Thursday, December 07, 2006
My Debate with an Avid Evolutionist
I wrote an email to an evolution website that had amazingly condescending things to say about anyone who doubted evolution. My comment was that they shouldn't be so disdainful of people who don’t believe in Darwin's theory as the way species appeared on earth; that there were so many evidences that Darwin was wrong, which would make them (the website) wrong. Instead of intelligently responding to my remarks, the website answered my communication condescendingly and basically called me a fool. I got an unsolicited email from a frequent user of the site, Tom, and a staunch evolutionist who treated me in the same manner. I attempted to communicate with him on a respectful level. Actually, at the beginning of our discussion I was still a Darwin believer with doubts. I started communicating with him as a devil's advocate, as if I was a non-believer. The more we discussed, the more I realized what a hoax Darwin really was. By the end of our discussion over about a three month period, I became thoroughly convinced that Darwin's theory was a complete wrong. His communications were as disdainful as the website’s. This is a compendium of an ongoing debate that we had: (My comments are in italics.)
Me: Tom, why did you pick my entry to respond to?
Tom: I use the site frequently and read the feedback every month and pick a few of the more inane posts( no offence intended :-)) (I am offended.) from which to send an email. Your post was answered and the official reply was:
Dear Steve,
We don't need to make it look like everyone who attacks evolution is a fool.
They do a good job all by themselves.
(See what I mean about “condescending” and “name calling”?)
As you can see they give short shrift to persons such as yourself. (Condescending.)
Me: My biggest problem with your writings is that your simplistic "either-or" thinking kills any intelligent discussion of evolution.
Tom: That is probably because the discussion you want to have was settled over 150 years ago and repetitious arguments get old.
Me: You must know that nothing in science is "settled". As new evidence is discovered and tested, models and theories must be modified to fit new information. Try doing a mind experiment and see if you can come up with heart evolution. Draw the steps on a sheet of paper. In actuality, there are no possible intermediate evolutionary steps to a heart system; or eyes, or birds and eggs. A half heart would yield a dead (no) animal and no ev.
Tom: You are presenting Paley's arguments from incredulity. Just because you can't see how it can't happen doesn't mean that it didn't. (No one can figure out how it happened; not even a highly educated evolution scientist.) Evolution opponents assume that an organ today had the same functions millions of years ago as they do today and that is an erroneous assumption. (I wonder what other functions they can think of for hearts, eyes, lungs…….) I don't have long to educate you but the first site I hit in a search was this one: http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=310 You might want to increase your knowledge by researching this. (More condescension. Notice how the question is not answered? Tom spends so much time telling me what a fool I am, but he doesn’t have time to “educate” me on how organs evolved.)
Me: I will look at this site, but I have already searched many evolution sites
that try to explain heart and eye evolution. What a joke all of them are. They make cartoon drawings of hearts and eye chambers gradually closing through evolutionary micro-steps, and becoming functional organs. The evolution that they draw is impossible anyway. Why would this happen? Where is the evolutionary evidence for these drawings? There is absolutely none. These are no more than figments of someones imagination. If you are truly a scientist with an open mind, you would have to agree.
Tom: Are they a joke? If so perhaps you can suggest a way. The first thing that is required is the ability to distinguish between intelligent design and design which isn't intelligent.
Me: Doesn’t the word “design” just reek of intelligence? (Even dumb design requires intelligence.)
Tom: Only fifty years ago there were competing theories on the existence of
the universe. Today there is little opposition to the big bang theory. What happened to the
steady-state theory?
Me: No evidence to support it. The same with evolution.
Tom: That is why I made the comment to you, that if you had a scientific theory to supplant the TOE you need to present it. (THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD HAS NEVER REQUIRED OFFERING AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY IN ORDER TO FALSIFY AN EXISTING ONE. All that is required for falsification is the evidence that falsifies...nothing more! I've seen this attack used many times, and it is nothing more than a cheap shot.)
Me: Unlike evolution, the "steady state" theory was supplanted by the "big bang" because of overwhelming evidence and mathematical calculation. Astronomers determined that if the big bang truly occurred, there would be cosmic background radiation. It was found in 1989, further proof that the big bang was the beginning of the universe. With evolution, no fossil or lab evidence required for proof has been found, but it just keeps on rolling along as if there was. I do have a theory to supplant evolution. It's exactly the same as science's theory on what there was before the big bang. It's called, "We Simply Don't Know, but Here is
What We Have So Far".
Tom: ID must explain features which are poorly designed, such as the eye. ID can't do it, but evolution can. (Only an evolutionist would think that an organ as miraculous as the eye is poorly designed.) They aren't absolute. They do involve some speculation. It simply isn't known how many of the evolutionary processes of specific organs occurred. (Then why is this a science that is not to be doubted?) There is much evidence that evolution occurred without the specifics of the evolution of each specific organ. You argue against a strawman which you have constructed while ignoring the larger evidence that it did occur. As I like to tell my creationist buddies, once life on earth didn't exist. Today it does (And evolution can’t come close to explaining how life did get here. 100% of their lab tests have been failures..) and evolution explains that diversity and distribution of the flora and fauna on earth better than any other potential theory.
Me: That the universe has a purely scientific intelligence somewhere is probable, and I think necessary for development of species.
Tom: Probable under whose theories? (Can’t evolutionists come up with their own thinking without needing to refer to some one else’s thinking?) The new evidence from the last 150 years has supported the TOE. If the TOE were as fragile as you think, it would have collapsed years ago. There is no theory on the horizon to supplant the TOE but you are certainly encouraged to introduce the first. (TOE is correct because there is no other theory that they can think of? Sorry, but that’s not objective science.)
Me: It is completely obvious that there needs to be another scientific model
besides evolution to explain the appearance of species.
Tom: Obvious to whom? You? It isn't to me!
Me: The "we simply don't know yet but here is the evidence that we do
have" would be a far more defensible scientific model than evolution.
The problem with your thinking is that you can only accept theories that
have already been proposed and accepted by someone else. Is my choice
only model A or model B? Can I think on my own?
Tom: Sure, but you need to provide at least a small framework. Usually people who think evolution is a crock make themselves look like fools. (Uh-oh……calling me a fool again.)
Me: Thanks for the compliment. Try opening your mind. You too could look
like a fool. We both know that many famous inventors and scientists were
mocked as fools before they were taken seriously. Also, thanks again for
taking the time to communicate. I love the discussion, and am completely
interested in the subject. Actually I was a firm believer in evolution
for many years. Recently I started making it a study, and POOF! Evolution
became extinct (in my mind) as a possible theory for development of
species. When I saw how impossible evolution really is, I became even more
fascinated with the subject than I was before. How we got here is a
subject that I think about frequently, study a lot, and get very
frustrated by. It is a fun puzzle that will never be solved, but trying
is a kick. (I continue writing respectfully to Tom. Appeasement never works!)
Tom: I'll be honest with you Stephen, I don't believe that you ever understood evolution or that you even studied evolution. (I majored in Biology at USC.) The framework which you have used as your discussion indicates that you don't understand the basics of evolution, much less the details. (Oooh, more condescension!)
Me: Why didn't T Rex's arms (or any other part of T Rex) evolve in the twenty million years that it roamed the earth? Wouldn't NS and SOTF have evolved longer arms for T Rex, since that would have been a huge advantage in fighting and seeking food? For this species, there was virtually no evolution for twenty million years, ten times longer than it took hominid to evolve into man. The more I looked at other exhibits in the museum, (I visited the
Tom: Evolution isn't a directed process that must proceed in a certain direction
and in a certain time. (Tom knows this because he is actually God in disguise.) Did the arms of T Rex prevent him from functioning in his environment? Evidently it didn't because he existed quite well right up to his extinction. As to other species I would need to know what they were before commenting upon them. Cockroaches haven't evolved either. (Thanks! Another great example of non-evolution.)
Me: Massive changes would have to show in the fossil record for
Tom: I would imagine you should be with a degree in biology. I do wonder what
course requirements you had at USC that you would be clueless about
evolution. (Fabulous condescension!)
Me: I HAVE spent a lot of time reading and on pro-evolution websites. I thought they would answer a lot of my questions, but they only created more. Some notes on
your reply: You say that TOE is the only theory on the horizon, so it must be true.
Sorry, that is not science, that is belief. Science simply cannot come up with a model
that really fits the fossil finds, and lab evidence, so evolution wins by
default, not by scientific proof. Plus, ev scientists have so completely
committed to ev that they cannot even entertain the obvious fact that it
is poppycock. They cannot back out of their huge over-commitment.
Tom: Of course you have mountains of evidence that the TOE is 'poppycock'
Me: Try to envision an eye evolving when all species on the earth were blind. How
did evolution know that if the pre-eye continued to evolve into a complete
camera system, there would be incredible images at the other end? How
did a heart evolve when there were absolutely no pumps in existence on
earth? Even if evolution were fact, intelligence still had to be part of
the puzzle. Evolution would have to also be an incredible inventor. In
my case, I absolutely accept the time line given by science for appearance
and disappearance of species, and the age of the earth and universe. That
the earth is billions of years old, as well as the universe, is proven
beyond doubt. Evidence for evolution, on the other hand, is non-existent.
Tom: Evolution doesn't envision anything. Natural selection selects the desirable traits and not all traits are desirable by all species. (Natural Selection sure is smart!) Again, I don't intend to engage you in a rehash of the evidence supporting the TOE because it is painfully evident that you haven't studied the TOE enough to formulate supported evidence for your position. Do me a favor Stephen. Instead of spouting such bullshit, go to the web sites of the journals Science or Nature or to Pub Med and do a search on 'evolution'. The enormous amount of information should keep you busy for the rest of your days. (Tom’s suggested sites:)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
http://www.karger.com/gazette/64/fernald/art_1_0.htm
http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html
http://www.talkorigins.com
Me: The framework of your discussion shows that you believe evolution because
that is what you were taught, lots of people believe it, and it is the only thing "on the horizon". The really great thinkers were able to "think out of the box". You are locked in it. And, they would certainly feel like they were giving in to religion, because, like you, everyone seems to think the only choices are Adam and Eve or evolution. Can you imagine what an OOOPS that would be? The number of textbooks that would have to be dumped? It's far easier to continue with the TOEBS than trying to look elsewhere, and look foolish in doing so.
Tom: Textbooks are revised all of the time. I know when you were
studying biology they changed course textbooks frequently. I know that it seemed to me
like my textbooks were changed every quarter and I had to shell out big
bucks for new ones.
Me: Evolution theory in textbooks has not changed a lick since I was in
school. (I've seen my kids college texts: same as mine.) No new
information supports evolution, but evolution marches on with the same
BS just as if there was lots of proof. Like you, I sincerely thought people that didn't believe in evolution were either uneducated, or somewhat religio-nuts. (The people you think are my bedmates.)
Tom: Actually I am more concerned with the fundamentalists who believe that the
earth and universe are young. These people, the vast majority of whom are
religious fundamentalists, use biology to further their religious views
because biology is perhaps the least understood science by the general
public. If the creationists had their way in biology they would be turning
their attention to the other sciences. Any science that contradicts the
Genesis version of creation must be destroyed. By the time the public
realizes what happened we may be in the dark ages. You have heard of the
dark ages, haven't you Steve? It was the last time that religious fundies
ruled the Western world.
Tom explains evolution to me (at last!): Your vision of how evolution works is seriously flawed. The best analogy I can use is this. If you start with a series of organisms named AAAAA and went to ZZZZZ you would have a progression chart like this:
AAAAA, AAAAB, AAAAC, AAAAD........ZZZZX, ZZZZY, ZZZZZ.
Pretend (I love this word. It’s evolutionists motto! I had to highlight it, as it is the centerpiece for TOE.) that these are organisms and we see that AAAAB looks almost identical to AAAAA. AAABA would still look almost identical to AAAAA. When you get to ZZZZZ he looks almost totally different from AAAAA but there is a resemblance. At any point if you look into this progression you will find all of the organisms fully functional and like the immediate organisms around him. AAAAA is a fossil that we have found and ZZZZZ has been found.
There are many intermediates but many of them would not be immediately
recognized as AAAAA or ZZZZZ. MMMMM, if we were lucky enough to find him,
might be recognized as an intermediate. If we had a rich fossil record it
would still be difficult to recognize the changes because soft body parts
change more quickly than hard parts, thus it would be many generations
before we recognized what was happening. As it is we are lucky to have
fossils at all.
Me: (I finally get condescending back.): Wow! This is really scientific! This is the perfect example of the BS that evolution is based on. Did you make this up yourself?
Tom: The many examples of eyes in many species of today shows that there are
many variations of the eye and that they arise from the evolution of the eye,
especially for a person like you who believes that life began as a single
cell organism.
Me: Tom, there are no examples of eye evolution today, or in past fossil
records. But, I am sure you will continue to play pretend, like all ev
"scientists" do. It's the only thing they have to do battle with religion.
Tom: It is ridiculous that someone with a four year degree in biology doesn't
have a clue abut the evolution of the eye!
Me: Here you are absolutely correct. It is hard to be an expert on something that cannot happen. No highly educated scientist has a clue either. They universally make up fairy tales as to how the eye evolved. Then they present their tales, and people like you agree and worshipfully accept them without question because they are so "educated” (by people that also believe evolution fairy tales). I do commend you on your self-initiated interest in a very fascinating field. However, advancement of science requires a completely open mind. Current models of any science need to be constantly tested and questioned, no matter how locked in they may seem. If this was not the case, scientists would be just as guilty of stifling scientific advancement as the religious zealots that you hate so much.
Tom: What more can I say Steve? You simply stick your head in the dirt and refuse to acknowledge anything which supports evolution. When the evidence supports a theory other than evolution, then you might have a case. Until then, you have absolutely nothing except your personal incredulity of evolution. There is so much wrong with the assumptions you make about biology that it isn't worth my time to refute them.
(Translation: Tom can’t answer them.)
Me: The trouble with your communication is that you are unable to refute what
I say, so you put the answers off to me sticking my head in the dirt. Or
you refer me to a website that has imaginary answers no better than your
lack of answers, or you don't have time to "educate me". My questions are
very reasonable, and a person not so locked into their belief system
would see that they are, and be able to discuss them reasonably.
Tom: No Steve, what you say is easily refutable. The problem is that you can't
recognize that it has been refuted.
Me: I am rather amazed that you picked my writing to respond to. There are so many more inane feedbacks than mine (your word), I really wonder why you chose mine. Do you respond to all? Here is my problem with so called evolution scientists: they are completely condescending, like yourself. They think they are so smart, and everyone else that doesn't believe is a fool. They and you suffer from severe tunnel vision, and to pin down any reasonable questions that any doubter has is like catching a greased pig. They, and you, completely skip over or ignore reasonable questions. Notice the response that I got from the TO site? No intelligent discussion, he simply calls me a fool. Like you, the replier must not have time to educate me either.
Me: (weeks later) Hi Tom
I hope all is well with you and your family. For the fun of it, I made a blog inspired by our debate. Since you were the inspiration I thought you might like to see how inane my thinking really is! Anyway, if you have time: http://evillusion.blogspot.com/
Either way, have a great holiday......
Steve
Tom:
I think you need to consult with your legal counsel. (Now that's real science!)
