Some of you have probably already seen this...I thought it worth mulling over...

The Watchmaker

RUDYWOOFS

YES I have seen this before but it sure makes
a good point about a creation over evolution.

dgrimm60

I had not seen that before but have heard about that comparison.

pkrause

This is the usual collection of Creationist lies packaged cutely into a warp-your-kids-mind cartoon.

Honest Christian's should be condemning such brain-washing.

If you want your kids to clign to the truth, you should start by telling them the truth - not misleading fairy-tales about Santa, the Easter Bunny, and "cells are just like watches and evolution is nothing but random creation and assembly".

/Bevin

It's great having you here Bevin. It does add some variety.

I have been reading a fascinating book called "In Search of Memory" by Nobel Prize-Winner Eric Kandel.

In it he weaves his Autobiography (Jew, experienced KristelNacht, chased out of Austria) with details of lots of science collaboration, with the discoveries in sequential order of how our brains work.

He points out, quite clearly, that

(a) the SAME mechanisms are used all the way from sea slugs to humans in cells, and

(b) slight variations on the mechanisms in different cells are co-opted to do completely different activities.

In short, the EVIDENCE shows that the cells are put together by a process that makes small changes to one mechanism to do something completely different - exactly what evolution predicts, and NOT what you would expect a "divine watch-maker" to do.

/Bevin

Why not?

In what way would you expect to see a difference if life was directly created by God and did not evolve from simpler life forms?
(Leaving out the problem of biogenesis for the moment.)

Graeme

Read Steven Gould's "The Panda's Thumb"


A distant ancestor A has feature F

Two lines of descent happen - D1 and D2, along which only one (D1) evolves feature G

Both lines of descent encounter the same issue, and D1 mutates G to solve it, whereas D2 mutates F.

A watchmaker would have used the better solution, not just mutated what was immediately available. We see mutation of what is immediately available.

The panda has a "thumb", but got a very awkward one by evolving an existing bone rather than the more complex and better working one that we have.

Given two very different jobs, and a mechanism which has evolved to do the first job, there are two ways of getting a mechanism to do the second

(a) duplicate the first mechanism, then tinker with it
(b) design an ideal mechanism

(a) usually leads to a worse solution than (b), but we see (a) all the time.

/Bevin

Complexity found in nature is evolutionists' greatest weakness. Honest evolutionists will admit that - and I have heard them do so. It is quite true that we find similar design throughout nature. That only tends to show they were likely created by the same Creator. Much like a watchmaker. A given watchmaker's design will be seen in all the watches he makes. Driving down the road I can often point out certain buildings and tell which architect designed them simply because I am familiar with the styles of various architects in my area.

The only thing I found objectionable about the cartoon (and on a whole it is really good) is that at the end it has all the planets rotating the sun clockwise. Only Venus and Uranus rotate clockwise. The rest rotate counterclockwise. Evolutionists often accuse creationists of having wacky ideas or explanations for things. Yet their explanation for Venus and Uranus rotating opposite directions from the rest of the planets is that they were hit by large asteroids! I think it fair to say both sides have some pretty wacky explanations for some of the evidence we observe.

The honest truth is that it isn't about the evidence. It isn't about science. It is about philosophy. A man's philosophy will decide how he will view the evidence. The naturalist who has decided there must be a natural explanation for everything will never see the work of God in nature. The creationist who believes in the inspiration of the Bible will see God everywhere in nature. Both will come up with theories to fit the evidence into their belief.

The example I gave was NOT one where there is a "similar design throughout nature". The example I gave is one where there are TWO designs, and one is obviously better than the other. An intelligent watchmaker would not do this.

The cartoon is wrong factually from the get-go, when it starts with "dirt" as a initial point. Dirt is biological. It is an end point.

The origins of the planets has nothing to do with evolution, and evolution does not provide any explanation for their rotation.

The honest truth is that the evidence favors the evolution model, and that only people who don't like that conclusion claim "It isn't about science. It is about philosophy". It is a mechanism for ducking the issue.

/Bevin