Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Glad to see you agree with me that there is no such thing as macroevolution in science!

yeah cause its all evolution.

[Rían]

OK, I decided I would just post whatever I had by this afternoon, even if it wasn't written exactly how I wanted, so here it comes ... *drumroll* ... my summary of evidence for creationism!

It was really hard to write because there's a lot of info out there, and I had to severely cut things down, but I think a top-level summary is a good idea to present at this point. I tried to make it, as Lizra said, "plain english, sticks to the point, and makes common sense".

I'm aware of the counter-arguments for the points I'm presenting, and the counter-counter arguments, etc. I've enjoyed reading thru the TalkOrigins site - quite a good site IMO - and I think that most of their counter-arguments either miss the important point or argue by theory and not evidence. I did think some of their counter-argument points were valid, tho, and I want to look into them more, since I am open-minded on the subject However, I was saddened to see the computer simulation example yet again, this time on a sentence in Shakespeare, which, in my opinion as a degree-holding computer scientist with a specialization in simulation, was extremely flawed in at least 3 areas. I plan to send an email about that soon, as they invited emailed comments.

Anyway, I don't know how long this will take, but please be patient and:

Please don't post replies until I post an "all done" notice!

That's a policy I made, as the thread starter, in order to keep multiple posts together. Anyone may claim that privilege at any time if they want to put multiple posts together

So - get out a mega-sized cup of coffee, prop open your eyelids, and - dive in! (or use it as a sleep aid )


(refpost)

[Rían]

I was really sad to see Lizra’s frustration about this thread dragging on and not much evidence being posted, and I’ve been frustrated myself at not being able to present an overall picture of the evidence for creationism, because we just get so involved in intricate details that I can’t get very far into the big picture. So I’m going to change modes now and present a more top-level, overall picture of the evidence for creationism. Then we can go into details if anyone wants to, or we can all go back to the Tolkien threads – either is fine with me

So – I’ll be doing a few consecutive posts, and I’d like to ask for your cooperation with the new “sequential posts� rule – please don’t post until I say that I’m done

And I just wanted to make a quick note here that this is ENTIRELY my own writing, based on my OWN thoughts and evaluation of the data that I’ve seen. It’s probably a bit formal, but I did a lot of technical writing in my years in radar, and I think for this topic, it's important to try to write clearly and carefully. I’ve taken some phrases and terms here and there from some source material where I thought it appropriate or helpful, but that’s all - this is NOT copied from any book - these are MY opinions and conclusions, based on evidence that I have read about.

(continued....)

[Rían]

I just wanted to note that I’ve spent quite a few hours on this summary, and the main reason I did it is for a gift to Lizra, one of my oldest Entmoot friends.

Lizra, you may like this or not, you may agree with it or not, but please know that I did it out of friendship and respect for you And as I’m sure you remind your kids right before Christmas or their birthday parties: even if you’re not wild about the gift, it’s the heart of the giver that matters. I hope you like it, and I hope your good common sense can see some of the very valid points I'll make, but whether or not you like it, it was done as a gift for you out of a heart of friendship.

(continued ...)

[Ruinel]

*makes a post, just to be contrary, and annoy RÃ*an, who needs to take it easy ... BECAUSE SHE'S GOING IN FOR SURGERY SOON !!!*

[Rían]

To start off, I wanted to give a brief background of my formal educational training and job experience.

I took a year of university-level physics courses, as a student majoring in physics (as opposed to, say, Physics 101 - Physics for Music Majors ), then switched my major to computer science when I realized that (1) the job market was better there, and (2) I hated electricity (which is definitely a part of the physics curriculum). I completed my Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science in 1981, with an emphasis in math and simulation.

After getting my degree, I worked in the field of military land-based radar, mostly military air traffic control, as a design engineer, where I held a top-secret clearance. After 10 years, I quit to be a full-time mom when our first child was born, since my husband and I place a high value on family and children, and we were blessed enough financially for my husband’s salary to support us, with some lifestyle cutbacks proportionate to the loss of my salary. I went back to work at the same place 2 years ago, part time (during school hours 2 days a week), due to my boss’s repeated entreaties, but have recently stopped due to some health issues.

In non-scientific areas, I’ve been a Christian for almost 30 years. I’ve read the Bible many times, and have over 200 books related to Biblical topics of study in my library (and I’ve read them, too! )

I firmly believe that creationism is the best fit to the scientific data available today. And I believe this independent of my Christian faith.

(The paragraph about my school/work background is ONLY to show that it is possible for a person of reasonable intelligence, as measured by worldly standards, to logically and sincerely believe that creationism is the theory that best fits the scientific evidence. And if you think that I’m not very bright, then please consider my father, who had military clearances in airborne radar so high that he had to get the government’s permission to travel out of the US on vacation! - he also believes in creationism. My point is that intelligence and belief in creationism are NOT incompatible , no matter what some people say ) )

(continued ...)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
*makes a post, just to be contrary, and annoy RÃ*an, who needs to take it easy ... BECAUSE SHE'S GOING IN FOR SURGERY SOON !!!*

You silly elf!!

But I can't relax until I get this post done

And I probably won't have surgery until September, because the hospital only schedules a limited number of HMO surgeries a month


Ahem .. to continue ...

[Rían]

My particular passion in the debate between evolutionism/creationism is that people realize that the theory of evolution is just that – a THEORY. It drives me nuts when people say that evolution is scientifically proven (referring to the entire theory) when, in fact, certain tenets are completely outside the realm of scientific proof! This is NOT to disparage the theory of evolution in any way, shape or form at all! – it’s JUST to point out that: evolutionism, in its totality, is scientifically unprovable! IOW, we will never know if certain parts are true or not, because they are unobservable, and therefore not scientifically provable! These unprovable areas are just inferences made from observed evidence. This is an extremely important thing to realize, IMO.

Now once this point has been cleared up, it’s not a huge deal to me anymore. I tried to avoid getting into the discussion this time around, because I know how drawn-out it gets, and that being a poster in the minority position, I would have to work much more to deal with all the points addressed to me (and thus spend less time on the Tolkien threads!) But what finally got me into the discussion, albeit with heels dragging, was my sense of justice, because I heard people say that there is no evidence for creationism. And that is just plain wrong, IMO.

I believe that BOTH the theory of evolution and the theory of creation are commonly misrepresented. The case for evolutionism is represented as being much stronger than it really is, and the case for creationism is represented as being much weaker than it really is. And since most people don’t spend time poring over scientific journals firsthand, very often it is what the media, or secondary journals, say about scientific matters that forms people’s opinions.

My opinion is that both theories:

• *are supported in differing amounts by the scientific evidence, and
  *have tenets in them that are not scientifically provable (since they are talking about things that took place in the past)

and we will never know, while on this earth, which one is right.

(continued ...)

[Rían]

In the next several posts, I’ll summarize various areas of scientific evidence, as far as what is currently actually observable, and how it supports (or doesn’t support) creationism and evolution. I’ll bring up 4 major areas of consideration, and give an opinion as to how each theory fits the observed data. I’ll concentrate on presenting the supporting evidence for creationism, but will also touch on how the evidence speaks to evolutionism, because IMO, the 2 theories are opposite (creationism says there IS intelligent guidance behind the things we see here, evolutionism says there ISN’T), and it is indirect evidence for creationism if a part of evolutionism is shown to not fit the data (the opposite is true, too, of course!) And I’ll try very hard to keep things top-level, so I can present a more comprehensive picture of the different areas of evidence. We can get into details later, if anyone wants to (and is left awake )

And BTW, please remember this important point - you DON'T need a scientific degree to evaluate much of this evidence! A lot of it is just logic and common sense, and rightly so. One doesn’t need to hold a PhD to be able to decide that if a scientist says, for example, that a single fossil proves his theory (either creationism or evolutionism), then he/she is wrong! Creationists and evolutionists agree on the DATA – after all, it’s right there in front of us all! – what they DON’T agree on, oftentimes, is the interpretation of the data, or the inferences drawn from the data. Certainly none of us here has the time to earn multiple PhDs in every field related to this topic; what we CAN do is be aware of the data that has been gathered/analyzed by the experts and form our own opinion, using our own intelligence and reasoning powers, on the interpretations/inferences. But please go into this with a completely open mind and no preconceived bias.

And remember that DATA is NEUTRAL – it can support one or the other or both, strongly or weakly; or contradict one or the other or both, strongly or weakly; or support/contradict neither!

Also, I'll put a title on each post just so it's easy to refer back to.

(continued ...)

[Lizra]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I just wanted to note that I’ve spent quite a few hours on this summary, and the main reason I did it is for a gift to Lizra, one of my oldest Entmoot friends.

Lizra, you may like this or not, you may agree with it or not, but please know that I did it out of friendship and respect for you And as I’m sure you remind your kids right before Christmas or their birthday parties: even if you’re not wild about the gift, it’s the heart of the giver that matters. I hope you like it, and I hope your good common sense can see some of the very valid points I'll make, but whether or not you like it, it was done as a gift for you out of a heart of friendship.

(continued ...)

Thank you Rian! Lizra blushes in anticipation...rustling open the pretty tissue papers... Oooh!......You are so sweet! Blush, blush! Thank you !

Since I've just had two margaritas...I'll read it tomorrow with coffee. I just love gifts though! Cheers!

[Rían]

A note on the models I’m using:

The model of evolutionism that I’m discussing is neo-Darwinism with punctuated equilibrium. The crux of this theory is that life as we see it today all came from a simple, single-celled organism, via beneficial mutation and natural selection, to the present diversity of complex, multi-cellular creatures we see today.

The original model of evolution was that the new features that arose in the various species came about by use/disuse (e.g., a giraffe’s neck slowly became longer as it stretched up for leaves), and these new features were passed on to the offspring. The new features were selected for (“natural selection�) because they were advantageous. Since then, the theory of pangenics (new traits that can be passed on to offspring arising by use/disuse) has been discovered to be false, and so neo- (“new�) Darwinism was developed, which says that the mechanism for new traits is beneficial mutation, and the mutations are then passed on to the offspring.

And the theory of “punctuated equilibrium� basically claims that changes in species, caused by mutations, came in rapid bursts, thus leaving very little, if any, evidence in the fossil record. The previous idea was that changes occurred gradually over a great deal of time and many transitional forms would be evident in the fossil record.

The model of creationism I’m using is based on the literal creation story in Genesis, usually called Young Earth Creationism (YEC). However, I’m not particularly tied to YEC; there could be longer time periods involved. But it's basically that an intelligent creator, in a single and initial act of creation, created the universe basically as we see it now, with different, complex, fully functional types of organisms of the same type as seen today.

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

BTW, amount of time is not critical to creationism; whereas vast periods of time are absolutely critical to evolutionism. The main points are: chance-driven beneficial mutations and selection acting over vast amounts of time (evolutionism) vs. irreducible design and initial complexity and defined types over probably, but not critically, shorter periods of time (creationism). Please note that BOTH models have some areas that are testable, and some that are NOT testable (and never will be, due to their nature). The non-testable parts of both theories are logical inferences, made by intelligent scientists (as opposed to observable fact). And these inferences can be false!

And just one more quick point – for those who don’t have a scientific background, let me inform you that, by definition, 2 extremely important parts of any scientific theory are its ability to accurately predict, and its potential to be proved false.

For example, a theory might be the following: If I drop this ball, with no initial velocity, I predict that I can compute its velocity at any point in time by the equation: v=at, and its distance from the point of origin by d = ½ a*t*t, where “v� is velocity and “a� is the rate of acceleration (32 ft/sec*sec here on earth) and “t� is time in seconds and “d� is distance in feet. This theory is both predictive and falsifiable. Now you might do an experiment and find that it’s a little slower than you thought it would be. Its prediction has failed, and it has been falsified, so you need to come up with another one (perhaps friction slowing it down, or something like that) until you can do an experiement that produces observable, repeatable results that match your predictions.

But creationism and evolutionism are probably more properly called models, because they’re not quite predictive and falsifiable in the same way. Both have tenets that they are unwilling to give up, and if a prediction is found false, a new mechanism is proposed that fits the data. Simply put, the tenet that evolutionism refuses to give up is a net upward change, driven by chance beneficial mutations and natural processes, from an extremely simple organism to extremely complex ones, and the tenet that creationism refuses to give up is that an intelligent, powerful designer, in an initial creative act, made a great variety of organisms, of the same type we see today, and of varying complexities, from simple to extremely complex.

So onward we go ...

(continued ...)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
Thank you Rian! Lizra blushes in anticipation...rustling open the pretty tissue papers... Oooh!......You are so sweet! Blush, blush! Thank you !

Since I've just had two margaritas...I'll read it tomorrow with coffee. I just love gifts though! Cheers!

You're very welcome It's in a pretty bag with flowers on it, and soft pink and purple tissue paper with delicate sparkles, and lots of curled and shredded ribbon

I'm not fond of margaritas, but I'm sure I'll have a big glass of wine when this is done! I'll wait until I'm finished, tho, or the posts might get too amusing

[Rían]

(I covered this earlier, but I’ll summarize it again here, so it will be a part of the whole picture.)

Evaluation: In the area of the fossil record, as far as observable scientific evidence – I give creationism a very good grade, and evolutionism a two-part grade: a very bad grade on one part and a good grade on another.

In this particular area, the aspect of a theory’s ability to accurately predict is VERY relevant, IMO. Creationism, from the start, has predicted that in the fossil record, we will see (1) variations in complexity and (2) similarity to forms existing today. And this is exactly what we see.

On the other hand, evolutionism, from the start, predicted that in the fossil record, we will see (1) many intermediate forms between types, (2) a progression from extremely simple to more complex, and (3) a move from a group of extremely similar types (remember, all life came from a single-celled organism, and the first branches off this organism must necessarily look similar) to groups of more diverse types. And we do NOT see strong evidence at all of any of these 3, IMO.

In fact, because of the lack of expected evidence for intermediate forms, the theory of evolution has been modified from steady, small, evenly-spaced changes to “punctuated equilibrium�, which basically says that changes occurred in bunches and thus didn’t show up in the fossil record in the expected number. But that is a premise based on a LACK of evidence, not what is ACTUALLY OBSERVABLE in the fossil record. I think that there is some evidence for simple-to-more-complex in some ways, but it's not consistent.

To recap the post on fossil evidence – the first really abundant fossil layer is known as the Cambrian. It is currently believed to represent a time period many, many millions of years ago. (But please remember that different dating methods (1) are ALL based on extrapolation, which is a dangerous technique that can be highly inaccurate; (2) can give greatly different time values, which doesn’t say much for their accuracy, and (3) are based on the assumption that the time periods involved are large. These dates assigned to the different layers are not as hard and fast as popularly believed.)

And what is actually SEEN in the Cambrian layer? (Remember, we’re talking about OBSERVABLE scientific evidence!) Many, many types of creatures, some with extreme complexity, and of the same types that we have today. Remember – this is important – small size does NOT automatically mean something is simple! Evolutionism says that the very early life forms CANNOT be complex; creationism says they CAN. And we see complexity in this lowest abundant fossil layer.

Now again, evolutionism can back off and say “well, the really simple creatures came BEFORE any fossils were preserved,� but again, that is arguing from LACK of evidence – we’re looking at OBSERVABLE evidence. What is OBSERVABLE in the Cambrian layer? Well … sea urchins, sea lilies, snails, sponges, lampshells, nautiloids, and of course the famous trilobites, with their EXTREMELY complex eye structure. What’s notable about that list? (1) there are some extremely complex creatures in there, and (2) the creatures in that list are in groups that are present TODAY (or are now extinct). IOW, there are squids and snails and trilobite fossils – NOT “snids� and “squails� and “squailobites� or other in-between forms. Snails come from snails; sponges come from sponges, sea urchins come from sea urchins. This strongly supports creationism. And it also strongly speaks against evolutionism.

(continued ...)

[Rían]

As far as the very good question about fossil layering which several people asked (roughly, if creationism and the flood story are true, why isn't everything mixed up and distributed evenly?), I really didn’t know much about it, so I looked into it.

I found the following common-sense answer - creationists believe that the layering reflects (1) different habitat zones (deep ocean, shallower ocean, tidal zone, shore, lowlands, uplands, etc.), laid down via (2) catastrophic means (a world-wide flood and associated catastrophic activity), also reflecting (3) the sorting processes of water. And because of the different geographic features on the earth, this ordering will be roughly uniform, but does not need to be entirely uniform. IOW, trilobites are on the bottom layer … because they are deep-sea critters!

And to be a little gross, but it’s true – mammals “bloat and float�. I remember reading about some tragic ethnic mass murders, and how the local river was just filled with floating corpses of murdered people. So the suggestion that someone made here about throwing fossils/bones into water and seeing that they sank to the bottom disproves creationism/flood just doesn’t … float, if you’ll excuse the pun, because humans, for example, were not fossils/bones when they died. They would bloat and float, and be eaten by scavengers in the ocean, etc. And bones that DID survive would have been laid down later in the process, so they would be nearer the top.

Also, the differing properties, such as density, of different types of bones (hollow avian vs. denser human for example) would cause different types to be sorted by water differently and end up in different layers.

The layering of fossils is an important question, since an easy first guess at what creationism with a cataclysmic flood soon after would predict would be as someone here said – everything all mixed up. But when you take a closer look, and realize that the fossils didn’t start as fossils, or even bones – they started as living creatures with different properties, such as densities and habitats – then the layering we see makes sense.

So a summary on the different fossil “layers� – evolutionists believe the different layers to represent vast amounts of time (in the millions and millions of years) and reflecting a connected movement from extremely simple to extremely complex; creationists believe the different layers to reflect different habitats (deep ocean, shallower ocean, tidal zone, shore, lowlands, uplands, etc.) buried through catastrophism (a world-wide flood and associated catastrophic activity) and ordered by the sorting properties of water, over a relatively small amount of time.

The good part of the grade for evolutionism is that it's supposed to move from marine-based life to land-based life. And this IS observable - the lower levels have marine critters, while the mammals are higher up. However, there are also many problems with out-of-order fossils, only SOME of which can be explained by earth movements, and this is very much against evolutionism. These out-of-order fossils happen frequently enough that there are even special terms for them! ("stratigraphic leaks"). This speaks against evolutionism, but is fine with creationism (sorting would keep MOST in the same level, but SOME in different levels is no problem for creationism).

Also, another problem for evolutionism is that very often entire LAYERS of the geologic column are missing - where did those millions of years go? I don't believe that a complete geologic column has ever been found anywhere in the world (correct me if I'm wrong ) So again, a special term is made to explain something that doesn't fit the theory - "paraconfirmity". And the ONLY WAY a paraconfirmity is recognized is by a PRIOR COMMITMENT to evolutionism! IOW, evolutionist scientists say because I think evolution is true, then even though I see some corals belonging to layer 4 that are right on top of corals belonging to layer 2, and layer 3 consisting of millions of years is just mysteriously missing, then I'll give it a name of "paraconformity" and leave it at that and not explain it.

Well, that's wrong - if observed data doesn't fit your theory, you need to change the theory! (or at least the mechanism). "out-of-order" fossils that are not due to obvious earth movements, and missing layers representing supposed millions of years, are very damaging to evolutionism. They cause no problem for creationism's mechanisms.

So I need to research layering more, but I think that's of lesser importance than the complexity issue. And again, what we see in the "early" abundant fossil-bearing rocks is ... complexity and same-type organisms. And that supports creationism and speaks against evolutionism.

(continued...)

[Rían]

Evaluation: In the area of the nature of change, as far as observable scientific evidence – I give creationism a good grade, and evolutionism a very bad grade.

I’ve heard it said here that evolution is “all about change�. Well, change is also a part of creationism. What’s important is that we define the TYPE of changes that we expect to see. (I said once that if evolution is about change, then I predict that I will change into a Corvette in a few years. An evolutionist objected, and rightly so, IMO! And another one asked if I could park in her driveway when I felt the change coming on … ) Evolutionists can’t just make a vague claim to “change�, IOW, w/o defining what type of change they mean.

The creationism grade is based on the OBSERVABLE types of changes that we see, over and over – variation within type. Now this is an extremely smart design characteristic – designing variability right into the different types. This allows things like the changes that were observed in the Peppered Moth – it allows animals to adapt to their changing environments. And we observe this type of change over and over and over – you can breed to bring out different characteristics, but: dogs remain dogs, cats remain cats, cows remain cows, flies remain flies, etc. & etc. IOW, what we see over and over, is variation within type, with the type remaining the same. So the created types in the beginning are the ancestors of the types we have here today – same types, but different varieties based on pre-existing genetic information. And horses came from horses, and sea urchins came from sea urchins, and so on.

The evolution grade is based on the type of change expected. The type of change that evolution not only expects, but absolutely demands, is change from one type to another – and this is just, plain and simple, NOT observed. Evolutionists say that this is because that type of change takes a great deal of time – well, go ahead and make that statement, but we’re talking about OBSERVABLE evidence here – and the observable evidence is that types remain types! Even in short-lived species like flies: flies remain flies. Evolutionism demands the type of change that goes from simple, one-celled organism to fish-like-creature to man, for example. However, fish remain fish, cows remain cows, no matter how much we breed them. Now that’s not to say that it CAN’T occur, but remember, we’re grading on observable evidence. A hypothesis is just fine, but don't upgrade it to "observed fact" if there are no facts to observe!

In addition, evolutionism says that the information-increasing changes, which cause an advantage and are then naturally selected, come from beneficial mutations. BUT there have NEVER been any mutations of this type observed – NEVER! Again, that’s not to say that they CAN’T occur, but there has never been one observed. And we’re grading on observable evidence.

In addition, evolutionism not only requires that type of change which has never been observed, but it requires MILLIONS of those changes! The chance of even ONE occurring is miniscule – but the chance of millions upon millions occurring is absolutely mind-boggling, and is even considered statistically impossible.

And even if we DID grant information-adding beneficial mutations, which we’ve never seen happen, to evolutionists, there’s an even bigger problem – genetic load. Mutations go the wrong way for evolution! What leaps into your mind when you hear “mutation�? That’s right – something destructive. Who would suggest standing unprotected in front of an x-ray machine in hopes of improving yourself? You MIGHT get some beneficial mutations (even though they’ve never been observed), but you will also get hundreds of times more harmful ones! Mutations are known by the diseases and harmful abnormalities they cause, and there’s a good, common-sense reason for that - observable mutations are destructive, plain and simple. If evolutionists are going to claim accumulated beneficial mutations, then they can’t simply say the thousands-time-more harmful mutations that also accumulate somehow magically disappear.

(continued...)

[Rían]

The creation grade is based on the fact that IMO, there is really no strictly /predictive/ statement involved here that I’m aware of. The Bible talks about God creating different kinds, or types, of animals. It doesn’t predict that there will be variation w/in those kinds, but it certainly doesn’t rule it out, either. It does say that they should multiply, but it does NOT say they should change into other types! However, in the sense of a smart design strategy (and one of my assumptions is that God is smart, BTW!), variation within kind is an extremely smart design ploy, and may be predicted along those lines.

What types of changes do we see in nature? We see variations within type – and these variations are already present in the genetic material of the types! IOW, as far as the Birmingham moths – the ratio of dark to light changed, as the environment changed, but: those types (dark and light) were already present. The genetic information was “built in� to allow them to adapt to their changing environment. This is a great design … and it is NOT macro-evolution, because there is no change from type to type.

Now one thing we can observe is that people have different colored skin. How did all these skin coloration varieties come about from just 2 created people? Evolutionism would predict it comes from mutations. However, remember – we don’t observe any mutations that add information – and we’re talking about observable evidence. But from what we DO observe and know, through scientific research, is that all people all have the same skin coloring agent – melanin.

The amount of skin color depends on at least 2 genes. If we call them A and B, then people with dark skin have AABB, and people with light skin have aabb, and people with medium skin have AaBb. If you start with Adam and Eve being AaBb, then in ONE generation, you can get everything from dark skin to light skin! This is seen in India, where you can go from very dark to very light in one family. So very different skin colors may be completely explained by Adam and Eve being medium-skinned and having genetic info for both dark and light skin. This is observable, and makes complete sense in light of everything we know about genetics.

Macroevolution requires the expansion of the gene pool, but this is NOT observed. And change that IS observed often keeps the same information (if a medium skin person marries a medium skin person), and often results in LESS information (if a light skin person marries a light skin person, they will NOT be able to have a dark skin child), but NEVER more information.

And one more note on change – change has ALWAYS hit limits. Always! Always. Ask any breeder! A breeder may succeed in bringing out certain characteristics, but 3 things are inevitable – (1) there will be a LIMIT to the characteristic brought out, (2) the resulting animal will have LESS genetic information, not more, and (3) in the vast, vast majority of cases, the animals become LESS viable, not more. This is observable over and over. A dog breeder might select (note – INTELLIGENCE is behind it!) to have a breed of dog develop a longer tail, but (1) – the tail will not keep getting longer indefinitely, (2) there will be LESS genetic info in the resulting dogs, (3) the further it is carried out, the less viable the dog will become, and - the clincher- the dog is STILL a dog!! To me, this is strong proof of creationism, which states that God created TYPES. It is also strong evidence AGAINST evolutionism, which states that changes take place that ADD information, and the changes give the animal ADVANTAGES in living, and types go from a simple type to a completely different and more complex type.

So in summary, from the observed information on mutations and breeding, creationism is strongly supported, and evolutionism is (1) not supported by visible evidence (in the area of beneficial mutations), (2) pretty strongly spoken against by accumulation of bad mutations, and (3) strongly DIS-supported (is that a word? ) in the area of observed breeding outcomes.

(continued)

[Rían]

“Homology� is a term that describes, basically, the similarity in structure we can see in many animal features. For example, a person’s arm, a bat’s wing and a dog’s leg are somewhat similar. Evolutionism explains this observed similarity by claiming descent from a common ancestor. Creationism explains this observed similarity by claiming common design for similar purpose.

Evaluation: In the area of the nature of homology, as far as observable scientific evidence – I give creationism a good grade, and evolutionism a mixed grade, because there are some good parts, but some fatal flaws.

The view of a creationist is so incredibly obvious this is really common sense! – good designers use proven designs for similar functions! The examples mentioned above are all … appendages branching off from the main body that move! IOW, why SHOULDN’T a human arm look like a dog’s leg? Now if a human heart looked like a dog’s leg, THAT would need some explaining. It’s just that simple – an intelligent designer uses good designs wherever appropriate. A doorframe for a small house looks like a doorframe for a large office building – and why? It WORKS! Eating utensils from all over the world look similar – they WORK! It’s just incredibly straightforward and common sense.

Now the view of an evolutionist is that similarity in structure is from common ancestry. On the surface, this looks good, too. After all, the beginning of a doorframe looks similar to a finished doorframe. It makes sense. So at this point, EITHER explanation (creationism or evolutionism) can fit the data.

However, there is data that flatly contradicts the evolutionary common ancestor idea. If the common ancestor idea is true, then the common traits MUST be in a branching, unbroken line. However, this is NOT always the case by any means. For example, some shrimp-like creatures that live in the deep ocean have compound eyes, and their supposed close evolutionary relatives have totally different eyes. And some other animals that are NOT supposed to be close have the same eyes. And the hemoglobin in red blood cells – it occurs randomly in invertebrates, not in a direct branching line. Hemoglobin is in nearly all vertebrates, but also in some earthworms, some starfish, some mollusks, and some insects. It is NOT in a direct line branching pattern at all in these cases, and it must be consistently this way for evolutionism to be true. Looking at different traits, you can claim that humans are closely related to many different animals! One trait says we’re most closely related to chickens (lysozume), another says that we’re most closely related to insects (hemoglobin). They can’t both be right.

So similarity in structure can be supported by both, but has elements in it that say "no" to the branching structure that evolutionism demands.

(hey, a short topic for once! Only 1 more to go!)

(continued ...)

[Rían]

(hold on, the kids just got home - I only have 2 posts left! - please don't post yet, anyone! I'll be back soon!)

[Rían]

The last area for this top-level summary is some of the observable laws of science, and how they fit/don’t fit into the two theories. The law that I think is most applicable to this discussion is the Second Law of Thermodynamics (I think the First Law is also applicable, but it’s not as relevant). The 2nd law is one of the most consistently observed in all of science, and affects processes in every scientific field. It basically states that ALL CHANGES are in the direction of increasing disorder and increasing randomness and loss of useful energy. IOW, as we’ve all heard, the universe is running down.

Evaluation: In the area of the laws of science, as far as observable scientific evidence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics – I give creationism a good grade, and evolutionism an extremely bad grade.

As far as observable natural laws, creationism predicts an observable process that yields a downward direction from a perfect creation; evolutionism not only predicts but demands a process that yields net vertically-upward changes. The 2nd law fulfils the creationism prediction, and it absolutely defies the types of changes demanded by evolutionism.

We all see this law in action every day – things left to time and chance, two of the driving forces behind evolution, do what? They go downhill! They do NOT increase in order or complexity.

In classical thermodynamics, changes in a system cause useful energy to be converted to non-usable heat energy. In statistical thermodynamics, the most probable arrangement of a system is complete disorganization. In informational thermodynamics, garbled information or “noise� occurs when information is transmitted, which causes loss of information (I saw this a lot in the radar field – there are all sorts of algorithms to deal with noise and false returns). IN EACH CASE, a system LOSES energy/organization/information WITH EVERY CHANGE. This is absolutely flatly against what evolution requires, and fits in perfectly with what creationism predicts.

(continued ...)

[Rían]

So to summarize my opinion on this question of creationism/evolutionism, as far as CURRENTLY OBSERVABLE SCIENTIFIC DATA, in EACH of the areas I discussed - the fossil record, the nature of change, similarity in structure, and the laws of science - creationism wins, in varying degrees, over evolutionism. And in the areas where there are some positive points for evolutionism, there are also some accompanying fatala flaws.

There’s many more areas I could discuss, but I tried to keep it relatively short.

So that’s my opinion. I hope it has at the very least shown that the case for creationism is better than popularly represented, and the case for evolutionism is worse than popularly represented (in the sense that some areas that are considered fact are actually only inference).

I sincerely believe that both are models developed and believed in by scientists of intelligence and integrity, and both have areas that cannot, by their very nature, EVER be tested scientifically, and thus cannot be proved. But the areas that CAN be compared to scientific data SHOULD be compared, and I believe that creationism fits the OBSERVED scientific data better than evolutionism.

(continued ...)