Feedback archive → Feedback 2002

Three questions

25 March 2002

From Kyle Deming, USA, who gave permission for his full name to be published. Although this is not particularly negative, these answers could be helpful to some.

His letter is printed first in its entirety. His letter is printed again, with point-by-point responses by Dr Jonathan Sarfati, interspersed as per normal email fashion. Ellipses signal that a mid-sentence comment follows, not an omission.

Hello. I have been using your website as a great information tool for the past few months. However, I have a few questions.

Whenever I debate with evolutionists, they often bring up your statement of faith, which states:

‘By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.’

They claim that this statement shows that you are not interested in evidence which does not support your views. They claim that this statement reveals that, by definition, your position is unscientific. How would you respond to these criticisms?

One thing that I always mention whenever debating evolutionists is that information theory has shown that a macroevolutionary extrapolation is unfounded. They usually respond that information is not a concept that can be applied to biology. How would you counter these claims?

One more thing, I read Sarfati’s article entitled ‘If God created the universe, who created God?’ Soon after, I was introduced to Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations. Atheists claim that this technique could be used to explain the origin of the universe without a designer. Are these thoughts valid?

Thank you for your time. I have greatly appreciated your site.

Dear Mr Deming,

Hello. I have been using your website as a great information tool for the past few months.

Glad it’s been helpful.

However, I have a few questions.

Whenever I debate with evolutionists, …

The sort of stuff below is one reason I don’t waste my time on internet debates. The same old canards come up time and again, and most of them don’t want to learn.

… they often bring up your statement of faith, which states:

‘By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.’

They claim that this statement shows that you are not interested in evidence which does not support your views. They claim that this statement reveals that, by definition, your position is unscientific. How would you respond to these criticisms?

First, we would point out the genetic fallacy involved, i.e. trying to discredit an idea by tracing it to its source, as explained further in my article on logic.

Second, we have pointed out the role of axioms in all philosophical systems, e.g. in the article Creation: ‘where’s the proof?’

Third, we have amply demonstrated that evolutionists have their own materialistic biases, so they have no right to point the finger at us. At least we are open about ours, while only a few evolutionists such as Lewontin and Todd are.

One thing that I always mention whenever debating evolutionists is that information theory has shown that a macroevolutionary extrapolation is unfounded. They usually respond that information is not a concept that can be applied to biology. How would you counter these claims?

That they are trying to weasel out of something accepted by even evolutionists Dawkins and Orgel. E.g. Dawkins says

‘[T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopædia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.’ [The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton, NY, p. 115, 1986.]

Orgel, substituting the words ‘specified complexity’ for ‘information’, wrote

‘Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.’ [The Origins of Life, John Wiley, NY, p. 189, 1973.]

Information can be measured on any sequence, and is independent of the substrate which carries the information, and it is a basic tenet of the science of information theory that information requires intelligence to form it—see our Q&A page on information theory. If information concepts cannot be applied to biology, how is it that there is a whole area of research known as bioinformatics?

One more thing, I read Sarfati’s article entitled ‘If God created the universe, who created God?’ Soon after, I was introduced to Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations. Atheists claim that this technique could be used to explain the origin of the universe without a designer. Are these thoughts valid?

I actually cover this in the section 2) Denial of cause and effect of the article in question.

Thank you for your time. I have greatly appreciated your site.

Thanks. May I suggest that my book Refuting Evolution would help? The whole of the first chapter addresses the ‘facts and biases’ issue, the last one addresses the information issue, and another chapter addresses causality. This contains the citations above, just not the elaboration about the misuse of quantum mechanics. I get no royalties …

Regards,
(Dr) Jonathan Sarfati 

Besides the many thousands of articles that are freely available on this site, our staff answer many hundreds of emails in response to it. Help us help advance the gospel.