The following comments are an attempt to answer the points raised in Logan's opening statement "Opening Statememnt, I guess." In order to achieve this I have broken his statement down into what I feel are the salient points, reorganised them and dealt with them in as logical a fashion as I can.
The claim that atoms from the "Big Bang" formed ever-more complex forms and eventually resulted in life forms such as man is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the fundamentals of Information Theory. (Thermodynamics and Information Theory)
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of physics that states that there is a general tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder and the claim is often made by creationists that evolution (if it occurs) violates this law.
This argument is complete nonsense because the Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems that are isolated and in thermal equilibrium. Living systems are not isolated systems in thermal equilibrium so the systems that an evolutionary scientist talks about are not the same kind of systems that the Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to. Despite the fact that this has been frequently explained to creationists whenever the issue arises ("debunked") it does not stop creationists from using it to persuade people that evolution is wrong and to justify their claims to a divinely created world & universe.
The "Information Theory" is simply another version of "The Second Law of Thermodynamics" that creationists continue to use. In this case the specific subject in question is DNA and raises the question how can a something of one level of complexity create something more complex? The question implies that the "information" contained in the genetic code could not have arisen spontaneously from a simpler replicator.
However the question fails to take into account that "information" is not a physical or chemical property of matter, but is only quantifiable when a system of HUMAN interpretation is applied to it. As such it is wrong to try and apply a "law" governing "information" and use it to predict the probability of a physical process such as the evolution of DNA from simpler precursors.
One has only to look at Computer Aided Software Engineering programs today to see that it is possible to produce software source and/or object code much more "complex" than that which was given to it.
The "geologic column" is the result of a devastating global flood which occurred approx. 5,000 years ago (the Noahic Flood). (The Geologic Column)
There is no evidence to support such a claim and there exists evidence that disproves the Noahic flood. If, indeed, the Noahic flood had occurred how does one explain the relative ages of the mountains? Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? How are the polar ice caps even possible? Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating?
Evolutionists state that the fossil record is one of "fully-formed abrupt appearance" and "stasis" (that is, no change over time). (The Geologic Column)
Evolutionary scientists such as De Ricqles (1983) and Horner et al. (1992) document several possible cases of gradual evolution and some lineage's that show abrupt appearance or stasis. Examples of this are early Permian reptile genera Captorhinus, Protocaptorhinus, Eocaptorhinus, Romeria and the Montana site (a coastal plain in the late Cretaceous) where many excellent transitional dinosaur fossils were found including:
All of these transitional animals lived during a 500,000-year period but before the site was studied they were known from the much larger Judith River Formation (a 5 million-year evolutionary stasis and, subsequently, an apparent abrupt appearance of many new forms). Evidence indicates that the sea level rose during the 500,000-year period temporarily burying the Judith River Formation under water and forcing the dinosaur populations into smaller areas such as the site in Montana. Isolated populations are known to experience rapid evolution and when sea level fell again, the new forms spread out to the re-exposed Judith River landscape, thus appearing "suddenly" in the Judith River fossils, with the transitional fossils only existing in the Montana site. 500, 000 is a very brief instant in evolutionary history and this is an excellent example of punctuated equilibrium and why transitional fossils may only exist in a small area, with new species appearing "suddenly" in other areas.
Providing that it is clearly understood that we are referring to evolution by natural selection then yes I agree.
Not necessarily, please refer to EVO-STORM-01 Section 3B for examples and additional mechanisms by which it is theorised macro-evolution might occur.
Agreed.
I have no particular problem with your interpretation of the verse in question however it is not, in my opinion, the reason we (humans) carry out research.
The teleological nature of Creation "Science" implies that it opposed to everything "true" science stands for.
No evidence has ever been found to support the existence of a god or creator therefore a "science" that works under the assumption that one exists (and frequently discounts data that opposes the initial assumption) is teleological in nature and not acceptable as a "true" science.
Assuming claims of a "disinterested creation" (creation prior to the beginning of the current universe/big-bang) there is no evidence to support such a claim (corollary: science does not generally accept hypotheses on the basis that there is no evidence to refute them). Whilst science is not, strictly speaking able to investigate events prior to the "big-bang" it is generally assumed that the lack of evidence to support any form of divine creation means it did not happen.
Assuming creation from the typical creationist/"Young Earth" point of view then there is significant evidence to indicate that the universe, Earth, plants, animal & people were not divinely created in the manner written in Genesis. Please refer to EVO-STORM-01 Sections 2 to 4, 7 & 8 and EVO-STORM-02 Section 1.
"Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, Part 1B" Kathleen Hunt (1994)
"How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments? A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims" Dave E. Matson (1994)
"The General Anti-Creationism FAQ: Age" Jim Meritt
Man Tracks? A Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy Glen J. Kuban (1992)
The "Burdick Print" Glen J. Kuban (1989-96)
"Evolution of Man" (Author Unknown).
"Hominid Species" Jim Foley (1997)