Conference yukon::christian

    {from the Center for Scientific Creation's Dr. Walt Brown}
    
        How Do Evolutionists Respond to What You Say? 
    
    They generally ignore it. A few will criticize the evidences in forums
    where I cannot respond. Once every year or so, a knowledgeable 
    evolutionist will agree to an oral, strictly scientific debate. These 
    debates are usually lively, but always cordial. Unfortunately, little
    can be covered in a 2 1/2-hour debate, and the substance of the debate
    cannot be widely distributed, studied, and recalled by others as it could 
    if it were in writing. 
    
    The biggest single step that I believe could be taken to clarify the 
    creation-evolution controversy is to have a thorough, written, 
    publishable debate. Both sides would lay out their case, much as I have 
    in The Scientific Case for Creation on pages 3 - 81. Then we would respond, 
    point-by-point, to the case for the other side. Both sides would have
    the right to publish the finished exchange. I have sought such a dialogue 
    since 1980, but have not had a serious and qualified taker. Many leading 
    evolutionists know of the offer.  When I speak at universities and 
    colleges, I offer the students a $200 finder's fee, if they can find an 
    evolutionist professor who will complete such a debate. I am repeating 
    that offer here to the first student who can find such a science professor. 
    
     Several excuses are given. 
    
        1."I don't have time." 
               Response: Many do not have time, and of course, they need
               not participate.  Nevertheless, others have the time to write 
               books attacking and misrepresenting creationist positions. Many 
               are teaching what I feel are outdated evolutionary ideas and 
               refuse to place themselves in a forum where they must defend 
               what they are teaching. If you are going to teach something,
               you ought to be willing to defend it, especially if taxpayers 
               are paying your salary. 
    
        2."I don't know enough about evolution." (Carl Sagan's answer) or
          "I am only qualified in one aspect of evolution." 
               Response: A team of people could participate in the 
               evolutionist side of the debate. 
    
        3."I don't want to give a creationist a forum." 
               Response: Of the thousands of scientific controversies, the
               creation-evolution controversy is the only one I know where 
               some scientists refuse to exchange and discuss the evidence. 
               That is an unscientific, closeminded position. 
    
        4."Creation is a religious idea. It is not science." 
               Response: Creation certainly has religious implications, but
               much scientific evidence bears on the subject. Only the 
               scientific aspects would be permitted in this written debate. 
               An umpire would remove any religious, or antireligious,
               comments from the exchange. If my only comments were religious, 
               the umpire would strike them from the debate. I would have 
               nothing to say, and the evolutionist would win by default. 
               (Incidently, evolution also has religious implications.) 
    
        5."Any debate should be in refereed science journals." 
               Response: The journals you refer to are controlled by
               evolutionists. They would not provide a platform for such a 
               lengthy debate. Nor do they publish any research questioning 
               evolution and supporting creation.  The publishers of these 
               journals would be severely criticized by many of their
               clientele and advertisers if they did. (The few evolutionists 
               who participate in oral debates often admit how much they are 
               criticized by other evolutionists for participating in a 
               debate.)  In a well-publicized case, one journal, Scientific
               American, withdrew a contract to hire a very qualified 
               assistant editor when it was learned he was a creationist. 
    
    If anyone wishes to explore the written debate idea further, I would
    welcome a letter regarding the debate. But if you are going to ask a 
    qualified evolutionist to participate, watch out for the excuses. 
    
    How do evolutionists respond to the scientific case for creation? Most
    try to ignore it. As you can see from the above excuses, even qualified 
    evolutionists avoid a direct exchange dealing with the scientific evidence. 
    
     Copyright � 1995 - 1997: Center for Scientific Creation Site 
    by Falcon Interactive 

    btw - Moon math is covered at http://www.creationscience.com/ under the
    Technical section.

There are only 2 possible explanations for intelligent life beyond earth, if it
exists.  It either evolved by chance, the only view allowed in public schools,
or God created it.  The first possibility, in spite of its official status, can
be quickly dismissed on mathematical grounds alone.  Eminent British astronomer,
Sir Fred Hoyle, points out that, "Even if the whole universe consisted of
organic soup from which life is made the chance of producing the basic enzymes
of life by random process without intelligent direction is approximately 1 in
10^40,000.  Such a number is beyond comprehension, but a comparison can be made.
The likelihood of reaching out and by chance plucking a particular atom out of
the universe would be 1 in 10^80.  If every atom in this universe became another
universe the chance of reaching out at random and plucking a particular atom 
out of all those universes would be 1 in 10^160."  As a consequence of the
mathematics alone, Hoyle concludes that Darwinian evolution is most unlikely
to get even 1 poly-peptide sequence right let alone the thousands on which
living cells depend for survival.  But even if that happened, chance would have
to go on to develop millions of kinds of cells, each with thousands of complex
chemical processes and progress at the same time in delicate balance with one
another.  Furthermore, these cells, and there are trillions in the human body,
must be gathered into nerves, eyes, heart, kidneys, stomachs, intestines, lungs,
brains, fingernails, etc., all in the right place and each functioning in
proper order with the rest of the body.  The odds of all of this happening by
chance are not even calculable.  The truth is that evolution is mathematically
impossible and this cold fact can be easily proven.  Then why does this theory
persist?  It should have been abandoned long ago.  Hoyle accuses the
evolutionists of self-interest, unfair pressure and dishonesty in keeping their
theory alive, and in forbidding the only alternative, divine creation, from
being heard.  Hoyle concludes, "The situation, the mathematical impossibility,
is well known to geneticists, and yet nobody seems to blow the whistle
decisively on the theory.  Most scientists still cling to Darwinainism because
of its grip on the educational system.  You either have to believe in the
concepts or you will be branded a heretic."

{"A Cup of Trembling," by Dave Hunt, p. 376}

      Thanks Mike,
    
        That's two replies in two days that you have written which
        I have extracted.  (One was one of the number's ones.)
    
    						Tony

Re: .3  (Mike Heiser)

I actually devoted quite a bit of time and research composing an initial
version of my essay "Extraterrestrial Intelligence" (see note 20.20).  What I
attempted to do was to fill the universe, which I modelled as a sphere 16
billion light-years in radius, with a soup of amino acids all reacting with
each other at the fastest conceivable rate, which I presented as once per
picosecond, for 16 billion years (the evolutionists' number for the age of
the universe).  I successfully demonstrated that coming up with a ribosome (a
protein-making machine) in this soup was so sufficiently improbable that we may
as well assume that it didn't happen.  I completed all this work and had it
reviewed by several people. 

Then I realized a fallacy in this type of effort and, regretfully, discarded
the whole thing.

The fallacy was that while I successfully demonstrated that life *as we know
it* could not have evolved, I did not and in principle could not in principle
prove that life *as we don't know it* could not evolve.  My calculations could
not be considered complete until I had taken into account every conceivable
form of life as we *do or don't know it*.  I fell into the trap of trying to
prove a universal negative.  I realized that I had to be omniscient to do this.
Since I was not omniscient, I couldn't prove that universal negative, and had
to admit that my effort was a failure.

Instead, I came up with an alternative approach which I believe to be free of
this fallacy.  This effort is posted in note 20.20.  The posting in 42.3 falls
under this same fallacy, and is therefore useless as an argument against
evolution. 

If anyone wants to see my now-rejected work, I would be willing to e-mail it
to anyone who gives me their word that they will not ever distribute or
disseminate it. 

    What is interesting to me is how these probabilities tie into the
    discussion on Bible acrostics and codes.  In some cases, the odds for
    the creation of life by random chance is several times greater than the
    odds for some of these Torah codes.  Despite all the evidence and
    mathematical probabilities against chance, we still have secularists
    who refuse to acknowledge the truth and be accountable to the God of
    the Bible.  Mankind is truly twisted!  It is no wonder that Revelation
    declares that people will still curse God even in that darkest era.
    
    Mike

      Hi Garth,
    
        The only significance I can see attributing to needing to
        account for "life as we don't know it" is if we simply
        calculated for a hypothesis containing the following condition:
    
        No "life as we don't know it" intervened to help make the
        "life as we do know it."
    
        And as no evolutionists claim, as part of their science, that
        "life as we know it" did come about, in part, by the
        intervention of "life as we don't know it" that hypothesis 
        should be satisfactory for them, no?
    
        I guess I'm trying to say that calculating the probability that
        life could come about may be impossible for the reasons you gave,
        however, you could calculate the probability of an alternative
        hypothesis.
    
        And one with which an evolutionist would definitely agree.
    
    						Tony
                                

  >  It is no wonder that Revelation
  >  declares that people will still curse God even in that darkest era.
    
    
   I get chills when I read that verse, and look around at our world today..



 Jim

    I just wrote some code to print the number 10^40,000.  Took 14 pages of
    0's.

|The fallacy was that while I successfully demonstrated that life *as we know
|it* could not have evolved, I did not and in principle could not in principle
|prove that life *as we don't know it* could not evolve.  My calculations could
|not be considered complete until I had taken into account every conceivable
|form of life as we *do or don't know it*.  I fell into the trap of trying to
|prove a universal negative.  I realized that I had to be omniscient to do this.
|Since I was not omniscient, I couldn't prove that universal negative, and had
|to admit that my effort was a failure.
    
    I'm not a scientist, and I don't play one on TV, and am having some 
    trouble relating to this.  If you don't know something exists, and in
    this case we probably doubt it does with good reason, why do you need
    it to complete your argument?
    
    I was taught in high school and college that the scientific method
    involves:
    
          1. Observations/Experiments ------<-------<-
          2. Data Reduction/Analysis/Conclusions      ^
      -<--3. Hypothesis/Model                         |
      |   4. Further Tests for Confirmation ---->------
      ->--5. Theory/Revision of Theory                |
          6. Testable Predictions -------------->------
          7. Better Theory/Scientific Literature/Educational Textbooks
    
    Science is evolutionary.  You make an observation, model your data,
    and establish a hypothesis.  You can't model what you don't know until
    you can observe it.  Then when it is known, you build a better model
    and hypothesis and reduce what isn't known.  Am I off here or just
    crazy?
    
    I get the impression that this is what the evolutionary scientists are
    doing.  It's honorable to want to take the higher road in defense of
    the Lord, but I don't see how assuming what we don't know doesn't
    exist is a bad thing.
    
    Mike

Re: .10  (Mike Heiser)

I agree with your assessment of the scientific method.  

And I should point out that it took me quite some time to realize the fallacy
of the "probability" argument.  In fact, I spent about 2 months working on that
essay before its fallacy became obvious to me. 

The evolutionist is unscientific for not having a good handle on the 
probabilities.  How can he think that evolution is even remotely probable
with a sample set of 1?  Life came about on earth only once.  

But the anti-evolution probability argument is fallacious as well, and for the
same reason.  How can you know the probability if you don't know all the
possible outcomes that would be considered successful?  Life came about on
earth only once.

I'll try to think of a better way to explain this, so stay tuned.

|But the anti-evolution probability argument is fallacious as well, and for the
|same reason.  How can you know the probability if you don't know all the
|possible outcomes that would be considered successful?  Life came about on
|earth only once.
    
    Now this I understand: you have to know all possible outcomes ahead of
    time.  For instance, you couldn't determine the probability of a
    specific license plate number if you didn't know the total number of
    available alphanumeric characters.
    
    I can see how this would apply to creation vs. evolution probabilities,
    but I'm not sure how appropriate it is.  At least with the above we know 
    there are 26 letters and 10 numbers.  We have no idea of what life
    is like, if it exists, beyond what we know.  We can't prove anything
    without evidence either.  Nice catch-22.
    
    I'm sure the SETI project wasn't started so that they could compute 
    probabilities ;-)  Maybe this is why all the theories started on
    parallel universes too.  It seems they'll try any foolish thing to
    forsake accountability to God.
    
    Mike

    Re: .12
    
    > parallel universes too.  It seems they'll try any foolish thing to
    > forsake accountability to God.
    
    Mike, I assume the they you are talking about is scientists. Why do
    you think all scientists want to forsake accountability to God? Why
    is doing research and trying to find out about the world we live in
    forsaking accountability to God, after all God created it as is?
    
    I believe, I could be wrong, that the SETI project was started by
    astronomers not biologists. Now maybe it can be considered a waste of
    money to do research like this but I'm not so sure. What if they in
    fact do find life? I submit that God created it also. Now you can
    argue the probabilities on this if you want, I'm sure that similar
    agruments abounded when research into atomic and nuclear physics was
    being done. I'm sure that there were many people who thought the
    physicist were a little foolish after all you can't see the little bits
    of matter that they are talking about and there not mentioned in the
    bible at all.
    
    Peter

|    Mike, I assume the they you are talking about is scientists. Why do
|    you think all scientists want to forsake accountability to God? Why
    
    I was referring to evolutionists in general.  Not all scientists are
    evolutionists.

    
    There is truly significant progress in the battle between creationists
    and evolutionists.
    
    Phil Johnson is the leader of a formal organization of scientists,
    philsophers, etc. who are going to validly and aggressively pursue and
    promote intelligent design as a scientifically investigatable basis.
    Phil Johnson has spoken in the past two years at many secular
    universities. He is a law professor at UC Berkely and wrote two
    excellent books which argue against evolution from his considerable 
    command of logic.
    
    Michael Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box" is causing a huge ripple
    throughout the science community.  It is excellent!  Irreducibly
    complex machines such as those at the cellular level are discussed in
    the context of Darwinian evolution and the conclusion is that they
    cannot be explained by evolution but only by intelligent design.
    
    The argument is finally coming down to the truth in terms of language. 
    The issue is not science vs. religion but naturalistic philosophy
    versus religion.  It is not science which proves evolution, indeed
    scientific evidence is virtually impossible to find, but it is the
    naturalistic philosophy with its presuppositions which creationists are
    battling.
    
    I expect great things.
    
    If you want an undeniably biblical apologetic big enough to address
    such issues as evolution, ethics, naturalistic philosophy and so on, I
    highly recommend you study a famous man's writings - Cornelius Van Til.
    
    jeff

  -.15
  Jeff,
  I totally agree with you on the Van Til recommendation. I've been using him
  for a resource for about six years. My apologetics teacher studied under
  him for a while and is a strict Vantilian. While I'm note sure I go as
  far as him in some areas such as common ground or antithesis (or even
  understand all of it), he's been a big influence to me. I also recommend 
  John Frame's stuff. He's the one that the Van Til torch was passed off to. 
  His Book analyzing Van Til's method is very good and a lot easier to read 
  that Van Til himself (of course that wouldn't be hard).

  Also a shameless plug for my apologetics teachers new book. His name is
  R. K. McGregor Wright (Bob). His book is called "No Place for Sovereignty,
  what's wrong with freewill theism". It published by InterVarsity Press. 
  I think it gives the best presentation of reformed presuppositional 
  apologetics around (I'm unbiased of course).
  He goes into the Creator/creature distinction, the problem of evil, the
  location of ultimacy and is very Vantilian. (He also gives a pretty good
  refutation or Clark Pinnocks more recent work)

  Tony

Re: .15  (Jeff Benson)

>    philsophers, etc. who are going to validly and aggressively pursue and
>    promote intelligent design as a scientifically investigatable basis.

I maintain that since intelligent design is not a natural phenomenon, it
can't be pursued using the scientific method.  Scientific study may conclude
that a particular thing was designed, but that conclusion instantly puts that
particular thing out of the realm of further scientific investigation.

Intelligent design is not deterministic, is not predictable, is not repeatable,
and does not conform to natural law.

There are those who would take issue with me, but they must redefine the word
"science" as the vast majority of us have come to know it (see Mike Heiser's
definition/process in reply .10).

The reason I feel it is important to make distinctions such as this is because
one of the ways we can challenge evolutionism in the sciences is to show that
it is unscientific.  However, we cannot show it is unscientific if we (and
they) keep redefining what "science" is.

    
    As I understand it, the group intends to press with increasing success 
    the proper division between science (a method, really) and naturalistic
    philosophy.  It is naturalistic philosophy, not science, which insists
    upon a strictly naturalistic presuppostion in science.
    
    I do not know the details concerning how they intend to investigate
    intelligent design but I'm sure it is possible or it would not be
    promoted as a viable scientific posture.
    
    Another result of this group's work is that it is removing the barriers
    which exist between creationists and theistic evolutionists so that
    they may speak as one rather than fighting among themselves.
    
    jeff

    We had a rare treat last time with the comet Hale-Bopp, the lunar
    eclipse, and the view of Mars all at the same time.  
    
    What impresses me most is the mathematical order in the universe.  So
    many things going on, yet we can predict them because of the math 
    relationships.  Their order is no accident!

    Watched it too!  The whole family drove to a reserve where there aren't
    any street lights, set up the telescope and enjoyed that show!