Answers in Genesis answer man, Kurt Steutker, gives the scoop on "Real science"
River
empirical science, observation, testing and logic!
As a former science instructor, one of the things we know
for sure from science is that information -such as the complex
DNA molecule of heredity-- cannot arise from disorder by chance
(which evolution requires).
'A code system (i.e. ,DNA) is always the result of a mental
process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) . . . It should
be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code.
All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising
his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.'
'There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise
to information, neither is any physical process or material
phenomenon
known that can do this.' Dr. Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at
the
German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology
The huge amount of information found in living things (e.g. DNA) must
originally
have come from a Creator. Has matter eternally existed (or came into
existence
by itself for no reason), and has arranged itself into information
systems against everything observed in real science?
Or that a Being with infinite intelligence created information
systems for life to exist, agreeing with real science?
Creation by an intelligent Designer is logically and scientifically
defensible
and it should be allowed investigated and not censored! True science
welcomes
scrutiny and insecurity! However, some Scientists fear it!
That is why we present logical and scientific data.
Because real science is the friend of the Creationist.
Consider the following: In terms of philosophy and logic, Something
must be eternal. Thinks about that! Would you agree?
I would then ask, "Has matter always existed?"
"Who made God?" That's a good question! Another
good question is, then "Who made Matter?"
Either Matter is eternal, or God is eternal.
If you are an atheist, your "bias" seems leaves you with
only one possibility. MATTER!! and ONLY MATTER!!!
Now, that would mean the matter by itself, organized
itself into meaningful information (i.e. DNA),
against all that we observe in real science. That
would mean that genetic information increases over
time in order to get single celled organism to
humanoids.
Therefore, I have one very simple question that must
be answered. Can you give me an example of a genetic
mutation, or an evolutionary process, which can be
seen to "increase the information" in the genome?
If you can, send me an answer. I have taught on this
topic for years, and no student or fellow teacher has
been able to give me a legitimate answer. I got a
lot of "off-the-wall" answers that did not answer
the question.
Perhaps, this example below will help extract some of those thoughts!
What is the missing ingredient in every example below?
1.novel = glue + paper + ink + grammar + (?)
2.song = notes + ink + paper + (?)
3.machine = metal + nuts + Laws of Physics + (?)
4.proteins = amino acids + time + energy + (?)
5.DNA = sugar + phosphates + bases + chemistry + (?)
6.life = molecules + energy + chemistry + (?)
Scroll down for answers!
The only thing missing in each common example is "INFORMATION!".
Said another way, it's a writer, a composer, a design, a plan, intelligence,
a designer.
Let's give you a word (i.e. meaningful, useful Information)
forming by chance. Make that word, simple like "house." Is that a
word? _______
Now is that a word to a person that speaks Chinese, Spanish, or Greek?
NO! It is only meaningful to a person that speaks and reads English.
Information by chance, random processes is non-sense, because there has to
be a
language system in place to understand the Information. Say you read a
book, would
you recommend the ink, or the paper? NO way! If I gave you a book written
in Greek
(my mother language), would you be able to read it? Only if you speak and
read Greek?
The same thing with the DNA code.
Assumptions are not conclusions! Interpretations of facts are not facts!
Evolutionism is a world-view, which only interprets the data.
It can not stand the test of the rigors of science. For it to even
survive, there has to be censorship of scientific data that destroys it.
I hope you are open-minded enough to reason together
and discuss SCIENCE!!
No one would assume that the Presidents' heads on
Mt. Rushmore were the products of millions of years
of erosion! You and I can recognize design, the
evidence of the out-workings of intelligence. We see
man-made objects all around us (e.g. the computer
you are looking into) Oh, and by the way, in your
shopping list example, Who made the alphabet and what
language was it written in?) And yet, at no time
would anyone ever suggest that such objects were just
the products of time and chance. Design is
everywhere.
This "design argument" is often associated with the
name of William Paley, who wrote on this topic in the
late eighteenth century. He is particularly
remembered for his example of the watch and
watchmaker. In discussing a comparison between a
stone and a watch, he concluded "that the watch must
have had a maker; that there must have existed, at
some time and at some place or other, an artificer or
artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we
find it actually to answer; who comprehended its
construction, and designed its use."
Paley thus believed that just as the watch implied a
watchmaker, so too does design in living things
implied a Designer.
Today, however, a large proportion of the population,
including many leading scientists, believe that all
plants and creatures, including the intelligent
engineers who make watches, were the product of an
evolutionary process - not a Creator God.
But is this really a defensible position? Ham make a
good point and it is hard to argue with!!
Do living things show evidence of design?
The Isaac Asimov declared that "In man is a
three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the
most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the
universe." It is much more complex than the most
complicated computer ever built. Wouldn't it be
logical to assume that if man's highly intelligent
brain designed the computer, then the human brain was
also the product of design?
Scientists who reject the concept of a Creator agree
that all living things exhibit evidence of design.
In essence they accept the design argument of Paley,
but not Paley's Designer.
For example, Dr. Michael Denton, (I am sure you must
have read his thoughts on origins) scientist with a
doctorate in molecular biology who is not a
Christian, concludes: "It is the sheer universality
of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to
whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and
ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality,
which so mitigates against the idea of chance...
"Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity
exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even
our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy. We feel
humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of
twentieth-century technology,
"It would be an illusion to think that what we are
aware of at present is any more than a fraction of
the full extent of biological design. In practically
every field of fundamental biological research
ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are
being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate."
Dr. Richard Dawkins, holder of the newly endowed
Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of
Science at Oxford University, has become one of the
world's leading evolutionist spokespersons. It has
come as the result of the publication of books
including The Blind Watchmaker, which claims to
refute once and for all the notion of a Creator and
defends modern evolutionary theory. He states the
following:
"We have seen that living things are too improbable
and too beautifully "designed" to have come into
existence by chance." (I would be forced to agree)
There is no doubt that even the most ardent atheist
concedes that design is evident in the animals and
plants that inhabit our planet.
If Dawkins rejects "chance" in design, what does he
put in place of "chance" if he does not accept a
Creator?
Who -- or what -- is the designer then?
Design obviously implies a designer. To a Christian,
the design we see all around us is totally consistent
with the Bible's explanation: "In the beginning God
created the heaven and the earth."
However, Richard Dawkins who admit the design in
living things reject the idea of any kind of a
Designer/God. In reference to Paley, Dawkins states:
"Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity
and is informed by the best biological scholarship of
his day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly
wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye,
between watch and living organism, is false."
Why? It is because Dawkins attributes the design to
what he calls "blind forces of physics," and the
processes of natural selection. Dawkins writes:
"All appearance to the contrary, the only watchmaker
in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit
deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker
has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and
plans their interconnections, with future purpose in
his mind's eye.
"Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic
process which Darwin discovered, and which we now
know is the explanation for the existence and
apparently purposeful form of all life, has no
purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye.
It does not plan for the future. It has no vision,
no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to
play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the
blind watchmaker."
Dawkins does, however, concede that "the more
statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we
believe that it just happened by blind chance.
Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an
Intelligent Designer."
Nonetheless, he rejects the idea of an "Intelligent
Designer" and instead offers his "answer":
"The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual,
step-by-step transformations from simple beginnings,
from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have
come into existence by chance. Each successive
change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple
enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen
by chance.
"But the whole sequence of cumulative steps
constitutes anything but a chance process, when you
consider the complexity of the final end-product
relative to the original starting point. The
cumulative process is directed by nonrandom survival.
The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the
power of this cumulative selection as a fundamentally
nonrandom process."
Basically, then, Dawkins is doing nothing more than
insisting that natural selection and mutations
together provide the mechanism for the
evolutionary process. He believes these processes are
"nonrandom" and "directed." In reality, this is just
a sophisticated way of saying that evolution is
itself the designer!
Does 'natural selection' produce design?
Life is built and runs on information( i.e DNA).
Therefore, to argue that natural selection and
mutations are the basic mechanisms of the
evolutionary process, one must show that these
processes produce the information responsible for the
design that is evident in living things.
Now anyone who understands basic biology recognizes,
of course, as Darwin did, that natural selection is a
logical process that one can observe. However,
natural selection only operates on the information
that is already contained in the genes - it does NOT
produce new information.
It is true that one can observe great variation in a
"kind," and see the results of natural selection.
But the point is that NO new information was produced
- these varieties of dogs have resulted from a
rearrangement, sorting out, and separation of the
information in the original dog kind. One "kind" has
never been observed to change into a totally
different "kind" with information that previously did
not exist! Without intelligent input to increase
information, natural selection will not work as a
mechanism for evolution.
Denton states:
"It cannot be stressed enough that evolution by
natural selection is analogous to problem solving
without any intelligent guidance, without any
intelligent input whatsoever. No activity which
involves an intelligent input can possibly be
analogous to evolution by natural selection."
Without a way to increase information, natural
selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution.
Evolutionists would agree with this, but they
believe that mutations somehow provide the new
information for natural selection to act upon.
Can mutations produce new information?
Actually, scientists now know that the answer is NO!
Dr. Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who
taught information and communication theory at Johns
Hopkins University, said,
"In this chapter I'll bring several examples of
evolution, particularly mutations, and show that
information is not increased, But in all the reading
I've done in the life-sciences literature, I've never
found a mutation that added information."
"All point mutations that have been studied on the
molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic
information and not to increase it."
"The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to
explain how information of life has been built up by
evolution. The essential biological difference
between a human and a bacterium is in the information
they contain. All other biological differences
follow from that. The human genome has much more
information than does the bacterial genome.
Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose
it. A business can't make money by losing it a
little at a time."
Evolutionary scientists have no way around this
conclusion that many scientists --including Dr.
Spetner -- have now come to. Mutations do NOT work
as a mechanism for the evolutionary process. Spetner
sums it all up as follows:
"The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that
large evolutionary changes can result from a series
of small events if there are enough of them. But if
these events all lose information they can't be the
steps in the kind of evolution the NDT is supposed to
explain, no matter how many mutations there are.
Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by
mutations that lose information is like the merchant
who lost a little money on every sale but thought he
could make it up in volume....
"Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a
little information to the genome. That surely shows
that there are not the millions upon millions of
potential mutations the theory demands. There may
well not be any. The failure to observe even one
mutation that adds information is more than just a
failure to find support for the theory. It is
evidence against the theory. We have here a serious
challenge to neo-Darwinian theory."
This is also confirmed by Dr. Werner Gitt, a director
and professor at the German Federal Institute of
Physics and Technology, in answering the question,
"Can new information originate through mutations?":
"...this idea is central in representations of
evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in
existing information. There can be no increase in
information, and in general the results are
injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new
organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source
of new (creative) information."
So if natural selection and mutations are eliminated
as mechanisms to produce the information and design
of living systems, then another source must be found.
But there are even more basic problems for those who
reject the Creator God as the source of information.
More problems!
Scientists have found that within the cell, there are
thousands of what can be called "biochemical
machines."
What does this mean? Quite simply, evolution from
chemicals to a living system is impossible.
Scientists now know that life is built on these
"machines." Dr. Michael Behe, Associate Professor of
Biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania,
describes these "biochemical machines" as
"irreducible complexity": "Now it's the turn of the
fundamental science of
life, modern biochemistry, to disturb. The
simplicity that was once expected to be the
foundation of life has proven to be a phantom;
instead, systems of horrendous, irreducible
complexity inhabit the cell.
"The resulting realization that life was designed by
an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth
century who have gotten used to thinking of life as
the result of simple natural laws. But other
centuries have had their shocks, and there is no
reason to suppose that we should escape them."
Dawkins recognizes this problem of needing
"machinery" to start with when he states:
"A Xerox machine is capable of copying its own
blueprints, but it is not capable of springing
spontaneously into existence. Biomorphs readily
replicate in the environment provided by a suitably
written computer program, but they can't write their
own program or build a computer to run it. The
theory of the blind watchmaker is extremely powerful
given that we are allowed to assume replication and
hence cumulative selection. But if replication needs
complex machinery, since the only way we know for
complex machinery ultimately to come into existence
is cumulative selection, we have a problem."
A problem indeed! The more we look into the workings
of life, the more complicated it becomes, and the
more we see that life could not arise by itself. Not
only does life require a source of information, but
the complex "machines" of the chemistry of life must
be in existence right from the start!
A greater problem still!!
Some scientists and educators have tried to get
around the above problems by speculating that as long
as all the chemicals that make up the molecule of
heredity (and the information it contains) came
together at some time in the past, then life could
begin.
In the DNA of a cell, the order of its molecules is
also meaningless, except that in the biochemistry of
a cell, there is a language system (other molecules)
that makes the order meaningful! DNA without the
language system is meaningless, and the language
system without the DNA wouldn't work either. The
other complication is that the language system that
reads the order of the molecules in the DNA is itself
specified by the DNA! This is another one of those
"machines" that must already be in existence and
fully formed or life won't work!
Can information arise from non-information?
NO! We have not seen it ones, therefore to claim that
it happened is not scientific!
Dr. Werner Gitt makes it clear that one of the things
we know for sure from science is that information
cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always
takes (greater) information to produce information,
and ultimately information is the result of
intelligence:
"A code system is always the result of a mental
process (it requires an intelligent origin or
inventor)... It should be emphasized that matter as
such is unable to generate any code. All experiences
indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising
his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is
required."
"There is no known natural law through which matter
can give rise to information, neither is any physical
process or material phenomenon known that can do
this."
"...there is no known law of nature, no known process
and no known sequence of events which can cause
information to originate by itself in matter."
What then is the source of the information?
We can therefore conclude that the huge amount of
information in living things must originally have
come from an intelligence, which had to have been far
superior to ours. But then, some will say that such
a source would have to be caused by something with
even greater information/intelligence.
However, if they reason this way, one could ask where
even this greater information/intelligence came from?
And then where did that one come from? One could
extrapolate to infinity, unless...
Unless there was a source of infinite intelligence,
beyond our finite understanding. But isn't this what
the Bible indicates when we read, "In the beginning
God" ? An infinite Being not bound by limitations of
time, space, or anything else.
Even Richard Dawkins recognizes this:
"Once we are allowed simply to postulate organized
complexity, if only the organized complexity of the
DNA/protein replicating engine, it is relatively easy
to invoke it as a generator of yet more organized
complexity. That, indeed, is what most of this book
is about. But of course any God capable of
intelligently designing something as complex as the
DNA/protein replicating machine must have been as
least as complex and organized as that machine
itself. Far more so if we suppose him additionally
capable of such advanced functions as listening to
prayers and forgiving sins.
"To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by
invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain
precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the
origin of the Designer. You have to say something
like, 'God was always there,' and if you allow
yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well
just say 'DNA was always there,' or 'Life was always
there,' and be done with it."
So what is the logically defensible position? Is it
that matter has eternally existed (or came into
existence by itself for no reason), and then by
itself matter was arranged into information systems
AGAINST everything observed in real science? Or is
that an infinite Being, the God, the source of
infinite intelligence, created information systems
for life to exist, which AGREES with real science?
Michael Behe answers with this:
"The fourth and most powerful reason for science's
reluctance to embrace a theory of intelligent design
is also based on philosophical considerations. Many
people, including many important and well-respected
scientists, just don't want there to be anything
beyond nature. They don't want a supernatural being
to affect nature, no matter how brief or constructive
the interaction may have been.
"In other words... they bring an a priori philosophical
commitment to their science that restricts what kinds
of explanations they will accept about the physical
world. Sometimes this leads to rather odd behavior."
In other words, Assumptions are not Scientific
Conclusion. There is a lot more to this debate than
bantering assumptions. You must face the hard science
of biochemistry which is quite daunting if you
understand the laws of chemistry and physics. These
are the real areas to deal with and come to grips.
For a real education read: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1341.asp
Against Indoctrination-- A rebuttal to: Teaching about Evolution and the
Nature of Science
(National Academy of Science, 1998)
Because of Christ,
Kurt Streutker
"But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto
myself, so that I might finish my
course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord
Jesus, to testify the gospel of the
grace of God." Acts 20:24
sola Christus, sola fide, sola gratia, sola Scriptura, soli Deo
gloria,
"It is faith alone that justifies, but faith that justifies can
never be alone." John Calvin
"Answers in Genesis is a Christ-Centered Evangelistic Ministry"
Kurt H. Streutker
Creation Evangelism/Outreach
Answers in Genesis
P.O. Box 6330, Florence, KY 41022-6330 USA
7080 Industrial Drive, Florence, KY 41042 USA
Tel: 606/727-2222 ext:405
Fax: 606/727-6578 (Seminars Department) or 606/727-2299 (AiG HQ)
E-mail: kstr...@AnswersInGenesis.org
Internet web-site: http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org
The X-Nilo Show's web-site: http://www.X-Nilo.org
ED702
there, yeald to them too.
Yours isn't the only one...science teacher or not. I am too. Big deal!
Gyudon Z
>be answered. Can you give me an example of a genetic
>mutation, or an evolutionary process, which can be
>seen to "increase the information" in the genome?
Oooh! Oooh! I have one! Bacterial transformation; bacteria transfer circular
rings of DNA called plasmids among one another, thereby giving the bacterium
receiving the transfer some new information.
If a single-celled organism engulfed another and just absorbed all of its DNA
(as is the proposed means by which eukaryotes, and poly-chromosomal organisms
came about), that's about a doubling of information right there.
If no scientists have ever proposed this to any Cre(a)ti(o)nists, either the
Cre(a)ti(o)nists haven't been listening hard enough or I should get the Nobel
Prize for proposing this.
T.Westerhof
> Consider the following: In terms of philosophy and logic, Something
> must be eternal. Thinks about that! Would you agree?
>
Yes
>
> I would then ask, "Has matter always existed?"
>
No
>
> "Who made God?"
Some people in the Mediterranean.
> That's a good question! Another
> good question is, then "Who made Matter?"
>
Nobody
>
> Either Matter is eternal, or God is eternal.
>
Why? What is God anyway? The only God I know is God, the god of evolution.
>
> If you are an atheist, your "bias" seems leaves you with
> only one possibility. MATTER!! and ONLY MATTER!!!
Huh?
>
>
> Now, that would mean the matter by itself, organized
> itself into meaningful information (i.e. DNA),
> against all that we observe in real science. That
> would mean that genetic information increases over
> time in order to get single celled organism to
> humanoids.
Yes, I do not see your problem
>
>
> Therefore, I have one very simple question that must
> be answered. Can you give me an example of a genetic
> mutation, or an evolutionary process, which can be
> seen to "increase the information" in the genome?
>
Yes, duplication of a gene, a quite common mutation
>
> If you can, send me an answer. I have taught on this
> topic for years, and no student or fellow teacher has
> been able to give me a legitimate answer. I got a
> lot of "off-the-wall" answers that did not answer
> the question.
>
> Perhaps, this example below will help extract some of those thoughts!
>
> What is the missing ingredient in every example below?
>
> 1.novel = glue + paper + ink + grammar + (?)
> 2.song = notes + ink + paper + (?)
> 3.machine = metal + nuts + Laws of Physics + (?)
> 4.proteins = amino acids + time + energy + (?)
> 5.DNA = sugar + phosphates + bases + chemistry + (?)
> 6.life = molecules + energy + chemistry + (?)
>
> Scroll down for answers!
>
> The only thing missing in each common example is "INFORMATION!".
> Said another way, it's a writer, a composer, a design, a plan, intelligence,
> a designer.
>
> Let's give you a word (i.e. meaningful, useful Information)
> forming by chance. Make that word, simple like "house." Is that a
> word? _______
Yes
> Now is that a word to a person that speaks Chinese, Spanish, or Greek?
If they are familiar with modern music, Sure.
> NO! It is only meaningful to a person that speaks and reads English.
How many languages did you check for the lack of the word "house"?
> Information by chance, random processes is non-sense, because there has to
> be alanguage system in place to understand the Information. Say you read a
> book, would you recommend the ink, or the paper? NO way! If I gave you a
> book written
> in Greek (my mother language), would you be able to read it?
A bit of it, yes.
> Only if you speak and
> read Greek?
> The same thing with the DNA code.
>
> Assumptions are not conclusions! Interpretations of facts are not facts!
>
> Evolutionism is a world-view, which only interprets the data.
> It can not stand the test of the rigors of science. For it to even
> survive, there has to be censorship of scientific data that destroys it.
>
> I hope you are open-minded enough to reason together
> and discuss SCIENCE!!
>
Sure, I would prefer to discuss Nature, or even the American Biology Teacher,
but start if you like.
>
> No one would assume that the Presidents' heads on
> Mt. Rushmore were the products of millions of years
> of erosion!
No, but they are the product of a natural process.
Sure, the same for Tursiops
> Wouldn't it be logical to assume that if man's highly intelligent
> brain designed the computer, then the human brain was
> also the product of design?
Kansas, Arkansas
>
>
> "We have seen that living things are too improbable
> and too beautifully "designed" to have come into
> existence by chance." (I would be forced to agree)
> There is no doubt that even the most ardent atheist
> concedes that design is evident in the animals and
> plants that inhabit our planet.
> If Dawkins rejects "chance" in design, what does he
> put in place of "chance" if he does not accept a
> Creator?
EVOLUTION
> Design obviously implies a designer.
Only if paint implies a painter
> "The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual,
> step-by-step transformations from simple beginnings,
> from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have
> come into existence by chance. Each successive
> change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple
> enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen
> by chance.
> "But the whole sequence of cumulative steps
> constitutes anything but a chance process, when you
> consider the complexity of the final end-product
> relative to the original starting point. The
> cumulative process is directed by nonrandom survival.
> The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the
> power of this cumulative selection as a fundamentally
> nonrandom process."
> Basically, then, Dawkins is doing nothing more than
> insisting that natural selection and mutations
> together provide the mechanism for the
> evolutionary process. He believes these processes are
> "nonrandom" and "directed." In reality, this is just
> a sophisticated way of saying that evolution is
> itself the designer!
> Does 'natural selection' produce design?
YES
>
>
> Life is built and runs on information( i.e DNA).
> Therefore, to argue that natural selection and
> mutations are the basic mechanisms of the
> evolutionary process, one must show that these
> processes produce the information responsible for the
> design that is evident in living things.
> Now anyone who understands basic biology recognizes,
> of course, as Darwin did, that natural selection is a
> logical process that one can observe. However,
> natural selection only operates on the information
> that is already contained in the genes
FALSE
> - it does NOT produce new information.
> It is true that one can observe great variation in a
> "kind," and see the results of natural selection.
What is a "kind"?
>
> But the point is that NO new information was produced
> - these varieties of dogs have resulted from a
> rearrangement, sorting out, and separation of the
> information in the original dog kind.
FALSE
> One "kind" has never been observed to change into a totally
> different "kind" with information that previously did
> not exist! Without intelligent input to increase
> information, natural selection will not work as a
> mechanism for evolution.
Why not?
>
> Denton states:
> "It cannot be stressed enough that evolution by
> natural selection is analogous to problem solving
> without any intelligent guidance, without any
> intelligent input whatsoever. No activity which
> involves an intelligent input can possibly be
> analogous to evolution by natural selection."
> Without a way to increase information, natural
> selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution.
> Evolutionists would agree with this, but they
> believe that mutations somehow provide the new
> information for natural selection to act upon.
> Can mutations produce new information?
> Actually, scientists now know that the answer is NO!
> Dr. Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who
> taught information and communication theory at Johns
> Hopkins University,
a layman
> said,
> "In this chapter I'll bring several examples of
> evolution, particularly mutations, and show that
> information is not increased, But in all the reading
> I've done in the life-sciences literature, I've never
> found a mutation that added information."
> "All point mutations that have been studied on the
> molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic
> information and not to increase it."
FALSE
FALSE
PaulDanaher
River <jrmi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:NoGB3.16449$Hu6....@news.rdc1.wa.home.com...
> Real science is still based on
> empirical science, observation, testing and logic!
>
> As a former science instructor, one of the things we know
> for sure from science is that information -such as the complex
> DNA molecule of heredity-- cannot arise from disorder by chance
> (which evolution requires).
> 'A code system (i.e. ,DNA) is always the result of a mental
> process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) . . . It should
> be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code.
> All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising
> his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.'
> 'There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise
> to information, neither is any physical process or material
> phenomenon
> known that can do this.' Dr. Werner Gitt, Director and Professor
at
> the
> German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology
>
Well, "Director and Professor" is a little misleading, and the institute
name is mistranslated, but Prof. Werner Gitt is real (having spent the last
20 years in Germany, I say this with some annoyance, I didn't realise these
people were around over there). Anyway, here's some more information on W.
Gitt. He heads a department at the PTB, which describes itself in its
English web site as follows:
What is the PTB?
The Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), Braunschweig and Berlin, is
a national institute for science and technology and the highest technical
authority of the Federal Republic of Germany for the field of metrology and
physical safety engineering. It is the successor to the
Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt founded in Berlin in 1887 and comes
under the auspices of the Federal Ministry of Economics. The PTB has about
1650 regular staff members 1300 of whom work in Braunschweig. 550 employees
have undergone scientific training.
(not the institute, nor a division)
Prof. Dr. Ing. Werner Gitt is in division Q, which is described as follows:
Division Q: Scientific and Technical Cross-sectional Tasks
Tasks
Division Q is responsible for cross-sectional tasks for the main fields of
PTB's activities:
Fundamentals of metrology
Metrology for industry
Metrology for the area regulated by law
International cooperation.
It provides information technology services for the technical divisions and
is responsible for the coordination of the internal quality management.
Within this division, Prof. Dr. Ing. W. Gitt heads:
Department Q.4: Information Technology
Tasks:
The main tasks of the Information Technology Department are,
Furnishing computational facilities for infrastructural tasks
Planning, administration and backup of scientific and administrative servers
Operation of the Oracle Relational Database System for cross-sectional tasks
Cross-sectional systems administration
Enhancement and Management of the Local Area Network
Operation and enhancement of World Wide Networks
Scientific solution of information technology problems
Controlling the information technology budget
We're looking at a very committed religious YEC who's an IT specialist.
I've found what appear to be two different books listed on YEC sites -
Creation Moments
http://www.creationmoments.com/linkedpages/productpgs/bsc_creation_rscs/7725
-2.html
and reviewed on Creation Science Association of Alberta
http://freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/create/articles/general/gitt2.html
Laurence A. Moran
River <jrmi...@home.com> wrote:
>Real science is still based on
>empirical science, observation, testing and logic!
>
>As a former science instructor, one of the things we know
>for sure from science is that information -such as the complex
>DNA molecule of heredity-- cannot arise from disorder by chance
>(which evolution requires).
It's scary to think that you used to be a science instructor. However,
I take comfort in the fact that you are no longer teaching science.
(At least I assume that's what "former" meant.)
Larry Moran
Dick C.
> empirical science, observation, testing and logic!
>
> As a former science instructor, one of the things we know
> for sure from science is that information -such as the complex
> DNA molecule of heredity-- cannot arise from disorder by chance
> (which evolution requires).
Really? It is a no surprise that you are a former science teacher.
Define information in some meaningfull way, please.
> 'A code system (i.e. ,DNA) is always the result of a mental
> process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) . . . It
should
> be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code.
> All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising
> his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.'
> 'There is no known natural law through which matter can give
rise
> to information, neither is any physical process or material
> phenomenon
> known that can do this.' Dr. Werner Gitt, Director and
Professor at
> the
> German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology
Lots of information about this Gitt Character, unfortunately most of
it seems to be in either Hungarian or German. However, one web page
http://freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/create/articles/general/gitt2.html
Says his specialities are information science, numerical mathematics and
control engineering. Areas that have a lot to do with biology. :-\
>
> The huge amount of information found in living things (e.g. DNA) must
> originally
> have come from a Creator.
Nice arguement from ignorance and incredulity. But of no use in science.
snip
> Either Matter is eternal, or God is eternal.
Or matter is not eternal, existing only from the big bang, a
and god is a figment of your imagination
>
> If you are an atheist, your "bias" seems leaves you with
> only one possibility. MATTER!! and ONLY MATTER!!!
And your bias is ignorance and only ignorance.
snip
> Today, however, a large proportion of the population,
> including many leading scientists, believe that all
> plants and creatures, including the intelligent
> engineers who make watches, were the product of an
> evolutionary process - not a Creator God.
Perhaps this should give a pause to think. Why do all these people, from
so many diverse backgrounds and religions, all accept evolution?
snip
--
Dick #1349
email: dic...@uswest.net
People think libraries are safe, they're not.
They have ideas in them.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Morat
"T.Westerhof" wrote:
> > Consider the following: In terms of philosophy and logic, Something
> > must be eternal. Thinks about that! Would you agree?
> >
>
> Yes
>
> >
> > I would then ask, "Has matter always existed?"
> >
>
> No
>
> >
> > "Who made God?"
>
> Some people in the Mediterranean.
>
> > That's a good question! Another
> > good question is, then "Who made Matter?"
> >
>
> Nobody
>
> >
> > Either Matter is eternal, or God is eternal.
> >
>
> Why? What is God anyway? The only God I know is God, the god of evolution.
>
> >
> > If you are an atheist, your "bias" seems leaves you with
> > only one possibility. MATTER!! and ONLY MATTER!!!
>
> Huh?
>
The above is a logical fallacy? Can anyone identify it? It's an unbased
assumption that if you know of two mutually exclusive choices, that if one is not
correct, the other must be, with no evidence or support that there are not other
choices.
>
> >
> <snip>
--
spam blocking in effect. To reply remove "not"
------------------------------------------------------------------
When someone is saved from certain death by a strange
concatenation of circumstances, they say its a miracle.
But of course if someone is killed by a freak chain of
events - that must also be a miracle.
Just because it isn't nice doesn't mean its not miraculous.
--Terry Pratchett "Interesting Times"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Isaak
>for sure from science is that information -such as the complex
>DNA molecule of heredity-- cannot arise from disorder by chance
Then why do we see information arise from chance ubiquitously?
And what does pure chance have to do with evolution? Origin by chance is
100% creationism. ONLY creationists, and NOBODY else, propose it.
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but
I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown
plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek
Tim
context quotes of Dawkins, claimed he couldn't meet the "information
challange" etc.
John Wilkins
lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
|In article <NoGB3.16449$Hu6....@news.rdc1.wa.home.com>,
|River <jrmi...@home.com> wrote:
|>Real science is still based on
|>empirical science, observation, testing and logic!
|>
|>As a former science instructor, one of the things we know
|>for sure from science is that information -such as the complex
|>DNA molecule of heredity-- cannot arise from disorder by chance
|>(which evolution requires).
|
|It's scary to think that you used to be a science instructor. However,
|I take comfort in the fact that you are no longer teaching science.
|(At least I assume that's what "former" meant.)
|
No, I think he meant he's an instructor in "former science".
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne,
Australia <mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
R. Tang
>empirical science, observation, testing and logic!
>
>As a former science instructor, one of the things we know
>for sure from science is that information -such as the complex
>DNA molecule of heredity-- cannot arise from disorder by chance
Good thing you're a FORMER instructor, since we obviously DON'T
know such a thing (and see quite the opposite).
--
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
Stephen R Gould
> empirical science, observation, testing and logic!
>
> As a former science instructor, one of the things we know
> for sure from science is that information -such as the complex
> DNA molecule of heredity-- cannot arise from disorder by chance
> (which evolution requires).
> 'A code system (i.e. ,DNA) is always the result of a mental
> process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) . . . It
should
> be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code.
(+ a variety of stuff all snipped, you get the general idea).
What creationists and anti-evolutionists invariably fail to understand
is the role of the environment. Here's an analogy. How long will it
take you on average to throw 5 sixes with 5 dice ? Given that the
chance of throwing 5 sixes with a single throw is 1/6^5, 0.000129 or
about 1 in 7,800, you might guess that it's going to take you at least
a few thousand throws. And you're wrong. Suppose you throw the 5
dice. Then only pick up and throw those dice that were NOT 6. Throw
again, each time leaving any sixes that turned up. You'll find that it
takes you about 12 or 13 throws on average, not the few thousand.
Or the odds of dealing all 13 cards in a single suit ? Keep redealing,
and the sun might have exploded before you get there. But if you deal
13 cards, and then pick up and reshuffle only the cards that were not,
say spades, and then redeal, it will take you no more than about 80 or
so deals.
The point is that the content, e.g., DNA, may vary randomly, but it is
the selection process - in evolution provided by the environment, in
general, that "adds" information. And, my analogies notwithstanding,
no intelligence is required by the environment either - all you require
is that the environment is not a closed system. This is what natural
selection is. D'uh.