Creationist: Before you start debating evolutionists..

I've seen this before. It wouldn't be a bad idea to post a link to the website this came from.Anyway, it's cute and not inaccurate, but kind of overtly antagonistic, condescending and overconfident. In a strictly scientific sense the Creationist position is as overwhelmed as this statement implies, but the actual battle takes place before school boards and state legislatures, and the problem of making the issues clear to those unfamiliar with science is a daunting one.Contradictorily enough, some of the most successful Creationist debaters at sites like this are those who know the least science. Without the necessary background to rein in their thinking, almost any scenario seems possible to them, and explanations of the problems with their proposals go right over their head and are ignored.Except for the geniuses among us evolutionists, I expect most of us spent years acquiring what science we know. Many Creationists have a faith-based interest in the issue, not science-based, and you can't expect them to acquire and comprehend in days what it took you years. Naturually it's kind of annoying when they poke fun and act superior out of ignorance, for instance by ridiculing positions they don't realize science doesn't hold, but for the most part people on both sides are pretty much alike, confidently believing their understanding to be true.When I look back over the years that I've participated in this debate it's humbling (and uncomfortable) to reflect on the number of times I've been wrong. At various times I've screwed up 2LOT, quantum theory, population genetics and Biblical interpretation, to mention just a few. Perhaps it's just that my talents are meager, but I think it more likely that many on the evolution side, while perhaps better informed on average about scientific matters than their Creationist brethren, still have a long way to go themselves.--Percy

---

Robert writes:
Does evolution teach that the "origin of species" started in the oceans with single-celled organisms? If so, can these single-celled organisms be considered "simple". If single-celled organisms can be considered "simple" how does that relate to your statement #6 above? If single-celled organisms cannot be considered "simple" how do you define the word "simple".

---

Joe is right that we don't yet know how the first life might have arisen, though there are many proposals. To add to Joe's list, one recently developed possibility that has shown promise is that life arose in ocean depths near lava vents.Given that complex amino acids can form through natural processes, calling the earliest cells simple could only be considered a relative statement. Even the earliest living cells that we might legitimately call cells would have had predecessors, and we have only vaguest of ideas of what these ancestors may have been like. And even these ancestors would have had ancestors, multiplying the uncertainty.So how simple were the earliest cells? They were probably simple as compared to modern eukaryotic cells (cells with a nucleus and mitochondria), but probably fairly complex compared to amino acids and distant predecessors. There's very little evidence left after about 3.8 billion years, so most of what we have is informed speculation.--Percy

---

Robert writes:
This puts into mind question #7 above. It seems to me that the first single-celled organism was far less complex than a human being. Such an observation would suggest that life evolved (that is if evolution is true) from "simple" to "complex"? No?

​

If I answer "yes" to #7 in the fashion above then should I start banging my head?

---

You should start banging your head. Question 7 asks, "Does evolution proceed from lower to higher lifeforms?". It is meant to determine whether you hold the common but naive and incorrect understanding of evolution as a progression. Question 8 formulates the question more directly: "Does evolution incorporate the notion of progress?"Evolution produces organisms more fit to survive. It is absolutely blind toward any sense of progress, either from lower to higher or from simple to complex. The sole guiding factor is the ability to pass genes on to the next generation. Evolutionary success means passing genes on, evolutionary failure means not passing genes on. Whether the descendent organisms are simpler or more complicated, whether they are "higher" or "lower" (whatever that means), is irrelevant.Take some aspirin. --Percy

---

Cobra_snake writes:
2. Does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?"

​

Hmmm... well I suppose I deserve a bump on my head if I said "Yes"? And what exactly would be the determining factor on whether or not evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Why, the opinion of evolutionary scientists! Of course, their view is superior to that of the inbred heathen creation "scientists".

---

I'm afraid it is also the opinion of physicists and chemists and all scientists everywhere that evolution does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT). At heart evolution is simply chemical reactions, not a single one of which violates 2LOT.The Creationist position that evolution violates 2LOT has to rank near the top of any list of the most boneheaded claims of all time, but strangely enough it is also one of the most effective claims in the Creationist repertoire. This is because Creationists take their arguments not to scientists but to boards of education and state legislatures and public debates and presentations to lay audiences. Over time they've discovered this argument really works with people unfamiliar with science. This argument's got legs!! This gives the 2LOT claim a lot appeal for Creation scientists, because they take their message almost exclusively to the laity rather than to scientists.The Creationist 2LOT claim is usually couched in terms designed to be understood by laypeople, but in these forms it is usually a misstatement. Creationists usually explain 2LOT as saying that the universe is running down, or that complexity cannot increase, or that higher life forms can't develop from lower. In reality it says nothing like this.While there is more than one way that 2LOT can be expressed, the form most relevant for this discussion says that the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Sometimes Creationists will even express it along these lines, saying that entropy cannot decrease, but they'll always leave out the part about a closed system.But evolution does not take place in a closed system because the earth is not a closed system. It receives enormous amounts of energy from the sun everyday, and that energy is the engine driving almost all (I have to say almost because geothermal is another source of energy) life activity on earth, including evolution. Because the earth is not a closed system, 2LOT arguments cannot be used to place limits upon it.When they advance this argument, leading Creationists are actually disrespecting audiences who have put trust in them. The reality is that not only is the Creationist 2LOT argument wrong in a scientific sense, it's wrong even in a Creationist framework. That's because all Creationists concede that microevolution happens. Microevolution can't be denied, since animal breeders of all stripes take advantage of it all the time, and bacteriology and virology show us that mutations are an undeniable fact. Well, guess what? If one microevolutionary step is okay with 2LOT, then two microevolutionary steps are okay with 2LOT, as are three steps, four steps, and so forth. Even a million microevolutionary steps are okay with 2LOT.Look, life is really complicated, but at heart it's just chemicals reacting with one another. When the result of these chemical reactions is an organism different from the parent then evolution has taken place.--Percy

I have enough to say about several of your points that I'm making several posts.

---

Cobra_snake writes:
"3. Does evolution say anything about the origin of life?"

​

The real question is, "If the origin of life by process of chemical evolution was well supported by the facts, would the origin of life be considered a part of evolution?"

---

I think what you're really asking is why abiogenesis and evolution are considered separate topics, and are speculating that perhaps it's because the facts poorly support chemical evolution.But within a scientific context there is no other possibility. Matter interacts through chemical reactions. That's it. That's all there is. That's the entire list of ways in which matter interacts. There are no other possibilities (I'm ignoring nuclear interactions, of course, since they take place at temperatures and pressures far beyond what life can endure). Therefore, the first life came about through chemical reactions.This seems like one of those times where the confusion of Creationists on the nature of science comes to the fore. Science only considers the forces of nature. Once you begin considering other forces, such as supernatural forces, you're no longer doing science.The foundation of the scientific method is the gathering of evidence. For science to consider supernatural forces it is only necessary to gather and present evidence of such forces.--Percy

---

Cobra_snake writes:
2. Does your argument claim that creationists lie, misquote, or quote out of context without any documentation?

---

This is so obviously true I don't know why you're raising it. Redstang and Jet are almost wholly enamored of this approach, despite people taking the trouble to actually root out the original text in which many of the quotes appeared to show how they were taken out of context.Creationists prefer the out-of-context quote approach because, like the 2LOT argument, it is just so darn effective, and not because there is any truth or substance to it. Faithful Christians reading these quotes should ask themselves why, if evolutionary scientists believe evolution is seriously flawed or even blatantly wrong, that evolution hasn't long since slunk away into the dustbin of scientific history. Why would an evolutionary scientist dedicate his professional life to something he doesn't believe? Does this make any kind of sense to anyone?Look at it another way. What if a scientist were to quote a Creationist, say Wells for example, saying that ID is insufficiently supported by the evidence. Would you believe it? Would it make sense to you that Wells would be uttering a severe criticism of the very science he has worked so hard to develop? Of course not. Well, then, why would you believe quotes of evolutionists tearing down their own science?By the way, there are a couple reasons you'll never see those on the side of evolution using this approach. First, they understand it is dishonest. Second, they realize the evidence should speak for itself, that just offering quotes is the fallacy of argument from authority.--Percy

---

Percy writes:
I'm afraid it is also the opinion of physicists and chemists and all scientists everywhere that evolution does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT).

---

---

Cobra_snake replies:
Yes... but these physicists and chemists and such are most likely almost to a person evolutionists.

---

You're missing the point. 2LOT resides within the realm of physics and chemistry, and physicists and chemists are the scientists with the best understanding of that law. Independent of whether they accept evolution or not (and virtually all do), they understand better than anyone else that evolution doesn't violate 2LOT.But this takes us off the original point I was making. If Creationists had a legitimate case concerning 2LOT then they would be taking their arguments to scientific journals and conferences instead of to school boards and public debates before laypeople.

---

I'm afraid I'm going to have to differ with your opinion here, as I don't think Creation scientists are attempting to be dishonest in their use of the Second Law...I find it unfortunate that you have come to this conclusion, because I feel that you have been convinced of this by evolutionary scientists who wish to portray creation scientists as either dishonest or incompetent. Fact is, I've never seen a creationist argument about thermodynamics that didn't include the relevance of closed vs open systems.

---

Have you ever read material from ICR or CRS, the two most prominent YEC organizations? Visit their websites and let me know how often they mention closed systems when describing 2LOT. Duane Gish of ICR used to travel the country debating evolutionists, and at each stop he would describe 2LOT without mentioning closed systems.

---

Yes, and creation scientists always take this into account when discussing the 2LOT. However, they point out that the raw energy from the sun is like a bull in a china shop- it does work, but constructs nothing. Thus, creationists argue that there must be a mechanism to convert this raw energy from the sun into productive energy in order to allow evolution to take place.

---

This is nonsense, not a 2LOT argument. Simple common sense reasoning reveals the fallacy. This "bull in a china shop" energy from the sun is what powers all life here on earth, including reproduction. This supposed "raw energy" from the sun does not require any transformation into "productive energy" - it's already productive energy.As for evolution, when a reproductive mistake (mutation) occurs the energy behind the chemical reactions producing that mistake is ultimately the sun. Life is just chemical reactions, and heat is one of the most common ways to encourage chemical reactions, simple dumb-old brute-force heat.You might try thinking about this while you try to figure out the difference between "raw energy" and "productive energy". I assume by "productive energy" you were thinking about things like electricity. Well, try plugging your plant into the wall and see if it does better than putting it in a well-lit window. Productive energy is whatever form of energy does the job, and for most organic life here on earth the sun's energy is right on the money.--Percy

---

Cobra_snake writes:
True, but creationists deny that microevolution extended equals macroevolution, and indeed even evolutionists seem to argue this point.

---

No, they don't. You must have misunderstood some debated issue within evolution. An evolutionist who didn't accept the accumulation of small change into eventual significant differences would be analogous to an atheistic Creationist. It wouldn't make any sense.

---

Percy writes:
Look, life is really complicated, but at heart it's just chemicals reacting with one another. When the result of these chemical reactions is an organism different from the parent then evolution has taken place.

---

---

Cobra_snake replies:
The question is whether or not these small changes can account for all of life as we see it.

---

What's to prevent it? If I keep putting one foot in front of the other I could eventually end up in San Francisco. Of course, I couldn't walk to Tokyo because of the Pacific Ocean. What is your evolutionary analog to the Pacific Ocean?Like I said, life is just chemical reactions. If chemical reactions are not the vehicle for evolution, then what is? If your answer is God then you're not necessarily wrong, but you're certainly not doing science. At least not until you have empirical evidence for God.--Percy

---

Cobra_snake writes:
I was under the impression that the notion of "scientism" or "materialistic naturalism" was a relatively recent notion. Thus, this new philosophy is a recent invention, not a fundamental principle of science.

---

The foundation of science and the basis of the scientific method is empiricism, usually traced to the 17th century philosopher Francis Bacon. However, an idea's value is not a function of its age but of its power and cogency. Even if empiricism had been developed yesterday, you have to address it on the merits instead of dismissing it as a mere youth.

---

True, science considers only the forces of nature when dealing with operational science, but I see no reason to place that type of restriction upon origins science.

---

That's nice, but the foundational principles of science are the same regardless of the particular field of study.

---

But I must ask, what is evidence? And why can't the creation be evidence of the creator (as apparently SETI agrees)?

---

Well, let's go back to Paley. Paley finds a watch in a meadow and deduces that it was manufactured by humans. He has a lot of evidence for humans, and in fact is one himself. He knows they exist for he is among them daily, and he is intimately familiar with their abilities.What is your equivalent evidence for a creator?--Percy

---

Cobra_snake writes:
The quotes don't generally seem to be evolutionists tearing down their own science, but rather suggesting that a particular prospect/mechanism of evolution is not supported by the evidence.

---

Ah, I see we have a revisionist in our midst.If this is true then why are the quotes often accompanied by statements like, "Scientists are coming to recognize the serious problems with evolutionary theory." Or the ever popular, "More and more scientists are abandoning the theory of evolution."How about this quote provided by Redstang critiquing how radiometric dating is done (he didn't say where he got it, so obviously I don't know where it comes from, either):" ... the thing to do is get a sequence of dates and throw out those that are vastly anomalous." (Curtis et al)The Creationist quoting tactic is not intended to highlight obscure debates within evolutionist circles, which is where most of these quotes come from and with which almost no Creationist is familiar or interested, but rather to paint a highly misleading and inaccurate portrait of a theory in trouble and on the run.--Percy

I wanted to come back to this once more in case you still don't believe Creationists misrepresent 2LOT:

---

Cobra_snake writes:
I'm afraid I'm going to have to differ with your opinion here, as I don't think Creation scientists are attempting to be dishonest in their use of the Second Law...I find it unfortunate that you have come to this conclusion, because I feel that you have been convinced of this by evolutionary scientists who wish to portray creation scientists as either dishonest or incompetent. Fact is, I've never seen a creationist argument about thermodynamics that didn't include the relevance of closed vs open systems.

---

Here are some examples of misrepresentation of 2LOT by ICR. They're in chronological order and represent increasingly sophisticated distortions and/or misrepresentations.Doesn't mentioned closed system requirement:EVOLUTION, THERMODYNAMICS, AND ENTROPY - IMPACT No. 3Describes the controversy over Creationism's misrepresentation of 2LOT, then goes on to misstate 2LOT anyway:ENTROPY AND OPEN SYSTEMS - IMPACT No. 40States that earth is an open system, but implies that pre-coded program and an energy conversion mechanism are required:THERMODYNAMICS AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE - IMPACT No. 57 THERMODYNAMICS AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE (Part II) - IMPACT No. 58Mentions the dishonesty issue, then goes on to again misstate 2LOT anyway:DOES ENTROPY CONTRADICT EVOLUTION? - IMPACT No. 141Why do Creationists do this? Because the argument has proven so successful with lay audiences. You yourself are a perfect example of the success of this approach. There is nothing in 2LOT to rule out evolution, but it just sounds so plausible, and so you and millions like you have become convinced that 2LOT says evolution isn't possible and that evolutionists are burying their head in the sand on the issue and hoping it will go away.This issue doesn't feel like it's going away anytime soon, but I do hold out hope. The moon dust issue hung around for a couple decades before finally disappearing, and the The Puluxy River footprints issue was popular for a while, but eventually even Creationists began dismissing these arguments. It will probably have to be the same with 2LOT. Certainly the ID people like Behe understand 2LOT is not a problem for evolution - would you listen to them?--Percy