[7VI]⇒ Descargar Evolutionary Theory An Introductory Primer edition by Robert Butler Religion Spirituality eBooks

Evolutionary Theory An Introductory Primer edition by Robert Butler Religion Spirituality eBooks

Download As PDF : Evolutionary Theory An Introductory Primer edition by Robert Butler Religion Spirituality eBooks

A simple primer on Evolutionary Theory as it relates to Creationist claims, confusions, miscommunications, falsehoods, and what we know and how we know it in a brief introduction to the material in the scientific community.

Evolutionary Theory An Introductory Primer edition by Robert Butler Religion Spirituality eBooks

If you're having trouble either understanding or explaining evolutionary theory to others, this book is a must-have.

Product details File Size 5156 KB Print Length 75 pages Simultaneous Device Usage Unlimited Publisher Modern Means LLC; 1 edition (April 11, 2017) Publication Date April 11, 2017 Sold by  Digital Services LLC Language English ASIN B06ZZRG5MV

Tags : Evolutionary Theory: An Introductory Primer - Kindle edition by Robert Butler. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading Evolutionary Theory: An Introductory Primer.,ebook,Robert Butler,Evolutionary Theory: An Introductory Primer,Modern Means LLC,Religion General,Science Life Sciences Biology
People also read other books :

• Observations on WD Gann Vol 1 Periodicity Volume 1 Awodele 9780692378694 Books
• The Royal Servant Must Not Die Tunde K Oladejo 9781530600458 Books
• Black Bible Manuscripts Why the Bible Isn't the White Man Book edition by Firpo Carr Religion Spirituality eBooks
• Port Beginners Guide to Wine 101 Publishing Wine Series eBook Richard Thomas
• Bondage Celebration Desired Discipline Book 2 edition by Tori Carson Literature Fiction eBooks

Evolutionary Theory An Introductory Primer edition by Robert Butler Religion Spirituality eBooks Reviews

Robert strives to educate people. His book stems from the need to counter the lies that religious indoctrinated people try to spread. He uses verified science to show simple (if you have some background in science, even a little) explanations of common terms and what they mean. He is not doing this for money. He is doing it for the betterment of mankind. A great read and you can look up all the terms and assertions yourself to see if they passed through peer review. Evidence is the only thing. "Faith" should have no place outside of your home/church/temple/synagog/mosque. Especially no place in education of the natural world.
Robert is a smart man and does an amazing job at making it easy to understand with lots of detailed information.
This is a wonder primer for those interested in learning the basics of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. It is clear in purpose and objective, well laid out, and written in a manner that allows people with a basic understanding of science to understand. It is also a great book for a person who interacts with people who don't believe in evolution. It answers many of the objections raised by friends and family in an easy to digest manner, that isn't patronizing or overly technical. It keeps its reader engaged with interesting facts, ideas and an easy to follow format. Highly recommend this book
This free book was listed in books under "Christian Books and Bibles-Theology." I make a practice of reading books that may challenge the way I think. I'm glad I read this one.

Butler is atheist, as is clear from his website and Facebook page. He states that he doesn't think evolution is necessarily opposed to religion, as long as one doesn't insist on a literal interpretation of literary texts like the Bible. Butler also insists that to enter the discussion on biology, one must be properly credentialed in biology, preferably a PhD, but he does not supply his qualifications. Maybe he is just referring to primary sources. It is instructive that Butler capitalizes the E of evolution and the T of theory throughout the book, and uses "god"--small g. Perhaps he is switching one deity for another.

Butler chides creationists for using research from evolutionists rather than doing their own. Of course, that sword cuts both ways. Perhaps he forgets, or doesn't know that most if not all older universities were founded by Christians, often to train pastors. Evolutionists, materialists and humanists have co-opted most of these universities to teach their own beliefs. And yet Butler crows that most university science departments teach evolution to the exclusion of creation. He also thinks that we should be impressed that most scientists trained (indoctrinated?) in evolutionary biology with little or no exposure to alternatives are evolutionary biologists. Evolutionists also generously use public funds to promote their faith, not their own money. And since public funds cannot be used for religious instruction, evolutionists/humanists/materialists assure us that their religion is the only religion that is not a religion, so it is the only religion that can be publicly funded. These are all examples of how evolutionism, materialism and humanism are generally parasitic.

He also states that creationists do not submit their writing for peer review, or do their own research, or provide testable hypotheses based on creation. But they do as I note later in this review. Of course, he means they are not peer reviewed in evolutionary journals. Yes, that is often true as evolutionists are not appreciative of contrary arguments, so it is no wonder that they do not publish such articles in their journals. Do evolutionists submit their articles for peer review by creationists? Of course not, but that would be a good effort toward inter-faith dialogue.

Butler asserts almost as a mantra that "Evolution is a fact." If by that he means change over time, of course it is. Everything changes or evolves; that is a truism. But if he means evolution in the sense of molecules to man, or single celled organisms to humans, it can by its very nature never rise to the level of "fact." Neither can creation. The origins of life and its diversification all took place in the past. There were no observers (unless you concede that Genesis is an eyewitness account by the creator), so this is not observable or repeatable. The much smaller changes we observe today cannot reasonably be extrapolated into demonstrating methods for evolving new body plans, despite Butler's assertions that they do. And arguably, the mechanisms that evolutionists claim drive this kind of evolution--mutations and natural selection--protect life from even more rapid genetic deterioration; and mutations in general head life in the wrong direction--deterioration, not improvement.

Let me self identify as a creationist, with a MA in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Being a creationist, according to Robert Butler, makes me willfully ignorant, deceived, or just a plain fraud and liar--because "all" (per Butler) creationists are. I also am not a biologist, so can have nothing authoritative to say about biology (per Butler). And being a Biola (a Christian university) graduate only makes it worse, I am sure. But I will review his book none the less.

The book begins with the familiar denial that Evolutionary Theory does not include the beginning of life and where it comes from. While this is technically accurate, evolutionism's foundation is philosophical naturalism, the belief that the universe is a closed system--"The cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever will be." So the answer of the genesis of life must come from nature alone. If naturalism ultimately cannot explain the origin of life, then the facts of science are subject to alternative interpretive programs that can explain them. So if it cannot be shown that life arose from completely natural causes, then neither can evolution as Butler presents it be true.

Next, note that there are no footnotes in his book (although he provides a few links). So if you want to check out most of Butler's assertions or read more, you can't easily do so. So when he tells us that most mutations do nothing, how do we know where he got that information? So I searched and the first article I clicked on, http//evolutionary-research.net/news/2010/the-population-genetics-of-mutations-good-bad-and-indifferent. (Note that this is from an evolutionary point of view.) It says in the first paragraph, "The great majority of mutations are harmful (the 'bad') and selection is expended to eliminate them if their effects are damaging enough." No, Robert, I am not quote mining or taking quotes out of context. So if I want to know where you got your differing information, I am at a loss--you don't give any documentation.

In addition, to say that mutations are generally neutral seems most likely to be an argument from ignorance. We can see which appear beneficial or harmful in a particular environment, but the more subtle effects of mutations are likely to be hidden, particularly from purported evolutionary mechanisms. As a creationist, I would also predict that once we understand mutations better, we will find that those which currently appear indifferent, when taken as a whole, do have a cumulative negative effect. But don't look for research in that area any time soon. Evolutionism which has the funding to do so doesn't want to look there, and is in this way often a dead weight holding back the progress of science.

For example, the cyclical (non directional) variation of beaks for Darwin's finches in response to environmental changes--is that beak change due to mutations, or to genes or gene expressions of genes already in the finch gene pool? I would predict the latter, but evolutionists are unlikely to use public grant money to pursue research that would not advance evolutionary theory. Another example when I first heard the term "junk DNA"--in other words, leftover detritus from the evolutionary process which was touted as evidence for evolutionism--I predicted, based on the history of evolution's vestigial organ debacle--that we would find that most if not all of this DNA indeed was functional and necessary. And that is what has been discovered, albeit slowed down by the bias of evolutionary belief. Belief about junk DNA is an exhibition of ignorance parading as evidence.

Butler still holds onto the concept of vestigial organs as evidence for evolution despite the fact that the list of possible examples has shrunk considerably. He dismisses the idea that maybe he is still ignorant of the function. That ignorance in the past has resulted in poor medical practices that have harmed patients--that is on example in response to Butler's assertion that nothing but good has come from evolutionary belief.

Butler talks about speciation. Most creationists agree that there are new species as narrowly defined, but find that these types of changes cannot be extrapolated into differentiated body plans. There does seem to be effective boundaries as to how far a body plan can change.

Butler calls "Evolution" a fact, because "one of the defined characteristics for identifying LIFE is that it EVOLVES." Now we are caught in the slight of hand of misusing definitions. If you define evolution as change, well yes, it happens to everything in existence all the time. But usually those changes are deterioration, not advancement. So natural selection is process which conserves and limits negative change.

Now we come to Butler's discussion of DNA. I quote, " . . . understand that when scientists talk about 'codes' and 'information' they are not . . .("not" is twenty times repeated) being literal. Rather they are speaking of its function in terms that are analogous or metaphorical to make the function easier to explain and understand. The 'information' is just the order of the chemicals, there isn't something else being conveyed . . ."

Why does Butler make this point? Because he believes it is damning to creationists who often say that DNA carries information or code. And if you don't agree, simply "ask to speak to a qualified biologist . . . and they'll tell you the same bloody thing." I don't know what Butler's point is. Of course, DNA is not information, any more that the paper or ink of a book are information. But DNA and the book both carry information, and life IS information based. Maybe Butler has a more nuanced point he is trying to make. But if he is denying that life is information based, he is not in good company. Dr. Francis Collins, whom he later quotes as an authority, calls DNA the language of God. Bill Gates said, “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” Oh, I forgot, Gates is not a biologist, so cannot speak to biology per Butler. So how can Butler, and evolutionist, speak to information theory, even where biology and information theory seem to intersect. Butler creates a science that cannot be interdisciplinary, because one can only speak authoritatively in areas where one is formally trained, preferably with at PhD.

Butler is also certain that the fossil record supports evolution. But it does not. You cannot just line up fossils and say this is a lineage that demonstrates evolution. And the history of evolutionary paleontology is littered with overreaches, inaccuracies, and not a small number of outright frauds. Of course, these are just counter assertions, and neither one of us is expert in paleontology. But from my studies, Butler's assertion is a far reaching stretch. And he makes fun of creationists disputes over the interpretation fossils. Hmm, evolutionists have the same types of disputes, often over the same fossils. Is that not to be expected, and how science is done?

Which brings me to another point. Butler is a firm believer in "authority" and generously uses the fallacy of "appeal to authority." He doesn't identify his belief directly, but throughout his book, he counts the numbers of people holding this position or that, the PhDs they hold and from what institutions, etc. A mathematician cannot weigh in on evolution using mathematical arguments, as she is not a biologist. A philosopher certainly cannot either--"don't get your science from philosophers." He complains about Stephen Meyer who is not just a philosopher, but a philosopher with a PhD in the history and philosophy of SCIENCE from Cambridge University. Good grief. Butler seems to have forgotten (or never known) that science and philosophy used to be one discipline, and that science is built on a foundation of philosophy and good science still is dependent on it. This artificial appeal to authority holds back interdisciplinary assessments of evolutionary theory to science's detriment, but does "protect" evolution from otherwise insightful critique.

He also values peer review (as we should) but fails to recognize the weakness in it of evolutionary group think. And of course, evolutionary peer reviewed journals refusal to publish creationist research is proof, for him, that it cannot be valid because it is not peer reviewed by evolutionists. And evolutionists would not dream of letting creationists review their work.

He also states or at least implies that creationists do none of their own research and present no testable hypotheses on which to do valid research. That is palpably false. Reasons to Believe has a complete testable creation model and others have testable hypotheses--he can easily see this with an internet search. Several creationist organizations have journals that publish their research, and all without using public funds.

One of Butler's related complaints that I found most curious was that of creationists using data from evolutionary research, particularly that of dinosaur blood products and soft tissue which seems to indicate that dinosaurs died out thousands, not 165 million years ago. Mary Schweitzer doesn't like them using (in her view misusing) the data--implying that you can only legitimately use evidence that you have found and interpret that data in the same way that the "owner" of the data does.

This is curious in several ways. First, Schweitzer claims her research has shown how this soft tissue and blood products can be preserved for several years, and that this can be extrapolated to millions of years. Others who have reviewed this say that she has used artificial conditions that in no way approximate the actual conditions in which the fossils were formed.

The second way in which this is curious is that creationists offered to pay for carbon dating of the fossils, and this was refused. Why not carbon date? Creationists don't have their own biased dating laboratories. They have to use the same one evolutionists do. So, precisely as Butler implies they don't, a group of creationists went out and found their own dinosaur fossils, complete with intact soft tissue and blood products, and sent it in for dating. Result--for one a maximum of 35,000 years, and for the other, 25,000 years. that is a more than couple of orders of magnitude less than is needed to sustain the evolutionary narrative on dinosaurs.

So Butler brings in another interesting example of what he believes to be creationist fraud--the Inca burial stones showing accurate pictures of dinosaurs, which implies that the artists knew what dinosaurs looked like. Well, Butler claims that these stones are frauds, and creationists should know that. After all, the man, Uschuya who sold them said he lied when he said he took them from graves. The truth is he made them, according to Butler. But the man first said they were real, but then changed his story—“I made them”-- when threatened with prison for breaking the law regarding antiquities. In any case, Ushuya is a liar. If he hadn't changed his story, he would have spent years rotting in a deplorable Peruvian prison, and so had every reason to deny they were genuine.

There are several more problems with this narrative of fraud. First, nobody knows how to create the age patina that these demonstrate. They couldn't successfully recreate the process Ushuya said he used. Secondly, these stones and all the other non dinosaur stones were considered genuine until the implication of the dinosaur stones was realized--men who knew what dinosaurs looked like. Next, the dinosaur figures show circles on the dinosaur skin and dinosaurs with tails held erect, decades before fossilized dinosaur skin was found that confirms this accuracy or evidence on the tails being held erect was available. So there is good reason to believe these stones are genuine. But Butler quickly rejects that and accuses creationists of fraud, but overlooks the evidence that the stones are genuine.

But of course, if dinosaurs and man lived together, as even additional available evidence demonstrates, the evolutionary narrative of multi-millions of years for dinosaurs dissolves. And the evolutionist cannot legitimately use cuddly dinosaur toys for the indoctrination of young children into evolutionism. So the evolutionist has to pick and choose her evidence carefully to sustain the narrative, maintain her faith, and pass it on to the next generation.

Butler also accuses creationists of "changing tactics." Butler knows very well that science is always discarding old beliefs and paradigms as new evidence emerges. Evolutionists would consider that one of their strengths, but when creationists abandon a paradigm that no longer works, that is "changing tactics", implying some kind of deceit in a process that is otherwise considered to be necessary and positive.

Butler asserts, "The 'common designer' notion is simply an assertion without basis." He thinks he knows what good design looks like, and it is not what he sees. So since he can imagine a better design, this must not be a good design. His is an argument from ignorance. And although he will not acknowledge this, it seems he must have a prior commitment to philosophical naturalism to come to this conclusion. In other words, if you start with the assumption of philosophical naturalism, viola (miraculously appearing), you can easily conclude philosophical naturalism. Amazing. And if you start from that assumption, you can easily "prove" that intelligent design can't be true. Works every time. Smuggle your conclusion into your premises, and you get what you want every time, albeit illegitimately. Here's a link (which Butler will dismiss with hand waving because they are not evolutionists) which demonstrates the falsity of Butler's assertion https//www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist/

Of course, belief in evolution can lead to immoral behavior. Nazism, Marxism are all predicated on evolutionary theory. And why not? If evolution is true (which I do not believe), then is it not reasonable from an evolutionary perspective that different races are in different stages of evolution, and so one race may be more advanced than another, at least in some respects?

Well, let's be a bit more nuanced. Racism can be supported by evolutionary theory, but is not necessitated by evolutionary theory. And certainly almost all evolutionists would reject racism. All I am saying is that belief in evolutionary theory can reasonably, but not necessarily, lead to racist interpretations. And that is an important point that should be applied to all belief systems, theistic or naturalistic. Any belief system can be used and abused to support conclusions that do not follow from necessity.

Butler asserts, "Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them" and calls this evidence for evolution. Although Butler will dismiss this with hand waving, it can also be identified as good design. And Butler fails to note that this is not directional evolution. It is merely survival evolution in a hostile environment. And studies have shown that the mutated organisms are only stronger in these environments. When reverting back to the natural environment, they are generally weaker and to not persist in the evolved state. Evolutionists like to point to any change as evidence of microbes to man evolution, but ignore the challenges that more complex changes present.

Irreducible complexity has been refuted? I don't think so. I have read the arguments, and in my view, they go from weak at best to facile. Take the two examples that Butler uses. First, taking out one part often reduces, but does not eliminate function as Behe asserts. I doubt that Behe says that taking out parts always completely eliminates function. In the example he gives, it does however. And in many other cases it will as well. So his argument withstands that challenge. Well, there are parts in an organism that may serve more than one function. That does not prove intelligent design false and is not evidence for evolution; it is rather evidence of the sort of common design intelligent designers use all the time.

Well, it was the end of breakfast when I started, and Beth now tells me it is time for lunch, so I must summarize

First, Butler seems to believe that when evolutionists can explain evidence in a materialistic structure, that is evidence against creation. Explanations, often contorted, are not the same as evidence. In fact, much of the same data fits much better into a creation or intelligent design model. The real question is not whether I can explain the evidence using this or that model, but which model in general holds the best explanatory power. From several years of study, my conclusion is that creation fares much better than evolution as an explanatory model.

Next, Butler adheres to a view of authority which is excessive. Those with the right degrees from the right institutions and published in the right peer reviewed journals (all evolutionary of course) are the ones that have true knowledge. There is much to be said for good education. But it is not good education when it suppresses alternate points of view. Evolutionism does this almost as if it fears the exposure of the discussion. No, don't point to Hovind and that other guy I've never heard of. Of course they are nonsensical (which doesn't necessarily mean their conclusions are wrong.) And then I won't point to Dawkins and what an embarrassment he must be to you evolutionists despite his high status credentials and best selling books to the unsuspecting. And if you quit using Hovind to hide behind, then I won’t bring up Hawkings absurd statement that a law, the law of gravity, created the universe.

Butler also exudes an excessive and unwarranted superiority over those with whom he disagrees. He unwisely uses "always", "never", "any" and other exclusive words to characterize and demonize them. Those who disagree with him are "lying" or without understanding--only two options. "A philosopher's opinion on scientific theory is irrelevant…yet all are presented as if they matter." This has already been discussed. Read some of John C. Lennox's books, or listen to him on You Tube, and that will destroy Butler's unhealthy fallacy. I find that evolutionary thinkers in general are more nuanced and careful and have a greater understanding of some of the weaknesses of evolutionary theory than Butler exhibits, which makes them more believable, not less.

Butler is right, not all the creationist arguments are well thought out or presented. Sometime they used and overuse outdated quotes (old quotes are not necessarily outdated however.) But as I have shown, Butler is not immune to poor and fallacious argumentation, even of the sort he identifies in others. These weaknesses neither reflect on the validity of either Butler's or creationists' conclusions. If we want to reasonably understand any position, we find its strongest, not weakest, presentation and argumentation of that position and assess those. Sometimes the "devil is in the details"; other times, we need a 30,000 foot flyover to get perspective. There is a lot of evolutionary narrative--evolutionists seem to trip over one another in trying to assert that every bit of new information is "confirmation" of evolutionary theory. The ability to craft an evolutionary explanation of evidence does not exclude other and potentially better explanations of the same evidence. When stepping out of the evolutionary forest and doing a flyover, I find creation to be a much more compelling explanation of the evidence from all disciplines in general.

Was this book helpful to me? Yes, I gained insight into the evolutionist's mindset. Some of it, particularly on genetics, I did not grasp on first reading. But based on my understanding in areas with which I am more conversant, I doubt I will find the parts I don’t understand any better argued than the parts I do.

So read the book, but do so critically. It will not only give you insight into the evolutionary narrative, but also many of the logical fallacies that are used in its supportive argumentation.
If you're having trouble either understanding or explaining evolutionary theory to others, this book is a must-have.