The Arguments for Evolution
One of the things that frustrates me about my Bible Doctrines textbook is its lengthy assault against evolution. Apart from some serious disagreements that I have with him over his reasoning (for example, his argument that the second law of thermodynamics invalidates evolution*), my biggest frustration is his sources. It seems that he hasn’t updated the chapter–or his sources–significantly in over 30 years. Don’t you think that in 30 years the evolutionists would have come up with an answer to your concerns?
Well, they have. John Derbyshire over at the National Review online has answers to some of the recurring arguments of Creationism. Definitely worth reading. An example:
(5) “There is no such thing as half an eye/wing/lung etc.” Yes there is, all over the place, as biologists have been pointing out till they are blue in the face. The common scallop has little light-sensitive patches all round its mouth, for instance. An entire menagerie of animals — frogs, squirrels, even snakes — has rudimentary gliding webs of various levels of sophistication — half wings.
They say that in the realm of the blind the one-eyed man is king. A better way to say “survival of the fittest” is “survival of the least unfit,” a phrase I have to credit to austroblogger, a commenter on Libertarian Girl.
Anyways, read Derbyshire’s whole post.
*If I understand the law correctly, the amount of useful energy available for the whole universe is decreasing; however, that doesn’t preclude the possibility of local optimums. Indeed, the sun shines on the earth: The amount of useful energy available on the earth increases, while the amount of useful energy available in the universe decreases.
February 13th, 2005 at 8:37 pm
Actually, 2nd law arguments have not and cannot be answered by evolutionists. They always default to the open system / closed system argument as if magically the suns input of energy does away with increasing entropy. The arguement fails to fly–and then if you draw the box around the earth/sun system poof…it is a closed system again and is running down. So even if an arguement is 30 years old it can still be valid.
Second, there is absolutely no, nada, none rational that can explain the diversity of life, its structure and complexity starting from goo to you. A scallop that has light sensitive patches around its mouth is simply a marvelous example of the hand of God. Take away intelligent design, start from nothing, remember that entropy increases, use only statistical quantum fluctuations, and explain how life started from nothing and got to where we are–it is foolish to attempt and even the most devout evolutionist won’t attempt to explain going from nothing to now. They (evolutionists) always want to try to explain one tiny piece, like brown moths to white moths in England’s industrial revolution and go “SEE…dumb creationist! Just do a simple extrapolation from moths and I’ve proved my point!” –How foolish.
Jim
February 15th, 2005 at 9:04 am
Some things that guided me away from evolution:
The fossil record has some very strange things such as petrified trees that extend vertically through several layers that are supposed to be millions of years different.
A closed system (the universe) can never have more energy than it started with. Over the billions of years since the big bang, the amount of available energy should be close to zero.
Energy applied to anything, unless it is specifically guided, tends to be destructive.
And one of my particular favorites, sexual reproduction requires the simultaneous evolution of a male and female.
I do believe in natural selection, or more accurately natural de-selection (elimination of the least fit)
February 15th, 2005 at 1:14 pm
Oh, true, there are some definite problems with evolution. There is some truth in the creationist argument that evolution is a faith: There is a tendency to hold to unproved beliefs, which is verboten in science.
For example, evolutionists have a tendency to believe that everything is now as it once was. There’s no accounting for earthquakes and floods in evolutionary archeology. To say that the Grand Canyon was formed over millenia by the slow trickling of its river seems ludicrous; why could there not have been a flood in the region? Such a thing would be exceedingly rare in the desert, but not impossible.
And that even lets the evolutionist deny the possibility of the Genesis global flood. They argue that there’s no way that the water we have could cover the whole earth, but I think that if the land was flatter and if the trenches of the oceans were a little less deep, then the amount of water would be sufficient. Indeed, I imagine that such a global flood would help produce those high mountains and deep trenches.
So to dismiss the possibility out of hand is just as fallacious as denying natural selection.
Now, I have to ask Jim: Did you read the article? He addresses your second point. I’ll quote for you the relevant portion:
Now, as far as your argument that evolutionists only point to one tiny piece–the moths–and tell you to extrapolate from there: What else are they supposed to point to, exactly? Evolutionary change is exceedingly slow unless there is a major environmental change. To paraphrase Rumsfeld, you have to do science with the data you have, not the data you wish you could have.
The point of my post was not to say that evolution is problem-free, but to point out that 30 years of work in the field have refined it to the point that some of your arguments can be answered.
As far as thermodynamics goes, I have to admit that I am not a scientist and so I am attempting to argue points that I don’t fully understand. But I don’t believe that the 2nd law can invalidate evolution. It doesn’t invalidate order–patterns–coming to chaos. If the 2nd law was so rigid as I think you’re applying it, then cities could never be constructed and trees could never grow. Indeed, the way you’re applying the law, you couldn’t roll a boulder up a hill, because that would create potential energy. A
Mankind brings order to the chaos of his environment, all the while burning useful energy. Trees grow from the soil–something new is made, while energy is burned. And, perhaps, life began eons ago, burning energy, but bringing order. To be sure, as Derbyshire says, “the genesis of organizational complexity is not currently well understood,” but that doesn’t make the evolutionary concept impossible.
The thing to remember is that both sides have an impossible question on their hands: Where did whatever started the universe come from? For the creationist, where did God come from? For the evolutionist, where did the materials that started the big bang come from? At some point the laws of thermodynamics were violated in either case.
February 15th, 2005 at 3:27 pm
Jim: you’re dead wrong. Ever heard of a closed system?> Understand the earth’s relationship to the sun? Undertstand how systems can grow and die within an overall dying system? The idea that evolution doesn’t address the 2nd law is nonsensical and depends on people’s not understanding evolution or reading up on it themselves. Cheers.
February 15th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
And one of my particular favorites, sexual reproduction requires the simultaneous evolution of a male and female.Wrong Ra ndy, dead wrong. This is what happens when people who’ve never read an evolutionary textbook parrot off what they’ve heard creationists say. I’m sincerely sorry to be so blunt, but it makes me mad that this sort of superstition is still being taught when the answers have been out there for so long.
February 15th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
You know: Intelligent design, second law fundamentals and quantum bootstrapping AND evolution do not have to be exclusive. I can conceive of an intelligence that says “Let THIS be the blueprint” (the maths) waves his wand-of-many-dimensions (Visuals out of a seventies disco video) and creates a few Branes in the void of infinite dimensions, sits backs and waits for “Free will” to become a problem when the the first voices are heard…
Once you take it to the Meta-level it looses the bite and everyone gets to believe they won.
But I guess a universal second law kind of stymies the concept of a universal mind…. imagine a mind that created a concept requiring ever increasing entropy… that is not benevolent. Not to physics undergrads.
February 17th, 2005 at 5:37 am
Bob,
I haven’t read an evolutionary textbook in about 10 years, so enlighten me. How can females reproduce without males?
February 17th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
It’s an easy question, Randy. for starters, you assume the human species was always the same, static and that it didn’t evolve from other creatures. Our species has always had male and female genders, but the species we evolved from needn’t have - billions of years ago. The way your phrase your question just reveals your bais: “How can females reproduce without males?” They don’t need to. I know you’ve heard of asexual reproduction. What you really meant to ask was how did sexual reproduction evolve?
Early organisms most likely evolved towards sexual reproduction to avoid damaging mutations, since DNA from an additional source obviously allows for a greater number of combinations and allows for poor mutations to be omitted. Of course, biologists can also exlain that sometimes asexual reproduction has advantages over sexual reproduction.
Just because something is complicated or more difficult to understand doesn’t mean “God did it.” That’s a God of the gaps - but when all of the gaps are accounted for by science - well, where does your god go then?
February 18th, 2005 at 5:46 am
Which you appear to have chosen not to answer, other than to say ‘Someone, somewhere must have figured out how’
No, I KNOW that GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE. That said, I know the evolutionary theory well enough to know that the most likely place in the evolutionary tree for sexual reproduction to evolve would be during the single-cell organism or early multiple cell organism. This is especially true considering that all the taxonomic kingdoms except bacteria have sexual reproduction.
don’t you mean ‘Once Upon A Time’
My bias is the opposite of your bias. At least I’m honest about it.
Also, get a dictionary - Sexual reproduction by definition includes two sexes . Asexual reproduction does not. My assumption was that you were talking about a theory that I have heard about that had the simple multi-cell organisms developing into a smaller ‘male’ that required females to reproduce, and ‘andro-females’ that could reproduce either asexually or sexually.
Yes, that’s what I’m waiting for - and I thought that’s what we were discussing. But they’re not, and I don’t think that they ever will be.
Anyway, I think this should probably be taken offline unless we have an interested audience.
February 18th, 2005 at 6:33 am
No, you don’t, unless you have a time machine you haven’t told me about. You can fervently believe it, but you don’t know it.
Careful, Randy. Let’s at least pretend to be respectful of each other’s beliefs. No accusations of dishonesty. You don’t convince anybody that way anyways.
February 18th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
Randy, Billions of years ago does not equal your fairy tale “once upon a time.” There is evidence aplenty to back it up. Not only here on earth by studying evolution and carbon dating (and yes, I’m already familiar with the misleadnig Creationist info supposedlt debunking carbon dating), but also by studying the universe and the “cosmological ruler” discussed at length recently in the news. Perhaps you’re not aware of the latter, but you can’t simply ignore the overwhelming evidence for an ancient universe and then declare it a fairy tale. Believing the Bible takes faith; studying evolution *need* not.
My thoughts on your assumptions stand. My own biases are already admitted, but what you may not realize is that I am a former fundamentalist Christian who once believed in Biblical creation and *did not* give up my beliefs lightly. I gave them up after thoughtful consideration over a number of years. So: I have thoroughly examined my own biases in this particular. I found them wanting and moved on. Can you truly say the same?
February 19th, 2005 at 9:18 am
I have thoroughly examined my own biases in this particular. I found them wanting and moved on. Can you truly say the same?
I can say I have thoroughly examined my beliefs and baises and found them true.”
February 21st, 2005 at 9:11 pm
I am a fundamentalist Christian who has also considered his biases carefully and still believe in a literal seven-day creation. I agree with Blog Jones, however, that we need to be careful about how we present creationism both in tone and intellectual honesty (vis a vis the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument). Ad hominem arguments such as, “at least I’m honest about it,” serve absolutely no purpose. Randy, I would refer you to I Peter 3:15-16 (ESV):
“In your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience.”
Bob: The problem with saying that the evidence proposed for the old-earth theory removes the need for faith is that it still involves the faith in the philsophical system of secular rationalism. For the sake of argument, I will grant (though I personally disagree) that evolution has irrefutable scientific evidence. The problem then is that it is impossible to prove that inductive scientific theory can speak authoritatively on reality. This falls in the field of epistemology, part of philosophy. How does one know that even a thoroughly consistent scientific theory is true? One must simply believe it. That is the nature of inductive reasoning, the basis of science.
Now, grant me, for the sake of our immediate argument about the need for faith in a theory of origins, that creationism is also internally and externally consistent. I will readily admit that I cannot prove creationism to be true. It may be 100% consistent with scientific observation; however, based on science alone, there exists the theoretical possibility of an alternate explanation. I must simply believe that my system is true.
Science cannot speak to epistemological issues, as to do so would be to reason in a circle. However, for the same reason, neither can religion. Thus, every person, whether explicitly or implicitly, accepts an epistemological system by faith.
In my argument, I have assumed that both creationism and evolutionism are internally and externally consistent. This was only for the sake of argument to show the invalidity of either side resorting to the “you just believe by faith, but I don’t” attack. It is a straw-man argument for both sides, because all origin theories require basic presuppositional faith. With that false argument out of the way, the debate can resume on the basis of actual evidence (i.e. whether each actually is internally and externally consistent).
April 14th, 2005 at 2:08 am
I have read several arguments for and against evolution. It seems to me that none are conclusive one way or the other. However, this does strike me: all of the arguments for evolution rely on the theory that macro-structural changes can occur by means of several micro-structural changes. Obviously, this can and has happened several times. There can not be any conclusive argument that would deny that it come happen in any particular case.
The only conclusive argument against total-evolution would be one which showed that what is now cannot be explained simply by structure at all. To start with, this is clearly the case for the assimilation of nutrients by any organism. Even the assimilation of nutrients by a single-celled organism can not be explained by structure. It is an action which is beyond the potential of any of its material parts. Apart from life, all you have is attraction and repulsion on a molecular level. Assimilation of nutrients is much more than this. For that matter, the same is true of every life function: growth, asexual and sexual reproduction, true self-movement, sensation, and intellegence. None of these can be explained by structure alone.
Think about hearing, for example. Clearly, you have vibrations in the air coming in contact with the ear drum. Then you have vibration detectors. However, sound is more than vibrations. A computer, for example, cannot hear, even though it might detect vibrations better than we do. Hearing, when you think about it, is very mysterious, and irreducible, as every life function is. Structure, any structure, is not sufficient. That ends the whole doubt, as far as I am concerned.
April 14th, 2005 at 10:56 am
You’re right, the structures of themselves cannot move, consume nutrients, hear, etc.. They need power to function, which comes in the form of tiny electrical impulses, which they receive from consuming nutrients.
And yes, the power to consume nutrients comes from consuming nutrients. (That’s why celery is good for dieting: You consume more power digesting it than you get from it.)
It’s like having a computer that isn’t plugged in. Without power, you have a collection of silicon, plastic, and gold circuitry–all the structures that make up a computer, but completely unable to do anything more useful than act as a paperweight.
Plug it in, give it power, and you can run word processors, voice recognition software, web browsers, etc.
I don’t see how any of this disproves evolution.
May 5th, 2005 at 1:08 pm
Listen evolution happed and is happening. It can be seen in the Grants work on changing
beak width in Galapagos finches in response to drought conditions. It can be seen in changes in
body structure in similar looking/behaving species when they coexist (i.e., character displacement).
Heck, it is seen in microbial resistance (how do you think antibiotic resistant TB arose).
The people who answer “adaptation” should REALIZE that adaptation is CAUSED by evolutionary processes.
That is to say evolution by definition is (per Darwin a DEVOTE Christian) “descent with modification”.
The arrogance of creationists amaze me. YOU KNOW we were created by a god in his image? Tell me, why
do so many people suffer from knee problems? BECAUSE we were NOT created in the image of a “perfect
being”, we came to our current configuration through evolution from a quadrupedal animal in our
distant past. Does that mean I don’t believe in god? Heck NO. Actually I do. Frankly to leave
behind reason for indoctrination is an insult to true faith. Try opening the mind that you
believe god gave you and with an UNBIASED outlook actually READ the arguments FOR evolution AND
against it (I suggest the blind watchmaker by Richard Dawkins). I am certain that if you actually
bothered to find the information yourself instead of clinging to blind faith in what other people are saying,
you will at least have better arguments against evolution. BY the way, the 2nd law of thermodynamics thing is just a red herring, it really is an irrelevant argument, THINK ABOUT IT.
May 6th, 2005 at 8:18 am
You have got to be kidding.
May 6th, 2005 at 10:56 am
Look, no one credible is arguing that natural selection doesn’t happen. It makes good sense: Obviously, bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics are more likely to survive and reproduce than those that are not, leading to, eventually, a bunch of resistent bacteria and little to no non-resistent bacteria.
The question is that mechanism responsible for all the creatures we see in the world today? That’s a little harder to believe. And natural selection alone doesn’t answer the question of where the first little single-celled creature that’s supposedly responsible for all of this came from. That question, near as I can tell, is impossible to answer from the data we can collect today.
And, yeah, the 2nd law argument against evolution is pretty weak. If I take a rechargeable battery and shoot electricity into it, the battery gains useful energy; entropy has decreased. Does this violate the 2nd law? Of course not, because it happens every day.
The earth is not a closed system; there’s the sun out there pumping energy into the planet all the time. Of course, as Jim mentioned above, that system is running down over time, but if the cosmologists are right, solar systems last for a long time: Plenty of time to get evolution to work.
But I do have to raise an eyebrow at the “Darwin was a devout Christian” statement. I’d heard that he supposedly converted at his deathbed, but never that he was a devout Christian for any real length of time. Do you have a source for that?
May 6th, 2005 at 1:45 pm
No I’m not kidding. Not only was Charles Darwin a devote Christian, he actually went to school
to become a minister. He studied theology, but like many young people he decided to see the world
a bit before he settled into life (plus like many brilliant people he didn’t do that well in school).
So because his grandfather was a very well known naturalist and Darwin had great passion and some
training as one he got is post as the naturalist on the Beagle a ship heading to the Americas.
It was on this voyage that Darwin saw some interesting things that got him thinking.
Because Darwin felt very conflicted about what his observations were telling him he sat on his
theory for about thirty years but was finally pushed to publish it when he heard that a young
naturalist by the name of Alfred Wallace had independentlycome up with the same conclusions.
Both he and Wallace presented papers to the London Society at the same time,
and a year later Dawrin published his manuscript on the evolution of species by means of natural selection.
However the actual mechanism by which such changes could take place put a damper on the theory until Gregor
Mendels work on genetics was rediscovered (Mendel was a monk around the time Darwin was alive, but
because he wasn’t a scientist didn’t pay much attention to his work at that time).
Ok. As for the other thing. Obviously evolution cannot explain the origin of life. Despite countless
hypothesis on that subject, the simple fact is that no one will ever actually KNOW how life
happened. We can only make guesses that will be impossible to actually test. But we can and have tested the
evolution hypothesis, so much so that it has become a scientific theory (this is different from the
vernacular use which mean a guess(ie hypothesis), a scientific theory is a hypothesis that has
been repeatedly tested over MANY years, in many different ways and has been supported the evidence collected.)
May 6th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
sorry I forgot to put a reference in try Charles Darwin:Voyaging by E. Janet Browne. It is a
facinating book. She did such a good job of presenting Dawin I felt like I has known him all
his life, plus its a first rate researched biography. I should also calrify that by the end of
his life Darwin represented himself as an agnostic. I guess that like many Victorians he
had trouble reconciling his findings with the eras religious beliefs.
May 20th, 2005 at 11:23 pm
I’m am very sorry to read this statement. I am very interested in both the Creation and Evolution theories.
Having studied a multitude of aspects, arguments, evidence, facts, thoughts, disscusions, and theories, I have come to the conclusion that the Theory of Evolution is simply that: A Theory. After reading books, debating with science professors, and having deep discussions with the Educated Evolutionist Elite, I have managed to document most of the tangible, empirical, truely scientific evidence supporting evolution. Because I have no life, I will post this list, in its entirety below
::::
::::
This long sought after discovery of mine was exceedingly discouraging. To think that there is no truely scientific evidence for the Theory of Evolution makes me wonder why it is so hotly debated. After sudying the faith-based Creation Theory and reading through the Book on which it is founded [the Holy Bible], I found it much easier to believe that all life in the universe originated through a single creative act by an omnipotent Being to whom man, His creation, is answerable for all his actions, than to believe that you and I, with all our knowledge, emotion, talents, and fears, originated from a less than random-chance explosion of energy and matter [where it came from knows]. Where did the energy driving that exploding spec come from? Where did the matter come from? How did we get here? How can something random and destructive initiate an exceedingly great hieracrchy of order? The question is not “Is Evolution right or wrong?” The question is “Are we willing to accept the fact that our world has an encredibly Intelligent design behind it all, and we are responsible to our Creator? Or will we waste our lives searching for facts we can manipulate in our finite wisdom to contrive a world system apart from our Intelligent Creator?” It’s about what you believe. Do oyu believe that you are your own god, making your own rules for how to live, being answerable to no one? After reading a little of the Bible’s account of Creation, I must say that the Creation Theory holds water. It works, faith or no faith. There are a very limited number of issues that the Creation theory cannot answer through sound, scientific study. The number of issues that Evolution cannot carry constitutes nearly the entirety of the theory itself. It’s not about missing links. It’s about missing chains. It’s simply a theory. Belive it if you want to, may I remind you: “The heavens declare the glory of God.” Think about it. Intelligent Designer who loves me and to whom I am accountable… OR I am an accidental puddle of goo that no one should bother caring two cents about. You must choose: Will you believe what a textbook says, or will you choose to accept what the Bible says? I’ve been hard pressed to find middle ground. To whom will you be accountable? Yourself or the Almighty Creator Yaweh God of the universe? Personally, I have chosen to follow the will of One who is Greater and Wiser than am.
May 21st, 2005 at 12:09 am
If you ask that question, I get to ask where God came from. Both sides fail the cause-effect test: The universe is an effect without an apparent cause.
And must I really explain again the scientific definition of a theory vs. the layman’s definition of a theory? The layperson’s definition of a theory is just an idea, what the scientist would call a hypothesis. A theory has evidence behind it.
Next:
and
These statements contradict. Please pick one.
The first statement also betrays the fatal flaw in creation as a scientific endeavor: Creation is based on the Bible. Evolution is based on observation and evidence. When a genuine problem confronts evolution, evolutionary theory is changed to answer the flaws, or at least it’s supposed to. On the other hand, creationism can’t adapt. When a genuine problem confronts creationism, creationists hide behind faith: “God made it that way!” “Appearance of age!”
In otherwords, when the map and the coastline contradict, the coastline must be wrong. Once you make that decision, what’s the point of observation any more? What’s the point of intelligent debate, when you’ve decided to plug your ears and close your eyes to evidence that contradicts your position?
This is fallacious: Intelligent life is to be valued under evolution as much as under creation, if not more. Life is in shorter supply if there’s not an eternal afterlife later. To say no one should care about human life just because there’s no god in charge of it is… I’m sorry that I can’t find a better word, but it’s just foolish.
Do you think evolutionists don’t fall in love or care for the poor and needy? Do you honestly think that 6-day creationists have a corner on the market for concern for humanity?
May 21st, 2005 at 8:07 am
This is inaccurate. Well, it may be accurate for many average everyday Christians. But there are scientists who are Christians who study these things out and offer explanations at least as plauisble as anything an evolutionist would come up with.
I can’t imagine putting faith in a constantly changing theory.
To be fair, if you are going to read things all over the Internet that are pro-evolution, then also read things from Answers in Genesis or Institute for Creation Research or other pro-creation sources who write from a scientific viewpoint.
May 24th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
“I can’t imagine putting faith in a constantly changing theory.”
Please!!! Alex’s POINT is NOT that the theory is constantly changing BECAUSE IF IT WERTE IT WOULDN”T BE A THEORY
at least not a SCIENTIFIC one. His point is that when evidence contradicts a theory, that theory is actually
questioned, and possible explanations for why the evidence is contradictory can lead to a reevaluation and
refinement of said theory. However, the point of a SCIENTIFIC THEORY such as evolution is that is already
supported by countless data, BUT we are alway questioning it. There have been instances in science were a theory
has been debunct because of new data. IN SCIENCE we can do that, that can never happen in a faith based
explanation, because if something doesn’t add up then “GOD MADE IT THAT WAY”, and quite frankly that just isn’t
a good enough explanation, even if you accept it. Just like when we were children a “BECAUSE I SAID SO”
from our parents was never a satisfying explanation.
“To be fair, if you are going to read things all over the Internet that are pro-evolution, then also read things from Answers in Genesis or Institute for Creation Research or other pro-creation sources who write from a scientific viewpoint.”
As for that statement, it sounds good, but its just not possible to do this in terms of science because when it
comes down to it creationist theory is just based on a “story”. There is no way to actually QUANTIFY any of these supposed “theories” because there aren’t any actual dates, or physically measurable quanties. Sorry, the age of the universe cannot be quantified from a book created after the fact, just like you can’t tell how long a books author lived by reading its contents. Its COMPLETELY subjective and thus is NOT science, and hence creationism is NOT a science, nor an aqequite explanation for the diversity of life. Evolution may not be able to explain how life started, but it can be quantifies and thus is a reasonable explanation for the diversity and complexity of life that we see. Creation “science” is just the “comfort food” version. Tastes good, but with no real “nutritional” substance.
May 24th, 2005 at 6:32 pm
I apologize blog jones for citing your argument as being Alexs’ in the above posting
May 25th, 2005 at 7:40 am
phdgirl, your comments just revela that you haven’t read much in the way of scientific studies from a creationist viewpoint. I invite you to read from the sources mentioned.
July 26th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
www.reason.com has three excellent articles critiquing the Creationist conference at Liberty U last week. Check it out.
July 27th, 2005 at 2:18 pm
See
http://hipandthigh.blogspot.com/2005/07/mr-skeptic-goes-to-creation-camp-pt-2.html for a commentary on those articles.
Really, the alarmist flashing ad on reason.com that said that that those who have problems with embryonic stem cell use and such “don’t care if you die” would make me skeptical of anything on this site anyway.
July 27th, 2005 at 8:56 pm
So did you read the Reason articles?
I read “Mr Skeptic Goes To Creation Camp” - his last sentence:
“In all, Mr. Baily is fun reading, lending the Christian a persepective from how skeptics view God, the Bible and Creation.”
The Reason articles were respectful and objective and he didn’t treat the attendees like freaks at a sideshow - which is how they are treated most of the time.
My questions for the attendees is this - If you really believe that “God Said, That Settles it” is a viable answer to the the questions of origins, then why have a conference at all?
July 27th, 2005 at 8:57 pm
So did you read the Reason articles?
I read “Mr Skeptic Goes To Creation Camp” - his last sentence:
“In all, Mr. Baily is fun reading, lending the Christian a persepective from how skeptics view God, the Bible and Creation.”
The Reason articles were respectful and objective and he didn’t treat the attendees like freaks at a sideshow - which is how they are treated most of the time.
My questions for the attendees is this - If you really believe that “God Said it, That Settles it” is a viable answer to the the questions of origins, then why have a conference at all?
July 28th, 2005 at 8:29 am
I read parts and skimmed the rest. Though not as alarmist and not quite as condescending as some artciles of that type, I wouldn’t call them respectful and objective. There is still an underlying tone of suspiciousness and dismissiveness and not taking these people seriously as scientists as evidenced by calling something that Ken Ham said “sly,” saying he “feared” Falwell was right when he said creatistionists were “winning,” and quotes such as
I’ve been reading Lee Strobel’s Case for the Creator recently. Very interesting. So far he has been interviewing scientists, not preachers, who say that a lot of what is presented as fact of evolution in textbooks is not true.
July 28th, 2005 at 10:22 am
When someone says, well, it says this in the Bible so it must be true, so we have to find the science to back that up - that’s incompatible with the scientific method.
Do you disagree that creationism is about morality?
July 28th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
I disagree that it is solely about morality. The morality results from it. If God created everything, then we who He created are answerable to Him.
July 28th, 2005 at 3:10 pm
That’s really not much different from the way a lot of scientists approach things. I saw a TV special once — I think it was about black holes, can’t remember — and I was amazed at how the scientists made assumptions and then based hypotheses and equations on those assumptions and then came up with a whole body of “data” based on all of that without ever really knowing for sure what they were talking about. If they said all along the way, “This is what we think, based on what we have done so far,” that would be one thing, but when they then talk as if those things are fact, that is another.
August 1st, 2005 at 3:30 pm
The history of science is “two steps forward, one step back” and that’s the way it should be. The road is littered with discarded scientific theories. Creationism - even intelligent design - is incompatible with science because it presumes the answer.
Fundamentalists have bought in to the ideas of the Enlightenment and believe that the source texts have to be historically and scientifically accurate to be true. I find this curious. Paul said that all scripture is given by inspiration and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness but he didn’t say it was profitable for science and history. (Never mind that the idea of objective history didn’t even exist until the 18th century, and modern science as we know it only came about as a reuslt of the ideas of the Enlightenment. Genesis is a powerful picture of Jehovah’s relationship with the descendants of Abraham and is certainly profitable for all the things Paul said it should be. Why must it also be historically or scientific accurate to be “true?” Its already true.
August 2nd, 2005 at 8:34 am
I disagree that creationism or Intelligent design are incompatible with science. It starts at the same place science does — with a hypothesis or theory — and studies and finds that its studies supports its theory. The only difference is creationism believes its theory is fact — but then some scientists do the same, studying to prove their theory true rather than see if it is true or not, though, to be fair, there are some who aren’t that way.
It’s already true and therefore it is scientifically and historically accurate. Why would a God who proclaims Himself a God of truth be inaccurate in what He inspires?
You know, gordo, we could keep going round and round with this, but I don’t know that it would serve any purpose. I am firm in my beliefs and you appear to be as well. I would recommend to you reading articles from Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, and books like the one by Lee Strobel that I already mentioned, The Case for a Creator. The first two are groups of actual scientists, not fundamental preachers. Lee’s book is interesting in that he started out as an atheist who believed in evolution but over time came to see that he was wrong. He did not spend his whole life being taught these truths: he came to these conclusions after a lot of thought and study. So he did not come to belief because he grew up with that lifestyle and didn’t know any differently, but he came to the same conclusions.
August 15th, 2005 at 8:43 pm
“Why would a God who proclaims Himself a God of truth be inaccurate in what He inspires?”
Well, why would a God who proclaims himself a God of love create a world full of hate and pain? I don’t know, but there you have it - the world is full of it.
If God can create a world which has gone off track so badly for whatever reason, he can certainly inspire a text which gets the science wrong and gets confused between myth and history. That’s not a big stretch for me to understand.
What you’re really saying is that since God is Truth, his word must be true in every sense; morally, historically and scientifically. You’re attributing the power of the object to the power of the deity and that is idolatry. The object which represents the god has the power of the god. That’s what the savages believe.
I’m just arguing for a more realistic reading of the Bible. No where does the Bible claim that there was a historical Jonah who was swallowed by a great fish at date and time certain, any more than Mark Twain claimed that there was a historical Huck Finn. Why do fundamentalists insist that everything that isn’t a parable must be historical? To my mind they have set up an idol to be worshiped in the same way that the Israelites were still worshiping Nehushtan (the snake Moses made) hundreds of years later.
August 16th, 2005 at 12:19 am
Wait, what? I don’t think it’s out of the question to assume that a truthful God would write a truthful book. I fail to see how that assumption can be equated to idolatry.
It’s pretty simple logic: If God is omniscient, and if God is just/righteous/truthful, then he would not deliberately include error in his book. If he is as perfect as the Bible claims Him to be, then he would not accidentally include error in his book. Ergo, his book must be the truth, or else God must not be the person he claims to be in the Bible.
It’s hardly idolatry; it’s just logical thinking.
August 16th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Just replace every instance where you wrote “include error in his book” with “allow evil in his world”, and I think you’ll see the problem with your argument.
Its ironic that those who claim a literal interpretation of the Bible don’t really take it literally. At BJU I was taught that the poetry should not be taken literarlly, but everything else was supposedly historical fact. There was no allowance for the Bible as a record of ancient stories and myth. Or, should I believe that the Jews have absolutely no myths? Everything which happened, happened exactly that way? That’s ridiculous. I’m not making an argument here that the Bible is not profitable for doctrine, for reprove, for correction in righteousness. I’m just saying that its been elevated to be something which it was never meant to be.
I’m neither a scientist nor particularly interested in science, but I am fascinated with ancient history and I find that the Bible is pretty accurate back to at least the time of Josiah. There may or may not have been a King David - there’s no hard evidence, however, at a very early date the Kings of Judah were known as coming from the House of David - so he probably existed. Moses is another story - there’s not much record of him. (Oddly - there’s more historical proof for King Hezekiah than there is for Jesus Christ.)
So, like the Greeks, the Jews had stories about how they came to be who they were and where they were. These stories were rooted in fact but heavily embelished by muth and stories. At some point the stories merged with actual people and this point probably was blurred for several hundred years.
Recently I watched the (really awful) movie, Troy. Its unclear whether the Greeks ever attacked Troy - that those characters ever existed. Troy existed, as did Greece but the story of Troy with the trojan horse and Helen whose face launched a 1000 ships, and Achilles and his heel and his lover Patroclus didn’t exist and are part of the founding myths of the ancient Greeks. Does that in any way diminish the story of Troy? No - thousands of years later people are still reading about it as they still read Genesis.
Idolatry - to ascribe power to a thing which is representative of a God is the definition of idolatry. When the fundamentalists talk about the “power of the word”, or about the efficacy of memorizing scripture, or to see the absurd lenghts that the KJV only crowd go - that’s clearly idolatry to me.
August 16th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
I’m sure you’ve heard this before — but He didn’t create it that way. He created it perfect, but then sin entered the world. To wipe out sin, He’d have to wipe us all out, for we all sin. He allows free will. And He provides redemption.
I find your reasoning that regarding the Bible as truth is idolatrous absurd.
Why do liberals insist that unless something is date and time stamped and notarized that it isn’t literal?
March 15th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Barbara, you say that you treat creationism and ID as hypothesises.
How can you consider it a hypothesis when there can be no scientifically valid proof to either side on these theories? Scientific theory can be debunked at any time when just evidence of its invalidness comes to light.
Certainly, some “scientists” may hang very tightlyon their “theories” even though there is undeniable evidence to the contrary, but the scientific world tends to notice such cases sooner or later.
March 16th, 2006 at 9:34 am
See http://www.answersingenesis.org/
June 10th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
I was just reading some of the posts here, and this question just struck me.
What is the catalyst of evolution?
While it is true that there are many things that evolve and change, it is equally as true that many things do not. If an organism can exist long enough to proliferate its species, what in nature would prompt it to evolve into something else?
It just seems to be accepted that evolution is this normal, scientifically viable change that occurs in a species, when it is nothing of the kind. There is no way to explain the actual process that is evolution.
If you want to tell me that a finger evolved on the “hand” of an organism, it’s kind of important for you to be able to say why. You could say, “because the organism needed it to survive—creatures with fingers survived more than those without.” Fine, well and good. I don’t dispute that at all; it makes sense. But what in that organism prompted such a development? Do our cells have minds of their own that are connected to “nature” that say “I’m not doing so hot right now…perhaps if I could gather more cells in a cylindrical shape at the end of this nub, I might have a better chance of survival”?
In other words, where does the wonderful intelligence of evolution come from? If fingers developed out of necessity, it would have to be instantaneous to do any good. If evolution says “I need a finger”, and all it gets in the first try is a stump, what prompts it to keep going? How does it know it’s on the right track? “If I keep going this way, in a couple million years I’ll have what I need!”
Evolution, as described by anyone who talks about it, seems to have a mind of its own. There is an inherent intelligence in the organism that prompts or demands change. And by necessity, that need has to be perfectly communicated to the next generation for it to work. If one generation is inspired by evolution to start growing a limb, that understanding has to be handed down so that the next generation can pick up where the former left off. The DNA has to not only say what the organism is, but what it was working on and what it must become.
All indications would point to a type of chaotic evolution. If you would say that evolution is not intelligent—that it just happens at random and in many different ways to form new and improved species, how can it be so uniformed and resolved in purpose to continue in one vein of evolutionary development?
If you have a ball of clay, you can shape it in countless ways. You can pinch it, twist it, squish it, separate it…the options are endless. I don’t know how “dumb” evolution could be any different. Unless “it” can somehow recognize the need for something in particular within itself, it has to be trial and error. But if that’s the case, how does it know when to stop trying? How does it perceive error?
If some alligators evolve a fifth limb on their backs, and all the alligators with that extra limb die, that only leaves the normal alligators, right? …So why doesn’t the next generation take the same evolutionary track? How does the “evolution” in the next generation of alligators realize “hey, that whole fifth-limb thing we tried earlier was a failure, lets not do that again!”? And if it is mores subtle (ie just the beginnings of a fifth limb that cause the alligator to die prematurely), why don’t future generations continue to try?
If evolution has no intelligence, how can it know what didn’t work before and never try it again?
The bottom line is that evolution is real, it makes sense, and I think it’s pretty darn cool. But it’s a little too smart for me to just think that it naturally and randomly happens. And if it’s not random, what is dictating the change?
Living is instinct. It’s what an organism does by default. Any organism that does not live by default will die and be no more. So living is necessary for anything to survive. But again, if that species can survive, what prompts it to do better? Even if there is a sudden and severe temperature change in a certain area, what in the local species says “crap! Gotta change or we’re gonna die! Need something to keep warm!” and start the evolutionary process to stay alive?
It is this magical catalyst that evolution without intelligence does not explain, and does not attempt to explain. If I put my hand up to a fire, I will pull it away instinctively. That is natural—it just happens. It’s the process of receptors in my hand sending a message to my brain that says “danger, pull back” and then sending that signal to the muscles in my arm for me to pull away.
But there is no message that says “need to change my body so that the fire doesn’t bother me.” What’s more, even if my body were to somehow say that, there’s no way for it to know how to go about doing it, or to pass the message along to my son or daughter to work on it. There is a difference between reaction and evolution that I think gets overlooked. Evolution is not instinct—if it was, we’d have new versions of everything (albeit with small differences) with each new generation. There would be no control in evolution…it would not be dictated by necessity, but rather simply occur because it has to.
I don’t think I evolved from a monkey. Does it matter if I did? Not really. I don’t believe in God because of the Bible. I believe in God because He is, and has been, real in my life, and I have a relationship with Him. I can’t prove it, just like I can’t prove to anyone that I’ve got a relationship with my mother. But no one can disprove my experiences and what has happened in my life, so arguing about whether I came from a primate is really irrelevent to me. I couldn’t care less.
But as I read about evolution, and see both “sides”, I am convinced more and more that evolution is just another part of God’s brilliance. I believe it is He who inspires the changes that we see, gradual or sudden. It is simply too smart, too focused and too goal-oriented for me to just accept it as what happens just because it does. Evolution as a process (again, we’re not simply talking about DNA that stores concrete data, we’re talking about the knowledge that a certain characteristic is in development and needs to be worked on—“the thumb and four fingers are standard issue—don’t change those…the extra little lump on the palm is a work-in-progress that I need you to develop further”) has to be handed down from generation to generation to work, it has to realize where the dead-ends are (and since there are literally countless dead ends, simply saying “it takes millions of years” doesn’t explain it) and not try to reproduce them in the future, it has to understand when it is on the right track (so as to keep the incremental progress it makes and not discard it), and it has to know when to stop.
You can believe that all of it happens “just ’cause”, but as someone once said, “it takes just as much faith to believe that there is no God as it does to believe that there is one.”
February 13th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Financial Incentives for Using Solar Power in Your Home…
It is undeniable that energy prices are going through the roof. Just take a look at your utility bill. The good news is using solar power can save your bank account, particularly with new incentives….
November 24th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
sorry but if anyone says that “god created man in his own image” like randy (quite far up) has to be able to prove that god exists. you have just as much chance of doing that as you do proving that there isn’t a teapot revolving around the center of the universe, which i strongly believe, so lets leave religious debates out of this and look at EVIDENCE and darwin’s theories.