Belief in evolution requires faith

[Towlie]

This may be the most scientifically offensive yet letter to appear in the letters to the editor page in one newspaper. Can you count the fallacies?

Belief in evolution requires faith

[PICTURE OF CAVEMAN]
Capyion: Computer scientists calculated that life is unlikely to have evolved by accident. They found the probability is virtually zero, even over billions of years. Many scientists say evidence points to the hand of a creator

Letter to editor begins:

The content and sweeping statements
in a May 29 Forum page article,
published under the headline
“Don’t blame scientific worldview for
social ills,” calls for a response, and
draws attention to information of
which the author is obviously unaware.
Contrary to what seems to be popular
belief these days, scientific advancements
are not casting new challenges
on faith groups nor on the biblical
account of creation. In fact, science
and research over the last two
decades do not discredit biblical
faith, but rather reinforce that evidence
continues to point to the origin
of life requiring an intelligent agent, a
creator.
As Francis Bacon once wrote, “A little
science estranges a man from God,
a lot of science brings him back.”
The growing volumes of information
and understanding coming from
creation research institutes has become
too vast to simply ignore.
Among scientists around the world,
Big Bang theories and Darwinian evolution
began to quiet years ago, although
the general public seems
largely unaware of this trend.
For the last century, or longer, biologists
have taken refuge in the idea of
almost endless time. Given enough
time, almost anything could happen.
Over millions of years the unlikely
can become likely and the improbable,
the acceptable. For a long time
these assumptions regarding evolution
(over millions of years) were accepted
mainly because the number of
millennia invoked was so immense
that no one was capable of calculating
what that kind of scale really meant.
However, it is little known that
thanks to the computer revolution,
the book began to close years ago on
the “chance theories” of life’s origin.
In 1960 computer scientists set out to
simulate the process of neo-Darwinian
evolution over the equivalent of
billions of years. For five years mathematicians
wrote computer programs
to simulate every process under the
sun, casting their eye at evolution itself.
The final outcome was jolting.
The computer showed that the probability
of evolution by chance process
is essentially zero, no matter how
long the time scale.
In 1966, in a landmark symposium
at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia,
a group of highly respected
computer specialists presented their
findings to America’s top biologists.
Presentations were led by mathematicians
and computer scientists
from MIT and the University of Paris.
The biologists were initially angered
at the invasion on their territory, but
the numbers could not be denied.
Even today, the list of scientists
who admit to the weaknesses and
continuing lack of proof supporting
the theory of evolution is a list that is
distinguished and growing. David
Raup, curator of geology at the Field
Museum of Natural History in Chicago,
has said, “The current 250,000-
plus species of plants and animals
recorded and deposited in museums
all over the world, have not supported
the gradual unfolding Darwin had
hoped for.”
Evolutionist Paul Amos Moody has
acknowledged that the longer he
studies science, the more he is impressed
that evident design is everywhere.
“What happens when we seek
the natural laws behind all the evident
design — then it points to a creator,”
says Moody.
Many “physical proofs” cited in the
19th and 20th centuries for Darwinian
theory have been exposed today as
incorrect or even, in one case, a hoax.
H. B. Kettlewell, who held out the
peppered moth as confirmation of
Darwin’s life work, was exposed as a
fraud. Modern day paleontologist Xu
Xing contends that an Archeoraptor,
long used as evolution “proof” in
textbooks, is actually a combination
of two different fossils.
This was documented (March
2000) in National Geographic after
CT scan results confirmed Xing’s observations.
Michael Denton, a leading
molecular biologist, was quoted in
1986 saying, (Evolutionary theory) “is
still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a
highly speculative hypothesis entirely
without direct factual support and
very far from that self-evident axiom
some of its more aggressive advocates
would have us believe.”
Walter Bradley co-authored a book
in 1984 entitled The Mystery of Life’s
Origin. Eyebrows were raised because
the foreword was written by
biologist Dean Kenyon of San Francisco
State University. Professor
Kenyon had previously argued in his
book Biological Predestination that
chemicals had an inherent ability to
evolve into living cells under the right
conditions. Even though Kenyon’s
book is still used in universities
across America, Kenyon himself stated,
“I now concur that there is a fundamental
flaw in all current theories
of the chemical origins of life.”
Biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh
University said in 1996 in a groundbreaking
critique on Darwinism,
“The conclusion of intelligent design
flows naturally from the data itself —
not from sacred books or sectarian
beliefs ... the reluctance of science to
embrace the conclusion of intelligent
design ... has no justifiable foundations.”
Still many people have accepted the
headlines and textbooks of days gone
by, never investigating for themselves
the wealth of evidence now supporting
the possibility of the creation account.
At the very least the evidence
should cause us to admit that we still
don’t know. Embracing one theory or
the other still boils down to an act of
faith.
Advances in science and technology
are such that the debate is no
longer about science vs. religion,
rather science vs. science. Even carbon
dating has been questioned over
the last two decades regarding accurate
conclusions. The 1980 eruption
of Mount St. Helens in Washington
State highlighted this. This was the
geological event of the century. Geologists
found rock-layer formations
that would have dated as thousands,
if not millions, of years old, were actually
formed in an extremely short
period of time under intense conditions.
Data from current dating methods
would have rendered an incorrect
analysis. The scientists could verify
the correct information only because
they were present to see it happen.
Over the years, religious groups
have attempted to oppose science
with religion (Bible in hand). Quoting
scripture to validate our worldview
has perhaps only furthered the
stereotype of religious ignorance in
this debate. Now, in 2003, perhaps
people can finally accept that the debate
is in fact science vs. science.
The scientific tables are divided,
among Christians and atheists alike.
The evidence no longer slants to
favour one side, as we have been led
to believe for far too long. Some still
suggest, however, that creationism
should not be considered as a scientific
theory because it comes from a
fixed belief system using science only
to search for compatible evidence.
But apparently Professor Patrick
Glynn of George Washington University
would disagree with the assumption
that only Christian scientists do
that. He says, “The mainstream scientific
community has in effect shown
its attachment to the atheistic ideology
of the random universe to be in
some respects more powerful than its
commitment to the scientific method
itself.”
So, back to the recent Forum article.
If the science curriculum in Ontario
schools has been designed to avoid
controversy — great. Why shouldn’t
we be careful what we are teaching as
fact in our schools, given the growing
divisiveness on this issue among the
experts? Should our children be
taught both theories along with all
the corresponding evidence? Why
would that be so scary? Does it really
matter anyway?
Most curious to the writer of that
article, how can we dare make the
connection between origins of life
theories and the social condition of
our societies? Well, obviously this debate
and its ultimate outcome do matter.
Logic would lead one down the
thought path that if God exists as ultimate
designer and creator, and if He
has placed all the natural laws of the
universe (that can be plainly observed)
to properly govern this creation,
then logic would dictate that
we ought to fervently pay attention to
the laws that He designed to govern
human behaviour and interaction.
The latter admittedly wouldn’t really
matter so much if the first two “ifs”
were not true. So the questions of origin
remain extremely important. I
can imagine that for some people, the
“ifs” in my earlier statements may always
be too difficult to acknowledge
as true, but for many others the revelation
may simply require being a little
more deliberate and purposeful in
their investigation.
The available “evidence” is out
there, accessible, observable and scientific.
But all the evidence available
will probably never prove conclusive,
thus the element of faith. Faith should
never be a blind, thoughtless act.
For anyone to assert that those with
a faith commitment have chosen a
small-minded way of explaining the
world is itself an uninformed accusation.
A leap of faith (in either direction)
should happen only after a thorough
examination of the facts available
in their entirety. We have countless
resources available today to
those who are truly seeking. Sadly,
there always has been and always will
be those who will never seek.
Some Web sites and books that may
help are www.AnswersInGenesis.org
or www.masterbooks.net, along with
National Geographic and various scientific
journals.

[SyntaxVorlon]

That arguement is flawed because by only a few orders of magnitude greater probablility, anyone is alive.
Consider the fact that your parents did not choose you, you were the product of a random coupling of timing and a specific and wiley sperm. And factor in that so to were your parents, and their parents, etc.
The sheer probablity of your own existence is staggeringly small. And after the universe has been around for 15 billion years, you get 70-80.

Get to "awe"ing, go on!
No not Cute aaaaw. wow awe.
That's better.

[DPDarkPrimus]

The horrible formatting makes it impossible for me to read. Sorry.

[Keevan_Colton]

The odd's of a specific result with very defined parameters are stupidly low....however......that's because they are working ass backward to get these sorts of odds....assuming that it has to become exactly what it is now and there's no other routes for it to take.....
Sure, we're all highly improbable accidents....but....that doesnt alter that we are here....despite the odds....just because the numbers are odd doesnt mean someone "cheated" them and put us here....

Not to mention the fact, that since evolution is/has/will occur.....that this entire case is based on an obviously faulty mathematic model used in the computer model.......

[SyntaxVorlon]

This is such an annoying and persistant topic, the answer, when any moderate asks you, or in some cases tells you, that this is the case, is always PEER REVIEW. If you have a problem with a finding, you can look up the peer review to see what the rest of the field has to say.

[jegs2]

See if you can reformat what you quoted to make it more easily readable...

[JodoForce]

unfortunately, apparently the scientific community takes evolution for granted so much that there is not much to be found in peer review, allowing the creationists to make a sort of comeback... right?

There should be evolution 'concentration camps' where creatinists are given intensive education about evolution... or 'education'

[Kuroneko]

Among scientists around the world, Big Bang theories and Darwinian evolution began to quiet years ago, although the general public seems largely unaware of this trend.

It could simply because they are adequate theories, and no better theory has come along. Hence, for the moment the issue is, in practical terms, closed.

However, it is little known that thanks to the computer revolution, the book began to close years ago on the “chance theories” of life’s origin. In 1960 computer scientists set out to simulate the process of neo-Darwinian evolution over the equivalent of billions of years. For five years mathematicians wrote computer programs to simulate every process under the sun, casting their eye at evolution itself. The final outcome was jolting. The computer showed that the probability of evolution by chance process is essentially zero, no matter how long the time scale.

I seriously wonder what their criteria for what defines evolution were, and how they simulated it. Particularly that significant evolution among microbes has been observed.

The biologists were initially angered at the invasion on their territory, but the numbers could not be denied.

After all, crude models are obviously superior to empirical observations.

“The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself—not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs ... the reluctance of science to embrace the conclusion of intelligent design ... has no justifiable foundations.”

Only in as far as Ockham's Razor has no justifiable foundations.

[Professor Patrick Glynn of George Washington University] says, “The mainstream scientific community has in effect shown its attachment to the atheistic ideology of the random universe to be in some respects more powerful than its commitment to the scientific method itself.”

And all this time I was under the delusion that the scientific method frowned upon the introduction of variables which are not necessary to explain the phenomena in question.

The available “evidence” is out there, accessible, observable and scientific. But all the evidence available will probably never prove conclusive, thus the element of faith.

The only thing that could be remotely considered 'faith' in the context of the scientific method is the belief that reason is objective. I fully admit such a thing is not deductively proven. But to seriously entertain the thought that it is not the case is to doubt one's own sanity, and the validity of any thought one could possibly have. Hence, no proof could possibly exist. But don't mind me; I could just be using that preposterous "myth of 'common sense'" again.

Edit: s/oviously/obviously/

[Slartibartfast]

[PICTURE OF CAVEMAN]
Capyion: Computer scientists calculated that life is unlikely to have evolved by accident. They found the probability is virtually zero, even over billions of years. Many scientists say evidence points to the hand of a creator

Gee, and me here thinking that the probability of something happing is the amount of times something happened divided between the total amount of times it did or did not happen... therefore, if there are 1000 planets with the same conditions that ours, but only 1 evolved life, the probability would be 1 in 1000, right? It's not like you can use a linear random thingy like a six-sided die.

[Prince-Admiral Krennel]

The horrible formatting makes it impossible for me to read. Sorry.

Agreed, but judging from the title this paper is nothing new.

[Howedar]

It depends on one's definition of faith. Are we talking about religious-level faith, or faith that evidence reliably leads to accurate theories?

[Prince-Admiral Krennel]

I have also observed that many people take evolution on the word of others, so while they know nothing about it they accept it by faith. Of course I accept much of physics etc which I have little to no undersanding of on faith also.

[Darth Wong]

I have also observed that many people take evolution on the word of others, so while they know nothing about it they accept it by faith. Of course I accept much of physics etc which I have little to no undersanding of on faith also.

At least they place their faith in beings who are known to exist (scientists) and who have demonstrated their collective competence through the application of their work. This is, while obviously not ideal, a marked improvement over having faith in an invisible, intangible man in the sky.

Faith in peoples' honesty and methods is not perfect, but it is much better than faith in intangible beings. Saying that I have faith in my wife to be loyal to me is on a whole different level than saying that I have faith in the notion that the thunder god Thor is behind the flashes of lightning I see in the sky at night.

[Prince-Admiral Krennel]

Yeah that was what I was basically saying. wrote down my example and not my point.

that the thunder god Thor is behind the flashes of lightning I see in the sky at night.

You mean he doesn't?!


You have shattered my illusions.

[Kuroneko]

You mean he doesn't?!

You have shattered my illusions.

If it brings you comfort, technically he did not say it is false.

[Gil Hamilton]

Faith in peoples' honesty and methods is not perfect, but it is much better than faith in intangible beings. Saying that I have faith in my wife to be loyal to me is on a whole different level than saying that I have faith in the notion that the thunder god Thor is behind the flashes of lightning I see in the sky at night.

Heresy! That's Zeus throwing lightning and you fucking know it!

[J]

I have also observed that many people take evolution on the word of others, so while they know nothing about it they accept it by faith. Of course I accept much of physics etc which I have little to no undersanding of on faith also.

True, but the thing is our science and theories work, and many of them can be demonstrated right in front of you. For instance I don't fullly understand all the intricacies of evolution, all the technical stuff about DNA and whatnot, but I can look into a microscope and see bacteria evolving and changing before my eyes. I don't know much about aerodynamics, heat engines, material properties, and control systems, but I do know that men can apply principles from the above to build an airplane which works based on the priciples of their sciences. I can see our science & theories at work, and if I was motivated and smart enough I could go study and understand all the details of why they work. That is the differece between faith in our science and faith in the "supernatural", there is nothing behind the "supernatural" to study or understand, it's just a bunch of hooey.

[aerius]

Heresy! That's Zeus throwing lightning and you fucking know it!

Fools! Raiden is the Thunder God! Have you not seen "Mortal Kombat"?

But seriously, what jmac said.

[Kitsune]

I have also observed that many people take evolution on the word of others, so while they know nothing about it they accept it by faith. Of course I accept much of physics etc which I have little to no undersanding of on faith also.

There are some technical aspect of Earth Science / Evolution that are very hard to understand but much of it you can study yourself. Steven Jay Gould and Donald Johanson (anong many others) write excellent readable books on these subjects.

[Peregrin Toker]

This may be the most scientifically offensive yet letter to appear in the letters to the editor page in one newspaper. Can you count the fallacies?

Which newspaper?

[SPOOFE]

Well, science does require SOME faith... faith that the universe really is as we observe. Contrast this with Creationism, which demands faith that the universe is NOT as we observe...

[Darth Gojira]

Heresy! That's Zeus throwing lightning and you fucking know it!

Fools! Raiden is the Thunder God! Have you not seen "Mortal Kombat"?

But seriously, what jmac said.

You are all wrong! Baal shall smite the lot of you for denying him his credit!

[SyntaxVorlon]

This has turned into half a debate the topic and the other half is a germanic/hellenic mythological flame war.

[RedImperator]

My belief that physics works as advertised is not based on faith. Once a week at least, I drive from New Jersey to Pennsylvania, which involves crossing one of three bridges (two suspension bridges and one cantelever). These bridges were designed by engineers based on principles developed by physicists. Unless and until they fall into the Delaware River for no reason, I have no logical reason whatsoever to assume that physicists have been lying to me.