The Poor Marksmanship of Evolutionists

Evolutionists claim to be answering a problem posed to them, but they often avoid the problem or miss the mark.

Captain Kirk to Kahn - "Like a poor marksman you keep missing the target!"Kahn: Kirk  – You’re still alive old friend.

Kirk: Still, – “old friend”. You’ve managed to kill everyone else, but like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target!

And so admiral1 Kirk taunts Kahn, a genetically engineered “super” human who is supposed to be superior to us mere humans in every way – physically, mentally etc. In another classic line, when Kirk is trying to get Kahn to follow the Enterprise into a nebulae where both ships would lose the benefits of key systems such as shields, Kirk taunts Kahn again, saying “I’m laughing at the superior intellect,” a taunt sufficient enough to get Kahn to follow them in.

I don’t mean to taunt the poor misguided evolutionists, but I do hope the air of superiority they tend to express motivates them to try to provide an answer to the questions posed in the post “Windtalkers and DNA” because the responses I’ve had so far don’t address the issues. So like Kirk I say, like poor marksmen, they keep missing the target of the difficulties that DNA poses. So let me spell it out the difficulties for them, – and give them a clear target to hit. But first here is a sample of the poor marksmanship:

 

What Mr. Dragonheart doesn’t appear to realize is that the logical principle employed is called an “inference to the best explanation.” As this IEP2 article indicates, this is a fundamental scientific principle:

Many naturalists have since embraced this idea of “inference to the best explanation” (IBE) as a fundamental principle of scientific reasoning.

This is accepted in virtually all circles – philosophical, logical, scientific, etc.  Even evolutionists accept this principle as another confused evolutionist (confused because though calling himself a Christian he believes in evolution, but has not yet figured out that evolution is incompatible with Biblical Christianity) observes:

Making viable conclusions based on inferences from the available evidence is not at all unscientific.3

So first off the bat what Mr. Dragonheart calls a “logical fallacy” is in actuality the logical principle of inference to the best explanation. Now why is it the best explanation? Recall the questions from Windtalkers and DNA that must be answered:

1. An intelligent designer had to create a system of symbols to carry the message. In the case of DNA it is a chemical alphabet that scientist represent by the letters ACGT – representing the nucleobases in DNA –  Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, Thymine.

2. An intelligent designer had to create a “language” that communicates a message when the 4 letters are arranged in a certain way.

3. An intelligent designer had to arrange the letters in an intelligent, specific way to encode and transmit the instructions necessary to create the various traits we see in the many creatures that exist – such traits being things like hair color or eye color.

Now evolutionists tell us that there is no God or gods, no purposeful forces of any kind, only the dumb luck of random mutations and the limited ability of natural selection – which can not add information – it can only remove information.  And so they don’t miss it – here is where I spell it out:

If we remove every instance where I have “intelligent designer” in the above 3 statements, evolutionists please explain the following using only random processes:

1. How a system of symbols capable of carrying a message (like letters) is created by random processes.

2. How a “language” (a specified way of putting letters together to create words) was created by random processes.

3. How the elements of the language were arranged to encode a single unit of meaning (the selection of a particular word)

4. How a purposeful message is composed out of this language using these specific symbols by random processes (which have no purpose) that is to say how specific messages were created (not random ones) – combining words to make complex messages – recall the message specified “red hair” and “blue eyes”.

All the above are actions of an intelligent creator, and neither Dragonheart nor any other evolutionist can explain how non-purposeful forces can create these “artifacts of intelligence” as Stephen Meyer calls them. He goes on to explain why natural processes can not answer the questions of the source of the information in DNA and the information storage capabilities of DNA:

We know at present there is no naturalistic explanation, no natural cause that produces information. Not natural selection, not self organizational processes, not pure chance. But we do know of a cause which is capable of producing information and that is intelligence.”4

And that is why an intelligent designer is an inference to the best explanation. Take your best shot(s) atheists and evolutionists – let’s see if you can fare better than Kahn.

For Christians –  since I opened the door to questions posed by the confused evolutionist above, I won’t leave you hanging – I’ll answer them in my next post.

Duane Caldwell  | posted  3-15-2014  | Print Format


1 Kirk, usually known as Captain Kirk, was promoted to admiral for this episode (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn) of the star trek series

IEP – Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Theories of Explanation http://www.iep.utm.edu/explanat/

3  Francke, Tyler “The Top 10 Signs that you Don’t Understand Evolution at all”
http://www.godofevolution.com/the-top-10-signs-that-you-dont-understand-evolution-at-all/

4 Meyer, Stephen Unlocking the Mystery of Life Documentary Illustra Media 2002

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
karl meyer
Guest
karl meyer

Those four ‘questions’ have been so couched as to presuppose an answer which just so happens to be ‘My flavour of god’. The questions are fallacious and refer largely to abiogenesis rather than evolution. There is no requirement for life to use the DNA system of earth let alone the four bases used in all life. DNA is not a language in the sense that a particular set of bases means ‘red hair’ it is simply a template for a protein and that protein just produces red hair. If it produced a protein that was harmful then natural selection would… Read more »

Duane
Guest

Once we again we see the evolutionists have no answer to these questions. Let’s start from the beginning and see how once again the atheists/evolutionist answers make no sense, and in that context are irrational. Wikepedia states DNA is: “is a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA 9/25/2014 Yourgenome.org states “DNA’s code is written in only four ‘letters’, called A, C, T and G. The meaning of this code lies in the sequence of the letters A, T, C and G in the same way… Read more »