Talk Origins Says Evolution Can Be Falsified

TalkOrigins.org (TO) describes themselves on their homepage as “a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins.” That sounds somewhat benign. I would say they are more like a Usenet group devoted to ridiculing Christians in general and creationists specifically. I used to frequent their site fairly regularly but they no longer post new material so once I had read everything, I stopped going there.

Just the other day, I happened across their site again while researching something else. The article that I stumbled upon was in their “Index to Creationist Claims” and was a short post meant to rebut the claim that evolution cannot be falsified. You can read it here.

A good scientific theory should falsifiable. That's not my rule but one agreed on by the scientific establishment. The complaint raised by creationists (including myself on this blog) is that ToE cannot be falsified and so is not a good theory. No piece of evidence, no matter how damning to the theory, is sufficient to dissuade evolutionists from their beliefs. Any new find, no matter how much it might contradict previous understandings of evolution, is simply worked into the theory.

Normally, evolutionists are reluctant to suggest ways evolution might be falsified. I believe it's because they have been burned too many times in the past when some unexpected find upsets some point of their cherished theory. If they put something down in writing, they are putting themselves at risk that such a thing might actually be found someday. If they had been sincere, I would have to give kudos to TO for at least trying. However, the possible items they have suggested could disprove evolution cannot be serious. We'll look at them one by one.

A STATIC FOSSIL RECORD

I suppose they are saying that if the fossil record did not show any progression of life or change in species, then evolution would be falsified. I think it's funny they would suggest such a thing. We've already found millions of fossils and evolutionists have built their “nested hierarchy” based on what they have found. In other words, they've already spelled out what they identify as a progression in the fossil record so how could the fossil record ever be used to falsify the theory? It's a sort of prediction after the fact. This would be like me saying that the existence of God could be falsified by a lack of written revelation. Well, we already have the written revelation from God (the Bible) so this could not ever be used to falsify the existence of God. Therefore, it can't be a serious suggestion.

I once had an evolutionist suggest that evolution could be falsified by showing that animals don't reproduce. Yes, he was serious! Of course, animals are already known to reproduce so evos are safe from having their theory falsified by this test. In that same manner, “progression” has already been identified in the fossil record so TO can suggest that a static fossil record could falsify evolution without worrying such a thing would ever be found.

TRUE CHIMERAS

In Greek mythology, the chimera was a creature with a goat's head, a lion's body, and a tail ending in a snake's head. In this context, a chimera is any creature that is a composite of other creatures. A centaur, for example, was a composite of a human and a horse.

Bizarre creatures like centaurs or mermaids would be difficult to fit into evolution's precious “nested hierarchy” but neither would falsify evolution. Evolution uses similarities between animals as evidence of their relatedness. Therefore, if a chimera were found, it would not be evidence against evolution but would actually be evidence of a previously unknown relationship between different groups.

Let's be honest, TO knows we're not ever going to find a centaur. But say we found a creature that shared features with... oh, I don't know... say a reptile and a bird. Oh, wait! We've found that already. Have you ever heard of Archaeopteryx? Per Wikipedia, “Despite its small size, broad wings, and inferred ability to fly or glide, Archaeopteryx has more in common with other small Mesozoic dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. In particular, it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features.”

If we ever find a fish with hair, the headline the next day would not be, “Evolution proven wrong.” It will be, “New find shows fish more closely related to mammals than previously believed.”

A MECHANISM THAT WOULD PREVENT MUTATIONS FROM ACCUMULATING

This item suffers from the same flaw as the first item above. It's a test that has failed in advance. We already know that mutations accumulate in the genes (known as genetic burden). And since mutations already accumulate, TO knows that no mechanism preventing them from accumulating will ever be found. Evolution is safe from this test.

OBSERVATIONS OF ORGANISMS BEING CREATED

I can't tell if TO is making a joke here or if they're trying to be serious. How can they be serious? I mean, if God created an animal in front of my eyes, how does that disprove evolution? Even though God created that animal, everything else could have evolved! This isn't even close to disproving evolution.

Perhaps they are attempting to make a concession. They concede that, if God appeared and created something before their eyes, they would be forced to acknowledge that creation as revealed in the Bible was true. However, I don't believe even that would convince some people. After all, Jesus did turn water into wine and multiplied the loaves and fish. Even though He performed these acts of creation in front of literally thousands of witnesses, they still did not all believe.

IN CONCLUSION, this is merely more of the same. New finds in science have overturned previously held theories about evolution but nothing will ever threaten THE theory of evolution.

Bob Hope on Zombies

Here's some comic relief.  I know it's an oldie but it's still a goodie.  Enjoy!!

What is the Evidence for Atheism?

Evolutionists are supposed to be all about the evidence.  They claim they refuse to believe anything without evidence.  They ridicule Christians and creationists with claims that we believe in a God for whom there is no evidence.  The fact of the matter, though, is that evolutionists are very confused people.  When I ask them for the scientific evidence that supports the philosophical underpinning of their brand of science (methodological naturalism), they reply with blank stares and bad logic.  I'm still waiting for evidence.  Yet as confused as evolutionists are, atheists have to be worse.


If atheism is the default belief of intellectuals (or so I've been told) and if “reasonable” people demand evidence before believing anything (or so I've been told), then I have a very simple question for atheists: What is the evidence for atheism?  I mean, if atheists don't believe things without evidence then they must have evidence that there is no God, right?  Well what is it?  Please show it to me.  I'm very curious how you came to your belief if you only followed the evidence.  I've asked this question many times over the years and the answers I've received only serve to highlight how irrational and arbitrary atheism actually is.  


Let me qualify something; I've said before that I would never claim to be a philosopher or scholar but I have studied logic a little.  I know enough to understand that it is impossible to prove a universal negative.  To say, “No where in the universe does X exist” is not a defensible position.  No one can know something doesn't exist anywhere in the universe unless he's actually been everywhere in the universe and seen that it's not there.  What's worse, he'd have to have been everywhere in the universe in a single moment in time lest the thing he is looking for should move around and always be in a different place than the observer.  


I've blogged before how worldviews like empiricism are contradictory and self defeating.  There is no evidence, for example, that proves knowledge is only gained by evidence.  To put it kindly, holding a self-contradictory worldview is irrational.  Atheists, on the the other hand, have a zealot-like faith in a position they cannot ever possibly know to be true.  That's just nuts.


Knowing that a universal negative is impossible to prove, a clever atheist will usually put the burden back onto the Christian to prove that God does exist.  This is a red herring and intellectual dishonesty on the part of the atheist.  It is the atheist who is saying that there is no God, thus claiming a universal negative to be true.  If he were honest and rational, he should, at the very least, claim he has not seen convincing evidence that there is a God.  That is not what is happening.  The atheist asserts that nowhere in the universe does God exist.  If he makes that claim, he must prove it.  He cannot make the bald assertion that there is no God and then throw the burden onto the Christian to prove him wrong!


In the face of impossible logic, many atheists will usually retreat to the more easily defended position of saying, “I have never seen evidence for God.”  This is an amazing concession because they are virtually admitting to agnosticism instead of atheism.  When they assume this attitude, I've found they usually claim to still be atheists.  That's rather odd because they have already admitted they cannot know with certainty that what they claim is true.  To still have a resolute belief there is no God is simply that zealot-like faith shining through again.


The more subdued position agnosticism and saying there isn't evidence (or convincing evidence) for God sounds reasonable at first hearing.  However, it is simply another way of shifting the burden of proof away from the atheist.  Remember, these are usually the same ones who claim to not believe anything without evidence.  If they refuse to acknowledge the possible existence of God, then they are not holding to agnosticism but to atheism.  If they sincerely believe there is no God, then their own arguments demand they have evidence for it.


Furthermore, this idea of not having evidence for God is not a positive argument for the atheist's position.  I want to hear the evidence that there is no God – not criticisms of arguments for the existence of God.  To invoke a lack of evidence for God is essentially an argument from silence.  The atheist-pretending-to-be-agnostic is saying, “I have not seen evidence for God therefore there is no God.”


OK all you atheists out there:  You talk about evidence?  You talk about proof?  Then educate me.  Don't tell me I don't have evidence for my belief.  Tell the the evidence for yours.  What is the evidence for atheism?   

Obama to Catholics: “To Hell With You”

A few months back, the Department of Health and Human Services released guidelines mandating that by the summer of 2012, all individual and group insurance plans must cover contraception, sterilization procedures, and abortion inducing drugs. Prior to the passage of Obama-care, one of the many criticisms of the plan was that it would ultimately violate the religious liberties of employers and individuals. The Administration assured us that the religious conscience of the people would be safe. We see now that was another lie.

In an editorial, Catholic Bishop, David Zubik, had some hard hitting words about the Catholic response to the new guidelines. Here are some highlights from his column:

It is really hard to believe that it happened. It comes like a slap in the face. The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, “To hell with you!” There is no other way to put it.

A million things are wrong with this: equating pregnancy with disease; mandating that every employer pay for contraception procedures, including alleged contraceptives that are actually abortion-inducing drugs; forcing American citizens to choose between violating their consciences or providing health care services; mandating such coverage on every individual woman without allowing her to even choose not to have it; and forcing every person to pay for that coverage no matter the dictates of their conscience.

So-called exemption

Let’s be blunt. This whole process of mandating these guidelines undermines the democratic process itself. In this instance, the mandate declares pregnancy a disease, forces a culture of contraception and abortion on society, all while completely bypassing the legislative process. 

This is government by fiat that attacks the rights of everyone — not only Catholics; not only people of all religions. At no other time in memory or history has there been such a governmental intrusion on freedom not only with regard to religion, but even across-the-board with all citizens. It forces every employer to subsidize an ideology or pay a penalty while searching for alternatives to health care coverage. It undermines the whole concept and hope for health care reform by inextricably linking it to the zealotry of pro-abortion bureaucrats.

For our church this mandate would apply in virtually every instance where the Catholic Church serves as an employer. The mandate would require the Catholic Church as an employer to violate its fundamental beliefs concerning human life and human dignity by forcing Catholic entities to provide contraceptive, sterilization coverage and even pharmaceuticals that result in abortion.There was a so-called “religious exemption” to the mandate, but it was so narrowly drawn that, as critics charged, Jesus Christ and his apostles would not fit the exemption. The so-called exemption would only apply to the vast array of Catholic institutions where the following applied:

• Only Catholics are employed;• The primary purpose of the institution or service provided is the direct instruction in Catholic belief;• The only people served by the institution are those who share Catholic religious tenets. (Try to fit this in with our local Catholic Charities, which serves 80,000 every year without discrimination according to faith. It would be impossible!)

Practically speaking, under the proposed mandate there would be no “religious exemption” for Catholic hospitals, universities, colleges, nursing homes and numerous Catholic social service agencies such as Catholic Charities. It could easily be determined that the “religious exemption” would not apply as well to Catholic high schools, elementary schools and parishes since many employ non-Catholics and serve both Catholic students and, through social outreach, many who do not share our religious beliefs. Such a narrow “religious exemption” is simply unprecedented in federal law.

Kathleen Sebelius, and through her the Obama administration, have said “To hell with you” to the Catholic faithful of the United States.

• To hell with your religious beliefs,• To hell with your religious liberty,• To hell with your freedom of conscience.

We’ll give you a year, they are saying, and then you have to knuckle under.

I could not have said it any better. I've said before that I'm not a Catholic. However, it's no stretch of the imagination to see how these guidelines are a threat to the religious liberty of all believers. It even erodes the rights of non-believers since it establishes a precedent that the government's agenda for a better society trumps individual liberties.

This is another call to arms. We need to let our legislators know that we will not stand still while our God given rights are trampled by the very government we established to protect them. We need to challenge this in the courts and we need to defeat its advocates at the ballot box.

Hopefully, November of 2012 will be the end of the Obama administration and the beginning of the repeal of Obama-care.