Your bogus research got rejected? Well, create your own journal!

I just ran across this blog of The Balloon Man, and my, is it an excellent find!

Apparently Answers in Genesis has created their own journal called “Answers Research Journal”. It looks like they finally got tired of the criticism that creationists/ID proponents do not participate in peer review. Yet this “journal” looks to be nothing more than a dog and pony show, as The Balloon Man points out. I’ll let you read more about it here.

Also, Rational Wiki provides some food for thought here.

Advertisements

30 Responses to “Your bogus research got rejected? Well, create your own journal!”

  1. Thanks for the plug good sir.

  2. So your argument is that Creationists aren’t scientist so they don’t get peer reviewed, and since they don’t get peer reviewed, they aren’t scientists? But then they do get peer review, but because it’s not peer review YOU approve of, it’s bunk? I love it.

  3. No, my argument is that if they want to be apart of the peer review process then they have to submit their articles to actual scientists who follow the scientific method. Having your conclusion in hand before you do your study is not how science is done. And this is precisely what they are doing and the “journals” own site makes it very clear that any papers submitted must conform to the conclusions they want.

  4. Make that Journal’s

  5. But don’t you see that is exactly what you’re doing, “making it clear that any paper submitted must conform to the conclusions YOU want?” I mean, would you really peer review a paper that concludes that evolution could not have accounted for the phenomena studied? No, because you would throw it out a priori based on the fact that it’s “not science.” It’s circular reasoning. I’m not denying AiG’s bias, I’m trying to get you to recognize your own.

    Can you show me:
    1. How we can study, using the scientific method, a reptile evolving into a bird?
    2. How the Answers Journal DOESN’T follow the scientific method? (I haven’t read it, I’m honestly asking).

  6. Okay, first of all, it is not circular reasoning. If there was evidence to support a different hypothesis from evolution we would examine it. But this is much different from what ARJ is doing because we are willing to throw out the evolution theory if evidence comes a long to discredit it. We don’t have a conclusion in mind a priori where as they do. If there is evidence against their theory they are not willing to look at it.

    Yes, I have a biased stance, one that requires evidence for claims. The greater the claim the more evidence is required. Incidentally, evolution is on such a good foundation of scientific evidence that claiming it was false would require a lot of evidence. However, if you provided such evidence we would be excited to hear it.

    As for your two questions, the second one I have addressed. They are not following the scientific method because they are not drawing their conclusions from the available data. But rather forcing the data to conform to their a priori conclusions.

    To the first, no evolutionist has proposed that birds evolved from reptiles, they are con completely different branches of the evolutionary tree. (Dinosaurs are not reptiles.) However, if you could demonstrate that a bird did come from reptile you would actually have disproved the theory of evolution.

  7. I should rephrase that last part to avoid some confusion. Dinosaurs may be classed as a reptile, i am a physicist and not a biologist so please forgive me if I am wrong on that count. The point is that birds did not evolve from modern reptiles you see today. And we can test that the have a common ancestry by looking at the transitional fossils, from comparative embryology or genetics.

  8. theballoonman

    “If there was evidence to support a different hypothesis from evolution we would examine it. But this is much different from what ARJ is doing because we are willing to throw out the evolution theory if evidence comes a long to discredit it.”

    I’ve heard this time and time again but the hostile reaction to Expelled betrays your real position. Anything that disagrees with you isn’t to be discussed, it’s to be labeled “not science”.

    “We don’t have a conclusion in mind a priori where as they do. If there is evidence against their theory they are not willing to look at it.”

    Please demonstrate this.

    “Incidentally, evolution is on such a good foundation of scientific evidence that claiming it was false would require a lot of evidence. However, if you provided such evidence we would be excited to hear it.”

    Claiming that you have scientific evidence for evolution, in the “molecules to man” sense does not make it so. You cannot observe, test or falsify “molecules-to-man” so why do you think you have scientific evidence for it? Please show me, I would be excited to hear it.

    “They are not following the scientific method because they are not drawing their conclusions from the available data. But rather forcing the data to conform to their a priori conclusions.”

    Can you give me an example of this? Make sure it’s different from what you are doing though.

    “To the first, no evolutionist has proposed that birds evolved from reptiles, they are con completely different branches of the evolutionary tree.”

    First of all, yes, I’m pretty sure that the tree goes amphibians–>reptiles–>birds. But that’s not the point and you are avoiding the question. Pick ANY “molecules-to-man” evolutionary relationship and you CAN’T observe it. How is it science if you can’t observe it?

  9. “I’ve heard this time and time again but the hostile reaction to Expelled betrays your real position. Anything that disagrees with you isn’t to be discussed, it’s to be labeled “not science”. ”

    I’m going to jump in to the middle of this discussion, if you and the balloon man don’t mind.

    “Isn’t to be discussed”? You must be joking. We’re discussing it now. There are pages and pages and pages across the internet of discussions amongst evolutionists and those opposed to it.

    As far as a hostile reaction to “Expelled”, I can only say…what else would you expect? The movie is insulting, has been shown to be full of falsehoods, and is completely biased (which is their right to promote their own view, but please–don’t be biased in a movie saying multiple viewpoints need to be heard. That’s ridiculous.) This has been well-discussed in many other places all around the ‘net, so I’ll leave it at that.

    Please tell us what you WOULD consider to be scientific instead of evolution and WHY. What evidence do you have supporting some other explanation for the diversity of life?

    ““We don’t have a conclusion in mind a priori where as they do. If there is evidence against their theory they are not willing to look at it.”

    “Please demonstrate this.””

    I believe the requirements for submitting to the ARJ The Balloon Man already posted already demonstrate this.

  10. Thanks Airtightnoodle.

    I am not going to relist all of the 150 years plus evidence for evolution. If you want a good summary, check out a series of videos by (a christian) DonExudus2 on youtube. He provides a number of excellent short summaries.

    No, the tree does not go that way. I has far more than three simple steps in that progression. Look it up (its also discussed in DonExudus2’s videos).

    Airtightnoodle is right, Exspelled is nothing more that a bunch of lies told to further this idea of “big science”. There are countless sights debunking its claims and I refer you to those.

    Finally, for the 13th millionth time. Evolution is a theory of how life develops into the diverse groups we see today. It says NOTHING about how life started. That is a completely different branch of science and remains an open question. And that does not mean that is how its going to stay. Science is constantly expanding the limits of human knowledge. As for being falsifiable, evolution is. And we can observe and test its predictions although not with our eyes. Its like electrons and atoms. We can’t observe it directly but we can look for its signatures in the natural world.

  11. airtightnoodle

    “You must be joking. We’re discussing it now. There are pages and pages and pages across the internet of discussions amongst evolutionists and those opposed to it.”

    Oh c’mon, every time I’ve brought forth an argument the conclusion of your response is that it’s “not science”. Now, every argument I make isn’t a scientific one, especially when trying to point out your unscientific arguments. But again, whenever I made an assertion like, “the fossil record is evidence for creation”, your response was not to discuss that assertion, but to dismiss it with “Creationism isn’t science.”

    Expelled challenged your status quo of “naturalism only” and that’s why it’s hated. Of course Expelled is biased, it admits it’s bias. It’s just trying to get you to admit yours. That’s why you it’s hated.

    “Please tell us what you WOULD consider to be scientific instead of evolution and WHY. What evidence do you have supporting some other explanation for the diversity of life?”

    As I’ve said here before, the diversity of life is no more evidence for evolution than it is for creation. I am looking at every fossil that you are and saying, “it’s a seperate species.” Only YOU are adding the assumption that one species came from another. Adding assumptions is not scientific. I see the fossil record, all the similarity and differences, and I stop there. You see the same thing, and add unscientific assumptions to explain it. Which is fine, I use unscientific assumptions as well. But I don’t attempt to call them science.

    The evolution that is used to produce penicillin, the evolution that is observable, testabla and falsifiable is absolutely science. I am only talking about the philosophical extrapolation out to explain the origin of all things. THAT’S what isn’t science.

    I was asking for a bias that affects ARJ’s science, or a bias unlike what naturalists have. Oh well.

  12. theballoonman

    “I am not going to relist all of the 150 years plus evidence for evolution.”

    Oh, so you and I are in the same boat. We both don’t understand how the last 150 years of evidence has been deemed “scientific” this whole time. You must just take it on faith. Of course I’m being sarcastic. But my question wasn’t wanting you to relate all the evidence for evolution. I wanted you to explain how all that evidence was able to be extrapolated out to explain the origin of all things and is STILL observable, testable and falsifiable.

    “Finally, for the 13th millionth time. Evolution is a theory of how life develops into the diverse groups we see today. It says NOTHING about how life started.”

    It seems you must be frustrated with this so I’ll make it simple. Unless you are a theistic evolutionist, you MUST assume that SOMEHOW DNA formed itself, that life began somehow. I know evolution has nothing to say about it because Natural Selection assumes life a priori, I’m not an ignoramous. You can try to explain it away, but you MUST make the assumption or ignore it. Period.

    “That is a completely different branch of science and remains an open question. And that does not mean that is how its going to stay.”

    To say that science will “one day find the answer” is a statement of faith. Making one is ok as long as you realize it.

    ” As for being falsifiable, evolution is. And we can observe and test its predictions although not with our eyes.”

    Testing predictions is not the same as being falsifiable. The question is, could you ever be sure that one animal did NOT evolve from another? It makes predictions about the unobservable past, predictions that inherently cannot be proven wrong. Therefore, evolution is not falsifiable.

    “Its like electrons and atoms. We can’t observe it directly but we can look for its signatures in the natural world.”

    That’s actually not a good example at all. Atoms and electrons are presently with us. They are physical things that can be manipulated. Molecules to man evolution is none of those things.

  13. We have working theories we are still testing about how life began. I was simply pointing out that not knowing how the first biological molecules were formed is not an argument against the validity of evolution.

    Making predictions is a means of falsifying a theory. If a theory is making predictions that are not supported by the experimental facts then they theory is invalid. This is exactly how we arrived at modern quantum mechanics and relativity. And I am sorry, but my example of electrons is perfectly valid. Its pointing out that processes such as evolution leave traces in things that are with us. If you don’t except evolution then please explain to me why humans have 95% of their DNA in common with Monkeys. Or why a percent of the population today is relatively resistant to HIV. Or why humans have the genes for making tails.

    Eric, answer the following for me which is steaming from your responses. How is the the fossil record evidence for creation?

  14. Also, did you watch any of the videos I referred you to?

  15. As for not being able to observe evolution with our own eyes:

    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

    Try actually seeking out some research before claiming there isn’t any evidence or rejecting it all blindly.

  16. theballoonman

    “I was simply pointing out that not knowing how the first biological molecules were formed is not an argument against the validity of evolution.”

    It’s not an argument against the validity of Natural Selection, I agree with you. However, it IS one against molecules to man evolution, and ESPECIALLY against naturalism. This is why: The proponents of naturalistic evolution MUST make two statements of faith “somehow DNA formed itself” and “someday scientists will know why”. Since evolution is proporting to be a scientific theory, these 2 statements of faith are evidence that it is not.

    “And I am sorry, but my example of electrons is perfectly valid. Its pointing out that processes such as evolution leave traces in things that are with us.”

    I understand what you were trying to say and it still doesn’t work. Here’s why: Since electrons are currently physically with us, we can test and falsify wether or not electrons are actually responsible for the phenomena we are testing. However, since molecules to man evolution is not currently with us, and is, by it’s own theory, unobservable, we cannot test and falsify it. Let me show you…

    1. Humans have 95% of their DNA in common with monkeys:
    Yes, if evolution is true then we would expect to have alot in common with monkeys, and lo, we do. However, if God created man and monkeys similar, then we would also expect to have 95% of DNA in common. And here is why BOTH statements are equal. Because the “how” in both is unexplainable. You can, until you’re blue in the face, say that we evolved from monkeys. But you can’t explain “how”. You can’t observe it, test it, or falsify it (prove we DIDN’T come from monkeys). Same thing with God’s creation, we can’t say how. Both “evolution did it” and “God did it” are unscientific, philosophical statements of faith.

    2. Resistant to HIV: This is an example of genetic adaptation. Please, don’t try to bait and switch me by telling me that a case of genetic adaptation that we can observe is evidence of the unobservable molecules to man evolution. It’s not. Also, the creationist is not suprised that life can adapt because God created it to do so…obviously.

    3. Or why humans have the genes for making tails: Oh c’mon. Because we DO have tails. How do you know we have the genes for making tails when we don’t make “tails” in the sense you are trying to say it? Are you sure the genes don’t do something else? Are you sure the sequence can’t be read in another way to produce something else? No matter the answers to that question, the fact that we have similar genes to other animals is only evidence that we are similar, that’s it.

    4. How is the the fossil record evidence for creation?
    What do we really have when it comes to fossils? A diverse fossil record that shows many different types of protozoans, plants and animals. All dead and unmoving. Any traits they had must be speculated upon from the available fossil, the vast majority of which is a single bone. This can equally be explained by saying that God created a diverse tree of life. Only YOU add the assumptions of an old Earth and “similarity = common ancestry”. That’s how.

    I did not watch the videos because I have no interest in repeating the material I learned in my SECULAR biology classes. I have a four year science degree and have gotten A’s on exams on nothing but evolution. I know the naturalistis M.O. is to assume they are talking to a religious nincompoop but I promise I understand the theory of evolution and all the evidence for it. I get it and I still think it has problems.

  17. Marina

    You are trying to “bait and switch” me by telling me that a case of bacterial adaptation is evidence for molecules to man evolution. Evolution requires changes a hundred thousand times bigger than E. coli adapting to a new food source.

    Read the entry on my blog (intelligentscience.org) and please think for yourself about wether or not bacterial adaptation is REALLY evidence that we all came from a single organism.

  18. I think i am done with this argument. If you claim you have four years of biological training, in which you got straight A’s and you still doubt the validity of evolution then you are purposefully lying to yourself.

    Or you can write a book about your brilliant new line of thinking and happily collect the nobel prize you are sure to win.

  19. theballoonman

    I never said I got straight A’s or have 4 years of biological training; but biology was central to my degree.

    Oh, so instead of thinking through my arguments and answering them you are falling back on the “if you don’t believe in evolution you must be ignorant or lying.” Classic. It’s a GREAT way to ignore the arguments against evolution and continue to believe it’s bulletproof.

    So are you saying that all the molecular biologists that are Creationists or ID guys have fake Ph.D’s?

  20. I am not addressing your arguments because they have been refuted a number of times already – specially by those videos I references to you before. I am not going to repeat arguments to someone who won’t listen.

    And there have been surveys on this, 99% or so of the biologists in the world support the theory of evolution. Stop trying to create the illusion of conflict.

  21. Bottom line is balloonman, your refusal to address my arguments is a cop out. If I continued to point to a video that I claimed refuted all your points you rightly call me ignorant. I have no choice but to assume that you either don’t understand HOW the video refutes my arguments and just have faith that it does. Or you know it doesn’t and are hoping I don’t watch it, Or you HOPE that the video refutes them since you don’t know how. I’ll never know which one it is.

    But actually, you’ve succeeded. You’re dependence on this video as an arguing tool has peaked my interest. I will watch it now.

  22. Go to youtube and look up a man named DonExudus2. Watch his series on proof of evolution. I can assure you that I understand far more then you seem to think I do, I am just snowed under with my own work at the moment and quite frankly, you are not bringing any new arguments to the table. You seem to not accept that scientists are willing to revise there notions of the natural world which shows how little experience you ahve in the field of science. I will be back with a longer response once i have time to write one.

  23. I am working on a response to DonExodus’ 2 vidoes. I watched the two 10 minute videos on his “Irrefutable Proof of Evolution”, the third part wouldn’t play because YouTube flagged it and I don’t have a YouTube account. I will post the reply on my site since it will probably be long. http://www.intelligentscience.org

  24. balloonman

    I published my response to DonExodus on my blog http://www.intelligentscience.org. Enjoy!

  25. Eric, this comment is directed to your previous comments. I will get to your rebuttal of the videos later this week. (But probably not until the weekend since Thursday is my birthday and i don’t plan on doing anything resembling work that day.)

    I will concede to you that my statement that “science will find an answer” is a faith statement. I do not ultimately know if there is an answer to be found or that our minds will ever have the scientific literacy to find such an answer. But to not push on it to admit defeat and accept ignorance so I don’t think we have any other choice. Also, given the track record science has had in closing the gaps in human knowledge, I would certainly say its a fairly good bet that science will likely find answers to the question of how the first biological forms emerged.

    Testing predictions is a means to falsify a theory. You can refer to my current blog post for a discussion on why this is so. But, to hit your second point about this, just as people leave footprints, things that were with us in the past leave definite marks in the present. Take the fossil record for example. That is something with us now and speaks to the history of life on this planet. Why can’t you test that against the theory of evolution?

    Your DNA argument is non-sense. Evolution predicts that if humans and apes share 95% of their DNA from common ancestry then a number of other things must hold true. Those are the things in which we test to confirm our hypothesis that evolution is valid. The statement “evolution did it” is not faith based because I can test it. I don’t have to accept it without evidence where as “god did it” does have to be accepted based on faith.

    The genes for making tails are chemically inactive. One could argue that they might serve a structural purpose. However, I am pretty sure that if you were to remove them from the particular portion of the DNA sequence in which they sit sequence would still be stable. I don’t know for sure as that is far outside my area of expertise. If you insist we can consult a molecular biologist.

    Your understanding of why the fossil record supports evolution is lacking. I will make a longer post to address that as its a long topic.

  26. theballoonman

    “I will concede to you that my statement that “science will find an answer” is a faith statement. I do not ultimately know if there is an answer to be found or that our minds will ever have the scientific literacy to find such an answer.”

    Thank you for being honest. Making a statement of faith is only bad if you deny you are doing so. I hope your next realization is that “evolution did it” when it come to the unobservable past is a statement of faith of the exact same mold.

    “But to not push on it to admit defeat and accept ignorance so I don’t think we have any other choice.”

    I would NEVER advocate such a stance. We should always strive to find out how and why, pushing past our current understanding. That’s what science is all about. But I think it is JUST AS scientific (and wise for that matter) to realize the limitations of our science, especially in describing unobservable phenomena (for our purposes, molecules to man evolution).

    “I would certainly say its a fairly good bet that science will likely find answers to the question of how the first biological forms emerged.”

    That would seem fair except that the current evidence is pointing to the IMPOSSIBILITY of naturalism accounting for DNA forming itself. And as we learn more, the situation will only get MORE complicated and harder for DNA to form itself, not easier and more likely.

    “Testing predictions is a means to falsify a theory.”

    In a certain sense I agree with you. Saying, “Well evolution predicts this, and if we don’t find it evolution is wrong” is a fine statement. But it doesn’t exclude evolution from being wrong ANYWAY. It also doesn’t exclude there being OTHER explanations that fit the phenomena just as well.

    “But, to hit your second point about this, just as people leave footprints, things that were with us in the past leave definite marks in the present. Take the fossil record for example. That is something with us now and speaks to the history of life on this planet. Why can’t you test that against the theory of evolution?”

    Here’s the problem. The footprints analogy doesn’t work. Why? Because with footprints we can clearly see where the person came from, where the person was headed, what there intended destination was. 1. There is no intended destination for Natural Selection, so no such pattern SHOULD BE visible in the fossil record 2. There is no obvious direction to the fossil record. Each fossil is a species in itself. An evolutionary “direction” must be inferred since we cannot watch any evolutionary change in action in any of the fossils. Using the footprints analogy, the fossil record would be like looking at a beach with a bunch of footprints, each footprint is from a different person and the footprints are everywhere, with no direction apparent. And the fossil record isn’t even that simple.

    “The statement “evolution did it” is not faith based because I can test it. I don’t have to accept it without evidence where as “god did it” does have to be accepted based on faith.”

    I want to understand your position. Are you saying that we can watch DNA changing from ape to human? Is that how you TEST “evolution did it”? Actually, can you give me one example of HOW you can test “evolution did it”? (And please don’t use similarity). Also, are you saying that IF God created life that apes and humans WOULD NOT have 95% of their DNA in common?

    We have genes for tails. We have tails. Done. Speculating wether or not our sequence would be stable without them is nonsense. EITHER WAY, it’s still just an argument from similarity.

    “Your understanding of why the fossil record supports evolution is lacking. I will make a longer post to address that as its a long topic.”

    Ok, if you do so, PLEASE don’t use comparitive anatomy or comparitive embryology or anything else that tries argue that similarity = common ancestry. It would be a waste of both our times because you are observing similarity and then making the faith statement “evolution did the similarity”. It’s just not scientific.

  27. I have a longer post addressing some of your criticism posted on my blog.

    theballoonman.wordpress.com

  28. Mr. Kemp,

    You may want to take a look at the decision in McLean vs. Arkansas (you can find the decision in full on the web in a couple of places). It’s the 1982 decision from a 1981 trial in federal court in Arkansas over one of Arkansas’s attempts to censor science. Several things came out in the trial that pertain to your claims about creationism, and which tell why creationism isn’t considered science.

    For example, creationists argued that the only reason they couldn’t get their research articles published in science journals was because journal editors are biased against them. In the course of the trial — depositions and pre-trial motions — this became a key point. Judge William Overton invited creationists to put into the record a collection of research articles they had submitted to journals that had been summarily rejected. By publishing these articles in the decision, it would put them into play and require that the creationist research be included in the next round of public school textbooks, simply by being available.

    You can read the result: Creationists could not produce a single article they had submitted to be published.

    You see, there’s a deeper problem here: Creationists don’t do research against evolution. Since there is no such research, there is nothing to write up. With nothing to write up, nothing is published.

    Creationists made the same claims in the 2005 trial in Pennsylvania, incidentally, with exactly the same result.

    So here’s my question: If creationism is science, why is there no research lab on Earth where researchers are working on creationism research? How many years must we wait to see the research? How can we possibly write about creationism research if the creationists won’t share?

    Second, you’ll see in the Arkansas decision reference to many depositions of creationists. In almost every case, creationists were asked, when under oath, to tell the science basis for creationism. In each and every case, creationists said that they did not know of science evidence to support their case, but that creationism is instead based on one particular (and peculiar) reading of scripture.

    In other words, based on the sworn testimony of creationists, Judge Overton ruled that creationism is religious dogma, and not science. There was no evidence presented to the contrary at trial.

    Overton’s decision was not appealed past the district court level — creationists were fearful of its being applied nationally if it made it to the Supreme Court. But in 1987, the Louisiana Legislature, determined to stick it to scientists and “secularists,” passed a similar law. Relying partly on the findings of the Arkansas decision, the district court in Louisiana granted summary judgment in favor of science. Louisiana creationists were so heated up they immediately appealed to the Supreme Court, and it was in that case that the Supreme Court ruled, for the nation, that creationism is religious dogma, not science.

    Judge Overton pointed out in 1981 that all creationists have to do to get out of that position is do some research that verifies creationism and publish the results. But since 1981, creationists seem to have some sort of allergic reaction to doing such research. No original research making the point for creationism has bee published since 1981.

    It’s not a question of scientists being unfair, nor is it a question of scientists bullying creationists. In point of fact, every paper ever submitted to science journals supporting intelligent design has been published — both of them. One was retracted, and the other failed to make the case.

    If you’ll look at the evidence, you’ll see that creationists have simply failed to make any scientific case to support a claim that creationism is science.

    The evidence for evolution is powerful, and quite airtight, really. Every part of evolution theory has been observed to occur, in the wild and in the lab. New species arise with rather astounding frequency to people who haven’t bothered to check the record for 30 or 40 years.

    I’ve not read all of your arguments here, but every one I’ve read was answered with gusto by Stephen Jay Gould. I gather you’re not a scientist, and you don’t have a good big city or college library at your disposal, since you don’t seem to have looked for evidence in science sources.

    I would urge you to get some good, basic stuff. Start with Jonathan Weiner’s book, The Beak of the Finch, a story of evolution in our time. You may want to follow up with one of Ernst Mayr’s last couple of books, or with Steven Jones’ brilliant Darwin’s Ghost. Most of your questions on evidence should be answered well in Niles Eldredge’s The Triumph of Evolution (and failure of creationism).

    Do not rely on creationist reviews of these books. Read them yourself.

  29. It seems you must be frustrated with this so I’ll make it simple. Unless you are a theistic evolutionist, you MUST assume that SOMEHOW DNA formed itself, that life began somehow. I know evolution has nothing to say about it because Natural Selection assumes life a priori, I’m not an ignoramous. You can try to explain it away, but you MUST make the assumption or ignore it. Period.

    Or, we could assume as Darwin did in Origin of Species that God started life out — and evolution occurred after that.

    Evolution is a theory of life now. HOW life started has no bearing whatsoever on evolution theory. Regardless of how life got started, evolution occurred.

    There is an enormous pile of evidence that DNA forms itself, including the way DNA is synthesized and replicated by living things today. It’s not much of a stretch. A few RNA molecules arise spontaneously, RNA molecules act as catalysts for other RNA molecules — it’s a twist on RNA that makes DNA. If you’re going to base your opposition to evolution on such a minor point, it might pay to make it a minor point for which there is not so much evidence contrary to your claims. (Google “Astrobiology Magazine,” and look at the dozens of archived stories on these topics there, from scientists who do real research in the area; and don’t miss Andy Ellington’s explanation at the Berkeley Evolution Gateway site; Ellington’s lab did some of the most dramatic work on the spontaneous synthesis of chemicals you seem to presume can’t spontaneously arise.)

    But again, all of that is beside the point. Evolution theory is entirely based on observation of living things in action. Darwin’s theory was so enormously popular at first because it explained why we see fossils, but it’s not based on fossil evidence. Fossils corroborate the theory, and frankly, the many thousands of transitionals provide solid evidence of evolution now, but Darwin didn’t think we’d ever have such spectacular finds from so fine a screen of the rocks.

    Evolution is a theory of living stuff, not dead stuff. It explains why the dead stuff is found as it is and where it is, and it explains how the living things that died to make the dead stuff got the way they were. The strength of evolution theory is in its applications today, in treating and curing disease, in developing new crops, in protecting crops and people against insects, arachnids, lice and other pests, and so on.

    Creationism is sterile and void in those applications.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: