The activities of the Causeway Creation Committee (CCC) are intended to undermine public confidence in science and, hence, are a serious threat in a world that requires science to address its increasing problems with respect to health, environment and quality of life.

Evolutionary biology is a product of repeated testing and refinement. As a theory it has not been found wanting and has led to insights and benefits throughout biology. To enter serious scientific debate, creationists must demonstrate that their opinions can be phrased in terms of a refutable theory, that they are objective in proposing this theory, they can collect data to test the predictions of the theory, and that such data once collected do not confound the theory. If creationists cannot do this, creationism has no place in the science curriculum.

CCC is extreme in its views, denying not only evolutionary biology but the entirety of the physical sciences after Gallileo. It reflects poorly on our politicians to entertain such ignorance in any area of education. Affording CCC and their like any credibility, undermines our ‘knowledge-based economy’ and makes a fool of those who boast about its excellent education system.

Ian Montgomery, Professor of Animal Ecology, Queen’s University, Belfast

The question you quote is rhetorical, not a caveat, and had you read beyond the first paragraph you would have discovered the answers to your questions and your criticisms addressed. Here’s a link to the article on the Science website. If you live in Dublin I believe the ILAC centre library carries Science or you may have to contact your local University’s Science library to request an inter-library copy.

Evolutionary theory is no stranger to non-linear dynamics, complex adaptive systems and emergent properties and if you’re comfortable in those fields you are certainly ready for the Jukes-Cantor model of DNA substitution (some good stuff on wiki) from there you can get a great understanding of the molecular mechanisms of evolution which I think will give you the knowledge to address the criticisms of evolution you have.

On the contrary. The group you link to merely postulate how an eye might evolve, but don’t address the actual challenges I mentioned above. A future historian might attempt to explain how Ireland became rich by claiming that a wealthy American donated his considerable wealth to each and every individual. That is theoretically possible, but theoretical possibility isn’t the same thing as actuality, is it? Natural selection cannot explain how the eye involved, merely spin the theory into absurdity trying to do so, because the initial mutations are useless and evolutionary theory needs them to be useful. Although the scientists you link to do sound an appropriate caveat to their own endeavour: “A major challenge now is understanding how newly discovered pathways for processing light evolved and how they collaborate with eyes to harvest information from light.” Personally, I suspect that Murray Gell-Man was on the right track at the Santa Fe Institute with Complexity Theory in moving beyond the safe world of evolutionary theory that is too rooted in classical Newtonian physics where everything behaves lawfully according to linear causality, and into the new world of non-linear dynamics, complex adaptive systems, emergent phenomena, ect. There is something else at work here in addition to natural selection and random mutation that isn’t quite so random and it a lot more selective. But as Dylan said, “Something is happening here and you don’t know what it is, do you Mr Jones?” As for the devout evolutionists on this thread… well, that’s what this is about.

your questions about the evolution of the eye have been covered: Casting a genetic light on the evolution of eyes. Science. 2006 Sep 29;313(5795):1914-8 link.

There appears to be a misconception that humans are more evolved than bacteria or viruses. This is not the case, all species are just as evolved as other species. Evolution is the rate of change of DNA over time and has nothing to do with biological complexity, the development of culture or level of adaptation to environment (ie fitness).

Darwin made two basic observations: 1. Parents have more offspring than are required to maintain the population, 2. The population numbers of a species tend to remain static over time. If you watch nature programs you will see his survival of the fitness deduction proven by the competition for mates. Deleterious mutations are ruthlessly weeded out and the rare advantageous mutation has a selective advantage that increases its chances of being passed on to the individuals children. Add billions of years, an error rate in DNA Polymerase that generates these deleterious and advantageous mutations and you have the world you see around you.

Again, you haven’t shown how the mutation conveys any advantage. At the risk of repetition:

“Well, I’m still waiting for them to show how a randomly mutated light-sensitive pigment on skin could have given the holder of that gene a survival advantage so great that all non-holders of the gene became extinct and that all modifications to it were equally great to ensure the same fate for all non-modified gene holders, and so on despite modifications being so far from great that the process would take half a million years to fully ‘evolve’ as an eye, and given that said initial mutated light-sensitive pigment (evolutionists attempt to explain the origin of the eye) wouldn’t be any use without a processor to attach meaning to the data – a raft of other ‘mutations’ that it is dependent on yet initially independent of. If the selector is natural selection (a form of design by non-design), then that pigment would have been discarded by that process as being about as advantageous as a pimple. They are left arguing that it must be the process because it is theoretically possible and they can’t admit any other theory or fundamental doubt into their thinking – with no regard to probability or practicality.”

It is very easy to argue that vision conveys an advantage. But it is an absurdity to argue that there is any advantage in the initial stages of a process that evolutionists admit would take half a million years to evolve as an eye. In short: there is an obvious advantage after half a million years, but none before. Unless you can address what the advantage of a light-sensitive pigment on skin is, then that is one of the holes in the theory. After all, natural selection holds that if the mutation is beneficial then it is probable that the offspring will do better than offspring sans the gene and thereby reproduce more. Ergo, you must show how a randomly mutated pigment could be beneficial, not merely take a wild guess at it as is you unscientific method thus far.

[i]“Err.. the species with the light sensitive pigmentation will maybe have a slight advantage over it’s competitors. Allowing it to be slightly more successful reproductively, and therefore increasing the likelihood of the genes that cause the light sensitive cells to develop to be carried on. It’s very very basic statistics.” – nuttal[/i]

How so? The mutation is only a light-sensitive pigment on skin. That is all it is in its initial stage, yet natural selection holds that must have been enough for the gene-holder to prosper over others. You are confusing the mutation with the gene to build and eye. We are not talking about another half a million years worth of mutations added by evolution. It has as much ability as a pimple to process the data and attach meaning to it, since those other mutations have not occurred yet. Hence:

“Is a species that has very extra light-sensitive cells but doesn’t have the pupil, lens, the retina, the part of the brain that processes visual information, the part that associates blurs with danger, food, and so forth, really all that fitter in any environment? In reality that is such an absurd claim to make that it is tantamount to a faith that is accepted without any proof, whatsoever.”

[i]“It’s not that hard to find this stuff out, just go to wikipedia.” – nuttal[/i]

“I’m fed up with you blowing “GRAND CANYON SIZED HOLES” into other theories.

Oh, and by the way, where were the holes? You can’t really get away with asking a question, having it answered, and then ignoring the answer.” – nuttal

Oh dear. Then perhaps you should acquaint yourself with evolutionary theory. Most evolutionists agree that the theory is incomplete. The common questions being: how information is added to a genome to build progressively more complex organisms, how the first living cell could arise spontaneously, how evolution produces dramatic chances so rapidly. And, of course, the ‘hole’ about how a useless blemish on the skin could be so useful that it causes the blemished one’s genes to be passed on giving us all the power of vision.

If you want civility, it might be best not to tell people they’ve been saying something they haven’t, or that they hold to opinions they’ve never expressed.
Furthermore, when you make claims about something having a gaping hole the size of the grand canyon, it would be instructive if you elaborated upon that and allowed others to see if your claim had any actual merit.

*Scepticism is a force for good in society*

Thank you CS, an acknowledgement of that, and a little bit of civility, was all I asked for.

What he said was if he found out the result and worked backwards it wouldn’t be a good test and it would never find any errors. Entirely true.

Thank you for your (very much unmerited) praise. I can say with some certainty that you have been the most engaging and honest ‘god-botherer’ I’ve had the privilege to commune with in many a long while;-) And in respecting the believer, I find it much easier to respect the belief. A win-win.

AS for your experience of ‘the wager’, All I can say is I’m happy for you, I hope for your sake the wager is successful, and that if not, I’m comforted that your gamble itself proved so fulfilling.

For myself, I’m a theist-leaning agnostic. I acknowledge that I cannot know, but that’s as far as I can go.

I always rather liked the Neitschian inspired idea that God was fundamantally unity, the infinate as one, and the one as infinate, that we are all, in some way, God, and that the Big Bang, if it occured, was The Fall, when disunity came about, and we ceased to be God as we became both finite and plural. Thus the Big Crunch is the afterlife, the reunion with God, as God.

I don’t believe it, mind, but I like it as a bit of psuedoscience.

For myself, I am always inspired by the close link between much of what is held to be ‘good’ and what tends to advance the species over the individual. As if nature itself encourages altruism.

The only point I would disagree with is this:

“if you wager your life on God, you lose the freedom to partake of a range of activites that might lead to profit, or pleasure, or both, in this life, because we are told that such a curtailment is the price of the wager – frankly that’s a pretty high price to pay.”

I will leave it to the bible to answer that one
“I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” John 10:10.

In honest whatever I have lost or not had because of my religious views I count as nought as compared to what I feel I have gained in this life leaving aside the life to come.

nmc:

Kind of like myself creating a software test, only doing the test first, then creating the plan to fit the result. Not very effective because I can never find any errors this way.

But best practice software engineering does require that the test cases are written first, before the code is written. That’s because tests are supposed to be based on the requirements, not the interpretation of the requirements embodied in the code.

The decline in red squirrel pop. is to do with natural selection and NOT macroevolution. Macroevolution is a more far-reaching concept.

Try and keep up.

Try and keep up yourself. I was responding specifically to a point made by Harry about natural selection. If you’re going to be a smarmy git correcting people, at least try to do some rudimentary research on the thread.

Harry, replying a little late here, but better late than never :

CS, who is my designer of whom you speak? I don’t recall mentioning such an entity, indeed I specifically said that I hold no brief for intelligent design.

I was responding to something you said about things being designed, but I see you have responded to that point already. I’d go on to say there’s loads of evidence that things are not well designed. The talk origins FAQ lists several deficiencies in human design, the best known one being the presence of the appendix.

I merely pointed out in my original post that the Theory of Evolution is not the cast iron, 100% proven explanation of the origin of life that its proponents often proclaim. Thank you for conceding that my initial point is indeed correct and that the shrill denunciations of evolutionists against anyone who points out the flaws in their argument masks a profound insecurity about the soundness of their precious theory.

I think you may be labouring under a small misapprehension. I will happily stand corrected, but during the several threads on creation/evolution/etc on Slugger over the past few weeks, I have never seen any of those defending evolution resort to shrill denunciations of those who point out that evolution has flaws. All science has flaws, the whole thing is one big wheel of continuous improvement.

What I do find understandable on the other hand is the frustration that people will feel when trying to argue science with people who clearly do not understand it and who are parroting – not very well – what they’ve read in books given to them by their church or some other religious figure. I find nothing more frustrating than someone who has dismissed an idea completely out of hand that they haven’t even taken the time to try to comprehend. I don’t think you should confuse denunciations of flat-earth idiots with a rejection of criticism of current scientific theories of origin.

I think it is entirely appropriate, indeed very necessary, that science class should teach that science is a work in progress, and that existing theories have holes which do not explain everything. Science is a constant process of working to close the holes. Scepticism is a force for good in society, I’d love to see it being taught in schools. Unfortunately, it wouldn’t be allowed, as if people were taught to question everything, religion would be immediately thrown out.

Nuttal, both you and CS explain how species die off, a point that I referred to in changing environments however that doesn’t explain how we came by the red squirrels or dodos in the first place.

I’m not qualified to do that, but I’d argue that it is reasonable to believe that if natural selection and evolution of species can be observed today, then it must have happened in the past. That, of course, does not constitute proof that it did.

The fact that I don’t know the answer to your question doesn’t invalidate evolutionary theory or natural selection. The only way you can do that is provide a better, alternative explanation. “God did it”, of course, doesn’t fit the bill.

Regarding the points made by several people, “how does an eye just evolve out of nowhere, it must be designed”. Don’t forget that we do not consist of parts that are manufactured and then assembled at the end. We all started out life one day as a single cell. The process of how a cell becomes a baby, and then an adult, within a short period of time is nothing short of incredible. But it’s all nature at work. The human brain is an even more incredible thing than the eye is. The operation of the eye is at least basically understood.

I don’t have to come up with a theory because I am not the one insisting that my beliefs are the one true faith.

Nobody is insisting this. But yes, if you criticise a theory then yes, the onus is on you to come up with a better one. Of course, you can exercise your right not to, but that means that your criticisms are baseless.

Dubliner:

The odds of this process occurring by chance – outside the process of natural selection (since the amazing feat of discovery and engineering had not been designed and ergo not testable by the environment) is akin to the proverbial monkeys at a row typewriters randomly typing the complete works of Shakespeare.

Evolution is not a lottery and it does not occur through completely random phenomena.

Science is, at it’s very core, the pursuit of the truth for truth’s sake, no more, no less.

The difficulty of Pascal’s wager is it doesn’t describe reality.

Pascal basically suggested if you wager your life on the existance of God, and lose, you lose nothing, because if there is no God, there’s no afterlife anyway. So reason dictates that we strive for faith as the only hope of a profitable outcome.

in short –
I believe, and i’m right – Paradise
I believe, and i’m wrong – Nada
I don’t believe and I’m right – Nada
I don’t beleive and I’m wrong – Damnation

So since the best result of the non-faith option is only equal to the worst result of the faith option, reason dictates faith, with at best paradise and at worst, nothing, is the way to go.

But you clearly do lose something. if you wager your life on God, you lose the freedom to partake of a range of activites that might lead to profit, or pleasure, or both, in this life, because we are told that such a curtailment is the price of the wager – frankly that’s a pretty high price to pay.

in short –
I believe, and i’m right – Curtailed life, followed by Paradise
I believe, and i’m wrong – curtailed life, followed by Nada
I don’t believe and I’m right – ‘full’ life, followed by Nada
I don’t believe and I’m wrong – ‘full’ life, followed by Damnation

A rather more even-handed wager

and that doesn’t even include wagering you’re life on God, being right, but having picked the wrong God, or picked Him the ‘wrong’ way – then faith leads to the risk of a ‘curtailed’ life AND Damnation!

Pascal was a fine mathematician, and a fine divine, but i always found this particular soundbite a little too trite.

What science is less good at is answering the question Why? In this case Why did the big bang happen.

Delta Omega,
I am no philosopher but I have a similar analysis of religion to your post ” At the end of the day if christians are wrong and there is no afterlife then what have they lost? If however the christian viewpoint is right then the non chrisians will experience a supernatural selection which will lead to the extinction of the “species”.”

It is I am told an example of Pascal’s Wager