Answering the Critics about the Five Lies of Evolution

When visitors leave feedback, I always try to be polite and respond. I appreciate all my visitors and especially welcome people who disagree with me. Two visitors had a lot to say about my recent blog, Five Lies Evolutionists Tell. One poster, who goes by the name Steven J (hereafter referred to as SJ), left seven comments. Another poster hosts his own blog (The Palaeobabbler (hereafter referred to as TP)) where he critiqued my post. Responding to them will be a challenge because I copied their comments into a Word document and it was 7 pages long. Certainly the comment section is not enough so I thought it would be best write another post that covers some of the key points they raise. Even then, I will have to greatly abbreviate my response.

Lie #1: “Evolution is a FACT”

SJ said, “That's not equivocation. Evolution is defined by biologists as "descent with modification" or "change in the frequency of inherited traits in a population over time." Neither definition species the amount of modification or how much traits have to change. ¶Part of the problem creationists have in arguing against evolution (or is this a tactic?) is that they don't use scientific terms in their proper sense.”

I wrote a post a while back where I discussed how much of evolution occurs “by definition.” That's not the kind of evolution we're talking about. Remember that I was talking about lies evolutionists tell; it's clever that you try to pin this on creationists. When I hear evolutionists say, “evolution is a FACT,” they aren't careful to distinguish that they mean only changes in population. They are happy for the confusion between evolution (changes within a species) and evolution (the common ancestry of all species). This is why I say they are equivocating.

To his credit TP has noticed this as well. He said, “He [RKBentley] is not completely wrong as I have seen some debaters online make this claim. The proper claim, or rather that which is put forward by actual scientists, is that evolution is both theory and fact.” However, he goes on to say that I am, “completely unaware that most scientists consider common descent to be the fact of evolution.” I assure you that I am well aware of that. I said as much in my post. To quote, “A person who says, “Evolution is a FACT” is merely stating his conviction that “evolution” is true; that doesn't make it true regardless of his use of all capital letters!”

Lie #2: “Evolution and the Bible are compatible.”

SJ and TP are on the same page in their response to my second point. Just as I has accused proponents of the belief of doing, they both believe that evolution and the Bible could be compatible if the Bible doesn't mean what it says. I'm not sure of SJ's spiritual beliefs but he points out how (he assumes) I don't believe the Bible “literally” about things like “the windows of heaven” (Genesis 7:11). I have written before about the difference between believing the Bible “literally” and understanding its plain meaning. I would refer SJ to that article.

TP and I had a protracted discussion on Face Book about the genre of Genesis. Anyway, he asserts overtly that the creation account in Genesis is a “powerful creation myth and is not meant to be literal.” In other words, the Bible doesn't mean what it clearly says.

TP did bring up one point that I should clarify. This “lie” is used by both atheists and theists. The atheists (such as those in groups like NCSE) who offer this are clearly lying. They are merely trying to make evolution more palatable to Christians; they don't believe the Bible personally so how can they sincerely claim that the Bible and evolution are compatible? Theistic evolutionists who make this claim may be wrong but are still being sincere.

Lie 3 - There is no evidence for Creation

TP and SJ had a field day with this one and devoted most of their comments to this point. It's tempting to address individual points they raise but there's simply not enough space. Many of their points are off topic anyway because I believe they both have missed the main thrust of my claim.

My point is that theories are attempts to explain the evidence while the evidence itself is neutral. SJ brings up a lot of individual items of evidence and says that creation doesn't explain them. He says for example, “there is no creationist theory that explains why, e.g. there are primitive whales... that have hind limbs.” Then he concludes his comments on this point by saying, “Then what is some of this evidence [for creation]? "Science can't explain this yet" is not really evidence;” Consider his comments very carefully: He suggests on one hand that since creation can't explain something, it is evidence for evolution; then on the other hand says that saying, “science can't explain this” isn't really evidence for creation. That's hilarious. I might have to add a hypocrite label on this post.

TP does a lot of the same thing as SJ except that he doesn't contradict himself at the conclusion of his remarks. He talks about how the evidence “shows” the age of the earth and how long evolution has been occurring. Again I say that the “evidence” doesn't “say” anything. Scientists have looked at the evidence and constructed their theory to explain their observations.

I spoke in generalities before but let me give a specific example. I believe that complexity is evidence for design and therefore is evidence for a Designer. Aldous Huxley once said, “Organisms are built as if purposefully designed, and work as if in purposeful pursuit of a conscious aim. But the truth lies in those two words 'as if.' As the genius of Darwin showed, the purpose is only an apparent one.” Francis Crick later said, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see is not designed, but rather evolved.”

I believe design is evidence for creation. Evolutionists go to great lengths to explain why they believe it isn't but the more they explain the more they prove my point. They know things look designed. The difference isn't the evidence but the theories that explain the evidence.

Both SJ & TP took different approaches to my assertion that the Bible itself is evidence for creation. SJ claims that, since the Bible isn't peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal, it can't be considered evidence. This doesn't mean it isn't evidence only that he disqualifies it as evidence. One might say he's ignoring the evidence. TP professes to believe the Bible but interprets it differently than I do concerning creation. Again, this goes back to my claim – same evidence, different explanations. Either way, their explanations as to why they don't accept the Bible don't make the Bible disappear. It is still on the table for people to consider as evidence.

Lie #4: “Evolution has been tested and proven even more than gravity.”

Now it's TP's turn to contradict himself. He claims I'm making a straw man then immediately says, “I have certainly seen the claim that gravity has been tested more, but this needs some qualification.” Indeed it does need some qualification but not from me. It is the equivocal people who he has seen make this claim that need to explain themselves. I say they are equivocating and intentionally conflate the theory of gravity with the phenomenon of gravity. What gravity is is uncertain. That gravity is is a fact. I did a simple Google search and uncovered this pithy example written by “free thinker”, Douglas Schrepel, “Evolution is just a theory... like gravity.” Doesn't it sound like Mr. Schrepel is calling gravity a theory? Is he qualifying his remark? I'll let my readers decide.

SJ waxed on and on about predictions made using evolution or gravity but, in my opinion, never really addressed the point. There is a theory of gravity but to say something like, “Well, gravity is a theory too” is terribly misleading.

Lie 5 - Microevolution over time leads to Macroevolution

Once again I believe both TP and SJ have missed the point. I'm aware that, according to their theory, novel traits are being added to the population. My point is that TIME is not the mechanism. We can witness changes in populations. They seem to suggest that time is a magic wand that turns small changes into big changes. But not all change is equal. You cannot add colors to a population by removing colors. It doesn't matter how long it happens.

Natural selection is a process by which traits not suitable to an environment are removed from a population. Contrary to TP's claims, it indeed does remove variation from a population. Have you noticed there is a lot of variety among bears but not as much variety among polar bears? Animals adapt to their environment and become more specialized and less diverse. That's natural selection. TP makes the unsubstantiated claim that, “variation does not run out.... With more variation entering the gene pool, natural selection can become more versatile.” So what is the mechanism that adds variation to the gene pool? I know what the mechanism supposedly is and it isn't time.

SJ hits the nail on the head. He says, “Why, I suppose it would take until a mutation produced an allele which coded for a new color.” Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. Time doesn't add traits to a population – mutations do. At least, mutations are the only candidates that could possibly add traits to a population. I've blogged about supposed trait adding mutations one a few occasions but that isn't the point here now. The point is that time is not the agent that can turn a frog into a prince. It's true that populations change. It's true that populations change over time. But don't tell me that change and time are the only things we need. It's a lie.

Further reading: Five Lies Evolutionists Tell