Tuesday, April 06, 2010

Response to '50 Reasons I Reject Evolution' Pt 2 of 5

Continued from Part 1

11.) Because I think the word “theory” actually means: “random stabs in the dark” when it really means: "an explanation of certain phenomena that is well-supported by a large body of facts and often unifies similarly well-supported hypotheses" i.e. atomic theory, gravitational theory, germ theory, cell theory, some-people-are-dumb-************-theory, etc.

Here’s a quote from Creation.com on the subject. While the author’s quoted definition is imprecise and misleading I completely agree with the following quote;

‘Evolution is just a theory.’ What people usually mean when they say this is ‘Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists usually use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin–Landau/Verwey–Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

All the same, the critic doth protest too much. Webster’s Dictionary (1996) provides the #2 meaning as ‘a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact,’ and this usage is hardly unknown in the scientific literature. The dictionary further provides ‘6. contemplation or speculation. 7. guess or conjecture.’ So the critic is simply wrong to say that it’s a
mistake to use theory to mean ‘speculation’, ‘conjecture’ or ‘guess’; and that scientists never use theory this way in the literature. So the attack is really cheap point-scoring, but there is still no reason to give critics this diversion.

12.) Because the fact that science is self-correcting annoys me. Most of my other beliefs are rigidly fixed and uncorrectable.

Science is self-correcting. Scientists are people with an agenda, just like everyone else. The only One who doesn’t need to be corrected is the One who “cannot lie”. Have you ever noticed that scientists are always considered absolutely correct when they are appealed to in order to attack a Creationist viewpoint? They never seem to need correcting when they are trying to argue against God. However, when they tell us how gravity works, or what the weather will be like this afternoon they are allowed to be endlessly mistaken. They’ll do better next time. However God cannot lie. If He were accurately shown to have lied then He would be self-disqualified for deity.

The problem for anti-God types is a simple one. Though impossible, it is absolutely simple. Accurately show that the God of the Bible has lied. Arguing from Evolutionary theory or any other man-made idea may be entertaining but it’s the wrong battle. If you want to disprove God, then disprove Him. Making up stories about things that didn’t happen won’t help, because you’re going to have to keep changing your story to keep up with your “self-correcting science.”

Check out the peer-reviewed scientific papers from the 1990’s and tell me that I should be convinced by the peer-reviewed scientific papers of today….. The Scriptures are available for anyone to inspect. They haven’t changed since they were written… so if they are so full of lies then I suppose that someone could point me to them…

13.) Because I am under the severely mistaken impression that evolution implies someone in my very recent ancestry was a chimp.

Does a process that doesn’t work become more effective if it’s given more time? Based on observation it apparently becomes more believable. It’s actually the most effective argument for persuading people to accept Evolution, long ages of time. Time is a smoke screen though, it just plain doesn’t matter how long you give a broken toaster, it’s never going to make toast.

14.) Because everything appears designed to my mind which was expertly tuned by nature to perceive design, probably as a survival mechanism.

The author commits the logical fallacy of reification here by ascribing concrete characteristics to the abstract notion of Nature. Nature is not a personality, it can not “expertly” do anything. In fact it can not “tune” anything either. “Nature” is an abstraction; it is simply the name given to a chain of events in the Universe.

One might wonder how perceiving everything as being designed would work as a survival mechanism using a naturalistic view of the world. However, Romans 1 shows us how our “expertly tuned” ability to recognize design actually is a “survival instinct” for Eternal Life. Rejecting the Designer results in death, being reconciled to Him results in life.

15.) Because some secretly fabulous closet-dwelling televangelist (who unironically preaches hate towards gays) told me that evolution is Satan’s way of leading me away from God.

If a fool told you that the Earth orbits the Sun would he be wrong? Would reality somehow change because a fool spoke the truth? The author commits the logical fallacy of ad hominem by attacking the message giver’s character instead of challenging the validity of the message.

16.) Because that same guy (who was also caught snorting blow off a male hooker’s shiny ***** ***) told me that God planted those fossils to test my faith.

If a fool gives you a false explanation about how (or even why) the Earth orbits the Sun would it then be untrue that the Earth orbits the Sun? Students of the Bible do not have their faith tested by the existence of fossils, they expect to find them in the rock laid down in water all over the world.

17.) Because I’m 100% correct about everything 100% of the time and there is 0% chance that some snooty Oxford educated scientist with numerous honorary doctorates could possibly know something that I don’t.

Biblical Creationists have repented, which by definition is to admit wrong thinking and acceptance of correction. Making up a story and promoting it by means such as the article I’m responding to doesn’t exactly demonstrate a healthy acceptance of correction or even being a teachable person at all.

18.) Because I don’t know that fossils are found in sedimentary strata corresponding to their age as one would expect if evolution were true.

You’re right I didn’t know that. I used to think that, and then I went looking and found it to be untrue. It is amusing to read how newly found fossils force “scientists” to completely re-think their Evolutionary Trees on a monthly basis though.

In actuality fossils are not found in the supposed evolutionary order, or even in the same order around the world. http://creation.com/fossilsdo-they-get-more-complex http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp

19.) Because I don’t understand why, if we share common ancestry with chimps, there are still chimps. And when someone with more than three brain cells in their head inevitably replies: “for the same reason Americans share common ancestry with Brits but there are still Brits, I can’t follow the logic. It’s just too big a leap. Who am I, Evil Knievel?

If a fool gives a bad argument for something that is true, does his bad argument make what was true false?


‘If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?’ In response to this statement, some evolutionists point out that they don’t believe that we descended from apes, but that apes and humans share a common ancestor. However, the evolutionary paleontologist G.G. Simpson had no time for this ‘pussyfooting’, as he called it. He said, ‘In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.’

However, the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to
allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there’s nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.

It’s important to note that allopatric speciation is not the sole property of evolutionists—creationists believe that most human variation occurred after small groups became isolated (but not speciated) at Babel, while Adam and Eve probably had mid-brown skin color. The quoted erroneous statement is analogous to saying ‘If all people groups came from Adam and Eve, then why are mid-brown people still alive today?’

So what’s the difference between the creationist explanation of people
groups (‘races’) and the evolutionist explanation of people origins? Answer: the former involves separation of already-existing information and loss of information through mutations; the latter requires the generation of tens of millions of ‘letters’ of new information.

20.) Because my mom dropped me on my head when I was a baby.

21.) Multiple times.

22.) On purpose.

I’m sure there is at least one Creationist who wasn’t dropped on their head as a baby, multiple times. Maybe we could put that question on the next census?

No comments: