www.jeffthefish.com

I recently spent a few days at the home of some of my dearest friends on Earth, who happen to be creationists. I really tried to avoid the topic, but inevitably it came up. One thing that came out of the intense but still respectful and friendly conversation was the recommendation that I check out the website of Come Reason Ministries, which is done by their friend Lenny Esposito. Lenny has a few articles about the relationship between science and the Bible, but only one of them seems to be about evolution. A cursory glance at the article revealed a few glaring mistakes, so I figured a more thorough analysis was in order.

I did my best to refrain from my usual snarkiness, since this guy is the personal friend of my own very good friends, but it was very difficult, and there were so many gigantic mistakes that I’m afraid I failed. If my Creationist friends end up reading this, please don’t take this personally. You know how I am. If he were just making honest mistakes, that would be one thing. But if you’re going to go to the trouble of starting your own ministry and attempting to debunk evolution, and then not do any actual research, but instead parrot Ken “Wackaloon” Ham, I’m afraid I just can’t force myself to pull my punches. It will hopefully soften the blow for you to know that one of my primary motivations in combating Creationism in this way is for the sake of Christianity! Creationism creates more atheists than any devil could ever hope to. Now, on to the article.

The article is a response to an email some dude sent to Lenny:

 

Hello,

Before I became a Christian about 2 and a half years ago, I was brought up by society to assume Darwinism is true, that living creatures are as we know of them are the result of random, purposeless evolution (”you can challenge ‘religious dogma,’ but even think for questioning ’science’ and be dismissed as a lunatic.” go figure.) Then not too long ago, I read some convincing arguments against Darwinism, and I became an Intelligent Designist. Heck, recently I read some intriguing arguments in favor of the literal interpretation of Genesis. my point is, I am curious about your stand point on the debate. I know that one could write a novel-sized response to this one, so I do not expect you to dwell on this subject very long unless you are led to.

God bless

Justin.

Phrases like “brought up by society to assume Darwinism is true” and “random, purposeless” evolution lead me to conlcude that Justin may be a little misinformed, but the impression I get is that he is honestly trying to find out the truth. Questioning science gets you dismissed as a lunatic? Really? That’s what scientists do! Perhaps he means that questioning science as a system of knowledge gets you dismissed as a lunatic. I doubt questioning it would get that result, but perhaps denial of it would, since there is so much evidence that science as a whole does work, it’s the functional equivalent of denying reality. You know, like moon hoaxers, homeopaths, YouTube commenters, etc. But since Justin wrote his email on a computer, I’m sure that’s not what he meant. Also, he heard convincing arguments about “Darwinism” and became an ID proponent? Maybe that was a typo.  [Ed. Justin said “arguments against Darwinism”, but I originally thought he said “arguments about Darwinism”.  My mistake!]

Enough about Justin. Let’s see how Lenny responds.

Hi Justin,

Thank you for writing. Darwinism is definitely a hot topic today, especially with students and churches. Your letter brings up many issues that I’d like to mention. The most important thing when addressing this or any other issue is to try and approach the discussion in a consistent way. We should be able to examine the evidence for and against it rationally and judge its reasonableness. I really believe there has been too much reaction on an emotional level from both sides and therefore we have not been communicating our position effectively.

So far, so good. In my experience, the people who accept evolution seem to be much more level headed in general than the Christians who believe in Creationism, but this could easily be an artifact of reading Ray Comfort’s blog. I know I easily get angry when I read Creationist distortions of facts and/or lies.

The best place to start with any discussion is by understanding the exact issue that’s being discussed. Misunderstandings about the Christian position of evolution are commonplace.

First off, when objecting to the idea of Darwinism, we are only discussing a specific type of evolution - macroevolution.

First mistake. There is no real biological distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. Macroevolution is simply the cumulative effects of microevolution. Any distinction scientists make is purely practical. Saying you accept one and not the other is like saying you believe in islands but not continents. It’s like saying you believe I could walk to the end of the block, but not that I could walk to the next town. There is no biological barrier to what Creationists refer to as “macroevolution”. They accept that small variations happen within a species, but somehow have a problem with the idea that those variations accumulate over time.

This means that we’re talking about life starting spontaneously and from a single organism came every type of living thing we see today - including germs, bugs, animals, fish, and all of the plants too. Not moths changing colors or some such thing. Having different colors or sizes within a species are micro-evolutionary changes and they are not in dispute.

Here’s the thing, Lenny: if you don’t even know what evolution is, what business do you have arguing against it? You’re confusing your own concepts! Macroevolution would be change at or above the species level. You’re talking about abiogenesis, which is a separate theory from the theory of evolution. This is a serious indicator that you really don’t know what evolution actually is.

More specifically, though, we must remember that Darwinian theory the way its proponents currently assert it is a RANDOM AND PURPOSELESS process.

Ok, you can stop dropping hints! I get it now! You really don’t know what the theory of evolution is! True, when natural selection works on an organism, it has no end product in mind, but it is far from random. Mutations are random, but natural selection is a very nonrandom mechanism to select for beneficial traits. It’s the difference between playing the lottery and playing poker. It’s not a perfect analogy, but it does illustrate my point. The lottery is completely random. It takes no skill to play or to win. It’s just luck of the draw. But poker requires skill. The cards you get may be random, but what you do with the cards is anything but. Likewise, though a mutation may be random (or as close to random as anything in a determinate universe can be), the selection process nonrandomly selects for or against a trait based on whether or not it helps an organism to survive long enough to reproduce.

That means we must leave out ideas of “theistic evolution” - God causing evolutionary changes to take place. None of the advocates of Darwinism as it is now taught in schools holds to ANY type of creator/designer having any hand in the evolutionary process.

Really? You really think that? Don’t take this the wrong way, but have you ever looked anything up? You’ve really never heard of Ken Miller and Francis Collins? Ken Miller wrote a frigging high school textbook for crying out loud! I’m starting to think you might not be very informed on this issue.

I cannot stress this enough. In discussing evolution verses Intelligent Design theory, we must discuss each of those theories the way that their proponents position them. This means evolution is a cosmic accident and nothing more.

Wait a second. You just got finished twisting and distorting the theory of evolution into something no scientist has ever claimed! Weren’t you the guy who just stressed how important it is to come at this problem in a consistent way? Didn’t you just get through bemoaning the fact the proponents of evolution don’t understand the Christian position? Yet here you are, blatantly misrepresenting what the theory of evolution actually says. Do you honestly not know that you’re doing it? Or do you realize that you’re misrepresenting the facts and presenting them anyway?

Secondly, we must understand that Darwinism is not an empirical science, but a historical theory based on interpreted evidence. Many people get caught speechless when someone objects, “How can you doubt evolution to be true? Don’t you know that science has proven it to be true?” Well, science has not proven evolution to be true. The origin of life is not testable and repeatable like the refraction of light or a chemical reaction. It is primarily a search to find out what happened in a specific point in time in history.

Science has not proven evolution is true in the sense that science hasn’t proven gravity to be true. If enough evidence surfaced against the fact of gravity, it would be thrown out. However, the testable predictions of gravity have come true so many times that it is reasonable to conclude that gravity really exists, and that finding this evidence is highly unlikely. The same is true for evolution.

So, evolution is not testable, you say? How do you explain Tiktaalik? Neil Shubin and his team knew that there were fossils of amphibian-like fish in rocks 380 million years old, and that there were fish-like amphibians in rocks 365 million years old. If the theory of evolution is true, there would have to exist an organism with features intermediate between those groups of animals, and it would have to exist between those two time periods. So they went to rocks that were 375 million years old, and lo and behold, a fish with a neck and wrists, exactly as the theory of evolution predicted. It’s so intermediate that it’s been referred to as a “fishapod”. If you think that’s not testable, empirical science, then you have no idea what testable, empirical science is. And don’t get me started on citrate eating e. coli. Not empirical. What a joke!

Much like a forensic investigator who examines clues at a crime scene and tries to put together the events, we are trying to find out what happened for a single occurrence at a specific point in history that is not reproducible.

What single point are you referring to? Not the origin of life again? As I’ve said, evolution is not primarily concerned with that. Also, in order to be consistent you have to reject the findings of forensic investigators. I somehow doubt that’s what you’re getting at.

Therefore, we approach the problem by looking at what we CAN examine and make educated guesses as to which processes are the most likely to bring about all of those outcomes. Evolution is simply one idea of what could have happened given all the evidence we have. The question then becomes “is evolution the best explanation of the evidence we have?”

It is just one idea, but it’s the only one that has withstood 150 years of scientific scrutiny. That’s why it’s the best explanation we have.

In reviewing all the evidence we have currently on evolution, I feel that its explanatory power falls short for the origin of life and great variation of species that have existed throughout time.

You’ve shown beyond a reasonable doubt that you don’t even know what evolution is, so I have a hard time believing that you have reviewed any of the evidence, much less all of it. Reading Answers in Genesis is not the same as reviewing scientific evidence. It’s the exact opposite.

Some of the problems evolution faces are its inability to demonstrate how living organisms began at all, how the components of the living cell are irreducibly complex and how the design evident in those organisms argues for a designer. As we look at each of these dilemmas, we can see how evolution fails as an explanatory model.

Well here’s an idea that hasn’t been debunked a billion times over the past decade. Irreducible complexity was first expressed in its present form by Michael Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box. The most famous example is the bacterial flagellum, which, according to Behe, is a complex motor that would not work if you removed even one of its parts, and therefore could not have evolved in the small, stepwise increments that evolution requires. The problem is that it has been demonstrated that if you remove a single part, it does still work. Even more problematic for IC, there are other bacteria that have similar structures but that are missing some parts. These reduced structures are perfectly useable by the organism.

Irreducible complexity is basically the argument from personal incredulity: I cannot imagine how this could have evolved, therefore, it did not evolve. See this article for a more thorough explanation of why irreducible complexity is not a scientifically valid concept.

In studying the basic question that evolution attempts to answer, “where did life come from”, we see that there is no sustainable model for chemicals coming together and creating a living cell.

Yet again, that is not the basic question that evolution seeks to answer. Evolution seeks to explain the diversity of species. Now, some sciencey people say that this is a cop out. They say that evolution does seek to answer that question. I kind of disagree. I think they really are two separate issues, but that doesn’t mean that the origin of life should not be dealt with scientifically and it doesn’t mean we should not answer Creationists when they say things like this. However, it’s outside my primary field of interest, so I don’t know enough about it to be qualified to discuss it. But here’s someone who is.

As geologists uncover the true atmosphere of a primitive earth, molecular biologists find that generating amino acids - which produce the proteins needed in all cells for life - becomes incredibly difficult. Further, many scientists see signs that oxygen would have been present in the early atmosphere which would destroy any biological chain reaction creating life. In fact, there is no agreed upon model in the scientific community on how cells did come to be. Scientists who hold to one theory easily point to obvious flaws in a competing model and visa-versa.

Yup, it’s a young field with no scientific concensus and lots of questions to answer. But if you think that alone invalidates the fact of evolution, you’re committing the personal incredulity fallacy again.

Another refutation of the evolutionary model that has recently arisen is the idea that cells themselves are comprised of processes that are what as known as “irreducibly complex”. In other words, the entire system must exist all at once for it to be of any benefit at all. Michael Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box explains this in greater detail. He uses a mousetrap as an example. In order for a mousetrap to be of any benefit, it must have some type of base, a spring, a holding wire, a trigger and the hammer that strikes the mouse. Without any one of these components, the trap is completely useless. In the same way, a cell cannot evolve gradually, because all the components that allow a cell to do work must exist simultaneously. Evolving one part but not another is not only useless, but according to evolutionary theory, would put a transitional form at a disadvantage and therefore less likely to survive.

I already dealt with this, but here is a tongue-in-cheek response to the mouse trap argument. But basically, irreducible complexity is bogus because so far we haven’t found anything that actually is irreducibly complex.

Lastly, the incredible design and purpose shown in the living cell and in the structures that make up living organisms have never been adequately explained by evolution. DNA is a prime example of this. DNA is a digital code made up of only four amino acids. As a digital code it provides a blueprint so that all the various mechanisms and forms of life are replicated according to its instruction. The question arises then how could something like DNA to be created randomly? There is no such thing as a self-generating code - for a code is an agreed upon representation of what it’s trying to communicate. That’s why they’re used in espionage; they don’t mean anything taken at face value. It is only when someone or something who understands the code based on rules which were prearranged will the true message of the code be known.

I don’t know very much about DNA either, so instead of parroting some Darwinist talking points, I’m just not going to say much on this. I would, however, like to point out that this paragraph is full of false premises. DNA is not a blueprint. It’s not even really a code. It’s not read by an intelligent agent who understands the message and then carries out the orders. It’s chemicals that have chemical reactions with other chemicals. It’s not a book. And if DNA is supposed to be this amazing code inserted into living cells by God, why is it so full of junk? Why do humans and other apes have the same gene for tails that monkeys have? Was God just being cute?

Similarly, the idea that several thousands of mutations that happened in the proper sequence are responsible for the flying birds or the eye of a man are, when examined objectively, pure fable.

Remember those hints you were dropping before? Here is the smoking gun! You have no clue what the theory of evolution is. Somehow you got this idea that the current crop of species inhabiting the Earth are necessarily the only possible crop of species that could be inhabiting the Earth. This is an idea that was made up out of whole cloth. Sure, in hindsight, the mutations responsible for giving dinosaurs the ability to fly might seem like they were heading towards some purpose, but that’s as ridiculous as saying that because legs are long and straight, they were obviously made for trousers.

We never see this type of successive mutation in reality.

I realize this was written before Lensky’s work was published, but again, I point you to e. coli that evolved the ability to eat citrate. That is exactly the type of successive mutation you are talking about, and unlike your claims about what the theory of evolution says, it happened in reality.

Even the fossil record shows environmental systems such as the Cambrian explosion appearing abruptly and completely.

Not if you have any clue what the Cambrian Explosion actually is. It was a diversification of life that took place over tens of millions of years. Not very abrupt, is it? The idea of the Cambrian Explosion is mostly an artifact of the fossil record: it marks the earliest development of animals with hard shells that are easy to fossilize. Also, what if God had indeed created a bunch of invertebrates 500 million years ago? That doesn’t help Creationism one bit. And what about all the organisms that existed before the Cambrian Explosion?

Also, the odds for such a delicate balance of all variables required for life to exist is so infinitesimal (see our latest newsletter for more on this idea) that holding it happened by accident becomes absurd.

You don’t know anything about statistics either. As of this writing, the winning numbers for the Washington State Lottery are 17, 29, 36, 53, 55, and 26. Do you know the odds of that exact sequence of numbers being the winning numbers? Neither do I, but they’re so low that I don’t buy lottery tickets. In fact, it’s so unlikely, I’m going to claim that there is no way that the lottery’s website could be telling the truth. It’s just too infinitesimal for me to believe!

Do you see what I’m getting at? You can’t consider the odds of something like this after the fact! If the conditions of early Earth had been different, life could have adapted to those conditions, and you could still look back and say, “wow, what were the odds!” It’s a convincing argument if you don’t think things through. I was convinced by this one for many years.

So, if all these things are evident, some may ask, why do smart people like scientists keep saying evolution is true and scientifically proven?

Nothing you have said so far has been correct, much less evident, making your question a little pointless.

Well, when you get them to talk seriously about evolution, they say something different. Professor Richard Lewontin wrote in The New York Review “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” This honest admission shows that these scientists view their theories as dogma. They are taken on faith alone, and not on objective scrutiny.

I was hoping you’d do some quote mining! It almost sounds like you want readers to think that Lewontin is talking about evolution when he mentions “unsubstantiated just-so-stories,” but I know you weren’t, because that would be dishonest, since Lewontin isn’t talking about evolution here (and since you got this from Answers in Genesis). That’s right, he’s actually talking about physics and astronomy! He’s talking about a book by Carl Sagan! Here’s the full quote:

With great perception, Sagan sees that there is an impediment to the popular credibility of scientific claims about the world, an impediment that is almost invisible to most scientists. Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face. Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them? Astronomers tell us without apparent embarrassment that they can see stellar events that occurred millions of years ago, whereas we all know that we see things as they happen. When, at the time of the moon landing, a woman in rural Texas was interviewed about the event, she very sensibly refused to believe that the television pictures she had seen had come all the way from the moon, on the grounds that with her antenna she couldn’t even get Dallas. What seems absurd depends on one’s prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity “in deep trouble.”Two’s company, but three’s a crowd.

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

The incomplete quote that Lenny gives makes it sounds like Lewontin is simply being dogmatic about materialism, but what he’s actually saying is that if we didn’t assume materialism in science, it would cease to be science! The supernatural is by definition unfalsifiable, so you can’t build science around it. It doesn’t mean you can’t believe in God, you just can’t have any kind of science based on God.

There is so much more to this topic that I cannot cover due to time and space limitations.

Space? This is the internet!

I do hope, however, that everyone would think twice before shying away from the evolutionary debate or retreating to a “I take it solely by faith” response.

You don’t have to worry about me.

There is good evidence that evolution fails…

And I hope someday you decide to share it with us.

…and so the question then becomes if evolution doesn’t work, what other options are there for the existence of life? The evolutionists know the inescapable answer to this question: a Creator.

Um, actually, they don’t. You’re employing a logical fallacy known as a False Dichotomy: either X is true, or Y is true, and there are no other options. Sorry, you are wrong again. Even if evolution were proven false tomorrow, that would not make Creationism the winner by default. There is no evidence for Creationism. In a debate I watched between Michael Shermer and Kent Hovind, Hovind was asked what the thought the single greatest piece of evidence for Creationism was. His answer? “The absolute impossibility of the former.” Sorry, that is not an answer. That’s such a nonsequitor, it’s not even funny. In fact, it’s so not funny that it’s funny again.

So here’s what we’ve learned: Lenny doesn’t know anything about evolution. It’s not just that he doesn’t have any good arguments against it. He literally does not know what it is. Yet he has a website, an entire ministry, in which he tries to convince people that it’s not true. That makes no sense to me.

I seriously hope I have not offended any friends with this. I’m not trying to be mean, I’m just trying to tell the truth.

 

 

 

 

 

Stumble it!

Posted on Monday, July 21st, 2008 in Category Evolution. Please comment, ok?