So tell me again how evolution could be falsified? Part 2

In my last post, I talked about two traits that are critical to any scientific theory: it must be predictive and falsifiable. Evolution has often been criticized as a scientific theory on the grounds that it isn't falsifiable. No discovery, no matter how contrary it is to our current understanding of evolution, would ever make mainstream scientists question the theory. I'm not exaggerating. It's such a problem that frustrated creationists will simply ask, “what is something that, if found, would falsify evolution?”

Rational Wiki (RW), has an article they titled, “Falsifiability of evolution.” In their own words, they say, [A]ny of the following would destroy the entire theory [of evolution]. Now that's fairly committal of them. Thank you. However, as I look over the list, I can hardly believe they're sincere. You'll see what I mean by this in a minute. In this post, we're going to look at three points to see how well they actually test the theory.

[The theory of evolution would be destroyed] If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.

It's hard to imagine a scenario where two, sexual creatures would have identical DNA. The first thing that comes to my mind is identical twins. This occurs when a single, fertilized egg splits and each half develops into an embryo. So RW is saying if identical twins weren't identical, evolution would be disproved. They can't be serious. //RKBentley shakes his head// You can see what I meant when I said these hardly seem like sincere tests of the theory. But, OK – let's go with this for a moment.

If you know any identical twins, you've probably noticed they usually don't really look identical. They look similar, of course, but each is distinct enough that they can be told apart. Part of this is because of environmental factors – one twin might have a different diet and so will weigh more, the other might play sports and be more muscular, et cetera. It used to be that the differences between identical twins were always attributed to environmental factors but further studies in genetics has suggested this isn't always the case. One Scientific American headline reads, “Identical Twins' Genes Are Not Identical. Twins may appear to be cut from the same cloth but their genes reveal a different pattern.” Hmm. That's interesting. From the article we read this: Geneticist Carl Bruder of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and his colleagues closely compared the genomes of 19 sets of adult identical twins. In some cases, one twin's DNA differed from the other's at various points on their genomes. At these sites of genetic divergence, one bore a different number of copies of the same gene, a genetic state called copy number variants.

Well there you have it folks! The differences observed in identical twins aren't necessarily due to environmental factors; sometimes they're genetic differences! Put a fork in it, the theory of evolution is done! But we all know it isn't. This highlights the frustration creationists face. I doubt RW will write a rebuttal to this point but, if they did, they would certainly be walking back how my example really doesn't address what they were looking for and maybe this isn't even a good test of the theory anyway.

The tests of the theory suggested by evolutionists are usually extremely vague and seldom sincere.

If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.

Another ridiculous suggestion. We already know that mutations occur in the DNA so how could we show they don't occur? Consider this analogy: suppose I have $20,000 in my bank account. I accidentally leave my bank statement open on my desk and my supervisor sees my balance. Not believing I could have legitimately saved that much money, he accuses me of embezzlement. I protest and tell him I've been saving that money for years. He refuses to believe me. Frustrated, I ask him what it would take to convince him I'm innocent? He answers, “Easy, just show me that you don't have $20,000 in the bank!” Do you see the parallel there? We already know that do mutations occur, so to say evolution would be falsified if they didn't occur is disingenuous.

I've seen many so called “tests” of this sort. One person actually told me evolution could be falsified if it could be shown that animals don't reproduce. //RKBentley, still shaking his head//

I believe what these people are trying to say is that evolution wouldn't be possible if mutations do not occur. We'll actually talk about that in a second, but such a point is ridiculously obvious. It's like saying evolution could not have happened if animals didn't reproduce. We don't need evolutionists to point to something that already happens and say, “Evolution couldn't be true if that thing didn't happen.” What we want is someone to say, “If we ever found thing-x, it would prove evolution didn't happen.” Do you have anything like that?

If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.

This suffers from the same flaw as the previous suggestion because we already know mutations can be inherited. However, this brings up another problem with the theory – namely, that evolution is poorly defined. Let me explain.

In biological terms, the most preferred definition of evolution is usually something like this: A change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, often resulting in the development of new species. In other words, if 50% of a group of mice are gray in one generation, then 55% are gray in the next generation, the population has “evolved” by definition. However, this type of “evolution” doesn't even require there to be any mutations. So if evolution can occur without mutations, then whether or not mutations occur or are inherited is irrelevant to the theory! How, then, can they be used to test the theory?!

If these three items are meant to be serious tests of the theory of evolution, then the theory doesn't have much concern about being disproved any time soon. Perhaps that's why the the people at RW chose them.

Stay tuned for more of the same in my next post!

Related articles:

The subtle lie of definition

Read this entire series:

Introduction

Part 3

Conclusion

So tell me again how evolution could be falsified? Introduction

From RationalWiki (RW), we read the following:

The falsifiability of evolution is an important part of establishing evolution as a scientific theory on the principles of falsifiability.... A central characteristic of science is that it must be falsifiable; this feature of a theory is attributed to Karl Popper, who mentioned it in a criticism of Darwinism. Scientific theories cannot be proven outright – they can only fail to be disproven, and this means pointing out what evidence could disprove the theory. If a theory cannot be disproven, such as with Russell's Teapot, it makes no difference whether it is true either way.

Wow, there's some bad grammar going on there. “Science” is the methodology we use to study something. Surely they don't mean “science” must be falsifiable. What they should say is that “scientific theories” must be falsifiable. Yikes. Anyway, in their own words, a good theory must be falsifiable. Am I misrepresenting anything? Isn't that what they're saying? OK, then on to my next point.

In addition to falsifiability, another characteristic of a good theory is that it must be predictive. A prediction is basically to say that, if a theory is true, then we might expect a certain other thing to be true. I might say, for example, that hair is unique to mammals. If my theory is true, then I could predict that, if there is hair on any creature we ever discover, it will be a mammal. Predictions go hand in hand with falsifiability. If we ever discovered a cold-blooded, egg-laying, gill-breathing creature with hair, my theory would be proven false.

Let me give you an analogy that might demonstrate how important these two things are to a scientific theory. Suppose I wanted to mix paint to make new colors. I would need to know which colors to mix to make the color I want. If there were a “color theory” that predicted yellow and blue together make green, then that's useful information if I wanted to make green paint. If I mix yellow and blue paint and actually get green paint, then I might use that theory to help me with other color combinations. However, if the “color theory” said yellow and blue could make green, red, or any other color, then the theory isn't predictive and isn't useful to me at all.

Now suppose the theory predicted yellow and blue would only make green, but when I mixed yellow and blue, I got red. In that case, I would know the theory doesn't make successful predictions. You could say it has been falsified. The inventor of the “color theory” might try to say that yellow and blue should make green but he can “explain” why it made red. OK, but the next time I mix them, I get brown. He then “explains” why I got brown. If he has an explanation every time I don't get blue, then there's really no way to falsify the theory. We're back to the problem that the theory isn't predictive but neither is it falsifiable. It's a useless theory.

That the theory of evolution is neither predictive nor falsifiable is a complaint often leveled against evolutionists. Creationists have often asked for concrete examples ways to test the theory. What are some specific, useful predictions that it makes and what are some things that, if we found them, would falsify the theory? I've asked this many times of many people and I usually get one of three responses:

• A flat dismissal of my question, sometimes accompanied with elephant hurling – something like, “Evolution is the most tested theory in science and is supported by mountains of evidence!”
• A turn of the tables in an effort to put the creationist on the defense – that is, “Oh yeah, well how would you falsify creation?”
• On very rare occasions, someone will suggest something that they claim – if found – would disprove evolution.

It's that last response that I'm most interested in yet it's the one that I almost never hear. For whatever reason, evolutionists are reluctant to enumerate concrete examples. I suspect it's because they fear that if they commit to some hypothetical example, maybe someday such a thing might someday be found.

The RW article I linked above actually discusses a few examples of things they claim could falsify evolution. I started writing a short response to each point RW raised but my post started to get way too long. Instead, I'm going to make a series. Check back soon for my first response to the first two points.

Related articles:

Failed Predictions of Evolutionary Theories

Evolution is Easy to Falsify

Talk Origins Says Evolution Can Be Falsified

How Unique Does It Have To Be?

Read this entire series:

Part 2

Part 3

Conclusion

Epicurus: Some more thoughts on the problem of evil

I'd written a post several years ago dealing with the Epicurus riddle. As is often the case, though, there's a lot that can be said on certain subjects and this is one such subject. I still stand by what I wrote then but, since this is a very broad issue and one that is discussed frequently, I thought I'd refine some of the points I'd made back then and maybe add a thing or two.

The Epicurus Riddle goes like this:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Being Greek, and having lived before Christ, Epicurus certainly wasn't talking about Christianity, but his same arguments have been used to attack the God of the Bible. It's a series of questions meant to highlight the “problem of evil” and create some sort of dilemma for Christians: if God is good and omnipotent, why does He allow evil? The conclusion the critic wants us to draw is that God doesn't stop evil because there really is no god. As is always the case, any opinion that is not founded on the rock of Christ is founded on sand and cannot bear scrutiny. I see a few failings with this argument.

If an unbeliever wants to leverage evil to prove the nonexistence of God, he must first explain what he means by “evil.” As simple as that might sound, this is a real problem for unbelievers. If there were no god, then there is no greater being who administers justice. The universe would be all there is and the universe doesn't care what happens. An apple falling from a tree, a lion eating a zebra, one man killing another man, are just inconsequential events that happen while an indifferent cosmos just chugs along for billions of more years.

A star 1 billion light-years away goes nova and destroys a solar system? The universe doesn't care.

A meteor strikes the earth 60 million years ago and kills all the dinosaurs? The universe doesn't care.

A tsunami hits the coast of Japan and kills tens of thousands of people? The universe doesn't care.

A man pushes an old lady down and steals her purse? The universe doesn't care.

Of course, some things affect us more than others. I might not care about the rabbit fleeing from a wolf or a distant star going nova. However, I do care about a tsunami or an old lady being assaulted. What makes some things evil and not others? Does “evil” mean only “things we don't like”? Without an objective, transcendent standard of what makes a thing “evil,” Epicurus might as well have asked, “Why does God allow things I don't like?” Of course, that doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?

Unbelievers regularly display a sort of schizophrenia. They claim to believe there is no god, yet still live their lives as though there were. It's like a deluded person who claims not to believe in gravity but still knows better than to step off a building. You cannot question God about the existence of evil without first acknowledging that there is a such thing as evil. Yet evil can only exist if God exists, so to even claim there is “evil” is to tacitly acknowledge there must be a God.

Let's concede, for the sake of argument, that evil is just a term we use to describe anything that affects the greater good of humanity. Something like stealing, for example, might be called evil because it helps one person but harms another. Never mind that it's not evil when a lion steals a zebra that a cheetah has killed. We can all agree that it's wrong for one human to steal from another... unless maybe it's to help someone. I mean, what if I stole a loaf of bread from a rich person so that I could feed my poor, starving family for a day? Does the skeptic believe God should not allow me to do this? A quick thinking skeptic might point out that, if God is willing and able to do good, then my family shouldn't be starving. I raise this point only to say that there is a spectrum of what we consider right and wrong.

Is rape wrong? Is pedophilia wrong? Is incest wrong? Is homosexuality wrong? Is adultery wrong? Is premarital sex wrong? Is viewing pornography wrong? Since the skeptic has no transcendent standard that says what is right and what is wrong, where to draw the line is somewhat subjective. Different people will draw the line at different places and who is to say which is the correct place? Many will say there is nothing wrong with looking at porn even though the Bible equates lust with adultery. So, does the skeptic mean God should not allow pornography? Should He not allow premarital sex? Which of his own sins does the skeptic expect God to punish him for? You see, most people who would use this argument really only mean for God to stop the really bad people but let the unbeliever practice his own pet sin. Anyone can justify his own sin by saying someone else is worse but if you expect God to deal with sin, be prepared for Him to deal with your sins as well!

I've watched several videos made by Ray Comfort where he asks people on the street to judge themselves. He asks them, for example, is it wrong to lie? Most people will say, yes. Of course, these same people will all admit to telling many lies. In fact, every one of us has broken all of God's commandments and so are guilty before God. You want God to do something about sin? OK, since we're all guilty, how would you feel if God just destroyed the world now? That would be just. It's certainly within His right. The fact that He allows evil to continue for a while is not because He is uncaring but rather because He is merciful. God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

We sometimes expect God to act a certain way. When Jesus came into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, the people praised Him saying, “Save us, Son of David.” They thought Jesus would be a conqueror who would deliver them from Roman tyranny. They were looking for the Lion of Judah. They didn't understand that Jesus first had come to be a Lamb. In a very real sense, He did come to save them – just not they way they expected.

God has a different plan, a better plan, for dealing with sin. He took on flesh, became a man, lived a perfect life – one undeserving of death, and then shed His blood on the Cross as the payment for our sin. If we repent of our sins and believe in Him, we pass from death unto life. One day soon, the worries of this world will seem like a fleeting moment, the blink of an eye that is over as we go on to live an eternity in a paradise He has prepared for us. God is not only willing and able to deal with evil, He has already done it!!

If you ask me, it is unbelief that is truly a riddle. People want to deny God. They want to mock the sacrifice of His Son. They want to flout the Law and live their lives however they want, indulging the most base desires of their flesh. Then they have the nerve to ask why God allows bad things to happen to them?! Incredible!

Galatians 6:7, Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Related articles:

What is morality?

Can God forgive really really really really really bad people?

A Friendly Atheist Has 78 Questions for Christians

Rejecting a straw god

God sent a Lamb

A Rebuttal to the Free Will Argument for the Nonexistence of God

Dan Barker is a former evangelical, Christian preacher turned zealous atheist. He and his wife, Annie Gaylor, co-preside over the activist atheist group, Freedom From Religion. He also spends a lot of time debating Christians. By the way, in his own words, his apostasy began with a rejection of a historical Adam & Eve and his embracing of evolution – but that will have to be the subject of another post.

I was watching a video on YouTube where Barker was debating Matt Slick of CARM.org about the existence of God. I normally invite people to watch the whole video but it's pretty long. If you're interested in watching, the part I'll be discussing was raised by Barker in his opening comments beginning at about 20 minutes into the video but, for the sake of brevity, I found an article online where he explains his point more concisely. He calls this, The Freewill Argument for the Non-existence of God (FANG, for short). In his article, we find the following summary:

The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.

In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.

A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.

Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

As I listened to Barker make his point, it reminded me a little of the Omnipotence Paradox people sometimes use to argue that God cannot exist. In that case, critics ask, “Can God make a rock so big that He can't lift it?” The answer is either yes or no but, either way, it would mean there is something God cannot do so, therefore, an omnipotent God cannot exist. Barker's argument is very much along the same lines and has been described before as the Omniscience Paradox. At the end of the day, it's simply another gimmick of logic.

I believe the flaw in Barker's argument lies in his definition of free will. His definition just sounds unusual. For example, Barker adds the qualifier, “This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future.” Since when is uncertainty a condition of free will? When I googled a definition, I found that free will commonly means, “the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.” That certainly describes God since He is not bound by either fate or necessity. I found no mainstream definition that included any discussion of indecision, uncertainty, or knowing the future.

If you think about it, it's rather ridiculous to argue that free will must mean making a decision without knowing anything about the outcome. Barker is essentially saying that since God knows the future, He cannot exist. What? You can see how Barker's argument is completely non sequitur. The Bible attests that God knows the future. Let me rephrase that: what we call the “future” is simply the coming to pass of the things He has already purposed. It's not a prediction as though God's some kind of psychic; He writes the future and then brings to pass what He has already decreed. He had the ability to make things any way He wanted and He made them this way. According to Barker, that's proof He doesn't exists. //RKBentley shakes his head//

Free will is a notoriously thorny subject. One might even ask if humans have free will. We may have choices but we have little say in the consequences. I could choose not to eat, for example, but I then I couldn't choose not to be hungry. I could choose not to breath, but then I couldn't choose to keep living. Sometimes it seems life is like a game of chess we are playing against a better opponent. We might think we are deciding which pieces to move but our decisions are only unavoidable responses to the better moves the other player is making. The game we think we're playing is really the game he is playing and we continuously have fewer and fewer choices until, finally, we have no choices. Checkmate!

As we live day to day, it may seem at any moment like we are free to choose from a near infinite number possibilities, but the consequences of each decision continuously restricts the number of our future options. I could decide to walk to work instead of driving. However, walking takes longer so the decision to walk affects what time I decide to get up in the morning or whether I decide to get to work on time. Do you see what I mean? My future choices are the victims of the consequences of my present choices.

In the theological realm, especially, Christians have often debated if we have free will. If God is sovereign, then perhaps I cannot choose to believe or deny Him. Perhaps everything I do is as He has commanded. This debate has raged for centuries. But Barker fails to see how this is a problem for his argument. He is hoisted upon his own petard, if you will, because if humans do not have free will, how is that an argument for their non-existence?  Let's reduce this to the absurd: do rocks have free will?  Do rocks exists?  It's rather obvious that free will is not a condition of existence yet that is what Barker argues!

There is much more that could be said on this subject but why bother? Just the few paragraphs above show that Barker's argument is a tangle of logical fallacies. If I say I will do something, and then I do it, it may not be proof I have free will but, at the very least, it's evidence that I exist. God has declared the end from the beginning. He spoke to the prophets centuries in advance of things that would come to pass and they came to pass! It's laughable to say that's evidence He doesn't exist. If anything, that is proof of His existence!

Related articles:

Because there cannot be a married bachelor, there is no God. Um... what?

Thus Saith the Lord

A Monopoly on Words?