|Don’t fall prey to logical traps, old arguments, or the emotional baiting of evolutionists.|
| In my previous post I referenced an article titled “The Top 10 Signs that You Don’t Understand Evolution at All” which is really a restatement of objections that evolutionists believe they have adequately answered, while at the same time lightly(?) mocking creationists – as evolutionists are wont to do. (Whether lightly or not I’ll leave to you.) As is typical in a list like this, the more important questions (for which they have no answer) are not even mentioned much less given adequate answers to. But since I couldn’t bear the thought of leaving you hanging without the answers having myself referenced the article, here are responses to show none of these issues are problems for rational thinking Christians. A word of warning before we begin: Since he couches many of these statements in broad universals (“never,” “always,” etc. – which is a dead give away that the statement is almost certainly untrue and a good candidate for the “all or nothing” logical fallacy); it follows that the position he’s trying to ridicule may be technically untrue, but the point beneath the ridicule that he’s trying to make has been thoroughly refuted as I note below. Below in bold is Tyler Francke’s list of “The top 10 signs that you don’t understand evolution at all” with my explanations following immediately; and so there is no mistake on who’s saying what, my comments are indicated by my initials.
DC>He makes a number of questionable statements here, I’ll just point out a couple. First he notes:
DC>Evolution of the type we’re talking about – molecules to man is not observable. Like many evolutionists he is committing the logical error of equivocation – using the term evolution in more than one sense (which is commonly done to win arguments, though it’s logically fallacious). Natural selection (which is not evolution) is observable; molecules to man evolution is not.
Second, he goes on to talk about an inference to the best explanation (which I drew upon in my last article) but intelligent design theorists and creationists alike, (not to mention scientists who dissent from evolutionary theory) would say given the evidence, such as the fossil evidence below, he has not drawn an inference to the best explanation by believing it points to evolution. He states:
DC>I would challenge him that it is not the evidence that points him to evolution, it’s his a priori beliefs (science is authoritative over scripture) that lead him to the conclusion that evolution is true because judging by evidence alone, (such as the evidence from DNA, the young solar system, etc.) the correct conclusion is that there was an intelligent designer.
2. You think we’ve never found a transitional fossil.
DC>This is frankly very misleading. A more precise statement would be they haven’t found an undisputed transitional fossil. Scientists work for consensus of agreement, but there is none here. More importantly:
There are no fossils of simple creatures prior to the Cambrian explosion, yet they are required by evolution; and there are no undisputed transitionary fossils. Darwin knew it , and evolutionists today know it.
3. You think macroevolution is an inherently different process than microevolution.
DC>Don’t concern yourself with distinctions between macroevolution and microevolution. It’s a red herring. The real question for both is where did the information that’s stored in DNA and inherent in all life come from? Signature in the Cell author Stephen Meyer states:
As noted in my previous post evolutionists have no answer for this – whatever scale – micro or macro – they use.
4. You think mutations are always negative.
DC> Another deceptive one. Technically he’s correct, mutations are not always negative. There’s a much bigger story here concerning genetics than we have space to cover, so let me just stick to the point at hand and reference a former Cornell University professor and author of Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome:
“Extremely rare.” Enough said.
5. You think it has anything to do with the origin of life, let alone the origins of the universe.
It is through chemical evolution in “which almost every major university includes the origin of life as part of evolution in introductory biology courses”6 that they try to support a theory for the origin of life, but fail miserably. The narrator of the evolutionary oriented documentary “How Life Begins” starts the discussion with:
Why are they looking? Because evolution doesn’t explain origins, neither the classical Darwinian nor the Neo-Darwinist formation of evolution has any answer for the origin of life. (Obviously the Christian Faith has a complete, eye witness account of human origins.)
6. You use the phrase “it’s only a theory” and think you’ve made some kind of substantive statement.
DC>Since evolutionists take evolution as fact, they get highly offended when you say “it’s only a theory.” So much so that they write books about it (Kenneth Miller “Only A Theory8“); the high priest of evolution Richard Dawkins runs around talking about it being a fact, as does the current host of Cosmos, Neil deGrasse Tyson; and if you suggest it’s not, they want to rehearse with you the hierarchy of scientific theory, hypothesis, postulates, guesses, etc. My suggestion, don’t use this term around evolutionists especially in it’s diminutive form “only” a theory. It’s true, it’s theory, but in their minds, it’s confirmed theory – though as you can see, they have no good reason to believe that. But why incite them? There are certain things you just don’t mention – women’s age for example. Just add this item to the list, and make your case against evolution on other grounds – the youth of the solar system; information in DNA, etc.
7. You think acceptance of evolution is the same as religious faith.
DC>He argues this comes from Ray Comfort, but Mr. Comfort isn’t the only one making the charge that atheism – especially under the “new atheists” – has been distilled down to a religious faith. Author Bo Jinn levels that charge at the New Atheists in Illogical Atheism9 saying the new atheists approach atheism as “religious extremists” who “profess incessantly that what they believe is not a belief, but then react quite suspiciously like religious believers whenever those beliefs are questioned.” So at least with regard to the new atheists, that is an accurate assessment. Just be careful to differentiate “atheism proper” (belief there is no God), from the religious zealotry of the new atheists.
8. You think our modern understanding of it rests on a long series of hoaxes perpetuated by scientists.
DC>Francke is clearly putting out a staw man argument here. The fact that false artifacts have been identified as hoaxes indicate that scientists know they aren’t true specimens. The hoax argument is generally presented as a way to deceive the un-informed public (not everyone – including scientists) into continuing to believe the lie based on false evidence even though some (if not most) scientists are aware of the fraud and are quite aware of the actual state of evolutionary understanding. Thus the hoax (whatever it may be) would not be a “modern understanding” of evolution.
Regardless, no group wants to be judged by the least favorable members of the group such as charlatans and liars. Just as Christians don’t want to be judged by non-Christians claiming to be Christians (such as cults); likewise evolutionists don’t want to be judged by deceivers claiming to be scientists. There’s plenty of evidence against evolution without going after bottom of the barrel hucksters who don’t properly represent evolutionary theory. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you and don’t argue based on what some have done wrong – unless they are trying to use it as evidence of evolution. And in that case simply point out the falsification. If they react indignantly as above, you know you’re dealing with someone believing it with religious conviction, not investigating with scientific objectivity.
9. You don’t like Pokémon because you think it “promotes” evolution.
DC> This is irrelevant. We may not like many things that promote evolution like school textbooks that uncritically promote evolution. What has that got to do with whether or not we properly understand evolution? – Which is what he’s supposed to be discussing. Just trying to bait us with emotionalism. Disregard
10. You think it’s inherently opposed to Christianity or the Bible.
DC> The statement he references “Evolution, as defined by Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes in their textbook, ‘Biology,’ is ‘any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.’” once again
If there were millions of years of death and dying before sin – the cause of death – how could God call the creation “very good.” And if God wanted to use death as part of the creation as theistic evolutionists believe, why is death called an enemy (the last one) to be conquered? (1 Cor 15.26)
There are many more arguments against it, such as it is no secret that Darwin was trying to rid the world of a God of Judgment11. So it is no surprise that he came up with a theory that not only excludes God, it directly contradicts what God has stated. There’s no escaping the fact that evolution is inherently anti-God and anti-Christian.
Let me close with a word to the wise for Mr. Francke, and others who state they’re a Christian yet still believe in evolution. Surely it has not escaped your attention that evolution is merely a tool of atheists and other God deniers to beat Christians and other theists over the head with claims of being ignorant and unsophisticated. I assume as a Christian you believe in the Bible that Jesus believed in – which would have been the Old Testament. If so God himself testifies that he created the world in 6 days. (Ex 20.11). Obviously evolution – which requires millions of years – can not be true if everything was created in 6 days. Why are you willing to deny the clear testimony of God in order to maintain your belief in the godless naturalism of evolution?
…Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar…
That’s not an assessment I’d like made of me when I meet God.
Duane Caldwell | posted 3/23/2014 | print format
Related Article: Refining the Questions for Question Evolution Day
1 Gish, Duane Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, Creation Life Publishers, 1985 p. 54
2 Sarfati, Jonathan The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution Creation Book Publishers, 2010
3 Darwin, Charles, referenced from Darwin’s Dilemma Documentary, Illustra Media 2009
4 Meyer, Stephen Unlocking the Mystery of Life Documentary, Illustra Media 2002
5 Sanford, John The Mystery of our Declining Genes Presentation, Creation Ministries International, 2009
6. Arguments Evolutionists should not use Creation Ministries, http://creation.com/arguments-evolutionists-should-not-use
7. How Life Began History TV documentary 2008
8. Miller, Ken Only a Theory Viking, 2008
9. Jinn, Bo Illogical Atheism Sattwa Publishing, 2014
10 From Did God Create over billions of years Lita Cosner and Gary Bates Creation Ministries http://creation.com/Did-god-create-over-billions-of-years
11 Darwin’s arguments against God Russell Grieg CMI http://creation.com/darwins-arguments-against-god
Top Picture: From Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith – Obi-wan Kenobi warns Anakin Skywalker to give up the battle because Obi-wan has secured the high ground.
An outstanding share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a colleague who had been conducting a little homework on this.
And he actually bought me lunch simply because I stumbled upon it for him…
lol. So allow me to reword this…. Thank YOU for the meal!!
But yeah, thanx for spending time to discuss this topic here on your website.
I constantly spent my half an hour to read this weblog’s articles
everyday along with a cup of coffee.
Thanks for finally writing about > Rational Faith
I like reading through a post that can make people think.
Also, thank you for permitting me to comment!