Answers in Genesis: Evolution Is Impossible

The creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — have given us the ultimate, definitive explanation of why evolution is absurd.

The newest — we think it’s also the best — essay at the AIG website is Evolution: No Chance in a Billion Years. No author’s name is given. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

To hear evolutionists tell it, all you need is time. Take a few billion years here to get galaxies up and running, a gross of millennia there to line up those pesky organic chemicals the right way for life, and an epoch or two to morph some ape-like creatures into humans. Evolution sounds incredibly mysterious that way, dressed up in decades and centuries and eons. But all those years really just obscure the deeper issue.

Ah, what’s the deeper issue? We’re told:

While evolutionists toss years around like a football, they ignore a fundamental flaw in Darwin’s idea. What’s that? Even trillions of years wouldn’t be enough time to produce the simplest cell. People gamble in hopes to beat the odds and win big. But the slot machine of evolution has no chance to get the jackpot of life arising from non-life.

We’d like a bit more to go on. Does AIG have anything to back that up — other than their reputation for brilliance? Let’s read on:

Secular science textbooks make the origin of life sound simple enough. Throw in some chemicals, zap them with electricity, and you’ve got organic stew. At some point long, long ago, one such chemical concoction hit on the magical formula to succeed. After that, natural selection and genetics took over and marched toward humanity. Given enough time, these books assure us, it was bound to happen.

That’s a bit simplified, but it’s the general idea. To find out why it’s so terribly wrong, we’ll continue with AIG’s essay:

But that formula for life is like multiplying by zero. No matter how big the other numbers, you’ll still end up with zilch. In other words, throwing in as much time as you like would still get you nowhere. It’s sort of like this:

Darwin’s idea × billions of years × 0 (chance of actually happening) = 0.

That’s an impressive equation, but where does AIG get that zero from — other than their essay’s title? Here’s more:

The chance of evolution actually happening is about as likely as a blindfolded person throwing a pebble into outer space and knocking down a satellite that then crashes onto a target on the back of a truck speeding down the highway. Even with billions of years, that’s not going to happen. … To be sure, Darwinists have tried to massage those impossible odds to work in their favor, but no amount of number obfuscation can get around the facts. Time is not their friend.

We’re still looking for some data. Moving along:

So, if evolution is impossible no matter the eons, what else is there? The answer to that is simple. Based on real observations from scientific studies, we have no reason to believe life started by itself. According to the laws of biology, life always comes from life.

Aaaargh!! That’s the fictitious “law of biogenesis,” discussed in our Common Creationist Claims Confuted. What else have they got?

Beyond that, information science shows us that information (such as the DNA necessary for life to begin) requires an intelligent source.

Oooooooooooh — information! See Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information. Anything else?

Finally, without starting from an evolutionary bias, the study of genetics helps us understand that the variety of animal kinds on the earth could never lead back to a single ancestor.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s it? That’s how they justify the zero in their “equation”? Apparently so, because then they go right to their conclusion:

Add all that up and you’re left with an inescapable conclusion: there must be a powerful and super-wise Creator. With such a Creator, you no longer need billions of years. He could create everything in much less time — say . . . six days.

Having presented their rock-solid reasoning, backed up by … well, you can describe it, they conclude with this:

According to the Bible, this Creator — God — did exactly that. He gave us a clear record (the Bible) of how He created the world, how long it took Him, how humans fell into sin, and how God the Son (Jesus) came to earth to save us. And of that you can be 100 percent certain. After all, God doesn’t leave anything to chance—not in a billion years (if there had really been that much time, that is).

Well, dear reader, there you have it — AIG’s scientific reasons why evolution is impossible. Read it a few times. If you’re not persuaded, that’s up to you, but be warned — if you reach the wrong conclusion, the Lake of Fire awaits.

Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

55 responses to “Answers in Genesis: Evolution Is Impossible

  1. Even if you agreed with their moronic juvenile logic why does their creator always have to be the one from the bible? Why take that particular leap in faith? Why not Vishnu or spaghetti monster for that matter?

  2. michaelfugate

    When you allow magic, the possibilities are infinite. As Erik says – so why this specific one?

  3. Diogenes' Lamp

    Finally, without starting from an evolutionary bias, the study of genetics helps us understand that the variety of animal kinds on the earth could never lead back to a single ancestor.

    Add all that up and you’re left with an inescapable conclusion: there must be a powerful and super-wise Creator.

    Were you there, Ken?

    I like how Ken Ham says science cannot make scientific statements about the past, then creationists make scientific statements about the past.

    If scientists assume processes in the past were uniform and like they are now, they’re doing evil pagan rebellion against God.

    If creationists assume processes in the past were uniform and like they are now, it’s ironclad scientific proof.

  4. Now compare those odds with the odds that a supernatural agent which can do anything, literally an infinity of things that can be done. … that this world out of an infinity of possibilities. That probability is zero, not just a very small number, but zero.
    The point of going to a supernatural agent is to increase the number of possibilities. Supernatural means that it is not limited by natural laws. And if one increases the number of possibilities, one decreases the probability that this particular possibility, the real world, is chosen.
    What is needed is an account which constrains the number of possibilities, thereby decreases the number of possibilities, and increases the probability of the actual choice.

  5. Ken Phelps

    “…backed up by … well, you can describe it.”

    Well no, not here. Thanks to the site’s “let’s keep things sort of decent around here” filters, the fecalicious bovinicity of the evidence cannot be accurately described.

  6. And AGAIN with the mistaken idea that a complete CELL, with complex organelles, is the original life form. They can’t get it through their heads that first life would more likely have been a much simpler PROTO-cell: a self-replicating molecule encased in a lipid-based “bubble.” From that crude beginning mutations and chance chemical combinations that enhanced replication and survival were the kick off of (dare we say it?) evolution via natural selection?

  7. It seems to be that this “probability” argument is a leftover from the time when the primary opposition to theism was Epicureanism, which postulated random motions of atoms. See De rerum natura of Lucretius.

  8. So the probability of something happening which, however rare, is consistent with natural laws is zero. However the odds of a completely unobserved and unobservable omnipotent something operating outside of natural laws which creates very advanced and complex life-forms from nothing – with a word – is greater than zero.

    Go figure.

  9. Same position as my Pluto comment, what id like, is for someone not to bable on about how chance mutations occured vast years ago in a pile of chemical crap that created the first cell, weve all heard that a million times it makes you no better than the wacko creationists…I want someone, to show me scientifically what chemical steps occured, in what order, in what atmospheric composition that results in this first cell being created, without intervention of any “intelligence” again that would be a neat trick indeed…..

  10. Colin can stay a while, as long as he’s entertaining.

  11. So, if evolution is impossible no matter the eons, what else is there? The answer to that is simple. Based on real observations from scientific studies, we have no reason to believe life started by itself. According to the laws of biology, life always comes from life.

    Except, of course (according to creationists) when, 6,000 years ago, it came from magic.

    A pithy way of answering that creationist argument is to observe that if any new life forms emerged from inorganic sources today, they’d be eaten before any human being could find them. But I suppose the only real answer is for scientists to actually, indisputably create life in the lab.

  12. Eric Lipps says: “But I suppose the only real answer is for scientists to actually, indisputably create life in the lab.”

    It would be difficult enough to create a self-replicating molecule. That originally required oceans of organic material, combining and re-combining in every possible configuration. But when it happens — bingo! — the oceans become full of them.

  13. @Colin
    The Development Hypothesis by Herbert Spencer, 1852.

  14. It reminds me of a terrific -John Allen Paulos quote from Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences: “… rarity by itself isn’t evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable.”

  15. michaelfugate

    Or that God selected the hand and dealt it.

  16. Thank you AIG for publishing, once agin, THE TRVTH

  17. Charles Deetz ;)

    @Collin, whatever process we come up to answer you, it involves guessing and theorizing, but it is based on known chemistry and biology, and other known facts and processes. You won’t like that it is still incomplete, and somewhat of a guess … neither would we. But we are happy that it makes sense based on available science and seems probable. We see where the work needs to be done and future scientists can study it and figure it out. They may come down to some point where there needs to be a happy accident or an intelligent agent (or aliens) to make it work, but they aren’t even close to having that problem yet.

  18. Dave Luckett

    Colin, nobody knows precisely the chemical steps that led to a self-replicating molecule, OK? It has been thoroughly well established that proteins and lipids existed and could be created from simpler chemicals by purely natural means. There are a number of perfectly credible pathways that have been proposed from there to a self-replicating molecule – possibly RNA – in a lipid bubble. From there to DNA is only a selection process, because DNA is far better at self-replication. And there we are.

    The rest is nothing more than what Darwin proposed.

    To others who may be watching, Colin is applying one of the simplest of creationist gambits, which can be summarised thus: if you don’t know everything, you know nothing. The usual form of it is straightforward. Cite any effect whatsoever that is not perfectly understood. Demand an explanation. When one is provided, complain that the explanation is not fully detailed enough to suit the creationist. Continue until the limits of knowledge are reached.

    This procedure has the virtues of simplicity and certainty. The limits of knowledge will always be reached, sooner or later. The creationist then claims victory. Simple.

    It also has the property of putting the creationist in charge. He or she is the one who judges the evidence – and we all know how that judgement will go. On the other hand, the explanation that consists of a supernatural creator is not ever considered at all. The fact that there is precisely no evidence whatsoever for one is simply ignored.

    I suppose you could call it an extreme form of special pleading.

  19. Patience is a virtue, Colin, whether you’re an unbeliever or not.

    “I want someone, to show me scientifically”
    Patience. Just exercise patience. I understand, just like Freddy Mercury you want it all and you want it now. But science doesn’t work that way. Science needs empirical data. And exactly regarding the stage from non-life to the first living cells is sorely lacking them.

  20. Eric Lipps:
    “But I suppose the only real answer is for scientists to actually, indisputably create life in the lab.”

    I’m afraid the creationists would just say, “See? It took intelligence to do that!”

  21. Colin:
    “I want someone, to show me scientifically what chemical steps occured, in what order, in what atmospheric composition that results in this first cell being created, without intervention of any “intelligence” …”

    Yeah, and I’d like a time machine too. Colin, why wait for someone else to show you? Earn your Ph.D. in the appropriate field, put in years of research, and perhaps you will become the world-famous scientist who demonstrates experimentally how life may have begun.

    “May” have begun because there are most likely a multitude of chemical pathways that could lead to life. We will never be able to say with certainty exactly which chain of reactions actually occurred that led to life; the best we will be able to do is point to several most likely pathways. Sorry, but that’s just the way science works.

    You want absolutes? See Ken Ham. He will tell you absolutely that “Goddidit”. Of course, what Ham won’t be able to tell you is how God did it. That’s what science strives to answer.

  22. @Maezeppa
    And to continue the analogy:
    One does not solve the “problem” of the improbability of being dealt that hand by hypothesizing that the hand was dealt, not from a standard 52-card deck, but from a deck that had Uno cards and French vocabulary cards mixed in.

  23. Dave Luckett describes a creationist tactic: “Cite any effect whatsoever that is not perfectly understood. Demand an explanation. When one is provided, complain that the explanation is not fully detailed enough to suit the creationist. Continue until the limits of knowledge are reached.”

    It seems similar to a three-year-old who keeps asking “why?”, but it’s not the same at all. The child isn’t playing a game; it really is trying to understand the world. The creationist’s motive isn’t like that of the innocent child. He imagines that he already knows the answer. He’s trying to reveal what he thinks is your “ignorance,” compared to his magnificent comprehension of everything.

  24. BTW, the Bible shows signs of belief in spontaneous generation.

    For example, in the story of Samson discovering the hive of bees being generated in the carcass of the lion. Even in Genesis 1, animals are generated from the waters and the land, not “ex nihilo”.

  25. @DL observes: “Cite any effect whatsoever that is not perfectly understood. Demand an explanation. When one is provided, complain that the explanation is not fully detailed enough to suit the creationist.”
    I’m still waiting for the first creationist who applies this “method” to monopoles and superconductivity at relatively high temperatures. Perhaps the image of a god toying with magnets doesn’t appeal that much.

  26. The likes of Colon, excuse me I meant Colin, will never be satisfied by any scientific explanation. Once scientists start replicating life in the laboratory the argument will be that the synthesized life is not “real” natural life as it original arose in the primeval world billions of years ago, oh I meant six thousand years ago. The denial fest will continue forever because there will always be children that refuse to face their mortality and need the reassurances of holy men that it will all turn out well once they are reunited with their supernatural father figure.

  27. It is true that at one time, decades ago, some biology books were too eager to promote the Urey-Miller experiment as explaining the actual origins of life. So this ends up in Jonathon Wells’s collection of icons, with the false implication that somehow this discredits evolution science and proves us all liars. And people like Colin continue to fall for it:

  28. SC: The creationist’s motive isn’t like that of the innocent child. He imagines that he already knows the answer. He’s trying to reveal what he thinks is your “ignorance,” compared to his magnificent comprehension of everything.”

    Right. The anti-evolution activist, even the amateur “in training,” is always focused like a laser beam on any audience that may be present (e.g. lurkers on this blog). Even in one-on one “debates” he’s just practicing for the next audience. He knows that our technical refutations cannot compete with his catchy, albeit misleading, sound bites of incredulity, even when the audience is not particularly religious. The more we let him keep the “debate” on “weaknesses” of “evolution” (or “whether a designer” or the designer’s identity) the easier his job is. It’s when we ask detailed “what did the designer do, where, when and how” questions that we make his job harder. Few audiences will have patience with continued evasion (e.g. “It’s not ID’s task to connect dots”). Committed literalists will seek out other activists that tell them more of what they want to hear, but they are at most half of those who fall for the sound bites. The rest will just get annoyed at the evasion and conclude that the anti-evolution activist, not his “Darwinist” critic, is the one trying to hide something.

  29. So you all want me to believe it happened by faith? 🙂 you guys crack me up, science works by using “evidence” i asked for it, all you gave me was excuses why i cant be given it, but i have to believe it anyway, and you call creationists wackos, seems evoluionism is the pot calling here.

  30. Colin you have all the evidence you need in your Bible and its Bronze Age technology so you can resume your reading. In the meantime, scientists will continue their search for a more complete understanding of the universe without you. Trust me, your kind won’t be missed as they continue their journey.

  31. Colin, try reading a book. A sixth grade science book is a good place for you to start.

  32. Stephen Kennedy

    Explain how an all powerful, all knowing being, which is a lot more complicated than a self-replicating molecule, came into existence. The response that he has always existed is not acceptable since there is no evidence for it.

  33. michaelfugate

    Chemistry, Physics and Biology – what more evidence do you need?

  34. Oh, Colin, while you’re at it, please learn how to construct a sentence in the English language. Also, proper spelling and punctuation will help you get a little credibility in the literate world.

  35. Colin, I would be happy to address your questions. As a former Young Earth Creationist and present day Christ-follower, I believe I have a good idea of where you are coming from. You can click on my username here in order to reach my blog (where you can post to the comments section) or you can email me at Bible.and.Science.Forum at the domain. For that matter, if you want to summarize your questions and/or concerns and email them to me, I will post your “guest contribution” or essay at my blog and start the discussion.

  36. As to the “Phlogiston Theory”, I somewhat disagree with Wikipedia calling it an “obsolete scientific theory” without at least also pointing out that it was actually an example of a “last gasp” Natural Philosophy Theory during the transition from Natural Philosophy to Modern Science. That is, when Ken Ham et al enjoy citing it as evidence of “science theory today is a science falsehood tomorrow”, they are playing yet another equivocation fallacy shell game.

    If I were teaching this topic Socratically, I would ask, “If Phlogiston Theory was a failed theory of science, how could Lavoisier be called “The Father of Modern Chemistry” a century and half later?” ANSWER: Phlogiston Theory was based on ancient Four Elemental Humours PHILOSOPHY. It wasn’t a product of modern science and the scientific method. During the transition from “Natural Philosophy” to “Modern Science” we see in the case of Phlogiston around two centuries of Natural Philosophers trying to be more empirical and less philosophical in their approaches to science–but basically just trying to come up with empirical “proofs” of what their philosophical leanings WANTED to believe about ancient Greek philosophy. The philosophy of the ancients had been revered for so long that many scholars simply didn’t want to give up on it. Indeed, if one reads the cited Wikipedia article very carefully, this tension virtually leaps out of the page at you:

    During the eighteenth century, as it became clear that metals gained mass when they were oxidized, phlogiston was increasingly regarded as a principle rather than a material substance.[7]

    See what I mean?! If something is “principle” and not a “material substance”, it is basically a “philosophical concept”, something within the realm of natural processes and the material world. In order words, when empirical methodologies were unable to confirm “Phlogiston Theory”, they made excuses for it.

    Moreover, Lavoisier managed to debunk “Phlogiston Theory” once and for all by dumping that “mere principle” talk and dealing with hard core measurement of material things.

    So, “Phlogiston Theory” was NOT a failure of science nor a “once accepted scientific theory that was later discredited”. It was one of the last “natural philosophy” failures of Natural Philosophers CLINGING to ancient Greek philosophy by frantically trying to come up with excuses for keeping it around. And Lavoisier is often called “The Father of Modern Chemistry” because what preceded him (such as with the “Phlogiston Theory” nonsense) wasn’t science.

    It get a good chuckle that when Young Earth Creationists want to make fun of science and pretend that it is too unreliable to deserve it deserve its obvious prestige and favorable track record in our society–even though they desperately want their “creation science” to be regarded as “real science–they always go back centuries BEFORE modern science to find their silly examples of “the failures of science and scientists.”

    Do scientists make mistakes? Certainly. Does science make mistakes? It depends upon what you mean. There’s a big difference between the scientific theories which survive years of falsification testing and end up taught in science textbooks versus scientific HYPOTHESES which are discussed as possible leads on where to focus ongoing research. Those are not meant to be considered the end-all, sure-thing FACTS of science.

    Notice how Ken Ham often (e.g., in the Nye-Ham debate) wants to redefine SCIENCE as “knowledge”. That way, his most ridiculous rubbish can be called “science” and he can also find lots of “science” to mock as erroneous. Of course, Michael Behe played the same game in the Dover Trial, insisting that even astrology deserved a place in the classroom alongside of astronomy because it too is “science” and needs taught.

    COLIN: If you believe I am characterizing Ken Ham’s arguments/position incorrectly, I’d be very interested in hearing you out. Mr. S.C. (interesting be he) keeps this blog focused on particular themes (as do I on the Bible.and.Science.Forum blog) but my blog explores philosophical and theological topics as well as the scientific. So in this case I’d be very interested in hearing more of WHY/HOW you believe SC et al are asking you “to believe it happened by faith.”

  37. By the way, what I just wrote about “Phlogiston Theory” should provide explain yet again why even just a basic background in an undergraduate course or two from the Dept of History & Philosophy of Science at most any university campus can be extremely useful in understanding so many of the science-related controversies of our day. (And yes, even my modest background in that academic field helps enormously in shredding “creation science” pseudoscience.) Yet, I’m not just referring to evolution and billions of years but also countless other rancorous topics like climate change, GMOs, chemtrails, quantifications of chemical pollution, allocation of scarce resources, and science education.

    It’s bad enough that so many voters don’t know what science is and how it works. Ignorant voters elect ignorant lawmakers and leaders, again and again. It’s not just that a society of science-illiterate citizens produces bad laws and poor public policies. Yes, they can and do “sanitize” science curricula to avoid controversy and hurt feelings. That’s bad enough but perhaps worst of all, the resulting political strategies of science-ignorant leaders will procrastinate some of the most urgent, survival-critical decisions of human history. Climate change is only one of many.

    Meanwhile, EVEN IF every single government official at the local, state, and federal levels were entirely informed and up to speed in these scientific regards, even that degree of total unanimity among leaders would be insufficient for motivating and executing the appropriate and necessary solutions. Victory in WWII was always my favorite classroom example because I found that very few students grasped the vital importance of non-combatant Americans to that victory. (Many think Allied victory was inevitable and assume a binary outcome without considering the various possible negotiated ceasefires, such as that seen in the Korean War. And if the average American back home had lost the will to fight, we’d live in a different world today.) World history is full of examples of leaders failing to inform and motivate entire societies to deal with enormous problems until it was too late–and many of those societies died out.

    Youtube makes it easy to watch stupid leaders saying stupid things. Among the most depressing videos I’ve watched of late was a Congressional hearing where a NASA official was being questioned and semi-rebuked by a science-ignorant, grandstanding moron. (Sorry for the obvious redundancies in that sentence.) The lawmaker was chiding NASA for spending so much of its budget studying our own planet “instead of challenging little boys and girls to dream of exploring outer-space.” It was bad enough that the politician seemed startled to learn of NASA’s earth science data gathering which is vitally important to countless industries from agriculture to you-name-it, to land use policies, energy production, protection of natural resources, etc. I wished the cross-examination were reversed, so that the NASA official could have probed the politician’s ignorance, chewed-him-out for failing to educate himself on what NASA and other agencies in the National Budget actually do, and for his obvious demagogic playing to the most ignorant blocks of voters (e.g., Tea Party) and lobbyists in hopes to perhaps gaining a nine-second video-clip soundbite on the evening news.

    With all of that sobering reality in mind, I’d interested in discussing with Colin and anyone else WHY so many Young Earth Creationists are associated (whether fairly or unfairly) with climate change denial (or at least, denial of a significant human role in climate change.) Even overseas I find that lots of people associate American fundamentalist Christians with science-denial in general, not just the denial of origins-related science.

    Seeing how it’s a Saturday, I’d be willing to devote its own page and comment-thread to it if there is any interest from Colins or others. (If yes, just post your willingness in a comment to the current front page of the blog.)

  38. Psssst Colin, let me tell you a little secret.

    “seems evoluionism is the pot calling here”
    makes you look silly. See, Evolution Theory is not about “a pile of chemical crap that created the first cell”. That one is a research field called Abiogenesis.

  39. TomS said it well, including:
    Even in Genesis 1, animals are generated from the waters and the land, not “ex nihilo”.

    I find Young Earth Creationism so self-contradictory. Are you a YEC, Colin?

    You seem to have a beef with abiogenesis (life from non-living ingredients) but as TomS points out, Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, So the WATERS brought forth MOVING CREATURES. That’s life from non-living ingredients that are in water.

    Genesis 1:24 says: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature….”

    I prefer to render the Hebrew word ERETZ as “land” or even “soil” in this context because too many of today’s readers see “earth” and they assume “planet earth”– and that is too anachronistic for my taste as a translator. But either way, you’ve got non-living DIRT producing “living creatures”. Abiogenesis.

    So, Colin, if the Bible so clearly describes abiogenesis (see Gen 2:7 also) and science agrees, why are you unhappy about it? The alternative would be to demand “perpetual biogenesis”, that is, the claim that living things have ALWAYS existed in the infinite past. I would think that as a Christian you would deny an eternal earth and universe.

    As TomS also noted, Genesis 1 doesn’t really address the CREATION EX NIHILO of orthodox Christian theology. Many Christians say that “Let there be light!” was the first creation act. Yet, the text says the Spirit of God moved over the face of the waters. If you demand literal translation here, than the waters are actual waters. There was also TOHU VAVOHU. Many interpret that as a chaotic earth still molten and undifferentiated.

    For me personally, Genesis 2:7 is my favorite verse where both abiogenesis and evolution can be applied. HAADAM (the red-soil human one) was made from “the dust of the ground” (the chemical elements of the earth’s crust) and thought the Bible doesn’t mention all of those many steps between dirt and humanity, we have LOTS of evidence which God gave us within the fossil record and our own genomes to describe all of the intermediate processes over millions of years.

    Of course, some people get enraged about there being no mention of evolutionary processes in Genesis 1. Yet there is no mention of EX NIHILO creation either, yet lots of Christians demand that claim.

    So we should simply admit that God didn’t have any intention of making Genesis 1 a million times longer by packing all of the various processes into it. Yet, God’s Book of Creation provides lots of the evidence and answers you would ever hope for. Therefore, as a Christian, why should I deny such a magnificent work of God as evolution?

  40. Professor Tertius, aside from Genesis, which is a bit muddled, I’m sure you’re aware of the parable of the sower, in Matthew 13. It’s entirely compatible with natural selection.

  41. michaelfugate

    How does science = faith? Either there is evidence or there isn’t.
    Not to mention that if humans were made from “dirt” it wasn’t anything like dirt in my yard – which contains a large amount of silica. Did Eden have special dirt?

  42. @michaelfugate
    If man came from dirt, how come there is still dirt?

  43. Wow, nice job guys. I just read all your posts, so based on them i have the inteligence of a 6th grader, im a YEC, i cant spell therefore i have no right to have an individual opinion on this topic and science will happily continue without me. You all need to take a hard look at yourselves, see you have made almost a dozen assumptions about me, and all without any bases, i havent told you anything about me, you just went about your normal way of attacking anyone who wants imperical evidence of initial biological evolution “which none of you did or can provide” classic ad hominem attack. If any of you were sitting face to face with me you a would have the balls to speak these words, and b would be far less comfortable without you wolf pack mentality. Im a member of many forums that debate this topic, i joined this one on the basis that we would have some constructive debate, adios!

  44. I’m sure you’re aware of the parable of the sower, in Matthew 13. It’s entirely compatible with natural selection.

    True….but the reason I don’t use it against anyone who might be a creationist is:

    1) If he/she has had seminary training—or even solid Sunday School training–they would rightly point out that because it is a first century parable, there is one central message of that text which is “few there be who find it” (that is, the proper “the way” of the kingdom) while everything else–such as any potential botanical lessons–should only be exploited if good for a chuckle about 20 minutes in when the congregation is badly in need of the half-time stand-up and stretch.

    2) Also, see #1.

    For years I’ve considered writing a satirical article for Leadership Journal , a pastor’s periodical, with a very serious, real life edge explaining how church advertisements for pastors and youth ministers together with compensation packages and job descriptions impact pastoral populations in adverse ways and illustrate both natural selection and the law of unintended consequences. Overworked and underpaid pastoral staff have evolved survival strategies which church elder boards exploit to drain even more energy and gain more output, all while expecting pastors to be on call 24/7. Net result is that huge numbers of pastors work for approximately minimum wage and soon discover that they will never be able to pay off their college and grad school loans. So the wife pays the bills by teaching in the public schools until they start having children. Then life starts getting difficult.

  45. Colin, those weren’t ad hominem attacks. Those were insults.

    (h/t Prof T)

  46. michaelfugate

    It seems both Prof. T and TomS made comments without insults – do you plan to address them?

  47. Dave Luckett

    Classic flounce by Colin. We were mean to him. The Bingo card will be complete if he returns with an esprit d’escalier.

    Maybe he won’t. But Prof T and I at least didn’t insult him. I pointed out that his argument (that what we do know is falsified by what we don’t), is faulty. Prof T actually invited his participation in a moderated forum that would discuss with him to his heart’s content. Others didn’t actually insult him either, by suggesting that his science education is lacking, for that seems apparent.

    Notice how Colin’s actual position hasn’t appeared? That’s not an accident, I think. By implication, he denies being a YEC, but he also appears to deny that life could have arisen by natural cause from non-living components. Now, perhaps his whole position consists of what he doesn’t believe rather than what he does, but that’s somewhat unusual. One doesn’t often see such fervour without having a horse in the race, so I wonder which particular horse his money’s on.

    Colin hasn’t said. There’s an obvious reason why not. If he actually said what he believes, he would not be able to avoid a comparison of the relative rational merits of the two positions. As it is, he has the charming advantage of being able to attack without concerning himself with defence. Science doesn’t know everything about the origin of life. Colin wants to proceed as though that were the point, when the point is that it actually knows a great deal more about it than the proponents of any supernatural explanation do.

  48. I didn’t insult you earlier, Colin, but you make me want to now. However, The Curmudgeon runs a classy blog, so I will refrain from calling you a [self-edited out]-head.

  49. michaelfugate

    Yikes! – that should have been WITHOUT insults!

    [*Voice from above*] And so it is … now.

  50. retiredsciguy says: “I didn’t insult you earlier, Colin”

    Nor did I. The real problem, I think, is that neither he nor his beliefs (whatever they are) were taken seriously.

  51. I did insult him, he was bringing nothing to the party as far as I was concerned short of saying you have no evidence. No refutation of the actual science, just a lazy flat out rejection of all evidence. If one chooses not to see, hear or think then there is little science can offer to such a creature. Fundies are like that, they want to told what to think!

  52. michaelfugate

    Thanks SC! that was a bone-headed typo on my part.

    So what exactly do you think happened Colin?

  53. The problem with guys like Colin is that they start out by saying “you bable [sic] on about” whatever, that we’re no better than the “wacko creationists,” and accuses us of accepting a “neat trick.” Then he has the gumption to whine about a reciprocal response. He also points out an imaginary ad hominem fallacy (which was really just insults [srsly, Colin, take a little pride in your sentence structure and grammar]) without recognizing his own appeals to ignorance, personal incredulity and retrospective astonishment.

    Finally, he has the nerve to give a “goodbye” in Spanish without using the appropriate diacritical mark. Sheesh.

  54. michaelfugate asks: “So what exactly do you think happened Colin?”

    He found himself in the company of adults.