Evolutionism – an “Endangered Species”

Among the belief systems of the world, evolutionism can be classified as an endangered species.  Though it has many followers, it is not a “healthy” belief that can survive on its own.  Other belief systems survive because they are supported or confirmed by scientific evidence and rational thinking.  Not so with evolution.  It survives only because it enjoys special protection under the law, which is afforded only to endangered species that cannot compete without such help.

Many beliefs are justified; there are good reasons to continue to believe in them.  If someone asked why we believe in the law of gravity, we could easily give some good reasons.  We could point out the success of the law of gravity in making specific successful predictions about the positions of planets, or the success of laboratory experiments which involve the law of gravity.  The law of gravity survives as an idea because of its merit.  It is well-supported by science.

But what about evolution?  When we ask people why they believe in evolution, what kind of answers do we get?  Some will respond that all life uses DNA, and has certain genetic similarities.  In the creation view, all original kinds of organisms were made by God, and so creationists also expect a hierarchy of genetic similarities.  So do genetic similarities support evolution, or creation?  An evolutionist might respond that organisms which have more similar traits have more similar DNA.  But creationists also expect this, since creationists teach that DNA codes for traits.  Genetic similarities are certainly not evidence of evolution against creation since both views expect this.

What about the fossil record?  Some evolutionists might claim that the fossils show a continuum of transitions of one kind of organism to another.  But when we look at the actual examples suggested, we find that most are easily classified as one discrete kind of organism or another.[1]  In other words, they show variation within a kind but not between the major kinds – just as creationists would expect.  The few cases that are offered as transitions between major kinds are always artist’s conceptions based on one or a few bones – not actual evidence.  So the fossil record seems to be on the side of creation and the Genesis Flood.

What about vestigial organs?  These are organs for which we do not know their purpose, and which evolutionists assume are “leftovers” from a previous stage of evolution.  But the reasoning is fallacious.  Just because we don’t know the purpose or function of something does not mean that it has no purpose or function.  Many of the organs that were once classified as vestigial are now known to have vital functions.  Even if we did find a legitimate vestigial organ, would it really prove evolution?  Something becoming useless sounds more like “devolution.”  An organ becoming useful would be a lot more impressive.  But that isn’t what we find.

Some people might argue that we should believe in evolution since the majority of scientists do.  But this is simply the fallacy of the faulty appeal to authority.  It’s not a rational reason.  An argument should be evaluated on its merit, not on who believes it.  Some might say that we should believe in evolution because it’s the “scientific position.”  But since they can’t provide any scientific evidence, such a claim is vacuous and quite ironic.  It would seem that evolution is without any logical or scientific support whatsoever.  If it were allowed to compete with creation under fair circumstances, evolution would quickly go extinct.

Even though many people still believe in evolution (perhaps many more than believe in creation), it is nonetheless an endangered species because it cannot survive on its own.  Our government has generously protected evolutionism, by ensuring that it alone may be taught in government schools where it can flourish unimpeded by science, rational scrutiny, or competing models.  Teachers are not permitted to discuss or acknowledge the existence of competing models, thus ensuring that students are brainwashed into only one unquestionable doctrine.

Just as we are not allowed to harm any other endangered species, evolutionism is protected by law and may not be questioned.  It is protected from the scientific method – the very process which has led to the demise of so many other ideas: geocentrism, spontaneous generation, alchemy, and so on.  Perhaps these old ideas would still be in favor today if the government had given them the protection that it gives to evolutionism.

About Dr. Lisle

Dr. Jason Lisle is a Christian astrophysicist who writes and speaks on various topics relating to science and the defense of the Christian faith. He graduated summa cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he double-majored in physics and astronomy and minored in mathematics. He then earned a master’s degree and a Ph.D. in astrophysics at the University of Colorado in Boulder. Dr. Lisle specialized in solar astrophysics and has made a number of scientific discoveries regarding the solar photosphere, including the detection of giant cell boundaries using the SOHO spacecraft. He also does theoretical research and has contributed to the field of general relativity. Since completion of his research at the University of Colorado, Dr. Lisle began working in full-time apologetics ministry, specializing in the defense of Genesis. He has written a number of articles and books on the topic. His most well-known book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, demonstrates that biblical creation is the only logical possibility for origins. Dr. Lisle wrote and directed the popular planetarium shows at the Creation Museum, including “The Created Cosmos.” He now works as director of research at the Institute for Creation Research.
This entry was posted in apologetics, origins and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

202 Responses to Evolutionism – an “Endangered Species”

  1. Josh Davis says:

    Endangered species indeed!

  2. Chris says:

    Most science teachers are ignorant of what creation science actually teaches as well. They usually associate it with “Inherit the Wind” stereotypes.

    • Brad says:

      Creation science isn’t science. Creation scientists aren’t scientists. They are liars by definition.

      [Dr. Lisle: This is a textbook example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I.e. there is nothing in the definition of "liar" that mentions creation scientists. We would do well to remember that science is predicated upon creation as shown here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/evolution-anti-science ]

      • Brad says:

        Sorry, if you determine what is true before you do any investigation, you’re not a scientist. What you are is a liar.

        [Dr. Lisle: This is very philosophically naive. Scientists have presuppositions too. Without them, science would be impossible. For example, a scientists must presuppose that his or her senses are basically reliable before any investigation of evidence can proceed. I have written a book on this topic that would help bring you up to speed on these basic principles: The Ultimate Proof of Creation.]

        If you had any integrity you’d be open to any conclusion, not lie about the evidence to pretend it all supports the conclusions you’re not willing to challenge.

        [Dr. Lisle: The ironic thing, Brad, it that you are describing yourself. You have decided to believe in evolution, and are unwilling to consider any evidence to the contrary.]

        Real science is predicated upon error and correction.

        [Dr. Lisle: Trial and error only works if there is an underlying uniformity in nature. But only biblical creation can rationally justify uniformity in nature. Thus, if science proceeds as you claim, then it follows that biblical creation is true. Again, you may want to read up on this before engaging in a debate on the topic.]

        Since you don’t allow for this, you’re not a scientist.

        [Dr. Lisle: This shows that you haven't read much on this topic. We do believe in the scientific method. In fact, it is because creation is true that the scientific method works. God upholds the universe in a consistent way that we can probe and systematically discover. If the universe really were chance, there would be no reason to expect any kind of underlying order, nor would there be any reason to expect that the human mind could systematically discover it.]

        • Brad says:

          I have decided to believe in evolution? Do you have any evidence for this? No. You’re claiming to know something you don’t. You have ZERO integrity.

          [Dr. Lisle: You have provided the evidence that you believe in evolution by your statements. And since your beliefs are not imposed by the outside, it follows that you have decided to believe in evolution. Isn't that obvious? The only way out is if you were lying in your comments about evolution. You mention the word "integrity" as if you believed it has meaning. In the Christian worldview it does. We have a moral obligation to our Creator to behave according to the standards He has set for us. But if we are merely chemical accidents, how would moral words have any meaning at all? What one group of chemicals does to another is morally irrelevant.]

          “For example, a scientists must presuppose that his or her senses are basically reliable before any investigation of evidence can proceed.”

          Everyone must do this.

          [Dr. Lisle: I agree.]

          Everyone must pull themselves up by their own bootstraps at some point. The difference is that I do it honestly, and you do it dishonestly.

          [Dr. Lisle: Actually, no. Everyone should have a logical reason for his or her beliefs. I have a logical reason to believe in the reliability of my senses - they were designed by God to inform my mind about the outside world. But what is your reason to believe in the reliability of your senses? You and I both believe that our senses are basically reliable. The difference is: I have a logical reason for this on my worldview, and you don't. My belief is rationally justified, and yours is not.]

          “But only biblical creation can rationally justify uniformity in nature. ”

          You can’t prove this.

          [Dr. Lisle: Actually, I have in my book "The Ultimate Proof of Creation." Don't worry. I don't expect you to actually read it before making comments about why it's wrong. That would be rational.]

          “The ironic thing, Brad, it that you are describing yourself. You have decided to believe in evolution, and are unwilling to consider any evidence to the contrary.”

          Prove it liar. Prove I decided it rather than looking at the overwhelming evidence and came to the conclusion reluctantly. I am continually surprised how dishonest Christians who claim to be moral are.

          [Dr. Lisle: My proof is that you haven't been able to provide any evidence for evolution at all. It is clear that you are blindly following what most other people believe, rather than using your mind to rationally investigate the issue. Namely, how can you know on your own worldview that laws of logic are universally and invariantly true? How would science be possible in a chance universe? How could you have any confidence in the reliability of your senses if evolution were true? etc., etc.]

          “Thus, if science proceeds as you claim, then it follows that biblical creation is true.”

          Non sequiter. Try again.

          [Dr. Lisle: Science relies on uniformity of nature - which is only justified in the Christian worldview. Apart from Christianity, there is no rational basis for expecting laws of nature to operate the same tomorrow as they do today. And without that critical presupposition, science would be impossible. This is the issue that so frustrated David Hume. He could not account for the success of science from his own secular perspective. I realize that you haven't studied this issue. But that's partly my point. If you want to be taken seriously, you are going to have to read up a bit on these things and give some thought to them.]

          “We do believe in the scientific method.”

          Liar.

          Anytime he scientific method refutes biblical creation you ignore it. That’s not honest. That means you are a liar. Prove me wrong.

          [Dr. Lisle: Can you provide a single example of where the scientific method refutes biblical creation? The scientific method is based on the fact that God upholds the universe in a consistent way for our benefit, and He has promised to do so (e.g. Genesis 8:22). Apart from the Bible, what would be the rational basis for the scientific method?]

          [Also, since you keep calling people "liar" (without support I might add), I must ask "why on your worldview would lying be wrong?" In the Christian worldview, lying is wrong because it is contrary to the nature of God, and contrary to His decree. God is the sovereign Creator and has the right to set the rules for His creations. We are morally obligated to do what God says. But if we are just chemical accidents, why would there be "right" and "wrong" and who decides?]

          How do you address endogenous retroviruses.

          [Dr. Lisle: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006/12/19/human-endogenous-retroviruses .]

          How do you handle biogeography, which can only be explained by evolution.

          [Dr. Lisle: I already answered that, and pointed out that evolution cannot account for biogeography, but the biblical worldview can - e.g. marsupials in Australia and marsupial fossils in South America.]

          How do you explain the prediction evolution made the a human chromosome was the result of the fusion of two ape chromosomes.

          [Dr. Lisle: I already answered that one too - the prediction has been falsified. The alleged fusion site has been discovered to be in the middle of a functional gene! That wouldn't be the case if it were merely the fusion of too chromosomes. This is discussed in Dr. Tomkins's chapter 25 of "Creation Basis and Beyond."]

          You won’t, because you can’t. If you won’t address these items, you are lying.

          [Dr. Lisle: I have (twice). And since you again have brought up the claim about "lying", I must point out that moral claims only make sense in the Christian worldview. How can you make sense of "right" and "wrong" if people are merely non-designed chemical accidents? And who decides?]

          • Brian Forbes says:

            Even if the ad hominem fallacy isn’t logical, it sure does hurt a guy’s feelings. This Brad guy is good at insulting people. I wonder if he was trained by someone or if he just developed the skill on his own.

            Does a lie require intention?

          • Brad says:

            What makes god’s decision about what’s moral valid?

            He can rape, murder, torture, and in fact according to the Bible does, with impunity.

          • Brad says:

            I didn’t say lying was wrong. I’m merely identifying you as a liar.

            What makes god moral?

  3. Jeremiah says:

    Great post Dr Lisle! Keep the posts coming!

  4. Bato says:

    The author of the article is an intellectually dishonest person. There’s absolutely no ongoing scientific debate about validity of theory of evolution through natural selection.
    There are mountains of evidence for evolution. All creationists can do is to turn uncertainties into doubt. Shame on you!

    • Dr. Lisle says:

      Bato says, The author of the article…

      What author? See: On the Origin of Articles.

      > …is an intellectually dishonest person.

      Ironically, this proves creation. If evolution were true, there would be no basis for moral claims. “Dishonest” has no meaning in an evolutionary universe. Only the creation worldview can account for absolute morality: why all people are bound to the same set of standards. This is demonstrated in The Ultimate Proof of Creation, and summarized here.

      > There’s absolutely no ongoing scientific debate about validity of theory of evolution through natural selection.

      I agree; that’s the point of the article! Evolutionism enjoys government protection from scientific debate. Perhaps this is why most evolutionists don’t seem able to defend their position scientifically, with a good argument. They simply state their belief emphatically, claim that it is backed up by lots of evidence, and fail to actually give any evidence or argument for their position. For example:

      > There are mountains of evidence for evolution.

      Such as…? Can’t you even provide one example of the supposed evidence or an argument that is not logically fallacious?

      > All creationists can do is to turn uncertainties into doubt.

      Actually, the creationist worldview makes science and logic possible. It therefore removes doubt. It is the secular system (of which evolution is part) which casts doubt on the legitimacy of science, logic, and even ethics. Why would we expect the universe to be understandable by the human mind if both the universe and the mind are chance accidents?

      > Shame on you!

      Shame implies guilt for violation of the moral code. But there is no moral code if the universe is just chance. Only in the Christian worldview with creation at its foundation would this critic’s comment be meaningful. Again, this demonstrates that creation is true.

      • The Conservative Anarchist says:

        It causes me concern that people who become indoctrinated through government schools argue only based on rhetoric and emotion rather than fact.

        I enjoyed your riposte to Mr. “Bato.” There is no evidence for evolution. In your article, you mentioned that spontaneous generation has faltered before the scientific method. When explaining to people that reality cannot exist without something to have created it, I often use Newton’s first law of motion, the law of biogenisis, and the universal law of the conservation of energy.

        Very good article.

      • Jericho says:

        Dr. Lisle, have you read the Origin of Species yet? From your paragraphs on the fossil record and vestigial organs, it seems you haven’t. As a creationist, you might want to.

        • Dr. Lisle says:

          I have. Did you have a point? Or a question?

          • the_ignored says:

            Ironically, this proves creation. If evolution were true, there would be no basis for moral claims.

            Why? Why do you people need someone from on high to tell you how to behave? Whenever you people say things like that, it just shows that it’s you people who lack true morality. If you need someone looking over your shoulder in order to behave, you are not truly moral.

            [Dr. Lisle: You seem to misunderstand the issue. The question is about the rational justification for a moral code. Why should people behave in a particular way?]

            True morality would imply that you cared about other people and society in general regardless of whether you were being watched.

            [Dr. Lisle: In the Christian worldview, your answer makes good sense. People are made in God’s image, and as such they have intrinsic value. Even if no human is watching, we should still do good. And God who sees in secret will reward us openly (Matthew 6:4). Therefore, there is always justice ultimately. But in a secular worldview, your answer makes no sense. Why should we be concerned about other people if they are merely bags of chemicals resulting from the aimless processes of nature?]

            “Dishonest” has no meaning in an evolutionary universe.

            It also has no meaning in the Newtonian universe. What’s your point? Besides the fallacy of “consequences of belief”?

            [Dr. Lisle: “the point” is that when people use terms like “dishonest” and treat it as if it is morally reprehensible, they show that in their heart of hearts they really don’t believe in evolution. They know that God exists and that He expects us to behave in a certain way. Evolution would render morality meaningless. The fallacy of consequences of belief is the error of arguing that something is false because it would have negative consequences, or arguing that something is true if it would have positive consequences. This is not my argument. My argument is that biblical creation is a necessary precondition for objective morality. Thus, if morality exists, then creation is true. And morality does exist. Thus, creation is true. The argument is a modus ponens, which is logically valid.]

            Only the creation worldview can account for absolute morality: why all people are bound to the same set of standards.

            What the the “accounting of morality” of ANY scientific theory have to do with it’s accuracy? Again: Fallacy of Consequences of Belief.

            [Dr. Lisle: No. It’s a modus tollens, which is valid. It is not a fallacy. Any scientific theory that leads inescapably to a consequence that is untrue, is itself untrue. If evolution were true, there could be no objective morality. But there is objective morality. Thus, evolution is false.]

            And you people pretend that your worldview is the basis for logic? (ie. Actually, the creationist worldview makes science and logic possible)

            Maybe if you claimed your worldview was a basis for using logical fallacies you’d be on to something…

            [Question-begging epithet fallacy. We’ve shown previously how only the creation worldview can make sense of laws of logic and their properties, and uniformity we see in nature, upon which all science is based.]

            Now, about that so-called “absolute morality” you people pretend to have:
            So it’s wrong for people to kill babies (ie. abortion), but it’s ok for god to have babies and their mothers killed?

            [In an evolutionary worldview, nothing is “right” or “wrong.” Moral concepts are meaningless in a universe that is just an accident. So the strange thing about your question is that it is only meaningful if the Bible is true. “Right” is what aligns with God’s will as revealed in His Word. People ultimately belong to God. It is right for God to punish the wicked, and it is right for Him to use His people to accomplish this task, if He so chooses. Vengeance belongs to God alone (Romans 12:19); thus it is not right for people to steal this from Him, because this is contrary to His will.]

            No. What you people have is Subjective Morality.

            [Apart from God, morality can only be subjective, and ultimately meaningless. But in the Christian worldview, “right” is that which corresponds to God’s perfect will. This is necessarily objective because God is impartial. (Romans 2:11)]

            • the_ignored says:

              Nuts….this post is way old. Oh well

            • Micah says:

              Hi the_ignored,

              >Ironically, this proves creation. If evolution were true, there would be no basis for moral claims.

              >Why? Why do you people need someone from on high to tell you how to behave?

              If we don’t have a standard higher than ourselves we cant have objective morality. Also, yes, if evolution were true there would be no basis for an objective form of morality. Nothing could ever be truly ‘wrong’ or truly ‘good’, it would all be based on the opinions of the majority or on the opinions of yourself. There would be no reason to call someone out on being a liar or murderer for that matter, because in the end, all they are is a bag of chemicals. Evolution requires this kind of morality but evolutionists hardly ever embrace it. That puts them in an inconsistent, irrational position.

              >Whenever you people say things like that, it just shows that it’s you people who lack true morality.

              Your statement here makes little sense. It shows how Christianity can make sense of morality and how evolution is a morally bankrupt idea.

              >If you need someone looking over your shoulder in order to behave, you are not truly moral.

              Strawman. We behave because its what God wants us to do and we want to please Him. Having a universal standard for morality makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective though. Why should 1 chemical reaction care what happens to another? You don’t get mad when vinegar reacts with baking soda do you? Yet if evolution were true then our moral judgments are the exact same thing, just chemicals reacting together.

              >True morality would imply that you cared about other people and society in general regardless of whether you were being watched.

              On what basis do you define true morality? Your opinion? Someone else’s perhaps? Why should either of those be the basis for morality?
              Also as I pointed our above, we aren’t moral just because God is watching us. We are moral because we want to please God.

              >“Dishonest” has no meaning in an evolutionary universe.

              >It also has no meaning in the Newtonian universe. What’s your point? Besides the fallacy of “consequences of belief”?

              The point is that the person who had written to Dr. Lisle made the claim that he (Dr. Lisle) was and intellectually dishonest person. But this person also embraces evolution, in which there is no basis for calling someone out on being dishonest. Why should he care if Dr. Lisle is dishonest or not? Being honest is a Christian principle where God tells us not to lie. But from an evolutionary perspective why not lie?
              Also, it’s not the fallacy of the consequences of belief. The proof that creation is true is not because evolution can’t provide a basis for morality. The proof is that the evolutionist behaves and acts as if his worldview does provide a basis for it when it doesn’t. If the evolutionist did not believe in any moral absolutes then you may be right. But so far every evolutionist who has come on to this blog believes in some form of absolute morality. Also I don’t see why any evolutionist would post on this blog that believed in no morality. There wouldn’t be much point since he wouldn’t care if Dr. Lisle was honest or not.

              >Only the creation worldview can account for absolute morality: why all people are bound to the same set of standards.

              >What the the “accounting of morality” of ANY scientific theory have to do with it’s accuracy? Again: Fallacy of Consequences of Belief.

              Because the evolutionist behaves as if there is morality. But in his professed worldview there couldn’t be any. He embraces Biblical morality all the while denying where it comes from. That puts him in an irrational position.

              >And you people pretend that your worldview is the basis for logic? (ie. Actually, the creationist worldview makes science and logic possible)
              Maybe if you claimed your worldview was a basis for using logical fallacies you’d be on to something…

              It is the basis for logic as has been demonstrated by Dr. Lisle many times so I wont repeat it here. I also find it funny how you talk about logic here and yet don’t provide any reasoning for why our worldview is not the basis for logic.

              >Now, about that so-called “absolute morality” you people pretend to have:
              So it’s wrong for people to kill babies (ie. abortion), but it’s ok for god to have babies and their mothers killed?

              God is not subject to the same standard we are. For example if God took something from you, it wouldn’t be stealing because everything already belongs to God. God is also justified in judging the wicked.

              Have a good night,

              Micah

              • uru says:

                so you are saying that God can ignore his own laws?

                • Robert says:

                  It means He is responsible for carrying out judgement for breaking his laws.

                  • Micah says:

                    Thats it. Thank you Robert.

                    • uru says:

                      no evolution also explains why we have morals, if we all kept lying it would cause society to breakdown, and guess what i like to see how many people could survive alone in the wild without the help of others

                    • Robert says:

                      Actually lying would be a benefit in evolution. If you can trick someone into benefiting your position by lying that would be a plus in evolution. It’s even better if you could get them killed and have kids with their wife, right? That would more align with evolution, correct?
                      What you are describing is the “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” that you find in the Bible. God has a plan for our lives and it’s not to get as much as we can for ourselves.

                    • Tony says:

                      No that is not true because what you described would cause society to break down and people could not live in groups, which means they would not be able to survive, this is why grizzly bears don’t rule over man

                    • Robert says:

                      I.E. evolution is wrong. That’s what you were saying right? Evolution cannot support itself and societies would break down if evolution were true (since it would be without Christian morals to hold it together).

                    • uru says:

                      WRONG you just dont get it do you????
                      morals come from evolution! You see people are social creatures, and people cant live in groups,and living in groups benefits people!with out RULES

                    • uru says:

                      Robert, people evolved to live in groups, and you have to have RULES to live in groups, how much does it take to drill that into your think skull???

                    • Robert says:

                      Where does society stop then and rival faction begin? You sound like you are promoting a gentler version of evolution, so that is why i am confused.

                    • uru says:

                      ” You sound like you are promoting a gentler version of evolution,”
                      no this is “regular” evolution. what you are describing is “unatural selection” which has existed LONG before darwin

                    • Robert says:

                      So, let me get this straight. Evolution says that everyone developed these morals that are entirely based on whatever is best for society is correct.

      • uru says:

        so you are basically saying that you dont care if your lying, because it means creationism is true when people call you out on it?
        “Evolutionism enjoys government protection from scientific debate. Perhaps this is why most evolutionists don’t seem able to defend their position scientifically, with a good argument”well according to you gravity also enjoys protection from the government, and it seems just that like many creationists you are just in denial…as well most evolutionists are scientists not trained debaters or entertainers

        • Robert says:

          If teachers were not permitted to discuss or acknowledge the existence of competing models to gravity or gravity only had pretty pictures of what it looks like as it’s scientific backup, then yes, you would be correct.

          • uru says:

            there is plenty of proof you just choose to ignore and deny it, also why not teach astronomy as well if you want schools to teach creationism/intelligent design

            • Robert says:

              Can you please forward me the link to the experiment where they set out the glass of water and it turned into a single celled organism. I would love to see that proof.

              Also, as I’m sure Jason would agree, it would be great for them to teach astronomy in schools. They would run up against comets and many other things that support recent creation.

              • uru says:

                sorry i meant astrology along with astronomy in schools
                ” They would run up against comets and many other things that support recent creation.”
                oh you mean like the fact that if the universe was under 10000 years old we couldnt see light from galaxies more than 10000 light years away?

              • Micah says:

                uru

                You havent done your research properly. In fact Dr. Lisle has even written a paper on the distant starlight problem which you can read here: ‘http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention’.

                Its also a bit of a double standard because evolution suffers from a light travel-time problem as well: The Horizon Problem.

                • uru says:

                  the paper is filled with special pleading “creation is special so it cant be explained with science”
                  so then why is it doing in a “science” journal?The response Dr.Lisle gave is the exact thing that atheists make fun of you for! Just using “goddidit” as in excuse

                  • Micah says:

                    You mind giving me an example of the special pleading? I did a search for what you put in quotes but it didn’t come up with anything. Creationists dont accept constancy of rates, its true. But there is good reason to believe those rates wouldn’t have been constant from a biblical perspective (i.e. when God made the trees it says he made them in 1 day so i dont think the current processes that are working today were working when He created them.). Its not an excuse of ‘goddidit’ its a possible explanation of how God did it. You’ve yet to demonstrate how it is flawed.

                • Brad says:

                  Post a source from some place other than a presupposition of a particularly world view. You know, an honest source.

                  • Micah says:

                    Why should i post it from a different source? How do you know it isn’t honest?
                    You seem to be in the habit of making claims and then not backing up them up with any support.

                    Micah

          • Brad says:

            If a teachers TRIED to discuss competing models of gravity, say the Aristotle view, they WOULD be punished. No one would because it’s stupid. Few teach creationism because IT is stupid, and deceitful.

            [Dr. Lisle: That's the fallacy of false analogy since models of gravity can be tested in the present. But no one has managed to turn bacteria into people in a laboratory. Here we are over a century after Pasteur, and we still have people believing in spontaneous generation. This is driven not by science, but by blind faith. By the way, I recommend that teachers should teach their students about former views that were considered science of the day - including Aristotle's view of gravity, and why we don't hold to it today. Likewise, it would be nice if they would teach evolution along with the problems with it, showing why rational people reject it today.]

            • Brad says:

              Evolution makes predictions which are tested and passed with flying colors. The fusion of ape chromosomes into one human chromosome is just one example. I don’t expect you to address that though.

              [Dr. Lisle: Actually, human chromosome 2 cannot be the result of a fusion because the alleged fusion site is in the middle of a functional gene! This is discussed in chapter 25 of "Creation Basics and Beyond."]

              Saying that since bacteria haven’t turned into bacteria proves you don’t know the first thing about evolution.

              [Dr. Lisle: Bacteria do turn into bacteria. The problem (for your position) is that they never turn into anything other than bacteria. Your statement suggests that you don't really understand evolution, even though you profess it.]

              Read a book. Clearly you lack even a high school level understanding of the subject.

              [Dr. Lisle: This is a question-begging epithet fallacy, and is easily reversible.]

              The evolution of single celled creatures to multi-celled creatures, IF evolution is true took hundreds of millions of years. To say that because this has not been seen that evolution is not true is ignorant at best.

              [Dr. Lisle: That isn't my argument. So you have committed the straw-man fallacy.]

              • Brad says:

                You said because bacteria has not turned in to a human in 50 years that proves evolution is wrong.

                [Dr. Lisle: Where have I ever said that?]

                Anyone who says something that retarded doesn’t know the first thing about evolution. That’s a fact.

                [Dr. Lisle: Try backing up your claims with actual evidence. That is the way rational people debate.]

                • Brad says:

                  “That’s the fallacy of false analogy since models of gravity can be tested in the present. But no one has managed to turn bacteria into people in a laboratory. Here we are over a century after Pasteur, and we still have people believing in spontaneous generation.”

                  Clearly, you’re using the fact that we haven’t turned bacteria into humans in 50, or 100, whatever years as an argument against evolution otherwise you wouldn’t have said it. I don’t expect a retraction from you.

                  [Dr. Lisle: This again is a straw-man fallacy. You misrepresent my position. This is not ethical. (Then again, there is no basis for ethics in an evolutionary worldview anyway.) If you are confused about why I said what I said, why not just ask me? Don't make an absurd argument against evolution and claim that its "what I meant." I was simply pointing out that a belief in evolution is not justified by evidence whereas a belief in gravity is. Unlike gravity, evolution cannot be observed in the present - but I never claimed that this "disproves" it.]

                  Me: Saying that since bacteria haven’t turned into bacteria proves you don’t know the first thing about evolution.

                  [Dr. Lisle: Bacteria do turn into bacteria. The problem (for your position) is that they never turn into anything other than bacteria. Your statement suggests that you don't really understand evolution, even though you profess it.]

                  I said bacteria where I meant people. This was an editorial mistake. The point remains.

                  [Dr. Lisle: Now your comment makes more sense. But it is still a straw-man fallacy. I don't know any creationist who would argue that "since bacteria never turn into people in a laboratory this disproves evolution." But it is significant that they never turn into anything other than bacteria, despite billions of replications.]

                  [I will say however, that laboratory experiments with bacteria certainly don't give any support for evolution, and they do confirm creation. Bacteria reproduce far more quickly than multi-cellular organisms. So watching bacteria reproduce over 50 years is like watching mammals reproduce over millions of years, in terms of the number of generations.]

                  [Bacteria are able to reproduce every 20 minutes, and we can examine billions of them in a petri dish. So in fifty years, one bacterium could reproduce over a million times. In the evolution view, in a comparable number of generations, the mammals have supposedly evolved into all the incredible variety of mammals on earth today! So if evolution were true, we would expect bacteria to diversity into all sorts of organisms in a million generations. It would be utterly absurd to think they would stay exactly the same kind of organism when horses are fewer generations away from people - again if evolution were true.]

                  [Of course, these experiments have been done. And bacteria always remain bacteria, just as creationists predicted. It's NOT that they didn't become people. But it is very significant that in a MILLION generations, they are still bacteria! How do you reconcile this with your belief in evolution?]

                  We don’t know the starting conditions for life so to expect to create it in a laboratory is stupid.

                  [Dr. Lisle: Then why have evolution scientists been trying to do this for decades? By the way, they claim that they do know the conditions on early earth. And yet, despite their intelligence, scientists have not been able to accomplish what they claim happened without any intelligence at all. Interesting isn't it?]

                  The Earth had a couple hundred million years in a worldwide laboratory in which to “figure it out.”

                  [Dr. Lisle: That is an example of reification. The Earth cannot think or solve problems. Remember, according to the evolutionists, there are fewer generations between horses and people than we have observed in bacteria in a petri dish.]

                  Saying that because we don’t know how it happened that it couldn’t have happened, which not explicitly stated by you was clearly implicit, is not rational.

                  [Dr. Lisle: Brad, it isn't ethical for you to claim I'm making an argument that I'm not making. I would never claim that "because we don't know how [something] happened that it couldn’t have happened.” My argument against evolution is not based on what we don’t know, but rather on what we do know. We do know that natural processes never create brand-new information, the kind that would be required to turn single-celled organisms into all other life on Earth. And we know that science is predicated on uniformity of nature, which is only justified in a biblical creation worldview. Happy to discuss if you like.]

              • Brad says:

                Because we don’t see single celled creatures turning into multicellular creatures that proves it can’t happen in 2 billion years?

                That seems to be what you’re saying.

                [Dr. Lisle: Where? Though it is true that we have no evidence that single-celled microbes can ever evolve into complex multi-celled organisms, that's not my proof against evolution.]

              • Brad says:

                Wrong. They found the ancient telomeres.

                And evolution PREDICTED this. I guess god just wanted to deceive the more intelligent humans.

                [Dr. Lisle: Brad, with respect, you really need to read Dr. Tomkins's research on this topic. You are very confused. Nothing about human chromosome 2 can be taken to support evolution.]

              • Brad says:

                The evolution of single celled creatures to multi-celled creatures, IF evolution is true took hundreds of millions of years. To say that because this has not been seen that evolution is not true is ignorant at best.

                [Dr. Lisle: That isn't my argument. So you have committed the straw-man fallacy.]
                Ahem:

                [Dr. Lisle: The following was in response to the notion that evolution and gravity are the same type of claim. Clearly they aren't. Gravity can be demonstrated in the present. Evolution cannot be - though I never claimed that this by itself proves it false!]

                [Dr. Lisle: That's the fallacy of false analogy since models of gravity can be tested in the present. But no one has managed to turn bacteria into people in a laboratory.

                [Dr. Lisle: I didn't conclude therefore for this reason "evolution is false" as you falsely alleged.]

                Utterly lacking in intellectual integrity.

                [Dr. Lisle: Indeed, taking my comments out of context shows a lack of intellectual integrity.]

            • Brad says:

              We do teach old theories and why they’re wrong. I learned about epicycles in public school, just as I learned about geocentrism, and creation myths, like what’s in the Bible.

              [Dr. Lisle: Apparently you were never taught the problems with evolution, and why it is wrong. That's a shame. By the way, the Bible is a history book, not a myth. I'm really sorry you received such a sub-par education on these subjects. Though sadly, this is common these days.]

  5. Neil Yoder says:

    **QUOTE: (Jason Lisle): ” It (evolution) survives only because it enjoys special protection under the law, which is afforded only to endangered species that cannot compete without such help.”**
    ****************************************************************************
    Could you explain a bit more on this? You’re suggesting “evolution” now enjoys protection under the Endangered Species Act???

    Is this just another attempt at spoof humor??

    I’d love to know… what current local, state, or federal laws “protect” evolution???

    ….and I must assume Creationism enjoys no such protection…because…well…
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof… …correct??

    • Dr. Lisle says:

      Hi Neil,

      > Could you explain a bit more on this? You’re suggesting “evolution” now enjoys protection under the Endangered Species Act???

      Quotation marks (“”) indicate metaphorical usage. So the title should have tipped you off that evolution is not literally a protected biological species. But nonetheless, it does indeed enjoy special protection under the law. The article really is fairly self-explanatory. In government schools, evolution is taught as fact without any legitimate supporting evidence or rational reasons, and is given legal protection by suppressing discussion of challenges or any alternatives.

      > I’d love to know… what current local, state, or federal laws “protect” evolution???

      Just talk to any teacher that has been reprimanded or fired for teaching creation or for questioning evolution. See the movie “Expelled” for an interesting perspective on this.

      > ….and I must assume Creationism enjoys no such protection…

      No. Discussion of creation is actively suppressed in government schools. You know that. Creation does not need government protection; it enjoys the support of science and rationality. It would be nice if those teachers who wanted to discuss the topic of how science confirms creation would be allowed to do so.

      > because…well…Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof… …correct??

      I wish that our courts would actually honor the establishment clause. But sadly, they flatly deny it, by allowing only one religion (secular humanism) and its corresponding origins myth (evolutionism) to be taught in government schools. Scientific and logical challenges to evolution are simply not allowed to be discussed. Christianity and the history of Genesis are suppressed at all costs, which is exactly the thing the establishment clause was designed to prevent.

      • Neil Yoder says:

        > Could you explain a bit more on this? You’re suggesting “evolution” now enjoys protection under the Endangered Species Act???
        (QUOTE)**”Quotation marks (“”) indicate metaphorical usage. So the title should have tipped you off that evolution is not literally a protected biological species. But nonetheless, it does indeed enjoy special protection under the law. The article really is fairly self-explanatory. In government schools, evolution is taught as fact without any legitimate supporting evidence or rational reasons, and is given legal protection by suppressing discussion of challenges or any alternatives. “**
        ********************************************************
        Yes, and also….
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA110.html
        ; I’d love to know… what current local, state, or federal laws “protect” evolution???
        (QUOTE)Just talk to any teacher that has been reprimanded or fired for teaching creation or for questioning evolution. See the movie “Expelled” for an interesting perspective on this.”**
        ********************************************************
        Sorry, I don’t know any. I find this answer to be more of a dodge than anything else. Creationism has been discounted because it has been shown to be Theology, and NOT science.

        ….and I must assume Creationism enjoys no such protection…
        No. Discussion of creation is actively suppressed in government schools. You know that.

        ********************************************************
        No, sorry – I do not know that! Read on….. ;<)

        (QUOTE)**“Creation does not need government protection; it enjoys the support of science and rationality. It would be nice if those teachers who wanted to discuss the topic of how science confirms creation would be allowed to do so. “**
        ********************************************************
        But they can’t…..since science nowhere “confirms creation”, and does not enjoy the “support of science and rationality” – that is little more than a rhetorical pipe dream.

        > because…well…Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof… …correct??
        (QUOTE)I wish that our courts would actually honor the establishment clause. But sadly, they flatly deny it, by allowing only one religion (secular humanism) and its corresponding origins myth (evolutionism) to be taught in government schools. Scientific and logical challenges to evolution are simply not allowed to be discussed. Christianity and the history of Genesis are suppressed at all costs, which is exactly the thing the establishment clause was designed to prevent.
        ********************************************************
        Secular Humanism is not a religion. This was merely expressed (erroneously) as an off-the cuff remark by a Supreme Court judge approx. 50 years ago – it was NOT a court ruling or decision but only appears in the commentary and notes on another unrelated case.
        Evolution is not a myth. It proposes no heroic figures, literary tragedy or triumph stories, conquering kings etc.. but is merely a guiding paradigm of the biological sciences.
        “Christianity & the history of Genesis” are suppressed from being taught as science…because….they’re NOT (science).

        (QUOTE)“Scientific and logical challenges to evolution are simply not allowed to be discussed.”
        ********************************************************
        Having attended public schools this certainly was’nt my experience – I’m not claiming entire class-periods were devoted to it, but it WAS allowed….and the result tended to be that these “scientific & logical challenges” resulted in greater embarrassment to Creationism.
        Btw – this also holds true for time I spent in a Freemason-run Christian school as well…;<)

        • Dr. Lisle says:

          >> Just talk to any teacher that has been reprimanded or fired for teaching creation or for questioning evolution….
          > Sorry, I don’t know any.

          Wow. It seems you really haven’t done your homework on this issue. You will find (if you research this) that teachers in public schools are generally (with some exceptions) not allowed to teach how scientific evidence confirms creation, or discuss any of the fatal problems with evolution. This might explain why you are apparently unaware of such things. The book “Slaughter of the Dissidents” by Jerry Bergman will bring you up to speed on the issue, as would the documentary “Expelled.” As to the scientific evidence, my book “Taking back Astronomy” shows how the evidence in the cosmos confirms biblical creation. And if you don’t like to read, I have a DVD called “Creation: Science confirms the Bible is true” which will bring you up to speed on some of the basic science issues.

          > I find this answer to be more of a dodge than anything else.

          It’s not. It’s actually giving you a place to start if you want to actually study this issue. I’m not going to do your homework for you. If you want to learn about creation, you are going to have to actually study it at least a little bit.

          > Creationism has been discounted because it has been shown to be Theology, and NOT science.

          Actually, creation is the foundation for science, as demonstrated in my book “The Ultimate Proof of Creation.” Apart from biblical creation, there is no rational foundation for induction, which is essential to the scientific method. We also find that the details of science confirm biblical creation. But alas, students in public schools are “protected” from learning such facts.

          >> No. Discussion of creation is actively suppressed in government schools. You know that.
          > No, sorry – I do not know that!

          Wow! With all respect, you must really have your head buried in the sand. The resources I listed above will get you started on learning about this topic.

          > But they can’t…..since science nowhere “confirms creation”, and does not enjoy the “support of science and rationality”

          Again, you obviously haven’t studied this at all. It is evolution that is inherently irrational, failing to provide the basic preconditions of intelligibility as demonstrated in my book “The Ultimate Proof of Creation” and is without scientific support. It’s not surprising that you haven’t made an argument for evolution, or provided any evidence for it. It is a blind belief system, without any rational reasons. Can you provide any scientific evidence for evolution as opposed to the biblical account of history?

          > Secular Humanism is not a religion.

          It definitely is – by definition! It is a “system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” It has a view of metaphysics, epistemology, and even ethics – a complete religious system. It happens to be an irrational religion, but it is a religion nonetheless.

          > Evolution is not a myth.

          It definitely is – by definition! Merriam-Webster; myth: “a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.” Evolution fits this definition perfectly! It’s the tradition of our culture which is a story of ostensibly historical events (life coming from chemicals and then diversifying into many kinds) that serves to explains the natural phenomenon of the diversity of life on earth.

          > “Christianity & the history of Genesis” are suppressed from being taught as science…because….they’re NOT (science).

          Evolution (in the particles-to-people sense) certainly isn’t operational science. Yet it is taught as though it is in science classrooms across America. By the way, I never stated that Christianity, creation, or Genesis are science, only that science confirms these historical facts. Biblical creation is an historical fact that is confirmed by science. Evolution is neither history nor science. It is simply an irrational conjecture.

          > Having attended public schools this certainly was’nt [sic] my experience…

          Your own statements confirm that it was. You seem to have very little knowledge of the actual evidence, presumably because it was suppressed. You are apparently unfamiliar with creation and how scientific data confirm it. You are apparently unaware of the fatal problems with evolutionary notions. Neil, your own statements have actually confirmed my point. You are a product of the evolutionary indoctrination of the public education system.

          • Neil Yoder says:

            Hmmm…so you think even the time spent in a private Christian School could’nt correct this horrid “indoctrination”??

            Once again I notice excessive usage of the magical “E” word
            **not allowed to teach how scientific evidence confirms creation….
            **”You seem to have very little knowledge of the actual evidence, presumably because it was suppressed.
            **”As to the scientific evidence, my book “Taking back Astronomy” shows how the evidence in the cosmos confirms biblical creation.”

            …and as for evolution supposedly being a “myth”….is the term Theoretical Paradigm just not sound byte-friendly enough??? ;<)

          • Brad says:

            Scientific evidence DOES NOT support creation.

            [Dr. Lisle: Actually, scientific evidence is predicated upon creation. It confirms creation most powerfully.]

            You sir are a LIAR.

            [Dr. Lisle: Wow - what a clever counter-argument! I never thought of it that way before! Okay, it would be better if you formed a coherent argument rather than just making unsupported claims. The former is how rational people discuss. The latter is how children behave.]

            [Of course, in the evolutionary worldview, why would it be wrong to lie in cases where it benefits my survival? In the Christian worldview, lying is contrary to God's nature and to His decree, and we are morally obligated to God. So the fact that you believe that lying is wrong shows that in your heart-of-hearts you really do know God.]

            • Micah says:

              Hi Brad,

              I really like they way you defended your argument with sound logic and reason here. Its great to see someone actually back up their claims with support instead of just throwing out unsubstantiated allegation. Its especially annoying when people come on here and just start name calling.

              But its good to see you didn’t do any of that.

              Have a great day!

              Micah

              • Brad says:

                Anyone who says there is no evidence for evolution either hasn’t looked or is a liar. There are no other options.

                [Dr. Lisle: Again, this is a bifurcation fallacy.]

                Endogenous retroviruses, Human Chromosome which was proven to be the result of a fusion of two ape chromosomes (PREDICTED by evolution), biogeography.

                You can’t address these items at all.

                [Dr. Lisle: This must be embarrassing for you, but in fact we have a chapter on this very topic in Creation Basics and Beyond - chapter 25. The chromosome 2 "fusion" site cannot be a genuine fusion site because we have now discovered that it is in the middle of a functional gene called DDX11L2. You might want to read up a bit on this topic if you are going to try and defend your position. Also, evolution cannot account for biogeography - but the Bible can. For example, do you know why we find marsupials in Australia, and their fossils also in South America?]

              • Brad says:

                The only thing Jason says is that evolution is wrong because it’s obviously wrong. He won’t go over the supposed evidence for it and show why each bit is wrong. There’s a good reason for that.

                [Dr. Lisle: My argument against evolution is that it would make science impossible by removing any possible rational justification for uniformity in nature, and the universal, invariant nature of laws of logic. Both of these are necessary for science and yet do not comport with evolution. Of course there are other scientific reasons to reject evolution. But lets start with the fact that science is predicated upon biblical creation.]

            • Brad says:

              Sorry, but if you say the scientific evidence supports creation, you’re either a liar, or you’re ignorant. Which is it?

              [Dr. Lisle: That's still a bifurcation fallacy. Repeating it won't make it suddenly become rational.]

              My distaste for lies and liars such as yourself proves god? That’s quite an irrational statement.

              [Dr. Lisle: Hardly. There is no reason to believe that lying is wrong in an evolutionary worldview - particularly when it benefits survival. Therefore, the fact that you act as if lying is fundamentally wrong shows that you do know in your heart-of-hearts the Christian God. Romans 2:18-22 explains this.]

              What does morality have to do with god?

              [Dr. Lisle: God provides the only possible rational justification for an objective moral code.]

              Your god’s morality is arbitrary, and absurd.

              [Dr. Lisle: Hardly. It stems from His unchanging nature.]

              That’s why it’s supposedly ok for him to murder billions of people the torture them forever.

              [Dr. Lisle: God has never murdered anyone. (A murder is an inappropriate, unlawful killing.) God does sometimes punish the wicked; this is His right as Creator and Judge. And it is morally right. Only a corrupt judge would let the wicked go without paying any penalty.]

              I suppose that’s “good” in your book.

              [Dr. Lisle: The ironic thing about that statement is that it makes no sense on your professed worldview. "Good" is meaningless in an evolutionary universe. This again reveals that you do know God.]

              If that’s good, I’d rather be bad, and have a clean conscience,

              [Dr. Lisle: Your conscience is God's Law written on your heart. It also makes no sense in an evolutionary universe where your brain is merely the result of mutations that had survival value. That would have nothing to do with "right" and "wrong."]

              rather than violate my own moral standards and worship an disgusting war god.

              [Dr. Lisle: Most people believe as you do - they'd rather be wicked and live by their own arbitrary morality than submit to God. Incidentally, this is why we have war. I have good news and bad news for you. The good news is: God respects the freedom He has given you; therefore, should you continue your rebellion against God, He will allow you to spend all eternity in a place where you can live by your own self-imposed, arbitrary standards. The bad news is: you won't like it.]

  6. Pingback: Evolutionism – an “Endangered Species” | Time For Discernment

  7. Atticus Sheffield says:

    I just recently started reading your blog, I have read many articles by creationist scientists*, and I’ve read many attempted rebuttals by secularists. I find it both hilarious and pathetic that the vast majority of these rebuttals fail to give even one piece of real evidence for their worldview, and the few evidences that are given are either outdated and refuted or are just as easily explained by the account in Genesis. This latter situation somewhat reminds me of a game of “Boggle” where the two players get the same word, and so neither player gets the points for it.

    Keep up your good work Dr. Lisle. I’ve often felt uncomfortable or unprepared when discussing Creation/Evolution with atheists, but when I read “The Ultimate Proof of Creation”, I gained a new confidence in my faith. I can now see many logical flaws in the once dreaded Talkorigins.com website. Thank you.

    *I realize this statement makes the irrational and unfounded assumption that articles are indeed written by people. Are you going to call me on that? :)

    • Neil Yoder says:

      QUOTE:”I just recently started reading your blog, I have read many articles by creationist scientists*, and I’ve read many attempted rebuttals by secularists. I find it both hilarious and pathetic that the vast majority of these rebuttals fail to give even one piece of real evidence for their worldview, and the evidences that are given are either outdated and refuted or are just as easily explained by the account in Genesis.”</I.
      *********************************************************************
      You contradict yourself.
      You claim:
      "fail to give even one real piece of evidence"
      then:
      "the evidences(plural!) that are given"
      …so what exactly do you mean by "evidence"???
      Physical specimen(s) somehow made to appear in the hands of the reader??

      I've noticed this word gets played with very fast & loose in the promotion of creationism – most commonly the fallacious view that living organisms themselves are somehow automatically “evidence!” that they are designed and created artifacts just to cite one example…

      As far as “outdated & refuted” religious creationists usually are forced to reach as far back as the likes of Piltdown Man which itself has long been refuted in the scientific community as it WAS a perpetrated fraud even tho creationists often incorrectly misapply that word to account for any corrected or revised data.

      • Dr. Lisle says:

        Hi Neil,

        > Hmmm…so you think even the time spent in a private Christian School could’nt [sic] correct this horrid “indoctrination”??

        It sounds like it did not for you. Sadly, a number of Christian schools also teach evolutionism as if it were a fact, and as if it were supported by evidence, with no exposure to evidence of the contrary.

        > Once again I notice excessive usage of the magical “E” word [“evidence”]

        We creationists love evidence because it so strongly confirms creation. I think it is comical and very revealing that you want to criticize creationists for that. This seems to be a tacit admission that the evidence really does not support evolution. I notice too that you haven’t even attempted to provide any evidence at all for evolution, or make any argument for evolution whatsoever. You simply assume that it is true with no logical justification and then criticize the alternative. In other words, you repeat exactly the procedure used in public schools. Biblical creationists are far more discerning. We believe that people should have good reasons for what they believe. Our confidence in creation is justified. But belief in evolution is a blind faith, without any support whatsoever.

        > …and as for evolution supposedly being a “myth”….is the term Theoretical Paradigm just not sound byte [sic] -friendly enough??? ;< )

        It’s a paradigm too. It’s also a myth, as I demonstrated previously. Does that bother you?

        > [in reply to Atticus] You contradict yourself.

        Not really. A contradiction is “A and not-A at the same time and in the same sense.”
        Atticus stated that secularists fail to give real evidence – in other words evidence that actually supports their position. He didn’t say that they fail to give any evidence at all. Evolutionists (occasionally) do provide evidence; it’s just that the evidence they provide does not support their case.

        > I’ve noticed this word gets played with very fast & loose in the promotion of creationism – most commonly the fallacious view that living organisms themselves are somehow automatically “evidence!” that they are designed and created artifacts just to cite one example…

        Evidence is “that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.” So almost anything can be used as evidence if it is used as part of an argument to prove or disprove something. Since living organisms can be used to confirm the truth of creation (by their design, by their irreducible complexity, by the copious amounts of information in their genome, etc.) they can very legitimately be used as evidence for creation. Again, this follows from the definition of “evidence.”

        I can certainly see why evidence bothers you, since it always confirms creation. But there is nothing fallacious about using organisms as evidence.

        > As far as “outdated & refuted” religious creationists usually are forced to reach as far back as the likes of Piltdown Man which itself has long been refuted in the scientific community as it WAS a perpetrated fraud even tho creationists often incorrectly misapply that word to account for any corrected or revised data.

        There have been many more frauds than that. And some are very recent. Embryonic recapitulation is based entirely on fraud, yet it still appears in some textbooks despite having been exposed as fraud a century ago.

        Neil, do you have any actual evidence for evolution? Or is it just a blind belief? I’m confident it’s the latter. But I wanted to give you a chance to argue otherwise.

        Thanks for posting.

        • Neil Yoder says:

          > Hmmm…so you think even the time spent in a private Christian School could’nt [sic] correct this horrid “indoctrination”??
          It sounds like it did not for you. Sadly, a number of Christian schools also teach evolutionism as if it were a fact, and as if it were supported by evidence, with no exposure to evidence of the contrary.
          *************************************************
          Why is that?

          Btw, Dr Lisle – I would like to snag a copy of the “Ultimate Proof” book & read it..but I’m finding it’s not…in very wide circulation (hmmm…wonder why?) although I DO know a place where they likely have it (local religious bookstore).

          We creationists love evidence because it so strongly confirms creation.
          *************************************************
          Circular reasoning fallacy not all evidence “confirms” anything…and also implies an automatic bias of retrofitting or making sure your conclusions support your original premise or philosophic (non-scientific even) world view….

          I think it is comical and very revealing that you want to criticize creationists for that. This seems to be a tacit admission that the evidence really does not support evolution. I notice too that you haven’t even attempted to provide any evidence at all for evolution, or make any argument for evolution whatsoever. You simply assume that it is true with no logical justification and then criticize the alternative. In other words, you repeat exactly the procedure used in public schools. Biblical creationists are far more discerning. We believe that people should have good reasons for what they believe. Our confidence in creation is justified. But belief in evolution is a blind faith, without any support whatsoever.
          *************************************************
          Rhetoric. For someone to “have a good reason for what they believe” really is’nt saying much.

          A HUGE chunk of creationist “evidence” is fraudulent, unreviewed etc – “fossilized” felt hats, cowboy boots etc.. etc…
          I also think the tendency to find non-creationist arguments “hilarious, comical!, funny!” etc is a subconscious slip revealing a less-than-honest intellectual stance on the religious (creationist) side….

          > …and as for evolution supposedly being a “myth”….is the term Theoretical Paradigm just not sound byte [sic] -friendly enough??? ;< )
          It’s a paradigm too. It’s also a myth, as I demonstrated previously. Does that bother you?
          *************************************************
          No.
          I still maintain it does’nt fall within the category of being a mythology. No sceintific paradigms do.

          Atticus stated that secularists fail to give real evidence – in other words evidence that actually supports their position. He didn’t say that they fail to give any evidence at all. Evolutionists (occasionally) do provide evidence; it’s just that the evidence they provide does not support their case.
          *************************************************
          Evolutionists have determined their own evidence does not support their case???? Nonsense!
          You are speaking on behalf of evolutionists w/ this?? – What is “real” as opposed to….”unreal”(?) evidence??
          Sounds like a purely subjective “sour grapes” denunciation I’m afraid.
          Usage of the term “secularists” is also suspect….

          Evidence is “that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.” So almost anything can be used as evidence if it is used as part of an argument to prove or disprove something. Since living organisms can be used to confirm the truth of creation (by their design, by their irreducible complexity, by the copious amounts of information in their genome, etc.) they can very legitimately be used as evidence for creation. Again, this follows from the definition of “evidence.”
          *************************************************
          Irreducible complexity for one, has been debunked.
          http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

          • Dr. Lisle says:

            Hi Neil,

            >> Sadly, a number of Christian schools also teach evolutionism as if it were a fact, and as if it were supported by evidence, with no exposure to evidence of the contrary.
            > Why is that?

            I would guess that it is the same reason as with you. They were taught that, and have not really thought through the issues or bothered to actually study any alternatives. They just continue to preach evolution without actually giving any cogent reasons for it.

            > Btw, Dr Lisle – I would like to snag a copy of the “Ultimate Proof” book & read it..but I’m finding it’s not…in very wide circulation (hmmm…wonder why?)

            Can’t find it? Try:
            here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here.

            As you can see, it is in wide circulation, as a simple Google search would have shown.

            > although I DO know a place where they likely have it (local religious bookstore).

            Genetic fallacy.

            >> We creationists love evidence because it so strongly confirms creation.
            > Circular reasoning fallacy

            No. Circular reasoning is when the conclusion of argument A is used as the premise of argument B, and then the conclusion of argument B is used as the premise of argument A. That’s not what was stated previously. It’s not circular to enjoy talking about evidence by virtue of the fact that such evidence supports your argument. Indeed the mark of rationality is that you have evidence for your position. I have a book called “Discerning Truth” which teaches logic and how to spot logical fallacies, if you would like to learn about these things. The book is in wide circulation. :-)

            > not all evidence “confirms” anything…

            Actually, it always does confirm the Christian worldview. This is because only the Christian worldview can account for the preconditions necessary for making any evidence whatsoever intelligible: justification for uniformity in nature, basic reliability of senses, rationality, etc.

            > and also implies an automatic bias of retrofitting or making sure your conclusions support your original premise or philosophic (non-scientific even) world view….

            A worldview is “a network of presuppositions untested by the natural sciences and in light of which all evidence is interpreted.” Worldviews cannot – by definition – be tested by science because they provide the philosophical framework and foundation for science itself. Worldviews are evaluated on the basis of internal consistency, warranted reasons, and their ability to provide the preconditions of intelligibility, including the foundation for scientific inquiry. Evolution fails the test miserably.

            >> We believe that people should have good reasons for what they believe. Our confidence in creation is justified. But belief in evolution is a blind faith, without any support whatsoever.
            > Rhetoric. For someone to “have a good reason for what they believe” really is’nt [sic] saying much.

            Wrong – it’s everything! It is the difference between a rational person and an irrational person. Rational people can justify (provide good reasons) for what they believe. One of my main criticisms of evolutionists is that they have no idea whatsoever why they believe as they do. Their beliefs are arbitrary. They cannot back up what they believe with good reasons. This statement is not rhetoric Neil. It’s the entire point of rational debate.

            > A HUGE chunk of creationist “evidence” is fraudulent, unreviewed etc – “fossilized” felt hats, cowboy boots etc.. etc…

            Not true. I can’t speak for all creationists. But we at ICR have a very high-regard for the peer-review process (it has a biblical foundation – Proverbs 27:17). Our literature is always peer-reviewed by experts in the field and we would never use evidence that is actually fraudulent. I’m glad that you are concerned with ethics. This shows that (at least subconsciously) you really do know that creation is true; after all, “right” and “wrong” make no sense if people are just chemical accidents. Peer review also makes good sense in the creation worldview. But one chemical accident reviewing another chemical accident would not give us any reason at all to trust the “conclusion.”

            > I still maintain it does’nt [sic] fall within the category of being a mythology.

            Even after I demonstrated from the dictionary that it does? You are a true evolutionist Neil. You maintain your beliefs no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary.

            > No sceintific [sic] paradigms do.

            There really isn’t anything scientific about evolution. It’s not held to because of evidence or logic. Many people believe it simply because other people believe it. And that’s hardly rational.

            >> Evolutionists (occasionally) do provide evidence; it’s just that the evidence they provide does not support their case.
            > Evolutionists have determined their own evidence does not support their case???? Nonsense!

            Straw-man fallacy. That’s not what I stated as you can clearly read. Obviously evolutionists think that what they present supports their case, or they wouldn’t present it. But that doesn’t mean it really does from a logical perspective. For example, if an evolutionist claims that the majority of scientists believe in evolution, he might think that proves his case. But it doesn’t. It’s simply the fallacy of the faulty appeal to authority/majority.

            > Irreducible complexity for one, has been debunked.

            No. It certainly was not refuted in the link you provided. The author there (Miller) commits a number of errors in reasoning. His main argument seems to be that an irreducibly complex structure cannot contain another irreducibly complex structure – which is false. A car is irreducibly complex in that if you remove any of its (essential) features it ceases to function as a car. Yet the car also contains an engine which is irreducibly complex for the same reason. Miller has committed a bifurcation fallacy: (either irreducibly complex with no sub-components, or fully reducible).

            Miller also commits the straw-man fallacy by misrepresenting the argument. It’s not for a lack of evidence that something is irreducible, but for the presence of evidence. Namely, we know what happens when we remove one essential part.

            I notice that again you have provided no evidence or argument OF ANY KIND for your belief. I’m not surprised. That’s the difference between our worldviews. Mine can make sense of science, logic, and ethics, and is confirmed by scientific and historical evidence. Creationists have good reasons for what we believe. Evolutionists don’t.

          • Jacob Howard says:

            Hi Mr. Yoder and Dr. Lisle,

            First of all, Dr. Lisle, I noticed that, after a certain amount of comments it will stop letting you reply and that is why some of the comment threads have been thrown off into other comments.
            In order to fix this you should go to Dashboard>Settings>Discussion and look at the fourth box after the small header that says “Other comment settings”. I’m sure you have it set at five. Try setting it to 10. That will help the conversation better.
            I really liked this article and I’m sure you already know that I put it up on one of my websites (Proclaim and Defend the Word) Keep fighting the good fight.
            Oh, and one more thing, I really want to send you an article and ask your opinion on it and if it is accurate in its research. What email would I send this too and is there any guarantees that I could get a review from you (even a short one would be great).

            Mr. Yoder, I have a few questions.
            First off, I’m taking into account that you are an atheist. Might I ask why you are an atheist? Please, don’t give me the answer that there is no proof for a Creator, you and I both know that is not the case. That answer doesn’t make any sense because you could still be an theistic evolutionist. The answer to that question would be most helpful.
            Secondly, might I ask you why you do not believe in a Creator? Please, do not give me the answer that there isn’t any evidence for a Creator, you and I both know that is not the case. Why can’t there be a Creator? Why can’t there be a perfect Creator of the universe? Are there any scientific laws that prohibit the free reign of a omni-everything Creator? An answer to that question would be greatly appreciated.
            Thank you for taking the time to read and answer, I am greatly anticipating your answers.
            In Christ Jesus alone,
            Jacob Howard

            • Neil Yoder says:

              No, I’m not an atheist. :<)

            • Atticus Sheffield says:

              Neil, we all know that Jacob asked more than that one question. Unless you’re arguing for the sake of arguing, it is evident from your posts that you believe evolution is true and Creation is the lie. Please answer the relevant questions, and don’t make an ambiguous or disputable claim without supporting it with evidence.

              Perhaps this whole argument is based on a misunderstanding: the biological definition of “evolution” is “a change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift” (Dictionary.com; that may be what you think are arguing for); however, the definition of “evolution” that Creationists most often use is “the general belief that the universe started with a big bang 13.7 bya, and life appeared from non-life on the early molten earth 3.5 bya, and that that life subsequently evolved into everything we see on earth today”.
              We (Creationists) realize that it is the biological definition that most evolutionists refer to, so we make every effort to make it clear that we have no problem with the observable, testable science of natural selection (genetics; variation within kind), but it is rather the second definition that we contend with; all we ask of the evolutionists is to realize that these are two very different definitions, and to make it clear which definition they are using (and also give evidence for it). Is that too much too ask?

              Respectfully in Christ,
              Atticus

              • Neil Yoder says:

                QUOTE ”Neil, we all know that Jacob asked more than that one question. Unless you’re arguing for the sake of arguing, it is evident from your posts that you believe evolution is true and Creation is the lie”.
                I made no assertion of creation being a “LIE” – i.e. intentionally invented or fabricated in order to mislead, deceive or defraud ….or of being made-up in spite of evidence to the contrary. Creation myths(the proper term) are purely a social, mystical, or even political phenomenon among cultures and in the post-renaissance era ARE NOT science.
                QUOTE”Please answer the relevant questions, and don’t make an ambiguous or disputable claim without supporting it with evidence.”
                Ok, I notice I’m being kinda “ganged-on” here by multiple interrogators ;<) – this can create a time-crunch on my own personal end, and I may not have the time to cover all the bases – it DOES’NT represent intentional “dodging” as is a convenient, commonly used accusation by persons who also show the same behavior. Also I question the “readership value” of huge, wordy, indented posts and meandering thread content. ;<)
                QUOTE”Perhaps this whole argument is based on a misunderstanding: the biological definition of “evolution” is “a change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift” (Dictionary.com; that may be what you think are arguing for); however, the definition of “evolution” that Creationists most often use is “the general belief that the universe started with a big bang 13.7 bya, and life appeared from non-life on the early molten earth 3.5 bya, and that that life subsequently evolved into everything we see on earth today”.,?”I>
                Why is it necessary for creationists have their own special definition of evolution which sounds suspiciously like a strawman?
                Strictly speaking, (biological) evolution does not address cosmological origins.
                By your own specialized definition you seem to be removing it from the realms of theoretical/applied sciences and placing it as a philosophic issue.

                QUOTE”We (Creationists) realize that it is the biological definition that most evolutionists refer to, so we make every effort to make it clear that we have no problem with the observable, testable science of natural selection (genetics; variation within kind), but it is rather the second definition that we contend with; all we ask of the evolutionists is to realize that these are two very different definitions, and to make it clear which definition they are using (and also give evidence for it). Is that too much too ask?”
                No.
                I could also use the Ken Ham-ish (cliché’)retort…”WERE YOU THERE??” could be applied to both evolutionists as well as creationists….since retrieving real-time accounts of aeons-old events is beyond possibility. This almost nullifies the entire argument, except that given a choice between the tools of
                **Orderly theoretical paradigms as a basis for real-time work

                **Philosophic/religious/political rumination
                The first choice seems the most effective.

          • Atticus Sheffield says:

            Hi Neil,

            Dr. Lisle already addressed the pertinent parts of your last comment, but I just wanted to point out that the article you gave hardly solves the irreducible complexity (IC) problem. Rather, it substitutes one irreducibly complex system for another (flagellum for TTSS; human blood-clotting for dolphin), and somehow uses that as proof that IC is invalid. Another attempt at refuting IC (Mullerian two-step) can be found at
            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html.
            This shows that the addition of one part and the removal of another can result in the formation of an irreducibly complex system. The trouble, however, is that it starts with an already irreducibly complex system, and doesn’t explain how that came about.

            While reading Dr. Lisle’s responses to other Evolutionists’ comments, I’ve noticed that in virtually every one of his posts, he either directly or indirectly challenges the Evolutionist to provide some kind of evidence for evolution. And in his last three responses to you, he explicitly stated “you haven’t made an argument for evolution, or provided any evidence for it” (July 23, 2:30pm), “you haven’t even attempted to provide any evidence at all for evolution, or make any argument for evolution whatsoever” (July 24, 9:29am), and “again you have provided no evidence or argument OF ANY KIND for your belief” (July 24, 4:24pm). I don’t know how much clearer a challenge for evidence can get.

            As I’ve seen other Creationists write at the end of a message,
            Respectfully in Christ,
            Atticus

            • Neil Yoder says:

              QUOTE ”Dr. Lisle already addressed the pertinent parts of your last comment, but I just wanted to point out that the article you gave hardly solves the irreducible complexity (IC) problem. Rather, it substitutes one irreducibly complex system for another (flagellum for TTSS; human blood-clotting for dolphin), and somehow uses that as proof that IC is invalid. Another attempt at refuting IC (Mullerian two-step) can be found at
              http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html.
              This shows that the addition of one part and the removal of another can result in the formation of an irreducibly complex system. The trouble, however, is that it starts with an already irreducibly complex system, and doesn’t explain how that came about.”

              Yes, I can see where some confusion might arise w/ the TalkOrigins example!
              Ok here’s my take:
              The “precursor bridge” (note it’s termed in quotes on the T.O. page – just like Dr Lisle’s original blog title here!) does not function as a “bridge” per se & is really NOT one – the term’s a bit misleading, and suggests a “deterministic” bent to evolution and there’s a lot of disagreement w/ deterministic views on evolutionary processes – it apparently doesn’t work that way…. I might penalize T.O. themselves for using the term “bridge” in that first case. ;<)
              Maybe suggest the 3 stones by themselves (w/ no up/down orientation or fastening points) represent a “component formation” or “tissue structure” which, thru the Mullerian time and selection process becomes an
              Irreducibly comp….er wait!…make that a feature demonstrating interlocking complexity per the Mullerian model.

        • Brad says:

          Anyone who says there is no evidence for evolution is either ignorant or a liar. Which are you?

          [Dr. Lisle: This is a textbook example of the bifurcation fallacy. Is evolution really so weak that its supporters must constantly rely upon fallacies instead of rational arguments?]

          • Brad says:

            Endogenous retroviruses. Viruses infect reproductive cells, and pass on genes to offspring. These genes can be traced throughout the evolutionary lineage and prove common descent.

            [Dr. Lisle: I guess you haven't read any of the articles by our geneticist Dr. Jeff Tomkins. You may want to.]

            A human chromosome was predicted, by evolutionary theory to be the result of the fusion of two ape chromosomes. Evolution predicted this. It was found. You have no answer to this except to say that god wanted us to think evolution is true.

            [Dr. Lisle: It must be very embarrassing for you to learn that in fact the supposed fusion site cannot be an actual fusion because it is in the middle of a functional gene: DDX11L2. Functional genes cannot be created through inverted chromosomal fusions. As Dr. Tomkins states, "Most importantly, the DDX11L2 gene and all the genes surrounding it in a 615,000-base window are not found on the end regions of the small arms of chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B, the hypothesized sources of the fusion event." What's even more embarrassing for you is that there is an entire chapter on this topic in the book "Creation Basics and Beyond." So before you claim "you have no answer" you might want to actually read our material to see if this is so.]

            The geographical distribution of species can only be explained by evolution.

            [Dr. Lisle: Again, this shows that you haven't done your homework on this topic because in fact the opposite is true. Why is it, as merely one example, that marsupials are found in Australia, and their fossils are found in South America, but their fossils are not found in other places? The biblical worldview can make sense of this. Can you?]

            Give me one piece of evidence or creation.

            [Dr. Lisle: Science is possible. Now, I will ask you: what is your best evidence of evolution? Or do you actually have any?]

  8. Pingback: Endangered Species « Proclaim and Defend the Word

  9. Atticus Sheffield says:

    @Neil Yoder 7/26/12 8:02am — This thread is getting to narrow to legibly read replies, so I’m starting a new thread, while continuing the discussion.

    >Ok, I notice I’m being kinda “ganged-on” here by multiple interrogators ;<) – this can create a time-crunch on my own personal end, and I may not have the time to cover all the bases…
    If your main concern is the bombardment of opposition you are receiving, we will let up on the long posts and responses, but please answer at least one of these two questions:
    1) “Do you believe in such things as laws of logic, basic reliability of senses, and the scientific method? If so, do you have a reason for believing them that is consistent with your worldview?” and/or
    2) “Can you give any evidence or argument at all for evolution (which Dr. Lisle, Jacob, and I have been asking about for the last six posts, and receiving none)?”

    You can answer one or both of those questions and ignore the rest of this post, or you can avoid them and argue with the rest of this post… or you can answer it all:

    >>The definition of “evolution” that Creationists most often use is “the general belief that the universe started with a big bang 13.7 bya, and life appeared from non-life on the early molten earth 3.5 bya, and that that life subsequently evolved into everything we see on earth today.””
    >Why is it necessary for creationists have their own special definition of evolution which sounds suspiciously like a strawman?
    Alright, maybe “understanding” would be a better word than “definition.” Is that not what you believe, or was it an oversimplification? Personally, I think it’s a fair, to-the-point description of the main points of the big-bang’s history: Creation of universe, Appearance of life, and Evolution of life. It’s not my fault if it sounds unbelievable.

    >By your own specialized definition you seem to be removing it from the realms of theoretical/applied sciences and placing it as a philosophic issue.
    Is the big-bang observable, repeatable, or testable (ORT)? Is the appearance of life on the early earth ORT? Is the ascension/evolution of bacteria to higher life-forms ORT? If the answer to any of those is “no,” then it is already outside of the realms of observational science, and falls under historical science or philosophical imagination.

    >>Is that too much too ask?”
    >No.
    Then why, despite repetitive pleas, do we still see NO evidence for evolution?

    >I could also use the Ken Ham-ish (cliché) retort…”WERE YOU THERE??” could be applied to both evolutionists as well as creationists….since retrieving real-time accounts of aeons-old events is beyond possibility.
    Yes, but at least in our worldview, we have an account recorded in the Bible by an infallible eyewitness who was there… as opposed to sometimes faulty interpretations of evidence by fallible men.

    >This almost nullifies the entire argument, except that given a choice between the tools of
    **Orderly theoretical paradigms as a basis for real-time work
    **Philosophic/religious/political rumination
    The first choice seems the most effective.
    Orderly theoretical paradigms only make sense in light of a Biblical worldview; we have no reason to trust them in an evolutionary worldview. Philosophic/religious/political rumination is all Evolutionists have, since the evidence doesn’t support their side. And I completely agree that the first choice is the most effective because “theoretical paradigms” (or physical laws) are a reflection of how God holds up the universe by His power; whereas fallen man’s philosophical rumination is often arbitrary, with no ultimate standard by which to measure opinions or judgments.

    Respectfully in Christ,
    Atticus

    • Jacob Howard says:

      Hi Mr. Yoder,
      Might I ask what you believe then? Technically, according to the new definition of atheism (see http://padtheword.wordpress.com/p/the-definition-of-an-atheist/) everyone who isn’t a born-again Christian is an atheist. So, unless you are a born-again Christian then you must be an atheist. But, in case you don’t like the new definition you may pick from the other religions and beliefs.
      My other questions still stand and I would appreciate an answer.
      The real importance, Mr. Yoder, is where you will spend eternity. Will you be condemned for your sins (if you believe you are sinless see http://www.NeedGod.com) and sent to hell? Or will you repent and turn to the only Savior, the LORD Jesus Christ? That is the ultimate question (see http://alreadyanswered.org/u/).
      Please review these articles and questions, they are eternally important.
      In Christ Jesus alone,
      Jacob Howard

      • Neil Yoder says:

        Hi Mr. Yoder,
        Might I ask what you believe then? Technically, according to the new definition of atheism everyone who isn’t a born-again Christian is an atheist.
        ********************************************************
        Really??? Good grief!!!…so then all Buddhists, Muslims, Catholics, Hindu…are all Atheists???!!! :<0
        Who invented this new definition?? Source?

        So, unless you are a born-again Christian then you must be an atheist. But, in case you don’t like the new definition you may pick from the other religions and beliefs.
        ********************************************************
        …but in that case then, one would still be an “atheist”…?? – You mean just reject the new definition outright. It’s a new one to me.

        My other questions still stand and I would appreciate an answer.
        The real importance, Mr. Yoder, is where you will spend eternity.

        ********************************************************
        It’s not possible to “spend” eternity, since eternity itself is a theoretical construct – loosely; an unmeasurable period of time for which no beginning or end can be determined. The lack of measurability eliminates the possibility of “spending eternity”. One can spend time, but not spend eternity.
        Will you be condemned for your sins and sent to hell?
        ********************************************************
        You’re asking me to foretell my own future?? :<0

        Or will you repent and turn to the only Savior, the LORD Jesus Christ? That is the ultimate question.
        Please review these questions, they are eternally important.
        In Christ Jesus alone,
        Jacob Howard
        ********************************************************
        False dilemma fallacy.

      • Atticus Sheffield says:

        Jacob, just a little correction: according to dictionary.com, an atheist is “a person who denies or disbelieves in the existence of a supreme being or beings.” So technically, you don’t have to be lost to be an atheist; to be an atheist, you have to believe God doesn’t exist… even Satan and his angels aren’t atheists. By giving a definition like that without citation, you open up yourself up to valid attacks on your credibility. However, if you call it “your definition,” and not “the new definition,” maybe you won’t get your head bit off for that little slip-up. Among Creationists, the “definition” of evolution I gave is likely our most common understanding of the naturalistic, evolutionary worldview, so it shouldn’t be disputed too much; perhaps a better word than “evolution” might be “Darwinism”.
        Other than that, you were right on the spot about the “real importance” (despite Yoder’s fallacy fallacy [calling down an argument for a non-existent logical fallacy]).

        Respectfully in Christ,
        Atticus

        • Jacob Howard says:

          Hi,

          Sorry to be quick but I don’t have enough time right now so I’ll refer you to an article I wrote on the subject. For more visit: http://www.padtheword.wordpress.com

          Here is that article:

          According to the Merriam Webster’s dictionary, an atheist is someone who believes that there is no deity. And, of course, the description for “deity” would be any kind of god.

          However, what is an atheist? The question is one that every single Christian should know.

          As we learned from Merriam Webster’s dictionary, an atheist is anyone who does not believe in a god (whether it be God or false gods). So, with that definition no one would say that a Mormon is an atheist, for they believe in “God”, “Jesus” and other gods. And no one would say a Buddhist is an atheist for he believes in many gods.

          And as far as the Muslims and Jews go they believe in “God”. They also believe Jesus was a “good teacher” but not the Savior. But, that doesn’t make them atheists because they still believe in an deity.

          When you make it to what we call atheists you think they are atheists because they don’t believe in God, for sure, neither do they believe in a “higher being”. Nope, these atheists believe that evolution or some kind of process of chance made them.

          So, by definition these atheists are not even atheists because they have a god they believe in! To tell you the truth, in order for someone to say “there is no God” he or she must be omnipresent, omnipotent and all the other omni’s that God is related with, so they can make that statement.

          “Why?” You ask.

          Because, if you state that there is no God then you must be everywhere and know everything because the second you might not be somewhere you may miss “God”. So, when someone says they are an atheist you know they are claiming themselves to be “God”. And if atheists are “gods” then they must have been made by other gods or they are eternal, so an atheist has to believe in a deity of some sort!

          So, by definition, not a single person can say they are an atheist because it is impossible to be an atheist by the definition that we give them! Thus, we need to change the definition.

          It is very difficult to change the meaning of the word without changing the word itself and it is because of this that we must make a very careful description of what a true atheist is.

          The new definition for all Christians of an atheist should be the following:

          A person who holds to the belief that God (as revealed in the Bible and the world) does not exist.

          That definition of an atheist sure does through our definition of other religious group. For example, if we say that an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in the One True God is an atheist then that must mean that Mormon is an atheist. And that Buddhist over there is an atheist.

          And don’t forget about the Muslim over there and the Jehovah’s Witness.

          “They are all atheists?”

          “Yes.”

          “Why?”

          “Because they have rejected the One True and Only God!”

          See, when you put it in that perspective you can better see what we are up against in this battle “against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Ephesians 6:12)

          Hope that clears up some stuff.

          In Christ Jesus alone,

          Jacob Howard

          P.S. Mr. Yoder, I’m wondering about your comment about my “false dilemma fallacy”. What are you implying there? And I ask you what again do you believe? And where will you exist (better word this time?) in eternity? Heaven or Hell? Your choice.

          • Neil Yoder says:

            P.S. Mr. Yoder, I’m wondering about your comment about my “false dilemma fallacy”. What are you implying there?

            Your challenging question presented the classic evangelical false dilemma, from what I could see.

            And I ask you what again do you believe?

            Hopefully as little as possible.

            And where will you exist (better word this time?) in eternity? Heaven or Hell? Your choice.

            Of course I will send myself to Heaven, as it is purported to be the most relaxing and pleasurable place.

    • Neil Yoder says:

      If your main concern is the bombardment of opposition you are receiving, we will let up on the long posts and responses, but please answer at least one of these two questions:
      1) “Do you believe in such things as laws of logic, basic reliability of senses, and the scientific method? If so, do you have a reason for believing them that is consistent with your worldview?”

      ********************************************************************
      Yes, I believe in “laws of logic” although the term in this context may be a bit vague. I would honestly not claim to consistently follow or exercise them during all waking moments –this is a claim I would say applies to most everyone! ;<)
      2) “Can you give any evidence or argument at all for evolution (which Dr. Lisle, Jacob, and I have been asking about for the last six posts, and receiving none)?”
      *********************************************************************
      You’ll likely accuse me of wiggling or dodging..but sorry Here’s my answer in 3 parts (1 question included):
      1.What sort of “evidence” are you expecting?? I’ll refer to one of your own admissions:
      “we have no problem with the observable, testable science of natural selection (genetics; variation within kind),” (These are sub-components of evolutionary biology)
      2.No, I. Personally cannot supply you with any “evidence” as I do not work in any evolutionary biology-related field at the moment!
      …Could maybe your own perception of a “lack of evidence “ be a result of this same situation??
      3. Earlier, Dr Lisle I referred me to several creationist book-sources to address issues or problems I have brought up. There is a veritable ceiling-high stack of published works as well as online material presenting confirmation & support for the evolutionary paradigm – some of it worthwhile and convincing…some of it open to question and interpretation.
      I’ll refer you to that body of work. :<)

      There has also been a creationist caveat here, that scoffingly dismisses evidence as not being “real” (“unreal” apparently) versus “REAL!” evidence that (suspiciously) supports creationism. I’ve seen this game played before:
      ME: Supplied :
      Creationist response: LOL!!! Whatta joke!!! THAT’S NOT EVIDENCE!! I WANT “REAL” EVIDENCE AND YOU CAN’T GIVE IT TO ME!! Just like I thought. Ha Ha Ha…. etc
      Believe me…been there-seen that. It’s a common run-in-circles creationist tactic that’s a complete waste of time
      *********************************************************************
      Is the big-bang observable, repeatable, or testable (ORT)? Is the appearance of life on the early earth ORT? Is the ascension/evolution of bacteria to higher life-forms ORT? If the answer to any of those is “no,” then it is already outside of the realms of observational science, and falls under historical science or philosophical imagination.
      ********************************************************************
      ….also into the realms of theoretical paradigm models as well. ;<) This would also pertain to pretty much all theoretical mathematics and quantum physics too! The fact these proposed events cannot be ORT verified in no way provides any support for creationism, tho.

      >>Is that too much too ask?”
      >No.
      Then why, despite repetitive pleas, do we still see NO evidence for evolution?

      *********************************************************************
      You must not be looking in the right places! ;<)

      I could also use the Ken Ham-ish (cliché) retort…”WERE YOU THERE??” could be applied to both evolutionists as well as creationists….since retrieving real-time accounts of aeons-old events is beyond possibility.
      Yes, but at least in our worldview, we have an account recorded in the Bible by an infallible eyewitness who was there… as opposed to sometimes faulty interpretations of evidence by fallible men.

      ********************************************************************
      Hmmm…That’s interesting – You’re suggesting the author(s) of Genesis who were…. (HAD to be) human were somehow real time “eyewitness” to the cosmic creation event, even prior to the appearance of humans themselves??!! Please give this some rethink!!
      I’m thinking you have been taken-in by a fraudulent equivocation of the word “witness” supposing “real-time recording of an event” – when in fact the word merely means “to tell of “ – completely independent of factual verification.!
      You’ve apparently been fooled by an equivocation smokescreen often used by creationists.

      Orderly theoretical paradigms only make sense in light of a Biblical worldview; we have no reason to trust them in an evolutionary worldview. Philosophic/religious/political rumination is all Evolutionists have, since the evidence doesn’t support their side. And I completely agree that the first choice is the most effective because “theoretical paradigms” (or physical laws) are a reflection of how God holds up the universe by His power; whereas fallen man’s philosophical rumination is often arbitrary, with no ultimate standard by which to measure opinions or judgments.
      ********************************************************************
      Sorry, but this is little more than rhetorical grandstanding, some of it rather nonsensical:
      “Orderly theoretical paradigms only make sense in light of a Biblical worldview; we have no reason to trust them in an evolutionary worldview. “
      “WE” meaning creationists only?? OK then – you’ve just removed yourself from any scientific basis, since one of the hallmarks of creationism is that it offers NO working models, and has contributed nothing to science in general. It’s your choice, really. Can you cite any current operative paradigm models based on a “Biblical worldview” (whatever that may be..??)
      ” Philosophic/religious/political rumination is all Evolutionists have, since the evidence doesn’t support their side.”
      Not true or correct in any sense…and “ME” personally not supplying you with the “evidence” you desire has nothing to do with it. Look at the big picture overall.
      “theoretical paradigms” (or physical laws) are a reflection of how God holds up the universe by His power; whereas fallen man’s philosophical rumination is often arbitrary, with no ultimate standard by which to measure opinions or judgments.”
      This is little more than a rhetorical proclamation that seems to suggest that paradigm models cannot be developed by “man” but must somehow magickally appear from a divine source…….and that’s not science in any sense.

      • Neil Yoder says:

        Just a thought: a pre-post EDIT function would also help here ;<)

        Just to clarify, in the above:

        ME: Supplied : **LINK to webpage providing desired info, evidence,etc**
        Creationist response: LOL!!! Whatta joke!!! THAT’S NOT EVIDENCE!! I WANT “REAL” EVIDENCE AND YOU CAN’T GIVE IT TO ME!! Just like I thought. Ha Ha Ha…. etc
        Believe me…been there-seen that. It’s a common run-in-circles creationist tactic that’s a complete waste of time

      • Atticus Sheffield says:

        >“Yes, I believe in “laws of logic” although the term in this context may be a bit vague. I would honestly not claim to consistently follow or exercise them during all waking moments –this is a claim I would say applies to most everyone!”
        I don’t believe it! You completely avoided the relevant question, and instead answered the one that I included so I wouldn’t be accused of asking a complex question. Maybe I should have asked “do you have a reason for believing in such things as (laws of logic, etc.) that is consistent with your worldview?” But then I’m guessing you would say “complex question fallacy,” and leave it at that, thus (again) avoiding the issue.

        >“You’ll likely accuse me of wiggling or dodging…”
        Indeed.

        >“1. What sort of “evidence” are you expecting??”
        Any kind.

        >“2. No. I personally cannot supply you with any “evidence” as I do not work in any evolutionary biology-related field at the moment!”
        Nor do I have a doctorate in any science, but I can still give evidence for Creation. I can give physical evidences such as the slowing of the earth’s spin, the recession of the moon, the high temperatures of the planets, the existence of comets, and a myriad of other things, and you’ll probably refer me to a Wikipedia page a mile long that I don’t have time to read.
        Or I can say that only the Biblical worldview can make logical sense of the various evidences in a manner that is non-arbitrary and self-consistent; whereas the evolutionary worldview cannot account for such things as (laws of logic, etc.), so it must arbitrarily and inconsistently borrow presuppositions from the Bible in order to show that the Bible is untrue.
        If you answer the first set of evidences and ignore the second, then congratulations, you have successfully once again completely evaded the topic. I’ll even be happy if you answer the second and ignore the first, but only as long as your answer is logically consistent with your worldview.

        >“3… There is a veritable ceiling-high stack of published works as well as online material presenting confirmation & support for the evolutionary paradigm… I’ll refer you to that body of work.”
        A “ceiling-high stack of published works… presenting confirmation & support for the evolutionary paradigm” is not evidence for evolution, but rather evidence of many people who believe in evolution. I/we did not ask for an appeal to authority/majority, but simply evidence for your belief (of which you STILL have provided no evidence for).

        >>“Then why, despite repetitive pleas, do we still see NO evidence for evolution?”
        >“You must not be looking in the right places!”
        What better place to find evidence for evolution than from an evolutionist? I don’t understand your reasoning.

        >““WE” meaning creationists only??”
        I apologize. That use of “we” was ambiguous; I should have specified that that “we” referred to all of humanity, and not just Creationists. But the claim still stands.

        >“Can you cite any current operative paradigm models based on a “Biblical worldview” (whatever that may be..??)”
        Law of non-contradiction, law of identity, modus tollens, modus ponens—shall I continue?—law of conservation of energy, law of entropy, law of biogenesis, etc. Now I’ll turn the question around and ask “can you cite any current operative paradigm models based on an evolutionary worldview?

        >“Not true or correct in any sense…and “ME” personally not supplying you with the “evidence” you desire has nothing to do with it. Look at the big picture overall.”
        It has everything to do with it. We (Dr. Lisle, Jacob, and I) have asked YOU seven times now for evidence of evolution, and six times now, YOU have refused to comply with that request; that can be interpreted as “I don’t think I need evidence for evolution,” or “I don’t have evidence for evolution,” or “I don’t understand the question.” Or it means something else I’m not thinking of.

        >>“theoretical paradigms” (or physical laws) are a reflection of how God holds up the universe by His power; whereas fallen man’s philosophical rumination is often arbitrary, with no ultimate standard by which to measure opinions or judgments.”
        >“This is little more than a rhetorical proclamation that seems to suggest that paradigm models cannot be developed by “man” but must somehow magickally appear from a divine source…….and that’s not science in any sense.”
        Straw man: I didn’t say theoretical models cannot be developed by man, I said physical laws represent the way God holds together the universe. And by implication, if God were to stop holding up the universe in a fashion consistent with His nature, science and such “paradigms” would not be possible; in fact, life wouldn’t even be possible. In any case, the claim still stands that evolutionary arguments are often arbitrary, with no ultimate standard by which to measure opinions or judgments.

        Now please answer this ONE QUESTION that we have been asking for the last seven posts: “Do you have any evidence for evolution (the Creationist definition; macro-evolution) that is consistent with your worldview, and that does not arbitrarily borrow from Biblical presuppositions?” You may ignore the rest of this post if you answer this one question.

        • Neil Yoder says:

          Nor do I have a doctorate in any science, but I can still give evidence for Creation. I can give physical evidences such as the slowing of the earth’s spin, the recession of the moon, the high temperatures of the planets, the existence of comets, and a myriad of other things, and you’ll probably refer me to a Wikipedia page a mile long that I don’t have time to read.
          *************************************************
          You’re serious? None of the phenomena you cited are objectively “evidence for creation”. If they were, they would have been recognized as such long ago, and scientific observations & explanations would have been abandoned in favor of theological ones.
          I mean…I could take an apple, hold it out at arms length and drop it to the ground, and proclaim it “evidence for creation”. I could take a photo of autumn leaves having fallen on my porch and mount an argument that “the position of each leaf was precisely arranged in an incredible, intricate, complex(!) predetermined design by the Great designer!!” etc etc….

          Or I can say that only the Biblical worldview can make logical sense of the various evidences in a manner that is non-arbitrary and self-consistent; whereas the evolutionary worldview cannot account for such things as (laws of logic, etc.), so it must arbitrarily and inconsistently borrow presuppositions from the Bible in order to show that the Bible is untrue.
          *************************************************Sure- you can make any claim you like – my only question would be other than it’s usage as a religious buzzword slogan I have yet to ever see any explanation of what exactly a “Biblical Worldview” is…(??)

          If you answer the first set of evidences and ignore the second, then congratulations, you have successfully once again completely evaded the topic. I’ll even be happy if you answer the second and ignore the first, but only as long as your answer is logically consistent with your worldview.
          *************************************************Sorry, but I’m finding this stuff a bit confusing..and the “first set of evidences” is…..sorry, come again? You mean
          *Earth’s spin / recession of the moon / high temperature of planets / existence of comets.

          You’re saying these cannot be explained by the normal properties of physics, but must rely on, and be considered “evidence” of creation by a conscious being….???

          >“3… There is a veritable ceiling-high stack of published works as well as online material presenting confirmation & support for the evolutionary paradigm… I’ll refer you to that body of work.”
          A “ceiling-high stack of published works… presenting confirmation & support for the evolutionary paradigm” is not evidence for evolution, but rather evidence of many people who believe in evolution.
          *************************************************That’s a real dodge….but I’ll play along, for in that case also, the myriad misguided claims of so-called “creation evidence” are in fact not evidence for creation but rather evidence of the many people taken –in by the anti-science political lobbying effort known as the creationism movement….

          but I/we did not ask for an appeal to authority/majority, but simply evidence for your belief (of which you STILL have provided no evidence for).
          *************************************************
          “Evidence for my belief” would be the content I am posting in response to your inquiries.

          What better place to find evidence for evolution than from an evolutionist? I don’t understand your reasoning.
          ************************************************
          Good point. I DID in fact point you toward “evolutionist” sources. I don’t understand your reasoning.

          >“Can you cite any current operative paradigm models based on a “Biblical worldview” (whatever that may be..??)”
          Law of non-contradiction, law of identity, modus tollens, modus ponens—shall I continue?—law of conservation of energy, law of entropy, law of biogenesis, etc. Now I’ll turn the question around and ask “can you cite any current operative paradigm models based on an evolutionary worldview?
          *************************************************
          You’ve got to do better than that – can you please provide some direct original sources (links /specific persons etc) ascribing, for instance, the “Law of conservation of energy” et al having been developed within the framework of a “Biblical worldview” – sorry I’m not buying it. Same with any of the others…

          >“Not true or correct in any sense…and “ME” personally not supplying you with the “evidence” you desire has nothing to do with it. Look at the big picture overall.”
          It has everything to do with it. We (Dr. Lisle, Jacob, and I) have asked YOU seven times now for evidence of evolution, and six times now, YOU have refused to comply with that request; that can be interpreted as “I don’t think I need evidence for evolution,” or “I don’t have evidence for evolution,” or “I don’t understand the question.” Or it means something else I’m not thinking of.
          *************************************************
          Sure – “It has everything to do with it”…in the sense of command and control-style personal evangelism – NOT an objective layman’s discussion of scientific or philosophical issues. ;<)

          Now please answer this ONE QUESTION that we have been asking for the last seven posts: “Do you have any evidence for evolution (the Creationist definition; macro-evolution) that is consistent with your worldview, and that does not arbitrarily borrow from Biblical presuppositions?” You may ignore the rest of this post if you answer this one question.
          *************************************************
          Hmmm…”(the Creationist definition; macro-evolution)”
          I detect a strawman. You likely insist on me showing you an exciting, dynamic powerpoint demonstration showing a fossil organism turning from one species to another in 5 easy steps?? ;<)

          **The fruit fly Drosophila subobscura has been evolving bigger wings in higher latitudes in North and South America;
          **The decline in head size of Australian frog-eating snakes in response to the arrival of poisonous toads in 1935 (a smaller head makes it harder to eat a deadly toad).
          **Insect pests evolving resistance to pesticides
          **Antibiotic resistance in bacteria
          http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03
          http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/a-natural-selection/
          Jawless fish to Jawed Vertebrate
          · Birkenia — primitive, jawless fish, typical member of the group "Anaspida"
          · Cephalaspis — Armored jawless fish, archetypical member of the jawless fish group "Osteostraca," sister group to all jawed vertebrates.
          · Shuyu — Armored jawless fish belonging to Galeaspida, related to Osteostraca. Internal cranial anatomy very similar to the anatomy seen in basal jawed vertebrates. This similarity is directly implied with the translation of its name, "Dawn Fish," with the implication that it represents the "dawn of jawed vertebrates."
          · Brindabellaspis — a primitive placoderm fish that has brain anatomy very similar to armored jawless fish like osteostracans
          Acanthodian to shark
          · Ptomacanthus — sharklike fish, originally described as an acanthodian fish: brain anatomy demonstrates that it is an intermediate between acanthodians and sharks.
          · Cladoselache — primitive/basal shark.
          · Tristychius — another sharklike fish.
          · Ctenacanthus — primitive/basal shark.
          · Paleospinax — sharklike jaw, primitive teeth.
          · Spathobatis — Ray-like fish.
          · Protospinax — Ancestral to both sharks and skates.

          [Editor's note: Neil provided more examples, but the post length became unwieldy, and could be perceived as the fallacy of elephant hurling. I suggest readers concede that the other examples are as legitimate or illegitimate as the examples shown here.]

          · Sinornithosaurus
          · Microraptor — a feathered bird with distinctly dinosaurian characteristics, such as its tail.
          · Xiaotingia — slightly earlier than Archaeopteryx, slightly more like a dinosaur and less like a bird
          · Archaeopteryx — the famous bird-with-teeth.
          · Columba One of many typical modern birds

          Now, likely I’ve “FAILED”, from a creationist viewpoint???:
          **None of these examples are supported by scripture or can explain their relativity to a “Biblical Worldview”
          **Heck – None of it is “Real Evidence”, anyways, right??
          **”I” personally did not generate any of this data through my own research and have failed to materialize any “PHYSICAL evidence” into the room in which you are sitting…;<)
          **My source examples are all “arbitrary & illogical” in some mysterious way…
          **Heck – I may have even grabbed some material from the dreaded “Talk Origins” website – which is against the rules in Creationist-formatted discussions!!! :<0
          Hopefully not…..

          • Jacob Howard says:

            Hi Mr. Yoder,

            First of all I want to thank you for your lsit of evidence, it has been most helpful in figuring out what you believe.

            **The fruit fly Drosophila subobscura has been evolving bigger wings in higher latitudes in North and South America;

            Actually it is still a fruit fly. Higher latitudes (I think you meant altitudes) would cause a fruit fly to make more muscle.

            **The decline in head size of Australian frog-eating snakes in response to the arrival of poisonous toads in 1935 (a smaller head makes it harder to eat a deadly toad).

            It is still a frog.

            **Insect pests evolving resistance to pesticides

            Actually, all the information was there already, the situation brought out the defense. Just like you have anti-virus fighting machines in your body. When a threat arises those fighters go to work, even though you wouldn’t recognize it at first.

            **Antibiotic resistance in bacteria

            I’m guessing you are probably referring to the time when bacteria that had their “lactose-break-down” genes removed were fed lactose. Amazingly these bacteria broke down the lactose. However, later the bacteria were exposed because of a gene called ebg genes that breaks down lactose. When the experiment was done again without the ebg genes the bacteria died.

            Jawless fish to Jawed Vertebrate

            • Birkenia — primitive, jawless fish, typical member of the group “Anaspida”
            • Cephalaspis — Armored jawless fish, archetypical member of the jawless fish group “Osteostraca,” sister group to all jawed vertebrates.
            • Shuyu — Armored jawless fish belonging to Galeaspida, related to Osteostraca. Internal cranial anatomy very similar to the anatomy seen in basal jawed vertebrates. This similarity is directly implied with the translation of its name, “Dawn Fish,” with the implication that it represents the “dawn of jawed vertebrates.”
            • Brindabellaspis — a primitive placoderm fish that has brain anatomy very similar to armored jawless fish like osteostracans

            I have no idea what all this jawless stuff means. If you ask me all these fish are directly jawless fish or jawed fish. I don’t see any connection.

            Acanthodian to shark

            • Ptomacanthus — sharklike fish, originally described as an acanthodian fish: brain anatomy demonstrates that it is an intermediate between acanthodians and sharks.

            Did they find the brain of this creature?! Either it was a fish or a shark. Scientists once thought Archaeopteryx was an intermediate between dino and bird but it wasn’t, it was completely bird.

            • Cladoselache — primitive/basal shark.
            • Tristychius — another sharklike fish.
            • Ctenacanthus — primitive/basal shark.
            • Paleospinax — sharklike jaw, primitive teeth.
            • Spathobatis — Ray-like fish.
            • Protospinax — Ancestral to both sharks and skates.

            I don’t see any connection here.

            • Sinornithosaurus

            Collagen. This is a structure in the skin that makes up a lot feathers of the “feathered dinosaurs”. An evolutionists even admitted that this was collagen.

            • Microraptor — a feathered bird with distinctly dinosaurian characteristics, such as its tail.

            Microraptor was a very unique bird. He probably could have flown well because of the design of his feathers and body. Many people ridicule the flight of a bee but guess what, it still flies.

            • Xiaotingia — slightly earlier than Archaeopteryx, slightly more like a dinosaur and less like a bird

            The feathers-like structures on this dinosaur are nothing like real feathers. In fact, the fossil is just plain out bad. Those structures could be anything.

            • Archaeopteryx — the famous bird-with-teeth.

            Hoatzins have claws on their wings, like Archaeopteryx did. Itchyornis had teeth. Even if absolutely zero birds on all the earth had no teeth with the exception of Archaeopteryx it still wouldn’t matter. God made all kinds of animals and He made every kind inside each kind. Archaeopteryx is a flight-worthy bird.

            • Columba One of many typical modern birds

            Ummm . . . little confused with this.

            In Christ Jesus alone,

            Jacob Howard

            http://www.alreadyanswered.org

            • Neil Yoder says:

              First of all I want to thank you for your lsit (sic) of evidence, it has been most helpful in figuring out what you believe.
              **The fruit fly Drosophila subobscura has been evolving bigger wings in higher latitudes in North and South America;
              Actually it is still a fruit fly. Higher latitudes (I think you meant altitudes) would cause a fruit fly to make more muscle.
              ************************************
              No, the observation refers to farther northward. You are suggesting the (Creationist strawman) definition where one creature “evolves into something else”…??
              **The decline in head size of Australian frog-eating snakes in response to the arrival of poisonous toads in 1935 (a smaller head makes it harder to eat a deadly toad).
              It is still a frog.
              ************************************Certainly. An adapting, evolving one.

              **Insect pests evolving resistance to pesticides
              Actually, all the information was there already, the situation brought out the defense. Just like you have anti-virus fighting machines in your body. When a threat arises those fighters go to work, even though you wouldn’t recognize it at first.

              ************************************By “information” – you mean what, exactly??

              **Antibiotic resistance in bacteria
              I’m guessing you are probably referring to the time when bacteria that had their “lactose-break-down” genes removed were fed lactose. Amazingly these bacteria broke down the lactose. However, later the bacteria were exposed because of a gene called ebg genes that breaks down lactose. When the experiment was done again without the ebg genes the bacteria died.

              ************************************No I was’nt referring to that specific instance.
              “However, later the bacteria were exposed because of a gene called ebg genes that breaks down lactose.”
              I’m not really following that. Can you cite exactly where this research was done & by whom??

              I have no idea what all this jawless stuff means. If you ask me all these fish are directly jawless fish or jawed fish. I don’t see any connection.
              ************************************
              http://animals.about.com/od/evolution/a/vertebrateevolu.htm

              Acanthodian to shark
              • Ptomacanthus — sharklike fish, originally described as an acanthodian fish: brain anatomy demonstrates that it is an intermediate between acanthodians and sharks.
              Did they find the brain of this creature?! Either it was a fish or a shark. Scientists once thought Archaeopteryx was an intermediate between dino and bird but it wasn’t, it was completely bird.

              ************************************Basic brain anatomy would have been derived from fossil remains. Who are the “scientists” who made this conclusion on archaeopteryx (out-of-left-field example, btw)?
              There is a current view, that in fact birds ARE dinosaur remnants, so I’m questioning your “not dino, but completely bird” claim.

              • Cladoselache — primitive/basal shark.
              • Tristychius — another sharklike fish.
              • Ctenacanthus — primitive/basal shark.
              • Paleospinax — sharklike jaw, primitive teeth.
              • Spathobatis — Ray-like fish.
              • Protospinax — Ancestral to both sharks and skates.
              I don’t see any connection here.

              ************************************
              They are examples of jawless fish to jawed vertebrate transition.

              • Sinornithosaurus
              Collagen. This is a structure in the skin that makes up a lot feathers of the “feathered dinosaurs”. An evolutionists even admitted that this was collagen.

              ************************************
              Sourceless claim. “An evolutionist” is not good enough.

              • Microraptor — a feathered bird with distinctly dinosaurian characteristics, such as its tail.
              Microraptor was a very unique bird. He probably could have flown well because of the design of his feathers and body. Many people ridicule the flight of a bee but guess what, it still flies.

              ************************************
              Off-topic speculation.

              • Xiaotingia — slightly earlier than Archaeopteryx, slightly more like a dinosaur and less like a bird
              The feathers-like structures on this dinosaur are nothing like real feathers. In fact, the fossil is just plain out bad. Those structures could be anything.

              ************************************
              So whose speculation is this?…and was it arrived at through any valid research being conducted on the subject(s) in question??

          • Wayne Hultgren says:

            **The fruit fly Drosophila subobscura has been evolving bigger wings in higher latitudes in North and South America;
            **The decline in head size of Australian frog-eating snakes in response to the arrival of poisonous toads in 1935 (a smaller head makes it harder to eat a deadly toad).
            **Insect pests evolving resistance to pesticides
            **Antibiotic resistance in bacteria

            Pardon me for joining in so late in the discussion, but I have something to add here.

            The (Macro) Evolution example that was asked for was not given in any sense of the term. All of these examples (which I copied from your original post) are all relating to genetic mutation.
            Genetic Mutation and Macro Evolution are entirely different things. Genetic Mutation suggests that changes in a genome result in variations among already established and available body parts of an organism.

            Macro Evolution prescribes that somewhere along the way a massive change occurs in the genome of an organism, such that a (beneficial) change occurs in their bodily structure, producing a previously non-existent limb in an organism that did not have one. (A great example of Macro Evolution would be that fruit fly you mentioned suddenly growing gills and a tail with fins to move about underwater.)

            As has been mentioned above, Creationists do NOT deny Natural Selection in the way that you (are/seem) to be thinking. Natural Selection is the process by which Genetic Mutation occurs. (as your evidence of snakes developing smaller heads so as to become unable to eat poisonous toads) this is merely Natural Selection, not Macro Evolution.

            Yes, Macro Evolution (would) occur using an animals genome as the basis for mutation to occur, however no such evidence for macro evolution has ever been established. What we do see is variation in kinds, however this is the process of Natural Selection which produces genetically similar organisms. Darwin’s Finches are an excellent example of genetic mutation. Unfortunately those birds all share one thing in common. A beak. Not the physical size or shape of said beak, because those are different, (and that is the result of natural selection in an environment which chooses the best genetic mutations that enable an organisms survival in different conditions) but the genetic material for such a construct to be present in the first place remains in all of the finches of the Galapagos.

            In short, while Darwin’s Finches might physically appear different in some sense, (the size and shape of the birds’ beaks), the fact remains that the birds have beaks in the first place, thus disproving Evolution from a Macro perspective.

  10. Thomas says:

    Interesting thought, Dr. Lisle (or whoever the author of this article was!) I have been very blessed by your explanation of the logic of creationism. It has helped me tremendously in my own search for truth. May God bless you as you continue to serve Him!

  11. Atticus Sheffield says:

    Can someone tell me how to make the font different colors like Dr. Lisle does? I’ve tried both
    font color=”blue”, and
    font blue
    encased in angle brackets , followed by
    /font
    also encased in angle brackets; so it looks like this in the text box (minus the spaces):
    Ultimate Proof of Creation
    and like this in the post:
    Ultimate Proof of Creation
    The HTML tags disappear, but the text doesn’t appear blue (as an aside, the italics and bold tags work, but not font color). Does someone know what’s going on?

  12. Art says:

    Recently watched a debate between William Lane Craig and Shelly Kagan, Yale professor. They were arguing whether God is necessary for morality. I don’t usually watch Craig, but since the debate had to do with an evidence you use in the Ultimate Proof of Creation I decided to watch. Craig did an okay job, I guess, but I thought he really missed some key opportunities to be more persuasive. For example, at one point Kagan asserted that objective morality is possible without God because humans have reached a point in their evolution where they can reason what is right and wrong, and therefore, according to Kagan, this provides the grounds for objective morality. He also said something about how knowing that wrong behavior is harmful makes it objective, and he used an example of a toddler destroying property and a kid doing the same, saying, the toddler is not “wrong” because he can’t appreciate his actions, but the kid would be “wrong” because he knows what he’s doing is wrong. Is it just me or is this argument completely ridiculous. I don’t have any degrees as Kagan or Craig, but I thought Craig let him get away with a fast one here. I was curious how you would have responded. I think you would’ve been too smart to allow Kagan to get by with this ridiculous assertion. In my opinion, what does it matter if, in the evolutionary worldview, humans have evolved to have reason (which is a Christian presupposition, as well, and therefore, has no grounds in Kagan’s worldview); nonetheless, even if humans have acquired the ability to “reason,” that it doesn’t follow that morality automatically gets a jump from subjective to objective. This is clear, in my opinion, if I were to ask the question, Why ought I not harm others? Why ought I behave according to what you reason to be right and wrong? I might reason hurting you as much as possible is wonderful? What right do you have to tell me I’m wrong? I think this question would put him in a real bind because if he says he does have the right, he’s left to explain the grounds for enforcing his morality onto others and if he were to say he doesn’t have the right to tell that person he is wrong, well then, he’s just admitted that objective morality isn’t possible. What’s your take. And sorry for the long post.

    • Thomas says:

      For one thing, morality cannot be allowed to evolve. If so, what is right for us today may not be right for others tomorrow. In that case, we could be unwittingly breaking the law, and believing that it is right. Morality must be based on an unchanging standard, or else it is not really morality at all. If morality is purely objective, one man’s form of morality could be totally different from that of another, and it would be perfectly right. What Kagan is trying to do is, in my opinion, demonstrate how all humans have evolved to the same degree of morality. The only problem is, who is to say what that “perfect degree of morality” is? What if it is right for one person to kill another, and it is wrong for his friend to do the same thing? Whose standard of morality is superior. In the end, this kind of thinking all boils down to what man perceives to be truth, which cannot, in my opinion, lead to a firm, unwavering, just moral code.

    • Dr. Lisle says:

      Hi Art,

      You’re exactly right. Kagan didn’t provide a basis for morality. Instead, he merely produced a conjecture about how humans acquired the ability to make moral decisions. It’s like the difference between learning to drive a car, and explaining why that car exists. They are two different issues entirely.

      His explanation about “harm” is totally subjective and arbitrary. Why should THAT be the criterion as opposed to some other? And who decides what “harm” is anyway? Is it okay for me to kill a frog, an ant, a carrot, a bacterium? What if I claim that since people are harming the planet, I am helping the earth by killing the people that harm it? Would that be moral? Clearly Kagan’s explanation leads to absurd results. He can’t actually explain the basis for morality, nor why it should be binding on others.

  13. Dr. Lisle says:

    Hi Neil,

    Thank you for attempting to provide evidence for evolution. Let’s examine some of the reasons for evolution that you provided. Your first reason was philosophical in nature. You state:

    > This almost nullifies the entire argument, except that given a choice between the tools of
    > **Orderly theoretical paradigms as a basis for real-time work
    > **Philosophic/religious/political rumination
    > The first choice seems the most effective.

    But does this really support evolution as opposed to creation? Both creation and evolution are paradigms which scientists use as a basis for real-time work. Both have philosophical, religious, and even political implications. So it is not at all clear why you would prefer evolution to creation on such a basis. When we carefully think through the implications, we find that only creation can offer a logically consistent paradigm in which science is possible. In other words, if you like “orderly theoretical paradigms as a basis for real-time work,” only creation logically allows such a thing. There would be no basis for laws of logic, laws of nature, or rationality in human thought, apart from biblical creation. Therefore, orderly theoretical paradigms would be impossible.

    Before we look at some of the specific lines of scientific evidence you mentioned, I need to address a very common fallacy often committed by evolutionists. It’s called the fallacy of equivocation. This occurs when a person shifts the meaning of a term within an argument. So a person attempts to prove “B” by showing evidence for “A” – which doesn’t follow. But since he uses the same term for “A” and “B,” it sounds superficially like he has proved his point. But of course he hasn’t. In this case, it is common for evolutionists to equivocate on the term “evolution.”

    Evolution can mean “change” in a general sense. It can refer to change within a kind of organism due to loss of genetic information. No one denies these kinds of “change.” However, evolution can also mean “particles-to-people” evolution. This type of evolution would require copious amounts of brand new creative information to be added to the genome. (Reason: single-celled prokaryotes have some information in their DNA, but people have a lot more. So if people are descended from prokaryotes, then new information must have been added to the DNA.) It seems to me that all the examples that you provided are information-reducing, or information-neutral, and are therefore not examples of particles-to-people evolution at all.

    > The fruit fly Drosophila subobscura has been evolving bigger wings in higher latitudes in North and South America;

    This is an example of variation within a kind – not evolution between kinds. There is no evidence that any brand new instructions have been added to the DNA. There is natural variation of wing size. And those that have wings less adapted to the environment have been eliminated. This has reduced the genetic information content. So it is the opposite of evolution – at least the type of evolution for which you are supposed to be arguing.

    > **The decline in head size of Australian frog-eating snakes in response to the arrival of poisonous toads in 1935 (a smaller head makes it harder to eat a deadly toad).

    This is another example of variation within a kind – not evolution between kinds. There is no evidence that any brand new instructions have been added to the DNA. There is natural variation within head size. Those variations less conducive to survival have been eliminated. The variable information in the DNA has been reduced. This is the opposite of evolution in the particles-to-people sense.

    > **Antibiotic resistance in bacteria

    There are several ways in which bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics. But none involve brand-new information arising in DNA. For example, there is mutation that removes information from a gene in the H. pylori bacterium which causes it to be unable to produce an enzyme. This enzyme would normally interact with the antibiotic in such a way that it becomes poison and kills the bacterium. Since the mutated form lacks the ability to produce the enzyme, it survives. But it survives because it lost genetic information. This is the exact opposite of what you need to turn “primitive” single-celled organisms into people. Neil, you need to provide us with examples of brand-new information being added to the DNA. All the examples you’ve provided so far are the opposite of evolution.

    Next, you listed a bunch of organisms from the fossil record. Presumably, you believe that these somehow support evolution, or are contrary to biblical creation. But it is not clear why you believe this. All the examples you provided are easily classified as a particular kind. You listed fish, birds, reptiles, and so on. There are certainly variations within these kinds, some of which are now extinct (modern birds don’t have teeth, but some pre-flood varieties did). This is all exactly as creationists would expect.

    If evolution were true, it would be virtually impossible to classify organisms within the fossil record. You could only say things like this: “This appears to be about 30% invertebrate, 70% fish. This one is 60% bird and 40% reptile – see how the feathers are still only partially formed?” But this isn’t what we see in the fossil record. We see fully designed organisms, easily classified as one kind or another just as creationists would expect.

    > **None of these examples are supported by scripture or can explain their relativity to a “Biblical Worldview”

    On the contrary. Creationists do believe in variation within a kind. The examples you provided are wonderfully consistent with creation and the worldwide flood.

    > None of it is “Real Evidence”, anyways, right??

    Of course it is real evidence. It’s just evidence for creation. I asked you to provide evidence for evolution.

    To be clear, variation within a kind is biblical. It’s what creationists expect. Evolutionists expect variation between the major kinds – and that is not what we find (neither in the fossil record, nor today). Creationists expect loss of information in the DNA as organisms adapt to their environment. And we see clear examples of that in fruit flies, and bacteria antibiotic resistance. Evolution requires brand new information to be added to DNA. But evolutionists are at a loss to provide examples of this.

    So all the evidence you’ve provided so far is very compelling evidence for creation. Would you like to try again, and attempt to provide some evidence for particles-to-people evolution?

    • Neil Yoder says:

      But does this really support evolution as opposed to creation? Both creation and evolution are paradigms which scientists use as a basis for real-time work.
      ********************************************************************
      I’ve got some suspicions as to the nature of the “real-time work” or research conducted by creationist organizations probably expressed quite accurately….

      **While creationism explains everything, it offers no understanding beyond, “that’s the way it was created.” No testable predictions can be derived from the creationist explanation. Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life.**
      From the Botanical Society OF America’s statement on evolution July 27, 2003

      Both have philosophical, religious, and even political implications. So it is not at all clear why you would prefer evolution to creation on such a basis. When we carefully think through the implications, we find that only creation can offer a logically consistent paradigm in which science is possible. In other words, if you like “orderly theoretical paradigms as a basis for real-time work,” only creation logically allows such a thing. There would be no basis for laws of logic, laws of nature, or rationality in human thought, apart from biblical creation. Therefore, orderly theoretical paradigms would be impossible.
      **********************************************************************Refer back to my previous response. It seems this lofty claim doesn’t enjoy much universal support or consensus!

      Before we look at some of the specific lines of scientific evidence you mentioned, I need to address a very common fallacy often committed by evolutionists. It’s called the fallacy of equivocation. This occurs when a person shifts the meaning of a term within an argument.
      *********************************************************************
      …Such as usage of the term “witness” or “eyewitness” to imply the Genesis account to be a real-time, in-person recording, and logging of the creation event as it occurred in real time?? This one has already been attempted by a previous responder, and I believe it’s a close to a foundational belief with many creationist organizations, such as AIG etc…
      …or of usage of the terms “information, genetic information, or brand new creative information”?? Or of a taxonomic classification of “kind”?

      So a person attempts to prove “B” by showing evidence for “A” – which doesn’t follow. But since he uses the same term for “A” and “B,” it sounds superficially like he has proved his point. But of course he hasn’t. In this case, it is common for evolutionists to equivocate on the term “evolution.”
      Evolution can mean “change” in a general sense. It can refer to change within a kind of organism due to loss of genetic information. No one denies these kinds of “change.” However, evolution can also mean “particles-to-people” evolution.

      *********************************************************************
      Creationist strawman term. …and while we’re at it, might you yourself be equivocating with the loose, undefined usage of the term “information” in this case?? Unless you can be a bit more clear as to how you’re defining it.

      This type of evolution would require copious amounts of brand new creative information to be added to the genome. (Reason: single-celled prokaryotes have some information in their DNA, but people have a lot more. So if people are descended from prokaryotes, then new information must have been added to the DNA.) It seems to me that all the examples that you provided are information-reducing, or information-neutral, and are therefore not examples of particles-to-people evolution at all.
      ********************************************************************
      Good! Since once again, terms such as “particles to people”, “Molecules-to-man” or “goo-to-you” are creationist strawman arguments, and I would’nt try to gear any of my responses, arguments, or claims with any intent of “proving” them! ;<)
      So what is “brand new creative information?” You could also be wrong in your assumption where it seems to you the examples cited somehow reduce or don’t affect this mysterious variable.
      I’ve also heard the various “genetic information” arguments, and have a hard time nailing down exactly what is even meant by this term. You mean Information theory? Where randomness (random noise) can actually increase or even maximize information? Gene duplication proceses?

      The fruit fly Drosophila subobscura has been evolving bigger wings in higher latitudes in North and South America;
      This is an example of variation within a kind – not evolution between kinds. There is no evidence that any brand new instructions have been added to the DNA.

      *********************************************************************…and you have determined this (“brand new instructions”) how exactly??? By your own, or creationist work w/ drosophila subobscura?? Sorry I just have to ask… Mutation can add (OR reduce) genetic variation to a population – how did you determine this somehow reduced it??

      There is natural variation of wing size. And those that have wings less adapted to the environment have been eliminated. This has reduced the genetic information content.
      *********************************************************************
      How can you determine this without detailed census numbers ?? … and let’s consider that likely these flies are not finished adapting yet …
      …and that mysterious “information(?)” variable – do you mean less genetic variation ?? I don’t see how, as we would have a population of varying average and “average + plus” wing sizes, BOTH, in the process of adapting/ evolving.
      We could safely assume the environment did not catastrophically “eliminate” those with average size wings in one fell swoop – the change took place gradually over generations, and may still not be complete.

      > **The decline in head size of Australian frog-eating snakes in response to the arrival of poisonous toads in 1935 (a smaller head makes it harder to eat a deadly toad).
      This is another example of variation within a kind – not evolution between kinds. There is no evidence that any brand new instructions have been added to the DNA.
      *********************************************************************
      Hmm… Is the “no evidence” because I did’nt include any detailed study or measurement data??? :<)
      Btw – Is the term “kind” currently recognized within the biological community, or used in studies??

      There is natural variation within head size. Those variations less conducive to survival have been eliminated. The variable information in the DNA has been reduced. This is the opposite of evolution in the particles-to-people sense.
      *********************************************************************
      No, there are still the same variability limits to the snake head sizes – it’s just that the statistical mean average head sizes have shifted to the “smaller”. The variables & genetic variation should still be there. How in the world do you determine the “variable information in the DNA has been reduced” without studying the DNA itself?? :<0…and how do you automatically know less-than optimal “variations” have been completely(?) eliminated?
      Btw I’m ignoring your efforts to try pidgeonholing me into proving “particles to people” whatever – as I’m not familiar with it…

      There are several ways in which bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics. But none involve brand-new information arising in DNA.
      *********************************************************************Incorrect. Some bacteria are capable of absorbing DNA from their environment (Avery–MacLeod–McCarty experiment)
      Also:
      http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/20/4657
      “Creation of genetic information by DNA polymerase of the thermophilic bacterium Thermus thermophilus”

      Next, you listed a bunch of organisms from the fossil record. Presumably, you believe that these somehow support evolution, or are contrary to biblical creation.
      *********************************************************************Bit of a false dilemma there, as I’ve made no claims of this evidence in light of biblical creation, since biblical creation hasn’t even been able to enter the scientific arena…

      But it is not clear why you believe this. All the examples you provided are easily classified as a particular kind.
      *********************************************************************I might be a little out of the loop, but where is “kind” used as a taxonomic classification? Only among creationists?

      You listed fish, birds, reptiles, and so on. There are certainly variations within these kinds, some of which are now extinct (modern birds don’t have teeth, but some pre-flood varieties did). This is all exactly as creationists would expect.
      *********************************************************************
      Why isn’t this interpretation backed up by secular (non-religious based) institutions. Or confirmed by studies that are not biased or retro-fitted toward producing results geared toward creationism, and a supposed “recent” global flood event??

      If evolution were true, it would be virtually impossible to classify organisms within the fossil record. You could only say things like this: “This appears to be about 30% invertebrate, 70% fish. This one is 60% bird and 40% reptile – see how the feathers are still only partially formed?” But this isn’t what we see in the fossil record. We see fully designed organisms, easily classified as one kind or another just as creationists would expect.
      *********************************************************************Hmm…we see fully ”designed”, not fully “formed” organisms??…
      When I hear the term design, I think “process”…so you can somehow magically see a process taking place upon observing the fossil record? – That’s quite a leap of faith!

      On the contrary. Creationists do believe in variation within a kind. The examples you provided are wonderfully consistent with creation and the worldwide flood.
      *********************************************************************
      Oops this sounds like the creationist (excuse) – “Sure, we see the evidence, but we just wanna interpret it differently!!” :<)
      To be clear, variation within a kind is biblical. It’s what creationists expect.
      ************************************************************************Once again this seems to be based upon a retrofit – – “Sure, we see the evidence, but we just wanna interpret it differently!!” :<)
      Evolutionists expect variation between the major kinds – and that is not what we find (neither in the fossil record, nor today).
      *********************************************************************“Evolutionists expect variation between the major kinds – and that is not what we creationists find (neither in the fossil record, nor today).??
      Once again…do evolutionists even recognize or work with a taxonomic variable “kind”??

      Creationists expect loss of information in the DNA as organisms adapt to their environment. And we see clear examples of that in fruit flies, and bacteria antibiotic resistance.
      *********************************************************************Also cases disproving this as shown .
      Just a question – what creationist institutions are actually conducting research work in any of these areas??

      Evolution requires brand new information to be added to DNA. But evolutionists are at a loss to provide examples of this.
      *********************************************************************
      Incorrect- see previous.

      So all the evidence you’ve provided so far is very compelling evidence for creation. Would you like to try again, and attempt to provide some evidence for particles-to-people evolution?
      *********************************************************************Not likely since once again “Particles-To-People Evolution” is a creationist strawman . ;<)

      • Jacob Howard says:

        Three questions: do you have any creationist sources to back-up any of your claims? Since you obviously rely on evolutionist claims why shouldn’t we have you back-up everything you say with creationist sources? If you trust in the evolutionist work why can’t we trust in the creationist?

      • Charlie says:

        Oh please, Neil. Surely you can grasp the point Dr. Lisle was making of the different intentions of the word ‘evolution’? How else can he put it that would make it any clearer? Are you really going to side-step this issue by saying :
        a. you don’t know what ‘particles-to-people’-evolution means, or
        b. that it means something that you are not trying to prove anyway?
        But if a. or b. are in fact true, then may the following be helpful to you:
        a. Sure, you may not have heard the phrase ‘particles-to-people’ before; I’ll grant that as a possibility. Or you may have only heard creationists use it, and therefore assume it is not worthy to be used or is a trap or something, which is not necessarily the case (it may actually be a legitimate distinction in the uses of the term, even if you yourself do not see the need to make that distinction). Whatever the case may be, even given only the context of Dr. Lisle’s last post, the reason and intention of its use are abundantly clear, do you not understand it? It is a clarification as to which meaning of the word ‘evolution’ is intended.
        His chosen wording for clarification of two different intentions of the same word is as follows: 1. evolution: variation within kinds. 2. evolution: particles-to-people.

        Perhaps you will find the following helpful:
        1. ‘Kinds’ being used as creatures which are distinct from each other as cats are distinct from dogs and lizards distinct from birds. The opposite would be zebras, horses, and donkeys, though displaying great variety, are of the same kind. Or lions, tigers, and house-cats, they are of the same kind. Even camels, llamas, and alpacas are of the same kind. But dinosaurs and birds?*
        2. One intention of the word ‘evolution’ is a summarization of ‘particles-to-people’, which is in turn a summarization of: ‘All creatures descending, ultimately, from the same source- having the same initial ancestor-eventually even coming from the same initial particle(s).’ Which in turn is a summarization of:… (though I could go on with further detailed definitions, I will stop here since I think the point has been made.) There is good reason for distinction of multiple intentions of the same word, and also for the use of words or phrases which summarize much of one intention. There is also a good balance of the two, which varies depending on the understanding of the communicating parties. The question is, is your understanding enlightened enough to move on from here? Or need you further explanation?

        Whether you accept the differences in ‘kinds’ (as do creationists) or not, at least you can clearly see that Dr. Lisle is making a distinction when he says ‘variation within kind’ as opposed to ‘particles to people’. He could have been ambiguous and left it as ‘evolution’ as opposed to ‘evolution’. But then you’d have to try to figure out which one he intended in each case. He made it much easier for you, even if you don’t believe the same things he does. At least you know what he intends.

        b. What is your intention in posting that long list of examples? Are you not showing examples which you think support your beliefs?

        “Basic brain anatomy would have been derived from fossil remains. Who are the “scientists” who made this conclusion on archaeopteryx (out-of-left-field example, btw)?
        There is a current view, that in fact birds ARE dinosaur remnants, so I’m questioning your “not dino, but completely bird” claim.”
        ^ does this mean that you believe that birds have descended from dinosaurs? If so, then according to Dr. Lisle’s intentions of ‘evolution’, that is not within the ‘variation-within-kind’ intention of the word ‘evolution’, but goes beyond it (since birds and dinosaurs are not the same kind*), and would fit more under the overarching ‘particles-to-people’ intention, though this is only one transition of one kind into another, whereas a complete ‘particles-to-people’ process would require many, many transitions along the way.

        Do you believe that one ‘kind’ (if you’ll go along with the use of the word) can or has transitioned into a different ‘kind’? Do you believe that birds have descended from dinosaurs?

        Do you believe in particles-to-people evolution? Do you believe that all living organisms, including people, have ultimately descended from the same ancestors, which ultimately came from the same particle(s)?

        If you don’t like the way I worded it, will you word what you believe in such a way as to help me understand it?

        People believe all sorts of things, to the point that distinction in intention is indeed very helpful, and I would encourage it both from Dr. Lisle, and from you.

        In utmost sincerity,
        Charlie

        • Charlie says:

          For more on ‘Kinds’ from a creationist perspective, you can even google search ‘baraminology’: created kinds. Obviously, yes, this comes from the Bible. But as Jacob pointed out, that does not necessarily make it wrong.

          • Charlie says:

            Jacob didn’t specifically address this. But the point remains whether he did or not.
            However, he did address something similar: just because it is creationist doesn’t necessarily mean it is wrong. It goes back to the same source: creationists are creationists because that is what the Bible tells us took place.
            Just because is it from the Bible doesn’t necessarily mean it is wrong either.

      • Dr. Lisle says:

        > **While creationism explains everything, it offers no understanding beyond, “that’s the way it was created.”

        No. Biblical creation gives us the rational justification for science. Apart from creation, there would be no reason to expect that the universe would obey universal laws, which do not arbitrarily change, and which the human mind can understand. Can you make sense of such things from an evolutionary perspective Neil?

        > No testable predictions can be derived from the creationist explanation.

        This quote you cited is demonstrably false. As just one example of many, take Dr. Humphreys’ prediction of the magnetic fields of the planets based on creation 6000 years ago. It was the evolutionary predictions that failed miserably.

        > Creationism has yielded no classifications…

        Demonstrably false. The taxonomic system was developed by Carolus Linnaeus – a creationist.

        > …no biogeographies…

        False. Creation accounts for why we find marsupials in Australia, and marsupial fossils in South America, as one example.

        > no underlying mechanisms,

        False. Creationists believe that genes code for traits. The creationist Gregor Mendel discovered this. Hence, organisms with similar traits tend to have similar DNA.

        > no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life.

        False. The unifying concept is that God is one in nature, and three in persons. Hence, there will be both diversity in unity in nature. This is expressed in the biological world via taxonomy. And even physics has a “taxonomy” of particles, and astronomy a taxonomy of galaxies, and so on.

        >> Therefore, orderly theoretical paradigms would be impossible.
        > Refer back to my previous response.

        You still haven’t answered the question. How would science be possible in an evolutionary chance universe?

        > …Such as usage of the term “witness” or “eyewitness” to imply the Genesis account to be a real-time, in-person recording, and logging of the creation event as it occurred in real time??

        Genesis is an historic account, observed by real people (eyewitnesses) at the time. Were you not aware of this? Even secular archeologists will acknowledge the history of Abraham (as one example), one of many things recorded in Genesis. If you want to argue the point, then please provide some evidence for your position.

        > …or of usage of the terms “information, genetic information, or brand new creative information”??

        Information is an encoded symbolic message containing an expected action and an intended purpose. Genetic information is that which is found in genes. “Brand new” means something that didn’t exist before.

        > Or of a taxonomic classification of “kind”?

        A kind is a group of organisms that is and always has been reproductively isolated. Cats and dogs are different kinds (as one example). Horses and zebras are the same kind – they can interbreed. Thank you for asking; I’m always happy to clarify and define terms.

        >> However, evolution can also mean “particles-to-people” evolution.
        > Creationist strawman term.

        No Neil. A straw-man is an argument which misrepresents the position of the opponent, and then refutes the misrepresented position rather than the actual position. But evolutionist do indeed believe that non-living chemicals (“particles”) eventually formed the first reproducing cell, which diversified (eventually) into people, along with all other life. This is indeed what evolutionists believe.

        > …and while we’re at it, might you yourself be equivocating with the loose, undefined usage of the term “information” in this case??

        No. Equivocation is using the same term in two different ways within an argument. But I have used the term “information” in exactly the same way throughout all my posts.

        > Unless you can be a bit more clear as to how you’re defining it.

        Information is an encoded symbolic message containing an expected action and an intended purpose. It would do you good to actually study what it is that creationists teach, if you are going to attempt to debate these issues. We are very consistent in our use of the term “information”, and have written on this before.
        http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/information-evidence-for-a-creator

        >> It seems to me that all the examples that you provided are information-reducing, or information-neutral, and are therefore not examples of particles-to-people evolution at all.
        > Good!

        Well, it’s not good for you. It shows that you are unable to provide any evidence of your position. All your examples are of change within a kind – things that creationists accept. You didn’t give a single example of evolution in the “particles-to-people” sense.

        > Since once again, terms such as “particles to people”, “Molecules-to-man” or “goo-to-you” are creationist strawman arguments…

        No. First of all, a “term” is not an “argument” at all. And these certainly are not straw-man arguments. Evolutionists do believe the people are biologically descended from a single-celled ancestor which itself formed from non-living chemicals. Only if evolutionists didn’t believe this would it be a straw-man argument to claim they did. By the way, accusing creationists of committing a straw-man argument when they haven’t is itself a straw-man argument.

        > You could also be wrong in your assumption where it seems to you the examples cited somehow reduce or don’t affect this mysterious variable.

        By all means, please provide me some evidence for this, and I will take it very seriously. My point is simply this: creationists and evolutionists both believe that organisms change within a kind. But for “particles-to-people” evolution to take place, information in the DNA must increase. So, you either must demonstrate (1) that one organism can change into another kind (not just variations within a kind), or (2) that the information in DNA has increased. But you haven’t shown either of those yet.

        > I’ve also heard the various “genetic information” arguments, and have a hard time nailing down exactly what is even meant by this term.

        I have defined it above. So there should be no confusion now.

        > You mean Information theory? Where randomness (random noise) can actually increase or even maximize information?

        No. You might be thinking of a Shannon limit. But that’s not descriptive of actual information, certainly not by the definition I have provided. If you add static to a newspaper, you don’t really have any new information. Can you learn more actual information from a newspaper after it has been through a paper-shredder? Clearly not.

        > Gene duplication proceses? [sic]

        If a paragraph in a newspaper gets duplicated, do you have more information? Can you learn anything from the duplicated paragraph that you couldn’t learn from the original? Clearly not. Likewise, gene duplication does not add any information to the genome. It’s just the same information expressed twice.

        > you have determined this (“brand new instructions”) how exactly???

        Actually, it’s on you to show this. You were supposed to be providing evidence of evolution in the “particles-to-people” sense. If you think that fruit flies have larger wings because they have somehow increased the information in their DNA, please demonstrate or document this. Most variation we see in organisms is due to the various combinations of information present in the two corresponding sets of DNA, or lack of information due to mutation. This is Biology 101.

        > Mutation can add (OR reduce) genetic variation to a population

        No. As far as we know, mutations only reduce the genetic information, or are neutral. They don’t add brand-new information as evolution would require. Lee Spetner (Ph.D. in biophysics, Johns Hopkins University) spent many years studying this topic and found that not one mutation has ever added a little information to the genome. If evolution were true, there should be thousands of counterexamples. If you want to try and argue that there are some, go for it. But you’ll have to make an actual argument, and stop just stating things without any support whatsoever!

        >> There is natural variation of wing size. And those that have wings less adapted to the environment have been eliminated. This has reduced the genetic information content.
        > How can you determine this without detailed census numbers ??

        Easy. Natural selection can only reduce genetic information. It never creates it. Here is an example. Suppose you have two different plants (A and B) with different genomes. Plant B is not able to compete with plant A because plant A has traits that are more conducive to survival in the environment. So plant B dies off. Now you have only plant A. Do we have more genetic information now or less?

        We started with genetic information for A and B. Now we just have genetic information for A. It should be obvious that the genetic information has been reduced. Natural selection is the opposite of evolution. Evolution (supposedly) increases genetic information, but natural selection can only reduce it.

        > … and let’s consider that likely these flies are not finished adapting yet …

        Darwin did not know about genes. He didn’t understand the mechanism of variation within organisms. So he thought that variation might be unlimited, as perhaps you are thinking. But now that we understand genetics, we can see that there are limits to biological change. Different combinations of alleles in the DNA are expressed as different traits in organisms. So if you want a big dog, that can be bred. If you want a very short-haired dog, that can be bred. But if you want a dog with wings, you are out of luck, because dog’s do not possess the information for wings in their genome. I have a DVD on this topic if you want to learn more.

        >> This is another example of variation within a kind – not evolution between kinds. There is no evidence that any brand new instructions have been added to the DNA.
        > Hmm… Is the “no evidence” because I did’nt [sic] include any detailed study or measurement data??? :< )

        There is no evidence for new information because apparently, that doesn’t occur. You certainly didn’t provide any evidence. What I’m trying to do is get you to provide evidence for evolution as opposed to creation. But so far, all the examples you’ve provided are perfectly compatible with creation, and are thus not evidence for evolution. Do you have any evidence for “particles-to-people” evolution?

        > Btw – Is the term “kind” currently recognized within the biological community, or used in studies??

        Be careful of the fallacy of appeal to majority. Truth is not determined by consensus. Evolutionist biologists don’t use “kind” because there is only one “kind” in their view. Creationist biologists do recognize the term “kind” and use it often. You ask, is it used in studies? Yes. One of the current areas of creation research is determining which organisms belong within a kind. We know that all cats are within the same kind, for example.

        >> The variable information in the DNA has been reduced. This is the opposite of evolution in the particles-to-people sense.
        > No, there are still the same variability limits to the snake head sizes

        I never said otherwise. Natural selection can reduce variability, but there is still some variability. But notice that such a reduction is the opposite of evolution in the “particles-to-people” sense.

        > How in the world do you determine the “variable information in the DNA has been reduced” without studying the DNA itself??

        See the previous example of plants A and B. Logically, natural selection can only reduce genetic content. It cannot increase it. It may be neutral in some cases.

        > I’m ignoring your efforts to try pidgeonholing me into proving “particles to people” whatever – as I’m not familiar with it…

        Translation: “I can’t defend my position with science or evidence, so I’m just going to state it emphatically.” At least that’s the way it appears to me! Neil, your belief in evolution is irrational. You don’t have any evidence for it. You don’t have any reason to believe it. It is a blind belief. It is a belief that is contrary to the nature of science, and indeed would make science logically unjustified.

        >> There are several ways in which bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics. But none involve brand-new information arising in DNA.
        > Incorrect. Some bacteria are capable of absorbing DNA from their environment

        No – my statement was correct. Yes, some bacteria are capable of absorbing DNA. But this doesn’t contradict my statement; nor does it help evolution, does it? If the supposed original single-celled organism is to eventually become people, it must somehow generate brand new information in its DNA. Obviously it can’t get it from another organism’s DNA, because there were no other organisms! Evolution can’t develop new, original information by stealing it from another organism, because it wouldn’t be “new” – that just pushes the problem back. That’s why I specifically said “brand-new information”, not information that already exists somewhere else. That’s not evolution – it’s just shuffling.

        >> Next, you listed a bunch of organisms from the fossil record. Presumably, you believe that these somehow support evolution, or are contrary to biblical creation.
        > Bit of a false dilemma there…

        No there is no false dilemma. Neil, if you are going to try to point out logical fallacies (which I do encourage you to do), you really need to study them first. I have a book on the topic (Discerning Truth) if you like. The Ultimate Proof of Creation also has two chapters on this. Have you read it yet?

        > …as I’ve made no claims of this evidence in light of biblical creation, since biblical creation hasn’t even been able to enter the scientific arena…

        Biblical creation is the foundation of the scientific area – as I have already shown. Science isn’t justified apart from creation.

        > might be a little out of the loop, but where is “kind” used as a taxonomic classification? Only among creationists?

        Evolutionists believe in only one “kind”, so they don’t find the term useful. In most cases, “kind” lines up at about the “family” level, if you prefer the Linnaean classification system.

        >> You listed fish, birds, reptiles, and so on. There are certainly variations within these kinds, some of which are now extinct (modern birds don’t have teeth, but some pre-flood varieties did). This is all exactly as creationists would expect.
        > Why isn’t this interpretation backed up by secular (non-religious based) institutions.

        First, as I already demonstrated, secular humanism is a religion. It has a view of metaphysics and epistemology. Second, the fact that the organisms you listed are easily classified as one thing or another (and are not 30% fish, 70% invertebrate, etc.), is agreed upon by secularists. They don’t classify them as x% this and y% that. They fall easily into discrete categories – variation within a kind. I can only guess you are asking something like: “Why do those who are committed to an evolution view not interpret the evidence as a creationist would?” Do you really find that puzzling?

        > Hmm…we see fully ”designed”, not fully “formed” organisms??…

        Yes. Even the atheist/evolutionist Richard Dawkins has said that “biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

        > When I hear the term design, I think “process”

        You shouldn’t. Process would have to do more with manufacturing. Design is the concept/blueprint phase.

        > …so you can somehow magically see a process taking place upon observing the fossil record? – That’s quite a leap of faith!

        No. Can you see a process in Statue of Liberty? Is it therefore, not designed?

        > Oops this sounds like the creationist (excuse) – “Sure, we see the evidence, but we just wanna interpret it differently!!” :< )

        You are the one making the excuses, and wanting to interpret the evidence differently (inconsistently). For example, we both recognize evidence of design in automobiles, but you deny it in organisms. Who is making the excuses? Not me.

        > “Evolutionists expect variation between the major kinds – and that is not what [we creationists] [added] find (neither in the fossil record, nor today).??

        Neither creationists nor evolutionists can document transitions between the major kinds in the fossil record. I’m sure you have a great “excuse” for why that is.

        > Once again…do evolutionists even recognize or work with a taxonomic variable “kind”??

        “Kind” matches with “family” in most cases, which even evolutionists do recognize.

        >> Creationists expect loss of information in the DNA as organisms adapt to their environment. And we see clear examples of that in fruit flies, and bacteria antibiotic resistance.
        > Also cases disproving this as shown .

        No, all the cases you’ve shown so far have confirmed creation.

        > Just a question – what creationist institutions are actually conducting research work in any of these areas??

        Well, ours for one. ICR does research in genetics. (I’d guess this must be pretty embarrassing for you. Maybe you should check our website next time, yes?) One of our latest projects has been to measure the rates of mutation in various organisms and comparing this with the expected predictions based on (1) the notion that the organisms have been evolving over billions of years, or (2) the notion that the organisms were created about 6000 years ago. Guess which view the data support. :-)

        >> Evolution requires brand new information to be added to DNA. But evolutionists are at a loss to provide examples of this.
        > Incorrect- see previous.

        Wrong, as I already showed. If you want to argue that these increase the information in DNA, then you need to actually make an argument, and present some evidence. That’s how rational people debate.

        >> Would you like to try again, and attempt to provide some evidence for particles-to-people evolution?
        > Not likely since once again “Particles-To-People Evolution” is a creationist strawman . ;< )

        It is what evolutionists teach, and thus not a straw-man. I agree with Charlie that your objection to “particles-to-people” here seems disingenuous. The real reason you can’t provide any evidence is because you have none. You’re beliefs are arbitrary and irrational. You are a blind sheep. But you don’t have to stay that way. I want to encourage you to become rational. Start actually engaging the brain and not just accept the evolutionist stories because somebody told you them, or because it’s what the majority believes. Actually study what it is that creationists teach by reading some of the literature, rather than simply wanting to argue. Be more rigorous in your thinking; don’t be arbitrary or inconsistent. Learn to have good reasons for what you believe. And if you can’t find good reasons for your beliefs, try changing a few of your beliefs, until you can look at the world in a consistent and rational way. Would that really be so bad?

      • Aaron says:

        Hi Neil. Gonna try to make it short since I can’t really say much that hasn’t been said. You said, “I might be a little out of the loop, but where is “kind” used as a taxonomic classification? Only among creationists?” You’re right. The term “kind” isn’t used by many people for classification except creationists. It is, after all, a biblical term. However, “family” (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, FAMILY, Genus, Species) is used by pretty much everyone for classification. “Family” is in most instances the equivalent of “kind.” I also think that you just really like to argue, but you need to listen to what Jacob was first saying since he is trying to help you. Your existence now means that you will always exist. Even the Greek philosophers (non-creationists :O *gasp*)realized that life continues after death. You just have to decide where the rest of your existence will take place.

        • Aaron says:

          I took too long and Dr. Lisle beat me to the punch on the first part. Oh well, at least you have the second part to think about.

        • Melanie says:

          TO ALL CHRISTIANS!
          The idea of the immortality of the soul of man has come down from the Greeks, but it is not biblical. The choice is either life or death. Not either eternal life in heaven or eternal life in hell. Not that God doesn’t have the right to have Hell if He chooses, but the point is He doesn’t, as is apparent in the Bible. Unfortunately most Christians take other Christians’ word for what the Bible says, rather than read it for themselves. This is very dangerous.
          Here are a few verses but there are many more. Hopefully you will investigate in the Word for yourself:

          Only God is immortal. Job 4:17, 1Tim 6:16.

          [Dr. Lisle: Hi Melanie. I'm going to snip the rest of your message for time's sake, and because I have answered many of your points in a book that will be published in the spring. I want to very briefly respond to your main point because I am familiar with the claim, yet it is not the case that the immortality of the soul is a Greek invention. In fact, it is biblical that people will exist forever, either in the presence of the Lord or eternally separated from Him in hell. It's far too easy to take biblical verses out of context to prove all sorts of anti-biblical ideas. But there are rules of interpretation that we must follow if we are to rightly understand God's Word (2 Timothy 2:15).]

          [One of these rules involves the recognition that words can have different meanings in different contexts. The Bible, for example, uses terms like "life", "death", "soul," and "immortality" in more than one way; and context determines the meaning within a given passage. God alone possesses immortality in the sense that He does not derive His immortality from another. Nonetheless, God gives eternal life to those who trust in Him (e.g. John 3:16). Christians are mortal in the sense that we will die physically (Hebrews 9:27), but we are immortal in the sense that God will resurrect us and give us eternal life (John 11:26).]

          [Unbelievers will also be resurrected (John 5:29). The will not enjoy eternal life in the biblical sense, but they will experience eternal conscious existence because they will endure eternal punishment/judgment (Matthew 25:46, Mark 3:29; 2 Thessalonians 1:9, Hebrews 6:2, Daniel 12:2). Anything less would be unjust because God is infinitely Holy. This is why Jesus warned people so sternly about the danger and everlasting nature of hell (Matthew 18:8-9; 5:29-30; 25:41-46; Mark 9:42-48). One of the chapters in my upcoming book on biblical interpretation deals with this topic in great detail. I hope you will find it helpful. All the best.]

      • Jacob Howard says:

        Hi Neil,

        There is one big thing with this whole argument. That one thing is where your trust lies. But there is another question.

        What happens if I’m wrong? I lose nothing in this world, except maybe some ridicule and hate from others (obviously not you however). But I didn’t lose those, I guess I kinda earned them. Anyway, the point being, I don’t lose anything if I am wrong.

        But, what happens if you are wrong? You may not think you are wrong but please hold out with me. If you are wrong then you will be condemning yourself to Hell because of your sins (if you believe you are sinless or your sins aren’t that bad then go to link posted later on). You will lose everything if you are wrong!

        Please Neil, I am begging you to turn from your sins and turn to Jesus Christ as your only Savior! Please, don’t take this lightly, all of us care for your eternal soul and God loves it eternally. Do you not think He will mourn when you are sent to Hell by your own sins?

        If you have other questions then please see this http://padtheword.wordpress.com/p/r/

        Please Neil, your soul is the most important thing ever to live in this world.

        In Christ Jesus alone,

        Jacob Howard

        • Neil Yoder says:

          There is one big thing with this whole argument. That one thing is where your trust lies. But there is another question.
          What happens if I’m wrong? I lose nothing in this world, except maybe some ridicule and hate from others (obviously not you however). But I didn’t lose those, I guess I kinda earned them. Anyway, the point being, I don’t lose anything if I am wrong.
          But, what happens if you are wrong? You may not think you are wrong but please hold out with me. If you are wrong then you will be condemning yourself to Hell because of your sins (if you believe you are sinless or your sins aren’t that bad then go to link posted later on). You will lose everything if you are wrong!

          **********************************************
          Hi Jacob, Pascal’s Wager. Yes, I’m familiar w/ of this.
          Btw -you DID read my earlier response to this dilemma you have presented in which I had no intention whatsoever of “condemning myself to Hell”. ;<)

          Please Neil, I am begging you to turn from your sins and turn to Jesus Christ as your only Savior! Please, don’t take this lightly, all of us care for your eternal soul and God loves it eternally. Do you not think He will mourn when you are sent to Hell by your own sins?
          ************************************************
          Great! Been there done that…but besides… what does this have to do w/ discussions of evolutionary biology, scientific method, or creationism etc????

          Please Neil, your soul is the most important thing ever to live in this world.
          **********************************************
          Whoa! – Now that’s quite a claim! ….So I must also be the most ginormous egotist in the world as well(??) :<0

          I would argue this sort of claim might actually reflect some sort of a geocentric cosmology – on the personal (ego) level.

          Jacob – I’d like to ask you – honestly consider…if “MY soul” is the “most important thing ever to live in this world”……then apparently….YOU’re down in the rankings a bit?….I mean where do YOU fit in the situation you’re proposing??

          Just one more passing query – are you, “CHARLIE” or “AARON” who have just suddenly appeared responding in this thread ICR affiliates?

          • Jacob Howard says:

            Hi Neil,

            I have a scenario for you. A man goes out and kills a woman for no reason. It was a brutal murder and the victim went through horribly things before she died.

            Later that man is caught. When he is brought before the judge and the judge commands that man to be sent to jail who is sending him there? Obviously the judge is. Or is he? It was the man who committed the crime, the judge was just dealing justice.

            Would it be right for that judge to let the murder free? Should have he said, “I can see you have no intention on going to jail, even though you have committed a heinous crime, so I’ll let you off.” Would/should he do that? Think about that for a minute.

            Also, I can see someone, I’m guessing you, went and visited that article I recommended, please heed the words there and in the Bible. Neil this is eternally important.

            In Christ Jesus alone,

            Jacob Howard

            http://www.alreadyanswered.org

            • Jacob Howard says:

              I forgot to add this:

              No, I am not Charlie or Aaron. I don’t try to back-up my own points in a different name. Thanks Aaron for the back-up though.

            • Neil Yoder says:

              Hi Jacob, – sorry, that’s just too grossly off-topic and could only derail into a rambling discussion on ethics, criminology or even ontology.

              e.g. – If the perpetrator is not caught, the entire analogy breaks down..etc…
              As well as numerous other possibilities.

              …No, btw I did not accuse “you” of being both Aaron and Charlie, but if any or all of you are ICR affiliates. ;<)

              • Jacob Howard says:

                But the criminal is caught. As will you be when you die. Can you avoid death? The point I think you are trying to ignore is the point that the criminal condemned himself to jail. It is the same situation with those who are not saved by Jesus Christ.
                The core of the creationist argument is Jesus Christ. If you engage in a battle with a creationist you have to acknowledge Christ. I would guess that your eternity is a lot more important than an argument on science that seems to be making little progress.
                I have no association with ICR. The only thing that would count is that I read their articles.

                • Neil Yoder says:

                  The core of the creationist argument is Jesus Christ. If you engage in a battle with a creationist you have to acknowledge Christ. I would guess that your eternity is a lot more important than an argument on science that seems to be making little progress.
                  *********************
                  Ok -You have just given your own personal confirmation that creationism is not science. I agree

                  • Jacob Howard says:

                    I’m sorry to disappoint you when I say that is not what I said. My point was that Christ is the core. Of course you have to have God in the core.

                  • Aaron says:

                    Neil, I am not an afilliate to ICR, AiG, or any organization. I just read up on this stuff because it is my duty to always be ready to give a defense for the hope that is in me. It is also my duty to tell you that only Jesus can save you and that He is the only way. The Bible says we are supposed to love everyone and if I just let you go to Hell without telling you that you need to go to Heaven, that kinda doesn’t sound like love. What happens to you when you die is the most important choice for you to make. “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” IF (and I said “if” so please answer the question as asked) we were to convince you to YOUR OWN SATISFACTION that evolution is false, that God exists, and that Jesus is His Son and the only way to be saved, would you accept Jesus and be saved? If you know the things mentioned in the question it doesn’t matter at all if you don’t accept Jesus because God said that you already know Him; everyone does. You are just supressing the truth in your unrighteousness. Jesus answered all of His skeptics so that they marveled and dared not question Him any more, but most did not accept Him. If don’t believe, and you were to die tomorrow or Christ was to come again and you told God that He can’t put you in Hell because you don’t believe in Him or Hell, He will still put you in Hell. Again, we’re telling you this because we love you. Technically, you could believe evolution and still be saved if you are a Christian, but you could reject evolution and be condemned if you aren’t a Christian. So old earth vs. young earth or even creation vs evolution are important, but secondary issues. Btw: this does not mean creationism isn’t science, because without God there would not be science; this just means that your issue is with God and not arguments. I’m praying for you, but it would help you more if you did some praying too.

                  • Charlie says:

                    Niel, you are quick to jump on anything you might be able to nit pick about, such as particular wording, while completely overlooking the main points, questions, and/or considerations which have been posed to you. Are you in this seeking answers, or for a rational argument, or are you just looking to consume your time and ours with endless disputes which lead nowhere? honestly?
                    ~Charlie~
                    You should be able to hear me for the words I myself put to you, with or without any named affiliation.

  14. Preston Guynn says:

    Dear Dr. Lisle,

    Thank you very much for your dedication to Truth. Many scientific fields are so overlaid with philosophical interpretations based on humanism and big bang evolution that its difficult to discern testable verifiable truth from the worldview induced assumptions. It almost seems that some scientists want their field to appear like arcane knowledge or alchemy.

    I have been trying to solve a problem for several months now, and out of desperation am writing to you. Can you tell me if either general relativity or special relativity can legitimately be applied to charged particles? I’ve seen a derivation of an equation for the force exerted by a current carrying conductor on an external charged particle by an MIT professor that depended on special relativity, and his field of expertise is perturbation theory and general relativity. His qualifications seem perfect, but I can’t get around the idea that special relativity should only be applied in an inertial frame of reference. The papers I’ve been able to find only discuss either special and general relativity for uncharged mass, and non-inertial cases always involve gravitational acceleration. In the broader sense, the inherent electric or magnetic force present during interactions of charged particles or fields would seem to place them in a non-inertial category. Which would mean that general and not special relativity should be applied.

    In the derivation, special relativity was applied in two ways, by calculating charge densities of current components in their frames of reference, and by shifting to the external charge’s frame of reference. But even if I assume special relativity, by considering the positive charge and negative charge in the conductor and the moving charges frames of reference as equally valid, a contradiction appears with the derived equation when the external charge’s velocity is equal to the velocity of the charge carriers’ velocity in the conductor. Assuming special relativity there should be two velocities at which the force on the charge is 0, and those are when the external charge’s velocity is equal to either of the conductor’s charges. But the professor’s resulting equation has the force as 0 only when the external charge’s velocity is 0 in the conductor’s frame of reference.

    An additional part of the case for questioning applying special relativity is that the current in the conductor, though not addressed in the derivation, must be due to an applied electric or magnetic field. Which analogous to a gravitational field results in acceleration of the charges.

    I don’t question special or general relativity, just the appropriate application. I’ve read papers on several (fun) experimental proofs of general relativity, such as Mercury’s perihelion precession, the scout rocket gravity probe A, Hafele-Keating experiment, and Pound-Rebka experiment.

    Would you be willing to email me with any insights you have about determining relativistic effects in charged particle interactions in general and this derivation, though briefly described, in particular? I do not have access to a university library, but if you know of particularly pertinent and authoritative books on the topic of charged particles and relativity that are available to buy, would you let me know? Obviously this is fairly off topic, but I see the great patience you have and desire to bless others, and hope you’d be willing of the goodness of your heart to spare me a few minutes of your time.

    Best regards,
    Preston Guynn

    • Dr. Lisle says:

      Hi Preston,

      Yes, Special Relativity (and General Relativity) can be applied to consider what happens to charged particles. There will be a force exerted on a charged particle when the electric and magnetic fields are not zero. The particle will therefore accelerate. Special Relativity allows for this; it’s just that the reference frame of the accelerating particle will be non-inertial. But as long as we stick to inertial frames, we can compute that path of the particle.

      Imagine a beam of electrons travelling along a line. The electrons are evenly spaced so that every second, exactly X number of electrons pass by a given point. Now imagine a beam of positrons travelling along that same line in the opposite direction with exactly the same speed and spacing. There will be a current (J) along that line. The electron beam is responsible for half the current (0.5J) and the positron beam is responsible for the other half (0.5J). Since they have opposite charges, but also opposite directions, the current combines to J.

      Now consider a positively charged particle some distance away from the beam, traveling parallel to the beam, at the same speed and direction as the electrons (opposite the current). Will there be a force on that particle, and what will it be? I believe this is basically the situation you described, or at least equivalent. The force on the particle is the Lorentz force (the combined force of all electric and magnetic fields) and is given by this formula:

      F=q(E+v×B)

      First, consider the stationary reference frame, in which the two particle beams are traveling at equal speeds (v) in opposite directions, and the charged external particle is also moving at speed v. Since the spacing of the particles is identical, there will be no electric field. So E=0. However, since there is current, there will be a magnetic field B. The force on the particle will simply be F = qv×B. The particle will experience an outward force (perpendicular to the beam).

      Now consider the reference frame of the electrons. The particle is (initially) stationary in this reference frame. So its velocity (v) = 0. This means that qv×B=0. So you might initially think that there is no force on the particle in this frame, which would be a contradiction. But this is not the case. In the reference frame of the electrons, they are stationary and evenly spaced at some distance from each other. But the positrons are moving at high speed, and therefore experience length contraction. The space between two positrons will be less than the space between to electrons. This means, that for a given length of the beam, there will be more positrons than electrons. Therefore, the beam will have a net positive charge. So the positively charged particle will feel a force F=qE and will accelerate away from the beam just as it did in the other reference frame. The force will be exactly the same.

      So in both reference frames, the particle accelerates away from the beam. In the stationary reference frame, the force is due entirely to the magnetic field. In the electron frame, the force is due entirely to the electric field. If you work through the math, you will find that the force is exactly the same! Pretty beautiful result, isn’t it?

      I hope this helps.

      • Preston Guynn says:

        Hi Dr. Lisle,

        Thank you very much! Your great example helped clarify the situation. So if I take the case where the positively charged particle is moving in the opposite direction of your example, at the same velocity v as the positrons, then from the frame where both electrons and positrons are moving in opposite directions at v, F = qvxB would result in an inward force. And from the frame of the charged particle, there would be no magnetic field, but the Lorentz contraction of the moving electrons causes a higher density and so F = qE results in an inward force.

        If I understand correctly, then the only situations in which there would be no force on the particle are when the particle is stationary in the frame where the positrons and electrons are both moving at equal speeds in opposite directions OR if the positrons and electrons are not moving relative to each other. Is this correct?

        So if someone said “my lab frame of reference is the positrons, all the current is due to the electrons moving”, then that really wouldn’t change the result above would it? The positive charge being stationary in the positron frame of reference would still result in an inward force due to the increased charge density of the moving electrons wouldn’t it?

        The MIT professor’s derivation was based on current in a wire, with the positive charges within it as one reference frame, and the external charged particle as the other reference frame. It seems analogous to the case described above with someone stating that the lab frame is the positron frame. He uses “u” as the electron velocity relative to the wire, and “v”as the charged particle’s velocity relative to the wire. His equation for the force between the wire and the charged particle from the wire’s frame is F = 2*q*lambda*u*v/(r*c*c) in the cgs system of units. This equation shows that there will be no force when v = 0, which contradicts the finding above that the charged particle would experience a force inward.

        The dichotomy seems to hinge on whether the meaning of “current” as a source of magnetic field is relative motion between positive and negative charges, or whether it is valid to attribute it solely to the motion of one of the charges. Could you explain this for me? Does zero force result only when the charged particle is stationary relative to equal and opposite movement of charges, or can zero force result when the charged particle is stationary relative to one of the charges?

        Thank you very much! I am very grateful for your help in understanding this.

        Preston

        PS The derivation that raised the question is at http://web.mit.edu/sahughes/www/8.022/lec12.pdf on page 115. I don’t intend to be critical of the professor. I actually appreciate his willingness to post lecture notes freely on the web.

        • Preston Guynn says:

          Hi Dr. Lisle,

          Upon further thought, it seems clear that there must be a factor (u-.5v) in the equation for force since it is at .5v that from the charged particle’s frame there is no difference in charge density between the electrons and positive charges in the conductor. With this factor, when u = .5v the force will be zero. So even though there may be a Lorentz adjustment to the .5v to make it a valid frame of reference (since velocities don’t add linearly when considered with relativity), it appears that the equation F = 2*q*lambda*u*v/r*c*c can not be correct in any frame of reference. I have to admit though that since the lecture notes this came from have been used at MIT since 2005 my confidence level still just isn’t very high.

          You know its interesting that in most fields when v<<c the component is discarded, but in a conductor that doesn't work. A typical electron drift velocity in a conductor would be .0004 meters/second, and that's the source of magnetic fields that are in everyday use in motors, transformers, electronics, etc. The reason it becomes such a large force is that the density of electrons in a conductor is on the order of 8.5*10^28 per meter cubed.

          Thanks again Dr. Lisle for your help. Your example and description really helped make the problem much clearer. May the Lord bless you as you minister and witness of Him!

          Best regards,
          Preston

  15. Dr. Lisle says:

    Neil posted once again, but it was very lengthy and was trapped in the spam filter. The sad thing is that Neil has continued to repeat most of the same errors and doesn’t seem to be willing to do his homework on this issue. Some of his comments show outright dishonesty. So is there any point in responding? It seems a waste of time and energy to try to have an honest rational dialogue with someone who is not willing to be rational or honest. Nonetheless, for readers of this blog, I thought it would be helpful to see some of Neil’s claims, because they really demonstrate the bankruptcy of the evolutionary position. So I’ll post a few of them here with my comments.

    >>Biblical creation gives us the rational justification for science. Apart from creation, there would be no reason to expect that the universe would obey universal laws, which do not arbitrarily change, and which the human mind can understand.
    > I can’t make sense of the above claim other than it sounds like rhetorical “mission statement’-speak for a creationist organization.

    The reason that Neil cannot make sense of the above statement is that science makes no sense from an evolutionary point of view. If evolution were true then there would be no reason to expect the universe to obey laws at all, let alone laws that do not change with time or space. Nor would there be any reason to think that the mind can be rational. To rely upon something that makes no sense in your worldview is fundamentally irrational.

    >> Can you make sense of such things from an evolutionary perspective Neil?
    > No, I can’t make sense of such things, from anything other than a non-scientific perspective, since “such things” are nothing but theological musing.

    This is basically a concession of defeat. Here Neil has admitted that he cannot make sense of those things necessary for science from an evolutionary perspective. Such things are hardly “theological musings” – rather they are necessary for scientific research! Science would be impossible apart from laws of nature, and the human mind’s ability to perceive the universe and reason rationally. Yet, evolution cannot account for such things. Here Neil has admitted that science is unjustified in the evolutionary view, which is what I’ve been saying all along. To believe in both evolution and science is fundamentally irrational.

    >> As just one example of many, take Dr. Humphreys’ prediction of the magnetic fields of the planets based on creation 6000 years ago. It was the evolutionary predictions that failed miserably.
    > lol! “DRAMATIC, EPIC FAIL!” eh??? Are you sure??? ;< )

    Yes. It’s a matter of historical fact that Humphreys predicted both the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune before they were measured by Voyager 2, and Mercury’s magnetic field decay before it was measured by Messenger. It was published in peer-reviewed literature. The original paper (1984) can still be accessed here for all to verify: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html

    Some evolutionists like to just say “FAIL!” when then cannot refute the evidence and have no answer whatsoever. But obviously, that is merely a question-begging epithet fallacy.

    > Humphreys seems to have neglected reversals in the earth’s magnetic field, but then backpedaled and retrofitted something like…

    Again, Neil hasn’t done his homework. Dr. Humphreys’ model includes the reversals in the magnetic field – which are only properly accounted for in a rapid-tectonic model. The slow-and-gradual models fail to account for the depth data we have on ocean floor magnetic data. Namely, reversals occur not only horizontally, but vertically as well. This only makes sense in the creation model where sea-floor spreading occurs rapidly, not the evolutionary one.

    > Can you cite one specific example of taxonomic classification resulting from work within a “biblical paradigm” ? Sure, a creationist developed the original taxonomic idea…

    I like it when they answer their own question. The idea of classification makes no sense in an evolutionary/chance universe. Every classification system is therefore only sensible within the biblical paradigm. It is therefore not surprising that a creationist founded modern taxonomy within the biblical paradigm.

    >> The creationist Gregor Mendel discovered this. Hence, organisms with similar traits tend to have similar DNA.
    > It’s great that creationists believe that! :< )

    Actually, a creationist discovered this. It’s just one of the many scientific discoveries that were made due to the expectation that God made the universe understandable by the human mind.

    > Has creationism ever made any recent peer reviewed contributions or advanced genetic studies in any way that have helped associated fields or humankind in any way??

    Yes. All of them. Genetics is a creationist field, discovered by a creationist who was motivated by his biblical belief in an orderly universe upheld by the hand of God. All scientists who rely upon the scientific method are implicitly relying upon creation principles, whether they like it or admit it. Such order makes no sense in a chance universe. There have been no medical or other scientific advances that have been achieved due to evolutionary notion that the universe and life are a result of chance. None.

    > Now can you give me some examples of peer-reviewed work or beneficial discoveries based upon “God’s Oneness in nature, his triune personhood and the unity and diversity in nature…etc etc…” say within the past 50 years??

    Yes. All of them. From particle physics and space shuttles to high speed computers, every major scientific discovery or invention has been made because of the expectation that the universe has both differences and unity; and that the human mind is able to distinguish between these by observation and experimentation. But such concepts only make sense in light of the triune God who made man in His image. If the universe were chance, and the human mind were just the result of mistakes and natural selection, there would be no logical reason whatsoever to think that the mind could discern any real order in the universe. Neil doesn’t seem to get this. Science makes no sense apart from the biblical worldview. And Neil admitted that above when he said, “No, I can’t make sense of such things…”

    >> You still haven’t answered the question. How would science be possible in an evolutionary chance universe?
    >It’s likelyhood [sic] would be based upon statistical probabilities.

    Probability only works if there is an underlying order – the very thing that an evolutionary/chance universe cannot explain. Laws of probability are based on laws of mathematics and laws of logic, which have no justification in an evolutionary worldview.

    >> Genetic information is that which is found in genes. “Brand new” means something that didn’t exist before.
    > “Containing an expected action and intended purpose??? Hmm.
    > Where did you get this from??? – I thought information was that part of a message that cannot be predicted in advance.

    Here Neil contradicts himself. In an early post, he agreed that this definition of information was correct: Dr. Lisle: “Do you agree with this AiG quote [re: information]?” Neil: “Well…. Ah… ‘AMEN ANNA HALLELUJAH!!!’ as they say… ;< ). Can’t find any real problems w/ it….”

    Information has nothing to do with something being predictable.

    >> [“Particles to people” evolution] is indeed what evolutionists believe.
    > The term only appears from creationist sources.

    This is a dodge; It’s irrelevant to the issue. People are allowed to coin a term and stipulate its definition so that there will be no confusion during a debate. Why do you think Neil is so resistant to this? It is an attempt to avoid being caught on his equivocation fallacy. Evolutionists love to equivocate on the meaning of the term “evolution.” Evolution can simply mean “change” in some general sense. No one disagrees that things change. Then again, evolution can mean the Darwinian idea that all life shares a common ancestor which itself came from non-life, i.e. “particles-to-people” evolution. Evolutionists want you to believe in the latter, but they can only give evidence of the former. So they hope to trick you by using the same term for both. This is equivocation – also called the “bait-and-switch” fallacy.

    If we creationists were not honest, we could use the same technique. We could say to an evolutionist, “do you believe that my car was created?” When the evolutionist says, “Yes, of course,” we could then say, “See, I have just given proof of creation!” But we are too honest for that. It’s a shame that many evolutionists are not. But then again, they have no reason to believe in a moral code anyway, if the universe is just chance, and if we are just chemical accidents.

    >> You didn’t give a single example of evolution in the “particles-to-people” sense.
    > Sure – because “particles to people” is a Creationist strawman.

    Neil knows very well that in the evolution view, non-living particles supposedly formed the first living cell, which multiplied and diversified into all living organisms – including people. In other words, this is “particles-to-people” evolution. The first time Neil called this a “straw-man” I could dismiss this as a misunderstanding on Neil’s part. But now it is clear that Neil is simply being dishonest. This may be so that he can continue to give evidence of change within a kind (which is what creationists expect) and say that this is “evolution.” But any rational person can see through this obvious equivocation fallacy. Neil is being disingenuous, and we all know it.

    >> By the way, accusing creationists of committing a straw-man argument when they haven’t is itself a straw-man argument.
    > …tu quoque fallacy. ;< )


    No. A tu quoque fallacy is when a person tries to defend his fallacy by pointing out that the other person has also committed it, “you too!” But in this case, only Neil has made a straw-man argument. My representation of evolution is accurate. It is Neil who is being dishonest. So it’s not “you too,” but rather “you alone!”

    >> So, you either must demonstrate (1) that one organism can change into another kind (not just variations within a kind), or (2) that the information in DNA has increased. But you haven’t shown either of those yet.
    > Sorry – the original burden of proof is on YOU to support your authoritative proclamations concerning reductions or changes in DNA “information” on the specific cases cited.

    Here Neil makes the classic fallacy called “shifting the burden.” Obviously, when a person makes a claim, it is on him to back up that claim with some evidence. But so far, Neil has only presented evidence that is perfectly compatible with creation – change within a kind. I’m challenging him to show that it is actually evidence for evolution (and I have even been so generous as to instruct him on how he might go about that). But instead, Neil simply assumes that this is evidence for evolution (with no argument whatsoever), and tries to shift the burden to me to disprove it. This is arbitrary, and thus illogical. If Neil thinks the examples he provided support evolution, he needs to actually make a case for this and not just state it over and over.

    >> If a paragraph in a newspaper gets duplicated, do you have more information?
    > Using the newspaper example, YES.

    It’s hard to imagine that Neil actually believes what he wrote here. No new information gets added to a newspaper when a paragraph is duplicated. “The dog is brown.” contains the same information as “The dog is brown. The dog is brown.” You cannot learn anything more from the second sentence than you can from the first. The only information you can glean from the single sentence, or the duplicated sentence is that the dog is brown. By Neil’s thinking, you could learn lots more information by copying that sentence over and over again! But that’s obviously nonsense.

    Neil wanted to switch topics to memes at this point. But since that is completely irrelevant to the topic, we move on.

    >> Likewise, gene duplication does not add any information to the genome. It’s just the same information expressed twice.
    > The fault in this reasoning is only considering a single-point consumer of the printed material.

    Information content in a newspaper is totally irrelevant to the consumer. The newspaper has a given amount of information in it regardless of who reads it. If no-one reads it, it still has information. If everyone reads it, it still has the same amount of information. Neil’s reasoning is fallacious.

    >> You were supposed to be providing evidence of evolution in the “particles-to-people” sense.
    > No. Providing examples of evolution not “particles to people” religious strawman nonsense.;< )

    Another example of Neil’s continuing dishonesty.

    >> If you think that fruit flies have larger wings because they have somehow increased the information in their DNA, please demonstrate or document this.
    > No. For that you need actual hard test data figures from the persons conducting the research – not me. Sorry – but I don’t have access to it.

    That’s okay. But in order for it to count as evidence for evolution in the Darwinian sense, Neil must provide some sort of evidence for this. Changes within a kind are perfectly compatible with creation.

    > Sure. Mutations can both add or subtract information.

    Neil again contradicts himself. In a previous post he agreed with the AiG statement that information must come from a mind. It therefore cannot be created by mutations. Dr. Lisle: “But so far, the closest you’ve come is the suggestion that information must come from a mind, but I’m not sure you really believe that. Do you?” Neil: “Sure I do.”
    http://jasonlisle.com/2012/05/17/on-the-origin-of-articles/#comments

    > Dr Lisle, you have not provided one shred of evidence for your own position…

    There have been several. But Neil just ignores them. My main evidence for creation in these posts (which I have presented several times to Neil) is this: science is possible. In the evolutionary/chance view of the universe it makes no sense to have uniform, invariant laws of nature, laws of logic, a human mind that can understand the universe, and so on. There is no basis for expecting that past experience will be helpful in predicting future success in the evolution view. But science relies on such things. So science would not be possible in an evolutionary universe. Biblical creation alone can account for the success of science. Neil has already admitted that he cannot make sense of such things at the start of this post.

    > I was’nt [sic] suggesting the fly subjects had “unlimited potential to become anything possible”. ;< ) Just that they were continuing along in the adaptation process…

    In the evolutionary view, anything can eventually become anything else. Flies are supposed to have evolved from single-celled ancestors.

    >> Be careful of the fallacy of appeal to majority. Truth is not determined by consensus.
    > Lol! – You can’t be serious!!!! Yes, scientific work and vast areas of other endeavors are driven by consensus understanding (“we’re all on the same page”) and agreement. Ridiculous!!

    Here Neil makes an extremely obvious blunder in reasoning. Students of logic will immediately recognize Neil’s statement as the faulty appeal to authority/majority. It should be obvious to any thinking individual that truth is not determined by the majority opinion. But, amazingly, Neil disagrees (even to the point where he calls the alternative “ridiculous”)! Really???!!! If I could convince the majority of people that marshmallows grow on Mars, would that suddenly become true? If all scientists agreed that the world was flat, would that make it so?

    There was a time when virtually all scientists believed that the sun and other planets orbited the Earth. By Neil’s reasoning, this was actually true at the time! After all, it was the scientific consensus. There was a time when scientists believed that our galaxy was the only one. According to Neil’s thinking, that must have been true! There was a time when the scientific consensus believed that the universe is static and non-expanding. By Neil’s reasoning, that was actually true at the time!

    Neil’s position is actually self-refuting! Here is why: Neil is basically claiming that truth is determined by scientific consensus – what the majority of scientists believe. But in fact, the majority of scientists do not believe that truth is determined by consensus. So if truth is determined by scientific consensus, then truth is not determined by scientific consensus. The absurdity of Neil’s claim is obvious.

    It should also be noted, that the attitude “the majority of scientists are right” historically has inhibited the progress of science. Every major scientific discovery that has ever been made has gone against what the majority believed (otherwise it would be a confirmation, not a discovery)! Pushback from the mainstream position delayed the acceptance of some very good scientific principles – including the heliocentric solar system.

    I don’t want to belabor this point too much, but it is worth pointing out that Neil’s reasoning here is absolutely ridiculous. Yet it is indicative of the kind of reasoning employed by evolutionists. Many evolutionists believe in evolution for no reason other than that all the other evolutionists believe in evolution. Its arbitrary circular reasoning of the silliest kind.

    > But then again, by discouraging majority consensus, creationism only relegates itself to the realm of crackpot pseudoscience. You’ve made a very clear point w/ this one!

    Again, Neil makes it very clear that he is falling for the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy – the faulty appeal to authority/majority. There can be no mistake that he believes this; he is even criticizing the alternative. His reasoning is fallacious. This is one reason why I believe that every person should take a class or read a book on introductory logic. A class on the history of science would also be helpful. Virtually all commonly accepted scientific models started out as minority positions.

    Later in his post, Neil was not happy that I referred to him as a “sheep” that just follows the majority. He says, “Ad hominem fallacy… but I realize it’s a common slur.” Yet, from the above, we can see that this is a very accurate description of Neil. He has just tried to defend the fact that he blindly follows whatever the majority believes.

    >> See the previous example of plants A and B. Logically, natural selection can only reduce genetic content. It cannot increase it. It may be neutral in some cases.
    > Faulty “logic” I’m afraid Selection in combination with mutation and other factors is capable of increasing genetic information.

    I demonstrated previously that it cannot. See the example with the plants. It is also contrary to the laws of information – with which Neil previously agreed. Once again, we see Neil contradicting what he had written previously. Evolutionists just cannot think consistently when it comes to origins.

    >> Science isn’t justified apart from creation.
    > Good grief – Is this an historically-based claim??

    No, it is based on the fact that evolution cannot account for those things necessary for science. Neil previously agreed to this fact in this very post: Dr. Lisle: “Can you make sense of such things [things necessary for science] from an evolutionary perspective Neil?” Neil: “No, I can’t make sense of such things…” Science would not be possible in an evolutionary universe.

    >>> When I hear the term design, I think “process”
    >> You shouldn’t. Process would have to do more with manufacturing. Design is the concept/blueprint phase.
    > Sure –and the “concept/blueprint phase” is also a part of the manufacturing process as a whole. Overall the analogy is inaccurate.

    No. The blueprint is done long before any manufacturing. You can even design something in your mind without doing any manufacturing at all. So it was a very good analogy after all.

    >> For example, we both recognize evidence of design in automobiles, but you deny it in organisms. Who is making the excuses? Not me.
    > LOL! – So your definition of “inconsistent” is – ”different” from creationism .

    Obviously not. Inconsistent means applying two different standards to the same situation. Both exhibit evidence of design. Neil embraces it in one case, and denies it in another. Inconsistent.

    > Bad example. Automobiles are man-made artifacts, organisms are not.
    > I know automobiles are designed.

    This is a fantastic example of the fallacy of begging the question. We see intricate, irreducible complexity in both organisms and automobiles. This obviously indicates that automobiles were designed. Why does it not also suggest that organisms were designed? Neil’s answer is effectively: “because they weren’t designed. So it’s obviously a bad analogy!” I had to chuckle at that one.

    > and the amazing suggestion that in fact all life forms are in some state of transition, and I’ve already done this.

    That’s a bold claim considering that Neil hasn’t provided even one example of a life form in the state of transition. All the organisms that Neil listed are either this-or-that. They are easily classified by class, order, family, etc. Not even one example did he provide that is 30% this order, and 70% that order. Considering the billions of billions of fossils that we find on Earth, was I really being unfair to Neil to ask him to provide just one example of something that cannot fit into a given phylum-class-order, because it is half-way in between two orders? Instead, all Neil gave were organisms that are easily classified as being 100% in a given phylum, class, order, and family. Only variations within a kind were provided –the very examples that creationists would expect. This is typical of evolutionists’ claims of transitional forms. They list a bunch of organisms that are 100% in one taxonomic order, and expect us to accept this as evidence for evolution.

    > No I’m not embarrassed. Ok…so your “research” consists of: “comparing….(1) the notion that the organisms have been evolving over billions of years, or (2) the notion that the organisms were created about 6000 years ago.”

    One of our lines of research is looking at mutation rates, and comparing the expected values from creation vs. evolution to the data. There are several other lines of research going on simultaneously.

    > So your work does nothing to invent or improve products/services or provide anything that is beneficial to humanity or society in areas of technology, medicine, pharmaceuticals, consumer products, food science, etc!!!????

    Not all scientific research will lead to a cure for Neil’s male-pattern baldness. ;-) Research is about learning more about the universe. Sometimes this has practical application. Sometimes it doesn’t. Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the expansion of the universe is cool, but it has no practical value as far as I can see. It’s still good science. Neil doesn’t seem to understand this.

    How many evolutionary programs have led to technological or pharmaceutical benefits? None that I’m aware of. Just think of all the money wasted in SETI research trying to confirm an evolutionary paradigm, which has contributed nothing to society whatsoever. By the way, it is entirely possible that our research on mutations may indeed lead to a better understanding of disease, and lead to possible cures. But even if it doesn’t, it’s still great research. Neil’s disparaging remarks were simply obnoxious, and a last-ditch effort to persuade by emotion, rather than logic.

    >> Guess which view the data support. :-)
    > I am not impressed in the least. YOU are the one who should be embarrassed.

    Wow! Neil didn’t even want to hear about the exciting data we are finding. I wonder why? ;-) Perhaps Neil knows in his heart-of-hearts that the data will confirm creation. But evolutionists simply dismiss scientific research that they don’t like. Evidence that doesn’t make sense in their worldview is ignored. And Neil has just demonstrated this masterfully.

    > Your attempt at “fallacy of majority” or whatever fails and only establishes creationism as an unworking, rhetorical pseudo science…

    No. The appeal to the majority is a fallacy, as any logic textbook will confirm. Just because many people believe something doesn’t make it so. There was a time when the majority believed the Earth was flat, and that rotten meat created maggots, and that lead could be chemically turned into gold, and so on. But that didn’t make it true. Believing something just because other people believe something is fundamentally illogical. It is totally arbitrary.

    Here at last we see the actual reason that Neil believes as he does. Is it because of good scientific evidence? No. Is it for good logical reasons? No. Neil is simply following the majority without applying any critical thinking skills whatsoever. He believes in evolution because other people believe in evolution. And that is a well-established fallacy. So we see in this series of posts the very thing I have been saying for many years. There is no logical reason to believe in evolution. If you are going to be a consistently rational person, you must be a biblical creationist.

    • Atticus Sheffield says:

      From reading these exchanges, it seems that Neil picks out the minor points in a post and sort of answers them; and he completely ignores the major points or commits a question-begging epithet saying “that’s not scientific.”
      Based on Neil’s past responses, I made a list of topics from Dr. Lisle’s latest post that I think he should try to answer (major points), and what I’m guessing he will try to answer (minor points).

      MAJOR points:
      >The reason that Neil cannot make sense of the above statement is that science makes no sense from an evolutionary point of view.
      >If the universe were chance, and the human mind were just the result of mistakes and natural selection, there would be no logical reason whatsoever to think that the mind could discern any real order in the universe.
      >Evolutionists love to equivocate on the meaning of the term “evolution.” Evolution can simply mean “change” in some general sense. No one disagrees that things change. Then again, evolution can mean the Darwinian idea that all life shares a common ancestor which itself came from non-life, i.e. “particles-to-people” evolution.
      >If Neil thinks the examples he provided support evolution, he needs to actually make a case for this and not just state it over and over.
      >If I could convince the majority of people that marshmallows grow on Mars, would that suddenly become true? (This is part of a major point, but I’m guessing Neil will simply quote this question and say “No. ;There was a time when virtually all scientists believed that the sun and other planets orbited the Earth. By Neil’s reasoning, this was actually true at the time!
      >Neil’s position is actually self-refuting!
      >Neil embraces it in one case, and denies it in another. Inconsistent.
      >Considering the billions of billions of fossils that we find on Earth, was I really being unfair to Neil to ask him to provide just one example of something that cannot fit into a given phylum-class-order, because it is half-way in between two orders? (Neil will probably say “No. And I can’t because something that is 100% organism A could very easily be classified as transitional between organisms B and C.)
      >Perhaps Neil knows in his heart-of-hearts that the data will confirm creation. But evolutionists simply dismiss scientific research that they don’t like.
      >There is no logical reason to believe in evolution. If you are going to be a consistently rational person, you must be a biblical creationist.

      MINOR points:
      >The slow-and-gradual models fail to account for the depth data we have on ocean floor magnetic data.
      >From particle physics and space shuttles to high speed computers, every major scientific discovery or invention has been made because of the expectation that the universe has both differences and unity; and that the human mind is able to distinguish between these by observation and experimentation.
      >We could say to an evolutionist, “do you believe that my car was created?” When the evolutionist says, “Yes, of course,” we could then say, “See, I have just given proof of creation!” But we are too honest for that. It’s a shame that many evolutionists are not.
      >This may be so that he can continue to give evidence of change within a kind (which is what creationists expect) and say that this is “evolution.”
      >“The dog is brown.” contains the same information as “The dog is brown. The dog is brown.” You cannot learn anything more from the second sentence than you can from the first.
      >Neil has already admitted that he cannot make sense of such things at the start of this post.
      >In the evolutionary view, anything can eventually become anything else.
      >It should also be noted, that the attitude “the majority of scientists are right” historically has inhibited the progress of science.
      >The blueprint is done long before any manufacturing. You can even design something in your mind without doing any manufacturing at all.
      >Neil’s answer is effectively: “because they weren’t designed. So it’s obviously a bad analogy!” I had to chuckle at that one.
      >Just think of all the money wasted in SETI research trying to confirm an evolutionary paradigm, which has contributed nothing to society whatsoever.
      >Neil’s disparaging remarks were simply obnoxious, and a last-ditch effort to persuade by emotion, rather than logic.

    • Atticus Sheffield says:

      There was an HTML mess-up in that last post. I lost the text between the nose of one of Neil’s emoticons and the paragraph break. I meant for it to say:

      >If I could convince the majority of people that marshmallows grow on Mars, would that suddenly become true? (This is part of a major point, but I’m guessing Neil will simply quote this question and say “No. ;-) “)
      >There was a time when virtually all scientists believed that the sun and other planets orbited the Earth. By Neil’s reasoning, this was actually true at the time!

    • Micah says:

      Hey Dr. Lisle.

      I realize Neil didn’t want to hear about the data, but do you think you could give us a bit of info on that? Is there a link to some more in-depth explanation of how you guys found the mutation rates and any other info on the research?

      Really love reading how you respond to critics! Oh and Discerning Truth was a great read! Thanks very much for that.

      • Dr. Lisle says:

        Hi Micah,

        This is brand new research by one of our scientists here at ICR – Dr. Jeanson. So there is no link to in-depth material, because it hasn’t been published yet. But keep up with the ICR website and Acts & Facts. We will definitely give more details after the technical paper is published.

        As a preview, I will just say that the data are strongly consistent with a “young” biosphere. That is, the mutation rates are consistent with life being created about 6000 years ago, but are off by an enormous amount if life had been around for millions of years. It’s very compelling.

        Thanks for the feedback!

        • Micah says:

          Okay, got it. Thanks for the info!

          • Charlie Fau says:

            Does Dr Lisle have any response to universe/earth age evidence provided by Radiocarbon (carbon 14) dating?

            • Brian Forbes says:

              Your other question was so much more interesting! He works for ICR – the RATE project.

            • Dr. Lisle says:

              Carbon-dating powerfully confirms a young earth. C-14 has a half-life of 5700 years. And yet it is found in virtually everything that has carbon content. C-14 is even found in coal (thought by evolutionists to be hundreds of millions of years old), and diamonds (thought by evolutionists to be over 1 billion years old). But they can’t be that old because c-14 would decay to undetectable levels in less than 100,000 years. So the real question is, “Do evolutionists have any reasonable explanation of carbon dating since their view of the universe is that it is billions of years old?” Apparently, the answer is no. They just have faith.

    • Neil Yoder says:

      Biblical creation gives us the rational justification for science. Apart from creation, there would be no reason to expect that the universe would obey universal laws, which do not arbitrarily change, and which the human mind can understand.
      The reason that Neil cannot make sense of the above statement is that science makes no sense from an evolutionary point of view. If evolution were true then there would be no reason to expect the universe to obey laws at all, let alone laws that do not change with time or space. Nor would there be any reason to think that the mind can be rational. To rely upon something that makes no sense in your worldview is fundamentally irrational.
      ****************************************************************
      That’s quite a sweeping rhetorical claim. First off – to me personally, if it does’nt make sense – I won’t rely on it. You seem to consider the universe as if it were a person, consciously obeying a set of rules, so as to please it’s master (..or else!) – not just based on the properties & uniform behaviors of physical matter. Can you cite any “real” science related sources sharing or confirming this??…e.g – “Because evolution is true we just can’t figure out why the universe seems to exhibit areas of predictable behaviors, constants etc?? or that ”Science makes no sense from our current evolutionary point of view” ???
      Can you cite one specific example of taxonomic classification resulting from work within a “biblical paradigm” ? Sure, a creationist developed the original taxonomic idea…
      I like it when they answer their own question. The idea of classification makes no sense in an evolutionary/chance universe. Every classification system is therefore only sensible within the biblical paradigm. It is therefore not surprising that a creationist founded modern taxonomy within the biblical paradigm.

      **************************************************************************
      Another unfounded rhetorical claim. The Bible is not a “paradigm” in any working scientific sense – only to those pushing some sort of religious view.
      One might as well consider Jack and the Beanstalk to be the “paradigm” for those engaging in horticultural work with legumes.
      Could I also suggest – The Koran have also been considered a “paradigm” for a lot of early pre-renaissance scientific work as well??
      The creationist Gregor Mendel discovered this. Hence, organisms with similar traits tend to have similar DNA.
      > It’s great that creationists believe that! :< )
      Actually, a creationist discovered this. It’s just one of the many scientific discoveries that were made due to the expectation that God made the universe understandable by the human mind.

      **************************************************************************With this claim you propose a nonscientific bias (the “expectation that God made the universe understandable by the human mind”) attributed to “many” scientific discoveries, which is highly questionable.
      Could you list which scientific discoveries were the result of research/experiments conducted where the personnel themselves expressly stated this “expectation” as a goal of their work??? I’d love to see it.
      Has creationism ever made any recent peer reviewed contributions or advanced genetic studies in any way that have helped associated fields or humankind in any way??
      Yes. All of them. Genetics is a creationist field, discovered by a creationist who was motivated by his biblical belief in an orderly universe upheld by the hand of God. All scientists who rely upon the scientific method are implicitly relying upon creation principles, whether they like it or admit it. Such order makes no sense in a chance universe. There have been no medical or other scientific advances that have been achieved due to evolutionary notion that the universe and life are a result of chance. None.

      **************************************************************************You have cited no specific example, but have only resorted to another sweeping rhetorical claim. Can you cite any specific example where genetics as an organized field, organization etc specifically makes this claim or swears allegiance to some theological world view, or claims the universe is “upheld” by an apparently GIGANTIC prehensile(?) hominid-style(?) HAND that must be light years in size breadth etc ???…….good grief….. :<o
      Now can you give me some examples of peer-reviewed work or beneficial discoveries based upon “God’s Oneness in nature, his triune personhood and the unity and diversity in nature…etc etc…” say within the past 50 years??
      Yes. All of them. From particle physics and space shuttles to high speed computers, every major scientific discovery or invention has been made because of the expectation that the universe has both differences and unity; and that the human mind is able to distinguish between these by observation and experimentation. But such concepts only make sense in light of the triune God who made man in His image. If the universe were chance, and the human mind were just the result of mistakes and natural selection, there would be no logical reason whatsoever to think that the mind could discern any real order in the universe. Neil doesn’t seem to get this. Science makes no sense apart from the biblical worldview. And Neil admitted that above when he said, “No, I can’t make sense of such things…”

      **************************************************************************Once again, this is only your own subjective rhetorical claim. You can provide no evidence that the space shuttle, particle physics, high speed computers…heck..EVERY discovery, invention etc (according to you) was intentionally undertaken… researched, developed, tested, produced etc. with knowledge & the conscious intent to “PROVE(!)” or follow various Christian theological concepts, metaphysics, existence of God etc….. by their original developers.
      I’m not buying it.
      You still haven’t answered the question. How would science be possible in an evolutionary chance universe?
      >It’s likelyhood [sic] would be based upon statistical probabilities.
      Probability only works if there is an underlying order – the very thing that an evolutionary/chance universe cannot explain. Laws of probability are based on laws of mathematics and laws of logic, which have no justification in an evolutionary worldview.

      **************************************************************************…and this “underlying order” would be…the distribution curve ?? Tell me more about this innate(?) underlying order. ;<)I’m not sure what you mean by this.

      Genetic information is that which is found in genes. “Brand new” means something that didn’t exist before.
      > “Containing an expected action and intended purpose??? Hmm.
      > Where did you get this from??? – I thought information was that part of a message that cannot be predicted in advance.
      Here Neil contradicts himself. In an early post, he agreed that this definition of information was correct: Dr. Lisle: “Do you agree with this AiG quote [re: information]?” Neil: “Well…. Ah… ‘AMEN ANNA HALLELUJAH!!!’ as they say… ;< ). Can’t find any real problems w/ it….”
      Information has nothing to do with something being predictable.

      **************************************************************************Exactly. It’s that part which CANNOT be predicted. Your allegation in this response that “I contradict myself” is vague, and I’m not really seeing it. It’s related to another topic entirely.
      You didn’t give a single example of evolution in the “particles-to-people” sense.
      > Sure – because “particles to people” is a Creationist strawman.
      Neil knows very well that in the evolution view, non-living particles supposedly formed the first living cell, which multiplied and diversified into all living organisms – including people. In other words, this is “particles-to-people” evolution. The first time Neil called this a “straw-man” I could dismiss this as a misunderstanding on Neil’s part. But now it is clear that Neil is simply being dishonest. This may be so that he can continue to give evidence of change within a kind (which is what creationists expect) and say that this is “evolution.” But any rational person can see through this obvious equivocation fallacy. Neil is being disingenuous, and we all know it.

      **************************************************************************I’m not aware of inanimate (“non-living”) particles forming the first “living” cell. The question I would ask is: in their proposed particles-to-people scenario, do creationists consider replicating nucleic compounds and even viruses to be a “nonliving” substance, or some sort of non-life form? These were the first building blocks of life forms.
      If a paragraph in a newspaper gets duplicated, do you have more information?
      > Using the newspaper example, YES.
      It’s hard to imagine that Neil actually believes what he wrote here. No new information gets added to a newspaper when a paragraph is duplicated. “The dog is brown.” contains the same information as “The dog is brown. The dog is brown.” You cannot learn anything more from the second sentence than you can from the first. The only information you can glean from the single sentence, or the duplicated sentence is that the dog is brown. By Neil’s thinking, you could learn lots more information by copying that sentence over and over again! But that’s obviously nonsense.

      **************************************************************************Newspapers contain more than just verbal channels of information. Pictures of two very different dogs, each w/ captions “The dog is brown” and “The dog is brown” would convey two discrete units of information.
      Neil wanted to switch topics to memes at this point. But since that is completely irrelevant to the topic, we move on.
      *************************************************************************No it’s not at all irrelevant to the topic of information -ESPECIALLY to the newspaper example cited.
      Likewise, gene duplication does not add any information to the genome. It’s just the same information expressed twice.
      > The fault in this reasoning is only considering a single-point consumer of the printed material.
      Information content in a newspaper is totally irrelevant to the consumer. The newspaper has a given amount of information in it regardless of who reads it. If no-one reads it, it still has information. If everyone reads it, it still has the same amount of information. Neil’s reasoning is fallacious.

      **************************************************************************No. End user interpretation creates a good bit of variability in the amount of information that ultimately gets conveyed. We aren’t necessarily referring to just hard data ( lists of numbers alphanumeric code, etc.) but ideas, concepts, etc. Viewed as input -the intended information put in by the author(s) – does not guarantee a predictable output on the end user side.
      Your claim-“ The newspaper has a given amount of information in it regardless of who reads it.” Has a nice objective ring to it, but ultimately isn’t true in a working sense.
      Sure. Mutations can both add or subtract information.
      Neil again contradicts himself. In a previous post he agreed with the AiG statement that information must come from a mind. It therefore cannot be created by mutations. Dr. Lisle: “But so far, the closest you’ve come is the suggestion that information must come from a mind, but I’m not sure you really believe that. Do you?” Neil: “Sure I do.”

      **************************************************************************Sorry – I’m not seeing the connection between addition & subtraction of information and previous discussions about information coming from a mind….??
      Be careful of the fallacy of appeal to majority. Truth is not determined by consensus.
      > Lol! – You can’t be serious!!!! Yes, scientific work and vast areas of other endeavors are driven by consensus understanding (“we’re all on the same page”) and agreement. Ridiculous!!
      Here Neil makes an extremely obvious blunder in reasoning. Students of logic will immediately recognize Neil’s statement as the faulty appeal to authority/majority. It should be obvious to any thinking individual that truth is not determined by the majority opinion. But, amazingly, Neil disagrees (even to the point where he calls the alternative “ridiculous”)! Really???!!! If I could convince the majority of people that marshmallows grow on Mars, would that suddenly become true? If all scientists agreed that the world was flat, would that make it so?

      **************************************************************************Neither of the examples you cite have one shred of pertinence to reality. Fields of science are not nihilistic free-for alls. You would have to provide arguments, and data/evidence supporting these views. The earth’s spherical form has been known since ancient times, as is the recipe and method to produce marshmallows.. Yes, your “majority fallacy” charge relating to uniform areas of knowledge is ridiculously misapplied.
      There was a time when virtually all scientists believed that the sun and other planets orbited the Earth. By Neil’s reasoning, this was actually true at the time! After all, it was the scientific consensus. There was a time when scientists believed that our galaxy was the only one. According to Neil’s thinking, that must have been true! There was a time when the scientific consensus believed that the universe is static and non-expanding. By Neil’s reasoning, that was actually true at the time!
      **************************************************************************The examples you cited were the prevailing paradigm views of their time.
      I do not make the claim they were objectively true (factual) at the time!
      Btw – they were also proclaimed as supported by Holy Scripture, the Church Body and are still adhered-to by a deluded few to this day: Biblical geocentrism / “Young” Earth whatever…
      Bishop Ussher’s incredible scientific research that “revealed the True age of the Earth & cosmos(!)” is also a product of this period…
      Basically it was the scientific method itself (plus a bunch of other factors: improved equipment/observation etc..) that challenged and eventually revised the prevailing paradigm(s). I’m assuming you’re familiar w/ The Structure OF Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn (1962)??
      Neil’s position is actually self-refuting! Here is why: Neil is basically claiming that truth is determined by scientific consensus – what the majority of scientists believe. But in fact, the majority of scientists do not believe that truth is determined by consensus. So if truth is determined by scientific consensus, then truth is not determined by scientific consensus. The absurdity of Neil’s claim is obvious.
      **************************************************************************LOL You’re getting a little carried away… Your attempt at being spokesperson for the views of the “majority of scientists” is a bit pretentious. Sure – SOME scientists likely DO NOT believe truth is determined by majority consensus and SOME DO believe it is
      That’s neither here nor there – consensus majority can be overturned by valid well-supported research that “breaks thru” & modifies the existing paradigm.
      It should also be noted, that the attitude “the majority of scientists are right” historically has inhibited the progress of science. Every major scientific discovery that has ever been made has gone against what the majority believed (otherwise it would be a confirmation, not a discovery)! Pushback from the mainstream position delayed the acceptance of some very good scientific principles – including the heliocentric solar system.
      **************************************************************************No problem. I agree. See the comment previous to this one. …but I also suggest there are a few out there who will staunchly refute the “LIE!” of a heliocentric solar system in favor of a Bible-based geocentric one & accuse you of selling out to a “majority fallacy w/ the your above remark. Go figure ;<)….
      I don’t want to belabor this point too much, but it is worth pointing out that Neil’s reasoning here is absolutely ridiculous. Yet it is indicative of the kind of reasoning employed by evolutionists. Many evolutionists believe in evolution for no reason other than that all the other evolutionists believe in evolution. Its arbitrary circular reasoning of the silliest kind.
      **************************************************************************…and this little outburst exhibits the fallacy of jumping to premature conclusions ; But then again, by discouraging majority consensus, creationism only relegates itself to the realm of crackpot pseudoscience. You’ve made a very clear point w/ this one!
      Again, Neil makes it very clear that he is falling for the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy – the faulty appeal to authority/majority. There can be no mistake that he believes this; he is even criticizing the alternative. His reasoning is fallacious. This is one reason why I believe that every person should take a class or read a book on introductory logic. A class on the history of science would also be helpful. Virtually all commonly accepted scientific models started out as minority positions.
      **************************************************************************Sure, I understand this. See my previous posts on this topic. Revisions to existing scientific models often begin as minority positions or “marginal research” – however note that they can also be falsified and rejected as well and end up NOT altering the paradigm!
      Creationism is Theology , NOT science.
      …as for classes on the history of science – I’d suggest (again) Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions as an interesting read.
      http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html
      Science isn’t justified apart from creation.
      > Good grief – Is this an historically-based claim??
      No, it is based on the fact that evolution cannot account for those things necessary for science. Neil previously agreed to this fact in this very post: Dr. Lisle: “Can you make sense of such things [things necessary for science] from an evolutionary perspective Neil?” Neil: “No, I can’t make sense of such things…” Science would not be possible in an evolutionary universe.

      **************************************************************************You’ve quoted me out of context. ….No theory can explain everything – it develops & modifies thru time. Is this the situation you’re exaggerating to the point of “evolution cannot account for those things necessary for science.”???
      Likely you’ve got it backwards – …”but science can account for those things necessary for evolution” ;>> When I hear the term design, I think “process”
      >> You shouldn’t. Process would have to do more with manufacturing. Design is the concept/blueprint phase.
      > Sure –and the “concept/blueprint phase” is also a part of the manufacturing process as a whole. Overall the analogy is inaccurate.
      No. The blueprint is done long before any manufacturing. You can even design something in your mind without doing any manufacturing at all. So it was a very good analogy after all.
      **************************************************************************…But it’s still part of the overall chain of events. You could not have manufacturing without a design plan.
      This is a fantastic example of the fallacy of begging the question. We see intricate, irreducible complexity in both organisms and automobiles. This obviously indicates that automobiles were designed. Why does it not also suggest that organisms were designed? Neil’s answer is effectively: “because they weren’t designed. So it’s obviously a bad analogy!” I had to chuckle at that one.
      **************************************************************************Irreducible complexity has been refuted. Automobile design is documented by the designers, and is reviewable. No design documentation, form-fit-function or descriptions existing apart from a living organism has ever been found to exist. No design documentation, form-fit-function or descriptions contained within a living organism has ever been found to exist. At best analogy, genetic makeup is similar to functioning software.
      Not all scientific research will lead to a cure for Neil’s male-pattern baldness. ;-) Research is about learning more about the universe. Sometimes this has practical application. Sometimes it doesn’t. Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the expansion of the universe is cool, but it has no practical value as far as I can see. It’s still good science. Neil doesn’t seem to understand this.
      How many evolutionary programs have led to technological or pharmaceutical benefits? None that I’m aware of.

      **************************************************************************By “evolutionary programs” -you mean what exactly??
      Studies of Viral & bacterial mutations – new pharmaceutical developments, immune system studies, studies of microbial drug-resistance, genetically modified products – just to name a few…
      Just think of all the money wasted in SETI research trying to confirm an evolutionary paradigm, which has contributed nothing to society whatsoever. By the way, it is entirely possible that our research on mutations may indeed lead to a better understanding of disease, and lead to possible cures. But even if it doesn’t, it’s still great research. Neil’s disparaging remarks were simply obnoxious, and a last-ditch effort to persuade by emotion, rather than logic.
      **************************************************************************By “OUR” research…you are suggesting that ICR is the ONLY organization doing work in this vast area??…c’mon seriously.
      Also are you suggesting “only creationists” are researching these huge areas?? Not buying it.
      Btw – I won’t argue your point w/ SETI and I’m sure there’s even other lesser known boondoggles out there as well – it’s a huge industry field w/ wide areas of bureaucraticus rigiditus ;<)
      Wow! Neil didn’t even want to hear about the exciting data we are finding. I wonder why? ;-) Perhaps Neil knows in his heart-of-hearts that the data will confirm creation. But evolutionists simply dismiss scientific research that they don’t like. Evidence that doesn’t make sense in their worldview is ignored. And Neil has just demonstrated this masterfully.
      **************************************************************************…and with this remark you have provided evidence of creationism as fringe pseudoscience, w/ it’s research apparently dismissed for (likely) valid reasons… :<(
      I notice you use the morality-tinged “world view” term, instead of model or paradigm for added emotional appeal??
      Your attempt at “fallacy of majority” or whatever fails and only establishes creationism as an unworking, rhetorical pseudo science…
      No. The appeal to the majority is a fallacy, as any logic textbook will confirm. Just because many people believe something doesn’t make it so. There was a time when the majority believed the Earth was flat, and that rotten meat created maggots, and that lead could be chemically turned into gold, and so on. But that didn’t make it true. Believing something just because other people believe something is fundamentally illogical. It is totally arbitrary.
      Here at last we see the actual reason that Neil believes as he does. Is it because of good scientific evidence? No. Is it for good logical reasons? No. Neil is simply following the majority without applying any critical thinking skills whatsoever. He believes in evolution because other people believe in evolution. And that is a well-established fallacy. So we see in this series of posts the very thing I have been saying for many years. There is no logical reason to believe in evolution. If you are going to be a consistently rational person, you must be a biblical creationist.

      **************************************************************************Once again another set of grandiose rhetorical claims.
      ….This seems a strange line of thought coming from someone whose primary audience is comprised of “fellowship” units (churches etc) whose vital foundations are groupthink conformity, anti-intellectualism, suspended disbelief and scientific ignorance….hmmm

      “Thou shalt not think, thou shalt just believe by faith alone and not ask any questions.”

      • Josef says:

        Neil says, “First off – to me personally, if it does’nt [sic] make sense – I won’t rely on it. You seem to consider the universe as if it were a person, consciously obeying a set of rules, so as to please it’s master (..or else!) – not just based on the properties & uniform behaviors of physical matter. “

        Well that’s the problem Neil; you seem to think you can rely on your thoughts and rely on things that make sense to you. But this is only possible because the biblical God exists. If you’re right, and the universe is really just a cosmic accident, then there is no real reason to trust your thoughts. Even your brain would be the result of random chance. Only the biblical worldview makes knowledge possible.

        And only the biblical worldview can justify the existence of uniformity throughout the universe. Without uniformity, there would be no way to even conduct a science experiment.

        While the universe doesn’t have a personality, this doesn’t mean it does not obey specific sets of instructions, such as not defying a law of logic. Something doesn’t need a personality to follow instructions. Computer programs follow instructions that are programmed by an intelligence, much like the universe follows transcendental programs. In order to have a coherent worldview, your worldview must have a “point of contact” which brings the physical and non-physical worlds together. Good luck with that in an atheistic worldview.

        Neil says, “The Bible is not a “paradigm” in any working scientific sense – only to those pushing some sort of religious view. One might as well consider Jack and the Beanstalk to be the “paradigm” for those engaging in horticultural work with legumes. Could I also suggest – The Koran have also been considered a “paradigm” for a lot of early pre-renaissance scientific work as well??”

        The Bible is the word of God, and it doesn’t matter if you accept it or not. Everything we observe in science confirms the Bible; it’s only when people go off into “fantasy land” aka evolutionary theory, which the problem arises. Fact is, we only see organisms reproduce after their kinds and nearly all mutations result in a net loss of information within the systems.

        The Bible also says that God judged the world through a global flood, and if this really happened, we would expect to see evidence for it, such as the remains of plants and animals buried throughout the earth. That’s exactly what we see. We would also expect to see a multitude of geologic formations throughout the earth that were caused by a watery cataclysm, and again, that’s what we observe. The Bible makes sense of both the observable world and it justifies the preconditions of intelligibility necessary to makes our observations and studies meaningful. This is something that the Koran or “Jack and Beanstalk” cannot do. And in fact, the atheistic worldview can’t either, so that really puts atheism on the same level as a fairy-tale.

        “Can you cite any specific example where genetics as an organized field, organization etc specifically makes this claim or swears allegiance to some theological world view, or claims the universe is “upheld” by an apparently GIGANTIC prehensile(?) hominid-style(?) HAND that must be light years in size breadth etc ???…….good grief….. :<o”

        Remarks like these make it seem like you’re just more interested in ax-grinding than anything else. But the claim isn’t that one must confess or “swear allegiance to” the Bible in order to be able to do research. But the Bible must be true, because if it were not, there would be no reason to justify our ability to research.

        “I’m not aware of inanimate (“non-living”) particles forming the first “living” cell.”

        Well, unless biology has changed severely since I was in college, the basic unit of life is the cell. And cells are made up of organelles which are made up of molecules, which are made up of atoms, which are made of up particles. This should hardly need explanation. Unless you’re trying to suggest that a cell is the smallest, indivisible unit known to man, then yes, “non-living” particles would have ultimately formed the first cell.

        Neil says, “I would ask is: in their proposed particles-to-people scenario, do creationists consider replicating nucleic compounds and even viruses to be a “nonliving” substance, or some sort of non-life form?”

        Viruses [i]depend[/i] on the machinery of living cells to replicate their proteins and DNA; they aren’t capable of independently performing the basic functions of life, like the cell can. So of course, viruses are not alive. And furthermore, they cannot be the first forms of life if they depend on other life forms to maintain their existence.

        Neil says, “Newspapers contain more than just verbal channels of information. Pictures of two very different dogs, each w/ captions “The dog is brown” and “The dog is brown” would convey two discrete units of information.”

        This completely misses the point. Ok, fine, “The dog is brown” might have different information when accompanied by the two pictures of two different dogs. However, what if I photo copy this paper that contains the two different pictures? Let’s say I make five copies to be exact; would I have five times the information of the original paper? No. What I would have is the same information, just five sheets of paper, each containing two pictures of two different brown dogs.

        Neil says, “No. End user interpretation creates a good bit of variability in the amount of information that ultimately gets conveyed. We aren’t necessarily referring to just hard data ( lists of numbers alphanumeric code, etc.) but ideas, concepts, etc.”

        No, end user interpretation creates a good bit of variability in the amount of [i]interpretations of the information[/i]. The information is the same. For example, if I look at the similarity of the human arm and a frog’s arm, the evidence is that both arms are similar. The [i]interpretation of the evidence[/i] is that either the frog and human had a common designer or a common ancestor; but the evidence remains the same. Different interpretations of the evidence doesn’t create two different sets of evidence from the original evidence.

        Actually, you know what, there really is no point in even continuing. The bottom line, Neil, is that you must be able to justify the preconditions for intelligibility. Only the biblical worldview can, and only the biblical worldview provides a basis for science and making sense of evidence.

        But just to reiterate:

        1. It doesn't require the confession that the Bible is true in order for people to have knowledge, but it does require that the Bible is true. Just as it doesn't require my confession that the internet exists in order for this post to be read, but the internet must exist in order for it to be read.

        2. Until Neil provides a way in which his worldview justifies the preconditions of intelligibility, then he really doesn't have any ground to stand on. Because without being able to justify the preconditions of intelligibility, then he has no basis for justifying why he can trust his thoughts or his senses, and if he can't do that, then he can't provide justification for how science is possible.

        By the way, I know this was directed for Dr. Lisle, but I know he is busy and I don't think it is right for such a scathing comment to go unanswered. If there are any errors in my argumentation, then they are my own, and not a reflection on Dr. Lisle at all.

        • Dr. Lisle says:

          Excellent post Josef. Thanks again.

          • Josef says:

            You’re welcome Dr. Lisle. I am happy to help, as I know you’re busy and it’s good practice for me… and reading your response shows me where I could have answered better than I did :)

        • Neil Yoder says:

          Hi Josef – I’m heartened to see the amount of attention and effort my comments seem to have elicited! :<)
          ****************************************************Neil says, “First off – to me personally, if it does’nt [sic] make sense – I won’t rely on it. You seem to consider the universe as if it were a person, consciously obeying a set of rules, so as to please it’s master (..or else!) – not just based on the properties & uniform behaviors of physical matter. “
          Well that’s the problem Neil; you seem to think you can rely on your thoughts and rely on things that make sense to you. But this is only possible because the biblical God exists. If you’re right, and the universe is really just a cosmic accident, then there is no real reason to trust your thoughts. Even your brain would be the result of random chance. Only the biblical worldview makes knowledge possible.

          ****************************************************What else do I have besides “my thoughts” in order to perceive my own environment? You seem to suggest that my functioning brain is only possible because the “biblical” God (vague term) exists. You’re begging the question here, Josef. Btw – I made no great proclamation of the universe being a “cosmic accident”, so most of whatever point you’re trying to make is moot.
          And only the biblical worldview can justify the existence of uniformity throughout the universe. Without uniformity, there would be no way to even conduct a science experiment.
          ****************************************************What’s a “biblical worldview”?

          “Uniformity throughout the universe” has NEVER been verified and is not accepted as any kind of absolute scientific fact. Various scientific “laws” are ultimately presumed to be local rather than universal.
          While the universe doesn’t have a personality, this doesn’t mean it does not obey specific sets of instructions, such as not defying a law of logic.
          ****************************************************Laws of logic are not the same as laws of physics applying to physical matter. One would have to have a “personality” or conscious mind of sorts to “obey” consciously given specific sets of instructions.
          Something doesn’t need a personality to follow instructions. Computer programs follow instructions that are programmed by an intelligence, much like the universe follows transcendental programs.
          ****************************************************What are ”transcendental programs”??

          In order to have a coherent worldview, your worldview must have a “point of contact” which brings the physical and non-physical worlds together. Good luck with that in an atheistic worldview.
          ****************************************************Sure!…because I suspect you’re thinking along “Grand Unified Theory” lines w/ this…and the prevailing view as I understand it, is that it will likely never be realized, at least in a scientific sense.
          But Theologically speaking – nothing beats “I am the Lord thy God – thou shalt have no other gods before me” if one wants to have a personal (well, imaginary) “universal point of contact bringing physical & non physical worlds together” etc… It also does wonders for ego and self image as well! ;<)
          Neil says, “The Bible is not a “paradigm” in any working scientific sense – only to those pushing some sort of religious view. One might as well consider Jack and the Beanstalk to be the “paradigm” for those engaging in horticultural work with legumes. Could I also suggest – The Koran have also been considered a “paradigm” for a lot of early pre-renaissance scientific work as well??”
          The Bible is the word of God, and it doesn’t matter if you accept it or not.

          ****************************************************Yes, I accept the Bible and claims made that it is the word of God. This has nothing to do with scientific studies.
          Everything we observe in science confirms the Bible; it’s only when people go off into “fantasy land” aka evolutionary theory, which the problem arises.
          ****************************************************A thunderous rhetorical claim w/ no basis in fact. If this were the case all universities/scientific institutes etc would have failed long ago and become evangelical creationist entities.
          Fact is, we only see organisms reproduce after their kinds and nearly all mutations result in a net loss of information within the systems.
          The Bible also says that God judged the world through a global flood, and if this really happened, we would expect to see evidence for it, such as the remains of plants and animals buried throughout the earth. That’s exactly what we see.

          ****************************************************Yes…”That’s exactly what we see.”…”We” being creationists seeing what they want to see, retrofitting, shoe-horning, theologizing, mis-interpreting etc etc…
          We would also expect to see a multitude of geologic formations throughout the earth that were caused by a watery cataclysm, and again, that’s what we observe.
          ****************************************************Certainly “we” do! ;<)….See my previous comment.

          The Bible makes sense of both the observable world and it justifies the preconditions of intelligibility necessary to makes our observations and studies meaningful. This is something that the Koran or “Jack and Beanstalk” cannot do. And in fact, the atheistic worldview can’t either, so that really puts atheism on the same level as a fairy-tale.
          ****************************************************Imho…ALL theology suffer from some degree of “fairy tale” mentality, and Biblical Christianity is not exempt. Your claim of the Bible making ”sense of both the observable world and it justifies the preconditions of intelligibility necessary to makes our observations and studies meaningful” is little more than sophistic bluster.
          “Can you cite any specific example where genetics as an organized field, organization etc specifically makes this claim or swears allegiance to some theological world view, or claims the universe is “upheld” by an apparently GIGANTIC prehensile(?) hominid-style(?) HAND that must be light years in size breadth etc ???…….good grief….. :<o”
          Remarks like these make it seem like you’re just more interested in ax-grinding than anything else.

          ****************************************************NO. You dodged that one, Josef ;<) . Please explain or clarify the (literal? I assume) gigantic prehensile hominid hand, it’s cosmic function, physical location, characteristics, etc… I realize you were not the one that introduced this concept, but anyways, grand creationist proclamations like this deserve a bit more detailed analysis… ;<)
          But the claim isn’t that one must confess or “swear allegiance to” the Bible in order to be able to do research. But the Bible must be true, because if it were not, there would be no reason to justify our ability to research.
          ****************************************************Certainly! I’m sure this is the belief of many, if not all creationist organizations!
          Btw Josef (and Dr. Lisle) you might want to ponder the meaning of the word “BIBLIOLATRY” at this point:
          http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bibliolatry

          “I’m not aware of inanimate (“non-living”) particles forming the first “living” cell.”
          Well, unless biology has changed severely since I was in college, the basic unit of life is the cell. And cells are made up of organelles which are made up of molecules, which are made up of atoms, which are made of up particles. This should hardly need explanation. Unless you’re trying to suggest that a cell is the smallest, indivisible unit known to man, then yes, “non-living” particles would have ultimately formed the first cell.

          ****************************************************This one’s a bit of a technicality. Where is the line between “living” and “nonliving”? Is the calcium in your bones “living” calcium or “nonliving” calcium? Is it…”dead” calcium?? Many creation-promoters even use ludicrous terms like ”science says life from dead chemicals” which seems funny when one considers the Biblical creation scenario claims humankind originated from inanimate matter (dust/clay of the ground etc) ….

          Neil says, “Newspapers contain more than just verbal channels of information. Pictures of two very different dogs, each w/ captions “The dog is brown” and “The dog is brown” would convey two discrete units of information.”
          This completely misses the point. Ok, fine, “The dog is brown” might have different information when accompanied by the two pictures of two different dogs. However, what if I photo copy this paper that contains the two different pictures?

          ****************************************************You’re shifting, or trying to raise the bar, by modifying the original process, introducing new procedures, processes etc to produce your desired result..
          Let’s say I make five copies to be exact; would I have five times the information of the original paper? No. What I would have is the same information, just five sheets of paper, each containing two pictures of two different brown dogs.
          ****************************************************No, there would be minute variations in grayscale density or color density (depending on what type of printer you used). Each copy would be unique, with subtle variations in the information conveyed, not necessarily detectable by the casual viewer but noticeable upon, say, electronic or mechanical testing…. These would equate to minor changes or variations at the genetic level since we’re using an analogy.

          Neil says, “No. End user interpretation creates a good bit of variability in the amount of information that ultimately gets conveyed. We aren’t necessarily referring to just hard data ( lists of numbers alphanumeric code, etc.) but ideas, concepts, etc.”
          No, end user interpretation creates a good bit of variability in the amount of [i]interpretations of the information[/i]. The information is the same. For example, if I look at the similarity of the human arm and a frog’s arm, the evidence is that both arms are similar. The [i]interpretation of the evidence[/i] is that either the frog and human had a common designer or a common ancestor; but the evidence remains the same. Different interpretations of the evidence doesn’t create two different sets of evidence from the original evidence.

          **************************************************
          Once again you’re changing the bar/tilting the playing field, whatever. A physical specimen is different than the original “information” defined in the newspaper example.

          Actually, you know what, there really is no point in even continuing. The bottom line, Neil, is that you must be able to justify the preconditions for intelligibility. Only the biblical worldview can, and only the biblical worldview provides a basis for science and making sense of evidence.
          ****************************************************Once again this is just another example of sophistic bluster and thunderous rhetorical proclamations intended to create the illusion that creationism enjoys some sort of intellectual heft. :<( This “biblical worldview” (can you even define or elucidate what this is????) would have long ago been embraced , or even never have been outgrown in the first place by scientific fields, et al…. if there were any real world validity to your claims…

          • Josef says:

            Hi Neil,

            Well, I do think the questions you ask are important because not only are they a stumbling block for you, but if you’re thinking of them, then I know others are as well. Anyway…

            Neil says: “What else do I have besides “my thoughts” in order to perceive my own environment? You seem to suggest that my functioning brain is only possible because the“biblical” God (vague term) exists. You’re begging the question here, Josef.”

            Basically Neil, you’re admitting that you trust your thoughts because you have no choice. This isn’t an answer to my question, but is really just conceding defeat. Because if you don’t actually have a justification for why you can trust your thoughts, other than you have nothing else, then you really don’t know if your thoughts can be trusted.

            But even granting that you were correct, and the biblical God doesn’t exist, you would have no reason to believe your brain is functioning properly. In other words, even if you were correct, you’d have no way of knowing it!

            Also, I don’t think my saying the “biblical God” is a vague term. It is actually pretty specific. Had I said something like, “Some higher power” or just “a god” then I would agree that it would be vague.

            I am not begging the question. You’ve been corresponding with Dr. Lisle for quite some time, so I figured it was a safe assumption that somewhere in your correspondence, he explained why the biblical God must be true. But just to sum it up: if the biblical God didn’t exist, then we couldn’t actually know anything at all. Because only the biblical God can give use a rational justification for the preconditions of intelligibility.

            Neil says: “Btw – I made no great proclamation of the universe being a “cosmic accident”, so most of whatever point you’re trying to make is
            moot.”

            Fair enough; I was under the impression that
            you are an atheist. But even if you aren’t, it really doesn’t matter to my argument. The argument doesn’t just apply to the atheistic worldview, but to all worldviews. And my argument is that only the biblical worldview can justify the preconditions of intelligibility.

            Neil says: “What’s a ‘biblical worldview’?”
            I have a hard time believing that after all your time corresponding with Dr. Lisle, that you haven’t learned what it is yet. Again, the reason I didn’t explain it before is because I felt like I would be beating a dead horse.

            The biblical worldview presupposes that the Bible is the word of God. Since the Bible is the word of God, what it says is completely true. This isn’t just an arbitrary presupposition either. Because the Bible claims to be the word of God, and any denial of this claim would lead to absurdity.

            The Bible teaches us that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent, immaterial, is uncreated from eternity to eternity, that He created everything in existence in 6 normal days, and that He has judged the world in the past with a global flood. Also, God cannot sin, which includes the ability to lie. Therefore, everything He says is trustworthy and true.

            I’m sure there is a better way to sum up the biblical worldview, but I think this is enough for you to get the picture.

            Neil says: “‘Uniformity throughout the universe’ has NEVER been verified and is not accepted as any kind of absolute scientific fact. Various scientific ‘laws’ are ultimately presumed to be local rather than universal.”

            Presumed to be local? Really?! If uniformity were not constant throughout the universe, then I hope you realize that it would be impossible to study nature outside of the earth!

            If what you are claiming is true, then just because laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction, holds up here on earth, I’d have no reason to believe it holds up on Saturn if there wasn’t such a thing as uniformity.
            1 + 1 = 2 might be true here on earth, but I wouldn’t know that it couldn’t equal 5 at some location 12 light years from earth. In fact, if scientists really didn’t believe uniformity exists throughout the universe, then I don’t even know how it would be possible to study a field like astrophysics and make predictions. Now, I’ll have to ask that Dr. Lisle correct me if I am wrong, as I have never taken an astronomy class in my life. But I would venture to say that if uniformity were not true throughout the universe, then there would be no point (or even ability) to study fields like astronomy & astrophysics. I want you to substantiate your claim that uniformity is presumed to only hold up locally and not throughout the universe. It would actually defeat the non-believer’s position anyway.

            Neil says: “Laws of logic are not the same as laws of physics applying to physical matter. One would have to have a ‘personality’ or conscious mind of sorts to ‘obey’ consciously given specific sets of instructions.”

            No, one does not need a personality to “obey” instructions. A rock obeys the law of gravity, but yet the rock doesn’t have a personality.

            Obviously the term “obey” here isn’t used in the sense of making a conscious decision. For that matter, even though I have a personality I do not consciously choose to obey the law of gravity. It’s not as if I have the option to decide to be rebellious and not obey the law of gravity anymore and start flying instead of walking.

            Besides, are laws of physics material or immaterial? Just as with logic, laws of physics (and laws of science in general) are not material laws. And again, why would the physical world “obey” non-physical laws? You’re worldview must be able to bring the physical and non-physical together.

            Neil says: “What are ‘transcendental programs’??”

            I actually meant to say “transcendental laws”. But it means laws that are not dependent upon the physical universe. Laws of logic are an example of transcendental laws. Logic doesn’t depend on the universe. Laws of logic are invariant, they apply everywhere, and they are intangible. But in a non-biblical universe, why are there such immaterial, invariant and universal laws? Christians have no problem accepting laws that have these types of properties, because God Himself is immaterial, invariant and universal (in the sense that He is omnipresent).

            But this is a problem for atheists because if the universe is really just matter and energy, then logic would be an obvious contradiction to the atheist’s worldview, since logic is neither matter nor energy. No polytheistic religion can account for logic either. Because which “god” would logic be contingent upon? The gods of Greek folklore like Zeus and his gang of demigods are material, and they change over time. Allah cannot provide the preconditions for intelligibility either, because the Quran claims that Allah is the greatest of all deceivers:

            But they were deceptive, and Allah was deceptive, for Allah is the best of deceivers!” S. 3:54

            The problem arises because if this claim is not actually true, then Allah is capable of lying, but if it is true, then Allah cannot be trusted. So ultimately Allah cannot satisfy the preconditions of intelligibility because we would have no way of knowing whether he is being truthful or not.

            Neil says: “Sure!…because I suspect you’re thinking along ‘Grand Unified Theory’ lines w/ this…and the prevailing view as I understand it, is that it will likely never be realized, at least in a scientific sense.”

            Again, Neil, only the biblical worldview can even make science possible. You seem to put science on a pedestal above anything else, yet, you still haven’t provided how your worldview makes science possible. And in fact, you’ve already admitted science is impossible in your worldview. Because you’ve already essentially admitted that you cannot give a justification for how you know your thoughts are trustworthy, you just apparently have no other choice. And you’ve also denied uniformity except at the local level. These would make science an impossibility.

            Neil says: “But Theologically speaking – nothing beats ‘I am the Lord thy God – thou shalt have no other gods before me’ if one wants to have a personal (well, imaginary) ‘universal point of contact bringing physical& non physical worlds together’ etc… It also does wonders for ego and self image as well! ;<)”

            Again, you don’t have to accept this, but as I said, any other position other than the biblical one leads to absurdity. And this has been demonstrated already as you have no justification for why you can trust your thoughts, or are left to entertain the idea that 1 + 1 = 5 is a possibility at some location outside of earth.

            Neil says: “Yes, I accept the Bible and claims made that it is the word of God. This has nothing to do with scientific studies.”
            I’m assuming this is a typo based on everything you’ve said. Otherwise, this would be a pretty rich statement based on the fact that you just claimed God is “imaginary”. Again, it does have everything to do with science because if the Bible were not true, then science wouldn’t be possible.

            I said previously: “Everything we observe in science confirms the Bible; it’s only when people go off into “fantasy land” aka
            evolutionary theory, which the problem arises.”

            Neil says in response: “A thunderous rhetorical claim w/ no basis in fact.”

            I suppose that if this were all I said, then it could be shrugged off. However, I went on to give examples, such as animals and plants only reproducing after their kind, which confirms what the Bible says.

            Neil says: “‘Yes…’That’s exactly what we see.’…”We’ being creationists seeing what they want to see, retrofitting, shoe-horning, theologizing, mis-interpreting etc etc…”

            So Neil, are you suggesting that we do see plants and animals producing organisms other than their own kind? Or that we do see mutations increase the information content in an organism? I would love for you to provide these examples (I have a feeling Dr. Lisle would love to see them too). Until then, you haven’t provided any evidence for your claim that creationists only see what they want to see.

            On the contrary, I would argue that it is the evolutionists who are only seeing what they want to see. Thus far, we’ve never observed a mutation increase the information in an organism, nor have we seen a plant or animal produce a fundamentally difference kind apart from itself, nor have we seen a single example of abiogenesis. Of course, the evolutionists believe all of these fairy-tales, but there is no evidence for any of this.

            So here is my challenge to you Neil: substantiate your claim that creationists are the ones who are only seeing what we want to see by showing how the evidence better fits the evolutionist’s worldview. Give some examples specifically to counter my claims.

            I previously said, “We would also expect to see a multitude of geologic formations throughout the earth that were caused by a watery cataclysm, and again, that’s what we observe.”

            Neil says, “Certainly ‘we’ do! ;<)….See my previous comment.”

            Your previous comment that you gave no
            substantiation for? See my reply to it. :D

            Neil says: “Imho…ALL theology suffer from some degree of ‘fairy tale’ mentality, and B
            Biblical Christianity is not exempt.”

            While I can appreciate this is your opinion, opinions don’t make a shred of difference. In fact, I would say that evolution is the fairy-tale, and unlike your claim which is just mere opinion, I gave reasons for my opinion: only the Bible can account for the preconditions of intelligibility and everything we observe in the physical world fits nicely with the biblical worldview and contradicts the evolutionist’s worldview. Again, if you think I am wrong, then demonstrate this to me by substantiating your claims instead of just attempting to shrug off mine.

            Neil says: “’Your claim of the Bible making’ sense of both the observable world and it justifies the preconditions of intelligibility necessary to makes our observations and studies meaningful” is little more than sophistic bluster.”

            Then prove it wrong. It’s not enough to just simply claim my arguments are “sophistic bluster.” You must give some type of evidence if you want a cogent argument against my argument.

            Neil previously asked, “Can you cite any specific example where genetics as an organized field, organization etc specifically makes this claim or swears allegiance to some theological world view, or claims the universe is “upheld” by an apparently GIGANTIC prehensile(?) hominid-style(?) HAND that must be light years in size
            breadth etc ???…….good grief….. :<o”

            I replied, “Remarks like these make it seem like you’re just more interested in ax-grinding than anything else.”

            Neil says, “NO. You dodged that one, Josef ;<) . Please explain or clarify the (literal? I assume) gigantic prehensile hominid hand, it’s cosmic function, physical location, characteristics, etc…””

            Actually, no I didn’t dodge it, I answered it. First as Dr. Lisle pointed out in his reply to you, you’re using the fallacy of reification. Second, you seem to be misunderstanding the claim. I’m not saying that geneticists must confess the Bible is true to do their work, or to do their research. But it seems that you’re misunderstanding the argument as if I were saying, “If one does not confess the Bible as true, then one could not do research.” That’s not the argument!

            The argument is that while one doesn’t have to confess the Bible is true to do research, the Bible must be true to do the research. So I didn’t dodge your question, I answered it. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

            As for the “gigantic prehensile hand” again, one of the characteristics of the biblical God is that He is immaterial—He doesn’t literally have a hand (where did you get that idea from?), so it is in fact your point that is moot.

            Neil says, “This one’s a bit of a technicality. Where is the line between ‘living’ and ‘nonliving’? Is the calcium in your bones ‘living’ calcium or ‘nonliving’ calcium?”

            It’s not really a technicality Neil. You seemed to be suggesting to Dr. Lisle that the “particles to people” concept wasn’t what evolutionists believe, and it certainly is. And it was certainly worth my time to point this out, because I have had many experiences with evolutionists trying to claim things like, “Evolutionists do not believe man came from particles (or molecules) we came from a single celled ancestor!” without realizing what the cell is made up of.

            And I believe I did answer your question. The cell (the whole cell) is the basic unit of life. Calcium is an element, an alkaline earth metal—it is not alive.

            Neil says: “Is it…’dead’ calcium?? Many creation-promoters even use ludicrous terms like ‘science says life from dead chemicals’ which seems funny when one considers the Biblical creation scenario claims humankind originated from inanimate matter (dust/clay of the ground etc) ….”

            Calcium isn’t life. It’s non-living, and technically, something that is non-living is dead (although dead usually implies something was alive previously). Just as a rock isn’t alive, and if it’s not alive, it’s dead. I personally wouldn’t use “dead”, but instead non-living, but technically, both are correct. This is really just quibbling over semantics.

            As for the biblical scenario, sure, humans originated from non-living matter, through a supernatural act of the creator God. However, evolutionists believe (despite all evidence to the contrary) that life arose naturally from non-living chemicals. The two aren’t comparable.

            Neil says: “You’re shifting, or trying to raise the bar, by modifying the original process, introducing new procedures, processes etc to produce your desired result..”

            Unless I am misunderstanding what you were trying to convey, then this is not shifting the goal-post at all. Dr. Lisle had originally stated that a newspaper that reads, “The dog is brown” would have no more information than if two newspapers were purchased. One wouldn’t have twice the amount of information. You are the one who then attempted to counter by claiming the newspaper could have two pictures of two different brown dogs. So in actuality, you’re the one who was changing things. I was merely granting that even if you had a paper with two different pictures of two different dogs, copying this paper would give you no more information. You can try to play the little game of, “Well each photocopy will degenerate in its quality” type of argument, but that doesn’t change the information on the paper.

            But the main point here is that the information doesn’t increase, and you’re the one who introduced the red-herring; I was merely “going with it.”

            Neil says: “Once again you’re changing the bar/tilting the playing field, whatever. A physical specimen is different than the original “information” defined in the newspaper example.”

            The “physical specimen” or physical evidence was meant to be analogous to the information. If I had the newspaper that said “the dog is brown” and showed it to three different people, I might get three different interpretations of the information. But the information remains the same.

            And like Dr. Lisle pointed out to you, information isn’t dependent on someone’s interpretations. As he correctly said, “[Information] is totally irrelevant to the person reading it. If nobody in the world read a particular newspaper, this wouldn’t add or subtract one bit of information in the newspaper.”

            Neil says: “Once again this is just another example of sophistic bluster and thunderous rhetorical proclamations intended to create the illusion that creationism enjoys some sort of intellectual heft. :<( This ‘biblical worldview’ (can you even define or elucidate what this is????) would have long ago been embraced, or even never have been outgrown in the first place by scientific fields, et al…. if there were any real world validity to your claims…”

            If this is just “sophistic bluster” (it’s pretty sad that that seems to be your only counter to these arguments) then show me the error of my ways by demonstrating how a non-biblical worldview (yours specifically) can account for the preconditions of intelligibility. Fact is Neil, if you can’t even give a rational account for the preconditions of intelligibility, then you can’t know anything at all.

            Throughout these comments, you’ve already conceded defeat:

            1. You essentially admitted that the only reason you trust your thoughts is because you have to. That may be true, but it isn’t an answer to the question. So your answer is really a false thesis.

            2. You claim that we cannot know that there is uniformity throughout all of nature. If that is true, then studying science would be impossible. No scientist could actually study nature with the presumption that uniformity is only true locally. Can you name even one scientific researcher who operates with this idea?

            And again, I’m not by any stretch of the imagination an astronomer. But I bet Dr. Lisle can give specific examples of how research in astrophysics or astronomy would be virtually impossible if scientists truly believed that the universe had no uniformity outside of the earth.

            3. Your only “counter” (I use that very loosely) to the transcendental argument is that, “it’s sophistic bluster” and somehow, you have the idea that this is a valid refutation.

      • Dr. Lisle says:

        It seems that Neil just won’t stop digging a hole for himself.

        >> Biblical creation gives us the rational justification for science. Apart from creation, there would be no reason to expect that the universe would obey universal laws, which do not arbitrarily change, and which the human mind can understand. The reason that Neil cannot make sense of the above statement is that science makes no sense from an evolutionary point of view. If evolution were true then there would be no reason to expect the universe to obey laws at all, let alone laws that do not change with time or space. Nor would there be any reason to think that the mind can be rational. To rely upon something that makes no sense in your worldview is fundamentally irrational.

        > That’s quite a sweeping rhetorical claim.

        If that were true, then it ought to be easy for Neil to refute it – to give a simple explanation of how the universe would behave as it does from an evolutionary worldview. But he can’t. Indeed he admitted in a previous post that he could not make sense of such things. Dr. Lisle: “Can you make sense of such things [things necessary for science] from an evolutionary perspective Neil?” Neil: “No, I can’t make sense of such things…” So Neil has already conceded defeat for this argument. Ironically, Neil’s reply here is merely rhetorical. He provides no argument for it.

        > First off – to me personally, if it does’nt [sic] make sense – I won’t rely on it.

        Here Neil again contradicts himself. He states that he does not rely upon things if he can’t make sense of them. But previously he admitted that he could not make sense of the things necessary for science from an evolutionary perspective (“No, I can’t make sense of such things”). Yet he claims that he does rely on science.

        > You seem to consider the universe as if it were a person, consciously obeying a set of rules, so as to please it’s master (..or else!)

        That’s a straw-man fallacy. I have never argued that the universe is conscious. But it does obey laws. As a creationist, I can make sense of that. The universe obeys laws because it is controlled by the mind of God. Thus, the universe exhibits logical, mathematical properties which are universal and do not arbitrarily change with time.

        > – not just based on the properties & uniform behaviors of physical matter.

        Why would matter have “uniform” properties if it is merely chance? The fact that matter behaves in a uniform, consistent, mathematical way is the very thing I am asking Neil to explain from his perspective. Yet, he can’t account for this.

        > Can you cite any “real” science related sources sharing or confirming this??…e.g – “Because evolution is true we just can’t figure out why the universe seems to exhibit areas of predictable behaviors, constants etc?? or that ”Science makes no sense from our current evolutionary point of view” ???

        Neil here begins with the “no true Scotsman” fallacy (e.g. ‘“real” science’), and combines this with the genetic fallacy in asking for a “source” for an argument. But the validity and soundness of an argument are independent of the source of an argument. Neil just isn’t able to account for the predictable nature of the universe from his worldview, so he is trying to shift the argument. In any case, yes, secular scientists have published papers which elaborate on this very issue. Consider physicist Eugene Wigner’s paper “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences” as one fine example. David Hume’s work on the problem of induction (a problem from a secular point of view) is also well worth reading.

        >>> Can you cite one specific example of taxonomic classification resulting from work within a “biblical paradigm” ? Sure, a creationist developed the original taxonomic idea…
        >> I like it when they answer their own question. The idea of classification makes no sense in an evolutionary/chance universe. Every classification system is therefore only sensible within the biblical paradigm. It is therefore not surprising that a creationist founded modern taxonomy within the biblical paradigm.
        > Another unfounded rhetorical claim. The Bible is not a “paradigm” in any working scientific sense – only to those pushing some sort of religious view.

        Neil doesn’t seem to understand the difference between rhetoric and an argument. What he is doing is rhetoric. What I have done is provide an argument – one that Neil cannot (apparently) refute. The Bible indeed provides a paradigm for science. A paradigm is an example serving as a model: a pattern, or a way or thinking. The Bible gives us the basic truths which are necessary for science to make sense. Namely, God upholds the universe in a consistent fashion that the human mind can understand.

        > One might as well consider Jack and the Beanstalk to be the “paradigm” for those engaging in horticultural work with legumes.

        Here Neil commits the false analogy fallacy, by comparing a history book (the Bible which has archeological verification) with a modern fairy tale (much like evolution). Now I will grant that Neil doesn’t see it this way since perhaps he believes that the Bible is a fairy tale too; but he doesn’t have any evidence for this position whatsoever, and there is much evidence against it. Genesis, for example, was written using the verb forms associated with historical narrative, including frequent use of the waw-consecutive. There is no doubt that it was written as history, and much of the Bible’s history has been verified archeologically.

        > Could I also suggest – The Koran have also been considered a “paradigm” for a lot of early pre-renaissance scientific work as well??

        The Koran cannot account for the preconditions of science either. I cannot find any evidence in the Koran that Allah is beyond time, or that he has promised to uphold the universe in a consistent fashion. Thus, there is no basis for uniformity of nature in a Muslim paradigm. Nor can Allah be the basis for laws of logic since the Koran both endorses and contradicts the Gospels.

        >>>>The creationist Gregor Mendel discovered this. Hence, organisms with similar traits tend to have similar DNA.
        >>> It’s great that creationists believe that! :< )
        >> Actually, a creationist discovered this. It’s just one of the many scientific discoveries that were made due to the expectation that God made the universe understandable by the human mind.
        > With this claim you propose a nonscientific bias (the “expectation that God made the universe understandable by the human mind”) attributed to “many” scientific discoveries, which is highly questionable.

        If my claim were not true, then it should be very easy for Neil for provide a single counter-example. But, alas, none were provided. Are there any examples of scientific discoveries made on the basis that people were expecting the universe to behave in an unpredictable way due to its alleged chance origin? Some scientists may teach that the universe is just chance, but they all do science as if the universe were designed and upheld by God in a logical, consistent way. There are no exceptions.

        > Could you list which scientific discoveries were the result of research/experiments conducted where the personnel themselves expressly stated this “expectation” as a goal of their work??? I’d love to see it.

        Neil hasn’t done his homework on this topic. Many examples could be cited. Take Johannes Kepler’s writings as some fine examples. Newton, and even Galileo also did. Their discoveries were made because of their expectation that God upholds the universe in a consistent fashion. There are many others, but notice that once again Neil has tried to shift the argument. The argument I have presented is not what people themselves have “expressly stated” as their underlying assumptions – but rather what those assumptions actually are. My argument has absolutely nothing to do with what people say about their beliefs, but rather with what is true. People often say one thing, but their actual beliefs are revealed by their actions.

        By the way, even Neil knows in his heart-of-hearts that the biblical God really does uphold the universe in a consistent fashion, even though Neil will not admit this to himself or others. The reason I know this is because he continues to rely upon the uniformity of nature when he types and posts messages on this blog. He expects that when he presses the letter “k” on the keyboard, the letter “k” will appear on the screen since that is what has happened in the past, and since God upholds the universe in a consistent way. If the universe were really just chance, and not upheld by a mind, then there would be no reason to assume that pressing “k” causes a “k” to appear.

        And so by continuing to post messages, Neil actually proves the opposite of what he is writing. He confirms Romans 1:18-20 which teaches that God has revealed Himself to everyone – that the evidence of God has been seen from the beginning, and God has shown this to people so that they are without an excuse.

        >>> Has creationism ever made any recent peer reviewed contributions or advanced genetic studies in any way that have helped associated fields or humankind in any way??
        >> Yes. All of them. Genetics is a creationist field, discovered by a creationist who was motivated by his biblical belief in an orderly universe upheld by the hand of God. All scientists who rely upon the scientific method are implicitly relying upon creation principles, whether they like it or admit it. Such order makes no sense in a chance universe. There have been no medical or other scientific advances that have been achieved due to evolutionary notion that the universe and life are a result of chance. None.
        > You have cited no specific example, but have only resorted to another sweeping rhetorical claim.

        Neil didn’t read my answer very carefully. I indicated that all discoveries are predicated on the fact that God upholds the universe in a consistent fashion. “All” includes every specific example. So, the fact that there are dominant and recessive genes which act in a predictable way (which has certainly advanced our understanding of genetics and has benefited humankind) is only possible if the inductive principle is true, which is only sensible in the biblical worldview. The inductive principle makes no sense in a chance universe, as Neil has previously admitted.

        > Can you cite any specific example where genetics as an organized field, organization etc specifically makes this claim or swears allegiance to some theological world view,

        Here Neal commits the fallacy of reification. Genetics as an organized field cannot “swear allegiance” to anything since genetics is not a person. Individual geneticists do have a worldview, though many of them have not reflected carefully on what their own worldview is, and whether or not it can make sense of what they are doing. Dr. Georgia Purdom is a friend of mine. She has a Ph.D. in molecular genetics and would be quick to point out how biblical creation has been helpful in her research. Some geneticists acknowledge God and creation, others do not. But they all rely upon God and creation when they expect the scientific method to be effective. So again, Neil is misrepresenting the argument. It is not about what people say they believe to be the case; rather, it is about what actually is the case.

        > or claims the universe is “upheld” by an apparently GIGANTIC prehensile(?) hominid-style(?) HAND that must be light years in size breadth etc ???…….good grief…..

        Another straw-man argument – and a rather silly one at that. Straw-man arguments show that the critic really doesn’t have a logical leg to stand on. Thus, they must distort the position of their opponent to make it look silly, rather than using logic and reason to cogently refute it.

        >>> Now can you give me some examples of peer-reviewed work or beneficial discoveries based upon “God’s Oneness in nature, his triune personhood and the unity and diversity in nature…etc etc…” say within the past 50 years??
        >> Yes. All of them. From particle physics and space shuttles to high speed computers, every major scientific discovery or invention has been made because of the expectation that the universe has both differences and unity; and that the human mind is able to distinguish between these by observation and experimentation. But such concepts only make sense in light of the triune God who made man in His image. If the universe were chance, and the human mind were just the result of mistakes and natural selection, there would be no logical reason whatsoever to think that the mind could discern any real order in the universe. Neil doesn’t seem to get this. Science makes no sense apart from the biblical worldview. And Neil admitted that above when he said, “No, I can’t make sense of such things…”
        > Once again, this is only your own subjective rhetorical claim.

        Again, Neil doesn’t seem to understand what “rhetorical” means – or “subjective” for that matter. The argument (not “rhetoric”) that I have put forward is objective. No worldview other than Christianity with biblical creation at its core can account for the preconditions necessary for science and rationality. Neal has already admitted that his own worldview cannot. So he has unwittingly demonstrated the conclusion of my argument. His response is merely rhetorical since he gives no logical justification for logic or induction from an evolutionary paradigm.

        > You can provide no evidence that the space shuttle, particle physics, high speed computers…heck..EVERY discovery, invention etc…

        All of these were developed or discovered using logic and induction – both of which are based on biblical creation as I have shown repeatedly. Neil seems to think he can refute my argument by simply stating over and over that I haven’t provided evidence. I have, but Neil just ignores it and continues with his diatribe. Not very rational, is it? To rationally defend his above claim, Neil would have to either (1) show some science/technology that was not developed using logic and induction, or (2) show how logic and induction would make sense in an evolutionary universe.

        > (according to you) was intentionally undertaken… researched, developed, tested, produced etc. with knowledge & the conscious intent to “PROVE(!)” or follow various Christian theological concepts, metaphysics, existence of God etc….. by their original developers. I’m not buying it.>>>> You still haven’t answered the question. How would science be possible in an evolutionary chance universe?
        >>> It’s likelyhood [sic] would be based upon statistical probabilities.
        >> Probability only works if there is an underlying order – the very thing that an evolutionary/chance universe cannot explain. Laws of probability are based on laws of mathematics and laws of logic, which have no justification in an evolutionary worldview.
        > …and this “underlying order” would be…the distribution curve ?? Tell me more about this innate(?) underlying order. ;< )I’m not sure what you mean by this.

        God upholds the entire universe by the expression of His power. In Genesis 8:22 (and the concept exists in other passages as well), God promises that there are certain consistencies in nature which will continue until the final day. God is beyond time, and so He knows the future (and knows everything by virtue of His nature), and we have His promise. This underlying order which is caused by the consistent upholding power of God is what we today would call “laws of nature.” The properties of such laws make sense considering they stem from the mind of Almighty God.

        But from an evolutionary perspective there is no logical reason to believe that there would be laws of nature at all, nor that they would have the properties they do (mathematical, universal, etc.). Nor is there any reason (from an evolutionary perspective) to believe that they will be the same tomorrow, or one hour from now, or one second from now! The claim that they’ve always been that way will not work, because it would be irrelevant to the future unless we already knew some other way that such orderliness continues into the future. This is the argument that I’m proposing that Neil cannot answer. He has certainly demonstrated by his responses that he cannot refute it.

        >>>>Genetic information is that which is found in genes. “Brand new” means something that didn’t exist before.
        >>> “Containing an expected action and intended purpose??? Hmm.
        >>> Where did you get this from??? – I thought information was that part of a message that cannot be predicted in advance.

        >>Here Neil contradicts himself. In an early post, he agreed that this definition of information was correct: Dr. Lisle: “Do you agree with this AiG quote [re: information]?” Neil: “Well…. Ah… ‘AMEN ANNA HALLELUJAH!!!’ as they say… ;< ). Can’t find any real problems w/ it….”
        Information has nothing to do with something being predictable.

        > Exactly. It’s that part which CANNOT be predicted.

        To be clear, information has nothing to do with predictability one way or the other. I know in advance exactly what I’m going to type as I write this. It’s perfectly predictable to me. It might not be predictable to someone else. But it still has information. Some things which lack information are predictable, others are not predictable. Some things with information are predictable, others are not predictable. There is no necessary connection between predictability and information.

        > Your allegation in this response that “I contradict myself” is vague, and I’m not really seeing it. It’s related to another topic entirely.

        Neil contradicts himself by both embracing and simultaneously rejecting the AiG definition of information, as I showed above. The AiG definition has nothing to say about predictability.

        >>>> You didn’t give a single example of evolution in the “particles-to-people” sense.
        >>> Sure – because “particles to people” is a Creationist strawman.
        >> Neil knows very well that in the evolution view, non-living particles supposedly formed the first living cell, which multiplied and diversified into all living organisms – including people. In other words, this is “particles-to-people” evolution. The first time Neil called this a “straw-man” I could dismiss this as a misunderstanding on Neil’s part. But now it is clear that Neil is simply being dishonest. This may be so that he can continue to give evidence of change within a kind (which is what creationists expect) and say that this is “evolution.” But any rational person can see through this obvious equivocation fallacy. Neil is being disingenuous, and we all know it.
        > I’m not aware of inanimate (“non-living”) particles forming the first “living” cell.

        That’s because it didn’t happen. But it is what evolutionists believe. Look up “abiogenesis.”

        > The question I would ask is: in their proposed particles-to-people scenario, do creationists …

        The “particles-to-people” evolution is an evolutionist scenario. We creationists do not believe in particles-to-people evolution.

        > …do creationists consider replicating nucleic compounds and even viruses to be a “nonliving” substance, or some sort of non-life form? These were the first building blocks of life forms.

        Parts of a cell are not living. “Life” refers to the entire cell. Yet, no one has ever observed life coming from anything but previous life. Evolutionists have blind faith that it happened at least once. Neil seems to be unaware of the fact that all the essential parts of a cell require all the other essential parts in order for the cell to survive and reproduce. DNA doesn’t form and replicate all by itself.

        >>>>If a paragraph in a newspaper gets duplicated, do you have more information?
        >>> Using the newspaper example, YES.
        >>It’s hard to imagine that Neil actually believes what he wrote here. No new information gets added to a newspaper when a paragraph is duplicated. “The dog is brown.” contains the same information as “The dog is brown. The dog is brown.” You cannot learn anything more from the second sentence than you can from the first. The only information you can glean from the single sentence, or the duplicated sentence is that the dog is brown. By Neil’s thinking, you could learn lots more information by copying that sentence over and over again! But that’s obviously nonsense.
        > Newspapers contain more than just verbal channels of information. Pictures of two very different dogs, each w/ captions “The dog is brown” and “The dog is brown” would convey two discrete units of information.

        Another red-herring fallacy – when the critic attempts to distract from the actual issue. The issue was whether or not an accidentally duplicated sentence adds any new information to the article. Obviously it doesn’t, but Neil wanted to argue otherwise. Pictures of two different dogs would not be the result of a duplication, and therefore have nothing to do with the example. Even then, the information contained in “The dog is brown” is the same as for “The dog is brown.” A duplicated sentence (or a duplicated picture) does not add any additional information to an article. Likewise, a duplicated gene does not add any brand new information to DNA.

        >> Neil wanted to switch topics to memes at this point. But since that is completely irrelevant to the topic, we move on.
        > No it’s not at all irrelevant to the topic of information -ESPECIALLY to the newspaper example cited.

        No, memes are related to behavior or styles that spread from person to person. Since we were discussing information – not behavior – memes were not relevant at all to the topic.

        >>>>Likewise, gene duplication does not add any information to the genome. It’s just the same information expressed twice.
        >>> The fault in this reasoning is only considering a single-point consumer of the printed material.
        >> Information content in a newspaper is totally irrelevant to the consumer. The newspaper has a given amount of information in it regardless of who reads it. If no-one reads it, it still has information. If everyone reads it, it still has the same amount of information. Neil’s reasoning is fallacious.
        > No. End user interpretation creates a good bit of variability in the amount of information that ultimately gets conveyed.

        Another red-herring. Neil just doesn’t want to stick with the argument, but keeps shifting off topic. The amount of information in an article is totally irrelevant to whether or not a person reads or understands it. Notice that Neil tried to shift the argument to the information that “gets conveyed.” But that wasn’t what was under discussion. What is under discussion is what information exists in the article. And this is totally irrelevant to the person reading it. If nobody in the world read a particular newspaper, this wouldn’t add or subtract one bit of information in the newspaper.

        > We aren’t necessarily referring to just hard data ( lists of numbers alphanumeric code, etc.) but ideas, concepts, etc. Viewed as input -the intended information put in by the author(s) – does not guarantee a predictable output on the end user side.

        Actually, I am referring to “hard data” if we are talking about either genes or articles. Information quantity is totally irrelevant to whether or not the information is received. The effect on the recipient is utterly irrelevant to the quantity.

        > Your claim-“ The newspaper has a given amount of information in it regardless of who reads it.” Has a nice objective ring to it, but ultimately isn’t true in a working sense.

        No. A given article has a given amount of information regardless of who reads it. This is really pretty obvious. If an illiterate person looks at a newspaper, does the newspaper suddenly lose all of its information? Clearly not. The information contained in a given book, document, computer program, etc., is independent of the person looking at it.

        >>> Sure. Mutations can both add or subtract information.
        >> Neil again contradicts himself. In a previous post he agreed with the AiG statement that information must come from a mind. It therefore cannot be created by mutations. Dr. Lisle: “But so far, the closest you’ve come is the suggestion that information must come from a mind, but I’m not sure you really believe that. Do you?” Neil: “Sure I do.”
        > Sorry – I’m not seeing the connection between addition & subtraction of information and previous discussions about information coming from a mind….??

        If mutations (which are accidental, unplanned, not caused by a conscious mind) can add information, then information can be created apart from a mind. But previously Neil agreed that information must come from a mind. So again, Neil contradicts himself.

        >>>> Be careful of the fallacy of appeal to majority. Truth is not determined by consensus.
        >>> Lol! – You can’t be serious!!!! Yes, scientific work and vast areas of other endeavors are driven by consensus understanding (“we’re all on the same page”) and agreement. Ridiculous!!
        >> Here Neil makes an extremely obvious blunder in reasoning. Students of logic will immediately recognize Neil’s statement as the faulty appeal to authority/majority. It should be obvious to any thinking individual that truth is not determined by the majority opinion. But, amazingly, Neil disagrees (even to the point where he calls the alternative “ridiculous”)! Really???!!! If I could convince the majority of people that marshmallows grow on Mars, would that suddenly become true? If all scientists agreed that the world was flat, would that make it so?
        > Neither of the examples you cite have one shred of pertinence to reality.

        Actually, the second example is historically true – not that it would have to be to make the point. Both examples are very relevant because they refute Neil’s belief that science advances by consensus. There was a time when most of the scientists did indeed believe that the world was flat. But that didn’t make it flat.

        > Fields of science are not nihilistic free-for alls. You would have to provide arguments, and data/evidence supporting these views.

        Unless you’re an evolutionist, apparently. And then you can just state your position over and over, without actually providing any cogent arguments. This is one of the main differences between creation and evolution. Creationists provide arguments, data, and evidence. Evolutionists don’t. Neil’s own posts demonstrate this.

        > The earth’s spherical form has been known since ancient times, as is the recipe and method to produce marshmallows.. Yes, your “majority fallacy” charge relating to uniform areas of knowledge is ridiculously misapplied.

        No, it’s an example of the fallacy that Neil has committed. Neil has stated that he believes that science is driven by consensus. Thus, if the consensus view were that Marshmallows grow on Mars, then by Neil’s thinking, that would be the “scientific” position, despite its obvious absurdity. That particular example was taken precisely because it is such a silly view, and yet by Neil’s thinking, it would be ridiculous to question it! So again, we see inconsistency in Neil’s thinking. Is an appeal to majority acceptable (as when he applies it to evolution) or is it fallacious (as when applied to Marshmallows on Mars)? He just can’t decide.

        >> There was a time when virtually all scientists believed that the sun and other planets orbited the Earth. By Neil’s reasoning, this was actually true at the time! After all, it was the scientific consensus. There was a time when scientists believed that our galaxy was the only one. According to Neil’s thinking, that must have been true! There was a time when the scientific consensus believed that the universe is static and non-expanding. By Neil’s reasoning, that was actually true at the time!
        > The examples you cited were the prevailing paradigm views of their time.

        Yes. Neil said something right. The point of course is that evolution is considered the prevailing paradigm today. But that doesn’t make it true any more than these previous paradigms were true. This demonstrates why Neil’s appeal to majority/authority is fallacious.

        > I do not make the claim they were objectively true (factual) at the time!

        Ah, then neither can Neil consistently argue that evolution is true (factual) today simply on the basis that it is the “prevailing paradigm.” This is inconsistent with Neil’s previous view where he implied that evolution should be regarded as true (factual) on the basis that a lot of scientists believe in it. Indeed he went so far as to claim that my point (that truth is not determined by consensus) is “ridiculous.” He previously defended the faulty appeal to the majority/authority. But now he seems to acknowledge (and I agree) that it is a fallacy.

        > Btw – they were also proclaimed as supported by Holy Scripture, the Church Body and are still adhered-to by a deluded few to this day:

        People have claimed that the Bible says a lot of things that it doesn’t actually say. So? My claim has never been that professing Christians are always right. But I do claim that the Bible is always right on what it affirms.

        > Biblical geocentrism / “Young” Earth whatever…

        Here Neil attempts to link two very different things and put them into the same category – presumably so that if one is considered to be unreasonable, then so will the other. Evolutionists tend to specialize in this sort of rhetorical tactic: conflating “evolution” with “science” for example. Geocentrism is not biblical, as I have posted elsewhere on this very blog. So I won’t repeat the argument here. “Young” Earth is biblical, and is confirmed by science as we have shown many times.

        > Bishop Ussher’s incredible scientific research that “revealed the True age of the Earth & cosmos(!)” is also a product of this period…

        Although Neil is apparently attempting to belittle Ussher’s research with sarcasm, it was in fact a brilliant work of scholarship. Ussher painstakingly studied not only Scripture, but other ancient literature, calendars, and chronologies. Another scholar, Isaac Newton, verified Ussher’s chronology. Newton was a Bible scholar, but is best known for some of his scientific discoveries, including Calculus, the laws of motion and of gravity, optics, and was the inventor of the reflecting telescope. These were all products of this period.

        > Basically it was the scientific method itself (plus a bunch of other factors: improved equipment/observation etc..) that challenged and eventually revised the prevailing paradigm(s).

        It’s not really that simple. Shifts in the prevailing paradigm are rarely if ever driven solely by objective analysis of data. I must also remind our readers that the scientific method is itself a paradigm – one that only makes sense only in light of a biblical worldview. If the universe really were a chance accident (a “big bang”) and if the human mind were simply the result of countless mutations that happened to convey survival value, there would be no fundamental reason to expect that the universe could be understood by the mind. Why should one accident be able to understand another? The testability aspect of the scientific method only works if God upholds the universe in a consistent way.

        So, as I have mentioned many, many times before, and the point which I have pleaded for Neil to answer but which he continues to ignore, is that science only makes sense in a biblical creation worldview. There is no justification for induction, laws of nature or their properties, laws of logic or their properties in an evolutionary worldview. So, why do evolutionists believe in such things? The answer is found in Romans 1:18-20.

        > I’m assuming you’re familiar w/ The Structure OF Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn (1962)??

        I am. My expectation is that there will be a point in the future when Darwinian evolution is looked upon like Ptolemy’s epicycles. People will ask, “why did people believe in evolution when there was so much evidence to the contrary?” Sometimes it takes a generation or more for scientific revolutions to occur. Part of the problem is that many people reason as Neil does – they believe something just because other people do, and resist interpreting evidence in any other way.

        >> Neil’s position is actually self-refuting! Here is why: Neil is basically claiming that truth is determined by scientific consensus – what the majority of scientists believe. But in fact, the majority of scientists do not believe that truth is determined by consensus. So if truth is determined by scientific consensus, then truth is not determined by scientific consensus. The absurdity of Neil’s claim is obvious.
        > LOL You’re getting a little carried away…

        Actually, I have demonstrated that Neil’s claim is self-refuting. The scientific consensus is that truth is not determined by scientific consensus. I have yet to meet a scientist who believed that the majority opinion determines truth.

        > Your attempt at being spokesperson for the views of the “majority of scientists” is a bit pretentious. Sure – SOME scientists likely DO NOT believe truth is determined by majority consensus and SOME DO believe it is.

        I certainly have had many conversations with many scientists in my career as a research scientist. Neil’s opinion that the majority determines the truth is not widely believed in the scientific community. To my knowledge, I’ve never met an actual scientist who held that view. If they did, they wouldn’t bother to do science. They would go into politics. If majority opinion determines truth, then you don’t need to do experiments to discover truth. You just convince enough people through persuasive speech to create truth!

        Notice that once again Neil seems to contradict himself. He previously defended the appeal to majority/authority as okay – even calling my refutation of such a position “ridiculous!” Then he admitted that truth is NOT determined by consensus; when I pointed out historical examples of the faulty view of the majority, he replied “I do not make the claim they were objectively true (factual) at the time!” Now, he seems to want to defend again the notion that majority determines truth. Neil just can seem to decide what position he wants to defend. With answers like this, Neil should run for Congress!

        > That’s neither here nor there – consensus majority can be overturned by valid well-supported research that “breaks thru” & modifies the existing paradigm.

        Now we’re back to consensus majority apparently not being necessarily true since it can be overturned by valid research. This certainly can happen. But often it takes a generation or two. During the time of Galileo, it was commonly believed that the moon was a perfect sphere. Since Galileo had a good quality (for the time) refracting telescope, he could see that the moon had craters, mountains, and valleys. It was not a perfect sphere. He even invited people to look through his telescope and see for themselves. But here is the really interesting part. Some of them continued to believe that the moon was a perfect sphere even when they could see with their own eyes that it wasn’t! Why?

        They had a worldview that the moon was a perfect sphere. Evidence – even the powerful evidence that telescopes show that moon has topographical features – does not often change a person’s worldview. The reason is this: the worldview guides the person in how to interpret the evidence. In the case of Galileo, his critics argued that the craters, valleys and mountains were there, but encasing them and the entire moon was an invisible perfectly smooth sphere. This way, they could continue to believe in a perfectly spherical moon, despite what they saw with their eyes. If they had been more rational, they might have thought, “Wait a minute. Is there really a good reason to believe that the moon is a perfect sphere?” Well, no. They believed it simply because other people believed it at the time.

        A belief in evolution is much like this. People don’t believe in evolution because of evidence or rational arguments. They believe because other people believe, or because they don’t emotionally like the alternative. We can show evidence after evidence. Information in DNA, irreducible complexity of the cell, c-14 in diamonds, short and long period comets, sediment on the ocean floor, and many others all confirm biblical creation so powerfully! And yet people will insist on invisible spheres so that they can continue to believe in what other people believe so that they don’t have to think.

        >> It should also be noted, that the attitude “the majority of scientists are right” historically has inhibited the progress of science. Every major scientific discovery that has ever been made has gone against what the majority believed (otherwise it would be a confirmation, not a discovery)! Pushback from the mainstream position delayed the acceptance of some very good scientific principles – including the heliocentric solar system.
        > No problem. I agree.

        Okay.

        > See the comment previous to this one. …but I also suggest there are a few out there who will staunchly refute the “LIE!” of a heliocentric solar system in favor of a Bible-based geocentric one & accuse you of selling out to a “majority fallacy w/ the your above remark. Go figure ;< )….

        Sure. But they won’t be able to give any actual verses that would logically support their position. So it isn’t relevant to my point. My point is about what the Bible actually affirms, not what people say that it says.

        >> I don’t want to belabor this point too much, but it is worth pointing out that Neil’s reasoning here is absolutely ridiculous. Yet it is indicative of the kind of reasoning employed by evolutionists. Many evolutionists believe in evolution for no reason other than that all the other evolutionists believe in evolution. Its arbitrary circular reasoning of the silliest kind.
        > …and this little outburst exhibits the fallacy of jumping to premature conclusions ;

        It’s hardly premature. Neil keeps shifting back and forth between defending the appeal to majority and disavowing it. It was very relevant to point out that majority opinion does not determine the truth of the matter. And Neil continues to subtly or overtly promote the notion that we must follow the majority consensus – or not depending on what paragraph he is in. It really is a fallacious argument, and this must be pointed out.

        > But then again, by discouraging majority consensus, creationism only relegates itself to the realm of crackpot pseudoscience. You’ve made a very clear point w/ this one!

        Now, Neil appears to be defending majority consensus again by referring to alternatives as pseudoscience. Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and many others went against the majority consensus of the day. Would Neil call their positions “crackpot pseudoscience”?

        >> Again, Neil makes it very clear that he is falling for the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy – the faulty appeal to authority/majority. There can be no mistake that he believes this; he is even criticizing the alternative. His reasoning is fallacious. This is one reason why I believe that every person should take a class or read a book on introductory logic. A class on the history of science would also be helpful. Virtually all commonly accepted scientific models started out as minority positions.
        > Sure, I understand this. See my previous posts on this topic. Revisions to existing scientific models often begin as minority positions or “marginal research” – however note that they can also be falsified and rejected as well and end up NOT altering the paradigm!

        It’s not just revisions to existing models. Sometimes, models are overturned completely. New evidence can open a door, but this often doesn’t change minds even when the evidence is overwhelming. People have a worldview that governs their interpretation of the evidence. For faulty models to be overturned, it takes a willingness for its advocates to consider their worldview, and think through its logical cogency, and be willing to consider alternatives. Evolutionists seem reluctant to do this. They don’t think through the implications of their worldview (like the fact that evolution would make science impossible if it were true) and are unwilling to consider alternatives. They continue to believe what they think everyone else believes simply on the basis that everyone else believes it. This kind of thinking has inhibited scientific progress in the past. Indeed, evolution in particular, has contributed absolutely nothing to science, whereas biblical creation provides the rational foundation for science.

        > Creationism is Theology , NOT science.

        Evolutionism is theology, NOT science. Think about it: Evolutionism cannot be tested or repeated in a laboratory, or observed in a telescope, or confirmed historically, or confirmed by the methods of science. It is a belief system about origins and it does take a position on God (either God doesn’t exist or He doesn’t do much of anything). Evolutionism really is theology, not science. Creation is the historical fact that makes science possible. Evolutionism is simply a blind leap of faith without any rational support. Note that Neil has not given a single cogent argument for evolution. All he has provided is a list of rhetorical claims and logical fallacies. No evidence for evolution was provided. But then again, he’s apparently okay with just going with the majority consensus… except for when he isn’t.

        > …as for classes on the history of science – I’d suggest (again) Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions as an interesting read.
        [link broken]

        I’m familiar with it. The irony is that the resistance to scientific progress which eventually culminates in a revolution is exactly the kind of resistance evolutionists give when presented with the obvious evidence for creation. They are inclined to re-interpret the evidence, often invoking rescuing devices (Oort clouds, dynamos, unknown physics, etc.) to protect their worldview from its inevitable demise.

        My point is not to criticize them for interpreting the evidence within their worldview – everyone must do this of logical necessity. Rather, my criticism is that they have not thought through their worldview to examine whether it is actually workable. Namely, can an evolutionary worldview be compatible with rationality and science? I have shown over, and over that it cannot, because it would undermine our confidence in induction (and hence, the scientific method), and logic, as well as our expectation that natural laws should be mathematical in character.

        To be an evolutionist, one must be illogical – inconsistently both embracing and denying creationist principles. On the one hand, the evolutionist says that the universe is not upheld by a mind – it’s just an accident. On the other hand, he studies the universe as if it is upheld by a mind, and is thus consistent, logical, mathematical, and understandable in nature. To deny creation is like denying the existence of air. The air-denier can make all sorts of long diatribes against the existence of air, but he must use air in order to make his case. Likewise, the critic of creation must use the biblical principles of induction, laws of logic, etc., in order to argue against creation.

        >>>>Science isn’t justified apart from creation.
        >>> Good grief – Is this an historically-based claim??
        >>No, it is based on the fact that evolution cannot account for those things necessary for science. Neil previously agreed to this fact in this very post: Dr. Lisle: “Can you make sense of such things [things necessary for science] from an evolutionary perspective Neil?” Neil: “No, I can’t make sense of such things…” Science would not be possible in an evolutionary universe.
        >You’ve quoted me out of context.

        Readers can check the above posts to see that the quote is in context.

        > ….No theory can explain everything – it develops & modifies thru time. Is this the situation you’re exaggerating to the point of “evolution cannot account for those things necessary for science.”???

        Neil is confusing “explanation” with “justification.” I’m not asking him to explain everything. That would be impossible. But I am asking him to provide justification for his beliefs – to give a reason. How would things like science and logic make sense in an evolutionary universe? The mark of rationality is to have a good reason for what you believe. Neil cannot give a reason to believe in induction, logic, or the methods of science from his evolutionary worldview. His position is therefore irrational.

        > Likely you’ve got it backwards – …”but science can account for those things necessary for evolution”

        Neil sees science as the foundation for evolution. (Of course, I would say that there really isn’t any science that confirms evolution, but let’s put that aside for a moment). My question to Neil is about what is the foundation for science? If science is unjustified (without rational support), then anything that allegedly has scientific support is also unjustified. The problem (for evolutionists) is that they have no rational support for the methods of science. Indeed, if evolution were true, then there can be no support for science since it would just be one accident trying accidentally to understand another accident. Evolution undermines rationality and science. Creation undergirds rationality and science.

        >>>>> When I hear the term design, I think “process”
        >>>> You shouldn’t. Process would have to do more with manufacturing. Design is the concept/blueprint phase.
        >>> Sure –and the “concept/blueprint phase” is also a part of the manufacturing process as a whole. Overall the analogy is inaccurate.
        >>No. The blueprint is done long before any manufacturing. You can even design something in your mind without doing any manufacturing at all. So it was a very good analogy after all.
        > …But it’s still part of the overall chain of events. You could not have manufacturing without a design plan.

        Some things are designed, but never manufactured. Design comes first, then the manufacturing may begin. Design does not require process. But manufacturing processes do require a design.

        >> This is a fantastic example of the fallacy of begging the question. We see intricate, irreducible complexity in both organisms and automobiles. This obviously indicates that automobiles were designed. Why does it not also suggest that organisms were designed? Neil’s answer is effectively: “because they weren’t designed. So it’s obviously a bad analogy!” I had to chuckle at that one.
        > Irreducible complexity has been refuted. Automobile design is documented by the designers, and is reviewable. No design documentation, form-fit-function or descriptions existing apart from a living organism has ever been found to exist. No design documentation, form-fit-function or descriptions contained within a living organism has ever been found to exist. At best analogy, genetic makeup is similar to functioning software.

        Irreducible complexity has not been refuted. It is really a very obvious principle: machines cannot function if they are missing any of their essential components. Neil claims that automobile design is documented by the designers and is reviewable. But that’s not always the case. If someone does not reveal their design, would that imply that what they have made is not designed? I suggest that Neil will not be able to find and review the details of the design of the B-2 bomber. Does this mean that it is not designed? By Neil’s reasoning, apparently the answer is “yes!”

        Neil then reasons that since cells don’t come with design documentation, this apparently means that they are not designed. The absurdity of his claim is revealed when applied to many other things. The great pyramids do not come with design documentation. Nor does Stonehenge. Does this mean these things are not designed?

        In any case, DNA really is like a blueprint in that it contains the instructions – the documentation – to build the organism in 4-dimensions (not only in three spatial dimensions but DNA accounts for changes over time as well). Neil wants to think of DNA like functioning software; I’m okay with that analogy as long as we recognize that this software does contain the “blueprints” for the organism.

        >> Not all scientific research will lead to a cure for Neil’s male-pattern baldness. ;-) Research is about learning more about the universe. Sometimes this has practical application. Sometimes it doesn’t. Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the expansion of the universe is cool, but it has no practical value as far as I can see. It’s still good science. Neil doesn’t seem to understand this.
        How many evolutionary programs have led to technological or pharmaceutical benefits? None that I’m aware of.

        > By “evolutionary programs” -you mean what exactly??

        Those studies that assume that the universe really is an accident, and is not upheld by the mind of God, and is thus unpredictable, and that the human brain is merely the result of accidental mutations which happened to convey survival value, and is thus irrational. Such thinking has never produced any technology or discoveries.

        > Studies of Viral & bacterial mutations – new pharmaceutical developments, immune system studies, studies of microbial drug-resistance, genetically modified products – just to name a few…

        All of these are based on the biblical claims that the universe has an underlying orderliness (induction), that the human mind is designed by God and thus able to be rational, that human sensory organs are basically reliable since they too were designed by God, that the universe is amenable to being understood by the human mind, (since God made both the mind and the universe), etc. A few specifics:

        The immune system is remarkably complex and fails if any of its essential components fail: this means that it cannot have been developed in a gradual evolutionary fashion of one-by-one mistakes that convey a small amount of survival value. The immune system doesn’t work unless it all works. Likewise, bacteria cannot function if any of their essential components is missing. Both bacteria and the immune system are highly, highly complex mechanisms. It makes sense to study these remarkable machines in a creationist worldview since they are amazingly designed. But if they are merely accidents of evolution then it makes no more sense to study them than a mud puddle.

        Likewise, resistance to certain drugs as a result of the in-built variation programmed by God into bacteria, or in some cases due to a loss of that information, makes perfect sense in the creation worldview. But in all cases, the bacteria remain bacteria. It’s EXACTLY what creationists expect, but flies in the face of evolution. Likewise, by studying God’s design in plants and understanding the complicated genetic mechanisms, we are able – in some cases – to adjust that programming to our advantage. This requires intelligence and careful design on the part of the scientists, just as creationists expect. It’s not based on evolution. Not at all.

        So again, all the examples that Neil provided are (1) perfectly consistent with creation, (2) were only possible because biblical creation principles are true, and (3) would not have been possible if evolution were true. Science has never advanced by evolutionary chance. It only advances by intelligent design.

        >> Just think of all the money wasted in SETI research trying to confirm an evolutionary paradigm, which has contributed nothing to society whatsoever. By the way, it is entirely possible that our research on mutations may indeed lead to a better understanding of disease, and lead to possible cures. But even if it doesn’t, it’s still great research. Neil’s disparaging remarks were simply obnoxious, and a last-ditch effort to persuade by emotion, rather than logic.
        > By “OUR” research…you are suggesting that ICR is the ONLY organization doing work in this vast area??…c’mon seriously.

        Another straw-man argument on Neil’s part. I never made the absurd claim that ONLY ICR does research. Neil was criticizing ICR for not doing research (apparently, this is yet another example of where he didn’t bother to check first), and I responded with a specific example.

        > Also are you suggesting “only creationists” are researching these huge areas?? Not buying it.

        Yet another straw-man argument. The argument has NEVER been that only creationists can do science. Rather, the argument is that science is only possible because creation is TRUE. People are sometimes inconsistent. They might act and do science as if the universe is designed while they profess that it is not designed. Evolutionists can indeed contribute to science – but only by relying (perhaps unwittingly) on creationist principles.

        > Btw – I won’t argue your point w/ SETI and I’m sure there’s even other lesser known boondoggles out there as well – it’s a huge industry field w/ wide areas of bureaucraticus rigiditus ;< )

        SETI is motivated by evolutionist thinking. It’s just one example of how an evolutionary worldview not only contributes nothing positive, but actually detracts – in this case by diverting funds from legitimate research projects.

        >> Wow! Neil didn’t even want to hear about the exciting data we are finding. I wonder why? ;-) Perhaps Neil knows in his heart-of-hearts that the data will confirm creation. But evolutionists simply dismiss scientific research that they don’t like. Evidence that doesn’t make sense in their worldview is ignored. And Neil has just demonstrated this masterfully.
        >…and with this remark you have provided evidence of creationism as fringe pseudoscience, w/ it’s research apparently dismissed for (likely) valid reasons… :< (

        There’s a non-sequitur if ever there was one! I pointed out that evolutionists dismiss evidence they don’t like, and Neil responds that this is evidence that creation is “fringe pseudoscience”! How exactly? Logically, the view that dismisses the evidence is the one that is pseudoscience – and that is the evolution view. In fact that is they very reason I was criticizing it. Apparently, Neil is in favor of simply dismissing evidence that he doesn’t like or that doesn’t fit with evolution. I knew that was true, but I’m surprised that Neil would try and defend that position.

        Then Neil says that creation research is dismissed for (likely) valid reasons. The word “likely” made me chuckle, because how can Neil possible know whether the reasons are valid, or likely valid, when he doesn’t even want to hear the evidence at all? He’s sort of like the guy who closes his eyes, sticks his fingers in his ears, and keeps yelling, “I don’t see any evidence for creation! I don’t hear any evidence for creation!” Like so many evolutionists, Neil won’t even consider the evidence that might be contrary to his beliefs because he’s already made up his mind. We have seen Neil’s blind faith demonstrated repeatedly in his posts.

        > I notice you use the morality-tinged “world view” term, instead of model or paradigm for added emotional appeal??

        No. “Worldview” was used because it is the correct term. A worldview is a network of presuppositions, untested by the natural sciences, and in light of which all experience is interpreted. “Paradigm” might have been okay, but is less precise. “Model” is inaccurate, because models exist within a worldview and can be tested (in some cases) by science. As I’ve shown above, scientific models are only possible within the biblical worldview, because only the biblical worldview provides justification for induction, logic, and the scientific method.

        >>>Your attempt at “fallacy of majority” or whatever fails and only establishes creationism as an unworking, rhetorical pseudo science…
        >>No. The appeal to the majority is a fallacy, as any logic textbook will confirm. Just because many people believe something doesn’t make it so. There was a time when the majority believed the Earth was flat, and that rotten meat created maggots, and that lead could be chemically turned into gold, and so on. But that didn’t make it true. Believing something just because other people believe something is fundamentally illogical. It is totally arbitrary.
        Here at last we see the actual reason that Neil believes as he does. Is it because of good scientific evidence? No. Is it for good logical reasons? No. Neil is simply following the majority without applying any critical thinking skills whatsoever. He believes in evolution because other people believe in evolution. And that is a well-established fallacy. So we see in this series of posts the very thing I have been saying for many years. There is no logical reason to believe in evolution. If you are going to be a consistently rational person, you must be a biblical creationist.

        > Once again another set of grandiose rhetorical claims.

        Again, Neil demonstrates that he doesn’t understand the difference between an argument and rhetoric. My point was that Neil has shown that he believes in evolution only because others do. He has fallen for the faulty appeal to majority/authority fallacy. And I demonstrated this claim to be true by pointing out that Neil was trying to defend his reliance on the majority, and attempting to criticize the alternative with name-calling (e.g. “pseudo science.”) So, I made an argument. Neil’s response – THAT was rhetoric. He didn’t make a case at all, just an arbitrary claim without support.

        > ….This seems a strange line of thought coming from someone whose primary audience is comprised of “fellowship” units (churches etc)…

        This, of course, is another example of the genetic fallacy. Since Neil cannot refute the argument, he tries to put down its source. But as any student of logic knows, the validity of an argument is independent of its source. Rationally, an argument should be evaluated based on its merit, not on who makes the claim. Neil seems bothered by the fact that many of our “audiences” are church groups. (Actually, we speak at secular universities too. But I will grant that most of our “audiences” are local churches.) But how is this relevant to the truthfulness of creation? If we’re going to be logical, then it really isn’t.

        > whose vital foundations are groupthink conformity

        My irony-meter is in the red! Neil’s main reason for believing in evolution seems to be groupthink conformity. He can’t give any actual logical reasons for his beliefs. Evolution is what most scientists today believe, so Neil just goes along with it. But then he criticizes those of us who go against the mainstream thinking as having “groupthink conformity”! Wow.

        > , anti-intellectualism,

        Yet, we’ve seen in all the above posts that Neil is that one who is being anti-intellectual. He doesn’t want to have good logical reasons for what he believes. He wants to believe in the principles of science, but he cannot give any rational justification for those principles within his own worldview. He wants to believe in evolution despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary – which he doesn’t even want to hear.

        • Wayne Hultgren says:

          Hello Sir, (Dr. Lisle)

          I want to thank you for the ongoing conversations that you are having (have had?) With Neil. It reminds me a lot of the conversations I have had in the past with an atheist friend of mine. And unfortunately, I am not the smartest bulb in the box, and so many of her fallacies and rhetorical statements slipped past me, causing neither of us to get anywhere and for her to end in an ad hominem attack on me. (calling me irrational and completely biased, blinded, weak minded [insinuated, not stated] among other things etc…)
          I used to be a theistic evolutionist (one might more aptly call what I used to be an Old Earth Creationist) who did not fully understand what he really believed. Thanks to AIG and many of their tracts (and a good deal of prompting by the Holy Spirit and a good friend of mine) God worked in me to confirm that my previous beliefs were incompatible with the Bible. And so I am young, I am still growing. And like a sponge I LOVE to read about things and areas of study that I am passionate about and feel burdened over. This is one of those areas that crosses both of those boundaries. It is an area of study dear to my heart, and it is something that I am still growing in understanding. So I thank you for your cogent, coherent, and well thought out and represented arguments and statements. I greatly appreciate reading your work and I will most assuredly begin reading the books and articles you have recommended in your previous posts.
          Also, I did not realize you worked on the RATE project…. in that case I would especially like to say THANK YOU!! It is because of that research that AIG posted on the Carbon-14 dating of coal and other substances that I began to seriously question my O/E views. It also helped me to have a serious conversation with another friend of mine (who styles himself a philosopher and is taking courses in philosophy and logic… [go figure]) who now refuses to have discussions with me on the topic of Young Earth and the scientific evidence for the Bible because I used your research and the research and writings of AIG to walk him through his own worldview and how inadequate it is…. and thankfully the more research he did on the subjects we covered (ranging from Young Earth/Old Earth, the age of the universe, carbon-14, and the uniformity of temperature across the whole of the universe) he could find no scientific evidence that could contradict soundly your arguments, and instead found hosts of secular arguments that (while proposing to disprove your findings) actually proved them. To hear his voice change on the other end of the phone when he said “wait… that actually just proves your point” was like hearing a pin drop in a quiet room.
          I realize that it is a long way yet towards sharing the Gospel with him, and I will continue to advance the conversations and attempt to discuss with him these topics more in-depth, but I want to thank you for giving me the chance (for the first time) to give him pause about how much explaining needs to be done by Evolutionists and Atheists alike.

          I fear that I may be rambling at this point. (it is late as of this writing) but I hope my ideas and sentences are fluid and coherent and are able to be clearly understood.

          -In Christ

          Wayne

      • Dr. Lisle says:

        continued…

        > suspended disbelief and scientific ignorance….hmmm

        My irony-meter just exploded. Neil claims to believe in evolution (in the Darwinian sense). This means that he believes that life originally came from non-life, that bacteria-like organisms eventually became frogs, which eventually became people over billions of years. None of these things have been observed, and they are contrary to what we understand of science. Talk about suspending disbelief!

        And then Neil, who (by his posts) has demonstrated that he really doesn’t have much knowledge of science, and indeed doesn’t even want to hear about the scientific evidence, accuses those of us at ICR (our research team is comprised of Ph.D. scientists) of scientific ignorance. I don’t think there is a need to give a detailed response here. I’ll just let the irony sink in for the readers.

        > “Thou shalt not think, thou shalt just believe by faith alone and not ask any questions.”

        This is the evolutionist motto. :-) And Neil exhibits it masterfully.

  16. Ray says:

    Thank you for the in depth responses Dr. Lisle. I just wanted to make sure I read this correctly.

    Neil responded earlier with this link.
    http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/20/4657
    “Creation of genetic information by DNA polymerase of the thermophilic bacterium Thermus thermophilus”

    Was this study just a form of coping of information? I take that using the words replicated give it away?

    • Micah says:

      Interesting, the technical terms go a little over my head but it does sound like replicating the information is the only thing that is happening.

      Also this bothers me.
      ‘The similar repetitive sequences are found in many natural genes.’

      Natural genes? So are they doing the experiment on UN-natural genes? They even call it synthesized DNA. Forgive me if im wrong but aren’t they suppose to be showing how brand new genetic information can arise naturally? Seems to me doing this experiment is anything but natural.

      Would appreciate your input Dr. Lisle.

      • Josef says:

        Dr Lisle said: “There are several ways in which bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics. But none involve brand-new information arising in DNA.”

        Neil responded: “Incorrect. Some bacteria are capable of absorbing DNA from their environment (Avery–MacLeod–McCarty experiment)
        Also: http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/20/4657”

        Ray, basically what Neil did here was provided a red-herring. The article he posted has nothing at all to do with antibiotic resistance. It instead is a study of DNA polymerase synthesizing a “DNA-like substance” without a template or a primer. Both the template and primer are necessary for DNA replication, so this sounds more like the DNA polymerase attempted to synthesize DNA without any “guidance” and the result is just ordering of certain nucleotides. However, just having an ordering of nucleotides are not information, any more than just having an “ordering” of letters.

        Furthermore, this was all done in vitro (in the laboratory) and not a natural occurrence.

        Micah says: “Also this bothers me.

        ‘The similar repetitive sequences are found in many natural genes.’

        Natural genes? So are they doing the experiment on UN-natural genes? They even call it synthesized DNA. Forgive me if im wrong but aren’t they suppose to be showing how brand new genetic information can arise naturally? Seems to me doing this experiment is anything but natural.”

        I think what the researchers were attempting to say was that the sequences that the DNA polymerase was able to synthesize are found in some genomes. I think the idea is that if DNA polymerase from Thermus thermophiles can synthesize this part, then perhaps DNA polymerase from something else can do another part, and eventually if the sequences were to merge somehow, we’d have a full genome. However, this is quite the stretch as this doesn’t explain the origin of DNA in the first place. Since proteins code for DNA and DNA provides the protein the information, we have a real chicken & egg problem.

  17. Charlie Fau says:

    Dr Lisle,

    Would you kindly advise what scientific evidence did you arrive at which made you believe in your particular deity and his scripture. I’m guessing, from your video work, that you’ve started off cold, with no particular religious views and looked at all the major organized religions. To that end, you found evidence that dismisses all of them (including a secular view) and provided you with the clear and inarguable evidence that your religion is the right one? I would love you to share that evidence so that I may also ‘see the truth’.

    Or, as I suspect, have you cherry picked small pieces of faux-science into evidence for the religion that you parents/culture taught you to follow?

    I welcome your response.

    Charlie.

    • Josef says:

      Charlie,

      I don’t mean to comment for Dr. Lisle. But I saw your comments and thought I should throw my 2-cents in (I hope you don’t mind, Dr. Lisle).

      I have to say that initially when I read your post, I was quite pleased with the sincere tone of your questions, despite taking an unwarranted jab at Dr. Lisle in your closing remarks. However, unfortunately this politeness on your part doesn’t appear to be genuine as evidenced by your recent comments on your Twitter account, such as this one, “I’ve found a new moron, Dr Jason Lisle.”

      Also, why do you place such a high value on scientific evidence? How does your worldview make science possible? Creationists have the same evidence as secularists, and in fact, creationists have justification for how science is even possible in our worldview. Since the world/universe was created by God, who is consistent and logical, and He promises uniformity, the Christian expects the universe to also behave logically and uniformly. However, if the universe is here simply by random chance, how do you justify uniformity & logic, both of which are needed to be able to study nature?

      Also, as for your previous question about whether or not Dr. Lisle has an answer for C14 dating, he does. But there already exists quite a vast number of articles available to read for free on this very topic. I think you should at least acquaint yourself with them first, and then if you have any specific objections to the article(s), then those can be addressed.

      Btw, your question is very revealing; if you were at all familiar with C14 dating, then you should know that it is not how the secularists derive the 4.55 billion year age for the earth!

    • Dr. Lisle says:

      Hi Charlie,

      The evidence is that only the God as described in Scripture can provide a rational foundation for those things necessary for knowledge, such as logic and science. Apart from the Christian worldview, science would be without rational justification. In particular, consider the inductive principle. Without it, science is impossible. Yet, apart from Christianity there is no logical (non-question-begging) reason to believe in the inductive principle, as David Hume pointed out.

      One certainly shouldn’t dismiss the particular lines of evidence confirming biblical creation – the high information content in DNA, the irreducible specified complexity of living things, the fossil record which confirms variation within a created kind, etc. Many others could be listed, and have been published in great detail. One should not dismiss the many archeological confirmations of Scripture – as even educated secularists will admit. Nor should one dismiss the textual evidence of the Bible, which stands far above any other ancient work of literature.

      But perhaps the best evidence is that if the Bible were not true, it would be impossible to prove that anything is true, since the biblical worldview alone provides rational justification for the preconditions of intelligibility. Apart from Christianity, there would be no basis for universal, invariant, laws of logic, laws of nature, laws of morality, and no way to know about such things. In other words, no worldview apart from Christianity is ultimately rational. If you are serious about wanting to learn about this topic, I have a book on it called “The Ultimate Proof of Creation” which explains this in great detail. Also, consider some of Dr. Bahnsen’s work on this topic. In particular, you may find the famous Bahnsen-Stein debate of great interest – available at http://www.cmfnow.com.

      Since only the Christian worldview can account for the success of science, any scientific discovery or verification of a scientific principle is a vindication of the Christian worldview, and powerful evidence against all other worldviews.

  18. Patrick Gernert says:

    Dr. Lisle,

    I posted a quote from you in a discussion with my best friend shown below:

    “Are there any examples of scientific discoveries made on the basis that people were
    expecting the universe to behave in an unpredictable way due to its alleged chance origin? Some scientists may teach that the universe is just chance, but they all do science as if the universe were designed and upheld by God in a logical, consistent way. There are no exceptions.”

    This was his response:
    “That is an interesting quote, and I understand the point that Dr. Lisle is
    trying to make. However, I feel like he is guilty of the straw-man fallacy
    in his argument. I don’t think many scientists believe that the universe
    itself behaves randomly and unpredictably. Just because one believes that
    chaotic initial conditions arbitrarily select gave rise to the current
    state, it doesn’t mean that one believes that all events are determined
    arbitrarily.

    For example, in Chutes & Ladders, the spin of the wheel (or roll of the
    dice) arbitrarily and unpredictably provides the initial conditions of your
    turn. However, after the initial conditions are determined, the rest of
    your turn proceeds in an orderly and predictable way, according to the laws
    of the game. In fact, once you know all the laws of the game, you can
    predict all possible outcomes of your turn (assuming you know all possible
    initial conditions). The only unknown is the initial conditions themselves.
    I believe that this situation is more akin to the philosophy of naturalist
    scientists. They believe that there are laws of the universe which govern
    the behavior of energy and matter. They believe that arbitrary initial
    conditions coupled with these laws have given rise to the universe as we
    know it today.

    In the quote, Dr. Lisle seems to be making the point that naturalist
    scientists do not believe in laws that govern the behavior of the universe,
    i.e. that “the universe is just chance”. On the contrary, I believe that
    most naturalist scientists believe that the origin of the universe is “just
    chance”, but everything since then has been orderly and predictable.

    I think the more fruitful approach to arguing against the naturalists’
    philosophy is the assumption that there are laws which govern the behavior
    of the universe. This is a point that Dr. Lisle has made eloquently in the
    past.

    I guess my point is that random origin doesn’t necessitate random existence.”

    Thoughts?

    • Atticus Sheffield says:

      Hi Patrick, I know you asked for Dr. Lisle, but I thought it would be fun to answer this anyway.

      The quote you used was a rhetorical question asking if any scientific discoveries have been made because the discoverer expected the universe to behave unpredictably. The answer, of course, is no, since all discoveries have been made with the expectation that the universe will behave in a consistent, law-like fashion. That expectation, however, is rationally unjustified in a universe with a chance origin (chance does not beget order). The point of the quote is to show that scientists who teach that the universe originated by chance are a walking bundle of inconsistencies because they profess a chance beginning (which, if it were true, would lead to absurd, illogical results), but live as though the universe was designed to work in a logical fashion.

      It sounds like your friend is a Christian and fellow creationist, so I assume he must only be making this point to show what a naturalist might counter with; he doesn’t actually believe what he’s saying. So this post deals with those counter-arguments.

      Your friend missed the point of the quote when he said “I don’t think many scientists believe that the universe itself behaves randomly and unpredictably.” The quote doesn’t say they do, it says they teach the universe isn’t designed, but they act as though it is; they teach the universe is chance, but they act as though it isn’t.
      Your friend also says “once you know all the laws of the game, you can
      predict all possible outcomes of your turn.” The problem with this is that in a random origin universe there is no rational justification for the “laws of the game.” And just to prove my point, even if a Chutes & Ladders board popped into existence as an accident in a Monopoly factory (big bang), did the “laws of the game” come pre-existing, or did a mind have to design the rules for that game?
      He says “naturalist[s] believe the origin of the universe is just chance, but everything since then has been orderly and predictable.” What needs to be asked of them then, is “How can you rationally justify order and predictability in a random chance universe? And by what ultimate standard do you define ‘orderly’?”
      Your friend also says “I guess my point is that random origin doesn’t necessitate random existence.” Unless you can provide a logical, consistent foundation on which to base your natural laws, a random origin does necessitate a random existence. Only a literal creation recorded by the Biblical God can provide that logical, consistent foundation.

      • Micah says:

        You beat me to it Atticus, excellent response.

      • Patrick Gernert says:

        Thank you Atticus! I certainly don’t mind you responding and appreciate your insight. Yes, my friend is a Christian and I often look to him for advice on spiritual matters because I have a lot of respect for his opinion and we generally agree on most things. He makes me think about issues from different perspectives. I like your closing remark, “Only a literal creation recorded by the Biblical God can provide that logical, consistent foundation.” because it is so true that nothing else is logical and consistent with the evidence we see today. The stories people make up on the origin of the Earth can be very convincing but every one of them has a logical flaw sometimes very apparent, sometimes hard to find, but I’m encouraged God has provided us a way to understand the truth through His Word the Bible and through the Holy Spirit.

  19. Neil Yoder says:

    Hi Neil,
    Well, I do think the questions you ask are important because not only are they a stumbling block for you, but if you’re thinking of them, then I know others are as well. Anyway…

    Hmmm…do you really think all that many others read long comment exchanges on blog sites?? I don’t know….
    Neil says: “What else do I have besides “my thoughts” in order to perceive my own environment? You seem to suggest that my functioning brain is only possible because the“biblical” God (vague term) exists. You’re begging the question here, Josef.”
    Basically Neil, you’re admitting that you trust your thoughts because you have no choice.

    What other “choice” would I have besides usage of my own brain/mind? What other possibility exists?
    This isn’t an answer to my question, but is really just conceding defeat. Because if you don’t actually have a justification for why you can trust your thoughts, other than you have nothing else, then you really don’t know if your thoughts can be trusted.
    What’s the “defeat” I’m conceding to? Who or what “wins” in this case? I’m not following that one…..
    Justification for trusting my own thoughts would be the result of applying learned knowledge, skills, past experiences, intuition, apriori etc… ;<)

    But even granting that you were correct, and the biblical God doesn’t exist, you would have no reason to believe your brain is functioning properly. In other words, even if you were correct, you’d have no way of knowing it!
    I didn’t make any claim that the “Biblical God does not exist“. No individual can ever be certain, minute-to minute, that their brain is “functioning properly”. The existence/non-existence of God(s) has nothing to do with this.
    …..But just to sum it up: if the biblical God didn’t exist, then we couldn’t actually know anything at all. Because only the biblical God can give use a rational justification for the preconditions of intelligibility.
    Ok…so this is essentially…..”If the Biblical God didn’t exist then we couldn’t know anything at all because we wouldn’t even be here (exist!) to begin with in order to know anything!! Is that the central point of this proposal?? I’d also add that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty, regardless whether or not Biblical creationism is true.
    Neil says: “What’s a ‘biblical worldview’?”
    I have a hard time believing that after all your time corresponding with Dr. Lisle, that you haven’t learned what it is yet. Again, the reason I didn’t explain it before is because I felt like I would be beating a dead horse.
    The biblical worldview presupposes that the Bible is the word of God. Since the Bible is the word of God, what it says is completely true. This isn’t just an arbitrary presupposition either. Because the Bible claims to be the word of God, and any denial of this claim would lead to absurdity.

    How would this lead to absurdity? The presupposition of ** the Bible being the word of God/How do we know this?/Because it says (claims) it is!** Seems a whopper example of vicious circularity.
    The Bible teaches us that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent, immaterial, is uncreated from eternity to eternity, that He created everything in existence in 6 normal days, and that He has judged the world in the past with a global flood.
    OK-Question: is all this “teaching” that the Bible does….does it do it on it’s own, independent of any individual interpretation or level(s) or understanding? You seem to suggest it actively conveys this teaching to a passive, eagerly receptive audience.
    Also, God cannot sin, which includes the ability to lie. Therefore, everything He says is trustworthy and true.
    An assumption.
    I’m sure there is a better way to sum up the biblical worldview, but I think this is enough for you to get the picture.
    Certainly – well….it appears we’re just swearing a bunch of oaths, thundering forth mighty proclamations, assertions, boasts and admiration of one (or more) Great Circles of Reasoning. :<(
    Neil says: “‘Uniformity throughout the universe’ has NEVER been verified and is not accepted as any kind of absolute scientific fact. Various scientific ‘laws’ are ultimately presumed to be local rather than universal.”
    Presumed to be local? Really?! If uniformity were not constant throughout the universe, then I hope you realize that it would be impossible to study nature outside of the earth!
    Why is that? – You seem to be assuming a rather small universe w/ this assertion. By “local” a radius of 100 light years can be considered. Even conditions within nearby (other galaxies) to our own, may be identical to ours…..but beyond that…we cannot be sure.
    If what you are claiming is true, then just because laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction, holds up here on earth, I’d have no reason to believe it holds up on Saturn if there wasn’t such a thing as uniformity.
    1 + 1 = 2 might be true here on earth, but I wouldn’t know that it couldn’t equal 5 at some location 12 light years from earth. In fact, if scientists really didn’t believe uniformity exists throughout the universe, then I don’t even know how it would be possible to study a field like astrophysics and make predictions. Now, I’ll have to ask that Dr. Lisle correct me if I am wrong, as I have never taken an astronomy class in my life. But I would venture to say that if uniformity were not true throughout the universe, then there would be no point (or even ability) to study fields like astronomy & astrophysics. I want you to substantiate your claim that uniformity is presumed to only hold up locally and not throughout the universe. It would actually defeat the non-believer’s position anyway.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

    http://www.science20.com/make_love_not_war/blog/can_laws_physics_vary_throughout_universe_maybe_according_latest_research-84282
    Neil says: “Laws of logic are not the same as laws of physics applying to physical matter. One would have to have a ‘personality’ or conscious mind of sorts to ‘obey’ consciously given specific sets of instructions.”
    No, one does not need a personality to “obey” instructions. A rock obeys the law of gravity, but yet the rock doesn’t have a personality.
    Obviously the term “obey” here isn’t used in the sense of making a conscious decision. For that matter, even though I have a personality I do not consciously choose to obey the law of gravity. It’s not as if I have the option to decide to be rebellious and not obey the law of gravity anymore and start flying instead of walking.

    Ok no problem – really just a terminology issue….
    Besides, are laws of physics material or immaterial? Just as with logic, laws of physics (and laws of science in general) are not material laws. And again, why would the physical world “obey” non-physical laws? You’re worldview must be able to bring the physical and non-physical together.Neil says: “What are ‘transcendental programs’??”
    I actually meant to say “transcendental laws”. But it means laws that are not dependent upon the physical universe. Laws of logic are an example of transcendental laws. Logic doesn’t depend on the universe. Laws of logic are invariant, they apply everywhere, and they are intangible.

    They are also human-made, correct?..or maybe “human-realized” or “human organized”?
    But in a non-biblical universe, why are there such immaterial, invariant and universal laws? Christians have no problem accepting laws that have these types of properties, because God Himself is immaterial, invariant and universal (in the sense that He is omnipresent).
    *A. Physical phenomena of all varieties exist in their gross state prior to, an in spite of, the existence of humans.
    *B. They are sensorially detected and observed by humans.
    *C. They are then studied, tested, defined, by themselves or in relation to a pre-existing paradigm model or both.
    The existence/nonexistence of God(s), or of a “Biblical” or “Nonbiblical” universe has nothing to do with any of this.

    But this is a problem for atheists because if the universe is really just matter and energy, then logic would be an obvious contradiction to the atheist’s worldview, since logic is neither matter nor energy.
    Logic/cognitive functions are the product of matter and energy, via functions of brain & nervous systems, primarily.
    No polytheistic religion can account for logic either. Because which “god” would logic be contingent upon? The gods of Greek folklore like Zeus and his gang of demigods are material, and they change over time. Allah cannot provide the preconditions for intelligibility either, because the Quran claims that Allah is the greatest of all deceivers:
    “But they were deceptive, and Allah was deceptive, for Allah is the best of deceivers!” S. 3:54
    The problem arises because if this claim is not actually true, then Allah is capable of lying, but if it is true, then Allah cannot be trusted. So ultimately Allah cannot satisfy the preconditions of intelligibility because we would have no way of knowing whether he is being truthful or not.

    This is really a bit off topic. My assertion pointed to the fact that Islam largely points to a Creationist (“young” earth, even) belief. Not meaning to derail, but are you sure that Christians following a cosmos populated by various “saint” and angel entities, a “bad guy” Satan and all his supernatural denizens are REALLY(?) practicing a monotheistic faith???? I would say not. ;<)
    Neil says: “Yes, I accept the Bible and claims made that it is the word of God. This has nothing to do with scientific studies.”
    I’m assuming this is a typo based on everything you’ve said. Otherwise, this would be a pretty rich statement based on the fact that you just claimed God is “imaginary”. Again, it does have everything to do with science because if the Bible were not true, then science wouldn’t be possible.

    Certainly – the “personal” God posited by popular Christianity only is manifest thru the individual mind (“imagination”) of the believer. With your second proclamation concerning “Bible truth and science” – you would apparently dismiss or deny all scientific discoveries made by Islamic or Chinese cultures (mathematics etc..) or any pre-Biblical sources???? – what would be your “cutoff date” for science supposedly validated by Bible truth? OT or NT dates???
    Neil says: “‘Yes…’That’s exactly what we see.’…”We’ being creationists seeing what they want to see, retrofitting, shoe-horning, theologizing, mis-interpreting etc etc…”
    So Neil, are you suggesting that we do see plants and animals producing organisms other than their own kind? Or that we do see mutations increase the information content in an organism? I would love for you to provide these examples (I have a feeling Dr. Lisle would love to see them too). Until then, you haven’t provided any evidence for your claim that creationists only see what they want to see.

    Yes, I did & provided source info. However I was’nt able to materialize any physical specimen “evidence” or experimental trial results into the rooms of any readers of this blog page. ;<)
    Neil previously asked, “Can you cite any specific example where genetics as an organized field, organization etc specifically makes this claim or swears allegiance to some theological world view, or claims the universe is “upheld” by an apparently GIGANTIC prehensile(?) hominid-style(?) HAND that must be light years in size
    breadth etc ???…….good grief….. :<o”
    I replied, “Remarks like these make it seem like you’re just more interested in ax-grinding than anything else.”
    Neil says, “NO. You dodged that one, Josef ;<) . Please explain or clarify the (literal? I assume) gigantic prehensile hominid hand, it’s cosmic function, physical location, characteristics, etc…””
    Actually, no I didn’t dodge it, I answered it.

    No you didn’t. You failed to provide any sources from those fileds swearing allegiance to a great cosmic hand, personage or religious faith.
    First as Dr. Lisle pointed out in his reply to you, you’re using the fallacy of reification.
    Hmmm…so then, according to you, by this, Dr Lisle must not believe in a literal Person-God-Creator?? ….Once again, I really haven’t had a chance to get into Jason’s lengthy response, but am startled by the amount of energy & comprehensiveness given my responses here. I must be touching a nerve(s)? :<)
    Second, you seem to be misunderstanding the claim. I’m not saying that geneticists must confess the Bible is true to do their work, or to do their research. But it seems that you’re misunderstanding the argument as if I were saying, “If one does not confess the Bible as true, then one could not do research.” That’s not the argument!
    The argument is that while one doesn’t have to confess the Bible is true to do research, the Bible must be true to do the research. So I didn’t dodge your question, I answered it. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

    Sure,I understand your point here, Josef… In this instance I’m detecting a vicious circularity
    Where the the truth of the Bible (an assumptive premise) is supported by the fact that research does takes place (“it can’t take place/is not possible without etc…) .. and therefore, the performing of scientific research ends up supporting the (supposed) “truth” of the Bible.
    I’m just not seeing a real world connection. The fact that scientific research takes place in no way shape or form has anything to do with verifying or validating the truth of the (erm…KJV? NIV? Etc…) Bible. This claim can only be upheld rhetorically – there just isn’t anything there.

    As for the “gigantic prehensile hand” again, one of the characteristics of the biblical God is that He is immaterial—He doesn’t literally have a hand (where did you get that idea from?), so it is in fact your point that is moot.
    Are you kidding me? I got that from the claim made by Dr Lisle. I’m assuming literal belief. Aren’t you aware of the creationist correlation of man being made “in the image” of God, i.e. hands, feet, head etc…..altho I’m certainly aware this could sidetrack into other areas such as “our” image and the formation of “GOLEM” from the “dust and clay of the ground” but these posts are getting lengthy enough ;<)…..
    Neil says, “This one’s a bit of a technicality. Where is the line between ‘living’ and ‘nonliving’? Is the calcium in your bones ‘living’ calcium or ‘nonliving’ calcium?”
    It’s not really a technicality Neil. You seemed to be suggesting to Dr. Lisle that the “particles to people” concept wasn’t what evolutionists believe, and it certainly is. And it was certainly worth my time to point this out, because I have had many experiences with evolutionists trying to claim things like, “Evolutionists do not believe man came from particles (or molecules) we came from a single celled ancestor!” without realizing what the cell is made up of.

    I’m sure the term “reductionist” enters into this somewhere – but I’ve actually got no problem with this. In no way would I argue that organisms/man are not ultimately made up of “particles” whether you want to believe they are science-y organic molecules or creation-ey inanimate clay. ;<)
    Neil says: “Is it…’dead’ calcium?? Many creation-promoters even use ludicrous terms like ‘science says life from dead chemicals’ which seems funny when one considers the Biblical creation scenario claims humankind originated from inanimate matter (dust/clay of the ground etc) ….”
    Calcium isn’t life. It’s non-living, and technically, something that is non-living is dead (although dead usually implies something was alive previously). Just as a rock isn’t alive, and if it’s not alive, it’s dead. I personally wouldn’t use “dead”, but instead non-living, but technically, both are correct. This is really just quibbling over semantics.
    As for the biblical scenario, sure, humans originated from non-living matter, through a supernatural act of the creator God. However, evolutionists believe (despite all evidence to the contrary) that life arose naturally from non-living chemicals. The two aren’t comparable.

    Ok- here’s the problem….”Supernatural” just isn’t science. I’ll keep it short and succinct as possible.
    Neil says: “You’re shifting, or trying to raise the bar, by modifying the original process, introducing new procedures, processes etc to produce your desired result..”
    Unless I am misunderstanding what you were trying to convey, then this is not shifting the goal-post at all. Dr. Lisle had originally stated that a newspaper that reads, “The dog is brown” would have no more information than if two newspapers were purchased. One wouldn’t have twice the amount of information. You are the one who then attempted to counter by claiming the newspaper could have two pictures of two different brown dogs. So in actuality, you’re the one who was changing things.

    No, I was’nt “changing” anything I was widening the real world capabilities of the medium itself that are already there – NOT changing to another example category altogether.
    I was merely granting that even if you had a paper with two different pictures of two different dogs, copying this paper would give you no more information. You can try to play the little game of, “Well each photocopy will degenerate in its quality” type of argument, but that doesn’t change the information on the paper.
    No it’s not a game – it’s merely focusing-in. Flaws in the argument lie in the details. Many, many, many genetic components, cells etc make up the analogous components in living organisms.
    Neil says: “Once again you’re changing the bar/tilting the playing field, whatever. A physical specimen is different than the original “information” defined in the newspaper example.”
    The “physical specimen” or physical evidence was meant to be analogous to the information. If I had the newspaper that said “the dog is brown” and showed it to three different people, I might get three different interpretations of the information. But the information remains the same.

    Not if you were to census or interrogate the three different persons…….You would get three different sets of information, mutated; descended from the original common ancestor, so to speak….
    And like Dr. Lisle pointed out to you, information isn’t dependent on someone’s interpretations. As he correctly said, “[Information] is totally irrelevant to the person reading it. If nobody in the world read a particular newspaper, this wouldn’t add or subtract one bit of information in the newspaper.”
    Depends on what type of information… incorrect when applied to “literary” style conveyed verbal information…. (possibly) true in cases of numerical or alphanumerical listings.
    Not even completely true in the case of “nobody in the world reading the paper..etc” as the authors themselves would also function as (proof)readers of the content, and they would be free to reinterpret,revise, “mutate” or “adapt” it as they see fit. Btw – That oother blog entry…;<)…assuming conscious authorship is NOT fallacious question begging as the hard evidence of ALL written verbal content resulting from human activity nullifies this. Begging the question is only a fallacy in the informal sense Content of the argument – including real-world evidence disqualifies it as a logical fallacy. Conclusion: “On the origin of Articles” = creative writing exercise at best ….although admittedly thought-provoking! ;<)

    Neil says: “Once again this is just another example of sophistic bluster and thunderous rhetorical proclamations intended to create the illusion that creationism enjoys some sort of intellectual heft. :<( This ‘biblical worldview’ (can you even define or elucidate what this is????) would have long ago been embraced, or even never have been outgrown in the first place by scientific fields, et al…. if there were any real world validity to your claims…”
    If this is just “sophistic bluster” (it’s pretty sad that that seems to be your only counter to these arguments) then show me the error of my ways by demonstrating how a non-biblical worldview (yours specifically) can account for the preconditions of intelligibility. Fact is Neil, if you can’t even give a rational account for the preconditions of intelligibility, then you can’t know anything at all.

    You seem to have the cart before the horse here, somewhere Josef. Would’nt “preconditions of intelligibility” need to be present, in place, and functioning FIRST, in order for a “worldview” to even exist??? Seeming absurdities like this are largely the reason I was tending to dismiss this topic area. Nothing personal. I understand this rhetorical area has some connection with “Presuppositional _______(fill in the blank)” Which I have encountered before and seems plagued by whopper circular argument problems (imho right offhand) , although seriously much of this is getting a bit too wordy and I kinda question the readership value if you will, on blogs like this…..;<)

    • Micah says:

      >Hmmm…do you really think all that many others read long comment exchanges on blog sites?? I don’t know….<
      I do!

      >Josef:Basically Neil, you’re admitting that you trust your thoughts because you have no choice.
      Neil:What other “choice” would I have besides usage of my own brain/mind? What other possibility exists?<

      The other choice you have is that you don’t trust your mind/thoughts. If you can’t explain why you trust your thoughts/mind then you dont really have a reason…its just an arbitrary decision. Arbitrariness is an irrational position.

      >Josef:This isn’t an answer to my question, but is really just conceding defeat. Because if you don’t actually have a justification for why you can trust your thoughts, other than you have nothing else, then you really don’t know if your thoughts can be trusted.
      Neil:What’s the “defeat” I’m conceding to? Who or what “wins” in this case? I’m not following that one…..<

      The defeat is that you cannot justify why your thoughts should be trusted. I guess since your arguing with Josef, he, or perhaps his argument against you is what wins.

      >Justification for trusting my own thoughts would be the result of applying learned knowledge, skills, past experiences, intuition, apriori etc… ;<)<
      But your ‘learned knowledge, skills, past experiences’ and ‘intuition’ are already based on the assumption that your thoughts are basically reliable. Thats the very issue at hand so essentially what your argument is saying is ‘My justification for trusting my own thoughts would be that i can trust my own thoughts.’. This is illogical because your reasoning in a circle.

      >Josef:But even granting that you were correct, and the biblical God doesn’t exist, you would have no reason to believe your brain is functioning properly. In other words, even if you were correct, you’d have no way of knowing it!
      Neil:I didn’t make any claim that the “Biblical God does not exist“. No individual can ever be certain, minute-to minute, that their brain is “functioning properly”. The existence/non-existence of God(s) has nothing to do with this.<

      The question is not whether you can be certain ‘minute-to minute’ but rather, whether you can be certain AT ALL that your brain is functioning properly. If you cannot justify why your brain should be functioning properly then you have no good reason to believe that it is. The mark of irrationality is to not have a reason, so any belief that does not have a reason is irrational.
      The existence/non-existence of GOD has everything to do with it actually.
      God created us, and he created the universe. God designed us for the universe so naturally we would expect that our minds are capable of understanding it. The Christian therefore has a good reason to believe that his mind is functioning properly(albiet, not perfectly because of the curse.) Apart from God what is the reason to believe our minds are trustworthy or reliable about the universe?

      >Josef:But just to sum it up: if the biblical God didn’t exist, then we couldn’t actually know anything at all. Because only the biblical God can give use a rational justification for the preconditions of intelligibility.
      Neil:Ok…so this is essentially…..”If the Biblical God didn’t exist then we couldn’t know anything at all because we wouldn’t even be here (exist!) to begin with in order to know anything!! Is that the central point of this proposal??<

      Not quite….We couldn’t know anything at all because we couldn’t trust our minds to be trustworthy. God provides us with a good reason to believe our minds are trustworthy and that we can obtain accurate information about the universe, but if God did not exist what would be the reason to believe that our minds are capable of such things?

      >I’d also add that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty, regardless whether or not Biblical creationism is true.<
      Your statement refutes itself. You say ‘we cannot know anything with absolute certainty’, but that statement itself is an absolute statement. If its true, your wrong, and if its wrong, your wrong.

      >Josef:I have a hard time believing that after all your time corresponding with Dr. Lisle, that you haven’t learned what it[a Biblical worldview] is yet. Again, the reason I didn’t explain it before is because I felt like I would be beating a dead horse.
      The biblical worldview presupposes that the Bible is the word of God. Since the Bible is the word of God, what it says is completely true. This isn’t just an arbitrary presupposition either. Because the Bible claims to be the word of God, and any denial of this claim would lead to absurdity.
      Neil:How would this lead to absurdity?<

      It would lead to absurdity because only the Biblical God can account for things such as Laws of Logic, uniformity in nature and the preconditions for intelligibility. If you would like to refute this point then you need to explain how another worldview can account for such things, you have been unable to do that(logically) so far.

      >The presupposition of ** the Bible being the word of God/How do we know this?/Because it says (claims) it is!** Seems a whopper example of vicious circularity.<
      Ultimate standards must rely on themselves to prove themselves(otherwise they wouldn’t be ultimate). Lets take the Laws of Logic for example, if i were trying to prove that laws of logic exist, i would have to use the laws of logic themselves in order to make an argument at all. Wouldn’t that be a vicious circular argument then? Well yes, but people must use laws of logic to prove things, even the Laws of Logic themselves! Its not an arbitrary decision to believe in Laws of Logic though and that is because of the impossibility of the contrary. That is, if laws of logic did not exist, then we could never have known that they did not exist. This becomes even more clear if someone were to try and ‘prove’ that the laws of logic DONT exist. They would have to use the laws of logic to form and argument and that would destroy their own argument that laws of logic dont exist!
      Going back to this >** the Bible being the word of God/How do we know this?/Because it says (claims) it is!**<
      You have set up a bit of a straw-man here. We do not know that the Bible is the Word of God solely on the basis that it claims it is. That indeed helps us to know that it is The Word of God, after all, who writes a book and doesn’t put their name on it?
      No, the reason we can know that it is The Word of God is because of the impossibility of the contrary. That is, if it were not the Word of God then we could not know anything because the Bible alone provides us with the basis for things like the preconditions for intelligibility, Laws of Logic, etc.

      >Josef:Also, God cannot sin, which includes the ability to lie. Therefore, everything He says is trustworthy and true.
      Neil:An assumption.<

      We take it on faith that the Bible is true, yes. But it is not a blind faith as i have already explained previously. If it were not true we would have no reason to believe anything at all. Therefore the Bible is the only reasonable option on the table, anything else would lead to absurdity, if the Bible is the only reasonable option on the table, then everything it says is true and it says God cannot sin, which would mean that He cannot lie.

      >Josef:Presumed to be local? Really?! If uniformity were not constant throughout the universe, then I hope you realize that it would be impossible to study nature outside of the earth!
      Neil:Why is that? – You seem to be assuming a rather small universe w/ this assertion. By “local” a radius of 100 light years can be considered. Even conditions within nearby (other galaxies) to our own, may be identical to ours…..but beyond that…we cannot be sure.<

      If uniformity cannot be assumed beyond 100 light years then why should we believe the images our satellites and telescopes give us from millions of light years away? After all the laws of physics might be different over there so why assume that light even travels the same way over their? Why should the light from those stars and galaxies even be getting to earth if it doesn’t follow the same laws? How could we measure that gravitational ‘wobble’ on those distant stars if they didn’t behave the same way as our own? Certainly you cannot actually believe that uniformity does not exist throughout the universe.

      >Josef:If what you are claiming is true, then just because laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction, holds up here on earth, I’d have no reason to believe it holds up on Saturn if there wasn’t such a thing as uniformity.
      1 + 1 = 2 might be true here on earth, but I wouldn’t know that it couldn’t equal 5 at some location 12 light years from earth. In fact, if scientists really didn’t believe uniformity exists throughout the universe, then I don’t even know how it would be possible to study a field like astrophysics and make predictions. Now, I’ll have to ask that Dr. Lisle correct me if I am wrong, as I have never taken an astronomy class in my life. But I would venture to say that if uniformity were not true throughout the universe, then there would be no point (or even ability) to study fields like astronomy & astrophysics. I want you to substantiate your claim that uniformity is presumed to only hold up locally and not throughout the universe. It would actually defeat the non-believer’s position anyway.

      Neil:[link to wikipedia article about the Cosmological Principle]<
      Um, the cosmological principle doesn’t help your case. Its the idea that the universe basically follows the same laws everywhere and that our sample that we can observe here in our solar system is a good indication of how the rest of the universe behaves. So im not sure why you posted a link to it since its more supportive of mine and Josef’s position.

      Neil:[inserted another link to an article more supportive of his position.]<
      This article only talked exclusively about fine structure constant alpha and how it MAY POSSIBLY be different in another galaxy. It didn’t at all talk about the more fundamental laws like the Law of Gravity or the Laws of Logic. Those laws are what really make the universe uniform and constant. Although interestingly enough, the fine-structure constant alpha could not vary by much, even if it did actually vary, the reason being of course, because stable matter would not exist if it did vary by too much. Either way, the article was purely a ‘maybe its true’ kind of article, and since it was published in 2011 and the way physics is studied hasn’t changed(as far as im aware) my guess is that they are either a) still working on it, in which case we would have to wait to see the results, or b) the research fell through and ended up not being true. Do you have any articles that are more full proof and not just ‘maybe’s’?

      >Neil:“What are ‘transcendental programs’??”
      Josef:I actually meant to say “transcendental laws”. But it means laws that are not dependent upon the physical universe. Laws of logic are an example of transcendental laws. Logic doesn’t depend on the universe. Laws of logic are invariant, they apply everywhere, and they are intangible.

      Neil:They are also human-made, correct?..or maybe “human-realized” or “human organized”?<
      They are not human-made, no. If they were human made then that means people could just accept different standards for reasoning and logical argumentation would be impossible.

      >Josef:But in a non-biblical universe, why are there such immaterial, invariant and universal laws? Christians have no problem accepting laws that have these types of properties, because God Himself is immaterial, invariant and universal (in the sense that He is omnipresent).

      Neil:*A. Physical phenomena of all varieties exist in their gross state prior to, an in spite of, the existence of humans. <
      Laws of Logic are not physical.

      >*B. They are sensorially detected and observed by humans.<
      Laws of Logic are not sensorially detected, you dont hear/see/smell/feel/taste a Law of Logic. Rather they are the correct standard for logical reasoning.

      >*C. They are then studied, tested, defined, by themselves or in relation to a pre-existing paradigm model or both.<
      We dont study the laws of logic either. They just exist, they cannot be tested in a laboratory type setting because they are not physical. We define them as ‘Laws of Logic’ yes, but they still exist independent of that definition. They could just as easily be called something else and that would not change what they are at all.

      >The existence/nonexistence of God(s), or of a “Biblical” or “Nonbiblical” universe has nothing to do with any of this.<
      Well actually, your A.B.C had next to nothing to do with the Laws of Logic if we’re being honest and the existence of the Biblical God has everything to do with the Laws of Logic. Why should we believe that our brain can comprehend the Laws of Logic? Why does the material universe feel compelled to obey the immaterial laws of logic? These are easily answered in the Biblical worldview, how do you account for them in your worldview?

      >Josef:But this is a problem for atheists because if the universe is really just matter and energy, then logic would be an obvious contradiction to the atheist’s worldview, since logic is neither matter nor energy.

      Neil:Logic/cognitive functions are the product of matter and energy, via functions of brain & nervous systems, primarily.<
      Cognitive functions are NOT the same as Laws of Logic. Our brains can utilize the Laws of Logic, it does not create them. If it did then that would mean Laws of Logic would be different from person to person, and people could reason however they wanted and logical debate would be impossible.

      >Not meaning to derail, but are you sure that Christians following a cosmos populated by various “saint” and angel entities, a “bad guy” Satan and all his supernatural denizens are REALLY(?) practicing a monotheistic faith???? I would say not. ;<)<
      Since none of the ‘saints’, ‘angel entities’ or ‘Satan’ are God, and monotheistic means you believe in only one God then I would say so. :)

      >Neil:Certainly – the “personal” God posited by popular Christianity only is manifest thru the individual mind (“imagination”) of the believer.<
      For being so certain you sure haven’t given a very good argument for your case.

      >With your second proclamation concerning “Bible truth and science” – you would apparently dismiss or deny all scientific discoveries made by Islamic or Chinese cultures (mathematics etc..) or any pre-Biblical sources???? – what would be your “cutoff date” for science supposedly validated by Bible truth? OT or NT dates???<
      Of course Muslims, the Chinese or even an Atheist for that matter can make scientific discoveries. The Bible must be true for science to be possible, it doesn’t require a profession of belief in it. Scientific discovers were made before and after the Bible were written, but the only reason they were able to be made is because what is written in the Bible is true.

      >Josef:So Neil, are you suggesting that we do see plants and animals producing organisms other than their own kind? Or that we do see mutations increase the information content in an organism? I would love for you to provide these examples (I have a feeling Dr. Lisle would love to see them too). Until then, you haven’t provided any evidence for your claim that creationists only see what they want to see.Neil:Yes, I did & provided source info. However I was’nt able to materialize any physical specimen “evidence” or experimental trial results into the rooms of any readers of this blog page. ;<) <
      Where? Specifically i’d like to see the ‘source info’ you provided for the Increase in genetic information. Thanks!

      >Neil: “NO. You dodged that one, Josef ;<) . Please explain or clarify the (literal? I assume) gigantic prehensile hominid hand, it’s cosmic function, physical location, characteristics, etc…””

      Josef:Actually, no I didn’t dodge it, I answered it.

      Neil:No you didn’t. You failed to provide any sources from those fileds swearing allegiance to a great cosmic hand, personage or religious faith.<
      God is a spirit. He doesn’t have a literal hand. Although, of course he could certainly make one if he saw the need to, i certainly doubt he would need a hand to do anything though. :)

      >…but am startled by the amount of energy & comprehensiveness given my responses here. I must be touching a nerve(s)? :<)<
      Jason is just having fun debating with you. :) Its probably exceptionally fun considering how illogical you’ve been. He also is probably doing it for the readers sake’s. Also, maybe just maybe he is hoping that you will finally see the error of your worldview and realize that God is the only logical option, and maybe….come to know Jesus. That is essentially what all of us Christians would like for you to have, but your Humanistic worldview is getting in the way Neil! Ah…anyways.

      >Josef:Second, you seem to be misunderstanding the claim. I’m not saying that geneticists must confess the Bible is true to do their work, or to do their research. But it seems that you’re misunderstanding the argument as if I were saying, “If one does not confess the Bible as true, then one could not do research.” That’s not the argument!
      The argument is that while one doesn’t have to confess the Bible is true to do research, the Bible must be true to do the research. So I didn’t dodge your question, I answered it. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.Neil:Sure,I understand your point here, Josef… In this instance I’m detecting a vicious circularity where the the truth of the Bible (an assumptive premise) is supported by the fact that research does takes place (“it can’t take place/is not possible without etc…) .. and therefore, the performing of scientific research ends up supporting the (supposed) “truth” of the Bible.<

      As i have already pointed out previously, the Bible MUST be assumed, otherwise we could not know anything at all. There would be no basis for Laws of Logic, or why our mind can understand them. There would be no basis for science or uniformity. If there is a basis for this in your worldview, then please provide it. The reason scientific research supports the truth of the Bible is because scientific research would not be possible if the Bible were not true. There would be no basis for it. Scientific research is based on the premise of uniformity in nature and the Laws of Logic. But uniformity in nature can only come from a Biblical worldview, God promises to uphold the future with his sustaining power(uniformity). Laws of Logic can only come from a Biblical worldview as well as has already been previously demonstrated. Since scientific discovery presupposes both the Laws of Logic and Uniformity in Nature, and since The Laws of Logic and Uniformity in Nature both presuppose the Biblical God. Then scientific discovery presupposes the Biblical God.

      >I’m just not seeing a real world connection. The fact that scientific research takes place in no way shape or form has anything to do with verifying or validating the truth of the (erm…KJV? NIV? Etc…) Bible. This claim can only be upheld rhetorically – there just isn’t anything there.<
      As i have just previously showed, scientific research has everything to do with verifying the truth of the Bible. Scientific research would not be possible without the truth of the Bible, so any scientific research that is done, presupposes Uniformity in Nature and the Laws of Logic, which both presuppose God.

      >Josef:As for the “gigantic prehensile hand” again, one of the characteristics of the biblical God is that He is immaterial—He doesn’t literally have a hand (where did you get that idea from?), so it is in fact your point that is moot.Neil:Are you kidding me? I got that from the claim made by Dr Lisle. I’m assuming literal belief. Aren’t you aware of the creationist correlation of man being made “in the image” of God, i.e. hands, feet, head etc…..<
      No no no, we are made in the image of God because we have access to things like Gods Laws of Logic which are a reflection of the way God thinks, not because we physically look like him. We cant physically look like God because God is not physical.

      >Josef:It’s not really a technicality Neil. You seemed to be suggesting to Dr. Lisle that the “particles to people” concept wasn’t what evolutionists believe, and it certainly is. And it was certainly worth my time to point this out, because I have had many experiences with evolutionists trying to claim things like, “Evolutionists do not believe man came from particles (or molecules) we came from a single celled ancestor!” without realizing what the cell is made up of.Neil:I’m sure the term “reductionist” enters into this somewhere – but I’ve actually got no problem with this. In no way would I argue that organisms/man are not ultimately made up of “particles” whether you want to believe they are science-y organic molecules or creation-ey inanimate clay. ;<) <
      If you got no problem with it then you should stop having a problem with us saying that evolutionists believe in ‘particles to people’ evolution. Evolutionists believe that we are all descended from the same single celled ancestor. They obviously dont just think this single cell just randomly popped into existence for no reason whatsoever so they ultimately believe in abiogenesis. That is, they believe inorganic material(particles) gave rise to the first living cell. Which then spread out to become everything else. Thus the term ‘particles-to-people evolution’ is entirely appropriate.

      >Josef:As for the biblical scenario, sure, humans originated from non-living matter, through a supernatural act of the creator God. However, evolutionists believe (despite all evidence to the contrary) that life arose naturally from non-living chemicals. The two aren’t comparable.Neil:Ok- here’s the problem….”Supernatural” just isn’t science. I’ll keep it short and succinct as possible.<
      Science is pretty much just the study of the natural phenomena that happen that we can observe, yes. That is why we have other terms for things that deal with the past. ‘Historical science’ is the study of past events, which, whether you want to believe it or not, include the supernatural. The Bible makes it clear that the supernatural has occurred in the past. The creation of the universe is one such supernatural act. Just because most science studies how the universe operates on an ordinary basis does not exclude the supernatural from happening or from having happened. Indeed the Bible clearly contradicts this. There is nothing wrong with believing that God created supernaturally and now lets the universe operate on a consistant basis for the most part. You still havent explained how science would even be possible in your worldview yet.

      >Josef:Unless I am misunderstanding what you were trying to convey, then this is not shifting the goal-post at all. Dr. Lisle had originally stated that a newspaper that reads, “The dog is brown” would have no more information than if two newspapers were purchased. One wouldn’t have twice the amount of information. You are the one who then attempted to counter by claiming the newspaper could have two pictures of two different brown dogs. So in actuality, you’re the one who was changing things.Neil:No, I was’nt “changing” anything I was widening the real world capabilities of the medium itself that are already there – NOT changing to another example category altogether.<
      Widening IS changing. Dr. Lisle’s example was only the words ‘the dog is brown’ it doesn’t matter how many times you copy that phrase your never going to get anything more than ‘the dog is brown’. Whether there is a picture of a dog or not is irrelevant because that is not in the example Dr. Lisle presented.

      >Neil: “Once again you’re changing the bar/tilting the playing field, whatever. A physical specimen is different than the original “information” defined in the newspaper example.”Josef:The “physical specimen” or physical evidence was meant to be analogous to the information. If I had the newspaper that said “the dog is brown” and showed it to three different people, I might get three different interpretations of the information. But the information remains the same.Neil:Not if you were to census or interrogate the three different persons….<
      This would not change the information in the newspaper. If i show the newspaper with the phrase ‘the dog is brown’ to someone and they interpret it to mean ‘i like turtles’. Does this change the information in the phrase i showed them? Of course not. All it shows is that the person does not know how to read. The information on the newspaper remains the same.

      >You would get three different sets of information, mutated; descended from the original common ancestor, so to speak….<
      No it you wouldn’t. How does someone interpretation of the information effect the actual information itself? People can add information to phrases they read, but mutations and gene duplications cannot do this. They are either neutral or destructive.

      >Josef:And like Dr. Lisle pointed out to you, information isn’t dependent on someone’s interpretations. As he correctly said, “[Information] is totally irrelevant to the person reading it. If nobody in the world read a particular newspaper, this wouldn’t add or subtract one bit of information in the newspaper.”Neil:Depends on what type of information… incorrect when applied to “literary” style conveyed verbal information…. (possibly) true in cases of numerical or alphanumerical listings.<
      ‘The dog is brown.’ Remains the same no matter who reads it, or if anyone reads it. How someone interprets it is completely irrelevant to what the information actually says. Regardless, mutations and gene duplication dont usually ‘interpret’ information differently than how the original information was intended. If it does, its always because of a loss of information which makes hurst the organism. Never the result of a gain of information.

      >Not even completely true in the case of “nobody in the world reading the paper..etc” as the authors themselves would also function as (proof)readers of the content, and they would be free to reinterpret,revise, “mutate” or “adapt” it as they see fit.<
      Your again giving the authors and humans abilities that things like mutations and gene duplication do not possess. Mutations and gene duplication cannot reinterpret or revise the information they get to make it more intelligible or better.

      >Josef:If this is just “sophistic bluster” (it’s pretty sad that that seems to be your only counter to these arguments) then show me the error of my ways by demonstrating how a non-biblical worldview (yours specifically) can account for the preconditions of intelligibility. Fact is Neil, if you can’t even give a rational account for the preconditions of intelligibility, then you can’t know anything at all. Neil:You seem to have the cart before the horse here, somewhere Josef. Would’nt “preconditions of intelligibility” need to be present, in place, and functioning FIRST, in order for a “worldview” to even exist???<
      Yes, your right. But your worldview still needs to make sense of the ‘preconditions of intelligibility’ if it is to be considered rational. The preconditions for intelligibility obviously would have had to exist before any human could gain a ‘worldview’, but this doesn’t mean you dont have to provide a justification for the ‘preconditions of intelligibility’ within your own worldview. Laws of Logic existed before humans and thus existed before world views as well, but our worldview must still be able to make sense of them to be rational.

      >Seeming absurdities like this are largely the reason I was tending to dismiss this topic area.<
      There is nothing absurd at all with wanting to ask you to justify your worldview. The absurd thing is that you think you can get away with not justifying your own worldview and somehow think thats okay or even rational.

  20. Josef says:

    Excellent post, Micah! I was going to wait until the weekend to see if I could free up some time to reply, but honestly, you did such a great job that I really don’t feel that I have anything to add. Thanks!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>