Kent Hovind vs. a Molecular Biologist (The limitations of science)

by dhw, Monday, July 11, 2011, 22:54 (4882 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

I'm trying to catch up on this very interesting thread, and would like to comment on some of the points raised.-TONY: The creation model says that we are inferior to our ancestors because we were created perfectly and have been deteriorating ever since, which fits with the evidence that all mutations are negative.-Please see under "Mutations, bad not good", where I have suggested that unless you believe in the individual creation of every species, you have no choice but to believe in beneficial mutations ... either in the Darwinian sense of changes due to sheer chance, or in accordance with the theory that God deliberately engineered all the changes that led eventually to us. (I'm glad you later withdrew the reference to perfection!)-TONY: The utility of a creator...[is] to help focus your thoughts into a profitable and productive action instead of wasting it chasing misguided ideals. Just my two cents at any rate.-Elsewhere you quite rightly in my view criticize the arrogant assumptions of the non-religious and of some evolutionists, but I'm afraid I kick equally hard against the arrogant assumptions of those religious people who think no-one else is capable of profitable, productive action, and anyone who does not share their religious faith is chasing misguided ideals. Who sets the criteria for profitability, productiveness and proper guidance? The fundamentalist imam, the inquisitor, the child-abusing priest, the cult leader, the Pope? No-one has direct, authoritative access to the creator, and belief in such a being has led and still leads to misery and oppression (as well as to comfort and philanthropy). However, my grouse is absolutely NOT directed at you personally ... you wouldn't have stayed with this forum if you had been that sort of person. I just hope you will accept that you have wielded a double-edged sword. Now I've had my two cents' worth!-TONY: We also know that genetic differences between species either prevent reproduction, produce sterile offspring, or produce offspring that while perhaps fertile, are not genetically compatible with existing mates, thus preventing the expansion of the lineage.
MATT: This is in fact the definition of speciation.-I don't know of a better one, but the whole issue is confusing, not to say misleading. Scientists describe different "species" of dogs and ducks and daffodils, and one can see that vast numbers of variations may arise through adaptation to different environments, or interbreeding when it works (which will be decided by natural selection). But variations are not new species. If we are interested in the origin of species, and we believe that life began with simple organisms like bacteria, we are confronted with the need to explain how and why these simple organisms ... which have survived unscathed through every conceivable environmental change ... came up with the organs that have led from them to us. I would like to develop this theme in response to some posts under "Science vs. Religion".