Religion and science

[Karel]

A reply to Rob's post on Irreducible Complexity

As you say, this is interesting, but also about ten year old news. The Internet abounds with replies. As it would be completely useless for me to try to approach the matter in all the biochemical detail it deserves, I will stay on a more general level (and even hope everyone listening in approves).

An irreducible complex system is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so that the system under consideration could not have evolved by the addition of its components. It would have no function until it was complete, and therefore have no selective advantage for the organism in its intermediate stages.

This concept however is flawed, for it it only allows the system to evolve by adding single parts, with no change in function. This ignores other known evolutionary mechanisms like:

• a part gets deleted;
• a part is copied, resulting in multiple parts;
• a part gets a different function;
• a part acquires an extra function;
• a parts gets modified.

Therefore, even if an irreducibly complex system were identified (we are still waiting for the first one), this would only invalidate evolution in the hobbled version stipulated by the definition.

Irreducible Complexity, or something very much like it, is rather a prediction of evolutionary theory, of course allowing all possible mechanisms by which evolution operates. The reasoning is as follows: a system may develop overlapping functionality, where parts serve more functions and a function is served by diverse parts. This is well-known in biochemistry. In the course of evolution some of these systems might become streamlined, when unnecessary parts, and functions better served by other parts, might get lost, and the result would be irreducibly complex for the system so streamlined.

M. Behe is aware of this criticism and has acknowledged it, but considers that the greatest problem is not how the systems get streamlined, but how they arise in the first place. Some years ago he announced that he would tackle this problem next, presumably he is still at it. In the meantime, he feels justified to have his book reprinted, despite all legitimate criticisms, or without addressing those criticisms.

Of course the problem how the flagellum could evolve is still relevant for Biology. That a flagellum absolutely needs all the protein parts Behe claims it needs is not true. Much simpler flagella are known to function well in other bacteria. Besides, a subset of the components of the flagellum can function as an excretion system, more concretely: as a kind of needle by which toxins are excreted in other cells. This means that simpler versions of the flagellum could have functioned as such a system, before the flagellum acquired its motor function. Since many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions (40 of the 42 flagellar proteins in the flagellum Behe considers can also serve in other functions), evolutionary pathways can be hypothesized which account for the evolution of the flagellum. If the flagellum were truly IR in the sense Behe uses the word, such hypotheses would not be possible.

I have a personal experience reading Darwin's Black Box, by Michael Behe. When I read it I was completely flummoxed by the complexity of the blood clotting system as Behe described it. When I read up on the subject however, it soon became clear that at least part of the complexity was due to Behe's presentation, because other writers were able to present the same material in a much more lucid way. Not that I now know all the ins and outs of the vertebrate blood clotting mechanism, far from it, but at least I get an idea what they are talking about. The other authors also mentioned things Behe apparently forgot to mention, like the great similarity between many of the factors cooperating in the blood clotting system, and the redundancy in this system, that Behe represented as irreducibly-complex-no-part-can-be-missed. By this time I felt so cheated by Behe that I returned the book posthaste to the library.

I really loved the comparison with nanotechnology though, although my conclusion is a bit different. Compared with the nanotechnology in nature, as in the flagellum, our attempts at nanotechnology are just pitiful. It just shows that evolution is much smarter than we are.

Regards,

Karel

[ParkTwain]

Selective emphases on unresolved scientific explanations

First, using the fact that present-day science doesn't have a full explanation for "the beginning of life" as an excuse not to accept the basic factualness of the PROCESS of evolution is the height of disingenuousness. You basically have your head in the sand.

Second, the fact that there are disagreements among groups of scientists is nothing new and has been the case from the earliest days of organized scientific activity, even the 1500s and 1600s. In the 20th century, look at the story of the acceptance by the scientific community of the theory of plate tectonics. This was very controversial and required decades of debate in that community of scientists before it became accepted based on the preponderance of the evidence and its ability to predict new scientific discoveries. The basic historical reality is: the scientific method WORKS. Give it time.

Third, put in a different context, how OLD in historical terms is the science of biology? How old in historical terms is the SCIENTIFIC METHOD? Barely a few hundred years old.

To compare, how old is Judaism? How old is Christianity? How old is Buddhism? How old is Islam?

Now, compare the benefits to society of these two social movements. There is no comparison as to which movement has produced the greater good for the greater number of persons: science. My feeling is that the entire religionist establishment should be placed very much on the defensive to explain how its divisiveness, oppressiveness, and intolerance is at all helpful to the human race at this point in human history.

[ParkTwain]

Irreducible complexity - read Dawkins's "Climbing Mount Improbable"

Buy it at Amazon.com

http://tinyurl.com/ybbknz

[Lyehopper]

Park, Do you think that life exists elsewhere in the universe? Or is this planet the only one within the infinity of all space that harbors life?

I'm just curious about your personal reasoning and thoughts on the subject.

[ParkTwain]

Park, Do you think that life exists elsewhere in the universe? Or is this planet the only one within the infinity of all space that harbors life?

I'm just curious about your personal reasoning and thoughts on the subject.

There MIGHT be a high probability that there are additional life forms out there. I say might be because it can't be ruled out yet. Humans have direct observational knowledge about only an incredibly miniscule fraction of the universe, so how can human science yet have the knowledge whether anything about the Earth's circumstance and history is in fact unique across the entire universe. We know something about star formation and the formation of a solar system and planets. But I don't think that science knows all that much about galaxy formation. So our knowledge about how truly unique is Earth's setting for supporting life forms is very incomplete. Assuming that this is the case, we can't say with any good basis at all whether the odds favor or don't favor the presence of life elsewhere in the universe.

I would say that to have a useful discussion the question should be posed like: what is the probability that life, as we would define it, is found on another planet? There is a rational way to at least approach this kind of question, and it has been addressed in forms such as the Drake equation.

See also the Drake Equation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

I have found very interesting the investigation of the "extremophile" organisms found at the bottom of the oceans near volcanic vents. There is no light there but the organisms have means to convert inorganic substances into energy for their own use. This is giving science the understanding that there is a broad range of apparently "inhospitable" environments in which an organism can exist and even thrive. One would expect that a very early (primitive) life form must have the ability to cope with an environment of only inorganic substances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile

[skiracer]

What about the sightings of unidentified flying objects. Vehicles from other life sustaining planets or galaxies or what. If they are real someone or something must be driving or perhaps something robotic built by other life forms. It is just to large and vast a solar system to put off as not having other forms of some type of life out there.

[ParkTwain]

Interesting:

"Biochemist Michael Behe points out that the flagellar motor depends on the coordinated function of 30 protein parts. Remove one of these necessary proteins and the rotary motor simply doesn't work. The motor is, in Dr. Behe's terminology, 'irreducibly complex.'

This is just another variant of the "argument from ignorance." Because Dr. Behe doesn't understand how these organs work, or because he thinks that science CAN'T understand TODAY how such an organ might have evolved, he thinks that this mitigates against the basis for biological evolution. The problem with this approach is that he ignores all the evidence that SUPPORTS the theory of evolution. Dr. Behe is a cherry-picker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[Rob]

I really love to field the problems you pose me (especially as they are not really difficult to field), [. . .]

Another personal barb? If your position is as defensible as you claim, then why the need to do this?

I'm willing to freely admit that you appear to be more well-read in the field of science than I am. That, however, does not invalidate the knowledge of scientific information I do have and that which I have read.

The fact that biologists have no answer to the origin of life is not relevant to the theory of evolution. [. . .] Darwinian evolution takes the existence of life for granted, and only is interested in the evolution of living entities.

So you believe that the origin of life is divine? But that the Almighty only created one or possibly a few forms of life that have evolved into the many that we see today?

Since we're quoting Darwin, here are a couple of interesting ones:

"[T]he distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. [ . . . ] Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

So what he's saying, in other words is: "I still think I'm right. It's the fossil record that's 'extremely imperfect,' i.e. wrong." True science? I think not.

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. [. . . T]he difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. It does not seem probable that the most ancient beds have been quite worn away by denudation, or that their fossils have been wholly obliterated by metamorphic action, for if this had been the case we should have found only small remnants of the formations next succeeding them in age, and these would always have existed in partially metamorphosed condition. [. . .] The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."

At least he was honest enough to admit the above, though he immediately thereafter proceeds in his efforts to water down the true scientific evidence.

Compared with the nanotechnology in nature, as in the flagellum, our attempts at nanotechnology are just pitiful. It just shows that evolution is much smarter than we are.

If you are a Christian, as I believe you've so stated, then why do you balk at giving the credit to God, our Creator?

[Karel]

Another personal barb? If your position is as defensible as you claim, then why the need to do this?

I'm willing to freely admit that you appear to be more well-read in the field of science than I am. That, however, does not invalidate the knowledge of scientific information I do have and that which I have read.


So you believe that the origin of life is divine? But that the Almighty only created one or possibly a few forms of life that have evolved into the many that we see today?

That is a possibility, but I consider it an unlikely one. The research in abiogenesis is hampered by the fact that it happened so very long ago, that we have an imperfect knowledge of the circumstances that prevailed when life "evolved" from non-life, and that fossil evidence for the prebiotic phase is unlikely to come up. So science might never arrive at a theory that can aspire to the status that the theory of evolution now enjoys. The progress made despite these problems, however, doesn't seem to point to special creation.

Since we're quoting Darwin, here are a couple of interesting ones:

"[T]he distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. [ . . . ] Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

So what he's saying, in other words is: "I still think I'm right. It's the fossil record that's 'extremely imperfect,' i.e. wrong." True science? I think not.

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. [. . . T]he difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. It does not seem probable that the most ancient beds have been quite worn away by denudation, or that their fossils have been wholly obliterated by metamorphic action, for if this had been the case we should have found only small remnants of the formations next succeeding them in age, and these would always have existed in partially metamorphosed condition. [. . .] The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."

At least he was honest enough to admit the above, though he immediately thereafter proceeds in his efforts to water down the true scientific evidence.

Yes, he was honest enough to spend several chapters of his book on objections to his theory. I would call that exemplary science. What you call "watering down" in Darwin's own words is the formulation of a hypothesis. To give the sentence right after your last quote: "To show that it may hereafter receive some explanation, I will give the following hypothesis."

While you may call this a watering down of true scientific evidence, he was very right to stick to his theory, as in the following century and a half the three main obstacles to his theory have been removed or greatly reduced. I see no problems when somebody who argues a new theory in great detail, when considering the objections to this theory, also expresses the reasoned hope that these objections may be overcome. The current state of the fossil record, which all palaeontologists still consider very imperfect, is strongly in agreement with the theory of evolution. As a harbinger of things to come, only two years after the first publication of On the Origin of Species Archaeopteryx burst upon the scene, the famous transitional between reptiles (dinosaurs) and birds. A lot more gaps have since been filled.

If you are a Christian, as I believe you've so stated, then why do you balk at giving the credit to God, our Creator?

Yes, I am a Christian. Do you really mean that, as a Christian, I should attribute to God what is explainable by natural causes, and deny the natural causes? I will do something like the first, because I believe that God is involved in everything, but nothing like the second.


Regards,

Karel

[Rob]

The current state of the fossil record, which all palaeontologists still consider very imperfect, is strongly in agreement with the theory of evolution.

Do you have any evidence to support that statement?

Yes, when archaeopteryx was discovered, paleontologists hailed it as the "missing link" between reptiles and birds, because the pigeon-sized creature had feathered flight-wings and a skeleton that had some charachteristics similar to those seen in reptiles. A few skeletal similarities, though, does not a missing link make. There are other gigantic physiological chasms that separate reptiles from birds, such as the insurmountable fact that birds are warm-blooded creatures, whereas reptiles are cold-blooded. "This stands out today as one of the greatest puzzles of evolution."(Du Noüy, Pierre Lecomte, Human Destiny, 1947) Six decades later it still does, Pierre. At some point in the theoretical transition from reptile to bird, the creatures also determined that they had to start incubating their eggs. I wonder how many generations that took.

As clichéd as it may sound, I firmly hold that it requires more faith to believe in evolution of species than in special creation.

[Karel]

Do you have any evidence to support that statement?

Yes, when archaeopteryx was discovered, paleontologists hailed it as the "missing link" between reptiles and birds, because the pigeon-sized creature had feathered flight-wings and a skeleton that had some charachteristics similar to those seen in reptiles. A few skeletal similarities, though, does not a missing link make. There are other gigantic physiological chasms that separate reptiles from birds, such as the insurmountable fact that birds are warm-blooded creatures, whereas reptiles are cold-blooded. "This stands out today as one of the greatest puzzles of evolution."(Du Noüy, Pierre Lecomte, Human Destiny, 1947) Six decades later it still does, Pierre. At some point in the theoretical transition from reptile to bird, the creatures also determined that they had to start incubating their eggs. I wonder how many generations that took.

[snip image]

As clichéd as it may sound, I firmly hold that it requires more faith to believe in evolution of species than in special creation.

You are free to quote 60 year old conclusions, but that is hardly "true science". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaurs#Warm-bloodedness.

And of course a few skeletal similarities are very indicative of a transitional fossil. We would hardly be able to imagine a transitional without a few skeletal similarities, now would we? It is generally accepted that Archie already is a bird, at least for classification purposes, but its fossils can be mistaken for a kind of dinosaur, especially when the feathers left no trace. It is difficult to get more transitional than that.

About hatching eggs: it is well known that some dinosaurs displayed parental care and had nesting colonies. So the dinosaurs-become-birds might already have been doing it.

Regards,

Karel

[Rob]

Well, Karel, there is no question about the scientific community's being heavily biased toward evolution, providing you with an endless supply of clickable links to a few factoids, couched in what I referred to in an earlier post as "voluminous doublespeak." From these scanty pieces of evidence enormous assumptions must still be made in order to extrapolate the evolutionists' preconceived conclusions. And, there being virtually no funding available to any "scientist" who is not willing to climb aboard the evolution bandwagon, it is likely the scientific community will retain that bias for the forseeable future.

Proof of reptiles becoming birds does not exist. The fact that there were at one time a few species that happened to have some characteristics of both is not proof of transition any more than the duck-billed platypus is proof of birds morphing into mammals. It is just a unique species that happens to have some characteristics of both.

Obviously if evolution of species took place, we would expect to find fossils with some transitional characteristics as you have said. But such is not conclusive. To illustrate: if you were on trial for shooting John Doe in the head with a .22 caliber bullet (and you were innocent), how would you feel if the jury found you guilty based on the fact that ... well you are accused, and IF you did it, then we would expect to find a .22 caliber bullet in John Doe's head ... and sure enough there IS just such a bullet in his head, so therefore you must be guilty? That is precisely the type of weak inductive reasoning one must engage in to arrive at the conclusion that the fossil record "proves" evolution took place.

In an earlier post a few days ago I posed a rhetorical question about Jesus' genealogical lineage as outlined in the 3rd chapter of Luke. Now I would like to pose it as a non-rhetorical question: if Jesus Christ was a real person, and that lineage started out with real people, at what point do the "real people" become just made-up people?

Was Jacob real? What about his grandfather Abraham? What about Noah? Is he just a mythical figure someone made up as a teaching tool? And finally, what about Adam? The record says he is the son of God. Was there really an Adam? Or is Luke trying to pull a fast one on us? Somebody had to be the original ancestor of Jesus. For that matter somebody had to be the original ancestor of Karel and of Rob ... because here we are, aren't we? Was Adam a gorilla? Or was he a human? If Adam was human, how many generations must we go back to find an ape? I'm not trying to be funny here. These are real questions.

[Karel]

Well, Karel, there is no question about the scientific community's being heavily biased toward evolution, providing you with an endless supply of clickable links to a few factoids, couched in what I referred to in an earlier post as "voluminous doublespeak." From these scanty pieces of evidence enormous assumptions must still be made in order to extrapolate the evolutionists' preconceived conclusions. And, there being virtually no funding available to any "scientist" who is not willing to climb aboard the evolution bandwagon, it is likely the scientific community will retain that bias for the forseeable future.

Rob, you are asking me to believe that the problems you pose me, with all their irrelevancies, misrepresentations and errors, still come from some as yet undisclosed source of "true science". Please return the favor and accept that the arguments scientists and others put up on websites in reply to creationist claims are just the popularization tip of the scientific iceberg. Also, please refrain from qualifications like "doublespeak," because this forces me to point out that your sources seem to use it much more often than mine.

The matter of funding is hilarious. Creationists earn and collect lots of money, but seem to have as their highest priority more funding projects, more propaganda projects, more political pressure projects, and they are content to let the science suffer. When people start to clamour for political recognition ("equal time") before they have done the science, they are bound to raise some eyebrows.

I will also note that you want to have it both ways in this argument. On the one hand you claim that science really doesn't have the arguments, as those are all pointing towards creationism. Then why the need for funding? On the other hand, the plea for funding seems to suggest that there isn't that much evidence for creationist science at the moment. I would agree with the last suggestion.

Proof of reptiles becoming birds does not exist. The fact that there were at one time a few species that happened to have some characteristics of both is not proof of transition any more than the duck-billed platypus is proof of birds morphing into mammals. It is just a unique species that happens to have some characteristics of both.

The platypus is considered as providing evidence for the reptilian ancestry of mammals. Its bill isn't like the bill of a bird at all. I agree that "proof does not exist", in the sense that proof in the mathematical sense does not exist, and cannot be possible. Proof in the juridical sense however, "beyond a reasonable doubt", does exist, although scientists like to encourage doubt anyway. The transitional forms are one part of the evidence; of course there is more.

Obviously if evolution of species took place, we would expect to find fossils with some transitional characteristics as you have said. But such is not conclusive. To illustrate: if you were on trial for shooting John Doe in the head with a .22 caliber bullet (and you were innocent), how would you feel if the jury found you guilty based on the fact that ... well you are accused, and IF you did it, then we would expect to find a .22 caliber bullet in John Doe's head ... and sure enough there IS just such a bullet in his head, so therefore you must be guilty? That is precisely the type of weak inductive reasoning one must engage in to arrive at the conclusion that the fossil record "proves" evolution took place.

Perhaps I am missing your point here. Are you implying that all scientists have is a suspicion that evolution takes place, and from there come to the conclusion that evolution must have taken place? If you really think that, perhaps we could study one case a bit more deeply, because this just handwaves libraries of collected evidence away.

In an earlier post a few days ago I posed a rhetorical question about Jesus' genealogical lineage as outlined in the 3rd chapter of Luke. Now I would like to pose it as a non-rhetorical question: if Jesus Christ was a real person, and that lineage started out with real people, at what point do the "real people" become just made-up people?

Was Jacob real? What about his grandfather Abraham? What about Noah? Is he just a mythical figure someone made up as a teaching tool? And finally, what about Adam? The record says he is the son of God. Was there really an Adam? Or is Luke trying to pull a fast one on us? Somebody had to be the original ancestor of Jesus. For that matter somebody had to be the original ancestor of Karel and of Rob ... because here we are, aren't we? Was Adam a gorilla? Or was he a human? If Adam was human, how many generations must we go back to find an ape? I'm not trying to be funny here. These are real questions.

I accept that these are real questions for you, but still, your questions do not reflect the way myth is used in modern theology. It is not myth in the sense of "not real", when one of the basic tasks of theology would be to separate facts from myth. Rather it is myth in the sense of "a way to communicate truth", even if the truth cannot always be factual. Then theology would need to look for the truth in the myth. From this second position, which is also mine, your question is meaningless. I take the genealogy of Luke on face value, or that of Matthew (and I consider efforts to harmonize them as unfruitful), and would ask myself why these genealogies are presented, which truth is communicated by them. Exegetically speaking, Adam is the first human, our great-whatever-grandparent. Speaking strictly biologically and historically, Adam and the Garden are meaningless, and theology has taken this into account for quite some time now. But on a different level Adam still has his place in theology as the first human, just as in the Bible.

Regards,

Karel

[Rob]

Karel, are you even listening to yourself? In one breath you characterize my arguements as irrelevant, misrepresentation, and erroneous, in the next breath you take umbrage with my use of the term "doublespeak" with reference to the evolutionist tomes, and moments later you lay the charge of wanting to have it both ways at my feet? (For the record, "doublespeak" is defined by Merriam-Webster as "language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth; also: gobbledygook," and "gobbledygook" is defined as "wordy and generally unintelligible jargon.")

So, if I'm understanding this correctly: only you enjoy the privilege of pronouncing your subjective judgements upon my arguements, I may not do so with respect to yours, and I am the one with the double standard? Do you see anything wrong with this picture? I do.

Whether or not one's arguement is irrelevant may be debatable, and the same might be said about whether an arguement employs misrepresentation, depending on circumstances. But can you provide one example, please, of an erroneous arguement I have put forth?

The matter of funding is hilarious.

What a perfectly pompous and arrogant thing to say. The matter of funding is one of the core issues in the debate. You asked, regarding the segment of the scientific community that does not necessarily support the evolution theory, "Then why the need for funding?" I'm not saying anyone needs more funding. I'm only pointing out that of all the funds currently available to the field of paleontology, the overwhelming majority of it is reserved strictly for those whose views fit the anti-creation template. So what's a young scientist, fresh out of college and looking for work, to do? Many probably have families to feed, and there are doubtless very few who do not have large student loans to repay. There is tremendous peer pressure in the scientific community for one to conform his views to the anti-creation template. "What? you call yourself a scientist but conclude that archaeopteryx is a unique species unto itself and not a reptile that sprouted wings? We don't want your kind of science here, boy. Go sell your apples on another corner." Obviously an oversimplification, but that is the gist of how it works and illustrates what I mean by one's 'fitting the anti-creation template' or not. You may not be as cynical about the state of modern "science," and that is your prerogative. I remain highly skeptical, particularly where money and prestige are involved.

The platypus is considered as providing evidence for the reptilian ancestry of mammals.

One of those alleged warm-blooded reptiles no doubt, but I can't help wondering: why should it not be considered as providing evidence that the Creator designed another unique creature? Has someone found fossil evidence of a transitory stage from reptile to platypus? If one of the rovers on Mars found a highly detailed, perfect likeness of a platypus carved in solid rock, the scientific world would shout from the rooftops that they have found proof of extra-terrestrial life. Yet right here on Earth there are, not a stone likeness, but the real, flesh and blood creatures! The scientific world, however, sees no reason to conclude that this creature's existence is the result of anything other than mere happenstance. It boggles the mind.

Are you implying that all scientists have is a suspicion that evolution takes place, and from there come to the conclusion that evolution must have taken place?

Yes, and in so doing they ignore the early Cambrian fossil record, in which the facts reveal an "explosion" of many different forms of life in a relatively short period of time.

Anyway, I've spent too much time on this reply already this morning, as I do have other things I need to accomplish today. Regarding your answer to my question about Jesus' genealogy, though, I still do not know whether you believe, for example, that Abraham ever really lived, and, for example, whether all modern Jews are his descendants through Isaac and all modern people loosely classified as Arabs are his descendants through Ishmael.

[Karel]

Rob, when I pointed out irrelevancies, methodological problems, misrepresentations and whatever, you never argued those points. Argue the point or give it up. I can say that you always succeed in throwing up a lot of points, but at least I try to answer what I consider the main points. If you think I have missed the main point, show it and I will consider it. So I do reserve the right of pointing out that you have left the field on several occasions now, but not much more. And if you want to argue concealment and other doublespeak, please give an example. From your contributions:

• the cherry picked set of flood stories. Questions left: how do we conclude that they don't refer to a local flood, how to weigh their similarities and differences, and shouldn't we look at all flood stories, instead of only these select few?
• The mix up of abiogenesis and evolution theory.
• The article on IC that completely ignored ten years of debate and misrepresented evolutionary mechanisms (as does IC in general).
• Presenting 60 year old science as still relevant, in a field were a lot of progress has been made in the last half century.
• The suggestion that incubation is a completely new trait in birds.
• And generally suggesting that thousands of scientists are consciously or unconsciously engaged in deceit, with no better argument than that what they say is in disagreement with your interpretation of the Bible.

Of course you may restart any point you like. But your usual mode of discussion was to just put up some new argument when I answered one of yours. But perhaps we can straighten things out now.

Edit: My conclusions just refer to the arguments. Please don't take them personally.

Regards,

Karel