God & Science

[kenblogton]

Science is the study of Nature & Natural Phenomena. All phenomena amenable to scientific inquiry are natural, meaning they consist of space, time, matter or energy; all causes investigated by Science are also natural. Where does this leave God?
God precedes Science. He is the Creator. It's God before the Big Bang; scientific inquiry starts at the Big Bang. But what about how God has affected His Creation since the Big Bang?
What God has done since the Big Bang in the created universe is NOT a legitimate aspect of scientific inquiry. It's real and true of course, but it's NOT Science; it's either Theology or Philosophy. This is because God is NOT a part of Nature, He's its non-physical Creator.
This means that Creation Science or Intelligent Design are NOT Science. What they say is real and true, but it's philosophy or theology, NOT Science! The way to show the inadequacy of scientific explanations to scientists is by using Science. Biblical, Theological and Philosophical methods are irrelevant to scientific inquiry! So what does Science show regarding Creation & Evolution?
Bryson, W. 2010. A Short History of Nearly Everything. Toronto: Anchor Canada documents the scientific gaps regarding both the origins of life (361) and the evolution of species due to the absence of intermediate species (487-489).
Thaxton, C.B., W.L. Bradley and R.L. Olsen. 1984. The Mystery of Life’s Origins. New York: Philosophical Library – who are biological researchers – document the impossibility of the natural origin of life from the primordial soup of earth’s early oceans.
Researchers who attempt to simulate the primordial soup of earth’s early oceans and create life find that it is impossible. This is because, in the lab, you cannot obtain only the natural laevo- or left molecular forms of the amino acid building blocks of life; you get equal amounts of the synthetic dextra- or right molecular forms of the amino acids which makes life creation IMPOSSIBLE!
Johnson, P.E. 1991. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity documents the origins of species in an abrupt, and not an evolutionary, manner. He also notes the virtually complete absence of intermediate species, seen as essential by Darwin to the Theory of Evolution.
Logic also tells us of the impossibility of evolution because the intermediate species will not be fit enough to survive.
Cann, R.L., M. Stoneking, and A.C. Wilson. 1987. “Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution.” Nature, 31-36 conclude all human females are descended from a single female, referred to as Mitochondrial Eve.
Dorit, R.L., H. Akashi, and W. Gilbert. 1995. “Absence of polymorphism at the ZFY locus on the human Y chromosome.” Science 268: 1183-1185 conclude all human males are descended from a single male, referred to as Y Chromosomal Adam.
Scientifically, life and species origins would be best referred to as the life and species Big Bangs, one Big Bang for each life form or species.
I was a believer in primordial soup life origin and evolution of species until I studied the data carefully after I became a believer. Evolution within a species is not controversial; evolution across species is impossible, as is life creation in the lab!
kenblogton

[Paidion]

Evolution within a species is not controversial.

Except, I wouldn't call it "evoluton". I would call it diversity, and it come about through selection, either natural or deliberate.

How did the larger form of cultivated strawberries come about? Wild strawberries didn't evolve over time. Rather man selected larger wild strawberries and planted the runners. And then selected the larger ones from them, and planted the runners—over and over.

Where did blue budgies originate? You don't find a large number of blue budgies anywhere in the wild. They are normally green. But occasionally you do. Man selected blue ones and mated them until most of their offspring were blue. But green ones keep cropping up. Leave a group of blue ones to themselves and the offspring eventually revert to green.

The classic example that evolutionists give of modern "evolution" is the emergence of the black peppermoth in England during the industrial revolution. But again, this was selection (or more accurately "reverse selection"). Until trees were blackened due to soot, the peppermoth was camoflauged. But then they became clearly visible to predators, and the darker ones which better matched the sooty trees were more likely to survive. There were darker ones because of variation within the species—not because of evolution. So the survivors produced darker offspring, and this process continued until most of the moths were very dark or black.

But now that the trees are a normal colour again, the peppermoth is reverting to its lighter stage for the simple reason that the predators are now eating up the DARKER ones.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... e-skies.ht

In spite of this all being a matter of selection within that natural variations within species, evolutionists are still claiming the peppermoth phenomena as a classic example of modern evolution:

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/i ... e/127.html

[mattrose]

Roger Olson just posted on the same general subject
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolso ... wrong-use/

[kenblogton]

Reply to Paidion & mattrose
Thanks for your helpful inputs.
kenblogton