12 Arguments Evolutionists should avoid

The pseudo-science site Answers In Genesis has listed 12 argument against evolution. Here are my comments on each of them.

1. Evolution is a fact
"Unobservable past" - It depends on what do we mean by observation. If it only means watching events unfold first hand, of course we cannot be in the past to observe. However, events in the past usually left evidences behind. It is like solving a murder case, evidence can reconstruct the past.

Evolution is a scientific theory meaning it "explains" facts, it predicts observation which can be factually verified. It is built upon tons of observations. Many creationists agree that evolution occurs, as demonstrated in selection by human such as breeding of dogs or plants. Darwin's evolution is just an extension to the "micro evolutions" coined by the creationists. What nature has is time. Given sufficient time, the survival niche exploited by different organisms created the complexity and diversity we can observe today. Evolution by natural selection is now the foundation of modern biology.

2. Only the uneducated reject evolution
AIG makes a fact sounds like an arrogant announcement. Yes, only the uneducated today reject evolution. Quoting Newton does not advance the AIG argument a single bit. Newton did not know about Evolution by natural selection. Darwin's theory was published after Newton's death. Anyone, today, with a proper education in science should understand the role evolution has played.


3 Overwhelming evidence in all fields of science supports evolution
The AIG argument is that all the evidence before Darwin was there and unchanged. Only the views have changed. Yes, this is correct. Before Darwin, the available evidence superimposed by a biblical bias produces a different view from Darwin. That's why Darwin theory of evolution was controversial then and now. However, in the last 150 years since the publication of the theory, large amount of evidences have been added to the pool and the theory is growing ever stronger.


4 Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity
The straw man argument is 'Next, make a single-celled organism—like an amoeba—turn into a goat. Go ahead. We’ll wait.'. Well, there are dog domestication, rice and lots of examples. While science cannot modify an amoeba to a goat, biological science based on evolution has created wonderful approaches to medicine and many other fields.

5 Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat
WOW, what can I say. Yes, doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat. Period.

6 It’s here, so it must have evolved
The argument was "A conclusion does not prove the premises are true. That is, if the answer is “four,” we could arrive at that any number of ways: 2 + 2, 5 - 1, etc. In the same way, evolutionists often assume that since certain species or traits exist, this is proof of evolution because that’s how it must have happened."

Yes, a single data point does not give support to such a complex theory. But when all the evidence are considered together, there is one reasonable explanation. In contrast, the creation story in Genesis does not explain anything. According to the Genesis, there would be a global flood at Noah's time. How does it explain the different animals in today's Australia? How does it explain all the virus and bacteria? Where is the evidence of the Ark? Why geological data contradicts with that story? Why carbon dating invalidates the Genesis's time line? Oh, god like to joke with us or the all mighty cannot stop Satan from putting in false evidences.


7 Natural selection is evolution
The AIG confuses abiogenesis with evolution. The origin of life is a different research domain. How life started is still unknown. The honest answer is "we do not know". It is just plain stupid to replace an honest answer with the creation story, which has no evidential support and of which the origin is problematic.

8 Common design means common ancestry
"A common Designer fits the evidence just as well, if not better." Who designed the designer?


9 Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity
"Sedimentary layers show one thing: sedimentary layers. In other words, we can—and should—study the rocks, but the claim that rocks prove the earth must be billions of years old ignores one important point: such an interpretation is built upon a stack of assumptions. When we start from the Bible and examine the rocks within the framework of a global Flood, the need for long ages vanishes."

Well, the need for long ages vanishes in the creation story of the Genesis. And that's exactly the problem. The dating of the rocks, biological remains and so on indicated it took a long time. Why the designer needs such a long time and yet give a short version of the creation story?

10 Mutations drive evolution
" Mutations cannot produce the types of changes evolution requires—not even close. Some may benefit an organism (e.g., beetles on a windy island losing wings), but virtually every time mutations come with a cost." Yes, many mutations resulted in losing the survival edge. But every now and then, some say help the survival just that little bit and such mutation gets reproduced. The accumulation of mutations drives the evolution. The natural selection process drives the evolution. They go hand in hand.

11 The Scopes trial
No comment on this one. This is a legal case in USA.

12 Science vs religion
Every time when there is an overlap between science and religion, science wins. So will Darwin's theory of evolution. Time will tell.

Another comment can be found here.

Quote

Certainly I see the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion, but that is not what is interesting about it. It is also incompatible with magic, but that also is not worth stressing. What is interesting about the scientific world view is that it is true, inspiring, remarkable and that it unites a whole lot of phenomena under a single heading. - Richard Dawkins

I just like to add a qualification to Dawkins' quote. A scientific truth is a statement which has withstood tests *many* times done by many people, at many different places, at many different times. A scientific truth is true as long as no test has been found to invalid the statement. The scientific truth is a description of the natural world. It represents our human understanding of the objective nature of the natural world. If a valid proof has been established which contradicts a prevailing scientific statement, what is wrong is NOT the nature. What is wrong is our understanding of nature. For this, science is ready to accept a new statement, extending or expanding on the previously held science truth.

As such, a practising scientist is forever sceptical. Scientists are constantly reviewing established theories. It is to the interest of the scientific establishment to publish findings which break new grounds.

The climate deniers' notion of conspiracy among climate scientists to build up an argument for climate change reflects a misunderstanding of the mechanism of how science works. If someone can come up with a valid argument, testable and repeatable by others to demonstrate that there is no climate warming, this someone will be viewed as a hero and will establish fame never seen before.

The correlation between atmospheric CO₂ and global mean temperature is well understood. There is a few decades' lag behind due to the huge thermal mass of earth. The current concentration of CO₂ are at unseen level for hundred of thousands of years. The atmospheric CO₂ is caused by human activities can be verified by examining the relative amount of Carbon-14. In nature, radiocarbon is formed when high energy atomic particles called cosmic rays break down the atoms in the atmosphere into electrons, protons, neutrons and other particles. Some of the neutrons strike the nuclei of nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere get converted into radiocarbon atoms. [source] Having a half-life of 5600 years, an equilibrium has been reached. Living organisms exchanging carbon with the atmosphere will have a carbon-14 concentration similar to the atmospheric Carbon-14 concentration. However, once the organism is dead, the exchange with atmospheric carbon will stop. The carbon-14 fixed in the dead organism will proceed with its radioactive decay as normal. Hence, the fossil fuel will have a lower carbon-14 concentration than the equilibrium. By comparing the atmospheric carbon-14 concentration to those about 200 years ago, scientists are able to confirm that the CO₂ currently in our atmosphere came from the fossil fuel.

Over the last 400,000 years, atmospheric CO₂ averages between 180 to 210 ppm (parts per million by volume). Since 1800, the CO₂ concentration has been increasing. Today it is about 385ppm. The optimistic estimate is that if human wants to keep the global warming below 2^oC, the concentration needs to be kept below 350ppm. That is we have already exceeded the safe level.

The last global financial crisis has taken away the focus we have been building up in order to reach a global agreement on how to save ourselves. Until we refocus, we are going to see the current known civilisation coming to an end.

Size of God's memory

God is omniscient; he knows everything. Here is an estimate of the size of brain needed to be omniscient.

Since god knows everything, god knows the position, speed, and the vector direction of ALL subatomic particles in the universe since the big bang 14 billion years ago to the end of time (another 33 billion years may be). Brian C. Holly estimated that god have to keep track of about 10¹²⁸ facts, yes, 128 zeros after 1. The estimate was god would have a brain about the size of 10⁵⁵ universes. WOW!

Since god created this universe, he must have knowledge about other possible candidate universes in order to make a judgement to create this one. God's brain must be much much larger than the estimated 10⁵⁵ universes.

This post is labeled [bogus science] because the assumption god knows everything is bogus.

Elements of the Scientific Method in Scripture

This cartoon illustrates vividly the difference between scientific enquiry and creationist approach.

After some data mining, John Munday managed to conclude:

This exploration shows a multitude of correspondences between the methods of natural science and features of Scripture. From the results, we conclude that –
• it is not only wrong to claim that natural science and Scripture conflict, with respect to methods or routes to knowing,
• it is also right to declare, in the positive sense, that Scripture endorses methods of natural
science.

The basic tenet of scientific exploration is to (a) find and document repeatable interesting observations, (b) formulate theory to explain the observations, (c) most importantly continuously try to falsify the theory, (d) if the theory is proven to be wrong the theory is abandoned or revised. It is the last two parts which make scientific method scientific.

Creationistic approach starts with an infallible premise - the bible. Even in the overwhelming evidence of the false statements in the bible, creationists solve the conflict by invoking unsubstantiated god as the ultimate solution. This is totally unscientific, both in practice and in principle.

The continual spread of the false image of compatibility of bible and science will have adverse effect on the education of the general public.

John Munday used one of my sentence: My question [...] is which account you should believe in, the Bible's or the scientific account? Let me rephrase this: when you are ill, do you depend on prayers or seek modern medical support?

Temperature of Heaven and Hell

See the calculation here, originally published in Applied Optics (1972, 11 A14).

The temperature of heaven is 525 degrees Celcius (977 degrees Fahrenheit)
The temperature of hell is 444.6 degrees C (832.28 degrees Fahrenheit)

Heaven is hotter than Hell!

Heaven or hell, your choice!

Science shows that the Universe was built in 6 days, as the bible says

from http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=3393&start=200

and the universe was with out form and void, is the King James translation.

But in the Torah the origonal words are
and the earth was toha and bohu

toha means unformed or chaotic
bohu means filled with the building blocks of matter.

Source: Talmud and Nahamanides

So the most accurate translation would be: in a state of chaos but filled with the building blocks of matter.

Thus the story begins as told in the Torah with the appearance of the building blocks of matter. or in scientific term when quarks were confined creating protons, the building blocks.

We know the temperature then and thus the frequency of light radiation. We know what it is from theory but also by direct experiments in the lab. It is ~ 1,000,000,000,000 K

We also know what the temp of that same radiation is today ~ 3 K and thus its frequency. Thus the frequency of radiation at the start of the story was ~ 1,000,000,000,000 (10^12)times greater than the 3K radiation today.

The expanding universe has slowed the frequency of that radiation by 10 ^12. This applies to proper rates of events

Source:
P.J.E Peebels, Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton University Pres, Princeton 1993 page 96

When we here on earth today measure the age of the universe, we look back in time, using earth based clocks. We measure an age of ~ 15 billion years.

The Torah adopts earth based time perspective only after the advent of Adam. The initial clock in the torah looks forward in time from "the beginning" a clock tuned to the rate of events, i.e. the frequency of light , the back ground radiation at the moment the building blocks of matter first appeared. That same radiation view today is stretched by a factor of 10^12 and thus to an observer today, ticks 10^12 times slower. A 10^12 difference in time perception thus exists.

While the initial cosmic clock ticks of one minute, our clock ticks of 10^12 minutes.

Now divide 15 billion years by 10^12.

15,000,000,000/1,000,000,000,000 canceling zeros

15years/1000 = .015 y

.015 y = .015y * 365 days/year = 5.5 days

If the universe had been any other size, temp, or mass, or if the threshold temp for the formation of mass (building blocks) (protons and neutrons) had been any different, this ratio would not hold.

The Torah and science agree within agreeable margin of error.

To get exactly 6 days, the universe is 16.438 billion years old.

WOW! Ray Comfort should take note of this and cite as needed.