By way of introduction I’m going to post the story of my journey from evangelical Christian to scientifically minded atheist. It’s a bit long, and a bit dramatic, but it represents the beginning of my love of critical thinking.
I was born into a very religious Christian family. My maternal grandfather was a former Baptist pastor and leading elder of his church, which he also founded. He and my grandmother had been heavily involved in Campus Crusade, especially during the 1960s. My aunt worked for Campus Crusade the majority of her life, and after that taught Bible studies. When my grandfather would meet a new person, the first question he would ask them is, “Have you accepted Jesus into your heart as your personal savior?” My first memory of anything religious is of him asking me that very question.
I don’t know how old I was when it started, but I can remember being no older than 5 and being dogged by that question every time I was in his presence. I remember being perplexed by the question. I didn’t really know who Jesus was, or what it meant to ask him into my heart, but I knew it was something I had to do. I was told that prayer would make it happen, but I had no concept of what prayer was either. I remember laying in bed, again no older than 5, and in a quiet whisper asking Jesus to come into my heart. I was plagued by the fear that I hadn’t asked loud enough, that Jesus hadn’t heard my request. I ask him several times over to come into my heart, with increasing loudness. To finally make sure Jesus could hear, I went into my parent’s large walk-in closet, crawled underneath some hanging clothes, and shouted, “JESUS! Come into my heart!” Surely that did it, I thought.
From the age of seven on I was sent to a large nondenominational Christian school. We went to Chapel once a week where several grades met together to sing praise and worship songs and have a mini-sermon. We memorized Bible verses along with our list of spelling words. A portion of every part of the day was set aside for the subject Bible, just like the subject Math. We even had a Bible workbook and regular homework assignments. All of our textbooks had Christian themes and were from Christian publishers: Science, History, even English. In 6th grade for literature we were assigned Joni, the autobiography of Joni Eareckson-Tada, a quadriplegic who turned her tragedy into a way to tell others about the love of God. That same year I was punished for bringing a book about the history of philosophy, which my paternal grandmother had given me, because it contained chapters on unchristian thought, like Nietzsche. I pointed out to the teacher who confiscated my book that it also had a chapter about Jesus, but that didn’t matter. They did everything they could to keep us locked up in a very tight Christian bubble, with every aspect of our lives completely saturated with Christianity.
During my elementary years I proudly identified myself as a Christian, but I hadn’t given much thought as to what that actually meant. By the time I reached junior high I had rededicated my life to God with teary-eyed passion. I started taking my faith much more seriously. I began doing daily “devotionals”—reading a passage from the Bible or a page from a devotional book that contained a verse and words of instruction or inspiration. I prayed for at least 15 minutes before going to sleep every night, and attempted to “pray without ceasing” during the day, which resulted in my inner dialog switching from a conversation with myself to a conversation with God, a habit that became so engrained in my psyche that it still rears it’s head from time to time.
As I entered high school, still at the same Christian school, I was a Christian novel reading, W.W.J.D. bracelet wearing, mega-church attending teen; my life was still consumed and defined by my faith. At school they kicked our Bible instruction up a few notches in order to prepare us for the mission field, the ministry, and the dreaded “real world” outside of that bubble they had so meticulously built. Bible was often my favorite subject, and one I always earned high marks in. I was excited to learn apologetics and how to interpret scripture on my own. Along with being taught how to defend our faith, we were also taught morality, or rather, how we should think. We were taught about the evils of abortion and shown a video of hacked up fetuses, piles of baby hands and feet, and crushed skulls that made every single one of us cry—even the football players. We were shown a skit about how God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, and read the passages in Romans about the evils of homosexuality. And that is where they started to loose me. Because of my Christian bubble I had never met an atheist, a girl who had gotten an abortion, a Muslim, or a democrat, so I could comfortably consider those people immoral and hell-bound, but accidentally a homosexual had slipped through the cracks. His name is Rufus Wainwright and he’s an openly gay musician and songwriter who I had fallen in love with. It was all well and good to say that the abortion girl was evil, but Rufus? My Rufus? Evil? No. He couldn’t be. He was too nice, too kind, too caring, and too talented to be condemned for a lifestyle choice that he felt he had no control over. The Rufus Problem caused me great psychological stress. I remember pouring it over night and day. Finally I came to my mom and ask, “With gay people, wouldn’t it be best to ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’?” She agreed that would be best, but admitted that a lot of Christians had problems with that policy, and that it would be harmful for society if the gay lifestyle was accepted. “Just look at Rome,” she said. “Homosexuality was accepted there, and they fell into ruin.” So even my mother, the most loving, caring, wonderful Christian—no, the most loving, caring, wonderful person I knew—thought that homosexuality was a pox on civilization, an unnatural abomination.
Around the time that The Rufus Problem cropped up, I had a very strange change of heart. I slowly lost interested in my devotionals and cut back on my long daily prayers, opting many nights to just go to sleep instead. While I felt immensely guilty about it, I couldn’t help but notice that my life was unchanged. I didn’t suddenly start failing tests, or being mean to my friends, or having evil thoughts. I decided to try to stop my constant dialoging with God as an experiment. I was sure my life would fall apart, that even simple tasks would be emotionally difficult if I wasn’t constantly chatting with my best friend Jesus, but much to my surprise I found that I was able to get through day just as easily. Despite this, I remained a proud and vocal Christian. I wasn’t about to let go of the most important thing in my life just because I had stopped praying as much as I used to. I had so many other reasons to believe. Or so I thought.
I continued on for another year, still a Christian, but not quite as passionate as I had once been. I began to find religious conversations tedious and annoying, which was shocking and another source of guilt. I remember distinctly a road trip with my mother where she was talking about religion nonstop. She always talked about religion, so this was nothing new, but I found it absolutely insufferable. I can’t say what it was exactly—maybe it was the hypocrisy of her words that I was starting to discover, maybe it was the fact that it was all beginning to sound too much like a ridiculous glorified fairy tale, but I couldn’t take it any longer. I asked her suddenly, “Mom, can we please talk about something other than religion. Anything other than religion.” My outburst resulted in a mini-inquisition, where I admitted that I was feeling like I didn’t have very much faith anymore. She told me that it was normal, that all Christians went through times of high faith and low, and that I should just continue to pray and rely on God and it would all resolve itself. I was satisfied enough with her answer that I didn’t delve any further into my true feelings. I prayed that God would help me find my great faith again and trusted that within a few weeks I would be back to my old happy Christian self, but I never did reclaim that teary-eyed passion. Despite all of this, I never once even considered leaving the faith. I was still a Christian, just a bad one.
The next year was my senior year of high school, where we got to finally learn under the most revered Bible teacher at our entire school. I had heard stories of changed lives from other students, and I had high hopes that Mr. L’s class would help me through my little faith problem. He was supposed to be extraordinarily smart, the greatest mentor, and the most learned Christian. His entire class was devoted to high-level apologetics. We were presented with arguments against our faith that we were likely to encounter in the “real world,” and then walked through step-by-step instructions to debunk the claims. A large chunk of the class was devoted to debunking evolution. We were told that they would teach us all about evolution so that we could understand it as well as our moral opponents, but in reality all they told us was lies. They asserted that no transitional fossils had been found and that none exited, that there was no way to reliably date the earth and the universe, that the theory was full of more gaps than answers, and that it should be disregarded because Darwin himself recanted the theory on his deathbed shortly after his Christian conversion. We mocked the silly idea of life coming from “primordial soup” and were even given that old line, “If we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys around today?”
We were taught that the Bible is a scientific authority, not Darwin, and given a handful of verses that illustrated that point. The one that sticks out most in my mind is Hebrews 11:3. We were given the following passage, “what is seen was not made out of things which are visible,” as proof that the Bible predicted atoms. I found this very interesting and decided to look into it further. We had already been taught how important context is to Biblical interpretation, so my first step was to dig deeper into the surrounding verses to build up the context. That phrase from Hebrews 11 comes that the beginning of a chapter about faith, and by reading the entire third verse and those that come before it, it was clear that the author was not talking about atoms at all when he wrote, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval. By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” Looking at that entire passage, the first three verses and not that one little phrase, it became clear to me that the author was saying that “what is seen” is made from the words of God, which are invisible, as God is invisible according to the first sentence. To say that he was talking about atoms was such a stretch that I found it to be deliberately dishonest. Mr. L hadn’t presented us with the context of the verse in order to dupe us into thinking that this was a scientifically accurate passage. He was supposed to be teaching us, but this was underhanded and despicable. From that point on I decided I would no longer participate in Mr. L’s class. Before I had been one of his star pupils. I was always willing to answer his questions, and always knew exactly what to say even when others were stumped, but I wasn’t going to parrot his shallow answers back anymore. I was going to sit there and think. I was actually going to consider the atheistic arguments Mr. L presented, and weight them seriously against the answers he taught us to give in response. Much to my surprise, I found that the atheistic arguments made more sense and were more logically consistent and honest than Mr. L’s counters. Yet, I was still a Christian, and I still couldn’t even consider being anything else.
One man’s poor defense of the faith and the constantly emerging hypocrisy I found amongst my teachers and schoolmates wasn’t enough to convince me that the Bible wasn’t the word of God and that God didn’t love me, but earlier that year I had met someone, another person outside of the Christian bubble, who was enough. He was an atheist, and I was in love with him. Not “in love” like I was with the celebrity Rufus, but wholeheartedly and genuinely in love. We had met that summer and formed a very deep and serious relationship, but I attempted to keep him always at arm’s length because of his lack of faith. I had always believed that the most important quality of candidates for my future husband was adherence to the Christian faith and I had been warned over and over again of the dangers of being “yoked together” with an unbeliever. I didn’t want to love this guy. I wanted to love a good Christian boy from school or church. Despite my ever-increasing feelings for him I considered breaking things off several times, but my love for him was completely undeniable. In many ways he was the straw that broke my Christian camel’s back. I just couldn’t believe that the God of the Bible, the loving God I had prayed to for so many years would bring the perfect guy into my life and then require me to break up with him because he wasn’t religious. It was too cruel, and beyond a test of faith. It made no sense. What could I possibly gain by severing ties with someone I deeply loved? Even now as I think about it I know what a Christian reading this would say: “What about Hosea and how he was tested?” “We can never know the mind of God or what he has planned for our lives.” Maybe if this was the first thing that had caused me to question my faith I would have accepted those answers, but it was just one more piece of a mountain of evidence forming against God in my mind. One evening as I lay in his arm I said very quietly, “I don’t think I’m a Christian anymore.” The first time I said it was the first time I had even allowed myself to think it. I realized at that point that it was true, I was no longer a Christian, and I hadn’t been for several years, but that denial had hidden that fact from me.
Even with my quiet confession, and the mental shock of finding it to be actually true, I still couldn’t let go. I held out hope that I would find some reason to believe again, that I would find some proof or have a change of heart. That never happened. In fact, the opposite happened. I found more and more proof against my religion. The first line of evidence came surprisingly from a college course on British Literature, and from that thing I had been told about Darwin back in high school, that he refuted his theory on his deathbed. For the Lit class we read an excerpt from Darwin’s autobiography. I came to a passage about his faith, “During these two years I was led to think much about religion…By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,–that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,–that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,–that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,–that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitnesses;–by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…But I was very unwilling to give up my belief;–I feel sure of this for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of…manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at least complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.” His account was so similar to my own journey that I could hardly believe it. In Darwin I found a kindred soul, and I couldn’t believe that he, even on his deathbed, would have taken back those words, so I decided to research it on the internet. Sure enough, I found out that the Darwin deathbed refutation was a lie made up by an evangelist and was debunked by Darwin’s own daughter who was actually present at his death. I felt hurt and angry that I had uncovered yet another lie, and shocked that Christians were obviously so threatened by Darwin that they felt the need to create lies instead of defending against his theory with reason. I decided that if they had lied to me about Darwin’s deathbed words, that they had probably lied to me about his theories as well. Boy was I right! I took a course the next semester on biology taught from a non-Christian textbook, looked things up on the internet, listened to podcasts, and read a few books. I soaked up all of information on evolution that I could find and concluded that it was 100% truth.
As I began to search for the truth, I discovered more and more deliberate lies that I had been told in order to convince me of everything from the divinity of the Bible to the young age of the earth. I researched negative claims about the Bible and learned that those “little discrepancies” we had been taught were no big deal were in fact very damning evidence against the Bible being the inspired word of God. The structure of self-reinforcing belief that my parents and teachers had built up around me crumbled completely. I learned more and more about how the universe works, about scientific discoveries, theories, and the proof behind them. I realized that the universe was capable of operating without a divine force and sealed my fate as an atheist.
Not long after my de-conversion completed I married that atheist guy I was so in love with—I consider not breaking up with him over Christianity to be the best decision I ever made. He is the only one who knows of my loss of faith, and is a constant source of love and support. I haven’t told my family about my de-conversion, and I don’t know if I ever will be able to. Sometimes I have nightmares where my mom and I are fighting and I suddenly yell out, “Mom, I’m an atheist!” causing her to break into tears and disown me. That might seem dramatic, but I’m confident that it isn’t far from the truth. I don’t think I’d be disowned, but I think I would be treated so differently that I would be forced to end contact with them. I’ve seen how they act around people they know aren’t saved. They would never stop trying to convert me. They will never accept me for who I truly am, so in order to not hurt them and maintain at least the semblance of a relationship, I’m going to keep lying to them.
Christians reading my story will say that I didn’t really “know Jesus or have a relationship with him.” I know I won’t be able to convince them that I did, but I can say with all confidence that I “knew Jesus” just as well as they, and that I considered my relationship with him not only the most important thing in my life, but an unshakeable reality. It’s easy to think that way when you have all of your beliefs reinforced by everyone and everything around you. Jesus was real to me, but his reality was grounded in the Bible and the teachings of Christianity. As evidence mounted against those things and my faith in them faded, so did my faith in Jesus.
(Cross-posted on de-conversion.com)
August 18, 2008 at 1:53 am |
orDover,
Thanks for sharing your journey with us.
Glad to see you’ve started a blog. Looking forward to future entries.
Paul
August 18, 2008 at 2:06 am |
Thanks Paul! I’ve been meaning to do this for a while. We’ll see how it goes.
August 18, 2008 at 4:56 pm |
I’ll be bookmarking your blog. Hope this goes well for you. I’ll be interested to see what else you will be writing about!
August 21, 2008 at 12:28 pm |
orDover, your experience sounds so much like mine (except for the Christian parents part) and very much like one that might have been my daughter’s if I had stayed involved in a particular brand of Christianity.
Thank you for posting this.
As an aside, doesn’t it seem that American Christianity is not so much a “religion” any more as it is an “industry?”
October 4, 2008 at 1:05 am |
[...] I was Christian novel reading, W.W.J.D bracelet wearing, mega-church attending teen: The story of my de-conversion [...]
October 17, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
Hi orDover. I would love to discuss one particular aspect of your deconversion with you in whatever forum (email, chat, whatever). Please note that I am a Christian, but my interest is in understanding my own faith, not disproving your deconversion or trying to influence you to go the other way. I respect your journey and your free will to believe and follow your heart wherever it takes you. But I would like to learn from you.
Your last paragraph is very true. Many Christians would say that you never believed in the first place. Or, even more specifically, I think they would say that you were never really saved, or born again or that the change of heart had not been real or true. And yet, when you describe your shift from belief to deconversion, you talk about having a change of heart. One of the things that fascinates me about Christianity and my own experience is the notion of the heart change. This hardening and softening of the heart that is described in the Bible (please don’t take the reference as prosyletizing, I assure you I am not) and described in your story and mine. it is interesting language used to describe both conversion and deconversion. Would you be willing to talk more with me on this point in particular?
If not, that is cool. If so, let me know where, when and how you’d like to connect.
Thanks,
Joan
October 17, 2008 at 6:22 pm |
Well, I don’t think I had an original change of heart since I became born again when I was so young. I didn’t have time to be a big-time sinner or live an unchristian lifestyle that I then changed from. I was just always a Christian. There was no dramatic conversion or changed life. I was just a kid.
The change of heart I had as I began to de-convert came from the doubts I had about my faith’s veracity. But it wasn’t like the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in Genesis. My heart wasn’t hardened, it was just bogged down. This concept of the hardened heart that the Bible mentions has to do with becoming less open or sympathetic. I would call my change of heart more of a state of disappointment rather than a state of stubbornness or unwillingness. The disappointment came from the new realizations about the shortcomings of the Christian faith. But at the same time, I still had an openness and a desire to seek God. I didn’t all of a sudden shut the possibility of God out of my life. I didn’t do a 180. In fact, I pursued religion more, granted not in the form of my ritualized devotions and prayers, but in the form of apologetics and scholarly research.
I get incredibly frustrated when people assert that I was never really born again or never really a Christian. I feel like that is tantamount to saying that if you are Republican and then decide to re-register as a Democrat that you never actually were a Republican in the first place. People can change their minds, and if they do change their minds that doesn’t mean they were disingenuous in the first place. I know that I was a “real” Christian because I had the exact same experiences described by the most fervent of believers. I felt like I experienced God daily and like I saw God working in my life. Every single thing I did was influence by my faith, whether it was deciding what movie to go see on a Friday night, what book to read, or how I should treat my friends. I took that question “What would Jesus do?” very seriously. If there is such a thing as a “true” Christian, than I indeed was one. And I submit that if you do not believe I was a “true” Christian that you define “true” Christian and explain how one can identify a “true” Christian from a fake one.
November 16, 2008 at 12:41 am |
orDover, thanks for sharing :)
January 16, 2009 at 3:03 pm |
It’s taken me a while to read through your posts. Some of the art stuff took some laboring :)
(Actually, I took an art history class in college and loved it, and if you ever get a chance to see visit the Art Institute of Chicago, I highly recommend it.)
Thanks for sharing your story in this specific post, which is extremely heart felt, as I identify with much of it.
I hope you realize that my responses are not an attempt to change your mind, but to excercise argument and reason with someone of a different position in an intellectual way.
When I talk with my Christian family and peers, I play the devil’s advocate just as firmly, and I’ve found the same hypocrisy and weak or blatantly false arguments as you have.
Our story is more similar than our positions indicate.
Anyway, thanks for your writing and for keeping it real.
May 20, 2009 at 3:05 pm |
OrDover, have you read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. You might find it intellectually stimulating. :)
Firstly, I don’t see how evolution, if it were true, is an obstacle to Christianity. There are many Christians who believe that God created the world through the process of evolution.
Secondly, if you truly believe that we evolved by chance through natural selection, then how can you put so much trust into your intellect? What if your mind is flawed in some way causing you to come to the wrong conclusion about Jesus Christ? I’m not saying this as a form of ridicule, it’s just an observation. If our brains evolved by chance without a directing Intelligence, then why should we put all our faith in our ability to reason?
May 20, 2009 at 3:37 pm |
Yes, I’ve read Mere Christianity. I read it as a Christian, and was unimpressed. Then I read it once again as a de-convert and found it shockingly shallow. He bases his entire arguments on a group of assumptions that he doesn’t even take the time to attempt to prove. And his “trilemma” is merely a false trichotomy.
The problem with evolution is not that it disproves God, but that I had been so thoroughly lied to about it. Discovering that lie opened up my mind and allowed me to find other lies about the faith. (When this blog was published at de-conversion.com, the editor titled it “My de-conversion: A discovery of deliberate lies”)
Your second question is irrelevant. We can put “faith” in our ability to reason because we can test our reason and see the results. We learn from using our brains how reliable they are. Take the example of physics. You have a physics, say Newton, sitting around and reasoning with his brain. He comes up with a theory and an equation, using his brain coupled with basic observations of the physical world: F = ma (force equals mass times acceleration). It seems to make logical sense to him, but how can he find out if it is true? He can test it. And then thousands of scientists after him can test it. They all found out that F does equal ma, that his reasoning was correct. Now either the brain is indeed capable of making such accurate predictions about the physical world, or we’re all living in some sort of delusion where F does not equal ma, and yet we see it as a correct equation. In that case it doesn’t really matter, because if we are all engaging in a shared delusion. If all of our observations of the physical world are incorrect but exactly the same then we will never have a way to discover the “truth,” and thus the delusion, if perfectly shared, becomes a sort of truth itself – or at least the only truth we can obtain.
Plus, from an evolutionary standpoint, how could an organism with a faulty brain evolve successfully? Let’s say we have a primitive primate whose brain causes them to come to the wrong conclusions about the physical world. It sees a large cat coming at it and its brain tricks it into thinking it is a harmless mouse. That monkey is dead. Dead monkeys can’t pass on their genes. It sees a stagnant pool of water and its brain tricks it into thinking it is a crystal clear stream. That monkey gets a parasite and is dead. Let’s make it simple and say that the monkey’s brain is just really bad at connecting two events. Let’s say it sees it’s brother get caught and eaten by a cat. If the next time it sees a cat if it doesn’t make the logical connection that “cats equal dead monkeys” and doesn’t run away, it’s going to be eaten. To make it even more simple, let’s say you have a monkey whose brain doesn’t cause a grand delusion, but is just not very good at logically analyzing its situation in relation to the physical world. Let’s say the monkey has poor depth perception. It looks at the natural world and thinks that the branch of that other tree over there isn’t really that far away, so it makes a jump for it. But it was very far away, and now: splat. Dead monkey.
I could also put this backwards to you, and ask that if our brains did not evolve via natural selection to suit our physical circumstances and to help us navigate the world, if our brains were merely created by some god, how can we trust them? How can we know that the god didn’t purposefully make our brains faulty? If our brains were created by a directing Intelligence, then why should we trust our minds at all? Maybe we only see what god wants us to see. Maybe we only think what god wants us to think. Maybe God is like the beings in The Matrix that controls all of our thoughts.
Another thing worth pointing out is that at some point, you as a Christian made a rational decision to believe in God. So you’re trusting your brain as well, whether you realize it or not.
(This is about the third time this “if you believe in evolution how can you trust your dumb monkey brain” question has been put to me. I’m interested in where you proselytizers have learned it, because it wasn’t one of the “witnessing” tricks I was taught.)
May 20, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
Thanks for your detailed response. I can tell you are a very intelligent person who has done her homework and I admire that. You make some good points which I see no reason to argue against. And you’re right, I am trusting my brain too, however; believing it was designed by God.
The reason that I personally reject the theory of evolution is because of reproduction. Each species apparently took millions of years to evolve. Now, the blatant problem with this is that animals and humans only live a couple of years to a couple hundred years at the most. So: After the very first “prototype” if you will, has died, how does another rise up in its place to continue evolving into a more advanced animal? What I mean is, before a working reproductive system was in place, how did those first animals reproduce? The theory of evolution would have me believe that animals continued to evolve and reproduce into better and better versions for *millions* of years without any physical ability to reproduce! I don’t see any scientific logic in that whatsoever. It’s impossible.
Then there is the question of the intricacies of ecosystems. Through observation, we can see how various ecosystems inevitably collapse when a crucial component is eliminated. So, just for example, which came first, the bee or the flower? How did one evolve or survive without the other? If flowers could exist and reproduce without pollination, then why was there any need for bees to evolve into existence? Darwin referred to flowers as an “abominable mystery” for good reason.
As for the “missing link” argument used by Christians, I think it is quite valid. You show me half a dozen bits of jaw bone and the like and claim that there is no missing link. Am I to take you seriously? Let’s take apes to homo sapiens, just for example. After *millions* of years of evolving from a basic ape to an advanced human, there should be billions of fossils remaining of each “prototype” – yet all you can find is one tooth or one piece of bone. You speak of the lies of Christians to support their creationist views, but what about the lies and hoaxes used by Evolutionists to support their Darwinian views? Teeth that really belonged to pigs. Bones that really belonged to a homo sapien with a bone disease, rather than an apeman. The list goes on.
As in any scope of life, there will be hypocrites. Christians are just as prone to hypocrisy as any other religion, race or culture. Christians also misinterpret Scripture as well sometimes, as you pointed out concerning the atom theory. But I don’t see how this is a legitimate basis for rejecting the Bible itself.
May 20, 2009 at 6:37 pm |
First of all, every one of your objections to evolution only displays the fact that don’t really know anything about it. I don’t mean that to sound condescending, but the fact of the matter is that these questions have been answered, and if you don’t know the answer to them that is your fault, not the fault of evolution.
Regarding your “first prototype” question, you’re just not understanding how gradual this process is: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB610.html
Regarding the flower/bee question, again it’s a matter of the gradual process: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB630.html
“If flowers could exist and reproduce without pollination, then why was there any need for bees to evolve into existence?”
This is sort of an “irreducible complexity” argument. The problem with all of those sorts of arguments is that they don’t take in to account the idea that something is better than nothing. Let’s imagine you have a flower that evolved pollen, but there aren’t any insects around to spread it. Wouldn’t there be other things that could have aided pollination, but just in a less effective way than flying insects? Wind could spread pollen, for example. There’s always been wind (at least as long as there as been an atmosphere). Crawling animals and bugs could also contribute. This argument is often put forward about the eye. What would be the use of half of an eye? What would be the use of pollen that didn’t have a good way to be spread? These kind of questions ignore the fact that even a small spot of photo-sensitive cells can prove an advantage. Likewise, even pollen that doesn’t have the ability to spread itself very far has an advantage over no pollen at all.
Also see the response to the first letter on this page by Gene: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/oct02.html
Regarding your Darwin quip, lots of things were a mystery to Darwin. Most of those things are no longer mysteries at all.
“The theory of evolution would have me believe that animals continued to evolve and reproduce into better and better versions for *millions* of years without any physical ability to reproduce! I don’t see any scientific logic in that whatsoever. It’s impossible.”
Sure, the way you put it would be impossible. Good thing that isn’t what evolutionary biologists actually say: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB350.html
Also read the response to the letter written by Sarah here:http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/dec98.html
(Just search for “Sarah,” its far down in the page)
I’d suggest you read up on the theories of abiogenesis as well: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
There is also this NY Times article about the latest research and discoveries about how early life first evolved via chemistry: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14rna.html?_r=1
With your missing link argument you are once again simply demonstrating that you are unaware of the evidence. There is a lot more than just a few broken jaw bones. There are thousands of hominid fossils, some almost fully intact. Plenty of educational reading material can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
Regarding your “billions of years should yield billions of fossils” argument: first – there are a lot of fossils, second – fossils are very difficult to form. It isn’t like every dead animal results in a fossil. The conditions have to be just right: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html
“You speak of the lies of Christians to support their creationist views, but what about the lies and hoaxes used by Evolutionists to support their Darwinian views? Teeth that really belonged to pigs. Bones that really belonged to a homo sapien with a bone disease, rather than an apeman.”
I wrote about one such hoax, you can read my conclusions: http://ordover.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/conspiracy-theory-thinking-and-creationism/
I would actually submit that you are the one being lied to. Even famous hoaxes like Piltdown Man were not engineered by evolutionary biologists to further their field, but by amateurs looking to make a splash in the newspapers.
The pig’s tooth you are referring to is called The Nebraska Man, and again the story is much more complex: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html
In both cases, evolutionary biologists did not embrace these “finds.” They were very skeptical of them, and their inquiry and investigation is what reveal these frauds to be frauds. Science is self-correcting. It wasn’t a creationist who pointed these things out, it was evolutionary biologists.
“The list goes on.”
Does it? I don’t think it does. The list of hoaxes is actually very small. Again, this is because science is self-correcting. Scientists compete with one another and are always looking for ways to disprove one another. Hoaxes don’t stand up to this sort of scrutiny.
What you’re doing here with your gripes against evolution is just repeating the things you were told by Christian pastors and teachers uncritically. (I hate to call you uncritical, but I feel like I must, because the answers to all of your complaints are out there and easy to find. I can only assume, regrettably, that if you aren’t aware of them, it is because you aren’t looking for them.) I really encourage you to do some reading of your own. Read some books from the other guy’s perspective. I would suggest perhaps Jerry A. Coyne’s Why Evolution is True, and maybe even Richard Dawkin’s upcoming book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Or even just read through those links I sent you. In preparing this comment I can’t help but feel like you will ignore all of this evidence and information, but I’d hope that if you really care about knowledge and really care about the truth, you’d take a close look at these articles.
I’ll suggest one more very long one, the one that I hope you read the most, which lays out point by point the mountains of evidence for evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
And if you’re wondering, I’m choosing to link to the talkorigins website because each of these articles provides scholarly sources to support its claims that you can look up on your own.
“Christians are just as prone to hypocrisy as any other religion, race or culture. Christians also misinterpret Scripture as well sometimes, as you pointed out concerning the atom theory. But I don’t see how this is a legitimate basis for rejecting the Bible itself.”
It wasn’t. It just opened the door.
May 20, 2009 at 7:14 pm |
I have studied Evolution indepthly many times throughout the years and still find it full of holes and the most ridiculous forms of verbal gymnasitcs, not to mention manipulation of subjective evidence. But I’m not a scientist or a biologist and so I don’t feel I have much business debating the origins of the universe beyond a few outward observiations. I lack the technical volcabularly or the time. Originally I made the point that even if Evolution is true, it doesn’t disprove the existence of God, and that is what I’d really rather discuss – the existence of God. There are many Chrstians who believe that God used the process of evolution to create the world.
I would be much more interested in discussing with you why it is that you’ve rejected the Bible. With what evidence do you reject the authenticity of the Bible?
May 20, 2009 at 7:44 pm |
“I have studied Evolution indepthly many times throughout the years and still find it full of holes and the most ridiculous forms of verbal gymnasitcs, not to mention manipulation of subjective evidence.”
What holes? I plugged up all the ones you mentioned. And to be honest, the fact that you seem to know next-to-nothing about hominid fossils and the evolution of early life does not support your statement that you have studied it in depth. Where is there manipulation of evidence? What are the gymnastics? Just out of curiosity, what literature on evolution have you read?
I understand that you have essentially made up your mind, but it’s very upsetting to me when people dismiss evolution. To put it simply, there is no sound reason why anyone would reject it. I am a person who values truth and knowledge above everything else, and I hate to see people who reject the truth and refuse to see the world as it really is.
“Originally I made the point that even if Evolution is true, it doesn’t disprove the existence of God”
It doesn’t disprove God, but it is still an important topic. Wouldn’t you like to know how nature functions, how it REALLY functions, especially if you believed God made it. Studying the origins of life could only bring you closer to him. Understanding evolution, if that was his chosen mechanism, will only teach you more about God.
“There are many Chrstians who believe that God used the process of evolution to create the world.”
You say this as if the idea of creationism and evolution are equally valid. It doesn’t matter, just pick either one! But this is not a matter of equal beliefs. This is a matter of truth, and truth decided by evidence.
“With what evidence do you reject the authenticity of the Bible?”
With what evidence do you accept the authenticity of the Bible?
To put it short, the Bible shows no signs of being written by a divine being. You cannot reliably say that it has fulfilled any prophecy. It is not internally consistent. It doesn’t display any knowledge of science or the natural world (getting local geography correct doesn’t amount to much when entire continents are not mentioned). There is nothing within the Bible to suggest that it was not simply written by a tribe of people living in the middle east during the bronze age.
May 20, 2009 at 8:01 pm |
I’ve studied it as indepthly as I can for someone who has no degrees in biology. As time passes, I admittedly forget many details and go no longer adequately articulate them without researching afresh. Quite frankly, your responses are too long and overwhelming. I don’t have time for that. If you want to maintain a dialogue, you’ll need to be a bit more focused. Also, I can’t read all those articles. I really don’t have time. Why don’t you just articulate those things in your own words for me? That would be better. I could easily throw a bunch of articles about Intelligent Design and Creation at you too, but I’ll resist the temptation. :)
You personally barely plugged up anything, you just posted a bunch of links.
You said: “It doesn’t disprove God, but it is still an important topic. Wouldn’t you like to know how nature functions, how it REALLY functions, especially if you believed God made it. Studying the origins of life could only bring you closer to him. Understanding evolution, if that was his chosen mechanism, will only teach you more about God.”
I achieve this regularly through the study of Creation Science, which I find much more intriguing than Darwinism. :) Have you seen the documentary “Expelled” by Ben Stein?
Anyway, your responses grieve me deeply. I think you are overcompensating to defend your atheism. I find your testimony very sad.
May 20, 2009 at 8:31 pm |
“Quite frankly, your responses are too long and overwhelming. I don’t have time for that. If you want to maintain a dialogue, you’ll need to be a bit more focused.”
I linked you to articles that are, on average, only a few hundred words long, if that. They are very focus. They consist of only a few sentences. Did you click on even just one of them? Besides, I addressed your arguments point-by-point just as they were presented to me.
I can restate them for you if you wish, but I decided to link to the articles because, as I said, they provide you with source material from experts. That way the information isn’t just coming from me, a nobody, but from published sources. And I didn’t just merely post links, for a few of those points I actually described what was going on, like for Nebraska man, Piltdown man, and the existence of hominid fossils. In those cases I provided links as citations to support my evidence (don’t forget that providing actual evidence is something important to someone like me, I’m not just going to state a fact without backing it up).
“Also, I can’t read all those articles. I really don’t have time.”
You don’t have the time to read a few hundred words? You don’t have time to go searching for the truth? You don’t have the time to read the rebuttals to your own arguments? I tried my best to be both thorough and brief. Just take one example, your bee/flower argument. The very brief answer is that you simply are getting the entire concept of evolution wrong. That’s all I can say. The entire argument is based on a false assumption. I even went further with that one, extrapolating, talking about the fact that a flower can be beneficial without a bee. And those articles, aside from the one I told you was long, are themselves very very brief.
“You personally barely plugged up anything, you just posted a bunch of links.”
Again, I personally can’t convince you of anything on my own. I have to rely on source material. Have you ever written a research paper? You know how it’s done. You cite. And I didn’t just post links, I explained what the links would lead you to.
“Have you seen the documentary “Expelled” by Ben Stein?”
Yes. I’m actually friends with Eugenie Scott, who is interviewed in it. Have you seen the documentary Expelled by Ben Stein complete with its fact-correcting subtitles? Here’s a link to a clip from it that lets you know how you can find the entire thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwhZqNgfRC0
Have you looked through the website Expelled Exposed, which systematically tears down the entire documentary? Oh…no…wait…I bet you don’t have time for that. You have time to watch a two-hour movie that supports your views, but you don’t have time to peruse a site that criticized them heavily, and that supports its criticisms with actual facts. You don’t seem to have time to read something that disagrees with your views.
“Anyway, your responses grieve me deeply. I think you are overcompensating to defend your atheism. I find your testimony very sad.”
How am I overcompensating? I’m only defending my atheism because you ASKED me to. I’m only answering your questions and rebutting your arguments. If it wasn’t for people like you who were constantly calling to task people who do not believe in God or who do believe in evolution, I wouldn’t have this blog at all. My blog is a response to you. It’s a response to Ben Stein. It’s a response to Kent Hovind. Documentaries like Expelled and figures like Hovind are the reason I must defend myself. Or should I just sit idle as people accuse me of lying or believing in falsehoods, as people attack me for my beliefs and attempt to paint me a fool?
I find your complete and utter rejection of subjective truth very sad. I find your refuse to take a few minutes to look at the rebuttals to your own arguments very sad. I find the fact that you barrage me with questions and assertions, and then accuse me of overcompensating for merely taking the time to answer them and challenge them very sad. I find the fact that you are jumping to conclusions about my inner life very sad. Who are you to say how I feel about my atheism anyway, or to attempt to interpret my actions and motivations? I find the fact that you feel the need to belittle me by calling me “very sad” very sad. And yes, I’m doing the same thing to you now, but only to demonstrate how unpleasant it is.
May 20, 2009 at 9:43 pm |
I’m just being honest with you here. When I originally posted a comment, I didn’t expect to become engaged in a debate all day long. :) I have two very young children to take care of and they are a handful. For instance, just now my son spilled water all over the couch. :P I also have a stack of books that I’m trying to read through right now and several projects on the go, so a different day, a different month, I would have more time for this! :) I apologize for starting something that I clearly can’t finish.
Admittedly, I prefer to read articles that I agree with, as you’ve suggested, but I often read those I don’t as well. For instance, I read your article, didn’t I? :) But I realize I’ve bitten off more than I can chew here, as adequately and fairly debating you would require that I delve into research at the expense of other projects that are currently on the go.
If the articles you linked to are only a couple hundred words, then I might be able to read them. I’ll take a look. I just felt overwhelmed by all those links, as I’m sure you can understand.
May 21, 2009 at 4:29 am |
I’m not attempting to hold you to task. This can end whenever you want. I know it isn’t likely to go anywhere anyway.
May 20, 2009 at 9:49 pm |
“Regarding your “first prototype” question, you’re just not understanding how gradual this process is: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB610.html”
Read it. If the process takes millions of years, I’m asking, how is reproduction taking place? No single species can exist for more than a hundred years and then it dies. So, without a reproductive system, how can a species evolve over millions of years?
May 21, 2009 at 12:34 am |
Reproduction (or replication of genetic material) can take place on a chemical level, and even when there were just single-celled organisms genetic information can be shared. You don’t need a penis and a vagina. There’s also asexual reproduction, like budding, and other very early forms of self-replication. The first organisms would have been self-replicating, just like our DNA is today. The cells in our bodies can also reproduce. Our DNA and our cells do not need a reproductive system to reproduce itself. They only need chemicals and genetic signals. I’m assuming you learned about mitosis in school, so you know how that works, sans reproductive system. DNA is supposed to make an exact copy of itself, but sometimes it fails, and there is an error resulting in a mutation of the DNA. Then suddenly you have something different.
May 20, 2009 at 9:51 pm |
“Obligate mutualism can evolve gradually from nonobligate associations. For example, a yucca can be pollinated by many insects and gradually specialize to attract just one moth, and a moth may live off many species of yucca and gradually specialize on just one.”
Okay, so, if the yucca can be pollinated successfully by many insects, then why was there any need to specialize to just one moth? Sounds like there would have to be a directing intelligence behind that. Last time I checked, “natural selection” did not have a brain.
May 21, 2009 at 12:54 am |
There isn’t a “need” to attract just one month, but there is some benefit from doing so. There were yucca plants before, and there were moths before. It was surviving before it specialized, but specializing would theoretically allow it to survive even better. The point isn’t that the yucca “needs” its own moth, but that it benefits from having such a relationship. Think of it this way: you’re a plant and you really want to make sure your genetic information gets passed along. Here’s a good strategy: make yourself useful to another organism. Some seasons there are a lot of insects and you do well. Some seasons, not so much. You decide you need a way to ensure that there are always insects around to pollinate you. Your strategy is to make yourself appealing to one specific species (and probably a species that is already attracted to you to begin with more than others). It might seem to make more sense for a plant to make itself attractive to the most number of insects, but by evolving a co-dependent relationship, by evolving so that you provide an important service to the other organism, you assure they will always come to you and not your cousin.
“Sounds like there would have to be a directing intelligence behind that.”
That’s jumping to a big conclusion. Why does that make it sound as if there is intelligence behind that? I don’t think it does at all. And if this model is the most “intelligent” way to pollinate a plant, why didn’t God make all plant species to have their own special corresponding insect?
I’d actually argue that the co-dependent model of pollination is NOT the best system. The yucca plant has evolved all of its eggs into one basket. If something happens to the yucca moth, it’s SOL (and vice versa). I can also come to the conclusion that this is not the most successful method because the majority of plant species do not use it. It’s working for some like the yucca right now, but that probably won’t always be the case, and the yucca will die off. In the scheme of evolution, variety and diversity is one of the most important traits. When a species get too specialized they don’t last long. The goal is to have enough genetic and physical diversity within a species to be able to survive in spite of dramatic change in the environment.
May 20, 2009 at 9:55 pm |
You said: “This argument is often put forward about the eye. What would be the use of half of an eye? What would be the use of pollen that didn’t have a good way to be spread? These kind of questions ignore the fact that even a small spot of photo-sensitive cells can prove an advantage.”
What sort of advantage? And what was the need to improve? Again, suggests a directing intelligence. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all things go from order to disorder, yet natural selection, if true on a macro level, seems extremely well organized.
You said: “Likewise, even pollen that doesn’t have the ability to spread itself very far has an advantage over no pollen at all.”
Oh, and what would that advantage be? And if it had some sort of advantage, why evolve into something better? Again, sounds like intelligent design.
May 21, 2009 at 1:24 am |
“What sort of advantage?”
Being able to tell the difference between light and dark, being able to use this ability to move toward light sources for warmth, being able to detect shadows interrupting a light source that could prove to be a predator. Starfish have clusters of photosensitive cells. They can only see the difference between light and dark, but this allows them to see movement. You’ve experienced this same phenomena in dark light. What would you prefer: being stuck in total blackness, or having a tiny amount of light that reaches your eye and allows you to be barely able to perceive a moving object. There are people who are so blind that all they can see is the difference between light and dark. Ask them if it makes a difference, or if they might as well just be completely blind. There are several other examples. I can keep going if you need me to.
Besides, the human eye is far from perfect. We don’t even have the best eyes in all of the animal kingdom. Do you find use in your crappy eyes, even though they pale in comparison to the eyes of eagles and squid? Even the spectrum of our vision is crappy. Some fish can see in FIVE colors, while we can only see three. We also don’t see well in the dark, like cats. Still, I think you can agree that we find our less-than-perfect eyes quite useful.
“And what was the need to improve?”
What do you think is better: being able to see a shadow and guess that it might be a predator, or being able to see with some degree of clarity to determine if it is a predator or something harmless?
“Again, suggests a directing intelligence.”
No. It doesn’t.
“The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all things go from order to disorder, yet natural selection, if true on a macro level, seems extremely well organized.”
The fact that you trotted out this argument lets me know that we’ll never get anywhere. It’s just inane. It’s false. It’s been explained a million times. First of all, that isn’t even what the 2nd Law of thermodynamics states. The 2nd law of THERMOdynamics is about heat, and heat within a closed system. It is not about all of life, and not about all organizing systems, and especially is not about an open system like life (one that has an outside energy force). I’m just going to quote from wikipedia here,
“In sciences such as biology and biochemistry the application of thermodynamics is well-established, e.g. biological thermodynamics. The general viewpoint on this subject is summarized well by biological thermodynamicist Donald Haynie; as he states: ‘Any theory claiming to describe how organisms originate and continue to exist by natural causes must be compatible with the first and second laws of thermodynamics.’
This is very different, however, from the claim made by many creationists that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Evidence indicates that biological systems and evolution of those systems conform to the second law, since although biological systems may become more ordered, the net change in entropy for the entire universe is still positive as a result of evolution. Additionally, the process of natural selection responsible for such local increase in order may be mathematically derived from the expression of the second law equation for non-equilibrium connected open systems, arguably making the Theory of Evolution itself an expression of the Second Law.
Furthermore, the second law is only true of closed systems. It is easy to decrease entropy, with an energy source. For example, a refrigerator separates warm and cold air, but only when it is plugged in. Since all biology requires an external energy source, the Sun, there’s nothing unusual (thermodynamically) with it growing more complex with time.”
This is a non-argument. It’s a completely invalid and moot point.
“Oh, and what would that advantage be?”
Pollen allows for wider genetic dispersal, which means that a plants several miles away could mate. What’s the benefit of that? Greater diversity. Imagine you live in a small town. You can’t leave. No one new comes in or out. Eventually people are going to start marrying their cousins, and you know what happens then. It isn’t good, genetically speaking. The greater diversity you have in your gene pool (the more organisms you have to mate with and the more diversified the two of you are), the better your offspring.
“And if it had some sort of advantage, why evolve into something better?”
Why don’t you understand this concept of “advantage” being good, but “advantage + 1″ being better? Let’s go back to eyes. You have an advantage right now because you can see. It helps you survive by making it easier for you to find food and avoid predators. Now, would you like it if I said you could have bionic eyes that could see perfectly miles away? I’m guessing you’d say yes, because you can see how that sort of eye sight would be even more beneficial. You could find food much further away, and see predators coming at a great distance. Your eyes are working pretty good for you right now, but that doesn’t mean they can’t improve.
“Again, sounds like intelligent design.”
So, in your mind, is anything beneficial the sign of an intelligent force?
May 20, 2009 at 9:59 pm |
“The evolution of new species probably is fairly rapid in geological terms, so the transitions between species will be uncommon. ”
How very convenient.
As for abiogensis – look, a cell is extremely complex. Remove one component and you nothing – it won’t work. So, how can it evolve gradually? Again – impossible. Nothing comes from nothing. Life comes from life.
May 21, 2009 at 1:37 am |
“Remove one component and you nothing – it won’t work.”
Simply untrue. For example, even today in modern times we have more complex and less complex cells. Prokaryotics cells do not have a cell nucleus (the controll center” of the cell where DNA is stored) and do not have organelles bound in membranes. If you remove one component, even one VERY important one, cells still work. Further more, you can take away cell’s organelles and they still function. You can take away everything but their DNA/RNA and you’ve still got something that can organize and replicate.
But besides, the entire notion of irreducible complexity is flawed because it assumes parts are necessary without first determining it and without first determining if any other part could have performed that function. Just look at the pictures and read the captions for the Stone Bridge analogy here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html
“Again – impossible. Nothing comes from nothing.”
Except God, right? He came from nothing. You don’t seem to have a problem with that.
“Life comes from life.”
As science has shown (see that NY Times article above) life comes from chemistry.
May 21, 2009 at 2:14 pm |
You said: “The first organisms would have been self-replicating, just like our DNA is today. The cells in our bodies can also reproduce. Our DNA and our cells do not need a reproductive system to reproduce itself. They only need chemicals and genetic signals.”
So, if reproductive systems weren’t necessary, then why did most species evolve to have sexual organs? Natural Selection has no intelligence or sense of direction. I can understand how survival of the fittest would eliminate misfits, but this doesn’t explain why something that is sufficient would evolve to be even better. If this is purely by chance, the odds are astronomical.
You said: “DNA is supposed to make an exact copy of itself, but sometimes it fails, and there is an error resulting in a mutation of the DNA. Then suddenly you have
something different.”
How do you explain the Second Law of Thermodynamics in light of this? All things go from order to disorder. But the foundational premise of Darwinism is that all things go from disorder to order.
The problem with this theory is that it can’t be duplicated in a lab. None of us can go back in time billions of years and sit around observing the process for millions of years.
May 21, 2009 at 11:14 pm |
“So, if reproductive systems weren’t necessary, then why did most species evolve to have sexual organs?”
The more complex the organism, the more complex its reproduction needs to be. Sponges and yeasts get by with budding. Fish lay eggs that are externally fertilized. Horses gestate a foal internally for 13 months.
Another advantage to complex reproduction is the fact that it allows for greater gene diversity. If you have an organism that just buds, essentially it makes little clones with the same exact DNA. There could be a mutation in there ever so often that results in a slight amount of variation, but in general you have exact copies. The benefit to sexual reproduction is the fact that the child organism is 50% different from its parents, rather than being 0% or only 0.5% different. That leads to greater genetic diversity.
“I can understand how survival of the fittest would eliminate misfits, but this doesn’t explain why something that is sufficient would evolve to be even better.”
Evolution is driven by competition. Competition for resources. That is why “sufficient” might not always cut it. “Sufficient” can always be better. If one animal has a “sufficient” method of fill-in-the-blank, and then another has an even more “sufficient” one, the one with the better system is going to out-compete the other.
This question, as with every single of your “what’s the benefit” question, is just an argument from personal incredulity. You can’t imagine how or why these things would occur, so you conclude they must not have happened. That’s extremely poor logic.
“How do you explain the Second Law of Thermodynamics in light of this? All things go from order to disorder. But the foundational premise of Darwinism is that all things go from disorder to order.”
I’m not going to answer any of your questions about the Second Law of Thermodynamics because you so greatly misunderstand the concept and how it applies to an open system like life that I can’t even begin to comment on it. To put it short, the Second Law has NOTHING to do with this.
“The problem with this theory is that it can’t be duplicated in a lab. None of us can go back in time billions of years and sit around observing the process for millions of years.”
This is not true. Much of evolution, including the evolution of early forms of self-replication been duplicated in the lab. I posted on example of it above, the NY Times article. Evolution has been verified in laboratory conditions several times using organisms that reproduce quickly, like fruit flies and bacteria (here is one example. Again, saying that these things haven’t been proven in the lab just shows you are unaware of evolutionary research.
And by the way, how can Intelligent Design be proved in the lab? You don’t seem to care that it cannot. You don’t have a problem with THAT theory that can’t be duplicated in a lab. Why are you setting your standards for evolution so much higher, then? Or I should say, why are you setting your standards for ID so low? There hasn’t even been one peer-reviewed paper on ID published in a major science journal. What does that tell you?
May 21, 2009 at 2:19 pm |
You said: “Think of it this way: you’re a plant and you really
want to make sure your genetic information gets passed along. Here’s a good
strategy: make yourself useful to another organism. Some seasons there are a lot of
insects and you do well. Some seasons, not so much. You decide you need a way to
ensure that there are always insects around to pollinate you.”
Okay, well, if I was a plant, I wouldn’t be thinking anything. Plants have no brain. They wouldn’t *know* if they were doing well in some seasons or not. I could know by observing them, because I am an intelligent being. Perhaps if I was directing the process, I could guide the plants in the right direction of evolution.
You said: “Your strategy is to
make yourself appealing to one specific species (and probably a species that is
already attracted to you to begin with more than others).”
Are you seriously suggesting that primitive plants had coherent “strategies”??
May 21, 2009 at 11:19 pm |
With my plant analogy, you MUST know that I wasn’t actually suggesting the plants can think and make decisions of their own will. I am not suggesting plants developed strategies. I was making an analogy in the form of a personal story to make it as accessible as possible. I’m actually shocked that you didn’t understand that.
I don’t think that the yucca plant actually decided to start attracting yucca moths. What would have happened is this:
You have a yucca plant A that through some mutation, say the shape of its flower, attracts a particular moth. That moth flocks to plant A, and spreads its pollen more than the pollen from yuccas B, C, and D. The A plant passes on whatever gene it had that was attractive to the moth at a greater rate, since it is getting pollinated more. The next generation of plants posses that trait. Then there is another plant of the second generation which has something even MORE attractive to the moth, so they flock more to that one. And so on and so on.
There doesn’t need to be any intelligent force observing this process. All you need is the physical world and its constraints. You don’t need someone to see the yucca plants and notice it’s doing poorly and help it change. The yucca plants that do poorly die. They don’t pass on their genes. Those that do better, perhaps via a genetic mutation or combination, thrive. They do pass on their genes.
May 21, 2009 at 2:25 pm |
You said: “I can also come to the
conclusion that this is not the most successful method because the majority of plant
species do not use it. It’s working for some like the yucca right now, but that
probably won’t always be the case, and the yucca will die off.”
Exactly. It will die off. And this is what I’m getting at – firstly, why didn’t the initial, most primitive forms of the plant die off during it’s most ineffectual stage of development? And secondly, you just finished saying that the yucca realized (without intelligence) that it needed to specialize, so it did – but now you’re saying that specializing was probably a mistake and that they yucca will eventually die off. Umm… What happened to it’s ability to strategize?
You said: “In the scheme of
evolution, variety and diversity is one of the most important traits. When a species
get too specialized they don’t last long. The goal is to have enough genetic and
physical diversity within a species to be able to survive in spite of dramatic
change in the environment.”
Who’s goal is this? Is evolution itself some kind of entity?
May 21, 2009 at 11:25 pm |
“Exactly. It will die off. And this is what I’m getting at – firstly, why didn’t the initial, most primitive forms of the plant die off during it’s most ineffectual stage of development?”
There’s a difference between temporary benefit and long-term benefit. That’s why the giant dinosaurs died and small little rodents survived. The yucca’s form of pollination will only stop being beneficial if/when it’s moth is gone. Until that point it continues to work very well. Just like how being really big worked for the dinosaurs until the earth’s climate changed dramatically.
“Who’s goal is this? Is evolution itself some kind of entity?”
You’re being ridiculous. It’s isn’t an actual preconceived goal, it is simply what is selected for under environmental conditions. AND NO. THE ORGANISMS THEMSELVES ARE NOT DOING THE SELECTING. There is no entity involved, it’s all a matter of environment. Just think about this logically for one second. Do you think a polar bear would evolve a thick coat of fur because it was sitting around and saying to itself, “Gee, it’s getting really cold out here.” Or do you think that it evolved a thick coat because those animals that didn’t have thick coats died of the cold.
May 21, 2009 at 2:32 pm |
You said: “What do you think is better: being able to see a shadow and guess that it might be a
predator, or being able to see with some degree of clarity to determine if it is a
predator or something harmless?”
You’re overlooking something here. If a person is born blind, they *don’t know* what they’re missing! Yet you’re suggesting that a certain predator might think to himself, “My, if I could only see more clearly, it’d be easier to catch my prey” and then willfilly makes himself evolve better eyes. He doesn’t even know that it’s possible to see better, so where’s the signal to improve?
May 21, 2009 at 11:30 pm |
I am not suggesting that animals choose their own evolution. You’re creating a ridiculous straw-man out of my arguments, and in the mean time you are refusing to acknowledge the points behind my statements. For example you aren’t dealing with the fact that I gave plenty of examples of why a rudimentary eye would be useful.
I’m not suggesting that a predator thinks “Hey, it sure would be awesome if I had better eyes,” and then forces itself to mutate. A predator who has slightly better eyes than another will catch more food, and will therefore be more likely to survive into adulthood, and be more likely to pass on its genes. It’s that simple.
I can’t decide of this parody view of evolution you are putting forward is disingenuous, or really coming from the fact that you simply are so misinformed about the basics of evolution.
May 21, 2009 at 2:41 pm |
K, just read what you had to say about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I’ll stop calling it that then. But what I am getting at specifically is that all things *do* go from order to disorder. This is evidenced by our constant need to bathe ourselves, clean our houses, exercize our bodies and nurture our brains.
You said: “The greater diversity you have in your gene pool (the
more organisms you have to mate with and the more diversified the two of you are),
the better your offspring.”
That’s a given. But how on earth did the flowers figure that out? They have no intelligence.
You said: “Why don’t you understand this concept of “advantage” being good, but “advantage + 1″ being better? Let’s go back to eyes. You have an advantage right now because you can
see. It helps you survive by making it easier for you to find food and avoid
predators. Now, would you like it if I said you could have bionic eyes that could
see perfectly miles away?.”
Of course I understand that concept, but it involves intelligence. If I were born blind, you could explain to me what eyesight is like and I would be able to comprehend that seeing is more advantageous than not seeing. If there were corrective surgery available, I would take it. But that’s because I’m a sentient, intelligent being, and another being, with better physical eyes than mine, has explained to me what I am missing out on.
Primitive plants and trees, and modern plants and trees, have no intelligence. Even if I went outside and tried to explain to yucca that it will probably die off because it’s too specialized, it won’t be able to even hear me, let alone comprehend. So, how would it know that it was time to evolve in a better direction?
May 21, 2009 at 11:42 pm |
“But what I am getting at specifically is that all things *do* go from order to disorder. This is evidenced by our constant need to bathe ourselves, clean our houses, exercize our bodies and nurture our brains.”
And yet you keep gradually being able to overcome these so called tendencies toward disorder by bathing and exercising. Look at it this way: you eat some food, and you body breaks it down (order->disorder), using it as energy, which your body then burns (order->disorder), eventually you burn so much of your energy that you get tired and your body starts to run poorly. So what do you do? You eat. Then the process starts over again. You’ve essentially re-charged your batteries. You’ve put a new source of fuel into this system. Nature does that on a macro level, drawing energy from the sun. This won’t continue forever though, but we can keep going strong as long as we have the sun, just like humans can keep going strong as long as they have food. But then again, even our bodies eventually break down, no matter how much food we eat. Then what happens? We go into the ground and become food for something else, allowing it to overcome its tendency toward entropy. Then it becomes something else’s food. And so on. As long as the Sun is around to provide energy for plants which provide energy for everything else, we won’t reach disorder.
Right now everything is stable. It’s at a status. There is no net gain going on. You have to think of this on a much bigger level.
“That’s a given. But how on earth did the flowers figure that out? They have no intelligence.”
They don’t have to “figure” anything out. The ones who are able to spread their pollen just a little bit further are the ones more likely to produce healthy offspring, thus they are the ones that pass on their genes.
“Primitive plants and trees, and modern plants and trees, have no intelligence. Even if I went outside and tried to explain to yucca that it will probably die off because it’s too specialized, it won’t be able to even hear me, let alone comprehend. So, how would it know that it was time to evolve in a better direction?”
Again, this is not a matter of organisms “knowing” or making decisions, and despite my playful analogies, that is NOT what I am saying. The environment is the catalyst to change. A plant doesn’t think, “Oh, I think it’s time I mutate now.” A mutation happens. It is probably a harmful one, but sometimes it is beneficial. If it is beneficial, it therefore helps its organism survive better under its specific conditions, therefore it perpetuates its genes while others without said helpful mutation are less successful.
At the risk of you taking this literally, I’m going to give another analogy that involves personifying inanimate objects. There is an earthquake and rocks start rolling down the side of a hill. The roundest, smoothest rock gets to the bottom first. Does that mean the rock wanted to get to the bottom, and made itself smoother and rounder to accomplish this goal? No, it was just going along with the course of nature, and it’s physical characteristics happened to help it outpace the other rocks.
May 21, 2009 at 2:47 pm |
You said: “You can take away
everything but their DNA/RNA and you’ve still got something that can organize and
replicate.”
But DNA *itself* is extremely complex and made up of countless interrelated components.
I said: “”Again – impossible. Nothing comes from nothing.” And you said: “Except God, right? He came from nothing. You don’t seem to have a problem with that.”
I don’t remember suggesting that God had a beginning.
You said: “As science as shown (see that NY Times article above) life comes from chemistry.”
And where did the chemical components come from?
May 21, 2009 at 11:59 pm |
“But DNA *itself* is extremely complex and made up of countless interrelated components.”
It’s a whopper, but once again, the answer to your question is out there. It’s up to you whether you are happy not knowing or whether you think its worth your time: http://www.evolutionofdna.com/
Once again I’m going to link to this NY Times article, that explains the latest research on how RNA first assembled: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14rna.html
Here’s an excerpt:
“Scientists have long suspected that the first forms of life carried their biological information not in DNA but in RNA, its close chemical cousin…If the first forms of life were based on RNA, then the issue is to explain how the first RNA molecules were formed.
For more than 20 years researchers have been working on this problem. The building blocks of RNA, known as nucleotides, each consist of a chemical base, a sugar molecule called ribose and a phosphate group. Chemists quickly found plausible natural ways for each of these constituents to form from natural chemicals. But there was no natural way for them all to join together.
The spontaneous appearance of such nucleotides on the primitive earth “would have been a near miracle,” two leading researchers, Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel, wrote in 1999. Others were so despairing that they believed some other molecule must have preceded RNA and started looking for a pre-RNA world.
The miracle seems now to have been explained. In the article in Nature, Dr. Sutherland and his colleagues Matthew W. Powner and Béatrice Gerland report that they have taken the same starting chemicals used by others but have caused them to react in a different order and in different combinations than in previous experiments. they discovered their recipe, which is far from intuitive, after 10 years of working through every possible combination of starting chemicals.
Instead of making the starting chemicals form a sugar and a base, they mixed them in a different order, in which the chemicals naturally formed a compound that is half-sugar and half-base. When another half-sugar and half-base are added, the RNA nucleotide called ribocytidine phosphate emerges.
A second nucleotide is created if ultraviolet light is shined on the mixture.”
“And where did the chemical components come from?”
They are chemicals found naturally throughout the universe.
“I don’t remember suggesting that God had a beginning.”
You didn’t. But it doesn’t bother you that God is eternal. You’re okay with that. Why does the universe have to have a beginning then? If you believe something, even God, didn’t need to be created, why does matter?
The fact of the matter is (no pun intended), we don’t know where matter came from originally, or if it “came” from anything at all. Unlike the religious mind, the scientific mind is comfortable with saying, “I don’t know.” The fact of the matter is, there may be no physical way for us to research what happened before the Big Bang, to go back far enough to see where that matter came from. But even if the question of the origin of matter is always unanswerable, that doesn’t give any weight to the argument of “God did it.” In fact, it’s completely fallacious to say so. It’s the Argument from Ignorance, which says “I don’t know something, therefore I know something.” It says, “I don’t know where matter came from, therefore I can know it came from God.” No. Sorry. That’s illogical. It’s like saying, “I’ve never met Joe and I don’t know anything about him, therefore I know he’s got black hair and is nice to his brother.” If you’ve never met Joe, then you can’t claim to know him. If you just said you don’t know anything about him, you can turn your lack of knowledge around to form a conclusion.
May 21, 2009 at 2:56 pm |
You said: “I’m not attempting to hold you to ask. This can end whenever you want. I know it isn’t likely to go anywhere anyway.”
I am happy to continue a discussion with you. I prefer to hear things from people in their own words and that’s why I’m not fond of article referrals and such links. I was pleased that your responses this morning were your own words, without any links added. In a research paper, credentials and sources are crucial for sure, but I really just want to know what *you* think about these things. :)
Your connotation here is that I am closeminded and set in my ways, and that’s why this “isn’t likely to go anywhere.” But if you’ll be honest with yourself, you have to admit that your mind is made up just as much as mine is. So why does that make me closeminded but not you?
You’ve accused me of not being willing to research, learn and seek the truth simply because yesterday I did not have the time to do a thorough investigation. In fact, the study of the origins of the universe is as vast as the universe and can’t be done in one day. As I’ve said, I’ve studied the theory of evolution and intelligent design and theology many many times over the years. I read 3-4 non-fiction books a month and countless articles. I am always seeking to grow in knowledge and truth, as much as my time allows.
May 22, 2009 at 12:01 am |
“Your connotation here is that I am closeminded and set in my ways, and that’s why this “isn’t likely to go anywhere.” But if you’ll be honest with yourself, you have to admit that your mind is made up just as much as mine is. So why does that make me closeminded but not you”
No, I’m not suggesting your are any more closeminded than me, I’m just suggesting that we are both very set in our ways and convictions an exchange over a blog isn’t going to change either of our minds.
“As I’ve said, I’ve studied the theory of evolution and intelligent design and theology many many times over the years.”
I believe you know theology and intelligent design, but you have yet to demonstrate to me that you have anything close to a sound understanding of evolution. I’m not trying to say that as an insult, but as a spur. Imagine you’re talking to a non-believer, and they insist that they have studied the Bible and are knowledgeable about Christianity, and then they say, “I know a lot about Christianity, but I can’t believe it because it’s so stupid to say that Jesus was both part God and part man. He was born from Mary, a woman, and had a father, Joseph.” That comment would display to you that the person you are speaking with doesn’t understand the concept of the Virgin Birth and Word Made Flesh, the idea of God incarnating himself. It would also show that the person doesn’t understand the concept of the Trinity, and that Jesus’s only true “father” is part of the Godhead. What would you say to them? Wouldn’t you suggest they do a little more research before they reject Christianity based on clearly faulty understanding, even if they insisted they’ve got the story right and have spent a lot of time looking into it?
May 21, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
One of the big things that helped me to begin seeing my way out of creationism was when I saw that the creationists were lying about things. It started with learning that they lied about geological strata. Then I found out about transitional fossils. Then I read actual transcripts from debates that had been summarized in creationist literature. The more I looked for original sources, the more I found that the creationists lied about nearly everything.
This all started when I was a thoroughgoing creationist. I still remember the first, clear incidence. It was at a creationist conference that I attended.
It’s hard now to believe that I was so caught in such a web of lies.
May 22, 2009 at 1:48 pm |
You said: “And by the way, how can Intelligent Design be proved in the lab? You don’t seem to care that it cannot. You don’t have a problem with THAT theory that can’t be
duplicated in a lab.”
I know that ID can’t be proven in a lab either. The only point I was attempting to make is that origins of the universe are theories, not proven fact. They can never be proven fact. Therefore, you have to accept those theories, to some degree, by faith. Just because you can reproduce micro “evolution” in a lab does not prove macro evolution. I am not saying that ID is a proven fact. I may personally believe in Intelligent Design, but that’s my choice, just as you’ve chosen to believe in Darwinism. Now, you can claim that I’ve chosen ignorantly, while you’ve merely accepted the obvious truth, but that would be quite arrogant and I hope you won’t stoop to that.
You said: “I am not suggesting plants developed
strategies. I was making an analogy in the form of a personal story to make it as
accessible as possible. I’m actually shocked that you didn’t understand that.”
Of course I understand that it was an analogy. But what you’re suggesting through that analogy is that evolution, without any governing intelligence, “mutates” into better and better versions of the original. I find that extremely implausible. Just look at us for example. When a genetic mutation occurs, it results in a birth defect. This is going backwards, not forwards.
I understand the concept here, believe me, I do. It’s called “survival fo the fittest.” ;) But my question has always been, why in natural selection do all things go from disorder to order, when nothing else in the universe does? You see pure chance, apparantely, but I see the guiding hand of a Creator. I am not saying that evolution isn’t true. All I’m saying is that I don’t believe evolution is possible without intelligent design. The odds are too astronomical.
You said: “Do you think a polar
bear would evolve a thick coat of fur because it was sitting around and saying to
itself, ‘Gee, it’s getting really cold out here.’ Or do you think that it evolved a
thick coat because those animals that didn’t have thick coats died of the cold.”
Well, what I think is that the first animals would have frozen to death in their most primitive form, well before they even “became” bears. On the surface level, it makes sense what you’re saying, but we’re looking at thin-haired bears versus thick-haired bears in this case. I am much more interested in the freakish little rodent that later became a bear. How did they survive the cold long enough to reproduce (to avoid extinction), and even earlier than that, how did they avoid freezing to death before they had reproductive organs? A frozen glob of goo is not going to have much activity going on.
You said: “A predator who has slightly better
eyes than another will catch more food, and will therefore be more likely to pass on
its genes. It’s that simple.”
Yes, I understand the concept, and again, I am not denying that it could be true. It might be! All I’m saying is that I personally see intelligent design through the organization, the continual upward flow into better versions, the symestry and intricacies of ecosystems, the beauty of landscapes, the harmony – I see creation. :)
We’re arguing about the process of evolution here when really, our fundamental difference in opinion is whether the universe came out of nothing, purely by chance, or was originally set into motion by a Creator.
You said: “It doesn’t bother you that God came from nothing, so why would it
bother you to think that matter came from nothing?”
I don’t believe that God had a beginning. But that’s just my belief. I can’t prove that.
You said: “It says, ‘I don’t know where
matter came from, therefore I can know it came from God.’ No. Sorry. That’s
illogical.”
That’s not what I’m saying though. I’m suggesting that neither of us know! You admit you don’t know where the matter came from, therefore, it could have come from God – but maybe not. Or, perhaps aliens, as some people believe. Or perhaps nothing.
When I look at nature, I see the work of a brilliant Creator. The heavens declare His glory. Why do you have a problem with that? I might argue about the aspects of evolution that seem ridiculous to me, but I am not actually saying that evolution isn’t true. It’s basically – where you see unguided chance, I see guidance. Both viewpoints take equal faith because neither of us have any way of proving how it all initially began. I can’t prove it was God anymore than you can prove that it *wasn’t* God.
May 26, 2009 at 10:09 pm |
I know that ID can’t be proven in a lab either. The only point I was attempting to make is that origins of the universe are theories, not proven fact.
Just because both views are “theories” (although ID is NOT a scientific theory because it is unfalsifiable) does not mean that they are equal. One has tons of evidence on it side. The other has no evidence. It actually builds itself up out of lack of evidence. Creationism says, “We don’t know how this happen, so God must have done it.” I suppose you also count the Bible as evidence, but obviously that has no bearing on science.
They can never be proven fact.
Wrong. Unproven does not equate with unprovable.
Therefore, you have to accept those theories, to some degree, by faith.
Also wrong. It isn’t a matter of faith, it’s a matter of probability. I don’t accept evolution on faith. I accept evolution on evidence. There is so much evidence that zero faith is needed.
There are some theories about the origins of life from chemistry (which, by the way, is a separate issue from evolution) which have much less evidence. Some are largely speculation. But they are still not accepted on faith. They are accepted based on a correlation of evidence and probability. Although these theories are not as heavily supported, there is still no faith involved. Why? Because I don’t “believe” in them. I don’t accept them as any sort of truth. I recognize them for what they are: theories and hypotheses. They don’t claim to prove anything, just to make an educated guess.
Just because you can reproduce micro “evolution” in a lab does not prove macro evolution.
This statement once again demonstrates that you aren’t understanding how gradual the process of evolution is and how long it takes to work. First of all, evolution is a series of very small changes over a very long time. Microevolution has been observed in both the lab and in nature. There are no known barriers to microevolution. There is no arbitrary stopping point. Eventually, given time, all of the small changes begin to add up. Microevolution results in macroevolution. The only thing that would disprove this is the evidence of some sort of a barrier that stops microevolution in its tracks.
But further, macroevolution, or speciazation to use a more accurate term, HAS been observed. You keep claiming it hasn’t, but is has. You can continue to ignore it, but I don’t understand the point of raising a thoroughly discredited objection again and again. Speciazation happens when two lines of one species evolve in such different directions that they can no longer mate and produce fertile offspring. Think of the difference between a horse and a donkey. This has been observed using animals with short lifespans who reproduce rapidly.
Here’s a short list of only a few of the times macroevolution has been observed:
A new species of mosquito, isolated in London’s Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998)
Scientists Discover Fish in Act of Evolution in Africa’s Greatest Lake
Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951 (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991)
Phylloscopus trochiloides around the Himalayas (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2005).
Not to mention the tons of fossil evidence for macroevolution.
I am not saying that ID is a proven fact. I may personally believe in Intelligent Design, but that’s my choice, just as you’ve chosen to believe in Darwinism.
I didn’t chose to believe in evolution, just as I don’t choose to believe in gravity or Newton’s F=ma equation. I used to believe young earth biblically literal creationism. That I chose to believe in. I didn’t have any evidence for it beyond what I had been taught in church and at Christian school. It was just a personal choice. It was what I wanted to be true about the universe. Actually, it is still what I would like to be true. If I really had a choice, I would choose to believe that a loving God created everything in nature and cares for every creature.
But I was confronted with the facts of evolution, and they are facts I can’t deny. I didn’t decide one day, “Now I want to believe in evolution.” I just came to the realization that my previous belief was not true. Think of a little kid who used to believe in Santa. Do they one day decide that they don’t want to believe in Santa anymore, or are they confronted with so much evidence that their parents are actually Santa that they can’t ignore the truth of the situation?
Now, you can claim that I’ve chosen ignorantly, while you’ve merely accepted the obvious truth, but that would be quite arrogant and I hope you won’t stoop to that.
I’m not claiming you’ve chosen ignorantly, but I am going to hold you to a standard of evidence.
But what you’re suggesting through that analogy is that evolution, without any governing intelligence, “mutates” into better and better versions of the original. I find that extremely implausible.
Again, this is the argument from personal incredulity. Just because you find it implausible does not make it untrue. The evidence is against you.
Just look at us for example. When a genetic mutation occurs, it results in a birth defect. This is going backwards, not forwards.
Mutations are sometimes bad. They’re mostly benign. But sometimes they are also good. When a genetic mutations occurs, it results in blue eyes. When a genetic mutations occurs, it results in the ability to better transport lipids. When a genetic mutations occurs, it results in a decreased risk of myocardial infarction. These are all documented cases of positive mutations, ones that move forward. And most are very recent, meaning documented without a doubt not a matter of archaeology.
But my question has always been, why in natural selection do all things go from disorder to order, when nothing else in the universe does?
This is wrong. The formation of stars and planets are an instance of disorder turning into order. The formation of chemical compounds from individual atoms is an example as well. How about the entire process of nuclear fusion?
You see pure chance, apparantely, but I see the guiding hand of a Creator. I am not saying that evolution isn’t true. All I’m saying is that I don’t believe evolution is possible without intelligent design. The odds are too astronomical.
How do you know the odds? You “believe.” That’s fine. Some people believe in aliens and fairies and psychics. You all have the same amount of evidence, you’re personal feelings and observations. I’m arguing from a different platform. And again, that personal incredulity thing….you can’t argue from it. It’s fallacious.
That’s not what I’m saying though. I’m suggesting that neither of us know! You admit you don’t know where the matter came from, therefore, it could have come from God – but maybe not. Or, perhaps aliens, as some people believe. Or perhaps nothing.
All of these ideas do not share equal footing.
When I look at nature, I see the work of a brilliant Creator. The heavens declare His glory. Why do you have a problem with that?
I don’t have a problem with that. Let me remind you that you started this discussion. I didn’t come to your blog and tell you why I think what you believe is worthy of rejection. YOU came here. YOU had a problem with what I said.
However, and perhaps this is a flaw in my character, nothing makes me more sadder than unrealized truth. I know that the answer is out there are available to everyone, just like it was available to me. I made an about-face change regarding this topic, so I know how powerful the evidence can be.
And frankly, I don’t care what you see when you look at the world. You can’t make an argument based on your personal intuition. Much in this world violates our intuition severely. If we went around making judgments based on such intuitive observations we would constantly be wrong. For example, when you look at the moon, would you have any way of telling just based on your own observations, with no foreknowledge, how it came to glow? People used to see it lit up like Sun and assume that both had internal sources of light. Not so for the moon, it only reflects light, it has none of its own. Another example is the notion of Einsteinian relativity. When you grow up in a place with clocks, you believe that it is obvious that time is static. The clock ticks, always an equal intervals. Nothing in your non-scientific lay person observations could reveal the fact that time is dependent on motion, and that the faster an object is moving, the less time it experiences. Just looking out your window isn’t enough. It won’t reveal the truth of the physical world.
By the way, I don’t give a hoot about your belief in God, or even if you want to believe that God drives evolution. There is no evidence for either, and I will continue to point out how nothing about evolution suggests a creator or a directing force, but that isn’t what really bothers me. What does bother me is the total rejection of any sort of evolution. As you’ve pointed out, there is nothing about evolution that necessarily negate the belief in God. You can still be a Bible-believing Christian and accept the truth of evolution. I would be as happy as a clam if all Christian would realize that.
I might argue about the aspects of evolution that seem ridiculous to me, but I am not actually saying that evolution isn’t true.
You’ve told me that you reject it. Why would anyone reject the truth? And several times you said evolution is impossible. Why would you think something may be true if you call it impossible?
It’s basically – where you see unguided chance, I see guidance. Both viewpoints take equal faith because neither of us have any way of proving how it all initially began. I can’t prove it was God anymore than you can prove that it *wasn’t* God.
This is not true, but I’ve explained why several times already. And again, the two worldviews are not 50/50. There isn’t just as much evidence for YEC as there is for evolution and an earth than is 4.5 billions of years old. Actually, there is no evidence for YEC, except in the pages of the Bible. It in no way conforms to what is observed in the natural world.
May 27, 2009 at 1:24 am |
Of course I understand that it was an analogy. But what you’re suggesting through that analogy is that evolution, without any governing intelligence, “mutates” into better and better versions of the original. I find that extremely implausible. Just look at us for example. When a genetic mutation occurs, it results in a birth defect. This is going backwards, not forwards.
I understand the concept here, believe me, I do. It’s called “survival fo the fittest.”
Just to belabor the point, “better” is a very subjective term, as I mentioned above with the dinosaurs. It’s easier to say that the “fittest” survive, but that doesn’t always mean what you would conventionally think of as “better.”
As Darwin said, “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”
That is what makes one fittest.
May 22, 2009 at 3:23 pm |
Having read through some of this, but admittedly not all, I”m not quite sure where you stand Bekah. Do you hold to a young earth and/or young universe (on the order of only many 1000’s of years old)? Or and old earth and/or universe (on the order of millions or billions of years old)? Do you hold to fiat creationism (done directly by deity in a short order of time? Or are you more of an ID type who says deity guided the process over a long time? Or are you some sort of theistic evolutionist who thinks the long time periods and gradual change happened, but deity set it up, put in in motion, and had it all pretty much planned out?
May 25, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
Hi LeoPardus :)
I believe in a young earth (6,000 years) created by God in six literal days. In some of my posts, I refer to ID and Theistic evolution, only to point out that there are many people who believe that God used the process of evolution to create the world. I personally believe that the theory of evolution is utter nonsense, and I am also well aware that theistic evolution is incompatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is vital. Nevertheless, I don’t see a belief in evolution as a legitimate reason for atheism.
May 25, 2009 at 8:31 pm |
Interesting Bekah. 20 years ago I would have agreed with every statement except your last one. Now I disagree with every statement except your last one. :)
May 25, 2009 at 11:13 pm |
Seeing where you’re coming from Bekah, I understand why you defend the position and why you really have no motivation to investigate “the other side”. You are convinced that you have the ultimate truth on your side.
The thing really cracked by armor on that was learning that the ICR and CRI and other such folks were lying, a lot, deliberately. Once it was obvious that “the truth” was supported by a lot of lies, I began to look at both sides of the matter. Then it was pretty easy for the evidence to make the case.
It still took a whole lot of years before I began to find the cracks in the faith itself though. And that was a whole different avenue of learning.
Well anyway, I don’t really expect you to undertake to learn about evolution (except from creationists) and I sure don’t expect you to look long and hard to atheism. (The thought of that latter would have scared the daylights out of me only 3 years ago.) Still I can hope. I guess when one gets to finally enjoy the light of real truth, one just wishes everyone else could find it too.
May 29, 2009 at 1:53 pm |
Hi OrDover. :) It took me a few days to respond because I decided to solicite help from a more knowledgeable friend before responding. So, please note as you read this that it is in his words, not mine. Also, this will be my last post because as I mentioned before, I do not have sufficient time to continue a debate right now – too many other projects on the go.
OrDover said: “However, and perhaps this is a flaw in my character, nothing makes me more sadder than unrealized truth. I know that the answer is out there are available to everyone, just like it was available to me.”
The funny thing about truth when it comes to our origins is that everyone must decide for themselves what “truth” actually is. Whether we’re talking about special creation or Darwinian descent from a common ancestor the events we’re talking about occurred in the distant past. No human was there to observe them and there is no way to recreate them. So evidence for those original events cannot be based on empirical evidence – science that is observable, repeatable, and testable. The evidence for those events can only be based on historical evidence or forensic science. And so any hypothesis or theory regarding origin events can only be supported with a cumulative case of circumstantial evidence. But the big drawback of circumstantial evidence is that it must be interpreted by the observer. And that interpretation will always be dependent on that person’s biases and presuppositions. An atheistic scientist who bases his worldview on materialistic naturalism will always come to conclusions that support his naturalistic bias. Just as a creation scientist who bases his worldview on the existence of the omnipotent Creator of the Bible will always come to conclusions that support what God has told us about the world in His word. In your de-conversion testimony you state that you hadn’t been a Christian for years when you began to investigate the evidence for Darwinism so I’m sure you came to that evidence with your own set of biases based in your unbelief and so it wasn’t hard for you to conclude “that it was 100% truth.”
OrDover said: “But further, macroevolution, or speciazation to use a more accurate term, HAS been observed. You keep claiming it hasn’t, but is has. You can continue to ignore it, but I don’t understand the point of raising a thoroughly discredited objection again and again.”
Here you seem to be confused about what macroevolution is. It is not speciation. Speciation itself is fully accepted by creationists. Creationists have no problem with the idea that one species of finch on the Galapagos Islands diversified into thirteen species. After all, creationists believe that a single dog kind came off the Ark and diversified into wolves, jackals, dingoes, coyotes and all the breeds of domestic dog. Speciation is a non-issue with creationists. As a former young earth creationist I’m surprised you aren’t aware of this. If you want to get informed about what YECs believe about speciation you can check out this article:
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-2-variation-and-natural-selection-versus-evolution
What we do have an issue with is macroevolution – the hypothesis that one kind of animal can evolve into a completely different kind. The macroevolution hypothesis is not based on empirical evidence. No scientist was around to observe the evolution of single celled life into multi-cellular life. No one saw fish turn into amphibians or reptiles turn into birds. And in our world today we don’t see evidence that macroevolution is currently taking place. There simply are no animals present on earth that are partway evolved into completely different animals. And when we study the anatomy of animals we never find organs that are changing into different organs with new functions. Every animal is already complete and functional in the environment in which it lives.
When we look at actual observations of what mutation plus natural selection can achieve we find that the results are very limited. In Michael Behe’s new book, The Edge of Evolution, he shows that even fast reproducing malarial parasites have only been found to achieve a single double mutation in a single gene while developing resistance to the anti-malarial drug, chloroquine. The chances of achieving two such double mutations would exceed “the total number of cells that have existed on earth in the billions of years that life is supposed to have existed. In other words, evolution could never achieve this. This is basically ‘the edge of evolution’ the limit to what mutations and natural selection can achieve.” You can read more of the details here:
http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution
OrDover said: “There are no known barriers to microevolution. There is no arbitrary stopping point. Eventually, given time, all of the small changes begin to add up. Microevolution results in macroevolution. The only thing that would disprove this is the evidence of some sort of a barrier that stops microevolution in its tracks.”
This is simply wrong. It’s too bad you didn’t hold on to your faith a few years longer. If you had you could have found out that creationists have shown that there is a very big barrier that prevents microevolution from turning into macroevolution. That barrier is the genetic load that is building up in all genomes. In the book, Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, Dr. John Sanford shows that mildly deleterious mutations are building up in the human genome at such a rapid rate that our genome is actually decaying towards error catastrophe. In past decades it was assumed that deleterious mutations amounted to just 0.12 to 0.30 mutations per person per generation. At that time it was generally believed that “if the rate of deleterious mutations approached one deleterious mutation per person per generation, long-term genetic deterioration would be a certainty” (pg. 33). But in recent years studies of the mutation rate in our reproductive cells has shown that the actual rate of nucleotide substitutions is between 100 and 300 per person per generation. This means that in the current generation alone at least 600 billion mutations have accumulated in the human race. And we have already inherited hundreds of billions of mutations from the previous generation. This has serious implications for the viability of humanity. I’ll simply quote Dr. Sanford’s conclusion:
Genetic information must erode over time. The actual rate for all types of mutations may be more than 600 per person per generation, and so given a diploid genome size of 6 billion, we should be losing about one ten millionth of our total information per generation (this number is not affected by what fraction of the genome is actually functional)… The genome appears to be a program so well designed that it can tolerate tens of thousands of errors. It is amazingly robust – unlike anything designed by man. But for all that, the genome is still not immune to failure due to error accumulation. In 300 generations (6,000 years), if the rate of loss was constant and at its current level, we would lose about .003% of our total information. This is huge – (90,000 errors) – yet given the extremely robust nature of the genome, it is conceivable. However, if we continued to lose information at this same rate for 300,000 generations (6 million years) we would lose 3% of all our information! This would represent 90 million errors! This is inconceivable. No program could still be functional (pg. 150).
So in 6 million years, the supposed time since our split with chimpanzees, our genome should have reached the point of error catastrophe simple due to the accumulation of genetic load. The genome is simply unsustainable over evolutionary time scales, which means that evolution is impossible. And this conclusion is based on observable evidence. If you want you can read more about this here:
http://creation.com/from-ape-to-man-via-genetic-meltdown-a-theory-in-crisis
May 29, 2009 at 1:57 pm |
OrDover said: “Actually, there is no evidence for YEC, except in the pages of the Bible. It in no way conforms to what is observed in the natural world.”
Once again it’s too bad you didn’t stick around to see the research that creationists have been doing on the age of the earth in recent years. One of their findings is that all levels of the geologic column contain intrinsic amounts of carbon-14. Carbon-14 has a short half-life of 5730 years and is used to date organic samples that are up to thousands of years old. The problem (for evolution) came to light when a new method for determining C-14 decay, called the accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) method, was developed to determine C-14 ages. This method is much more sensitive than the old one and should be able to give C-14 ages up to 90,000 years. This would correspond to a carbon-14 level of 0.001 pmc (percent modern carbon). But a big problem occurred when investigators went to look for procedural blanks to calibrate their measurements against. These are samples that would provide a normal “background” level of C-14 that the tested sample could be compared to. But no matter where they looked in the geologic record, and no matter whether the blanks were organic or inorganic in origin, investigators could not find any samples with C-14 levels that were below the detection level of the AMS equipment. All samples tested contained some intrinsic carbon-14. And what does this mean? Well, if any of the samples were older than 90,000 years then there should be no detectible carbon-14 found in them. The presence of detectible carbon-14 strongly argues that no samples can be found that are older than 90,000 years.
You can read a detailed analysis of this long-age problem in this paper:
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf
Here’s how the authors of this study describe the situation that uniformitarians find themselves in:
“AMS analyses reveal carbon from fossil remains of living organisms, regardless of their position in the geological record, consistently contains C-14 levels far in excess of the AMS machine threshold, even when extreme pre-treatment methods are applied. Experiments in which the sample size is varied argue compellingly that the C-14 is intrinsic to the fossil material and not a result of handling or pre-treatment. These conclusions continue to be confirmed in the very latest peer-reviewed papers. Moreover, even non-organic carbon samples appear consistently to yield C-14 levels well above machine threshold. Graphite samples formed under metamorphic and reducing conditions in Precambrian limestone environments commonly display C-14 values on the order of 0.05 pmc. Most AMS laboratories are now using such Precambrian graphite for their procedural blanks. A good question is what possibly could be the source of the C-14 in this material? We conclude that the possibility this C-14 is primordial is a reasonable one. Finding C-14 in diamond formed in the earth’s mantle would provide support for such a conclusion. Establishing that non-organic carbon from the mantle and from Precambrian crustal settings consistently contains inherent C-14 well above the AMS detection threshold would, of course, argue the earth itself is less than 100,000 years old, which is orders of magnitude younger than the 4.56 Ga currently believed by the uniformitarian community.”
Since this study was published creationists have tested eleven diamonds taken from Precambrian strata with AMS dating method. All the diamonds were found to contain intrinsic carbon-14 and gave C-14 ages of less than 58,000 years. Because of the very great strength of the crystal bonds within diamonds, it can pretty much be ruled out that this carbon-14 was the result of outside contamination. This result reduces the age of these Precambrian strata from over a billion years down to thousands of years.
Here’s the problem that long-age believers will have in trying to explain this data away. First off they will have to come up with a source for this C-14 contamination that is worldwide in scope. They will also have to provide a source that affects all levels of the geologic column at the same time. And they will also have to provide a source that affects both organic and inorganic carbon materials including diamonds, which are contamination immune. And since experts in this field have been trying for years to come up with a solution to this problem and have had no success, any proffered explanation will have to be something that no one has thought of yet. So I have a feeling the long-age compatible solution for this C-14 problem is going to remain rather elusive for old-earth believers.
OrDover said: “One has tons of evidence on it side. The other has no evidence. It actually builds itself up out of lack of evidence. Creationism says, ‘We don’t know how this happen, so God must have done it.’ ”
Well here’s one last piece of evidence for creation that is based on what we do know about the real world. If we look closely at the information stored within the genome of every living organism we can see that there is an evolution killer present in life itself. That evolution killer is the existence of coded information. Coded information is used in every cell to store the construction and control information for all its machinery. It is also used in transmitting information when messenger-RNA (containing the construction code for a protein) is sent from the nucleus to the ribosomes where new proteins are manufactured. And those ribosomes must then interpret that coded message as they build each protein peptide by peptide. But the fact is that in the entire history of science no human being has ever observed a naturalistic process of matter or energy spontaneously produce an information coding system or produce brand new coded information within an existing coding system. The only thing known to science that is able to generate coding systems and coded information is an intelligent mind or a machine created by an intelligent mind.
It isn’t hard to understand why naturalism is incapable of producing coded information when you consider that coded information is an entirely separate entity from the processes of matter and energy that naturalism works with. Coded information can be inscribed on energy such as in modulated radio waves, and coded information can be inscribed on matter such as in the printed words of a book, but the coded information itself is not made up of either matter or energy. The information is imposed upon that matter or energy by a cognitive mental process originating from an intelligent mind. The will of an intelligent agent causes the matter or energy to be specifically arranged in a sequence that a receiver will recognize as an agreed upon code. The matter or energy contributes nothing to the actual production of the information. Matter or energy is only the medium that is used for either storing or transmitting the information.
Could we consider the forces of nature acting on matter and energy adequate to produce the effect of spontaneously creating the coded information of life? We know that coded information is not made up of either matter or energy. Coded information is entirely made up of the specified arrangement of the matter or energy in the coded message. This absolutely requires will, and purpose, and intent in the agent creating the coded information. Since the forces of nature can only act in fixed ways governed by mathematical laws, and with no purpose in mind, we can conclude that materialistic processes are entirely inadequate to cause the appearance of coded information. Naturalistic processes have no will and they have no intent and so they fail both the necessity test and the sufficiency test for being an adequate cause for the coded information found in life. This means that nothing inside the naturalistic universe was adequate to initially produce the information of life.
The intelligent origin of coded information is so clear-cut that creationists have been able to develop universal laws of information that have never had an observed exception. These laws apply 100 per cent of the time. Here are some of the information laws developed by the creationist, Dr. Werner Gitt:
1) Information cannot be set up, stored, or transmitted without using a code.
2) A code is always the result of a free and deliberate convention. It is a uniquely defined set of symbols, syntax and grammatical structure that has been agreed upon by both sender and receiver.
3) There can be no information without a sender.
4) Any given chain of coded information always points to a mental source.
5) Coded information can never originate in statistical processes. This includes all random trial and error processes, like the mythical process of life evolving from non-life. In every true coded message the sender delivers that message with an intended purpose for the receiver. But it is impossible for statistical processes to ever add meaning to a message.
So based on all the observations that have been made in human history we can say that coded information only results from the willful intention of an intelligent mind. Evolutionists cannot produce a single scrap of empirical evidence to show that the coded information of life arose through naturalistic processes! They can only believe by faith that such an event is possible. But creationists can produce a wealth of empirical evidence that shows the information of life must be the result of intelligent action that is separate from the naturalistic universe. The evidence strongly supports the creationist conclusion that the information of life originated from an Intelligence that is many orders of magnitude greater than the collective intelligence of all humanity. That Intelligence is God our creator.
OrDover said: “ID is NOT a scientific theory because it is unfalsifiable.”
It is quite easy to imagine a scenario that would falsify the theory of intelligent design. All it would take would be the documentation of a naturalistic process spontaneously producing a simple coding system; or, alternately, the documentation of the spontaneous production of functional proteins or RNA through a naturalistic process and without the intelligent intervention of the investigators directing the chemical process toward the desired goal. Either one of these results would be a crippling blow to the intelligent design movement because it would clearly demonstrate that nothing but the naturalistic universe is necessary to get the basics of life started. But I am not worried in the least that either of these events will ever occur.
May 29, 2009 at 8:25 pm |
Bekah:
I know that stuff all sounds good to you. Bekah, they are lying to you. That study was never published outside of the ICR. It was never subjected to peer-review. It’s also a rehash of an old line from my YECs days. Back then it was the amount of background 14C in the atmosphere. And back then I bought it hook, line, and sinker just as you have now. It was years later that I found out how much these people were lying. (BTW, I had a Christian fried who told me they were lying back then. I didn’t believe him. I had to find out for myself.)
The ICR (and the CRI) don’t do research. And the only creation going on with them is the creating of elaborate lies.
I know you don’t believe me. I would not have. In a way it’s really very frustrating. To watch someone believe these horrid liars and think them to be defenders of the truth. It’s frustrating because I know that the only way you are likely to finally realize how bad they are (if you ever do) is for you to find out what inveterate liars they are on your own. (That’s what I had to do.)
You seem like a nice, decent person Bekah. And I hate seeing decent folks taken in by a bunch of men who use their education only to defraud people on the basis of their credulity (and that born of decency and lack of the needed knowledge).
I wish my word meant something to you when I tell you they are lying. I wish you could see these men for what they are.
June 6, 2009 at 12:58 am |
I’m sorry to comment on an almost year old post, but having only now come across your story I felt compelled to say how much it resonated with me and the experience that I’m currently going through.
My early life wasn’t quite as sheltered as your own. I went to state schools, so I had a secular education, but my parents brought me up as a Christian and I trusted that what they told me was right. I grew up to be a committed Christian, serving in my church by leading a small bible study group of young people, as well as leading worship at church.
Just under two years ago I left home for university, and it’s been in this second year of universtiy that my faith has come crashing down. In the last month or so I’ve finally realised that I’m now agnostic – I’ve reached a stange where I just can’t accept all the contradictions and threadbare explanations any longer. Yet I feel trapped. My girlfriend has recently undergone a similar journey, so thankfully I’m not alone, but she is the only one whom I’ve felt confident enough to share my thoughts with. In the rest of my life I feel as if I’m living a deception. In my university town I still attend church and play music in the worship group, and as I head home for the summer I’ll no doubt attend my church there. It feels so insincere, but I simply can’t tell my parents and my Christian friends.
This is what particularly resonated with me most from your story – how you’ve kept your atheism from your family for so long. I love my parents – they are the most wonderful, loving people. For that reason I couldn’t bear to tell them that I didn’t believe, for it would cause them such pain and sadness. They’d likely blame themselves, and I wouldn’t want my unbelief to hang over our relationship like a grey cloud. At the same time, it feels so constraining to live a life of deception, and I fear that some day it will have to come to light. Whether I tell my family or hide it from them, it seems to be a lose-lose situation. And it’s not just my family I must deceive – most of my closest friends are Christians, and know my family. There’s a whole circle I must keep in deception. I am liberated yet in chains.
June 7, 2009 at 10:37 pm |
David:
Just a plug for you to drop in on de-conversion.com It is a community for people in all stages of doubting or leaving the faith. There are people there who are right where you are or who have been right where you are. You may find some good ideas and support there.