Why do some scientists reject evolution?

[Me Myself]

My point was that living things do not come into existence except through other living things of like nature. The Bible points to the ultimate Source of all life.

We dont know that as an absolute.

What we know is that we havent SEEN living things come except from other living things, but we dont currently know how first life form was developed.

The Vedas point to the ultimate source of all life (you se how you didnt care? Its the same, but the other way around)

 

[outhouse]

My point was that living things do not come into existence except through other living things of like nature. The Bible points to the ultimate Source of all life.

You dont know that.

The bible doesnt point to any source for life, its neither a history book and definately not a science book in any sense.

Writ ethi son a chalk board 100 times and come back


We do not place mythology in the gaps of our knowledge!

 

[McBell]

Because living things do not come into existence without a source or progenitor, with the unique exception of the Source of all life, God. (Psalm 36:9) The concept of spontaneous generation was refuted long years ago.

You just killed your own argument.

 

[Falvlun]

Because living things do not come into existence without a source or progenitor, with the unique exception of the Source of all life, God. (Psalm 36:9)

So there's an exception. Any exception kills your theory. You cannot claim that nothing comes into existence without a cause, or source, and then turn around and say, "well, except for my one pet exception."

If one exception is allowed, particularly with no reason or explanation why this one exception should be allowed, this means that any exceptions can be allowed, and your original statement that nothing can come into existence without a source/cause is proven moot.

The concept of spontaneous generation was refuted long years ago.

Spontaneous generation does not equate to abiogenesis.

Spontaneous generation was the belief that an animal, like the fly, can be produced from other matter, fully formed. This was based on things like rotting meat appearing to spontaneously produce maggots. This was disproven when Pasteur showed that if you seal off the rotting meat from the environment, and don't let anything in, then it will not produce maggots (thus, the maggots must be produced by something else, and not just the meat.)

Abiogenesis is the idea that various chemical elements slowly created compounds and eventually one or more of these compounds developed the ability to replicate itself-- like DNA or RNA. This is not a difficult a thing to imagine happening if you know basic chemistry and how certain elements attract or repel each other.

Now that I've told you the difference, I hope we don't see you conflating the two anymore around these forums.

 

[johnhanks]

... And how do you account for non-religious scientists who do not support the theory?

We're still waiting for you to name some. One will do - an academically accredited biologist with no particular religious affiliation who is on record as saying that present-day species, families and other taxa have not arisen through a process of evolution.

 

[Me Myself]

And how do you account for non-religious scientists who do not support the theory?

Where? You mean alive today? A biologist?

By all means tell me who. i am listening.

 

[rusra02]

Where? You mean alive today? A biologist?

By all means tell me who. i am listening.

Jerry Fodor.

 

[LuisDantas]

Jerry Fodor.

What about him? His criticism, controversial as it is, falls way short of "not supporting the Theory".

Not that he even has a background in biological sciences, mind you. All the same, you seem to believe his criticism to be far more radical than it actually is. A quick look at his wikipedia page shows that his criticism is about how much of evolution is determined by environmental factors as opposed to endogenous ones. That does not even qualify as lack of support for the theory, although it is a very bold stance for a non-biologist to have.

 

[rusra02]

Where? You mean alive today? A biologist?

By all means tell me who. i am listening.

Michael Behe

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Jerry Fodor.

Accepts evolution, just contests some of the mechanisms.

Michael Behe

Is he not religious? I've not heard him declare either way. Also, Behe accepts common descent: Darwin Under the Microscope: Behe, Michael

Update: Michael Behe is, according to some sources I have found, also a Roman Catholic.

 

[rusra02]

We dont know that as an absolute.

What we know is that we havent SEEN living things come except from other living things, but we dont currently know how first life form was developed.

The Vedas point to the ultimate source of all life (you se how you didnt care? Its the same, but the other way around)

So what you are saying is although the evidence shows one thing, we won't accept that because it doesn't fit our preconceived theory.

 

[Ouroboros]

Same question can be made about Christian scientists, why do some reject creationism and why are they able to accept evolution and yet God?

 

[rusra02]

Accepts evolution, just contests some of the mechanisms.



Is he not religious? I've not heard him declare either way. Also, Behe accepts common descent: Darwin Under the Microscope: Behe, Michael

Update: Michael Behe is, according to some sources I have found, also a Roman Catholic.

So anyone who ever stepped inside a church is religious? Behe describes himself as an atheist.

 

[McBell]

So what you are saying is although the evidence shows one thing, we won't accept that because it doesn't fit our preconceived theory.

What a most excellent description of your "defense" of creationism and "attacks" on evolution.

 

[McBell]

Behe describes himself as an atheist.

Source please

I ask for your source simply because everything I found says he is Catholic, not Atheist:

Perspectives on science and Christian faith: Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, Volumes 59–60. American Scientific Affiliation. Retrieved November 13, 2010. "For example, David Berlinski is an agnostic, secular Jew; William Dembski is an evangelical; Michael Behe is Catholic; Jonathan Wells belongs to the Unification Church; and Phillip Johnson is a Presbyterian."​

 

[dust1n]

• "Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."[49]
• "As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."[49]
• "First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to 'change the ground rules' of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces."[50]
• "What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best 'fringe science' which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."[51]
• "We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[52]
• "ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that 'irreducibly complex' systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."[53]
• "Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor 'missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,' what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."[54]
• "Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not, in fact, irreducibly complex."[55]
• "In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."[56]
• "With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. ... In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."[57]
  
  
  Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Daemon Sophic]

A further Michael Behe update.
He is Catholic and his papers range from "controversial" to "wrong".
In biochemistry circles, this is what might be considered an intellectual smackdown. Reply to Michael Behe

What is interesting is that this very same debunking smackdown is actually cited in Behe's own biography page in the Discovery Institute site (a conservative christian site for promoting ID) here....faith + evolution - Michael Behe: A Biography. But they cherry pick COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT the words "Behe is right....." from the entire smackdown, as a point of pride and 'proof' that the scientific community has bowed to Behe's greater reasoning prowess. So dang typical.

 

[Ouroboros]

Michael Behe's son Leo turned atheist and was shunned by the family.

Michael Behe is a believe in a higher power, perhaps even Christian or Catholic. He's argument is that an "intelligent designer" created this world. That's not an atheist view, but a theistic view.

In other words, Behe is not an atheist.

There are no atheist in the ID camp simply because "ID" is just another word for "God", only a nondescript version.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So anyone who ever stepped inside a church is religious? Behe describes himself as an atheist.

Present a source, please.

Also, can you respond to the entirety of my points and not just one sentence, please?

 

[LuisDantas]

So what you are saying is although the evidence shows one thing, we won't accept that because it doesn't fit our preconceived theory.

Do you realize that this is our argument, not yours, since after all there is no evidence of creationism and lots for evolution?

Referencing the Bible is not evidence.