So this means that “John” won’t bother to research it. Everything he’s written has indicated that he doesn’t know what science is nor how to use it… and his claims to be open minded and willing to change are nonesense. He is clearly not “intellectually honest”.

If you mean the teaching of children from birth that certain unsupportable mythologies are factually true and that their every action must be based on these mythologies or they will be eternally punished in a lake of fire… then I’ll agree with you.

If, however, you mean teaching children from school age that there is an overwhelming abundance of certain observable facts from multiple fields of study in our natural world that indicate that all life is related from a common ancestor… then you’re off your rocker.

As I said before, I’m not going to list the evidence here. It has filled plenty of books that are readily available, so anyone with some intellectual honesty can easily do some simple research to get it. You obviously have not done that, as your assertions repeatedly have demonstrated.

Accepting the theory of evolution is not a matter of faith. Far from it. Faith is an unwavering belief in something without any supporting evidence. Acceptance of evolution is the exact opposite of that… as is acceptance of gravity… or physics… or any other scientific theory. The evidence, to this point, is 100% in support of evolution, but if that somehow changes (Gould’s rabbits in the pre-cambrian), then I dare say that every single evolutionary scientist on the planet will follow the new evidence to its logical conclusion.

“Faith” has nothing to do with it.

So you go on believing what you believe. Keep having “faith” in your positions. Go on to become a “sad old git with the power of God” behind you.

As for myself, I’d much rather live in a reality-based world.

Despite your use of sciencey words and baseless probability speculations, you really continue to show a complete lack of understanding of the process of evolution, and in this case, evolution has a very specific meaning.

Your description of evolution, however, is what really displays your lack of understanding. Using words like “magically” and “selective mutation” and “irreducibly complex” is a glaring indication of that. Calling evolution a “random” process is also incorrect. It’s almost as if you cut and pasted some text from the Discovery Institute or from Answers in Genesis. The one thing you did get right, however, is the idea that evolution has no purpose.

Your diatribe about gaming probabilities, amino acids, and proteins is also irrelevant to the discussion (not to mention fallacious… Hoyle’s Fallacy? Please.) and it baffles me why you felt the need to present it. Reading that makes me even more suspicious of cut and paste activity.

In the end, your “conclusion” is incorrect. There is no faith involved in my position… or anyone’s position who accepts evolutionary theory. Faith is belief without evidence or proof. Evolutionary theory has mountains of evidence to back it up. It requires not a single ounce of faith.

Next time you comment, it would be great if you provided your own thoughts in a more concise (and relevant) manner. I did not address each of your individual points because a little research online (at reputable science sites) will give you more information than you’ll ever need… and I’m not going to do your work for you.

Or you could say that life came about via “evolution” over billions of years from a single-celled organism (which magically appeared out of goo), through selective mutation and natural selection, whereby billions of units of information were added to the genome successively for no apparent reason, and symbiotic and irreducibly complex organism structures were pieced together by chance processes to arrive at highly intelligent, multi-trillion celled organisms known as human beings, without any purpose or meaning whatsoever.

An equivalent argument would be something like: scientists have “designed” extremely complex and intricate computer chips using nanotechnology, and these scientists are very “intelligent”; therefore, this proves “Intelligent Design” by supernatural creation 6,000 years ago. Following your logic of equivocation, one could pretty much argue whatever he or she wanted without committing any logical fallacies.

Now, evolution presupposes nothing, because by its nature it is random, and it has no specified goal or cause in which to guide it. Therefore, a measure of ordered complexity (in some cases irreducible complexity) can be used in conjunction with probability theory, to arrive at a hypothetical limit for the probability of random occurrences producing known, complex entities.

This is purely logical, because we can recreate the method using actual science. This can then be used to determine the validity of any chance process arriving at a given outcome, considering all necessary variables, and the quantitative, known outcomes involved. For instance, if we were to roll two gaming die, we can conclude the probability of arriving at a known outcome of 12 in a single roll, using the numbered pairs on the die of 1-6. Knowing this, we could extrapolate how many rolls it would take, and what the probability would be, of getting virtually any combination of numbers.

Now taking this a step further, we can quantify what the probability is of chance processes (evolution) producing the most basic components necessary for life. Let’s take a look at just a few of these components, and then we will determine the probability of their spontaneous arrival. The variables involved here require several consecutive improbable occurrences just to form the molecule chains in amino acids, but for the sake of argument, we will assume the amino acid as a given. Amino acids are necessary for the building of proteins, which are essential in cell function, and ultimately for biological function.

There are over 2,000 different varieties of amino acids, but only 20 of these are the type used in biological systems. These select amino acids also must be chained together in a specified order to produce a viable protein. Amino acids come in two equal but opposite flavors, left-handed and right-handed versions. Naturally occurring versions are racemic in nature, which means that they are automatically inclined to split into equal portions of left and right-handed (chiral, or mirror imaged) amino acids. The proteins necessary for life, however, are strictly made up of left-handed amino acids; a single right-hander would render an otherwise functional protein useless. Furthermore, one must consider the fact that these amino acids would be destroyed by oxygen just as soon as they (supposedly) assembled themselves. Even if you assume (incorrectly) that the early atmosphere did not contain oxygen, this would prevent the formation of ozone (O^3) which blocks ultraviolet radiation, which also would destroy these molecules. The notion that they somehow formed deep within the ocean also will not save you, due to the fact that hydrolysis would destroy amino acid chains by causing them to break apart.

Let’s continue on to proteins. Assuming that evolution somehow overcame the odds and formed all 20 amino acids necessary for life, separated them from the 2,000 or so variations available, found a way to separate the chiral pairs, and overcame the environmental factors that would destroy them as soon as they formed, it (evolution) would still have to figure out how to put those 20 amino acids in specified (not random) order to form the most basic protein imaginable, with 100 amino acids (average protein size is about 300 amino acids). Proteins also come in many different varieties, due to the fact that they have several different functions. This means that each amino acid chain of 100-300 units, would have to be ordered exactly right just to make a single viable protein; but this is only one protein out of literally thousands of uniquely functioning versions required for a cell to operate.

So what is the probability of these unlikely events occurring by chance processes? Well, let’s consider the amino acids necessary for a simple protein as described above, with 100 units. Assuming we have the correct molecules for life (out of the 2,000), what is the probability of getting 100 consecutive left handed versions in order to form a protein? If we were to compare this to flipping a coin (representing a 50/50 chance), in order to get heads 100 times in a row, we would have to flip the coin 10^30 times (that’s 1 followed by 30 zeros)! In fact, the probability of an average size protein forming by chance is calculated to be roughly 4.9 x 10^-191. The laws of probability imply that any event that has less than 1 chance in 10^50 of occurring, is for all practical purposes, impossible. Sir Frederick Hoyle calculated the probability of the most basic building block of life, a cell, arising by chance, to be 1 x 10^-40,000. This number is so unimaginable, that is impossible (for all probability purposes) almost a thousand times over.

Now two things must be pointed out at this stage: 1) these are just some of the many complex biological structures and machines that are necessary and observable in life; and 2) the calculations listed for probability in the previous paragraph are for quantitative, known outcomes, as I mentioned earlier on. Because evolution began working with nothing and with no goal in mind (no pun intended), the desired outcomes were nonexistent. The contention that evolution built upon working structural benchmarks of biological precursors is absurd, due to the fact that preconditions were not set which specify a desired outcome. Therefore, the probability argument cannot even destroy your argument, prior to its destruction by logic alone. After all, it’s not as if all of the components necessary for life were created by evolution, set in a pile, and selected at random to try and form viable molecular structures. Even if that was the case (which would imply motive, and therefore intelligence for evolution), the argument would still be defeated by probability theory anyways.

The conclusion is that you must believe by faith that all of this happened, using just-so stories to qualify the irrationality of evolutionary biological origins. This is then presupposed as a foundation for your worldview, which determines how you interpret the evidence. So really it doesn’t matter what evidence there is, because we all have the same evidence, we simply interpret it based on what our worldviews are. Therefore, everything we argue to this point, will be nothing but mere semantics, because your beliefs determine your bias, just the same as mine do.

As for the Creation Museum’s “Natural Selection is Not Evolution” exhibit, I don’t think I ridiculed it. I refuted it.

Your point is taken, I agree, that the first sign about “speciation” and “kinds” does say that speciation occurs. I was in error in saying that the sign says it doesn’t. However, the term is misrepresented and, evidently, misunderstood. The word “kind” is used in a way that insinuates it is more specific… or more scientific… when in fact, it is egregiously vague to the point of being meaningless… or to the point where the meaning is easily changed to suit the argument of the moment (as you so nicely demonstrated in your reference to wolves and foxes). It has no validity in evolutionary science. You seem to imply that “kinds” is a biblical term and, therefore, not man-made… or somehow more precise. I find that position untenable.

The sign says that speciation occurs, but before that, claims that “speciation has never resulted in one kind of organism evolving into another kind, such as a reptile evolving into a bird.” That statement is blatantly false unless you change the meaning of the word “speciation” or ignore all contradictory evidence. Claiming that “species” is a man-made term is, indeed, an attempt to marginalize the word and my point stands that every word is man-made… including words in the bible.

So, in fact, my arguments do stand and I have neither misunderstood nor been disingenuous regarding creationist arguments… nor did I set up a straw man argument. Your comment is a good example of the distortion and cherry-picking of evidence that I mention in this post… misleading use (or misunderstanding) of the word “speciation,” using the ambiguous word “kinds” as if it had scientific value, ignoring contradictory evidence, and ignoring the refutations in the rest of my post.

I don’t think my arguments have an effect on the “foundations that evolution is built upon.” Those foundations are well beyond solid with our without my help.