Information theory is foundational to evo, and thus most relevant to current evo theory. I'll admit it isn't important to biologists, but that will come in time. It's math, not biology.
Abiogenesis is used most because it is the biggest hurdle to get over for evo to start. Why evo's claim that abiogenesis is outside of evo theory is an indictment of the theory. But post-protocell arguments are valid against evo, too.
The Big Bang… I don't argue that one, but even other evo-believing scientists dispute the claims of that idea, so I figure I'll wait until they have more solid information on the subject.
The SLoT is a very fundamental principle, and although its effects can easily be seen and explained, the mechanics are very complicated; so lay people can see how it works, and through experience intuit how it will be a difficult for evo to explain away, but they cannot explain the mechanics of it. It's too bad. But we (mankind) will eventually get a theory that will show that not only is going from primitive protocell to a more complex cell an uphill reaction (even more uphill if you talk non-life to life reaction), but the energy claimed to do it will cause more harm than good. I'm a layperson, I can't tell you how. Call it a prediction of YEC.
Irreducible complexity is largely an appeal not to emotion, but more toward common sense. It isn't an emotional appeal to see a watch on a beach and assume it was made by somebody. And the same faulty premise argument can be made for that watch situation; but it won't convince most people – and they will be right, not you. But it isn't a hard science by a longshot, like math. I'll grant you that.
So all the things I mentioned don't prove creation, but they are an argument against evo. I think that's what should be focused on. Even if we don't prove creation, please please please use some common sense and at least say, "Well then, we just don't know how we got here" and leave it at that. Because as science progresses we are getting to the point where evo is becoming not just doubtful, but absurd.
Which brings up Strat's post:
The problem is that the trust in the bible does not usually start at whether evo is true or not. There are other sure things, like coherency, historical consistency, and human nature, that are the beginnings to trust in the bible. Then afterward, the bible and science line up on most things. There are some things it doesn't line up on, like radiometric dating. And other things it doesn't explain, like the flood. But these things don't dispute the validity of the bible, but the bible doesn't explain them or we don't understand them yet. Also, what we don't understand is not completely unknowable, but we have conflicting information currently, and we will have to study the situation more to understand.
And again, forget the evidence for creation. At least admit that evo is scientifically impossible. Don't agree to the illogical just because of some internal need to explain how we got here. Just be content that we exist, realize that evo doesn't affect your life and move on.
My point is that not only is evo not consistent, it isn't even reasonable.
And, no, nothing else better needs to replace it to understand that evo isn't a valid scientific theory.
And one more thing, you claim the Catholic Church argued for a flat earth in medieval times. What are you talking about? Can you point me to some info that backs up that claim?
---------------------
Edited to attribute quote to correct person
Last edited:
