Another Case Study in Evolutionist Arguments

bobxxxx is back.

A mysterious poster left a comment on another blog that I had to moderate because it contained offensive language. Well, bobxxxx has returned and this time has left FOUR comments on my last blog (this time free of vulgarity)! Occasionally, I take the opportunity of a commenter’s remarks to make additional points. Since bobxxxx’s comments have typified several evolutionists’ comments, I wanted to use his comments as a sort of case study. Bobxxxx’s comments will be listed in green below and indented. I will respond in normal font and paragraph.

You obviously know nothing about science. What makes you think you're qualified to talk about it?

Apparently bobxxxx was not persuaded by my blog, What is the Scientific Evidence for Creationism. In it I made the point that non-scientists are allowed to form opinions on evolution. I gave the following analogy:

In the US, it’s average citizens who are called on to sit on juries. We're not all lawyers, scientists, policemen, or criminologists of any kind. Yet we go and listen to the testimony of the “experts”: the lawyers plead the case, the scientists present the forensic evidence, we hear from the eye witnesses, and then we (the average folks) are called on to render a verdict. Perhaps it's not a perfect system but most people feel it is the best system.

bobxxxx still seems to believe that only trained scientists are qualified to criticize evolution. I guess the rest of us are supposed to sit down and shut up? I’m not sure of bobxxxx’s qualifications but I would be surprised if he were a scientist. I guess non-scientists who believe in evolution are qualified enough to embrace the theory; it’s only us non-believers in evolution that need to study more.

We know a new species can develop from another species. Of course it's a very gradual process, but it has been going on for billions of years.

I’d like to make a couple of points here.

First, bobxxxx is equating speciation with evolution. This was another quibble that I had wanted to include in my blog, Evolution by Definition. If the trend seen among peppered moths had continued and only one variety of moth were left, or if the light/dark moths were somehow separated into separate populations, the new population of moths might be identified as a new species and then “macroevolution” is said to have occurred. Well, it has occurred by definition but it still doesn’t demonstrate how all life could have descended from a common ancestor.

But also, speciation usually occurs by removing traits from a population. I wrote about speciation in a previous blog titled, The Real Origin of Species. Evolution requires organisms to acquire traits. For a hairless reptile to become a hairy mammal, it has to acquire hair. I would be more persuaded by evolution if it proposed that dinosaurs were actually birds that LOST feathers – of course, that doesn’t explain how feathers evolved in the first place.

How can biologists be so certain of this? Because they can see the history of life with their own eyes when they compare DNA sequences of living animals. For example biologists now have the complete genome of the human apes and the chimpanzee apes. Biologists who compare the DNA of these two ape species are discovering every day more evidence for the fact these two animals are closely related.

Similar DNA is only assumed by evolutionary biologists to be evidence of common descent. If DNA codes for structure, shouldn’t similar animals have similar DNA? A human is more like a chimp than a fish; I would predict human DNA would be more like a chimp’s than a fish’s. Lo, that’s actually what we see! I made more comments on this point in my blog, Evolutionist spin on DNA.

Biologists are absolutely 100% certain people and chimps share ancestors who lived about 5 or 6 million years ago. Biologists are as certain about this fact as astronomers are certain about the earth's orbit around the sun.

Oh, I agree they’re 100% convinced. But that by itself is not evidence of anything.

Don't believe me? Then look it up. The powerful and rapidly growing evidence for evolution from molecular biology and genetics is available to anyone who knows how to use google.

Wait a minute! I didn’t think I was qualified to have an opinion on anything scientific. You mean ANYONE can look up scientific facts? Gee, I’m anyone so I guess that would include me too!

Creationists need to grow up and face facts. They disgrace their religion when they deny modern scientific discoveries.

This argument has always killed me. Why do people who seem to be so irreligious seem concerned that we “disgrace” our religion. They don’t seem to have any qualms about disgracing our religion. They seldom have anything nice to say about it.

They should learn how educate themselves without letting their religious indoctrination get in the way. They need to study and understand scientific discoveries first and worry about the religious implications later. It's a terrible waste of a life to never understand how the natural world works.

This is a typical argument that creationists are “science haters.” It’s a bald assertion. See my post, I Don’t Hate Science.

Now, I'm a full-blown, young-earth creationist (YEC). [quoting RKBentley]

That's disgraceful. Your idea that the earth is just a few thousand years old requires the denial of just about every branch of science.

Ditto my last comment. Also, see my blog, Defining Creation Away.

It's your life you're wasting, not mine. So I don't care what you believe. I just hope you have the decency to keep your breathtaking ignorance out of our schools.

Ah, but he does seem to care what I believe though he’s obviously unaware of my position about creation in schools. See my blog, The Strengths and Weaknesses of Evolution.

I'm not a scientist [quoting RKBentley]

Yes, it's extremely obvious you're not a scientist. You don't even know what science is. (Hint - scientists don't invoke magic fairies. Even the most religious scientists know they can't say "Here a miracle occurred". They know invoking God is not doing science. Instead it's called preaching. No competent scientist in the world would invoke supernatural magic to solve a scientific problem.)

Hmmm. This just seems to be an elaboration of bobxxxx’s first point above. He wants to make creation a non-issue by definition. That is, “Creationism cannot be real because it’s not scientific.” I refer you again to my blog, Defining Creation Away.

Wow. This was too easy. bobxxxx’s arguments are so cliché that I had already answered most of them in advance of him making them. There are few original arguments made by lay-evolutionists. As Christian apologists, we need to be aware of the usual claims so that we’re ready to answer them (1 Peter 3:15). Read also my blog, A Case Study in Bad Arguments for some other examples.

I want to thank bobxxxx for visiting my blog and for the opportunity to use his comments as material for a new post. Future, profanity-free comments by bobxxxx likely be published but ignored.