Posted tagged ‘Theory of Evolution’

Reasoning to the Best Explanation for Life

January 28, 2016

I recently read the book, Darwin’s Doubt, by Stephen C. Meyer, a Cambridge University Ph.D. in the Philosophy of Science. The book uses Darwin’s acknowledgment that the Cambrian Explosion was a significant problem to his evolutionary theory of the origin of life as a springboard to explore in detail that problem which Meyer aptly names “Darwin’s doubt”.

I have summarized the first ten chapters of the book on a different Blog, Perspective, starting with a summary of the first four chapters of the book. Read my blog if you want to read a summary description of the detail that Meyer explores without buying the book, though I strongly suggest buying the book if your are interested.

In this blog, I want to provide an overarching description of the basis for Intelligent Design, which is ultimately the theory that Meyer espouses. For Meyer, the key bases for Intelligent Design is 1) the argument from biological or genetic information and 2) the argument from physics or cosmology. Both arguments can be summed up in the statement that we live in a world so finely-tuned for life that it could not have happened by chance or unguided “natural law”.

Meyer focuses on the biological argument, observing that, to build the complex biological machines that exist, prior information is necessary, and any discussion of that complexity begs the question: where did that information necessary to build the protein parts out of which the complex structures are made come from in the first place?

What cause is capable of generating that information?

Meyer argues that we can use the same scientific method that Darwin used to infer that the cause had to be conscious mind or intelligence.
(more…)

Random Thoughts on Evolution

November 15, 2014

sad chimpanzee


I am fascinated by the Theory of Evolution, but it is more of a curiosity than anything else. How can so many scientific people be so religiously attached to one principle? I am no scientist. I will admit that; at the same time, I note that many rational people are downright dogmatic on this topic.

I have also not heard an evolutionary explanation of the origin of all things, including man, that makes sense to me.

I am not talking about evidence for evolution seen in the adaptation of species over relatively short periods of time. I think there is sufficient proof of evolution in that sense. I am talking about the big picture, the forest, not the trees. Evolution does not satisfactorily explain the big picture, not even close, and it seems to me that the forest gets lost in the trees. (more…)

Ham vs. Nye Debate: Take Two

February 10, 2014

Depositphotos Image ID: 13471701 Copyright: jamesgroup

I have had some time to think about the debate last week in a little more detail, and I have some additional observations. (Disclaimer: I am not a science guy.)

One place where I think Ham made a legitimate point is where Ham drew a distinction between observable science and historical science. He said that creationists do not disagree with evolutionists on the observable science; they come to different conclusions on the same evidencce. Nye kept stating that only science that is “reproducible” is real science, but how can scientists reproduce the Big Bang? How do we observe primordial goo turning into a life form (any life form)?

We don’t. Clearly Bill Nye overstated or misstated the scientific method when it comes to determining what happened in the past. We must necessarily engage different scientific tools than the tools of the laboratory. We need to employ a different tool kit. 

Nye’s point that creationists cannot test and reproduce the theory of creationism is not well-taken because evolutionists cannot test and reproduce the ultimate conclusions they reach either. In fact, both conclusions of the origins of man and origins of the earth require scientists to go beyond laboratory science because we can’t reproduce either a 6000 year old earth or a 4.3 Billion year old earth. We must use historical evidence at hand and reason to the best conclusion, and we have to understand that those conclusions will be impacted by our initial assumptions, which are often more philosophical than scientific.

To reach those conclusions requires something more than “pure science”. It requires logic, philosophy and even faith – because we don’t know what we don’t know.

To reach those ultimate conclusions requires us to start with a premise that is not based on “pure science”. That initial premise is often driven by worldview. Worldview has more of an impact on science than the scientific community cares to admit.

In this 30 minute piece called Evolution vs. God, fundamental holes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of the earth and man are exposed. The gaps come out of the mouths of evolutionary theorists themselves in response to questions asked of them. It is well worth the time to watch it.

This is not say that Ken Ham is right about the age of the earth, mind you.


Malcolm Guite

Blog for poet and singer-songwriter Malcolm Guite

Christ Centered Teaching

Our Lord and God is Christ, Our Message is His Gospel, and Our Context is God's Love.

God Still Speaks

To share the Word of God with all people

Reading Acts

Some Thoughts on the Book of Acts and Pauline Theology

CrapPile

A blog about writing, society, and life itself

Help Me Believe

Strengthen the believer. Answer the critic.

Hotrodhell's Blog

Just basic thoughts on faith and life.com weblog

Running The Race

Hebrews 12:1

Belong to The King

Christian, Faith, Jesus

QUANTUM AWARENESS

Are Buddhists, Neuroscientists, and Quantum Physicists saying the same thing in different languages? Let's finally bring the two together and have an enlightening discussion.

%d bloggers like this: