Although I have only been teaching computer languages for four years now, I completely agree with your argument. Regardless of the complexity of a program, there was someone writing the code. So far in all of the classes I have taught, no program has developed on it's own, no program has ever opened on it's own, and I have never had a computer turn on by itself. Even the most simple project requires a certain amount of code, and a number of other programs, files, and software to run. I have yet to take a look at the documentation of the Avida program, but am sure that I will find there have been hundreds of hours of work done by intelligent, meaningful programmers. How can they have spent all of that time developing, testing, debugging, and rewritting code to come to the conclusion that the program evolves? - K. G.
This is a scientific email account. Our business is Geology, Oceanography, and Biology. Therefore you are wasting electrons by sending me this creationist garbage. Evolution IS a theory..Genesis is a HYPOTHESIS...look up the definitions, idiot!! - D. B.
"After more than a decade of development, Avida's digital organisms are now getting close to fulfilling the definition of biological life."
The development of Avida required thought. Adida did not happen by chance, but, I am assuming, through countless hours of thoughtful reflection and consideration. The development of a computer program is far from the Darwinian Evolution that I am familiar with, in which single celled organisms mutate through "chance" over a vast amount of time to become the complex organisms that you and I are today.
It is interesting that something screamed as "fact" all over the world feels so much danger that there has to be countless new reasons created to believe that "fact".
Just pull the plug on that computer, and see how much life they've created!
- D. W.
You are in a wrong the evolution THEORY is false. I believe in god and the creation, this is not a theroy, is the true.
- H. R. G.
Just an observation. If the faith community got as exercised about the preservation and stewardship of the glorious creation as they get about the way it was started, I think it would regain some credibility. The best statement a person of faith can make about the presence of God in the creation is to care for it and respect it. - D. D.
I think you creationists need to chill out. How many times have scientists gone to your churches and tried to disprove god? Almost none. Science never mentions god, because once supernatural intervention is involved it becomes religion, which is any phenomina beyond the realm of naturalistic explanation. We aren't saying that god didnt create the universe at some point, we are simply studying any type of natural order and facts (in as much as we know) that came right after the so called creation. The computer simulation is becoming more used in the scientific world and works very well
with medicine (simulation of the heart, lungs, brain etc) and shows us that Genes are no different. So if you truly believed in your god, you wouldn't need to spend your time attacking evolutionists. Ask yourself one question -
Who are you trying to convince, us or you?
- B. B.
As it states in the Psalm, those who do not believe in God are fools.
Those who do not believe the Genesis and other-Biblical-books
account of origins are also fools.
Computer programs can indeed be connived concoctions of demented
immentality. They can indeed misrepresent reality by devious programming.
As with Bible translation, the original words are preeminent - not true or false
context realistically or nonrealistically relating to those words.
- D. B.
All scientific theories are just that theories, and the theory of evolution is no exception. Its just that there isn't a better theory of evolution than Darwins. Anyone with doubts about Darwin should read Bill Bryson's excellent book 'A Brief History of Almost Everything'
- D. P.
What is this nonsense? Do you really take what you are saying seriously?! The childishness of this shallow and completely off the wall idiocy astounds. Please do not bother to send to me any more. It would help you, I think, to study biology seriously, without all the theological padding, and then you might actually come to a reasonable idea of faith. - E. M.
Regarding the article "Testing Darwin"-- If you hoped to show that a "naturalistic" explanation of evolutionary phenomena is inadequate, you have done so admirably. Of course, you could also do the same with an other set of phenomena, including historical and sociological. Perhaps there is "intelligent design"
behind the success of one warring nation against another, or the favored status of one social group over another?
But what exactly is your author critiquing? The "naturalistic fallacy"
no doubt, but what else? Evolutionary theory? Fair enough, but what of it? Is the fact of the mechanism of evolution as a way of producing species variants, and over the long (millions of years) term, producing "new" species, under dispute?
Now, we can have wonderful discussions over the meaning of evolution, and whether as a mechanism it can account for all observable biological phenomena. We can even discuss whether it is true that "Darwin [makes] it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." But let's not confuse the issue by critiquing evolution's ability to provide ultimate meaning and give ultimate answers.
- T. S.
This latest St.Patrick's day article was excellent. Thanks for going through the thought processes to make the fallacy of the Evolutionists position so clear by their own "designs". - C. J.
Mr. Wiker's article in "To the Source" is
merely one more hackneyed, knee-jerk reaction of the defenders of religion to attempt to discredit scientific research.
What world does a man like Mr. Wiker want to live in? Is he proposing that we stop all scientific inquiry into the beginnings of life and instead, become a society of true believers who regard questioning and study as
taboo? Every time I read one of these articles, I see fear. Theists fear
that scientists will actually prove that there was no creator. They fear that their belief system will crumble as science reveals exactly how everything began, going back to the big bang, and it all truly occurred by chance. I don't believe that will ever happen, but if it did, well, so what?
What would be lost but one more failed hypothesis in service to the truth.
True believers say that what they hold in their hearts by faith, actually is the truth. Then, what is there to fear? Eventually, given enough milennia of study, science will eventually prove you are right. We're all on the same planet, all of the same origin. Do we open our minds to explore our roots, or do we close them and clutch at dogma?
- C. Z