The final argument in the AiG article “Three Puzzles Evolution Can’t Solve” comes from cell biologist Nathaniel Jeanson. Remember, we have looked at Kevin Anderson’s argument regarding abiogenesis, and Brian Catalucci’s argument regarding cell “information”.
In the last installment, we looked at creationist Kevin Anderson chucking abiogenesis research without ever really discussing it in the AiG article “Three Puzzles Evolution Can’t Solve.” Now, we turn to Brian Catalucci (the airplane pilot with a master’s degree in computer science and engineering) who is going to tell us about genetic “information”. I very much dislike the term “information” being used in a genetic sense because it usually does not mean anything in particular. Creationists cannot quantify genetic information, they cannot point to where it exists in the genome, etc. Catalucci begins his section in exactly the same way.
The consistent confusion many have about theory, law, and hypothesis is a problem in science literacy as the population does not understand that theory is based on fact. They see the word “theory” and think this is just a “working idea” without enough evidence to make it solid like a “law”.
You must be logged in to post a comment.