Monday, September 17, 2012

Creation Debate: Part 1- Evolution Is Not Science

This is a slightly altered version of an online debate I had a few years back on Google Buzz.  The person I was debating with with was the son of an evolutionary professor of science and religion at a "Christian" college.  What he wrote is in italics, and my answer is in regular font, except where I used italics or bold for emphasis.  I have left this almost unaltered from when it was originally posted on Google Buzz.  The few places which have been altered are underlined.

Creation Debate:  Evolution Is Not Science

Z:  I think I'll reply to that...
First of all... I'm not saying that I don't believe the Bible. I think it is the truth and the holy Bible. However, I think that some parts of it aren't meant to be taken literally. As in the creation account. You are correct in that if I don't believe that there was a real Adam, or a real Eve, then I can't really believe that there was a real Cain*. However, I'm not saying I don't believe the creation account in the Bible. I'm just saying that it wasn't meant to be taken literally, like other parts of the Bible. I see that if we combine science and the creation account in the Bible, we come up with something that doesn't go against the Bible.



I’ll begin with the definition of science.
Science: (this is taken from an Apologia textbook): An endeavor dedicated to the accumulation and classification of observable facts in order to formulate general laws about the natural world.


No one has ever observed evolution. Many men have attempted to simulate evolution in labs. It has never worked. (If you don’t believe me then look at the fruit fly experiments.) The idea behind evolution is that man doesn’t want to be accountable to God. If God made all things the way He told us, then He is the Lord of all creation, including man. Therefore, since their theory isn’t based on facts, evolutionary “scientists” have had to engineer, or twist a good deal of “evidence” for their idea. I’m sure that you know the scientific method. For the sake of those who may not though, I’ll explain it.

The Scientific Method is what scientists use to make theories and laws of science. Here’s how it works.
First you observe facts. (In this case the fact observed is that things exist, and anything which exists must have a beginning (except God, who is super-natural). Then you form a hypothesis (possible explanation) based on the facts, to explain them. (In this case the hypothesis is that over billions of years matter appeared, exploded, grouped into planets and solar systems, formed a kind of primeval soup on what is now Earth, and life somehow evolved in it. There was no evidence to suggest this hypothesis.) You then collect more data to test your hypothesis, and if the hypothesis agrees with all of it, it can now become a theory. If the data does not agree with the hypothesis, then the hypothesis must be discarded or modified. (In the case of evolution, the data does not agree, yet they tried to change the facts- not the hypothesis. It went on to become a theory without really passing this stage.) You then collect more data and perform experiments (if possible) to test your theory. If after multiple generations of information it still agrees with the theory, it may be able to progress to become a law of science. However, if at any point there is anything that disagrees with the theory or hypothesis, the theory or hypothesis will need to be modified or discarded. Also, if the theory or hypothesis contradicts a law of science, unless the law is proven wrong, then the theory or hypothesis will need to be modified or discarded.
Evolution contradicts several laws of science, and is not based on facts. The finches changing beaks, which gave Darwin the idea for evolution, are not macro- evolution. The finches are still finches. If anyone had observed them becoming- say... mice- it would be different. That would be macro- evolution. However, this has never been observed. The finches change, but they are still finches. The theory of Evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says that all things degenerate or wear down, or become less complex, by losing information over time unless an
outside source of organized energy is applied to hold back or temporarily reverse the law. (For example- plastic milk bottles get broken, crushed or cracked, so that they are no longer useful, but they can be melted down and made into new milk bottles, or something else.) This “organized energy” doesn’t include the sun or radiation from space. True, it’s energy, but it isn’t organized to help things become better or more complex on the earth. The disorganized energy doesn’t help the earth reverse the law any more than shaking a jar of differently-shaped buttons would sort them into different stacks, based on their shape. You would be expending energy on the jar of buttons, but it wouldn't be organized (useful) energy, and so would actually make the buttons less orderly, instead of more orderly. So this law makes it impossible for things to evolve, because that would be becoming more complex, not less complex, like the law says. Evolution also contradicts another law- the Law of Biogenesis. This law says that life can only come from life. Nothing can become a living organism if it doesn’t come from another living organism. This is obviously contradicted by the Theory of Evolution, which says that life generated itself in a primeval soup of gases in the early Earth’s sea or atmosphere. And when a theory and a law contradict each other, and the law isn’t proved to be wrong, then the theory must be discarded or changed. So, if the people who came up with evolution didn’t follow the scientific method, then their theory isn’t science. And science doesn’t say that the super-natural is unscientific. Therefore, it is evolution not creation which is unscientific.

*  This was in response to my response to his question "where did Cain get his wife?"  He asked this shortly after stating that he did not believe that there was a real Adam and Eve.

2 comments:

  1. This post will be required reading for my "students" and I applaud your efforts to seamlessly blend the argumentative and persuasive essay!

    Keep writing!

    {{* *}}

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Mrs. Lynn! I'm glad that you are enjoying this... Thank you for the encouragement!
    Alayna May

    ReplyDelete