Is the photo above a man standing sideways (profile), or is the man standing forwards with half the picture cut off? Two different people will come to two different conclusions. Let’s keep that in mind…
The vast majority of scientists agree that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, and evolution via natural selection and common ancestry is the means by which humanity came into being. Obviously, as a young-earth creationist, I do not agree with either of those staples of science. But what about all the evidence, Tim?? Let me explain my position…
I believe that the scientific method requires that all evidence must be interpreted before a conclusion is drawn. My issue is not with the evidence itself, it is with the interpretation stage. I believe that scientists interpret the evidence through a worldview filter. Their worldview filter includes their personal beliefs about how the world does or does not operate. For example, if I believe there is no supernatural influence in the world and everything continues on the way and the rate at which it always has, then I am going to interpret something like radiometric decay or geology much differently than someone who believes God has intervened in this world at various points in our early history.
Let’s look at a couple examples…
If God really created Adam on the literal sixth day of creation – how old do you think he might look on day 7? Was he a full grown man? 30… maybe 40? But the truth is he is only one day old. He was created fully mature and able to sustain himself. Now apply that concept to the rest of creation. If God really created the world in six days fully mature and self-sustaining – how might that affect the apparent age of the earth? And how might that affect our research if we left out that concept? Might we come to a much different conclusion? I think so. The point is evidence like radiometric dating the age of the earth doesn’t rule out a special creation because things still might appear older than they truly are and yet that would still be in line Biblicaly.
But isn’t that a deceptive God?? I hear this all the time. No, it’s not. Perhaps God never intended us to study the age of the earth while ignoring his revelation about how He did it! Not God’s deception, human ignorance.
As for geology, we have to look at what might have happened had Noah’s flood actually covered and destroyed the whole world as the Bible seems to imply. Take the layers at the Grand Canyon. Two schools of thought: either a little bit of water (the Colorado River) over a long period of time (millions of years) OR a lot of water (the flood) over a little period of time. The same evidence, different conclusions based on different interpretations that are dependent on our worldview assumptions.
But doesn’t science work to weed out the assumptions? Yes, but it gets harder and harder when science steps outside of direct observation and repeatability. Of course we can’t observe or repeat creation or the flood or anything from that time period. We only have left over evidence that requires human interpretation.
But what about multiple lines of evidence all agreeing on the same conclusion?? Isn’t that correlation the nail in the coffin? No, not if each one of those line of evidence were all interpreted under the same starting worldview assumption of uniformitarianism – the idea that present processes are the way things have always worked. If Genesis is true and the world was created rapidly, altered following original sin, and destroyed during the flood – uniformitarainism fails, and so does all conclusions that follow from that assumption.
Keep in mind that I am NOT saying that the laws of nature change all the time and thus science is impossible. I am being specific and citing three main events from Genesis in which things would have worked differently than the way we see them working today. Science that puts computers on our desks and phones in our pockets are based on modern, observations that are repeatable and verifiable. Science such as evolution and the age of the earth are much different and require much more debatable assumptions.
The conclusions of an old earth and evolution rely on the worldview assumptions of naturalism and specifically uniformitarianism being absolutly true and unchangeable. As a Christian, I believe God does and has intervened in our world. I also believe the Bible is a historical, reliable account of the creation of the world. And since that is true, it contains information that makes me seriously doubt uniformitarianism. I replace it with the assumption of catastrophism of history – that several high impace, rapid events occurred shaping our planet’s apparent history very quickly rather than gradually.
Yes, we both use starting assumptions to interpret the evidence. It’s not evolutionists have more evidence than creationists, it’s that we interpret the same evidence differently based on a different set of starting assumptions. So, the real question is – whose starting assumptions are more reliable? The majority of scientists believe their assumptions are correct because the constant rates have never been observed to be different. That actually is a pretty logical conclusion. But that doesn’t disqualify the creationist worldview. We believe we have additional information in the revealed word of God – therefore we see our starting assumptions as more reliable than fallible human intellect because it comes straight from God who was there, observed it, and doesn’t lie. And thus, the debate rages on!
This week I had the pleasure of interacting with Mario Anthony Russo of Biologos. Russo is a God-loving Christian who used to be an outspoken young-earth creation apologist and is now with Biologos, the largest theistic evolution promoting organization. We had a debate in 140 characters or less on Twitter.
It was in response to his new article titled “Tales of a recovering Answer Addict: From young-earth apologist to Evolutionary Creationist” (http://biologos.org/blogs/brad-kramer-the-evolving-evangelical/tales-of-a-recovering-answer-addict-from-young-earth-apologist-to-evolutionary-creationist). Here is some more background info on Russo:
The following are screenshots of our Twitter debate. Since it is kinda confusing to go into Twitter and see everything, I tried to reassemble it in chronological order below. Of course Twitter is not the most preferred format for a debate (and hard to screen cap – you will see a couple duplicates, etc), it certainly gets to the point quickly.
I hope you will be able to see how I believe he dodged several direct questions and was not willing to admit that he interprets the Bible through his beliefs about science…
This entire debate can be summed up in this image:
Imagine you wake up, check your bank account – and there’s $1 million in there that you have no idea where it came from! What do you do? I think the reasonable person goes to the bank and finds out what happened. According to atheist logic, you just go about spending it. Let me explain…
The universe is governed by unchanging laws of nature. In an atheistic worldview there is no explanation where these laws came from or how they originated. They just are. The problem is the entirety of science is built on those laws and constants. When we do an experiment we expect it to return the same results each time we do it because constants and laws are the same. I was curious as to how atheists reconcile this seemingly big leap of logic. They love science, but their science depends on these laws/constants that they have no idea where it came from or why its there. They say there’s no evidence for God, and I say they have to be deliberately ignoring it as it stares them in the face everyday. In my metaphor above, it seems like they would rather spend the money and go about their life then realize that the existence of the money suggests someone put it there. It’s like they have constructed a house built on an invisible foundation – and they’re okay with that.
I asked the reddit community “DebateAnAtheist”, and got some rather interesting responses with the overwhelming consensus being “I don’t know”. Here’s what I asked…
“Where do constants such as laws of nature come from? I would think that the atheist answer would have to include some sort of gradual, unintelligent, evolutionary process – but how can a constant or a law evolve? If it did, wouldn’t that suggest that it is theoretically still changing and thus not really a constant? If it didn’t evolve, then where did it come from? There doesn’t seem to be any good explanation from an atheistic perspective – but laws and constants are proven science. I posit that it is more logical to hold to a position that laws and constants were designed to serve a purpose put in place by a creator to govern the universe. You may say the burden of proof is on me to demonstrate the positive claim, but irregardless your entire worldview relies on these laws/constants that you cannot account for. Do you find that problematic?”
Here’s a fun collection of responses I received with my responses bolded…..
“If I say “I don’t know” then does “God did it” automatically win? What evidence is available to support the creationist claim?”
That doesn’t solve YOUR problem. You will never be able to convince me of a naturalistic worldview if you can’t even account for the laws/constants you need to make that worldview work.
“my world view rests on the facts I do have, not the facts I don’t have. What you seem to be ignoring is that you don’t have that foundation either, you’re just pretending you do.”
So you admit that we both use faith to justify our worldviews, right?
“Faith is pretending to know things that you don’t know. Show me where I have professed “faith” in something.”
You have faith that naturalistic atheism will one day be able to answer this question that your entire worldview relies on.
“I’m able to accept that there are things I don’t know without having to make up answers to make me feel better.”
The little thing you don’t know affects your entire worldview and the entirety of science.
“Laws of nature” are descriptive, not prescriptive. There is no indication that they were “put in place” by anyone/anything or that they are “serving a purpose”. The universe is. It is in state A. We study this state and describe it. That is all there is to it.”
Your entire answer can be summed up with where you said “the universe is”. Well, that’s not really an answer. I asked where did the laws come from… you answered – they just are. Not going to convince me that way.
“The “laws” did not come from anywhere. They are a property of this universe. It is like asking “Where does red come from?”. It does not come from anywhere, it is a property of the visible spectrum that we defined as “red”.”
I’m not asking where red came from. I’m asking where the visible spectrum came from. I understand red. I understand constants. Where did they come from? Why do we have them? If you can’t answer that, I’m not buying naturalistic atheism. I would hope no one would!
“And your entire argument is just “God is.”
Are you admitting that your logic is no better than the theists you argue against? Are you admitting that we both use faith?
“I’m saying that I believe the only intellectually honest answer is “I don’t know,” not a baseless assertion – no matter what side of the fence you are on.”
That’s a HUGE I don’t know. You have faith that one day naturalistic science will be able to answer it. I don’t have that much faith.
“actually you have even more faith than that. Because instead of accepting “i dont know”, you have accepted a cosmic jewish zombie as the answer to everything.”
At least I have an answer that can be debated that I’ve built my worldview on. You have no answer and yet you’ve built a worldview on it. I’d say that takes more faith.
“If there weren’t constants, the universe would be dramatically different and not support life, or not exist at all. Why shouldn’t there be natural constants?”
That’s a non-answer. You are basically saying they exist because they’re necessary. Well, we’re just back to square one. I agree they’re necessary – but that doesn’t answer the question.
The only intellectually honest answer to the question of where all these natural laws and constants came from is: We don’t know. The Whys and Hows of Natural Law and Universal Constants are indeed difficult questions to answer, and at this time, rather beyond our ability to explain except through unsupported speculation. However, “Goddidit” doesn’t even warrant status as a Stupid Answer – it’s no answer at all. It just moves the question up a level.
This is a non-answer. It’s basically saying “they just are”. Yet you rely on them, but you can’t account for them. Your entire worldview is predicated on their existence yet you have no clue where they came from. I understand that it just switches the burden of proof back to me which I can’t fully provide… but doesn’t that demonstrate how we are both in the same boat. Our entire worldviews hinge on assumptions we can’t prove. We both require the same amount of faith. Therefore atheism is no more logically correct than theism.
“The “laws of nature” come from US. It’s just humanity describing what they see.”
That’s not really an answer. Yes, we came up with the language to describe what we are seeing but we can’t explain where what we are seeing came from. That’s what I’m asking.
“What atheists will tell you is instead of assuming that the answer is God, let’s just keep working on figuring it out. The answer could end up being God, or it could be some other ultra complex process that we can’t even comprehend. But most atheists feel like they have yet to see any evidence to support God being the answer.”
I find it ironic that “most atheists feel like they have yet to see any evidence to support God” when I am right here right now saying that the existence of these laws/constants IS the evidence.
“I’d prefer to just be honest when asked this question and say “No I don’t know where they came from, do you?” and hope one day someone has the right answer to tell me.”
I appreciate your faith.
“The constants are what they are, because if they weren’t we would not be there to observe the values of these constants.”
This is not an answer. This is a circular argument.
“ I can account for laws/constants. They have to be some number or another, and the values that we measure for them are simply the values that they happen to be.”
And do you believe that number magically set itself up that way so that it works fine tuned with all the other magically/randomly set up the same way? Sounds like each law/constant had intelligence about the others. Whew!!
The bottom line is that the entire atheistic worldview is built on the existence of laws and constants that atheists themselves admit they can’t explain where they came from… and then they don’t see why that’s a problem!? In a Christian worldview, God created the laws of nature to set the universe in order to serve a purpose to sustain life. Any worldview relies on faith, some worldviews are just more complete than others. The point of this whole exercise is to encourage Christians to not feel intimidated by the modern atheist movement to shove their devotion to science down our throats. Don’t fret – they can’t even give an account where the fundamentals necessary to do science comes from. Their entire argument is circular.
To read all the over 300 responses you can read the thread yourself here:
Be sure to hit the + buttons to unfold all the conversations to read all my replies as they are always downvoted to oblivion.
The following news report popped up in my neck of the woods (Northern Indiana):
Federal lawsuit filed for Concord Community Schools’ use of nativity scene
“The ACLU is filing a federal lawsuit against the Concord Community Schools for their use of the nativity scene in their annual Christmas concert.
The federal court documents say the nativity scene violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to their nominal damages.”
There seems to be a recurring theme over what can and can’t be said/done in a government-funded public school setting. This is mainly because the separation of church and state concept has grossly been overapplied and misinterpreted. This school’s display of a nativity scene during their holiday celebration is in no way evangelistic. In other words, it is not put there to proselytize anyone. It is put there duing a Christmas celebration because it is historically significant to the event. Whether Christ’s birth is literal or not, whether it was divine or not, and how it applies to our eternal souls – is NOT the point of this display. Even the debate over the historocity of the nativity as an actual event isn’t the point. Whether it happened or not, the nativity is not culturally and historically significant and worthy of inclusion in a holiday celebration. If you think about it from a secular position, it is no different than kids singing about Santa Claus. Whether Santa is real or not doesn’t matter, it’s the fact that Santa is an important tradition in regards to Christmas in the same sense that the nativity is.
There really doesn’t seem like there should even be a debate about this. This is no different than the display of a painting of Benjamin Franklin in the school’s hall. Benjamin Franklin is a historically significant individual, the nativity is a historically significant event. We cannot erase history to protect our feelings. Just because the nativity offends some people doesn’t mean we should cater to their insecurities. Should we also remove all mentions of the holocaust as that would offend some Jews in our history classes? Of course not.
What this boils down to is a non-Christian choosing to attend an optional program where they know a Christian holiday will be celebrated, and then being offended when exactly that happens.
The beautiful thing about our country is that we are a melting pot. Many different kinds of people all living together. That means from time to time you are going to hear something that disagrees with you… and that is ok. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite movies of all time: The American President. Michael Douglas’s democratic President Andrew Shepherd utters this unforgettable truth:
Dr. Cornelius G. Hunter (Ph.D. in biophysics & computational biology) recently published an exhaustive list of 22 failed predictions of Darwinian evolution on his site: https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/. The site is full of valuable information (including all his sources) but may be overwhelming for the science novice.
Below I have included the top quotes from each page to get you an overall idea of the 22 failed predictions. I also include my own creation-based commentary with each topic.
After the predictions, I also highlight several of Dr. Hunter’s responses to common objections and some facinating quotes from a recent publication on bias in science.
PREDICTION 1: The DNA code is not unique
The DNA code arose early in evolutionary history and remained essentially unchanged thereafter. And since it arose so early in evolutionary history, in the first primitive cell, the code must not be unique or special. For how could such a code have evolved so early in the history of life?
FALSIFICATION: We now know that the code’s arrangement uniquely reduces the effects of mutations and reading errors. The code does not optimize merely one function, but rather optimizes “a combination of several different functions simultaneously.”
CREATION COMMENTARY: If there is no evidence of a gradually evolving simple-to-complex DNA code, then the most likely conclusion is that the code was created specially and completely intact and operational. This conclusion is in line with the observed evidence.
PREDICTION 2: The cell’s fundamental molecules are universal
One intriguing example is DNA replication which copies both strands of the DNA molecule, but in different directions. Evolution predicts these fundamental processes to be common to all life.
FALSIFICATION: Key DNA replication proteins surprisingly “show very little or no sequence similarity between bacteria and archaea/eukaryotes.” Also different DNA replication processes have been discovered.
CREATION COMMENTARY: If DNA replication processes do not share the same patterns across all organisms, then this is evidence against common ancestry – and exactly what we would expect to find if God designed each kind of creature uniquely.
PREDICTION 3: Mutations are not adaptive
Mutations were believed to be random with respect to the needs of the individual.
FALSIFICATION: When a population of bacteria is subjected to harsh conditions it tends to increase its mutation rate. Experiments typically alter the bacteria food supply or apply some other environmental stress causing mutations that target the specific environmental stress.
CREATION COMMENTARY: The observed process of natural selection is 100% in agreement with young-earth creation and exactly what we would expect to find in a world designed by a good God.
PREDICTION 4: Competition is greatest between neighbors
The principle of divergence, the last major theoretical addition before Darwin published his book, held that competition tends to be strongest between the more closely related organisms. This would cause a splitting and divergence, resulting in the traditional evolutionary tree pattern.
FALSIFICATION: In a major study of competition between freshwater green algae species, the level of competition between pairs of species was found to be uncorrelated with the evolutionary distance between the pair of species.
CREATION COMMENTARY: If closely related species are not competing for survival what does that say about the fundamental idea of survival of the fittest? Creationism would not expect to find any competition. This finding better matches creation than evolution.
PREDICTION 5: Protein evolution
Evolution predicts that proteins evolved when life first appeared, or not long after.
FALSIFICATION: Four different studies, done by different groups and using different methods, all report that roughly 1070 evolutionary experiments would be needed to get close enough to a workable protein before natural selection could take over to refine the protein design. This conservative estimate of 1070 attempts required to evolve a simple protein is astronomically larger than the number of attempts that are feasible. Explanations of how evolution could achieve a large number of searches, or somehow obviate this requirement, require the preexistence of proteins and so are circular.
CREATION COMMENTARY: Evolutionists do not care if the number is astronomical, they will respond with “so you’re telling me there’s a chance”. The actual observed data is truly unbelieveable and circular, the only reason they believe it is because it is necessary to cling to their theory.
PREDICTION 6: Histone proteins cannot tolerate much change
Histones are proteins which serve as the hubs about which DNA is wrapped. They must have evolved early in evolutionary history. Virtually all amino acid changes are harmful in histone.
FALSIFICATION: It is remarkable how many residues in these highly conserved proteins can be mutated and retain basic nucleosomal function. even more surprising, many mutations actually raised the fitness level.
CREATION COMMENTARY: This is an example of a simple prediction shown incorrect when data was actually collected. What do you call a theory that repeatedble has failed predictions?
PREDICTION 7: The molecular clock keeps evolutionary time
In the 1960s molecular biologists learned how to analyze protein molecules and determine the sequence of amino acids that comprise a protein. If such sequence differences were the result of evolutionary change occurring over the history of life, then they could be used to estimate past speciation events.
FALSIFICATION: It was found that the evolutionary rate of certain proteins must vary significantly over time, between different species, and between different lineages. The false assumption of a molecular clock when reconstructing molecular phylogenies can result in incorrect topology and biased date estimation.
CREATION COMMENTARY: This is an example of the assumption of uniformitarianism failing. We assume that something works at a constant rate and then either predict future or past events. In this example the data showed there was much more to the equation then previously expected. This falsification is a common, key misunderstanding still promoted as true in amateur evolution thinking.
PREDICTION 8: The pentadactyl pattern and common descent
The pentadactyl structure—five digits (four fingers and a thumb for humans) at the end of the limb structure—is one of the most celebrated proof texts for evolution. Such a suboptimal design must be an artefact of common descent—a suboptimal design that was handed down from a common ancestor rather than specifically designed for each species.
FALSIFICATION: The digit structure in the tetrapods does not conform to the common descent pattern. Appendages have various digit structures and they are distributed across the species in various ways. This means that evolutionists cannot model the observed structures and pattern of distribution merely as a consequence of common descent. Instead, a complicated evolutionary history is required where the pentadactyl structure re-evolves in different lineages, and appendages evolve, are lost, and then evolve again.
CREATION COMMENTARY: Note here that the evolutionists find evidence against the five-digit structure evolving gradually across the lineage and instead of questioning the lineage – they decide to come up with a rescuing hypothesis that these creatures “must have” developed it, then lost it, and redeveloped it over and over again across time. This makes the theory more and more complex and less explanatory…and more and more useless. Perhaps the more likely explanation is that a creator intended for some creatures to have 5 digits and for other creatures to have different setups.
PREDICTION 9: Serlogical tests reveal evolutionary relationships
Early in the twentieth century scientists studied blood immunity and how immune reaction could be used to compare species.
FALSIFICATION: Indeed these polysaccharides, or glycans, did not fulfill evolutionary expectations. As one paper explained, glycans show “remarkably discontinuous distribution across evolutionary lineages,” for they “occur in a discontinuous and puzzling distribution across evolutionary lineages.”
CREATION COMMENTARY: Another example of a failed prediction of common descent. If we really evolved from creatures with a blood immunity, why would we lose that – then gain it, then lose it again over and over. This again makes the theory more and more confusing and less explanatory. But it makes perfect sense if different creatures were created independtly from each other and has different blood functions for different reasons.
PREDICTION 10: Biology is not lineage specific
Evolution expects the species to fall into a common descent pattern. Therefore a particular lineage should not have highly differentiated, unique and complex designs, when compared to neighboring species.
FALSIFICATION: Flowers have four basic parts: sepals, petals, stamens and carpels, the daffodil’s trumpet is fundamentally different and must be an evolutionary “novelty.” Out of the thousands of cockroach species in South Africa is the only one that leaps. An important immune system component, which is highly conserved across the vertebrates, is mysteriously absent in the Atlantic cod. Why such hotspots for the evolution of novel solutions to problems should exist in the tree of life is not entirely clear.
CREATION COMMENTARY: If common descent is true, then differing species of the same lineage should share extremely similar structures – yet we keep finding evidence that goes against this expectation.
PREDICTION 11: Similar species share similar genes
Similar species have a relatively recent common ancestor and have had limited time to diverge from each other. This means that their genes should be similar. Entirely new genes, for instance, would not have enough time to evolve.
FALSIFICATION: As much as a third of the genes in a given species may be unique, and even different variants within the same species have large numbers of genes unique to each variant.
CREATION COMMENTARY: If a creature that is supposed to be closely related to another species has a wildly different biological structure, then we must abandon the idea that it is related. This is a nail in the coffin of evolution seeing that up to 1/3 of genes are unique. Genes take too long to evolve to be that different in close “relatives”. As we do more and more actual observation, we find all evidence aligns with a creation viewpoint.
PREDICTION 12: MicroRNA
Genes hold information that is used to construct protein and RNA molecules which do various tasks in the cell. Two basic predictions that evolutionary theory makes regarding microRNAs are that (i) like all of biology, they arose gradually via randomly occurring biological variation (such as mutations) and (ii) as a consequence of this evolutionary origin, microRNAs should approximately form evolution’s common descent pattern.
FALSIFICATION: MicroRNAs are unlikely to have gradually evolved via random mutations, for too many mutations are required. Without the prior existence of genes and the protein synthesis process microRNAs would be useless. And without the prior existence of their regulatory processes, microRNAs would wreak havoc. The microRNA genetic sequences do not fall into the expected common descent pattern. That is, when compared across different species, microRNAs do not align with the evolutionary tree. As one scientist explained, “I’ve looked at thousands of microRNA genes and I can’t find a single example that would support the traditional [evolutionary] tree.”
CREATION COMMENTARY: In other words scientists assuming the truth of evolution declared what microRNA would show when studied and everything they find out about mRNA keeps contradicting their predetermined pattern. If mDNA cannot be accounted for evolving through the known process, how did it get here?
PREDICTION 13: Genomic features are not sporadically distributed
Vertical transmission of heritable material means that genes, and genomes in general, should fall into a common descent pattern, consistent with the evolutionary tree.
FALSIFICATION: It is now well recognized that this prediction has failed: “Vertical transmission of heritable material, a cornerstone of the Darwinian theory of evolution, is inadequate to describe the evolution of eukaryotes. One example is the uncanny similarity between the kangaroo and human genomes. As one evolutionist explained: “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order. We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not.” The result is that any pattern can be explained by arranging the right mechanisms. Features that are shared between similar species can be interpreted as “the result of a common evolutionary history,” and features that are not can be interpreted as “the result of common evolutionary forces.”
CREATION COMMENTARY: As deep level research of the genome is progressing we are learning a vast amount of information about genetics that is just simply incompatable with the traditional concept of evolution. We are finding a lot more uniqueness and less similarities. The problem is that the evolutionists who pushed similarities as evidence for evolution are now pushing the differences as evidence. What do you call a theory that can explain everything?? A theory that can explain nothing.
PREDICTION 14: Gene and host phylogenies are congruent
Evolution predicts that genetic change drives evolutionary change. Genetic changes that confer improved fitness are more likely to be selected and passed on. All of this means that evolutionary trees based on comparisons of genes should be similar, or congruent, with evolutionary trees based on comparisons of the entire species. Simply put, gene trees and species trees should be congruent.
FALSIFICATION: The molecular and the visible (morphological) features often indicate “strikingly different” evolutionary trees that cannot be explained as due to different methods being used. Instead of a single evolutionary tree emerging from the data, there is a wealth of competing evolutionary trees.
CREATION COMMENTARY: Morphology gives us one tree. The fossil record gives us another. DNA give us another. rDNA give us another. This is a very big emerging problem. Evolutionists are now calling the “bush of life” instead of the tree of life. Creationists have been calling it this for decades. Glad the evidence is catching up to our prediction.
PREDICTION 15: Gene phylogenies are congruent
The theory of evolution predicts that similar phylogenetic trees should be obtained from different sets of character data.
FALSIFICATION: As more genetic data became available, it was clear that different genes led to very different evolutionary trees. As one study explained, the sequences of genes, “often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree.”
CREATION COMMENTARY: Those who support evolution will normally pick the evidence that they like to support their supposed tree of life while ignoring competing data from different data sets. Is this confirmation bias? If we really did all evolve through common ancestry, all lines of data should match. They do not. That is a fact.
PREDICTION 16: The species should form an evolutionary tree
Evolution predicted that this universal tree can be derived by arranging the species according to their similarities and differences.
FALSIFICATION: With the ever increasing volumes of data, incongruence between trees “has become pervasive.” These incongruities are not minor statistical variations and the general failure to converge on a single topology has some researchers calling for a relaxation from “tree-thinking.”
CREATION COMMENTARY: As stated several times now, “tree-thinking” is throughourly debunked. Science cannot show us a convienient tree of life back to a single common ancestor. I’ll leave that conclusion up to you.
PREDICTION 17: Complex structures evolved from simpler structures
Given natural selection operating on inheritable variations, some of which are useful, then, if a sequence of numerous small changes from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, and if the eye is somehow useful at each step, then the difficulty is resolved.
FALSIFICATION: Ever since Darwin the list of complex structures in biology, for which no “series of gradations in complexity” can be found, has continued to grow longer. Analyses of genomes and of their transcribed genes in various organisms reveal that, as far as protein-coding genes are concerned, the repertoire of a sea anemone—a rather simple, evolutionarily basal animal—is almost as complex as that of a human. One team of evolutionists concluded, “comparative genomics has confirmed a lesson from paleontology: Evolution does not proceed monotonically from the simpler to the more complex.
CREATION COMMENTARY: The more lab work we do in the area of genetics, the more we learn how complex it is. Darwin had no clue about the complexity at the cellular level, and it is not getting more understood – the more we study, the more complex it is getting. Everyday, the probability that life evolved apart from a creator is becoming more and more unbelievable and indefensible. Beleiving in creation is the only rational option.
PREDICTION 18: Structures do not evolve before there is a need for them
A fundamental premise of evolutionary theory is that evolution has no foresight. It is a blind process responding to current, not future, needs.
FALSIFICATION: The vision system is just one of several examples showing that the genetic components of many of today’s embryonic development pathways must have been present long before such pathways existed. Evolutionists now refer to the appearance of these genetic components, before they were used as such, as preadaptation. As one evolutionist explained, “You look at cellular machines and say, why on earth would biology do anything like this? It’s too bizarre. But when you think about it in a neutral evolutionary fashion, in which these machineries emerge before there’s a need for them, then it makes sense.”
CREATION COMMENTARY: If organisms develop features they do not currently need, but for future functionality, how could this have evolved through an unguided process? Natural selection is an amazing process that can analyze the current needs of a creature, but it cannot predict the future. These evidences are amazing confirmations of a design process. It’s like if a car manufacturer put a wheel on a car before a steering wheel. That would make sense from a design perspective, but wouldn’t make sense in an unguided viewpoint.
PREDICTION 19: Functionally unconstrained DNA is not conserved
As different species evolve, their DNA segments are preserved only if they contribute to the organism’s fitness. DNA segments that are not functionally constrained should mutate and diverge over time.
FALSIFICATION: This prediction has been falsified in the many examples of functionally-unconstrained, highly similar stretches of DNA that have been discovered in otherwise distant species. For instance, thousands of so-called ultra-conserved elements (UCEs), hundreds of base pairs in length, have been found across a range of species including human, mouse, rat, dog, chicken and fish.
CREATION COMMENTARY: Our creator knew what he was doing while designing us with parts of our coding to adapt to new environments. I am sure we don’t understand the half of it.
PREDICTION 20: Nature does not make leaps
Evolution is a process. It occurs gradually via variations within populations.
FALSIFICATION: The first problem, that species appeared abruptly in the strata, could be explained as a spotty fossil record, though incredible stretches of evolutionary progress would have to have gone missing. Since Darwin, rapid change has been directly observed in species ranging from bacteria and yeast to plants and animals. Consider the house finches. The beaks of these birds adapted to their new environments with great speed. Within a decade or so their beaks had adjusted to the new habitats. Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia responded rapidly, developing new head morphology and digestive tract structure. Such examples of adaptation are not new, and one evolutionist concluded that “evolution can occur much more rapidly than we previously thought. Rapid evolution is pervasive, and the list of examples is growing.”
CREATION COMMENTARY: Evolutionists call this punctuated equilibrium, but it makes no sense. We know of no process that can create new proteins, genes, or DNA functions out of thin air. Gradualism is at least logically coherent. They claim punctuated because they have no other option. Where there is no evidence of gradualism, they are stuck – they have to claim punctuated. But punctuated is exactly what we would expect to find in the creation theory.
PREDICTION 21: Altruism
Natural selection could not result in destructive behavior. After all, evolution is driven by reproductive differentials and “every single organic being may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers.”
FALSIFICATION: Today we know of many examples of unambiguous altruism which are destructive to reproductive chances. Indeed, a plethora of designs are “more injurious than beneficial”. There are also many examples of altruism including giving blood and donating organs, giving to charities, helping the needy, and heroic wartime acts such as smothering a grenade or rescuing prisoners. Such acts of love and kindness falsify the evolutionary expectation that organisms should be oriented toward high levels of reproductive success.
CREATION COMMENTARY: The Nazi regime was the most accurate use of the concept of survival of the fittest in a real life scenario. Extermination is the natural result of truly believing in evolution. Altruism is the exact opposite. I always find it funny when people say you don’t want your doctor being a creationist, because evolution is the most important factor in biology. Yet, I don’t want my doctor subscribing to surivial of the fittest. Taking care of our sick and dying is a Christian principle.
PREDICTION 22: Cell death
According to evolutionary theory, biological variation that supports or enhances reproduction will increase in future generations—a process known as natural selection. The corollary to this is that biological variation that degrades reproduction will not be selected for.
FALSIFICATION: When the rattlesnake rattles its tail, is this not injurious to its hunt for food, and ultimately to its reproductive chances? In bacteria, for example, phenomenally complicated mechanisms carefully and precisely destroy the individual. Clearly, this suicide mechanism is more injurious than beneficial to the bacteria’s future prospects.
CREATION COMMENTARY: This follows the survival of the fittest concept. If you think about it, our cells die off and have to regenerate all the time. Eventually they stop regenerating as quickly, and this becomes problematic. So, why did this destructive pattern get selected for? Now if, according to the creation worldview, everything is running down hill and degrading over time – then cell death fits perfectly. It is very exciting viewing the evidence through a creationist viewpoint.
HERE ARE SOME OF DR. HUNTER’S RESPONSES TO COMMON OBJECTIONS:
(see his website for much more)
These falsifications will be remedied in the future
As scientists, we need to evaluate scientific theories according to the currently available data. No one knows what future data may bring, and the claim that future data will rescue evolution is ultimately circular.
There is no better alternative
One way to evaluate a theory is to compare it to alternative explanations. This approach has the advantage of circumventing the difficulties in evaluating scientific theories. But of course any such comparison will crucially depend on what alternative explanations are used in the comparison. If care is not taken good alternatives can be misrepresented or even omitted altogether. And of course there may be alternatives not yet conceived. (van Fraassen; Stanford) In any case, the success or failure of evolution’s predictions depends on the science, not on any alternative explanations.
No one believes these predictions anymore
Yes, this is the point. It is true that evolutionists have, for the most part, dropped many predictions that were once made by evolutionists or entailed by the theory. We can learn from this failed track record as it has implications for evolution’s complexity and explanatory power.
What about all the successful predictions?
Evolutionists argue that evolution is a fact, and that we ought to focus on evolution’s successful predictions rather than its false predictions. The tendency to seek confirming evidence over contrary evidence is known as confirmation bias. (Klayman, Ha) One consequence of confirmation bias can be that confirming evidence is viewed as correct and typical whereas disconfirming evidence is viewed as anomalous and rare. Not surprisingly the confirming evidence is more often retained and documented. Rarely are the many false predictions found in evolution texts. Confirmation bias can hinder scientific research as evolutionists tend to view the predictions of evolution as overwhelmingly true. False predictions, on the other hand, are usually not viewed as legitimate falsifications but rather as open research questions which are yet to be resolved. Indeed, evolutionists often make the remarkable claim that there is no evidence that is contrary to evolution.
In conclusion I have included some incredible comments from a recent publication called “Science isn’t broken: It’s just a hell of a lot harder than we give it credit for.” The article is by Christie Aschwanden published at FiveThirtyEight. See the full article here: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/. The overall point of the article is that the scientific method does work, but too often that method is interfered with from our own personal biases or a weak review process. This is something creationists have been proclaiming for years. At least someone else is picking up on this! This is good information for armchair evolutionists who put their blind faith in science.
“An investigation in November uncovered a scam in which researchers were rubber-stamping their own work, circumventing peer review at five high-profile publishers.”
“Welcome to the wild world of p-hacking. If you tweaked the variables until you proved that Democrats are good for the economy, congrats; go vote for Hillary Clinton with a sense of purpose. But don’t go bragging about that to your friends. You could have proved the same for Republicans. The data … can be narrowed and expanded (p-hacked) to make either hypothesis appear correct. The p-value reveals almost nothing about the strength of the evidence, yet a p-value of 0.05 has become the ticket to get into many journals.”
“Scientists who fiddle around like this — just about all of them do, aren’t usually committing fraud, nor are they intending to. They’re just falling prey to natural human biases that lead them to tip the scales and set up studies to produce false-positive results. You really believe your hypothesis and you get the data and there’s ambiguity about how to analyze it. When the first analysis you try doesn’t spit out the result you want, you keep trying until you find one that does. ”
“Peer review is supposed to protect against shoddy science, but in November, Oransky, Marcus and Cat Ferguson, then a staff writer at Retraction Watch, uncovered a ring of fraudulent peer reviewing in which some authors exploited flaws in publishers’ computer systems so they could review their own papers (and those of close colleagues).”
“The scientific method is the most rigorous path to knowledge, but it’s also messy and tough. Science deserves respect exactly because it is difficult — not because it gets everything correct on the first try. The uncertainty inherent in science doesn’t mean that we can’t use it to make important policies or decisions. It just means that we should remain cautious and adopt a mindset that’s open to changing course if new data arises.”
The fact of the matter is when evolutionists say things like evolution has “mountains of evidence” and “the majority of scientists agree”… those lines have little to no bearing on the debate when the things we’ve recited above are known. Evolutionists would rather censor and not acknowledge these issues, but that just confirms the belief that their science is confirmation bias. What do we do with this information? Well, as a Christian, the answer is clear: continue to put our faith in an unchanging source of absolute truth (God’s word) and never compromise it with the uncertain conclusions of man.
On May 17th, 2015 I presented my talk on Dinosaurs and the Bible at my church. A couple weeks later I was notified of another church in town doing a presentation called “Faith in a Jurassic World”. I decided to check it out since I am automatically skeptical. Turns out my concerns were valid. They were teaching the predominant view of deep time and evolution to fit in with the Bible. I decided to engage them on their Facebook page. Normally I wouldn’t expect much of a return comment, but the pastor decided to take me on! This went on for a couple days. He hasn’t replied to my last comment in the last week so I believe the exchange is over. I publish it here for your reading pleasure and to equip you on how to defend our position. I have blanked out the church’s information out of respect. Let me know your thoughts below…