Why are we so bad at this?

Ha! Great minds think alike. The Roman Catholic Church was founded in 590 AD and St. Augustine died in 430 AD. He is held in high regard by all the main branches of Christianity. According to Wiki, Augustine's theological views were instrumental in the Protestant Reformation, so about as anti-Catholic as it gets for a 5th century theologian.

quote:

---

Many Protestants, especially Calvinists and Lutherans, consider him one of the theological fathers of the Protestant Reformation due to his teachings on salvation and divine grace.[29][30][31] Protestant Reformers generally, and Martin Luther in particular, held Augustine in preeminence among early Church Fathers. From 1505 to 1521, Luther was a member of the Order of the Augustinian Eremites.
Augustine of Hippo - Wikipedia

---

I never said that, chief.After all the lies we have caught you writing, this is what you focus on?Is this your tacit admission that you don't care if you tell lies, and will continue to tell lies to defend creationism?

There are numerous scientists who believe the Earth is flat. For some strange reason, reality doesn't change itself to match our beliefs. This is what separates scientists from creationists. Scientists look to reality to understand how it works. Creationists look to a book to tell reality how it works.You can put whatever percentage you want on our knowledge of the universe. The fact that doesn't change is that the theory of evolution explains what we do know in the field of biology. The theory explains why we see a nested hierarchy, why we see transitional fossils, why we see a changing fossil record over hundreds of millions of years. The theory explains why exons share more sequence between species than introns. The theory explains why CpG mutations outnumber non-CpG mutations when we compare the human and chimp genomes. The theory explains why we find the same retroviral insertions at the same location in the genomes of multiple species.Creationism explains none of this. If you want creationism to be accepted by scientists then you need to start tackling the actual data.

If someone made the same argument for Zeus you would not convert to believing in Zeus. What you are writing is justification for the beliefs you already hold. They aren't at all convincing to those who don't already believe.

Hate to break it to you, but Darwin died over 100 years ago.The burden of proof most definitely rests with biologists who propose common ancestry and evolution, and they are doing the work to meet this burden. At the molecular level is the field of evolutionary developmental biology which is focusing on the changes in DNA responsible for changes in phenotype. At the macroscopic level is paleontology which continually finds more and more fossils that are filling those phenotypic gaps, be it the tetrapod transitional fossils, cetacean transitional fossils, or the wonderfully step-like evolution of the mammalian middle ear seen in the fossil record.Evolutionary developmental biology - Latest research and news | Nature
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 (evolution of the mammalian middle ear)What I haven't seen is any research being done by those who disagree with the evolutionary proposals. Research is ongoing, and new finds are giving us new insights:ScienceDirectThere are unknowns in biology, but that isn't stopping the research. What about the evolution of the mammalian middle ear linked above?Would you consider the differences between humans and chimps to be macro or microevolution?

How do you determine if you have all the identifying features? More to the point, how many of these identifying features are based on subjective opinion, rhetoric, and semantics?The most basic problem for ID and various forms of creationism is that they can't deal with the data in biology. For example:Why do we observe a nested hierarchy among complex eukaryotes?Why do CpGs make up just 1% of animal genomes when an even distribution of bases should result in about 4% CpGs?Why are there 35 million substitution mutations separating humans and chimps and not some other number, like 5 million or 100 million?When we compare the human and chimp genome, why is the ratio of non-synonymous to synonymous mutation rates the same as the non-synonymous to intron mutation rate?Why do we see the same ratios of transversion and transition mutations in human de novo mutations, human genetic variation, and in the comparison of the human and chimp genomes?Why do we see the exact mixture of features in the fossil record as predicted by the theory of evolution, such as the mixture of basal ape and modern human features seen in Australopithecines, or the mixture of lobe finned fish and tetrapod features seen in T. roseae? Why don't we see mixtures of features that the theory says we shouldn't find, such as a mixture of bird and mammal features?These are just a few off the top of my head, and I have never seen an ID proponent or creationist address them convincingly without tacitly agreeing that these observations are the product of common ancestry and evolution.

It's not just homology. If we found a living or fossil species that shared homology with birds and mammals this would disprove the theory of evolution as we know it.Rather, it is the NESTED HIERARCHY that leads to the conclusion of common ancestry and evolution.I would strongly recommend you read George Romanes' 1882 essay "The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution". It isn't perfect, but it knocks a lot of topics out of the park. For example, it describes the relationship between intelligent design, evolution, and parsimony.

quote:

---

For, be it observed, the exception in limine to the evidence which we are about to consider, does not question that natural selection may not be able to do all that Mr. Darwin ascribes to it: it merely objects to his interpretation of the facts, because it maintains that these facts might equally well be ascribed to intelligent design. And so undoubtedly they might, if we were all childish enough to rush into a supernatural explanation whenever a natural explanation is found sufficient to account for the facts. Once admit the glaringly illogical principle that we may assume the operation of higher causes where the operation of lower ones is sufficient to explain the observed phenomena, and all our science and all our philosophy are scattered to the winds. For the law of logic which Sir William Hamilton called the law of parsimony—or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the observed effects—this law constitutes the only logical barrier between science and superstition. For it is manifest that it is always possible to give a hypothetical explanation of any phenomenon whatever, by referring it immediately to the intelligence of some supernatural agent; so that the only difference between the logic of science and the logic of superstition consists in science recognising a validity in the law of parsimony which superstition disregards. Therefore I have no hesitation in saying that this way of looking at the evidence in favour of natural selection is not a scientific or a reasonable way of looking at it, but a purely superstitious way. Let us take, for instance, as an illustration, a perfectly parallel case. When Kepler was unable to explain by any known causes the paths described by the planets, he resorted to a supernatural explanation, and supposed that every planet was guided in its movements by some presiding angel. But when Newton supplied a beautifully simple physical explanation, all persons with a scientific habit of mind at once abandoned the metaphysical explanation. Now, to be consistent, the above-mentioned professors, and all who think with them, ought still to adhere to Kepler's hypothesis in preference to Newton's explanation; for, excepting the law of parsimony, there is certainly no other logical objection to the statement that the movements of the planets afford as good evidence of the influence of guiding angels as they do of the influence of gravitation.

​

. . .

​

Now, since the days of Linnæus this principle has been carefully followed, and it is by its aid that the tree-like system of classification has been established. No one, even long before Darwin's days, ever dreamed of doubting that this system is in reality, what it always has been in name, a natural system. What, then, is the inference we are to draw from it? An evolutionist answers, that it is just such a system as his theory of descent would lead him to expect as a natural system. For this tree-like system is as clear an expression as anything could be of the fact that all species are bound together by the ties of genetic relationship. If all species were separately created, it is almost incredible that we should everywhere observe this progressive shading off of characters common to larger groups, into more and more specialized characters distinctive only of smaller and smaller groups. At any rate, to say the least, the law of parsimony forbids us to ascribe such effects to a supernatural cause, acting in so whimsical a manner, when the effects are precisely what we should expect to follow from the action of a highly probable natural cause.
--George Romanes, "The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.

---

What matters is how well their arguments stand up to the observable facts. You can call them informed or intelligent, but science doesn't care. What matters is the data and how well they are able to work with it. All I have seen from those people are really bad arguments (e.g. arguments from ignorance/incredulity) or misrepresentations of the data (e.g. Sanford's genetic entropy). When you see denial of science from people who reject the theory of evolution, what other conclusion are we supposed to arrive at? If you reject that a plane can fly, will they start falling out of the air? No.The same for the theory of evolution. Nothing in the science changes because some people refuse to accept the theory. We still have mountains of evidence demonstrating common ancestry and evolution, and that doesn't go away because some people reject the theory and refuse to address this evidence. The point is that there is no such thing as a completely different animal, at least not in an objective sense. If, as you claim, you accept the nested hierarchy then you would already know that. All life shares features at some level, so there are no completely different species.

On its face, I'm willing to go way, way, way out on a limb and accept the possibility that someone could bring down one of the most well supported theories in science. However, when their arguments boil down to obvious arguments from incredulity and ignorance . . . well, it's a bit disappointing. At least Flat Earthers and Plasma Cosmology crackpots have arguments that are more scientifically entertaining.I think a lot of these issues could be cleared up if ID/creationists understood the concept of nullius in verba, or "take nobody's word for it". It's the motto of the Royal Society, the oldest scientific institute in existence. It's a good motto. What it does is remind scientists that their conclusions need to be based on objective data, not just their say so.Something is designed? Really? Why? Because so-and-so says so? Is that it?If that is all they have, then I take a pass.Irreducibly complex systems can't evolve? Why? Because Behe says so? Nullius in verba. I would say we accept the settled science because it predicted what we found in the universe, and continues to explain new discoveries. When our technology allowed us to sequence many different genomes it could have completely overturned the theory of evolution. It didn't. Instead, we found what we predicted we would find. We found an unmistakable and clear signal of mutation, selection, and shared ancestry throughout the data."Arguments against macroevolution, based on so-called gaps in the fossil records, are also profoundly weakened by the much more detailed and digital information revealed from the study of genomes. Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory."
--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdfYet another essay I strongly encourage all Christians to read, especially those Christians who think evolution is an atheist conspiracy. The essay was written by a Christian for Christians, and by someone who is actually intelligent and informed.