Moving the Goal Posts

A good theory must be falsifiable; in other words, it must make predictions that can be tested to determine how sound or useful the theory is. I hear this as a criticism of creationism all the time but I believe proponents of the theory of evolution effectively excuse themselves from this criterion. For example, even Darwin offered suggestions/predictions on how his theory could be falsified. Some of the predictions are specific and reasonable. But as we close in on proving the theory wrong, evolutionary scientists simply move the goal post and dismiss that prediction as a valid way to disprove the theory. In this blog, we’re going to look at a few of the most egregious examples of this practice.

Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” In his book, Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe, a biochemist, coined the term, “irreducible complexity” which, I believe, describes the kind of organ that Darwin had in mind. According to Behe, a system is irreducibly complex if it cannot function if even a single component is removed. After all, how could a system evolve gradually if it had to have every piece in place before it has any function at all?

Behe offered several examples of systems he said were irreducible complex. Critics, however, began to assail his examples – some more successfully than others – and attempted to show how such organs/systems could indeed have evolved gradually. In the end though, it is of no consequence because many evolutionists now argue that irreducible complexity is simply an argument from ignorance; just because we cannot imagine how such a system could have evolved, it does not prove the system didn’t evolve. So Darwin’s prediction of a complex organ disproving his theory is of no effect. No organ, no matter how complex, will ever fit the bill. It may still have evolved, we just don’t know how.

Another difficulty Darwin recognized with his theory was the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. He said, “But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” In another chapter he said, “But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” Darwin, of course, blamed the imperfection of the fossil record for the lack of transitional forms. But now, 150 years and billions of fossils later, there is still a conspicuous lack of transitional forms: perhaps a hundred examples, not the countless numbers Darwin predicted should be there.
The late, Stephen Jay Gould, a champion of evolutionary theory, was frank about the nonexistence of gradualism in the fossil record. In a 1972 paper, along with Niles Eldredge, Gould, proposed an evolutionary theory known as punctuated equilibrium. According to Gould, evolution occurs first in a very small group of individual organisms isolated from the larger, parental population. The smaller group rapidly evolves while the larger group remains static. Since the large group leaves the most fossils, and the smaller group very few, it easily explains the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. How convenient that Gould would suggest a theory to explain the LACK of evidence. Remember, Darwin said the lack of transitional forms was “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” But the goal posts have been moved. Now, PE explains why evolution is still true in spite of the fact there’s no fossil evidence of it.

Evolutionary biologist, J. B. S. Haldane, is credited with having said, “I will give up my belief in evolution if someone finds a fossil rabbit in the Precambrian.” That’s a pretty specific prediction. Evolutionists argue that animal life began as microbes, evolved into marine animals, then amphibians, later reptiles, and finally birds and mammals. If a rabbit (or any animal believed to have evolved later) were found in the earliest rock layers, it would be strong evidence the theory wasn’t true. But even before such an out of place fossil is found, evolutionists have started distancing themselves from the idea it would be evidence against their theory.

From Talkorigins.org, we have the following quote: “In order to falsify a theory, you need to know what the theory says. Finding an out-of-sequence fossil or an "impossible" animal may not falsify evolution, but it would falsify the particular theories (in this case historical theories) about that group of organisms - for example, if we found a modern rabbit in the Cambrian Era, we would have a massive problem with existing phylogenies. We might even say that if the program of constructing phylogenies based on the theory of common descent were that wrong, there might be a problem with common descent, and abandon that theory. But this, in itself, would be insufficient to falsify the entire set of theories of evolution, although it might be enough to make people think twice about the general set of assumptions on which they are based.” [Bold in original]. So there you have it; to some evolutionists, not even a rabbit in the Cambrian layer would disprove evolution!

There are other examples I could list but I think you get the point. To the true believers, evolution is true – let the evidence be damned! Nothing, no matter how contrary to earlier predictions, can dissuade devout evolutionists. The Theory of Evolution cannot be disproved as long as evolutionary scientist continuously move the goal posts.

Truth Trumps Theory

Theories are funny things. Whenever we observe something, we might theorize how such a thing can be. We can be very elaborate in our theories. As we discover new things about what we’re studying, we can tweak our theories to explain the new information. When we’re done, our theory seems to explain the observation so well that we become convinced that our theory must be true. But we should always keep in mind that the even the most well thought out and seemingly sound theories could be wrong.

First, we should never fall into the trap of circular reasoning. If you invent a theory to explain the data, then you cannot use the data as evidence for your theory. For example, if I find a black rock with purple dots painted on it, I might theorize that Martians painted the dots on the rocks. If you ask me how I know this, I might reply, “Here’s the rock. See for yourself!” So you see, my theory might explain the rock but the rock can’t prove my theory. Likewise, people have invented an elaborate theory (ToE) to explain changes in animals. They can’t then point to the changes in animals to prove their theory.

Let me give you an even more detailed scenario. Suppose for a moment that I came home from work one evening and found broken glass all over the floor. The first thing that I would do is wonder where it came from. There are some things that I already know: 1) there’s glass on the floor and 2) there are three people in my home during the day – my wife, my 14 year old daughter, and my 5 year old son. Immediately I might conclude that one of these three people caused the glass to be on the floor.

Next, I would look for additional data. I might try to assemble some of the pieces to see what was broken. After looking at a few of the pieces I can see it was a drinking glass. Aha! Somebody dropped a glass. The next thing I notice is there is no liquid on the floor so the glass must have been empty when it was dropped. I look carefully at the pieces and I notice they’ve already accumulated a little bit of dust. I look in the cabinet and the glasses there don’t have as much dust on them so the pieces must have been on the floor for at least a while. They weren’t there when I left for work so it must have happened soon after I left. My wife is a compulsive cleaner so there is no way she would have left broken pieces of glass on the floor all day. My son is too short to even reach the cabinet so I don’t believe he broke the glass. That only leaves my daughter as the suspect. So here then is my theory:

I left for work when everyone was in bed. My wife could not have been home when the glass was broken so she must have gotten up and taken our son somewhere early. Then my daughter wakes up, goes to the kitchen to get something to drink, and drops the glass before filling it. Being a typical teenager, she doesn’t bother to clean it up and leaves it on the floor all day.

As I’m standing there reflecting on my sleuthing skills, my wife walks in. I’m a little surprised to see her. “Where have you been?” I ask. “I’ve been here all day,” she replies. I’m even more surprised. “Then why have you left this mess here?” She answers, “I didn’t leave it here. I was just cleaning it up when you came home.” I stand there puzzled as she explains what really happened:

The truth is, “I was cleaning in the house when I noticed some men standing in our driveway. One of them was drinking from a glass and he dropped it. I was nervous to go confront them alone so I just waited until they left and then I went out with a dustpan and swept up all the pieces. As I was carrying them through the kitchen to put them in the trash, I dropped the dustpan. I was getting the vacuum cleaner out to clean it up when you came in.”

We see then my theory was wrong on several points: The glass wasn’t empty when it was dropped; it wasn’t dropped in the kitchen; it wasn’t even our glass; it wasn’t broken by anyone in my family; it wasn’t dropped in the morning; the dust on the pieces was actually from the dustpan; and my wife had not gone out anywhere.

My theory may have explained all the facts, but very little about my theory turned out to be true. What is true is what was told to me by an eyewitness to the events. And when I learned the truth, I could then understand why things were as they were.
[
When we looked at the creation of the world, we can speculate and make theories about how it happened. But the Creator of the world has told us what He did and He was indeed the only eyewitness to the events. The truth of His words trumps our theories.

It’s Not Just an Expression

English is a rich language and, in America especially, is full of vivid pictures, popular expressions, and interesting idioms. But many people don’t realize just how much the Bible has shaped our language. A lot of the expressions we toss around like clichés are taken directly from the Bible. I thought it would interesting to give a few examples.

We use so many expressions from the Bible that there would be no way to list them all in a single blog. The gospel of Matthew seems to be especially cited so I will limit my examples to that book.

There are some expressions that are actual verses taken from the Bible. People might or might not realize they are verses but they still apply them in many different situations. “Man shall not live by bread alone,” (4:4) is an example of this. Also, “Judge not lest ye be judged” (7:1) seems to be a favorite quote used by the irreligious.

The Sermon on the Mount seems to be a source of some of the most common expressions: “The salt of the earth” (5:13), “Turning the other cheek” (5:39), giving someone the “shirt off your back” (5:40), and “Going the extra mile” (5:41).

Ronald Reagan called the US a shining “city on a hill”; he took this phrase from Matthew 5:14. Some people believe Abraham Lincoln coined the phrase, “A nation divided against itself cannot stand” but he was actually quoting Jesus in Matthew 12:25.

Jesus had some harsh words for some of the religious leaders of His day. In His rebukes He used terms like, “A den of thieves” (21:13) and, “The blind leading the blind” (15:14). He admonished the religious leaders because they could not read, “The sign of the times” (16:19) and He warned the Apostles to beware of “Wolves in sheep’s clothing” (7:15).

When we make last minute changes or decisions we’re said to be waiting until the “Eleventh hour” (20:6). When a child says something funny we might say, “Out of the mouths of babes…” (21:16). Sometimes in a moment of frustration we might say, “The right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing” (6:3). When we’re especially angry we might say of someone, “I’ll have his head on a platter” (14:10-11). Graveyards where indigents are buried are often called, “Potters Fields” (27:10). When someone does not use his God-given talent we might say he’s “hiding his light under a bushel” (5:15). And when someone gives up we sometimes say he “Gave up the ghost” (27:50).

These represent a tiny handful of the hundreds of expressions taken directly from the Bible. Hopefully it gives you a good idea how rich the Bible is in its wisdom and and how enduring its advice can be. I encourage anyone to study it more!

A False Dichotomy

With gas in my area surging to over $3.09/gallon recently, a lot of people have been asking what the feds intend to do about it. Some Washington folks have they answer – they say we need to raise the gas tax a little more!

In a recent AP article, it was reported that a Washington commission has suggested increasing the tax on gas another 50 cents per gallon over the next five years.

“The report comes as state governments and several business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, are calling on the federal government to raise gas taxes to pay for substantial transportation improvements. The Minneapolis bridge collapse, which killed 13 people and injured about 100, spotlighted the decaying infrastructure and drew new calls for additional spending.”

There, you see, people are dying because we don’t pay enough taxes!

Many of our elected leaders suffer under a false dichotomy: Whenever there is a problem they only see 2 solutions – raise taxes and spend more. It doesn’t occur to these people that there is another alternative, namely to cut spending somewhere else.

Building interstate highways is a perfect example of why we have the federal government. In spite of my disdain for government, we do need things like highways, an army, a court system, etc. so I don’t mind paying a certain amount of taxes so that these things are done. I’m constantly annoyed, however, when Washington is involved in all those other things (such as national health care) that it no longer can afford to do the things it’s supposed to be doing – like fixing our roads.