Fun For Science Geeks: Creationist "Paper"

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Fun For Science Geeks: Creationist "Paper"

 I honestly can't wait to see what Deludedgod does with this.  He writes really fast, so anybody else who wants to get their punches in, you better do it quickly...

From Pharyngula

Quote:

Gordon Wilson

 

New St. Andrews College

 

In a cursory survey of life it is obvious that a vast number of species spanning most kingdoms and phyla have features that are teleologically designed to deal out disease and/or death. Many pathogens, parasites, and predators have sophisticated genetic, morphological, and behavioral arsenals (natural evil) that clearly testify to the God's eternal power and divine nature (Romans 1: 20), i.e. they are not the result of mutation and natural mutation.

These range from the bacterial type III secretion systems, the cnidarian nematocysts, the toxoglossate radula and apparatus of Conus, the parasitic physiology of Wuchereria bancrofti, the piercing/sucking mouthparts of predaceous insects, and the solenoglyphous skull, pit organs, and venom apparatus of pit vipers. Scripture states that: 1) every green plant was given for food (Genesis 1:30), 2) death and disease are a consequence of sin (Genesis 2:17), and 3) creation was completed on the sixth day (Genesis 2:1). The following six scenarios attempt to explain the presence of natural evil in the biological world from a young earth creationist framework. I will then assess them in light of these aforementioned biblical truths.

At creation creatures that were to become pathogens, parasites, and predators:

  1. had dual gene sets: (such as in holometabola: larva, pupa, and adult) one gene set for benign morphology and behavior (sinless contingency) and one for malignant morphology and behavior (Fall contingency) with only the benign genes sets expressed prior to the Fall.

  2. had malignant morphological gene sets expressed for an imminent preordained (or fore-known) Fall, with no usage prior to the Fall. Malignant behavioral gene sets expressed after the Fall.

  3. had the same malignant morphology before and after the Fall, however benign usage was normative before the Fall. After the Fall micro-evolutionary factors altered benign behavior into malignant behavior.

  4. were morphologically and behaviorally benign and then subsequent to the Fall malignant genes were designed, created, and incorporated into the genome of certain creatures transforming them into pathogens, parasites, and predators.

  5. were subject to random mutation and natural selection after the Fall transforming their benign gene sets into malignant gene sets. The latter were not designed by God.

  6. were completely benign in all respects but at the Fall the enemy (Satan, et. al.) engaged in post-Fall genetic modification and/or bestiality that resulted in creatures with malignant behavior and morphology.

I will argue that the two scenarios that are the most harmonious with both scripture and the scientific data are 1) and 2). Any scenario attributing the presence of these highly complex morphological and behavioral arsenals to random mutation and natural selection is granting creative powers to mindless processes (this is no better than atheistic evolution). Any scenario that attributes these complex arsenals to God's creative power yet shifts their time of origin to a post-Fall creative act, contradicts the finished creation on day six. Finally, any scenario that attributes these complex arsenals to Satan et. al., attributes too much creative power and intelligence to the powers of darkness.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
In a cursory survey of life


In a cursory survey of life it is obvious that a vast number of species spanning most kingdoms and phyla have features that are teleologically designed to deal out disease and/or death. Many pathogens, parasites, and predators have sophisticated genetic, morphological, and behavioral arsenals (natural evil) that clearly testify to the God's eternal power and divine nature (Romans 1: 20), i.e. they are not the result of mutation and natural mutation.

How the fucking hell did that make it past peer review?

Scripture states

You know you’re in some trouble when your “scientific” paper attempts to explain something by starting with “scripture states”.

The following six scenarios attempt to explain the presence of natural evil in the biological world in the biological world from a young earth creationist framework. I will then assess them in light of these aforementioned biblical truths.

I know I’m preaching to the choir, but this would never hold up in academic circles. Real ones, at any rate. Firstly, the only “framework” that is supposed to be used to assess certain phenomenon is one which is already empirically established. It’s somewhat difficult to miss the circularity in this case. Apparently, the aforementioned biological phenomenon “clearly testify to God’s eternal power” but apparently, in order for this explanation to hold water, they “must be assessed in light of these aforementioned biblical truths”.

 

had dual gene sets: (such as in holometabola: larva, pupa, and adult) one gene set for benign morphology and behavior (sinless contingency) and one for malignant morphology and behavior (Fall contingency) with only the benign genes sets expressed prior to the Fall.

Making things up is generally not an accepted MO for real scientific literature. Firstly, there is no such thing as a “contingency”. Any sequence which is not under conservation will mutate at a higher rate than those which are.

 

With no usage

 

This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. No gene can be “contingency” which is somehow “awakened” and included into a transcription pattern many generations after it was introduced into the pool, or it will have been mutated out of existence long before. This is indeed the very same reason why mutually dependant sequences of genes exist! The fact that pseudogenes (a pseudogene is typically defined as a gene which is inactive and does not produce a functional protein, which could be for a number of reasons such as frameshift or a nonsense mutation) produced by homologs can induce alterations in the conservation of related paralogous sequences is crucial, for it is a primary mechanism for what we are talking about. Understanding this principle puts us in a position to understand coevolution. Coevolutionary processes occur when alterations in one thing produce alterations in another. This is very vague and we need to elucidate this more precisely. For our purposes, the most important principle will be that the alteration of conservation of sequences by the introduction or alteration of other sequences can result in a mutual dependency between the sequences. It is important to understand that there is no magic behind the mechanism by which the introduction or alteration of a sequence alters the conservation of another sequence, it is merely that it alters the tendency of mutations of that sequence to eliminate the organism carrying it due to natural selection. A paralogous duplication of a conserved gene will relax the conservation on both copies, for example, since the existence of another copy decreases the probability that a mutation on one copy will be deleterious to the organism. However, since both sequences are subject to random mutation more or less independently, a common result of this set up is that the paralogous sequences are both conserved by mutations. This is quite simple to understand. If the alteration or introduction of sequences can induce relaxation of conservation, it can do the opposite. In this case, it can conserve both sequences. This is a crucial component of coevolution.

two scenarios that are the most harmonious with both scripture

That doesn’t matter. This is not a valid scientific argument.

contradicts the finished creation on day six

So?

 EDIT: I had to remove the quote boxes to avoid fucking with the formatting. The OP appears to be formatted incorrectly as well.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:How the

deludedgod wrote:
How the fucking hell did that make it past peer review?

That's because the peers are as ridiculous as the author of that abstract. It's for a talk given at a "conference" organized by The Baraminology Study Group. They describe themselves as "A Creation Biology Study Group. We are an affiliation of biologists and other researchers dedicated to developing a young-age creation model of biological origins." If you want to read something as pretentious as it is stupid, visit their website.

http://www.creationbiology.org/

deludedgod wrote:
Scripture states

You know you’re in some trouble when your “scientific” paper attempts to explain something by starting with “scripture states”.

Not according to these douchebags. From Creationwiki: "Baraminology is the study of the ancestry of life on Earth (biosystematics), which draws from the presupposition that God created many kinds of organisms as described in the Biblical book of Genesis."

Of course, it's as stupid as it sounds. What I consider the worst part is that such intellectual frauds like the author are currently indoctrinating thousands of young people at so called Christian "Universities". Read these breathtaking statements from the reformed calvinist New Saint Andrews College

 

"College" Mission and objectives wrote:

Our Objectives for Students

The College's primary objective for its students is to educate young Christian men and women broadly and deeply in the liberal arts from a distinctively Christian, Reformed perspective, to equip them for lives of faithful service to the Triune God and His kingdom, and to encourage the use of their gifts for the growth of Christian culture. The College expects its students to conduct themselves with all holiness and reverence in word, deed and attitude, to maintain sound doctrine, to nurture a reformational Christian culture, submitting to the Lordship of Christ and to His Word in all areas of life, and to practice and preserve the highest standards of academic integrity.

Our Objectives for the College Faculty

The College's primary objective for its faculty is to provide excellent classroom instruction that broadens and deepens student understanding of the liberal arts, to offer a godly example of spiritual maturity, intellectual rigor, wise judgment, and personal integrity, and to engage in scholarly inquiry and creative activities applicable to the classroom and beyond. The College expects its faculty to teach and to engage in scholarly inquiry and creative work from a Reformed perspective in their respective fields of expertise, submitting all to the lordship of Christ and His Word, to practice and preserve the highest standards of academic integrity, and to disseminate the fruit of their studies and creative work in appropriate scholarly and publicly accessible venues.

I can't believe people pay thousands of dollars for an "education" in something so obviously useless and anti-intellectual.