I have written before how some evolutionists lie and say that there is no evidence for creation. Perhaps I should be a little nicer and give some people the benefit of the doubt. Instead of saying they lie, some people may not understand the concept of a scientific theory. Usually, evolutionists accuse creationists of not understanding the definition of a scientific theory and in some cases, they may have a point. But when evolutionists say there is no evidence for creation, I suspect it's they who don't understand what a theory is. On the other hand, maybe these people are intentionally conflating their theory with the evidence.
According to Wikipedia, “A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.” In other words, a theory is a scientific model constructed to explain the evidence. The theory isn't the evidence and the evidence isn't the theory. Theories are invented to make sense of the evidence but the evidence itself is neutral.
Suppose you found a fossil. The rock doesn't tell you anything about itself. It's a dumb rock (dumb as in not speaking). It doesn't tell you how old it is. It doesn't tell you how it was made. It doesn't tell you what it is a fossil of. It really doesn't even tell you it's a fossil. It simply exists and we have different ideas on how it came to be. Evolutionists believe fossils were laid down by successive, local floods over billions of years. Creationists believe many or most fossils were created simultaneously only a few thousand years ago during the global flood described in the Bible. We have different theories, but it's the same fossil.
When you ask someone who believes in evolution what evidence is there for his theory, he might say things like the fossils, the rock layers, and even dinosaurs. And what is the evidence for creation? It's things like the fossils, the rock layers, and even dinosaurs. It's the same evidence; we merely have different theories to explain it. We live in the same world, don't we? How can there be different evidence?
Sometimes I'm not sure what evolutionists are thinking. I know they're convinced of their theory. Perhaps they believe their theory explains the evidence so well that they believe the truth of evolution is obvious. In that sense, when they say there is no evidence for creation, they are using a type of hyperbole. It would be like me believing Michael Jordan is so great a basketball player that I might say, “there are no other basketball players.” But I suspect that's not what they mean. I think they intend to be literal. If so, to say there isn't evidence for creation is to demonstrate a gross ignorance of either what evidence is or what a theory it is.
7 comments:
RK, if you ask "someone who believes in evolution" what his evidence is, he will reply "the consistent nested hierarchy (groups within groups) pattern of life seen in comparative anatomy and comparative genomics," followed by appeals to biogeography, faunal succession in the fossil record, intermediate forms in the fossil record, and vestigial structures at the anatomical and genetic level.
"Fossils," by themselves, are not evidence of much. The fact that we don't find, e.g. any mammals (not even whales), nor even modern bony fish, on the other hand, is interesting: if all modern "kinds" existed within a week of the Earth's creation, and if most fossils were laid down by a single global flood, why are so many modern genera, families, orders, even classes absent from the oldest strata? Why aren't African dinosaur fossils found intermingled with elephant, big cat, and other modern mammal fossils, if both lived at the same time and were buried at the same time?
I remember how creationist organizations responded when the first feathered dinosaur fossils surfaced from China; while they eventually settled on the point that God could create feathered theropods if He wanted to, they weren't actually expecting such fossils any more than evolutionists would expect feathered bats. But feathered dinosaurs are implied by the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs; feathered bats are pretty much prohibited by the idea that birds and mammals evolved body insulation and (in some cases) flight independently of one another.
Young-earth creationists, at least, tend to harp on rare cases of fraud (e.g. "Archaeoraptor" rather than the very real Microraptor) or on disputed identifications (such as the down coating on Sinosauropteryx, which was widely dismissed as collagen fibers under until melanosomes -- pigment bodies like those found in modern bird feathers -- were discovered preserved in them). Creationists may have the same data, but they ignore most of it.
Steven J,
I haven't heard from you in a while. Thanks as always for stopping by. You've raised several points and, as usual, I'm limited as to what I can reply in a comment due to space. Let me hit just the highlight.
You said, “if you ask "someone who believes in evolution" what his evidence is, he will reply "the consistent nested hierarchy (groups within groups) pattern of life seen in comparative anatomy and comparative genomics," followed by appeals to biogeography, faunal succession in the fossil record, intermediate forms in the fossil record, and vestigial structures at the anatomical and genetic level.”
Certainly your reply is a little more technical than the hypothetical reply that I suggested. However, if I asked the average lay person some of the evidence for evolution, not many will say "the consistent nested hierarchy (groups within groups) pattern of life seen in comparative anatomy and comparative genomics." But hey, let's go with that for a moment. What exactly does that mean? More precisely, why do YOU think animals can be arranged into a nested hierarchy? Most evolutionists tell me that such a hierarchy is the result of common ancestry among certain groups of animals. Of course, that is exactly my point – the theory explains the evidence. Do you think I deny there is an observable pattern among living things? Do you really think that creation cannot explain a nested hierarchy?
My point remains the same. Things like the the nested hierarchy, the arrangement of fossils, and what you call “vestigial” structures all exist. And the fact that things like eyeless cave fish exist is objective. We each must explain how they came to be within the framework of our theories. How does a creationist explain eyeless cave fish? How does an evolutionist explain explain eyeless cave fish? It's the same evidence – just different theories.
Thanks again for visiting. God bless!!
RKBentley
RKBentley replied to me:
More precisely, why do YOU think animals can be arranged into a nested hierarchy? Most evolutionists tell me that such a hierarchy is the result of common ancestry among certain groups of animals. Of course, that is exactly my point – the theory explains the evidence.
More: the theory predicts the evidence. If evolution is true, then (barring lateral gene transfer, which is rare for eukaryotes -- which includes pretty much every life form you can see with the naked eye, and many you cannot) we inherit (in modified forms) our traits from our ancestors. Populations, including other species, that are more closely related to us have had less time to modify the inherited traits and therefore will, in detail after detail, resemble us more closely.
Take the GULO pseudogene: it is present and identically-disabled in humans and rhesus monkeys. This implies a couple of predictions: it will be present, and identically disabled, in chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons, and the exact sequence of nucleotides in the pseudogene will be more similar between humans and any ape than between humans or any ape and any monkey.
Do you think I deny there is an observable pattern among living things? Do you really think that creation cannot explain a nested hierarchy?
Creation is consistent with a nested hierarchy. Creation is consistent with very nearly any pattern. Obviously, an all-powerful Creator could create life with features distributed in any pattern that He wished.
But I would say that special creation cannot explain the nested hierarchy: it cannot explain why, e.g. it is more likely or more consistent with the Creator's nature and methods than, say, bats with feathers or birds with three bones in the middle ear or trout with the "right-way-round" retina seen in molluscs but not vertebrates would be. Human designers, at least, re-use designs for components in widely disparate larger designs. On that basis, why shouldn't the designer use feathered wings for flying mammals? Evolution doesn't do it because, basically, it can't copy complex designs across lineages, but any Designer worth His salt could. Or the Designer might decide to make all "clean" animals with certain shared features (e.g. the same sort of retina or identical cytochrome-c), or ... well, the possibilities are myriad; how do we account for the Creator picking the one that is predicted by evolutionary theory, over various possibilities that contradict it?
I found this to be a curious paragraph:
"Suppose you found a fossil. The rock doesn't tell you anything about itself. It's a dumb rock (dumb as in not speaking). It doesn't tell you how old it is. It doesn't tell you how it was made. It doesn't tell you what it is a fossil of. It really doesn't even tell you it's a fossil. It simply exists and we have different ideas on how it came to be. Evolutionists believe fossils were laid down by successive, local floods over billions of years. Creationists believe many or most fossils were created simultaneously only a few thousand years ago during the global flood described in the Bible. We have different theories, but it's the same fossil."
If this were a single fossil in isolation, then yes you would be correct (except for your statement that we believe in successive local floods, for that is not the case at all; a landslide or a submarine fan can be part of fossilisation for example). But no evidence is taken in isolation.
We can tell the relative age of a fossil simply by the strata it is found in, for rock layers are laid on top of each other (the rocks can be overturned, though that is usually quite obvious). We can also get a good grasp of mineral formation and use the minerals in the rock to inform us of the timing and provenance of the rock. Large crystals in an igneous rock indicate slow cooling times (naturally this does not apply to sedimentary rocks, in which fossils can sometimes be found). When we find a fossil we can compare it to living organisms and compare traits, an endeavour which is successful with fossils of all ages, even extinct lineages (though my beloved Ediacaran forms remain enigmatic). No rock is dumb unless taken in isolation, but we do not live in such a vacuum and have the benefit of knowledge from disparate observations.
When we listen to what the rock tells us we find that a lot has gone on in the past. We find that events repeat (have you ever heard of a cyclothem?). Life changes pace often and the characters in the play of life alter steadily, with some disappearing over time and others appearing, though there is always a connection to the past events. The faunal succession in the fossil record is elegantly explained by evolution and many predictions using the theory have been successful. Creationism has no such claim. No creationist has managed to explain all of the "appearance" of evolution, the patterns and progress in the fossil record. Their explanations are underwhelming and appeal to an ignorance of the fossil record. The more one learns about it the more one learns that creationism has no hope of explaining it, but evolution does effortlessly.
Palaeobabbler,
First, I have a housekeeping issue. In previous correspondence, I've abbreviated your screen name different ways. I have referred to you as “TP” and “PB.” Do you have a preference? Of course, if you prefer, I could call you “Palaeobabbler” but that messes up my spell check and I have to keep checking myself to see if I spelled it correctly.
Anyway, thanks for your comments. You and I certainly have different views of the fossils and I think your characterization of the fossil record is overreaching. Certainly a single fossil doesn't “tell” much but even the entire fossil record (all trillions of them) doesn't say a word. The fossils are what they are and I have the same fossils that you do. You seem to suggest that the particular arrangement of fossils we have is evidence for your theory and not for mine. In case you missed it, this was the entire point of my post. Don't we have the same fossils? I think you mean to say that you believe your theory explains the fossils much better than my theory does. If that is what you mean then why don't you please say so. Especially stop saying that creation has no evidence as though you have a monopoly on the fossil record.
But speaking of the fossils, I have certainly noticed there are a lot of fossils. It's hard to turn over a shovel-full of dirt without finding one. I've also noticed that they're all shells, too. Isn't that curious. Well, they're not all shells. Here are some stats that I've found:
95% of all fossils are marine invertebrates, particularly shellfish. Of the remaining 5%, 95% are algae and plant fossils (4.75%). 95% of the remaining 0.25% consists of the other invertebrates, including insects 0.2375%). The remaining 0.0125% includes all vertebrates, mostly fish. Of the tiny fraction of terrestrial vertebrate fossils, most are represented by a single bone. Now, I understand that there are trillions of fossils so even a fraction is still a large number. Even so, I think the supposed progression of life that evolutionists claim is apparent in the fossil record isn't really that obvious. If we're laying claim to evidence for our theory, I think the fossils support my theory better than yours.
Thanks again for visiting. God bless!!
RKBentley
Steven J,
A good theory should be predictive but how did evolution “predict” the nested hierarchy when animals have already been grouped in various (but similar) ways for centuries? I think you still can't see the forest for the trees. Certain animals have similarities. That's nothing new. Why are they similar? Evolutionary theory believes that animals have similarities because they have a common ancestor. Therefore, to evolutionists, similarity is evidence of relatedness. Didn't we have this conversation?
The problem you have is that you are assuming the consequent – a logic fallacy called circular reasoning. If you assume that similarity is the result of relatedness then you cannot use similarity to prove relatedness. You're assuming the thing you're trying to prove! You're free to assume that a mouse and a moose are related but I believe God created them with certain similarities yet they are not related. That you can group them into a nested hierarchy only proves they can be grouped into a nested hierarchy. Sometimes, I'm even suspicious of your hierarchy. I remember that it was 1987 when scientists finally decided that pandas were actually bears and not a cousin of the racoons. What really happened except that scientists had to redraw their nested hierarchy? The “evidence” didn't change.
Finally, “impossible” mosaics are not a problem for evolution. If bats had feathers, evolutionists would simply assume there was a heretofore unknown link between birds and mammals.
Thanks for your comments. God bless!!
RKBentley
RK, I don't mind either, though I feel PB might be preferable.
I disagree about the fossils not saying a "word", for there are many words we can discern. A clear word, from a single fossil, is death. Another, which is the important one here and is expressed by the fossil record as a whole, is change (we might even say progression). If we make a prediction based on creationism and the flood, then progression should not be found. It is evidence to the contrary of your views. It is also evidence beautifully explained by evolution.
Although I spent this afternoon looking only at fossil bivalves, saying that they are all shells can be misleading. Many marine invertebrate fossils do not have shells; my own favourite group of fossils are exclusively soft-bodied, coming before the advent of shelled parts (part of that progression I mentioned).
The stats you mention do not favour you, unless you are criticising a straw man of evolution. We could look exclusively at the most abundant fossils -marine invertebrates- and what we find is faunal succession showing progression. The problem is that the public tends to care more about the fossils which we know to be rare, whereas other groups show evolution beautifully.
Post a Comment