Due to a recent lull in my real-world work, I’ve been trying to involve myself a bit more in the ebb and flow of the issues that matter to me, especially in politics and current events. I’ve recently come across the Creation Ministries International’s 15 Questions Evolutionists Can’t Answer.
You’ll recognize these as the same old, same old…so if you’re bored with this fight, then don’t worry about reading on. However, I feel that it is important to craft a strong response to questions of creationists (not really for creationists, but for people who are genuinely seeking answers and might actually think that there are not proper answers to these questions). I was going to sit down and hammer out several thousand words of responses, but I decided that I would rather crowdsource. If you feel like helping, then you should read through the questions on the website, pick one or two to which you can craft concise, but effective retorts, and then post them in a reply. I would like to take the best ones and format them into a document that specifically and resoundingly addresses the “concerns” expressed by CMI and send it to them.
Doubting that they would actually post that, I’ll also send it over to PZ Meyers and a few others, and we’ll see if we can’t create a good resource that specifically addresses CMI’s new campaign, “Question Evolution!”
I’m aware that the resources exist to answer these questions pretty easily with some searching, but again, I wanted to craft a document that specifically responds to CMI so it doesn’t look like we’re sitting on our laurels.
Maybe this is silly; if so, I’ll be quiet, but I figured I’d float it anyhow. Thanks for your time guys.
Also, if you do decide to participate, please keep in mind that the intended audience of these posts are not people who are likely to be sympathetic to snarkiness or name-calling of creationists. I think it is important that we be sensitive to the “moderate” stance that doesn’t necessarily already agree that creationism is dumb and we’re smart. I think we should be dispassionate in our response to the questions, and let creationism’s dumbness shine through on its own.
While the questions seem perfectly reasonable, they are actually simplistic when compared to current scientific knowledge of the universe, it’s structure and it’s natural functions. As you already mentioned most or all of these arguments have been debunked.
The link begins with: Evolution: the naturalistic origin of life and its diversity.
It then argues that the origin of the universe and it’s evolutionary processes are not “naturalistic”, but “supernaturalistic”. It then attempts to assign every known naturalistic function as being designed or guided by a supernatural entity.
Thus in effect we have taken a complicated subject and added a (by definition) unprovable supernatural condition. This does not in any way explain, prove, or establish the conclusions reached by the creationists. It just adds an unsolvable variable condition which must be scientifically accepted “on faith”.
Coming late to this thread but find it interesting. My response to these would be simple:
- How do you know god didn’t create Evolution as her mechanism to run Earth?
- How do you know if by questioning evolution you’re not also questioning god’s creation? It may not make sense to you, and it may not accord with your particular reading of the Bible, but I assume god isn’t bound by your assumptions and readings of the Bible, is she?
Responses like this will expose these creationists for what they are…not honest seekers of truth, but dishonest peddlers of a hidden agenda.
Coming late to this thread but find it interesting. My response to these would be simple:
- How do you know god didn’t create Evolution as her mechanism to run Earth?
- How do you know if by questioning evolution you’re not also questioning god’s creation? It may not make sense to you, and it may not accord with your particular reading of the Bible, but I assume god isn’t bound by your assumptions and readings of the Bible, is she?
Responses like this will expose these creationists for what they are…not honest seekers of truth, but dishonest peddlers of a hidden agenda.
If there is a TOE, it most certainly would not be as described in the bible.
I am not questioning evolution, theists are. They assign a guiding hand where there is only an implaccable process.
But I need not prove anything about god, theists do, and an assertion based on a belief just won’t do it for me.
Coming late to this thread but find it interesting. My response to these would be simple:
- How do you know god didn’t create Evolution as her mechanism to run Earth?
- How do you know if by questioning evolution you’re not also questioning god’s creation? It may not make sense to you, and it may not accord with your particular reading of the Bible, but I assume god isn’t bound by your assumptions and readings of the Bible, is she?
Responses like this will expose these creationists for what they are…not honest seekers of truth, but dishonest peddlers of a hidden agenda.
If there is a TOE, it most certainly would not be as described in the bible.
I am not questioning evolution, theists are. They assign a guiding hand where there is only an implaccable process.
But I need not prove anything about god, theists do, and an assertion based on a belief just won’t do it for me.
By “you” I meant the creationists, not “you” Mr. Write4U
how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
First of all, evolution doesn’t describe this. Evolution describes what can happen to life after it already has gotten started.
Second of all, we don’t know, although there is some promising research involving looking at materials that can create pseudo-membranes, like ice. Furthermore, even if intelligent design were responsible for creating life, we don’t know how that happened, either. Suggesting that intelligent design is the default answer because of ignorance only replaces one mystery with another, and gets us nowhere closer to understanding.
how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
Is that not the argument of irreducible complexity?
Why would it not be reasonable to assume that the process of chemical protein evolution started with the combination of two compatible proteins. A million years later another was added to the chain by “chance”, another million years after that another, etc., each chance addition creating a more and more complex system, until one day (oops) the final addition of a single protein in the right environment created viability for division, and the beginning of the evolution of life (on earth).
These types of arguments always assume that this was a single unique event, but they forget it was a single unique event among trillions of multiple unique events which did not produce a living organism and even that assumption is premature as there may be several different expressions of life in other environments throughout the universe.
I consider it hubris to assume that among the near infinite number of processes during the lifetime of this universe, life on earth is the one and only divine emergence. The very variety of life on earth proves that life can express itself in near infinite ways. The emergence of sentient life was just another step in the ever more complex and sophisticated bio-chemical processes which we know as evolution.
Is that not the argument of irreducible complexity?
Yes, that too.
I noticed that with the various responses, no one actually responded to the OP as requested.
That’s because to even respond to their questions is to give the reason they’re asking legitimacy. If they were asking sincerely to gain knowledge, then maybe. But they’re not. They’re looking for ways to give themselves an “in”, a way to cast doubt and shoehorn in their religious beliefs. It’s kind of a form of them asking “did you stop beating your wife yet?”.
At the bottom of the article there are links to responses that people have already sent in and rebuttals to them. Reading through them now…
ETA: I would say if we write a response to just post it here. I’m afraid they will selectively post and rebut our responses. If they want to rebut, they can post here.
That’s because to even respond to their questions is to give the reason they’re asking legitimacy.
This is a bogus argument. I can say with equal validity that not responding to their questions gives them legitimacy. Which means that the argument doesn’t work.
That’s because to even respond to their questions is to give the reason they’re asking legitimacy.
This is a bogus argument. I can say with equal validity that not responding to their questions gives them legitimacy. Which means that the argument doesn’t work.
