Is Evolution Compatible with Christianity?
April 30th, 2008
(By John MacArthur)
Evolution was introduced as an atheistic alternative to the biblical view of creation. According to evolution, man created God rather than vice versa. And as we have seen, the evolutionists’ ultimate agenda is to eliminate faith in God altogether and thereby do away with moral accountability.
Intuition suggests a series of questions to the human mind when we contemplate our origin: Who is in control of the universe? Is there Someone who is sovereign—a Lawgiver? Is there a universal Judge? Is there a transcendent moral standard to live by? Is there Someone to whom will we be accountable? Will there be a final assessment of how we live our lives? Will there be any final judgment?
Those are the very questions evolution was invented to avoid.
Evolution was devised to explain away the God of the Bible—not because evolutionists really believed a Creator was unnecessary to explain how things began, but because they did not want the God of Scripture as their Judge. Marvin L. Lubenow writes,
The real issue in the creation/evolution debate is not the existence of God. The real issue is the nature of God. To think of evolution as basically atheistic is to misunderstand the uniqueness of evolution. Evolution was not designed as a general attack against theism. It was designed as a specific attack against the God of the Bible, and the God of the Bible is clearly revealed through the doctrine of creation. Obviously, if a person is an atheist, it would be normal for him to also be an evolutionist. But evolution is as comfortable with theism as it is with atheism. An evolutionist is perfectly free to choose any god he wishes, as long as it is not the God of the Bible. The gods allowed by evolution are private, subjective, and artificial. They bother no one and make no absolute ethical demands. However, the God of the Bible is the Creator, Sustainer, Savior, and Judge. All are responsible to him. He has an agenda that conflicts with that of sinful humans. For man to be created in the image of God is very awesome. For God to be created in the image of man is very comfortable. [Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 188-89.]
To put it simply, evolution was invented in order to eliminate the God of Genesis and thereby to oust the Lawgiver and obliterate the inviolability of His law. Evolution is simply the latest means our fallen race has devised in order to suppress our innate knowledge and the biblical testimony that there is a God and that we are accountable to Him (cf. Romans 1:28). By embracing evolution, modern society aims to do away with morality, responsibility, and guilt. Society has embraced evolution with such enthusiasm because people imagine that it eliminates the Judge and leaves them free to do whatever they want without guilt and without consequences.The evolutionary lie is so pointedly antithetical to Christian truth that it would seem unthinkable for evangelical Christians to compromise with evolutionary science in any degree. But over the past century and a half of evolutionary propaganda, evolutionists have had remarkable success in getting evangelicals to meet them halfway. Remarkably, many modern evangelicals—perhaps it would even be fair to say most people who call themselves evangelicals today—have already been convinced that the Genesis account of creation is not a true historical record. Thus they have not only capitulated to evolutionary doctrine at its starting point, but they have also embraced a view that undermines the authority of Scripture at its starting point.
So-called theistic evolutionists who try to marry humanistic theories of modern science with biblical theism may claim they are doing so because they love God, but the truth is that they love God a little and their academic reputations a lot. By undermining the historicity of Genesis they are undermining faith itself. Give evolutionary doctrine the throne and make the Bible its servant, and you have laid the foundation for spiritual disaster.
Scripture, not science, is the ultimate test of all truth. And the further evangelicalism gets from that conviction, the less evangelical and more humanistic it becomes.
Scripture cautions against false “knowledge” (1 Timothy 6:20)—particularly so-called “scientific” knowledge that opposes the truth of Scripture. When what is being passed off as “science” turns out to be nothing more than a faith-based world-view that is hostile to the truth of Scripture, our duty to be on guard is magnified. And when naturalistic and atheistic presuppositions are being aggressively peddled as if they were established scientific fact, Christians ought to expose such lies for what they are and oppose them all the more vigorously. The abandonment of a biblical view of creation has already borne abundant evil fruit in modern society. Now is no time for the church to retreat or compromise on these issues. To weaken our commitment to the biblical view of creation would start a chain of disastrous moral, spiritual, and theological ramifications in the church that will greatly exacerbate the terrible moral chaos that already has begun the unravelling of secular society.
I was once asked by a C of E Ordinations officer (who is responsible for recruiting new vicars in the Anglican Church) what my thoughts were on the Bible. I said I believed it’s the inspired Word of God without error from Genesis to Revelation, telling us of real events”.
He replied “well I don’t, I think the Old Testament is all stories, just like the parables weren’t real events.”
So I said “Well, when Jesus gave parables he didn’t begin with a lineage of people saying so-and-so begot so-and-so”
He then asked me “Do you think you can be an evolutionist and a Christian?”
To which I replied “Well if you’re asking me if it is possible for someone to be saved and still believe in evolution, the answer is yes, they may just not have thought about it properly yet. However it’s completely inconsistent and they should eventually reject evolution. To start with Jesus clearly believed in a literal Genesis.”
To which he replied: “Yes, but Jesus didn’t have all the research we have today.”
I then asked him “If Adam was just a mythological figure and we get the lineage of Adam all the way to Jesus, then who was the first real person in the Bible, and what does a ‘transitional form between a mythological figure and a real person look like?”
Dear brother Kevin,
So it is that Unbelievers who are ordained in he name of Human Works religions deny the Deity of the Christ of the LORD God. So it is true to say that this clergyman would deny the Omniscience and Omipresence of the LORD Jesus. After all IF Christ does not know the facts about Creation, then who does?
This is a sad reflection on the state of the so called “church” in Britian. And it saddens meto say there are few men of integrity who WILL stand up in defence of the VERY WORD of God the Bible.
We here in Britian live in a similar state to that of unbelieving Israel, I often reflect on Jeremiah’s prophecies and the event of Israel being given over to the desires of their sinful hearts. The Church as an organism is NOT exempt from the judgment of the LORD and we all wil do well to remain in the Fear of the LORD.
By Merciful Grace through Faith in our Creator Christ Jesus the LORD our God.
Interesting read. On youtube, there are a series of talks given at UC Berkeley by Christian speakers about faith-related questions. There is also one here given by Francis Collins, a professing Christian who also happens to be very well known/respected/decorated doctor. The video is lengthy, but in it he does address how he has been able to make scientific fact conform to his faith. I’m not sure what I think about this, but it is worth a viewing to get a different opinion.
Evolution was devised to explain away the God of the Bible—not because evolutionists really believed a Creator was unnecessary to explain how things began, but because they did not want the God of Scripture as their Judge.
Um…no. So utterly wrong, I’d speculate it to be a bold-faced lie, and I’m truly glad your deceptive sentiments are not more widely accepted.
The theory of Evolution came as result of evidence. The implications are irrelevant to its integrity. You are blaming the gun, not the shooter. I hope your readers can see through your deceit, and seek guidance elsewhere.
If promoting a moral society means to lie and tell falsities as a means to an end, I think you’ve missed the point of morality altogether. For shame.
Great Article! It all comes down to the way we begin or “research” if the Bible is your guide and you look at the world through the Bible, theistic evolution or Gap theories just don’t work. It is only when we use science to intepret the Bible or the like where we come up with the extra theories. Sola Scriptura!
I commend to you these Scripture:
Romans 1:24-25
“Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who EXCHANGED the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the CREATURE rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”
Matthew 19:4
“And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who MADE them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’”
Romans 9:20
“But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “WHY have you made me LIKE THIS?”
I love what Roy Hargrave said about evolution:
“If you want to be a member of Riverbend church, then don’t come to me and tell me you believe in evolution. Believing in evolution is grounds for church discipline.”
I remember when I was in the 5th grade way back when, and I asked the teacher if evolution is true and we came from monkeys, then why is there still monkeys? She laughed and said I needed to ask the evolutionists that question. She was a christian and hated to have to teach evolution, but said if she didn’t she would of been fired. Sad.
“But evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and possibly the most famous atheist in the world, was not taking any chances. He gave a PowerPoint presentation driving home that religion does not meet any of the standards of basic scientific inquiry, before casually flicking away a few of His last crutches. Doesn’t God provide people some solace? asked an audience member. “Isn’t that a little childish?” Dawkins replied. “Just because something is comforting doesn’t mean it’s true.” Then someone asked about death, and Dawkins quoted Mark Twain: “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born.”
The room erupted in loud applause. God had definitely left the building—if he were ever here at all. Dawkins and his colleagues had helped to produce a kind of atheist big bang, a new beginning. But what kind of new structures might evolve? …
So some atheists are taking seriously the idea that atheism needs to stand for things, like evolution and ethics, not just against things, like God. …
Additionally, many atheists see the challenge of tearing down the pillars of organized religion as far from over—just check the numbers of Americans who don’t believe in evolution, they say. …
Even Richard Dawkins is not one to reject certain memes based on their churchly pedigree. He calls himself a “cultural Christian,” admitting that he likes to sing Christmas carols as much as the next guy. But there’s a limit to his tolerance of religion. He can see the tactical virtues of making temporary alliances with religion—to “hold hands with religious people” when it comes to making the case for important causes like teaching evolution in the classroom. But there are definite limits. “In the larger war against supernaturalism, frankly, it doesn’t help to fraternize with the enemy,” he says.””
From: If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?
“He can see the tactical virtues of making temporary alliances with religion—to “hold hands with religious people” when it comes to making the case for important causes like teaching evolution in the classroom.”
As a matter of tactics, Dawkins is saying that atheistic neo-Darwinists should hold hands with theistic evolutionist enablers.
As a matter of tactics, Dawkins is saying that atheistic neo-Darwinists should hold hands with theistic evolutionist enablers.
I think the communists called the people who could further their cause “useful idiots”.
This is actually a very complicated question.
I think its compatible, like Arminianism is compatible with Christianity, but simply not true.
The key issues here for Christianity are:
1) The Reality of Adam and Eve
2) The connection between Death and Sin
3) The validity of the Bible.
The key issues for Evolution are:
1) Unguided process (as in outside assistance once the process had started)
2) Non-designed process (think pre-packaged “big – bang”)
So I think that as long as you accept that Adam and Eve were the first humans, somehow get around death before sin, and have some example of how Genesis 1 is not supposed to be a strict literally interpretation than it is “compatible” like any other wrong doctrine. So for a Dispensiational Calvinist, an Amillenial Arminian is wrong, but compatible with the major truths of Christianity. I’m sure my Arminian brothers would say the same for me.
However, looking at the major tenets of evolution, it is very hard to fit that into Christianity.
Steve,
You said, “Um…no. So utterly wrong, I’d speculate it to be a bold-faced lie, and I’m truly glad your deceptive sentiments are not more widely accepted.
The theory of Evolution came as result of evidence. The implications are irrelevant to its integrity. You are blaming the gun, not the shooter. I hope your readers can see through your deceit, and seek guidance elsewhere.”
If you like, I can provide you with real quotes from real evolutionists that actually admit that their belief in evolution is not grounded on facts, but because they can’t stand the alternative. These men actually believe AND ADMIT that they believe in evolution as a means to escape accountability to their creator. They even go as far as to admit that evolution is not logical or factual, but they don’t like the alternative.
You have gone a little far in calling John MacArthur a liar. You apparently are not aware of the quotes that I referred to above, so you should not make the blanket statement that they do not exist. Proverbs says that for a man to answer a matter before he hears it is folly and shame to him. I personally know of many such quotes from evolutionists. John MacArthur is not being deceptive, and you would do well to listen to what he has to say.
Also, these are not mearly his sentiments as they are indeed widely accepted (as all facts should be). Simply because you are not aware of them does not mean they don’t exist. Evolutionists deny God because they want to, not because there is no evidence of him. All the evidence (and I would add, logic) points to a creator, and the only way to avoid that end is to reinterpret the evidence and deny logic. Far too often when the evidence denies our beliefs, we try to manipulate the evidence to fit our beliefs when we should be making our beliefs fit the evidence.
Comments like Steve’s, as well as the ideas of the evolutionists trying to escape the reality of a Creator who deservedly demands holiness, reminds me of Isaiah chapter 30:
For this is a rebellious people, false sons, Sons who refuse to listen
To the instruction of the LORD; Who say to the seers, “You must not see visions”; And to the prophets, “You must not prophesy to us what is right, Speak to us pleasant words, Prophesy illusions. “Get out of the way, turn aside from the path, Let us hear no more about the Holy One of Israel.”
Chaney, Riccardi,
I think Steve does have a legitimate point in critiquing MacArther’s overly idealistic claims that evolution was designed to reject God. His point is valid in this way: Darwin’s observations (which were true) were about nature and evidence but they ultimately led him to inferences which dethroned God in His creative and sustaining role in biology.
Let me break it down as I understand it:
Darwin’s (and even ours today) true observations about biology:
1. Descent with modification
2. Random Genetic Mutation (or Unguided Heritable Variation)
3. Natural Selection
4. Homology (similarity) of biological features between species
Darwin’s subsequent (incorrect) inferences:
5. Universal Common Ancestry
6. Process is unguided and non-telic
Darwin’s theory really was providing the capstone of those two major inferences, given his observations (1-4). So when Christians make blanket, unqualified statements like “evolution is totally false” then scientists often scratch their heads because they assume a rejection of 1-6, not just 5-6. So I would encourage more care in these types of discussion. Although I agree with most of what MacArthur says regarding the use of Darwinism as an intellectual excuse to reject God, I still think a “wise as serpents, innocent as doves” approach is warranted.
Lubenow/MacArthur are correct – evolution is not compatible with scripture, for many reasons. Check out my many posts on this subject, including:
Is Creationism a Barrier to Faith?
Why Most Evangelicals Don’t Like Evolution
A summary of my criticisms of evolution
Josh,
The trouble with saying that “Darwin’s observations (which were true) were about nature and evidence but they ultimately led him to inferences which dethroned God in His creative and sustaining role in biology.” is that it ignores an important bit of Darwin’s history.
That is, his grand-father Erasmus Darwin wrote extensively on his own theory of evolution and clearly had already influenced Charles in that direction before his famous voyage on the “Beagle”.
Darwin was not the impartial observer of nature his is often made out to be. He knew what we was looking for.
“…what HE was looking for…”
To comment on Steve’s comment…. Where’s the evidence for
evolution? Evolution can’t even stand on it’s own. Please
see the movie EXPELLED. Scientists who believe in evolution blackball creation scientists and close their minds to creation theories. The creation theory can’t even be taught in classrooms along side evolution because of the lack of evidence with evolution. The greatest of our scientists have been creationists. One Nobel Prize winner in this century said he’d rather believe in fairies than evolution. I commend all who believe in evolution … you are required to have much more Faith and Hope to believe in evolution than I’m
required to have to believe in a creation that happened only a few thousand years ago.
Is there any room within Christian thought for a ideas like those of Conrad Hyers ( http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1984/JASA9-84Hyers.html )
That is, an approach to the Bible (including Genesis) that keeps in mind what was important to the writers and the readers. An approach that might somewhat change how one sees “historicity”?
Just how heretical is this stuff?
Evolution was introduced as an atheistic alternative to the biblical view of creation. According to evolution, man created God rather than vice versa.
The above statements are false. It would appear that the author of this piece has done no research at all regarding the subject of evolution.
“I remember when I was in the 5th grade way back when, and I asked the teacher if evolution is true and we came from monkeys, then why is there still monkeys? She laughed and said I needed to ask the evolutionists that question.”
Did you ask her why, if there are dachsunds, do wolves still exist? Or, more to the point, how you and your cousin could both be alive at the same time if you both have the same grandparents? Those questions make just as much sense as the one about the about the monkeys.
“Please see the movie EXPELLED. Scientists who believe in evolution blackball creation scientists and close their minds to creation theories.”
And you should go to this website, and you’ll realize you’ve been lied to:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Unfortunately, Expelled Exposed presents a plethora of misinformation and downright lies.
Start by reading these posts:
The NCSE Exposed: Clunky Attack on “Expelled” Reveals More Than Intended (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/the_ncse_exposed_clunky_attack.html).
Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists (http://www.discovery.org/a/4689)
Then familiarize yourself with the actual facts and details of some of the cases involved, especially Dr. Gonzalez’s and Dr. Sternberg’s.
Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez And Academic Persecution (http://www.discovery.org/a/2939)
http://www.freegonzalez.com
Homepage of Dr. Richard Sternberg (http://www.richardsternberg.org)
Sternberg, Smithsonian, Meyer, And The Paper That Started It All (http://www.discovery.org/a/2399)
U.S. Office of Special Counsel Letter (2005) (http://www.richardsternberg.org/smithsonian.php?page=letter)
U.S. House of Representatives Staff Report (2006) (http://www.discovery.org/a/1489)
U.S. House of Representatives Staff Report Appendix (2006) (http://www.discovery.org/a1490)
Also, be sure to visit these sites for more general information about intelligent design and evolution: http://www.intelligentdesign.org and this page about the Dover intelligent design trial: http://www.discovery.org/a/2879
Two little discussed aspects of Darwinism are these: 1) It is unscientific- you must suspend the second law of thermodynamics. Things naturally move from one state to a less advanced state. Darwinism teaches the opposite. 2) Darwinism is INHERENTLY RACIST. While evil has been done in the name of Christ, Christ never commanded such and it is contrary to His word. Darwinism’s natural and ultimate expression is found in Hitler’s Germany. In fact, modern versions of The Origin of Species must leave out the subtitle of the book because it reads like something out of Mein Kampf. The Descent of Man is much more brazen though in its pages. Darwin believed, naturally, that the darker the skin the less evolved the race of people. This is the obvious implication of Darwinism. Darwinism does not stop at human beings if it is to be believed. Some humans must be more evolved than others. The previous comment about the monkeys just missed by a little bit. The real question is this. Where is neandrethal? He should still be evolving from some place. Cro-magnon should still be emerging somewhere. These so-called intermediate human species should still be around!
Dear brother Kevin,
Dr Hargraves maks a very good and vital point! Excellent GraceWorx.
“It is unscientific- you must suspend the second law of thermodynamics. Things naturally move from one state to a less advanced state.”
Then explain why you exist. You were once a clump of a few cells. I assume you’re a bit more complex than that now. The reason is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, where energy cannot be added from an external source. That obviously does not apply to living creatures.
“The real question is this. Where is neandrethal? He should still be evolving from some place. Cro-magnon should still be emerging somewhere. These so-called intermediate human species should still be around!”
First of all, these are not “intermediate species.” They were most likely “side branches” in the tree of species (Think cousins, rather than grandparents). Secondly: They’re extinct! Like over 90% of every species that have ever lived, they died out. Dead creatures don’t leave descendents, so I’m not sure where you think they would be “emerging” from. There’s no more reason they should still be around than dinosaurs or saber tooth tigers.
Intermediate humanlike species should still be “side branching” out. You should also never assume that I am complex. Zoinks, I’m a moron! However, even I understand that when I leave a bowl of ice cream on the counter I do not come back an hour later and have a cow sitting on the counter. My DNA, or clump of cells, were infused with more information in them than the most complex computer in the world. Something has to be behind this. Even Carl Sagan looked for complex patterns of information from space to prove life exists out there. He understood that complex information must come from something intelligent. Furthermore, you must concede that certain races must be inferior than others, Darwinism demands it. In Christ there is no distinction. In Darwin, such is not the case.
lutesuite,
You said, “Then explain why you exist. You were once a clump of a few cells. I assume you’re a bit more complex than that now.”
Your assumption that I was once a clump of a few cells is what is being called into question by the second law of thermodynamics. And by the way, that law applies to anything and everything. The law states that information cannot be gained, only lost. Hence, your assumption is false because it states that I have gained information, and the second law of thermodynamics proves that I cannot gain information. In fact, since the first man, the human race has lost information.
You said, “Secondly: They’re extinct! Like over 90% of every species that have ever lived, they died out. Dead creatures don’t leave descendents, so I’m not sure where you think they would be “emerging” from.”
The point was that if evolution is true, the neandrethals should still be evolving from whatever they evolved from in the first place, right. To say that since they are extinct there will never be any more of them is to deny the very belief you are trying to prove. If there will never be any more of them, then there would never be any more of what they evolved from, or what they evolved from, or what they evolved from, etc.
“Your assumption that I was once a clump of a few cells is what is being called into question by the second law of thermodynamics.”
I believe lutesuite was referring to the fact that you were once a clump of a few cells in that you were once an embryo.
The point is this: If evolution goes against the second law of thermodynamics, then the development of a grown man from a single fertilised egg cell should also go against the second law of thermodynamics.
For that matter, the synthesis of plant material from carbon dioxide in photosynthesis should go against it too, as plants are much more orderly than a gas.
Clearly there are biological processes where order is built up from disorder which occur all the time.
The second law of thermodynamics does not say that order always moves towards disorder. Anyone who makes this argument has a poor understanding of physical chemistry.
It is also worth pointing out that if the two examples I gave – developmental biology and photosynthesis – did contradict the second law of thermodynamics, then we would have to throw out the second law of thermodynamics, or at least change it, as scientific laws are descriptions of biological/chemical/physical observations and not prescriptive laws such as those in human legal systems. The word law has a very different meaning in scientific contexts.
“Your assumption that I was once a clump of a few cells is what is being called into question by the second law of thermodynamics.”
I guess my “assumption” was based on what I thought was the certainty that you were a human being who had arisen and developed in the way that all human beings have: Starting from the fusion of two cells (sperm and ovum) which then, over the course of embryological development, becomes larger and more complex. Whatever process brought you into being (and I”d love to hear what you think that was) this is how the rest of us arose. According to your (mis)understanding of the laws of thermodynamics, this process is impossible, and none of us exist.
“The point was that if evolution is true, the neandrethals should still be evolving from whatever they evolved from in the first place, right.”
What they evolved from in the first place were hominid precursors who no longer exist. Are your great-great-great-great grandparents still alive? I assume not. If not, can they still produce more descendents? I hope you’re able to answer that question without any hints from me. That’s where neanderthals “evolved from” in the first place: other creatures who were very similar, but not identical, to them, in the same way your parents are very similar, but not identical, to your grandparents. Evolution doesn’t say that creatures just materialize from nowhere. That’s what creationism says.
Look, I don’t know if there’s a way to say this without sounding unkind: Your questions reveal that you’re almost completely ignorant of the most basic facts of evolutionary theory. That’s nothing to be ashamed of; we all have our areas of ignorance. I personally no nothing about aeronautical engineering. But having said that, I would never presume to know more about how to design a jet than someone who has devoted their career to studying that field. If you’re not interested in learning basic biology, that’s your business. But then don’t presume to be able to know more about it than the millions of scientists who have spent their lives researching and studying the field. And, more to the point, don’t presume yourself able to critically evaluate the sloppy, inaccurate, and outright false information propagated by the proponents of creationism/intelligent design.
lutesuite,
When you said, “I was once a clump of a few cells” I wrongly assumed you were speaking of your understanding of the beginning of life. Now that I better understand your statement…when life begins in the womb, no extra information is added at any point along the line. The information is already there, and has just not developed. The second law of thermodynamics applies to life in the womb as well in that no information will be added. This law does not deny what happens in the womb, but it does deny the evolutionary theory of the beginning of life.
I do not have to know everything about the evolutionary theory to know that it denies logic. I know the basic facts of logic, and I know that evolution defies them. Evolution can be defined very basically as the adding of information to form a better species. Is that not correct? According to this definition (which is indeed the essence of evolutionary theory) evolution denies the second law of thermodynamics and is therefore false. Unless of course, you can explain to me how in the evolution from muck to man, no information was added.
You said, “What they evolved from in the first place were hominid precursors who no longer exist. Are your great-great-great-great grandparents still alive?”
Either you did not understand my statement, or you did not think about it logically. Those hominid precursors who no longer exist should still be evolving from whatever they evolved from. This goes all the way back to the very beginning. At any rate, the neandrethals were proven to be a falicy in the first place. They were thought to be transitional forms between apes and humans but were found to be completely human or completely ape. The #1 piece of evidence against evolution is the lack of a single transitional form. They just have not been found, yet evolutionists believe BY FAITH that they exist. They cannot prove that they exist. The ONLY way that evolution CAN be proven correct is if a transitional form were found. But every time a supposed transitional form is found, upon closer examination, it turns out that it is not. In fact, the lack of evidence tends only to prove that the opposite is true: that every species alive today was alive when life started. That is just the way it is, unless it can be proven otherwise. Then the only debate is when that life started. The only way that we would be able to avoid admitting a creator would be to say that the world is from infinity past. It was always there. Because it is illogical to say that species gained information in the change from the previous species, and in fact, it is illogical to say that species evolve period because of the lack of any evidence to support that view. We then have two alternatives. 1) the earth was always there and the species present today were always on it. Or 2) there is a creator that made them.
Lutesuite,
Pardon my asking, I hope it’s not rude, but are you a Christian who believes in theistic evolution?
Also, by all means, please do continue contributing to this thread and this series. I was just curious that’s all.
I’m afraid I’m going to end up using a lot of space in this reply. I apologize, but these are complex issues, and I’ll try to be as succinct as possible.
“…when life begins in the womb, no extra information is added at any point along the line. The information is already there, and has just not developed. The second law of thermodynamics applies to life in the womb as well in that no information will be added. This law does not deny what happens in the womb, but it does deny the evolutionary theory of the beginning of life.”
You’re misunderstanding the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which has nothing to do with information, but with energy states in closed systems. However, the “no new information” argument is another common fallacy put forward by creationists. If this were true, we would not witness genetic changes (mutations) occurring in organisms leading to novel, beneficial traits, correct? The fact is that the literature abounds with descriptions of such mutations occurring. However, I’m just going to concentrate on one, simply because it’s so cool: the Nylon Bug:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase
This is a strain of bacteria discovered by Japanese investigators in 1975 that had developed the ability to digest nylon. As you likely know, nylon is an entirely man made substance that does not exist in nature, and was first synthesized in 1935. In other words, an organism developed an entirely new function within the space of 40 years. Subsequent investigations have elucidated the precise nature of the genetic mutation that allowed this trait to arise. As it happens, these bacteria were discovered in bodies of water containing runoff from nylon factories. You can read more details about the bacteria, including more specific information about the nature of the mutation, and the rather pathetic attempts by creationists to discredit this discovery, right here:
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
Now, I ask you: If the development of a new physical function that allows an organism an advantage (the ability to use a new source of food) that did not exist before is not an example of the “creation of new information,” what would you consider “new information”?
“Those hominid precursors who no longer exist should still be evolving from whatever they evolved from. This goes all the way back to the very beginning. At any rate, the neandrethals were proven to be a falicy in the first place. They were thought to be transitional forms between apes and humans but were found to be completely human or completely ape.”
I’ve already provided a link to a list of “transitional” fossils on the “Evolution and Ethics” page. However, your statement still reflects a more fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, one that admittedly even many people who accept the theory also share. The misconception is that “species” are static, fixed entities that do not vary, and that evolution occurs by a series of steps or jumps from one species to another. This is reflected in common creationist comments like, “Show me when a cow has given birth to a whale.”
Perhaps I can illustrate it this way: You’ve probably heard that the closest “relative” of humans is the chimpanzee. What does this mean, exactly? Let’s imagine that a time machine has been invented, making it possible to go back in time and visit our ancestors. Suppose you and a modern day chimpanzee were to use this machine and go back 1000 years to each meet one of your respective ancestors. As you and your chimp companion emerge from the year 1008 CE, you will meet another human and the chimp another chimp. Obviously, there will be no basis to say either of you are from a different species than your ancestors, who could just as easily travel forward to 2008 without anyone suspecting from their appearance that they came from a previous time.
Now lets leave you and your travelling companion in 1008. The two ancestors now get into the time machine and travel back another 1000 years to meet their ancestors. Again, the ancestors they meet will only slightly differ in appearance and will still clearly be a human and a chimp. They will also not differ in any major way from you and the chimp with whom you started the journey.
As this process continues, each time with a new pair of ancestors travelling back 1000 years, the outcome will be the same. Each time the human and the chimp will meet ancestors who do not significantly differ from themselves. To be sure, they will not look identical. But the differences in appearance will be no greater than that between you and another human who happens to live at the same time.
However, as the process is repeated over tens of thousands, then hundreds of thousands, then millions of years, some changes will be occurring, albeit at an imperceptible rate. Very slight changes will be accumulating, such that each ancestor that enters the time machine will look less and less like the individuals who started the journey (you and the original chimp). At the same time, the resemblance between the members of each pair of ancestors who travel together will become greater. Eventually, it will reach a point that the pair of ancestors who are encountered will resemble each other more closely than either resembles a modern day chimp or human. At another point, the ancestors will have changed so much that they are no longer of the same species as the two who started the journey, but are of the same species as each other.
Finally, after journeying back 5-7 million years, the penultimate pair of ancestors will emerge from the time machine, and this time there will only be one individual to greet them: The common ancestor of all humans and all chimpanzees. Again, all three apes meeting at this encounter will look like each other, be of the same species, and there would be no indication that one is to give rise to humans, the other to chimpanzees.
The point to take from this is that the idea of “species” is to an extent an arbitrary human convention. There is no doubt that at the “beginning” of the reverse chronological journey you and the chimp are of different species, and that the pair at the end are not. But it is not possible to specify an exact point where our ape ancestors become either chimp or human, and at no point does a traveller emerge from the time machine to encounter an ancestor who is of a different species from himself. For much of the journey the ancestors are neither clearly human or chimp, but somewhere in between.
Now, how does this address your question? The misconception I think you’re operating under is that a species is a discrete, discontinuous entity. An analogy would be the keys of a piano. Each key is one, definite note. There’s C, and next to it is C#, and you can’t play any “transitional” notes between them. You seem to be thinking that evolution seeks to “land” on C, stays there for a period, then wants to move on to C#. And you’re having trouble understanding how the fossil record seems to leap from C to C# without showing any of the transitional forms in between.
But that’s not how evolution works. The process of speciation is occurring constantly, and each fossil is just a random “snapshot” of particular stops along the way. The more accurate analogy would be this: Imagine a violin string being bowed, with the finger on the string gradually going up in pitch. Now imagine while you’re listening, you keep your fingers in your ears, taking them out for brief periods every few seconds. You will hear a series of disjointed notes with gaps of silence in between, even though the violin is playing a steadily ascending constant tone. The disjointed notes you hear are analogous to the fossil record, the steady note you don’t fully hear, the process of evolution as it is actually happening.
Now, I don’t intend this argument to convince you of the truth of the theory of evolution. But does it at least help you understand how your understanding of what the fossil record should show is different than what evolution says it should? I hope so.
“In fact, the lack of evidence tends only to prove that the opposite is true: that every species alive today was alive when life started.”
This is the exact opposite of what the evidence shows. If this were true, we would expect to find fossils of every creature alive today through every geological layer. But humans are only found in the most recent layers. Where are the human fossils in the Jurassic, Triassic, Devonian, or Cambrian rock layers? In fact, all rock layers from the Cambrian back contain no land animals at all. If they were all alive from the beginning, how could none of their fossils exist?
“Pardon my asking, I hope it’s not rude, but are you a Christian who believes in theistic evolution?”
I’m an atheist, but one who acknowledges that the possibility of the existence of a God is not unprovable. Therefore, I’m OK with people believing in Him, so long as they don’t allow that belief to impair their ability to appreciate facts of reality.
Darwinism is a philosophy, like intelligent design. In order to be a scientific theory, they would have to be falsifiable. Neither of these are falsifiable hence they are philosophical constructs.
Chris,
Maybe you could tell that to all the creationists, here and elsewhere, who claim to have disproven evolution!
I’ve left a long comment that is awaiting moderations, so you obviously haven’t read it yet. However, you’re wrong about evolution being unfalsifiable.
Daniel Cheney’s claim above that all creatures living today are found throughout the fossil record, if true, would have falsified evolution. (It turns out not to be true, however.)
Other potential falsifications:
If each species had a different scheme of coding for DNA, or even different mechanisms of inheritance that did not use DNA at all.
If beneficial mutations did not exist.
If creatures existed that combined features from widely separated phylogenetic groups e.g. was part fish, part bird, part mammal. (This is not the same thing as shared genetic material that indicates common ancestry.)
If physical homoogy did not exist (e.g. similarity in bone structure of limbs of mammals, tetrapod fish, bird wings and bat wings.)
If creation were actually demonstrated. i.e. fully formed creatures were actually ovserved materializing out of thin air (According to creationism this should have happened millions of times, so why has it never been observed?)
BTW, all of the above are things we WOULD expect to see if creationism were true. We observe none of them.
You are right about ID being unfalsifiable, however.
lutesuite,
You said, “Daniel Cheney’s claim above that all creatures living today are found throughout the fossil record, if true, would have falsified evolution. (It turns out not to be true, however.)”
Your statement epidemises what I am trying to say. You make the claim that there are creatures living today that are not in the fossil record at some point, yet this is an impossible claim since scientists have not examined every single inch of the earth to formulate their fossile record. It is impossible to validate your blanket statement that it does not exist at some point in the fossile record. Furthermore, evolution is not the only way to interpret the fossil record. Many times evolutionists have dated a certain animal millions of years before another type of animal and then found somewhere the supposed more recent animal underneath the older supposed older animal.
You said, “If creation were actually demonstrated. i.e. fully formed creatures were actually ovserved materializing out of thin air (According to creationism this should have happened millions of times, so why has it never been observed?)”
This is an incorrect assumption. My view is that it only happened in a period of six days. We would not expect to see it again, but we have a record inspired by the one who did it. Also, why has evolution (change from one species to another) never been observed? Not only do you claim that this has happened millions of times, but you claim that it has happened for millions of years. How come it has never been seen? And how come there is no evidence (a transitional form) to prove that it did happen?
Here is the one thing we would expect to see if evolution really happened: transitional forms. Are there any?
Daniel,
First of all, sorry for misspelling your surname (Probably understandable with your first initial, though.)
“You make the claim that there are creatures living today that are not in the fossil record at some point, yet this is an impossible claim since scientists have not examined every single inch of the earth to formulate their fossile record.”
You touch on a basic issue in science, and the definition of the term “theory.” It is true that it cannot be said for 100% certain that no fossils that falsify evolution will EVER be found. It can only be said that, in all of human history, among the billions of individual fossils found, examined and categorized, not a single one has been found that would falsify the theory of evolution. That is the sense in which the word “theory” is used in science. You can never say for certain a theory has been proven, because the next piece of evidence might falsify it. In the same sense, the theory of gravity is also “just a theory,” and the observation that things always seem to fall down could just be a coincidence. It ould just be that nobody has been watching all the times that boulders go floating into the air on their own. However, the most logical position to take is that the theory of gravity has been supported by enough evidence to consider it true. At this point, the likelihood of boulders floating into the air like helium baloons is about as high as that of finding a human fossil in the precambrian rock, or that of any land-dwelling animal for that matter.
I’ve addressed your question regarding transitional fossils in the post that’s being moderated. Hopefully you’ll get to read it soon (though it’s a bit long.)
lutesuite,
I look forward to your remarks about the lack of transitional fossils. The very fact that there are currently multitudes of species, and that there are even more multitudes of extinct species, even if there were only one transititional speciman per species change, there would still have been multitudes of transitional specimans and some of those would have been fossilized. After all the millions of manhours that have been spent searching for them, I do believe that some would have been found by now, if any ever had actually existed. Someone said it well in an earlier post. It takes a helluva lot more faith to believe in evolution, no source for all matter/energy, and the concept of earth and the universe existing into infinty past than it does to believe in a Creator. I stand in awe of the degree of your faith without any basis for what you believe.
“Evolution was introduced as an atheistic alternative to the biblical view of creation. According to evolution, man created God rather than vice versa. And as we have seen, the evolutionists’ ultimate agenda is to eliminate faith in God altogether and thereby do away with moral accountability.”
Biological evolution is a scientific fact that explains the diversity of life. Like all other scientific facts there’s nothing atheistic or theistic about it. It just happens to conflict with the childish religious belief that all species were magically created by an invisible man who hides in the clouds.
Evolution says nothing about God, and it says nothing about moral values.
“Is Evolution Compatible with Christianity?”
Christianity makes many wild claims. Some of these claims conflict with biological evolution. Of course the idea that humans were magically created to be separate from the rest of nature conflicts with the science of evolution. Another Christian belief is the idea that humans have a soul (whatever that is) that flies up to heaven (whatever that is) after the body dies. This has nothing to do with biological evolution. However the “soul goes to heaven” belief also requires the belief that humans are something special. According to the science of evolution, there’s nothing special about humans at all. People are just an ape species and they are just one small branch on the vast tree of life. So it’s fair to say that evolution makes the heaven belief look idiotic. Of course the idea there could be life after death could only be believed by a coward who is terrified of reality.
I suggest people should not waste time trying to understand the religious implications of science. It’s much easier to just throw God in the garbage where it belongs. God is just another word for magic, and magic is a childish idea.
Somebody asked “Also, why has evolution (change from one species to another) never been observed?”
You should study the molecular evidence for evolution. Biologists can see the entire history of life in the DNA of living creatures. They can determine evolutionary relationships beyond any doubt. Thanks to molecular biology, it’s impossible for an educated person to deny the facts of evolution.
“Scripture, not science, is the ultimate test of all truth.”
Horrible. What a great way to bring human progress to a complete stop. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks their God requires them to blindly believe an ancient book instead of trying to understand natural processes. How terrible to have a closed mind that refuses to accept new knowledge from modern scientific discoveries.
lutesuite,
You said, “It can only be said that, in all of human history, among the billions of individual fossils found, examined and categorized, not a single one has been found that would falsify the theory of evolution.”
You are missing the point. Not a single fossil has been found that could prove evolution. I guess you address this in your moderated post, so I’ll just wait.
You also said, “At this point, the likelihood of boulders floating into the air like helium baloons is about as high as that of finding a human fossil in the precambrian rock, or that of any land-dwelling animal for that matter.”
There have been quite a few times that a fossil, supposed to not exist at a certain place in the fossil record, was later found at a place where they were not supposed to be. Evolutionists were shocked when a supposed more recent fossil was actually found underneath a supposed older fossil. How do you think this happened? Doesn’t tempt me to place my trust in their dating methods does it?
BobC:
“You should study the molecular evidence for evolution. Biologists can see the entire history of life in the DNA of living creatures. They can determine evolutionary relationships beyond any doubt. Thanks to molecular biology, it’s impossible for an educated person to deny the facts of evolution.”
You have more faith in human nature than I do. There are plenty of “educated” creationists, like Dembski and Behe for instance. Ben Stein doesn’t seem like a dumb guy, either. You can never overestimate the ability of human beings to ignore or deny aspects of reality that conflict with their heartfelt beliefs (not even necessarily religious ones.) The sad thing is that, as this website amply demonstrates, there are many people who, thru little fault of their own, are uninformed about the basic facts of evolutionary theory. These people are too easily hoodwinked by the impressive-looking credentials of these mendacious individuals.
Brad,
“The very fact that there are currently multitudes of species, and that there are even more multitudes of extinct species, even if there were only one transititional speciman per species change, there would still have been multitudes of transitional specimans and some of those would have been fossilized. After all the millions of manhours that have been spent searching for them, I do believe that some would have been found by now, if any ever had actually existed.”
This issue of “transitional fossils” keeps coming up, and is so out of line with what is known from the fossil record, that I suspect you and other creationists have a misunderstanding of what is meant by the term. I actually think I know what that misunderstanding is, but I don’t want to make assumptions.
If you would, have a look at these websites detailing the evolution of the horse:
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm
http://tinyurl.com/3vtgej
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
After you have, tell me why you don’t believe this shows evidence of “transitional” fossils.
Lute,
Please pick up a Bible and read 1 Cor. 1:18-32. You remind me of myself when I was studying evolution at a secular university. I too had all the answers. My whole undergraduate career was spent on archeology and anthropology and you overstate the case of the fossil record much. I do not know of many archaeologists that would state things as you do.
Anyway, ask yourself, why are you on a Christian website denigrating Christians as ‘dolts’ who haven’t done their research? What is to gain from that? Just because there are some of us that have looked at the evidence for evolution and found it wanting does not mean that we are brainless. Scripture warns that ‘pride goes before a fall’. Be careful.
BobC.
You said, “I suggest people should not waste time trying to understand the religious implications of science. It’s much easier to just throw God in the garbage where it belongs. God is just another word for magic, and magic is a childish idea.”
Whether you like it or not, the scientific facts have tended to support the idea of a creator over the idea of evolution. The very nature of your posts shows how deep your faith in evolution is. Evolution is no more science than creation. Not only that, but creation is a logical explanation and evolution is not. The belief in God is not a magical fairytail, because it has never been proven false by any scientific discovery. Which is more faithful, the Bible or the science? The Bible is the same today as it was when it was written and the same as it will always be. Science is ever changing based on new discoveries that may or may not be true. Evolution is still a hypothesis because there is no factual support for it. Every time evolutionists get excited over something they found that proves evolution, it turns out that it was not like it appeared. This very lack of evidence, and multitudes of other evidence, tends only to prove creation. If your belief is true, then it really doesn’t matter what we do because when we die nothing happens. If my belief is true, and God created the universe, then you had better know Him, know what He wants you to do with your life, and you had better do it. That is what people are trying to escape by believing evolution.
There are plenty of “educated” creationists, like Dembski and Behe for instance.
Are you not aware that both Michael Behe and William Dembksi accept that all extant biodiversity — including humans — is interrelated through common descent, such that humans and chimpanzees share a relatively recent common ancestor, and that they merely disagree that the process of evolution was the sole mechanism of change over successive generations of populations?
Whether you like it or not, the scientific facts have tended to support the idea of a creator over the idea of evolution.
Please reference the “scientific facts” that “support the idea of a creator”.
The very nature of your posts shows how deep your faith in evolution is. Evolution is no more science than creation.
Please justify your assertion that evolution is not science.
Not only that, but creation is a logical explanation and evolution is not.
Please explain the “logic” of “creation”.
The belief in God is not a magical fairytail, because it has never been proven false by any scientific discovery.
I do not believe that an abscence of a disproof for a claim is of significance, unless extensive supporting evidence in favor of the claim is also present. For example, I can claim that the universe, and all that exists within it, was created last Thursday. There is no possible means to disprove the claim, however that itself is not evidence of the claim’s validity.
Which is more faithful, the Bible or the science? The Bible is the same today as it was when it was written and the same as it will always be. Science is ever changing based on new discoveries that may or may not be true.
I do not believe that your assessment that it is better to accept a resource that never changes, even in the face of contradictory evidence, over a resource that accepts new information and revises claims accordingly is rational.
Evolution is still a hypothesis because there is no factual support for it.
Your claim is demonstrably false.
Every time evolutionists get excited over something they found that proves evolution, it turns out that it was not like it appeared.
Please provide specific references and then demonstrate that they are, as you claim, universally applicable.
This very lack of evidence, and multitudes of other evidence, tends only to prove creation.
You are appealing to a logical fallacy of a false dichotomy. Even if your assertion that there exists no evidence for evolution were true, that lack of evidence would not inherently lend support for any other explanation for biodiversity, including any specific religious claims. Please cite and explain the “multitudes of other evidence” to which you refer.
If your belief is true, then it really doesn’t matter what we do because when we die nothing happens.
Please note that acceptance of the validity of the theory of evolution is not inherently atheism, and it is not rational, logical or honest to equate the two.
If my belief is true, and God created the universe, then you had better know Him, know what He wants you to do with your life, and you had better do it.
What if it is the case than neither you nor he are correct, and that the claims of another religion are true?
That is what people are trying to escape by believing evolution.
Please justify your assertion of this motive and demonstrate that it is universally applicable to all who accept the validity of the theory of evolution.
Dimensio,
“Are you not aware that both Michael Behe and William Dembksi accept that all extant biodiversity — including humans — is interrelated through common descent, such that humans and chimpanzees share a relatively recent common ancestor, and that they merely disagree that the process of evolution was the sole mechanism of change over successive generations of populations?”
I know Behe believes that. I’m not aware that Dembski has ever made his position clear on the issue, though I could be wrong. It doesn’t change the fact that ID is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, and that it remains a politically motivated attempt to shoehorn religious belief into the public school system, and is not a scientific theory at all.
Good on you for linking the Theobald article, though I suspect that it might be heavy going for some (It is for me, at least).
To the creationists: Is anyone going to actually address at least some of the evidence that Dimensio, BobC and I have provided here, rather than just making unsupported assertions that there is no evidence for evolution?
BTW, my earlier post has been freed from “moderation purgatory” and is available above, dated May 3. To be honest, it’s a bit too long and not as clear as I would have liked it, but take a look anyway if you’re interested.
lutesuite,
Your long post of May 3, doesn’t eliminate the necessity for transitional fossils to support evolution at all. Indeed, it supports it. By your reckoning, there must be millions of fossils available for every species at every tiny little change in development. Anthropologists have spent millions, perhaps billions of manhours searching for just such intricate series of fossils showing the trail from ape to man, and they haven’t found anything they can credibly say shows that trail. I believe they can’t find it because it doesn’t exist. As I said before, your belief system takes a helluva lot more blind faith than does mine.
Brad,
You’re still missing the point. It is not reasonable to expect to find fossils depicting every single minute change that occurs in the development of a species. However, the overall pattern of constant change over time clearly refutes the contention that all species were created in their current form at the beginning of life, and have only gone thru minor changes since then. It’s actually you who is positing the existence of millions of fossils that have never been found: All the human, dog, rabbit, kangaroo, lion, dinosaur, mastadon, squirrel, etc. fossils that, if creationism were true, should exist in the precambrian , and do not.
Have a look at those links I posted on the evolution of the horse, and explain to me why they don’t fit your definition of “transitional” forms. In particular, pay attention to this passage in the Kathleen Hunt article:
“Creationists who wish to deny the evidence of horse evolution should careful consider this: how else can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if creationists insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to “microevolve” into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc…..each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?
“Creationism utterly fails to explain the sequence of known horse fossils from the last 50 million years. That is, without invoking the “God Created Everything To Look Just Like Evolution Happened” Theory….
“Truly persistent and/or desperate creationists are thus forced into illogical, unjustified attacks of fossil dating methods, or irrelevant and usually flat-out wrong proclamations about a supposed “lack” of “transitional forms”. It’s sad. To me, the horse fossils tell a magnificent and fascinating story, of millions of animals living out their lives, in their natural world, through millions of years. I am a dedicated horse rider and am very happy that the one-toed grazing Equus survived to the present. Evolution in no way impedes my ability to admire the beauty and nobility of these animals. Instead, it enriches my appreciation and understanding of modern horses and their rich history.”
It’s also worth pointing out that, as BobC mentioned, evolution would still be supported beyond reasonable doubt from the findings of molecular genetics alone, even if not a single fossil existed. And, conversely, the fossil record stands alone as sufficient proof as well. The fact that both lines of evidence exist is overkill.
lutesuite, you say:
“Brad,
You’re still missing the point. It is not reasonable to expect to find fossils depicting every single minute change that occurs in the development of a species.”
The truth is almost precisely the opposite of what you say. It is unreasonable to expect to not find just such a series of fossils showing a microevolutionary-become-macroevolutionary change of [i]some[/i] species. Anthropologists have spent enormous amounts of time and money trying to find just such a sequence of fossils. They’ve concentrated hardest on the coveted ape-to-man sequence, but they’ve also tried their best on just any other mamillian species, and the best they’ve come up with is the lame horse sequence which still has enormous differences between every fossil ’stage’ of developement they’ve found. There’s probably as much difference between any two ’stages’ they’ve found as there is between a capuchin and a lemur. The very failure to find any such microevolutionary trail for any species whatsoever is what has led to the development of the “evolution in leaps” theory of evolution.
The sad situation is that the [i]desire[/i] for there to not be a God to whom man is answerable leads many to readily accept rather preposterous hypotheses as near undeniably proven facts. You epitomize such a syndrome.
Brad,
So what is your explanation for the horse series?
Dimensio,
You said, “Please reference the “scientific facts” that “support the idea of a creator”.”
The “facts” that I referred to, in part, is the fact that there are several animals that cannot be explained by evolution. I would recommend to you the video series by Dr. Jobe Martin (a former traditional evolutionist) entitled “Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution.” The review says, “He changed his beliefs when he began to study animals that simply could not be explained by evolution. This video series proves that animal designs can only be contributed to a creator. They cannot possibly be explained by evolution.”
You said, “Please justify your assertion that evolution is not science.”
Evolution is not science because it is based on unprovable assumptions. In this way, evolution is a faith just as creationism is a faith. Unless transitional forms (or at least fossils) are found, evolution will remain unproven.
You said, “Please explain the “logic” of “creation”.”
I posted a bit on this the other day, but I believe it was on another discussion. I will look for it and paste it again here.
You said, “I do not believe that an abscence of a disproof for a claim is of significance, unless extensive supporting evidence in favor of the claim is also present.”
I agree. I was not arguing that creation is true because there is no disproof. I was arguing that creation is not fairytail because there is no disproof.
You said, “I do not believe that your assessment that it is better to accept a resource that never changes, even in the face of contradictory evidence, over a resource that accepts new information and revises claims accordingly is rational.”
Please reference the “contradictory evidence.”
“The ‘facts’ that I referred to, in part, is the fact that there are several animals that cannot be explained by evolution. I would recommend to you the video series by Dr. Jobe Martin (a former traditional evolutionist) entitled ‘Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution.’”
I’m aware of that video. It does not in any way provide evidence that those animals cannot have arisen thru evolution. All it amounts to is showing some unusual creatures and saying ” I can’t believe evolution produced this! Therefore, God Did It!” That’s called the argument from personal incredulity, and all it proves is that the person making it lacks the knowledge or understanding to explain the phenomenon he is describing.
No response as yet regarding a creationist explanation for the series of “horse” fossils, so I’ll give it a crack myself. I’m afraid I’m going to start with yet another tortured analogy.
My sister unfortunately lives in another city, so I only get to see my niece, who is now four years old, every several months. Each time I see her, she is significantly taller and more mature looking than the last time she visited. I can think of three possible explanations for this:
1) My niece is growing slowly and gradually all the time, even when I don’t see her. So if I see her again after a space of four months, she will have noticeable grown, even though I haven’t actually witnessed her growing.
2) Her parents actually have hundreds of children, who are all of various ages and heights, but never grow or get any older. They keep these children locked up in their home. Each time my sister visits me, she selects one of these children who is just a bit taller and more mature than the one she brought last time.
3) My sister has a series of children. After she visits me, the daughter she brought with her suddenly vanishes into thin air, and is replaced by another that materializes out of nothing. This new child is taller and more mature than the one that disappeared.
I think it should be obvious which of the above scenarios is the most likely. Unfortunately, creationists seem to have trouble applying the same reasoning to the fossil record.
There are also three possible explanations I can think of for the series of horse fossils.
1) The evolutionary explanation: The physical traits of species are changing gradually and constantly. Over time these changes can cumulatively become so great that a new species results (This is oversimplified, but should suffice). However, we do not have fossils documenting every single step of this process, because the likelihood of any particular animal being fossilized on its death, and of that fossil subsequently being discovered, is so small. The fossils we have are akin to random snapshots of a dynamic process that nonetheless give us enough of a view of the overall process to be able to fill in the gaps that are not represented by fossils.
2) All of the creatures found in the fossil record actually lived at the same time, and it is only by luck that some of them managed to be fossilized, giving the false impression that species are changing over time. The problem with this is that, if all of these species of horse precursors lived at the same time, why are they not found together at the same time in the fossil record? Why do they only show up in the precise order that suggests a gradual change in appearance? If you are expecting the fossil record to be so complete that it shows every single minute change in appearance from orohippus to the modern horse, then it would also show all the modern horses that lived at the same time as orohippus, which is what creationism predicts. This is similar to scenario number (2) with my niece, except that the case here is even more unlikely. If this scenario applied to the horse fossils, it would be as if my sister was not deliberately selecting a child of the right age and height, but just randomly grabbing one, and by incredible coincidence each child she brought would be just a bit taller and more mature than the one she brought last time, and just a little less so than the one she brings the next time.
3) The various horse precursors did not live at the same time. Instead, each species was “zapped” out of existence by the Intelligent Designer and replaced with another, slightly more like a modern horse, that just materialized out of thin air by magic. For some reason, the Intelligent Designer included now useless parts in these “new” creatures, such as the 2nd and 4th toes. I guess he just didn’t want to waste the parts. This scenario is so ludicrous, I don’t think I should have to present any argument against it, unless someone says this is in fact what they do believe happened.
So unless I’ve overlooked something, those are the only explanations I can think of, and only one of them is consistent with the evidence as far as I can see.
I know Behe believes that. I’m not aware that Dembski has ever made his position clear on the issue, though I could be wrong.
I believe that William Dembski has also expressed a similar sentiment, however I may be confusing him with another individual.
It doesn’t change the fact that ID is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, and that it remains a politically motivated attempt to shoehorn religious belief into the public school system, and is not a scientific theory at all.
This is true, however it may be useful to note the actual scope of what is termed “Intelligent Design” — which is an attempt to augment the theory of evolution while accepting that all extant biodiversity is related through common descent — when speaking with individuals who have confused Intelligent Design with their favored religious creation account. Many proponents of “Intelligent Design” do not understand the very position that they promote, and it is helpful to note that their ignorance of the subject that they claim to advocate impacts their credibility.
The “facts” that I referred to, in part, is the fact that there are several animals that cannot be explained by evolution.
I have already noted that a failing of the theory of evolution — whether merely perceived or factually extant — is not evidence for any other explanation. Even if there exist animals that “cannot be explained by evolution”, that would not in any fashion constitute evidence for a “creator”. It would only demonstrate that evolution is an inadequate — though not necessarily entirely incorrect — explanation for extant biodiversity and that there exists no complete and adequate explanation for that observation.
You must supply positive evidence for the existence of a “creator”. Demonstrating that evolution is an inadequate explanation for biodiversity does not constitute evidence for a “creator”.
I would recommend to you the video series by Dr. Jobe Martin (a former traditional evolutionist) entitled “Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution.” The review says, “He changed his beliefs when he began to study animals that simply could not be explained by evolution. This video series proves that animal designs can only be contributed to a creator. They cannot possibly be explained by evolution.”
I feel that I should note that Dr. Martin’s Masters of Theology in Systematic Theology does not confer any professional expertise in any subject of biology, including the theory of evolution. Nonetheless, I have viewed a sampling of what I assume are the videos to which you refer, and I have not found the claims made within them to be convincing.
The first video, that I located here, amounts to little more than an appeal to incredulity. In fact, Dr. Martin’s narration suggests that he is unfamiliar with evolution and a fundamental ignorance of the fossil record. He also appeals to a false dichotomy fallacy in suggesting that the fossil record (or, rather, his incorrect understanding of it) is evidence for a specific religious creation event.
There is little need to evaluate this video in depth, as the creationist objections to the possible evolution of the woodpecker have been addressed here.
This video makes the demonstrably false claim that Darwin proposed that all existence is the result of a “cosmic accident”. In so doing, the narrator (who I note is not Dr. Martin) demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the theory of evolution. The narrator then proceeds to provide an out-of-context mined quote (I am unable to evaluate the actual context of the quote, as the video offers no reference for the quote, except to claim that it was made by Charles Darwin, thus I am unable to determine if the quote is even honestly attributed) as a means of falsely suggesting that Darwin had great doubts regarding this theory. This suggests, to me, that the creator of the video is either not honest or that the creator of the video has done very little actual research.
The movie shows a brief segment of Dr. Martin speaking. He demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of genetics by claiming that, in order for evolution to occur, the “information has to come in there from somewhere”. Dr. Martin is apparently unaware — as are many creationists — that genetic “information” is not analogous to “information” as commonly understood by laymen. Genetic information is the measure of variance in a genetic sequence, regardless of the ultimate result of this genetic sequence. Dr. Martin also incorrectly claims that genetic information can never be added; this is demonstrably false. Any series mutation that first duplicates a gene and then modifies one of the copied genes will result in an increase of genetic information; such events have been observed and document. Dr. Martin’s claim demonstrates that he has done no actual research on genetics and, as such, his claims of “impossibility” carry no credibility as they are predicated upon a falsehood. His claim that he has “searched the literature” is questionable in light of the magnitude of his mistakes. Additionally, he again appeals to a false dichotomy in claiming that the absence of evidence for evolution (while noting that his ’search’ for such evidence is dubious) is itself evidence for a “supreme creator”, when in fact such a lack of evidence would not actually constitute evidence of any kind for any “creator”, “supreme” or otherwise.
Dr. Martin then provides an example of a species of mussel, however his argument amounts only to appeal to incredulity.
Evolution is not science because it is based on unprovable assumptions. In this way, evolution is a faith just as creationism is a faith.
Please explain the “unprovable assumptions” that you believe are the basis for the theory of evolution.
Unless transitional forms (or at least fossils) are found, evolution will remain unproven.
Are you referring to transitional fossils such as these?
I agree. I was not arguing that creation is true because there is no disproof. I was arguing that creation is not fairytail because there is no disproof.
That a claim cannot be disproven is not evidence that it is not a “fairy tale”.
Please reference the “contradictory evidence.”
The Bible claims that a flood, at one time, covered the entire planet, yet no evidence exists for such an event and, in fact, there exists strong evidence that such an event could not have occurred.
“on 05 May 2008 at 12:23 pm lutesuite
Brad,
So what is your explanation for the horse series? ”
Simply that there have been many other, horselike creatures, which are now extinct. There are currently many different kinds of dogs, cats, monkeys, birds, etc. You could likely demonstrate a similar ‘progression’ with fossils of Chihuahua, beagle, spaniels, shelties, shepherds, rottweilers, and mastiffs. Someday, many of them will be extinct too. Personally, I have no problem with the concept of God providing man with the tools he needs to convince himself that God doesn’t exist, but I don’t rely on that possibility to argue against Evolution. Evolutionary theory is so full of holes and preposterous assumptions that it isn’t difficult to refute it as science. The sad fact remains that those who desparately want to believe it will readily blind themselves to its deficiencies.
Evolutionary theory is so full of holes and preposterous assumptions that it isn’t difficult to refute it as science.
Then you should be able to do so. Please state or reference the “holes” and the “preposterous assumptions” to which you refer.
“The Bible claims that a flood, at one time, covered the entire planet, yet no evidence exists for such an event”
What would we expect to find if there was a world wide flood? We would expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. What do we find? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. No evidence?
Still, no one has convincingly explained why there are NO TRANSITIONAL HUMANOIDS around today. Chimps and humans are not terribly similiar. Darwin may tell us that yes, Africans are that link. No one has refuted or even attempted to answer the underlying philosophical premise that Darwinism=Racism. Darwin taught it and wrote about it and you have to believe that certain races are inferior than others if you claim to believe in evolution! A society will not last if it is constructed on the shifting sands of evolutionary theory. We have already seen several societies in the last century which lasted under 75 years. William Jennings Bryan predicted our decadence 75 years ago. He understood that we act out what we believe. If we are willing to believe in the fairy tale of spontaneous generation from the ooze, than we will act out, primitively, like ooze itself. I must commend the gentleman who is an atheist though. It is an honest position unlike agnosticism which is just a silly, intellectually lazy position to hold.
God Bless
Brad,
“Simply that there have been many other, horselike creatures, which are now extinct. There are currently many different kinds of dogs, cats, monkeys, birds, etc. You could likely demonstrate a similar ‘progression’ with fossils of Chihuahua, beagle, spaniels, shelties, shepherds, rottweilers, and mastiffs.”
Umm, Brad, where exactly do you think all those breeds of dog came from? Did they all magically appear out of thin air? No, they all developed from feral wolves, thru exactly the same process as evolution, with the only difference being that it was guided by human intervention (“artificial selection”) instead of natural selection. It’s EXACTLY what the situation was with the horse evolution, just compressed into a smaller timescale. Your statement shows you have no understanding whatsoever about how evolutioin occurs and, again, there’s no problem with that. Just don’t use your ignorance of the theory as evidence against it.
“What would we expect to find if there was a world wide flood? We would expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. What do we find? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. No evidence?”
So that fact that things have died in the past proves a world wide flood? I think you need more evidence than that.
Still, no one has convincingly explained why there are NO TRANSITIONAL HUMANOIDS around today.
An expectation of such an explanation implies that there exists a reason to expect such organisms in existence at present. Please explain this reason.
Chimps and humans are not terribly similiar.
Please explain this statement.
Darwin may tell us that yes, Africans are that link. No one has refuted or even attempted to answer the underlying philosophical premise that Darwinism=Racism.
This is because the alleged premise is a falsehood. It is true that there were those in Darwin’s time, possibly including Darwin himself, who believed that the native human inhabitants of Africa were representatives of an “earlier” variant of homo sapiens sapiens prior to the emergence of caucasians, however this conclusion — which is unlikely to be correct — was derived from acceptance of the theory of evolution; the theory of evolution was not developed with such a conclusion in mind.
Darwin taught it and wrote about it and you have to believe that certain races are inferior than others if you claim to believe in evolution!
Please justify this assertion. Please explain the specific physical or non-physical characteristics that can be used to determine that an one race is “inferior” to others and show that they apply universally to all members of a stated “race”. State which “race” or “races” are “inferior” to others according to the theory of evolution, and show how the theory of evolution leads to such a conclusion.
A society will not last if it is constructed on the shifting sands of evolutionary theory.
It is not rational to “construct” any society upon any scientific theory. Scientific theories are explanations for observations within the universe; they are not attempts to create a foundation for social order, and it is not rational to evaluate a scientific theory by how well it can be applied as a social construct.
We have already seen several societies in the last century which lasted under 75 years.
Please identify these societies and explain how their longevity, or lack thereof, relates to the validity of the theory of evolution.
William Jennings Bryan predicted our decadence 75 years ago. He understood that we act out what we believe. If we are willing to believe in the fairy tale of spontaneous generation from the ooze, than we will act out, primitively, like ooze itself.
I believe that your assertion is both undemonstrated and an appeal to consequence, which is a logical fallacy.
I must commend the gentleman who is an atheist though. It is an honest position unlike agnosticism which is just a silly, intellectually lazy position to hold.
Please explain why agnosticism is a “silly, intellectually lazy position”.
“Still, no one has convincingly explained why there are NO TRANSITIONAL HUMANOIDS around today.”
They’re all extinct. It seems this planet might only have place for only one species of hominid. Actually, at the rate things are going, sadly it might only have space for one species of great ape, period. In any event, I’m not sure why you think there have to be other hominids alive today.
“Chimps and humans are not terribly similiar.”
I outlined the process of human and chimp evolution in my long, boring post of May 3. Hopefully, that clarified why there are not any “links” between humans and chimpanzees; neither developed from the other. Rather, we share a common ancestor. Having said that, we are 98% identical genetically, so we’re not terribly dissimilar, either.
“No one has refuted or even attempted to answer the underlying philosophical premise that Darwinism=Racism.”
I don’t know if Darwin’s views on race were any less enlightened than the majority of people of his era. In any event, if he believed certain races to be inferior to others, this would be one of the few times he has been proven to be wrong. Certainly no evolutionary biologists would believe this today. “The Origin of Species” is not like the Bible, where you have to accept the whole thing. If part of it has been disproven, you just reject it, no big deal.
It seems to me the idea that God created each species separately, favouring some over others as the Bible teaches, is more likely to foster racism than evolution is. What do you think the policy of the Ku Klux Klan is regarding evolution? A Google search will tell you.
“Evolutionary theory is so full of holes and preposterous assumptions that it isn’t difficult to refute it as science.”
Dimensio
“Then you should be able to do so. Please state or reference the “holes” and the “preposterous assumptions” to which you refer. ”
One huge, gaping hole in the theory of evolution has already been pointed out:
“The truth is almost precisely the opposite of what you say. It is unreasonable to expect to not find just such a series of fossils showing a microevolutionary-become-macroevolutionary change of [i]some[/i] species. Anthropologists have spent enormous amounts of time and money trying to find just such a sequence of fossils. They’ve concentrated hardest on the coveted ape-to-man sequence, but they’ve also tried their best on just any other mamillian species, and the best they’ve come up with is the lame horse sequence which still has enormous differences between every fossil ’stage’ of developement they’ve found. There’s probably as much difference between any two ’stages’ they’ve found as there is between a capuchin and a lemur. The very failure to find any such microevolutionary trail for any species whatsoever is what has led to the development of the “evolution in leaps” theory of evolution.”
The ‘Evolution in leaps’ theory has been posited precisely because of that huge, gaping hole in the original theory of evolution. It changes nothing, however. Those who desparately desire that there be no God to whom they are answerable will cling to something, anything, regardless of how preposterous, in order to somehow rationalize away God. Enjoy your delusion now guys, ‘cuz you sure ‘aint gonna enjoy Hell when you get there.
Somebody said: There are plenty of “educated” creationists, like Dembski and Behe for instance. Ben Stein doesn’t seem like a dumb guy, either.
Dembski and Behe are the laughing stock of the scientific community. Every scientist who has ever heard of these two clowns knows they are professional liars.
Ben Stein is also a professional liar who has decided to make a living spreading lies about science.
The creationists here should spend less time complaining about evolution and more time studying it. I know biological evolution is a scientific fact because I have been studying the evidence for several years. The only alternative, magical creation, is too childish to consider.
The flat-earthers who deny the facts of evolution are giving their religion a terrible reputation. Many people think to be a Christian a person has to be totally ignorant of modern science. The worst enemy of Christianity is the creationists who make their religion look like something that belongs in the Dark Ages.
Brad said: The ‘Evolution in leaps’ theory has been posited precisely because of that huge, gaping hole in the original theory of evolution. It changes nothing, however. Those who desparately desire that there be no God to whom they are answerable will cling to something, anything, regardless of how preposterous, in order to somehow rationalize away God. Enjoy your delusion now guys, ‘cuz you sure ‘aint gonna enjoy Hell when you get there.
Brad, I have some friendly advice for you. When you threaten people with torture in hell, they laugh at you and they disregard everything else you say.
Your other problem, Brad, is you think biological evolution is an atheistic idea. That would be a big surprise to the thousands of religious scientists who completely accept the massive evidence for evolution.
You also seem to think there is some problem with the fossil record. If you bothered to do a little research you would find out the fossil evidence is massive. If you did some more research you would find out the fossils are not even necessary. The molecular evidence is the most powerful proof for the idea all species are related and share common ancestors. Scientists can see the entire history of life in the DNA of living species. If you took the time to educate yourself you would know these things. I suggest you study science and worry about the religious implications later. It’s a terrible waste of a life to let religious beliefs get in the way of understanding how the world works.
Brad,
The problem of alleged “gaps” in the fossil record has already been addressed above in my post from yesterday. Your expectation of a “fossil” trail showing every single minute change in the development of a species IS unreasonable. If fossilization was that common an occurence, we wouldn’t be able to put a shovel into the ground without excavating fossils by the wheelbarrow-full.
You still have yet to answer the question I put to you: If the fossil record is supposed to be as comprehensive as you claim, then why have none of the creatures you believe to have co-existed been found together in the same stratigraphic layers, and dated to the same period? Where are the modern horses that lived at the same time as orohippus? Where are all the precambrian vertebrates? Oh, and while we’re at it, could you explain where you think all those different bteeds of dogs came from (Wait, don’t tell me: “Change within kinds.”)? We’ve been very thorough in answering your questions. Could you please answer mine?
Punctuated equilibrium (which is what I believe you are referring to by “evolution by leaps.”) is still evolution, and is not an attempt to account for any supposed “gaps”, but just an alternative view of the process of evolution. I would add that the majority of biologists don’t accept the hypothesis.
If entrance to Heaven requires living in self-imposed ignorance, then I’ll take Hell, thank you.
I should add that the irony of someone invoking William Jennings Bryan in a post accusing Darwin of racism should not go unnoted. This is the same William Jennings Bryan who had no qualms about pandering to white supremacists to consolidate his political power, and who was eulogized on his death by members of the KKK as “the greatest Klansman of our time”?
The ‘Evolution in leaps’ theory has been posited precisely because of that huge, gaping hole in the original theory of evolution.
Your assertion that insufficient transitional fossils have been discovered is demonstrably false. Additionally, you are neglecting to address the genetic evidence that has further validated established lineages of descent.
It changes nothing, however. Those who desparately desire that there be no God to whom they are answerable will cling to something, anything, regardless of how preposterous, in order to somehow rationalize away God.
If you are attempting to insinuate that all who accept the validity of the theory of evolution “desire that there be no God”, then you are demonstrably wrong.
You may wish to evaluate whether you have accurately understood the motives and beliefs of all individuals who accept the validity of the theory of evolution prior to making demonstrably incorrect generalizations.
Enjoy your delusion now guys, ‘cuz you sure ‘aint gonna enjoy Hell when you get there.
The above statement amounts to a threat, and it lends no credence to your claims.
Yes, I am referring to punctuated eqilibrium when I say ‘evolution in leaps’, because I find ‘evolution in leaps’ points up the preposterous nature of evolutionism better. That variation of evolutionary theory was posited precisely due to the lack of evidence for microevolution-become-macroevolution. From Wikipedia:
“Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.”
Regardless of whether most evolutionists embrace in ‘evolution in leaps’ or few do, it was posited due to the fossil records not supporting microevolution-become-macroevolution. The gradualism supported by Darwin and most evolutionists simply has no evidence to support it, and it’s certainly not for want of effort. Billions of manhours have been spent trying to establish a fossil record of gradual evolution of and any species (and especially man) and no such record has been found. Again, I believe it hasn’t been found because it doesn’t exist. Hiding behind your claim that it’s unreasonable to expect to find such a series of fossils belies the very fact that such enormous ewxpenditure of resources has been made precisely to look for it. This hole in evolutionary theory is big enough to drive a semi through.
BobC
“Brad, I have some friendly advice for you. When you threaten people with torture in hell, they laugh at you and they disregard everything else you say.”
You really need to try to comprehend what you read a little better. No threat of any kind was issued.
“The molecular evidence is the most powerful proof for the idea all species are related and share common ancestors. Scientists can see the entire history of life in the DNA of living species.”
It isn’t ‘proof’ at all. In addition to working on reading comprehension, it would benefit you to look up words you aren’t sure of. ‘Proof’ means that it establihes a fact, which hasn’t been done (…far from it). There’s a reason evolutionism is called a ‘theory’. In truth, it would be more accurate to call it a faith, because there is so little evidence to support it.
lutesuite’
As Ive said before: “Personally, I have no problem with the concept of God providing man with the tools he needs to convince himself that God doesn’t exist, but I don’t rely on that possibility to argue against Evolution”. My arguments against evolution are based on science and what evolution posits, not upon my personal faith in God. Evolutionary theory is so deficient that it isn’t really at all difficult to refute.
So much of it is based on faith that it truly does qualify as a faith system, just as much as does my Christian faith. The arguments based on DNA instead of fossils are even weaker. They don’t in any manner demonstrate an evolution. All they show is the same building blocks are used for all life forms. Big deal (not).
You evolutionists have your faith system, and we Creationists have ours. You happen to think that there is more evidence to support yours, and we find your position to be laughable. The significant difference is that if we were wrong, we’d pay no penalty for our error. The same isn’t true for you.
Brad says:
“From Wikipedia:
‘Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.’”
From the same article:
“Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity. This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that:
“‘Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication, primarily because they did not think at geological scales.’
“The relationship between punctuationism and gradualism can be better appreciated by considering an example. Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches) over 70,000 years—a large amount in a geologically short period of time. If the average generation is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that if the limb size in our hypothetical population evolved in the most conservative manner, it need only increase at a rate of 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000), despite its abrupt appearance in the geological record.”
I take it you’re not going to answer any of the direct questions put to you in the previous posts?
There’s a reason evolutionism is called a ‘theory’.
You are correct. The reason that evolution is called a “theory” is that, as an explanation for the cause of extant biodiversity, it has attained a significant degree of confidence amongst scientists in relevant fields of study through the validation of predictions derived from implications of its proposed mechanisms. That it has attained the title of “theory” indicates that it is strongly accepted within the scientific community, as there is no status higher than that of “theory” for any scientific explanation.
The arguments based on DNA instead of fossils are even weaker. They don’t in any manner demonstrate an evolution. All they show is the same building blocks are used for all life forms. Big deal (not).
Please explain how common ERV sequences found at identical insertion points across species previously determined to be closely related via a relatively recent common ancestor do not lend further credibility to the established lineages of descent, but instead merely “show” that “the same building blocks are used for all life forms”. Please explain the extent of the research that you have done to refute the claim that shared ERV insertions constitutes evidence for common descent.
You evolutionists have your faith system, and we Creationists have ours.
I believe that you are appealing to the equivocation fallacy in your usage of the word “faith” and, in so doing, establishing a false comparison.
You happen to think that there is more evidence to support yours, and we find your position to be laughable.
Thus far, however, you have provided no coherent and rational justification for your response.
The significant difference is that if we were wrong, we’d pay no penalty for our error. The same isn’t true for you.
You are again incorrectly equating acceptance of the theory of evolution with atheism, which is dishonest as you have already been corrected on that issue, and now you have no excuse for repeating your error. You are also appealing to Pascal’s Wager, which is a false dilemma logical fallacy.
“lutesuite
I take it you’re not going to answer any of the direct questions put to you in the previous posts? ”
Actually, I have done so, just not in the manner you desire. The question posed by the above article was “Is Evolution Compatible with Christianity?” In response to that question, you and others started a discussion to support the theory of evolution. Thus far, the subject under discussion hasn’t been: “Is Creationism Credible?”. I have simply been pointing out the huge, gaping holes in evolutionary theory. In doing so, it isn’t incumbent upon me to use Creationism as an argument in that effort. I don’t need Creationism as a tool to pick apart evolutionary theory.
I have simply been pointing out the huge, gaping holes in evolutionary theory.
This is not an accurate assessment of your actions. You have claimed to have demonstrated “huge, gaping holes in evolutionary theory”, however you have actually posted vague assertions regarding an alleged inadequacy without reference to any actual fact and without responding to specific references to evidence derived directly from factual fossil finds.
“The significant difference is that if we were wrong, we’d pay no penalty for our error. The same isn’t true for you.
You are again incorrectly equating acceptance of the theory of evolution with atheism, which is dishonest as you have already been corrected on that issue, and now you have no excuse for repeating your error. You are also appealing to Pascal’s Wager, which is a false dilemma logical fallacy. ”
So, you resort to personal attacks when your arguments fail. The impetus for this discussion is the article above, which claims an incompatability between evolutionary theory and Christianity of the variety believed by the author. No, I’ve not been ‘corrected’ on that issue, and there is no ‘dishonesty’ in repeating a nonerror. The bulk of evolutionary theopry is so fallacious scientifically that it requires much more faith to believe in it than it does to believe in Creationism. There are many evolutionary theory adherents who have a faith in God, but are mostly ignorant of its fallacies and incompatabilities with the Scriptures that they base their Christian faith upon. Proponents of it are a different matter entirely. Indeed, the vast majority of evolutionary proponents are atheist. They promote evolutionary theory as an opposition to what Scriptures teach, NOT as a complement to what Scriptures teach.
Later, guys. I’ve got work to do.
“Actually, I have done so, just not in the manner you desire.”
This is becoming a rather unwieldy thread, but it seems to me that most of the creationist objections have been answered comprehensively, while the questions from the supporters of evolution have generally been ignored by the creationists (I’m biased, of course). As I see it, here are they main anti-evolution arguments that have been put forth, and the responses they have received. If the creationists here want to actually respond to any of the arguments here, they are welcome. It’s a long thread, and some things may have been overlooked. You’re under no obligation to answer these, of course. But if you don’t offer a response, you leave yourself open to the accusation that it’s because you can’t answer them.
1) Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Nicely answered by twentybensons:
“If evolution goes against the second law of thermodynamics, then the development of a grown man from a single fertilised egg cell should also go against the second law of thermodynamics. For that matter, the synthesis of plant material from carbon dioxide in photosynthesis should go against it too, as plants are much more orderly than a gas….. (I)f the two examples I gave – developmental biology and photosynthesis – did contradict the second law of thermodynamics, then we would have to throw out the second law of thermodynamics, or at least change it, as scientific laws are descriptions of biological/chemical/physical observations and not prescriptive laws such as those in human legal systems.”
2) The addition of new genetic information, a requirement of evolution, is not possible.
This is contradicted by the example of the nylon eating bacteria:
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
Question to creationists: If the creation of a novel biological function, thru random mutation, is not an example of “new information”, then what would you consider an example?
3) Evolution if not falsifiable.
Several examples of potential falsifications of evolution were given:
If all creatures living today appeared, in their present form, throughout the fossil record.
If each species had a different scheme of coding for DNA, or even different mechanisms of inheritance that did not use DNA at all.
If beneficial mutations did not exist.
If creatures existed that combined features from widely separated phylogenetic groups e.g. was part fish, part bird, part mammal. (This is not the same thing as shared genetic material that indicates common ancestry.)
If physical homoogy did not exist (e.g. similarity in bone structure of limbs of mammals, tetrapod fish, bird wings and bat wings.)
If creation were actually demonstrated. i.e. fully formed creatures were actually ovserved materializing out of thin air.
Question: If evolution is not falsifiable, show how an evolutionary biologist would have explained any of the above if they had occurred.
4) The fossil record contains no transitional forms.
A well-documented case of just one example of a line of development with abundant transitional forms (orohippus to the modern horse) was given. The creationist response was that this still showed too many “gaps” to be convincing. However, the creationist interpretations offered (that the various transitional forms only represent differing “breeds” of horse-like animals that coexisted) is contradicted by the fact that the fossils have been found and dated over a 55 million year period, with none of the more recent specimens being found to coexist with the earlier forms. I discussed this at some length
in my post from 06 May 2008 at 6:14 am, which describes three possible explanations for the “horse series”.
Question: Did I overlook any other possible explanations? Is there any evidence to support the creationist interpretations of the series of fossils?
So, you resort to personal attacks when your arguments fail.
My statement is not intended as a “personal attack”. My statement is one of fact: you have equated acceptance of the theory of evolution with atheism even though they are two distinctly different concepts, and you have repeated the incorrect claim of this equality despite having been corrected on the subject.
The impetus for this discussion is the article above, which claims an incompatability between evolutionary theory and Christianity of the variety believed by the author.
Even if I accepted that the author’s thesis was valid, and I do not (I will note that it is readily apparent that the author does not understand the theory of evolution, based upon the opening sentence of the piece making a demonstrably false claim about the theory of evolution, which suggests that the author’s conclusions are not reliable.), it would still not demonstrate that acceptance of the theory of evolution is logically equivalent to atheism. Christianity is not the only currently practiced human religion that traditionally espouses belief in an afterlife. As such, an individual could accept that the theory of evolution is valid, not be a Christian, yet still believe that there exists an “afterlife” to which the individual may be held “accountable” for actions done during life. Your statement to the contrary is demonstrably wrong. Your first instance of such a statement can be discounted as a mistake, however your repetition of the statement in light of a previously given correction and an absence of any attept by you to explain why the correction is invalid suggests that you are willfully repeating a falsehood and, in so doing, that you are not being honest.
No, I’ve not been ‘corrected’ on that issue, and there is no ‘dishonesty’ in repeating a nonerror.
You are now making another incorrect statement. I stated earlier that “Please note that acceptance of the validity of the theory of evolution is not inherently atheism, and it is not rational, logical or honest to equate the two.”. This was a “correction” to a statement that you had made previously. If it is your belief that acceptance of the validity of the theory of evolution is inherently atheism, and if it also your belief that my “correction” is in error, then you should be able to explain why I am in error. Note that, as Christianity is not the only known implementation of theism, demonstrating that acceptance of the theory of evolution is incompatible with acceptance of the validity of the Christian religion — which, I will again note, you have not actually done — would still not demonstrate that acceptance of the validity of the theory of evolution is logically equivalent to atheism, as it could still be possible for someone who accepts the validity of the theory of evolution to hold to a theistic belief that is not Christianity.
There are many evolutionary theory adherents who have a faith in God, but are mostly ignorant of its fallacies and incompatabilities with the Scriptures that they base their Christian faith upon.
You are now apparently equating theism with Christianity, which is not valid. Additionally, you are arguing by assertion, rather than presenting factual evidence in support of your claims.
Proponents of it are a different matter entirely. Indeed, the vast majority of evolutionary proponents are atheist. They promote evolutionary theory as an opposition to what Scriptures teach, NOT as a complement to what Scriptures teach.
The theory of evolution exists as an attempt to explain existing biodiversity as a result of observed events in nature. It is not a deliberate attempt to contradict any specific religious teaching, including the teachings of the particular religion that you happen to follow, nor is it an attempt to “complement” any existing religious teaching, including the teachings of the particular religion that you happen to follow. Any contradiction or confirmation of any religious teaching by the theory of evolution is purely incidental, and not intentional. It is not intended to “oppose” any religious teachings, including the teachings of the religion that you happen to follow. It is not the fault of observed reality that it happens to lead to conclusions that you dislike, and it is irrational to attack a scientific theory on that basis.
“…fossils have been found and dated over a 55 million year period…”
Obviously not what I meant to say! The fossils were not found over a 55 milion year period.
To respond to the claim that evolution is not atheism we must define what atheism is. Atheism is the believe that there is no God/creator. Evolution falls very easily into that description.
Wrong. Theistic evolutionists, Francis Collins and Ken Miller being among the most prominent, believe that God was responsible for the creation of life, and evolution is the method He chose to use. This is the philosophy that the article that started this whole discussion is arguing against. The only type of theistic belief that is not compatible with evolution is fundamentalist scriptural literalism. And that belief is not compatible with most of reality.
Still working on all those other questions you’ve left hanging?
lutesuite,
These men you mentioned call themselves theistic evolutionists because they want to. There is no such thing as a theistic evolutionist. One cannot believe in evolution and believe in God at the same time. If you like I can show you at length why this is true, but to sum it up, evolution denies the God that the Bible proclaims. According to the Encarta Dictionary, theism is “belief that one God created and rules humans and the world, not necessarily accompanied by belief in divine revelation such as through the Bible.” Therefore, though evolutionist may claim that there is a creator as the first cause of all things (which would be correct) they fall short of theism in that they do not believe, as the definition requires, that such God “rules humans and the world.”
The very nature of evolution deprives God of His rightful place as the GOD of the universe. It may admit to Him being the CREATOR of the universe, but it does not and can not believe in Him as the GOD of the universe.
“There is no such thing as a theistic evolutionist. One cannot believe in evolution and believe in God at the same time.”
So the Pope is an atheist, then? I know most people on this website probably don’t consider Catholics to be “true” Christians, but don’t you think it’s a bit of a stretch to call them atheists?
Anyway, this is all just a side issue. The true issue is how you explain all the evidence that has been presented here in support of evolution. In addition to the questions I posed in my post from 07 May 2008 at 10:13 am, I’d be particularly interested in your response to the video on ERV insertions that dimensio linked:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
To respond to the claim that evolution is not atheism we must define what atheism is. Atheism is the believe that there is no God/creator. Evolution falls very easily into that description.
Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. The theory of evolution is a description of the process by which extant biodiversity emerged from common ancestry. The theory of evolution is not a lack of belief in deities. The the theory of evolution is an entirely seperate concept from atheism. Neither is dependent upon the other. Your statement is false.
One cannot believe in evolution and believe in God at the same time.
Your statement is demonstrably false. That an individual does not believe exactly as you do regarding a deity is not logically equivalent to than individual being an atheist. You are attempting to redefine the meaning of “atheist”, which is not honest.
An article by Ken Miller on how he reconciles his acceptance of evolution with his religious beliefs.
http://www.templeton.org/belief/essays/miller.pdf
I’m not buying what he’s selling, but he clearly demonstrates the fallacy of the statement, “One cannot believe in evolution and believe in God at the same time.”
lutesuite and dimensio,
You show me an evolutionist who claims to be theistic and I will show you how his belief in God doesn’t go any farther than words.
lutesuite,
Concerning the youtube video, I think the author answered the third (I think) counterargument very well. It was that God created chimps and humans with the same viral infection at the same location. God created everything very good. There was not one single virus. Here is another counterargument for the author of this video: So there were a few dna viral cells that matched up, how many cells were there that didn’t match up? With a common ancester wouldn’t we expect all or most of those cells to match up? He is looking at the results and seeing evolution while others look at the results and see a creator. What is the difference between the two? The glasses they are wearing. If you have an evolutionary lens, you will see evolutionary results. As I said earlier, I would rather interpret the ever changing science based on the unchanging Word of God than the other way around.
You show me an evolutionist who claims to be theistic and I will show you how his belief in God doesn’t go any farther than words.
Please justify your assertion regarding Dr. Ken Miller, Dr. Francis Collins, and the more than ten-thousands signatories of the list hosted here.
Concerning the youtube video, I think the author answered the third (I think) counterargument very well. It was that God created chimps and humans with the same viral infection at the same location.
Please explain the physical process by which this “creation” occurred. Please explain why such an event is more probable than the insertion occurring in a common ancestor to humans and chimps. Please explain the motive for this event.
So there were a few dna viral cells that matched up, how many cells were there that didn’t match up? With a common ancester wouldn’t we expect all or most of those cells to match up?
Your question suggests that you have misinterpreted the information presented. No mention was made of “viral cells”. Indeed, such a concept is contradictory, as viruses are not cells. The video presented information regarding viral insertions into genomes within cells, showing a pattern of identical insertions at identical insertion locations that confirmed previously established lineages of descent. A lack of a match — that is, a viral insertion in one species not shared by the other — would not itself constitute evidence against common descent, as such insertions can easily be explained as having occurred after the species in which the insertion is found branched from the lineage that ultimately became the species in which the insertion is not located. A finding that would dispute conclusions of descent would be the presence of an insertion in only one of two species determined to be relatively closely related, but also in a different species previously established to have “branched” at an earlier time. This is to say that if two species, A and B, had branched from a lineage, and that species C had branched off from the same lineage at an earlier period in time than either A or B, that any ERV insertion found in both A and C is expected to also be found in B and, similarly, an insertion found in both B and C is expected to also be found in A. For example, an insertion that is found in both chimpanzees and orangutans should also be found in humans; a lack of such an insertion would posit a serious challenge to common descent. Thus far, however, no such insertion in the former two species that is not present in the latter species has been located.
He is looking at the results and seeing evolution while others look at the results and see a creator. What is the difference between the two? The glasses they are wearing.
You are appealing to a common creationist misconception that the conclusion of the theory of evolution is the result of a different “interpretation” of evidence that is viewed by a creationist. I have written a short explanation of why such a claim is founded upon a false premise.
Individuals utilizing the scientific method begin any approach by observing events. They then use all known observations — including both long-understood and very generalize observations that have been used to generalize common fundamental principles of the universe and observations only recently made that relate specifically to an event under study — to derive conclusions about how the events that they are observing have occurred. Their conclusions are then analyzed and examined by others. Should their conclusions be found to have merit — that is, should other researchers validate the conclusions by showing fulfillment of predictions made that are directly derived from the implications of the conclusions — the conclusions will find greater acceptance and generally be considered to be a good explanation regarding how the observed event occurred. On the other hand, should the conclusion imply events that are directly contradicted by observed reality, the conclusion may be revised or even discarded entirely. A conclusion that has been well-affirmed for some time is more likely to be revised than discarded, a revision is much more likely to be able to explain why the previous iteration of the conclusion explained all previous data sets well than would a completely new attempt at explaining data. An example of such a revision is found with Newton’s principles of physics; while they have since been proven incorrect, the new model that has replaced them is able to explain why Newton’s principles worked as well as they did: the formulas derived from them are still reasonable approximations of reality under the conditions in which they are tested. A conclusion can never be considered “unchanging” or fixed; there always exists the possibility that a given scientific conclusion may be in need of revision or even rejection.
Creationists do not use the above approach. Creationists begin by assuming their conclusion; for example, a creationist may begin by assuming that the planet, or the universe itself, is younger than 10,000 years, or even 6,000 years. A creationist may assume that Earth was once covered in a globe-spanning flood, or that all existing biodiversity is unrelated through common ancestry. The creationist will also never, under any circumstances, consider that their pre-assumed conclusion is incorrect, or even in need of any revision. The creationist will then attempt to explain all observations in the context of their conclusion. If it is impossible to reconcile their conclusion with a combination of existing observations and long-established observations, creationists will often assert that the observations — typically the long-established ones — are unreliable or incorrect; this assertion is not derived from any evidence, but rather it is made because the creationist has already decided that his or her conclusion must be correct and that the apparent contradiction of their assumed conclusion with established reality must be the result of reality itself not having been established correctly. For example, many creationists have asserted that established rates of atomic decay are nonconstant, even though assuming a fluctation in rates of atomic decay would directly imply that elements should have left evidence behind of a significatly different release of energy — often catastrophically different, based upon specific creationist assertions — that has never been observed. Creationists have also asserted that the speed of light itself is nonconstant, even though there is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim; the strongest “support” of such an argument is derived from selected measurements of the speed of light beginning from when it was originally measured to the present day and noting a steady decline in the recorded speed until the 1950s. That the creationists are attempting to create a graph based upon multiple independent observations that each would have had their own, differing, margins of error is apparently of little concern for the validity of their conclusion, nor do they consider that tools for measuring the speed of light may have improved to produce more accurate results, nor do they explain why they selectively omit data points from various recordings in history that do not neatly fit their attempted curve. They also will not, under any circumstances, consider that their conclusion is false and in need of revision, or even rejection no matter the quantity of contradictory evidence that comes to light.
As you can see, the fundamental difference between scientific conclusions and creationist “conclusions” is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of fundamental methodology. Scientists derive conclusions as explanations based upon observations, and these conclusions are subject to change following the discovery of new evidence. Creationists assume conclusions and attempt to derive explanations of apparently contradictory observations, as they will never revise their conclusions in spite of any degree of mounting new evidence.
“It was that God created chimps and humans with the same viral infection at the same location.”
In addition to the points raised by Dimensio above, I don’t think you realize that by claiming this, you are in effect saying that your god is deceptive and dishonest, deliberately making it appear that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. This is similar to the old (I hope) outdated argument that God put fossils on earth to test our faith. I really don’t think you understood the video and what the significance of the ERV findings is. These insertions have no functional role in the genome and are only historical “markers” of viral infections that our ancestors have had in the remote past. You’ve seen the video, so you know what the odds are of every single human and every single chimpanzee showing the exact same insertions by chance.
“God created everything very good.”
What possible purpose would God have for inserting functionally useless fragments of viral DNA into our genome, in the exact pattern that one would expect if we shared ancestry with the other great apes? How is this “creat(ing) everything good”?
“What is the difference between the two? The glasses they are wearing. If you have an evolutionary lens, you will see evolutionary results.”
This is pure projection. You are clearly the one looking at the data without an open mind, and twisting it to a perverse degree so that it conforms to your doctrinal preconceptions.
I’m not sure if anyone’s paying attention to this thread anymore. But in case there is, here is a good video attacking the “no transitional species” fallacy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU
The guy talks a bit fast, but he includes a link to the script so you can follow along.
lutesuite and Dimensio,
You both misunderstood my statement that God created chimps and humans with the same viral infection at the same location. I was not agreeing with this statement, I was disagreeing with it. I said that the video refuted that belief well. God created everything very good.
I think you would both agree that when observing evidence we should interpret it based on accepted scientific laws. Why then do you both hold to the theory of evolution in light of the second law of thermodynamics? It states that no information CAN be added, it can only be lost. Your view, if I am correct, states that new information is added along the evolutionary line all the way up to humans. You accuse me of throwing out long held observations when they contradict my view, but you throw out (or at least ignore) a SCIENTIFIC LAW because it contradicts your view. If you can explain to me how no information was added along the line from a soup to present day man, then your view would not contradict the above mentioned law.
lutesuite,
I watched that video. The man sounds informed. However, the common ancesters that he mentioned have ALL been proven false. In fact, “Lucy” was scientifically proven to be 100% ape. Why do you suppose he is using a disproven view in support of his point? Similarly, the “horse series” was also proven to be a myth. Yet evolutionists still try to use it in support of their view.
Daniel Chaney,
Your objections have all been addressed already. In fact, most of what you are saying is nonsense, plain and simple.
Your comments about the ERV evidence are incomprehensible. OF COURSE the video refutes the statement that God “created chimps and humans with the same viral infection at the same location.” It’s clear you don’t understand the video at all. Which is probably just as well, from your standpoint. If you did understand it, then you would have to abandon your cherished belief that God created the whole universe especially so you could be the pinnacle of creation, separate from all the other creatures of earth. Clearly you’re not prepared to do that. However, the evidence from molecular biology is irrefutably and unambiguously in favour of common descent. This is why creationists who are not entirely scientifically illiterate, such as Michael Behe, realize the jig is up as far as denying common descent, and have relegated God to menial tasks such as designing bacterial flagella or creating malaria.
It has already been pointed out that the 2nd law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with information. Do you even read the posts your supposedly reponding to? And you have yet to offer an explanation for how the nylon-eating bacteria could arise if the creation of new genetic information is impossible.
Your statement that Lucy has been proven to be “100% ape” is similarly meaningless. It’s like saying “Daniel Chaney has been proven not to be human. He is, instead, 100% mammal.” Again, pay attention to the video. This is clearly explained at the end. And I’d like to see the evidence on which you base your assertion that the “horse series” has also been proven to be a “myth”, not to mention the literally thousands of other transitional species listed on that video.
lutesuite,
The “transitional species” listed on the video were not transitional at all. That is the point. If your veiw is correct, and species do change from one to the next, then at some point along the evolutionary line an animal of one species would have to either give birth to or become a different species.
You said, “It has already been pointed out that the 2nd law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with information.”
The 2nd law of thermodynamics has everything to do with information. If all systems tend to eventually break down and decay rather than to increase and become better, then progressive evolution is out of the question. There is a different law, the name of which I cannot remember at this moment, that states that there is a definite amount of information in the universe. It further states that that amount is steadily decreasing and that it cannot increase. If this is true, then progressive evolution cannot be because it requires that information be added to form a new and better creature.
As far as the horse series, a Biology text book from A Beka says, “dog-sized fossils were found in the late 1800s in North America, and some evolutionists speculated that it was the ancester of the modern horse. They then speculated further constructing a family tree emphasizing an increase in size and a decrease in toes from the original animal, whose name they changed to ‘Eohippus.’ However, ‘Eohippus’ had 18 pairs of ribs, but its supposed decendent ‘Orohippus’ had only 15. A later stage, ‘Pliohippus,’ had 19, and the modern horse has 18. Another problem is that fossils from all over the world had to be lumped together. One was found in India, some in Europe, and some in the United States. Many evolutionists have now reverted to calling ‘Eohippus’ by its original name, ‘Hyracotherium.’”
The number of ribs varies even between breeds of modern horses (Arabian horses have 17 pairs, while other breeds have 18) so I’m not sure what you think the varying number of ribs between ancestors of the horse proves. Your problem is your relying on learning scientific information from religious sources like A Beka. If you want to research the Bible, to you go to Scientific American?
Your other points have already been refuted above.
I watched that video. The man sounds informed. However, the common ancesters that he mentioned have ALL been proven false.
Please provide the proofs for all proposed common ancestors.
In fact, “Lucy” was scientifically proven to be 100% ape.
No one has ever suggested otherwise. I do not understand why you believe this to support your position, as it is not unreasonable to believe that a common ancestor to a human would be an ape, given that humans are apes.
You both misunderstood my statement that God created chimps and humans with the same viral infection at the same location. I was not agreeing with this statement, I was disagreeing with it. I said that the video refuted that belief well. God created everything very good.
Then why do chimpanzees and humans share ERV markers at the same positions in the genome?
The “transitional species” listed on the video were not transitional at all. That is the point. If your veiw is correct, and species do change from one to the next, then at some point along the evolutionary line an animal of one species would have to either give birth to or become a different species.
Your statement is not correct, and your error suggests that you have not studied biology to any extent sufficient to render you a credible authority on the subject.
Speciation occurs over a continuum. One species does not give birth to a different species in a single generation. Rather, over successive generations, genetic changes result in a condition where an offspring of one generation can be established as a distinctly different species than a direct ancestor from several generations previously. An implication of this sort of speciation is that a group can be established called a “ring species”, where given three subgroups of organisms, populations A and B can interbreed, populations B and C can interbreed, but populations A and C cannot interbreed. Such events have already been observed.
If you do not understand that speciation does not occur over a single generation, and that species division only occurs because transitions between species tend not to be as successful and thus tend not to remain present, then you have not studied the subject of evolution sufficiently to credibly criticize it.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics has everything to do with information. If all systems tend to eventually break down and decay rather than to increase and become better, then progressive evolution is out of the question.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not state that “all systems tend to eventually break down and decay”. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states only that the total entropy of isolated systems not in equilibrium always increases. As such, it is possible, without violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics, for the total entropy of a system that is not isolated to decrease. Additionally, “entropy” is not synonymous with “lack of information”. It is not rational to use the Second Law of Thermodynamics to draw conclusions regarding the information content of a system not in isolation.
If you believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prevents evolution from occurring then you should be able to define the constraints of the isolated system wherein evolution is said to occur — justifying your assertion of this isolation — and then provide the calculations that show that the process of evolution necessarily results in a condition where dS/dt > 0. Please do so.
Lutesuite,
In reading your comments, as well as many others who reject Jesus Christ as lord, what do you feel is the main reason for your unwillingness to trust the God of the Bible? Just a question, for it seems as though you are not teachable or open to the possibility. Let me pose this to you a different way. If the Bible lined up with everything science considered to be true, would you believe?
lutesuite and Dimensio,
You are building your arguments based on your assumption that humans are apes. Please justify that assumption.
Also, on a purly logical level, evolution is impossible because of the law of causality. Simply put, the law of causality is the law that an effect must have a cause. If I am correct, evolution states that the beginning of all things was life that was caused all by itself and multiplied all by itself. This defies the law of causality. The effect, the beginning of life, was just that, an effect; therefore, it must have a cause. It is impossible for an effect, life, to cause itself because it would not yet have existed to cause itself. Universal laws of logic trump our observations, as observations can be interpreted a plethora of ways, but logic cannot.
Michael,
It so happens I don’t accept “Jesus Christ as lord,” or the existence of any deity for that matter. But I don’t see how that is relevent to the discussion we are having here. We are discussing the validity of a scientific theory, and it should be clear to anyone, possessing an open mind and basic understanding of science, who reads the arguments put forth by both sides in this dicussion that there is no reasonable argument to be made against evolution and in favour of creationism.
Now, I ask you, what does that have to do with whether one believes in Jesus? It seems a small minority of Christians have made their faith contingent on whether scientific evidence supports a literalist reading of the Bible. This presents a very difficult problem for these believers, as scientific evidence overwhelmingly disproves such concepts as a young earth, a global flood, or special creation. Thankfully, the majority of believers have no problem reconciling their faith with the facts of reality.
The paradox is that the faith of the “moderate” is actually stronger than that of the fundamentalist, as the former does not depend on the wholesale denial of reality.
lutesuite,
Respectfully,
“it should be clear to anyone, possessing an open mind and basic understanding of science, who reads the arguments put forth by both sides in this dicussion (discussion?) that there is no reasonable argument to be made against evolution and in favour of creationism.”
The reasonableness of an argument; ones ability to reason truth and the rejection of it are at the heart of the discussion. I consider myself to be a very reasonable person as well many of the arguments which you have shown to be “closed minded.” The primary reason for my question, which you avoided (If the Bible lined up with everything science considered to be true, would you believe?), gets to the heart of why you reject any thought which might challenge the god of science. It is because you have dethroned God as the creator and judge of the universe, replacing Him with a twisted view, and then you condemn Him with it.
Simply, evolution is the result of a will bend on rejecting God.
As far as what my argument has to do with the context of this discussion I reintroduce you to MacArthur’s opening statement, “Evolution was introduced as an atheistic alternative to the biblical view of creation. According to evolution, man created God rather than vice versa. And as we have seen, the evolutionists’ ultimate agenda is to eliminate faith in God altogether and thereby do away with moral accountability.
What is so plainly evident to many is the willingness to embrace something so unsubstantiated as evolution and call it logic. I am reminded –
Romans 1:21-25 “21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24 ¶ Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”
Your “reason” is at the heart of the discussion and is why you reject truth.
I don’t know if I would entirely endorse BobC’s views. My view is that the existence of the supernatural (which includes God) is something that cannot be falsified. Therefore, if believing in God helps someone make sense of their existence, or affords them emotional or psychological benefits, I don’t see that as any of my business. However, that only stands so long as people paractice their beliefs personally or with like-minded individuals. If they start trying to impose those beliefs on others, or insisting that they be taught as science, then I start to object.
I didn’t answer your question, Michael, because it didn’t make sense to me. What do you mean by “if the Bible lined up with everything science considered to be true”? Do you mean if the Bible was different, or if science was? I suppose if the Bible contained scientific knowledge that could not possibly have been available to people living at the time it was written, I would have to consider that that knowledge emanated from some superhuman source. However, since that is not the case, the question is moot.
I also take issue with your statements that I am “close minded” and “not open to teaching”. As far as I can tell, every single creationist argument made here has been answered by clear evidence in favour of evolution, often with appropriate references to the scientific literature. Not one of these arguments has been answered, and most fo them habve been ignored. Yet you still claim evolution to be “unsubstantiated” and Mr. Chaney continues to make statements about the 2nd law of thermodynamics that had been shown to be erroneous long ago. So who really is “closed minded”?
I will say it again: Evolution has nothing to do with God. Most people have no problem reconciling an understanding of science with their religious beliefs. It is only those who debase the Bible by treating it like a science textbook who have such problems.
Daniel Chaney,
“You are building your arguments based on your assumption that humans are apes. Please justify that assumption.”
That’s not quite what we’re saying. What we (or I, at least) are trying to do is clarify your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. How can you argue against something you don’t even understand?
You’re assuming that an evolutionary biologist will look as a fossil of Australopithecus afarensis (“Lucy”), and ask, “Is this a human, or an ape?” But that question would be meaningless according to evolutionary theory. The reason, as Dimensio has explained alreeady, is that species are not discrete, discontinuous entities. Rather, they occur along a continuum, with no clear demarcation between one another as the evolutionary process goes on. In other words, defining a specimen as either “human” or “ape” is merely an arbitrary human convention.
Evolution is not about categorizing species into discrete groups, so much as about determiniing the phylogenetic relationship between species i.e. the order in which they “branched off” from the tree of life. So the questions a biologist WOULD ask abouty “Lucy” are, “How does this specimen relate to other primates we know about? Does its common ancestor with humans come before or after our common ancestor with chimpanzees? Is it ancestral to humans, or is it from a side branch that went extinct, leaving no living descendents?”
“Also, on a purly logical level, evolution is impossible because of the law of causality. Simply put, the law of causality is the law that an effect must have a cause. If I am correct, evolution states that the beginning of all things was life that was caused all by itself and multiplied all by itself. This defies the law of causality.”
The “Law of Causality” doesn’t exist. You just made it up, like your law that information in the universe cannot increase (So all those thousands of books, newpapers, magazines, websites, TV and radio broadcasts that are produced every minute, containing, uh, information. Those just don’t exist, then?)
You’re making the common creationist mistake of confusing abiogenesis (the process by which the first form of “life” came to exist) with evolution (the explanation of how the diversity of life arose from that first life form). There are a number of hypotheses regarding abiogenesis, and these rely on nothing more than applied principles of chemistry, so even if your “law of causality” really existed, these would not violate it. This article covers some of these hypothesis. BTW, I happen to “know” the author of this aricle from another web forum, and he is a devout Christian.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html
“The ‘Law of Causality” doesn’t exist.”
Just to clarify: I know the term “Law of Causality” is often used in philosophy. When I say it doesn’t exist, I mean in the sense of as a scientific Law, such as the laws of thermodynamics, etc.
lutesuite,
Just for my curiosity, could you explain to me what you believe about the origin of life? Correct me if I am wrong, but in my understanding, your evolutionary belief is not dealing with the origin of life but rather the diversifying thereof. Is that correct? If so, you must also have a belief as to the actual origin of life itself. Could you explain your view on that point?
You said, “When I say it (The law of causality) doesn’t exist, I mean in the sense of as a scientific Law, such as the laws of thermodynamics, etc.”
Ah, but it does exist as a scientific law. As a law of logic, this law extends to the realms of science, religion, and any other area. The laws of logic are universal, meaning they apply to and control every area of life. This being a legitimate law of logic, it does necessarily apply to science as a scientific law as well. The terminology used (ex. scientific law vs. law of logic) is irrelevant because it relates to both. If a view held by science defies a universal law of logic, then is the logic false or the scientific hypothesis false? This would be a good question for you to answer. In other words, do laws of logic trump scientific views, or is it the other way around?
You are building your arguments based on your assumption that humans are apes. Please justify that assumption.
“Ape” is a human-defined biological classification based upon specific physical characteristics of organisms. Homo Sapiens possesses all requisite physical characteristics of the superfamily Hominoidea and thus they are classified as members of this superfamily. Note that this system of biological classification predates the theory of evolution; such classifications were held as valid even before it was established that all extant biodiversity was interrelated through common ancestry. The originator of taxonomic classification, Carolus Linnaeus, believed that all individual species were the result of individual divine creation events, yet he was not able to deny patterns of physiological similarities and thus he classified humans as primates based upon them.
That humans are apes is not an “assumption”, it is a definition based upon the biological meaning of “ape”.
Also, on a purly logical level, evolution is impossible because of the law of causality. Simply put, the law of causality is the law that an effect must have a cause. If I am correct, evolution states that the beginning of all things was life that was caused all by itself and multiplied all by itself.
You are not correct. The theory of evolution does not state that “the beginning of all things was life that was caused all by itself and multiplied all by itself”. As your fundamental premise is incorrect, any conclusion that you derive from this premise cannot be considered reliable.
Daniel Chaney,
“Just for my curiosity, could you explain to me what you believe about the origin of life?”
I guess the simplest answer to that would be, “I don’t know.” However, I think there are many promising leads, such as those on the page I linked, and it would not surprise me if a convincing theory is formulated in my lifetime. One of the most helpful ideas I have come across regarding this issue is from Richard Dawkins’ “The Ancestor’s Tale.” There, he states that when we talk about the origin of life, it is probably more accurate to talk about the origin of heredity. That is to say, “life” may well have begun as relatively simple organic compounds that had the ability to produce copies of themselves, and likely would not have been something that we would consider “living.” But that’s only one view, and there remains disagreement between “gene-first” and “metabolism-first” schools of thought.
Anyway, virtually every natural phenomenon was once attributed to divine causation (lightning, disease, the movements of the sun and stars, etc.) and in every single instance, natural causes have instead been proven to be correct. There has never been a single instance in which religion and science offered conflicting explanations for something, and the religious explanation proved to be correct. There is no reason to believe the question of the origin of life should be any different.
“If a view held by science defies a universal law of logic, then is the logic false or the scientific hypothesis false?”
I can’t actually think of an instance where scientific evidence would violate the rules of logic. Some might say that the idea of God violates the principle of causality, though. (If not, then what caused God?)
The reasonableness of an argument; ones ability to reason truth and the rejection of it are at the heart of the discussion. I consider myself to be a very reasonable person as well many of the arguments which you have shown to be “closed minded.” The primary reason for my question, which you avoided (If the Bible lined up with everything science considered to be true, would you believe?), gets to the heart of why you reject any thought which might challenge the god of science. It is because you have dethroned God as the creator and judge of the universe, replacing Him with a twisted view, and then you condemn Him with it.
Please justify your assertion of motive.
Simply, evolution is the result of a will bend on rejecting God.
Please justify this assertion.
As far as what my argument has to do with the context of this discussion I reintroduce you to MacArthur’s opening statement, “Evolution was introduced as an atheistic alternative to the biblical view of creation.
Repeating the opening statement does not demonstrate that the statement is correct. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain a number of biological observations in a meaningful and logical framework and in the context of known occurring events and events derived using known occurring events as a logical basis; among many other observations, the theory attempts to explain the current state of biodiversity, the pattern of the observed fossil record and observations within DNA. The theory of evolution is not, despite your assertion or the assertion of any other, an attempt to create an “atheistic alternative” to any specific religious creation story. The theory of evolution is merely an attempt to explain an aspect of the universe based upon observation. Any contradiction with any specific religious creation story is incidental, not intentional.
According to evolution, man created God rather than vice versa. And as we have seen, the evolutionists’ ultimate agenda is to eliminate faith in God altogether and thereby do away with moral accountability.
These statements are false. The theory of evolution does not state or imply that “man created God”. The theory of evolution does not address morality; the theory of evolution cannot in any way comment upon whether the concept of “moral accountability” has a basis in reality, thus it cannot be used to conclude that no “moral accountability” exists. Your assertion that “the evolutionists’ ultimate agenda is to eliminate faith in God” is unsupported; please provide evidence that such a motive is true for all who accept that the theory of evolution is valid.
What is so plainly evident to many is the willingness to embrace something so unsubstantiated as evolution and call it logic. I am reminded –
Please explain the extent of research that you have done regarding the theory of evolution and state and your personal credentials that render you qualified to speak on the theory of evolution as being “unsubstantiated”.
Romans 1:21-25 “21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24 ¶ Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”
This does not, in any way, lend credence to your claims regarding the theory of evolution.
Your “reason” is at the heart of the discussion and is why you reject truth.
You have not demonstrated that your claims are “truth”.
Evolution certainly refutes six day creationism, but it in no way refutes Christianity as such, much less theism in general.
The notion that the ‘days’ in Genesis are not literal, 24-hour period was acccepted by Christians long before Augustine, e.g. by early church fathers such as Origen, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Cyprian, and Clement among others.
Also, there is no fundamental church doctrine (understood as the basic beliefs or the basic creeds, or the ‘dogma’ that was so important to theologians) that is jeapordized by evolution. There is no apparent contradiction between Christianity and Darwinian evolution. The latter addresses mainly transitions, Christianity, if we may say so, speaks of origins.
In terms of logic, there is no contradiction inherent in the proposition: “The Christian God exists, and evolution is true” or at least its not apparent prima facie that any such contradiction obtains.
I realize this thread is long-dead, but I thought I’d add this for anyone who might still be paying attention, or who may wander in here by mistake.
An astonishing paper was recently published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that documents the evolutionary process actually occurring under controlled laboratory conditions:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/historical_contingency_in_the.php
Although this by itself doesn’t answer the arguments made above about “microevolution” vs. “macroevolution”, it clearly shows how random mutation and natural selection can produce beneficial traits and new genetic information. It also kills the entire premise of M. Behe’s last book deader than a doornail (Not that there was much life in it to begin with.)
This is what REAL science looks like!