Evolutionists: blind to the obvious – UnMasking Mistakes in Memes of Evolution – Part 4

Fossil trilobites

Like the Pharisees of Jesus day, evolutionists make claims that deny obvious truths, unaware that their claims refute their own position and arguments. Let me pause here to make sure you catch the point:

Evolutionists are denying obvious truths.

In fact, the truths being denied are so obvious, one typically doesn’t even bother with a defense. If someone denies that birds fly and fish swim, do you bother with a defense, or do you simply tell them to go look at birds and fish? But Jesus took care to answer even foolish accusations, so let us do likewise.

In a well known exchange about Jesus casting out demons, Jesus uses three separate rational arguments [1] to zero in on the obvious appropriateness of him casting on the demons. His arguments also point out the Pharisee’s hypocrisy of claiming that He could only do the miracles by tapping into the power of Satan. His response showed such claims were both utter nonsense, and that such accusations really only demonstrate that those making the claims were either hypocrites or under the power of Satan themselves.  And thus Jesus showed the argument to be an easily defended attack on  the truth, and a not so veiled attack against him personally. Likewise we’ll see these attacks are easily defended against foolish attacks on truths that should  be obvious to all.

This group of misguided evolutionary memes shows that those making the claims are utterly blind to what should be obvious to those who consider themselves scientists – those who are learned in their various fields of study. Yet it is easy to demonstrate they have blinders on. Consider:  

Meme: Evolution can’t explain how all animal phyla suddenly appeared in the Cambrian explosion.
 Link to this topic: https://rationalfaith.com/2017/07/unmasking-mistakes-in-memes-of-evolution-part-4-evolutionists-blind-to-the-obvious/#cambrianphyla

Informally, Phyla, (singular phylum from the Greek), “can be thought of as groupings of organisms based on general specialization of body plan.”[2] Body plans can be thought of as the design of how the collection of body components are put together. For example, the body plan of  horse – 4 legs, long body and neck; is different from the body plan of a human: 2 legs, 2 arms, short body, short neck.  If you were to compare body plans; the body plan of a horse is closer to that of a lama than it is to a human for example. The body plan of a bird is radically different from all of those.

Now consider the point being made: Evolution cannot explain how body plans came about. Now look at the defense given in the meme above: He speaks of how long the Cambrian Explosion lasted – which is irrelevant; then he talks about the number of  species – also irrelevant.  Then he talks about phyla which are similar, like our comparison of which the horse is closer to a lama or a human – also irrelevant. Notice what he never answers: He never answers the question of the origin of the body plans.  Where do the body plans – however many you think there are – come from? He doesn’t answer that because evolutionists have no clue. They are not encoded in DNA[3], and even if they were, random mutations could not create them. Philosopher of Biology Paul Nelson states:

“If the only kind of mutations that can conceivably produce enough morphological change to alter whole body plans never causes beneficial and heritable changes, then it is difficult to see how mutation and selection could ever produce new body plans in the first place.”[4]

Clearly evolutionists have no clue where body plans come from, yet they’re too blind or too hardened in their evolutionary faith to admit it.

Meme: How come evolution stopped?
Link to this topic:Link to this topic: https://rationalfaith.com/2017/07/unmasking-mistakes-in-memes-of-evolution-part-4-evolutionists-blind-to-the-obvious/#whyno_evo_now

Here the evolutionists are caught on the horns of another dilemma. They want desperately for evolution to be considered a hard science. Yet to be a hard science, the item being studied must be observed. But evolution – molecules to man evolution – is not observable. Again this is a rather obvious fact. Nevertheless, they object strenuously when you point out that molecules to man macro-evolution[5] is not a science because it can’t be observed.[6] To that objection – that evolution is never observed happening – evolutionists claim, it is happening, it’s just too slow to be observed.

Well they can’t have it both ways.  For evolution to be science it must be observable. But if it’s too slow to be observed, you can’t then say, it’s really happening, you just can’t see it.  That is not science. That is no different from saying, there really are dark matter aliens[7], it’s just that we can’t see dark matter, and we can’t see aliens in general because they’re too far away. In both cases neither are science. They are clearly just story telling because science requires observation. In neither of these cases is there any hard observations of what they claim. Evolutionists simply do not want to accept the fact that what they claim to be science is really nothing more than a faith based religion in things they cannot observe – complete with all the trappings – faith: behavior shaping doctrine, a way to express  your identity, outrage over denials of the faith, etc.

Meme: Anyone can see design in Nature
Link to this topic: https://rationalfaith.com/2017/07/unmasking-mistakes-in-memes-of-evolution-part-4-evolutionists-blind-to-the-obvious/#design_in_nature 

First, well known atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins, though he probably won’t admit it, makes a nice case for the design apparent in nature. In his book “The Blind Watchmaker” Dawkins defines biology as, “…the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”[8] In this one statement Dawkins refutes the entire premise of the evolutionary argument in this meme. But first, let’s look at what he acknowledges as true in this statement.

By saying biology is a study of “complicated things” with the appearance of being “designed for a purpose” Dawkins acknowledges:

1.  Many biological systems are complex
2.  Design can be recognized, otherwise there could be no “appearance of design” because one could never recognize design
 3. The design is meant to achieve a purpose, and that purpose is apparent.

You’ll note that by this definition, the sand dune does not meet the definition of “designed.” Millions of pieces of an item does not imply complexity. Nor does mere symmetry. Suppose millions of drops of water fall on either side of a hill forming two round pools. The fact that there are millions of drops, and that the pools are symmetrical does not imply design. Neither does the millions of grains of sand in the sand dune above. Also note that the fact that the sand dune can be used for a purpose – like for shade or a habitat – does not mean it was “designed for a purpose.” The two pools of water I mentioned can be used to swim in. That does not mean they were designed to be swimming pools.So the writer of this evolutionary defense is totally ignorant of basic concepts of what creationists mean by “design in nature.”

Second, the inference of design has come a long way, led by Intelligent Design advocates such as William Dembski. Beyond mere symmetry coupled with complexity, Demski notes there are three specific criteria required to be met before being justified in making an inference of design:

“Whenever we infer design, we must establish three things: contingency, complexity, and specification. Contingency ensures that the object in question is not the result of an automatic and therefore unintelligent process that had no choice in its production. Complexity ensures that the object is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance. Finally specification ensures the object exhibits the type of pattern characteristic of intelligence.” [9]

The sand dune example fails on all 3 requirements of this definition: It is not contingent – it can in fact be the process of unintelligent processes; it is not complex – it can in fact be readily explained by chance, and finally there is no specification – there is no particular pattern it’s matching. [10]

So this rather puerile attempt to refute design in nature fails whether you approach it from atheist assumptions, or from intelligent design assumptions. It in no ways refutes apparent design in nature in things like DNA, the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting cascade, etc.  But this feeble and fallacious argument does offer up other lessons: 1. This is a classic straw man argument – the arguments presented are, like a straw man – easily knocked down, and though not representative of what the opposing view (intelligent design) states, is used anyway for what appears to be an easy knock down victory for the one employing the fallacy (evolutionists) 2. Don’t be surprised when evolutionists misrepresent the views of creationists and intelligent design advocates.  They do it fairly often, so you must be constantly vigilant like the Bereans (Acts 17.11) to check what they’re saying to see if they’re presenting facts and views correctly and accurately.

In these three items, evolutionists are clearly and obviously wrong. Once again the scriptures have said it best:

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.
 Ps 19.1-2
 
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
 Rom 1.20

 

Duane Caldwell | posted 5 July, 2017 | printer friendly version
Follow @duanecaldwell  

Related articles:
Mistakes in Memes of Evolution Part 1
Mistakes in Memes of Evolution Part 2
Mistakes in Memes of Evolution Part 3: Codes and Complexity
Listing of Topics – Evolutionist Misconceptions

Notes

1 For details on the obvious truths Jesus defending, and the rational arguments he used, see the side bar:  “Jesus refutes the Pharisees – Matt 12.22-29“
Back

2. Wikipedia, “Phylum”, accessed 7/3/17   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum
Back

3. Research Biologist Jonathan Wells states:
“The body plan, as far as we know, is not in the DNA.”
ref from: Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record, Illustra documentary DVD, 2009
Back

4. Paul Nelson, ref from Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt – The Explosive Origin of animal Life and The Case for Intelligent Design, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2013, p.263
Back

5. For the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution see: Microevolution: Dispelling the Myths and misconceptions :  https://rationalfaith.com/2016/08/microevolution-dispelling-the-myths-and-misconceptions/
Back

6. See Meme Mistake “Evolution is not science” here:
https://rationalfaith.com/evolutionist-misconceptions/Evolution-is-not-science.htm
Back

7. For more on Dark Matter and dark matter aliens, see:  “The Expanding Big Bang Fairy Tale”  https://rationalfaith.com/2017/02/the-expanding-big-bang-fairy-tale/
Back

8.  Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, USA, p. 1, 1986.,  ref from David Cachpoole, “Dawkins and Design” Creation 31(3):6 June 2009; also Creation.com  http://creation.com/dawkins-and-design
Back

9.   William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design – The Bridge Between Science & Theology  Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1999, p. 128
Back

10. For more on how Dembski’s criteria for recognizing design, see my article on the watch maker analogy as an argument for design titled “Everyone should have one”  https://rationalfaith.com/2015/06/the-watchmaker-analogy/
Back

Images:

All memes by Duane Caldwell 
All images – used by permission from the license holders as noted below

Fossil – old trilobite © Jaroslav Moravcik | Fotolia (used by permission)
Vintage film reels © Miguel Garcia Saaved | Fotolia (used by permission)
Sand dune Erg Chebbi, Morocco, Africa | By Rosino on Flickr (84514010) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons