“Philip Johnson is hardly a credible authority in these matters. A law professor on a campaign to “change” modern science and lead a return of society to pre-enlightenment times.

No, there are plenty of sources for credible information on evolutionary science but Johnson and his fellow ID campaigners are not in this class.”

Reply: Time will tell Ken. My advice: know your enemy. ID is not going away. I find Johnson very convincing. I wonder if you have actually read any of his material.

As for him being a law professor — that is arguably a better place to be if you want objective answers to the questions. Not many scientists (in my experience at least) have in-depth knowledge outside their scientific specialty. As you know, a PhD means you know almost everything about almost nothing It doesn’t make you an expert in the philosophy of science, logic or evolution.

“These 3 species share a non harmful mutations of genes related to glucose production. The odds against this occuring by chance are astronimical.”

Good question Gareth. So how do you know these are a mutation? Can you point me to some literature or references?

Regarding theistic evolution … firstly, the Bible is plain that was not the means used to put us here. Dating issues aside, it is very hard to read theistic evolution in the text anywhere. Evolution of the type required would also be a cruel process, honing a finished product using death, struggle, killing and survival of the fittest to get there — a tooth and claw mechanism.

Secondly, the ACTUAL fossil evidence for human evolution is almost non-existent to my knowledge. Referring to your wikipedia article, you just need to count the “fossil record” column to see how weak the “evidence” is. People today are all shapes and sizes (as are the fossils), and once a person dies and their flesh rots away, how much of the original body — including so much that is required to characterize it — is left?

You brought up Noah’s ark: where is the problem there?

A few years ago, uniformitarianism was the accepted method for dating many things. Not so any more according to my geology friends. Catastrophism is back, and this puts all this type of dating up in the air.

Recently a world expert in geology gave a lecture — a friend attended. My friend has a PhD in this area. After the lecture he asked the lecturer whether a young-earth model would better fit the known data. Yes, laughed the lecturer, but no-one believes that!

Check this:
http://christiannews.co.nz/2007/dogbert-and-the-theory-of-evolution/

Bye for now.

In point 3 I mentioned that this specific mutation of genes between apes and humans has no known affect, it is harmless. Why would this be the result of three *seperate* intentional designs?

I agree as you say this does point to a common building block. That is why the many mainstream churches (RCC, Orthodox, Anglican, Presbytarian) ‘allow’ belief in theistic evolution.

Belief in Evolution and God are certainly not mutually exclusive.

A strong case could be made that evolution is the result of intervention by a creator, why not pursue this path, instead of trying to convince the world, that Noah’s Ark was a historical reality?

This site on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

about half way down lists 13 different human type remains that have been found, and how many samples there are of each one.

Cheers
Gareth

No, there are plenty of sources for credible information on evolutionary science but Johnson and his fellow ID campaigners are not in this class.

Your two (actually three) points:

(i) Fossils are no longer a Darwinist’s best friend. Have you read chapter 4 in “Darwin on Trial” by Philip Johnson?

(ii) How many skull fragments have been found? Can you point me to the documentation?

(iii) What you are arguing for here sounds like a common designer. Imo, engineers, not biologists, should be interpreting the ‘design’ of life. When engineers (software, hardware, mechanical etc) design a product, they often use a common toolkit rather than reinventing the wheel.

Cheers.

‘Darwin speak’
Darwrin’s Origin of the Species does not refer to Evolution but rather to ‘Natural Selection’.

The word evolution does not even appear in the landmark Origin of the Species. The word God does however, in a rather positive light too. Check it out for youself you might be surprised.

Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection is constantly confused with the fact of evolution. There are a number of things which demonstrate evolution but don’t explain how it occurs. Here are 2:

1. At lower levels in the earth’s strata fossils of less complex organisms are found. Going up through the layers complexity rises. This is a fact.

2. Many human like remains have been found at various stages of development. These bones show increasing skull cavity sizes and other characteristics. This also is a fact.

3. Some creatures are more similiar than others according to DNA. In particular Human Beings, Orangatangs, Chimps and Gorrillas, have startling genetic similiarities. As you know, genes can mutate. Sometimes these mutations are harmful, Cystic Fibrosis, Downs Syndrome etc. Sometimes mutations exist which have no effect. These 3 species share a non harmful mutations of genes related to glucose production. The odds against this occuring by chance are astronimical.

The simple facts are:

Responses to “Do you believe in evolution?”: 75% believe evolution is true (26% definitely, 49% probably) while 20% believe it false (12% definitely, 8% probably).

Responses to beliefs about involvement of a god in human origins: 24% believe the biblical creationist story, 27% believe evolution guided by a god and 40% don’t believe any god was involved.

I have presented this data in a graphical form in my post mentioned above. There is also a link to a pdf version of the UMR Research report containing the data (Morality, Religion and Evolution – also available form the UMR site: http://www.umr.co.nz/)

Check for your self – it also contains interesting data about the proportion of people who actually do have a belief in a traditional god – not as many as you think!

Your other points are discussed in many posts on my blog (http://openparachute.wordpress.com) – I am always happy to discuss these issues.