How Not to Argue Against Evolution


The above is not a criticism of evolution. Evolution doesn’t argue for abiogenesis. It doesn’t explain origins of life as a theory. Yes there’s an attempt to dive into naturalism and make it so with past and present education systems, but that’s not what the theory explains through viable data.

These are very basic notions that are not very difficult to look up before quoting confused experts that think that chemical evolution is necessary for the entire theory to hold water. It doesn’t… Epsecially in context of adventim. The whole point of the article is to stop making bad arguments to discredit a theory that doesn’t actually include abiogenesis as the core tenent of that theory.


Scientific theories are modular is that they are restricted to explaining what they can explain… And then feed as models that can be useful building block for other theories.

Evolution doesn’t deal with nature of consciousness. Biologists can make axiomatic assumptions very much like physicists can make assumptions about mechanisms behind the quantum phenomenon, but various assumptions are not “official part” of the wuantum theory due to the lack of data to support either. It’s largely intuition-driven imaginary dress that the theory wears, but that dress can be swapped to something else if the factual constraints point to the likelyhood of other.

While scientific institutions have their own politics and orthodoxy, there are plenty of people in the realm of science who would jump at the chance of being the next Enstein in context of evolutionary biology. But the premise is rather simple at its core that the basic conclusion is rather inevitable.

There are millions of species in fossil record that are not alive today. There are those that are alive today which are not in the fossil record. If we find the infamous pre-cambrian rabbit… evolution would have to be reworked substantially. And with creationism there have to be countless sea of these rabbits.

Unfortunately, the magical powers of the flood to arrive with the same formation doesn’t work with how we observe dynamics of the massive floods in the present and the past.

So. All of the song and dance of trying to push YEC via essentially “lying for Jesus” cost us enormous credibility loss. As someone said earlier… Time to grow up and stop your pastors from attempting to explain scientific facts… Something that most have no training or understanding of.


I’ll give you a direct quotes from Batchelor as he presents it in the seminars and you decide:

“… It’s the ignorant people who listen to biased scientists and doctors who are being deceived.”

“… The validity of marriage, racism, sin, fooling with life and suicide. So many things that are plaguing our society could be traced back to evolution.”

“It’s beyond me how any African American can embrace evolution, because it was forged in the bowels of trying to prove that some humans are more highly-developed than others”

“The reason why the Theory of Evolution is so important for so many is because they don’t want to be accountable to God for their actions. You can live any way you want to and you don’t have to be accountable to God. The religion of evolution undermines the truth found in the Bible.”

Etc, etc, etc. All of that is mixed with typical misconceptions and fallacies that are peddeled from the pulpit… Although at diminishing rate these days.

Now. Yes. There are plenty of atheistic naturalists who ridicule and misrepresent ID, but I sure hope we have a higher standard of discourse in terms of providing viable information for people to make informed conclusion. The idea that evolution is promoted because people don’t want to be accountable to God is absurd. Sure. In some cases it may be so. But that’s a statement made from the pulpit in attempt to discredit scientific theory via religious rhethoric, and in the past that had fisasterous consequences for the church.

Lying for Jesus doesn’t work and should be called out immediately. We are too gratious about that in the church and it ends up costing us enormous amount of cultural credibility.

(Allen Shepherd) #84

Tour is criticizing more than abiogenesis. He is criticizing that as well, but he is criticizing the idea that macro evolution occurs. Note:

That is more than abiogenesis. Confused expert? Ha!

Note the problem with Whale evolution above. I do not deny that there is strong evidence for evolution as you note above. But, as i said, you cannot just wave a wand over the mess, say, “It was probably like this…” and say you have proved it. You haven’t.

Your assertion here is that the fossil record proves evolution. It shows change over time. Darwin’s theory is a means of explaining that. But no one has shown how macro evolution can happen. That is your problem. You assume that pointing to the fossils is enough. It is not.

Hmmm. a little arrogance on your part as well.

I do not have all the answers, I freely admit it (not exactly an arrogant attitude). I sense you are not willing to make such a statement, but you don’t either. Both theories have things they can’t explain. You choose yours on the basis of what you feel is most important. I do the same.

And lying for Jesus? I don’t think he needs it. Evolution theory attacks the creation story. the Bible assumes that story throughout. Paul says Christ overcame death, the result of sin, but if God creates by death, why would he overcome it? Death is a positive thing in his mind, if evolution is true.

That paragraph is a theological objection to evolution. I sense it would carry no weight in your mind, as you would concentrate on the science. There are areas of thinking besides science.


We’ll, that’s because there seems to be a great deal of confusion on your end as to what scientific theories are and what these are for.

Theories are not proven to be true. Again, theories are not proven to be true.

For example, we have quantum theory. Few creationists run to argue with it, but it works on the same basic theoretical science principles.

We never observe any subatomic activity directly. All of these aremodeled based on assumptions from observable data. At certain point of that process the data coupled with exanation formulates the likely model of some underlying and unobservable mechanisms.

If you have the beef with direct observation evolution, then you should essentially dump most theoretical science we have.

(George Tichy) #86

“… deceive people and they believe evolution because it justifies their sin” …
He is fighting a supposed deception with his own completely deceptive statement.
Well, coming from him, it’s not a surprise, is it?.. :roll_eyes:


I’m not questioning the validity of someone’s Biblical assumptions. I never claimed to have all of the answers, but there are obvious statements that can be discredited… Like the idea that evolutionary science is derived from racist ideals, or that it necessitates atheism, or that people had that view because they like to sin. That’s the kind of lying for Jesus I’m talking about. Picking isolated history and applying it to all of the scientific endevour and motivations behind it.

If you really want to argue against evolution from the pulpit, then at least do a due diligence to fact check with your local university department who specializes in facts surrounding the issue.

(Allen Shepherd) #88

Statement by Batchelor:

Statement by Thomas Nagel, professor of law and philosophy, New Your University:

In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.

Although Batchelor may be going beyond what he should, there is truth in what he says, and it is an underlying motive for many. BTW, Goldstein also had that motive for not believing in God, as I recall.

And also, naturalistic materialist (evolution for Batchelor) is a religion. It is metaphysics, and a faith.

Go down to Houston and tell Dr. Tour that you understand evolution. He will buy you lunch and you can sit and expound on the idea. You would be the first to do it, and the Atheistic society would likely pay your way.


So you are saying that because Dr. Tour doesn’t understand it… It means that it’s not a viable scientific theory? I’m confused by the logic of your argument here.


You can’t brush that aside with “there’s some truth to that”. In many lies there’s a grain of truth. The lie of racial prejudice is true some of the time, for example because some of these stereotypes are true some of the time.

It’s either true and specificity should be pointed out, which destroys the argument. Or it’s not true.

Using these deceptive tactics to discredit scientific theory is not what we should be doing.

(Allen Shepherd) #91
  1. Racist ideas. You are correct, it was not derived from that. Racists however used it to put down blacks and to do away with Jews, seeing them as inferior, and that they were a master race etc. Eugenics is the child of evolution.
  2. As Dawkins, the atheist, said, he can now be fulfilled intellectually because of evolution.
  3. If you believe that it all can happen without God, the default setting for many evolutionists, it can mean relief from any responsibility to him, and thus freedom to sin at will. I have heard this idea expressed, btw.

(Allen Shepherd) #92

I am saying that he has a standing offer for anyone who can explain it. Here is a bio:

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars (pictured above, courtesy of Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Since he makes organic molecules from scratch, he understands the difficulty of doing it. He says so in the blurb i posted before. He is an expert in organic synthesis. It is really tough to do it, and he knows that no one can explain how evolution could by random processes.


So, if the other top 10 chemists understand evolution to be a viable theory, what does that mean for your line of logic?

Of course there will be outliers in every field. There are expert who still hold on to aether… And that’s ok. We need those. We need critics.

But you seem to be saying that the mere fact that there are expert critics would discredit the theory?

Again I’m confused as to what your actual point in this is. Perhaps the fact that you can’t explain it to me makes your pov wrong… Given that I may be some expert in something. :slight_smile:


Again, if you are willing to quote examples of atheists utilizing evolution for their arguments, you’d have to equally factor in the theists who do the same. BTW the majority of theists on this planet are evolution proponents in some shape or form, and majority of evolution proponents are theists.

Again, what does that mean for your logic. Do you likewise think that these theists want to absolve themselves of responsibility?

(Thomas J Zwemer) #95

Theistic evolution is just apologetic panthesism.


Where assumptions produce the substance of reality,
the more fundamental the assumption,
the greater the discovery of certainty!

(Thomas J Zwemer) #97

One need but visit the biology lab at Bar Harbor Maine to see the vast array of laboratory animals. mice, rats, etc but always within the species, not mice into rats, no rabbits into kangaroos. Mankind comes in a wide range of pigmentation but always a small range of blood types.


(Kim Green) #99

"Batchelor’s comments are mild by comparison, and he doesn’t get vulgar or crude…"

Perhaps…but considering his position and station in life, some things that Doug B. says- he should keep to himself.

(Kim Green) #100

No…not at all. :rofl: