In the past, I've talked about how theories explain the evidence while the evidence itself is neutral. Statements like, “there is no evidence for creation” demonstrate a misunderstanding about the nature of evidence. The things evolutionists use to support their theory, things like fossils, rock layers, natural selection, etc, are the same things creationists use to support their theory. There is only one universe, after all, and we just have different theories to explain how it got here. But I'm going to tell on myself and admit that I have made statements before like, “there is no evidence for evolution.” What's worse, I didn't say it hastily and without thinking. I was very deliberate. I confess: I have done the very thing I have just chided evolutionists for saying.
Now, you might be asking why I would have made such a statement if I believe it's such an ignorant statement. You may also wonder why I would confess to it so forthrightly. Well, at the risk of sounding hypocritical, when I have said that there is no evidence for evolution, I did not mean it in the same way that evolutionists mean when they say there is no evidence for creation (generally speaking, of course). Let me explain.
Usually, I mean it in the sense that evidence is neutral and theories are merely attempts to explain the evidence. In that sense, there is no evidence for any theory. Evidence doesn't speak and doesn't endorse any theory. One might say that his theory is the better explanation of the evidence but the evidence isn't for the theory.
Evolution is kind of like the tooth fairy. It might seem to explain the evidence reasonably well but there's another theory that is the correct one. Some people call creation a fairy tale but evolution is truly a myth. It's been called a fairy tale for grown ups where a frog turns into a prince – over millions of years. For all of its scientific trappings, it's still a myth. The “evidence” for evolution is nothing more than kids findings quarters under their pillow.
God made the world as described in Genesis. It might not be considered scientific but it's the truth. What some people call “evidence for evolution” is just like the evidence for the tooth fairy. It might convince some people, but it's certainly not proof. How can something that's not real be proven? How can something that's not real even have evidence? It's for this reason I've sometimes said, “there is no evidence for evolution.”
Usually, I mean it in the sense that evidence is neutral and theories are merely attempts to explain the evidence. In that sense, there is no evidence for any theory.
ReplyDeleteIf you mean that, then your quarrel with evolutionary theory ought to be secondary with your quarrel with the U.S. (or indeed, any) justice system, and with the entire scientific enterprise. The usual assumption is that evidence can show that certain hypotheses are false, while strongly supporting rival hypotheses. The reason that, e.g. elliptical orbits replaced circular ones in descriptions of the solar system wasn't just a change in fashion; it followed evidence.
Now, this might just be a terminological quibble: there's not a lot of obvious difference between "one theory is the better explanation for the evidence" and "the evidence is against the other theory" (and even "the evidence is for this theory"). But you seem to be trying for something bolder:
God made the world as described in Genesis. It might not be considered scientific but it's the truth.
If I were to argue that, e.g. King Hezekiah is a nationalistic myth and that no nation of Israel even existed in the seventh century BC, I suspect very strongly that you would point to, e.g. archaeological finds connected with that king and his nation, and to Assyrian records mentioning him. You would find it perverse if I insisted that these are not evidence for the idea that King Hezekiah was real, and that you and I simply have different explanations for the evidence. And you would be entirely right to do so.
It's easy to imagine evidence for a recent origin of the Earth and life (and for Noah's global flood). It's vastly more difficult to actually find such evidence, and creationists are basically forced to resort to "well, God could have made it look that way for ineffable reasons of His own.
We know that humans share identically-disabled GULO pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses at homologous loci with other old-world catarrhines. We know that there exist fossil skulls that straddle any dividing line you might wish to draw between "fully-formed humans" and "fully-formed (nonhuman) apes. We know that fossils are stratigraphically segregated in different rock layers (faunal succession), a pattern inexplicable in terms of simultaneous creation of different kinds. There is no plausible (never mind actually observed) reason to expect any of this on the hypotheses of separate special creation. It is blatantly powerful evidence for evolution.
Steven J,
DeleteYou said, “If you mean that, then your quarrel with evolutionary theory ought to be secondary with your quarrel with the U.S. (or indeed, any) justice system, and with the entire scientific enterprise.”
I've actually used the example of the US justice system when discussing evolution v. creation. In a criminal case, police are supposed to gather evidence and try to determine if a crime has occurred. Then they try to develop a theory about who committed the crime, how, and why. If they come up with a suspect, they may try him in court and present the “evidence” that convinced them the suspect is guilty. Of course, the defense will try to offer a different explanation of the same evidence, and explain why the accused is not guilty of the crime. Most people aren't scientists. Neither are they detectives or lawyers. Yet we trust the people of the jury to listen to the arguments and decide if the state has persuaded them beyond a reasonable doubt, that the suspect committed the crime.
I've often been told that I'm not a scientist and, so, am not qualified to have an opinion on the theory of evolution. I assert that I am at least as qualified as a juror to have an opinion. I have looked at the evidence, listened to both sides explain their theories, and reached my own conclusion about which is more likely the correct explanation.
Thanks again for your comments and for visiting. God bless!!
RKBentley