Field of Science

Another creationist dentist expert on evolution


Another dentist comes out as an expert on evolutionary theory. Dr. Jobe Martin has produced a set of DVDs, pushed by the AFA, with what sounds like a huge collection of what he understands as gaps in our understanding: Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution. He then takes these gaps and marches on to present them as evidence that evolution does not work, and that his particular notion of a creator made it all.

I have not seen the videos, so I cannot rule out that he is talking about some animals that I have never heard of, and that those animals indeed could not be even imagined to have evolved. However, the chance of that seems small, just because, as an evolutionary biologist, it is unlikely that I have not heard of any of these incredible creatures. Also, while the cover could be meant to mislead people like me, it features giraffes, hummingbirds, penguins, elephants, horses, and a seahorse. Not animals that make evolutionary biologists shiver with despair over their origins. Not that all details are known, but so far (perhaps up until Dr. Martin) no knuckle-biting mysteries.

So who is Dr. Jobe Martin? How did he come about such expertise, as we would require of someone who see himself fit to educate us all? It sounds sort of like a Christian version of Adnan Oktar (aka Harun Yahya), except Oktar sent his magnificent Atlas of Creation to hundreds of people for free, and we have to pay good money for Martin's DVDs.
Jobe Martin, a native of Bloomsburg, PA, was a biology major at Bucknell University and a 1966 graduate of the University of Pittsburgh Dental School. After spending two years in the Air Force, he established a private dental practice at NASA in Houston. Jobe and his wife, Jenna Dee, moved to Dallas in 1971 when he assumed a teaching post at the Baylor College of Dentistry. In 1982, he made the decision to enroll at Dallas Theological Seminary. He graduated in 1986 with a Masters of Theology in Systematic Theology. Dr. Martin also has an Associates Degree in Business from Eastfield Community College in Dallas.
In other words, Dr. Jobe Martin was conspicuously unqualified to evaluate the evidence for evolution. He hasn't studied evolution, perhaps apart from a class or two in his days as a pre med.

But, he could very well have spent the last twenty years as a serious student of evolution. So did he?
Dr. Jobe Martin has spent the last twenty years studying the topic of Biblical Creation vs. Evolution, and lectures frequently on the subject. He began his scientific career as a dentist, and a believer in Darwinian evolution, as he had been taught in numerous courses in high school, undergraduate school, and dental school. Some of his Christian students at the Baylor College of Dentistry challenged him to prove to them that evolution was a correct, complete and accurate explanation for the origin of the earth and all of its abundance of unique life forms.
Hmmm... Numerous courses in high school and dental school? I know how little evolution is taught nowadays in high school, and how little students care. Could be that high schools were totally focused on evolution in the 1950's. It could be that he loved evolution as a pre med and took lots of courses on evolution, and related subjects. Could it also be that he took numerous evolution classes in dental school? Sounds doubtful. I'd pay good money too see his transcripts.

But studying biblical creation vs. evolution does emphatically not qualify you as an expert, I am sorry to say. It does not mean that he submerged in evolutionary theory, learning all he could, and then years afterward did his best to honestly assess the evidence pro and con. Rather, as a committed creationist, it sounds like he set out from the beginning looking to misrepresent evidence as though it does not support evolution. He certainly wouldn't be the first. If (and that's a gargantuan if) he can show us an animal that indicates something with evolutionary theory is wrong, then he would be the first.
As Dr. Martin studied the topic in order to educate these students in evolution, he began to see that most of the world is heavily indoctrinated from their earliest education to believe in an earth that was created billions of years ago in the Big Bang, and life which evolved from non-life. Yet in reality there is very little scientific evidence to back up this version of origins. Over the course of the next decade, Dr. Martin became an expert on the subject, and has uncovered countless pieces of evidence that the Big Bang, evolution of life from non-life, and an earth billions of years old are simply not factually provable, and are in fact, somewhat incredible.
The claim that he became an expert is what is incredible. As in unbelievable. An expert in cosmology, geology, geophysics, biochemistry, chemistry? I don't include biology in this list, because no biologist would ever say "evolution of life from non-life." And all this in one decade?

If you, like I, would like to see the movies but refuse to pay for them, we can at least get a glimpse into what will be presented from these questions listed in afa.org. I list them here with links to scientific explanations:
  • Are there really creatures that produce fire to defend themselves?
  • How does a giraffe get a drink without causing lethal blood pressure to his brain?
  • How can Geckos walk upside down, even on glass and not fall?
  • How can birds navigate over thousands of miles of ocean and never get lost?
  • How do fireflies and glowworms create light that generates no heat?
  • How do great whales dive to the bottom of the ocean without the pressure causing them to implode?
  • What creature was the inspiration for the helicopter?
  • How can some creatures be cut in half and still regenerate themselves? Some can even grow a new head!
  • What kind of bird can kill a lion with a single kick?
  • How can some dogs know that a storm is coming before it appears, or can sense when their masters are about to experience a seizure?
  • Which creature perlexes scientists because of its amazing ability to heal itself, even when it sustains horrendous injuries?
  • How do Emperor Penguins go two and a half months without eating or drinking?
Basically, these are intriguing questions, some of which have been answered. I don't know if they all have, but there certainly aren't any reason to think that any of these questions should be a problem for evolution.

54 comments:

  1. I've gotten a copy of one of these DVDs from the local public library (which annoys me unspeakably, but it's probably something that some wing-nut donated). Haven't watched it yet, but I'll report back when I have.

    ReplyDelete
  2. William, do let me know when you've watched them. I'm incredibly curious...

    ReplyDelete
  3. So none of you has watched it since April???

    your silence is curios and sinister.

    Did his findings puncture a hole in your faulty laughable evolution theory???

    ReplyDelete
  4. Actually we are probably silent because there is absolutely no point in arguing with you. The dvds, and i've watched all 3 of them, state that ALL life was created and that ALL animals actually defy explanation. However science looks for natural explanations to natural phenomena. It has done a remarkable job in explaining, through natural means,the world around us. Life is just an emergent property of all the cells we consist of.

    It is difficult to see this when you want life to be much more than it is. I understand why people want there to be more to life that an 'emergent property' because this 'doesn't make sense'. Answers to these questions from a supernatural point of view fulfill your need...but not mine. Go in peace.
    Ferdy

    ReplyDelete
  5. life.orchestra, I didn't see your comment.

    So none of you has watched it since April???

    your silence is curios and sinister.

    Did his findings puncture a hole in your faulty laughable evolution theory???


    I have not seen the DVDs.

    My silence is only because of this. I guarantee you that I would write a post about them, if I got copies of the DVDs.

    So, no, no holes in the theory of evolution yet. Still looking...

    ReplyDelete
  6. So, from what I can see, it seems that you are judging this man, whom I have met, without any cause? For all of you to accuratly be able to debate about this intelligent man, here is a way to contact him: ministry@biblicaldiscipleship.org

    I would suggest that each and every one of you try to learn about this man with an open mind.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not without any cause. I am judging this man based on what I know about him. Do you think it's unfair or wrong to state an opinion about someone that you haven't talked to personally? His writings means nothing, then?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi don't bother I have seen the first one (am a science teacher and a student questioned evolution and asked me to look at them). In a few words pure arguments from Incredulity. I don't understand how this evolved therefore it must be God.

    He has a number of howlers like Giraffes don't have voice boxes. Australian Bush turkey eggs are as big a ostrage eggs Bush turkey egg 190cm cubed, ostrage egg 1400cm cubed (a little out) and so on.

    In short rubbish.

    ReplyDelete
  9. arguments from Incredulity.

    Seen before a hundred times, then. Sad thing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sitting in a live presentation by the esteemed gentleman, titled "Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution". I shall do some live blogging, at least until my battery runs out.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 1. Puerto Rican White-lipped frog: communicates via three different sounds. Chirping, seismic waves created by a thump on the ground, and chuckles. Each chirp travels slowly compared to the seismic wave, which alerts the other male frogs to the location & distance from the sound-emitting frog. They respond with chirps, which alert the sound e-mitting male of their own locations (territories). His question: "How could such complexity possibly evolve?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is where any study of evolution might have helped him, because he only need realize that given the instance that a fin might aid a fish that swims in the water, there is no unnatural limit that evolution might select for only one fin. The more complex a call, or signal, the more information it may impart, and the more useful to the organism. This is seen most organisms with a social interaction. His premise is akin to asking, "If humans have pheromones to tell their tribe how they feel, what use would there be in developing speech?"

      Delete
  12. 2. Brazil nut-eating Agouti; a rodent (?) that eats brazil nuts by eating through a cement-like casing (or pod) that contains the brazil nuts. Each Agouti has a signature hole that it chews. The Agouti eats some, buries some. I think the point is that the brazil nut can't escape the cement-like pod without the mammalian assistance.

    After the brazil nut tree grows from the buried pod, the only insect that can pollinate the brazil nut tree is the "brazil nut long-tongued bee". Why? the pollen is sealed in with a lid, and the flowers are too deep for any other insect to pollinate it.

    Additionally, the bees can only reproduce if they have a special scent from a particular orchid.

    Bottom line is that this is an "irreducibly complex organism" -- any one of the 4 items is highly developed, and yet can't exist without the others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In fact, there has never been an example of an "irreducibly complex" system or organism. Every creature that evolves, does so in an environment shared with other organisms. This too, is an argument from ignorance, because given that it involves a food source shared by these organisms, there is a tremendous selection pressure to co-evolve. Your one example, merely demonstrates a single instance, of what may be the most common and compelling element of the science of evolution: that organisms that reproduce, respond to selection pressures in their environment. Likewise, there is nothing in that ubiquitous principle that suggests anything other than the likelihood that species can evolve together, in ways that are dependent on other organisms. All it does require is that the selection continues to bring an advantage in survival and reproduction.

      Delete
  13. Description of a particular orchid which depends on the visit of a male wasp. The orchid produces a pheromone mimicking the female wasp's own pheromone. The orchid has a special "spring-loaded" flower that knocks the unsuspecting male wasp into its pollen glands and forces the male to carry its pollen.

    Unfortunately for the male, the female wasps don't mature for 2 weeks.

    So basically, the male wasp exhausts energy flying around being deceived by flowers for 2 weeks. The female emerges, and finally, copulation can take place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All of which means, that this is a tremendous advantage for the orchid. It need not be an advantage for the wasp. Every form of parasitism, predation, and even the life cycles of diseases, have these trade offs of taking advantage of one organism by another. The interesting point here should have been, in how often this pressure influences the prey organism, very often to the point of being an actual benefit to that population.

      I would invite anyone who has questions such as these, to seek out contact, if not with an actual biologist, then perhaps someone who has had some actual study with one. Schools are open, day and night, with access to people with this understanding. I would even venture that many college professors, by no means all - but many, will find a minute or two to field an email requesting directions to a resource that passes an academic and scholarly muster.

      Delete
  14. Techieguy, I have posted your comments as a post here.

    Feel free to supply more information...

    ReplyDelete
  15. This is a bit of an old post for you, but I just wanted to give you a heads-up. Should you have Netflix, this video is available for instant viewing on there.

    I won't spoil the surprise, but there's a plethora of inaccurate things on there, even from a biological standpoint. I can't really imagine how anyone can take this man seriously with some of the things he says.

    I'm thinking Bill O'Reilly may have some competition on the internet for a new "You can't explain that" meme.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I watched the first video 'Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution' on Netflix. I believe in evolution, but am interested in hearing both sides of the argument as to be able to make an informed opinion.
    After watching the video, and researching Jobe Martin, and the AFA, It can not be argued that Jobe and the AFA are not only biased, but ultimately INCREDIBLE sources. I am actually upset that I wasted time listening to this asshole talk about his opinions. Bottom line, all he has is opinions.
    There is NO scientific evidence to support the theory that God created us all as is. There IS however, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that shows human evolution. What do you have to say about that Jobe?

    Jobe is nothing but a clown. Please don't waste your money to listen to this old fool talk about God...

    -Megan

    ReplyDelete
  17. There are no natural processes that can cause the generation of new information into a system. "Simple" things cannot become complex. Mutations, etc result in the LOSS of information.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually mutations result in a CHANGE of genetic material. One of the most common forms of genetic mutation is single nucleotide polymorphism. Nucleotides are the basis for DNA, and they code proteins which, in true, produce all the other things that your body needs to survive (enzyme, organelles, ect.) So when an SNP occurs it changes one nucleotide in the gene sequence, for example ACT changes to CCT. ACT would produce the Amino acid threonine, while CCT would produce proline, and since threonine and proline have completely different charges and chemical makeups, this would change the way the protein domain folds, changing the function of the protein.

      So in other words, yes simple things can be complex, and no you should not talk about things you don't understand. Go read a book

      Dr. Taylor PharmD

      Delete
  18. There are natural processes that can cause the generation of new information into a system. "Simple" things can become more complex. Mutations can result in the GAIN of information.

    So, anonymous, will we have an argument where you say "no" and I say "yes" until we're blue in the face?

    Empirically: Mutations have been shown to increase information in genomes in many organisms. Bacteria is a good example. Take a look at Lenski's LTEE research. Simulations also show this routinely. Complexity (which you have not defined - and probably can't) also increases via evolution by mutation and selection (and drift).

    Theoretically: Think of it this way. Suppose a specific mutation causes loss of information. You must agree that this is possible. Then, after that mutation, the "opposite" mutation that restores the original genotype then results in a gain of information, right? Well, then, unless all genomes are perfect (optimized for information about the environment), then they can gain information by some mutation. And since genomes are known to not be perfect (they are full of more or less harmful mutations), then it is in principle possible that they could become better suited to the environment (i.e., gain information) by mutation. Follow?

    ReplyDelete
  19. How can an iris, that can't smell or see, evolve to look and smell like a wasp? The skeptics of God remind me of the biblical verse that reads "they worship the created insread of the creator". God also says He has left evidence of Himself through all creation. Just for a time, I challenge you to put down science books, study not read God's word with an open mind and see if you still cannot see God. By the way, where did all the atoms, energy and all the other elements needed for creation come from. You cannot expect a Big Bang to come from nothingness.

    ReplyDelete
  20. How can an iris, that can't smell or see, evolve to look and smell like a wasp?

    Hmmm... Not sure what to respond to this. It sounds like you don't know the first thing about how evolution actually works. It does not, for example, proceed by an iris being able to see what a wasp looks like.

    study not read God's word

    That sounds tempting. Of course, you realize that there is no other way to study God's word than to read the Bible. You may think that just looking at nature is that, but it really isn't. That's just you claiming on faith that it is. What can be proven without evidence (faith) can be dismissed without evidence.

    You cannot expect a Big Bang to come from nothingness.

    I'm an evolutionary biologist, not a physicist. But, I do believe that current theory is that energy and matter did indeed come from nothing. You are dismissing that notion because what? Common sense tells you it cannot be? Know much about quantum mechanics? Common sense is not the best guide to reality, you might find.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am asking in my ignorance here, but according to evolution, how DOES the iris come to mimic the look and smell of the wasp? Is there an answer?

      Delete
    2. I don't know this case myself, but the answer involves mutation and natural selection. I'm afraid that I can't say much more than that here, but obviously natural selection is part of the answer.

      Delete
  21. Short vid by Cosmologist Lawrence Krauss on how something comes from nothing...it's only 4 min. so take a little time to watch not read his word(s).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIDmzLfk0K0&feature=related

    ReplyDelete
  22. It must be difficult for all of you guys who have spent your lives studying a so called science that is not science. I guess you can uniquely know how the Doctors of flat earth geography must have felt. Until you can explain how inteligence evolves from nothing you have a problem. Your hero Darwin even stated this as a weakness to his theory. I would think that by now your brilliantly evolved minds would have come up with the answer to that challenge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon: Your comment is pretty prophetic, actually. Intelligence is a tremendous advantage to any organism, weather it be the simply reaction to light in phototrophism, or that sort of reaction developed to a level where the organism can predict and avoid dangers, and even contriving strategies and technologies to mitigate them. It really is, one of the more obvious and simplistic examples of a trait through which natural selection might act.

      I think it's ironic that you choose this example to showcase your lack of understanding.

      Oh, and for the record, in the last one hundred and fifty years, not a single scientific paper has ever presented proof counter to evolution, nor has any paper even cast a doubt on the basic understand of the evolution through natural selection process, that Darwin presented in ‘The Origin of Species.’ Not one.

      Delete
    2. One could argue that there is a reason for that. Watch Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

      Delete
  23. 1) Why would explaining the evolution of intelligence be the only redeeming quality of the theory of evolution?

    2) You can start here: Wikipedia.

    3) The real difficult we face are people like you who do not understand what science is, and who oppose evolution because of religious dogma.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Why didn't anyone ever respond to techieguy's posts? Can anyone explain the information he posted and how the theory of the evolutionary process worked to allow these things to be as they are today?

    I consider myself a conservative Bible-believing Christian. I like science. i have no problem with real, true science. But what I find when I approach the "THEORY of evolution" is not true science. It doesn't even fit into the scientific method - if you're not familiar with the scientific method, just do a quick Wikipedia search or dictionary.com search...

    True, fact finding science, can be proven with the scientific method. True science, when using the scientific method, works in this order:

    1 Define a question
    2 Gather information and resources (observe)
    3 Form an explanatory hypothesis
    4 Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
    5 Analyze the data
    6 Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
    7 Publish results
    8 Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

    Thus, the repeated observance of a particular phenomena can be proven, reproduced, tested, etc, etc...

    However, for some reason, when people who claim "Evolutionary Theory" is true science, you take the scientific method and completely reorder it, distort it, change it, and ignore it. Thus far, I have yet to find how any theory of evolution can be proven by the scientific method.

    "Oh well, you can't just reproduce millions of years, etc.." some evolutionists would say. So why can't evolutionists agree with how old the earth is? If evolution was a proven FACT, we would be able to test it, observe it, and verify the findings thereof, but alas, this has yet to be done. Then, miraculously, when something goes contrary to evolutionary theory, rather than changing or adjusting your bias belief, you simply reorder your "data" or make "scientific adjustments" or simply add another few million years... Yeah, buddy... that's REAL science. Real science I agree with when it is proven fact. True facts don't have "what if's" in them. True facts don't change because other facts pertaining to them invalidate them or compromise them or conflict with them. Your theory of evolution does have holes in it. A lot of them. Find me 100 evolutionary scientists who agree 100% on all aspects of the theory of evolution - you can't - why? Because the theory of evolution is not real science because it does not adhere to or follow the scientific method. Please explain this:

    Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science.

    Your theory of evolution hinges on macro-evolution - and it has NEVER been observed in ANY REAL scientific way.

    Be fair to yourself and to everyone else - don't claim macro-evolution (your belief that man evolved from an ape, from an organism, from goo floating in water on a rock floating through space) as true science when it is nothing more than a theory.

    Now - let us be fair - you approach belief in a Creator with a bias belief and then claim evolution is true science, when it is nothing more than a "THEORY". Now, you can just as easily say that my belief system is a theory too because you cannot scientifically prove God. We could talk for awhile on that subject and how science doesn't apply to everything nor prove everything... Can you honestly say that you do not approach evolution with a religious dogma of your own? Think about it - the Theory of Evolution is YOUR religion because it allows you to believe whatever you want! So you have a bias opinion as well... only, I don't try to prove everything with science, and as far as I am concerned, no one has ever proven evolution as true science using the scientific method.

    In the love of Christ,
    Ryan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why didn't anyone ever respond to techieguy's posts? Can anyone explain the information he posted and how the theory of the evolutionary process worked to allow these things to be as they are today?

      Ryan, you must have misunderstood Techieguy. Those weren't his comments, but those of another creationist. The point is that this creationist - just like Dr. Martin - raises points about traits that he doesn't see how could have evolved, making that an argument that they couldn't have evolved. My main point in the original post was to say that this is logically false, aka 'appeal to ignorance'.

      However, for some reason, when people who claim "Evolutionary Theory" is true science, you take the scientific method and completely reorder it, distort it, change it, and ignore it. Thus far, I have yet to find how any theory of evolution can be proven by the scientific method.

      Real science I agree with when it is proven fact. True facts don't have "what if's" in them. True facts don't change because other facts pertaining to them invalidate them or compromise them or conflict with them.

      Well, you get the terms 'theory'. 'fact' and 'proof' thoroughly messed up. There is no proof of any theory. Theory is not opposite fact. The theory of evolution is a working model of how evolution occurs. That evolution occurs is a (scientific) fact.

      If evolution was a proven FACT, we would be able to test it, observe it, and verify the findings thereof, but alas, this has yet to be done.

      No, this has been done. Just because you don't know it doesn't make it not so. We are able to test it, observe it, and verify it. Go here or here for some examples of speciation. My own favorite examples of macroevolution (btw, a term that evolutionary biologists seldomly use, because most of us have realized that microevolution scales continuously to macroevolution) is Podarcis sicula. This lizard underwent some major changes observed by biologists. Go here to read more about that, and here for the paper reference.

      Your theory of evolution does have holes in it. A lot of them.

      All theories do, Ryan. That doesn't falsify the theory - it just means that it is work in progress.

      Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science.

Your theory of evolution hinges on macro-evolution - and it has NEVER been observed in ANY REAL scientific way.

      See links to examples above.

      Can you honestly say that you do not approach evolution with a religious dogma of your own? Think about it - the Theory of Evolution is YOUR religion because it allows you to believe whatever you want!

      Yes, I honestly can say that I do not approach evolution (or anything, for that matter) with religious dogma. I don't believe whatever I want - I believe what the evidence tells me, and that it the big difference between scientific thinking and religious dogmatic thinking.

      P.S. Not that I have the faintest hope of trying to convince you of anything.

      Delete
    2. Your theory of evolution does have holes in it. A lot of them.

      All theories do, Ryan. That doesn't falsify the theory - it just means that it is work in progress.


      wasn't that you that said no holes still looking?

      Delete
  25. Bjorn,

    (PART 1)
    The difficulties I have with the links you've provided me for your "proof" of speciation is that these “scientific facts” do not show a lizard evolving into anything other than a lizard. I have read a lot of articles about how evolutionists consider macro and micro evolution basically the same thing. So, contrary to your belief that I am just regurgitating creationist material without studying the so-called evidence for myself, I have looked over these "scientific findings" given by evolutionists and have not found one single instance where a complete transition from one family of higher animals to another—say, of some dinosaur to a bird, or cow to whale, or some specific reptile to some specific mammal, etc, exists.

    For example, your link to the articles about the lizard... Did the lizard ever become anything OTHER than a lizard? In the same vein, is there any scientific proof that a plant has ever been observed to have changed into something other than a plant? The answer is a resounding "no."

    So, for you, or any, evolutionist to defeat creationism, you must show firm proof of a complete transitional series. I do not mean, of course, one or two very questionable specimens, but a real step-by-step series that clearly documents the respective transitions from one kind to a higher kind on the evolutionary tree.
    Since macro evolution is claimed to be an absolute fact of science, then surely there must be hundreds of such series somewhere. Even one really good series would probably suffice.

    Am I being sarcastic? Perhaps a bit. Why? Because you can speak until you are blue in the face about how macro evolution has been proven, but the reality of your situation is, my dear friend, is that macro evolution has not been proven. At all. By anyone.

    In Christ Jesus,
    Ryan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. have not found one single instance where a complete transition from one family of higher animals to another

      That would not be speciation. You're shifting the goalposts to something much more - something that we cannot expect to see on the short timescales that you are requiring. They are different species of lizard, and they are clearly very different both genetically, morphologically, and functionally. That is macroevolution. And then you say "changing into something other than a plant." I mean, seriously?

      So, for you, or any, evolutionist to defeat creationism, you must show firm proof of a complete transitional series.

      Maybe for you to believe it, but most other people understand that this would be impossible, not because evolution is wrong, but because this takes waaaay to long compared to our lifetimes. And there is soooo much other evidence for evolution that you'd have to be in denial not to see it - which is what you are, of course.

      Delete
  26. (PART 2)
    Now, more importantly, I would like to address the last little portion of your response. Believe it about yourself or not, your belief in evolution IS your religion. Why? Because for you, it determines what you believe, how you act, how you view the world and yourself in this world. You cannot say that this is untrue. Because of your "faith" in the "facts" as you see them concerning evolutionary theory, this has influence on how you view wrong and right, good and evil. It determines whether or not you are ultimately responsible to yourself or to someone else (God, for example) for your actions.

    The following quotes are by evolutionists themselves.

    “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality…Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
    -Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," p. B-3.

    “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,…in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism…we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
    -Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan.

    Lewontin’s frank statement says that since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of “just so” stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

    “We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.”
    -Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), p. 169.

    An honest admission by a physicist that indicates the passionate commitment of evolutionary scientists to naturalism… speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

    “And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.”
    -Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," p. 54.

    Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

    “As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.”
    -Provine, Will, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, p. S123.

    ReplyDelete
  27. (PART 3)
    Evolution is a philosophical worldview, nothing more. Another prominent evolutionist comments:

    “(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything…A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.”
    -Appleyard, Bryan, "You Asked for It," p. 45.

    Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macro evolution) is not "minimal." It is as I have stated earlier: nonexistent!

    Perhaps the leading evolutionist of the 20th Century is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. He called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

    “Evolution…is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.”
    -Huxley, Julian, Essays of a Humanist, p. 125.

    Later in the book he argued that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern,” (ibid., p. 222). Then he went on to say that: "the God hypothesis…is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place," (ibid).

    These evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

    To be fair, I have not researched your website, and therefore do not know your particular belief system, ie: whether you are a Christian who believes in evolution, a humanist, an atheist, an agnostic, etc. So I am simply asking: what are you? If perhaps you are an atheist, I ask another question: why are you an atheist?

    In Christ Jesus,
    Ryan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I know Michael Ruse and Dick Lewontin and their views on these matters. I sincerely disagree both with Ruse's accomodationism and pandering to the religious, and with Lewontin's Marxist views that lead him to commit the moralistic fallacy. I don't know any of those other geezers (and don't care to ).

      Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory that could be overturned with evidence. That makes it not a religion. I know you don't understand that it can, but that is really neither here nor there to me. Evolution doesn't tell me what to believe. Naturalism (see definition below) leads me to conclude that evolution is true, not the other way around. (You are very arrogant when you tell me what I can and cannot say and believe.)

      I am an atheist (i.e., I do not believe in any of the gods I have heard about), and I am that because I see no evidence for gods, because there are lots of natural explanations for events that religious people claim to be evidence of their particular god(s), and because there is no good reason to choose one religion over any other, and they are all to some extent mutually exclusive. When I was ten I decided to get baptized (protestant, my parents chose not to have me baptized, as I should choose for myself), and I was confirmed when I was 14. However, at that time I realized I can never believe in any of these man-made fairytales. So I remain an atheist.

      Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macro evolution) is not "minimal." It is as I have stated earlier: nonexistent!

      Well, at this point all I can say is that your mind is clearly closed off to the possibility that evolution occurs, so I see no further point in discussing this with you. I have already presented evidence, but you're too dogmatic to assess it, so this is futile.

      Peace.

      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
      Naturalism commonly refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe.[1] Followers of naturalism (naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws.[2]

      Delete
    2. You are just as closed-minded, my friend, and dogmatic in your system of belief as well. I appreciate your replies, and thank you for your time. Good luck with everything. I sincerely mean that.

      In Christ,
      Ryan

      Delete
  28. heh, heh. "In Christ, Ryan". Tells you everything you need to know about why Ryan doesn't understand and will never accept that evolution occurs.
    What a strange thing religion is, that reality must be denied to preserve it. A wasted life really, intellectually at least.

    ReplyDelete
  29. You don't have to believe in a god to know that evolution is one of the dumbest theories out there. I can literally go on for hours on how it is dis-proven by facts we have known for years. But instead basing on what Dr. Jobe is simply stating how did all these animals evolve? What animal that we know for a fact existed evolved into a giraffe? Or really any animal for that matter? Where did all the half animals go? Where is there a timeline that shows what animals came first? Please consider all 8 millions of them. Do you any of you that believe in evolution take just a few minutes to consider how different each any is and where are all the lost links between each one vanished to? There hasn't been and will never be an answer for that. Please, please attempt to explain how this can be possible? You would be the first. This is just one of hundreds of facts that go against the evolution theory. If you would like to pass this question I would understand. I have a ton more that evolutionists won't give a time to day to consider because they completely go against scientific facts. I don't mean to come across as a know it all. Actually I'm one of the few that can admit that I don't know all of life's unanswered questions. The problem with creationist vs evolutionist is they both believe without a doubt that they're right. I know more about evolution (one of the main reasons i dont believe it) then most evolutionist I come across that I have to tell them what they believe. Is that not in its self show that people aren't thinking for themselves? That is all I won't both parties to do. The one thing creationist has is that they admit their beliefs are just that beliefs based on faith. Evolutions however won't go into the details that are addressed but still continue to believe it as fact. Arguing is pointless when you have people that believe their theory is fact vs people that have decided to have blind faith.

    ReplyDelete

  30. You don't have to believe in a god to know that evolution is one of the dumbest theories out there. I can literally go on for hours on how it is dis-proven by facts we have known for years. But instead basing on what Dr. Jobe is simply stating how did all these animals evolve? What animal that we know for a fact existed evolved into a giraffe? Or really any animal for that matter? Where did all the half animals go? Where is there a timeline that shows what animals came first? Please consider all 8 millions of them. Do you any of you that believe in evolution take just a few minutes to consider how different each any is and where are all the lost links between each one vanished to? There hasn't been and will never be an answer for that. Please, please attempt to explain how this can be possible? You would be the first. This is just one of hundreds of facts that go against the evolution theory. If you would like to pass this question I would understand. I have a ton more that evolutionists won't give a time to day to consider because they completely go against scientific facts. I don't mean to come across as a know it all. Actually I'm one of the few that can admit that I don't know all of life's unanswered questions. The problem with creationist vs evolutionist is they both believe without a doubt that they're right. I know more about evolution (one of the main reasons i dont believe it) then most evolutionist I come across that I have to tell them what they believe. Is that not in its self show that people aren't thinking for themselves? That is all I won't both parties to do. The one thing creationist has is that they admit their beliefs are just that beliefs based on faith. Evolutions however won't go into the details that are addressed but still continue to believe it as fact. Arguing is pointless when you have people that believe their theory is fact vs people that have decided to have blind faith.

    ReplyDelete
  31. But instead basing on what Dr. Jobe is simply stating how did all these animals evolve?

    No, he is also stating that they could not have evolved.

    Where is there a timeline that shows what animals came first?

    In college textbooks on evolution.

    where are all the lost links between each one vanished to?

    They evolved. Pretty basic stuff that you apparently don't know.

    I have a ton more that evolutionists won't give a time to day to consider because they completely go against scientific facts.

    That your questions are inane is more likely why evolutionary biologists won't give you the time of day. Read a textbook.

    I don't mean to come across as a know it all

    You don't. You come across as a know-nothing.

    Actually I'm one of the few that can admit that I don't know all of life's unanswered questions.

    You and every scientists in this world.

    *sigh*

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i wish there was a like button for all of your comments

      Delete
    2. Yeah, that would be neat. We could move the discussion to Carnival of Evolution's Facebook page...

      Delete
    3. "where are all the lost links between each one vanished to?
      They evolved. Pretty basic stuff that you apparently don't know"

      Correct me if I'm wrong, (I may have mistaken what you were saying here) but are you saying that we don't have evidence of "links" because those animals that would be the links evolved into other animals? Then why are there still apes? If apes evolved, and eventually bacame humans, and yet we still have apes, doesn't logic say that there should still be "links" also?

      Delete
    4. We do have evidence of "links", aka transitional fossils, and they are unlike apes and humans. The ancestors of all apes and humans can still be termed apes, though they are now gone. Does that make sense?

      Delete
  32. Hey, Bjorn - I'm back!

    Still wondering why you're not posting this link:

    "God Rendered Irrelevant"
    http://youtu.be/ch2xLGn-Dp4

    Scared or something?

    Maybe you could do the forum a favor and just let them know that you refuse to post any more links by me... especially this one, because it challenges you and your belief system. Apparently something troubles you about it... You posted it... then you deleted it... then you refused to post the next three times I tried to re-post it.

    Man up, Bjorn - let there be open dialogue and fairness in the debate at least! Haha! I can't believe you're so scared to post this!

    You're laughable... Oh, and so is your religion of evolution...

    In Christ
    Ryan

    ReplyDelete
  33. No, Ryan, I am not scared. I am bored. There's no way in hell I'm going to waste 51 minutes watching that video. I'm am extremely busy at work (which is why I blog so little these days), and am not very interested anymore in arguing with people like you. Also, you're so rude, and I am fed up with that.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I spent the time watching Mr. John Lennox's entire speech. He puts out many good ideas that invites us to ponder about our world and our place in it. However, his speech, "God rendered irrelevant" is irrelevant to our topic in this post.

    In his speech, Mr. Lennox argued that God and science is compatible and God is relevant to science. On the other hand, the topic of this post is the flaws in people's objection to evolution, not that God is incompatible with science. In this post, the Bjorn is trying to explain why evolution currently stands as the best scientific theory on how people and other organisms come to be. Indeed the theory of evolution has plenty of holes, but I wonder how many holes does creationism has. Creationists love to point out the holes in evolution but they don't bother explaining theirs. Where are the evidences that God created the organisms we see today the way they are?

    I also watched on Netflix the first 15 minutes of Dr. Martin's DVD episode one. Every animal examples he gave, whenever he came upon a characteristic or physiology that he could not explain how was derived from a more primitive form, he always fall back to the same answer: "God designed it this way". He effectively blocked out all other possible explanations without trying to come up more hypothesis, testing them, and then denying them. Instead, he jumped straight to the conclusion that God designed all organisms. I find this approach in studying a subject very questionable. If every time we stumble upon a difficult scientific, philosophical, or theological question and we fall back on the same vague and abstract answer, we will not, as a species, advance.

    I agree with Bjorn's comment that Dr. Martin is not an expert in evolution. To be considered an expert, in my opinion, a person needs to study a subject extensively and deeply. Asking questions that challenge the current understanding of the subject. Just like a paleontologist studying prehistoric organisms and piece to gather a picture of the past with the remains of these organisms. Or like a priest studying the point of human existence in terms of theology. With Dr. Martin's credentials, he can be considered knowledgeable in theology, but I question how much he actually knows about evolution.

    In the process of pointing out the holes of evolution, attackers of evolutions give us plenty of ideas to test and challenge the theory of evolution. Some good, some bad. For this, we thank you. However, by citing the flaws in evolution, creationists have not built a compelling case nor answer the inconsistencies in creationism. This is one of the many reasons why I find evolution a better explanation for the forms that life currently takes on Earth.

    A.L.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A.L., thanks for your comments. Which holes in evolutionary theory are you talking about? What are holes? Are they areas or questions that have been pointed out but where evolutionary theory fails? Is it any question that any person may raise that evolutionary biologists have not yet worked on? People often talk about these holes, but I honestly don't know what they are. I work in evolution, on questions that are still open (of course), so it's not that I don't know they exist. But all areas of science are like this, having open questions. Is there a difference?

      Delete

Markup Key:
- <b>bold</b> = bold
- <i>italic</i> = italic
- <a href="http://www.fieldofscience.com/">FoS</a> = FoS