Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Philosophy and God » Falsification of the theory of evolution is impossible, Evolution is like a religion

Falsification of the theory of evolution is impossible, Evolution is like a religion

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Admin


Admin
Falsification of evolution is impossible

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1766-falsification-of-the-theory-of-evolution-is-impossible

The great problem with evolution theory, as many writers have pointed out, is that it cannot be falsified. Nothing can falsify it, and that makes it an article of faith. It also puts it on a par with faith in God. Now that I regard as serious.

I say that it cannot be falsified for the following reasons:

1 If it has been seen to occur (it never has, as far as I know) that's proof of evolution(see, it happened!)

2 If it has not been seen to occur, that's proof too. (Never mind, we know it did, pat pat).

3 If it can account for the origin of anything, that's proof. (see, that's proof!)

4 If it can't, then that's proof too. (Ah the evidence hasn't emerged as yet).

It simply cannot be falsified and therefore it is not a scientific theory. Popper says so.

One patronising criticism one hears is 'that's found on a creationist site' as if that invalidates a fact! If one were to say, it's found on talkorigins, and is therefore invalidated, then who knows what wrath will descend? There's a double standard here.


http://www.ps-19.org/Crea08Evolution/index.html

Secular scientists are so vested in this early concensus that there is literally no evidence to the contrary that could change their viewpoint. This is the reason why intelligent design arguments will never have a mark on the scientific consensus. Scientists are deaf and blind to any contrary evidence. Thus the belief in natural evolution is "non-falsifiable" in the sense that Karl Popper asserted (before he modified his views somewhat).

In summary, evolution by purely natural means is a prevalent dogma in science which, in circular fashion invokes "science" for proof, disregarding any contrary evidence by fiat. In fact, this belief is the opposite of science. It is an irrational disregard for any rational discourse, however strong, that points to evidence for design or purpose in creation.


Evolution is Religion


http://www.creationists.org/evolutionism-is-a-religion.html

It does not take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion. Science, of course, involved observation, using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life form the simple to the complex. No living scientists was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. No living scientist was there to observe the Big Bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 or 20 billion years ago, nor the supposed formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or even 10,000 years ago!). No scientists was there--no human witness was there to see these events occurring. They certainly cannot be repeated today.

Blankenship, molecular mechanisms of photosynthesis, pg.214

The two different classes of reaction centers have only minimal sequence similarity to each other, not significantly above what would be expected randomly. However, it is well known that very distantly related proteins can exhibit minimal sequence identity, yet still be homologous (descended from a common ancestor) (Doolittle, 1994).

Thats indeed telling. Cannot infer common ancestry through phylogeny comparison ? Its descended from a common ancestor anyway.... Thats religion at its best. That way you can turn the ToE however you want, it will be always right.



Last edited by Admin on Fri Aug 14, 2015 5:54 pm; edited 3 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

2 Evolution is religion on Mon Jul 14, 2014 6:32 pm

Admin


Admin

Evolution is Religion


http://www.creationists.org/evolutionism-is-a-religion.html

It does not take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion. Science, of course, involved observation, using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life form the simple to the complex. No living scientists was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. No living scientist was there to observe the Big Bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 or 20 billion years ago, nor the supposed formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or even 10,000 years ago!). No scientists was there--no human witness was there to see these events occurring. They certainly cannot be repeated today.

It does not take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion. Science, of course, involved observation, using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life form the simple to the complex. No living scientists was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. No living scientist was there to observe the Big Bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 or 20 billion years ago, nor the supposed formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or even 10,000 years ago!). No scientists was there--no human witness was there to see these events occurring. They certainly cannot be repeated today.

The term "evolutionist" is used extensively throughout the following chapters. In other parts of this book, we will discuss the ideas of Christians who try to marry the concepts of evolution and the Bible. However, because the majority of evolutionists are not Christians, I wish the reader to understand that the term "evolutionist" is used to mean those who believe that evolution -- in the sense of time, chance and struggle for survival--rather than the God of the Bible is responsible for life.

In the official journal of the South Australian branch of the Australian Skeptics (this organization has similar aims to American humanist groups), the entire 30 pages of The Southern Skeptic, Volume 2 Number 5, Autumn 1985, were devoted to an attack on the creation science ministry in Australia and the United States. On the last page, we read the following: "Even if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis, this would only show how clever the old Hebrews were in their use of common sense, or how lucky. It does not need to be explained by unobservable God." These people who vehemently attack the creation ministry in saying we are a religious group are themselves a religions group. They have really said that even if all the evidence supported the book of Genesis they still would not believe it was an authoritative document. They are working from the premise that the Bible is not the Word of God, nor can it ever be. They believe, no matter what the evidence, that there is no God. These same people are most adamant that evolution is a fact.

Evolution is basically a religious philosophy. We in creation ministries are explaining to people that both creation and evolution are religious views of life upon which people build their particular models of philosophy, science or history. The issue, therefore, is not science versus religion, but religion versus religion (the science of one religion versus the science of another religion).

The famous evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhanksy (The American Biology Teacher, volume 35, number 3, March 1973, page 129) quotes Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: "Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow." To the Christian, of course, this is a direct denial of the sayings of Jesus as quoted in John 8:12 (NIV): "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." In Isaiah 2:5 (NIV) we are exhorted to "walk in the light of the Lord." In verse 22 of the same chapter we read, "Stop trusting in man...."

All the evidence a scientists has exists only in the present. All the fossils, the living animals and plants, the world, the universe--in fact, everything, exists now--in the present. The average person (including most students) is not taught that scientists have only the present and cannot deal directly with the past. Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present (that is, fossils, animals and plants, etc.) originated. (Webster's Dictionary defines religion as follows: "... cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Surely, this is an apt description of evolution.) Evolution is a belief system--a religion!

Fossil bones to not come with little labels attached telling you how old they are. Nor do fossils have photographs with them telling you what the animals looked like as they roamed the earth long ago.

When people visit a museum they are confronted by bits and pieces of bones and other fossils neatly arranged in glass cases. These are often accompanied by pictures representing an artist's impression of what the animals and plants could have looked like in their natural environment. Remember, no one dug up the picture, just the fossils. And these fossils exist in the present. For example, in Tasmania there is a sandstone bed containing millions of pieces of bones, most of which are no larger than the end of your thumb. The evolutionists have placed a picture at one particular excavation so that tourists can see how the animals and plants lived in the region "millions of years ago." You can stare at those pieces of bones for as long as you like, but you will never see the picture the scientists have drawn. The picture is their story of their own preconceived bias, and that, ultimately, is all it ever can be.



When lecturing in schools and colleges, I like to ask the students what can be learned from a fossil deposit. I ask the students whether all the animals and plants contained in the deposits lived together, died together, or were buried together. I then warn them to make sure that the answer they give me is consistent with true scientific research. As they think about it, they come to realize that they do not know if the organisms lived together because they did not see it happen. They do not know if the organisms died together because they did not see that happen either. All they really know is that they are buried together because they were found together. Therefore, if you try reconstructing the environment in which the organisms lived just from what you find there, you could be making a terrible mistake. The correct use of science needs to be emphasized in our educational system.

The only way one could always be sure of arriving at the right conclusion about anything, including origins, depends upon one's knowing everything there is to know. Unless he knew that every bit of evidence was available, he could never really be sure that any of his conclusions were right. He would never know what further evidence there might be to discover and, therefore, whether this would change his conclusions. Neither could a person ever know if he had reached the point where he had all the evidence. This is a real problem for any human being--how can he ever be one hundred percent sure about anything? It is something of a dilemma, is it not? It is like watching a murder mystery on television. What happens? It is obvious. Halfway through the viewer knows who did it--the butler. Towards the end, this conclusion is still obvious. Three minutes before the end, new evidence is admitted that you did not have before, and this totally changes your conclusions. It wasn't the butler after all!

However, starting with the irrefutable evidence of the Scriptures, we are told that in God the Father and His Christ" ... are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3). There is no way any human mind can know all there is to know. But we have Someone who does. This ends our dilemma. We are in no doubt that what God has revealed in His Word is truthful and accurate. He is not a man that He should lie (Numbers 23:19) about anything. In time, we will know more fully. He will add to our knowledge, but He will not change what His word has already revealed.



The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers are were entirely different!

I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist's views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.

I answered, "The reason scientific theories change is because we don't know everything, isn't it? We don't have all the evidence."
"Yes, that's right," he said.
I replied, "But, we will never know everything."
"That's true," he answered.
I then stated, "We will always continue to find new evidence."
"Quite correct," he said. I replied, "That means we can't be sure about anything."
"Right," he said.
"That means we can't be sure about evolution."
"Oh, no! Evolution is a fact," he blurted out. He was caught by his own logic. He was demonstrating how his view was determined by his bias.

Models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists. But the beliefs that these models are built on are not.

The problem is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present. Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed). Evolution is the religion to which they are committed. Christians need to wake up to this. Evolution is a religion; it is not a science!

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin

http://dippost.com/2014/03/22/wolf-ekkehard-lonnig-complex-systems-in-biology-overwhelmingly-point-to-an-intelligent-origin-of-living-beings/

“A scientific hypothesis should be potentially falsifiable, that is, there should be criteria according to which a hypothesis can be disproved and thus be rejected as false. As to the origin of species, Darwin had asserted that evolution proceeds by “infinitesimally small inherited variations”, “steps not greater than those separating fine varieties” and “insensibly fine steps”, “for natural selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a leap, but must advance by the shortest and slowest steps”. This is also the credo of most modern evolutionists (neo-Darwinians) and, in principle, even of the proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory. However, the idea of slow evolution by “infinitesimally small inherited variations” etc. has been falsified by the findings of palaeontology (abrupt appearance of the Baupläne) as well genetics (origin of DNA and complex genetic information). Yet its adherents principally reject any scientific proof against Neo-Darwinism, so that, in fact, their theory has become a non-falsifiable world-view, to which people stick in spite of all contrary evidence. Their main reason: Without Darwinism, philosophic materialism has lost its battle against an intelligent origin of the world.“

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum