Firstly, I wanted to post an answer to a question from Graham Worley: Hi Howard - the THEORY of evolution by natural selection is just that... like the Big Bang, they are both THEORIES based-on what we know scientifically or see today. Im not aware that anybody from the world of science has suggested otherwise, other than point to the overwhelming evidence in favour of them. What Dr. Grady McMurtry preaches is not true science, its his very carefully put opinion! Grady responded: Dear Howard, In response to Graham Worley and his deep-seated faith in the evolution of living systems by “natural selection” I would point out just some of the huge flaws in his thinking. First, there is no such thing as “The Theory of Evolution”, there are a myriad of different evolutionary theories, but of course there are major ones which are held to by the majority of evolutionists. Second, theories are not what we “know” scientifically or “see” today. Since I do not want to reinvent the wheel, and it is a pretty good explanation, I will quote a source that I would not normally quote, Wikipedia: “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force. The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occams razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newtons laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light). Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word theory, which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).” Evolutionary presuppositions are not acceptable as scientific theories because they are not testable and are not falsifiable. Evolutionists can tell any fairy tale to explain any phenomena they want, because they cannot be tested nor falsified. For example, evolutionists talk about convergent and divergent evolution, so no matter what they “see” it doesn’t matter to them because they can have it both ways and it still fits within their paradigm. Third, (also see #4) the term “natural selection” is a meaningless terminology that has been scientifically disproven time and again for 150+ years. Charles Darwin wrote: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.” Darwin could justify in his own mind that anything could be produced through his mirco-evolutionary to macro-evolutionary worldview. Today, microbiologists, microchemists and geneticists have millions of examples to disprove random chance evolution. The terms usually applied here are specified complexity, irreducible complexity and intelligent design. We now know that there are three levels of complexity controlling the DNA of all creatures. This is impossible to achieve through any evolutionary process. Fourth, the term “natural selection” is a meaningless terminology because there is no such thing as “natural selection.” Nature does not “select” anything because “nature” does not have intelligence and is incapable to selecting anything. To start building my case, I want to give you a few quotes. As you know, I am not afraid to quote evolutionary sources. “Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs.” Noble, E. et al. 1989. Parasitology: The Biology of Animal Parasites 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 516. The following is from the preeminent French evolutionist Pierre-Paul Grassé: “Bacteria ... produce the most mutants. … E. coli … is the best example. [You] will agree that it is surprising … to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago! What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not [produce evolutionary] change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.” “No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” [Emphasis added] Preeminent French Evolutionist: Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 87. “Natural selection may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested.” [Emphasis added] Daniel Brooks “A downward Slope to Greater Diversity,” Science, Vol. 217, 24 September 1982, p. 1240 Dr. John Endler correctly points out that natural selection “is not an explanation for adaptation; it only explains why and how relatively better adaptations can increase in frequency.” Endler, J. Endler, J.A. Natural Selection in the Wild. Monographs in Population Biology 21; Princeton University Press 1986, p.46 This masquerade of supposed “natural selection” was well-illustrated by the evolutionary believing Scientist Emeritus Dr. Ernst Mayr (Mentor to Dr. Steven J. Gould): “A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the ‘best or ‘fittest phenotype.” “But in reality, the environment (or ‘nature’) never selects or sets ‘concrete objectives.’” Mayr, E. 2001. What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books 118. “Natural selection wasn’t widely accepted by biologists until about 1930. The main problem was, and still is, a paucity of evidence….It’s this difficulty that leads [Dr.] Dawkins to observe that natural selection is on wobblier legs than the other tenets of evolutionary theory.” Coyne, J. A. The Improbability Pump: Why has natural selection always been the most contested part of evolutionary theory? The Nation, May 10, 2010. (Back to me) The Word “Select” Implies a “Selector”: 1. Intelligence is coupled to design. 2. Engineers use a process that “sees” a need. 3. Engineers develop a plan that selects the best parts and processes that “fit” specific characteristics of the need. 4. Engineers use an intelligent decision-making process to see and select. 5. “Natural Selection” is really an observation about genetic variants that survived. 6. BUT, it cannot explain the origin of a design! 7. Engineers are active, the need is passive. 8. Nature does not have decision-making intelligence. 9. Living organisms are active, environments are passive. The Truth about Natural Selection: 1. The ability to generate “beneficial variations” already resides in the living organism. 2. Evolutionary “Natural Selection” theory fraudulently ascribes the powers of diversification to variables outside the creature when diversity depends solely on variables inside the creature. 3. Genetic variants may cause differences in survival, but that has nothing to do with explaining their design. In reality, God has provided a neutral playing field called the environment. He gave each living creature a pre-programed set of tools and the genetics to allow for variation within that “kind” of creature. If these tools allow an organism to survive in a given environment, then it will survive and reproduce. If it encounters an environment in which its’ tools do not allow it to survive it will be eliminated and cease to exist in that environment. What we actually observe scientifically in the real world, not the world of Mr. Worley’s imagination, is not “natural selection”; what we actually scientifically observe is “natural elimination”, “natural rejection” and “natural preservation”. I pray that Mr. Worley will find the truth. for more information visit creationworldview.org My best to you, Dr. Grady McMurtry
Posted on: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 00:20:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015