Tuesday, December 31, 2013

The Pew Forum Poll Reveals More Ignorance

When Will They Learn?

Following the recent Harris poll we now have a Pew Forum poll out today on who believes what about evolution, and we can expect another round of reports from the elites on the shocking ignorance that continues to persist in fly-over land. Unlike the Harris poll which asks about belief in Darwin’s theory of evolution and usually runs around 50% for and against, the Pew Forum poll presents participants with the vague and less meaningful choice between “humans and other living things have evolved over time” versus “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.” Most creationists would have no problem with the first choice and not surprisingly 7% of the people gave up on the false dichotomy. Nonetheless 33% did choose full out stasis, enough to disturb and embarrass science writer Lauren Friedman given the “overwhelming evidence” for evolution. Friedman gets credit, however, for while many writers would not deign to provide any actual reasoning (condescension followed by a quick exit is always safer than trying to explain how it is we know the world arose spontaneously) Friedman at least provides several links to evidence for why “evolution is real.” Let’s have a look at why we are so ignorant.

Friedman begins with this quote from our taxpayer funded Public Broadcasting Service (PBS): “The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago.”

Thousands of scientific experiments? Actually every major prediction of evolution has turned out to be false. So what does PBS know that has escaped the scientific journals? Nothing actually. The problem is that citing PBS on why evolution is true is a bit like calling the New York Yankees front office to find out if the Yankees are the greatest baseball team.

The PBS site behind Friedman’s link is mainly a grandiose victory lap. And when the site does attempt to show how the science proves evolution it fails badly such as with this discussion of genes:

Genes are the portions of an organism's DNA that carry the code responsible for building that organism in a very specific way. Genes -- and, thus, the traits they code for -- are passed from parent to offspring. From generation to generation, well-understood molecular mechanisms reshuffle, duplicate, and alter genes in a way that produces genetic variation. This variation is the raw material for evolution.

The problem here is that this has not been shown to be true. In fact this is a cartoon version of evolution that even many evolutionists have rejected. And those who have not rejected it have a significant burden of proof. Shuffling, duplicating, mutating and whatever other mechanisms PBS cares to throw into the list simply do not appear capable of providing the needed variation. Even Stephen J. Gould admitted that macroevolution is an unsolved problem. That’s what the science is telling us.

Or again, PBS falters on the question “Is there evidence for evolution?”:

In the 150 years since Darwin proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection, a mountain of evidence has accumulated to support the theory. A greatly expanded fossil record since Darwin's time, the discovery of DNA and the process of genetic replication, an understanding of radioactive decay, observations of natural selection in the wild and in laboratories, and evidence in the genomes of many different organisms, including humans, have all bolstered the validity of the theory of evolution.

This is not a mountain of evidence. It is not even evidence. At least not positive evidence. The fossil record reveals rapid explosions of diversity followed by stasis and discontinuities—precisely the opposite of the envisioned evolutionary process.

DNA is a complex chemical structure that would have been difficult to evolve and the DNA code is not ordinary as evolutionists thought it was, but rather is extremely unique. That presents many problems for evolution, including the conundrum that the DNA code must have evolved rapidly and very early in evolutionary history, long before higher life forms arose which benefit so much from the code’s clever design. How did evolution know to evolve such a special code long before its particulars would be needed?

DNA replication is also a problem for evolution because, while evolutionists had long predicted that such a fundamental process would be conserved across the species, it has been found to have important differences in different species.

Natural selection is also not a very good evidence for evolution, for the simple reason that it is so routinely forfeited by evolutionists. Likewise the “evidence in the genomes” raises several different kinds of problems for evolution. Perhaps most obvious are the identical or near-identical DNA sequences in distant species and the massive differences in highly similar species. Both these findings falsified predictions and were shocking to evolutionists.

Friedman’s other sources for proof of evolution are equally problematic. For instance she cites behavior evidence, but altruistic behavior—such as Mother Teresa helping unrelated people groups in distant lands—is a problem for evolution requiring circuitous explanations. Friedman also cites human genome comparisons where this conclusion is made:

Due to billions of years of evolution, humans share genes with all living organisms. The percentage of genes or DNA that organisms share records their similarities. We share more genes with organisms that are more closely related to us.

Again, this is just plain wrong. For instance, humans are more similar to the orangutan than to the chimpanzee, yet our DNA is closer to the chimpanzee. Or again, we are very distant from the kangaroo, yet the genomes of the two species share profound similarities. As one researcher explained:

There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order. Which really surprised us, we thought they'd be completely scrambled, but they're not, there's great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome.

The evidence simply does not support evolution—the claim that the most complex things we know of arose spontaneously—unless it is turned upside down and forced to support the theory. And that gets us closer to an understanding of evolution. This becomes more obvious when Friedman cites the leading evolutionist Jerry Coyne who explains that the ostrich must have evolved because its wings are obviously evolutionary leftovers. After all, the ostrich doesn’t fly. True the wings may be used as balancers, but that misses the point:

Wouldn't it be odd if a creator helped an ostrich balance itself by giving it appendages that just happen to look exactly like reduced wings, and which are constructed in exactly the same way as wings used for flying?

Odd? That may or may not be odd, but it certainly is not scientific. There’s no arguing with the evolutionist’s personal religious beliefs, but it is precisely such metaphysical mandates that pervade the evolution literature and prove evolution to be true. From the Epicureans and gnostics to today’s evolutionists, we have always had our own preconceived ideas about origins, regardless of the evidence.

Meanwhile science writers such as Friedman upbraid the ignorant masses:

It's difficult to imagine who could believe such things when faced with the mountain of evidence supporting evolution.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

18 comments:

  1. Hunter: For instance, humans are more similar to the orangutan than to the chimpanzee

    Go on, please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you have found a couple of contrarians who think orangutans are closer to humans than chimps. Other anthropologists don't seem impressed and dismiss their story as "wacky."

      Oh well.

      Delete
    2. I wonder what is "wacky" about these observations?

      1. The quality and scope of published documentation and verification of morphological features suggests there is very little in morphology to support a unique common ancestor for humans and chimpanzees. A close relationship between humans and African apes is currently supported by only eight unproblematic characters. The orangutan relationship is supported by about 28 well-supported characters, and it is also corroborated by the presence of orangutan-related features in early hominids. The uniquely shared morphology of humans and orangutans raises doubts about the almost universal belief that DNA sequence similarities necessarily demonstrate a closer evolutionary relationship between humans and chimpanzees.

      2. our morphology and physiology have very little, if anything, uniquely in common with chimpanzees to corroborate a unique common ancestor. Most of the characters we do share with chimpanzees also occur in other primates, and in sexual biology and reproduction we could hardly be more different.

      3. revisiting the red ape is a useful reminder that not everything to do with morphology can be attributed to the closeness of a genetic relationship. We can evolve likenesses even to our more distant cousins if both sets of ancestors faced similar problems.

      Delete
  2. Dr Hunter,
    the Pew Forum poll presents participants with the vague and less meaningful choice between “humans and other living things have evolved over time” versus “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.”

    Seems pretty straight forward to me, living things change thru some undefined process, teleological or not, and living things have the same form for all time.

    Most creationists would have no problem with the first choice

    Only if 66% of Americans were " creationists", since 47% of Americans believe life arose spontaneously, according to your definition , your math seems a bit off.

    and not surprisingly 7% of the people gave up on the false dichotomy.

    But not necessarily because they believed it to be a false dichotomy. That would be an unfounded assumption, we cannot know why they choose not to offer an opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's the "vague and less meaningful" false dichotomy - there are (at least) 3 possible beliefs about how life has changed:
      1) Evolutionist: Humans and other living things have evolved over billions of years via common descent from a simple initial life form.
      2) Creationist: Humans and other livings things were created thousands of years ago, and have since then evolved over time within the limits of genetic variation of the original created kind.
      3) Noone in particular: Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.

      No-one honestly thinks God created both Poodles and Saint Bernards as-is since the beginning of time - 33% of respondents refused to bow to the ridiculous wording of the poll to make it look like they believe in evolution. It's a stupid, meaningless number.

      Delete
    2. Dr,
      No-one honestly thinks God created both Poodles and Saint Bernards as-is since the beginning of time - 33% of respondents refused to bow to the ridiculous wording of the poll to make it look like they believe in evolution. It's a stupid, meaningless number.

      Your second option seems very close to the answer that 33% answered yes to. After all both are still dogs, no evolution necessary. It seems to me someone with a literal belief in Bible could easily believe # 2.

      Finally isn't it more probable that it you disagree with the wording of a question you give no opinion rather than an opinion which you don't believe?

      Delete
  3. Harris poll reports absolute certainty that there is a God down vs. 10 years ago. Society architects succeeded but new non believers are most likely no-clue-dumb consumers. I imagine them as two a-holes in nativity scene


    They are worried about their image on Facebook and follow what some dumb pop singer has to say on Twitter. They don't have a clue about science, religion, evolution, history...etc They sit at the computer on Christmas day waiting for online Boxing day sales to start at 8PM.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eugen,
      Society architects succeeded but new non believers are most likely no-clue-dumb consumers.

      Interesting theory, any data?

      Here is some, the "However, a new survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, conducted jointly with the PBS television program Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, finds that many of the country’s 46 million unaffiliated adults are religious or spiritual in some way. Two-thirds of them say they believe in God (68%). More than half say they often feel a deep connection with nature and the earth (58%), while more than a third classify themselves as “spiritual” but not “religious” (37%), and one-in-five (21%) say they pray every day. In addition, most religiously unaffiliated Americans think that churches and other religious institutions benefit society by strengthening community bonds and aiding the poor.

      With few exceptions, though, the unaffiliated say they are not looking for a religion that would be right for them. Overwhelmingly, they think that religious organizations are too concerned with money and power, too focused on rules and too involved in politics."

      Would you like to know which states have the highest church attendance and how it correlates with academic achievement?

      Delete
    2. Velik

      nice to see you are commenting again.

      *Interesting theory, any data?*

      Nada, except the SNL skit.
      :)

      Unscientific barometer would be that Radio Shack hardly sells any electronic components. My local astronomy shop closed. People sit in front of monitors watching Twitter feeds of what JayZ has to say.

      Anyway, have a drink to welcome a New Year tonight!

      Delete
    3. Siting by a fire, good whiskey and rumor has it a prime rib dinner. .... Planning on making stuffed grape leaves tomorrow while I watch football , heaven. Have a good safe evening , and you as well Dr Hunter.

      Delete
  4. "It's difficult to imagine who could believe such things when faced with the mountain of evidence supporting evolution."

    The argument from incredulity?!

    (from Rational Wiki)

    The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.

    The general form of the argument is as follows.

    Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.

    Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.

    Conclusion: Not-P.

    ReplyDelete
  5. CH: Friedman begins with this quote from our taxpayer funded Public Broadcasting Service (PBS): “The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago.”

    J: One can only marvel at the insanity. Big "d" ID has withstood the test of time as well by THAT pathetically low bar. But big "d" ID isn't a designer of the gaps approach as is the naturalism of the gaps approach for Darwinists. Big "d" ID explains the existence of positive evidence and warranted belief. Only THEN can it serve as an explanation of more specific inferred events. Naturalism of the gaps, on the other hand, explains nothing plausibly since it can't even explain the existence of positive evidence or warranted belief.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeff,
      Big "d" ID explains the existence of positive evidence and warranted belief. Only THEN can it serve as an explanation of more specific inferred events.

      Only with assumed knowledge of the big D. Without objective knowledge of the big D, your warranted beliefs rest on an assumption. Much as science rests on the assumptions.

      Delete
    2. You're missing the point, V. To even SAY there is warranted belief is to say that the instantiation (which is an event) of warranted belief is distinguishable from the instantiation of non-warranted belief. IOW, once you distinguish events/beliefs thus, it is moronic to say that explaining the distinguishable property of the events/beliefs isn't necessary to account for the non-arbitrariness of the distinction.

      On the other hand, if you're good with saying all belief is blind/a-plausible, then how do you demarcate science in a way that indicates science has any knowable relationship to utility of any kind? Well, you can't, of course. That's the point. You simply can't be taken seriously by sane people.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  6. Jeff: One can only marvel at the insanity.

    I'll ask again, what problem does foundationaism actually solve? Please be specific.

    In the absence of actually solving a problem, what good is foundationism? Why should I even bother?

    Clinging to foundationism in the absence of such a solution because you can't imagine knowing anything without it is incredulity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott, your confusion is utter. By your view, you can't even know there IS a problem, much less whether one has been solved!!! MIND-BOGGLING!!!

      Delete