Monday, November 14, 2005

*More Creationist Nonsense*

Man's evolution from monkey a proven scientific fact? No, it's not
by Andrew Loke Ter Ern (Dr). Refutation by Author with lots of help from the scientific community.

Prove positive that a weak faith and dogma almost always invariable leads to psuedo-science. All comments prefaced with a >

I watched the show 'A Species Odyssey' on Channel NewsAsia on November 6 and was very concerned with the way the highly debatable theory of human evolution was presented as a fact.

> The theory of evolution as it stands is not debated. What is debated are the exact mechanisms and the important certain factors have over the other. This is a highly disingenuous and certainty terribly misleading. The only place where this debate is going on is political. Science has accepted it and will continue to accept it every single time an experiment is done and does not falsify the notion of evolution and common descent.

While micro-evolution, ie the process of mutation and natural selection, can be observed in nature and is a proven fact, macro-evolution - the theory that all the organisms we see today resulted from the micro-evolution of simpler pre-existing organisms, which ultimately came from non-living matter - is not a proven fact.

> If micro-evolution can occur, where's the magic barrier than prevents it from becoming macro-evolution. There can be sufficient changes within the gene pool such that one speicies can actually separate into two. Science does not stand still and for evidence of macro-evolution, check out's 29+ Evidence for Common Descent and Evolution.

It is in fact contradicted by huge gaps in the fossil records as well as other theoretical considerations (see

> Very very unsubstantiated assertions. But for more evidence, here's's Fossil Hominds: The Evidence for Human Evolution. Or again here, Transitional Vertebrate Fossils. There have been missing links filled in but the problem with this is that everytime science comes up with another missing link they end up claiming that there are now TWO gaps.

Because of the evidence and theoretical considerations, many scientists have now repudiated the theory of macro-evolution (see, for example, and the number is increasing despite the 'persecutions' by scientific establishments wishing to maintian their unwarranted naturalistic philosophy. (See Dr Jonathan Well's The Icons of Evolution, chapter 12).

> Nope. A close reading of the text shows that any scientist could in good faith sign that statement. It simply expresses doubt about Darwinism. Modern Evolution has long since passed that stage, we now know that Darwinism is incomplete because he did not have knowledge of Mandelean Inheiritance of genes. It did however, make the theory much much strong. But if it's just numbers you want, check out National Centre for Science Education's (NCSE) "Project Steve", which is a tongue-in-cheek parody of suchy lists. After all, scientists named "Steves" (which include Steven and Stephanie) make up about 1% of scientific populace, but even so, they have over 600 names down on a purposeful statement, which makes it effectively tens of thousands of Scientist who accept Evolution on an evidentiary basis.

We must note carefully that micro-evolution does not necessarily imply macro-evolution. Micro-evolution only implies that given enough time, living things may change as they adapt to the environment. For example, given enough time, apes may change.

> Again, where's the magic barrier?

But micro-evolution does not necessarily imply that all the living organisms that we see today originates from pre-existing organisms. For example, to say that apes may change given enough time does not necessarily imply that man did come from apes. Above all, micro-evolution does not explain how the RNA/DNA comes about in the first place. (See docs/tjv10n3_origin_life.pdf).

> So the absolute identical nature of DNA and RNA is just a coincidence? Nope, it's very very strong evidence of common descent i.e. we come from a common ancestor.

Paleontologists often construct the supposed intermediates between monkeys and humans with much imagination and subjectivity which resemble myth-writing. (See The Icons of Evolution, chapter 11). Many such constructions have in fact been proven false (eg the Piltdown man which deceived scientists from early 1900s to 1953), while the remaining ones are highly debatable (see

> Very very bad book. The number of retutations are incredible but here's a taste at NCSE, here. And on what basis does he claim it to be debatable? Get me an evolutionary biologist that specialised in homind evolution i.e. a real expert and maybe I'll buy the argument.

People should not be given the idea that evolution from monkey to man is a proven fact of science when it is not and the media should not just present one side of the story without presenting the evidence and theoretical considerations that contradict it.

> Theoretical? More like theological. He's right in that it's not a proven fact of science. But it is such a cornerstone of science that ,"Nothing in biology makes sense outside of evolution". So convincing is the theory that scientist have effective accept it as fact. A theory is not guesswork or conjecture, much less a hypothesis. It is a framework with both descriptive and predictory power over existing facts. Again there is no controvesy about Evolution, it is a controvesy within it. And oh, Answer in Genesis believes that anything that's not in the Bible must be false, so any science that contradicts it must be wrong. A such they believe in a 6000-10000 year old Earth as well as a world wide flood that coincidentally just happened to arranged the fossils in a perfect geological strata by age.

While many books showing the fallacy of macro-evolution can now be found in bookshops and the National Library in Singapore (eg Dr Michael Denton's Evolution, a theory in crisis, Dr Michael Behe's Darwin's Black box), documentaries showing the fallacy of macro-evolution should also be shown on TV to let the public know the truth about our origin.

>Again, very very bad books and thoroughly discredited, just do a quick google. Especially Dr Behe on the witness stand of the Dover Trial. In fact, Dr. Behe rejects what every scientific organisation considers as a scientific theory. His definition of scientific theory is so broad that he admitted on the stand that Astrology would come under his definition. The origin he speaks about is of course a divine one, which means Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden I suppose. But of course, that's only one Genesis story. Genesis 2 has remarkable similarities to quite a few other creation myths.


At 5:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Shaun ,

I read your letter " Creationists trying to pass off religious beliefs as scientific facts on the ST forum " , published on the ST forum , which I just realised is re-produced at your blog here, with some unwarranted anti-creationist comments . Now , there are errors in your letter which need to be pointed out .

In your letter you were concerned that my view was not balanced , because I cited websites which teaches "cargo-cult science" . Perhaps you were unaware that I had indeed visited many evolutionist websites in the past, including the 'talk origins' website which you suggested , and the reason why I did not cite them is because I find the arguments there unconvincing . You were also perhaps unaware that my citation includes " Evolution -- A theory in crisis " which is written by Dr Michael Denton , who was an agnostic scientist and not even a Christian at all . And it is not true that the religious presupposition of the 'Answers in Genesis' website necessarily detracts from the veracity of the arguments presented there with regards to origin of life and human evolution. After all , many scientists in the past were deeply committed Christians; Newton, in particular, intended his work in science to serve as an apologetic for his faith . Yet I am you will not question the veracity of Newton's laws of motion because of his religious presuppostions .

You argued that my view is religious whereas macro-evolution is scientific , and there is a need to separate religion from science .Now I want to point out to you that my view belongs to exactly the same branch of scienfic inquiry as the theory of naturalistic macro-evolution . We must note here that the issue does not lie within the branch of experimental science, because neither the macro-evolutionist explanation nor the Creationist explanation of what happened in the past can be confirmed in a lab. The conflict between naturalistic macro-evolution and creationism legitimately lies within the branch of science which operates on principles similar to FORENSIC science . It is not " science versus religion " , as many suppose, but rather which explanation for an event that has happened in the past is more probable .We are like detectives coming to the scene , looking at the life we see now and asking ourselves " which explanation is more reasonable ? " Did life comes from non- life naturalistically ? Did man come from apes ? " " Science" , says Linus Pauling , " is the search for the truth , " and we are concerned about the truth here . And the truth of the matter is that intelligence as a causal agency for life and man should not be ruled out a priori . In fact it should at least be considered as a possibility , as the principles of forensic science clearly recognises events caused by intelligence apart from events caused naturalistically . And that is how murders are determined apart from naturalistic accidents. And just as a forensic scientist will reasonably believe that a code found on the wall to be caused by an intelligent agency , it is more reasonable to believe that the origin of the first genetic code is caused by an intelligence rather than by naturalistic processes . No doubt the explanation that the causal agency for life and man is an intelligent agency will have religious connotations , but this connotation does not imply that the explanation itself is not true .

An observation of the complexity of life and a reflection on how it can originate is indeed inconsistent with naturalistic explanations . Even one of the leading atheists and naturalist in the world, Anthony Flew, while still a non -Christian because of his misconceptions about Christianity, has now repudiated his long-cherished atheism as he now believed that an intelligence must have been involved in the origin of life , because that is the only explanation that is consistent with observation . As Plato had said , " We must follow where the evidence leads " .

You wrote " there is no convincing alternative to evolution, and disproving evolution does not prove any other theory. " But as mentioned above , intelligence as the cause of events must be considered as an alternative . Also, the arguments use to disprove evolution are equally valid arguments against all undirected processes . Now we must note that if it is not an undirected process , then it must be a directed process i.e. it must be Intelligent Design.

You attempted to discredit my citation of the statement by 100 scientists who oppose evolution( by saying that "It simply expresses doubt about Darwinism " and not the modern understanding of evolution with its knowledge of genetics . I find your discreditation unjustified. The statement clearly states " WE ARE SKEPTICAL OF CLAIMS FOR THE ABILITY OF RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE " , which IS the modern understanding of evolution with its knowledge of genetics , as the terms "random mutation " implies . The context of the statement , which is to refute the PBS statement that “all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution” as does “virtually every reputable scientist in the world.” , clearly implies that the statement is meant to refute the modern understanding of evolution which the spokesperson for the PBS evolution series claims all the scientists in the world now support . Your claim that " any scientist could in good faith sign that statement" , which imply that even scientists supporting the modern understanding of macro-evolution could in good faith sign it , is therefore clearly false ; the scientists behind the PBS evolution series certainly will not sign it !

As for your citation of 'Project Steve', it is irrelevant as you yourself said " numbers don't matter in a scientific debate but strength of theories and evidence do." I agree with you regarding this point .The reason why I cite the 100 scientists ( which included biologists ) was not to show that there are more scientists in the world who do not believe in evolution , but rather to show the fact that it is not true that all prominent scientists in the world believe in naturalistic macro-evolution ; Your statements that " it is such a cornerstone of science and so convincing is the theory that scientists have effectively accepted it as a fact ", which seems to imply that all scientists believe in macro-evolution , and "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", which seem to imply that someone has to believe in macro-evolution to be a biologist , are therefore clearly false . As for the strength of evidence against naturalistic macro-evolution , this can be found in the sources that I cited in the first letter, and this strength of evidence is the cause of the dissent for naturalistic macro-evolution by the 100 scientists and others .

I want to highlight again that it is not micro-evolution ( the process of random mutation and natural selection ) that I am objecting to. This process is a proven fact and all scientists accept it .It is naturalistic macro-evolution that I am objecting to . The problem is that many people confound micro-evolution and macro-evolution together , and that is why they come up with assertions such as yours that "every experiment that's done simply verifies the strength of the modern theory of evolution " when ONLY micro-evolution is proven. It is wrong to confound micro-evolution and macro-evolution because it is a logical fallacy to say that micro-evolution neccesarily implies macro-evolution You asked " If micro-evolution can occur, where's the magic barrier that prevents it from becoming macro-evolution? " But.the issue here is not about whether macro-evolution can or cannot happen , but " Did it happen"? Sure , there can be changes in gene pool , as you mentioned , but does the orgin of the organisms (such as humans) that we see today indeed resulted from gene pool changes of simpler life forms ( such as apes ), which ultimately come naturalistically from non-life ? " The process from molecules to life to simple organisms to apes to man is so complex that scientists had postulated that millions of years is necessary for even the most basic DNA and RNA to form . And the protective environment of the modern day laboratory was obviously not available for the first life to form naturalistically. Indeed , unpredictable destructive forces can happen all the time in the harsh ,unprotected natural environment. A volcano eruption , for example , would have instantaneously wipe out all traces of life in the " warm little pond " which had painstakingly taken millions of years to form. And somehow all the steps along the process from molecules to man must be protected from destructive forces and many possible detrimental chemical reactions , for millions of years ! Is it reasonable to believe that all these had happened naturalistically ?

You argued that different organisms sharing the same building block of life is positive proof of common descent. This argument is fallacious as sharing the same building blocks of life could also be seen as positive proof that they are the works of a Common Designer , just like Microsoft Word and Microsoft Powerpoint having millions of similarities is an indication that the same guys are writing the programs . Using " the same building block" argument therefore does not prove common descent over special creation ; it is a logical fallacy which is typical of pro-macro-evolutionist arguments found in evolutionists' literature such as the talkorigin website.

You argued that " how RNA and DNA came about is not an issue because they do not detract from evolution " . But theories on how the RNA and DNA came about are often considered in literature supporting macro-evolution .In fact , molecules-to-life evolution was shown in the last part of the documentary " A Species Odyssey " , and that is why I have to mention it to show that it is not a proven fact as much as ape-to-human evolution is not a proven fact. The origin of life issue is relevant to any discussion about origin of species .If you would concede that an intelligence is involved in the origination of DNA , then that would explain to you why different organism share the same building block of life ( ie they have a common designer ), and your positive proof of common descent would vanish .

You argued , with regards to missing links in the fossil records , that " every time science comes up with another missing link, the creationists claim that there are now two gaps " . But that is not the claim in the sources which I cited in my first letter. Rather , what is argued there is that the "missing links" which evolutionist comes up with are not convincing links at all . You argued: " Perhaps if he ( Andrew ) were an evolutionary biologist specialising in hominid evolution, his authority could be accepted." It is interesting that you yourself accepted the authority of the author of the's website on Fossil Hominds which you cited , when the author does not even have any qualification related to evolutionary biology ( see ! Your argument against my qualifications is therefore inconsistent .Now one does not need to be an evolutionary biologist to point out the obvious logical fallacies of arguments used in support of macro-evolution, such as using common descent as a proof for macroevolution . Moreover, you should note that the views and sources which I cited do contain the opinion of paleoanthropologists , people specialising in the study of fossils, a field which form the basis for evolutionary biology .And paleoanthropologists themselves have admitted that their work in their field is highly subjective .For example , paleoanthropologist Misia Landau wrote that "many classic texts in the field were determined as much by traditional narrative frameworks as by material evidence " and that the themes " far exceed what can be studied from the fossils alone." (Narratives of Human Evolution ) . With regards to forming the narratives of evolution from fossils , paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall admitted that the process is "both political and subjective " such that " paleoanthropology has the form but not the substance of science ". And evolutionary biologist Clark Howell had conceded that " There is no encompassing theory of human evolution...Alas,there never really has been." (" Paleoanthropology and Preconception " Meike Contemporary issues in human evolution Memoir 21.)

You claimed that " the books that Dr Loke speaks of are not scientifc works or research ". I would like to ask you what is your definition of " scientific work ". If peer review is necessary to qualify as an scientific work, which you seems to imply, then Darwin's origin of species should not be considered as a scientific work, as it was never peer reviewed .

You argued that the books I mentioned have been " thoroughly discredited not just by scientists but also by theologians". I would like to ask you which theologian has given biblically-justified views against those books that I mentioned. Perhaps you would like to quote their arguments . Though there are scientists who refused to acknowledge those books, the arguments they used in support of macroevolution over intelligent design ( such as the "similarity in building blocks of life" argument, which I have refuted above) are not valid . Perhaps you would like to quote other arguments to support your view.

Finally , you mentioned Dr Michael Behe's discrediting in the recent Dover trial . I would like to point out that Dr Behe's "discrediting" has to do with his definition of " theory " and "hypothesis" , but it has nothing to do with the actual arguments that he presented in support of the Intelligent Design explanation .The issue here in this discussion is not about definitions regarding theory or hypothesis, but whether intelligent design or the BLIND process of naturalistic macro-evolution is a more reasonable explanation for the origin of the complexity of life and man .From what has been written above , we can see that naturalistic macro-evolution is not a proven fact of science , to say the least .

I hope you will re-think about your belief in naturalistic macro-evolution in light of what is written above .

Loke Ter Ern Andrew ( Dr )

At 7:26 AM, Blogger Shaun Lee said...

Doctor, my reply is at the following URL,

Please do tell me what your alternative theory is so we can start examining it in the spirit of free inquiry.


Post a Comment

<< Home