tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6888282.post4512118825777769548..comments2024-03-07T00:03:12.584-07:00Comments on John's Corner of the World: A little more about evolution . . . and creation . . . and Intelligent DesignJohn Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14849211055450293089noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6888282.post-40030295381105636222011-04-19T15:17:39.605-06:002011-04-19T15:17:39.605-06:00"why can't we believe that God could make..."why can't we believe that God could make physical events (mutations or "self-assemblies") appear "totally random" even though they are not?"<br /><br />This seems to be quite a desperate leap in logic to account for the fact that evolution seemingly operates via random genetic mutations. It never ceases to amaze how far a creatonist will go in streching his logic (and often his imagination) to defend his untenable position that the theory of intelligent design is not only true, but provable by science. <br /><br />Let me first start by addressing a issue I have with those who attempt to reconcile evolution with creationism, or its partner in crime masquerading as a science, intelligent design. The ideas of evolution and creationism are about as incompatible as two ideas can possibly be. The theory of evolution posits that all species evolved over billions of years from a common ancestor according the ammoral, random laws of natural selection (let us not enter into pedantics by arguing over the oxymoronic meaning of "selection". It is impossible for us not anthropomorphize natural selection given our propensity, as a language speaking species, to attribute intelligence to inanimate objects) . How can a creatonist accept these facts about evolution without relinquishing their Judeo-Christian conception of God? Why would God, the most powerful, almighty being in the world, capable of any feat imaginable (except for creating a rock so heavy that even He, Himself could not lift it!) create a microscopic organism and let it evolve for billions of years into his divine final form, that is, humans? It's absurd. If God wanted to create the world, including all of its inhabitants, in 7 days, presumably he would have the power, means, and knowledge to do so. <br /><br />It seems that you and your ID proponents are all well versed in the topic of evolution and natural selection, or at least the supposed evidence against its validity as a scientifc theory. So, let me ask you a question.<br /><br />Are you familiar with the term "atavism"? Atavisms are sporadically expressed remnants of ancestral features. There is one striking example in our own species called "coccygeal projection", better known as the human tail. Human embryos actually develop a fish-like tail during prenatal development which disappers abour seven weeks into development, most likely through apoptosis (cell death). In some individuals, the tail doesn't regress completely, and the baby is born with a tail projecting from the base of its spine. Genetic evidence has confirmed that all human beings carry the same genes that produce tails in other animals. <br /><br />My question to you is why would God, when creating the human genome, include genes that code for a tail, when obviously it wasn't part of his divine plan for the human body? In fact, why would the human genome contain any genes, let alone the roughly 8000 that have been thus far identified, that are "dead", that is, that are no longer expressed in normal development. If creationism is true, and life was created from "scratch" by an intelligent designer, we wouldn't expect to find any "dead" genes, for there wouldn't have been a common ancestor in which these genes were previosuly active. Am I correct?Justin McGregornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6888282.post-57883598347301858802009-05-18T08:03:00.000-06:002009-05-18T08:03:00.000-06:00So, Luke: Could you/would you post some links to t...So, Luke: Could you/would you post some links to those articles?<br /><br />Thanks!John Holzmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14849211055450293089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6888282.post-52646956402498691182009-05-18T07:43:00.000-06:002009-05-18T07:43:00.000-06:00I've read several encouraging articles over the pa...I've read several encouraging articles over the past few days that demonstrate just how unscientific the "science" behind evolution really is. And it's encouraging to see at least a little information every now and again, because most of what I see is just name-calling of the other side, rarely any real science or information.<br /><br /> ~LukeLuke Holzmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com