Browse Search Feedback Other Links Home Home
The Talk.Origins Archive

A creationist can only imagine a supernatural model.

Post of the Month: July 2013


Subject:    | Preliminary refutation of Darwinism
Date:       | 08 Jul 2013
Message-ID: |

Context: On June 22nd Ray Martinez opened this thread here with a declaration that since the random and non-random elements of the evolutionary model are logically incompatible the entire theory is built on an internal contradiction. On July 2nd in a followup post here Ray's comments included the statement that "No one denies the empirical premises of natural selection." to which Greg Guarino's opening question below refers.

Greg Guarino asks:
>>> For our convenience, could you identify these "empirical premises" that
>>> you don't deny?

Ray Martinez replies:
>> (1) Variation,
>> (2) inheritance by offspring,
>> (3) differential reproduction.

Greg Guarino responds:
> Thanks for a prompt answer.

> 1. Just to be clear, when we say "variation", we are usually discussing
> variation within a species; differences in coloration, or femur length, or
> blood proteins among white-tailed deer, for instance, rather than the
> differences between white-tailed deer and cougars. Is that your understanding?


> 2. Yes, when we are discussing evolution, we are most interested in the
> variations that are heritable.

> 3. In another post, you made me wonder if perhaps you don't understand what
> we are comparing when we mention differential reproductive success. So let's
> be sure we're on the same page.

> Differential reproductive success (at least usually) refers to members of
> the *same* species, and compares the reproductive "fortunes" of creatures
> with a certain trait with those of others that lack that trait.

> Overt traits aren't always binary, of course, and aren't always controlled
> by one gene. But generally, we are comparing how many surviving offspring
> are "placed" in the next generation by those with longer forelimbs/softer
> seed husks/broader leaves/etc. with those that have shorter forelimbs/harder
> seed husks/narrower leaves etc. Is that your understanding as well?

Introducting the post of the month by Ray Martinez
I understand differential reproduction as conveying the observed fact that the number of offspring produced by species varies, along with the number that survives to reproduce.

The problem with your #3 above is the fact that my mind *refuses* to process and thus understand what is being said. You've been very patient in your attempts to make me understand natural selection. Each attempt is unique, using different terminology and examples. But I am unable to understand these attempts as synonymous. Thus each attempt does not promote understanding, but misunderstanding.

The reason my mind refuses to comprehend natural selection is because my mind was created to think supernaturally (teleologically), not naturally (anti-teleologically). I've met other Creationists who say the same thing. They understand natural selection as nonsense. One person actually told me that he didn't want to understand natural selection because it doesn't make any sense. His point was: to try and understand natural selection was to force your mind to do something unnatural, damaging. Of course, I completely agree. And don't forget: Darwin was unable to make two highly competent scientific men understand natural selection.

Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links
The FAQ | Must-Read Files | Index | Creationism | Evolution | Age of the Earth | Flood Geology | Catastrophism | Debates