Who doesn't understand evolution? Part 4

When I began this series, my plan was that each post I write would cover 2 points of Tyler Francke's article, THE TOP 10 SIGNS THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION AT ALL. There are still 4 points left to cover but one of them is so ridiculous, I don't need to waste much time covering it, which means there are only 3 more that need to be addressed. Point number 7, though, has a lot of different directions I could go so I'm going to spend this post covering just this one point and will cover the next 3 point in my final post.

7. You think acceptance of evolution is the same as religious faith.

Another one that you may have heard from our friend, Banana Ray. In his film “EvG” (which is subtitled, “Shaking the Foundations of Faith”), he underscores this supposed parallel by asking his victims — oh, I mean, “interview subjects” — ridiculous questions like “Are you a strong believer in evolution?” and “When did you first start believing in evolution?” His point, as he goes on to explain, is that anyone who accepts the truth of evolution based on the testimony of expert scientists is relying on “blind faith” in the same way atheists accuse religious people of doing.

There's a little confusion about the difference between belief and faith. Generally, people attach a religious connotation to the word faith but I don't agree that's entirely appropriate. Let me give you an analogy. In English, we have the words belief and believe. One is a noun and one is a verb but we understand that they basically carry the same root meaning. Are you with me so far? OK. Now, in the New Testament, the Greek words faith and believe are basically the same too!

The noun, pistis (πίστις, Strong's word 4102), is generally translated as “faith” rather than “belief.” Its cognate verb, pisteuo (πιστεύω, Strong's word 4100), is generally translated as “believe” rather than “have faith.” So, as we read the Bible, believing and having faith is a distinction without a difference. Do we believe in God? Do we believe Jesus is the Christ? Do we believe the things in the Bible? If so, then we have faith.

The most famous chapter on faith in the Bible is probably Hebrews 11. Hebrews 11:7 says, “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house.” In other words, Noah believed God about something that had not happened. He built the Ark and was saved as a result. He was literally saved by his faith!

Christians believe pretty much for the same reasons anyone believes anything – they are convinced that what they believe is true. I believe Jesus lived, died, and rose again. I believe when I repented and accepted Him as my Lord, that He forgave my sins. I believe that He is seated on the right hand of the Father, even now, making intercession for me. This isn't wishful thinking. This isn't something that I hope is true without having any good reason to believe that it is. Romans 1:19-20 says, “[T]hat which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” Everything I can see in the creation and everything that I've ever learned about history convinces me that what I believe is true!

Though Francke says that “blind faith” is frowned upon from a secular perspective, he seems to endorse blind faith when it comes to believing the Bible. Francke said, “'Blind faith' does indeed have pejorative connotations in secular usage, but RayCo lends credence to these undertones in a way that no True Christian™ should. That’s because the Bible talks about “blind” religious faith, and its description is anything but negative. In John 20:29, Jesus declares that those who “believe without seeing” are “blessed” (contrasting them with “doubting” Thomas, who asked for proof).”

Francke is misrepresenting the Bible. What Francke doesn't seem to get is that Thomas was refusing to believe the testimony of the apostles! They had seen the Savior alive but Thomas refused to believe until he saw Jesus for himself. This is the same attitude many skeptics express today. Jesus's ministry on earth only lasted a short time. The vast majority of people in history were not alive during the few, short years of His Incarnation. If the standard for believing in Christ is that we see Him with our own eyes, then most of humanity is doomed. However, that's not the standard. We have the written accounts of His resurrection and we can believe the things written in the gospels and be saved.

John 19:33-35 says, “But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.”

John is giving details about the death of Jesus. He is establishing his credibility as an eyewitness to the event. Later, John saw Jesus alive again. I don't believe in the Resurrection because some wild-eyed preacher told me about a man I'd never heard of, who rose from the dead 2,000 years ago. I believe because I have the un-impeached testimony of someone who was there.

In John 17:18-20, Jesus prayed, “As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;” Jesus prayed specifically for the sake of the millions through history who believed in Him because of testimonies of the apostles. We should do what Jesus said and believe in Him because of what has been handed down to us by those who knew Him!

The irony is that, while Francke claims blind faith is necessary to believe the Bible, he himself seems to only believe those parts of the Bible which he feels has the doubting Thomas kind of proof. He doesn't believe in creation on "blind faith," for example. Instead, he has adopted the secular theories of proud atheists and has twisted the Scriptures to accommodate their godless theories. How sad.

Next, Francke said, Don’t misunderstand me. I’m a big supporter of critical thought — and of an engaged populace that rationally considers the information it receives before accepting it.

In his video, Evolution Vs God, Ray Comfort isn't necessarily trying to convince these people that their faith is just like Christian faith. He's trying to get these young people, mostly college students, to see that they claim to believe something and can't even cite a good reason why. Theirs is truly a blind faith. Obviously, the students in the video didn't rationally consider evolution. When Comfort pressed them about their belief in evolution, they couldn't name a single reason why they believed it.

Francke continued, But there are far worse people one could open one’s mind to than those who are sharing their expertise within the fields they have risen to the top of — especially when their conclusions are based on mountains of hard evidence that are available to anyone who doesn’t willfully choose to ignore it.

Do I need to remind Francke that the students in the video all claimed to be atheists?! The people to whom they've opened their minds are people like P.Z. Myers (also shown in the video). Myers, of course, zealously preaches atheism and attacks Christianity – young earth creationists in particular. You see, these young people have been sold a bill of goods. They have been taught that atheism is the default position of intellectual. The students in the video were quick to admit their atheism. Some seemed very smug, even proud of it. So I'm going to have to disagree and say, no, there is nothing worse than rejecting the truth of Jesus. Romans 1 talks about people who reject the truth of God and willingly believe a lie. Romans 1:22 says, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

I remember myself at their age. I thought I knew everything. These students were so smug and boldly touted their atheism as though they were enlightened. When challenged by Ray Comfort on what they believed, they began to soften their position and rethink what they had been taught. If any of them came to Christ as a result, Francke should be glad! Instead, he ridicules Comfort and defends rabid theophobes like P.Z. Myers. This is why I cannot tolerate the false gospel of theistic evolution. I see far too many evolutionists who claim to be Christians, condemning brothers in Christ while praising unbelievers like Myers. Incredible!

Matthew 7:15-16, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.”

Related posts:

Why is Atheism the “Default” Belief?

Why must “faith” mean “blind faith”?

Evolution and Christianity make strange bedfellows

Who doesn't understand evolution? Part 3

5. You think it has anything to do with the origin of life, let alone the origins of the universe.

This is like the king of all straw men, and it’s extremely common. It involves something like the thoroughly debunked theory of spontaneous generation (the idea that life can come from non-life under normal circumstances) being used as evidence against the theory of evolution. Hear me on this, guys: Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

Strictly speaking, biological evolution does not address either the origin of life nor the origin of the universe. I get it. What evolutionists don't seem to get is that creationism does! So when we're talking about the origin of everything, we're comparing the miraculous explanation with the natural “explanations” of everything (I put explanations in quotation marks because there really are no compelling, scientific explanations of things like the origin of matter/energy or abiogenesis). In other words, we're comparing everything about origins and we're just calling the natural explanations, “evolution,” for the sake of brevity.  You see, in the evolution v. creation debate, “evolution” is sometimes used as a term of convenience – just like “evolutionist.” We're not limiting the discussion to just the common descent of all life from a single common ancestor, we're also talking about things like the origin of the supposed ancestor and the origin of time, matter, and space. There just isn't a convenient term that encompasses all secular theories of our origins so creationists sometimes lump them all into “evolution.”  And let's be honest, evolutionists – people who believe in evolution – invariably also believe in abiogenesis and the Big Bang.  It should be no surprise, then, that we describe their entire set of beliefs with a single term.  

Furthermore, even evolutionists sometimes use the term, evolution, in much the same way as creationists do. How many times have you heard the debate described as “evolution versus creationism?” Creation, as described in Genesis includes the origin of space/matter/time and the origin of life. So when evolutionists compare “evolution” with “creationism,” it has to include everything involved in both sets of belief.

I think it's strange that critics ever use this objection. I mean, let's face it, for something that's not part of their theory, they certainly spend a lot of time talking about it. For example, Berkley.edu has a web page called, Understanding Evolution, which begins with a section titled, “From soup to cells – the origin of life.” From that site, we read the following, “Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.” It seems, at least, that Berkley feels the origin of life is of special interest “within the field of evolutionary biology.” Also, I don't even need to point out all the biology text books that still include the Miller-Urey experiment from nearly 70 years ago! Why is such an old experiment, one which failed to produce life, still included in biology books if abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution?

They can't have it both ways. They spend time talking about the origin of life, yet when creationists point out there is no natural explanation for the origin of life, evolutionists retreat to, “well, that's not part of the theory.” This objection is obviously a red herring. Evolutionists don't like to be called out for clinging to an idea that is virtually indistinguishable from “spontaneous generation,” which has been debunked for more than a century. They know the origin of life is a legitimate question, which is why they research it, but when pressed on the issue, they want to end the discussion.

Related posts:

7 Theories on the Origin of Life

So This is the “Real” Theory of Abiogenesis, Eh?

Are Amino Acids the Building Blocks of Life?

6. You use the phrase “it’s only a theory” and think you’ve made some kind of substantive statement.

I think the “only a theory” argument is so popular because of the unfortunate disparity between the common definition of “theory” in American pop culture, and the working definition of the word in science. In popular usage, “theory” means a “hunch” or a “guess” — and it’s the opposite of a “fact.” It’s conjecture, a shot in the dark that has just as much chance (and probably even more so) of being wrong as it has of being right.

I'm pretty sure Francke speaks English, right? Because, when he makes comments like this, it's like he's not familiar with the language at all. Since when does “theory” ever mean “a shot in the dark that has just as much chance of being wrong as it has of being right”? If you google the definition of theory, it says, “a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.” Francke's unusual definition is merely a straw man that he can use to ridicule people who use the criticism, “evolution is only a theory.”

Now, the scientific community claims to be a little more stringent about which set of ideas qualifies to be called a theory. To call something a “scientific” theory supposedly means that set of ideas has been repeatedly tested confirmed through observation and experimentation. Of course, they loose all credibility when they use the term, “theory of abiogenesis.” Abiogenesis has never been observed anywhere. We don't know how life began so there can be no scientific theory of abiogenesis. All we have are theories, plausible explanations based on general principles, about how it might have happened. In other words, the scientific community frequently uses the word theory in much the same way they harp on the general public for using it!

This goes back to what I was saying in my first post of this series: we examine the evidence and invent theories to explain the evidence. That's all we ever do because we can't observe theories. Evolutionists frequently want to conflate the evidence with their conclusions about the evidence. They want to blur the line between objective facts we can observe and the conclusions we make about those facts.

To illustrate this point, here's an analogy I've used before. You can open a carton of eggs and see there are a dozen. That's an objective fact. But why are there a dozen? It's easier to count by 10 than by 12 so why don't we sell eggs in cartons of 10? I believe it's because there are more ways to divide 12 evenly than 10. That's my theory – my explanation of why eggs are sold in dozens. I could interview farmers, do historical research, or even try a google search. Maybe my theory will be confirmed or maybe it will be falsified. Either way, why there are a dozen eggs will never be held in the same regard as the fact that there are a dozen eggs.

In an interview with Larry King, theophobe, Bill Nye made the following comment:

My concern has always been you can't use tax dollars intended for science education to teach something akin to the earth is 10,000 years old. To... 'cause that's just wrong. It's very much analogous to saying the earth is flat. I mean, you can show the earth is not flat; you can show the earth is not 10,000 years old.

Nye is saying he can show us the age of the earth just like he can show us the shape of the earth. No he cant! We can observe certain features of the earth and draw conclusions about its age but we can't observe our conclusions any more than we can open a carton of eggs and observe why there are a dozen!

When a creationist says, it's only a “theory,” he's expressing his doubts about evolution as an explanation of the objective, observable facts. He's drawing a distinction about what we know from observation and what we know from inference.  It's as simple as that. Then some evolutionist responds with a technical definition of the term “theory,” and thinks he's made some kind of substantive statement. Please spare me.

Related posts:

Evolution is “just” a theory after all

Maybe Ken Ham is wrong but Bill Nye is more wrong!

Truth Trumps Theory