KnightWhoSaysNi

Hi Vanderzyden,

This is a challenge we frequently offer to every new creationist who comes to the forum. Normally, scigirl has the honour of asking the question, but since she's in the middle of moving, her access to the net is somewhat limited at the moment. I'll act as her substitute for now.

In your posts, you imply that our naturalistic biases cloud our scientific judgement and that macroevolution is merely a "loose hypothesis." But we think that macroevolution has great explanatory and predictive power. Below is a good example. As a creationist, your challenge is to provide us a better explanation. Here it is (quoted from scigirl):

Daggah

You know, I've raised this exact same issue to several creationists myself, and have as of yet NEVER received an answer. In fact, the creationists I've encountered didn't even try!

Doubting Didymus

That is because you seem to be expecting creationists to understand science. With a meagre few exceptions, I can imagine an awful lot of blank creationist faces and glazed eyeballs, followed quickly by saying something like: 'obviously the DNA is similar, as god created humans and chimpansees to be similar, and DNA is how god creates!'... while all thats actually going on in their timy brain is the recurring thought: {stripey stripey stripey stripey stripey stripey stripey}.

Vanderzyden

Nightshade,

I welcome your challenge--having seen this on other threads--and I am ready to respond immediately. There are several difficulties with the proposal.

Before I respond, however, let's clarify something first: You have labelled me a creationist. As such, it's my guess is that you presume far too much. Please define the term creationist. (I am aware of at least three.)

Perhaps you could also inform me as to what stereotypical label I should assign to you.

Skeptical

How about answering the question and not tap dancing around it. Go ahead, we're all waiting with eager anticipation for your erudite reply.

KnightWhoSaysNi

Vander,

I did not intend the term 'creationist' as a pejorative. In fact, people from groups like AIG and Reasons to Believe would accept the label 'creationist' with honour. I'm not concerned with labels. Call me what you want: evolutionist, naturalist, heathen, infidel, hellspawn, the "wicked", the "lost", etc....

I'd rather not get into semantics. If you'd prefer to be called an 'intelligent design' enthusiast than creationist, then so be it. It makes little difference to me; you still hold an anti-evolution position. Now, let's see if you have a better explanation for the chimp/human chromosome problem.

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

Richiyaado

Vanderzyden wrote:

Vanderzyden wasted no time, as this was immediately followed by:

You have to admit, it was an immediate response!

Doubting Didymus

Wouldn't it be better to actually tell us what your belief is, rather than trying to make us guess? The challenge you plan to respond to belongs to scigirl, and you may stereotypically label her 'ass-kicking female scientist who knows a big ol' truckload about evolutionary science'.

Vanderzyden

Thank you, Nightshade. That clears the slate. Now to the problems.

As I see them, here are the difficulties with the scigirl challenge:

Yes, this is a problem that is rampant among Darwinists. Far too much guessing and very little supporting evidence. Often, such speculation often amounts to gross conjecture when a naturalistic worldview is in play. Yes, it is definitely possible that some kind of macroevolution may somehow be a good explanation of biological development. However, at present there is nothing compelling coming from the Darwinian school.

This is also interesting: Rather than consider the possibility that the extra chromosomes are indicative of a separate, unrelated species, these "scientists" apparently cling desperately to the "descent with modification" dogma. Is this "fusing" of chromosomes a well-established fact? Is it even plausible? I would presume that "speculated" means no.



I have but one simple question in response: Is this a case of fitting facts to theory?


I will ask it again: What is THE theory of evolution, in the neo-Darwinian sense? No one here has provided a scientific definition.

Here is another impediment to serious engaging dialogue: projection. The one proposing the theory finds her opponent unconvinced. Why then, is she compelled to insist that an alternative scientific theory be offered? A falsified claim is just that: false. When an unsupportable theory is advanced, the proponents of the theory are not due to hear a "better idea," particularly when they only entertain a specific type of knowledge. Certainly, we may view such insistent people as overbearing if they demand an answer on their own naturalistic terms.

Science endeavor has its limitations, and therefore it will often have no alternative theory. This is becoming especially clear in recent years with the realization of irreducible complexity. For example, science cannot explain the presence of biological INFORMATION, it cannot explain the MIND, it cannot explain why there is SOMETHING rather than nothing. All knowledge is not obtained empirically. Perception and intuition, for example, are other methods of knowledge acquisition. Furthermore, there are forms of authoritative knowledge (such as that found in the Bible) that are categorically rejected by the Darwinist. The most crippling impediment to the work of a scientist is the refusal to admit these other means of obtaining truth about the world in which we live.

You see, Nightshade, I prefer to elevate the discussion to the non-physical, that is, the philosophical/religious. Why? The primary reason is that naturalistcally-biased science has not spoken authoritatively with regard to biological origins and development. Alternatively, many creationists have a reasonable, testable, falsifiable, interesting theistic story to tell. Furthermore, the frequent emotional outbursts of Darwinists ("evolution is fact, fact, FACT!") clearly indicate that the real difficulties are non-natural. In the Darwinist camp there is little, if anything, that is convincing. I guess well just have to give it more time.

Do you have a better challenge?

Doubting Didymus

I think I have you sussed out, Vanderzyden. You really had us all taken in there. However, I have now deduced the truth that you are not really an evolution denyer after all, but an elaborate hoax who is just pretending.

How did I find you out? well, faced with the evidence that the human genes are directly corresponding to the genes of our close relatives, you dismiss the whole thing because scigirl used the word 'perhaps'.

Not even the most patently insane young earth creationist could be this wilfully stupid without a concerntrated effort.

If I thought you were for real here, I would take these snippets as clinching evidence that you do not know the first thing about biology, or in fact any science at all, and that you should not dismiss things you clearly don't understand, but that would be playing right into your hands, as I now know you are only teasing.

That was a good one! If I thought you were serious I would call you a know-nothing moron with your head up your ass, but as you are clearly making it all up, I will just laugh at your clever joke.