Why do some scientists reject evolution?

[painted wolf]

I never knew Catholic was now synonymous with Atheist.

The Pope must be so confused.

wa:do

 

[rusra02]

Present a source, please.

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

The Humanist Interview with Leo Behe | The Humanist

Behe: I regret that the word “atheist” is necessary in our society, because it leads to misconceptions about atheism (that it is a belief, or a religion, etcetera). However, as it is necessary in America where only about 15 percent of the population claims no religious affiliation, I do call myself an atheist to make the distinction. The word describes my lack of belief.

This appears to be Behe's son, Leo Behe. My mistake. Behe sr. Is catholic.

 

[Me Myself]

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 evidence? If all live came the same way we see it today, then there would be no begining and God would have done nothing because we haveever seen a human or an animal being created from dust and given spirit.

 

[rusra02]

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

Really?It is evolutionists who admit the facts say one thing, I.e. that all known life comes from pre-existing life of like kind, but then say we don't believe that is always true.

 

[Me Myself]

Really?It is evolutionists who admit the facts say one thing, I.e. that all known life comes from pre-existing life of like kind, but then say we don't believe that is always true.

All known life didnt spontaneously appear either, so that would be a blow to creationism which needs life to puff into existence.

We have not seen a God create anything.

If we were to believe that al life came from life, we would need to believe the universe was always here and that life on Earth came from outer space, from some meteorite or aliens or something that brought it here when there was none here.


Or have you seen any life being created by an invisible being? Any?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The Humanist Interview with Leo Behe | The Humanist

Behe: I regret that the word “atheist” is necessary in our society, because it leads to misconceptions about atheism (that it is a belief, or a religion, etcetera). However, as it is necessary in America where only about 15 percent of the population claims no religious affiliation, I do call myself an atheist to make the distinction. The word describes my lack of belief.

This appears to be Behe's son, Leo Behe. My mistake. Behe sr. Is catholic.

Easy mistake to make. That same article is what kept coming up for me whenever I searched for direct references to Behe's religious views. I've yet to find any conclusive religious position from Behe himself, but most sources indicate that he is a Roman Catholic.

In any case, the point is that you claimed there were non-religious scientists who reject evolution. You have given two names, one of which is a theist and neither of which reject the theory of evolution. Your claim is still unjustified. Can you give any more names?

Really?It is evolutionists who admit the facts say one thing, I.e. that all known life comes from pre-existing life of like kind, but then say we don't believe that is always true.

Because the fact that life comes from life is not evidence that life cannot come from non-life. It is conclusive evidence that life comes from life, but it does not say anything about the possibility of life from non-life. What the facts indicate is that life replicates and that, at some point in time, life began to exist by some means. The facts also tell us that the basic building blocks of life (amino acids) can and do form naturally in early earth conditions. The facts, as they currently stand with regards to the origin of life on earth, don't really tell us much more than that.

 

[rusra02]

What evidence? If all live came the same way we see it today, then there would be no begining and God would have done nothing because we haveever seen a human or an animal being created from dust and given spirit.

I'm not sure what your point is. No one alive has seen the genesis of living things. What we do see is that life only comes from previous life of like kind, just as The Bible states.

 

[rusra02]

Easy mistake to make. That same article is what kept coming up for me whenever I searched for direct references to Behe's religious views. I've yet to find any conclusive religious position from Behe himself, but most sources indicate that he is a Roman Catholic.

In any case, the point is that you claimed there were non-religious scientists who reject evolution. You have given two names, one of which is a theist and neither of which reject the theory of evolution. Your claim is still unjustified. Can you give any more names?


Because the fact that life comes from life is not evidence that life cannot come from non-life. It is conclusive evidence that life comes from life, but it does not say anything about the possibility of life from non-life. What the facts indicate is that life replicates and that, at some point in time, life began to exist by some means. The facts also tell us that the basic building blocks of life (amino acids) can and do form naturally in early earth conditions. The facts, as they currently stand with regards to the origin of life on earth, don't really tell us much more than that.

Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Antony Flew

Methinks you are changing the subject very subtly. How life began is not a question for evolution, or at least that is what I've been repeatedly told. What the evidence shows is clear and supports direct creation, not evolution.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini

Clearly states at the very beginning of his book "What Darwin Got Wrong" that he accepts evolution, he is just critical of some of supposed mechanisms. Again, criticism of some of the specific facets of evolution theory does not equate to rejection of the theory.

Antony Flew

Was never a scientist, and only rejected evolution after a late-life conversion to theism (the authenticity of which is highly contested).

Methinks you are changing the subject very subtly. How life began is not a question for evolution, or at least that is what I've been repeatedly told.

Where did I say it did? My point was a refutation to your argument that "life only comes from life", which is an erroneous conclusion. Can you respond to my argument? I'll make it again:

The fact that life comes from life is conclusive evidence that life comes from life, but it is not conclusive evidence that life cannot come from non-life. You cannot use the observation "life replicates" to dismiss the proposition "life began via natural means". It's no different to saying "my wife has only ever baked cookies, therefore it is impossible for my wife to ever bake brownies".

What the evidence shows is clear and supports direct creation, not evolution.

What evidence?

 

[McBell]

Really?It is evolutionists who admit the facts say one thing, I.e. that all known life comes from pre-existing life of like kind, but then say we don't believe that is always true.

Really?
You honestly cannot see how your quoted statement fits you to a tee concerning creation and evolution?

And yet you have to ask how others can be doing the exact same thing you cannot see yourself doing?

 

[Me Myself]

I'm not sure what your point is. No one alive has seen the genesis of living things. What we do see is that life only comes from previous life of like kind, just as The Bible states.

Exactly, of kind

I have never seen an invisible life creating a visible one, so there is no evidence of an invisible creator. (Or a living being being created without visible creator for that manner)

For now, the origin of the species is a mystery.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Many Jws have been to colleges and universities. If by "higher education" you mean the teaching of unproven theories as fact, you don't need a degree to see the fallacy in that. It is IMO, as the Bible says, "falsely called knowledge", by persons blinded by propaganda. Jw's are very concerned about the effects of this false teaching of evolution upon those believing it. (1Timothy 6:20)

Yeah, well, I'm very concerned about the effects of the false teaching of religion upon those who are to young too think for themselves on the matter.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

His son is an atheist.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Really?It is evolutionists who admit the facts say one thing, I.e. that all known life comes from pre-existing life of like kind, but then say we don't believe that is always true.

We happen to know from experimentation that inorganic matter can produce organic matter (such as amino acids) under certain conditions. That's the first step, and it shows us that it's at least theoretically possible that life could come from non-life. So, there is actually some evidence.

 

[fantome profane]

Behe describes himself as an atheist.

When did Behe ever describe himself as an atheist? Do you have a source for that?


(One thing that is certain, Behe does not reject evolution)

 

[krazrn3]

It is not uncommon for scientists who had accepted evolution to come to the realization that some things are wrong. Many things cannot be logically explained by evolution. Also for thought: many who have believed a creator do not attribute that title to the God of the Bible.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

It is not uncommon for scientists who had accepted evolution to come to the realization that some things are wrong.

More than possible, which is why they then propose theories they believe better account for phenomena they have encountered.

Many things cannot be logically explained by evolution.

I take it you refer to some aspect of biodiversity? If so then it would be a good idea to indicate which aspects/phenomena cannot be explained through evolution.

Also for thought: many who have believed a creator do not attribute that title to the God of the Bible.

So? I believe you will find that while christian scientists tend to be one of the more obvious categories of individuals with creation based objections to scientific theories; to science, bible based creation has little to differentiate it from any other form of creation mythology.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is not uncommon for scientists who had accepted evolution to come to the realization that some things are wrong. Many things cannot be logically explained by evolution. Also for thought: many who have believed a creator do not attribute that title to the God of the Bible.

What things?

 

[krazrn3]

Evolution scientists have difficulty explaining the "cambrian explosion." At the base of the grand canyon, there are layers upon layers of sediment as we all know. When investigating, researchers found a sudden entrance of dozens of very different life forms in the same layers. Sea shells up on the highest layers can be explained by the river's slow erosion should you choose that theory. But if all of these layers were laid down over a vast amount of time and the river slowly eroded down into the archives of time, how is it that we find such complex life forms in the same layers as the "simple" ones?

I put simple in quotations because some creatures that we call simple are really more biologically complex than we are. Strawberries have 8 sets of each chromosome whereas we only have 2. Frogs have 4 I believe. Simple bacteria have complex motors to run their flagellum that are structured amazingly like an outboard motor. In comes the concept of irreducible complexity; the idea that certain mechanisms in nature can only work with so many pieces minimum. Like a mouse trap, take one of the 5 pieces and nothing works. This is a simple idea until you consider that fact that all the pieces must be present at the same time, in the correct place, or nothing will work. Should a motorless bacteria develop a mutation in its DNA that gives it one of these 26 flagellar motor pieces, we would think it on its way to a motor. But with only one piece, even if it took 10 years to form the second piece, the bacteria has a unnecessary piece and natural selection may eliminate that bacteria for its extra weight.

There are many others, but I hate writing books :/

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Evolution scientists have difficulty explaining the "cambrian explosion."

Actually, there are a few possible explanations proposed so far. In any case, issue with the cambrian explosion isn't that it's occurrence doesn't gel with evolution theory, just the issue of trying to understand what the specific causes were behind the comparatively rapid speciation events of the time.

At the base of the grand canyon, there are layers upon layers of sediment as we all know. When investigating, researchers found a sudden entrance of dozens of very different life forms in the same layers. Sea shells up on the highest layers can be explained by the river's slow erosion should you choose that theory. But if all of these layers were laid down over a vast amount of time and the river slowly eroded down into the archives of time, how is it that we find such complex life forms in the same layers as the "simple" ones?

Firstly, can you provide sources?

Secondly, if you're hinting at the possibility of the canyon forming rapidly, are you aware that every single piece of evidence in this subject indicates that it wasn't?

I put simple in quotations because some creatures that we call simple are really more biologically complex than we are. Strawberries have 8 sets of each chromosome whereas we only have 2. Frogs have 4 I believe.

This is something of an issue I have with how the ID movement tends to measure "complexity" objectively.

Simple bacteria have complex motors to run their flagellum that are structured amazingly like an outboard motor. In comes the concept of irreducible complexity; the idea that certain mechanisms in nature can only work with so many pieces minimum.

Irreducible complexity has already been utterly refuted:

The Flagellum Unspun

We have reduced the bacterial flagellum and found that it functions perfectly well.

Like a mouse trap, take one of the 5 pieces and nothing works.

Kenneth Miller, who published the above, came up with a great refutation to this analogy as well. If you get a mouse trap and remove the pin, it no longer functions as a mouse trap. However, it does function as a tie clip. Not performing the exact same function does not, however, mean it completely fails to function at all.

This is a simple idea until you consider that fact that all the pieces must be present at the same time, in the correct place, or nothing will work. Should a motorless bacteria develop a mutation in its DNA that gives it one of these 26 flagellar motor pieces, we would think it on its way to a motor. But with only one piece, even if it took 10 years to form the second piece, the bacteria has a unnecessary piece and natural selection may eliminate that bacteria for its extra weight.

Again, see the refutation above. Something can still possess a function and be added to in order to fulfill a different, or improved or increased, function.