Evolution, schmevolution
I wrote my senior paper in high school about the theory of evolution. I took interest in the subject because I fancied myself a Christian apologist, eager to meet the secular challenges to faith head on. I knew that I could do so and win, because to me God was real, the Bible was true, and every living thing was specifically designed by a creator. Evolution was “just a theory” and a bad one at that.
I bought a book or two at the Christian bookstore I worked at and set forth debunking this scientific assault on my god’s handiwork.
I don’t recall everything in the paper, but the same tired arguments were there: lack of transitional fossils, existence of unchanged species, uncertainty regarding dating methods, etc.
I knew I was correct before I even started writing the paper. I was completely surrounded by validation at work and church, and I don’t ever recall studying evolution in school. My sources were as biased as I was. I still own the book by Ken Ham depicting dinosaurs boarding Noah’s ark on the cover.
Stepping back now, I realize how undeniably biased and unscholarly I was. Rather than study evolution itself to discover if the theory organized the evidence in a way that made sense, I picked away at “holes” so I could reject it outright.
I knew there was a god and he created everything. I knew it. I didn’t need any proof other than the bible. The ignorant old adage applied: “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.”
Contrary to my belief in creation, I demanded complete and absolute proof from evolutionists. At even the admittance of ignorance or lack of explanation I could shout a Sherlockian “Ah-ha!” as if I had confounded the scientist and the case for magical appearance was made. I had the answer and they didn’t! This is the hypocrisy of faith at its finest.
Why would we ever respect someone who claims they know without proof over someone who admits they don’t have all the answers but are willing to research?
I tell you my story for a grander reason, and perhaps in a sneaky way to show that I can empathize before I ask a pointed question that hopefully requires some careful introspection. One of the main things I seek in discussion and debate is intellectual honesty. I enjoy getting to the root of an argument – why the conviction exists or what the lynch-pin really is.
So then, the tough question to my former Christian brothers and sisters, or to anyone of faith that rejects evolution:
Do you feel you have sufficiently studied evolution through natural selection (from simple organisms to complex) enough to reject it or do you feel it simply conflicts with your worldview and cannot be correct?
October 28th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
To not accept natural selection is easy, to agree that evolution has occured within species is easy also.
So, no to natural selection per Darwin, and yes to evolution per ID.
More later on my thoughts. To much going on.
David hooked me on a website that is called Uncommon Descent. I have skimmed a couple and they are to far over my head, but you may enjoy. www.uncommondescent.com
October 28th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong, but is this what you’re saying?
I’m not sure what you mean by “evolution per ID”, unless you mean “creation with adaptation”.
Still, I am more interested in knowing if you reject it regardless of evidence. In other words, would anything change your mind?
October 29th, 2009 at 8:08 am
I believe we were created by Intelligent Design and species have evolved.
I have my doubts, have been skeptical, and don’t understand all the mystery’s, but…still believe in ID by I AM. So change my mind? Probably not. Expand my horizons, most definitely.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Do you believe that simple organisms evolved into complex organisms? Single cells to humans?
So you confidently believe in creation by god with no possibility of scientific proof and (likely) nothing will change your mind?
Do you find this assumption irrational?
October 29th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
No. No. Yes. No.
I believe that God created the universe. Species have evolved. Scientific proof has not been found to prove otherwise. Change my mind? No, I believe from what I’ve studied that science will point towards ID.
Did you check out Uncommon Descent?
October 29th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
So really, you just believe that a species can adapt, but not evolve into something else.
Scientific proof will never be found to prove there is no god. It’s an unfalsifiable claim like arguing about the invisible pink unicorn.
So you start with a non-scientific assumption and then accept science only when it fits?
I did check out Uncommon Descent. I’ve heard all of their arguments before regarding information theory, and it’s a clever argument, but it simply appears to be another “god of the gaps” argument – as much as they would protest that.
It boils down to, “we think things are too complex and orderly to be unguided, therefore they were guided.”
October 30th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
it is frustrating to many (those in and out of the discussion) when scientists (or non-scientists) claim an overarching elitism to examining a worldview. by this i mean, you are saying that observation is the only available medium to which you can process. science has long been only one side to “the discussion”. but over the last century or so science has claimed a “we know best” elitism that honestly is only working for those scientists claiming it. when someone from religion or a non-religious side makes any claims, be they Intelligent design or metaphysics, etc., science stands up and with utmost condescension and screams, “no, no, no! thats simply illogical! let me show you through observation…” it is like they have blinders on and will never budge, or even have a descent discussion for that matter. when can we study the observable (science, which doesnt hold all the answers) and then study the other perspectives (philosophy including philosophy of religion, some which have a greater logic and validity than others) and then have a decent discussion? for the sake of moving forward we should be open.
this is all in regards to clint’s post. i think you have a great perspective to offer to any discussion and you are obviously very intelligent, but i think that you are just taking the same type of stance on the “evolutionary believing, Gods does not exist” side as you were taking on the “creationist, God did it” side. just because you have changed sides doesn’t give you a greater perspective to the conversation, nor is that the one piece of evidence in decided who is less biased. i can throw out examples of very intelligent guys who have jumped from the “evolutionary believing, Gods does not exist” side to the “creationist, God did it” side and have very similar feelings towards the side they left. but, just because someone has changed sides doesn’t mean they now have a better perspective to both arguments. there are very incredible thinkers and very intelligent scientists on both sides of the “evo only” vs. ID debate. that in and of itself should be compelling evidence that one side is not more right than the other, that science is used on both sides to make two differing points. we should take a step back and look into the broader picture. this i believe means leaving our elitisms aside and assessing beyond just observation.
just my thoughts. a good post on presupposition and perhaps even manipulating the means to come to an already decided result.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:27 pm
What alternative are you suggesting?
How can we accept or reject supernatural, unobservable claims? How do we test the validity of one claim over another, as is the case with competing religions? Whoever’s scholar makes the best philosophical argument?
They are not similar stances at all.
I was told as a child about creation and struggled to force that belief into reality. Slowly but surely the evidence for evolution convinced me that I was incorrect to deny it.
I think that person does actually have a greater perspective. That doesn’t mean they’re automatically correct or that their claims require less evidence, just that they are intimately familiar with both sides.
If we’re defining sides as “Intelligent Design” and naturalism, one necessarily must be correct. Tallying up the number of scientists on each side doesn’t prove anything, but the ID scientists are certainly outnumbered, especially in biology.
Still, I’m not making an argument that evolution proves there is no god and I believe most atheist scientists would concur.
Again, I’m open for suggestions on how we do this in any objective way. Can we design some kind of test for determining what unobservable claims are true?
November 14th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Excellent responses (and calm!)
I was an indoctrinated creationist, too, but I never got into the ID debate. I think I knew on some level my side was bogus, and so I just tried to ignore science and hoped it would go away (while enjoying the fruits of science, like analgesics and condoms and washing machines)
December 17th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Hi Clint,
It’s mikebForJesus, from Youtube. I know I didn’t promise, but I was able to remember to get over here & take a looky.
As to evolution, you already know I’m a YEC, so as you may surmise, I get disagreements from many angles, including some in Christendom.
I DO accept natural selection, but reject molecules to man. I also strongly doubt the validity of radiometric dating (heard anything on how water cavitation seems to affect decay rates?) & would LOVE to get some time on an AMS, or at LEAST submit a few blind specimen & see what dates come up. I would also like to learn more detail on the newer technology of dating sedimentary specimen based on their exposure to light. I saw it mentioned on the History channel in a piece on the Grand Canyon.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Welcome to PFt. Glad you stopped by. We need more diverse thinkers.
Given a young Earth, you must be saying you believe species can adapt, but haven’t descended from a single-celled organism? Most species were created very similarly to what they are now?
You are aware that we use various isotopes to do radiometric dating, and they all line up within an appropriate margin of error? If water cavitation affects decay rates, it must proportionately affect all isotopes in the same amount to have them still line up with each other.
December 20th, 2009 at 12:19 am
“…species can adapt, but…”
Correct. I concur with the creation model (I don’t agree with all creationist theory, btw) that biodiversity is explained by a created “orchard” of kinds, vs a “tree” starting with a single, common ancestor. Each kind was created with plenty of genetic variability to be selected for in various environments. A lot of variety occurs from sexual reproduction (esp. when the crossing over step of meiosis is included) without mutations. Whatever taxonomic level(s) the Biblical “kinds” or “baramin” equate to, speciation occurs (and has been observed) within them and equilibrium is achieved without deviation outside them.
One consideration I don’t see addressed by either side is environmental PREFERENCE (If I was born with thicker fur than my fellows, I would probably find latitudes further from the equator more comfortable and reproduce in that clime).
“…[water cavitation] must proportionately affect all isotopes..”
So it would seem, although inconclusive from current empirical data. But even if so, that wouldn’t change my point which is that if the flood generated orders of magnitude more decay than that by which we calibrate in the lab, it may help explain dating discrepancies such as blind samples showing 6kya of helium leakage, and 150mya of radioactive decay.
I’m also curious about the calibration method itself. What is the longest we’ve measured decays in a sample? However long it is, it’s 10^-nth TINY compared to the curve we’re trying to extrapolate! Any error will be greately amplified. Similar to when we rotate a rifle muzzle 1mm, and at 2.5km (discounting windage, etc.), bullet impact is moved 250m.
Additionally, I’m interested to see a lot of blind sample tests, versus those where the lab asks what age is suspected. Why would they request that for a supposedly absolute dating method? It leads me to suspect possible data cherry picking.
December 20th, 2009 at 12:46 am
david knuckles,
I agree with your comment in that science is limited to observing and testing the material world only. Additionally, the practitioners of historical (vs operational) science have to start with a set of assumptions (philosophy of science) by which to interpret evidence (sometimes very scanty) and draw inferences about past events, which typically are non-repeatable, and thus not subject to direct testing. This, I believe has set up a false paradigm of pre-written history, since the philsophy of science chosen by many of the big dogs (for preferential reasons during the “enlightenment”) is materialism, which outright rejects any supernatural activity (and thus, the Bible).
Being a Bible believer and a fan of science, it saddens me. I want God to get the credit for His creation, ’cause it certainly declares His awesomeness!
“Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.” -Louis Pasteur
December 20th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Wouldn’t this only apply to possibly birds or aquatic species that experience a wide range of climates and could easily stop somewhere? Obviously most mammals don’t understand that it’s warmer or colder based on latitude.
And you argue that it makes better sense to start with what’s written in the Bible and work from there?
Actually, it doesn’t. If a god did create all of this, he’s at best incredibly inept and at worst malicious. You might reject it outright, but Neil Shubin’s “Your Inner Fish” is a good treatise on the bad “design” of the human body.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:13 am
[Does it make better sense to start with the Bible & work from there?]
That’s the way modern science used to work, esp geology and a global flood. I was surprised to learn recently however, that in science, materialism gained a lot of influence in the late 1600’s, then creationism held sway until the mid 1800’s. Now materialism is enjoying historical science dominance in the public eye, but I predict things will reverse again in a decade or two. Anyway, as to philosophy of science, yes I do start with the assumption the Bible is true. Am I arguing that all should do so? Of course I would prefer it, but each is left to his own choice and God in His own time, often shows the folly of man’s deviation.
Occasionally I encounter arguments for bad design in nature, but two conditions that make sense prevent me thus far from entertaining them very far: 1) Fallen world. Genome degradation, diabetes, arthritis & other maladies that would not have happened otherwise. 2) Man’s imperfect knowledge of the purpose of the designs, which upon further examination, turn out to be completely logical and beyond ingenius. The “inverted retina” is an example. It is true, however that both sides occasionally pounce on interpretations of evidence prematurely.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:55 am
I’m hearing more and more trends towards secularism in the US, at least. I can’t foresee any reason for it to reverse.
Doesn’t that argument seem to be a little too, I’m sorry to repeat, convenient? God made everything perfectly, and any problems in the world can just be blamed on “the fall”. It’s never going to be God’s fault.
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:44 pm
“…trends toward secularism…”
Hard to get a clear, reliable picture, but in Europe:
http://194.94.44.150/repository/docs/issue9_stevejones.pdf
“Fallen world…too convenient”
Convenience would be irrelevant to veracity, no? The fallen world is certainly coherent in Biblical context.