In a Nutshell: Three Great Problems for Evolution
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- On this episode of ID the Future from the archive, host Andrew McDiarmid continues his conversation with Robert Waltzer, chair of the department of biology at Belhaven University and co-author of Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell, on three big problems faced by naturalistic evolutionary theory.
This is Part 2 of a two-part conversation.
Find more episodes at www.idthefuture.com!
As many scientists have pointed out, criticism of evolution cannot be tolerated in education, because there is only one alternative explanation for life.
It's the best explanation for the diversity of life we have right now.
I'm not sure why these supposed scientists make such a fundamental error as thinking evolution has anything to do with the origin of life. It sounds deliberate because they should know better.
The real problem they have with evolution is that it contradicts their interpretation of the Bible timeline (ie all things were made recently and fully formed in a single miraculous creative event). This, I suspect, is why they deliberately misrepresent evolution... which immediately begs the question of why a person confident in his explanation would need to do that.
@@incomingincoming1133
"It's the best explanation for the diversity of life we have right now."
So you say.
"I'm not sure why these supposed scientists make such a fundamental error as thinking evolution has anything to do with the origin of life."
They don't.
"The real problem they have with evolution is that it contradicts their interpretation of the Bible timeline (ie all things were made recently and fully formed in a single miraculous creative event)."
They don't.
"This, I suspect, is why they deliberately misrepresent evolution... which immediately begs the question of why a person confident in his explanation would need to do that."
They don't.
@@incomingincoming1133 They treat the problems surronding evolution seperately from the problems concerning abiogenesis.
They're ancient creationists. I've never heard anyone within the ID movement doubt the accepted age of the earth, or the timeline of the appearance of plants and animals.
If scientists were confident about the theory of evolution then they would tolerate public criticism of the theory, which begs the question why they would need to do that.
@samuellowekey9271 If you are saying, with sincerity, that you:
have not seen anyone in the ID community that disagrees with the 4 billion+ year age of the earth,
plus you have not seen anyone in the ID community that believes all life was created fully formed and complex,
And you have not seen anyone in the ID community disagree with the scientific order/timeline of the emergence of various organisms,
Plus you have not seen anyone in the ID community suggest evolution as a theory of the origin of life,
then I don't know how to respond.
@@incomingincoming1133 Denis noble reks Dawkins selfish gene book, and Denis noble is an atheist
Dr. Waltzer gives one good example of how multiple, mutually-dependent, complex systems are required for oxygen to be transported throughout the human body.
But the same principle is involved in EVERY function of EVERY living organism, at EVERY level, from the cellular level up. This is overwhelming evidence of design.
Unguided processes cannot produce sophisticated, complex designs that will not work if one essential part is missing.
That’s just “common sense”.
But as one wise person said, “common sense seems to be a very rare trait”.
Yeah, you need multiple systems for the HUMAN. Humans came from earlier organisms where the mechanisms were far simpler and no pumps were needed because the fluid around the animals had oxygen already.
Come on people his arguments fail if you took even ONE course in evolution.
That was painfully cringe to watch.
Please bring arguments that were not debunked 60 years ago.
Most of the confusion about unguided macroevolution seems to begin when we don't distinguish between arguments and story-telling. Try to challenge your mainstream biology teacher about the irreducible complexity of the eye for example. They are going to throw a series of irreducibly complex systems of different levels of complexity arranged from the lowest to the highest, fill the gaps with arrows, and voila! You have a pretty evolutionary tree that instantly debunks irreducible complexity and then they don’t understand what it is that you don't understand. You must be some sort of creationist or something
I appreciate common sense, but I CERTAINLY DON'T rely on it. Common sense is what is intuitive and apparent. Intuitive can, and is often, wrong. It is intuitive that the earth is flat because that is how it appears. It is common sense that a heavy steel ball will fall faster than a lighter one, but they fall at the same rate. It is common sense that the sun goes up and down, but it is the earth that is spinning. Common sense is only a starting point, to have some sort of subjective suspicion until the truth is revealed by an objective process of examination of evidence.
@@incomingincoming1133 True. That's the actual predicate of modern science. Methodologies are documented, data and evidence must be provided and reviewable, and research must be continually subject to peer review with an active eye toward refutation and challenge.
@@PhrontDoor Please present any current evidence which hasn't been reached from 60 years ago. These arguments are based on current science and are recognized by every researcher in the field and create ginormous problems for evolution and origins theories.
The fact that darwinism has been debunked should be a source of encouragement for atheists. It means you are not a random monkey mistake. It means your great, great, great... grandkids won't grow scales and swim off into the ocean never to be seen again. It means you were designed by the most intelligent mind in the universe with a loving purpose. Please accept the love; declare Jesus as your Lord, believe in your heart that God raised him from death and you will be saved (Romans 10:9).
Even if evolution were debunked it wouldn't automatically mean that your particular explanation is true. Your ideas would have to stand on their own, with their own evidence, not automatically become the truth.
The process of supporting your explanation of miraculous creation by a god does not end with debunking evolution. In fact it doesn't even begin with it. The true process involves showing the sound evidence FOR your explanation, not being preoccupied with poking holes in rival explanations.
Have you ever noticed that evolutionary biologists spend their time proving evolution, while largely ignoring creationism. But Creationists focus more energy on poking holes in evolution, than on demonstrating that their own explanations are true? Why do you think that is?
Could it be that they are hoping to win by default if they can sow doubt in evolution. But that begs the question,why would a person confident in his own explanations not focus on supporting them, if he believes he has good evidence? Why does the mean girl focus on spreading negative gossip about a rival than on demonstrating her own good traits?
@@incomingincoming1133 this channel has a whole library of videos detailing the merrits of ID. The only question is what evidence would you accept?
@@refuse2bdcvd324anything new since the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial?
Amen @refuse🎚️😊.
Such bogus arguments! The ultimate example given by creationists is the human eye. But evolution explains the development of the eye very well and credibility. This podcast is just more nonsense from pseudoscience pedlars.
I notice that you call it bogus but do not explain what the problem is with these arguments. Name calling is all you got? You sound like a religious fanatic.
@@jjharvathhMaybe because these arguments have been debunked over and over again in the scientific literature, and yet crap podcasts like this keep trotting them out. Irreducible complexity is just the Argument from Incredulity and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. In other words, it’s bogus.
@@jjharvathh Don’t know why I didn’t see your comment earlier. Let’s stay within the realm of UA-cam for a moment. For every creationist UA-cam site, there are a bunch of sites which push back on creationist pseudoscience. One of the oldest and most credible is Potholer 54, who brilliantly debunks this nonsense and provides references to the peer reviewed literature to support his statements. This is something that creationist pseudo scientists never do. There are many more, too many to list, in fact.
And then of course you could go to any university library and educate yourself. If you have access to a university library, all claims by creationist pseudo scientists are easy to debunk. But none of you creationists are interested in real science and none of you understand the scientific process. You would not read anything that might make you doubt the Bible.
Wow. Didn’t expect *that* level of amateur hour.
YOU are an amateur
@@brandonmacey964 I am literally a professional.
Well perhaps you should offer an explanation for what was discussed since it perplexes many of the top researchers in the field.
The living cell is a complex system (as complex as a city with all the functioning services). That should be enough to stop this ongoing incremental development discussion.
Almost as silly as talking about a flat earth.
What's also silly is talking about intelligent design but failing to recognize the Designer.
@@rubiks6 I suspect that most people choose to not acknowledge the Designer because the implications then require additional deep thought.
Most people cannot do 'deep thought'.
@@cptrikester2671 These days even shallow thought is beyond many people, including atheists and many scientists.
@@cptrikester2671 what's even worse is that the intelligent designer might have laws that you have to follow. And then you cannot be your own god
Good stuff
Much obliged for this video
It's the best explanation for the diversity of life we have right now.
I'm not sure why these supposed scientists make such a fundamental error as thinking evolution has anything to do with the origin of life. It has to do with the mechanism of diversity. It sounds deliberate because they should know better.
The real problem they have with evolution is that it contradicts their interpretation of the Bible timeline (ie all things were made recently and fully formed in a single miraculous creative event). This, I suspect, is why they deliberately misrepresent evolution... which immediately begs the question of why a person confident in his explanation would need to do that.
They are not misrepresenting evolution. Evolution is not just about "diversity of life." It is about all life "evolving" naturally from a common ancestor. Changes do occur. No creationist denies that, but evolution from one kind of organism to another (transmutation of species) did not and could never occur. The issue of abiogenesis is inextricably connected to the hypothesis of evolution. Evolution depends of abiogenesis. They are both naturalistic explanations of life. If either one of them is not true, then the only alternative is a supernatural one.