Physicist: Evolution more scientific than quantum mechanics?
Published: 23 December 2012 (GMT+10)
Wikimedia commons/Marcin Białek
Michael Dowling, a physics lecturer from the United Kingdom, comments on the Question evolution campaign:
I was really surprised that a fellow physics lecturer posted your magazine on his door [see first comment on the Question evolution campaign article—Ed.]. I looked at the 15 questions and most of them are not about evolution, but about abiogenesis. Evolution deals with changes in organisms and DNA not origins (such as RNA hypothesis, by Sir Harry Kroto, Nobel Laureate). Another odd thing is why attack evolution when particle physics and astrophysics would be more appropriate. How did the universe begin and why is it hostile to life?Most Christians support evolution (In fact all Catholics have to as it was decreed ‘true’ by the last Pope). Evolution is the most tested of all scientific theories. It makes testable predictions. Evolution is a fact, its theory can be applied and tested and it always turns out to be correct. I find it baffling that some intelligent people are blind to one of the greatest scientific theories of the past 200 years. Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is the most accurate theory in science, however evolution is the most tested and examined. There are around a million published (peer reviewed) articles on evolutionary science in many journals. There is not a single (one) peer reviewed paper on intelligent design (ID) why is that? What you need to do is get a couple of thousand peer reviewed articles published in major scientific journals testing ID. Once you have that behind you then it would be legitimate to question evolution. But there isn’t even one paper yet. So fund the biological sciences to carry out research into ID. That is where your focus should be. Not bashing main stream excepted science. Get yours to the same level of credulity first. Then you will have science on your side. QED.(quod erat demonstrandum, in this case)Regards
We asked if Michael would like his full name displayed and he agreed to this and added:
Just to add one extra point I omitted from my original post. Imagine that 20 years ahead (2032), evolutionary biologists discover that the theory of evolution is unjustified. So biologists are now scratching their heads trying to figure out what causes changes in development of organisms and why 99% of all life is now extinct? That does not mean that creationism is true. Much in the way that if quantum mechanics was disproved it would not mean that Unicorns exist by default. For creationism to be true there has to be testable, supporting evidence. This is what creationists are failing to do. They are not carrying out investigations to test their hypotheses. Only when that is started can they claim any underpinning of their hypothesis. Bashing another scientific theory does nothing for their claim.
Dr Don Batten responds:
There are so many fallacies here!
1. Creation magazine is not the 15 Questions (the physics lecturer in South Africa was displaying articles from Creation magazine, and the 15 Questions).
2. The General Theory of Evolution deals also with abiogenesis. You would have known this if you had actually read the full 15 Questions and especially the three-part article where attempts at answers are presented. It seems like you missed reading this also:
“Note to would-be evolution defenders: please read the full brochure and linked articles before attempting to answer the questions, otherwise you will likely be wasting your time boxing at shadows.”
3. RNA hypothesis? It is ‘dead in the water’.
4. Universe “hostile to life”? That must be news to those atheistic cosmologists who invented such a bizarre thing as ‘multiverse theory’ to overcome the anthropic principle; the observation that our universe is incredibly, improbably suited to life (if it was not actually designed for life). See Divining design.
5. “Most Christians support evolution”? Not according to surveys (e.g.) in the USA. In countries where it is not easy to be a Christian, I think you would be hard-pressed to find any who believe in evolution. And you misunderstand the nature of the Pope’s statement, which is not regarded by Roman Catholics as binding on what they think. Indeed, there is a significant creationist movement in the RC church (we know of groups in the USA, Europe and Australia). Indeed, Professor Maciej Giertych, from Poland, is a well known Catholic creationist. It is also likely that the Pope’s statement has been mistranslated.
6. “Evolution the most tested of all scientific theories”? You have not read the 15 Questions, have you? Look at Question 15 and 14. Evolution isn’t even a proper scientific theory, in essence. What experiment can be done on the claim that reptiles changed into birds 150 million years ago?
7. “It makes testable predictions … always turn out to be correct”? Actually many major ‘predictions’ have been wrong: the fossil record, 150 useless vestigial organs, junk DNA, impossible for a wheel to arise by evolutionary processes (Haldane), introns (segments of DNA within protein-coding genes that are edited out before protein formation) forming an advanced multi-tasking operating system considered evolutionarily ‘impossible’, mutations plus natural selection explain the origin of all new DNA specifications, the mutation rate in ‘higher’ organisms was grossly underestimated (by 2 orders of magnitude), etc. Evolution has seriously harmed science. See How evolution harms science. The failure of evolutionary theory has been so consistent that it should have been abandoned, but the only alternative is unthinkable to the secular (God-less) mind. It’s as Professor D.M.S. Watson admitted years ago:
“evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible” (Nature 124:233, 1929).
8. “A million published peer reviewed articles on evolutionary science”? The comprehensive database of papers on biology, PubMed, currently indexes 5,645 sources, mainly journals. From these, only 332,000 papers even mention “evolution”. Adding “natural selection” only increases the number by 0.3%. However, not all the publications on PubMed are peer-reviewed papers and many of the papers have nothing to do with the concept of biological evolution because ‘evolution’ is often used merely in the sense of ‘change’. For example, four of the first 10 papers I retrieved had nothing to do with biological evolution. Many also actually provide powerful evidence for intelligent design (creation) and then (to prove the author is not a dreaded creationist?) there is a trite ‘dipping of the lid’ to evolution in the concluding comments (I personally know a recent doctoral candidate whose supervisor wanted just such an irrelevant statement added to a paper on molecular biology that had nothing to do with evolution). I think it would be generous to concede a figure of 20% of the one million claimed. As an interesting aside, evolution’s pushers often claim that it is the backbone of biology, and how necessary it is for medical research (etc.), but the total ‘evolution’ papers comprise only 1.5% of the total indexed on PubMed.
9. “Not a single one peer reviewed on intelligent design … isn’t even one paper yet.”? Wrong again. And of course the Journal of Creation is a peer-reviewed journal. However, you have to do better than hide behind ‘peer review’; you need to demonstrate where our arguments are wrong. Peer review can be nothing more than a way of excluding unpopular ideas from ‘the club’. Even ‘mainstream’ scientists are recognizing the deficiencies of the system in keeping out good ideas and not filtering out bad ones (try copying this into a Google search: “failure of peer review” site:dml.cmnh.org). ‘Is it true?’ is the issue, not ‘is it peer reviewed?’
10. We are “bashing mainstream accepted science” in critiquing evolution? No we are not; as the 15 Questions points out (did you actually read it?), evolution is a hypothesis about history, which is not something that science can address with anything resembling the scientific method; it is most definitely not “mainstream science”. A former President of Harvard University called this historical daydreaming that masquerades as ‘science’ a fantasia. Did you read ‘It’s not science!’ (linked from Question 15)? Again, it seems not. Evolution is entirely different to quantum mechanics, which is open to experimental testing in the present, which is what mainstream science is all about. That there is no Nobel Prize for evolution or any related field makes sense because it is not hard science, contrary to your assertions.
11. “Imagine that 20 years ahead (2032), evolutionary biologists discover that the theory of evolution is unjustified” (your added comment). There is already a plethora of contrary evidence but still evolution reigns, as dogma, taught to the exclusion of all else, even criticism. There are even atheists’ clubs to ‘protect’ evolution from criticism (including a British one, the BCSE). While a materialistic worldview prevails in academia, some form of evolution (materialistic origins scenario) will remain entrenched; it is a matter of the ‘priority of the paradigm’—as Professor Lewontin said, they “cannot allow a divine foot in the door”. See Would Darwin be a Darwinist today?
You say that if evolution were disproven (and it has been), “That does not mean that creationism is true. Much in the way that if quantum mechanics was disproved it would not mean that Unicorns exist by default.” This is such an incredible non sequitur. Divine creation and materialistic evolution are logical alternatives to explain the origin and diversity of life. However, Unicorns have zero relevance to explaining the structure of matter.
It was not creationists who invented the idea that creation was an alternative to evolution, but evolutionists. Darwin led the way. Even today, evolutionists present arguments against creation, such as claimed ‘bad design’, as arguments for evolution. Their reasoning is correct: the law of the excluded middle applies here: either living things made themselves by a materialistic process (evolution) or they were created (a third option that living things always existed is not possible).“For creationism to be true there has to be testable …” Hmm … This reminds me of the Skeptics who on the one hand claim that creation is not science because it is ‘not testable’ but then go on to ‘prove’ it wrong!
Virtually every paper published on molecular biology today reinforces the truth of supernatural creation. What is being discovered is so far removed from the capability of natural processes to create that it screams ‘creation’ by a super-intelligent Creator. For example, sophisticated rotary and linear nano-motors don’t arise by mutations. Even the former ‘world’s most notorious atheist’, Antony Flew, eventually saw the power of this evidence. Creationists are also publishing papers to establish what we claim, but it is clear (above) that you have not looked for them (check out some of Dr Royal Truman’s papers in Journal of Creation, for example).
As for “99% of all life is now extinct”, this is fallacious, based on evolutionary assumptions about how many transitional ‘species’ must have lived in the past. See Fossil figures fall.
I hope this clarifies some things for you. As a physicist it seems that you have a misplaced respect for evolutionary biology, which is not at all ‘hard science’ like physics. Perhaps your enthusiasm for biological evolution does not come from its value as science but its perceived usefulness as a religion to replace Christianity? (see Question 15).
Don Batten (Biologist).
The comment about the hostility of the universe to life caught my attention. As you rightly point out, there are so many aspects of the laws of physics that, if only slightly different, would result in a universe where life was absolutely impossible, thus the attempts to explain this "anthropic principle."
However, as far as we have actually observed and thus truly know, life only exists on Earth, and here it does so abundantly (and evidently much more abundantly in the past). Again, even given the right physics for life, there are a number of factors which must be in a very narrow range of possible conditions for life as we know it to exist. Thus, the ongoing search for life elsewhere, and much speculative work about possible(?) other kinds of life.
So we see no other life in the solar system, vast reaches of empty space, many other solar systems examined and found wanting... even if "somewhere out there," there are planets with life or capable of sustaining it, by far most of the universe is totally lifeless. I think it supports our view that life is here, even on Earth, only because God created it, and also it indicates that He is so Great that He created all the rest just for beauty, our curiosity, "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years," and reasons we may never know this side of eternity. "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." (Ps. 19:1)
Hey Randy, you say there is no evidence against evolution? I'm sure you have heard of the Law of Biogenesis, right? Yeah, the problem is that if evolution were true, then it would have to be broken at least one time. Thus, there is evidence against evolution.
Also, it doesn't matter if the majority of scientist believe in evolution because evolution is not science, it is a hypothesis about history. That would be no different from me saying that World War 1 never happened because a majority of scientists said so.
Also, the majority of scientists has been wrong before, as they were with spontaneous generation and phlogiston. Here is another example. My earth science teacher in college (no friend of creation) admitted that between 1997 and 2007, the average world temperature had actually gone down, contradicting the Global Warming idea. Have the majority of scientists suddenly stopped believing in GW because of this find? Heck no! Therefore, majorities are hardly a reliable measure of truth.
Question to Randy H.
"No one has shown any evidence that evolution is false."
- that's because evolutionists rarely, if ever, will specify or identify the precise evidence they would accept as an adequate falsification of evolutionism as either a theory, model, philosophy or world view. This really is a poor way of doing science or logic. Darwin actually did refer to the fossil record. He predicted that in years following his advancement of the theory, we would find a plethora of transitional fossil forms that would prove his ideas correct. He added that if this did not happen, he would thereby be proven wrong. So where are they? They should be there in the millions. All we have are a few very questionable extant and extinct simians and archeopteryx (also questionable).
Methinks the evolutionary kings are going about undressed.
Reply to Randy H
I lived in a country where evolucionists have done their job well (for a while). They have united (under a comunist party banner) took over the political power in the country and freely preached all the proofs of evolution including human/social evolution. So we evolved from capitalism to socialism (transitional form to communism) but never made it to communism itself. Rather we devolved back to some sort of capitalism. Freedom of expression is granted to everybody who agrees with our view. Such is the think with Creation / Evolution debate in your country. Is it not true that there are some new laws in Britain preventing teaching even mentioning Creation in schools (including religious schools). When you (and many others) realize that your worldview is not a science but only a worldview there will be a possibility for every individual to be informed on competing ideas and freedom to chose any of them based on merits not on availability or lack of. (born and grown in Socialist Yugoslavia and migrated to Australia while the country still existed)
Reply to Jack C
It amazes me that you think that the "scientific believers" should unite. Congradualations, you would have a single digit percentage of the scientific community. Including about 1% of "biologists" (I use this term loosely, as I don't understand how you could be a creationist and a biologist).
No one has shown any evidence that evolution is false. Evolutionists have proven their burden that evolution is true. Disprove the supporting evidence. Do something. When you get it right, collect your noble prize.
See you when that happens, never.
As a biologist, I don't understand how you could know anything much about biology and not be a creationist! Oh, I do know : it is because creation points to a Creator, and that 'we' cannot allow! As Professor Richard Lewontin said, "we cannot allow a divine foot in the door".
For this reason also, a refutation of evolution would not be welcome. It has already been refuted in the number of predictions that have been falsified, such as the fossil record showing abundant transitional forms, but it will live on because it is the only game in town for those who don't want to bow their knee before their Creator.
I suspect the number of creationist biologists is more like 5%, with many more who are not so sure about the adequacy of the evolutionary story. See for example: A review of The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry. And this alone also shows how baseless is your assertion that there is no evidence against evolution. I suggest you do some reading on creation.com (there are over 8,000 articles) to get enlightened as to the gaping holes in evolution. They are there to find with ease, if you are open to finding them! But maybe your attitude is similar to Scott Todd (search creation.com).
I often read assertions by evolutionists that evolutionary theory has made predictions which have been proven to be true. I am an avid reader of evolution literature, both pro and con, but have yet to encounter one of these predictions. Are you aware of any, even one which really isn't evidence for evolution theory (even ignoring abiogenesis)? I will venture to make my own prediction. We just had the celebration of 150 years of Darwinism. My prediction: there will not be a Bicentenary Celebration of Darwinism.
cont. While there are many known examples of DNA damage from radiation and drug misuse, the statistical facts show DNA is *totally* protected to the point of ever a Lazard from a frog or vicaversa. There is NO possibility the seemingly endless forms of life ever came to be. Evolution of the kind required to cover the Earth with life never happened. Sorry but the DNA protection and the math deny evolution louder than any fly experiment. God Bless.
I agree that: "Evolution of the kind required to cover the Earth with life never happened". However, to say that the DNA is "totally protected" and at the same time admit that DNA damage occurs seems to me to be a rather confusing way of putting it. The mutational changes that do occur can help explain some of the variation within a created kind but the type of changes needed to change a worm into a human are just not possible. On that we agree.
The reason that a worm cannot change into a human is not so much that the DNA is protected but that the basic body plan is so fundamental to an organism that it cannot be tampered with without destroying the organism. If the DNA that codes for this basic body plan is damaged, the result is death, not evolution of a new body plan. Here is a somewhat technical paper on this subject: Molecular limits to natural variation.
It was Einstein who said - "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble." Wouldn't if nice if even a few defenders and promoters of evolutionist perspectives were just a bit less self-possessed.
We are all 'self-possessed' to a greater or lesser degree as that is a characteristic of sin.
Well done, I love the responses from you guys always breaking down the strongholds in nice bite chunks. Keep up the good work and I'll keep praying for you and thanking God for bringing your ministry under my attention. I also read that you could use translators; maybe you need one to translate into Dutch? I would be blessed if I could help, I already have over 50 DVD's from your ministry so where can I start and what is the best way to do it?
Thanks for your encouragement and prayers, Fred, and your offer to help with translations. I have passed your name on to our translations coordinator and he will get in contact with you soon.
Stunning re-buttal by Don Batten (Biologist).
Evolution doesn't make common sense IF you bother to THINK about it. For starters, from what can be scientifically observed & 'tested' are the billions of required but MISSING transitional forms. Ooops! 'Required' fossil evidence of transitional forms is what Darwin himself wrote would eventually (or not) validate his theory of evolution. In the absence of his requirements, Darwin admits (as a pre-condition) that his theory is now invalid.
Great debate! I too believed, without thinking, until I was shown the physical evidence that supports creation. Keep attacking the baseless arguments for evolution. DNA is so carefully guarded that nothing short of a cosmic attack can alter it and when altered that way, even in the tiniest sense, disaster ensues. Please do the research and publish the article that explains the locks God has placed on DNA, both in the male and females He created to *totally* preserve and protect it. These are the locks that deny evolution. Again, thank you for putting the truth in front of the eyes that will read it.
There are wonderfully sophisticated error checking systems that mean that changes to the DNA are resisted. However, these systems are no longer perfect (post-Genesis 3) and some errors (mutations) slip through. Some are disastrous but because of the wonderfully robust design of the DNA, unlike a typical computer program many errors are tolerated. Most mutations are like rust spots on your car; not enough to stop it, but with enough spots it will eventually be a rust-bucket! Humankind is heading in that direction, along with all other complex multi-cellular organisms. This is the 'genetic entropy' that geneticist Dr John Sanford has researched and written about (search his name on creation.com). It means that things are heading in the wrong direction for evolution to be a viable hypothesis.
Hebrews 1:10-12 "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end."
Materialism is a religion and it is also a financial enterprise. There is a lot of money to be made in being a proponent of the indefensible because the State can only fund what is 'scientific' to the exclusion of the non-material. Evolution is where money and anti-religion converge. But what I have just said is merely an explanation of why atheists and materialists behave the way they do.
Nonetheless, as you have very ably pointed out, Evolution is not scientific because no amount of experimentation will prove a process that is linear and progressive. The essence of scientific experiementation is that the process is repeatable with exactly the same result. Ergo, Evolution cannot be scientific by any stretch of the imagination. Evolutionary science is an oxy-moron. Otherwise, there should be at least one scientist who has, in his laboratory, turned a reptile into a bird. Oh, but I forget, it will take millions of years to do that. Sorry, that was too much of me to expect of the evolutionist.
From pure materialistic reasoning, I am surprised that the Second Law of Thermodynamics did not come into play in the physicists reasoning that, instead of evolution (improvement), entropy (chaos) increases. Material decay is a fact of life, not evolution, were it not for the sustaining power of a Providential God!
Materialists often forget that they do not have ultimate explanations. Their explanations are only superficial. Who could explain universal gravitation? Yes, we observe it. Yes, we have equations to explain how it behaves. Yes, we have laws of planetary motion to somehow reduce the complexity of the universe. But I have not seen anyone write a book on why gravitation is.
If I might paraphrase Einstein, understanding the mind of God is paramount, all else are details.
There will be always some "cloud" of human interpretation on scientific data and ideas. This is within the "game rules" of science. This is what drives scientists to make new experimental tests.
But the fact is how many people, scientists included, confuse science and what is not science, what hides under the name of "science". Evolution being a paradigm based on a naturalist worldview sneaked in in the scientific world and built such strong fortresses in human minds that even a small doubt about it brings such an aggressive response. It became dogma.
It is a great job done by CMI to demonstrate what the nature of science is, break those fortresses of pseudo-science and to re-establish the true status of science.
It is not forbidden to be an atheist, but then why not to admit openly which part is science which is a world view (though dominating in our days). Creationists are not afraid of doing that.
Congratulations on an excellent reply Dr Don and for the many excellent comments. i agree totally with the view that evolutionists first need to "define the word evolution" before even opening their mouths and worst of all putting pen to paper.Please allow me to quote "The moving finger writes and having writ moves on: nor all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line. Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it". Is it an adaptation to certain, specific environments or conditions or is it the development of what we see around us
(creation) as that which has developed from protozoa or some nebulous conglomeration of proteins, eventually developing into animals and plants. Evolutionism must please define "life" and explain how that evolved. Also explain how the clotting / congealing of blood evolved. our Physicist also needs to read chapters 39 and 40 in the book of Job and be challenged with the questions that God challenged Job with . Please also consider that the greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance --- it is the illusion of knowledge.
Years ago, Ken Ham, from Australia taught me a most important rudimentary point. The word 'evolution' is actually a misnomer ... the proper word is "evolutionism". Both creationism and evolutionism are belief systems about the past. And when you look at the real evidence from the past and present, the creationist view can only be the sensible, correct one. Real science does very little to support the evolutionist's view. And my conclusion is therefore quite simple. Anyone who wants to argue with the Christian God is going to lose. Forever. And that is for a very long time.
I am very pleased to have recently become aware of this ministry. God bless you and your efforts. Sincerely, your brother in Christ, Herb
I think the whole response by Don was excellent but I want to look at just one point which is where I think we creationists often get confused and also generate confusion. That is the use of the word "evolution" itself. As Don says, it is often used simply to mean change. I think this is what it mostly means in the evolutionists mind - he/she is not thinking about it in the same way we do. Experiments are possible and repeatable as he says, but only at a certain level.
It means that fighting about it can be meaningless, and have characteristics of bad relationships rather than logic.
Somehow, we need to get better at seeing where these people are coming from and deal with them where they are rather than where we are.
Our creationist world view is threatened by atheistic ideas, and this can cause us to react in a defensive way, and vice - versa with the naturalistic world view.
In order to unlock the minds of these dedicated people, and make it easier for them to look at God and the work of Jesus on the cross, we must avoid treating them as an enemy.
When I became a Christian, aged 17, I was amazed that I could get to 17 years old, had been in school for 11 years with assembly at least once a week, religious education every week, I attended weddings, and Christmas church services, but I never once heard the gospel!
Many people have some knowledge of religious views, and even some theology, but they have never heard the gospel. They don't know what sin really is.
Don is forceful and gracious here, and I think we all need to learn to be the same, for the sake of the gospel and these well meaning souls who may yet come to know the Lord of Glory.
I am Brazilian, have proud to be a creationist! God continue to bless this ministry. I hope one day I'm helping creationism.
Thanks for standing with us. We do have articles in Portuguese that you might find useful: Articles in Portuguese. And we are always looking for competent and motivated translators.
it is false to say that the Pope said Catholics must accept evolution. There is even controversy about what he actually said.
As a catholic I have studied the Evolution verses Creation debate for over 35 years and I still find it incomprehensible that anyone could seriously believe in evolution as the concept has plenty of spin (tall tales) but is without substance.
As far as the claim that all Catholics accept evolution is totally off the mark as traditional Catholic doctrines clearly articulate that God called all of reality into existence by his Word as described in Scripture. It is true Catholics are allowed to believe in evolution and the unfortunate situation where many Catholic institutions are influenced by liberal theologians who support Theistic Evolution (God use evolution) but there are also many Catholics who support the Traditional teachings of the Church which is based on biblical revelations.
In my own small community the number of active practicing Catholics who have taken the time to study both sides of the argument, many end up accepting the Creation concept and rejecting the evolutionary story purely based on logical and scientific arguments.
"What you need to do is get a couple of thousand peer reviewed articles published in major scientific journals testing ID."
Here, I feel, is one of the biggest justification points by many Atheists. If science was an even playing ground then the falsehoods would be exposed and the general public could decide for themselves.
Dr. Dowling's knowledge of Evolution is as good as his knowledge of the Roman Catholic Church - ill-informed. Hopefully he will have the sense to educate himself now.
I appreciate that Mr. Dowling is willing to debate you over issues that are important to him, whether we agree with him or not. Thank you again Mr. Batten for clear information that you share with all of us. Mr. Dowling, I hope you will be blessed with the true answers you are looking for.
A scientist wrote this? Even before I read your answer the only way I could describe his "arguments" is rambling. The man is so way off on all of his claims that you start thinking it could be a joke letter. But he is dead serious, isn't he? Stick to physics, Mr. Dowling.
I do note that Michael Dowling is a UK Physics lecturer.
When Research is your main job in any report which comes into your field you make a beeline for the data reported and try to make that data as 'raw' as possible. The actual experimental results will be the things that have cost most time, and therefore money, to produce. The layers of interpretation need to be peeled off and the selection criteria for the data presented need to be evaluated. In the small field of Research in which you can be really expert you will have personal knowledge of the other significant contributors who are your real peers. You will probably have suffered somewhat at their hands in peer review and be aware of their idiosyncracies as they will be of yours. They may well have suffered at your hands also. When James Watson wrote his account of the discovery of the Double Helix his relatively (for the time) candid account unsettled some of his peers because it did not match the self image they wished to publicly portray.
Research is an intensely human enterprise.
The picture of scientific research which Michael Dowling presents is a good candidate for the textbook portrayal of 'science' which was prevalent in the 1950's and early 1960's which I remember well.
It was dealt academic blows by Karl Popper, then Thomas Kuhn, and emotionally by people like James Watson. Broad and Wade (Betrayers of the Truth authors, 1985) showed on a popular level the prevalence of fraud in the history of science.
People like Richard Dawkins and Michael Dowling may continue to operate with this 'romantic' picture of science which C.S. Lewis saw, even then, as scientism.
Thanks for another great article Dr. Batten.
It's baffling how so many otherwise intelligent and rational scientists can be so blind to the fallacies of evolutionary dogma. Michael states: “It [evolution] makes testable predictions … always turn out to be correct”. I suppose that isn't hard to do when all you have to do is make up just-so stories about what could-have, would-have, might-have or maybe happened a hundred million years ago to support the results of every test!
When debating with evolutionary believing atheists, they always use the same old arguments, "its proven", "everybody believes it". Then when you start using facts against their dogamtic approach, they default to their next line of defence which is to try and ridicule your beliefs. Terms like "sky fairies", "unicorns", "religion responsible for all war and suffering", and then out of desparation they pull their old trump card "what about Ghandi".
Once you correct all these false beliefs, they wipe the debate from memory, and stick their heads in the sand. Most remind me of the Borg in Startrek, they have been assimilated. Yet they accuse creationists of being everything they are, narrow minded.
Dr Don, what a wonderful reponse. I can see Michael reading your response whilst raging inside. We need to use the truth of the word of God like a hammer, to break down these strongholds.
From the 'Law of the excluded middle' (it is worth looking up the link in the article for the discussion on logic and argument) it is stated: "(a third option that living things always existed is not possible)". Unfortunately preparation for that possibility is being prepared in the media, films and certainly in the UK science education (indoctrination) system. This is the infatuation of life on other planets and Aliens. You have seen it in films (Prometheus for example), just some alien living material spilt on a visit and with the miracle of evolutionary process, wonderful living things magically appear such as us 'a la Harry Potter' without wand. Where this tail chasing orgin of life saga ends is anyone's guess but there are many 'Earth' like planets out there, we have seen the 'reconstructed pictures' and many galaxies to explore with multiple parallel universes to find. People today are not taught to think logically or reasonably, they are programmed to react unthinkingly to the implanted soundbites of the new 'learned' intolerant priesthood sitting on high. The comedy is that in the philosophy of the 'new wisdom' of this age we must embrace diversity and tolerance. Diversity is accepting other people's views and lifestyles as equally valid, unless that is, you disagree with the enforced 'consensus' of so many topics today including origins. Then you find the true nature of this 'diversity and tolerance' in their opposites!
The last couple of articles are symptomatic of what’s occurring here in the UK and show you just what you’re up against.
Firstly we need to ask what they mean by evolution: eg, change, chemical evolution or molecules to man evolution?
Secondly, apparently consensus determines truth such that if most people support something then it must be true.
Thirdly, a little bit of effort, such as listening to some podcasts by the Discovery Institute (DI) would discredit most of the false allegations about intelligent design (ID). For example according to the DI, there are now over fifty ID papers in mainstream peer reviewed journals. ID is a theory which makes predictions such as the reduction in the list of vestigial organs and pseudo-genes as scientific discoveries are finding that they have a purpose and are not redundant.
Lastly, Darwinism is a religious dogma, because you can’t even criticise the theory due to the unswerving commitment its adherents have to materialism. ID is a valid theory, but it has consequences for ideological commitments and is thus unpopular.
The ID people are doing good stuff, but we think that they are on the wrong track in trying to say that ideology is not involved in ID. All origins science involves ideology; as you have said here re Darwinism. As soon as you mention 'intelligent', you immediately have the question 'Who are we talking about?' because intelligence presupposes a person with intelligence as its source. But there is much more; there is a need for a coherent history of the world into which everything is fitted; the ID movement lacks this and so biological design 'floats' disconnected from a coherent worldview. See: CMI's views on the ID movement.
With regards to point number 9, Michael’s conviction that secular peer review always shows naturalistic explanations to be the best explanation is indeed a rather strange claim. For many decades in the origins arena of secular peer review, naturalistic explanations are the only explanations allowed through the filter, but on very rare occasions, a pro I.D. paper might sneak through the filter but it is usually followed by a public backlash and employment prospects threatened, see Richard Sternberg’s sacking after publishing a paper by I.D proponent Dr Stephen C. Meyer.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Richard Lewonton taught: “we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation & a set of concepts that produce material explanations... moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Wouldn’t this pro evolution philosophy produce a plethora of biased data? They only accept naturalistic explanations then claim naturalistic explanations always fit best. Is this an example of circular reasoning and if so, I wonder why aren’t they aware of it? Does Michael agree with Lewonton's philosophy?
“For creationism to be true there has to be testable …”
for this statement to be true it therefore has to be
man i'm trying but cannot seem to achieve a testable method based on sense perception....
silly to deny metaphysical underpinnings required to do science
God made it plain...
Wow I hope you post his response to this if he even tries to respond. Great feedback!
Oh, I love it when evolutionists fall into the pit they dug.
What a life, always on the toes to hang on to a lie just to avoid a creator.
And one day their 'sorry' will not be heard.
Whew! Do I smell smoke? All arguments shot down in flames!!!
The desperation of some scientists to defend the indefensible is unbelievable.
Thank God that we have scientists of intellect who believe in a Creator.
Thank you for a great website. It strengthens my faith. I have a very skeptical and speculative mind so this is like the best. This is one of the places where the shepherd leads me to have a moment's rest... one of my green valleys in a sense.
So God bless. And thank you so much. And thank Jesus.
Thanks for your encouragement, Kristoffer!
It looks like the battle is heating up between the evolutionists and the creationists, mostly out of shear desperation by the former. Isn't it about time all scientists who are not evolutionists banded together and publicly announced how unscientific the evolutionists really are? The evolutionists are spreading propaganda, which I suspect is working, like any well organised propaganda machine. We need the public to be informed by way of an official response from a large group of scientists to denounce such propaganda as not only unscientific but also a hindrance to the search for the truth, which should be the most revered goal for any honest scientist.