Answers in Genesis has an article on how "evolution is not even a theory". There's no time stamp on the article so I don't know how old it is. I have to assume it's at least a year old, but that's besides the point.
Let's start with the positive: AiG seem to have learnt what a theory is and they're actively discouraging people from using "just a theory" as an argument. Their reason isn't a good one, but we'll get to that.
This is highly refreshing! They actually know the difference between hypothesis and theory and they know that there's a scientific definition of what a theory is. They also accept that a theory is the highest level of confidence to be achieved in science. The "Louis Pasteur article" they link to is garbage, but let's not dwell on that.
When talking about "events in the past", creationists are talking about so-called "origins" or "historical" science. This is a concept not used by any scientist I know of, but they pretend it's valid anyway. It's an idea I'll address in my half-finished blog post.
Everyone reading this post will know that we can indeed test evolution and it has been done over and over again. Aside from predictions made about the fossil record, we know that phylogenetic relationships have been confirmed, that macroevolution definitely occurs and that transitional fossils are all over the place.
But I didn't post this to talk about that. We all know that.
This is what I want to address. It is distinctly odd for creationists to make such a claim. Normally, they agree that, if evolution were true, life should look one way and if creationism were true, it should look completely different. Of course, they then turn around and claim that we don't see what is right before our eyes.
And yet, this is apparently what this creationist claims. There is not a single "test for evolution" I can think of that would make me think: "Hm, this might also fit with creationism, it's really 50/50."
Let's try to take this seriously for a minute and think for example of the aforementioned example: Tiktaalik. If everything we know about the age of the earth and evolution is wrong, then it strikes me as extremely unlikely that scientists could predict where, in what time frame and with what characteristics a fossil should be found. How would creationists claim that this can also be interpreted as evidence for creation or for something else? Generally, they just dismiss the whole thing and claim that "evil evolutionists" are wrong in what they claim. Never have I seen them take a find at face value and say: "Yeah, that's exactly what we'd expect if creationism were true."
For example, take this post from AiG on the [tooltip=Shubin et al. 2014 Pelvic girdle and fin of Tiktaalik roseae]latest find[/tooltip] regarding Tiktaalik. They just dismiss it and claim that Shubin is wrong in his claims.
So I now ask you people: Have you ever heard of a single example where creationists take a discovery at face value and then claim that it fits perfectly with creationism? Moreover, is there a single example of those where they could actually be right?
I highly doubt it and since the author gives no examples, I have to put it to you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A second article linked to a video/DVD asking four apparently powerful questions to ask an "evolutionist".
The first three are fairly standard:
All of these have been answered, either by saying "here's the evidence" or by saying "we simply don't know, but neither does the question have anything to do with evolution, nor does a lack of evidence mean you can fill the gap with whatever fairytale most appeals to you".
The three first questions are fairly standard, but they at least are talking points. You can have a discussion with the person asking them, because they are questions even non-creationists might ask. The fourth question is just plain dumb:
Where did the dinosaurs come from?
Are you kidding me? This is a "powerful question"? Anyone who knows anything about the discussion at hand knows what the answer will be: "They evolved. Whoop-dee-fucking-do!" They might as well have asked "where did dogs come from" or any other animal or group of animals that's extant or extinct. There is an interesting discussion to be had about dinosaurs and I'll address that in a future blog post, but that's a different story.
Let's start with the positive: AiG seem to have learnt what a theory is and they're actively discouraging people from using "just a theory" as an argument. Their reason isn't a good one, but we'll get to that.
A theory has its genesis in a hypothesis, which is a working assumption as to why we observe something—an educated guess. To test this assumption, scientists conduct experiments that either disprove or correlate with the hypothesis.
Over time, if a hypothesis continues to stand up to scrutiny and many different experiments, the scientific community may begin referring to it as a “theory.” In essence, this means that because the hypothesis has not been disproved over many years and no other known hypothesis works, then we can be reasonably sure that it’s accurate.
Theories, however, are not imperishable. If new technology allows better experimentation, for example, a theory may need to be discarded. (See Louis Pasteur’s Views on Creation, Evolution, and the Genesis of Germs).
This is highly refreshing! They actually know the difference between hypothesis and theory and they know that there's a scientific definition of what a theory is. They also accept that a theory is the highest level of confidence to be achieved in science. The "Louis Pasteur article" they link to is garbage, but let's not dwell on that.
Two problems prevent anyone from legitimately calling evolution a theory. First, there’s no direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed. Scientists can measure bones, study mutations, decode DNA, and notice similarities in morphology (the form and structure of animals and plants), but they can never test evolutionary events in the past.
Some point to natural selection as a form of “evolution in action,” but natural selection can only act upon the genetic potential that already exists. What we do observe from natural selection fits perfectly with a recent creation and does not point to common descent.
When talking about "events in the past", creationists are talking about so-called "origins" or "historical" science. This is a concept not used by any scientist I know of, but they pretend it's valid anyway. It's an idea I'll address in my half-finished blog post.
Everyone reading this post will know that we can indeed test evolution and it has been done over and over again. Aside from predictions made about the fossil record, we know that phylogenetic relationships have been confirmed, that macroevolution definitely occurs and that transitional fossils are all over the place.
But I didn't post this to talk about that. We all know that.
Secondly, and related to the above, evolution misses the mark as a theory because all the supposed “tests” to confirm Darwinism do not necessarily and distinctively correspond to the idea. In other words, each has an alternate and equally viable explanation. A theory requires that the confirming experiments correspond to one specific hypothesis. Otherwise, the experiment cannot establish legitimacy. Evolution has no such legitimacy.
This is what I want to address. It is distinctly odd for creationists to make such a claim. Normally, they agree that, if evolution were true, life should look one way and if creationism were true, it should look completely different. Of course, they then turn around and claim that we don't see what is right before our eyes.
And yet, this is apparently what this creationist claims. There is not a single "test for evolution" I can think of that would make me think: "Hm, this might also fit with creationism, it's really 50/50."
Let's try to take this seriously for a minute and think for example of the aforementioned example: Tiktaalik. If everything we know about the age of the earth and evolution is wrong, then it strikes me as extremely unlikely that scientists could predict where, in what time frame and with what characteristics a fossil should be found. How would creationists claim that this can also be interpreted as evidence for creation or for something else? Generally, they just dismiss the whole thing and claim that "evil evolutionists" are wrong in what they claim. Never have I seen them take a find at face value and say: "Yeah, that's exactly what we'd expect if creationism were true."
For example, take this post from AiG on the [tooltip=Shubin et al. 2014 Pelvic girdle and fin of Tiktaalik roseae]latest find[/tooltip] regarding Tiktaalik. They just dismiss it and claim that Shubin is wrong in his claims.
So I now ask you people: Have you ever heard of a single example where creationists take a discovery at face value and then claim that it fits perfectly with creationism? Moreover, is there a single example of those where they could actually be right?
I highly doubt it and since the author gives no examples, I have to put it to you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A second article linked to a video/DVD asking four apparently powerful questions to ask an "evolutionist".
The first three are fairly standard:
- Where did the universe’s original matter come from?
- How did life begin?
- Where are all the supposed transitional fossils between the Precambrian and Cambrian periods?
All of these have been answered, either by saying "here's the evidence" or by saying "we simply don't know, but neither does the question have anything to do with evolution, nor does a lack of evidence mean you can fill the gap with whatever fairytale most appeals to you".
The three first questions are fairly standard, but they at least are talking points. You can have a discussion with the person asking them, because they are questions even non-creationists might ask. The fourth question is just plain dumb:
Where did the dinosaurs come from?
Are you kidding me? This is a "powerful question"? Anyone who knows anything about the discussion at hand knows what the answer will be: "They evolved. Whoop-dee-fucking-do!" They might as well have asked "where did dogs come from" or any other animal or group of animals that's extant or extinct. There is an interesting discussion to be had about dinosaurs and I'll address that in a future blog post, but that's a different story.