A Daily Critique Of Answers In Genesis

[MrSpooky]

Sweet tittyfucking Christ, today's article is horribly written. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...eview/part9.asp

 

 

The recent article by Pam S. Sheppard, "Creationists: Can they be scientists? You bet!" starts off simply, but also misleadingly. It mentions that science can still function without evolution backing it up, which is perfectly true. However, it fails to mention that science is NOT a unified whole, but rather an aggregate of discrete fields, many of which (such as geology, astrophysics, quantum physics, non-organic chemistry) are either only peripherally related to biology, or entirely irrelevant. Indeed, it starts off by stating that Dr. Jason Lisle, an astrophysicist, could do perfectly well without taking evolution into account. True, but note how misleading it is!

 

Lisle says, “Computers, cellular phones and DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics, which God created. It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible.” Again, note how entirely irrelevant these advancements are to the biological field. (Though ironically, plenty of software and circuit components are, in fact, engineered using selective mechanisms found in evolution).

 

If one rejects a tool just because it is useless in one particular context not related to it, one might as well say "You don't need antibiotics to perform good medicine. Why, look at this cancer patient who is doing just fine with his chemotherapy and radiation treatments without touching a single antibiotic pill!" and happily ignore the death throes of those suffering from tuberclerosis after tossing out antibiotics as a genuine regimen. Such a statement that Sheppard makes is absurd. One might not need a hammer to fix a computer virus, but that doesn't mean a hammer isn't useful (or even necessary) in some other modality.

 

Thus, the article starts off with a meaningless statement, and continues with something a bit more relevant: Dr. David Menton is cited as stating, “evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.” Wholly untrue! Heck, in the very lab I work at we use selective mechanisms that are the central focus of evolution to select genetically modified plants. Evolutionary selection is the key method of how we sort out transgenic organisms for agricultural and medical research. When discussing antibiotics, or even chemotherapy, we must concern ourselves about how bacteria and even cancer cells will evolve resistance to the chemical treatments we use.

 

Another point to take into account is that Lisle states essentially that we cannot know what happened in the past, only make educated guesses. Poppycock and bollocks. Inferences and deduction are the sole basis of almost all of human knowledge. The idea that unless we know everything, we must know nothing is disastrous to science as well as every other field of inquiry. If one writes off inference and deduction as "mere educated guesses" one might as well toss out our justice system, which uses inference and deduction to convict crimminals.

 

In short, this article is disastrously written. As a whole it repeatedly claims that evolutionary biology is irrelevant to some fields of science, but happily ignores the fact that the fields it cites as examples are are entirely unrelated to biology. I can't turn on the computer with my TV remote, but I'm not going to toss it in the garbage. It functions perfectly well as a TV remote (though it needs a change of batteries occasionally). If one must criticise the use of evolution, it must do so in the context of biology.

[Asimov]

:claps:

[Stormwarden]

Nicely done, your plan is definitely ambitious. After all, they print out so much BS that it is hard to sift through it all.

[MrSpooky]

I'd be lucky if I can keep this up for a week.

[Asimov]

I'd be lucky if I can keep this up for a week.

 

What's wrong Colonel Sanders....chicken?!?

 

[thunderbolt]

Good job MrSpooky and good luck. But we would be just as happy if you do it at your own pace, whatever that turns out to be.

;-)

[♦ ficino ♦]

Mr. Spooky, you rock my world. I was talking to a high school junior and telling her to consider applying to Berkeley. I said I've exchanged emails with this incredibly smart guy who is very up on both biology and philosophy, plus he's really hot. I said, imagine going to college with people like that.

 

OK, now I'll go back to reading your actual post.

 

Cheers

[scitsofreaky]

Oh man, while reading the article I came across this gem of a quote:

Biblical creationists accept the recorded history of the Bible as their starting point while evolutionists reject this recorded history and have made up their own pseudo-history from which to interpret evidence, Lisle explains.

Is it just me, or does that sound like something subby would say?

You also forgot his appeal to authority:

Today, there are many Ph.D. scientists who reject evolution and believe that God created in six days, a few thousand years ago, as recorded in Scripture. As Lisle points out, his Ph.D. research (which was completed at a secular university) was not hindered by the conviction that the early chapters of Genesis are literally true.

As if just having a PhD makes one an expert in evolution. Lisle has a PhD in astrophysics, not biology.

And you have to love the ending quote

“If our minds have been designed, and if the universe has been constructed by God, as the Bible teaches, then of course we should be able to study nature. Science is possible because the Bible is true,” says Lisle.

Yes, science is possible because The Bible is true, and not any other religious book that basically says the same thing about its God

[MrSpooky]

Mr. Spooky, you rock my world. I was talking to a high school junior and telling her to consider applying to Berkeley. I said I've exchanged emails with this incredibly smart guy who is very up on both biology and philosophy, plus he's really hot. I said, imagine going to college with people like that.

 

OK, now I'll go back to reading your actual post.

 

Cheers

 

Oh well now aren't you sweet. Feel free to send her my email... I'd be happy to give her any advice on college.

 

The problem with this little project is that the AiG articles are largely just as terrible. I mean, most everyone here on ExC can spot through the sheer bunk of em, I'm sure of it. If this is the only material I have to rebut, I'm going to just be preaching to the choir.

[scitsofreaky]

The problem with this little project is that the AiG articles are largely just as terrible. I mean, most everyone here on ExC can spot through the sheer bunk of em, I'm sure of it. If this is the only material I have to rebut, I'm going to just be preaching to the choir.

THis is only the second article I've read in its entirety because, well, they are so terrible. I skimmed another article and it started immediately with an appeal to authority. Is this how every damn article is? And people actually fall for this? Oh my god, people never cease to amaze me.

[scitsofreaky]

Ok, I did find one that didn't throw PhD around. MrSpooky I would love to hear (um, I guess see) what you think of this article: Creation: ‘where’s the proof?’I don't want to say anything as to not effect your presumptions

[MrSpooky]

Haha, yeah, I was rooting around and found this one to have good potential for rebuttal, I think. Though I still think I'd prefer doing the ring species one. ^_~

[scitsofreaky]

Haha, yeah, I was rooting around and found this one to have good potential for rebuttal, I think. Though I still think I'd prefer doing the ring species one. ^_~

I didn't see that one, I'll have to check it out.

What I thought was hilarious was I didn't see any evidence for creation[ism]. All I got out of it was basically the same crap sub_zer0 was giving us: assume The Bible is right, then look at the evidence and make it fit The Bible.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

This pissed me off. Guess what, just because I believe in evolution doesn't mean that I automatically presume there is no god. I realize this is just an example, but I'm willing to bet that the author couldn't list many other presumptions evolutionists have.

Naturalism, logic and reality

Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:

 

A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’

 

The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.

 

On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.

 

This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

My God, where do they find such dupes? How do you know if your brain evolved right? What the fuck, is he serious? All he is even trying to do is cofuse the kid, which he did (as well as me) by saying a bunch of crap that doesn't even make sense. He made it look like each phrase related to the previous and next, yet none of them make sense on their own, let alone in relation to the others. I think I am now dumber. The bastard killed some of my brain cells, and I didn't even get a buzz.

And that second guy was a moron. What idiot says, in effect, "There are no absolutes"? I wonder if Ken Ham has ever had a conversation with an intelligent person.

 

Basically, this article says not to focus on evidence, because as we know, and what they wont admit, they have little to none, but to attack the person's presumptions. If you want to win a debate, this may be a good tactic, I wouldn't know, I don't debate to win, I try to learn. I've had a debate with a person who was and AiG whore, and I took away absolutely nothing, and now I know why. They debate to win souls, something I bet they don't do very often, which they demonstrate:

Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about.

To anyone reading this that doe not already know, when looking at evidence, make only as many pressupositions as possible. Ken Ham is an idiot (see, absolutes do exist ).

[MrSpooky]

A bit late, but oh well.

 

 

 

 

Information Theory (from many AiG articles)

 

 

One of the biggest underlying arguments in Answers in Genesis is the idea that "DNA contains information" and that "information can only degenerate," and such. Of course, what exactly does it MEAN?

 

No biologist would disagree with the statement "DNA contains information" or "proteins are molecular machines." However, most biologists would also agree that these are mere analogical statements that help frame biochemistry in an understandable way.

 

One must note that there are differences between biochemical and human informational content. Humans transmit information with words: aggregates of letters, whose random combinations are more often meaningless than they are not. This is how the argument differentiating "simple information" (AAAAAAAA) versus "complex information" (HYFHASOV) versus "meaningful (intelligent) information" (ILOVEYOU). DNA is, in a way, similar. Its constituent components can be reduced to "simple" (AAAAAA), "complex" (AGTUGGG) and "meaningful" information (TTAGGG, the repeating telomeric sequence).

 

Let's expand this analogy a bit. A clump of compressed sand has "information" of a sort coded in it, though not linearly. This "information" exists through the arrangement of sand grains within, even reducible to the molecular or atomic arrangements such that if you drop this sand-rock, it will spatter into a particular pattern determined by its physical makeup. The "information" contained in the clump as an aggregate of particles can more or less predict the behavior of this clump when dropped, such that if it were dropped again and again under the exact same conditions, barring minute quantum effects, the pattern of sand-spatter would essentially be the same.

 

It is important to note that AiG has the same view concerning snowflakes, "water forming snowflakes is 'doing what comes naturally', given the properties of the system. There is no need for any external information or programming to be added to the system—the existing properties of the water molecule and the atmospheric conditions are enough to give rise inevitably to snowflake-type patterns." (see link below) That is, the chemical properties of water are sufficient to explain the complexity of snowflakes as things not created through intelligence.

 

However, the structure and function of DNA is itself a result of its chemical nature. Just as water molecules are polarized and shaped triangularly to allow it to give rise to an structured-looking ice crystal, so does DNA have phosphate groups and chemical base pairs that contribute to its helical structure and, essentially, its behavior when combined with the appropriate proteins and RNA molecules. This difference not QUALITATIVE in nature, but QUANTITATIVE. The line that AiG draws between informational content in DNA and informational content in ice is illusory.

 

This argument harkens back to Paley's teleological argument, which essentially works from the foundation that humans percieve intelligence through ordered structures of sufficient complexity (i.e. a pocketwatch found on a beach). This has been disputed by Hume centuries ago and most other philosophers in the field: that is, humans do NOT percieve design through some mysterious faculty that analyzes "intelligent" informational content from brute nature. Rather, humans percieve intelligence and complexity by looking to see if the artifact in question could have been formed by the laws of nature or not. This is why we understand a crystal is not "designed," whereas a cut gem is (crystallization processes don't form the cuts of a cut gem).

 

As argued by Smith: “Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning.” (which is, of course, outside the realm of science).

 

It is for this flaw in philosophy that the Stanford Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy speaks of Paley's argument that “In theology and philosophy his common-sense method, which showed his limitations of intellect, by ignoring commonly perceived difficulties and by easily accepting conclusions, has been discarded.”

 

Thus, AiG must present something more than arguing from this mysterious "informational content" they refer to time and again. If information does not "increase" with gene duplication, what EXACTLY is the nature of the "information" they are referring to? If information cannot "increase" when genes code for a novel new protein with a novel new function (such as nylonase), what EXACTLY is the nature of this "information?"

 

AiG requires scientists to explain biochemistry in supernatural or intelligent terms when biochemistry is perfectly coherent within natural law. I submit that this is nonsensical goalpost-moving and should be discarded.

 

 

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v.../snowflakes.asp

[Mr. Neil]

Basically, this article says not to focus on evidence, because as we know, and what they wont admit, they have little to none, but to attack the person's presumptions. If you want to win a debate, this may be a good tactic, I wouldn't know, I don't debate to win, I try to learn.

That's a point I've driven a whole bunch of times, and I don't think there's a single creationist who understands this.

 

The fundies came up with these concepts, first creationism and later Intelligent Design, as a response of outrage against science that denies what they've been taught. And their immediate reaction is to defend their beliefs. Thus, they think they have to be treated "fairly" and have their beliefs acknowledged in science. Little do they realize how unfair that is.

 

Their own tactic gives them away. The wedge strategy. They're trying to muscle their way in with politics and public opinion. They're doing anything to win. They're doing everything except for validating their claims in a scientific fashion, because it's the one thing they can't do. Why does it never occur to them that if they can't verify something scientifically, then it's not scientific? Oh... Because they're morons!

 

Just this morning, someone made an ignorant comment to me that science is oppressive and denies the supernatural. But science has to do that! Science is rigid in that it doesn't allow god-of-the-gaps explanations. Anything that is unexplainable is simply unexplainable. In never follows that "I don't know, therefore insert made-up explanation here _______." That's what ID would have us do. It's like, they complain about science for being science.

 

They really do try, don't they? They do everything from ad hominems to attacking the very process by which we learn things. They claim to be prevayers of science, but they attack science for the very principles upon which its founded, which is absurd! This what people do when they have nothing to back up their claims but are still willing to go out of their way to win an argument.

[scitsofreaky]

Excellent MrSpooky. I'm terrible with information therapy because for some reason I have the hardest time remembering what it is even talking about. But now that you've done an entire topic, one that is so prevalent, how are you going to keep this up for any length of time. In one fell swoop you've shown a great chunck of their arguments are bs. Way to go.

[scitsofreaky]

I didn't realize just how often they use the No True Scotsman fallacy. While I haven't seen them come right out and say that if you disagree with them you aren't a True Christian, they imply it with crap like "'conservative Christians'" and grouping them with atheists.

I'm not sure why I am so surprised. If they in any way admitted they may be wrong, then the entire project would be in jeopardy. I mean, who is going to believe someone who might be wrong Especially if they are proclaiming Gawd's Holey Word.

Thank you MrSpooky for starting this project, its got me motivated to read about science, something I've had a hard time doing. I'm sorry if I hijaked your thread, just let me know if you want me to simmer down.

[scitsofreaky]

Ok, obviously this isn't daily, and I don't blame you, this shit is hard to even read. But I read Stay out of Africa! and one part really pissed me off, and I you can figure out why.

We are opposed to racism and racist teachings. This should be apparent from our articles that we are all one biological race—descendants of Adam and Eve. However, evolutionary teachings purport that there are several races, some inferior to others. Even Darwin discussed the elimination of what he called “savage races”:

 

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [aborigine] and the gorilla.

 

– Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd ed., New York, A.L. Burt, p. 178, 1874.

 

This tactic shows up in other articles as well. I just have one thing to say: Darwin does not represent modern evolution. Ok, I lied, I have more to say. While Darwin had some brilliant and revolutionary findings, he was still stuck in a world view much different than today. He lived in a time where what is known as the western civilization thought itself superior to all others. Like all prejudices, this is because of ignorance. Phyiologically, people from Africa appeared to be more ape-like. For example, the face appears to be flatter than the Caucasian face, and some features, such as the nose and lips are generally larger. Any judgments he made were based on phyical attributes because he had no other way of describing or understanding anything.

But hey, guess what, we have advanced, and not just scientifically. Socially, I think, is where the biggest advances have been made. Most of us understand that all races are equally human. It was this sense of equality that was missing from the world of Darwin. And now we also understand that genetically each race is equally human, another, yet less important (imo) concept that was missing.

I am as sure as I can be that Darwin, given what we know today, would not have made any statements saying any race was more/less advanced than any other.

Oh, and if you are going to say that evolution is racist, please show me how evolution is racist, don't show me how some guy is racist. By this logic, since the KKK is racist, all christians are racist.

[LosingMyReligion]

I never understood what all the controversy over evolution was. Evolution is a scientific fact. It can be proven. However, most Christians(I come from Texas. Where everyone just presumes everyone is a christian) believe that it is an abombination before god.

 

I think Evolution is a really beautiful thing, when you think about it. Knowing that we all(plants, animals, and etc)descend from one another in some way shape or form is amazing. Infact, it makes me feel more akin to everyone else around me.

 

The creation story, to me, is absolutely crazy and filled with contradictions...

 

For instance: In one verse of Genesis the bible states that Adam and Eve were created simualtaneously. However, a few verses down, we get the overtly sexist "Adam's rib" b.s...

 

Furthermore, did Adam and Eve have sex with their own children? Apparently, they would have had to in order to populate the earth seeing as god only created TWO people.

 

I could go on and on, but I digress...I believe that there is a god(or a force)in the universe. However, I don't believe it is the Judeo Christian god. Believing the bible stunted my intellectual growth, and I can't live life like that. When you stop growing you might as well be dead...and to me Christianity encourages intellectual death.

[Guest Jorge_Gomez]

I never understood what all the controversy over evolution was. Evolution is a scientific fact. It can be proven. However, most Christians(I come from Texas. Where everyone just presumes everyone is a christian) believe that it is an abombination before god.

 

I think Evolution is a really beautiful thing, when you think about it. Knowing that we all(plants, animals, and etc)descend from one another in some way shape or form is amazing. Infact, it makes me feel more akin to everyone else around me.

 

The creation story, to me, is absolutely crazy and filled with contradictions...

 

For instance: In one verse of Genesis the bible states that Adam and Eve were created simualtaneously. However, a few verses down, we get the overtly sexist "Adam's rib" b.s...

 

Furthermore, did Adam and Eve have sex with their own children? Apparently, they would have had to in order to populate the earth seeing as god only created TWO people.

 

I could go on and on, but I digress...I believe that there is a god(or a force)in the universe. However, I don't believe it is the Judeo Christian god. Believing the bible stunted my intellectual growth, and I can't live life like that. When you stop growing you might as well be dead...and to me Christianity encourages intellectual death.

 

 

I never understood what all the controversy over evolution was. Evolution is a scientific fact. It can be proven. However, most Christians(I come from Texas. Where everyone just presumes everyone is a christian) believe that it is an abombination before god.

PLEASE PROVE EVOLUTION TO ME. I HAVE NEVER MET ANYONE WHO WAS ABLE TO.

 

I think Evolution is a really beautiful thing, when you think about it. Knowing that we all(plants, animals, and etc)descend from one another in some way shape or form is amazing. Infact, it makes me feel more akin to everyone else around me.

 

The creation story, to me, is absolutely crazy and filled with contradictions...

 

PLEASE SHARE ONLY ONE CONTRADICTION WITH ME AND I WILL AGREE WITH YOU...ONLY ONE IS ALL YOU HAVE TO LOCATE

 

For instance: In one verse of Genesis the bible states that Adam and Eve were created simualtaneously. However, a few verses down, we get the overtly sexist "Adam's rib" b.s...

 

PLEASE SHARE WHERE THIS VERSE OF SIMULTANEOUS (NOTICE CORRECT SPELLING) CREATION CAN BE FOUND!

 

Furthermore, did Adam and Eve have sex with their own children? Apparently, they would have had to in order to populate the earth seeing as god only created TWO people.

 

PLEASE READ GENESIS 5:4

 

I could go on and on, but I digress...I believe that there is a god(or a force)in the universe. However, I don't believe it is the Judeo Christian god. Believing the bible stunted my intellectual growth, and I can't live life like that. When you stop growing you might as well be dead...and to me Christianity encourages intellectual death.

 

I BELIEVE SATAN STUNTED YOUR INTELLLECTUAL GROWTH!

[MrSpooky]

Sweet god, could you please edit your post so that it makes sense?

[Kuroikaze]

I BELIEVE SATAN STUNTED YOUR INTELLLECTUAL GROWTH!

 

I believe that you don't know how to close an HTML tag. The difference is I have proof

[scitsofreaky]

I actually got a reply to a comment I had about racism and evolution. My comment:

This is more of a general comment then one that relates to any specific article. If you are going to say evolution is, for example, racist, please show where the Theory of Evolution is racist (per example) and not how a certain person, usually Darwin, is racist. Attacks on a person is not an attack on an idea.

 

Here is the reply:

Dear Thomas,

 

 

 

Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. The leading evolutionist, Stephen Jay Gould (an atheist and marxist as well as an anti-racist), wrote (Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Belknap-Harvard Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp. 127–128, 1977):

 

‘Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.’

 

To read more about evolution’s affect on racism please see our “Racism and evolution” section. Thank you.

 

Kind regards,

Matthew D'Orazio

 

Shockingly I have yet to find an article where they demonstrate how modern ToE promotes racism in the link they provided. I fail to see what Gould's quote relates to what I asked for. But I did enjoy they attempted attack of Gould. Oh no, he's a marxist!?! lol, that isn't very effective when you are telling a socialist that