Originally posted by facelift
reply to post by randyvs
Then there are the recent research findings by ICR scientists and others working on the RATE project that have uncovered many new evidences that
the earth is young, including the ubiquitous presence of radiocarbon in coal beds and even in diamonds. For years, of course, creationists have been
pointing out that no real evolution has taken place during the several thousand years of human history and also that there are no legitimate series of
transitional forms in the fossil beds of the past, plus the negative effects of mutations and the testimony of the laws of thermodynamics—all of
which seem to make any macroevolution extremely unlikely, if not impossible.
Scientific theories change over time (evolve, if you will... chuckle chuckle...) as new evidence is gathered, so good scientists follow where the
evidence leads. That's not to say that some scientists haven't been guilty of having pet hypotheses and trying to downplay evidence that refutes their
favorite but, ultimately, truth will out - enough people will gather enough evidence that it can't be ignored.
The "scientists" at the ICR and the DI work on creation science/intelligent design from the opposite direction of good science. They start with their
conclusion, that God did all of it, and work backward from there. Further, they fail to offer up any direct evidence of God or a creator. Instead,
they offer up evidence that evolution doesn't occur in the way that's currently accepted and set up a false duality - the theory of evolution is
wrong, therefore there must be a creator.
I think what's even worse is that they commonly ignore new research. Using the ICR paragraph as an example:
Presence of radiocarbon in carbonaceous formations? Gove, in work performed ca 2002, showed that the C14 found in carbon beds is related to the
radioactivity of the surrounding rock formations because radioactive emissions from uranium-thorium series i.e. the emissions from the surrounding
rock can actually create new C14. Was Gove an evolution crusader? Nope, not even close. He was a particle physicist studying neutrino detection and
was concerned with contamination of the scintillation fluid by beta emitters... like C14!
No evolution has taken place in several thousand years of human history? You mean except for the human-induced and guided speciation of dogs? Or the
evolution of bacteria to produce new enzymes to break down molecules that are wholly anthropogenic, like nylon? Nope... no evolution here.
All mutation is harmful? Looking at my above example, I would think that one's DNA being altered in such a way that allows one to produce a new enzyme
which lends the ability to process a new food source is beneficial. But what about humans? There are mutations found in humans that confer higher bone
density i.e. stronger bones, decreased risks of heart disease, and greater resistance to HIV. Granted, sometimes whether a mutation is beneficial or
harmful is ambiguous, or entirely dependent on environment, like the mutation which causes Sickle-cell disease. Yes, it can lead to ischemic attacks,
spleen issues, and other medical problems... but it also halts the spread of malaria, which was pretty useful when malaria was rampant.
Using entropy to disprove evolution? The entropy of a closed system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time. The Earth is not a
closed system - light enters the system, heat radiates out of the system. I guess they could argue that the Universe as a whole is a closed system.
But isolated pockets of low entropy can form in a closed system if they're offset by an increase in entropy elsewhere in the system, this is readily
observable. In fact, not only does the second law not contradict evolution, scientists have made the case that entropy would be necessary for it to
Sorry to seemingly sidetrack the thread, but I just wanted to address some of the points raised in the ICR statement to make the point that
creationists aren't being silenced through some conspiracy of evil scientists who are afraid that their positions will be in jeopardy because the
public may find out that evolution is some kind of a hoax. If anything, the mainstream (I know, I know... that's an evil word 'round these here
parts!) scientific community wants creationists to make claims - they're just letting out more rope with which to hang themselves.
Finally, as a counter example to the two provided, I'd like to hold up Michael Behe. Dr. Behe wrote what was, for some time, one of the standard texts
used to promote intelligent design - "Darwin's Black Box". Further, he testified on behalf of the defense in the Kitzmiller case, which was pretty
squarely in the public eye. Did he get fired? Is he no longer allowed to publish? Is he not allowed to teach at institutions of higher education?
Nope... still a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh.
edit on 12/9/2010 by iterationzero because: forgot part of behe's cv