Skip to content

Behe’s “Irreducible Complexity” Validated by Chemistry Nobel

Michael Egnor  October 15, 2018,

My Discovery Institute colleagues and I have observed that the recent Nobel Prize in chemistry, awarded to Drs. Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith, and Gregory P. Winter for the ingenious engineering of biomolecules, rewards research that is crucially dependent on the inference to design in biochemistry and to intelligent design as a method of science. The Nobel laureates (implicitly or explicitly) inferred design in cellular structure and function and used random genetic variation of molecules to design highly effective biomolecules. It’s beautiful bioengineering — using random variation in biomolecules to design better molecules. It’s beautiful work in intelligent design science. 

Coyne Is Aghast

Predictably, Darwinists are aghast. At Why Evolution Is True, Professor Jerry Coyne is exasperated: “I have no words,” he says. He then goes to write:

I presume that Egnor thinks that Frances Arnold [one of the Nobel laurates] is God. Either that, or he fails to understand that humans mimicking evolution in the lab isn’t the same thing as a designer being humanlike and creating plants and animals.

And the first ID prize?

“Linus Pauling’s groundbreaking work on protein structure in the early 20th century (for which he won the Nobel Prize) depended critically on his correct inference that the structure of a protein must account for the purpose the protein serves in cellular metabolism.”

That all turns on the ambiguous meaning of “purpose”, and this is a prime and a rare correct example of “begging the question”. For Egnor, “purpose” presupposes a God rather than being shorthand for “what the protein does as well as the nature of the reproductive advantage conferred by evolutionary changes in that protein.”

Coyne misunderstands design science. Intelligent design is two scientific inferences: 1) design is the most reasonable explanation for some aspects of biology, and 2) inference to design in biology is a powerful tool in scientific methodology. These Nobel laurates used the second inference — that inference to design is a powerful tool in biological science — to guide their research. 

Design in Biomolecules

They looked for purposes (design) in biomolecules, and used random genetic variation to engineer better biological processes. They did, in a very real sense, what design pioneer Michael Behe discovered in his principle of irreducible complexity: there are some biological functions that are complex in such a way that they cannot evolve simply by random variation and unintelligent natural selection. Intelligence must be added to the process to achieve high levels of biological complexity and function. The Nobel researchers showed how intelligence, coupled to variation, is essential to the evolution of biological novelty. In this sense, these researchers mimicked nature, which is replete with intelligent design. Nature, no less than ingenious biological researchers in their lab, relies on variation, chance, and intelligence in evolution. This Nobel work is a beautiful vindication of irreducible complexity. 

Coyne correctly points out that good scientific method in bioengineering of biomolecules depends critically on the inference to purpose in biology. The researchers first had to ascertain the purpose — the function — of the molecules, in order to productively evolve them using variation and design. Inference to purpose is pivotal in biological research — the most fundamental and crucial question a researcher can ask about a biological structure or process is: “What is its purpose?” Purpose, of course is always forward-looking. The purpose of DNA is to encode protein structure and facilitate replication. The purpose of ribosomes is to manufacture protein. The purpose of mitochondria is to produce energy in the form of ATP. The purpose of chloroplasts is to carry out photosynthesis. 

Purpose is the attribute of a system that defines its goal — what it’s meant to do. And purpose inherently signifies design — purpose is a signature of design.

Behe Validated

It is that signature that guided these Nobel Prize-winning researchers, and always guides the best of biological science. No Nobel Prize has ever been awarded for Darwinian research, and there’s a reason for that. Darwinism denies purpose in biology, and denial of biological purpose is a catastrophic impediment to science. The Junk DNA scandal, for example, which is the catastrophic outcome of the Darwinist inference to purposelessness in biology, set genetic research back decades.

Certain levels of biological complexity are so intricate and exquisitely purposeful that they are beyond the feeble power of random chance and mindless selection. They require the application of intelligenceto evolve. 

Once again, it’s design science, not Darwinism, that wins Nobel Prizes. So bravo to Dr. Behe, whose principle of irreducible complexity was so beautifully validated by the superb work of Drs. Arnold, Smith, and Winter and implicitly recognized in this year’s Nobel Prize for chemistry. 

 Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines.

Advertisements

Schism in Evolutionary Theory

Schism in Evolutionary Theory Opens Creationist Opportunity
.
.
.

Evolutionary biology is experiencing its most serious division over the structure of evolutionary theory since the development of the Modern Synthesis nearly 100 years ago. Last November, Great Britain’s prestigious Royal Society (The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge) held a conference to deliberate if evolutionary theory needs to be “extended” or even renovated to accommodate fresh ideas from new discoveries. The article Schism and Synthesis at the Royal Society in the current issue of Trends in Ecology & Evolution by a conference organizer explains why “the discussion witnessed little meeting of minds.”1

The vital importance of this conference was framed in the science journal Nature in a point-counterpoint-style article, “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?”2 They note that “researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental.” A division over basic processes at the core of any theory suggests that the theory is incomplete, based on misleading research, or broken.

One researcher advocating for a major revision in evolutionary theory (modestly labeled the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, or EES) is Kevin Laland of the University of St. Andrews. He said that “the data supporting our position gets stronger every day. Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation.”2 The bitterness, per Laland, is generated since “this is no storm in an academic tearoom, it is a struggle for the very soul of the discipline.”

The Debate: What Causes Adaptive Innovations?

Another scientist supporting the EES, Gerd Muller of the University of Vienna, had previously stated that one value of the extension would overcome the “restrictions” of “externalism.”3 Externalism is principally a way to think about how organisms are formed. Externalists see an organism’s traits as imposed on it by external conditions.4 These conditions are designated as “selective pressures.” These “pressures” are essentially environmental problems “driving” the adaptation of organisms to produce some trait or traits to overcome the problem. In contrast, most researchers promoting the EES would say that traits which overcome problems are, obviously, due to an organism’s internal systems—and therefore where research should primarily focus.

For example, one Royal Society conference topic was embryonic development. The internalist EES faction contends that, for some organisms, specific traits “could be predicted with knowledge of their mechanisms of development. For these biologists, a bias in development that produces some morphologies more readily than others can shape the course of adaptive evolution. Douglas Futuyma, by contrast, presented a more traditional standpoint in attributing the adaptive characteristics of organisms solely to selection….”5

Internalists also view organisms as possessing a repertoire of traits which are “plastic” enough over multiple generations to enable them to actively explore and fill new niches, rather than be passively driven by selective outside pressures. Thus, another area of departure was over developmental plasticity “which can be viewed as a genetically specified reaction norm fashioned by past selection, and/or as being reliant on more open-ended (e.g., exploratory) developmental processes that are propagated across generations through epigenetic mechanisms.”6

This sharp division at the Royal Society also highlights the completely different approaches to identifying causality for traits. Internalists attempted to describe observable mechanisms. Externalists repeatedly invoked natural selection, prompting one science reporter in attendance to state that “the event would have benefited from someone in the wings with a hook restraining speakers who insisted on relying on the mantra of natural selection to fill in the blanks of their science. Repeated references to the term became almost comical. Sir Patrick Bateson finally came to the rescue, cautioning against overuse of the ‘metaphor,’ saying further that ‘natural selection is not an agent.’”7 Laland also writes that the anthropologist and archaeologist attendees welcomed “the plasticity-first hypothesis” as “vital to their work. For these social scientists, standard gene-centric selectionist accounts provided less satisfactory explanations.”

Different Interpretations of the Same Data

Interestingly, these deep divisions at the Royal Society illustrate an important point that Creationists have been making for years. Evolutionists often claim they have a mountain of data to support their position while creationists have virtually none. Creationists contend they possess the very same data, but interpret it quite differently. Similarly, Laland, who comes from the minority position at the Royal Society, also observed, “This tension was manifest in the discussions where different interpretations of the same findings were voiced…. The conference brought home a key point—these debates are not about data but rather about how findings are interpreted and understood.” So, it seems the debate generally isn’t over which side has data, but is about the best explanation of that data.

Even though evolutionists engage in acrimonious disputes over how evolution could happen, they still unite in the common belief that it did. In their minds, evolution is a fact. “There were points of agreement,” Laland reassures readers. “All parties emphasized that evolutionary biology is a vigorous and progressive field of science. To the chagrin of creationists and some journalists hoping for a fight, no calls for revolution were heard.”

Creationist Theory Better Explains the Data

Creationists have some points of agreement with advocates for the EES. First, we would agree that the Modern Synthesis which proposes that random genetic mutations are “acted on” by progressive iterations of a struggle to survive has some fundamental problems. Problems not only in the sufficiency of those mechanisms to account for the diversity of life, but a basic conceptual problem with the projection of volition onto nature to exercise “agency” as a causal substitute for areas where the handiwork of a real intelligent agent would normally be understood.

We could also agree with Laland that along with the basic research of biologic systems “at least as important are different notions of how the scientific process works, or ought to work. Those speakers at the meeting pushing for change tend to emphasize the role of conceptual frameworks in shaping what questions are asked, what data are collected, and what factors are viewed as causally important.”

The mechanisms discussed at the Royal Society tend to confirm design-based creationist theory that emphasizes active, problem-solving organisms capable of self-adjusting to fill dynamic environments. Creationist theory predicts that if organisms were designed with internal capabilities to continuously track environmental changes then developmental bias and plasticity, then epigenetic mechanisms and many other mechanisms would enable these organisms to fill new niches. Tracking conditions and filling new environments would happen quickly—within the lifetime of a parent—and enhance the ability of offspring to do the same.

In fact, the creationist model of Continuous Environmental Tracking would enable creationists to 1) fully describe, or 2) predict currently unidentified, system elements that a design-based model would indicate are essential to proper function. Since even EES proponents have evolutionary mindsets and are often trapped in naturalistic research programs, they overlook blatantly obvious key system elements that ought to be described or, if unidentified, ought to be investigated.

For instance, developmental bias is only the output response of a system having at least three parts. Though rarely described or even identified in evolutionary literature, an organism must first have a sensor to identify the presence of specific events or changes in its environment; then it needs a corresponding signal to an if-then logic center to direct the third part, the appropriate developmental bias as a response.

Evolutionary theory is in a “struggle for the very soul of the discipline” due to the discovery of pervasive internalmechanisms facilitating self-adjustments…that clearly don’t fit into current theory that posits passive creatures shaped by external conditions. But those mechanisms confirm a model that expects active, problem-solving creatures designed to track changing conditions to “fill the earth” showcasing the wisdom of their Creator—the Lord Jesus Christ.

Evolutionists have had over 150 years to fully develop and fine tune their theory, but they are bitterly fighting over its most fundamental processes. Time and data are on the creationists’ side.

References

  1. Laland, K. N. 2017. Schism and Synthesis at the Royal Society. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 32 (5): 316–317.
  2. Laland, K. et al. 2014. Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Nature. 514 (7521): 161–164.
  3. Muller, G. B. and M. Pigliucci. 2010. Evolution: The Extended Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 13.
  4. Denton, M. J. 2013. The Types: A Persistent Structuralist Challenge to Darwinian Pan-Selectionism. BIO-Complexity. 2013 (3): 1–18.
  5. Laland, K. N. Schism and Synthesis at the Royal Society, 316.
  6. Laland, K. N. Schism and Synthesis at the Royal Society, 316.
  7. Mazur, S. Pterosaurs Hijack Royal Society Evo Meeting. Huffpost, The Blog. Posted on huffingtonpost.com November 21, 2016 accessed on April 25, 2017.

*Dr. Guliuzza is ICR’s National Representative. He earned his M.D. from the University of Minnesota, his Master of Public Health from Harvard University, and served in the U.S. Air Force as 28th Bomb Wing Flight Surgeon and Chief of Aerospace Medicine. Dr. Guliuzza is also a registered Professional Engineer.

Image Credit: Copyright © 2017 The Royal Society. Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder.

Article posted on May 18, 2017.

Evolutionists Sense Life’s Design and Deify Nature

The inclination of some evolutionists to project God-like powers onto nature is becoming more prominent in scientific literature. Some proudly personify nature in first-person, calling her Gaia after the Greek Earth goddess.1

Publishing in Science, evolutionary ecologist Tim Lenton from the University of Exeter and co-author, French sociologist Bruno Latour, laud nature’s innate cognitive powers in their new paper, Gaia 2.0.1 Their paper provides another chance to highlight how deeply religious evolutionists can be—not in their veneration of God, but of nature itself.

“The Gaia hypothesis—first articulated by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis in the 1970s—holds that Earth’s physical and biological processes are inextricably connected to form a self-regulating, essentially sentient, system.”2 Lovelock named his theory after the mythological goddess—venerated as the personification of Earth. His theory was meant to tie together several biological phenomena, particularly the tight-knit cooperation between living organisms, life’s resilience in the face of catastrophic events, and the close association between the organic and inorganic realms.

All of these observations could be seen as working together with such purposefulness that one explanation for life’s origination is the tremendous wisdom and power of God. In contrast, Lovelock hypothesized that the organic and inorganic components of Earth evolved together so tightly that everything on Earth somehow became melded into a single, self-organizing system that seems to mystically exercise an intrinsic agency. This has led some researchers to ask, “Is Earth really a sort of giant living organism as the Gaia hypothesis predicts?”2

Lenton has been passionate about the original Gaia Theory and works on contemporary developments.3However, Lenton doesn’t write about Gaia as a theoretical framework, but as an all-pervading entity—within which he believes everything is connected, functions, and through which life came into existence. He appears to have total faith in Gaia.

Lenton builds off the fact that more people today are becoming aware of the environmental effects of their choices. He offers his vision for how humans could make a conscious effort to interact with Gaia and—because he feels that we are all one with Gaia—fundamentally change Gaia as they change themselves. He suggests, “Making such conscious choices to operate within Gaia constitutes a fundamental new state of Gaia, which we call Gaia 2.0.”1

The unabashed personification of nature in the leading scientific journal of the United States is remarkable. For example, the authority for why Lenton feels justified to doubt the effectiveness of many human inventions is that “an audit made by Gaia would question the purported quality of many innovations and note that from an engineering standpoint, they perform poorly.” So, Gaia has the ability to evaluate and somehow becomes the measure by which we judge scientific innovations rather than using the scientific method as our evaluating benchmark? If Gaia can replace science, then Gaia isn’t science. And if Gaia isn’t science, then why are some scientists embracing it?

Embodying nature with volition and wisdom is particularly evident when Lenton contrasts human energy use and recycling with those of Gaia, saying,

Compared to Gaia, this is a very poorly coupled and unsustainable set of inventions. This does not mean that humans should stop inventing, but rather that engineering should shift attention to become as smart as Gaia in achieving nearly closed material cycling powered by sustainable energy.1

However, wouldn’t any theory that tries to explain the origin of biological functions that clearly look designed for a purpose—without crediting God—be prone to slip some type of alternative pseudo agency into nature out of necessity? This belief that nature can exercise agency was true of evolutionary explanations long before Lovelock’s Gaia Theory. It began with Darwin’s notion of natural selection.

Darwin’s personification of nature through natural selection was derided by non-theist observers from the outset. In 1861, only two years after Darwin’s Origin of Species was published, the Perpetual Secretary of the French Academy of Sciences described it as, “metaphysical jargon thrown amiss in the natural history,” “pretentious and empty language!,” “puerile [silly] and supernatural personifications!,” and that Darwin “imagines afterwards that this power of selecting which he gives to Nature is similar to the power of man.”4 A historian of science adds that “One source of trouble was that Darwin liked the term ‘natural selection’ because it could be ‘used as a substantive governing a verb’ (F. Darwin, 1887, vol. 3, p. 46). But such uses appeared to reify, even to deify, natural selection as an agent…”5 In fact, renowned evolutionary theorist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in his paper Darwinizing Gaia recently made the link even stronger.6

This impulse to project power onto nature has been exceedingly difficult for evolutionists to quell. Perhaps they realize at some level the need for a far more profound explanation for life’s design than a fortuitous series of chance happenings. One evolutionary biologist notes despairingly that his colleagues habitually succumb to the projections of agency onto nature through natural selection—even when they should know otherwise. He laments, “Evolutionary biologists routinely speak of natural selection as if it were an agent” but then again “Many evolutionary biologists, in fact, assure us that the idea of a selecting agent is ‘only a metaphor’—even as they themselves succumb to the compelling force of the metaphor…And so we are to believe that natural selection, which ‘is not an agent, except metaphorically’, manages to design artifacts; and the organism…is not, after all, a creative or originating agent itself. Its [the organism’s] agency has been transferred to an abstraction [natural selection] whose causal agency or ‘force’ is, amid intellectual confusion, both denied and universally implied by biologists. Natural selection becomes rather like an occult Power of the pre-scientific age…”7

Gaia 2.0 is the latest version of nature worship for one sect of today’s practicing evolutionists. Tweet: Gaia 2.0 is the latest version of nature worship for one sect of today’s practicing evolutionists. Evolutionists Sense Life's Design and Deify Nature: http://www.icr.org/article/evolutionists-sense-design-deify-nature @ICRscience @randyguliuzza #Science #Nature

Those who read and believe the Bible will not find any of the Darwin’s, Lovelock’s, Doolittle’s, or Lenton’s mental projections of agency to nature surprising. Scripture says that when people reject giving credit to God for creating nature, that they will “worship and serve” the creation, i.e., nature, more than the Creator (Romans 1:18-25). Gaia 2.0 is the latest version of nature worship for one sect of today’s practicing evolutionists.

References
1. Lenton, T. M. and B. Latour. 2018. Gaia 2.0. Science. 361 (6407): 1066-1068. DOI: 10.1126/science.aau0427
2. Anonymous, University of Maryland. Sulfur finding may hold key to Gaia theory of Earth as living organism. ScienceDaily. Posted on sciencedaily.com on May 15, 2012 accessed September 14, 2018.
3. University of Exeter, staff profiles. Professor Tim Lenton, Director Global Systems Institute. Posted on geography.exeter.ac.uk, accessed October 1, 2018.
4. Huxley, T. H. 1894. Dawiniana. D. New York: Appleton and Company, 65.
5. Hodge, M.J.S. 1992. Natural Selection: Historical Perspectives. Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 212-219.
6. W. F. Doolittle. 2017. Darwinizing Gaia. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 434: 11-19.
7. Talbot, S. L. Can Darwinian Evolutionary Theory Be Taken Seriously? Posted on natureinstitute.org on May 17, 2016 accessed September 14, 2018 (emphasis in original).

*Randy Guliuzza is ICR’s National Representative. He earned his M.D. from the University of Minnesota, his Master of Public Health from Harvard University, and served in the U.S. Air Force as 28th Bomb Wing Flight Surgeon and Chief of Aerospace Medicine. Dr. Guliuzza is also a registered Professional Engineer.

Ape-Human Chromosome 2 Fusion Model Debunked

[I wonder what new knowledge has been revealed since 2011.]

Research Undermines Key Argument for Human Evolution

icr.org

New research is now seriously undermining the validity of the fusion model and human evolution in general. This author and Professor Dr. Jerry Bergman of Northwest State College, Ohio, analyzed the scientific literature and available DNA sequence and made several exciting findings, summarized below.

1. The purported fusion site on human chromosome 2 is actually located in a different position on chromosome 2 than predicted by the fusion model. The hypothetical fusion site is also in an area with suppressed recombination (meaning that the fusion sequence should be very pristine) and should exhibit very little degeneracy, compared to standard telomere sequence. Telomere sequences in humans normally consist of thousands of repeats of the standard 6-base sequence “TTAGGG.”
We found that the hypothetical fusion region is completely degenerate and vaguely represents anything close to intact and fused telomeres. An earlier 2002 research report by molecular evolutionists also made note of this extreme sequence degeneracy and the obvious discrepancies it presented for the evolutionary model.3

2. At the purported fusion site, there is a very small number of intact telomere sequences and very few of them are in tandem or in the proper reading frame. The small number of randomly interspersed telomere sequences, both forward (“TTAGGG”) and reverse (“CCCTAA”), that populate both sides of the purported fusion site are not indicative of what should be found if an end-to-end chromosomal fusion actually took place.

3. The 798-base core sequence surrounding the fusion site is not unique to the purported fusion site, but found throughout the human genome with similar sequences (80 percent or greater identity) located on nearly every chromosome. This indicates that the fusion site is some type of commonly occurring fragment of DNA in the human genome.

4. No positionally corresponding regions of sequence similarity in the chimpanzee genome for the purported human fusion site were found. The 798-base core fusion-site sequence did not align (match) to any corresponding regions in the chimp genome. In fact, the sequence was considerably less common and more dissimilar in chimpanzees.

5. Queries against the chimpanzee genome with fragments of human DNA sequence (alphoid sequences) found at the purported cryptic centromere site on human chromosome 2 did not produce any significant hits using two different DNA matching algorithms (BLAT and BLASTN).

6. The purported cryptic centromere on human chromosome 2, like the fusion site, is in a very different location to that predicted by a fusion event.

7. The DNA alphoid sequences at the putative cryptic centromere site are very diverse and form three separate sub-groups. They also do not closely match known functional human centromeric alphoid elements. Alphoid sequences are commonly found throughout the human genome, and some types of alphoid sequences are not associated with centromeres. This strongly diminishes their probability of being part of an ancient de-activated (cryptic) centromere.

This human chromosome 2 research will be described in more detail in an upcoming Journal of Creation issue. Despite evolutionists’ insistence that the chromosome 2 fusion model supports a human-chimp common ancestor, the so-called supporting data are not present. All evidence points to man and ape as unique and separate creations.

References

  1. Yunis, J. J. and O. Prakash. 1982. The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy. Science. 215 (4539): 1525-1530.
  2. Tomkins, J. 2011. New Human-Chimp Chromosome 2 Data Challenge Common Ancestry Claims. Acts & Facts. 40 (5): 6.
  3. Fan, Y. et al. 2002. Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes. Genome Research. 12 (11): 1651-1662.

* Dr. Tomkins is a Research Associate and received his Ph.D. in Genetics from Clemson University.

Cite this article: Tomkins, J. 2011. New Research Undermines Key Argument for Human Evolution. Acts & Facts. 40 (6): 6.

Dating the Great Age of Old Things

“But humans weren’t there millions of years ago, so there’s no way to say what happened with any certainty.”

I sometimes wonder if creationists have actually looked over the numerous methods used by the science community to determine the age of prehistoric events, extinct species and the earth. As a collective, you realize that all of these methods come together to formulate a very accurate picture of earth’s past. This isn’t guesswork anymore folks! It’s not 1992! Its 2018 and technology has advanced a lot since then! Lol!

Heres the daunting reality for creationists. In order to prove your creationist timeline is literally true, you’d need to scientifically disprove EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE ITEMS! Because failure to disprove just ONE is a failure for Young Earth Creationism.
A few of the methods used by scientists to date the earth, objects and past events:

* With spectroscopy astrophysics measure the amount of hydrogen that’s been fused into helium in the sun. This gives us an accurate age for the sun.
* Measure the radioactive decay of uranium within zircon crystals found on earth, moon rocks, meteors and asteroids. Earth is 4.54 billion years old with 99.985% certainty (yes pretty close to 100% certain lol). There’s literally zero percent chance that the earth is less than a 100 million years old.
* Measuring mutations within DNA and comparing them to the genomes of modern humans who died thousands of years ago, Neanderthals and Denisovans (our genome is at least 500,000 years old)
* Comparing genomes of all animals including humans to identify common ancestors dating back millions of years
* The fossil record – always layered oldest to youngest with extinct animals from one period never mixing into another period. This fossil record dates back to 4.2 billion years.
* Limestone containing marine fossils was only formed at the bottom of shallow ocean waters. A 1000ft column of limestone would take millions of years to form. There’s no known rock type that is formed from a flood.

* Plate tectonics – measuring the precise movement of the plates tells us when Pangea broke up, direction plates are moving, speed and time taken to traverse distance. Pangea broke up hundreds of millions of years ago. The ocean floor of the Tethe sea was pushed up to form the Himalayan mountains 50 million years ago. This movement is still taking place and can be measured today. Mt Everest is still growing 1″ every year.
* History of past volcanic eruptions and calderas that date back millions of years like Yellowstone and Siberian Traps. If they erupted within the past 6000 years, earth still couldn’t support human life today.

* Dating asteroid impacts on earth and other planets i.e. meteor crater in Arizona and Chicsulub crater in Yucatan Peninsula with shocked crystal and zircons
* Orbits of planets, dwarf planets and comets around the sun.
* Measuring ice core samples containing atmospheric conditions that greatly differ from today that wouldn’t support life today as we know it.
* Ice cores containing extinct microscopic life and other extinct life, spores and life forms.
* Measure the age of the KT boundary using argon-argon dating
* Date extinct species like woolly mammoths with C14 dating. Most mammotha went extinct 10,000 years ago.
* There’s no measurable amounts of dinosaur DNA left on earth. The DNA strand can last a maximum of 6.8 million years in tundra temps. So all dinosaur DNA has degraded off the face of the earth 60 million years ago. We find plenty of woolly mammoth DNA because the animals found died 10,000-40,000 years ago.
* Measure the radioactive isotopes of igneous rock from past volcanic eruptions like the Siberian Traps. The atomic clock in rocks resets after being molten from a volcanic eruption.
* Earth’s magnetic field has flipped dozens of times over the past 4.54 billion years. Evidence is contained in igneous rocks ejected from ancient volcanoes hundreds of millions to billions of years ago that were magnetized to a different polar N and S than we see today.
* Siberian Traps: Volcanic eruption that stacked layers of hardened lava each layer averaging 10mm to a meter in thickness that formed a volcanic plateau large enough to cover the continental United States in a kilometer of lava. It would take months for each layer of lava to cool so additional layers can be stacked on top. Eruption lasted a million years and occurred 200 million years ago poisoning the atmosphere and oceans killing 90% of life on earth. Verified through radiometric dating, known lava flow speeds, fossil record, rock samples around the earth, and ice cores from the arctic.
* Astronomy
– Light from distant galaxies
– Orbital speed of our galaxy
– Observing formation of new stars and planets
– Observing colliding galaxies and their speeds
– Gravitational waves

There’s more! There’s many more! This is just what I could quickly think of. Lol! Remember, ONE of these items destroys YEC! They need to disprove them ALL or creationism fails!

Heres research proving the scope, date and length of eruption of the Siberian Traps. This event alone shatters YEC!!!

NEWS.MIT.EDU
New study finds massive eruptions likely triggered mass extinction.
Don Riddle:

And then there is the contribution of the 30K years long Deccan Traps volcanic activity to another, the Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) extinction event, a.k.a. the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction, some 66+ million years ago, although current thinking supposes that the Chicxulub impact event ejecta in North America slightly less than 66M years ago actually triggered it; e.g., put the nail in the coffin… and/or contributed to a different level of vulcanism in the Deccan Traps, which led to the release of 70% of the lava ejected, AFTER the impact.

This information, coupled with the illusion that homo sapiens are so special, gives me pause, when I consider how on the razor’s edge our species lives. Meanwhile, the anger, greed, personal and international conflicts, pollution, and other planetary disasters that we continue to generate are there for anyone to see, while most act as if humans will not only always be present but will also take all the power and wealth accumulated with us to an afterlife, when our bodies die. In reality the bad behaviors that homo sapiens practice make us more tenuous. How odd we are.
Tom Godfrey Marc Segal,

Throwing out a challenge to refute a long list of items is what Jonathan Sarfati calls hurling elephants. Like a hungry mosquito on a crowded beach, I hardly know where to start.

You should know that there is also a long list of dating methods that suggest a much shorter history of the earth. I don’t want to do any elephant hurling myself, but this brings up an important point with regard to your claim that creationists must abandon their speculation about the age of the earth unless each and every one of the items you listed is successfully refuted. This cannot be the case, any more than it can be the case that evolutionists would have to give up their speculation unless each and every one of the items on the creationist list is successfully refuted.

Frankly, I don’t know of any way “to scientifically disprove” any item on either list. Science, at least what I call normal science, is all about observation, hypotheses, and experiments to test and either validate or falsify hypotheses. Scientists do not have any age-ometer to measure age directly. Age is not a physical property like mass or size. You need to find the difference between two dates or times, T0 and T1, only one of which is known for sure. The other one involves speculation, putting the whole enterprise outside the realm of science. Age is a matter of history. All of the methods for determining an age of the earth rely on assumptions that may or may not be correct, not just on observations of current conditions, processes, and measurements. As a result, people who like the idea of learning about history through the study and biased interpretation of physical clues are stuck with having to choose which set of educated guesses personally seems the most convincing.

Another reason why not every item on your list needs to be separately rejected is that some of them are interdependent. This article might be over your head, but if you have trouble following a line of reasoning, maybe I can help.
https://answersingenesis.org/…/circular-reasoning…/

You said, “Earth is 4.54 billion years old with 99.985% certainty (yes pretty close to 100% certain lol). There’s literally zero percent chance that the earth is less than a 100 million years old.” Since you put in “lol” in there, maybe I was not supposed to take this seriously, but you failed to show how this probability was calculated. I suspect that certain assumptions were presumed to be correct with a 100% chance, while in fact, their true probability cannot even be calculated and therefore must be estimated (or over-estimated). Maybe you can show that I am mistaken about this.

The whole house of cards could come crashing down, if it turns out that the sun is supposed to be much less than 4.54 billion years old, according to theories of stellar evolution. I am not sure how bright you believe the sun was 4.54 billion years ago, but you may be facing a paradox, no matter what. By the way, by posting a link in my comments, I do not imply that I necessarily agree with everything written in the article. Please use your own discretion.
https://creation.com/young-sun-paradox
http://www.icr.org/article/6742/
http://debunkingcreationism.blogspot.com/…/faint-young…
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/…/a-fix-for-the-faint…/
https://phys.org/…/2016-06-solution-faint-young-sun…

Before I close this comment, which is already getting long, I ought to ask why you included “Orbits of planets, dwarf planets and comets around the sun” on your list. This item is certainly not self-explanatory. Please explain the related argument for billions of years.
https://answersingenesis.org/…/8-short-lived-comets/

Manage

Marc Segal
Marc Segal  (Marc manages the membership, moderators, settings, and posts for Evolution Science vs Creation Science.)

Tom Godfrey your article on the sun is filled with so many errors that it’s a waste of time to address. No surprise, the author doesn’t cite a single scientific reference!

The other article is a typical “distract with oversaturation”. It hopes to discourage opposing criticism by throwing up a ton of useless information! It barely lists any credible science references and what is used is misrepresented. One of the sources is “Calibration of the 14C timescale over the past 30,000 years using mass spectrometric U-Th ages from Barbados corals.” I’m guessing a YEC website didn’t report the data in that research correctly!

Credible scientific articles are concise and stick to a specific topic!

Would you happen to have any non-biased sources? AIG and ICR is horribly biased! Its like turning on MSNBC to get a report of President Trump job performance.

Adrien Nash
Adrien Nash Refuting YEC is a rather easy endeavor, but is useless when it comes to refuting Intelligent Design since it is not tied to the pedestrian interpretation of Genesis.

How Christianity Gave Rise to Modern Science

The Influence of Christian Theology

Methodological naturalism is a convention that has been around really only since the late 19th century. Science actually got started in a very explicitly theistic—indeed Christian—milieu. The period of time that historians call the Scientific Revolution is roughly 1300 to 1700. There’s debate about when it actually started and how much the Protestants versus Catholics were responsible, but clearly theological ideas—Christian theological ideas—had a huge in the formation and foundation of modern science.

One of those key ideas was the idea of intelligibility: that nature is intelligible. There’s an order and design that can be understood and discerned by the scientist because nature is the product of a rational mind, namely the mind of God, and that that same mind or creator who made nature with that rational order built into it made us and our reason, so that we could perceive and understand the reason that he built into nature. That was what gave people confidence to do the hard work of investigation to figure out the hidden order, the design that is beneath the appearances of natural phenomenon.

Since the order in nature is contingent on the act of the Creator, we have to go and look and see what kind of order he put into it.

The Order of Nature

The first thing to say is that science did not arise because of a set of naturalistic presuppositions. It actually arose because of a conviction that there was a lawful order in nature, that human beings could discern and understand it because they’d been made in the image of the creator of that order, and that also they needed to go investigate. While they might expect that there’s a rational order there (the Greeks believe the same), they also knew the rational order was contingent on the choice of the creator.

This was a product of recovering the doctrine of creation in the late Middle Ages. Since the order in nature is contingent on the act of the Creator, we have to go and look and see what kind of order he put into it. We can’t just simply sit in our armchairs and deduce it from logical first principles.

Theistic Evolution

Theistic Evolution

J. P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K. Gauger, Wayne Grudem

This volume of more than two dozen essays written by highly credentialed scientists, philosophers, and theologians from Europe and North America provides the most comprehensive critique of theistic evolution yet produced, opening the door to scientific and theological alternatives.

The Greeks and ptolemaic astronomy were a good example of this. They figured that since the most perfect form of motion is a circle, and since the planets are in a heavenly realm, they must be inscribing circular orbits. But, in fact, they were doing ellipses.

So the early modern scientists broke with the ancient Greeks and said since nature is created by God and he could have done otherwise, we need to go and find out not what he must have done, as Robert Boyle said, but what he did do—which means empirical investigation. You’ve got to look and see.

There were a number of ways in which Christianity gave rise to modern science, and the idea that a set of naturalistic assumptions is necessary to do science is just historically false.



Related Articles

https://www.crossway.org/articles/how-christianity-gave-rise-to-modern-science/

The Proof of the Bible

The Proof of the Bible long version  32 pages total

26 pages text, 6 pages bibliography