Did Darwin really denounce Evolution on his sickbed?

wow, something that we can agree on. i don't believe he recanted and i'm a creationist... however, i have read the origin of species and there are times that he sounds doubtful of the whole process...

darwin was credited with the theory, but worshiping nature as the creator is far older. a belief in evolution pre dates the Bible... the book of Romans speaks on people worshiping the creation and giving God's glory to the animals, saying we came from them and not God...

I think you are stretching the verse out of context, in Romans, it refers to the image of God being made into four-footed beasts, obviously this is a reference to many polytheistic religions that worship animals. To say this is the same as any of the concepts of evolution would be wrong.;-)

I believe in evolution just as you do, but I'd say it is carbon dating and the fossil record that contradict the literal interpretation of Genesis, not evolution. Some evolutionists actually say that religion and evolution are compatible, although I tend to prefer a simple theism where there is homework being done. I believe in intelligent design not because the Bible tells me so, but because of personal experience with the paranormal and, wait for it........science.

That having been said, I believe Moses somehow or other found himself responsible for this tribe of people (maybe he worked a miracle or two, maybe he didn't), and these people believed he could fetch them the answers they sought. He had to give them something, so he withdrew to Mt. Sinai for awhile, and cooked up the most plausible story he could, based on what he knew. That's why the earth and the heavens appear so young in his story, and why there are no dinosaurs in it. That also explains why he had no reason to disbelieve in unicorns and giants (Deuteronomy).

Beyond biblical fable, understand that the theories of irreducible complexity and intelligent design are not exclusively creationist arguments. This is where unsubstantiated, atheist fallacies come from, such as the one about Behe the creationist (Behe was an evolutionist): http://www.idthink.net/back/fab/index.html This is also why atheists find themselves in over their heads when they think they're getting into a theological debate with a non-religious monotheist like me, only to wind up silenced on the subject of theism itself.

Just for the record, there are those of us who take a more objective view. And before you dismiss it as nonsense, I suggest you do some more research. There are a lot of "theories" in evolution, some of them having less evidential support than others. We don't know where life originated, although some of us believe it was in or around hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor. But this poses problems such as the scrambling of RNA data (we're talking about a strictly RNA world here), and rapid chemical decomposition due to environmental hostility without chemical barriers, such as a cell membrane.

Then we talk about how RNA started to assemble basic commands in small strings, and how these strings eventually came together to form megabytes of organic, system data. But where does unconscious RNA get this information from? Intelligent law is part of the theory of evolution, but when the term "Intelligence" comes up, atheistic minds snap shut. Why? And why does there have to be energy or physical matter in the universe (or meta universe) at all? Don't know, but there is anyway. And it's no less mysterious than immaterial, Spiritual Intelligence, such as that involved in the topic of out-of-body experiences, or prevision. Ever look at the telephone a split second before it rang? How does "logical" evolution empower organisms to see into the future? Because natural law will always yield the same result (we still have not answered where these laws came from)? Suuuuuuuuure.

There's a difference between theory and law, and evolution is still largely theory. That doesn't mean it's false, and neither does Biblical fallacy mean intelligent design is a "ridiculous story." But to say evolution has so much evidence that it is on par with gravity suggests to me that you're typing a little bit faster than you're thinking. Gravity is one law, and there are exceptions to that law (heat, for example). Evolution covers a lot of ground, and I suspect not so much as half that ground has been explored yet.

Biochemists are scientists, just FYI. These people devote their careers entirely to the study of cells and interpretation of DNA data. Where does ignorance of scientific methodology fit in when one of these people comes to believe in intelligent design? If you care to debate science, rather than ad hominem cheap shots, let's find out what kind of a foundation you really have under you. I'm your huckleberry.

Sorry, I just realized that I misinterpreted something you said. I put "creationist" and "ridiculous story" together, and quickly assumed you were referring to IC and/or ID. I took it entirely out of context.

Don't take it personally, but I'm about to correct you a lot.:P

1. the fossil record is part of the evidence for evolution, and I said:

"evolution (as well as many other science fields) contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis." So, there wasn't any contradiction there.

2. The origin of life has absolutely nothing to do with evolution--this is a common misconception started by creationists. That's abiogenesis, another field altogether.

3. You apparently have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the terms "theory" and "law" mean in science. Neither is 'better' or 'worse' than the other--the two have different 'jobs'. www.notjustatheory.com puts it succinctly:

"A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory...Laws describe, and theories explain."

4. It's true what I said about evolution and gravity being on par, and the scientific community agrees--one of the reasons evolution is such a strong theory is because it has been refined and tempered through 150 years of a literal ONSLAUGHT of challenges by very contentious people who wanted more than anything to prove it wrong (but they were also honest, so unlike your average present-day creationist, they were willing to acknowledge their inability to find a stronger theory for the development of life). Any theory that can survive that is strong indeed. By the way, I was talking about the 'fact of gravity,' (our level of certainty that it exists, in other words) not particular laws related to it (in the same way that evolution is both a fact (it happens) and a theory (which explains how and why it happens)). Both gravity and evolution have debates within them about particular details, but as for the EXISTENCE of the two, the scientific community is about equally sure of both. If I wasn't clear enough what I meant there, I apologize.

5. Intelligent design is nonsense (it's especially not science) because its core is a logical fallacy--the argument from incredulity. Invariably, intelligent design arguments hinge on irreducible complexity, an expression of that fallacy. It always boils down to assuming design as a result of personal (or not so personal) ignorance of how something could have evolved.

1. the fossil record is part of the evidence for evolution, and I said:

"evolution (as well as many other science fields) contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis." So, there wasn't any contradiction there.
>>Actually, the point I was making with regard to the fossil record had to do with the mesozoic era. Moses didn't mention the dinosaurs, which brings to question his story of the six-day creation. Carbon dating, on the other hand, has nothing to do with evolution. You said evolution contradicts the literal interpretation of Genesis; you were wrong.

2. The origin of life has absolutely nothing to do with evolution--this is a common misconception started by creationists. That's abiogenesis, another field altogether.
>>Actually, that was your mistake, not mine. You said evolution contradicts the literary interpretation of Genesis. What is Genesis? It means the beginning.

3. You apparently have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the terms "theory" and "law" mean in science. Neither is 'better' or 'worse' than the other--the two have different 'jobs'. www.notjustatheory.com puts it succinctly:

"A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory...Laws describe, and theories explain."
>>What kind of an argument is that? You seem to think I was tossing the old "evolution is nothing but a theory" argument at you; but you forget, I don't disbelieve in evolution. The difference between theories and laws is that laws are proven. When I speak of theory vs. law, I mean it like this: '# noun: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena (Example: "A scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory")' ( http://www.onelook.com/?w=theory&ls=a )

4. It's true what I said about evolution and gravity being on par, and the scientific community agrees--one of the reasons evolution is such a strong theory is because it has been refined and tempered through 150 years of a literal ONSLAUGHT of challenges by very contentious people who wanted more than anything to prove it wrong (but they were also honest, so unlike your average present-day creationist, they were willing to acknowledge their inability to find a stronger theory for the development of life). Any theory that can survive that is strong indeed. By the way, I was talking about the 'fact of gravity,' (our level of certainty that it exists, in other words) not particular laws related to it (in the same way that evolution is both a fact (it happens) and a theory (which explains how and why it happens)). Both gravity and evolution have debates within them about particular details, but as for the EXISTENCE of the two, the scientific community is about equally sure of both. If I wasn't clear enough what I meant there, I apologize.
>>I don't think so. Let us return to your original post: 'I don't "believe in" evolution. That's because evolution is not a belief system.' What you'd intended to say is clear as crystal here. Nice try, though.

5. Intelligent design is nonsense (it's especially not science) because its core is a logical fallacy--the argument from incredulity. Invariably, intelligent design arguments hinge on irreducible complexity, an expression of that fallacy. It always boils down to assuming design as a result of personal (or not so personal) ignorance of how something could have evolved.
>>Biochemistry is not science? You're full of it. And now here comes the old atheist argument of evidence vs. incredulity. As it were, the last time science was on your side was in Darwin's day, when cells looked like simple "blobs" in his microscopes, and before DNA was known to the world (it was discovered 13 years before Darwin's death).

As time goes on, and the more science discovers, the less obvious abiogenesis becomes. Call it a lack of evidence if you want, but the fact is that it is evidence (not a lack thereof) that is refuting abiogenesis. This is not a process of elimination game. You might think it is, but that's because you've been duped by what's called a "meme."

Let me clear something up for you: There are two main theories to evolution: 1) Natural selection 2) Mutation.

1) Darwin himself said that if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not be developed by chance acting on matter, his theory would "absolutely break down." This is called "Irreducible Complexity," and it has long since been demonstrated. Even Miller's experiment in '53 has since been found to be an utter failure. What he made was not only irrelevant to life but it would only turn to waste as heat was added, and there was still too much mixture and equilibrium, with too little of the needed chemical compounds.

We have some evidence of evolution, such as the fact that polar bears have redeveloped fully carnivorous teeth due to a strictly meat diet, while most other bears have flat molars with canine teeth remaining to tear into an only occasional meal of meat. But what we also have are species along the evolutionary chain with fully-developed organs, without which they could not survive. And in order for abiogenesis to succeed, evolution should ideally be prolonged at all costs. Even precambrian life that lived in the absence of oxygen still proves infinitely more complex that what Darwin had imagined.

Microorganisms having 2 to 6 cells are parasites, and cannot survive without a host for respiratory functions, among other things. Without these, organisms would die almost immediately, long before they ever had the chance to spawn the next generation. Do you expect me to believe that the spark of life just suddenly started leaping from one dying organism to the next, along an assembly line (created entirely by chance) of a dectillion steps or so, until an organism erose with sufficient machinery to sustain itself? Riiiiiiight.

2) The only examples of mutation that we have are crippled freaks. When creationists tricked Dawkins into interviewing with them, they asked him if he could give them an example of mutation adding data to DNA. He almost threw them out of his house, but wound up going ahead and giving a response, in which he never addressed the question at hand. Instead, he tried to wave the magic wand of "time" over the IC theory. Months later, he wrote an essay that fared no better. That was as far as he ever went with it.

When an evolutionists uses the theory of monkeys banging on typewriters, with the complete works of Shakespeare as their purpose, it is suggested that natural law eliminates the monkeys which show no cognitive capabilities, and rewards those which do. This implies intelligent laws at work. Where did these laws come from? If you bump your elbow or shoulder against a wall, do you blame the wall for jumping out and hitting you? I hope not.

Inanimate objects and chemicals do not possess an unconscious will to organize themselves. You can argue until you're blue in the face that it is the theist (not you) who is walking in blind faith because of ignorance with regard to origin, but until you can present some evidence yourself, your argument doesn't mean anything. In addition, there are testimonies to take notice of. For your beliefs to be true, the testified have to all be liars. I can't speak for anyone outside of myself, but I'm not lying to you.

Now, where was it that you wanted to correct me (a lot)???

When an evolutionist uses the theory of monkeys banging on typewriters, with the complete works of Shakespeare as their purpose, it is suggested that natural law eliminates the monkeys which show no cognitive capabilities, and rewards those which do.
>>Sorry, I meant to say "example," not "theory."

"You said evolution contradicts the literal interpretation of Genesis; you were wrong."

Um, no I wasn't. A literal interpretation of Genesis declares (among other things) that humanity started with two fully-formed humans that didn't evolve from anything else. The Theory of Evolution...CONTRADICTS that. Quite starkly, actually. There's no denying that.

"Actually, that was your mistake, not mine. You said evolution contradicts the literary interpretation of Genesis. What is Genesis? It means the beginning."

Ah, but Genesis's beginning is not abiogenesis's beginning. One of the ways evolution contradicts Genesis is by virtue of the fact that evolution is a gradual process through which all life has a common ancestor from which different species eventually evolve. Genesis contradicts both abiogenesis (how life starts) and evolution (species' relationship with each other a.k.a. common descent).

No, I didn't think you were saying "evolution is just a theory", but this phrase:

"There's a difference between theory and law, and evolution is still largely theory."

gave me the impression (through the use of the word "still") that you thought that theories become laws at some point, when in fact theories are 'at the top', so to speak--they represent our best-evidenced and most well-understood concepts.

I'm not sure what you're implying in #4. Yes, I don't "believe in" evolution. Evolution requires no faith, and neither does any other science. The right way to express how I feel about evolution is that I "accept" it.

In #5, you seem to equate intelligent design with biochemistry; I wonder why. Biochemistry is certainly science, but biochemistry does not inherently involve committing that logical fallacy of incredulity. Since I'm pretty sure you're focusing on biochemistry because of Behe, I'll show you an answer from talkorigins that directly addresses Behe's own claim (in a book of his, I believe):

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html

Pray tell, what is an example of this evidence that directly refutes the possibility of abiogenesis (which isn't even a theory yet--it's a brand new field of science that is still 'taking shape')?

I know that the Theory of Evolution is composed of those two main parts--they're not both theories though, they're part of the same theory.

As far as the claim that irreducible complexity has been demonstrated:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html

"The only examples of mutation that we have are crippled freaks."

Absolute nonsense: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

Also, why are you focusing so much on Darwin? The Theory of Evolution is not his gospel; he just originated the idea. The present-day Theory is not his anymore--he got some things right, but he also got a lot of things wrong. Instead of focusing so much on what Darwin said or did, why don't you instead focus on the Theory of Evolution as it stands today?

The monkey analogy is a gross oversimplification never used in any serious discussion of evolution, and I'd advise you not to embarass yourself by making a serious argument against it. However, I will make the point that natural selection, as it works in the real world, requires no presence of intelligence to make sense.

"Inanimate objects and chemicals do not possess an unconscious will to organize themselves."

But atoms and cells do react and interact with each other in predictable ways regardless. A "will" is not needed. Is the presence of intelligence needed to explain static cling? Honestly, now.

"You can argue until you're blue in the face that it is the theist (not you) who is walking in blind faith because of ignorance with regard to origin"

It's not because of ignorance, but because of the declaration of design DESPITE that ignorance! Big difference. It reminds me of a quote:

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

"until you can present some evidence yourself, your argument doesn't mean anything."

You seem to have forgotten that my statement was about evolution, not abiogenesis. So, I ask you: what argument? I made no argument about origins--stop trying to move the goalposts.

PART 1
Um, no I wasn't. A literal interpretation of Genesis declares (among other things) that humanity started with two fully-formed humans that didn't evolve from anything else. The Theory of Evolution...CONTRADICTS that. Quite starkly, actually. There's no denying that.
>>While I do not believe in the creation story, I would like to see your sources. Last I heard, there was controversy as to mankind's ancestor. What do they think it was now? You said yourself that science does not jump to conclusions. But when you do so yourself, making such statements as "There's no denying that," you don't do a whole heck of a lot for your credibility.

Ah, but Genesis's beginning is not abiogenesis's beginning. One of the ways evolution contradicts Genesis is by virtue of the fact that evolution is a gradual process through which all life has a common ancestor from which different species eventually evolve. Genesis contradicts both abiogenesis (how life starts) and evolution (species' relationship with each other a.k.a. common descent).
>>Actually, you're right about that. However, the fossil record poses a problem here, in that what we're seeing is not a gradual process, but the "sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another" (Derek V. Ager): http://www.albalagh.net/k...

Again, I don't believe the creation story, and I'm not trying to defend it. But you have obviously been misinformed about just how much support evolution actually has. I said it earlier and I'll say it again, the IC theory has only gotten stronger with the passing of time, at the expense of abiogenesis and, incidentally, evolution. Now remember that I'm still not against evolution, but I try not to make claims I can't back up.

No, I didn't think you were saying "evolution is just a theory", but this phrase:

"There's a difference between theory and law, and evolution is still largely theory."

gave me the impression (through the use of the word "still") that you thought that theories become laws at some point, when in fact theories are 'at the top', so to speak--they represent our best-evidenced and most well-understood concepts.
>>Perhaps I should have used "hypothesis vs. law," but you're going by a misconception of law. How do laws become laws? They don't emerge as laws; they start out as hypotheses like all other scientific theories (from this point on, I acknowledge "theory" as more of a general term, regardless of evidential strength).

Every "law" was once itself a phenomenon that had to be substantiated. Upon having become laws, they can be used when validating or invalidating new hypotheses. This to me is a difference in developmental stages of scientific theory, not classes.

I'm not sure what you're implying in #4. Yes, I don't "believe in" evolution. Evolution requires no faith, and neither does any other science. The right way to express how I feel about evolution is that I "accept" it.
>>This is fine, and it would have been a better way of explaining yourself in your initial post. But the problem is that you were insinuating something else; not that evolution is or isn't comparable to religious doctrine, but that it had authority equal to that of the law of gravity. This is the context you used, and the implication is clear. I was simply pointing out the accuracy of such a strong statement.

What you are doing is taking mere hypotheses and passing them off as irrefutable, gospel truth. You are leading with the chin when you do this, because someone like me will eventually come along and throw it right back at you. And please understand that I'm not gloating here; you apparently have a lot to say about religion here at myLot, and I'm offering up suggestions that you can actually use to your advantage in future debates.

That having been said, remember that "faith" is not a term used exclusively when referring to a deity or "supernatural" ideal; it also defines a belief in something that has not been proven. I get into this with atheists all the time, because you feel the need to present yourself as being the ones who are more careful about the facts, that you are the ones who refuse to jump to conclusions.

Stupid things have been said on both sides, and you know what? We're only human. This is not a battle over who is more realistic than the other; it's about what I believe vs. what you believe. And when we debate what I believe vs. what you believe, ad hominem attacks do not add weight to your argument. Stick to principles, not personalities.

In #5, you seem to equate intelligent design with biochemistry; I wonder why.
>>No; that's just one example. If you think I'm giving you ammo for your arsenal by insinuating that Behe or biochemists collectively comprise a total or majority of theistic believers, think again: http://www.icr.org/index....

The reason I mentioned Behe was because I was giving you an example of atheists twisting the truth in attempt to strengthen their case. Of course it serves its purpose, since the Philo journal's target audience is atheists, who will eat it right up because that's exactly what they want to hear.

That having been said, I do feel that biochemistry poses one of the strongest challenges to pre-biotic evolution, and it is from there I draw many of my arguments. If you think this is my only resource, feel free to raise the bar at any time.

Pray tell, what is an example of this evidence that directly refutes the possibility of abiogenesis (which isn't even a theory yet--it's a brand new field of science that is still 'taking shape')?
>>While you are correct when you say abiogenesis is only a proposition, as opposed to being atheism's new bandwagon, here are just a couple of places you can look:
http://www.studytoanswer....
http://www.answersingenes...

I know that the Theory of Evolution is composed of those two main parts--they're not both theories though, they're part of the same theory.
>>Correct, but must there be only one dimension to theory? Not that it matters, but there is no rule which stipulates that evolution is a package which can be either accepted or rejected entirely. I believe in evolution, but only in the sense that it is used by the Creator both to build on past achievements, and to help existing species adapt to environmental changes.

As far as the claim that irreducible complexity has been demonstrated:

http://www.talkorigins.or...
>>Behe's argument is only one argument, but that's not the point. Being demonstrated and being proven are two very different things, but that's not the point, either. That having been said, what significance does the article you linked to above hold? It appears to me that the rebuttal here is an attempt to overthrow IC by comparing machines of varying degrees of complexity. For example: 'The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.'

Is this supposed to refute IC? Remember that even the simplest flagellum is not an element; it is a system in and of itself. When we're discussing chance acting on matter, you need to offer up at least a suggestion as to how these systems were assembled from elements without intelligent intervention of any kind. Until then, IC is no less valid than evolution itself, and IMO more so than pre-biotic evolution.

"The only examples of mutation that we have are crippled freaks."

Absolute nonsense: http://www.talkorigins.or...
>>Okay, I take it back. That's one point for you. On the other hand, notice some of the examples given in this article:
* Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
* In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

These two examples include intelligent intervention. Of course this doesn't invalidate anything, but I just thought I should point it out.

Also, why are you focusing so much on Darwin? The Theory of Evolution is not his gospel; he just originated the idea. The present-day Theory is not his anymore--he got some things right, but he also got a lot of things wrong. Instead of focusing so much on what Darwin said or did, why don't you instead focus on the Theory of Evolution as it stands today?
>>While you answered your own question in the section I highlighted in bold, that is not the only example I used. You note yourself in your very next paragraph that I mentioned the argument about monkeys on typewriters; then I also talk about origin-of-life theories such as location and the "RNA world," as well as valid examples such as dentation in different species of bears. You sound upset; is something wrong?

PART 2
The monkey analogy is a gross oversimplification never used in any serious discussion of evolution, and I'd advise you not to embarass yourself by making a serious argument against it.
>>Did I make a serious argument against it? I mentioned it once. I suspect the reason for your defensiveness here is that I hit a sensitive spot. Surely it must be hard when the atheist's case is typically built around the image of credibility, always careful to first investigate the facts and never to expose the throat with a leap of faith. Nevertheless, let us move on.

However, I will make the point that natural selection, as it works in the real world, requires no presence of intelligence to make sense.
>>I don't recall having said it requires the presence of intelligence; I simply said it's more plausible than spontaneous generation. And understand that's only where my faith begins. I didn't become an evangelist overnight when I reached this understanding. My faith grows with personal experience, but that's a story for another time.

But atoms and cells do react and interact with each other in predictable ways regardless. A "will" is not needed. Is the presence of intelligence needed to explain static cling? Honestly, now.
>>Yes, predictable ways, but if this held any sway in terms of demonstrating abiogenesis, our debate would be over. Furthermore, cells are not elements. Where did they come from? "Honestly, now?" Uh, yah.

It's not because of ignorance, but because of the declaration of design DESPITE that ignorance! Big difference. It reminds me of a quote:

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
>>Bingo! And while your initial post in this thread is not a declaration of spontaneous generation, the fact that you have a prolificacy of vocality in religious threads here in myLot implies that you are a little more sure of yourself than that. This applies to you as well, not just me.

That having been said, all I'm doing is making corrections; I'm not trying to declare anything here. I made one mistake with my remark about mutation, and I acknowledged it. You could learn from this. Openly admitting to your mistakes does not have to weaken your debate. In fact, it can actually strengthen it by exhibiting the credibility of open-mindedness and honesty.

You seem to have forgotten that my statement was about evolution, not abiogenesis. So, I ask you: what argument? I made no argument about origins--stop trying to move the goalposts.
>>Perhaps not, but you suggested it in your original post: 'The only reason creationists have invented this fake "controversy" (which of course, doesn't exist at all within the scientific community) is because evolution (as well as many other science fields) contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis.' When you do this, you invite rebuttal. And that's exactly what you're getting. If you don't want to debate the origin of life, that's fine. Just say so.

Dang it! I accidentally made italics out of several paragraphs at the end of PART 1. Perhaps this will be more legible...

As far as the claim that irreducible complexity has been demonstrated:

http://www.talkorigins.or...
>>Behe's argument is only one argument, but that's not the point. Being demonstrated and being proven are two very different things, but that's not the point, either. That having been said, what significance does the article you linked to above hold? It appears to me that the rebuttal here is an attempt to overthrow IC by comparing machines of varying degrees of complexity. For example: 'The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.'

Is this supposed to refute IC? Remember that even the simplest flagellum is not an element; it is a system in and of itself. When we're discussing chance acting on matter, you need to offer up at least a suggestion as to how these systems were assembled from elements without intelligent intervention of any kind. Until then, IC is no less valid than evolution itself, and IMO more so than pre-biotic evolution.

"The only examples of mutation that we have are crippled freaks."

Absolute nonsense: http://www.talkorigins.or...
>>Okay, I take it back. That's one point for you. On the other hand, notice some of the examples given in this article:
* Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
* In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

These two examples include intelligent intervention. Of course this doesn't invalidate anything, but I just thought I should point it out.

Also, why are you focusing so much on Darwin? The Theory of Evolution is not his gospel; he just originated the idea. The present-day Theory is not his anymore--he got some things right, but he also got a lot of things wrong. Instead of focusing so much on what Darwin said or did, why don't you instead focus on the Theory of Evolution as it stands today?
>>While you answered your own question in the section I highlighted in bold, that is not the only example I used. You note yourself in your very next paragraph that I mentioned the argument about monkeys on typewriters; then I also talk about origin-of-life theories such as location and the "RNA world," as well as valid examples such as dentition in different species of bears. You sound upset; is something wrong?

"While I do not believe in the creation story, I would like to see your sources. Last I heard, there was controversy as to mankind's ancestor."

Maybe as to exactly which species was the ancestor, but there is NO controversy that there was AN ancestor (at least one), which Genesis clearly says there wasn't, and humanity came about fully-formed, not having evolved from any prior species. That's the contradiction--it's really not complicated.

It doesn't hurt my credibility to state simple facts. If you don't understand them, it's not my problem, quite frankly. Again, Genesis describes humans as not having evolved from any prior species--evolution says the opposite. That's a contradiction. Simple.

"the fossil record poses a problem here, in that what we're seeing is not a gradual process, but the "sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another" (Derek V. Ager)"

Phyletic gradualism is not about this completely uniform rate--I called it a "gradual process" out of convenience, but the fact is that rates speed up and slow down all the time, due to a variety of factors. I wonder why you think this is a "problem" for evolution in the slightest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...

"the IC theory has only gotten stronger with the passing of time, at the expense of abiogenesis"

I'm going to assume you mean ID--if I'm wrong, please tell me what "IC" is.

http://www.talkorigins.or... <-- The first point is especially important. I've yet to see any real evidence that this oft-claimed 'upsurge' in support for creationism/Intelligent Design actually exists. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.

"you were insinuating something else...that evolution [has] authority equal to that of the law of gravity."

I meant to compare the Theory of Evolution to Gravitational Theory, not a theory to a law. I thought that was clear enough in the comparison, but oh well.

I acknowledge your statements on the usage of "faith"--it's not really anything I haven't heard before, but I won't really go into it, because it's even more off-topic than the other conversation.:P

I'm sorry, but when it comes to providing evidence that contradicts abiogenesis as a possibility, I can't accept an unsourced interview from Answers in Genesis (an organization infamous for its dishonesty (arguing that evidence supports a young Earth is just the tip of the iceberg there) as evidence. Answers in Genesis produced zero peer-reviewed research despite having more than enough money to be able to conduct it (the Creation Museum itself being a sign of that), and all of its conclusions are based on violating the scientific method, by starting with conclusions and then going out and looking for evidence to support them.

Study to Answer specifically states on its front page that it is primarily concerned with "defence of the Christian faith". The page about the "Myth of Abiogenesis", which is already fraught with errors (again, a shown misunderstanding of science by calling them "theories of abiogenesis", just to scratch the surface), clearly is more concerned with abiogenesis as an atheistic conspiracy than as a scientific concept. The conclusion of THAT page is "The whole notion of abiogenesis is a construction built by evolutionists so that they can dismiss the whole notion of God from the generation of life." Abiogenesis isn't atheistic.

Have you any peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject?

"When we're discussing chance acting on matter, you need to offer up at least a suggestion as to how these systems were assembled from elements without intelligent intervention of any kind."

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html<-- There you go--no "intelligent intervention" needed for any of the explanations in there to work.

"I simply said [intelligence is] more plausible than spontaneous generation."

But it isn't--there is zero evidence that there is any intelligent force at work. Again, at the core of arguments like these are "X seems too complex to have spontaneously generated, therefore there must have been an intelligent designer". Even if we had absolutely no idea how X could have evolved, it does not follow to assume there was intelligent design involved.

Secondly, you say the above when I'm talking about natural selection, which involves no "spontaneous generation" of its own at all. Natural selection is just the natural process through which beneficial mutations are retained and harmful ones are phased out. The mutations themselves are ubiquitous--the average human being has about 100 of them on average.

Through nothing more than Occam's Razor I conclude that the existence of a deity or deities is more unlikely than likely. That's in the abstract, though. Organized religions themselves tend to take on a whole set of self-contradicting and often-just-plain-goofy claims that are much harder to take seriously, and that's why I don't take them seriously. My attitude

"you suggested it in your original post: 'The only reason creationists have invented this fake "controversy" (which of course, doesn't exist at all within the scientific community) is because evolution (as well as many other science fields) contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis.' When you do this, you invite rebuttal."

It's clear that at the heart of the backlash against evolution amongst 'laypeople' (the group which has by far the highest proportion of 'evolution deniers') is a dislike for the fact that it directly contradicts some or even many of their core beliefs (even suggesting that we are closely related to other ape species is an insult to many of them). This easily explains why evolution is singled out among science as a 'bad guy', at least as far as these people recognize (for example, evolution is obviously not the only field of science that contributes to our knowledge of the age of the Earth being several billion years).

As far as academics, there are very few life scientists who favor intelligent design (last I read it was about one tenth of one percent), and there are zero publications evidencing it that have surpassed the unyielding hurdle of peer review. Obviously a big part of the reason for this is that ID isn't science--for one thing, it's not falsifiable.

===========

Phew, this is tiring. Don't take it personally if I don't write a response this detailed again. Feel free to focus more on the last few paragraphs of my response if you want to continue this discussion.

"While I do not believe in the creation story, I would like to see your sources. Last I heard, there was controversy as to mankind's ancestor."

Maybe as to exactly which species was the ancestor, but there is NO controversy that there was AN ancestor (at least one), which Genesis clearly says there wasn't, and humanity came about fully-formed, not having evolved from any prior species. That's the contradiction--it's really not complicated.

It doesn't hurt my credibility to state simple facts. If you don't understand them, it's not my problem, quite frankly. Again, Genesis describes humans as not having evolved from any prior species--evolution says the opposite. That's a contradiction. Simple.
>>I personally don't find this a satisfactory argument: "We don't know what this ancestor is; we just know there is one." If you're simply trying to point out that evolution "contradicts" creation (which I don't deny was your original statement), so be it. But just because humans and apes share various strings of information in DNA, which frequently happen to be present in many other species, this does not evidence anything. Humans and flies both have heterochromatin, the essentiality of which scientists are still debating over.

Phyletic gradualism is not about this completely uniform rate--I called it a "gradual process" out of convenience, but the fact is that rates speed up and slow down all the time, due to a variety of factors. I wonder why you think this is a "problem" for evolution in the slightest.
>>Not for evolution in and of itself, but for unguided evolution. To state that evolution can in fact leap forward only further stacks the odds against "naturalistic" evolution.

I'm going to assume you mean ID--if I'm wrong, please tell me what "IC" is.
>>Actually, both have gotten stronger. But in this case, I was focusing on Irreducible Complexity. While the discovery of precambrian life yields proof that there were anaerobic life forms at one time, evolutionists (often theistic evolutionists) are indeed saying that the fossil record poses a problem for evolution, or more specifically, spontaneous generation. This doesn't directly strengthen Intelligent Design, but it builds on the evidential support for Irreducible Complexity, which in turn boosts ID.

I've yet to see any real evidence that this oft-claimed 'upsurge' in support for creationism/Intelligent Design actually exists. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.
>>You know I'm not a creationist, so I won't comment there. While I stated earlier that Intelligent Design is not directly affected by evidence for Irreducible Complexity (and you correctly state that Intelligent Design is not science in and of itself because it is not falsifiable); it is boosted by increasing examples of IC, as ID is the implication.

I'd be happy to prove you wrong, of course, but I cannot. There is no proof of IC, only evidence, just as there is for evolution.

I'm sorry, but when it comes to providing evidence that contradicts abiogenesis as a possibility, I can't accept an unsourced interview from Answers in Genesis (an organization infamous for its dishonesty (arguing that evidence supports a young Earth is just the tip of the iceberg there) as evidence. Answers in Genesis produced zero peer-reviewed research despite having more than enough money to be able to conduct it (the Creation Museum itself being a sign of that), and all of its conclusions are based on violating the scientific method, by starting with conclusions and then going out and looking for evidence to support them.

Study to Answer specifically states on its front page that it is primarily concerned with "defence of the Christian faith". The page about the "Myth of Abiogenesis", which is already fraught with errors (again, a shown misunderstanding of science by calling them "theories of abiogenesis", just to scratch the surface), clearly is more concerned with abiogenesis as an atheistic conspiracy than as a scientific concept. The conclusion of THAT page is "The whole notion of abiogenesis is a construction built by evolutionists so that they can dismiss the whole notion of God from the generation of life." Abiogenesis isn't atheistic.

Have you any peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject?
First, if you want sources, I welcome you to have a look at the Center for Scientific Creation Web site: http://www.creationscience.com/ I know this is yet another creationist site, but at least disregard the religion part and check out the "References and Notes," and/or the "Technical Notes" tabs.

Second, all I'm getting from you is "consider the source." I can say the same thing about your sources, but that's an empty argument. If you want to sound like you know what you're talking about, at least read it and refute something.

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html <-- There you go--no "intelligent intervention" needed for any of the explanations in there to work.
>>Again, I'm seeing evidence for the gradual evolution of an already living organism, but what I was asking for was an argument for abiogenesis. Where did the proteins come from, and how were the necessary amino acids corralled off from those of the opposite handedness? Perhaps you've already read the article in its entirety, and if you have, could you copy-paste a paragraph or so where this is explained (if it is at all)? Thanks.

But it isn't--there is zero evidence that there is any intelligent force at work. Again, at the core of arguments like these are "X seems too complex to have spontaneously generated, therefore there must have been an intelligent designer". Even if we had absolutely no idea how X could have evolved, it does not follow to assume there was intelligent design involved.
>>Actually, there's a lot more than zero. You can't see energy, yet you know it's there because you can see what it is doing. You take natural law for granted, yet where did such law come from? Can you prove the essentiality of the law of gravity? Can you prove the essentiality of natural selection? Can you explain phenomena such as prevision? Science is not the end-all, although it does explain a lot. That it does not follow to assume there was intelligent design involved is an opinion, a personal preference. Obviously, I for one do not share it with you.

Through nothing more than Occam's Razor I conclude that the existence of a deity or deities is more unlikely than likely. That's in the abstract, though. Organized religions themselves tend to take on a whole set of self-contradicting and often-just-plain-goofy claims that are much harder to take seriously, and that's why I don't take them seriously. My attitude
>>Biblical fallacy does tend to give believers a bad rep, but it does not affect the existence or nonexistence of an immaterial, Intelligent Designer. While I side with you in this instance, I contend that Occam's Razor points to the non-scientific theory of ID, simply because of existing evidence for IC. And while science cannot necessarily disprove ID, it is always possible that scientists may one day discover the origin of life. While such a discovery could not disprove ID, it could smash IC, which in turn would put a huge dent in the ID theory.

Until then, I maintain what is most probable in my view. I continue to look for evidence to the contrary, and also continue to ponder how I could sense the future and control people 3,000 miles away without including God in the explanation. If you've read my testimony, and have some insight to offer, I'd be happy to read it.

It's clear that at the heart of the backlash against evolution amongst 'laypeople' (the group which has by far the highest proportion of 'evolution deniers') is a dislike for the fact that it directly contradicts some or even many of their core beliefs (even suggesting that we are closely related to other ape species is an insult to many of them). This easily explains why evolution is singled out among science as a 'bad guy', at least as far as these people recognize (for example, evolution is obviously not the only field of science that contributes to our knowledge of the age of the Earth being several billion years).
>>No argument here.

As far as academics, there are very few life scientists who favor intelligent design (last I read it was about one tenth of one percent), and there are zero publications evidencing it that have surpassed the unyielding hurdle of peer review. Obviously a big part of the reason for this is that ID isn't science--for one thing, it's not falsifiable.
>>The key word is "profess," not "favor." Truth of the matter is, no one really know how many biochemists favor ID, because they're afraid of the reaction they will get. Lots of creationist literature mentions this, the Answers in Genesis article I linked you to being just one. Polls always yield more believers than non-believers, but of course you and I both know that most of these are the religious "laypeople" you talk about.

It's true Intelligent Design is not science. But until we know more about phenomena such as prevision and out-of-body experiences, or even karma, neither are they. However, this doesn't disprove their existence (especially not to me, when I have experienced prevision and karma myself), unless of course you'd prefer to believe so. In the meantime, the theory of Irreducible Complexity is a scientific theory. I am completely open to direct rebuttal on this subject, if you have any.

No ansester? depends on how you read the bible, I beleive it does mention an ansester. In the first chapter on the sixth day god created man, both male and female. In chapter 2, we read that it was after the seventh day some time later that God created Adam, and only Adam, Eve was later formed from Adam. The problem is not what the bible says but what we have been lead to believe it says. Even though much of Genesis is not to be literal, it still has a basic truth depending on how you read it. Most believ it says the hevans and the earth was created in seven days, it does not. It says in the beginning, (not the first day) God created the heavens and the earth, then the next line is usly mistranslated as the earth was void, but the hebrew word here is 'became'. So billions of years ago the universe began, and thrught millions of years life on earth evolved, then the earth BECAME void and lifless. The story picks up here billions of years after the creation of the universe by what we call the big bang when for somereason the universe expanded from a partical smaller than an aton when God spoke everything into existence. The "days" that followed are obviously not literal earth days, but a pirod of time that the dust in the atmosphere cleared and sunlight began to shine and warm the earth. One could put day six some 120,000 years ago with the apearence of Cromagom man, our closest relitive. But we are not an upward evolotion of this moderen man we are a side evolotion. This is why there is a?missing link" because there is no direct link. Therefore we put the creation of Adam some 10,000 years B.C. As a new species on Earth.So like I said i do believe there is evedence in the Bible of our Ancester. This also explains Cains wife, where did she come from? She was a cro-Magnom Woman, DNA has shown that both humans and Cromagnom cross bread in the distant path, their dna can be found in middle eastern and among far eastren and american (north and south) indians. And yes Darwin did have doubts at his time of death but did not give a full recant.

The Bible clearly contradicts what science has told us in terms of humankind having evolved from earlier species.

Also, Genesis specifically talks about things happening in 24-hour days. It references one morning and one evening passing in between days. The Bible clearly references literal Earth days.

"1) If a day is an era, why are an evening and a morning even mentioned? Actual days must be intended, otherwise, men who lived hundreds of years, e.g., Seth and Noah, would really have lived millions of years. If a day is an era, then a year must be tremendously long, perhaps encompassing hundreds of millions of years;

2) If a day is an era, then much of the Old Testament becomes chaotic. For example, in each of the following verses the same Hebrew word “yom” is employed: “And the flood was forty days upon the earth” (Genesis 7: 1 7), “And he [Moses] was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights” (Exodus 34:28), and “Thus I fell down before the Lord forty days and forty nights...” (Deuteronomy 9:25). If “yom” means era instead of a 24-hour period, Moses was “there with the Lord” for a VERY long time.

3) If a day means more than 24-hour period, then how are we to interpret the following verses, as well as scores of others. “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath. . . . in it thou shalt not work... For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth… and rested the seventh day” (Exodus 20:9-11).

4) Genesis 1:16 (“And God made two great lights: The greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night”) states the sun rules the day and the moon rules the night. This obviously is referring to time as we know it, time with days that are 24 hours long with daylight ruling half of each.

5) Adam was made on the sixth day (Genesis 1:26-31) which was supposedly thousand of years long. This was followed by the 7th day which was also thousands of years long. Following the 7th day, Adam fell into sin and was expelled from the Garden. This would mean Adam lived thousands of years, which is false, since he died at age 930 (Genesis 5:5).

6) Genesis 1:5 surely spoke of literal day and literal night, and the inference from the statement, “And the evening and the morning were the first day,” is that it was a literal day of evening and morning, 24-hours. There is no Biblical evidence that the days of this chapter were longer periods.

7) If we do try to buy into what the Jehovah’s quote as “a day can be a thousand years” even this isn’t sufficient enough time. For the earth is at least 4.6 billion. The biblical passages concerning time should’ve read that days can be like MILLIONS of years. Obviously, their claim falls apart under mathematic speculation." --http://www.evilbible.com/a_day_is_a_day.htm

Also, modern humans are over a hundred thousand years old, not merely 12,000 (10,000 BC? Come on).

Please show evidence that Darwin 'had doubts' late in life.

ABSOLUTELY!

The evolutionist has every right to be as wrong as they want!