Does evolution inevitably lead to atheism? A response to a CMI article

The belief that atheism and evolution are intertwined is probably the most significant motivation behind the creationist movement. As you all know 2009 is the 150th anniversary since Darwin published his book, most would understand the cause for excitement is that in that year a theory which is now one of the founding theories in biology was first proposed. Creationists claim it is because Darwin made a theory which is held by some to make God redundant, however as far as I can tell the starting of the year 2009 caused a lot more excitement in creationist circles then evolutionist or atheist circles. One article (its also an editorial in Journal of Creation) on the CMI website would be an example of this concern.

How odd. Why is the whole world caught up this year in such euphoria over
Darwin?
Why haven’t the achievements of other great scientists ever captured
the global imagination—scientists like Sir Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, James
Maxwell, Albert Einstein or Gregor Mendel?

Well this isn't entirely true, 2005 was the "World Year of Physics" in memory of Einstein's work on general relativity. General relativity has had a large impact on the field of physics so it is simply natural that the 100 year anniversary of Einstein publishing his theory was commemorated.

It is the same with Darwin, he made many contributions to biology which greatly improved our understanding of how organisms relate to each other. Darwin's theory also helped us realize who we are exactly and where we fit in the ecosystem, it led to the modern understanding of the human race. Although it is true that atheistic organizations also celebrate it because it replaced God as the direct creator it is mostly about Darwin's contributions to science.

Because Darwin 2009 is not about science. Look at who’s cheering.
The
International Humanists Union honour Darwin because evolution, in their words,
‘made creator deities redundant’. Note, evolution made the Creator redundant.
Sir Julian Huxley gloated, ‘Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the
creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion.' Underline,
Darwin removed God.
Atheist extraordinaire, Richard Dawkins said, ‘ … Darwin
made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.’ Observe, Darwin
justifies atheism.

As I mentioned earlier, of course atheists and secular humanists are going to remember Darwin for the ideological extrapolations which his theory led to. It should be noted that yes while evolution makes it possible to not believe in God, it does not make it impossible to believe in God. God could still be the creator of the universe besides the fact that he used evolution to create life. Evolution does not automatically imply God doesn't exist anymore then the theory of gravity does, since gravity draws objects together in space rather then God directly pushing them together.

The author continues, stating supposed evidence for intelligent design and creation and concluding that this year is an opportunity to spread the creation message, this is discussed in other articles and by other sources.

Now while it does not matter if the celebration of Darwin does have to do with Atheism, it does matter that it leads many to believe that evolution rules out God. Creationists think that by fighting evolution they are helping to restore and strengthen the faith of Christians as well as the over all respectability of Christianity. In reality they are helping to destroy Christianity by making the church look backwards, which has an adverse affect on the number of Christians leaving the chuch. At the same time atheists are not facilitating the debates end either; by promoting evolution as inherently anti-theistic they are only giving the creationists more incentive to fight the evolutionary theory, thus prolonging the controversy. What needs to be done is to focus on the motivation for the creationist denial of evolution; if we theistic evolutionists show both creationists and atheists that evolution is compatible with belief in God then the controversy will end soon thereafter.

A Review of Answers In Genesis' review of Eugenie Scotts talk on science and faith part 2

Now they begin to discuss how faith affects scientific research, it is true that science owes a significant part of its ideological foundations to a Christian theistic worldview but does this mean that we should force a certain interpretations of the bible on the scientific community? The fact is that while the young earth interpretation was once an adequate interpretation because it did not contradict what science knew at the time evidence of an old earth, evolution, and a very old universe have been uncovered which contradicts it and a better interpretation of the bible is needed.

Anyways the creationist author goes on to state the following paragraph;

What I’ve tried to make clear so far is that one’s belief about God does make a
difference in how one understands science and what one thinks about the origin
of life. Specifically, while creationists do value inferential explanation, we
However, notice that even when we find data that points to design, such as irreducible complexity, Darwinism is not considered falsified or challenged. In fact, we argue that nothing evolutionists find would be considered enough to falsify evolution, because Darwinism isn’t just another falsifiable hypothesis that’s made its way to the core; rather, it is a presupposed, foundational paradigm that is used to interpret the actual facts.value the authority of an infallible, direct observer over inferential
explanations that start out by arbitrarily decreeing that a designer is “less
probable” (ruling out supernatural explanations).

To this, I agree your religious beliefs do have an affect on how you look at science and scientific discoveries. However not to the extent that creationists would suppose, while your religious beliefs or lack thereof give you different philosophical perspectives on different discoveries and the nature of science, it does not and should not cause you to rewrite science and force-fit it into your religious views which is exactly what creationists are doing. While I agree that arbitrarily assuming there is not designer is fallacious, I don't think we should then attribute the origin of everything to direct creation of the deity without good solid evidence, otherwise it is not science.

After describing Eugenie Scotts illustration of core, frontier, and frings ideas of science the creationist author responds;

However, notice that even when we find data that points to design, such as
irreducible complexity, Darwinism is not considered falsified or challenged. In
fact, we argue that nothing evolutionists find would be considered enough to
falsify evolution, because Darwinism isn’t just another falsifiable hypothesis
that’s made its way to the core; rather, it is a presupposed, foundational
paradigm that is used to interpret the actual facts.

That is just the problem, Irreducible Complexity is not evidence of design so by simple logic evolution has not been challenged by IC therefore it has not been falsified, and even if IC did challenge a completely naturalistic outlook on natural history it would not disprove evolution. This doesn't prove that Design has been rejected for philosophical reasons by the scientific community it simply proves the obvious fact that IC has failed to disprove it, evolution is easy to disprove also; just find evidence of human fossils in the Triassic period and evolution is dead. Now it should also be pointed out that in a sense the creationists are right; facts have to be interpreted but there is only one correct interpretation and young earth creationism is not it.

Now onto whether or not evolution (or darwinism as they call it) is a paradigm;

One might suggest that, even if Darwinism is a paradigm rather than a simple
hypothesis, the evidence would still help scientists choose between competing
paradigms (as though they were competing explanatory hypotheses). But facts
don’t speak for themselves; they must be interpreted through a paradigm.
Interpreting facts to prove a paradigm is thus ultimately an exercise in
circular logic. Furthermore, since the only paradigms that challenge Darwinism
are design-based, there is effectively only one paradigm to chose from for those
like Scott who reject that science can discover intentional design.

Although this is true it does not help creationists since evolution is not a paradigm but a testable hypothesis which has passed the test of time. Now on Methodological Naturalism (which is what creationists really mean when they say "Darwinism"), Methodological Naturalism was developed many Christian philosophers (among them being Francis Bacon) who understood that uniformity was the key foundation of science. The supernatural was not to be denied or denigrated but when it came to the natural world the supernatural would be left out since they were dealing with the way God usually upheld his creation (natural forces) rather then the way God upheld his creation only in very special moments (supernatural forces) so the supernatural is left out of the equation when it comes to science. This is wise because capricious supernatural explanations will not give us a better understanding of the natural world. Now it is true that some people will not accept supernatural explanations of any kind (even theists such as Kenneth Miller), if the evidence points toward a deliberate supernatural act (actual evidence not just a God-of-the-gaps argument) I will accept it. I have no philosophical reason to reject design, however the current Intelligent Design movement is disappointingly lacking in evidence for their theory, and that is in a nutshell the reason I am a Christian who believes in Evolution. As a result I am not convinced that anyone, Christians in particular should be so eager to support Intelligent Design for its potential apologetic uses.

In the end it is up the reader to decide which one is true, evolution is a testable hypothesis which has been proven, and if you believe I am wrong don't just sit there, argue with me and tell me why I am wrong, you might even change my mind who knows.

A Review of Answers In Genesis' review of Eugenie Scotts talk on science and faith

Excuse the incredibly long name but there isn't really any other way to phrase it.

Anyway I was just reading a recent article on the AiG website about a talk Eugenie Scott gave back in September (yes it took them that long to get to it, but I can see why, they are probably quite busy). It is basically a discussion about how science and religion mix. Now since I am a theist and Eugenie is not I will probably find myself agreeing with a lot of things the creationists are saying from a philosophical standpoint yet rejecting many of their conclusions (example, I agree that there is a God who created the universe and revealed himself to mankind through a book, however I disagree that this means he couldn't have used natural processes to create the universe).

To begin, she points out that there are three ways of gaining knowledge; personal experience (intuition internal knowledge etc.), Authority (a book such as the bible, an experienced individual in a particular field etc.), and science which she describes as a limited way of knowing the world which through natural processes alone. She also points out that science is limited in the sense that it can only know what can be observed and tested. I agree with most of what she is saying, although if evidence of something outside the natural world (say, God) could be gleaned then it would probably be accepted as scientific.

Next she goes onto the creationist argument that you cannot know anything about something if it happened in the past because there were no witnesses. Eugenie uses a humorous example of finding on a road, cow dung with a road stripe painted over it, and then humorously asks the audience if we would not be able to figure out what happened because it happened in the past. She goes onto state that we could figure out what happened through seeing a logical sequence (cow comes and defecates on a road stripe, the road maintenance crew comes to paint fresh stripes on the road and doesn't clean of the dung but simply paints the line over it).

The creationist argument that we can't figure something out because it happened in the past is indeed a weak argument. And although I agree that an omniscient witness who can't lie is a good witness to have I also believe Creation is a witness from God telling the human race how he created the universe, it is simply logical that God's creation would be just as reliable as his on natural history as his revealed word would be on matters of human history, spirituality and morality.

Now enough babbling, lets get to the creationists' response;

Now, let me make it clear that, unlike Scott’s implication, creationists do
believe inferential explanation is, on the whole, pretty accurate. If you return
home and your dog is out of the cage with trash scattered about, it’s not
unreasonable to conclude, based on past experience and circumstantial evidence
(e.g., teeth marks on garbage, the dog’s dirty snout) that the dog is
responsible. This sort of deduction can be quite reasonable when there are no
observers and can be important even when there are observers—if they’re fallible
(for example, the aforementioned witnesses to a crime).
Likewise, Scott’s
answer to her highway conundrum makes sense based on what we know about the
behavior of cattle, the physics of highway paint striping, and so forth.
But
just as it seems foolish to conclude that inferential explanations are never
right, it also seems foolish to conclude that inferential explanation—especially
about unrepeatable historical events—is just as reliable as directly observing
repeatable, carefully controlled scientific experiments. This is where we get
into the distinction between operational (or observational) science and origins (or
historical) science—a distinction evolutionists fail to recognize, by the
way.
For instance, a dog tearing up garbage isn’t a one-time event; it’s
something that happens more regularly than most people would like, has been
observed many times, and violates no laws of science. We could even set up a
two-way mirror or hidden camera and document Fido’s destruction.

And now for my rebuttal: While it is true that sometimes accurately describing historical events can be difficult it is not impossible. Although we cannot absolutely know how a battle happened we can get a pretty good idea (like from where the enemy attacked, we can tell what era it occured in by the armour of the soldiers, etc.). A dog tearing up garbage isn't a one time event but neither is biological change, and we can actually observe it happening in the same way we can see dogs tearing through garbage. Creationists need to show that these two cases are somehow different; now it is true that we have not actually watched a reptile evolve into a bird but we don't have to. Just like in at a crime scene you look for clues from the site to see what happened, scientists look for any changes of that type in the fossil record which is essentially (not to use a word twice but) a record of earth's history. If we didn't find any evidence of this sort of change whatsoever evolution would have been thrown in the garbage can a long time ago.

Now onto why they think evolution is different;

But as for the differences: first, Darwinian evolution is based on
conjecture about a one-time event that we cannot repeat experimentally; the
“documentation” of the fossil record is actually just an interpretation of unevolving fossils that
presupposes evolution.3 Second, Darwinian evolution violates the law of biogenesis and the second
law of thermodynamics. Third, there are good alternatives to evolution regarding
the origin of life/biodiversity. These differences distinguish the dog-and-trash
and the cattle-and-road-stripe examples from Darwinian evolution.

Well I am sorry to say this creationist is w-r-o-n-g; Darwinian evolution is not based on conjecture and it is based upon an event which we can repeat experimentally, evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics or the law of biogenesis (evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis), and no there are no good alternative explanations. It should also be pointed out that Intelligent Design as a concept is valid, however the current movement which wants to make Intelligent Design a scientific alternative to evolution has failed to make a convincing case. I would like nothing better then for a more theistic framework for biology to appear but until that happens, I will stay with evolution. Next he makes the point that inference is only accurate if the source is accurate. Now this is true, but if data gained through careful examination and experimentation is not a good source of inference then I don't know what is. Creationists deny it but that is indeed how our knowledge of evolution has been gained over the past 150 years.

The last point I am going to address tonight is that God being incapable of lying and omniscient would be a perfectly reliable witness; this is very true but creationists need to remember that creation was also made by God and it was made to give a reliable account of the past, shouldn't we also take the witness of God's creation into account?

I will be making a part two of this tomorrow (I apologize for my laziness in updating this blog, I will attempt to do better next month) but for now, farewell and goodbye.

Ten myths about evolution part 5

The next myth appears to be that just because you find an ape fossil with human like characteristics doesn't mean its a transitional form. So just because it has all of the appearances of being a transitional form its still not a transitional form? Does that make sense to anybody? Now it is true that some characteristics attributed to apelike ancestors of humans are found in apes today, but this does not automatically mean that that early hominids could not have been ancestors to humans anymore then the fact that mid browns being alive today proves that we did not come from Adam and Eve (mainstream creationists believe that Adam and Eve were mid browns therefore having greater variability).

Top 10 so called myths about evolution part 4

Well the real 7th top myth (I accidentally labeled the 8th top myth as the seventh sorry about that) about evolution is that ape-human genetic similarities prove evolution.

Well in this case it depends on how you look at it. Creationists are right in pointing out that ape-human similarities don't necessarily prove evolution. But it is not simply the similarities but the pattern of these similarities which make evolution a better explanation. there is no reason not to assume that since humans and apes have the same retroviruses, Pseudogenes, junk DNA, and one of the human chromosomes is a fusion between two chimp chromosomes; they are therefore related. Creationists can rationalize this all by saying that God designed them with similarities, or that God purposely infected apes and humans with the same retroviruses because of some unknown purpose (yes they actually suggest this), and that pseudogenes have a function which has not been discovered yet (to be fair some pseudogenes have actually been found which do have a function). But that still doesn't refute the genetic similarity argument used by evolutionists.

P.S. Wow, this is the first month in which I've made more then seven posts since July; a new record!

P.P.S. Well anyways, good day.

Created Rationalist

Top ten so called myths about evolution part 3

Now after a rather busy week we get to transitional forms. Then 7th top myth is that there are clear transitional fossils. Well if you creationists could remind paleontologists of that, it would be quite nice. one of the more extraordinary transitional forms is Tiktaalik with phalanges, a neck, and inner ear structures which appear half-way between land animals and fish. Also lets not forget our friends Archaeopterix and Microraptor. Also here are two videos about transitional forms, part 1 and part 2. The guy despite being a professing Christian is an especially rabid anticreationist which some of my creationist associates might find offensive but he does have good information.

Hence transitional forms is another scientific reason to become a theistic evolutionist.

Top 10 so called myths about evolution part 2

forgive me for being a little slow on this series, my next posts on this series will hopefully be more frequent.

Anyway this one is about homologous structures; the "evolutionist" myth is apparently that it proves evolution. Their counter-argument is that physical or genetic similarities does not prove two organisms are related anymore then the fact that two phones are alike means they are related. One person actually denied that the similar characteristics can also prove common design. I don't think the argument is invalid; it also logically follows that organisms without the the same structures would have greater genetic differences then organisms that do have the same structures and vice verca. The problem with this argument is deciding which similarities are due to common design and which are due to common descent. Mainstream creationists (AiG, ICR, and CMI mainly) think that all species come from larger more diverse kinds, so obviously you would have some organisms which are similar also due to common descent, so two different breeds of dogs being genetically similar due to common descent is not a problem for creationists. But what about say, chimpanzees and humans who are about as similar as two breeds of dogs? A theologically consistent special creationist would have to say that humans were of a different kind then chimpanzees, even though his scientific definition of a kind says otherwise. The question is how far can you go back in animals before you the kind level? If

If this aspect of creationist genetics were correct then should be large gaps in genetic similarity between two species from different kinds. For example; chimpanzees should be more like 90% or even 80% similar, not 98% similar.

My point here is while the common design argument is valid as far as logic goes, but it fails in the fact that the genetic similarities are more consistent with a non-creationist interpretation of the data. As far back as we go back largely unrelated organisms (such as dogs and bears) become more and more genetically similar to the point where they would classify as being in the same creationist kind. Following a creationist interpretation we have to make an arbitrary cut off point which has no other then a weak theological justification for it.

Science and Presuppositions; Christians who contributed to "evolutionary" science

Creationists such as Terry Mortension attempt to strengthen the illusion of a worldview difference between secular geology and flood geology as well as secular and young earth astronomy by stating many of the early uniformitarians were deistic and atheistic.

While this is true, not all early long-agers were atheists or deists;

Emmanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) A Swedish mystic and scientist who proposed a form of the Nebular Hypothesis on the origin of the Solar System, although he also studied philosophy, physics, and mechanics; he even drew a sketch for a flying machine. Along with being a rationalist he was also a mystic and claimed to have received visions from God telling him to reform the true Christianity. Although he did hold some heterodox and other downright heretical views about the trinity (Newton did as well, not that holding heterodox views pf the trinity is a good thing of course, it is simply that even though Newton did have unorthodox views he is praised by creationists as a Christian in science), he could nonetheless be described as a Christian, and he could also be described as uniformitarian in his thinking towards natural history. He obviously had a very strong belief in the bible and that did not stop him from being a long age astronomer.

Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804) An influential German enlightenment thinker; most of his works are on philosophy although he did develop the Nebular Hypothesis which gave a naturalistic for the origin of the Solar System. Although most of his scientific work was in astronomy he did write on the history of the earth as well.

More recent scientists include who contributed to the more controversial parts of secular science include Roman Catholic Georges Lemaitre who developed the Big Bang theory, (this is interesting being that many creationists call the Big Bang an atheistic idea when in fact it sprang from the mind of a clergymen!) Jesuit scientist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who contributed to the field of evolutionary biology (although his theology was in the stratosphere), and evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky.

These are just two 18th century uniformitarians who were indeed Christian theists, many Christian Geologists and Astronomers who believed in an old earth came later in the 19th century when more evidence for such ideas had come. Interestingly enough creationists who were contemporaries of Darwin were often old earthers, among them being Paleontologist Sir Richard Owen and the Theologian Charles Hodge. It is simply not true that all supporters of an old earth had deistic or atheistic philosophies, There were differing views on both sides in both centuries. Belief in an old earth was not because of compromise with an anti-theistic philosophy it was simply because of the evidence for an old earth.

Global Warming denialists, Creationists, and Answers In Genesis

Why is it that Christian Creationists always seem to be on the side of the Global Warming denialists?

examining Creation Guys episode 5

Since I responded to their fourth one already I decided to respond to each in order. This episode has to do with faith and logic. The first topics they talk about is news about someone trying to sneak an intentionally poor paper past Answers Research Journal peer review, and then the question, "who created God?" I don't have much of a problem with their answer to that question although I would definitely not go as far to call it an unintelligent question. Also I am dismayed at their dismissive attitude, they don't even really answer the question even though it is a serious question.

However the next statement borders on infuriating;

Jonathan Samson: "Now a lot of people--there's a lot of Christian theologians out
there--who just don't really care about this kind of stuff."

They don't care!? So pro-science theologians who look for ways in how faith and science mix don't care about the relationship between science and religion? This makes absolutely no sense, they may not say earth was created in six days but they definitely care about the relationship between science and religion, its anti-science theologians who think science and religion are incompatible and one has to be suppressed who don't care.

Eric Hovind: "Yeah they really compromise the whole situation of--science and
God--they assume that if they practice science and when they practice their
faith--their religion, they kind of have to take of their science hat and put on
their God hat"

True there are many people who do think that science and religion occupy separate zones in the brain and that one somehow suppresses the other. This is not the view of pro-science theologians but more commonly the view of theologians opposed to science because of their off the wall interpretation of the bible. Most theologians he is talking about see science and theology as equivalent and complementary ways of discovering truth.

They go on to say that many Christians feel that if we simply sacrifice a literal interpretation of the bible evolution and Christianity are compatible, while this is true there are many Christians (progressive creationists including) who do not see their acceptance of modern science as contradictory to a literal interpretation of the bible; Just a young earth one. I am Christian and I do not see any problem with accepting evolution. Then he goes onto mention Hugh Ross as if he were a Christian who didn't take the bible literally and believed in evolution. This is ridiculous Hugh Ross does take the bible literally, however he uses an alternate literal interpretation (the day-age interpretation) that does not lead you to the conclusion that the days of genesis were ordinary days, he is still a staunch anti-evolutionist, he is hardly a poster boy for liberal theology. Eric Hovind Continues;

"Dude that is a question that comes up isn't it! 'why can't you just compromise and give into the Big Bang thing?' 'Why are you so dogmatic on this?'"

That is the question isn't it? To my fellow Christians: Frankly I don't care what position you take on Genesis whether your a young earth creationist or progressive creationist or theistic evolutionist like myself. I'm not going to try to deconvert you. And I will give you a chance to defend your position both scientifically and theologically, and I Will tell you only criticize your beliefs if you bring the subject of creation-vs evolution up and you want to debate. And I will tell you why I think your wrong, and if you are spreading misinformation I know it is my Christian duty to stop you. The purpose of this blog is to defend evolution both from a theological and scientific perspective not to attack yours. Also I'm not hard to convince show me that evolution is wrong and that the Big Bang and the extreme age of the earth are a joke and I will wholeheartedly accept creationism. Until then I will remain with my position. As for young earth creationists they will never be convinced that their beliefs are wrong because their interpretation of the bible will not allow it. Leaving a young earth interpretation for a better one would be compromise to them as Jonathan is about to confirm:

"It doesn't make it right, that's like saying, Eric your married, why won't you cheat on your wife as so many husbands have? Your not supposed too! [that's why]"

Jonathan Samson has made it clear that he is not going to change his interpretation of the bible because he sees it as compromising the authority of the bible. He see's it in the same light as cheating on ones wife. He will never change his mind from a scientific perspective and will continue to spread Hovind-style misinformation. What both pro-science Christians and non-Christians need to realize is that the creation-evolution controversy is theological in nature and should be addressed as such. As for anti-creationists who are also anti-religious it must be remembered that creationists are motivated to oppose evolution because the leading anti-religious crusaders have made evolution an argument against the existence of God. If we disassociated evolution from atheism and theism the debate would be over.

Bogosity episode 2; creationism

Bogosity is a show similar to mythbusters. Which looks at fraudulant claims and debunks them (but with a little more tenacity then mythbusters).

The second episode deals with creationism. Although what it deals with largely is what I call hovindian or folk creationism. Mainly the scientifically and intellectually derelict creationism or Ray Comfort, Kirk Camoren, and Kent Hovind. This video would have little affect on mainstream creationists but I think it would work with hovind fans, the problem is that he is rather brash in his dealings nonetheless.

Bogosity episode 2 part 1

part 2

part 3

Enjoy.

The Missing Universe Museum's missing brain

I was on a creationist site called the missing universe museum yesterday, it's a typical creationist site, with ordinary strawman arguments but what really exposes the site is this quoted statement;

If you don't believe God created all living things, male and female, in 6
days.... How many millions of years was it between the first male and the
first
female?

This shows that author of this site needs to retake biology 101, its called asexual reproduction, sex evolved later. I am sure that most creationists I know would laugh along with me at this statement.

A larger part of the article which sentence is found in is;

Sex is a great problem for Evolution! Per evolution, all living things had a
common ancestor. If this is true, every living thing should be sexually
compatible and able to produce fertile offspring! That's because if any new
specie did come about by mutation, it would have to mate with its parent specie.
Yet, none of the major kinds of life can be crossed to produce a fertile
offspring!
The reproductive system is a faithful reproducer of its parent
kind. You never see an elephant giving birth to a horse or anything other
than an elephant. When there is an error in reproduction, it is almost
always harmful or at best neutral. Any mutation would have to be included
in the genes in order to be passed on to future generations.

This paragraph only further exposes the site as scientifically ignorant and untrustworthy. Now we see that not only is the author ignorant of asexual reproduction but a has common misunderstanding of how evolution works. An elephant with fly wings would be a problem for evolution to explain and therefore evidence against evolution. Also there are many examples of positive mutations, one example can be found here.

The entire site is pretty wacky, go ahead and look at it although it should probably come with a warning sticker.

Note to Christians: The general intellectual bankruptcy across creationism should be a warning sign to my fellow Christians, God would definitely not use charlatans to spread the message of the gospel. I urge my fellow Christians who are young earth creationists to reconsider their position. The young earth movement is not scientifically or theologically sound and should not be supported. There are many places you can go to get both theological and scientific information information which contradicts young earth claims; two places in particular are Answers In Creation, an old earth creationist organization which counters many young earth claims about geology and theology. And Talk Origins which has a wealth of information on evolution (don't forget to look at the FAQ), happy reading and God bless.

Eric Hovind's attempt to explain away the fused chromosomes

You all know the argument for evolution from the fused chromosomes, for those who don't; I wrote about it in an earlier post, I'll explain it briefly here for conveniance; apes have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46, and one thing is that if we don't find an explanation for this evolution is in trouble. What would have had to have happened is that two of the chromosomes fused into one large chromosome, and interestingly enough our chromosome number 2 is resembles to ape chromosomes which fused. What a coincidence!

This is a little difficult for creationists to explain away although they have found a way, AiG has written an article in response to the argument by Kenneth Miller. This version of the argument is from a video by Eric Hovind and Jonathan Samson, Samson gives the argument;

So it we strip away the bias and just look at the facts (as everyone should),
the facts are; yes it seems like humans have experienced fusion in the past in
human chromosome number two. But what does that mean? [Hovind cuts in to say
"That's how--there interpreting it--as evidence of evolution"] It means they're
attaching it to their own story.

So essentially he is saying that we are assuming that humans evolved from apes before we look at the evidence and have misinterpreted it as evidence of common descent. Of course is this accurate? Evolution gave a plausible explanation of the missing chromosome and it has turned out to be true. Also since it resembles two ape chromosomes and it predicted by the theory of evolution it doesn't seem too far fetched to say it is evidence of evolution.

This argument is not filled with the usual crass scientific ignorance that usually accompanies Hovind arguments, but it still does not succeed. I think creationists have a point with worldviews affecting how we approach science but they take it to the far flung extant to try to force-fit scientific data into their narrow, flawed interpretation of the bible (which they somewhat arrogantly equate with the biblical position). Christian or non-Christian, one can not accept such an extrapolation.

Key to ending the creation/evolution controversy

The creation-evolution controversy has raged for over a century and a half now. And there seems no end in site, it only appears to be getting more ferocious as the years pass, Why is this?

Well one thing might be confusion about why creationists oppose evolution. It is not because of science or any reason related to that. the leading creationists are not morons who can't think straight either, their thinking is crystal clear, and they do have a very important reason to oppose evolution. Well actually two reasons, which both go together, they can be stated simply; doctrine and morality.

It has been stated all over the AiG website what the debate is really about. It is about a theological dispute within the Christian faith. Essentially how do we approach evolution? There are a great many Christians; both scientists, theologians, and laypeople who believe in both God and evolution. Many do not see evolution and religion in conflict. However the problem is that both sides of the extreme (bible-thumping fundamentalists and bible-burning atheists respectively) do see it as in conflict. The main problem for many is death and suffering. Young Earth Creationists at least hold to the belief that there was no death before Adam's sin, and being that the fossil record shows death and suffering long before sin they see this as an obvious problem for Christianity. Atheists such as Albert Einstein and probably Richard Dawkins who agree with the creationists' interpretation of the bible concur with this point.
This problem is a nagging problem for creationists and theistic evolutionists trying to convince creationists to accept modern science.
Is this true, is evolution truly the death knell of Christianity? Well luckily it is not Creationists have not given any proof that there was no animal death before the fall. In fact Psalm 104 seems to indicate there was death in animals before the fall.

Another biblical problem they have with evolution is the existence of Adam. Evolution teaches that humans share common ancestry with great apes so ultimately humans go back to apes not Adam. Creationists believe this is the death knell of Christianity, atheists agree (this particular quote comes from John Stear host of the site No Answers In Genesis):

“If evolution is fundamentally correct, then there was no Adam; no Adam, no fall; no fall, no atonement; no atonement, no reason for Christ to have died on the cross. If Christ died for no reason then he was not divine and Christianity has no basis in fact. Is there really any need for scientific proof in order to debunk Christianity?”

If Adam doesn't exist then yes we do have a problem, I do believe in a literal Adam who is the genetic common ancestor of all people alive today (although some theistic evolutionists don't think he was the genetic common ancestor). Its possible he may have been Mitochondrial Eve's husband. Genetics has traced every human alive to day to a human common ancestor like the bible says. So their fear seems somewhat unfounded. There are many other scientific, theological, and biblical issues which must addressed though.

The second real reason for their rejection of evolution is morality, on their website in the Q&A Morality and Ethics section they quote G.K. Chesterson a 19th century Christian apologist on morality and evolution:

Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals … That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.

If you want to treat a tiger reasonably, you must go back to the garden of Eden. For the obstinate reminder continues to recur: only the supernaturalist has taken a sane view of Nature.’

Basically what they are trying to get at is evolution leaves no basis for morality. Once you remove Creation you can do what ever you want. As shown in this illustration they see evolution as the excuse to throw the bible away and commit all sorts of sins which are at the center of social concerns today:

As you can see here Answers In Genesis state that evolution allows for humans to decide moral truth which is a cardinal belief in humanism and therefore gives way to behaviors which they see as immoral.

Is this true, well their problem is that Creationist are confusing evolution with moral relativism, evolution being a natural process doesn't say anything in regards to morality or ethics or God or atheism for that matter any more then the theory of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. Scientific theories are amoral. What creationists don't understand is that evolution is what you make of it; if you say evolution is God's method of creation and that we should obey the God of the bible that's what evolution is, a creation process. If you decide that evolution is a godless mindless process that has no plan or purpose then that's what is, if you add evolution to biblical Christianity you will get Christian morality, if you combine it with atheism you will get relativistic morality and make whatever you want of evolution. Carl Sagan thought evolution was a benevolent process and he had an adequate moral standard. And there have been atheists who have used evolution the opposite way to do evil as seen from the Christian worldview. Creationists cant seem to tell the difference between Atheism, Humanism, and evolution. which is much cause of their moral view towards evolution.

As stated before, Creationists are not stupid ad they are thinking very clearly. However science is not gong to convince them, there is plenty of science to address their complaint but what needs to be done is that Christians who accept evolution need to stand up to creationists and atheists and address the theological issues between Christianity and evolution. If we can show that Creationist theology is flawed then the creation/evolution controversy will end soon afterwords. Once the religious element of creationism is gone the pseudoscience will die soon afterwords.

Unfortunatley wrong answers with Ken Ham

After hearing about how harsh I am towards my fellow believers who believe in a young earth i decided to be a little nicer to young earth creationists. Now I just have to respond to this message by Ken Ham, where he states "living fossils" are a problem for evolution because a certain type of fish (the coelacanth to be precise) is still around which has been around for the past 400 million years. In answer to that, its not really one species of fish (it would be pretty incredible for a single species to survive 400 million years), it is an order of fish, and currently there are only two species remaining and they are critically endangered. It is not entirely unlikely that an order an animals could survive for so long, crocodillians have been around since dinosaurs.

Now one interesting thing he said is that some kids ask him if he's a living fossil, now what I am about to say is terrible but I am going to say and I apologize to my creationist audience in advance; because when he says he's a living fossil, he does look like our pre-human ancestors, and he sometimes acts as smart as them too so it would appear Ken Ham is a living fossil!

Anyway, that concludes my answer to Ken's answer, And Mr. Ham if you are reading this please take it in good humor (I have attempted to make this criticism as constructive as possible).

Ray Comfort: Adequate evangelist, lousy logician, scientist, philosopher, theologian, and even theoretician

You all remember Ray Comfort. Well on his blog he has written another not-all the way-thought-through post on his blog. Now before I explain the parts which I thought were dumb I will fist clarify that I think as far as evangelism goes, Ray is rather gifted, and that he's doing a good job.

However there are several problems which I cannot ignore in his ministry, one being his flawed attack on the evolutionary theory, and weak and the fact that his method of evangelism (appeal to fear) only really works on those who have already accepted the faith. Yet his ministry is addressed towards atheists.

Now lets analyze his blogpost, not everything he says is flawed but some of it I must address for the sake of his ministry's credibility. Here is the first question he answers;

Q1: Do you believe in microevolution? OF COURSE. WE SEE EVIDENCE OF IT ALL
AROUND US.

Well, good to know you believe in microevolution Ray, however I am not sure if you know the only distinction between macro and micro evolution is time.

Q2: Do you believe in natural selection? THAT DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION.
GOD HAS CREATED A SYSTEM IN NATURE WHERE THE STRONGEST SURVIVE. THE LION EATS
THE LAMB

Well, I am we agree on at least one point in science I have no problem with this part.

Q3: Do you think that one can be both a Christian and an evolutionist? A
NEW
CHRISTIAN, YES. BUT AS HE OR SHE READS AND BELIEVES THE SCRIPTURES, HE (OR
SHE) WILL SEE THAT THE TWO ARE COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE.

Tell that the Francis Collins, many Christian converts believe in theistic evolution and reject his brand of creationism

Q4: Do you believe that the book of Genesis calls for a literal interpretation?
DEFINITELY. JESUS LITERALLY BELIEVED IT, SO DID THE APOSTLE PAUL.

I believe he is referring to the time when Jesus said to the pharisees, "Don't you remember that man was created in the beginning of creation male and female?" This seems compelling but on the other hand it seems to contradict young earth creationism, since even they say that it was at the end of creation that Adam and Eve were created, this probably not what Jesus is referring to. As I remember Paul said he believed in the flood, but I don't remember him saying he believed in a six day creation, in other words; [Scriptural citation needed]

Q5: Do you believe that the earth was created in 6,000 years? IT TOOK SIX DAYS.
HOWEVER, I HAVE NO IDEA HOW OLD THE EARTH IS.

This one is the first of-the-wall statement made, first of all the creation did not necessarily take six days, and he may not know but most creationists believe it is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old and most old earth creationists/theistic evolutionists and secular scientists understand it to be 4.55 billion years old.

Questions 6 through 9 aren't necessarily bad, I can accept them but question 12 I have several comments;

Q12: In one sentence what does it mean to you to "prove" something? I DON'T THINK HUMAN BEINGS CAN PROVE ANYTHING ABSOLUTELY. GOD, HOWEVER, CAN ABSOLUTELY PROVE HIMSELF TO THOSE WHO REPENT AND TRUST HIM.

Now it is true that we can never truly know anything, but we can to an extent know something. Science cannot absolutely prove something but it can provide enough evidence that it is almost beyond a shadow of a doubt true.

Some of the questions were good, however a few were a bit insufficient, hopefully he will be able to do better next time. Way of the Master could become a good organization but first they need to get all that anti-intellectualism out of their system. God created the human mind and he gave us good reasoning powers to understand him, there is no reason that we should oppose science.

Re-posted: The New Answers Book's attack on Christianity

I posted this earlier then deleted it because I thought it was too harsh towards Young Earth Creationists (the predominant demographic of the people I know). It doesn't have anything that will get me suspended but still my blog is in its infancy and I can't risk having too many people mad at me. I am going to post it again because it needs to be posted (also tell me whether or not it is too harsh);

Yes, as odd as it may sound I have to defend my Christian beliefs from AiG
creationists. Young earth creationists, although they have good intentions, no
one other then atheists have done a better job then them in tearing some
people's faith in the bible to pieces and building up a few others then them.The
entire third chapter of the New Answers book (which I will be critiquing) is
devoted to attacking theistic evolution; the authors of the book start out
talking about the scopes
monkey trial and how William Jennings Brian the defender of creationism was
an old earth creationist, so therefore his attempt to defend creationism was
forfeit. They don't seem to wonder that it might have been because William
Jennings Brian was wrong about evolution that he did such a lousy job defending
creationism.There next move is somewhat unnerving. They say they will be taking
quotes from what atheists said about theistic evolutionists to show theistic
evolution is wrong! Oh good grief! Using that logic we might as well say
Christians were wrong in reinterpreting the bible when scientists said earth
went around the sun. They end the paragraph by saying that reinterpreting the
bible gives you leeway to reinterpret anything you want to in the bible. This
must be addressed, this is only true if you are invalidly reinterpreting the
bible. Reinterpreting the Genesis 1 to mean God created the universe over six
ages is valid; fifteen hundred years before geologists found earth was 4.6
billion years old or biologists found evolution was true many of the church
fathers believed that because of II
Peter 3:8 the days in Genesis were a thousand years long. The next part is
their attack on the scriptural validity of theistic evolution, but unfortunately
they are all operating of at least a few misconceptions.In the next part they
begin quoting the anti-creationist Thomas Huxley;--first of all, why are these
supposed creationists quoting an atheistic evolutionist? He was trying to
destroy belief in the bible in the first place. They surely wouldn't quote an
atheist denouncing the Christian acceptance of heliocentrism as rejecting
scripture would they?--And second of all this is what he said in his quote
(taken from his essay "Lights of the Church and Science");

"I am fairly at a
loss to comprehend how anyone, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology
must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures.
The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with
Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests
upon the interpretation of the passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no
evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them.
If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were
not ordained by Jahveh; if the ‘ten words’ were not written by God’s hand on the
stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the
Story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the
Creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of
apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of
the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which
is so much less clearly enunciated: And what about the authority of the writers
of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted
flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of
Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?"

What he said is absolutely true the
bible is worthless if there is no historical or scientific merit behind it and
thank goodness Huxley is wrong and the bible does have factual merit. Other then
that this quote is meaningless because it presupposes Christians who believe in
an old earth and evolution deny the Bibles historical and scientific merit.In
the next paragraph they say he was out to destroy Christianity and vigorously
attacked the old earth position, so one would wonder why these young earth
creationists would use this to stand for anything. The next statement is perhaps
the weakest point in the entire chapter. They give a verse Matthew
19:4-5 where Jesus is talking about marriage. And says in the beginning God
made them male and female. This is interesting but the verse could be
interpreted to mean the beginning of mankind. Despite upholding the doctrine of
marriage, it means nothing to creation.Over the next few paragraphs they go on
quoting and talking about Thomas Huxley praising his passionate dislike of those
who tried to reinterpret the bible to fit with the current scientific thinking.
If the authors of the New Answers book think this is making them look good I
don't know what to say. Who cares what an atheistic evolutionist thinks about
Christians. How about we do the same thing with the doctrine of geocentrism.The
next section of the chapter doesn't get much better, they start out with a quote
from Charles Hodge
saying that the church has had to reinterpret the bible once before to fit with
modern science. Unfortunately young earth creationists may have to learn the
same lesson the 17th century Catholic church had to learn. I would suggest these
young earth creationists to look at proverbs
3:5 and get some humility.Anyway they move on to the argument that the bible
teaches "no death before sin," unfortunately their scriptural support is rather
weak, Genesis
3:29 which they use to support death being caused by the fall; there is just
one problem Genesis 3 only has 24 verses, the verse doesn't even exist! This is
either a typo or outright deception, (lets assume its a typo). Romans
5:12 and 8:18-22
can be interpreted to imply that the death came to Man by Man; (I'll admit
Romans 5:12 is one of their stronger points but it still does not prove it). Genesis 1:31 does not contradict the mechanisms of natural selection or the natural
processes and if you think about it, creation is "very good" with a stable
ecosystem, inhabitable environment; everything just right for humans. God
sanctions the weekly slaughtering of animals and as any anti-christian animal
rights activist will tell you, God does not consider animal death evil. This
does not at all affect the idea of a loving God.Next they bring up a quote by a
liberal Christian, episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong, Spong makes an
interesting point by saying theistic evolution demands an imperfect creation.
But this is simply not true. We live in very good time to exist. The ice age is
over, all the giant carnivores are extinct, the climate is temperate (if we
lived back in the days of Pangaea over 80% of the planet would be an enormous
desert and the rest an ocean). The creation may not be perfect in the same way
as God himself but it is still very good time for humans to live in. God is no
longer guiding the natural processes even if he is still involved in them one
way or another, God has gotten us here, there is no reason to go further. Now it
is up to us to decide whether or not we will enjoy God's creation and tend to it
as he asked, or squander it and waste because of our greed.They close that part
of the chapter by saying that theistic evolutionists (or evolutionary
creationists) need to come to grips that the God they worship is not the true
God. But I don't think they realize the discrepancies between the God of a young
earth and the God of the bible either. Essentially the God of a young earth
would punish mankind by submitting innocent animals to being killed even though
they were innocent, and this is the loving God that gave his life so I could be
forgiven? We must be living in different universes.They end the chapter by
saying two things;--That once people start doubting the bible, (a.k.a. the young
earth interpretation of the bible) they begin to relegate the bible to a book of
suggestions.--And that we are relying on fallible human opinion when we trust
science only.To the first one, that is up to the person, strong Christians did
not reject the bible when they found geocentrism was false. I think Christians
should do fine as long as they do not extrapolate beyond that to say the entire
bible and Genesis is not true, which is simply not the case. There re lots of
archaeological and other scientific discoveries that point to the bible being
true.

NOTE: I don't know why its making that weird structure, I can't correct it.