15 Questions for Evolutionists
Evolution: the naturalistic origin of life and its diversity
by Don Batten(excerpts)
2) How did the DNA code originate?
6) Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
8) How did sex originate?
10) How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?
11) How did blind chemistry create mind / intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
15) Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?
If you’re an evolutionist, share with us your answer to any of the questions above in a paragraph or two.
“Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?”
It isn’t.
There are whole books addressing many of these questions. Some of them are virtual non sequiturs. Living fossils are virtually unchanged over millions of years because there’s no environmental pressure for them to move from their biological niche.
“Living things look like they were designed…”
Living things look they evolved, so how do creationists know they were designed?
I found quite a few detailed point-by-point answers online. Here’s one:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Question_Evolution
And here are responses to many of the common objections:
Responses to our 15 Questions: Questions 1–3
Responses to our 15 Questions: Questions 4–8
Responses to our 15 Questions: Questions 9–15
Josh, the questions are equivalent to those provided by moon-landing deniers. There are answers to all of them. The creationist objections you link to the answers are similar to the ‘yeah, but…’ objections that the moon hoaxers make when someone points out that we wouldn’t EXPECT to see stars in the moon pictures. You want me to pick at each of the objections you linked to?
Have you read a good book on biology, that explains what we know and how we know it? Do you understand why creationism is seen as such a joke?
Recommend a good book on biology for us, Andy, along with the qualifications you possess to make you capable of assessing its quality. And don’t, like many atheists, consider a question of your credentials and education as an insult. The evolutionist often makes it a matter of lack of education that makes people not believe evolution (even though there are many highly educated creationists who prove otherwise). Would Darwin himself, a naturalist, have passed the “your too uneducated to understand” counter-apologetics method? Side note: Note that the author of the theory is termed a naturalist. In fact, I have only read of one or two experiments he has done. Do you have any knowledge of experiments he did to test his theory? If so, share!
I’m trying to be totally honest with you. While I do have an abnormal interest in the amazing intricacies of the ant world, I don’t have the scientific background to be able to assess any and every scientific claim. Do you? The field is too broad and my plate is already full. No, I rely on the work of educated experts in different fields of science, where you can find many creationist scientists working every day.
Now, while I can’t assess every scientific claim on a scientific scale, I can look around at creation and its complexities and remind myself that evolution was an attempt to explain the origin (!) and continued existence of everything I see without any intervention or work of God. But information is only a product of intelligence. And creation is full of information. Add to the mix the historicity of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and you’ve got a compelling case for God’s existence in a simple, clear, easy way for everyone to understand.
With all that said, let us know your own scientific credentials, since you want to steer the discussion into that.
By the way, truth is not determined by how good of a punchline it can make or how many people believe it. You know that.
Joshua
Josh, since we’re on the topic of the ‘Question Evolution’ campaign, it is worth noting that the evidence for macroevolution is anything but compelling. To give you a feel for the sort of extrapolation from evidence of microevolutionary change to macroevolutionary conclusions that is required to blindly commit to macroevolution being ‘fact’, one only need look at a recent piece of ‘evidence’ presented to you by a commenter:
“In answer to your question Josh, the talkorigins website is a great one, especially for beginners. It’s written by both theists and non-theists….. Then go on to the ’29 evidences for macro evolution section’ – http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ – ”
And yet, the commenter would be hard pressed to point to one evidence that makes the case, for all 29 seem to fall apart upon scrutiny!
‘A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp’ (http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp)
Indeed, macroevolutionary theory involves a enormous extrapolation from evidence of very limited ranges (microevolution) to conclusions far beyond the evidence, and anything serious about exploring the limits of evolutionary theory would do well to recognise that. ;)
Josh:
Since we’re on the topic of the ‘Question Evolution’ campaign, it is worth noting that the evidence for macroevolution is anything but compelling. To get a feel for the sort of extrapolation required from evidence of microevolutionary change to blindly commit to macroevolutionary conclusions being ‘fact’, one only need look at a recent piece of ‘evidence’ presented to you by a commenter:
“In answer to your question Josh, the talkorigins website is a great one, especially for beginners. It’s written by both theists and non-theists….. Then go on to the ’29 evidences for macro evolution section’ – http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ – ”
And yet, the commenter would be hard pressed to point to one evidence that makes the case, for all 29 seem to fall apart upon scrutiny!
‘A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp’ (http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp)
Indeed, macroevolutionary theory involves a enormous extrapolation from evidence of very limited ranges (microevolution) to conclusions far beyond the evidence, and anyone serious about exploring the limits of evolutionary theory would do well to recognise that. ;)
This quote reminds me of many of the arguments and explanations used by evolutionists:
“There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we now know we don’t know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know, we don’t know.”
—United States Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld
It applies to creationists who think evolution comes down to fossils, and have no idea how many different disciplines make no sense except through evolution. The Duning-Kruger effect means they have no idea that they have no idea.
“No, I rely on the work of educated experts in different fields of science, where you can find many creationist scientists working every day.”
How many creationists are working in biology Josh?
“Recommend a good book on biology for us, Andy, along with the qualifications you possess to make you capable of assessing its quality”
I have no scientific qualifications Josh. I don’t have a degree in physics, but I accept that Einstein’s theories are accepted by pretty much everyone who has such a degree. They have been tested, their predictions came true, they have stood the test of time. Likewise for Darwin’s theories. He presented his evidence – the evidence held up. There were things Darwin didn’t know, and over 150 years many new sources of information have come up. Evolutionary science is accepted by the vast majority of biologists – of all different religious persuasions. It is also backed up by evidence in several other scientific disciplines. There are many questions that can only be answered once one accepts evolution as a fact.
“I can look around at creation and its complexities and remind myself that evolution was an attempt to explain the origin (!) and continued existence of everything I see without any intervention or work of God”
Evolution through natural selection explains only biodiversity on earth, ie how we got all these different species. It says nothing about how life began (that’s biogenesis); it says nothing about how the planet came about or how matter started or the BIg Bang.
“I don’t have the scientific background to be able to assess any and every scientific claim. Do you?”
No, that’s why I accept that the peer review process is the best we have for reaching the nearest-to-the-truth conclusions given the current evidence. In short, I trust the scientists. I trust them when they tell me how a TV works, why assume that all the experts in biology are an exception?
Richard Dawkins’ book “The Greatest Show on Earth” is a good collator of evidence for evolution. I’ve heard that Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution Is True” is good too, though I haven’t read it.
Meanwhile, you’ve got that link I gave you before for Talk Origins. You’ll be pleased to know that every contributor to the site (which includes many Christians) includes their qualifications!
1) “How many creationists are working in biology Josh?”
Where have you looked to answer your question? And since when do numbers determine what is true?
2) “There are many questions that can only be answered once one accepts evolution as a fact.”
Share one with us!
3) “Evolution through natural selection explains only biodiversity on earth, ie how we got all these different species. It says nothing about how life began (that’s biogenesis); it says nothing about how the planet came about or how matter started or the Big Bang.”
So, how are you able to say that what anyone says about origins is wrong? Give your candid admission there, isn’t the best position you could hold to is that you don’t know?
4) “Richard Dawkins’ book ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ is a good collator of evidence for evolution.”
Thanks!
5) “Meanwhile, you’ve got that link I gave you before for Talk Origins.”
Yes, I’ve already printed out those articles (the bulk of them) and read them two days or so after you left them.
Joshua
Well the Talk Origins site has many such questions for creationists, including and addition to the ones I mentioned here.
It also answers your ‘no new information’. Google talkorigins with ‘new information’, or something similar. Here’s one result:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html
Andrew Ryan:
“There are many questions that can only be answered once one accepts evolution as a fact.”
That is not science. That is an a priori commitment to evolutionism, which makes it a philosophy, which is somewhat similar to Lewontin’s infamous words in 1997 calling for an a priori commitment to materialism, “that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” That is why Philip Johnson, in response to Lewontin’s statements, provided these words of caution:
“For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
. . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses.” [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
Whereas as a Christian theist (as Josh and I are), I am able to not reject evolutionary theory outright, and am, in fact, able to accept certain parts of the theory as fact (microevolution, for instance), while not accepting the tenets of the theory with zero or little empirical support (such as abiogenesis and macroevolution). Science is really about following the evidence where it leads.
“Evolution through natural selection… says nothing about how life began (that’s biogenesis)”
I’m happy to agree with you there, though truth be told, many famous evolutionists (including Dawkins, that person you seem to think so highly of) would disagree with that view. It seems evolutionists really have a hard time tying down a single definition of ‘evolution’. I’m genuinely curious, why do you suppose that is the case?
“Meanwhile, you’ve got that link I gave you before for Talk Origins.”
I suppose you mean the one on ’29 evidences for macroevolution’, is that right? And yet, we find that we would be hard pressed to point to one evidence that makes the case, for all 29 seem to fall apart upon scrutiny!
‘A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp’ (http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp)
Indeed, macroevolutionary theory involves a enormous extrapolation from evidence of very limited ranges (microevolution) to conclusions far beyond the evidence, and anyone serious about exploring the limits of evolutionary theory would do well to recognise that. =)
“So, how are you able to say that what anyone says about origins is wrong? Give your candid admission there, isn’t the best position you could hold to is that you don’t know?”
I said that evolution says nothing more than how we got the earth’s biodiversity. I didn’t say we have no theories about the world itself formed, or indeed how the university started. The current best evidence strongly supports the Big Bang theory. Perhaps it’s wrong, or perhaps God started the Big Bang. When people produce evidence for either, I’ll be able to examine it.
“Share one with us!”
Here’s several: Retroviruses, the positioning of animals around the world (eg all the marsupials down at the bottom, none anywhere occurring naturally anywhere else), the positioning of animals in the fossil record, the broken ability of humans to synthesise our own Vitamin C, shared only with apes, all the predictions made by evolutionary science that have come true, weird quirks like snakes having DNA both for producing limbs and for suppressing their ability to grow limbs.
Josh:
One of the questions in the list, “Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?”, makes so much sense against the backdrop of one of the statements that Andrew Ryan made:
“There are many questions that can only be answered once one accepts evolution as a fact.”
Truth be told, that is one of the most ridiculous statements I’ve heard, and qualifies as pseudoscience more so than science. It also explains why people have often found some evolutionists guilty of forcing the evidence to fit the theory rather than the other way round, which is how real science operates.That is an a priori commitment to evolutionism, which makes it a philosophy, and should have no place in the realms of actual science.
This mentality somewhat echoes Lewontin’s infamous words in 1997 calling for an a priori commitment to materialism, “that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” That is why Philip Johnson, in response to Lewontin’s statements, provided these words of caution, that all of us might do well to heed:
“For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
. . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses.” [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
Whereas as a Christian theist (as you and I are), I am able to not reject evolutionary theory outright, and am, in fact, able to accept certain parts of the theory as fact (microevolution, for instance), while not accepting the tenets of the theory with zero or little empirical support (such as abiogenesis and macroevolution). Science is really about following the evidence where it leads.
“Evolution through natural selection… says nothing about how life began (that’s biogenesis)”
I’m happy to agree with Andrew Ryan there, though truth be told, many famous evolutionists (including Dawkins, that person he seems to think so highly of) would disagree with that view. It seems evolutionists really have a hard time tying down a single definition of ‘evolution’. I’m genuinely curious as to why that is the case, Josh. I really don’t understand why.
“Meanwhile, you’ve got that link I gave you before for Talk Origins.”
I suppose Andrew Ryan means the one on ’29 evidences for macroevolution’, is that right? And yet, we find that we would be hard pressed to point to one evidence that makes the case, for all 29 seem to fall apart upon scrutiny! Hope you find the following an interesting read, Josh! =D
‘A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp’ (http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp)
Indeed, macroevolutionary theory involves a enormous extrapolation from evidence of very limited ranges (microevolution) to conclusions far beyond the evidence, and anyone serious about exploring the limits of evolutionary theory would do well to recognise that. =)
Josh:
One of the questions in the list, “Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?”, makes so much sense against the backdrop of one of the statements that Andrew Ryan made:
“There are many questions that can only be answered once one accepts evolution as a fact.”
Truth be told, that is one of the most ridiculous statements I’ve heard, and qualifies as pseudoscience more so than science. For it seems to suggest this: ‘let’s accept evolution as fact FIRST, THEN try to make sense of the evidence afterwards.’ Little wonder then that evolutionists have often been found guilty of forcing the evidence to fit the theory rather than the other way round. That is an a priori commitment to evolutionism, which makes it a philosophy, and should have no place in the realms of actual science.
This mentality somewhat echoes Lewontin’s infamous words in 1997 calling for an a priori commitment to materialism, “that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” That is why Philip Johnson, in response to Lewontin’s statements, provided these words of caution, that all of us might do well to heed:
“For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. We might more accurately term them ‘materialists employing science.’ And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) ‘give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.’
. . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses.” ['The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things', 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
Whereas as a Christian theist (as you and I are), I am able to not reject evolutionary theory outright, and am, in fact, able to accept certain parts of the theory as fact (microevolution, for instance), while not accepting the tenets of the theory with zero or little empirical support (such as abiogenesis and macroevolution). Science is really about following the evidence where it leads.
“Evolution through natural selection… says nothing about how life began (that’s biogenesis)”
I’m happy to agree with Andrew Ryan there, though truth be told, many famous evolutionists (including Dawkins, that person he seems to think so highly of) would not be as honest as him, and would disagree with that view. It seems evolutionists really have a hard time tying down a single definition of ‘evolution’. I’m genuinely curious as to why that is the case, Josh. I really don’t understand why.
“Meanwhile, you’ve got that link I gave you before for Talk Origins.”
I suppose Andrew Ryan means the one on ’29 evidences for macroevolution’, is that right? And yet, we find that we would be hard pressed to point to one evidence that makes the case, for all 29 seem to fall apart upon scrutiny! Hope you find the following an interesting read, Josh! =D
‘A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp’ (http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp)
Indeed, macroevolutionary theory involves a enormous extrapolation from evidence of very limited ranges (microevolution) to conclusions far beyond the evidence, and anyone serious about exploring the limits of evolutionary theory would do well to consider that possibility. =)
Josh:
One of the questions in the list you provided, “Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?”, makes so much sense against the backdrop of one of the statements that Andrew Ryan made:
“There are many questions that can only be answered once one accepts evolution as a fact.”
Truth be told, that is one of the most ridiculous statements I’ve heard, and qualifies as pseudoscience more so than science. For it seems to suggest this: ‘let’s accept evolution as fact FIRST, THEN try to make sense of the evidence afterwards.’ Little wonder then that evolutionists have often been found guilty of forcing the evidence to fit the theory rather than the other way round. That is an a priori commitment to evolutionism, which makes it a philosophy, and should have no place in the realms of actual science.
This mentality somewhat echoes Lewontin’s infamous words in 1997 calling for an a priori commitment to materialism, “that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” That is why Philip Johnson, in response to Lewontin’s statements, provided these words of caution, that all of us might do well to heed:
“For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. We might more accurately term them ‘materialists employing science.’ And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) ‘give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.’
. . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses.” ['The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things', 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
Whereas as a Christian theist (as you and I are), I am able to not reject evolutionary theory outright, and am, in fact, able to accept certain parts of the theory as fact (microevolution, for instance), while not accepting the tenets of the theory with zero or little empirical support (such as abiogenesis and macroevolution). Science is really about following the evidence where it leads.
Getic.Apolo,
The thought within the Lewontin quote was what inspired this cartoon: Constitution of the Divine Foot-in-the-Door Resistance Army.
Thanks for the Johnson quote. I think he is absolutely right at points. In fact, in my experience, many often assume that they are approaching the evidence from “a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence” as he says.
Joshua
No problem Josh, glad you like the quote. And rest assured that I share some of your experience.
Anyway, to follow up on a few additional comments made by Andrew Ryan on the same post:
“Evolution through natural selection… says nothing about how life began (that’s biogenesis)”
I’m happy to agree with him on this, though truth be told, many famous evolutionists (including Dawkins, that person he seems to think so highly of) would not be as honest as him, and would disagree with that view. It seems evolutionists really have a hard time tying down a single definition of ‘evolution’, I’m not kidding when I say that various neo-Darwinists commit to various definitions of the term. I’m genuinely curious as to why that is the case, what do you think is the reason Josh?
Finally, he mentioned this:
“Meanwhile, you’ve got that link I gave you before for Talk Origins.”
I suppose Andrew Ryan means the one on ’29 evidences for macroevolution’, is that right? And yet, we find that we would be hard pressed to point to one evidence that makes the case, for all 29 seem to fall apart upon scrutiny! Hope you find the following an interesting read, Josh! =D
‘A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp’ (http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp)
Indeed, macroevolutionary theory involves an enormous extrapolation from evidence of very limited ranges (microevolution) to conclusions far beyond the evidence, and anyone serious about exploring the limits of evolutionary theory would do well to consider that possibility. =)
No problem Josh, glad you like the quote. And rest assured that I share some of your experience.
Anyway, to follow up on a few additional comments made by Andrew Ryan on the same post:
“Evolution through natural selection… says nothing about how life began (that’s biogenesis)”
I’m happy to agree with him on this, though truth be told, many famous evolutionists (including Dawkins, that person he seems to think so highly of) would not be as honest as him, and would disagree with that view. It seems evolutionists really have a hard time tying down a single definition of ‘evolution’, I’m not kidding when I say that various neo-Darwinists commit to various definitions of the term. I’m genuinely curious as to why that is the case, what do you think is the reason Josh?
What might be the reason there are so many definitions of evolution? Well, I don’t want to put words into the mouths of people espousing a theory that I have very minimum understanding of (busy learning more currently), but I think there are so many definitions for the term because its being supplied as the answer for so many different questions. So, instead of evidence or an accurate explanation, we’re met with “it evolved” to cover over both, which has some affect on its meaning. The largest change, I think, came when it started to be applied to things outside of biology; things that are non-living evolve, too.
Joshua
Finally, Andrew Ryan mentioned this:
“Meanwhile, you’ve got that link I gave you before for Talk Origins.”
I suppose he means the one on ’29 evidences for macroevolution’, is that right? And yet, we find that we would be hard pressed to point to one evidence that makes the case, for all 29 seem to fall apart upon scrutiny! Hope you find the following an interesting read, Josh! =D
‘A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp’ (http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp)
Indeed, macroevolutionary theory involves a enormous extrapolation from evidence of very limited ranges (microevolution) to conclusions far beyond the evidence, and anyone serious about exploring the limits of evolutionary theory would do well to consider that possibility. =)
Lastly, Andrew Ryan mentioned this:
“Meanwhile, you’ve got that link I gave you before for Talk Origins.”
I suppose he is talking about the one on ’29 evidences for macroevolution’, is that right? And yet, we find that we would be hard pressed to point to one evidence that makes the case, for all 29 seem to fall apart upon scrutiny! Hope you find the following an interesting read, Josh! =D
‘A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp’ (http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp)
Indeed, macroevolutionary theory involves an enormous extrapolation from evidence of very limited ranges (microevolution) to conclusions far beyond the evidence, and anyone serious about exploring the limits of evolutionary theory would do well to consider that possibility. =)
Lastly, Andrew Ryan mentioned this:
“Meanwhile, you’ve got that link I gave you before for Talk Origins.”
I suppose he means the one on ’29 evidences for macroevolution’, is that right? And yet, we find that we would be hard pressed to point to one evidence that makes the case, for all 29 seem to fall apart upon scrutiny! Hope you find the following an interesting read, Josh! =D
‘A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp’ (http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp)
Finally, with regards to this:
“Meanwhile, you’ve got that link I gave you before for Talk Origins.”
I suppose Andrew Ryan means the one on ’29 evidences for macroevolution’, is that right? And yet, we find that we would be hard pressed to point to one evidence that makes the case, for all 29 seem to fall apart upon scrutiny! Hope you find the following an interesting read, Josh! =D
‘A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp’ (http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp)
Indeed, macroevolutionary theory involves a enormous extrapolation from evidence of very limited ranges (microevolution) to conclusions far beyond the evidence, and anyone serious about exploring the limits of evolutionary theory would do well to consider that possibility.
Finally, with regards to this:
“Meanwhile, you’ve got that link I gave you before for Talk Origins.”
I suppose Andrew Ryan means the one on ’29 evidences for macroevolution’, is that right? And yet, we find that we would be hard pressed to point to one evidence that makes the case, for all 29 seem to fall apart upon scrutiny! Hope you find the following an interesting read, Josh! =D
‘A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp’
Indeed, macroevolutionary theory involves a enormous extrapolation from evidence of very limited ranges (microevolution) to conclusions far beyond the evidence, and anyone serious about exploring the limits of evolutionary theory would do well to consider that possibility.
Sorry, forgot to add the link:
‘A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp’ (http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp)
Sorry, forgot to add the link for ‘A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp’:
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp
Sorry Josh, I’m having trouble adding the reference for ‘A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp’: You can Google the article, it’s on trueorigin.org. Hope you find it insightful. =)
Sorry Josh, I’m having trouble adding the reference for ‘A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp’: You can Google the article, it shows up right on top. Hope you find it insightful. =)
Josh:
No problem my friend, glad you like the quote =) And rest assured that I share some of your experience.
Anyway, to follow up on a few additional comments made by Andrew Ryan on the same post:
“Evolution through natural selection… says nothing about how life began (that’s biogenesis)”
I’m happy to agree with him on this, though truth be told, many famous evolutionists (including Dawkins, that person he seems to think so highly of) would not be as honest as him, and would disagree with that view. It seems evolutionists really have a hard time tying down a single definition of ‘evolution’, I’m not kidding when I say that various neo-Darwinists commit to various definitions of the term. I’m genuinely curious as to why that is the case, what do you think is the reason Josh?
Finally, he mentioned this:
“Meanwhile, you’ve got that link I gave you before for Talk Origins.”
I suppose Andrew Ryan means the one on ’29 evidences for macroevolution’, is that right? And yet, we find that we would be hard pressed to point to one evidence that makes the case, for all 29 seem to fall apart upon scrutiny! Hope you find the following an interesting read, Josh! =D
‘A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp’ (http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp)
Indeed, macroevolutionary theory involves a enormous extrapolation from evidence of very limited ranges (microevolution) to conclusions far beyond the evidence, and anyone serious about exploring the limits of evolutionary theory would do well to consider that possibility. =)
Lastly, Andrew Ryan mentioned this:
“Meanwhile, you’ve got that link I gave you before for Talk Origins.”
I suppose he means the one on ’29 evidences for macroevolution’, is that right? And yet, we find that we would be hard pressed to point to one evidence that makes the case, for all 29 seem to fall apart upon scrutiny! Hope you find the following an interesting read, Josh! =D
‘A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp’ (http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp)
Indeed, macroevolutionary theory involves an enormous extrapolation from evidence of very limited ranges (microevolution) to conclusions far beyond the evidence, and anyone serious about exploring the limits of evolutionary theory would do well to consider that possibility. =)
Finally, with regards to this:
“Meanwhile, you’ve got that link I gave you before for Talk Origins.”
I suppose Andrew Ryan means the one on ’29 evidences for macroevolution’, is that right? And yet, we find that we would be hard pressed to point to one evidence that makes the case, for all 29 seem to fall apart upon scrutiny! Hope you find the following an interesting read, Josh! =D
‘A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp’ (http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp)
Indeed, macroevolutionary theory involves a enormous extrapolation from evidence of very limited ranges (microevolution) to conclusions far beyond the evidence, and anyone serious about exploring the limits of evolutionary theory would do well to consider that possibility. =)