Creation/Evolution Debate - Part 2

by Peter Bowditch

In June, 2005, I represented Australian Skeptics in an online debate against the creationists at Answers in Genesis. The debate took place on the Sydney Morning Herald's Webdiary site and was conducted along the lines of a normal spoken debate, but done in writing with each team producing three papers over a week. Here are the second presentations from both sides. Both presentations were loaded up to the Webdiary site simultaneously and neither side saw what the other had written until publication.

First statements | Third statements

Did the universe and life evolve, or was it specially created in 6 days?

Australian Skeptics statement

Australian Skeptics has a prize on offer for anyone who can demonstrate paranormal powers. As a member of the AS committee I am ineligible to win the prize, but predicting what creationists are likely to say is not considered to be a psychic power. In 1997, Michael Shermer published a small tract named How to Debate a Creationist in which he lists 25 arguments used by creationists and the answers to those arguments. Answers in Genesis offered 14 of those arguments in their initial statement, and of the other 11 several do not apply here because they specifically relate to the teaching of creationism in schools. This suggests that creationism has not advanced since 1997 and that lessons learned back then have been forgotten. This is consistent with the change of name from the Creation Research Foundation to Answers in Genesis. Once they claimed to do research and science; now there is no need for research because everything anyone needs to know can be found in a 17th century book.

Much emphasis is placed on the scientific qualifications of both sides in this debate, and this fits the question being considered and the fact that we were invited to participate in a debate about science. If someone who claims that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old is going to debate the science of the claim, then those arguments should include evidence to support the claim. Instead, what we get from creationists is obfuscation, misrepresentation and logically fallacious arguments which purport to prove that an alternative theory is worthless because it is not perfect. That there are flaws in the evidence for a very old Earth and universe does not in any way validate the theory that the ages must be very short. Still, when you have no evidence you have to do the best with what you’ve got.

Before going on it would be worthwhile to say what evolutionary theory is not about. It neither requires nor denies the existence of a god. It is not about the origin of life. It is not about the origin of the universe. It is about the journey which has brought us from there to here; whether that journey was initiated or guided by God is outside the realm of scientific investigation. To say that evolution cannot explain the Big Bang or abiogenesis is no criticism of the theory at all and is just a logical fallacy. To say that evolution is predicated on the non-existence of God is to talk nonsense and attempt to couch the debate in religious rather than scientific terms.

Speaking of religion, Answers in Genesis abandoned any pretence to be engaged in scientific debate when they used the section heading “Evidence for the Creator God of the Bible”. That they went on to offer no such evidence was not surprising, nor was it surprising that the evidence offered was of the “they are wrong so we must be right” variety – the same arguments that have been produced (and rebutted) countless times in the past.

As it seems safe to assume that the topics chosen by Answers in Genesis when making their case are those of paramount importance, I will stick to the same topics.

Laws of Thermodynamics

It wouldn’t be a creation/evolution debate without misrepresentation of the Laws of Thermodynamics and their implications. The claim that “the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy” is classic straw man, because no scientist claims that the universe has existed forever. The best estimate now of the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years, which is a lot shorter than forever (and a lot longer than 6,000 years). And how did scientists come up with this number? By measuring the energy in the universe. See http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/.

Life itself

As I said above, there is no requirement for evolutionary theory to “explain the origin of first life”, because evolution is about changes over time. Scientists simply do not know how life first arose on Earth. There are several competing theories, such as the production of amino acids from atmospheric gases and lightning as demonstrated by Miller’s experiments, or panspermia as suggested by Hoyle, where the relevant molecules came from elsewhere in the universe (which simply moves the answer further away), or the effects of ultra-violet light on the contents of ponds. Perhaps God did it. The last option removes the need for any further research into the “little bang”, but it says nothing about what happened afterwards. For more about abiogenesis, see http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm.

Biological changes

Again, it is almost impossible to imagine discourse with creationists without the matter of mutations coming up. The fact that evolution doesn’t require mutations (although they are a useful source of genetic change and diversity) has been explained many times, and will no doubt have to be explained many times again. The fact that mutations can be either harmful or beneficial has also been explained before. The statement that “[i]nformation science leads us to expect that random changes during the transmission of information (e.g. reproduction) would generate 'noise' and degrade the information” is wrong, unless Shannon and Weaver were wrong about noise increasing information. (You can see some more at http://helix.biology.mcmaster.ca/721/outline2/node56.html and http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4463.)

Fossils

Another all-time favourite. “Although Darwin expected vast numbers of transitional fossils to be found, only a handful of disputable ones are cited”. They might be disputed by creationists, but they are not disputed by scientists. And a very big hand is needed to hold that handful. See horses at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html and whales at http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm. It requires no predictive power to suggest that as these sequences are not complete on a daily basis that explanation of the gaps will be demanded.

The age of things

“The evidence for a 'young' earth/universe is, by definition, evidence for biblical creation, because naturalistic evolution, even if possible, would require eons.” The brief answer to this is “Show us that evidence”, followed by the observation that 4.5 billion years qualifies as “eons”. The presence of carbon-14 in coal is mentioned as if such a thing exists. In fact, the absence of that isotope in coal is one of the ways that geological deposits can be dated relative to coal. As for the rapid formation of canyons, anybody who compares Providence Canyon in Georgia (up to 50 metres deep, maximum 400 metres long) or the erosion of ash deposits around Mount St Helens with the Grand Canyon must be hoping that the readers have not seen the actual formations.

Cultural-anthropological evidence

There may well be hundreds of societies with flood myths, but this just represents the fact that for most of human history settlement has been near rivers and rivers flood. I have no doubt that the Aboriginal tribes who inhabited the flood plain of the Hawkesbury River for the last 45,000 years had ancient myths about huge floods.

It should come as no surprise that humans from all over the Earth are very closely related genetically. We are, after all, a single species. If this is to be taken as evidence of special creation, then it would seem reasonable to ask why we have any genetic relationship at all with lobsters. Or palm trees. Or tomatoes. (http://www.radiancemagazine.com/issues/2001/winter_01/strange_world_of_biotechnology.htm)

Design and complexity

At last we come to the argument from incredulity. “If I can’t understand it, God did it”. All complexity means is that there are no constraints on evolution to force it to do things simply. Evolution is not a teleological process, it is a method of trial-and-error, with what works in a particular environment surviving and with what works even a tiny amount better surviving and multiplying better. Evolution has had a long time to do its work, and the fact that we might not know every step in the evolution of roots and leaves into gills into lungs just shows that there are things that we don’t know. Yet.

The old “what use is half an eye” argument has been answered long ago, and as for the brain, there are countless examples of different brains adapted to different purposes. Yes, the human brain is one of the thing that separates us from other species. That and opposable thumbs make us human. Plus the poor design of the spine, pelvis and birth canal. You can read about brain evolution at http://brainmuseum.org/Evolution/.

A challenge for Skeptics

“[W]hat tangible basis is there for anyone to reject the claim that there is indeed a Creator who has spoken by His prophets in the Bible?”

None whatsoever. As I said above, evolution says nothing about God and requires neither the presence nor absence of a god. If there is a Creator, He may very well have used evolution as the means to produce the immense variety of life we see on Earth today. An efficient and non-meddling God would work like that.

Now, where is that evidence for a 6,000 year old Earth? Evidence that cannot be dismissed by Occam’s Razor.

Answers in Genesis statement

The concepts of creation and evolution both lead to testable scientific predictions, as Darwin knew and as our first post explained. For example, evolution anticipates innumerable transitional forms but these have not been found. Creation anticipates gaps between kinds, which is more consistent with the fossils.

Anyway, the important question is which proposition is true, not which best fulfils some self-serving definition of ‘science’. We reject William Mayer’s (University of Colorado ) anti-truth claim at the Arkansas trial (1982) that it ‘may well be that creationism is correct about origins,’ but ‘even if it were correct, it's not scientific’.

We have pointed out that evolution is a deduction from the philosophy of materialism. So the correct contrast is ‘creationist v materialist’ not ‘creationist v scientific’.

It’s silly when some, including Gould and the NAS (USA), claim that creation is not scientific because it’s not falsifiable or testable, then turn around and claim that creationist claims have been examined (i.e. tested) and proven false (i.e. falsified). In reality, both paradigms have led to fulfilled and failed predictions; in each case the models are refined, but the underlying axioms (unprovable beliefs) remain the same.

In any case, creation v evolution is about the truth of one-off events in history. One can’t scientifically prove that Hannibal won the Battle of Cannae; this is proven historically (e.g., eye-witness records). But our opponents dogmatically reject the eye-witness account of our Creator, like Lucy in the Parable of the Candle. Instead they rely on methods that they agree are ‘corrigible’, so by definition they can never be ultimate truth. Despite our opponents’ caricature of creationists’ positions as immutable dogma, all science, including that used to support creation, is subject to change. In reality:

Both evolutionists and creationists often adjust their models and submodels to accommodate new data.

The axioms underlying the evolution paradigm (exclusion of supernatural explanations, a religious dogma in its own right) never change, as is true also for biblical axioms.

Our opponents, as long-standing public anti-creationists, should know better than to present caricatures of either the Ark account or our position on geology. The vessel did not need to carry ‘all plants and animals’ (most animals live in the sea anyway, and much vegetation could survive outside). The account implies that only land-dwelling vertebrate animals were sent on board. And we don’t claim that the Flood formed ‘all geological formations seen today’. For example, the Ice Age (a logically inevitable consequence of the world Flood) was responsible for much recent geology.

The options

Either the universe was made (creation sensu lato) or it wasn’t (evolution); there are no other options. The Law of Excluded Middle applies even to Skeptics. Obviously we don’t claim that disproof of evolution proves biblical creation, but it is good evidence for creation in general. Evolutionists from the time of Darwin have used exactly this form of argument, i.e. claiming evolution as the only option because ‘God wouldn’t have done it that way [they erroneously suppose], so evolution must’ve done it.'

Genesis creation

Our opponents have raised the discredited old canard that Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other. Clearly Jesus didn’t see it that way; He quoted both Gen. 1:27 and 2:24 in Matt. 19:3–6, referring to the same man and woman. While this won’t influence open atheists like Willis, Ritchie and Bowditch, one would think this would count for a professing Christian like Smith.

Of course, Jesus knew that Gen. 1:1–2:4a was a summary outline of all creation, while Gen. 2:4b ff. elaborated on the events in Day 6, unlike modern Skeptics, who disregard ancient near-eastern literature patterns. Oriental scholar Kenneth Kitchen pointed out that failure to recognize such distinctions ‘borders on obscurantism.’

And the correct translation of the waw consecutive wayyitser in Genesis 2:19, taking into account the context of Genesis 1, is the pluperfect, i.e. God ‘had formed’ the animals which He now brings to Adam to name. Hebrew scholar H.C. Leupold said that ‘the insistence of the critics upon a plain past [tense] is partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible.’

Origin of life

Our opponents blithely assert that life came from ‘self-replicating molecules’. This is merely hand-waving. If they mean RNA, then they need to jump the huge chemical hurdles required to form RNA from simpler molecules, and then get this to replicate itself. Or have they another self-replicating molecule in mind that could be an ancestor of us all? A truly sceptical mind would want to know, as the scientific literature does not reveal such wonders!

Biology

Life sharing a common genetic coding system fits beautifully with the notion of a unified designer. The code is not universal, incidentally, as there are exceptions such as Paramecium, and some organisms have extra amino acids in their genetic code. These created exceptions don’t fit comfortably with the common ancestry claim, because if one organism evolved into another with a different code, all the messages already encoded would be scrambled, just as written messages would be jumbled if typewriter keys were switched.

The Skeptics are out of date to claim that humans and chimps have 98% similarity in their DNA — the figure is more like 95%, or less. And with 3 billion DNA ‘letters’ in our genome, this is 150 million differences, or 50 large books worth of information that needs to be generated and there is no adequate mechanism to do so.

Nuclear physics

We don’t deny that amounts of isotopes and present decay rates can be measured accurately. But the long-ages conclusion is an interpretation of these data. The mixture of isotopes in rocks and the known decay rates of radioactive elements would only indicate great ages if the assumptions used were valid. We have repeatedly shown how these methods often fail on rocks of known age, so why trust them on rocks of unknown age? And different methods often disagree, so how do you know which method, if any, is correct? Furthermore, any C-14 in a sample ‘millions of years old’ (recently also reported in several diamonds, that can’t be said to be contaminated with modern carbon) is, by definition, evidence against those long ages (it shouldn’t be there, because of its short half-life). And anyway, evolutionary geologists won’t accept radioisotope dates either, if the ‘date’ disagrees with what they think it should be.

Is evolution essential for science?

Our opponents’ claim, ‘evolution is the most important theory in all of science’, would have been news to the creationist founders of modern science, such as Kepler, Newton, Pascal and Faraday. In fact, only biblical creation provides the propositions which must be true for science itself to work (the orderliness of the universe, and the non-capriciousness of natural law, for example). For creationists, these are theorems deducible from biblical propositions, while materialists have to accept these by faith as axioms. This means that they are in the unfortunate position of having to presuppose biblical truths in their very attempts to deny them with ‘science’.

Real science: no need for evolution

Most scientists deal with operational science, not origins, and so have no use for evolution (‘goo-to-you’) anyway. In fact, the Skeptics are refuted by the irony of evolutionists on the one hand claiming that evolution is essential for biology, but on the other hand lamenting the move away from evolution ‘to a more utilitarian science’ which demands ‘more practical benefits from science’. Evolutionist Larry Witham cites a recent BioEssays special issue on evolution, which shows how useless evolution really is for real science (Where Darwin Meets the Bible, 2002):

“While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,’ most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas”, the editor wrote. “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”

Trial and error

Our opponents rightly point out that the evolutionary process entails ‘a very long process of trial and error, with many dead ends and many (but far fewer) successes.’ However, observational science shows that organization is best explained by an organizer, programs by a programmer.

And professing Christians take note—this trial and error process doesn’t sound anything like the God of the Bible. It entails that God used enormous amounts of disease, bloodshed, suffering and death (‘the last enemy’ 1 Cor. 15:26) to bring about a creation He called ‘very good’ (Gen. 1:31). Jesus the Creator said ‘blessed are the meek’, yet evolutionism involves the strong grinding the meek underfoot. Indeed, antitheists like Carl Sagan and Jacques Monod couldn’t understand how any Christian could believe that a God of love used such a wasteful, cruel and inefficient process to create life. The reality is, of course, that He didn’t.

(Note: The statement above originally included many links to information on the Answers in Genesis web site. Please see that site for expansion and clarification of the argument.)