The Problem with Talking About Evolution

I read an article recently where a prominent atheist is talking about evolution versus creationism, and says the following:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/02/08/comment-of-the-week-proving-evolution.htm

Creationism is not a position adopted simply because a person happens to lack all the information necessary to rationally justify accepting evolution. Creationism is a religious ideology adopted in spite of evidence because one's religion demands opposition to most of what defines modernity: science, reason, autonomy, etc.

This is an excellent example of the logical fallacy of the Straw Man.  Basically you misrepresent a position you disagree with, then "refute" the imaginary position.  It's a wonderful metaphor and in a fight, an opponent who is propped up and stuffed with straw is easy to defeat, knock down or set on fire.  The reality is not so simple.

Not all people who believe in Creation are idiots, or submissive to an oppressive and backwards ideology eschewing of all things contemporary or modern.  To be sure, there are some people who believe that the earth is flat, in bigfoot and UFOs and in all manner of things.  The internet has made it alarmingly easy to identify and link to the lunatic fringe, but you're still talking about Straw Men here.

There are lots of people who are reasonably informed on the science of biology and evolution, who still believe God created the universe.

As an example, the head of the human genome project, is a Christian, and believes that God created the universe.  One of the most prominent and effective scientists of our age led the genome project to successful completion, early and under budget.  He calls DNA, the language of God and he isn't a yokel, he is an expert who knows what he is talking about and understands the implications of what he says.

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2006/08/God-Is-Not-Threatened-By-Our-Scientific-Adventures.aspx?p=3

The question isn't (from anyone with a brain, in my opinion) does evolution, in some sense, occur?  Of course it does.  The real question is, does the fact that it does mean that science has successfully answered questions of origin to the point where there is no rational room for faith?

That answer is clearly no and unfortunately, this is the real source of disagreement.

Atheists like Austin, hold their statement above to be a given, and refuse to acknowledge the ontological underpinnings of their own assumptions, and assume that anyone who disagrees simply isn't rational at all.

In the article, reference are made to three pieces of evidence considered to be a "slam dunk" against anyone who believes in creation.  So, I'm game, let's take a look at these one by one:

First: The Lenski experiment

This is an experiment, still running at the University of Michigan, which is studying changes over time with generations of E Coli, with 50,000 generations having come and gone.  It is an interesting study where they seperate an observe differences over time from organisms with a common ancestry.  None of the organisms have turned into a fish or a giraffe yet, but they have shown significant changes over time and have adapted to things in their very limited and controlled environment.

The philosophical implications of this are pretty thin, given that no one that I'm aware of is saying that we can't adapt significantly over time.  That some of us are white, some brown and some black seems like a pretty obvious indication that we're really adaptable in ways that can pass onto our children.  That E Coli become larger and more round over time, simply isn't conclusive evidence that materialism is now the only answer.   This doesn't refute anything, except the notion that organisms do not adapt at all, and even the craziest people on the creation boat don't believe this.

It's one of those things that seems like it ought to be more than it actually is, in terms of actual logical implication.

Second: Chromosome #2

This one was interesting as well, and I hadn't encountered this one before.  Humans have 23 strands of chromosomes.  Other primates, apes, chimps, etc... have 24.  One of our strands (#2) looks really, really similar to 2 separate strands in other primates. 

The theory from the scientific side is that we and other primates have a shared ancestry, because of the hugely similar sections of our DNA.  The philosophical implication that our atheist article writer wants to make is that this clearly indicates that evolution as currently understood is true and therefore, we don't need any Creator for explaining little Timmy.

Just off the top of my head, there would be two other options, both compatible with Christianity.

One, God used an evolutionary process to develop life on earth.  If you consider that every person you know, in all their complexity, orginated as a single cell (zygote), it isn't much of a leap to imagine that God grew a world of life and complexity in similar fashion, from an equally humble and simplistic beginning.  This is Collin's position, and it is a reasonable one.

To say that this complexity (both in a person as an individual and in the world's ecosystem at large) occurred spontaneously over time, is still a huge leap... and it doesn't seem to follow that pattern in other complex systems that we observe in nature.

Two, God used similar building blocks in designing different life forms, because they worked well.  To say that we share DNA with fruit flies, carrots and baboons might be a bit like saying engines in planes, trains and automobiles all utilize metal.

If you consider that there might be an intelligence at work in creation, of course there would be things used again and again, that isn't shocking at all.

The challenge on this one was to demonstrate how the scientists are wrong here.  The answer to that is, that the implication of the data at hand does not make it necessary that God does not exist.  Moving on.

Three: Tiktaalik

Basically, this is a fish with flipper joints, which would allow the little halibut to do a push up.

This is in answer to, "There are no transitional fossils!  The missing link is still missing!"

Yeah, ok, but that's a stupid position for any creationist to take, and not many of them do.  The problem with holding that there is no specie to specie "evolution" is that species are categorizations made by us and while they aren't arbitrary, they aren't perfect either.

Species is defined as a taxonomic rank that can breed and produce fertile offspring.  So as a stupid example, dogs can't breed with giraffes.  They are different species. 

But a great dane, with theorectically compatible with a chihuahua, is practically a separate "species" under this rule.   Great danes and chihuahuas have a common canine ancestor, but they have developed different traits and sizes over time.  A litter of great dane puppies would kill a chihuahua mother, should that actually somehow occur.

I would actually agree that fossils like tiktaalik would be indicative that evolution does occur in such a way that allows for the possibility of two groups being identified as different "species" over time.

But we still have the same problems, this isn't new or alarming, it doesn't answer questions of first cause or necessarily mean that the complexity we see came only from natural, material causes.  In terms of transitional animals, or evidence that would lend itself well to this kind of theory, you don't need a 380 million year old fossil for that...

you just need a frog.

Or any amphibian - aren't they much stronger (and fully formed) arguments for transitional species than a salmon that can prop itself up by 2 inches or so to see better?

So three "slam dunk" arguments against creation, seemingly defanged.  Thanks for playing.