Creation Bits

It's funny how many times I've heard evolutionists shout "where is the peer-reviewed material" and make fun of creationist peer-reviewed journals like TJ and CRSQ. Then, along comes Cell Biology International to make the exact same arguments creationists have made for decades.

I think this is just the beginning. It will take some time for the dam to break, but when it does, you'll see a very different view of biology. The authors in this article are still cowering behind ambiguous phrases such as that science should "press forward with new research approaches which are not obvious at this time". In other words, they think that we should consider an Intelligent Design scenario, but are to afraid of the Darwinists to actually say so. If they actually came out and said it the editors will stop publishing their papers, or be subject to castigation a la Sternberg.

Anyway, I have heard Darwinists over and over again say that all these arguments are invalid, and here now it is peer-reviewed material in 2004.

I suggest that everyone do an inter-library loan request for the paper. It has a _lot_ of arguments against a materialistic origin-of-life scenarios, any one of them are pretty devastating.

If someone wants a short, brief summary of creation ideas, I've found ICR's summary of Baumgardner's Los Alamos Origins debate very interesting. The full debate can be viewed here. I have not had time to view the whole debate, but I imagine it's quite interesting.

I at least assume they are both referring to the same debate.

I developed a levelling of teleology in genomic change for a post I made in an debate with an evolutionist, which showed different kinds of genomic change and how much teleology is involved with each event.

Let's say I need a new gene. There are several possible ways that I could acquire this new gene:

1. I have no idea I need something to change. If a cosmic ray or copying error causes something to change, and its beneficial, great. However, if the change is detrimental or doesn't fix my situation, I'm toast.


2. I know I need something to change, but have NO IDEA what. Therefore, I can cause increased mutations to occur randomly throughout my genome, and hopefully something good happens before I suffer from error catastrophe.


3. I know I need something to change, and I know it is this, specific gene. Therefore, I can put my resources to bear on changing this gene until I can sense that I am no longer in need.


4. I know I need something to change, and I have this part list of things that I know works to make specific things happen. I'm going to rearrange re-usable parts until I get something working.


5. I know I need something to change, I know what it is that needs changing, and I know exactly what I need to do to change it.

1 & 2 are Darwinism. 3-5 are ID and Creationism. Darwinists like to claim that 3-5 can be the result of 1 & 2. However, Dembski's No Free Lunch and Searching Large Spaces show why complex adaptations cannot occur through blind searches. Intelligence _must_ be put into the equation, or the blind search makes error catastrophe a certainty LONG before adaptations can occur, and Behe's paper covers just how unlikely that is anyway.

Darwinists claim that 3-5 can come from 1&2, yet they never show any data on how this could or does happen. I'm fairly certain it simply isn't possible.

Also note that my "levels of teleology" are just an example. I'm sure there's lots of things I missed in there, but the idea remains the same.

I recently had someone claim "The theory of evolution has only been improved upon and progressed since its conception."

I thought you all might be interested in my response:

"The theory of evolution has only been improved upon and progressed since its conception."

Mostly by abdigating its original conception (i.e. the one that creationists originally opposed).

The idea of "change" is not counter to creationism, nor is the study of change. Not even Linnaeus believed in fixity of the species. So, if you are talking about creationism contrasted to _any_ theory of change, you are simply debating people who haven't lived for over 300 years.

Now, if you are talking about evolution as a notion of atelic change (i.e. not purposeful), then in fact evolution is somewhat on the ropes these days. While many biologists studying purposeful change in organisms will currently append some sort of Darwinistic mantra to the end (i.e. "we can see how a process of natural selection could lead to such functions") it is wholly without evidence, and fewer and fewer are appending those to their works. And Dembski, in his "Searching Large Spaces" paper, shows why such scenarios (Darwin leading to teleology) are even less credible than the purely Darwinistic approaches they are replacing.

Teleology is back with a vengeance, even in biological papers, it's just that it is politically incorrect to doubt that such teleology came by anything but naturalistic means.

It has been shown, that (a) natural selection does almost nothing except get rid of completely inept creatures. It does not prevent bad mutations from spreading. (b) adaptive change within an organism is NOT undirected. (c) everything within the cell is there serving a purpose. (d) cells are highly complex, with many interdependent parts which cannot change independently. (e) The genetic code is so complicated that the idea of a "gene" is not even really valid anymore, especially when looking at gene conversion, alternative splicing, and other fun that occurs within the genome. (f) horizontal gene transfer indicates that the whole biosphere is made to co-adapt, with specific mechanisms in place to facilitate that adapatation.

All of these point to creation, not a materialistic universal common ancestry. It is "evolution" in the sense that it is a science of change, but it is not evolution in the sense of a purposeless drift through time from one species to another by haphazard processes.

Likewise, Universal Common Ancestry is more of an assumption than a result.