Evolution!!!!
So, on August 10th I shared a link on Facebook, and commented about it...here: http://www.facebook.com/posted.php?id=1534917542&share_id=111962853649&comments=1&ref=ss
Anyhow, if you read the comments, you'll see where my brother-in-law started a conversation with me about it. I decided to actually view some of the stuff he posted, as he is a pretty sharp guy (sorry, but I would probably have just ignored anything most people put there). Because I actually respect him, and because I really was due to stick my nose in this stuff again, I decided to try to write up a response. But it'll actually take a few responses, since he provided such a wealth of material to start with. Pascal, if you ever read this, I want you to know that what I'm writing here is not directed at you, but at the material you shared. Furthermore, I should add the disclaimer that I get a little intense sometimes when I debate, and it's not out of any ill will toward anyone. I respect you very much, or else I wouldn't be writing this.
So, here's our list of stuff to process over the next however many days:
Six videos in this playlist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLNoRlxjvJI&feature=PlayList&p=7C90EE51FA96E8CE&index=0
This list of 45 articles (of course we probably won't do all of them): http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/item13.htm
The video series is intended to display, based on six well-accepted criteria, that evolution is scientific. Well, here goes with the first of those six videos "Observational data":
Unfortunately I couldn’t find any links to sources in the video or on the dvd site, so I’m limited to what I could find in a short time.
Right at the outset, the creator of the video (henceforth, for the sake of irony, "the creator"), shows off a website from "Creation Ministries International" (or CMI), which he claims is the new front of Answers In Genesis (AIG, but not to be confused with the guys the US government just handed our grandkids' paychecks). The actual website in question is http://creation.com. Wait a second! Upon investigation, CMI has absolutely NOTHING to do with AIG. Compare with http://www.answersingenesis.org. Sure, they seem to have the same goals, but their staff is different, CMI has NO references to AIG, and AIG’s website is completely different. Granted, this has absolutely nothing to do with the actual content of our discussion, and anyone who knows their stuff will quickly call me on the carpet for use of ad hominem, but I sure hope the creator did better research regarding science than he did regarding the ownership of the site. Furthermore, he pronounced “extant” incorrectly – but then again most presidents (including BHO) mispronounce words liberally. Oh, and you will notice that many of my links are to AIG’s site, not CMI’s, as AIG is one of, if not the, most trusted resource(s) in the young earth community.
Now, the creator attempts to discredit the article's claim (http://creation.com/is-evolution-scientific) regarding Richard Dawkins' statement, "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." Well, regardless of what you may or may not have intimated from his book, that is what the man said. Read it in context here: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html#dawkins.
Next, the creator accuses CMI of setting up a straw man in the article by saying, "Ask the average person what evolution means and you’ll get the same idea. Often they will describe it like ‘We came from monkeys’..." However, the creator is the one really setting up the straw man here. If you read the article, that paragraph is preceded by this: "According to a text evolution published by Pergamon, evolution is: ‘ … the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’" The creator is trying to imply that the article doesn't really understand what evolution is, whereas, in fact, the quote he uses is used in the article only to accentuate the quotation from a text book. And, in fact, throughout the video his definition of evolution seems to revolve around speciation from one original organism to the diversity of life we see today. Again, this has nothing to do with the validity of evolution, but it really gives me pause about the creator.
Another straw man shows up during the discussion of "micro" versus "macro" evolution. Creationists do see the evolutionary model as a tree, not a ladder. This is nothing but petty squabbling over semantics. Our contention is that what we call “macroevolution”, the divergence of one species into two, is not observable in nature. When has a species diverged to the point that a completely new, sustainable branch exists? The ONLY reason the divergence of two species is said to take so much time is BECAUSE it's never been observed.
The creator of the video engages in a serious misrepresentation of the young earth creationist’s position. Even a casual perusal of AIG material should reveal that young earth creationists believe in a somewhat different system of classification than the current model, which has its basis in evolutionary theory. I suppose that, if you think about it, both sides are begging the question by using a classification system that depends on their own theory. The creationists are at least honest about it, however.
Of course the “kind” system of classification has its roots in the Bible, as does the idea that the cosmos is constantly expanding. In fact, I'd say that the whole modern scientific situation is described very well in 1 Timothy 3: "always learning yet never coming to the knowledge of the truth".
Fruit Flies…Mutations are not beneficial, and do not result in any new speciation – something we might hope to see in an animal with such a short lifecycle. Here are a few articles from AIG that talk about fruit flies. Fruit flies have been part of the debate for a LONG time, so it shouldn't take much googling (sorry for using that as a verb) to find mucho plenny articles on all sides of the issue.
Here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v20/n2/genetics
Here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/junk_dna.asp
Here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n2/admissions
New species of iguana: Did we observe it make the jump from one species to a new one? If not, are we simply filtering the data through preconceptions, adding it into its supposed location on the tree?
Here: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/01/05/pink-iguana.html?ref=rss
Here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/01/10/news-to-note-01102009
Here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7811875.stm
I don’t see how this is any more significant to evolution than the existence of Chihuahuas and great danes. That said, the bit about the lizard supposedly diverging prior to the existence of the Galapagos islands is pretty funny to me, although they do have a possible explanation. In my mind this is an example of scientists making needless assumptions about other areas of science (geological history) to accommodate evolution. Sure, Creationists do it too, but at least we admit it.
Greenback lizard
Here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/life-designed-to-adapt
Here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm
Here: http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/irschick/Irs_papers/Herrel%20et%20al%202008%20PNAS.pdf
I wish I had access to the original document, but it sounds as though even the authors who suspect genetic change admit that there may be other explanations, such as “phenotypic plasticity and maternal effects”, which do sound like a highly plausible option. Now, I know these guys are probably smarter than me, but it is highly suspect in my view that they suspect a genetic basis for the change, even while using the fact that the lizards are genetically indistinguishable to prove that the lizards are both podarcis sicula. As the AIG article points out, however, “only mitochondrial DNA was sequenced”. Unless there’s new research I wasn’t able to find, this is another example of the creator of the video not finishing his homework.
Change in color of fish is micro, not macro. Cichlids in Lake Victoria.
Here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/10/11/news-to-note-10112008
Here: http://www.physorg.com/news142615133.html
It really does seem like this is just variation within a species…especially since the enviroNazis are worried that pollution will cause the fish to start interbreeding again, and since the cessation of interbreeding was only due to the segregation. Also, I would love to know for sure whether the divergent fish had more or less genetic density than their predecessors…I would guess less, but that sort of guessing is why I’d make a bad scientist.
In conclusion for this one, I want to point out a couple of things about my position:
1. I am a young earth creationist. This means that I believe God created everything, and that He created it all pretty much at the same time. Specifically, I do NOT believe that He used Darwinian, Neo-Darwinian or even Post-Neo-Darwinian evolutionary diversification of species as part of His creative process.
2. I understand that there are Christians who believe the Bible is true, but believe the creation narrative is not to be taken literally, thus allowing for a belief in evolution. This just shows a lack of literary prowess. Read it...it's meant to be literal, although, in all honesty, if you could prove to me, beyond all doubt, that young earth creationism is wrong, I'd have to admit I was wrong about this one.
3. I don't think people are stupid for believing in evolution. I think they're wrong, but I can definitely see how they could believe it. I also don't think atheists are stupid, just wrong. I do, however, think that people (like Richard Dawkins) who make those of use who do believe in God out to be stupid are being very intellectually dishonest. And seriously, if you've ever listened to Dawkins for longer than a couple of minutes...let's just say I'd rather listen to Obama.