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.
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:
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:
4 comments:
And let's be honest, evolutionists – people who believe in evolution – invariably also believe in abiogenesis and the Big Bang.
They also believe, pretty much invariably, in atomic theory and heliocentric astronomy. You don't call those "evolution" simply because people who accept the common ancestry of humans and monkeys also accept atoms and the solar system; rather, the term refers to all those ideas in modern science that contradict your interpretation of the Bible (e.g. radiometric dating is not, to an old-Earth creationist, part of "evolution"). Note especially "your interpretation;" by my literal reading of Genesis, meteorology contradicts Genesis, since it attributes rain to things like humidity, air pressure, and wind direction rather than to God opening hatchways in the solid canopy of the sky to let the water above the sky fall through. But that's not your interpretation, so to you, meteorology isn't "evolution."
I think the problem is this: you are arguing that because we don't have an explanation for the origin of life as finished and final as "it was magicked into existence by the ineffable sovereign will of an omnipotent Creator," then, e.g. pseudogenes for vitellogenin in the human genome are no reason for supposing that we had egg-laying ancestors, and identically-disabled GULO pseudogenes shared with chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys are no reason to infer common ancestors with them. If we can't tell you what, if anything, came before the Big Bang, then you need not trouble to explain, or explain away, the cosmic microwave background or the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium in the cosmos, or even why radiometric dating contradicts Genesis.
It's an "if you can't explain everything, there's no reason to accept your explanation of anything" argument -- as though a historian's conclusions about the American Civil War were invalid because he offered no explanation for why North and South had not been settled by, e.g. the French, or the Russians, or the Chinese.
When a creationist says, it's only a “theory,” he's expressing his doubts about evolution as an explanation of the objective, observable facts.
It seems to me that much of the time, the creationist means to distinguish between "laws" (ideas about the universe that have been proven, or that he has no theological or exegetical objections to), and "theories" (ideas that have not been proven, or that contradict his dogmas). They have no problem, quite often, with conclusions that are inferences from observations rather than observations themselves (e.g. radio waves, or atoms, or even, in some cases, solar fusion), as long as they can reconcile this with their own ideas of what scripture is and says.
A huge fraction of science is inference from observation rather than observation itself: no one's ever seen an electron, or a magnetic field, or a full orbit of the planet Pluto. In that respect, these ideas are no different from common ancestry of humans and hummingbirds or the Big Bang.
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!
An interesting choice of analogy. But the geologist isn't particularly interested in why the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, rather than, say, 3.95 billion or 5.33 billion. A better analogy, I think, would be: you come across a dead body in a room. There's a small hole in the dead person's chest, and a larger hole in the back, and a hole with a blood-smeared bullet in it in the wall. A mainstream, secular CSI infers that the person was shot with the bullet recovered from the wall, and you insist that this is "just a theory" and that it is equally reasonable to infer death from leprosy, with the holes in the victim being merely an unusual symptom and the bullet in the wall merely a coincidence.
This was great, as I inevitably get into discussions and have to explain basic terminology and definitions about these topics. But we never seem to get anywhere. The evolutionists I dialogue with are so dogmatic and repeat these same talking points to no end and with no common ground.
Evolutionists intentionally abuse the language and define terms in their favor. They not only do this with words like "evolution," "theory," and "science," they also think they get to define words like "faith." I've always said that there is no such thing as a word czar and words mean what the majority of people think they mean. When a narrow group of militant evolutionists engage the general public about the subject, they need to use terms the way the general public understands them - not lecture everyone else about the "correct" meaning understood by a few.
Thanks for visiting. God bless!!
RKBentley
Post a Comment