Challenges to Creationism

[Marisa]

 

[Altfish]

So it isn't surprising to you that all connections are correct as to be enough for you to think of a designer but only a longer wiring is evidence for you that it was done by chance and evolution , it is like finding a long wire in a working TV while a short one can do the same job then you conclude that the TV wasn't designed because of the long wire.

No, to my mind it is the best proof that evolution is fact.

 

[FearGod]

No, to my mind it is the best proof that evolution is fact.

Do you think then that the gills evolved into the laryngeal ?

 

[Ouroboros]

No, to my mind it is the best proof that evolution is fact.

Considering that it makes a 15 feet detour, from the larynx, all the way down to the chest, around the aorta, back up to the brain. And there are two nerves, both taking this long stretch, but one making a little different loop. Right goes under subclavician artery, while left goes even farther down under the arch of the aorta.

In the picture here, it starts at the brain, superior laryngeal nerve, then it goes all the way down the neck, around the aorta, back up again to the inferior laryngeal nerve.

And the strange thing is, it does the same on humans, apes, horses, dogs, ... it's a crazy "design".

 

[Altfish]

Do you think then that the gills evolved into the laryngeal ?

In simple terms, yes.

 

[FearGod]

In simple terms, yes.

Did the nose nerves evolved separately as it doesn't exist in fishes and which first evolved the nose or the nerve ?

 

[David M]

So often, I find that those who don't believe in evolution will make threads or posts attacking evolution. Those of us who believe in evolution tend to then defend evolution, and it goes like that. Much more rarely do I see examples of creationists being asked to defend creationism.

So I'd like to offer up some challenges, essentially off the top of my head, and see how creationists respond to them. Anybody else is welcome to offer up challenges, as well as rebuttals and general comments.

I hope we shall have a constructive dialogue.

1) Why do humans, and other animals, suffer from diseases such as dementia, Parkinson's and diabetes?

2) Why are there so many similarities, in terms of genetics, in terms of morphology, in terms of ecology, between organisms in such a ranked way that they can be so easily placed into phylogenies (family trees)?

e.g. why are the two chimpanzee species so similar to one another, and then progressively less similar to humans, to gorilla species, to orangutan species?

3) Why do so many lifeforms discovered in the fossil record resemble those living today, but with increasing differences the further back you go (for the most part)?

4) Why do all organisms use the same molecule (DNA) to encode genetic information, and the same code within that medium as well?

5) Why have so many species gone extinct?

That'll do for now.

Because God.

That is the answer, it has no explanatory or predictive power because anything can be explained by that principle.

 

[David M]

the history of automobiles can be arranged in a very similar 'evolutionary tree' so this observation in itself is entirely consistent with intelligent design

No it can't. In fact automobiles are a very good example of something that cannot be organised into nested heirarchies in the way that living creatures can, and are, organised.

 

[Ouroboros]

No it can't. In fact automobiles are a very good example of something that cannot be organised into nested heirarchies in the way that living creatures can, and are, organised.

Also, the cars did in fact start with simple cars and evolved over time to more complex constructions. We have a car now that will automatically break if the car in front of us stops. Didn't have that before. The Model-T for sure didn't have that. We can see in the "evolution" of cars that simple cars early on, complex cars now. There's no orchard model of cars where all car models that existed in the past and exist today all were created by Ford 150 years ago, on the spot, all around the world, and no change has happened since. No. Even though cars don't evolve like life forms do, they do change, and improve, and sometimes even get worse or uglier, but they do change over time. So if we use cars as an example, it fits better to explain evolution than creationism.

On a side note, I disagree that they can't be organized in hierarchies. I think they can, to some degree. Of course not like organic life forms. But each maker do produce cars that have parts and pieces and designs from the earlier models, improve them, and sometimes there's a bigger change. But very few manufacturers start from scratch nowadays.

 

[David M]

On a side note, I disagree that they can't be organized in hierarchies. I think they can, to some degree. Of course not like organic life forms. But each maker do produce cars that have parts and pieces and designs from the earlier models, improve them, and sometimes there's a bigger change. But very few manufacturers start from scratch nowadays.

Hierarchies yes, but not nested Hierarchies as you can for living creatures. There are far too many instances of identical characteristics cropping up in different nested groups (which is what you would expect from things that are designed) and subjective definition of which characteristics to use and in which order. In living things you see similar characteristics achieved by differing methods.

See 1.2
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

 

[Ouroboros]

Hierarchies yes, but not nested Hierarchies as you can for living creatures. There are far too many instances of identical characteristics cropping up in different nested groups (which is what you would expect from things that are designed) and subjective definition of which characteristics to use and in which order. In living things you see similar characteristics achieved by differing methods.

Sure. I know that it's not the same. Just saying that car technology has evolved since the Model-T, and there are paths that can be traced from different cars, models, technologies, up to our modern cars, so the car evolution is closer (not identical to, or exactly the same as) to evolution than creationism. Key word: closer to. What I'm saying is that the evolution of car technology shows a progression of simple to complex, just like evolution of biological life forms. Creationism is the belief in a design in situ, also called orchard hypothesis, which would be equal to a car industry where all the modern cars we have today and any car we have in the future were designed and built in 1908. No changes. So the example of the car industry does resemble evolution rather than specific creation.

 

[Kirran]

Plus, of course, cars were created by fallible and limited designers who were working on previous designs. God wouldn't have such limitations.

 

[dust1n]

the Bible and fossil record both describe sudden jumps, stages to the creation of life- contrary to the smooth gradual change that evolution originally predicted

Evolution doesn't predict nor does it teach that evolution is a smooth gradual rate. The fossil record informs evolutionary theory, not the other way around.

The pace of evolution

 

[Kirran]

Evolution doesn't predict nor does it teach that evolution is a smooth gradual rate. The fossil record informs evolutionary theory, not the other way around.

The pace of evolution

Although, it must be said, studies of molecules (DNA, proteins) are far more reliable and widely used than that of fossils, which are a type of morphological study.

 

[Tumah]

Here are some answers that although were not explicitly mentioned in Jewish literature, are derived from Jewish ideas.
Real Rabbis (which I am not) reserve the right to disagree with everything I've answered here.

1) Why do humans, and other animals, suffer from diseases such as dementia, Parkinson's and diabetes?

These represent various tests and punishments that people are meant to go through. Either because they deserved them (as a punishment for actions in a previous life) or because G-d is testing their reaction to them (in order to grant them greater reward in the Eternal life).

2) Why are there so many similarities, in terms of genetics, in terms of morphology, in terms of ecology, between organisms in such a ranked way that they can be so easily placed into phylogenies (family trees)?
e.g. why are the two chimpanzee species so similar to one another, and then progressively less similar to humans, to gorilla species, to orangutan species?

Species with similar morphology reflect a more closely related spiritual source, than those that are less similar.

3) Why do so many lifeforms discovered in the fossil record resemble those living today, but with increasing differences the further back you go (for the most part)?

The spiritual progression that ends with this world is one that begins with Ultimate Simplicity and becomes increasingly more Complex until we reach our world. The fossil record is a reflection of this spiritual progression.

4) Why do all organisms use the same molecule (DNA) to encode genetic information, and the same code within that medium as well?

Because there is One Source for everything.

5) Why have so many species gone extinct?

Because they've fulfilled the purpose.

 

[Kirran]

Here are some answers that although were not explicitly mentioned in Jewish literature, are derived from Jewish ideas.
Real Rabbis (which I am not) reserve the right to disagree with everything I've answered here.


These represent various tests and punishments that people are meant to go through. Either because they deserved them (as a punishment for actions in a previous life) or because G-d is testing their reaction to them (in order to grant them greater reward in the Eternal life).


Species with similar morphology reflect a more closely related spiritual source, than those that are less similar.


The spiritual progression that ends with this world is one that begins with Ultimate Simplicity and becomes increasingly more Complex until we reach our world. The fossil record is a reflection of this spiritual progression.


Because there is One Source for everything.


Because they've fulfilled the purpose.

Thankyou for the reply!

This has really got some sophistication to it. A good level of mature thought and contemplation has gone into the development of these views.

To be honest, they seem like many may well be different ways of looking at the process of evolution.

As for the first one, however, would this include young children getting diseases? For example, the loa worm, found in Sub-Saharan Africa, which infests the backs of children's eyes and eats its way forward through the eyeball?

 

[Tumah]

Thankyou for the reply!

This has really got some sophistication to it. A good level of mature thought and contemplation has gone into the development of these views.

To be honest, they seem like many may well be different ways of looking at the process of evolution.

Actually, I just took existent texts regarding spiritual realities in Judaism, and noticing similarities to the process of evolution, applied it.

As for the first one, however, would this include young children getting diseases? For example, the loa worm, found in Sub-Saharan Africa, which infests the backs of children's eyes and eats its way forward through the eyeball?

Children are reincarnated souls as well.
There are always two possibilities (to my current knowledge) when it comes to punishments: either the sin was extremely horrible or the sin was not so horrible but in order to be elevated to a higher spiritual realm, stronger purification needs to take place.
But in both cases, suffering is a temporary (and in comparison to the bigger picture, fleeting) experience that allows for an eternity of spiritual pleasure. So even though to our eyes it seems horrible, were we able to see the larger picture, it would seem a worthy sacrifice.

 

[Kirran]

Actually, I just took existent texts regarding spiritual realities in Judaism, and noticing similarities to the process of evolution, applied it.

I meant that this thought had occurred within Judaism.

Children are reincarnated souls as well.
There are always two possibilities (to my current knowledge) when it comes to punishments: either the sin was extremely horrible or the sin was not so horrible but in order to be elevated to a higher spiritual realm, stronger purification needs to take place.
But in both cases, suffering is a temporary (and in comparison to the bigger picture, fleeting) experience that allows for an eternity of spiritual pleasure. So even though to our eyes it seems horrible, were we able to see the larger picture, it would seem a worthy sacrifice.

Would you nevertheless advocate attempting to alleviate suffering in this life?

 

[Tumah]

I meant that this thought had occurred within Judaism.

Oh. I believe this is called emantionism. It's fairly well discussed in certain aspects of Jewish literature.

Would you nevertheless advocate attempting to alleviate suffering in this life?

Yes, because as much as a person is meant to suffer, the medium through which G-d may end the decreed extent of suffering may be the person trying to alleviate the suffering.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So it isn't surprising to you that all connections are correct as to be enough for you to think of a designer but only a longer wiring is an evidence for you that it was done by chance and evolution , it is like finding a long wire in a working TV while a short one can do the same job then you conclude that the TV wasn't designed because of the long wire.

It's about poor design, I think.
A better comparison would be if the cable guy came to your house to hook up your cable and instead of just running the cable straight through the wall to the TV, he wound it around your house 5 times, up and down the drain pipe, up through the basement, around your kitchen table, and then into the TV.