Evolution's Achille's Heels Pt. 2

This is my second article about the previews for a movie called "Evolution's Achilles' Heels." I'm not going to pay to watch the movie for various reasons, but I don't mind examining what I can see for free, and so far it has proved to be less than impressive, but maybe the second preview will reveal at least something which is problematic to the theory of evolution.

 

"Evolution: Is it true?"

 

Yes. Evolution is fact. Not believing it has nothing to do with its relationship to reality. I hope that clears that up. If it doesn't, please use the internet to do some research about how genetic mutations cause variance which is then naturally selected.

 

"Most evolutionists have never critically examined their own position. It's such a sacred cow, even in their own minds, it's unthinkable to even start examining the weaknesses."

 

I can't speak for most evolutionists, but I can say that I came from faith in the biblical story. I know evolution is true because I critically examined my position and changed my mind when I gathered information which was relevant and new to me. The reason why evolution was discovered in the first place is because of critical analysis of information. There has been critical examination of the evidence for evolution since it was first proposed, so even I c an individual doesn't question it, the scientific community as a collective has very much critically examined it and this is how we got the scientific theory of evolution. We make progress in science by building on the progress of the past and doing away with incorrect assertions.

 

"Natural selection plus mutation actually works in the wrong direction for evolution. So the question is: How does evolution work?"

 

What exactly is "the wrong direction?" Is he saying creatures devolve? That mutations result in certain death? That natural selection will weed out successful mutations before the unsuccessful ones? The fact the changes are occurring is evolution! Of course at the end of the statement I think he's acknowledging that evolution happens and maybe in the movie he presents information as to how he thinks evolution works in a different way. Either way, if he is unable to understand evolution, it does not change the reality of it happening which he seemingly admits here.

 

"So genetic entropy is profound. It means that things are going down, not up. The human race should be devolving, not evolving."

 

Now this one is the most interesting comment made out of the two previews. It gets pretty complicated but I'll boil down the concept. There are many more slightly negative mutations that occur than beneficial ones and it is unlikely that that would be selected against because they are so minor, but over time these negative mutations would build up to the point where a population would go extinct. Considering nearly all species which existed ever are now extinct, he may be right, but there is significant evidence that this is false because we have observable and repeatable experiments which prove populations can improve fitness with evolutionary pressure. The biggest problem I have with this concept is that it is often related to irreducible complexity and intelligent design. Just because we can't explain how an organism evolved doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means we don't know how. These two items are wholly assertions which there is no evidence for.

 

"Even if every atom in the universe was an experiment for every possible molecular vibration over supposed millions of years of time, we'd never get one protein, let alone hundreds, let alone the dna to actually code for them."

 

I'm not sure how he knows this. My guess is that it's based on probabilities. As far as I have found, no one has definitive proof of how life arose, whether by creation or by abiogenesis. The thing is we know life exists, evolution occurs and that we have a lot of time, but we have no evidence for the existence of any god apart from the musings of mankind.

 

"This period of inflation, as it's called, starts for no particular reason and it stops for no particular reason, and by the way, during it, gravity has to work in reverse."

 

Imagine there is a slingshot and it launches a rock into outer space. The effects of gravity from earth will slow it down but it will keep going. What I'm saying is that if the universe started with enough force it would counteract gravity. Apart from this simple explanation, the universe is accelerating, so there is some force which is counteracting gravity in space causing this. It could be that expansion slowed because of the energy needed to expand space and now the universe is building inertia in it's expansion, but this is just my thoughts. In truth, we don't know why these things happen yet. This statement is quite contrary to the theme of this movie. He's pointing out things we don't know about an event he's refuting entirely. It's like irreducible complexity, just because we can't explain a piece, doesn't negate all the other evidence supporting it.

 

"The basic features of the fossil record, sudden appearance, there's and absence of transitions leading to the first appearance of a particular kind of animal."

 

Fossilization is rare. Because it is so rare we should not be surprised that we don't have every stage of evolution set in stone, so to speak, for us to examine. This also ignores the fact that all specimens are in transition to either something else, or extinction. We do have cases of species which had very long runs with little change, like the coelacanth (if you think it hasn't changed at all though, feel free to take a look at the fossils and modern examples for yourself.) I also want to throw in here that the use of the word "kind" here is intentional because creationists believe animals were created in "kinds" but have no scientific definition of the meaning. It is taken straight from the Bible.

 

"From what was learned at Mt. St. Helen's we can now understand that there's all sorts of geological processes which can happen in the blink of an eye."

 

For this I actually went to the icr.org website to find out what they might mean. Most of it is stuff we already knew happened quickly. One interesting point is that trees nearby were floating and sinking in an upright position from a forest destroyed by the blast and might be confusing if we found the much later solidified through multiple layers of strata. What I doubt they'll cover in the movie though is that the event helped us to confirm radiometric dating works.

 

"Cobal-60, cesium-137, silicon-32, and radium-226 do indeed vary with time which, of course, would invalidate the calculated ages."

 

This statement should have been prefaced with "A list of radioactive isotopes not used for dating materials:" because I cant find any reference for using these for dating. It also fails to mention in the clip (as well as the movie I'm sure,) that the variance is smaller than the margin of error for current tests. My guess is the whole idea here is to cast doubt on all radiometric dating by proving there is some variance which was only recently discovered. I sincerely feel like scientists should continue to look into this because it might make for more accurate information on ages of material in the future. Another thing I doubt will make the movie is that this is actually more of a problem for young earth creationists than the theory of evolution primarily because there's a lot of decay which has happened in the past. To quote the Radioisotopes and the age of the Earth Group, a joint project between the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and the Creation Research Society (CRS):

 

The RATE group concludes that there was about 4 Ga of accelerated decay at creation and about 500 Ma worth at the time of the Flood. However, the amount of heat released by this amount of decay during the Flood would raise the crust to 22,000 K, more than enough to melt the whole crust and boil away the oceans! This is called the heat problem.

 

I think it's notably outstanding that these scientists agree with the rest of the scientific community that there has been 4.5 billion years worth of decay. It's just another instance of Christian scientists forcing the round evidence into the rectangular pages of the Bible.

 

"Now, that doesn't mean that atheists are amoral, but it means their morality is not based on any fundamental truth. So, if evolution is true, many honest evolutionists acknowledge there's no rational basis for morality."

 

I wonder if the pope would be considered an honest evolutionist? And if so, would he say there is no rational basis for morality? (If you're not familiar with the true Scotsman, you should check it out.) This question has been addressed many times before and I've read some excellent answers. I would ask, if God's commands to man are the reason for morality, why would animals exhibit moral behavior? There is also a lot of supporting evidence that morality may have arisen from the need for cooperation. I personally think it's a bit of evolution, and a bit of cultural influence. In other words I think some morality is learned rather than instinctual. I have to stop and ask, are all other "evolutionists" dishonest?

 

"15 Ph.D. Scientists"

 

And they end with meaningless contradictory information from the first preview, true to biblical form.

Evolution's Achilles Heels Pt. 1

I haven't been engaging others for too long in regards evolution vs. creationism. Mainly because for most of my life, I was on the creationism side turning a blind eye to anything which did not confirm my belief and twisting what was impossible to ignore. It helped that there are just enough scientists out there to support the idea to keep the young earth creationism theories.
Recently a new book and movie came out called Evolution's Achilles Heels. To be fair, I didn't watch the whole thing. I watched to extremely abridged versions, also known as "previews" in commoner terms.
I'm going to take the snippets they showed for free to make a few observations and my first observation is: If these guys have the scientific knowledge to prove evolution is false and the Bible is true, they might have to be some of the most immoral people of all time to charge people money for the information when souls are at stake. Maybe their bank account is more important than the billions of souls which could be saved. Seems legit.
On to the preview.

 

"Natural selection can't actually generate anything new. It can only operate on what is existing."

 

They start off with a true statement, but the implication is a lie. Natural selection is a part of the evolutionary process which slims the choices down. Genetic mutation is the part of the process which makes the variants to be selected. I'm really not sure if the person saying this phrase simply doesn't understand the terminology, or if he's being intellectually dishonest. At best there must be a portion which denies genetic mutation all together, which is false, but maybe he's just refuting natural selection in addition to mutation, in which case he might be severely uninformed. Or maybe he's just saying natural selection does remove mutations which have to exist before their removal in the most deceptive way possible.

 

"14 Ph.D. Scientists"

 

14?! Somebody call the New York Times and let them know that there's a whole 14 Ph.D. scientists in this movie! I'm honestly not sure if this number is meant to impress the viewer or not. There could be 1,000 or a group of flamingos in lab coats holding up cue cards. It's not the minds presenting the information that I care about, it's the information itself.

 

"Many evolutionists claim that the origin of life is not part of evolution, but come on, they believe that all living things came from a single cell, which in turn came from a primordial soup."

 

"But notably absent from any rock anywhere is any trace of a primordial soup."

 

I want so badly to hop all over the term "evolutionists" here like a jackelope on the hot sands of West Texas, but I'll save it for later since there is so much wrong with this.
Technically these guys believe in abiogenesis if they think the creation account is true. Evolution and abiogenesis are two separate issues. A god could have created life a billion years ago and evolution would still be true. Evolution has happened and is happening now. Abiogenesis does not have to be proven to support it.
I would like to what someone's belief has to do with the case against evolution. What does the lack of evidence for something someone hypothesized happened have to do with evolution? Just in case they wanted some filler, they should have mentioned the sun is not a chariot ridden by Helios and Superman's fortress of solitude isn't real either. There are a million possibilities besides primordial soup so I don't think anyone should be surprised when they don't find it.

 

"Existence of a fossil by itself is actually proof that something happened very, very fast. We also know therefore that the rocks the fossils are formed in must have formed quickly as well."

 

Fossils are great examples of a specimen getting buried quickly. There are multiple things fossils can be buried in as well such as sedimentary rock or volcanic ash. There are different types of fossils though and not all can be explained as happening rapidly. A short timeline is years though and it only goes up from there when it comes to sedimentary rock.
They follow the statement with something about Noah's flood but they don't give evidence so I won't get into the weeds on that one because it is a pretty clear move from a case against evolution to religious propaganda.

 

"If the whole earth was pure carbon-14, it could only last about a billion years before it's all gone and we couldn't detect it. And yet, we repeatedly find carbon-14 in objects which are claimed to be millions, and even billions, of years old including diamonds."

 

Carbon dating is kind of complicated, but I'll try to explain this simply. Carbon-14 is radioactive and becomes nitrogen-14 with a half-life of 5,700 years or so and is generally not used to date anything over 20,000 years. By the way this phrase is said, we shouldn't find carbon-14 in anything at all if the earth is billions of years old, but they don't say that. The reason why they don't is because carbon-14 is produced on earth in different ways so many things become contaminated with it. After a certain point when objects have too little, or no carbon-14, but undergo the test for carbon dating, background radiation will seem as if it is the smallest margin of error for the test. This is how you get carbon-14 where there might actually be none and why something formed a billion years ago would test for younger. Of course the technician running the test might question your motives for the test in the first place if you knew the object was likely older than the test was accurate for. I would probably classify that with falsifying evidence.

 

"If the creator made us, then he owns us and has a right to make the rules for us. But if things made themselves, then there's no right or wrong. We're just really bags of rearranged pond scum. So what is murder? It's just one bag of chemicals impacting another bag of chemicals."

 

I won't argue the first part of this because I don't know what evidence he may have to support his claim of a creator. Things making themselves is as wrong as using a pickle spear to stir your hot chocolate. Something cannot make anything until it exists, especially not itself. I know causality is an important part of logic for humans, but isn't this a bit far fetched?
Right and wrong are concepts well beyond the scope of such a short post, but I would say if there were no humans around to ask what is right or wrong, would the concept exist at all? We see lots of "moral" behavior in mammals. Ours has become so complex it's confusing, but on the individual level, we decide what we think is best for us and our group. I honestly prefer meat machine to bag of chemicals, but I don't have a Ph.D. to back up such technical terms. I like to think my life has more intrinsic value to myself than other animals because I have the ability to comprehend it more than they. In that same thinking, I have respect for the lives of others because they too are valuable to themselves, to their family, and to their friends. I have a respect for the human condition which conflicts with biblical morality in that I believe people have value beyond their belief in God or Jesus.

 

"There's another reason why an evolutionist would hold onto their belief system even when all the fatal flaws are revealed and that is because if evolution isn't true, it strongly points them in a different direction."

 

I wonder if the saying this realizes the pope is an evolutionist and that is not his belief system? Evolutionists are just those who accept the evidence of evolution, no belief required. And besides all that, why would I care if the evidence lead in a different direction? I'm absolutely fine with being wrong. I guess they saved all the "fatal flaws" for the actual movie though. As a more appropriate rebuttal to this statement:
The reason why a creationist would hold to their belief system even when all the fatal flaws are revealed is because if evolution is true, it strongly points them in a different direction.

Blind faith

Many times I see Christians think that a believing evolution requires blind faith. I've read and heard over and over that evolution is just a theory or less and Pascal's wager weighed heavily on me throughout my transition beyond faith.
I need to constantly reevaluate what I know because I have been wrong in the past. I cant settle for the knowledge I have because I may be wrong, I have been before.
So, is my faith now in science? Or the scientists?
First, it's important to note that faith is a belief not based on proof or evidence. I can say with certainty I do not have faith in science. I analyze the evidence presented by it and make the best judgment from there.
One thing I know is that mankind is a prideful species and every scientist lives for a big discovery. If one scientist can prove another wrong they will gladly do so. Would it be easy to prove evolution false? No. There is mountains of evidence supporting it. The theory is so solid at this point it would take a lot to disprove it. One giant leap in the right direction to put some doubt in the theory and give the flood story a little more credence is if any fossil ever were found out of order in the geological layers.
I believed as a young earth creationist that the flood was fact and that it was the primary cause of the layers we see in the earth today. The flood story offers a lot of explanations to what we see around us when limiting earth to a 6,000 year time scale (aside from the god of the gaps idea.)
There's one huge glaring problem though. In a flood the water moves everything chaotically. If the flood was truth, we would still find tons of fossils, but they would be mixed up, as if there was no order to how life evolved. We would find mammals  prior to the Triassic period and some dinosaurs in the most recent of rock deposits. We don't find that in reality. If we could separate the geological layers like sheets of paper we could watch evolution occur like a flip book.
Even for animals as unique as the platypus we can view its evolutionary progress.
By the flood account, this is not possible unless God purposely made it that way, in which case it is a lie fabricated by God to lead people away from the Bible, which is contrary to everything I believed about God.
When I was studying through all this information,  I wanted to believe the creation story. I tried my best to reconcile what I believed with reality, but it just didn't match up.
Another big thing I learned during the process of learning about the origins of life as we know it is that evolution is a theory, but not as Christian leaders taught it. Evolution is a theory the same as gravity, planetary movement, or the expanding universe are theories. Gravity exists, you feel it's forces constantly, and not believing in it doesn't make it untrue.
I remember once in high school I was talking to another student about God and she said to me that her faith was that whatever you believed was true to you. I asked if she believed the chair she was sitting on was there, and she replied in the affirmative. I then asked, if I didn't believe in the chair would it cease to exist. She replied in the negative of course. I said it's the same with God and she said just because I believed, doesn't mean he exists.
Pascal's wager basically boils down to the idea that belief in God is better than non-belief because there is a lot more to gain in faith.
I love the idea that I could live forever. It is a wonderful thought that I could have eternity, but I cannot believe in God because I like the idea, and it doesn't make it true just because people believe.
I was in prayer constantly over everything in my life and it was easy to find a correlation with real world events. I didn't understand that I was creating an enormous probability that would be true. It all seemed real until I heard about an experiment with pigeons who developed their own "prayers" to get food.
I was doing the same thing as these pigeons. It just seems like God is there because I'm connecting the dots I created in the first place.
Over a long enough time scale you a correlation can be found between lots of entirely unrelated events, but it doesn't prove they're related.
So how can I be sure that evolution isn't just that, a correlation of unrelated events over time? The evidence. Evolution is reinforced constantly through DNA, dating methods, and fossil evidence.
My views on evolution are based on anything but faith. It's all based on evidence.
The fallacy here is in not knowing that all faith is blind. By definition it does not need proof. But believing, unfortunately, does not make it so.

What about my kids?

One thing I have contemplated a lot since my religious transition is how I will raise my children.
I had always imagined that my children would be raised as members of the Christian community and a big part of that would be my immediate family and their influence.
Before I had kids I would imagine us being late for church because it took my wife too long to get ready, and as soon as it was time for Sunday school you'd see how fast they could really run. I based these ideas off of my upbringing.
Church was such a necessity that even on vacation, it was part of the planning process to figure out where we would go to church.
Especially when I first realized the Biblical story was untrue I wondered how would I teach my kids morality. I considered continuing to bring them to church because I didn't understand morality without God. I didn't think there could be a standard of morality without God. And I was partially right.
Even within the Bible the standard fluctuates from person to person based on their knowledge and faith. For non-believers the standard ranges even more wildly, though.
How am I supposed to teach my children solid morality?
I still think the golden rule applies to everyone and is quite useful. Treat others as you would have them treat you, but this does not apply to every situation. To begin with, you must have a sense of responsibility in order to be treated fairly. If a thief comes to your home, do they deserve to be treated as you would treat yourself? The answer is simple, no. They have forfeit their sense of responsibility for their own sense of entitlement. They think they are entitled to what you have for whatever reason they have come up with to justify their actions.
I feel like most situations can be viewed this way outside of the Bible's version of morality.
I think it boils down to the simple concept of responsibility toward humanity vs. a sense of entitlement from it.
The biblical version of morality covers everything with a little bit of faith, but definitely defies what I see as right because it views God as entitled to all of humanity so whatever is written in his name goes. God even has guidelines for what you can think.
There are a lot of things the Bible says not to do that no one fights, so let me bring up an example that Christians fight hard on that falls outside my standard: homosexuality.
This has been the biggest fight for equal rights since Martin Luther King Jr. was around and there were a lot of Christians on the wrong side of that moral battle. Now most Christians would say everyone is God's creation whether they're black, yellow, red or white. (No offense, it comes from a Christian children's song.)
I wonder what Christians will say 50 years down the road now. I suspect that they will say homosexuality is fine. It's what happened with slavery and segregation.
These are all pretty good examples where entitlements outweighed responsibilities.
The Bible does not approve of homosexuality to clear that up for anyone who does not know, but does it present a truly moral obligation against it? I assume the obligation comes from the fact that same-sex relationships at the time didn't allow for children in a society where having a legacy to leave behind was pretty important.
The fight in the U.S. now is Christians want homosexuals to know they don't approve of their lifestyle by denying them a piece of paper and some tax benefits.  The truth is it doesn't change the way people will live, it only makes them feel like lesser people in the eyes of others. Sometimes people perceive others to think of them as less when it's not true, but in this case, it is exactly that which is happening.
I don't want my children to view others as less because of personal choices which have no effect on their lives.
Should anyone who's favorite color is green be ostracized? Perhaps if you're favorite flavor is strawberry you should be extradited immediately. Even more gravely, a farmer who uses crop rotation, anyone who wears clothes of more than one fabric, if you cut the sides of your hair, if you like your steak any way except well done, and if you don't stand in the presence of old people, you are in danger of the fires of hell. That's not all either. If you don't like immigration,  hell. Homeschooling mom with male children, hell. Seriously, this goes on and on and on, and Christians chalk up these rules to cultural relevance.
These personal preferences have no effect on another person's happiness unless they take they choices as an affront to themselves personally and who's fault is that? I have to admit, I don't like making other people feel bad and I do feel guilt over it at times, but its my problem for feeling guilty when I shouldn't.
Homosexuals aren't gay because you do or don't want them to be, its a part of who they are. Is it fair for anyone to force them to be disallowed their own responsibility for who they are?
The Bible does not allow for this view of morality.
I want my children to be leaders in a society that looks at humanity for the dignity and liberty it could have and moves toward more freedoms through responsibility.
My children are entitled to my love. It is my responsibility to give it to them and through that simple idea, I hope I can give them everything they need to succeed morally in life on their own terms.
But what if they believe in religion despite everything I know and pass on to them?
My children are their own people. Even though they are small now and I can make nearly every decision for them, it wont always be that way.
I can absolutely accept they may believe in religion down the road. I believed it once and had faith. I know that faith is a very small leap when you have truth, or at the very least good ideals, mixed with unverifiable statements, or even lies. Most importantly I would still love them, but I would also hope they didn't lose their sense of humanity, empathy and responsibility.