Questions for Evolutionists

I took these questions from one of those ministry web pages called Contender Ministries and they claim they are supplied by Kent Hovind’s Creation Science Evangelism. The web site is making the argument that Evolutionists don’t know everything.

You don’t have to demonstrate that. No one ever said the Theory of Evolution had all the answers. For that matter, I’m not aware of any branch of science that claims to have all the answers. Nor does any branch of science claim that the answers it does have won’t change as new evidence is uncovered or as new interpretations are placed upon existing evidence.

All scientific conclusions are tentative and there is undoubtedly more that we don’t know about the universe than we do know. But that’s ok. We know more now than we did 100 years ago and, hopefully, we’ll know more in 100 years than we know now. The danger with accepting the “God of the gaps” solution that folks who ask questions like this would like us to accept is that we would have to be satisfied with being ignorant.

There were 26 Evolution questions, a lot of which would have gotten duplicate answers so rather than show them all I picked approximately every fifth one. I will admit that I skipped over one question that contained an unjustified assertion that I just wasn’t prepared to get into. So, here is a sample of the 26 questions along with my commentary.

Where did the space for the universe come from?

Damn good question and I have no idea. It could have always been there as a vacuum, it could have appeared as the result of a massive quantum fluctuation or God may have created it.

Like I said, I have no idea and Evolution doesn’t care. Evolution doesn’t care because this isn’t part of that theory. Evolution only comes into play after the appearance of the first living cell.

When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

Another damn good question and the best I can say is a long time ago, in a primeval ocean, for no particular reason and as the result of a complex chemical reaction (do I get a brownie point for resisting the temptation to say a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away?).

The next time I see someone with expertise in Abiogenesis I’ll ask him what he thinks of my answers because this question is also outside of the Theory of Evolution. Again, Evolution only comes into play after the appearance of the first living cell.

Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Yes, it’s possible. Perhaps God was the original cut and paste king. However, the similarities are explained at least as well, and more likely better, by a common ancestor.

A common ancestor also explains things that the idea of a designer can’t explain such as the existence of vestigial and apparently useless biological debris such as the remnants of a tail, the appendix, wisdom teeth, our poorly developed ear muscles and the eye’s nictitating membrane.

And yes I'm aware of new hypotheses that say the appendix may actually have a use either in the immune system or as a source of intestinal bacteria. When and if those hypotheses become widely accepted I'll remove the appendix from my list. I can personally guarantee you that wisdom teeth are useless because I was born without them.

How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

Evolution explains mimicry it the same way that it explains any other trait. It evolved as a positive adaptation that gave some survival benefit and emerged most likely as the result of convergent evolution. In other worlds, the mimic doesn’t consciously mimic the model, but rather both evolved similar characteristics in a common environment and since the mimic’s characteristics imparted a survival advantage they were passed on to subsequent generations.

How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?

Undoubtedly from non-flowering plants and, again, through mutations that gave competitive advantages. As for the details, well, to be honest, no one really knows.

This was a poser to Darwin himself who called the question of how flowers evolved an “abominable mystery.” But the fossil record has grown a bit since Darwin’s time and the discovery of various early angiosperm fossils have led to a number of possible explanations none of which however is currently widely accepted.

That’s a long winded way of saying that the answer to this question is as yet unknown. Note that the important word in that last sentence is “yet” and not “unknown.”

Not knowing the detailed answers to questions is ok. It’s not a reason to fall back upon “God did it.” We know more today than we knew yesterday and, hopefully, we’ll know more tomorrow than we do today.

Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

No. Everything undoubtedly came from something but I’ll be damned if I know what it was or how the heck it came about. The whole concept of quantum fluctuations gives me a headache.

But, for the third time, this has nothing to do with Evolution. By the time the Theory of Evolution kicks in there are lots and lots of things around.

There was one question which didn’t get selected when I took one out of five but I felt compelled to address it.

When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

There is both a question and an assertion here. The assertion is flat out not true. Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would certainly evolve if they provide a survival advantage and that’s also the answer to why they evolved.

Feelings are a pre-requisite for successful social inter-action and social inter-action has clear survival benefits. If you don’t believe that feelings are an evolved physical trait then please explain to me the existence of sociopaths?

A sociopath exhibits extreme anti-social behavior and is generally recognized to act in a destructive manner that can be harmful both to the sociopath and to others. The exact cause of sociopathy is unknown but what is known is that if one or more parents have the disorder, then the probability that their child will have it is significantly increased.

In other words it is exactly that sort of inherited trait that Natural Selection, which is the answer to “how,” would tend to weed out. So, if anti-social behavior is an evolved trait, then clearly social behavior would be one as well.

Here’s a question going back the other way, why would a designer feel it necessary to create a sociopath?

As for when and where, who knows and does it really matter?

After the “tough questions” above which were clearly designed to shake one acceptance of Evolution (*cough, cough*), the web site hits you with a list of questions clearly intended to make you re-evaluate your sinful existence. I found these so entertaining that I included the entire list (except for the last one which simply asked if I was ready to mend my ways).

Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)

I’m sure my answers are reasonable. As to whether they’re right or not, I feel reasonably confident, but if evidence is discovered which shows they’re wrong I can accept that without getting upset about it. Can you say the same thing about your answers? Can you even accept evidence which contradicts your answers or do you always have to explain it away?

“Scientifically provable” is an oxymoron. Science doesn’t “prove” stuff unless it’s within the domain of mathematics or logic. All scientific conclusions are tentative and simply represent the best explanation for the existing evidence as it is currently understood. Any scientific conclusion could change with new evidence or better explanations for existing evidence.

That being the case, these answers clearly reflect my science. But you don’t seem to understand what science is, or how it works, which is why you mistakenly think it’s a religion.

Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?

My answers don’t show any “faith” because they're not beliefs based upon no evidence which is the definition of "faith." My answers do exhibit CONFIDENCE however. Confidence in the effectiveness of the scientific method based upon the evidence of technology which is all around us. Note that my conclusions are based upon evidence and not "faith." I don't have any "faith" and therefore clearly someone who has any “faith” must have more than I do.

Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?

Is it possible? Yes, it’s possible but it’s also irrelevant to Evolution. One more time, Evolution only kicks in after the universe is created and the first cell has appeared. Perhaps God created a universe with the potential for life and then let the chips fall where they may?

Science by definition only deals in Naturalistic Explanations. Metaphysical and Supernatural explanations are beyond the ability of science to deal with. That’s why things like “Creation Science” and “Intelligent Design” are by definition not science.

Science can neither “prove” nor “disprove” God. As a matter of fact the question isn’t even one that science is capable of addressing. But religion can’t either, nor can religion define the attributes of God if He (She? It?) exists. The difference is that science understands its limitations and religion does not.

Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?

Yes, because the Theory of Evolution, as far as it goes, is considered a scientific fact. However lots of stuff, such as the origin of the universe and the origin of life, are not within the scope of Evolution despite your belief that they are.

What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?

There is no end result other than the acceptance of the scientific theory. People don’t have a “belief” in a scientific theory, they simply either accept the theory as the best current explanation of the facts as we understand them or they don’t.

Lifestyle, society, attitude about others and eternal destiny are not derived from the Theory of Evolution any more than they are derived from the Theory of Gravity or the Theory of Relativity.

Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?

a. It is all they have been taught. (No, almost everyone I know, including myself, has also been taught the biblical explanation).

b. They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.). (No, accepting or rejecting the merits of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or lack of moral absolutes. Lots of folks accept Evolution and also accept the existence of moral absolutes).

c. They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average. (Not that I’m aware of unless understanding the Theory of Evolution is necessary to perform their jobs. I might also point out a subtle change here from “accept” to “support” and the latter implies doing so without accepting.)

d. They are too proud to admit they are wrong. (LOL! Talk about the shoe calling the kettle black! No, I doubt it because their entire philosophy of life wouldn’t collapse if they had to exchange one theory for another.)

e. Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda. (Possibly, but it’s been my experience that it’s much easier, and far more effective, to use religion to justify any kind of political agenda than it is to use science.)

Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute?

LOL, talk about a loaded question! No, we shouldn’t nor do we (whoever “we” might be).

One of the beauties of the Scientific Method is that it’s eventually self correcting. I say “eventually” because clearly it takes time for new developments to saturate society so it’s not unusual to sometimes find outdated hypotheses or conclusions since overtaken by events still being presented as the latest and greatest.

Nor is it that unusual for people to hang onto cherished hypotheses or conclusions long past their usefulness, sometimes even fighting off overwhelming evidence to the contrary. People are, and will always be, people, and they can develop emotional attachments to the strangest things.

Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?

The Theory of Evolution is the current scientific state of the art in developmental biology and I know of no competing scientific theory. Therefore, in science, Evolution should be taught exclusively. Elsewhere, there is no reason not to teach that not everyone accepts the scientific state of the art as definitive or accurate. For instance, this would clearly be a valid topic for a contemporary sociology class.

What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."

I’m not risking anything. Despite the fact that some Christians try to tie Evolution to morality that’s a total non sequitur.

Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.

Religion is religion and science is science and one shouldn’t be taught as the other. Despite your statement that Evolution is a “religious worldview” it’s not. It’s simply a scientific theory which attempts to explain the wide variety of life found on planet earth.

It’s nothing more and nothing less. It’s religion that keeps trying to promote Evolution into something it’s not.

If anyone is “afraid” of anything it’s that letting religion water down the already inadequate science education is this country will render the United States a scientific backwater capable of doing little more than watching as Asia and the European Union make the scientific advances so vital to the future.

Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn’t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?

Sigh. Do you see what I mean about Christian dishonesty? Who says it “cannot be true?” Sure it would be great if there were a loving and benevolent God that made me and that I could know him but YOU can’t provide that information so why are you pretending that you can?

Well, that was fun. To be honest with you I was a bit surprised at the gapping knowledge holes demonstrated by some of the questions.

Regardless of how you feel about Evolution understand a few fundamental facts.

Fact #1 – The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory. It is not a religion; it is not a world view. Acceptance of Evolution does not carry with it any obligation to be liberal rather than conservative, immoral rather than moral or an atheist rather than God fearing.

Fact #2 – The Theory of Evolution does not address the creation of the universe nor does it address the origins of life. The former is the province of Cosmology and the latter of Abiogenesis. Evolution only enters the stage after the universe exists, earth has formed and the first living cell has emerged from the primeval ooze.

Fact #3 – It’s ok to say I don’t know. There are lots of things we don’t know about the universe. The things we don’t know probably outnumber the things we do know. However, just because we don’t know the answer YET doesn’t mean we should fall back upon “GOD DID IT.” That’s religion’s answer to everything. But if everyone had accepted it, we’d still be living in the dark ages and burning witches and heretics.

Fact #4 – The scientific method works. It is inconceivable that using this methodology science can be so right about physics, chemistry, astronomy and every other branch of science not significantly influenced by Evolution yet so wrong about biology, zoology, paleontology and any other science that is influenced by the Theory of Evolution.