Faithandthelaw's Blog

The law as it relates to Christians and their free exercise of religion

Don’t be Deceived: Evolution Can Never Explain the Beginnings of the Universe

Posted by faithandthelaw on May 28, 2010

We’ve written on evolution and beginnings for a while now, but the discussion doesn’t change much; debates over side issues continues to occur, while the foundations rarely receive much attention. For a sadly humorous read, find out what happens when evolutionary data1 is asked to be supplied, just about everything but scientific evidence for foundations pops up.

If overwhelming evidence and support for evolution proves it as fact, someone should be able to supply peer-reviewed, experimental data for the following (after all, evolution can’t begin, let alone complete, unless all four are true). We’ll give a tongue-in-cheek summary of the theory of beginnings and evolution, and then in parentheses give the scientific principle requiring experimental data.

  1. First there was nothing (matter comes from nothing).
  2. And then it exploded (explosions produce order. Mythbusters would have fun with this one).
  3. From the goo, to the zoo (abiogenesis — life comes from non-life. Another one for Mythbusters).
  4. To you (new species evolve from mutations).

If you don’t have all four of those, evolution doesn’t work. Period. Yet where are the scientific studies for those four items?

Remember the movie “Apollo 13” where Tom Hanks argues with his fellow astronauts about what needs to be done to get back to earth? Hanks states they’re arguing about step 2,214 while they’re on step two. That’s the way evolution “science” works; evolution attempts to ignore first steps and instead build their building without a foundation beginning on the 13th floor — with nothing but air under it supporting it.

But it’s not science–what experimental data exists for the foundation? Science should follow the following procedure, known as the scientific method:

  1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
  2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
  3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
  4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

Here’s how it (should) work—let’s pick abiogenesis (life springs from non-life). First, observe it. Hmmm, in trouble right there, no observations (perhaps in some college dorm-room refrigerator—“When potato salad goes bad”, but we digress). Struck out on the first pitch. But suppose it had been observed, then make a hypothesis (guess) as to how it happened. Then, make predictions, and finally test the hypothesis via experiment (reproducing it in the lab).

Wow. Doesn’t look like much “science” has occurred with abiogenesis. It’s still from the goo to the zoo to you … without any science. Without repeatable, verifiable, published and peer-reviewed experiments it’s not science! Evolution might be entertaining as philosophy perhaps, but definitely not science as it fails to follow the scientific method; first steps in evolution must be taken on faith as they lack data using … drum-roll please … the scientific method! It’s by definition unscientific.

Thus, we’re putting this discussion (you can still read articles on evolution2) on the back burner until they … you know, actually have science behind them we can discuss. If anyone has actual science for those foundational principles, please leave a comment so we can research them (please cite the journal/book/research paper, experiments, results, people involved, and dates so it’s easier to look up).

Philosophy might be interesting, but it’s not science.

CASE CLOSED.

Courtesy of http://www.dyeager.org/post/2010/05/evolution-beginnings-universe-case-closed

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Don’t be Deceived: Evolution Can Never Explain the Beginnings of the Universe”

  1. jugglinbob said

    I felt that the information provided in evolutionary data1 DID provide some scientific evidence, but this may be because I actually have some scientific knowledge. You have shown that you do not by your “tongue-in-cheek summary of the theory of beginnings and evolution”

    Let’s take this one by one:
    1.First there was nothing (matter comes from nothing).

    Yep. Interesting implied question, but this isn’t evolution though. Darwinian Evolution is the accumulative non-random selection of random changes, which results in a heritable change in a population. Talking about the beginning of the universe is outside of the scope of ANY discussion on evolution, and belongs to physics one (or perhaps metaphysics?)

    2.And then it exploded (explosions produce order. Mythbusters would have fun with this one).

    Ermm. See above!

    3.From the goo, to the zoo (abiogenesis — life comes from non-life. Another one for Mythbusters).

    And again – see above! Any form of Darwinian Evolution does not try to explain abiogenesis. This is possibly a chemistry discussion, but is certainly not evolution. Evolution explains the diversity of life ONCE IT HAS BEGUN! The only sorts of people who think that evolution is to do with these three points are the sorts that say “evolution is like a hurricane going through a junk yard and creating a working 747!” (I realise that this is an Ad Hominem attack, and REALLY hope that you do not equate evolution to chance events as that really is laughable…)

    4.To you (new species evolve from mutations).
    Woo! We got there! Yep! That’s evolution. The others – nope! And wow! the in-depth scientific proof of evolution is so overwhelming now, with fossils, DNA analysis, the distribution of similar life, and even lab work (for example Lenski (try http://thebobdelusion.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/intelligent-design-equates-kitten-growth-to-evolution/ for a primer on how an ID proponent tried to discredit his amazing work). Evolution has been proved again, and again, and again. Once presented with the facts (which are easily available online if you both to look!) I think that it would be difficult for any rational person to disagree.

    However the points 1 to 3 raised are more interesting although science is making inroads into these as well. There’s a great video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo) which is worth spending an hour watching.

    Your whole concept that evolution has no foundation because of the questions still remaining in points 1 to 3 makes no sense whatsoever, especially as evolution has never tried to answer these points! It has the same validity as me saying that the bible is false because you don’t (nor indeed do I) understand the chemistry needed to formulate the ink it is printed with.

    If you are going to attack evolution as a non-scientific theory, then do so using science, but to set up an elaborate, (and to be honest I think deliberate) straw-man in order to do it is (to me anyhow) both offensive and humorous.

    Maybe I’m being to harsh, and it is indeed the fact that you don’t understand what the scientific theory of evolution is actually about – in which case I apologise, and hope that you now use some of these thoughts to explore evolution in more depth. It is beautiful, it is amazing. It’s a fact!

    It’s science!

  2. […] “Don’t be Deceived: Evolution Can Never Explain the Beginnings of the Universe” […]

  3. jugglinbob said

    in your email over a month ago you said you would address my comments. Any idea when they may be forthcoming? THE longer you wait the more I think that you know that you have no come back to my scrutiny

  4. jugglinbob said

    2 and 1/2 months… come on! You are only proving that have no response to my argument…

  5. jugglinbob said

    Oh! I’ve just noticed that you have stopped accepting my comments! “Awaiting moderation” from over a month ago! Woo you! You are spineless! I come up with a reasoned argument, you respond, I respond and suddenly you refuse to moderate my reposnses! This just proves that you do indeed have no reasoned response and that you are now trying to hide this discussion. Come on. Be an adult! you stated that you would address my comments – so address them! Or at least moderate them so that everyone else can see that you are refusing to do so…

    Is this the kind of morality that the bible indicates? Lie and avoid when it is your own interest?

    I had thought that I had found an honest christian that was interested in discussing these matters, but I now find that you are apparently just as afraid of a real debate as the rest of you cherry pickers…

    • Jugglinbob.

      Are you off your prozac again as your comments are beginning to degrade into namecalling rather than honest debate. To be honest with you, I am writing a new book, running a lsw firm, having a Bible fellowship in my home and involved in mission work and no disrespect but it is not high on my agenda right now. to become involved in an endless debate Not saying that I won’t respond at some time in the future but the truth is debating with an atheist is not high on my agenda. There are thousands of points that show the fundamental flaws of the THEORY of evolution that has more holes in it than swiss cheese but the bottom line is you have to determine in your heart where you stand with God or whether you stand at all. The truth is the truth and God is so big and awesome and wonderful that to deny his existence when all creation screams of his order and design is simply foolishness. Don’t mean to ignore you Bob but moving with things that are much more important to me than a debate with a person who already has his mind up concerrning God and evolution. Trust me I have never been afraid of a real debate but what is the point? There are volumes of truth to respond to your articles but I am moving to help people develop a relationship with God first and am not concerrned with some intellectual exercise and word games that has little profit. I hope the bob delusion world is going well for you.

      Your christian friend.

      Tim

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: