edinburghcreationgroup.org

The latest video from Dr Arthur Jones Is Atheism Scientific? is now online.

This week scientists have ‘discovered’ what Arthur Jones says the indisputable evidence has shown for fifty years: that inherited traits are not solely determined by DNA. Arthur Jones pointed this out in his Edinburgh Creation Group talk Fish Fossils and Evolution six months ago (please go to time 53min 37sec for argument).

He was mocked by some Atheist scientists for doing so. He said each embryo receives not just a full set of DNA from its parents but a fully functional cell complete with proteins and RNA each of these also has an effect on inherited characteristics. Proteins and RNA regulate the expression of DNA allowing features already in DNA to be expressed or repressed.

Though Darwinists deny it, this fits incredibly well with the Creationist theory of distinct created kinds which have the in built (rather than acquired) ability to adapt to their environment. In built adaptability is certainly consistent with the Intelligent Design hypothesis. However it seems that Evolutionists are working hard to come up with the theory of artificially Intelligent Evolution to counter really Intelligent Design.

One thing seems certain the Dawkins’ argument of a Blind Watch Maker can at last be laid to rest.

Science is founded on the assumption that the universe obeys a set of understandable, well ordered rules. It is logical to assume that a universe created by an intelligent mind will have intelligible laws governing it throughout. But does it follow that a universe born out of chaos should be governed by an consistent set of intelligible rules?

Richard Dawkins has said that faith in a creator incompatible with science, because its assumptions cannot be tested. However can the assumptions of Atheism be tested? i.e. that the logical laws that govern the universe should be self-existent.

Come and hear Dr Arthur Jones expand on this subject map. Arthur work has worked for many years studying the speciation of fish in Lake Victoria you can hear his previous talk on the subject here: Fish, fossils and Evolution.

This Wednesday (29th Oct) is your last chance this season to go on the Celtic Tour. This free costume tour gives a Christian perspective of the history of Edinburgh. It covers the Celtic saints the Covenanters, the Reformation the Enlightenment and much, much more. It also features Paul and Phil form the creation group in costume as St Cuthbert and John Knox. We meet 7:30pm just below the castle esplanade.

Dr Marc Surtees response video to chapter 4 of the God Delusion is now online. Mark has a PhD in Zoology, chapter 4 is where Dawkin’s outlines his biological case for Atheism. This Tuesday Marc will speak on human evolution and ask what do the fossils actually show?

This post continues our response to the arguments used by Stuart Richie in his talk to Edinburgh University’s Humanist Society.

3. Evolution is falsifiable and would be disproved if for example complex life was found in the Cambrian rock.

According to Stephen J. Gould we see every major type of body plan arrive in the Cambrian explosion:

The Cambrian explosion is the key event in the history of multicellular animal life. The more we study the episode, the more we are impressed by its uniqueness and of its determining effect on the subsequent pattern of life’s history. These basic anatomies that arose during the Cambrian explosion have dominated life ever since, with no major additions. The pattern of life’s history has followed from the origins and successes of this great initiating episode. S. J. Gould, Of Tongue Worms, Velvet Worms, and Water Bears, Natural History 104 (1995), 15.

Further more Gould admits that most creatures appear fully formed:

“The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and `fully formed.’”

(Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p.14).

An article that appeared on Science Daily yesterday claimed not only that complex life appeared in the Cambrian but also that its social interactions were sophisticated:

‘This amazingly rich period in the history of life saw the appearance of more or less all the major groups of animals that provide the biodiversity we see around us today,’ commented Professor Derek Siveter. ‘This find demonstrates that the creatures in our seas 525 million years ago were far from primitive, in fact they were complex organisms exhibiting some very sophisticated behaviour.’ Professor Derek Siveter

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081012093843.htm

Stuart went on to say that a rabbit in the Cambrian fossils would disprove evolution. It may well do that but it is not something Creationists would predict finding either. Creationists believe that most fossils were formed by catastrophic events such as the flood. These events suffocated and buried whole ecosystems almost instantly .

Fossilised in the act of giving birth.

For them the reason that the creatures that lived on the bottom of the sea tend to be found in deeper rock layers is simply because the sea floor is lower than the sea shore or the land. (read more)

Recently a fossil forest the size of Bristol was found in Illinois. Many of the trees were buried vertically. This burial must have happened rapidly because untreated wood rots once a tree dies and details on leaves from the tree canopy can still be seen. There is not just one fossil forest but six buried right on top of each other. This shows that deep layers of rock were not necessarily laid down over long ages of time with slow rates sedimentation. If it is later shown that the trunks do not appear in six distinct layers but trunks from different layers frequently overlap it would show that all six layers were laid down at once. For more on tree fossils please read Polystrate Fossils Require Rapid Deposition for more on flood geology from Edinburgh Creation Group please watch: The Global Flood and The Grand Canyon: Evidence for the Global Flood

Firstly thank you to Stuart Richie for bringing an insightful talk about the scientific evidence for evolution. We are grateful that he went into some detail about the scientific evidence as this gives ground for discussion. Below is a brief response to his opening points, more will follow as we get time:

1. The Extent of Acceptance of Creationist Claims

Stuart gave statistics which showed 48% of adults in the UK believe evolution, 13% are unsure and 39% of adults doubt it. Additionally 30% of students doubt it. Stuart claimed this is because of the prevalence of Creationist teaching. However compared to the teaching of evolution the teaching of creation is not prevalent. The size of these numbers suggest that the majority of the people who reject Darwin would not be found in church or a mosque. The BBC states that in 2006 only 6.3% of the UK population attends church while 3.1% are Muslims. Add to this that the previous Pope has said evolution is: ‘more than a hypothesis’ and the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has apologised to Charles Darwin. So the claim that the established church is aggressively pushing Creationism is unfounded. Creationists have not been given the same access to the mass media as evolution’s promoters like Richard Dawkins. There are groups like Edinburgh Creation Group that promote creation at a grass roots level but we cannot be given the credit for the fact that evolution is believed by only by a minority of people in the UK.

The best explanation of these figures is that many people reject the claims of evolution having only heard the positive case put for it and not the argument against it. It also suggests that if mainstream churches promoted Intelligent Design the majority of people would not think less of them for doing so. If we can win so many people without putting our case, then what will happen when we do put our case clearly?

2. Micro and Macro-Evolution

Stuart made the case that micro-evolution (the changes we observe today between children and their parents) shows that evolution is responsible for the large differences we see between different kinds of animals. However the changes we see between parents and their offspring can mostly be explained by inherited characteristics (that is pre-existing features borrowed from previous generations). These are not new features which are moving a species forward into a new kind of creature but pre-existing characteristics being displayed in new combinations. So some animals of the same kind have long hair, others short hair, some black hair and some brown. The blueprint of the creature stays the same but parameters such as size, colour, texture and strength change. In order to get a new kind of creature you cannot simply shuffle existing genes you need to generate new genetic code by mutation (by mistake) each of these small changes needs to be favourable in order to be preserved by natural selection. It is this mechanism which creationists claim is unproven. An example of a new feature that would be very difficult to evolve would be the lungs of birds (see video: Design Information and the Word of Godstart at 13min 30sec).

It is not surprising when we take two working modular computer programs with the same blueprint and swap corresponding parts that you get a third working system. However it is very surprising if we type random letters into a piece of working code and get a new piece of working code that does something new. In order to make functional changes to a computer program you have to make several changes at the same time e.g. misspelling a command by a single letter will cause the code not to run. In order to add a new command you also need to add valid parameters. If DNA is code is similar to computer code then generating new code by adding random changes is a fundamentally different process from swapping existing pieces of code which are known work and known to perform the compatible functions. Proof of micro-evolution is not proof of macro-evolution. For more on this subject see Kirk Durston’s video on Intelligent Design where he shows how we can mathematically quantify the difficulty of achieving different steps of evolution.

more soon …

Human evolution is grinding to a halt because of a shortage of older fathers in the West, according to a leading genetics expert. The Times

Edinburgh University’s Humanist Society have organised a talk with the above title (Thu, 9 Oct, 18:15, Appleton Tower, LT 5, George Square, EH8 9LE):

As part of Darwin 200, Stuart Ritchie, President of the UoE Humanist Society, explores Creationism and ‘Intelligent Design’, and shows how they can’t even come close to challenging the massive evidence base for Evolution.

ECG very much encourages debate and the presentation of scientific evidence. Clearly setting out the positive evidence for macro-evolution provides a good foundation for debate. Creationists and Evolutionists both accept natural selection (micro-evolution). Creationists however do not believe that the limited variation we observe in offspring is strong evidence for the common descent of all creatures. We encourage open minded people to hear both sides by attending Hum Soc’s lecture and the new Edinburgh Creation Group series. We will try to address any significant objections raised at this lecture in our meetings.

To get you in the mood for our new series we have uploaded two talks by Kirk Durston recorded in the summer at events organised by Edinburgh CU. Be warned his talks are quite technical and cover a number of areas few people study together: biology, mathematics, artificial intelligence and philosophy.
Does God Exist? | Intelligent Design