Our Daily Train | By Jeremy Styron
I am posting a lengthy debate I had recently with a supporter of intelligent design named Mike who recently sent a video of a Ray Comfort documentary featuring — but not really — PZ Myers and some other college professors. It’s interesting to note that while Comfort interviewed many a clueless college student for the documentary — they, of course, were featured prominently — he adopted the practice of quickly cutting away from the sensibly minded professors just at the point when they started making some sense. Classic apologist tactics.
Here is the dishonest video:
Anyway, the following email exchange on evolution versus intelligent design took place over several days, and I was struck by the stubborn and almost haughty attitude of the ID supporter, who acted as if he had it all figured out. But then again, I continue to be dismayed by the arrogant attitude of some apologists defending their unsubstantiated beliefs, as if merely writing a claim out on paper makes it true, or that simply making a claim enough times automatically renders it as fact.
Sorry for the many formatting issues that I would normally correct if this wasn’t lifted from email.
So, be warned that much stupidity follows and here you go. The initial email:
Subject: Very interesting video if you are an Atheist
Show this to Jeremy (That would be me).
My initial response to the video was:
The usual Ray Comfort production, in which he quickly cuts away from the full explanations from PZ Myers, etc, and tries to paint unbelievers as immoral dolts. It’s misleading and dishonest, which is ironic since he’s claiming the moral high ground.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/05/05/i-met-ray-comfort-tonight/ and
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/07/23/ray-comfort-confesses/
To which I received this long reply, most of it cut and pasted, a common apologist MO, from an apologist website:
Where is the evidence? “Over millions of years” is a great cop out but still for it to be “scientific” there has to be demonstrable evidence. No one doubts or questions adaptation within a species or “kind” but that does not in any way prove evolution, only adaptation. There is however no evidence of one kind becoming another kind in the present, past, fossils or anywhere else but in the minds of those who make a great deal of grant money keeping up the hoax. Just the idea that a one celled organism can produce even over millions of generations things that did not exist is preposterous. You try to refute truth by bashing the editing but still show no proof. Are all these atheist more intelligent than Einstein and the other historical and modern scientist that say that their must be a God, all the evidence says so.
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” (2)
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.” (3)
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all….It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe….The impression of design is overwhelming”. (4)
Paul Davies: “The laws [of physics] … seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design… The universe must have a purpose”. (5)
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” (6)
John O’Keefe (astronomer at NASA): “We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.” (7)
George Greenstein (astronomer): “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency – or, rather, Agency – must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” (8)
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): “The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.” (9)
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.” (10)
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): “I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.” (11)
Tony Rothman (physicist): “When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.” (12)
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.” (13)
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” (14)
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): “Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we would know the mind of God.” (15)
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): “We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”(17)
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): “Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one…. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.” (18)
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): “As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].” (19)
Barry Parker (cosmologist): “Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.” (20)
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): “This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.” (21)
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” (22)
Henry “Fritz” Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): “The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.” (23)
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” (24)
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) “Life in Universe – rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique.” (25)
Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years ofDeoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” (26)
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science.” (27)
The references don’t matter. The information was cut and pasted from various apologist websites, so you know they were either doctored in some way, lifted out of context or otherwise presented dishonestly. I elaborate on this below.
Here was my reply:
I only made an observation about a video; no one asked me to show proof. I can, but I’m willing to bet that whatever I presented wouldn’t meet your criteria, since presumably you are wanting evidence of transitional forms that are living right now. A request like that, unless we are talking about bacteria with life spans of only a few seconds, would be absurd since evolution by natural selection happens by very slow degrees over time. It’s not a cop out. We have the skulls and carbon dating to show this. We can also demonstrate evolution in the lab (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.UiUp4zZ9ArU and http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060422121625.htm). Fossil records and work in the lab are both observable instances of evolution. And here are some intermediate forms before modern homo sapiens that can also be viewed in the lab and verified through research: Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo rhodesiensis. Here are other examples: http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html. Evolution is defined simply as genetic change in an organism over time; organisms transitioning from one species to another in real time is not evolution, unless again, we are talking about bacteria.
If you don’t accept the mound of evidence presented here (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/evidence_of_evolution), I don’t know what to tell you. You might as well deny gravity: both are scientific theories, and a scientific theory is as close that science gets to declaring something to be a fact. Happily, facts are facts regardless of whether someone is willing to accept them.
And Mike’s answer:
You do realize that it is conjecture not science in the study of fossils. I only ask you stop and with an open mind try to envision, regardless of the number of generations or millions of years, the likelihood of a single cell, which by the way had to come from someplace, by random selection and chaotic happenstance evolving into a human being. I admire your incredible faith in the unknown and honestly unknowable. I don’t have that much faith so I just believe in what I know and makes far greater sense, one Almighty God as the creator of all things, who has been observed in the person of Jesus Christ, with many witnesses.By the way, doesn’t it seem logical that though evolution takes millions of years, that we should be able to find ample examples of interspecies change all over the place at any time, like even 145/1000th something and 855/1000th something else.
To which I retorted:
Where did you get that the study of fossils is conjecture? Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis? The study of the fossil record is established science. If you deny evolution, you must also be ready to deny gravity because both are established scientific facts. A single cell did not evolve into a human being. At some early point in earth’s history, a single cell evolved into a slightly more complex organism. That slight more complex organism evolved into a slightly more complex organism based on variables in its environment, etc., and it yet again, evolved into an even more complex organism, abandoning the traits that did not support survival and keeping the traits that did support survival. Over millions of years, this eventually led to more and more complex forms. That’s not random; it can be predicted based on how a species might respond to its environment.
So, let me be clear. I don’t have faith of any kind. I simply agree with evolutionary science because mounds of evidence supports it. You asked for proof – I provided it, and it was ignored.
Reply:
“Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis”? Don’t know these guys. “Established scientific fact” depends upon which “scientist” you choose to believe. Trust me, Jeremy, I know and understand the whole concept of the theory of evolution and also that Darwin even rejected it. I have an education in physics, chemistry, zoology and biology in preparation for attending medical school. I am also very well read and did not become an active Christian until I was 42. If you have the openness to investigate the truth of the “theory” of evolution and the truth of the Bible you will come to the same understanding I did. You totally ignored the opinion of some of the most brilliant scientist so you can cling to your misguided idea that we are nothing more than the most advanced animal. Evolution is a theory held by those who refuse to recognize God as creator. All science can do is try to figure out how He did it. God bless you and I hope you come to know Him before its too late.
And my rather lengthy response:
I ignored the quotes because they were cut and pasted from an apologetic website, but I’ll look at what Stephen Hawking said.
Hawking, most likely an agnostic or pantheist, referenced God in the quote below in a metaphorical or perhaps pantheistic sense to mean “the laws of nature” or “the universe,” similarly to how Einstein used the word “God.” Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has even said that he regretted that Einstein and some other scientists sometimes slip into the language of religion to try to articulate their awe of the cosmos, when what they really meant by God was something completely different than the character in the Bible.
Hawkins did say the following, however:
• We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special. — from “Der Spiegel”
• The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can’t believe the whole universe exists for our benefit. That would be like saying that you would disappear if I closed my eyes. — from a 1995 interview
• There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win, because it works. — 2010 interview
• It has certainly been true in the past that what we call intelligence and scientific discovery have conveyed a survival advantage. It is not so clear that this is still the case: our scientific discoveries may well destroy us all, and even if they don’t, a complete unified theory may not make much difference to our chances of survival. However, provided the universe has evolved in a regular way, we might expect that the reasoning abilities that natural selection has given us would be valid also in our search for a complete unified theory, and so would not lead us to the wrong conclusions. — from “A Brief History of Time,” the same book from which the quote on the apologetic website was lifted.
As for Einstein, he preferred to be called agnostic, and was certainly not a believer and said so unequivocally:
• It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. — letter from 1954
• I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. — from a 1949 letter to Guy H. Raner Jr.
As for Darwin, it’s a myth circulating in apologetic circles that he recanted on evolution at his death, falsely purported by a fervent Christian, Lady Hope, a friend of Darwin’s wife. The claim was denied by his children as false. Here is a somewhat unbiased handling of the claim from John D. Morris, with the Institute for Creation Research:
• Evolutionists in general and his surviving family in particular have disputed the account. Those with him at the time insist there was no evident changing of mind. Indeed, in his autobiography written late in his life, Darwin fully supported evolution. He admitted the concept was distasteful to him and had brought him much dismay, but he still held it.
And here is his son Francis from 1922:
• Lady Hope’s account of my father’s views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but have not seen any reply. My father’s agnostic point of view is given in my Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I., pp. 304–317. You are at liberty to publish the above statement. Indeed, I shall be glad if you will do so. — “The Darwin Legend,” 1994, p. 21.
I have showed you mounds of evidence for evolution, and continuing to stubbornly refer to evolution as a theory in the ordinary sense is a misnomer. If you seriously took the time to consider the evidence, you would see what a beautiful and simple process it really is, far more impressive than anything in the Bible. “God did it,” I would submit, is the real cop out.
Rebuttal:
You are certainly welcome to your opinion. Those who choose to believe in evolution will certainly believe in the “truth” of what people surmise “must” have taken place millions of years ago or over a period of millions of years thus thwarting the very definition of the science they worship. Certainly not repeatable or observable. If I am wrong, oh well, we will rot together. If you are wrong, you will be in torment forever in eternity. If I am right, I will spend eternity in an incredible place in the presence of the Creator. If you are right you will still just rot away.PS You have presented nothing that I have not heard since high school science. There is a tremendous volume of evidence for adaptation within a species, none whatsoever for evolution from one kind to another. What you quote is from atheist and pro-evolution websites. We can both find thousands of quotes by others to support our side in the issue. I would ask you to, with an open mind and heart, take a little time and ask the God of all creation to make Himself known to you with the promise that if He does you will use the talent He has given you to honor Him instead of denying His presence.
Me:
“Those who choose to believe in evolution will certainly believe in the ‘truth’ of what people surmise ‘must’ have taken place millions of years ago or over a period of millions of years thus thwarting the very definition of the science they worship.”
What? That makes no sense. It is both repeatable and observable (I provided proof) and provided many examples. And then you present the wellworn Pascal’s wager argument. You know this a bet, right? You best hope that God is OK with you gambling on your life because somewhere I read (to coin a phrase from Martin Luther King Jr.) that gambling is a sin.
There is a tremendous volume of evidence for adaptation within a species, none whatsoever for evolution from one kind to another.
What do you mean by one kind to another? I already said that expecting one species to change into another within our lifetime is patently absurd and represents a failure to understand the exceedingly slow process of evolution by natural selection. You might as well expect a Model T to morph into a Maserati overnight. Yet, the proofs for transitional forms that demonstrate one kind to another over time are voluminous (and I provided many links). I find it peculiar that I am the one providing all the source information and evidence and you are left holding an empty sack. Have you provided one stitch of proof that God created the universe? So, I’m done taking the polite defensive stance. I’ve provided mounds of proof. Where is yours for creation or intelligent design?
Mike:
You have provided no proof at all (even though I did), only links to sites that make the same assumptions that you call science. No one has asked for a single lifetime morph. The truth is there is no evidence except conjecture that any kind has ever over I hour or billions of years become another species. You haven’t presented any evidence only links to like minded websites, while refusing to consider anything contradictory because it was on a “apologetic” site. Classic liberal thought process.
“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities– his eternal power and divine nature– have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.”
One cannot use the excuse that evolution happened over millions of years so it can not be observed. If evolution is taking place it must be taking place constantly and there should therefore be some evidence at any time of partial if not total species change. Once again, instead of thinking these guys or so much smarter than us ordinary people, open your mind and consider the evidence, beginning with common sense. Science is still trying to figure out how God did it.
Me:
“The truth is there is no evidence except conjecture that any kind has ever over I hour or billions of years become another species.”
Straight up not true, if by “kind” you mean species. The transitional forms previously presented in this correspondence demonstrate the transition of one form to another. Your insistence on using the word “kind” is bewildering. I realize Darwin used it in the 19th century, but in modern science, it’s not even a biological classification and not relevant to the discussion. So, hereafter, I’m just going to ignore it.
“You haven’t presented any evidence only links to like minded websites …”
By liked minded, I take it that you mean websites that support established science? In that case, guilty as charged, but I did make a concerted effort in full faith to reference encyclopedias, objective sources, etc., rather than skeptic websites, for what it’s worth. I know full well that you, in contrast, have cut and pasted information from obviously biased, apologetic sources.
I’m still waiting for any proof whatsoever for intelligent design, and I’m guessing I’ll be waiting a very long time, yet, for anyone who cares to take a look, reams of evidence exists for evolution by natural selection, and this is my last reply.
And I’ll take the high road; here is his last word:
You are correct, there is really no need to continue Truth is there was only cut and paste and I don’t know the website but it was just laziness on my part. I have been to lectures from one of the leading astrophysicist for the Hubble telescope who was an amazing man who believed along with most of his colleagues that from the evidence gathered by the Hubble there had to be an intelligent creator. Believe it or not evolution isn’t overwhelmingly accepted in the scientific community. One final verse from the word of God,
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” (Psalms 14:1)
There is no god. Took the words right out of my mouth.
