RedJamaX
Active Member
I recently watched a debate on Youtube:
The Origin of Life: Evolution vs. Design [Full Debate]
I have always heard the claim that there is "evidence against evolution", but never actually heard it presented in any carefully presented argument or debate. Well, Fuz Rana does just that in this debate. Being a former Christian, I can see how great the argument actually sounds to a believer. And, I realized that I have never really heard a carefully constructed rebuttal to the claim. I've heard all of the components broken down separately, but I've never heard all of the key points brought together in one presentation to clearly refute the claim. Not to say it hasn't been done, I've just never seen/heard it before, so I decided to give it a shot...
Although this particular debate is geared toward the beginning of life, I believe that this argument works for evolution in general as well...
NO SUCH THING AS EVIDENCE "AGAINST" EVOLUTION
There is no EVIDENCE that CONTRADICTS evolution. There are only things that we do not yet understand and most of what we do not know is related to abiogenesis, NOT evolution. Anytime you ask a creationist to present the evidence you will get answers with the following structure --- scientists don't now how X happened, or how X works... scientists cannot duplicate the process of X in the lab (without direct intervention from the scientist).... scientists don't understand what X is.... --- and then they proceed to fill those gaps by saying it was done by an intelligent designer...
This is the way the creationists construct their argument...
"Of the thousands of steps it would take for chemistry and physics to create life on it's own by natural processes, scientists can only replicate a handful of these processes in the lab, and even then, they can only do it by way of direct intervention of the scientist." (paraphrasing here, these are not the exact words used by Fuz Rana, just needed that disclaimer because I know how picky many theists here are about specifics... but oddly enough, words can mean what ever you want them too...)
Creationists also claim that we know exactly what the environmental conditions of early earth were, AND that we have the ability to fully replicate those conditions in the lab, or that in our mere 60-70 years of study we "should" be able to fully replicate that environment in the lab. I've never seen that claim anywhere except from creationists looking for any angel they can to insert their god (into the "gap").
The current requirement of direct intervention from the scientist is what is being suggested as the evidence that an intelligent designer is required. "Seems" logical right?? NO... The problem is that they are putting on their blinders and not including all prior knowledge regarding claims about an intelligent designer in all areas of science. This is how they try to avoid the "god of the gaps" argument... the problem is, just because they put on their blinders to not see the whole picture, that doesn't mean it doesn't apply.
Creationists will say that science should be based on the information that we have on-hand, and not what "could" be in the future. This is their defense for when scientists say --- While we can't do (or understand) X "yet", but that doesn't mean we won't be able to do (or understand) X "ever". - Again, this argument "seems" logical, right?? WRONG again. All current knowledge includes all prior knowledge and experiences from the past.
Before we understood static electricity, "God" was credited for lightning... but eventually we learned where lightning comes from, and much later after that we developed ways to recreate static electricity in the lab with an equivalent charge to a lightning bolt. Before we understood plate tectonics, volcanic eruptions were also credited to "God". But now we have a firm understanding of late tectonics and how that plays into the mechanics of volcanic eruptions. In this example we will most likely NOT ever be able to reproduce it in the lab, but that doesn't matter because we have shown that the process is entirely natural, and NOT "god". This applies to so many other things like; the majestic size of large mountain ranges; the colors of flowers; the rainbow after a storm; the stars in the sky... so on and so on... The point is that all of those prior experiences of "disproving the assumption of an intelligent designer" are part of our "current knowledge" and cannot be excluded from the assessment of an "intelligent designer" in all other applicable claims as well (including evolution and abiogenesis)... but that prior experience is exactly what the creationists are ignoring...
Almost everything that has been credited to an "intelligent designer" (ie "God"), has been shown by science to be the natural processes of our universe. And in almost every case, the process used to figure out that it wasn't due to a "designer" has been the same... via the Scientific Method of building a hypothesis and testing. First scientists study the phenomena via observation and testing based on current relative knowledge. Then they take that data and perform small experiments in the lab to understand how the process works... constantly testing based on collective data with a goal of producing similar, if not identical, results to confirm the testing. As more and more data is added to the collective through the experimentation process, each piece of the entire process is confirmed one at a time through results that are consistently reproducible. Once each piece of the process has been confirmed, the next step is to reproduce the entire process in the lab, if possible, again with consistently reproducible results. This is the way the process has worked for every other natural process which was once credited to a "god" or "intelligent designer", and it's the same process that's being used right now in the examination of evolution and abiogenesis here on earth. Based on ALL of our current knowledge, there is NO REASON to even suspect that any "god" or "intelligent designer" is part of the process because that has NEVER been proven to be the answer ever before.
Also, do not be fooled by the generic term "intelligent designer" ... they don't mean ANY intelligent designer, such as a highly advanced alien species, but ONLY their god, for which there is no real evidence to support. These leaves them with several assumptions... First, they have to prove that a god exists at all, then they still have to prove their hypothesis of design, and finally they have to provide evidence that particular god did indeed have a hand in the design process.
The Origin of Life: Evolution vs. Design [Full Debate]
I have always heard the claim that there is "evidence against evolution", but never actually heard it presented in any carefully presented argument or debate. Well, Fuz Rana does just that in this debate. Being a former Christian, I can see how great the argument actually sounds to a believer. And, I realized that I have never really heard a carefully constructed rebuttal to the claim. I've heard all of the components broken down separately, but I've never heard all of the key points brought together in one presentation to clearly refute the claim. Not to say it hasn't been done, I've just never seen/heard it before, so I decided to give it a shot...
Although this particular debate is geared toward the beginning of life, I believe that this argument works for evolution in general as well...
NO SUCH THING AS EVIDENCE "AGAINST" EVOLUTION
There is no EVIDENCE that CONTRADICTS evolution. There are only things that we do not yet understand and most of what we do not know is related to abiogenesis, NOT evolution. Anytime you ask a creationist to present the evidence you will get answers with the following structure --- scientists don't now how X happened, or how X works... scientists cannot duplicate the process of X in the lab (without direct intervention from the scientist).... scientists don't understand what X is.... --- and then they proceed to fill those gaps by saying it was done by an intelligent designer...
This is the way the creationists construct their argument...
"Of the thousands of steps it would take for chemistry and physics to create life on it's own by natural processes, scientists can only replicate a handful of these processes in the lab, and even then, they can only do it by way of direct intervention of the scientist." (paraphrasing here, these are not the exact words used by Fuz Rana, just needed that disclaimer because I know how picky many theists here are about specifics... but oddly enough, words can mean what ever you want them too...)
Creationists also claim that we know exactly what the environmental conditions of early earth were, AND that we have the ability to fully replicate those conditions in the lab, or that in our mere 60-70 years of study we "should" be able to fully replicate that environment in the lab. I've never seen that claim anywhere except from creationists looking for any angel they can to insert their god (into the "gap").
The current requirement of direct intervention from the scientist is what is being suggested as the evidence that an intelligent designer is required. "Seems" logical right?? NO... The problem is that they are putting on their blinders and not including all prior knowledge regarding claims about an intelligent designer in all areas of science. This is how they try to avoid the "god of the gaps" argument... the problem is, just because they put on their blinders to not see the whole picture, that doesn't mean it doesn't apply.
Creationists will say that science should be based on the information that we have on-hand, and not what "could" be in the future. This is their defense for when scientists say --- While we can't do (or understand) X "yet", but that doesn't mean we won't be able to do (or understand) X "ever". - Again, this argument "seems" logical, right?? WRONG again. All current knowledge includes all prior knowledge and experiences from the past.
Before we understood static electricity, "God" was credited for lightning... but eventually we learned where lightning comes from, and much later after that we developed ways to recreate static electricity in the lab with an equivalent charge to a lightning bolt. Before we understood plate tectonics, volcanic eruptions were also credited to "God". But now we have a firm understanding of late tectonics and how that plays into the mechanics of volcanic eruptions. In this example we will most likely NOT ever be able to reproduce it in the lab, but that doesn't matter because we have shown that the process is entirely natural, and NOT "god". This applies to so many other things like; the majestic size of large mountain ranges; the colors of flowers; the rainbow after a storm; the stars in the sky... so on and so on... The point is that all of those prior experiences of "disproving the assumption of an intelligent designer" are part of our "current knowledge" and cannot be excluded from the assessment of an "intelligent designer" in all other applicable claims as well (including evolution and abiogenesis)... but that prior experience is exactly what the creationists are ignoring...
Almost everything that has been credited to an "intelligent designer" (ie "God"), has been shown by science to be the natural processes of our universe. And in almost every case, the process used to figure out that it wasn't due to a "designer" has been the same... via the Scientific Method of building a hypothesis and testing. First scientists study the phenomena via observation and testing based on current relative knowledge. Then they take that data and perform small experiments in the lab to understand how the process works... constantly testing based on collective data with a goal of producing similar, if not identical, results to confirm the testing. As more and more data is added to the collective through the experimentation process, each piece of the entire process is confirmed one at a time through results that are consistently reproducible. Once each piece of the process has been confirmed, the next step is to reproduce the entire process in the lab, if possible, again with consistently reproducible results. This is the way the process has worked for every other natural process which was once credited to a "god" or "intelligent designer", and it's the same process that's being used right now in the examination of evolution and abiogenesis here on earth. Based on ALL of our current knowledge, there is NO REASON to even suspect that any "god" or "intelligent designer" is part of the process because that has NEVER been proven to be the answer ever before.
Also, do not be fooled by the generic term "intelligent designer" ... they don't mean ANY intelligent designer, such as a highly advanced alien species, but ONLY their god, for which there is no real evidence to support. These leaves them with several assumptions... First, they have to prove that a god exists at all, then they still have to prove their hypothesis of design, and finally they have to provide evidence that particular god did indeed have a hand in the design process.
