Examining creationism versus a materialistic naturalistic process

 

We find 80% of Americans believe in God.

https://www.pewforum.org/2018/04/25/when-americans-say-they-believe-in-god-what-do-they-mean/

Depending on how the question is asked 81% of Americans believe evolution was involved in man’s development.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/11/darwin-day/

But when we’re talking about science, truth is not derived from opinion polls.

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od

/ˈˌsīənˈtifik ˈmeTHəd/

noun

1. a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification.

 

Just because the majority of scientists or laypeople believe something is true doesn’t make it true. That position would be fallacious and a description of the bandwagon fallacy.

 

The bandwagon fallacy describes believing something is true or acceptable only because it is popular. 

When we talk about creationism there are two aspects: number one is the appearance of the universe and number two is the appearance of life in that universe. So to keep this OP concise we will primarily be focusing on life, and specifically the diversity of life.

This conversation will be between creationism versus a materialistic naturalistic explanation of life and the diversity of life. Since we will be focusing on vertical evolution i.e. land animal to whale form of evolution, we will note that most Darwinists believe that the beginning of life doesn’t belong in this discussion. So they are saying give us a miracle and we will explain everything else.

There are probably hundreds of reasons why life could not cobble itself up out of minerals, chemicals, and maybe a little lightning. But three of those that I think are worthy of discussion may be at another time, is the fact that one right-handed amino acid in a protein chain would limit its ability to fold properly and thus produce life. Given the fact that in the environment there are 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed amino acids and there is no known limiting factor to keep right-handed amino acids out of the party, then a natural explanation of life is pretty impossible. Another factor is the arrangement of the acids and bases in DNA. Since that arrangement is not based on chemical necessity the likelihood of an arrangement that will encode the necessary information to make protein is a large mathematical hurdle. The last point, based on a discussion from biologists I viewed a few years ago the cellular biologist in the group indicated that 200 different components of the cell would have to come together at the same time to have a viable cell. Again the probability is in the impossible range.

But the beginning of life would need to be restricted to another OP in this one I want to discuss the diversity of life.

The two positions that are in opposition are the one that requires an agent/designer and the other is based on mindless, purposeless, random, and chaotic processes. It’s the latter that drives Darwinism that life developed as a single cell and through biological processes further developed in the diversity of life that we see today. Now within the story of evolution, two components go by different names like macro and microevolution or vertical and horizontal evolution. Personally, I like the latter as being more descriptive in the direction that these changes are going. My position is horizontal evolution is the only scientific evolution given the fact that we can observe, test, reproduce, and falsified this form of evolution. It is decent with modification in a breeding family that includes natural selection and speciation. The Bible describes this as reproducing after your kind. If we define the kind as a breeding family then we would have to admit in the history of science we’ve never observed or tested one member of one breeding family becoming a member of a different breeding family.

And it is important here to define speciation within horizontal evolution, for instance, we can see many different species of frogs but they always come from frogs and they always reproduce frogs. That is the only observable and testable evidence that we have for this process. Anything different than that is just speculation based on data we will discuss shortly.

So of course horizontal evolution cannot explain the diversity of life because if you start in the canine family no matter how many descendants there are they will always be a member of the canine family if we understand the canine family as a functional family those within the family that can interbreed. Now it’s true in certain circumstances you can have members of a breeding family that become separated and due to adaptation to new environments, they have difficulty in reproducing with the original group. But if we were talking about frogs they would still be frogs. There most likely are some immune anomalies that are interfering with this reproduction.

Now with vertical evolution, the claim is that chimps or apelike creatures developed into humans or a land animal like a hippopotamus (based on the Berkeley chart) developed into a whale after millions of years. Now the first form of evolution i.e. horizontal evolution I don’t think has any controversy because it is fully studied, it’s the form of evolution that scientists use to come out with new understandings that are beneficial for mankind like the discovery of antibiotic-resistant organisms. I would also point out that the likelihood of being able to use any components of vertical evolution in research is extremely limited if not impossible.

  Now for those of us who claim there is no observable, testable evidence for vertical evolution let’s talk about what is used as evidence for those who claim vertical evolution is possible. First, they point to fossils in the geological column and mentioned how you find simple to more complex throughout the different levels as proof of organisms going through the process of biology that changes them into a completely different organism and time i.e. from a land animal through a process of changes into a whale after millions of years.

The next piece of evidence that is used is the similarities between fossils and genetics. They claim this evidence can only mean one thing organisms have changed into completely different organisms over time. An offshoot of the similarities argument the something called nested hierarchies. Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness.

So let’s first talk about simple to more complex. This argument is based in my opinion two logical fallacies, “appeal to authority” and the “bandwagon argument”.

Now, what do we see in the fossil record? We deftly see simple to more complex but we also see along with that certain organism from the Cambrian explosion look pretty much like they do today. So how do we interpret the evidence of “simple to more complex”? Well if using the scientific method they would need something observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Can we look into biology and find even the simplest organisms like a bacteria becoming something that cannot be classified as the original bacteria i.e. in the history of studying E. coli has it ever change into something that could not be labeled E. coli? The answer is an overwhelming no. So that interpretation of the data isn’t grounded in the scientific method.

So what is grounded in the scientific method that could explain simple to more complex? That would be the work of a designer. The work of a designer has been studied for thousands of years and one of the strongest features of a designer is designing things from simple to more complex over time.

So just going back to the “evidence” of finding fossils from simple to more complex the explanation that is the most grounded in the scientific methods would be the evidence of a designer.

Now let’s look at the next piece of evidence and that is the similarities between fossils and genetics. So what evidence, grounded in the scientific method, would explain this finding? Again since no one has been able to observe or test even E. coli becoming something other than an E. coli. What do observation and testing point to? Again based on the scientific method it would point to the work of a designer. We have thousands of years of observational evidence that similarities are part and parcel of the work of a designer. Art experts use this type of evidence to determine the painter in some newly discovered paintings.

But what about the high percentage of both laypeople and scientists who say the evidence seen in fossils and genetics has to be this biological process that’s never been observed or tested? This simply exposes the two basic logical fallacies that undergird vertical evolution in our society.

If we are going to demand that our knowledge of the physical world be based on the scientific method then what is the evidence in the fossil record and genetics pointing to? A designer, this evidence has been staring us in the face since Darwin and before. But since Darwin science has encased itself in the materialistic naturalistic box and if you going to be a scientist in good standing you cannot color outside of the lines. If you want your paper published in peer-reviewed journals then you don’t dare go outside of the box, you can’t follow the evidence where it might lead. So as a counterargument saying something hasn’t been printed in a peer-reviewed journal is just admitting to the artificial constraints within science.

The last point that should be made is this if astronauts found sophisticated equipment and spacecraft on the far side of the moon that was made from materials not found on earth and had advanced abilities far beyond anything that man is been able to produce on earth if they rating this equipment as alien in origin that would be the best explanation. You would not have to identify the aliens or where they came from for that to be the best explanation. So with the principles of evidence and the best explanation, the process called vertical evolution is simply the work of a designer.

 

If there is something in life science that’s not grounded in observation and testing should it be taught in school?

 

Even if you can’t identify the designer why shouldn’t schools teach that concept given the fact that it is the only thing grounded in science?

 

John Keefe