Is it unscientific to question misleading computer models that ‘prove’ evolution?

Is it dishonest to question misleading computer models that ‘prove’ evolution?

From Wesley:
I just read your article on the evolution of the eye and I’ve got to say it’s the worst thing I’ve read in awhile and demonstrates quite clearly the scientific ignorance that creationists of use to defend their premise. I believe in God but I don’t believe in the interpretation of Genesis that God created the world basically by magic in six literal days, but the overwhelming scientific evidence clearly points that it did not and God would not have made the world to seem like something that it is not because he loves the truth. I also do not believe a God that loves truth would approve of you not taking the time to fully understand the science you are writing against or deliberately misunderstanding it in order to try to trick people into thinking that you make sense. I’m a Christian but reading sites like this makes me embarrassed to be associated with the kind of tricks and sloppy thinking that some other Christians publish.

Response:
This is a challenge to the section on my critical thinking study about the evolution of the eye (http://exchangedlife.com/Creation/think/eye.shtml).

This is typical of the types of letters I get from atheists and those who claim to be Christians but hold to the doctrine delivered by atheists. Ironically, the scientist I quoted heavily from was Richard Dawkins who is a self proclaimed atheist and rabidly anti-Christian. This challenge is defending Richard Dawkins against my criticism of his deceptive explanation of the evolution of the eye. In this article I quoted Dawkins’ analysis of Nilsson and Pelger’s computer model that supposedly proves that the eye evolved through evolutionary processes. Dawkins first explains that they bypassed the development of the components of the eye and created a model that assembles the pieces which are assumed to have already developed.

Nilsson and Pelger then arbitrarily applied two rules to ‘guide’ the evolutionary process: gradual change and no negative mutations. Since only negative mutations have been observed by science, it is completely dishonest to create a model that does not allow negative mutations and then claim that it proves evolution. Apparently I am an embarrassment to Christianity for pointing out this fact. Perhaps the evolution promoting publication from Atomic Scientists would be less embarrassing. Consider this quote:

“It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing — good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad.” (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331)

Dawkins also stated the following, “Unlike human designers, natural selection can’t go downhill not even if there is a tempting higher hill on the other side of the valley”. So the evolution argument declares that no harmful change is allowed to occur, loss of information is not allowed (going downhill), and gradual increases are required. This junk science is just the opposite of what is observed. The changes observed are always the loss of information, mutations are always harmful, gradual change that adds to a species has yet to be observed. All the rules these scientists have applied completely contradict the evidence and give the impression of success when in truth science contradicts evolution.

Since pro-evolution scientists point out the problem of negative mutations, it is unscientific to create a so-called scientific computer model that excludes the primary problem of evolution. Which shows more scientific ignorance, pointing out the flaw in the research model or allowing an intentionally deceptive demonstration to go unchallenged?

Eddie Snipes
2007

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *