A Refutation of God-Directed Evolution, the Bible and the BASF - Part 5

 A Refutation of God-Directed Evolution, the Bible and the BASF - 5

Creationist Persecution of Theistic Evolutionists – the Real ‘Cancel Culture’

 

     While the creationists’ allegation of persecution and censorship has been shown to be grossly overblown, the reality is that creationists have been swift both to suppress the teaching of evolution through political power, and to drive out of their faith communities anyone who accepts evolution. Examples of anti-evolution legislation in America are numerous and range from the 1925 Butler Act which prohibited the teaching of human evolution in Tennessee public schools through to the 2001 “Santorum Amendment” which promoted intelligent design in public schools[1], and the 2008 Louisiana “Academic Freedom Act”[2] which disingenuously noted that “the teaching of some scientific subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy” and aimed to allow teachers to “help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught”. That the “strengths and weaknesses” of other scientific theories such as the atomic theory of matter were not mentioned positively shouted that this was yet another stealth creationist bill trading on weasel words such as “academic freedom” and “teaching the controversy.” The Santorum amendment was struck from the final bill, and many other anti-evolution bills in U.S. state legislatures were submitted but never became law, but it is quite likely further creationist attempts to mandate the teaching of creationism in public schools.

A Refutation of God-Directed Evolution, the Bible and the BASF - Part 4

 A Refutation of God-Directed Evolution, the Bible and the BASF - 4

   Not so Intelligent Design – Mistakes in Nature

       Given this, how do CVA’s assertions stand up to scrutiny? Their claim that “Consensus evolutionary science will never appeal to intelligence, design or purpose to explain how life developed upon this earth, even though such a hypothesis is entirely rational given the astounding witness of creation” is clearly nonsense. While there is no need as many scientists have done to a priori exclude supernatural claims from scientific investigation, the fact that consistently supernatural claims about natural phenomena have been replaced by natural explanations and creationists are either reluctant to publish in mainstream journals or bypass critical peer review and resort either to the popular press or creationist pseudojournals gives mainstream science little reason to “appeal to intelligence, design or purpose” to explain how the diversity of life on earth has appeared.

A Refutation of God-Directed Evolution, the Bible and the BASF - Part 3

A Refutation of God-Directed Evolution, the Bible and the BASF - 3 

The Evolution of Information – Even More Creationist Errors

 

     While CVA’s article is replete with gross misunderstandings of evolution, their assertion that “no one has ever observed an information-increasing genetic change of one type of organism to another, let alone the whole process of microbes-to-man evolution over millions of years” does warrant a complete takedown as it ably demonstrates just how poorly-researched CVA’s attack on evolution is, something that is sadly characteristic of every Christadelphian anti-evolution article I have encountered.

      That evolutionary processed can generate new information is entirely uncontroversial. A frequently quoted article by Thomas Schneider, a molecular biologist with expertise in information theory looks at information gain in a computer model of evolution that began with zero information and showed the generation of evolution by evolutionary processes. Speaking specifically to creationist objections, Schneider notes that

contrary to probabilistic arguments by [creationist] Spetner, the ev program also clearly demonstrates that biological information, measured in the strict Shannon sense, can rapidly appear in genetic control systems subjected to replication, mutation and selection.[1]

A Refutation of God-Directed Evolution, the Bible and the BASF - Part 2

 A Refutation of God-Directed Evolution, the Bible and the BASF - 2

Historical Science Makes Accurate Predictions

 

 

In the section “Normal Operational Science Vs. Historic Science”, CVA expands on their argument asserting that

The study of microbes-to-man evolution is a “historic” form of science that is very different to normal “operational” science which is done in the present and involves observation, experimentation and can be repeated.  Man’s achievements in the operational scientific fields gives us confidence to board an aeroplane, or undertake a MRI scan to see what maybe wrong with us.  Thousands if not millions of people have done it before, and everyone has confidence that the science works because we can all witness it happening over and over again with our own eyes.

But historic science – what happened so long ago when no one was around to observe, test and repeat – is a completely different type of science. The problem for microbes-to-man evolution (along with cosmic, chemical, stellar and organic evolution) is that there is no way that anyone today can do an experiment, let alone a repeatable one, to prove microbes-to-man evolution, because we cannot directly observe the past, nor can we repeat it (as an experiment would require).    Assumptions and interpretations always have to be made based on the limited evidence available (e.g. the fossil record), and consequently there is room for a significant amount of doubt.  If the input assumptions are wrong then the derived conclusions will be wrong.

As CVA’s assertion that historical science is inferior to experimental science has already been shown to be incorrect[1] there is no need to engage in a lengthy refutation. One cannot repeat events in the past under laboratory conditions, but we are able to observe distant starlight, geological strata, fossils, and geological formations, create hypotheses and determine which is the most likely – either via the consilience of evidence or the presence of a ‘smoking gun’. CVAs argument is based on the fallacious YEC belief that the only reputable form of science is a caricature of experimental science.

A Refutation of God-Directed Evolution, the Bible and the BASF - Part 1

 

A Refutation of God-Directed Evolution, the Bible and the BASF - I

 

Introduction

 

Young earth creationists attempt to dismiss evolutionary biology, cosmology, and geology by asserting they are somehow inferior to experimental sciences, or by pitting them against “operational science” which they claim is ontologically superior to the historical sciences. As such, it is a slightly less risible version of Ken Ham’s “were you there?” chant which he teaches to children as a way of refuting evolution. Needless to say, credible philosophers of science do not accept the YEC distortion of historical science or its invention of “operational science”, and given this such YEC arguments can be dismissed. Therefore, an anonymous fundamentalist Christadelphian article[1] on “God-Directed Evolution”[2] and why it is allegedly incompatible with Christadelphian theology that makes use of this YEC distortion of the epistemological basis of science is built on unstable ground and can be summarily dismissed.

Occasionally, I will search the internet to see if there are any new Christadelphian anti-evolution arguments, and while I may discover new video presentations or papers, I see no argument that I have not already considered and dismissed many times before. Recently, someone alerted me to a 2016 paper that has been republished at a Christadelphian website that hosts videos on fundamentalist interpretations of prophecy among other subjects. Its entire strategy was to begin with a particular fundamentalist interpretation of Christadelphian theology, extrapolate from that the anthropological positions that this fundamentalist theological position demands – in this case monogenism – and effectively declare heretical any attempt to honestly engage with the considerable body of scientific evidence that confirms the reality of human evolution. Unsurprisingly given the lack of relevant scientific acumen among Christadelphian evolution denialists, no substantive attempt was made to engage with the scientific data other than to fret about the naturalistic basis of science and how it does not look for supernatural causes for natural events (a bizarre claim which shows the author to be profoundly misinformed on the philosophy of science), and to invoke the bogus YEC distortion of historical science and invention of “operational science”. Another red flag was the uncritical citation of YEC sources as authoritative. Given these, the appropriate response is to brand the entire paper as nonsense, and move on. However, there are times where ritual flogging of dead horses may have some pedagogical value.