Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Dissenting Scientist Ralph Seelke Discusses His Doubts About Darwin

Ralph Seelke received his Ph.D. in Microbiology from the University of Minnesota and the Mayo Graduate School of Medicine in 1981, was a postdoctoral researcher at the Mayo Clinic until 1983, and has been an Associate Professor or Professor in the Department of Biology and Earth Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Superior since 1989. An authority on evolution's capabilities and limitations in producing new functions in bacteria, Prof. Seelke recently co-authored the science textbook "Explore Evolution: The Case For and Against Neo-Darwinism."


http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/2008/10/dissenting_scientist_ralph_see.php

Professor Colin Reeves, Coventry University
Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection's ability to create complex biological systems - and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour.

Professor Colin Reeves
Dept of Mathematical Sciences
Coventry University

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/2008/10/dissenting_scientist_ralph_see.php

Edward Peltzer, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry -- and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and "tweaks" the reactions conditions "just right" do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. ]But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/2008/09/edward_peltzer_university_of_c.php

Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University

As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast 'computer program' of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require -- or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have -- or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life -- the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/2008/08/chris_williams_phd_biochemistr.php

SCIENCE NOW KNOWS THAT MANY OF THE PILLARS OF DARWINIAN THEORY ARE EITHER FALSE OR MISLEADING. YET BIOLOGY TEXTS CONTINUE TO PRESENT THEM AS FACTUAL EVIDENCE OF
EVOLUTION. WHAT DOES THIS IMPLY ABOUT THEIR SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS?
-- JONATHAN WELLS

SURVIVAL OF THE
FAKEST
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

SCIENCE NOW KNOWS THAT MANY OF THE PILLARS OF DARWINIAN THEORY ARE EITHER FALSE OR MISLEADING.

Gee, still no evidence? I wonder why?

Quote:

. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism.

The Evolutionist's Defense

The evolutionist knows he can't win a scientific debate of the theory. His only hope is to divert the discussion to something else.

He will likely use some personal attacks. He will question your real motives for doubting evolution. He will attack the credibility of any authorities you cite (and some you didn't cite). He will attempt to get you to defend yourself, defend the authorities he has maligned, or attack him. If he can get you to do any of these things, he has achieved his objective (which is to avoid talking about the theory of evolution).

I notice you are the one changing the topic away from your claim that probability disproves evolution when you can't provide "******* EVIDENCE."

And you also tried to change it to the origin of life as if that has some argument about evolution of life.

Where is your "******* EVIDENCE" that probability proves evolution can't occur?