Nature Never Stops Talking - FORTY-ONE QUESTIONS THAT DESERVE AN HONEST ANSWER

Nature Never Stops Talking

Jul. 22, 2006

FORTY-ONE QUESTIONS THAT DESERVE AN HONEST ANSWER

Sorry i haven't been blogging much anywhere for many months. I was kidnapped by an excess of To-do lists that exceed possibility. Anyway, here is an entry.

For Science teachers, professors and scientists

I can prove in a lab experiment that my dog will have puppies and my cat will have kittens. What experiment is there proving a dog ever gave birth to a brand new thriving species?
I can prove in a lab experiment that if there are things in a room and a grenade goes off there things become less organized and damaged. What experiment is there showing how random accidents create wonderful designs?
Scientists study nature and are students of nature. Why do scientists with all their brains say it took no brains to make what they wish they could make?
If DNA is responsible for designing things that science cannot, is DNA a superior intelligence to man?
If we are confident in evolution, why are there so many endangered species?
Why would a fish living safely in the water aspire to move to an uninhabitable environment that he has never heard of or experienced [land]?
If single-celled organisms that can eat, digest, reproduce, and survive on its own why can’t scientists make what they call “simple life forms”?
If in a murder trial prosecutors can’t find evidence for 5-10 years and it is considered a weaker case the longer they can’t prove their case, why do evolutionists call their theory a “well-established theory” after not finding conclusive evidence after 150 years?
How does censoring Intelligent Design from science classrooms reinforce the evolutionary theory?
If scientists claim any evidence that points to an intelligence greater than man unscientific, doesn’t that make their research biased?
Should science reject evidence presented by someone they consider biased if the evidence is provable?
If mankind has only learned the laws of aerodynamics in the last 150 years, who or what do we credit for the insects and birds whose design reveals an advanced knowledge of these recently discovered laws?
If plants are dependent on the rain systems and the sun’s rays and many others dependent on specific insects or birds or animals to spread their pollen for survival, wouldn’t they have to exist simultaneously from the start to survive? If not, explain how they would survive?
If male/female species are dependent on two sexes for reproduction, wouldn’t they have to exist simultaneously from the very first generation in order to survive? If not, how else would they survive because there are many, many species that are male and female?
Everything physical thing known to man is deteriorating with time. We can easily show this in many experiments proving this trend. Evolution claims the opposite that with enough time things will organize themselves more and more. Can you show me an experiment that proves this?
If there are 100 provable situations that disprove a theory and only 1 situation that seems to suggest a different conclusion, should we call the 100 exceptions and the one a rule or should science lean toward the greatest volume of evidence?
If man cannot create/design DNA from the ground zero with it in front of him to duplicate, who/what do we credit for the design of DNA?
If man cannot create/design skin that heals, is not nature’s design superior to man’s? If the intelligence of the design is superior to man’s why is it unscientific to say there is superior intelligence? Isn’t that a contradiction?
If evolution is the unequivocal power that gives all creatures the uncanny intelligence to survive through ingenious design, inventive fight/flight tactics and tools, wonderful healing abilities and systems that save species from all sorts of toxins, why hasn’t the power of evolution overcome death? Isn’t death the ultimate threat to survival?
What is more credible, volumes and volumes of un-provable information or a little bit of provable information?
What happens when we build generations of science on the basis of unproven theory? Is that still science?
To properly design a functioning ear, isn’t it true we would first need a thorough understanding of the properties of sound and for the ear to be of use to the species, be thoroughly familiar with how to design a brain to hook up to an ear and know how to interpret sounds it hears? Wouldn’t these abilities have to be simultaneously functional from the start for hearing to be useful at all?
How does DNA or the “power of evolution” invent something brand new based on necessary understanding of external and internal properties for things to work [seeing, hearing, tasting, reproducing, interdependence, etc.]?
If we were to move to an uninhabitable planet permanently, wouldn’t we have to literally know everything about that planet in order to know everything we would need to bring in order to survive? How did dumb cells or rodents or fish or bugs know how to advance their species on a level of sophistication superior to man billions of years ago?
Is there any evidence today that any species has the ability to invent a brand new species with greater intelligence and capabilities never seen before?
Is there any creature on the planet as smart as a human 6 year old? What 6 year old could design a planet and all of nature and the universe? We know there is no creature as smart as a 6 year old so how did creatures before mankind provide the universe?
If the ACLU fought for academic freedom during the Scopes trial and declared students should not be denied hearing other sides besides the religious viewpoint of creation, why are they now saying no child should be exposed to creationism, intelligent design or any theory except evolution?
If science is about information and the scientific method, why don’t they present proof of evolution rather than shut down Intelligent Design on the basis of religious accusations?
If evolution is overwhelmingly backed by evidence and Intelligent Design is not, why aren’t evolutionists content to present this evidence in science textbooks, philosophy textbooks and whatever venues that would allow presenting two sides and allowing students to decide?
If evidence points to a conclusion that happens to agree with any religion, how does that make the evidence religious?
If we say worry is bad for you and the Bible says worry is bad for you, should it be illegal to tell students stress and worry is bad for you because it was in the Bible first?
Should we not allow teachers to take Sabbaticals since the Bible talks about Sabbaths?
If 100,000 people agree that the world is flat, does that make the world flat? If 100,000 scientists say evolution is true without proof, does that mean evolution is true?
Have the majority of scientists ever been wrong in the past?
If scientists want us to believe something because they believe it even though they can’t prove it, isn’t that a little like forcing us to believe a certain religion?
If we count backwards and make our population 50% less every 50 years, why do we get to zero in far, far less than even 15,000 years? Hasn’t man been here longer than that?
If we are looking for a missing link covering millions of years of a species halfway between man and ape, shouldn’t we be looking for hundreds or thousands of examples since we can find complete dinosaur skeletons that supposedly predate mankind?
What is it in living things that makes them discontent so as to change/improve their species rather than preserve it?
Why would a fish strive to live in a hostile environment [no water] rather than a safe environment?
Once a species or a specific creature within a species, determines it needs a characteristic it lacks to survive better, how does it communicate with its DNA to invent, design and implement that new characteristic?
Once a specific creature within a species has successfully had its DNA invent, design and implement a new characteristic into its offspring, how does the DNA implement this as a permanent characteristic rather than a mutation?

Excerpts, Table of Contents, photos, book cover, and many downloadable articles on the intelligent design controversy and more at www.BestChapter.com

• Post A Comment! • Send to a Friend!

Comments

Jul. 30, 2006 - wow

Posted by kateyz

Very thought provoking post. Some are so true that it makes me laugh thinking people are so easily led by 'science'. I have heard/used many of those arguments in the past. I'll add a few more to my standard answers!!

• Permanent Link

Feb. 15, 2007 - Get a clue

Posted by Anonymous

it's sad when religiots try to interfere in things they don't understand. 'Godidit' isn't good enough for those of us who can think.

• Permanent Link

Apr. 14, 2007 - Untitled Comment

Posted by Anonymous

hi, your questions pertaining to evolution show a lack of understanding about what evolution entails. there are quite simple answers to each of them. if you are interested in learning what evolution actually involves, you might want to read "the blind watchmaker" or talk to a friend who has studied the process before.

good luck in your quest for understanding!

• Permanent Link

Feb. 28, 2008 - A few minutes on Google will give you all the answers you could ever want

Posted by Anonymous

...that's if you actually WANT to find verified scientific data, of course. It appears that you're in a rather severe state of intellectual denial, and exposure to actual facts would quickly destroy the ridiculous assumptions that permeate this blog. When you've immersed yourself this deeply in pseudo-academic fantasy, reality can be scary. But it's still reality, and it doesn't go away when you close your eyes.

It seems that you've abandoned this particular blog, but I couldn't help but take a few minutes and respond to this post on the off chance that you still check back here. Most of the questions you pose show a poor grasp of the scientific method and a complete misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Two questions in particular stood out as I read the list:

5. If we are confident in evolution, why are there so many endangered species?

Endangered and extinct species support evolution, not disprove it. Evolution is a slow, gradual process; when a species' environment becomes inhospitable in a (relatively) short amount of time, that species does not have time to adapt and its population will dwindle. If populations were unaffected by environmental changes, this would be a major blow to evolution; the fact that major (and often minor) environmental changes significantly impact populations is some of the strongest evidence FOR evolution.

Furthermore, it doesn't follow that understanding evolutionary processes would allow us to prevent extinctions. Understanding a process doesn't mean that we can control or prevent that process. We understand how tuberculosis can become resistant to antibiotics (a clear example of evolutionary process, by the way), but we can't completely prevent it from occurring.

And hey, since so many species have either died out already or are on the brink of doing so, then they obviously weren't designed very intelligently, were they?

36. If we count backwards and make our population 50% less every 50 years, why do we get to zero in far, far less than even 15,000 years? Hasn’t man been here longer than that?

This question is beyond ridiculous, showing an appalling grasp of population growth and basic math. The numbers you use here--a doubling of the population every 50 years--are completely arbitrary and have no basis in reality. But for the sake of argument, let's just say you're right and use them anyway. So if we count backwards and make our population 50% less every 50 years, when DO we get to zero? If you're mathematically savvy you can use logarithms (log 6.6 Billion divided by log 2, then multiply by 50 years; subtract from 2008), or you can just start with 6.6 billion and start dividing by two. Either way, the result is the same; not only do your run out of people "in far, far less than even 15,000 years"--you run out of people before you even get to the year 350 AD. Using your own calculations, the Mayan Empire, the Persian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the ancient Egyptians, the ancient Greeks, and, of course, Jesus, the Gospels, and every event in the Old Testament could not possibly have happened because human civilization is less than 1700 years old.

C'mon now. If you're going to make up your own facts, you should at least take the time to make sure they actually support your argument. Or have even a slight basis in reality.

Since you can't be bothered to check the validity of your own fabricated arguments, I'm not surprised that you haven't taken the time to research evolutionary theory. Spend some time reading the articles at http://www.talkorigins.org/. You'll find a staggering amount of information there that's been clearly documented and repeatedly verified by hundreds of thousands of man-hours of research and experimentation. The information is there if you just take the time to expose yourself to it. Walking around in the woods is inarguably a wonderful way to pass the time, but it's hardly a substitute for rigorous scientific inquiry.

This brings up another fundamental flaw in your entire worldview--'common sense' is a completely inadequate tool for understanding the world around us. In almost every field of scientific inquiry, 'common sense' conclusions have been proven wrong. The earth is flat and stationary? Wrong. Light travels instantly? Wrong. A brick will always fall faster than a feather? Wrong. Water always puts out a fire? Wrong. A brown-haired couple will always have brown-haired children? Wrong. You can't protect yourself from a disease by exposing yourself to it? Wrong. And don't even get me started on the non-intuitive wackiness of quantum mechanics. How do you explain a cell phone, or wireless internet access, using common sense? Try building a rechargable battery using nothing but common sense. If you or I ever need surgery--say, a double-lung transplant--I hope that the doctors have more than just common sense at their disposal.

These and other modern 'miracles' are only possible because of rigorous scientific research, much of which has directly contradicted our initial assumptions about the way that the world works. Atomic theory, cellular theory, plate tectonic theory, the bacteriological model of disease and every other current theory in science--including, yes, evolutionary theory--started off as a fringe, minority view that was rejected by the masses in favor of more 'common sense' theories. But as more and more information was gathered, more experiments were done, and more research was conducted, the evidence supporting each of these ideas became overwhelming and the paradigm was forced to shift. That's the way that science works--a theory is only as good as the evidence supporting it. The evidence supporting Neo-Darwinian evolution is staggering; the evidence supporting ID is non-existent.

The certainty that your that common sense observations have more validity than hundreds of years of dedicated scientific research shows a level of hubris that is absolutely appalling.

--Austin

• Permanent Link

About Me

The Wonderful Ingenuity of Nature and the Intelligent Design controversy