The following is a comment I left in a Quora argument. The argument was becoming messy due to the constraints of fitting it in the comments box at Quora (or anywhere) so I will also put it here. Our argument was wide-ranging and getting stuck in minutiae so I felt this overview of my position with occasional short quotes was the clearest way to describe my position.
The history of fossil evidence as a metaphor for ID claims.
In Darwin's day, there was little evidence for (or against) evolution. There was excellent evidence but not a lot of it. In those days without access to molecular data, fossils were considered the best way to support (or not) evolutionary claims.
Very soon after Darwin published his theory, Archaeopteryx was found. Now there are around twelve specimens found. And yet, that was only one example of a transitional fossil. It was reasonable to say, "We have no fish-amphibian fossil and I cannot even picture what one would look like. There is no way a fish could evolve into a land animal." Now, there is a very fine set of transitional fossils showing in detail how such evolution could occur. (List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia)
Now, similar arguments are proposed against evolution using nearly the same wording but dealing with molecular evidence. A century earlier, the claim was, "fish can't evolve arms" and now the claim is, "bacteria can't evolve a flagellum."
One of the ways the claims are similar is in the maturity (or lack) in the field. In the late 1800's, few dinosaurs were known and fossils were not organized or described in ways that could be shared. Now, the human genome has been recorded and others are being recorded but the technology is still in its infancy. Just as with a century ago, "We don't know how this could happen" mostly means "We don't know yet." For the sake of argument, it could mean, "...because a Designer did it" but the argument has the same value as when I cannot find my phone.
Creationists and ID proponents need positive evidence but all they have is negative evidence; "We don't know therefore God/ Designer."
With fossils, many major and minor transitions have been found and more will still be found. We will never find fossils of all the living things that ever existed (We don't yet have skeletal fossils of chimpanzees and we know they exist. All we have, and only found a deade ago, are fossilized chimp teeth.)
With ID, the relevant molecules are even less likely to be preserved. Large bones are more likely than small bones to be fossilized. Moecules are nearly infinitely smaller and have no mechanism for fossilization. Even if one fully accepts that bacterial flagellae evolved, there is no obvous reason to expect to find examples of how parts of it could form independently. The flagellum most often discussed consists of forty or so proteins but a useful part of bacteria is a secretory system that consists of twenty of those proteins so the flagellum by definition is not irreducible. What happens if we cannot find any other transitions or pieces? It means we didn't find them. For ID claims to be accepted, they need positive evidence of their Designer, yet they claim this is impossible. A second best would be to explain why they expect such transitional molecules should be findable.
They do not, so the best evidence ID has is, "We don't know, therefore Designer." It is scientifically vacuous.
All I want, all secular science wants, is a positive claim for ID that can be tested. Evolution has passed this test already.
Brian: "Give evidence that is not "we don't know" for any ID claim. "
Answer: Uh.... sure. We KNOW that codes which transmit complex sophisticated information requiring action alwaya has a code maker.
No we don't. We only know of current examples in the infancy of our understanding of DNA. We only know that we don't know. You are demonstrating "We don't know how it could happen, therefore God."
The superficiality of homology arguments.
Brett:
For example bats and dolphins have VERY sophisticated echolocation systems. I'm thinking evolutionists will claim these systems, although similar arose indepentently... analagous. Likewise with teeth... Your belief they are homologous is based on beliefs in transitionals. (And if memory is correct, archaepteryx teeth are not at all like dino teeth).
At first glance, the evidence appears to support both common ancestry and common designer. Humans and apes have many identical genes: If they evolved from the same ancestor or were created by the same God, this is reasonable. At first glance, homology doesn't get you very far.
But when you go beyond superficialities, you find that common ancestry is much better supported.
As an educator, if I give a multiple chjoice test and two students have identical and correct answers, I cannot determine if one cheated. But if I give an essay question test and the students have idential answers, I do have some reason to suspect cheating. And even more, if they have identical wrong answers, I have even greater support for my claim. In this metaphor, I modestly stand in for a designer, giving the same information to all. But cheating stands in for common ancestry- the information didn't come from a God but from another student and wrong answers could be equivalent to ERVs or poor design choices.
Examples of back design choices include the vertebrate eye wired backward and the laryngeal nerve found in vertebrates. In the former case, the design is unecessarily sloppy and causes a blind spot while in the latter, the design makes great sense in fish but beccomes increasingly awkward as tetrapod necks get longer (Laryngeal nerve - RationalWiki).
Science has found that our eyes have a fibre optic type design and the inverted retina design is superior /optimal.
I am not sure if we argued this in a different thread but someone gave me a link to an article on light transmission through the nerve cords and how there was no or little interference in the signal. It did not at all address the blind spot issue I look forward to your link to an article that states that the vertebrate eye is superior/optimal to the cephalopod eye, in aquatic conditions. That is, fish have the same backward wired eye we do so comparisons need to be shown with them. If our eye is superior to the cephalopod eye in all cases, why do cephalopods not have them? I have seen superficial claims on the subject by creationists that always leave out the fact that fish have the same eye we do.
Brian: "You believe there was a ‘super-cat, one with all the genetic information needed for all known (living and extinct) 42 species of felines. And their genes were broken until they fit their current niches. This is testable . Alright, show me the broken ‘tiger’ genes in bobcats and the broken ‘bobcat’ genes in tigers. Heck, show me how a cat with every single one of its genes operational could survive. The ones for thick coats and thin coats. The ones for strength like a tiger and speed like a cheetah. This is all testable so I look forward to your answer."
Answer: No, it is not testable. We don't know what the genome was like thousands of years ago. And all genes in an animal are not operational. ... and what I said is that it MAY be correct (as does the article). Both secular and Biblical scientists hypothesize ancestry...for example, that all dogs may be descendants of a dog similar to wolf.
So to start with, you are immediately claiming that your earlier claim is not testable. Okay, it is then not science. I should be done here. Then you bring up dogs for no good reason and repeat that we are discussing the amount of common ancestry. I know that; that was my point. In fact, none of your protests have any value. We don't have to know what the genome was like thousands (or millions or billions) of years ago. All we need to do is look at what genes have been conserved and even more, what broken genes are still being carried. Because, yes, not all genes are operational, they are broken, and the fact that they are still around strongly supports common ancestry.
And why isn't your claim testable? It might not be now as I don't know what genomes have been recorded but if they are recorded, it should be simple to show -as you say - non-operational genes. That is precisely what I am asking for.
ERV's are consistent with evolutionary hierarchies...except when they aren't.
Okay, what ERVs are not consistent with evolutionary hierarchies?
Science is in the process of discovering these short strands (ERV's) have function (almost as if by design).
This might or might not be true but it is not relevant. ERVs are delivered by viruses. If we carry viral DNA that matches viral DNA in other apes, that is support for evolution no matter how useful or not it is.
Another example of common ancestry vs common designer is found in anti-freeze fish near the two poles. Evolutionists would argue that the two species of fish, so far apart, could not share their DNA and so the anti-freeze genes must be different. The common designer claim is that organisms in identical situations will have identical solutions. In fact, the two fish have different genes for combatting the cold environment. Perhaps God is giving one species a tougher time than the other?
Archaeopteryx and dinosuar teeth.
First off, we need to keep in mind that according to evolutionary history, from the first dinosaur to now, we have had three times more time with dinosaur existing than not. That is, dinosaurs existed from 240 million years ago to 65 million years ago so that is 180 millions with dinosaurs compared to 65 without. There is good reason to expect dinosaur teeth to be quite varied. I would not expect Archae's teeth to match those of herbivores, for example.
I can find nothing to support your claim. Support, please.
Bat and dolphin echolocation.
I am not sure what you expect to find here. The two animals live in very different environments. If the two sonar arrangements are not the same, it would prove nothing. How similar would they need to be to demonstrate common designer?
Some differences here, supporting neither side in the abstract: Echolocation in dolphins with a dolphin-bat comparison
This article describes the similarities and differences between the two types of animals while also pointing out that we, in addition to many other animals, can manage at least a simple form of echolocation -this point is important in considering how different is different enough to support a position. If bats and dolphins are great at it but also many other species are capable of it, then common ancestry and design claims are weak or complicated. Engineering Acoustics/Echolocation in Bats and Dolphins
Bryan: "As the Ham-Nye debate illustrated, when asked if something would ever change their mind, Nye said, "Evidence" while Ham said, "Nothing".
Answer: I think what that shows is some dishonesty from Nye. From the little I know of him, I have never heard him say he is willing to honestly consider the Creator God of tbe Bible.
Your point is irrelevant because many religious people accept evolution. And do you really think that people are are free to choose what they believe are less open-minded than people forced to sign a statement of belief on the subject? A statement required for their job? Individuals are going to be as biased or not but only creationism requires such bias.
If he is like most evolutionists, he interprets evidence only within his worldview of materialism.
I think you mean "scientists" rather than 'evolutionists' because evidence can only be interpreted by assuming naturalism. Otherwise, you get the whole "Did or Why did Adam have a belly button?" or Last Thursdayism problems. If you don't want to accept science, don't. But science cannot show supernatural action. This is why we accept gravity and do not claim, except satirically, Intelligent falling - Wikipedia
So Brian...if your best arguments for common ancestry are proved false by science, are you ready to consider... the evidence is consistent with and helps support the truth of Biblical creation?
Well, I'm still waiting for even more claim is for common design that is more than superficial. Note that showing evolution is false (except for micro-evolution, which is no different from evolution and a convoluted creationist way) is not support for creationism. We haven’t even looked at how ridiculous creationist claims for their side are. And of course, we would have to look at which creationist you want to believe as there are many competing - but equally stupid - claims for how the Earth was flooded and where the water went afterwards.
" But when you get down to it, the evolutionists have to admit that the only real reason why they must support the idea is because the thought of an intelligent creator is simply unacceptable.
Why is this unacceptable? "
Your lie here is quite unacceptable. Turns out that more theists than atheists in the US are evolution proponents. That's right; although virtually all atheists are evolution proponents, there are so many Christians that the evolution-accepting percentage is greater than the number of atheists.
So now it is clear that "the thought of an intelligent creator is simply unacceptable." is a lie. It is a shame that you hate evolution so much without knowing much about it. I pity you for your poor education.
There are many textbooks on evolution that open admit this clear fear. I have heard of museaums that have been challenged with showing exhibits of long-ago proven false hypothesis only to come and say "if we removed that we wouldn't have anything to show to support evolution". If you contest this assertion see Kent Hovind's free creation/evolution seminar tapes available at drdino.com.
I can see that this post may rapidly turn into an athiest v creationist bashing contest. If that happens I will simply not accept comments as this was not my purpose. Athiests don't believe in God - so why should they fight those that do? They have no basis for moral authority so how can they impose one on others?
BTW - the number of people that believe something doesn't make it true. I know this goes both ways but I am not arguing on the basis of popularity, I am arguing on the basis of logic as I see it.
"There are many textbooks on evolution that open admit this clear fear"
I didn't mention any fear. So there is no clear fear here.
I did mention that the following is wrong:
<i>"the only real reason why they must support the idea is because the thought of an intelligent creator is simply unacceptable."</i>
And that is not true. It is a lie. It is a dishonest thing to say.
You wrote
" the number of people that believe something doesn't make it true. "
And that is true and fair but irrelevant. The fact that more theists than atheists accept evolution means your claim that "thought of an intelligent creator is simply unacceptable." is a lie. Here is a group of American Christian clergy who are fine with evolution. There are a lot of them but that doesn't make their claim true. It does mean that your claim - that " the thought of an intelligent creator is simply unacceptable." is false
https://www.theclergyletterproject.org/
You wrote:
"athiest v creationist bashing contest."
No, this is an evolution proponent calling you on your lie. Again, many theists are fine with evolution. So many theists are fine with evolution that claiming "the thought of an intelligent creator is simply unacceptable" is wrong.
If you care about honesty, you will admit your error.
You are calling me a liar - that is bashing.
Of course I am calling you in-sane because so far I have seen no logical or empirical arguments to support your position.
To atheists, all my comments are irellevent - why does this bother you?
As to FEAR I don't mean spooky creepy scared, I mean ashamed to be shown to have no real evidence to suport evolution.
As I said, see the Hovind Creation/Evolution video or this really good one I watched last night for details. (https://youtu.be/CFYswvGoaPU?t=724) Even Richard Dawkins can't come up with a decent and logical explination for evolution. You guys are bankrupt in your delusion of accidental creation. And THAT is my opinion which cannot be a lie.
"Of course I am calling you in-sane because so far I have seen no logical or empirical arguments to support your position."
Then that reflects on you. My position is that many theists are fine with and to claim
""the only real reason why they must support the idea is because the thought of an intelligent creator is simply unacceptable."
, is to lie.
Why is it a lie? Pay attention because this is the part where I (again) support my position:
https://www.theclergyletterproject.org/
More than 15,000 American Christian Clergy who are Christians and accept evolution. They are Christian so to say "the thought of an intelligent creator is simply unacceptable." is to lie.
You see how I did that? I noted a claim you made that was not true.
I explained why it was not true.
I gave actual evidence that it was not true.
You lied and you refuse to admit it or change your statement. Previously you had been a person who lied once. But in not admitting it you are becoming a person best described as a liar. Not bashing but stating a fact.
why you claim "thought of an intelligent creator is simply unacceptable."" you are lying. It is that simple. And it colours everything else you write. I see that you make a false claim and immediately feel that nothing else you write can be trusted either. The way you run from this topic and try to change the topic strengthens my poor opinion of you. But it is the kind of thing that Hovind would do so you are indeed like your mentor.
So I get your arguement. There is this group that call themselves "Christian" that happen to also believe in "evolutionary theory". Never mind that a mirage of crap has been shoved down all our throats since we were 5 years old in public school. Never mind that they have probably never taken a second thought that all that repetition of unverified or lying crap might not be true. So now we have this "opinion" that somehow becomes legitimate ammo and gets labeled as "evidence for evolution". As I have said and you have agreed, "opinion" is not "scientific evidence" no matter how many or what groups have that opinion.
Scientific / Emperical evidence means repeatable/testable/demonstratable kinds of evidence.
If you can show me one legit example of say:
* Non-life turning into a self repairing, self replicating life form
* The progression of one kind of life into another or even a clearly intermediate form between two types
* Show how a star or solar system is actually born with observable evidence.
* Demonstrate any chemical process that would create DNA and new information to create a life-form.
* Prove the age of fossils or rocks using techniques that don't require massive assumptions.
* Show how a river anywhere cuts deep canions over time and how this can happen on groud that is rising. (Grand Canyon)
How many of whoever has an opinion is not evidence.
My stating that the only reason evolutionists believe in the theory is because they are afraid to even think of a creator with true moral authority is simply stating what has been admitted publically many times. I should give you a precise example but I know there is a good one or two in Kent Hovind's creation/evolution seminar tapes.
You are saying that this claim is false but if you listened to the material I mentioned you would see the specific examples that show this is not a lie.
It might seem to you to be an unreasonable assumption but to me it is very reasonable because there simply is no evidence or logical story that can back up any part of evolutionary theory and this then requires blind faith by any follower of evolution that we spontaneously came into all our glory by accident.
I have used the analogy of a ball-point pen stood up on its nose with the ball retracted. Most pens can be made to stand this way on a still level table. Now explain how that got that way without purposeful intelligent intervention. There is no other explanation that holds water. If that pen falls it will NEVER get back up to its original position with out intelligent help either directly by a human or indirectly via some device invented by a human.
Write your own blog and sell your own ideas and stop bashing mine. (Unless you can actually come of with acceptable scientific, repeatable, observable evidence to prove me wrong.)
." There is this group that call themselves "Christian" that happen to also believe in "evolutionary theory"."
Keep in mind 'this group' is the majority. That does not make it right, but it does make it more than 'this group'. Young Earth Creationists are a minority. That doesn't make them wrong but it means they should know about their own religion.
"Never mind that a mirage of crap has been shoved down all our throats since we were 5 years old in public school. Never mind that they have probably never taken a second thought that all that repetition of unverified or lying crap might not be true."
You are describing religion here, not science. Yes, this is a problem for you creationists.
". So now we have this "opinion" that somehow becomes legitimate ammo and gets labeled as "evidence for evolution"."
No, it is however evidence that this claim of yours is wrong. Not my opinion but you are factually wrong when you say:
"the evolutionists have to admit that the only real reason why they must support the idea is because the thought of an intelligent creator is simply unacceptable."
When you say that. you are lying.
And I feel strongly that lies are bad. You appear not to mind so much.
"My stating that the only reason evolutionists believe in the theory is because they are afraid to even think of a creator with true moral authority is simply stating what has been admitted publically many times."
Some people may say that. But here are 15,000 American Christian Clergy who say otherwise: https://www.theclergyletterproject.org/
Still, humour me. Quote three such claims. They need to say they are afraid of there being a creator. They need to say this is why they are evolution proponents.
Just three. Or, you are lying again.
"You are saying that this claim is false but if you listened to the material I mentioned you would see the specific examples that show this is not a lie"
You claim that
" the evolutionists have to admit that the only real reason why they must support the idea is because the thought of an intelligent creator is simply unacceptable."
remains a lie. I have read your post and I find all of it foolish but this seemed an easy point to argue. I mean, there are more theists than atheists in the US that accept evolution so what you claimed was not true. This is easy, this is verifiable and it is true. You made a statement that was not true.
Being honest seems to concern me more than it does you. Your dishonesty is not atypical in creationists and is a reason I find all theists suspect. I need greater honesty than you display.
"(Unless you can actually come of with acceptable scientific, repeatable, observable evidence to prove me wrong.)"
Let's do this:
I say this claim is wrong:
"the evolutionists have to admit that the only real reason why they must support the idea is because the thought of an intelligent creator is simply unacceptable."
My evidence?
15,000+ American Clergy who clearly accept God and also accept evolution. https://www.theclergyletterproject.org/
Done. I await your apology. An honest person would have admitted their error long ago. I still hold hope that you have some vestige of integrity in you.
" they are afraid to even think of a creator with true moral authority is simply stating what has been admitted publically many times. I should give you a precise example..."
Yes, you should but you cannot. Go ahead; name three: They need to say they are afraid of there being a creator. They need to say this is why they are evolution proponents.
First give me an example of REAL scientific (repeatable, observable, testable) evidence to support the theory.
I will admit that I don't know that ALL atheists are afraid of the idea of a God might be true. Evolutionists generally discount the idea of creation a-priori because it is against their "religion".
I am saying that the only logical reason for this kind of blind anti-faith is a deep down fear of guilt and accountability because blind anti-faith is not rational or scientific – which is what atheists generally claim to be.
This is an opinion, and not a statement of fact. It cannot be a lie because of that.
As for the majority of ‘Christians’ believing in evolution, I still can’t see how that (granted for arguments sake) “fact” changes my assertion about atheists. It is an obtuse point that does not address the original assertion.
Let me state my original point here at the beginning: The majority of evolution proponents in the USA are Christian. This means your claim that " the only real reason why they must support the idea is because the thought of an intelligent creator is simply unacceptable." is wrong. It is a lie.
Here is another point. Not really a new one:
Evolution proponent does not mean atheist. Again, more Christians than atheists in the US are evolution proponents. Any time you claim that "the thought of an intelligent creator is simply unacceptable" is simply not true.
"First give me an example of REAL scientific (repeatable, observable, testable) evidence to support the theory."
You would not listen or read it if I did. And besides, I have brought up only one concern here. One you seem terrified to admit and accept.
"I will admit that I don't know that ALL atheists are afraid of the idea of a God might be true""
Who cares? I haven't ever been talking about atheists. I have only been talking about this lie you stated:
"the evolutionists have to admit that the only real reason why they must support the idea is because the thought of an intelligent creator is simply unacceptable."
You wrote "evolutionist" which is a silly word but again, it is not the same as 'atheist'. In mentioning 'atheists' at all is to deceive here.
And again this lie:
" they are afraid to even think of a creator with true moral authority is simply stating what has been admitted publically many times. I should give you a precise example..."
Evolutionists generally discount the idea of creation a-priori because it is against their "religion".
No. Once again, the religion of the majority of evolution proponents in the USA is Christianity. Is it so hard for you to speak the truth? Are you so afraid of the truth? Evolutionist could mean many things but it does not mean atheist. To claim it does is to lie.
"which is what atheists generally claim to be."
We are talking about evolution not atheism. The two are not the same as I have stated and actually, given evidence.
You did notice that I did give evidence that many Christians are fine with evolution, correct? You saw that? So the clear problem is, you asked me for "(Unless you can actually come of with acceptable scientific, repeatable, observable evidence to prove me wrong" and I gave it. And you still cannot accept it or admit it. If I were to show actual evidence for evolution, it would not matter. I gave actual evidence for my simpler, more obvious claim and you still cannot bring yourself to face it.
"As for the majority of ‘Christians’ believing in evolution, I still can’t see how that (granted for arguments sake) “fact” changes my assertion about atheists. It is an obtuse point that does not address the original assertion."
Your assertion about atheists is irrelevant. We are talking about evolution proponents and that is not the same as atheists.
I guess it is because you are lying to yourself. Let's go back to my original assertion. Here is what the first thing I wrote:
"" But when you get down to it, the evolutionists have to admit that the only real reason why they must support the idea is because the thought of an intelligent creator is simply unacceptable.
Why is this unacceptable? "
Your lie here is quite unacceptable. Turns out that more theists than atheists in the US are evolution proponents. That's right; although virtually all atheists are evolution proponents, there are so many Christians that the evolution-accepting percentage is greater than the number of atheists."
I am far to honest to be a creationist like you. Note that this says nothing about my religious beliefs; I can say that and be Christian, Jewish, atheist, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or other. If ever you wonder why non-creationists do not take you seriously and don't believe your claims, note how you have lied and lied again in this post and comment thread. You do your own personal credibility no favours here.