Re: Naturalism as the Religious Basis of Evolutionism

"Ross Langerak" <rlangerak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:lc***.3920$0e5.3504@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Dennis Arndt" <dennis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:tc6Ag.2224$xp2.1681@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"VoiceOfReason" <papa_fox@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154539930.203952.26130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dennis Arndt wrote:
"VoiceOfReason" <papa_fox@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154427044.303912.254930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dennis Arndt wrote:

<...>

The viewpoint that the natural world is all one needs to
consider in answering the question of origins certainly
is a viewpoint of ultimate reality. To include a
supernatural deity in this consideration would force one
to admit that there might be something outside the natural
world that is real and that was involved in the origin of
existing forms of life within the natural world.

No, including a supernatural deity in this consideration, without
evidence for its existence, would make for bad science.


The support I provided for the theory of direct creation presented
at the beginning of this thread is evidence for the existence of
an orderly creator.

Rhetoric is not evidence.

You must have missed the pointers to physical evidence documented
on the web at the Talk.Origins Archive and other similar places.

Your original post was far too long to address all of its points. If
there
is a particular point that you would like to discuss, perhaps you could
bring it up here?


4.6 _Evidence Supporting A Theory of Direct Creation_

4.6.1 _General Predictions_

The following general predictions are made here without
citing specific evidence based on the expectation that
they will be generally accepted as supported by common
knowledge.

4.6.1.1 _ Prediction Based on Orderliness_

* Generally when organisms reproduce, the result will be
more of the same. (For example, when pigs reproduce,
the offspring will be a litter of pigs).

4.6.1.2 _Predictions Based on Variation within the Usual Range_

1. Changes in form between generations are possible.
(For example, descendants sometimes are taller than
their parents).
2. Changes in form within populations over time are possible.
(For example, the ratio of blue eyed individuals to brown
eyed individuals within the human population of a large city
can vary over time).
3. Accumulated change across generations will sometimes
result in varieties of organisms within a basic created form.
These variations could be such that individuals within different
varieties seldom reproduce with each other, resulting in
flourishing but distinct populations. This could be particularly
evident when two varieties are geographically separated.
(For example, varieties of dogs vary greatly in size and shape
and maintain those distinctions across many generations).

4.6.1.2 _Prediction Based on Allowed Deterioration_

* Within the overall order of the biological realm, there will be
aspects of disorder. Some sub-optimum structures will
exist.

4.6.2 _Specific Predictions_

Several specific predictions are made from the theory along
with evidence of their fulfillment.

1. Because of the allowance for variation within limits during
reproduction, changes across generations are expected.
Evidence to support this is found at:
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

This page documents with pictures the variation in
horses from a dog-sized animal to the present horse
over a reported period of 55 million years. Over that
period, there were many changes in specific elements,
such as the number of toes in each foot and an increase
in overall animal size. But, the earliest, latest, and all in
between were quadruped vertebrates.

The title of the page is "Horse Evolution Over 55 Million
Years." The purpose of the page in situ is to provide
evidence in support of the evolution explanation. It also
serves just as well to demonstrate variation within limits
across generations.

2. An orderly creator would use common basic mechanisms
for basic life functions such as metabolism and reproduction.

The use of shared mechanisms for metabolism enables a
system of nourishment production and consumption with
one set of organisms providing the production of food
and another set of organisms serving as food consumers.
This division of labor (so to speak) provides for a balance
in nature. This is particularly borne out when the consumers
are designed such that they support the reproduction of
producers. Then both food producers and food consumers
increase in number until they stabilize at a mutually
supportable number within the environment in which they
live. This expectation is met in the plants and animals
extant within the world. Plants produce not only the
nourishment they need for themselves, but also provide
food for animals.

The reproductive processes of all living organisms use
genetic material that guides the production of proteins
within the growing organism. This genetic material uses
a small number of distinct "letters" in "words" that vary
both in spelling and in length to guide the growth of
organisms as varied as one celled amoeba to fish at
home in water to birds at home in the air to other
animals at home on the ground and under the ground,
not to mention the wide variety of plant life on the earth.
A designed richness in genetic coding allows for
variations across generations that result in varieties
in form (such as shape, size or coloration). Over time,
groups of individuals with similar varieties of genetic
coding could form separate populations in which
these variations become firmly established.

Evidence to support this prediction is found at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
under the title "Prediction 1.1: The fundamental unity of life."

Additional confirmation is found at:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?
newsid=47577&nfid=rssfeeds
This is a report of a recent discovery of a DNA switch found
in all forms of life, as noted in a recent posting here on
talk.origins.

3. An orderly creation using common building blocks for basic
functions would result in related groups of similar organisms.
This is particularly the case with common use of the same
genetic mechanism to guide the growth and development
of all organisms.

This prediction is fulfilled in different species of organisms
which have similar structures yet are reproductively isolated.
For example, maple trees and oak trees are similar in
appearance and use similar mechanisms for basic functions
such as food production and reproduction. But, maple trees
reproduce maple trees, and oak trees reproduce oak trees.
For another example, rose bushes and maple trees also
have some similarities. Both have leaves. But they are
vastly different in size and sturdiness when mature. Thus,
maple trees are more closely related to oak trees than to
rose bushes.

Further evidence to support this prediction is found at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
under the title "Prediction 1.2: A nested hierarchy of species."

4. An orderly creator would be consistent in use of mechanisms
such that independently organized classification schemes
based on objective physical data would result in the same
groupings of organisms.

Evidence to support this prediction is found at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
under the title "Prediction 1.3: Consilience of independent
phylogenies."

5. Fossils will show past and present life forms.
Occasionally, with the right conditions, remains of dead
organisms will fossilize. Because of an allowed
deterioration some populations of organisms will die out
leaving no offspring alive. Therefore, the resulting fossils
will show some mix of extinct and extant life forms. This
is what is found in the fossil record.

Evidence to support this prediction on the fossil record
is available at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil

6. An orderly creation using common building blocks for
basic functions would result in organisms that share some
forms with two or more distinct groups of organisms such
that they are somewhat like Group A and somewhat like
Group B but not identical with either. These can be called
intermediate between Group A and Group B.

Evidence of the existence of intermediate forms throughout
the period of life is found at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
under the title "Prediction 1.4: Intermediate and transitional
forms ... ."

And during the course of discussions, one additional evidence:

The continuity you see in the nested hierarchy is questionable when
I find figures of that hierarchy that include things like hypothetical
ancestors and nodes labeled with shared characteristics rather
that a named common ancestor.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html#fig1

I see discontinuities filled with imagination.

Dennis


.

Quantcast