For giggle, I joined a Facebook Group for Red Deer based skeptics. They needed a bit of help in boosting the discussion and getting things moving, so I thought I’d stop in and see what would shake loose. Well, we found a True Believer who claims to be a skeptic… my favorite type of believer, to be honest.

The whole thread can be found at Facebook still, but for my own sake I’m clipping some of my own responses here in the event I need to use similar bits again.

Chris starts off with:

To make things plain, the reason I find creation much more plausible is due to the massive holes found it evolution (and they are massive!).

The second thing is to call evolution a science and creation a religion is shear non-sense. They are BOTH a religion. Neither can be proved. Both must be BELIEVED.

You don’t call science a religion and get away with it if I can help it; they’re not even close to being similar things. From this point, I’ll just paste my own pieces that stand on their own to some degre. There were other comments that were direct one-liner questions or replies that I’m not including as they aren’t complete.

I’m a fan of #8, personally.

*** 1

There is one common misconception that keeps popping up in these evolution vs. creationism “debates”; that these two topics are even comparable, let alone that they are mutually exclusive.

Evolution does not address, nor claim to address the following:

• the origin of the universe
• the origin of life on our planet

It is not logically impossible that evolution took over after the point of initial creation of life, whatever that spark came from; god or random organization of atoms.

Ask a farmer about artificial selection; breeding cows for a specific trait such as higher milk production, or sheep for thicker, better wool. This is evolution in a visible, real way. Natural selection merely removes the hand of man in the equation, such as with Darwin’s finches, in a geographically restricted environment.

This is evolution; the gradual genetic change and adaptation of beings over the course of generations to a more perfect form for their environment.

As for belief, anyone with a jar full of fruit flies can witness evolution in their own kitchen. There is no room, nor need for belief in this scenario; it’s raw data that adds evidence to evolution being viable.

You don’t have to believe in the evidence of science, but I would suggest that those who don’t forgo such impossible beliefs as modern medicine and the computer.

*** 2

Evolution has nothing to do with where light comes from, or where life itself comes from; it’s outside the scope.

You may as well expect an answer on why plants grow from a repair manual for a Dodge Dart.

*** 3

The evolution of life is entirely distinct from what you’re referring to as “cosmic evolution”, or the creation of the universe. So-called cosmic and organic evolution are entirely separate fields and different arguments.

Of course it’s ludicrous to suppose that a chicken would birth a dog, or grow a limb spontaneously from another species. This is a gross misunderstanding of the evolutionary process that often is tossed out by the creationist in such a discussion.

The only type of evolution that you will hear discussed by scientists is what you refer to as “variation”, also termed micro evolution by some non-scientists. Evolution as far as science is concerned is a slow process, that is visible over many many generations. Speciation is even slower, on the order of thousands of generations.

Science can be proven wrong through experimentation and direct observation, while religion can not really be disproved, as God or miracles or the existence of an afterlife are not generally falsifiable concepts; no amount of experimentation or observation can provide evidence to logically disprove them. This is where science is different, as each of the claims made are fully falsifiable.

This isn’t to say that the claims are false or likely false, but that the claims are subject to testing and observation which could conceivably prove them wrong. Religion, faith, heaven, and creation aren’t falsifiable concepts, and are distinct from science.

A scientist doesn’t have faith that gravity exists or acts on bodies in space; he has experimental data, all of which is logically falsifiable.

*** 4

I’m thinking that you aren’t even wanting to agree on definition of terms here, so I’m not sure how any discussion will progress…

The only people who believe in the macro-evolution you refer to are people who believe in creationism; more specifically they believe that scientists believe it. Scientific consensus does not now, nor has it ever, suggested that one creature spontaneously gives birth to a whole new species, phylum, or class of creature.

Find me a scientist that will agree with your assertion that science claims that spontaneous speciation occurs. You are taking one claim, that speciation, “Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise.”

Often this is a result of geographical isolation; the birds on one side of the mountain possess these traits, and the birds on the other possess these traits. They evolved from a common ancestor, but over time have become separate species.

To suggest that a fruit fly could “turn into” a human is a ridiculous exaggeration. A 2 winged, red eyed fruit fly could beget a wingless variant and a winged variant, that continue to breed offspring similar to themselves. They might eventually be classed as separate species, but they both remain well away from the subphylum that homo sapiens occupy. Speciation may be observable in the lab under certain conditions, but the creation of whole a whole new subphylum? Not yet.

There is only one type of evolution that any scientist would suggest were real, and that’s what you’re referring to as micro-evolution or variance.

I suppose you have evidence of a teacher teaching that a cat has borne a dog or similar “macro evolution”?

*** 5

Macro-evolution has two main definitions as I’ve seen it; that of the scientific and the non-scientific. The scientific will allow macro-evolution as evolution that is the “compounded effects of micro-evolution.” This is not something that has been observed in the lab, but that has been THEORIZED based on fundamental similarities between different groups; apes and humans, hippos and whales, etc. This is not a belief, but a set of working theories that have evolved over time.

My suggestion that people don’t teach macro-evolution is based on your “Fly gives birth to a human” example, which I would also argue against being taught. I haven’t seen a high school text book in quite some time, but I happen to have recently acquired a new intro level college biology text, so I’ll take a flip through that to see what the current state is there. I don’t expect to see spontaneous macro-evolution there, but who knows?

*** 6

Quoting myself:

“The only people who believe in the macro-evolution you refer to are people who believe in creationism; more specifically they believe that scientists believe it. Scientific consensus does not now, nor has it ever, suggested that one creature spontaneously gives birth to a whole new species, phylum, or class of creature.”

I am referring to the kind of macro evolution you mention…. no scientist believes in this. Macro-evolution is a term applied to the effects of many speciation events; it is not an immediate, spontaneous event, and does not cause a link between a fruit fly and a human, no matter what you might think.

Twyla: my question regarding the age of the universe was specifically to see if we we dealing with a universe that is billions of years old or one that is only 6000 years old.

Let’s play “Spot the logical fallacies”!

See if you can find the following in this short thread:

• Hasty generalizations
• Appeal to consequences
• Argument from incredulity
• Appeal to ridicule
• Appeal to probability
• Others?

*** 7

“Science (from the Latin scientia, ‘knowledge’), in the broadest sense, refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.” — Wikipedia on Science

Creation Science… where is the scientific method? Where is the body of knowledge? Even in the broadest sense of the word, there is no science in Creation.

As for being skeptical, the whole point of skepticism is not accepting anecdotal stories as evidence. The stories of the bible do not provide scientific evidence of any sort, and so is useless in determining the age of the Earth, the origin of life, or how life has evolved. What we do have as evidence is a boat load of radiometric data that establishes the age of the Earth quite well, as well as the age of fossils. We have geologists and biologists and astrophysicists and all sorts of -ists that have been working independently over centuries, adding to a wealth of knowledge about the world around us.

If Creation “Scientists” have evidence outside of the bible, they have been hiding it well. Please enlighten us as to the body of evidence that we’re missing.

*** 8

Chris: “I will openly admit that Christianity, and the Bible are religious. One must BELIEVE them to be true. Evolution is a religion masked as a science.”

Things I accept on “faith”:

• There is a Paris, France
• That 2+2 is, in fact, equal to 4 under most circumstances
• That there is a planet slightly further out from us in the Solar System that we call Mars
• That the sun is a huge ball of fusing hydrogen
• That 2000mg of caffeine will stop the human heart
• That anthrax can kill you if you snort enough of it
• The moon will not come crashing down tomorrow, no matter how much I want to avoid work
• That people continue to exist once I leave the room
• Removing the brain from the skull is almost always fatal

There are whole reams of things every day that you end up taking based on the advice of authority alone. This is not in question. Why do we believe some things without questioning?

Empirical evidence.

I can look up a mathematical proof to show how 2 and 2 sum, if I so choose to question it. I can go to school and study hard and become a doctor in order to see what happens when you remove a brain. All of these things are verifiable to a certain degree of confidence, should you have the time and the inclination to do so. There is such a huge volume of data in the earth sciences that no one person could digest it all or understand it all, so some of it you’re going to have to trust to the experts or risk losing your mind.

The key is that it’s POSSIBLE to find the evidence, and with effort, all of that evidence and all of those theories are falsifiable. You might have to yell and scream and make pretty graphs, but with empirical data, you can sway people to your side of the argument.

Can I find an independent record of the loaves and fishes? Perhaps an independent witness to Moses descending the mountain with the tablets? How about someone to swear an affidavit to the whole resting on the seventh day thing? There’s no empirical evidence, and until there is hard data on creation, it remains non-scientific.

Again, as I do with my more common discussion “opponents” in the energy healing sector, I invite a single source of hard data to show that creationism should be allowed within 100 yards of science.

*** 9

I thought that this summed up the “Why Science isn’t a religion” argument well enough….

http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofscience/p/ScienceReligion.htm

“Calling science a religion should be instantly recognized as an ideological attack rather than a neutral observation of facts. Sadly this is not the case, and it has become far too common for critics of modern, godless science to claim that it’s inherently a religion, thus hoping to discredit scientific research when it contradicts genuine religious ideology”

*** 10

Using the word “science” while not utilizing the scientific method is disingenuous at best, and a bold lie at worst.

One of the theories used to support the existence of large insects (I’m not sure about mammals) is the high concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere.

At best a dome of water over the earth would have to ignore something called gravity, but assuming that there was a “sea above the sea” how would that contribute to larger animals through reduced radiation?

One of the reasons that I ask for empirical data from people I have discussions with is that they’re the subject matter experts in their field as far as I know. I have no idea where the “pro Creation Science” data is stored, and Google is of little help in finding raw data. I can find plenty of Kirk Cameron videos, but little quantitative data.

On a side note aren’t creationists just a little bit embarrassed to have Kirk and Rev. Comfort on their side after that banana video?

3 comments