Evolution vs God


[QUOTE=ClassicalTeacher;625608]The sad situation of double-standards has bared its ugly head over the past few days here at RO. Unfortunately, this is just a small example of what has happened in our society at large. Isn’t it interesting that OSB’s dishonesty is being defended and given a pass by some here? Can you imagine the outrage and cries of foul play we would have heard had the same thing been done by some of the conservatives or republicans here on this site? DNA, RNA mRNA, and every other subtopic regarding genetics are extremely complex and have taken decades to understand just the basics. Every day geneticists and other scientists are discovering even more complex attributes of DNA. I understand the basics and even a little about some of the more complex synergies of DNA. But, it is dwarfed in comparison to what geneticists in the field know and understand. I always check what I think I know by other resources because the field changes so quickly in its breadth of knowledge and discovery.

Putting the legal issues aside for a moment of what OSB did, let’s focus on the animus of his attempt to use other’s intellectual arguments on evolution as his own.

  1. He is a committed evolutionist. (I am a committed creationist.)
  2. His knowledge of science, and particularly in DNA and Dr. Meyer’s focus is very limited. That’s not to dispute the fact that one can garner knowledge on one’s own, but my guess is that by his own admission of getting his information from his daughter’s biochemistry textbook is an indicator of his limited knowledge on the subject matter. (My knowledge of science, DNA and understanding of Dr. Meyer’s points are far more advanced than OSB’s simply because I studied them in college and have my degree in education with a major in science.)
  3. He is a committed atheist. (I am a committed Christian.)
  4. He is a liberal. (I am a conservative.)
  5. His experience in the subject matter is limited to what he reads in his daughter’s textbook and what he finds on the internet. (My experience comes from extensive study in the field and teaching science for years. One learns when one teaches.)
  6. He is pro-abortion. (I am pro-life.)

It would be clear to even the most simple-minded person that OSB’s tactics were meant to provide credence to his belief in evolution and to claim those arguments as something that came from within him. He needed scientific and intellectual “muscle” to counter Wallstreeter and Dr. Meyer’s claims which clearly and scientifically disproved some of the generally accepted tenets of the evolution crowd causing a panic.

And I could continue the list, but my point here is that if the situation had been reversed and I or another conservative, Christian, pro-lifer had done the same thing without citing the sources, and had been found out, we would have been tarred and feathered. And you all know that is the truth.

Which leads me to an even greater problematic reality. There is a double-standard which is becoming more and more predominant in our society especially over the past 15 years. The fact that this claim is discounted by the liberal left is significant. It is just one more way to lie and indoctrinate but deny you’re lying or indoctrinating.

Those who believe in God are accused of being religious fanatics.
Those who believe that God created the universe are accused of belonging to the “flat earth society”.
Those who believe in moral absolutes are accused of trying to force their religion down the throats of all mankind.
Those who believe that life is precious no matter what the stage are accused of perpetrating a “war on women”.
Those who believe that homosexuality is deviant, abnormal behavior are accused of hate–of being a “homophobe”.
Those who believe in the traditional definition of marriage/matrimony and that it has always been defined as between one man and one woman are accused of hatred and denying others their civil rights.
Those who believe in the rights given citizens as afforded in the Constitution (especially the 2nd Amendment) are accused of supporting violence and murder against school children.
Those who believe that the violence and murder are found in greater numbers in certain populations are accused of racism.
Those who believe that men need to accept responsibility for their actions are accused of being insensitive and too demanding on others.
Those who believe that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles are accused of promoting religious uniformity and wanting to turn our country into a religious state.
Those who believe that less government is the key to a prospering society are accused of hating the poor.
And I could go on and on. But, what’s the point?

There are a number of issues that have raised their ugly heads because of this OSB situation. In joining a discussion group on the internet that specifically lends itself to political issues one must have at least a modicum of honesty and integrity in order to truthfully discuss issues with others who may or may not agree with one’s position. I believe there is a general expectation of honesty amongst those who participate in the forum regardless of one’s position on certain issues. Maybe I’m completely off the mark here, but that is what I thought was necessary to have intelligent and thoughtful dialogue with others. When, in the course of exchanges between members on various topics, one member begins to deceive, all subsequent debating then becomes tainted and sterile. RO is not a scholarly, peer-reviewed site, but it is one where honesty is expected. This is where OSB’s dishonest deception created a schism. Any other exchanges between him and other members, at least in my mind, will always be suspect. There will always be a question of honesty and truthfulness in my mind regarding his future comments. Sorry. That’s just me. Others who argue that he did nothing wrong either don’t understand common truthfulness and honesty, or who are, themselves, dishonest and untruthful.[/QUOTE]


Eh, by “Creationist” do you mean the broadest strokes of it?

John Paul II said “[I]Evolution is compatible with the Christian Faith[/I]”, and the Catholic Church I believe has stated that the Human body could have arisen through evolution, just not the Soul.


I’m confused by these dates; I’m pretty certain that I didn’t come to this forum until 2014.


I assume “OSB” was a former member here on RO. It sounds like I missed some good fights six years ago.

If there’s still interest in the topic, I found Dr. Michael Behe’s latest book to be very helpful: Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution. He explains that yes, there is evolution, but it only results from the degradation of DNA and loss of function, which can sometimes be beneficial. But only species and genus evolve, never family, order or class.

Life was clearly designed. Behe removed a lot of the confusion.


That’s too much of a generalization; genes jumping species is neither of those things. Evolution can also occur from old genes turning back on.

And Behe says common descent exists (all life is related). He says this is supported by both the DNA and the fossil evidence.

That broader evolution happens, but is directed by God, is the very thing I said your position must be.

Curious you then name a writer who does just that.


Old Style Blues. I had to think about it to remember the name that went with those initials. As to fights, we still have Alaska Slim…


This though this isn’t much of a fight.

Ken says he has criticism of Darwinism, which I accept. But he can’t use that to say observations are false.

To claim that, means you’re saying millions of scientists are lying about their tests.

Which isn’t rational.

And no scientist involved in biology denies common descent is real, not even the ones Ken cites.


Not so. Behe talks about that in his latest book too. How can so many people be deceived or be lying? Because they all believe there’s evidence in someone else’s field of study. They don’t stop to look at the whole thing to see it’s all a house of cards.

Though I’m pretty some (presumably determined atheists) really know it can’t work and yet they still push it.

I’ve seen a video of Dawkins talking about the evolution of they eye. He never once broached the origin of rhodopsin or the other opsin proteins. Or how it came to be that nervous system evolved to transfer the image data from the retina to the brain in a way the brain could understand it. He only talked about the shape of the eye. He knows. He must. But he still pushes it.

Why does Dawkins lie? Because the truth inescapably leads to the existence of our creator. And that might imply we are accountable to him.


I think this is true. But I don’t understand how he can say it. He’s essentially proven that evolution as it’s understood does NOT explain family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, or domain. So how can common descent possibly be true??

He must mean something else by it.


Behe doesn’t deny common descent…

Second, there are first parties. The people who make predictions about where to find fossils ( and find them)

The people who do DNA tracing, and find connections.

The people who gene test for virus DNA, and find genes have jumped species.

You’d have to say all of those people are lying.

And we have that study I gave you documenting steps for the creation of an eye. Including the nerves. Here’s another.

Additionally, you’re presuming one-off purposes for every adaption, yet the way nature works is step-wise.
In a process called exaptation, or “co-opting”.

And this is, once again, an observed phenomenon. Something organisms have done with us there to see it. Corralling adaptions meant for something else, and putting them to a new use. To deal with something they’ve never encountered before.


Yeah, yeah. And certainly collagen has experienced lots of exaptation (that word isn’t in my dictionary), but what on earth is rhodopsin good for? Or hemoglobin?

There are 20,000 to 22,000 unique proteins that the human body is built up from. You can’t come up with exaptations for most of those. But even if you could, each one is like one in ten to several hundred possibilities. Literally. They would take trillions of years per protein to evolve in the first place.

How did they come to be before they were exaptated? Clearly they were designed.


It has. Starting with the triple helix and collagen IV.

Both of those things have more than one function. Hemoglobin has at least 6 by my count;
Carries oxygen from the lungs, carrying of CO2 back to the lungs, carrier for nitric oxide, (in tissue) an antioxidant, a regulator of iron metabolism, and as leghemoglobin, a preserver of oxygen from anaerobic systems.

Choose one function, see it act as a bootstrapper for the rest. Or go to a hemoglobin precursor, and see how it could turn into hemoglobin.

Which just means there’s millions of ways life could have evolved. We, and all other life on Earth, are just a handful of possible pathways.

The only fast & loose rule I’d throw on, is the the Copernican principle. The elements that life is chiefly made out of: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen, are also the ones most cosmically in abundance.


That sir, is the bottom line in evolution vs. creation and even other avenues. Take, for example, the almost hysterical march to find life on other planets. Why? Because if there were life on other planets, to those scientists, would mean that Earth is not special therefore a Divine Entity is eliminated. That simple. And that is why so many scientists are intent to prove evolution. In addition, Darwin, Marx, and Freud all came on the scene about the same time. Darwin proclaimed micro-evolution as proof there is no God, Marx supported this claim through his writings (The Communist Manifesto, das Kapital, and other writings). Interestingly, Karl Marx was way ahead of his Nazi compatriots when he wrote “On the Jewish Question”. And then there’s Freud who convinced the bootlickers that the only thing wrong with them was that they were sexually oppressed because of the suppression of the Church. Now that’s the recipe for Godlessness if there ever was one!


DNA tracing is real. it’s what we use to establish DNA evidence in a courtroom, and relations between people.

It can also tell us which animals are related, how far back that relation goes, and even how & where to find fossils.

There’s no other way for explaining why that all works; common descent is real.

Uh, no, don’t buy it; most people are just curious for its own sake. It’s a natural human trait.

All it would take is being a really big Star Trek or ____ sci-fi fan, to think finding life on other planets would be neat.

Freud was only 3 years old when Darwin’s Origin of Species came out.

The Communist Manifesto was publish 8 years before Freud was born.

And Darwin was a devoted theist, just FYI. He most certainly never denied God’s existence, he said this outright.


Circumstantial evidence. And they start with the outright denial that the same designer designed all the animals. Also, they lie–Chimp DNA is supposedly very close to human DNA, they quote some high percentage. But they don’t mention that they ignored any DNA they didn’t understand, calling it “junk DNA.”

If you compare the whole genome to the whole genome, the difference is large.

No other way? Because it is just declared to be so. Do they even consider the fact that the same designer designed each organism?

Well that’s true. But I agree with CT that NASA has a special emphasis on finding ET so they can relieve themselves of the burden of believing in God.

But there’s no escaping the fact that Adolf Hitler and his murderous band of Nazis relied heavily on Darwin for their doctrines.


I didn’t know it has so many functions, but clearly those are the design functions of hemoglobin. It didn’t just randomly start doing those other functions.

You’re still pretending that a protein could come about in less than a trillion trillion years by random errors. They can’t. Impossible. IIRC, hemoglobin has 640 amino acids. There are 10^832 permutations of a chain of amino acids that long. That number is unthinkably large! Not in a quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion years of one generation per second could you find the right one.


You’re not understanding the point.

DNA tracing isn’t done simply through functionality; it’s done by tracing mistakes. Mutations. Centromeres that show the marks of having once been telomeres. Or even outright Dead genes, appearing in the same place in the genome, across multiple species, genus, and further up.

Can’t think of a reason for a creator to do that, but I can think of why an unthinking, unfeeling, mechanical process, building genomes step-wise would.

It’s because it can only build on what it has; it can’t start from scratch. So the mistakes get passed on.

Apollo 8; the Christmas Genesis reading. Rather odd thing for a disproving-God organization to do.

I also once worked on campus for Lockheed Martin, who builds much of NASA’s equipment; they had a Bible Study group. Which they introduced at orientation, in both the slides shows, and in fliers as an “employee engagement group”.

He also co-opted the writings of Martin Luther. Luther had a lot more to say about Jews than Darwin. Are they both damned?


Brilliantly put, Ken! Ever notice how those HUGE numbers that are bandied about seem to get larger and larger? First, it took millions of years for evolution to occur, then it was tens of millions, hundreds of millions, and now BILLIONS of years. Have you ever read Behe’s take on the mechanics of a mousetrap? I think it’s one of the most brilliant explanations of how Darwinist evolution just doesn’t work.


CT, you need to put that in context. Our understanding of geology evolved right alongside biology; we didn’t know how old the Earth was until the early 20th century (after Darwin, in otherwords).

We also had to wait a little longer for the Soviets to dig their famous very deep hole, that told us just how far down you can find fossils, and thus, the first major clue to just how old life was.


It really doesn’t follow. Life (at least intelligent life) might cast some doubt on biblical Christianity because of the claim that we’re alone in the universe (I forget the exact phraseology or reference), but the very existence of the universe looms over them. I haven’t heard (nor can imagine) a sound explanation for the origin of the universe that doesn’t include a supernatural event.