rationalskepticism.org

Other Person: Well pastor, that was an interesting discussion. That anyone would say that the evolution of biological life is an objective fact utterly amazes me. I could never possess such blind faith in something so completely based on biased assumptions, incomplete data, and inferior methods that is rampant in the investigation of origins. Scientists don't even understand how the boreal forest functions, but some claim they understand how biological life started and developed? Unlikely! There are so many holes in evolutionary theory that one has to take a flying leap of faith to accept the idea. I was trained and once believed in evolution when I started out in wildlife management...but what a lame theory I've come to see it to be. And I'm not talking about how bacteria and dog breeds change. That's genetic variation within groups, not the grand changes that evolutionary theory claims to have occurred. Good for you in voicing your disagreement of a very poor explanation of how life began. (my two bits)

---

Me: Name one hole in evolutionary theory. I see a lot of "holes" discussed on creationist websites and creationist forums, but never with any real thought put into them. Not one of them holds up to scrutiny. Evolution, whether you like it or not, is a matter of scientific fact in the same way that weather patterns, sun spots, or the shape of the Earth are.

---

Other Person: Links between different kinds of animals (e.g. dog and cat family...so many others) have not been located in the fossil record. I find imaginary creatures drawn to fill in the gaps to be very annoying. I also find the evolution of bat ecolocation to be a fascinating tale...like there was a time that ecolocation "sort of" worked. Weather patterns, sun spots, and the shape of the Earth can be measured to a degree, but evolution between organisms broader than families cannot be replicated through experimentation by natural means.

---

Me: Let's go through this one at a time.

"Links between different kinds of animals (e.g. dog and cat family...so many others) have not been located in the fossil record."

That's simply not true, we have transitional species between land animals and whales, non-avian dinosaurs and birds, here's the common ancestor of dogs and cats http://www.gmanetwork.com/.../cats-and- ... .../story/ and there are thousands of others. This is one of those "points" that demonstrates an inherent lack of understanding of how evolution actually functions. EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL, modern and ancient, is a "transition" between its parent and its offspring. Life isn't tiptoeing towards evolution like creationists seem to think evolution implies, it's an active process that goes on slowly and continuously. There is no animal that is not a "transitional species."

"I also find the evolution of bat ecolocation to be a fascinating tale...like there was a time that ecolocation "sort of" worked."

Echolocation isn't actually all that strange, compared to some adaptations, and like all adaptations it has a rather understandable base. Owls have something different, but similar in principle; they use their oddly-positioned ears to get an exact fix on location based only on sound. That is, they can tell where a sound is coming from without needing to SEE the source. Echolocation is just one added step to that, clicking or otherwise making a distinct noise in order to hear the sound bouncing off of any object in the way. It's basically hearing, but producing your own noise to hear by. Anything with good hearing and a voice can do it in a limited way; bats simply evolved to take full advantage of this trick. Diurnal bats actually lack this adaptation; they live during the daytime, so sight is just fine. If anything, this illustrates how a creature's environment can pressure different adaptations depending on diet and activity.

"Weather patterns, sun spots, and the shape of the Earth can be measured to a degree, but evolution between organisms broader than families cannot be replicated through experimentation by natural means."

Evolution can, as well, with the fossil record. We see snapshots of life in different eras; and make no mistake, there ARE different eras. Jurassic animals are never found with Cambrian animals, and vice-versa, EVER. Moreover, the mechanism that drives evolution between species is NOT a different mechanism than the one that drives adaptation within species. It's the same process, just observed over longer periods of time. Observation is no less valid science than experimentation; we know that the sun processes hydrogen without having to make a star in a laboratory.

In fact, there IS a claim here; the claim "species" is some kind of special "borderline" over which it is impossible to jump by natural adaptation. That is a claim that creationists make, and like most of their claims, there is zero evidence for it.

So yeah, I've seen all of these arguments before, and again, none of them hold water when you understand how the process of evolution actually works.

---

Other Person: This is going to get too complex for Facebook...I can tell already. First of all the creative drawing of the transitional link between cat and dog is a massive assumption. "This fossil looks like a dog & cat, so it must be a missing link." I find the title to be very bold and arrogant. However, assuming that is a transitional link...there's a myriad of missing links still missing. Show me the evidence, don't provide me with assumptions. Same goes with your other examples (thousands...perhaps when you ram them into a pre-existing structure of "how it had to have happened" they become "examples") . Also, you have a contradiction in saying that creationists claim evolution is tip-toeing, but then say evolution is an active process that goes on SLOWLY. [Your first paragraph is filled with so many assumptions. I want evidence please.] I like your explanation of echolocation. Still, I find it hard to fathom why evolution would continue in that direction when it didn't work very well at first. Lots of faith in chance mutations and natural selection there. Also, the fossil record is not nearly as neat and tidy as evolutionists claim, nor are faulty radiometric dating methods. Mount St. Helens proved how fast strata can form. Again, so many assumptions that create a house of cards that crumble when evolution is challenged. And yes, you've added the magic wand of time. "If we see little mutations and changes over a little bit of time, that has to be the mechanism for big changes over lots of time." I want to see the evidence...not big claims. I never said "species" was a borderline, I said "families." Even animals in the same genus interbreed. I don't know of very much about the scientific evidence what Young Earth Creationists claim is valid. I'm more of an environmental educator and don't spend a lot of time on origins. However, I'm skeptical that there is a lot of evidence of a 6,000 year old earth about as much as a 4.6 billion year-old one. Doesn't mean it's not true...just at this point in time I don't see the hard proof. I understand very clearly the theory of evolution. My undergrad and graduate work was based on it. However, when I taught in private and public schools for 18 years, I did present the pros and cons of evolution to my students. I'm not afraid to critique something that's based on so many incredible assumptions that it makes my head spin. Don alluded to the fact that you are a Christian. If so, when do you think the first person evolved whose soul could go to heaven? I've always wondered how someone who believes in the evolution of humans from a primordial "soup" figures when that might have happened.

---

Me: I had this whole big post planned out, but I'm very tired and further discussion can wait for the morning.

Here's a brief video skimming the surface of the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg

After watching that, I want to ask this question: What, specifically, would you consider valid and acceptable evidence?

---

Other Person: Sounds good Justin (above I changed geometric to radiometric...been so long since I talked about this I forgot the correct term). I'm traveling from the Canadian border to southeastern Iowa today, so I'm not going to be able to follow up until tonight. I hope you can/will answer the following question that comes from a Christian world-view: When did the first human appear that had a soul capable of going to either heaven or hell? I know that it's not directly related to evolution, but I'm sure curious as to how you might answer that question. Thanks. I'll watch the video, but even before I do so here's my "hang-up." Evolution can never be proven by science because it cannot be replicated in the lab under controlled conditions. All we have is circumstancial evidence that is being interpreted by people with biased world-views. Thankfully when we conduct repeatable experiments in the lab it doesn't matter what we believe. Origins is a completely different matter. It's messy...just like ecology and environmental science. Consequently, I'm very skeptical that valid and acceptable evidence will ever be discovered because the conclusions depend on what we believe to begin with (they really do in this case). That's why people just go "round and round" arguing about origins and rarely does anyone change their mind. However, I'll watch "What is the Evidence for Evolution." Maybe you'll change my mind. By the way, I haven't completely rejected the theory of evolution. For example, whenever I see a "missing link" claim, I check it out. In particular, fossils with feathers are really interesting. Still, quite a jump from ectothermic to endothermic organisms...among others...such as the claim that the complexity of a DNA molecule in my cells evolved from a primordial soup on Earth millions of years ago. Wow, just wow...what a flying leap of faith. [Gotta go now] What we need are scientists who challenge EVERYTHING. Please don't be like the guys from the Middle Ages who just dug their heels in and defended what they already believed. Okay, I really need to go...

---

Me: Let me first address the "not laboratory testable" thing. That is something creationists LOVE repeating, but it's just a meaningless obfuscation. Science benefits from experimentation, but observation and study is more important to science than experimentation. Testability is great, but the ability to make and test postulates is even more important.

Like, we know that stars process hydrogen. Why? Because we analyze their expulsions and use radioscopic analysis. We don't need to create a star in a lab to say anything about them. Claiming that only experimentation is valid as scientific fact basically shuts out astronomy, archeology, and forensics as methods of scientific discovery. Observational science, which would fall under the category of "guesswork" by this idea, has sent men to the moon and robots to Mars.

Origins... doesn't matter to this discussion. That has literally nothing to do with evolution, which is how organisms' offspring change over generations.

Evolution doesn't depend on pre-supposed notions. Again, creationists love to pretend it is, but the fact is it came about not as an idea first looking for evidence to support it, but as a theorem to explain observable facts. As with any scientific theorem, the facts came first, and the theory came second, and every single person in that field of science tested it, re-tested it, and tried to poke holes and find flaws in it (this is the standard procedure for ANY new scientific idea, it's what makes science advance). They found where the original idea was wrong, then the idea evolved to better explain the facts. Again, standard procedure for any scientific inquiry. After a century or two, there are less holes to poke in evolutionary theory than in the theory of relativity, and modern scientists use both as a starting point not because of bias, but because both have proven reliable when put to practical, real-world tests. If evolution is a biased pre-supposition, then so is molecular theory or the theory of gravity. The three have undergone roughly equal amount of scientific rigor (if anything, we understand more about evolution because of the fossil record).

We have scientists who challenged EVERYTHING, actually. We have lots of those today. We had a lot in the old days, too. You seem to be thinking that Darwin was some kind of science-pope, but that wasn't the case. It was years and years before the theory was accepted because it wasn't mainstream, and again, it was put to test after test, postulate after postulate was formed and set to compare to reality, and yeah, the theory turned out to hold way more water than any competing theory. That's why it ended up becoming the standard; because the standard ideas of the time were challenged to explain the facts of reality, and the fledgling idea was proven to be correct.

---

Other Person: To prevent bias and support or not support a hypothesis you must be able to replicate an experiment (or as you’ve correctly added repeatedly make observations that do the same). That’s fundamental science. If creationists are saying that they’re correct. Please don’t try to get out of it because it’s not working for you. Also, observation and study are part of the scientific method. Why are you trying to separate it? And when you say, “testability is great, but the ability to make and test postulates is even more important” you’re saying the EXACT same thing. I don’t get it.
Good point in the 2nd paragraph. Observations over time are part of the scientific method and don’t have to be done in a controlled lab. My work in ecology and wildlife management tell me that. However, what you said about stars AND my work both talk about current observations, not interpretations of circumstantial evidence of something that happened a long time ago. You can’t go back in time and observe the evolution that you claim is recorded in the fossil record. Therefore, your observation point is invalid when it comes to origins.
Origins has everything to do with evolution because that’s the starting point of the theory. Evolution – yes, how organisms change over time. I can see it happening with bacteria, dogs, cats, wolves in the short-term…but long-term changes from a primordial soup to you and me hasn’t even come close to being proven. It’s only just a belief.
I don’t understand why you keep bringing up the label “creationist.” Do you think I am one?
Yes, evolutionary theory has been a GREAT theory to try to explain observations. However, although you refuse to see the holes and flaws, they are rampant. No, I don’t think evolutionists have tried very hard to poke holes and find flaws. What I see is them trying to add “flesh” to the “bones” of an idea that appears to make logical sense, but has no evidence unless it is rammed into place (e.g. your dog/cat article). Really impossible to prove without MANY more intermediate missing links. However, maybe one day that might happen. Just not today (according to me, but apparently not to you).
I do not believe that Darwin’s theory has been put to test after test, postulate after postulate and set to compare with reality as you would hope to believe. I consider strong proponents to this theory as the most close-minded and biased individuals I have ever met and I’d say the same for creationists. Just an observation…not saying it’s wrong.
There is so much we don’t know…even about molecular theory, the theory of gravity, and certainly not the fossil record. In a hundred years, we’re going to look back at current knowledge and say, “Wow, I can’t believe we thought that was fact.” Good for you that you have so much confidence in evolution. I did my Master’s on forest ecology in Manitoba and we still don’t know how a boreal forest functions. Please don’t tell me that we know how life on Earth began and has developed from that point on.
Well, we could talk about this forever. Books have been written on it. However, other than watch the YouTube Clip and perhaps comment on it, I’m not going to talk about this anymore until you answer two questions:
1) When in history do you think the first person originated who had a soul that could to heaven?
2) Do you believe that people evolved from a primordial inorganic soup?



Other Person: I don’t even know how to begin to respond to your video clip. So many claims, so many assumptions, so many pieces placed into a pre-existing framework “because that’s just how it all must have worked” and this “just makes sense.” Also, very short on fossil finds that whales ever were land mammals and perhaps just variations of the same. Whales and hippos? Convincing to only those who are already completely sold on the idea of biological evolution between animals that have absolutely zero chance of breeding today.
A massive assumption is that organisms that share similar DNA are more closely related than those that have different DNA. Makes sense when you have a pre-existing theory to “ram” things into. Where are the links between?
I used to be like you Justin, but not anymore. I’m now a seeker and challenger, not a defender of a theory that requires an unbelievable amount of faith hiding behind a “form of science” that only tries to defend preconceived notions of how circumstantial evidence ought to be interpreted. For the third time, you know how all life on Earth has come about, and we don’t even know how the boreal forest functions. Sorry, I’m skeptical.

---

Me: "I don’t understand why you keep bringing up the label “creationist.” Do you think I am one?"

You debate exactly like one, quite simply. You use the same arguments that they do, and they're arguments that reveal either a lack of knowledge of how the scientific process works or an attempt at deliberately ignoring it. I've explained a few of them (like the missing link thing), but you continue to use them without giving any flaws for my explanations, so it's fairly apparent that you're coming from a creationist worldview. As for why, I'll address those questions now.

"1) When in history do you think the first person originated who had a soul that could to heaven?
2) Do you believe that people evolved from a primordial inorganic soup?"

I'll answer them first, because they can be distracting. 1, I don't know because that has nothing to do whatsoever with science, since the nature of consciousness (what most would call the "soul") has never been conclusively proven. 2, yes, because all the evidence points to the fact that we did.

Compare these to the question I asked you, which you did not answer. I asked, "What would you consider valid evidence?" I'll get back to that.

The questions you asked are called "leading questions." Their nature tells me what you want me to say in answer to them. They are entirely, 100% beside the point, and have nothing to do with the debate. They only concern the IMPLICATIONS of the debate, which, by asking these questions, you have illustrated to be the part you really care about. Your worldview starts with the soul, and expands downwards from there.

Back to my question.

You want to think of yourself as a "seeker and a challenger," but what would accepting the theory of evolution do to your worldview? Think about that. You seem to think that it would instantly cause atheism (and Don agrees, which doesn't make a lick of sense to me, but that's beside the point). Let me be blunt: you want to consider yourself objective about this, but you DON'T want to change your belief system. I've seen it a lot, in fact I used to be the same way. When I asked "what would you consider valid evidence?" I kinda figured I wouldn't get an answer, for this exact reason. You CAN'T define evidence, because that would enable said evidence to be presented. The problem is, if you accept that the evidence is viable, you must therefore accept the theory itself and then, the real problem, the supposed implications of the theory.

Believe me, I get it. I went through the same thing. There's mountains of scientifically-valid evidence, you can find plenty in a quick Google search and you don't need me to present it. The thing is, you're the one who defines what evidence you consider "valid" (you've already brushed away evidence that would go a long way in convincing someone without bias, but your own bias is strong enough that you won't admit it). You claim that it's all "up to interpretation;" but, how would YOU interpret the fact that some animals are closer than others in DNA structure? The way chickens have claws and fingers and teeth easily accessible in their embryonic development, embedded in their genetic code? Feathered dinosaurs, half-whale half-hippo (I'm using simplified language here) animals found in the exact layer that they would be found in if evolution were true? Linear progression in the fossil record from simple, bottom-dwelling filter feeders to nodocords to jawless fish to limbed fish to land-dwelling animals? The list goes on and on and on. All usable dating methods, geological and astronomical in nature, pointing to an old Earth, through independent means? Adaptation working in EXACTLY the way that would allow for changes in form over long periods of time? No modern animals in fossil layers? Entire ecosystems completely separate from how they are today? How would you interpret these things? They point in a very, very clear direction. You call all of these things "assumptions," which is a nice way of avoiding thinking about them, though there are multiple published papers on every single thing I just listed, each the result of years of research by trained professionals in the respective fields and relentlessly double-checked by other professionals. You can claim that they're "assumptions" only by ignoring how the scientific process of testing and verification actually works. I'm under the impression that you're a creationist because the only places around I see that repeat that kind of misinformation are the creationist sites, newsletters, and books built from the ground up to convince laymen that professionals with years of training know less than the average man on the street about the subjects they've dedicated their lives to. You keep producing "dodge" moves to get away from the implications, but they're incredibly weak and most boil down to the classic, "that's not evidence!"

The pieces aren't placed in a pre-existing framework. Scientists look at them, and try to find out what they mean, and what they point to. EVERY SINGLE METHOD used points the conclusion of common descent. If a better solution is proposed and tested, makes postulates and has them confirmed, the new solution will be accepted. But no better explanation has been put forward, and with the sheer volume of evidence (you call it circumstantial, but circumstantial evidence is enough to ensure conviction if there's enough of it) indicates that this is probably the correct explanation.

Even in this discussion, you haven't brought up any new points or proposed any counter-solutions.

But, you have illustrated that you believe it conflicts with your ideas about the human soul. To you, it forms a dichotomy. You CANNOT accept the evidence for evolution. Therefore, you will not, and no amount of arguing will convince you.

To draw the argument to a close, I have a response to something you said in the first of the two latest posts. "However, although you refuse to see the holes and flaws, they are rampant." You call most evidence "assumptions" in the points you made. This, here, is a grand assertion that you have not backed up yet. Point to a hole in the theory. The closest your arguments have come are the "missing link" points, but as I pointed out, there are plenty but you won't call them "missing links" because their existence as such are a threat to your world-view. Land-mammal/whales, bird/dinosaurs, reptile/mammals, primitive elephants, jawless fish, early brachiopods... they're all links. And, again, the question demonstrates a lack of understanding about the theory. Every single animal is a transitional form. That's how evolution works.

So here's my question. As well as "what would you consider evidence?" I would like to ask, "what are the holes you see in the theory of evolution?"

Me: As an aside, this dichotomy of "I should be objective" and "I cannot deny the existence of God" is the reason that I disagreed with Don above. The problem is, the evidence IS enough to convince anyone who doesn't have a bias against it. It's enough to convince most people who DO have a bias against it (which is why there are very few creationists, virtually none, who have majors in "hard science" biology fields). When someone says "there is no God if evolution is true," then that person and anyone who believes them must either form a bias against the evidence or leave behind the ideas of God. That's a problem.

It's a problem that's completely unnecessary. The only part of the Bible that contradicts the idea of evolution are the first two chapters of Genesis, which in the original Hebrew, are written in poetic, non-historical language. They are not MEANT to be historical records, but they sound like they are if you read them plainly in English, which is one of the least expressive languages in the world.

The Christian evolutionist perspective is simple: evolution is the mechanism God used to create Man, to whom He gave spirits separate from flesh that were made in His image. Our bodies are animalistic, but our spirits are from God. That's not hard nor is it remote, based on the Bible.

Also, I'm going to share this conversation with some better-educated folks I've met online. No names or anything, just the talking points. I know more about this subject than most laypeople (I go nuts on stuff I'm interested in), but I'm not a professional. They're pretty good at digging up specific papers (one of them is an entomologist, and a very good one too), so if you're interested in more specific evidence and you don't want to find it through Google, they can probably suggest some if I ask.