faith-based religious statements. Woops! Maybe religion and science do mix…… Instead of vehemently crying for the separation of religion and science, perhaps you should howl for the separation of Christianity and science. That is what you are really seeking. You have no problem with your naturalistic, materialistic religious beliefs forming the foundation for your “empirical discoveries,” so it’s not the removal of religion from science you are seeking. You are actually seeking to silence a rival truth claim (because your belief system is grossly inferior to Christianity when one looks at the two systems rationally). It is you who is seeking to gag the truth claims of Christianity in favor of your own religious beliefs here, not us (nice try though, mate – you are clever).

 

The truth claims of Christianity provide sufficient answers to all of life’s most fundamental questions; the possibility claims of naturalism/materialism/evolutionism/empiricism provide unbelievably insufficient answers to those same questions. Stop hiding behind pure dogmatism and seek to reconcile your beliefs with reality. You will find, if you are honest in your search, you are proselytizing grave errors.

 

If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to let us know.

In Christ,

Matt

Correspondence Department

Coral Ridge Ministries

5555 N. Federal Highway

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308

www.coralridge.org

 

This week on the Coral Ridge Hour: Was Jesus Real or a Myth?

There are some people who believe that the Bible is a bunch of nice stories and even fairy tales or myths. They go so far as to question whether Jesus even lived. But Jesus Christ lives and this week on The Coral Ridge Hour, Dr. Kennedy shares evidence confirming this fact. www.coralridgehour.org

[Legion]

Foolfromms, I admire your enthusiasm and passion. I think that your letter was well intended. I agree that those who try and refute evolution are largely deceiving themselves and others.

The Theory of Evolution is the foundation of the Science of Biology, no ifs, ands, or buts about it!

With this statement here however I think that I would be hesitant to endorse or agree with it. I have come to view evolution as almost a corallary of living processes and not necessarily a phenomenon that resides at it's foundation.

 

What then resides at the foundation of biology? I suppose that I would have a difficult time putting my view of this into words. Perhaps after I've given it some more thought I will be able to do so.

 

For me it is quite easy to see why so many expend so much effort to refute evolution. Those that interpret the Bible literally (whatever "literal interpretation" means) have every reason to fear what evolution implies. I do not anticipate them to yield readily and the response that you recieved seems to confirm this.

[Callyn]

Dear Will,

 

Thanks for taking the time to view Darwin’s Deadly Legacy and to share your opinions with us.

 

Your speculation regarding the solid foundation of the Theory of Evolution is baseless. Shall we review the Theory of Evolution greatest discoveries in the past century?

 

Neandertal Man, Ramapithecus, Eoanthropus, Hesperpithecus, Pithecanthropus, Australopithecus africanus, Sinanthropus and Ota Benga.

 

ALL WERE FRAUDS.

 

“The idea that ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’, is discredited today.

Does that change the fact that the theory is true? Gravity wasn't discredited because Newton didn't have it exactly right.

 

Evolution has real problems – do you want a list of issues that evolution doesn’t have an answer to?

 

1). It cannot define what a species is.

 

2). It ignores the basic laws of physics, such as the second law of thermodynamics.

 

3). Shall we consider the fossil record - (Darwin said this would be the death knell of his theory).

 

4). Evolution cannot explain the irreducibly complex entities and systems. These include the eyeball, hearing, interdependent symbiotic relationships, the Kreb energy cycle, and Sex. No one ever explained to me what the sperm did for 50 million years while it waited for its tail to be formed by random processes, so it could get to where it wanted to go.

 

5). What about all the molecules and proteins found in organic, living beings are of “left handed” morphology or topology. If life had truly evolved via random processes, we would expect expressions of both left and right handed molecules!

 

1) A species is defined as a population of creatures that cannot interbreed with one another. However, it only works for current species, as evolution is a sliding scale.

 

2) Living organisms are not closed systems. Review your physics.

 

3) Shall we? It doesn't record every individual who has ever lived, but it shows trends very well. I can't discuss it without any more details about what is to be discussed. Also, Darwin said that about finding an organism mixed in with others from far before its time, such as a rabbit in the Cambrian.

 

4) We see a progression of eyes, in multiple forms. False example. We see a progression of ears. Another false example. Interdependent symbiosis is far from unexplainable, they start out seperate and start relying on each other more and more as the generations go by since they help each other. Krebs cycle is hard, but evolution is not limited by human immagination. Sex evolved to spread out genetic material, and there are forms in bacteria. All horrible examples.

 

5) Evolution is not random. Changes occur by random events, but the good ones are selected by nature, which is the opposite of randomness.

 

 

The idea that if any organization that has empirical proof against evolution should go to a scientific review board is also absurd. Consider this - Scientists are objective, well not so fast . . .

 

A famous historian of science, Dr. Thomas Kuhn, MIT professor, wrote a famous book on this very subject. He was the first to coin the concept of a belief system or framework called the “paradigm” during his Harvard graduate work. In his classic book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, he points out that because people, even scientist, become fixated with a certain paradigm, that they cannot or will not see evidence that contradicts their presuppositions. (Thomas Kuhn, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, University Of Chicago Press, 1996 )

 

A perfect example of this mind set bias is illustrated in the March 2006 issue of BioScience Technology magazine [Angelo DePalma, “More than a Messenger: The Evolution of RNA”, Bioscience Technology, March, 2006, pp 14-16.]. The non-coding sections of RNA were once considered by evolutionary scientists as “nonsense” or molecular “junk”. Now to their amazement, this “junk” in the RNA has been discovered to have a key role to play as a genetic control element, or RNA “riboswitch”, that regulates gene expression.

 

Individual scientists, maybe. Not science as a whole, however. That example works against you, as it is now accepted that RNA has many roles in the cell.

 

You said in your email this statement:

 

“Probably 90% of your audience has no idea what the Theory of Evolution is, to present this bogus program to them with no rebuttal from the other side is just plain indecent and wrong. Why did you not air a program teaching just what evolution is prior to attempting to debunk it?”

 

You do not have any understanding of our audience to make that accusation. If the Theory of Evolution is so solid and can withstand any attack, then tell me why is it a protected curriculum in public schools and universities?

 

Let it stand or die on the merits, using the Scientific Method - and only the Scientific Method.

 

Using that criteria no one scientist can prove evolution (not micro-evolution).

It's protected because of the ignorance of the masses. Scientists disagree on points within evolution, not evolution itself. The general public wants its voice heard on anything and everything, even if they don't understand it.

 

As for microevolution, there is no such thing. It's a creationist buzzword.

 

Even Stephen J. Gould commented one time that evolutionists should stop debating creationists because evolutionists always lose the debate.

 

He said "Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact — which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!". Not exactly the impression you were trying to give, I bet.

 

Another error in your email is the same old argument regarding Science vs. Religion. The Historical facts are clear that some of the greatest founding scientists were in fact CREATIONISTS. Please review the list below for proof:

 

Antiseptic Surgery Joseph Lister (1827-1912)

Bacteriology Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)

Calculus Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

Celestial Mechanics Johann Kepler (1571-1630)

Chemistry Robert Boyle (1627-1691)

Comparative Anatomy Georges Cuvier (1769-1832)

Computer Science Charles Babbage (1792- 1871)

Dimensional Analysis Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)

Dynamics Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

Electrodynamics James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)

Electromagnetics Michael Faraday (1791-1867)

Electronics Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945)

Energetics Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)

Entomology of Living Insects Henri Fabre (1823-1915)

Field Theory Michael Faraday (1791-1867)

Fluid Mechanics George Stokes (1819-1903)

Galactic Astronomy William Herschel (1738-1822)

Gas Dynamics Robert Boyle (1627-1691)

Genetics Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)

Glacial Geology Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)

Gynecology James Simpson (1811-1870)

Hydraulics Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)

Hydrography Matthew Maury (1806-1873)

Hydrostatics Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

Ichthyology Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)

Isotopic Chemistry William Ramsay (1852-1916)

Model Analysis Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)

Natural History John Ray (1627-1705)

Non-Euclidean Geometry Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866)

Oceanography Matthew Maury (1806-1873)

Optical Mineralogy David Brewster (1781-1868)

Paleontology John Woodward (1665-1728)

Pathology Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902)

Physical Astronomy Johann Kepler (1571-1630)

Reversible Thermodynamics James Joule (1818-1889)

Statistical Thermodynamics James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)

Stratigraphy Nicholas Steno (1631-1686)

Systematic Biology Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778)

Thermodynamics Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)

Thermokinetics Humphrey Davy (1778-1829)

Vertebrate Paleontology Georges Cuvier (1769-1832)

Notice that the latest name on the list, Flerming, died in 1945 when there wasn't as much available evidence for evolution as there is now and he wasn't even a biologist. He wasn't trained in biology and probably knew little more than the average man at the time. Most of them lived before the theory was even come up with and didn't know about it, and very few were even biologists.

 

Carefully consider this:

 

However, Albert Einstein once observed that although he was a very bright man, he could not possibly have a grasp of more than a few percent of human knowledge and accomplishment. Astrophysicists tell us that about 90 % of the universe is undetectable and un-measurable, but must exist for the Universe to be in balance like it is. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7327050/)

 

If that is true how then any scientist with any confidence can say that God does not exist, since he has no comprehension or grasp of the vast percent of knowledge available, or to 90 % of the universe inaccessible to observation or measurement by him?

 

Very few do. Bad idea to bring it up. However, Occam's Razor works. God would make the universe infinitely more comlex, which goes against our basic understanding of how things work.

 

Lastly, you must recognize that your leading evolutionist leaders have shown there true colors when it comes to Religion and Science. Note well their own words:

 

Britain’s greatest evolutionist, Sir Arthur Keith said, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.” (quoted in Fred John Meldan's Why We Believe in Creation Not in Evolution , Christian Victory Publishing, 1959, p. 27.)

 

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p. 19. [Grandson of evolutionist *Thomas Huxley, *Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential writers and philosophers of the 20th century.]"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the Creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion. Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any new form of life, there is no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution."—*Julian Huxley, "At Random, A Television Preview," in Evolution After Darwin, Sol Tax, Editor, University of Chicago Press, 1960, page 41.

 

Finally Thomas Paine and Sir Isaac Newton:

 

Paine's indictment of that philosophy is particularly significant in light of the fact that all historians today concede that Thomas Paine was one of the very least religious of our Founders. Yet, even Paine could not abide teaching science, which excluded God's work and hand in the creation of the world and of all scientific phenomena. Below is an excerpt from that speech.

Thomas Paine on "The Study of God"

Delivered in Paris on January 16, 1797, in a

Discourse to the Society of Theophilanthropists

It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.

When we examine an extraordinary piece of machinery, an astonishing pile of architecture, a well executed statue or a highly finished painting where life and action are imitated, and habit only prevents our mistaking a surface of light and shade for cubical solidity, our ideas are naturally led to think of the extensive genius and talents of the artist. When we study the elements of geometry, we think of Euclid. When we speak of gravitation, we think of Newton. How then is it, that when we study the works of God in the creation, we stop short, and do not think of God? It is from the error of the schools in having taught those subjects as accomplishments only, and thereby separated the study of them form the Being who is the author of them. . . .

The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of the creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of His existence. They labor with studied ingenuity to ascribe everything they behold to innate properties of matter; and jump over all the rest, by saying that matter is eternal.

Not much to refute here, useless words.

 

Even Sir Isaac Newton believed in Creation, listen to this:

“Sir Isaac Newton had a skilled craftsman build him a scale model of our solar system which was then displayed on a large table in Newton’s home. Not only did the excellent workmanship simulate the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but it was a working model in which everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned.

One day while Newton was reading in his study, a friend came by who happened to be an atheistic scientist. Examining the model with enthusiastic admiration, he exclaimed: "My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?" Without looking up from his book, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody."

Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said, "Evidently you misunderstood my question. I asked who made this."

Newton, no doubt enjoying the chance to teach his friend a lesson, replied in a serious tone, "Nobody. What you see here just happened to assume the form it now has."

"You must think I’m a fool!" retorted the visitor. "Of course somebody made it, and he’s a genius. I want to know who he is."

Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend’s shoulder, saying: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"

Fake story, and Newton had no alternative.

[Callyn]

The Theory of Evolution is the foundation of the Science of Biology, no ifs, ands, or buts about it!

With this statement here however I think that I would be hesitant to endorse or agree with it. I have come to view evolution as almost a corallary of living processes and not necessarily a phenomenon that resides at it's foundation.

 

No living processes would exist without evolution. It is the foundation of modern biology, and explains everything within it.

[Legion]

The Theory of Evolution is the foundation of the Science of Biology, no ifs, ands, or buts about it!

With this statement here however I think that I would be hesitant to endorse or agree with it. I have come to view evolution as almost a corallary of living processes and not necessarily a phenomenon that resides at it's foundation.

 

No living processes would exist without evolution. It is the foundation of modern biology, and explains everything within it.

Are you certain about that? What distinguishes a non-living system from a living system? How did terrestrial life begin?

[highvoltage]

The Theory of Evolution is the foundation of the Science of Biology, no ifs, ands, or buts about it!

With this statement here however I think that I would be hesitant to endorse or agree with it. I have come to view evolution as almost a corallary of living processes and not necessarily a phenomenon that resides at it's foundation.

 

No living processes would exist without evolution. It is the foundation of modern biology, and explains everything within it.

Are you certain about that? What distinguishes a non-living system from a living system? How did terrestrial life begin?

 

No one knows the answers to those questions. There are many hypotheses, however. The study of life's origins is called biogenesis. In the sciences, which generally assume no outside intervention, it is called abiogenesis. See this for some discussion on how we think life might have come about on Earth.

 

Also, we aren't really sure what distinguishes life from non-life. We can describe the properties that living organisms all have in common, but most of those properties are not unique to life.

[Legion]

No one knows the answers to those questions. There are many hypotheses, however. The study of life's origins is called biogenesis. In the sciences, which generally assume no outside intervention, it is called abiogenesis. See this for some discussion on how we think life might have come about on Earth.

 

Also, we aren't really sure what distinguishes life from non-life. We can describe the properties that living organisms all have in common, but most of those properties are not unique to life.

Highvoltage, you strike me as a reasonable person. I was aware that we do not yet have answers to these questions. I think that those who acknowledge evolution (such as myself), should not make the mistake to think that it explains everything there is to know in biology.

 

I think we must not make the mistake of those who claim to have all the answers. Our understanding is limited, but growing.

 

Thanks for the link.

[Callyn]

No living processes would exist without evolution. It is the foundation of modern biology, and explains everything within it.

Are you certain about that? What distinguishes a non-living system from a living system? How did terrestrial life begin?

Yes, I'm certain. Living systems are different from non-living systems in only one fundamental way. They use energy to create complexity and replicate themselves. There are other differences, but that is the fundamental one.

 

Terrestrial life began as a simple replicator. We can't really be sure of more than that, but it was likely an RNA-based replicator because RNA can be generated spontaneously and has properties of proteins and DNA. I can go into a bit more detail if you like, but I won't for now.

[scitsofreaky]

Your speculation regarding the solid foundation of the Theory of Evolution is baseless. Shall we review the Theory of Evolution greatest discoveries in the past century?

 

 

Neandertal Man, Ramapithecus, Eoanthropus, Hesperpithecus, Pithecanthropus, Australopithecus africanus, Sinanthropus and Ota Benga.

 

ALL WERE FRAUDS.

Um, ok. And who is it that exposes frauds? Oh yeah, scientists. And who the fuck says those are the "greatest discoveries"?

[Taphophilia]

Is it just me or do Fundies think Darwin just pulled the TOE out of his ass? It was first proposed around 600BC. Darwin was the first one to provide the vehicle (natural selection) to make it workable.

[Legion]

Hey Callyn, I imagine that this kind of discussion could become quite involved. I am far from being anything like an authority in these matters, but I will attempt to give it my best shot.

Living systems are different from non-living systems in only one fundamental way. They use energy to create complexity and replicate themselves. There are other differences, but that is the fundamental one.

I see here that you make no mention of evolution in your prefered method of distinguishing non-living from living. And I believe that is appropriate. I think that although evolution has transpired it is not a theory that can be utilized for making the non-living/living distinction. I used to think that this particular method (thermodynamically open and replicating) was a likely candidate but now I am no longer certain. Why wouldn't crystal formation for instance also fit this description? I also believe that complexity and our understanding of what it is will likely be a pivotal and contentious issue for us. What is complexity? Why is one system recognized or categorized as complex and another as simple?

Terrestrial life began as a simple replicator. We can't really be sure of more than that, but it was likely an RNA-based replicator because RNA can be generated spontaneously and has properties of proteins and DNA. I can go into a bit more detail if you like, but I won't for now.

I also used to adhere to the RNA first view. These days however I am leaning much more towards a lipid world scenario. In this view organisms began as replicating vesicles. They never needed to invent or discover a cellular membrane because it was present from the outset.

 

Perhaps if we progress in this discussion I can try and find some links that will articulate my position better than I can. I thank you though for your willingness to engage these subjects.

[Antlerman]

Dear Will,

 

Thanks for taking the time to view Darwin’s Deadly Legacy and to share your opinions with us.

 

Your speculation regarding the solid foundation of the Theory of Evolution is baseless. Shall we review the Theory of Evolution greatest discoveries in the past century?

 

Neandertal Man, Ramapithecus, Eoanthropus, Hesperpithecus, Pithecanthropus, Australopithecus africanus, Sinanthropus and Ota Benga.

 

ALL WERE FRAUDS.

 

“The idea that ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’, is discredited today.

 

Evolution has real problems – do you want a list of issues that evolution doesn’t have an answer to?

 

1). It cannot define what a species is.

 

2). It ignores the basic laws of physics, such as the second law of thermodynamics.

 

3). Shall we consider the fossil record - (Darwin said this would be the death knell of his theory).

 

4). Evolution cannot explain the irreducibly complex entities and systems. These include the eyeball, hearing, interdependent symbiotic relationships, the Kreb energy cycle, and Sex. No one ever explained to me what the sperm did for 50 million years while it waited for its tail to be formed by random processes, so it could get to where it wanted to go.

 

5). What about all the molecules and proteins found in organic, living beings are of “left handed” morphology or topology. If life had truly evolved via random processes, we would expect expressions of both left and right handed molecules!

I have come to the conclusion that Evolution-Deniers are raving idiots and liars. I used to give them the benefit of the doubt to their intergrity, believing them to be simply blinded by their desire to hang onto outdated ideas, but no more. They are wilfully dishonest and disingenuos, twisting the words of real scientists to fit into their bag of lies. This is utterly dishonest and fradualant. They are a blight on the face of human religious faith, and human integrety itself!

 

This whole anti-science, anti-intellectualism, anti-evolution, anti-knowledge is so far beyond an unhealthy approach to religious belief that it is beyond even my ability to show any more patience and understanding towards those who are this anti-knowledge, by my assuming there are just ill-educated. They are nothing higher than a pack of wolves, far beyond just mere fools. They are an army of hypocrites and liars.

[PaulQ]

Let's suppose, for a moment, that the theory of evolution is flat out wrong. Darwin was mistaken in his findings, so let's just take that off the table. What is it about creationism that proves it right? We have yet to see a species or creature spring into existence out of nothing. Nobody has seen a person be created out of the dirt of the ground, nor a woman created from the rib of a man. There is no evidence to support creationism. If we assume for the moment that evolution is wrong and take it out of the argument, we see that creationism has nothing to support it. Without being able to attack evolution, people are able to see creationism for what it is: Complete nonsense.

[Legion]

Let's suppose, for a moment, that the theory of evolution is flat out wrong. Darwin was mistaken in his findings, so let's just take that off the table. What is it about creationism that proves it right? We have yet to see a species or creature spring into existence out of nothing. Nobody has seen a person be created out of the dirt of the ground, nor a woman created from the rib of a man. There is no evidence to support creationism. If we assume for the moment that evolution is wrong and take it out of the argument, we see that creationism has nothing to support it. Without being able to attack evolution, people are able to see creationism for what it is: Complete nonsense.

I think this is an excellent point Digital. Even if they were somehow able to discredit a theory of evolution it would not automatically lend any credence to their view.

[Callyn]

Hey Callyn, I imagine that this kind of discussion could become quite involved. I am far from being anything like an authority in these matters, but I will attempt to give it my best shot.

 

It could get involved. Luckily for you, I'm no authority either.

 

Living systems are different from non-living systems in only one fundamental way. They use energy to create complexity and replicate themselves. There are other differences, but that is the fundamental one.

I see here that you make no mention of evolution in your prefered method of distinguishing non-living from living. And I believe that is appropriate. I think that although evolution has transpired it is not a theory that can be utilized for making the non-living/living distinction. I used to think that this particular method (thermodynamically open and replicating) was a likely candidate but now I am no longer certain. Why wouldn't crystal formation for instance also fit this description? I also believe that complexity and our understanding of what it is will likely be a pivotal and contentious issue for us. What is complexity? Why is one system recognized or categorized as complex and another as simple?

 

Evolution is simply a process of heritable change over time, it doesn't actually distinguish things from one another.

 

Crystals do fit this definition to an extent, and they are one of the hypotheses for how life began (as noted in The Blind Watchmaker). However, the complexity of crystals is nowhere near that of life, with the multitude of interlocking segments involved in the life of a single cell.

 

Complexity is a hard word to define. It's a sliding scale, from simple to complex. I think the best way to describe it is largely ordered. If you have a better definition, I'm open to it.

 

Terrestrial life began as a simple replicator. We can't really be sure of more than that, but it was likely an RNA-based replicator because RNA can be generated spontaneously and has properties of proteins and DNA. I can go into a bit more detail if you like, but I won't for now.

I also used to adhere to the RNA first view. These days however I am leaning much more towards a lipid world scenario. In this view organisms began as replicating vesicles. They never needed to invent or discover a cellular membrane because it was present from the outset.

 

Perhaps if we progress in this discussion I can try and find some links that will articulate my position better than I can. I thank you though for your willingness to engage these subjects.

 

That does sound reasonable, but I can't agree with it. Lipids don't carry information, and I don't see how they could. Also, I doubt the cell membrane was ever invented, it just formed because of the properties of glycolipids and phospholipids.

[Legion]

It could get involved. Luckily for you, I'm no authority either.

Ah Callyn, I think that is decidedly unlucky. It is my most sincere wish that you and I both will come into a greater authority on the subject of life.

Complexity is a hard word to define.

Tell me about it!

It's a sliding scale, from simple to complex. I think the best way to describe it is largely ordered. If you have a better definition, I'm open to it.

You have rapidly brought me to my limits. I'm still trying to come to grips with what complexity might be as well. Robert Rosen (1934-1998) was a theoretical biologist who seemed to graple with this subject quite frequently. All I can do is point you to his work. I do not yet understand it, but I have an intuitive feeling that he was on to some things. You might look at this site... http://www.panmere.com/rosen/index.html ... and judge for yourself. I warn you that he is not easy to read and his research led him to some rather unconventional and difficult ideas.

That does sound reasonable, but I can't agree with it. Lipids don't carry information, and I don't see how they could. Also, I doubt the cell membrane was ever invented, it just formed because of the properties of glycolipids and phospholipids.

Yes, vesicles form spontaneously. I can't help but feel that if they were somehow given catalytic or perhaps enzymatic properties then they might be well on their way to becoming organisms. I don't know. I'm still in the process of putting these things together for myself.

 

Please note that nowhere here have I mentioned evolution, yet we are still within the realm biology. In my sometimes humble opinion, biology is a subject which encompasses much more than just the theory of evolution.

[Callyn]

It could get involved. Luckily for you, I'm no authority either.

Ah Callyn, I think that is decidedly unlucky. It is my most sincere wish that you and I both will come into a greater authority on the subject of life.

 

That's true. It'd be nice if we had a resident biology Ph.D on the board.

 

It's a sliding scale, from simple to complex. I think the best way to describe it is largely ordered. If you have a better definition, I'm open to it.

You have rapidly brought me to my limits. I'm still trying to come to grips with what complexity might be as well. Robert Rosen (1934-1998) was a theoretical biologist who seemed to graple with this subject quite frequently. All I can do is point you to his work. I do not yet understand it, but I have an intuitive feeling that he was on to some things. You might look at this site... http://www.panmere.com/rosen/index.html ... and judge for yourself. I warn you that he is not easy to read and his research led him to some rather unconventional and difficult ideas.

 

I will try to remember him for after this week. Finals are going to bee too much of a bitch to check it out on my own just yet.

 

Yes, vesicles form spontaneously. I can't help but feel that if they were somehow given catalytic or perhaps enzymatic properties then they might be well on their way to becoming organisms. I don't know. I'm still in the process of putting these things together for myself.

 

Please note that nowhere here have I mentioned evolution, yet we are still within the realm biology. In my sometimes humble opinion, biology is a subject which encompasses much more than just the theory of evolution.

Well, let me know about your ideas when they come to fruition. It's an interesting hypothesis.

 

As for us not discussing evolution, I feel we are. We haven't explicitly stated it, but we're discussing the way life came to be how it is. Abiogenesis is generally not included in evolutionary theory since we have no evidence for how it happened, but it is still a form of evolution.

[Light_of_Reason]

Your speculation regarding the solid foundation of the Theory of Evolution is baseless. Shall we review the Theory of Evolution greatest discoveries in the past century?

 

Neandertal Man, Ramapithecus, Eoanthropus, Hesperpithecus, Pithecanthropus, Australopithecus africanus, Sinanthropus and Ota Benga.

 

ALL WERE FRAUDS.

A. africanus is not a fraud. Mistake numero uno.

 

Evolution has real problems – do you want a list of issues that evolution doesn’t have an answer to?

 

1). It cannot define what a species is.

 

2). It ignores the basic laws of physics, such as the second law of thermodynamics.

 

3). Shall we consider the fossil record - (Darwin said this would be the death knell of his theory).

 

4). Evolution cannot explain the irreducibly complex entities and systems. These include the eyeball, hearing, interdependent symbiotic relationships, the Kreb energy cycle, and Sex. No one ever explained to me what the sperm did for 50 million years while it waited for its tail to be formed by random processes, so it could get to where it wanted to go.

 

5). What about all the molecules and proteins found in organic, living beings are of “left handed” morphology or topology. If life had truly evolved via random processes, we would expect expressions of both left and right handed molecules!

 

1. And creationists cannot agree upon a consistent definition for "types." What's the point in this question?

 

2. Open system versus closed system. There is no contradiction between evolution and 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

3. Please, by all means, do consider the fossil record, where there is literally tons of evidence for TOE.

 

4. Thanks to Behe, we have to contend with this crap argument. There are already evolutionary explanations for several of those mentioned. Notice, however, that they have dropped blood clotting from the list as we now have a very firm evolutionary explanation for that one.

 

5. If left-handed molecules have a survival advantage over right-handed molecules, then natural selection would adequately explain this phenomenon. Not a problem for TOE.

 

A famous historian of science, Dr. Thomas Kuhn, MIT professor, wrote a famous book on this very subject. He was the first to coin the concept of a belief system or framework called the “paradigm” during his Harvard graduate work. In his classic book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, he points out that because people, even scientist, become fixated with a certain paradigm, that they cannot or will not see evidence that contradicts their presuppositions. (Thomas Kuhn, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, University Of Chicago Press, 1996 )

While it is true that Kuhn makes this statement in the book, they are completely misrepresenting the nature of the statement. This statement is made in reference to individual scientists, not science as a whole. In fact, Kuhn states that scientific revolutions occur when new ideas, questions, and paradigms are created by younger scientists, whose ideas challenge the status quo of the older scientists. The older scientists, who have been following a certain paradigm and line of reasoning for their entire careers (and therefore have much at stake) usually rebel against the new paradigm until they either see the benefit and switch over or end their careers in science altogether.

 

Of course, since all of the above goes firmly against the points they are attempting to make, it all gets left out for the short quote that would lead you to believe that Kuhn supports their stance, when in fact he does not.

 

Another error in your email is the same old argument regarding Science vs. Religion. The Historical facts are clear that some of the greatest founding scientists were in fact CREATIONISTS. Please review the list below for proof: ...

 

Note that the bulk of this list lived and died prior to the formulation of the TOE, and that most of those outside that grouping formulated their own ideas prior to TOE. Doesn't really help them much.

 

If that is true how then any scientist with any confidence can say that God does not exist, since he has no comprehension or grasp of the vast percent of knowledge available, or to 90 % of the universe inaccessible to observation or measurement by him?

Here he shows his true agenda and colors. He has equated TOE with atheism, and that is just wrong. TOE does not prove atheism. It does not prove that God is impossible, even though it makes proving the existence of God much more difficult. This is how most anti-evolutionists see it. Either their beliefs are 100% correct and there was special creation, or their beliefs are wrong and their is no god. There is no middle ground with these people, and their fear that their beliefs are wrong leads to these inane and incredibly poor attacks against TOE.

 

Lastly, you must recognize that your leading evolutionist leaders have shown there true colors when it comes to Religion and Science. Note well their own words:

 

Note better the date of publication. The most recent on the list was 1966, I think. How pathetic.

 

 

I do believe that just about raps up every substantial statement made by either of those responses.

[Amethyst]

Just out of curiousity, was this shown on a normal TV station or a religious TV station? And if it was on a normal station, WTF are they doing showing fundie crap? Do they really want to lose their viewers (or is everyone else in Mississippi fundy)?

[scitsofreaky]

3). Shall we consider the fossil record - (Darwin said this would be the death knell of his theory).

I was randomly thinking about this topic and it hit me, this point has no point. Um, so are you going to consider the fossil record? And I doubt that Darwin said considering the fossil record would be the death knell of his theory. Where's the "problem"?

The truth claims of Christianity provide sufficient answers to all of life’s most fundamental questions

Um, too bad all you have are truth claims. Wow, I'm impressed, you claim to have the truth so you must be right. And I like the wording of the rest of the sentence:

the possibility claims of naturalism/materialism/evolutionism/empiricism provide unbelievably insufficient answers to those same questions.

Oh, so science must be wrong because it only makes "possibility claims" and doesn't claim to be all-knowing. And what questions are religion and science asking, and how is your religion's answer better than not only science's but also the answers other religions give?

[Friendly Misanthrope]

Complexity is a hard word to define. It's a sliding scale, from simple to complex. I think the best way to describe it is largely ordered. If you have a better definition, I'm open to it.

 

I have found an interesting site owned by the CNAC (think tank) with many terms relating to non-linear (particularly chaotic) systems, which deals heavily with the issue of complexity: Comlpexity Glossary

 

From here on, my words are in bold.

From that site (http://www.cna.org/isaac) to which I linked:

 

"Complexity

An extremely difficult 'I know it when I see it' concept to define, largely because it requires a quantification of what is more of a qualitative measure. Intuitively, complexity is usually greatest in systems whose components are arranged in some intricate difficult-to-understand pattern or, in the case of a dynamical system, when the outcome of some process is difficult to predict from its initial state. In its lowest precisely when a system is either highly regular, with many redundant and/or repeating patterns or when a system is completely disordered. While over 30 measures of complexity have been proposed in the research literature, they all fall into two general classes: (1) Static Complexity -which addresses the question of how an object or system is put together (i.e. only purely structural informational aspects of an object), and is independent of the processes by which information is encoded and decoded; (2) Dynamic Complexity -which addresses the question of how much dynamical or computational effort is required to describe the information content of an object or state of a system. Note that while a system's static complexity certainly influences its dynamical complexity, the two measures are not equivalent. A system may be structurally rather simple (i.e. have a low static complexity), but have a complex dynamical behavior."

 

My favorite term to describe the complexity of living (or artificial life) systems, which I incedently googled to arrive at this particular site is the Edge of Chaos, also from the same site:

 

"Edge-of-Chaos

The phrase 'edge-of-chaos' refers to the idea that many complex adaptive systems, including life itself, seem to naturally evolve towards a regime that is delicately poised between order and chaos. More precisely, it has been used as a metaphor to suggest a fundamental equivalence between the dynamics of phase transitions and the dynamics of information processing. Water, for example, exists in three phases: solid, liquid and gas. Phase transitions denote the boundaries between one phase and another. Universal computation -that is, the ability to perform general purpose computations and which is arguably an integral property of life exists between order and chaos. If the behavior of a system is too ordered, there is not enough variability or novelty to carry on an interesting calculation; if, on the other hand, the behavior of a system is too disordered, there is too much noise to sustain any calculation. Similarly, in the context of evolving natural ecologies, 'edge-of-chaos' refers to how -in order to successfully adapt -evolving species should be neither too methodical nor too whimsical or carefree in their adaptive behaviors. The best exploratory strategy of an evolutionary 'space' appears at a phase transition between order and disorder. Despite the intuitive appeal of the basic metaphor, note that there is currently some controversy over the veracity of this idea. "

 

There are plenty of other interesting words and definitions in that glossary as well.