If evolution is correct, can somebody please explain what is wrong with the information in this article?
"Is There Really a God?" from "The New Answers Book 1" on "Answers in Genesis".
Hello Toztabud. I'm hoping this is the article you are talking about.
Is There Really a God? - Answers in Genesis
I'd like to point out that understanding and accepting the modern theory of evolution dosen't automatically rule out a Theistic, Deistic, or Pantheistic god(s).
As for the article, its faults are that if the reader has a solid understanding of Evolutionary Biology or Bio-Chemistry, then the reader will see some decietful tactics right away. Somone who isn't so well versed might get caught up in some of these arguments, and I can attest that at one time I took some of these arguments to heart. For the most part though, the arguments used in this article are very weak and use very vague terms to both over simplify the subject and distract from the source's lack of information.
The article starts off by talking about Paley's argument about design and addressing how Anthropologists and archeologists look for stone tools. The article make a logical jump by claiming like the tools, universe is designed. The problem here is that the article hasn't given a definition on what it means by designed yet. There is no definition given as to what a designed, verses a non designed universe or organism would look like or react to reality. The archeologists can tell that something was designed by comparing it to how items are found naturally. This is the comparison, where with the argument that everything was designed by God, dosen't have a comparison for us to use to verify the assertion.
The next part of the of the article starts to talk about the evolution of organisms. Two important words are brought into the equation now. The words "information" and the word "kind". What do these words mean? The article never defines exactly what these words mean. For instance the article goes into "dog/wolf Kind". Then claims that there is no new "information" coming in, so all generations of dogs are still dogs.
Well, the problem with this argument is that biology doesn't recognize the word "Kind". This is because the word dosen't have a solid definition. Meaning its useless or outdated for classification of species. Mainly because biology uses the phylogenetic system lists organisms by
Life, Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, and then sometimes Subspecies.
The Dog/wolf kind example dosen't fit how biology actually looks at variation and species.
Dogs, wolves, Coyotes, and dingos all are classified in order of Carnivores because they share the Anatomical and Genetic information all carnivores have. They also all fall under the family of caniforms because they like wise share the anatomical and genetic information needed to classify as caniforms alongside bears, weasels, and African wild dogs. However Dingos and Coyotes don't share the same genus as wolves and Dogs because they don't share the genetic information. Dogs are a species of Wolves. Lupus being the Genus and Lupus Lupus being teh species Wolf and Lupus familiar being the species of Dog. Collies and Poodles are sub species of the overall Species of dog.
The word Kind just dosen't cut it.
Now the rest of the article goes on about how there is no new information, but the article only talks about what isn't information but never says what is information. We can toss this argument out because since there is no definition for information, there is no reasons to even acknowledge it.
So basically the article throws buzzwords at the reader instead of defending its case. When it is trying to defend its position, it relies on the Straw man argument, false Dilemma, and quote mining.
So, in short the article never actually addresses what Evolutionary biologists actually consider evolution to be, and spends its time arguing about terms and evidence that biology in general dosen't use to state its case to begin with.
I hope this helped.
