Could use some help with evolution argument...

[dianalee4jc]

I'm writing a series of stories (with the Lord's help) that focus on the way Christian teens face the many issues in our society today. My first story takes place in a very small town in North Carolina, where the son of a preacher has been teased at school, and his father recently addressed the local school board about putting stickers into the science textbooks. Because of this, the father's picture appeared in the local weekly newspaper, along with an article about the meeting. His son is afraid this will make matters worse for him. The following is a dinnertime conversation between the father and his two sons, Randy and Martin.

If you don't mind, please look over the argument the father is making here, and let me know if there is a way I can make it stronger, or if any of the information is wrong. Please remember that this is a dinnertime conversation with a 15-year-old boy, so it must flow naturally and not get too deep.

Thanks!

Diana

**********

“What’s the big deal anyway, Dad?” he asked. “Why can’t the school teach evolution? What if God just used evolution to create everything? Can’t the Bible and evolution both be true?”

His father paused before answering. “Those are good questions, Son. Let’s take a look at them. You have to consider whether there is sufficient evidence for evolution. Your textbook actually presents evidence that has been discredited. Macro evolution involved the change from one species to another, like from lizards to birds… or apes to man. It turns out, though, that there is no fossil evidence to support that theory at all. You would expect to see transitional species, like lizards with wing-like appendages rather than forelegs, and there just aren’t any.”

Randy was a little sorry he’d asked. Across from him, Martin was rapt.

“Your textbook has pictures of different stages of development for man. What the book doesn’t tell you is that those artists’ renditions are based on only fragmentary evidence. In one case, nothing more than a single tooth. But those fossils could be different extinct ape species, or something else altogether. The tooth they found turned out to be the tooth of a pig! Conversely, when you look at the DNA structure of individual species, and observe that it is stable from one generation to the next—“

“Each one after its kind,” Martin put in.

“Right. You look at that, and you find clear evidence against macro evolution. The mathematical odds against so many beneficial mutations to the DNA structure, that would cause a lizard to become a bird, are virtually impossible. And remember that the scientists of Darwin’s time couldn’t study DNA. We didn’t discover DNA until the 1950s. So although Darwin’s theory might have been a good theory explaining origins a hundred years ago, it isn’t now. Do you understand so far?”

“I guess…”

Martin was nodding and chewing.

“Now, survival of the fittest, and micro evolution, those things do happen. Micro evolution is why you have wolves and fox terriers, but both of them are canines, and they can interbreed. But you can’t interbreed lizards and birds. The DNA is completely different. Natural selection accounts for the extinction of some species and the rise of others. But there is no evidence to support the evolution of one species to another.”

He paused to eat, then continued.

“Obviously, it’s a lot more complicated than that. I’ve got some books you boys should look at. It might not be a huge issue for you now, but it could be when you get into college.”

Randy had no intentions of letting this be an “issue” for him, in high school or in college. If they insisted upon teaching it, fine. He’d learn enough to get a grade and then move on with his life. So much of what he learned was like that anyway. His life would not be impacted if he forgot how to diagram a sentence, or the date of the French-American war, or how to solve complex algebraic equations. But…

“Mom said people do bad things, like walk away from their faith, because of evolution,” he said.

“That’s true. Because evolution says that all life on earth began with single cells in the primordial soup. It makes life on earth the result of time, plus matter, plus chance. That means, no God.”

“But couldn’t God have started the change? Why couldn’t it be time plus matter plus God?”

“Because, again, the fossil evidence does not support that idea. However, if there was evidence for evolution, it would be as you said… because life cannot come from non-life, and matter does not create itself. These are scientific principles, Randy. The problem is some people automatically see them as arguments for God, and they invoke separation of church and state.”

“Why does evolution cause people to do bad things?”

“It doesn’t, directly. It’s just a theory of origins. But it prompts other philosophies that remove God. Without God, there is no judgment. Without judgment, maybe we can do whatever we want to do. So values are redefined. It could be argued that Darwin’s theories, along with the writing of Neitchze, contributed to a kind of social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, upholding the ubermeinch, or superman, the forced evolution of a perfect race, that undergirded Hitler’s ideas and caused the gas chambers of Auschwitz.”

“Wow,” Martin said.

Randy thought it made sense, but he couldn’t understand why the textbooks would still have evolution in them if there was evidence against it. And, his father’s justification for the yellow stickers did nothing to solve the problem that he was facing; being called “Preacher Boy.”

“So… what can I do about being teased?”

“Just keep being yourself,” his mother said. “Your friends liked you before, they will come back. Those who don’t… that’s their loss.”

Right, Randy thought. That makes it all better.

 

[stumpjumper]

I appreciate your goal of spreading the Christian faith but I think you have a lot of misinformation about evolution and how it relates to the world and our faith.

If you do nothing else pick up a book by Kenneth Miller or even C.S. Lewis' Problem of Pain (a good little book that has some information about the evolution and Christianity.

Here is a link to an excerpt from Miller's book Finding Darwin's God: http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Brown_Alumni_Magazine/00/11-99/features/darwin.html

 

[Dark_Lite]

“What’s the big deal anyway, Dad?” he asked. “Why can’t the school teach evolution? What if God just used evolution to create everything? Can’t the Bible and evolution both be true?”

His father paused before answering. “Those are good questions, Son. Let’s take a look at them. You have to consider whether there is sufficient evidence for evolution. Your textbook actually presents evidence that has been discredited. Macro evolution involved the change from one species to another, like from lizards to birds… or apes to man. It turns out, though, that there is no fossil evidence to support that theory at all. You would expect to see transitional species, like lizards with wing-like appendages rather than forelegs, and there just aren’t any.”

This is wrong. Plenty of fossils exist. Oh, and evolution is a tree model. Not something linear.

“Your textbook has pictures of different stages of development for man. What the book doesn’t tell you is that those artists’ renditions are based on only fragmentary evidence. In one case, nothing more than a single tooth. But those fossils could be different extinct ape species, or something else altogether. The tooth they found turned out to be the tooth of a pig! Conversely, when you look at the DNA structure of individual species, and observe that it is stable from one generation to the next—“

I can't remember which fossil the pig tooth is from but more than likely it was uncovered as a hoax by scientists, falsified, and thrown out. Much to creationists' dismay I'm sure.

“Right. You look at that, and you find clear evidence against macro evolution. The mathematical odds against so many beneficial mutations to the DNA structure, that would cause a lizard to become a bird, are virtually impossible. And remember that the scientists of Darwin’s time couldn’t study DNA. We didn’t discover DNA until the 1950s. So although Darwin’s theory might have been a good theory explaining origins a hundred years ago, it isn’t now. Do you understand so far?”

But the evidence shows it did happen. And even if there WAS "clear evidence against macro evolution" it would in no way prove YECism.

But there is no evidence to support the evolution of one species to another.

Sure there is. Plenty of observed speciation. You could probably find plenty of stuff on talkorigins or something.

“Mom said people do bad things, like walk away from their faith, because of evolution,” he said.

If anything its the other way around. From my experience, being brought up with YECist teachings and then having reality slammed into your face has a tendency to make the rest of the faith fall apart shortly afterwards.

“That’s true. Because evolution says that all life on earth began with single cells in the primordial soup. It makes life on earth the result of time, plus matter, plus chance. That means, no God.”

Evolution merely explains the reason for the current diversity on this planet today. What this is talking about is abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the theory that living things arose from non-living. Even then, it doesn't mean there is no God. How do you know he couldn't have started it?

Because, again, the fossil evidence does not support that idea.

Yes it does.

because life cannot come from non-life,

And how do you know this? Miller-Urey experiments show it to be quite possible.

and matter does not create itself.

Well that doesn't really have anything to do with evolution. So... indeed.

The problem is some people automatically see them as arguments for God, and they invoke separation of church and state.

Intelligent Design, YECism, all come from America's seemingly-unique brand of fundamentalist protestant Christianity. Always have and always will.

“Why does evolution cause people to do bad things?”

“It doesn’t, directly. It’s just a theory of origins. But it prompts other philosophies that remove God. Without God, there is no judgment. Without judgment, maybe we can do whatever we want to do. So values are redefined. It could be argued that Darwin’s theories, along with the writing of Neitchze, contributed to a kind of social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, upholding the ubermeinch, or superman, the forced evolution of a perfect race, that undergirded Hitler’s ideas and caused the gas chambers of Auschwitz.”

Your point? It can be argued that Christianity caused millions of deaths throughout the ages. Also, evolution does not prompt "other philosophies that remove God." Evolution is agnostic and part of science. Science makes no statements on anything religious. What strange people choose to do to support their absurd racist notions is nothing of evolution's fault.

In case you're wondering why I didn't give you any links, it's because I have to go somewhere shortly. I'm sure people will be along soon with them though. I urge you to read things on TalkOrigins. It's one of the more comprehensive sites dealing with this... "issue."

 

[MoodyBlue]

You lost me with the Darwin and Hitler connection.

 

[random_guy]

And how do you know this? Miller-Urey experiments show it to be quite possible.

Wonderful post, but just to point out, Miller-Urey experiment showed that organic objects such as amino acids can come from non-organic sources. Right now the research in abiogenesis is very new and there's really no solid theory on how it occurred. Of course, this is understandable since we're trying to reproduce something that occurred after 3.5 billion years with an entire Earth as a lab.

 

[gluadys]

I'm writing a series of stories (with the Lord's help) that focus on the way Christian teens face the many issues in our society today.

Are you intending to include a Christian argument for accepting evolution too? Without that, it would certainly be incomplete as a basis for Christian teens exploring this issue.

If you don't mind, please look over the argument the father is making here, and let me know if there is a way I can make it stronger, or if any of the information is wrong. Please remember that this is a dinnertime conversation with a 15-year-old boy, so it must flow naturally and not get too deep.

The best improvement would be to remove the outright falsehoods. They weaken the father's case.

I have bolded the falsehoods below.

His father paused before answering. “Those are good questions, Son. Let’s take a look at them. You have to consider whether there is sufficient evidence for evolution. Your textbook actually presents evidence that has been discredited. Macro evolution involved the change from one species to another, like from lizards to birds… or apes to man. It turns out, though, that there is no fossil evidence to support that theory at all. You would expect to see transitional species, like lizards with wing-like appendages rather than forelegs, and there just aren’t any.”

“Your textbook has pictures of different stages of development for man. What the book doesn’t tell you is that those artists’ renditions are based on only fragmentary evidence. In one case, nothing more than a single tooth. But those fossils could be different extinct ape species, or something else altogether. The tooth they found turned out to be the tooth of a pig!**Conversely, when you look at the DNA structure of individual species, and observe that it is stable from one generation to the next—“

**Note: the tooth found was of a pig, but it was never officially named as human. The discoverer thought it might be human and sent it off to a universty for analysis. In the meantime a journalist made a big deal of it, calling it Nebraska Man. Eventually a researcher at the university identified it as a pig tooth. It has never been presented in a science text as human. So it would not be appropriate to imply that it has been.


“Right. You look at that, and you find clear evidence against macro evolution. The mathematical odds against so many beneficial mutations to the DNA structure, that would cause a lizard to become a bird, are virtually impossible. And remember that the scientists of Darwin’s time couldn’t study DNA. We didn’t discover DNA until the 1950s. So although Darwin’s theory might have been a good theory explaining origins a hundred years ago, it isn’t now. Do you understand so far?”

“Now, survival of the fittest, and micro evolution, those things do happen. Micro evolution is why you have wolves and fox terriers, but both of them are canines, and they can interbreed. But you can’t interbreed lizards and birds. The DNA is completely different. Natural selection accounts for the extinction of some species and the rise of others. But there is no evidence to support the evolution of one species to another.”***

***Note: actually the evolution of one species from another has been documented both in nature and in controlled experiments.


“That’s true. Because evolution says that all life on earth began # with single cells in the primordial soup. It makes life on earth the result of time, plus matter, plus chance. That means, no God.”

#Note: evolution makes no comment on how life began.

“But couldn’t God have started the change? Why couldn’t it be time plus matter plus God?”

“Because, again, the fossil evidence does not support that idea. However, if there was evidence for evolution, it would be as you said… because life cannot come from non-life, and matter does not create itself. These are scientific principles, Randy. The problem is some people automatically see them as arguments for God, and they invoke separation of church and state.”

“Why does evolution cause people to do bad things?”

“It doesn’t, directly. It’s just a theory of origins. But it prompts other philosophies that remove God. Without God, there is no judgment. Without judgment, maybe we can do whatever we want to do. So values are redefined. It could be argued that Darwin’s theories, along with the writing of Neitchze, contributed to a kind of social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, upholding the ubermeinch, or superman, the forced evolution of a perfect race, that undergirded Hitler’s ideas and caused the gas chambers of Auschwitz.”


So if you can rewrite this without including false information, it would be much better---although still incorrect as a whole. You would at least not be presenting the father as a fool and an ignoramus.

 

[The Lady Kate]

So if you can rewrite this without including false information, it would be much better---although still incorrect as a whole. You would at least not be presenting the father as a fool and an ignoramus.

From what I see, without the false information, the whole thing falls apart.

 

[gluadys]

From what I see, without the false information, the whole thing falls apart.

Oh you ARE quick on the uptake, aren't you?

 

[dianalee4jc]

Just to clarify something to those who are arguing in favor of evolution... that isn't the point. This passage argues from a creationists point of view, so arguments to the contrary are not relevant to the passage. I want to make sure that the points he is making are correct from a creationist's point of view.

Cheers,
Diana

 

[dianalee4jc]

Well, having read all the posts, I want to thank you all for not helping me out in the least. I'm not being nasty... but this passage was meant to present the point of view of a Creationist... not to teach all the facts of the creation/evolution debate. But I feel like I have been attacked here with personal agendas. I wanted to hear from other Creationists, not to have the writing torn apart by evolutionists. Can we leave the way open for some comments by creationists, please? Thanks.

 

[stumpjumper]

Just to clarify something to those who are arguing in favor of evolution... that isn't the point. This passage argues from a creationists point of view, so arguments to the contrary are not relevant to the passage. I want to make sure that the points he is making are correct from a creationist's point of view.

Cheers,
Diana

Well that's like saying I am arguing from a flat-Earth point of view and I want to make sure my article is correct in that sense and I don't want to hear objections from the round-Earthers.

If you just want to misrepresent science than why ask for help in clarifying?

Evolution and Christianity are not incompatible and I think you might make a stronger argument if you wrote from that POV.

 

[stumpjumper]

Diane

There is a sub-forum for Creationists only. You might want to try there but again misrepresenting the facts is not edifying for anyone.

 

[dianalee4jc]

Starjumper... you don't seem to understand. My book is not about the creation/evolution debate. The book is about a teenager who walks away from his faith -- this is just one small piece of the overall puzzle. In the scene I am presenting an argument from the point of view of a Creationist, who is also a minister. What you're suggesting is that I shouldn't present that point of view at all, because YOU see the point of view as being false. Well, maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but your comments are not helping me at all in presenting that particular point of view.

Think of it this way... should J.R.R. Tolkien NOT have written the scene where Saruman argued in favor of joining with the dark lord... just because the reader would see it as wrong? This is what the CHARACTER thinks, and I am just trying to verify that what I have written is in line with the current arguments against evolution.

In an earlier scene I had the son watching a Braves game... I did research to make sure I had the right opposing team (Cubs) and the correct scores, and even the correct name for the pitcher (Cary Woods) for that particular day (June 21, 2000). You might like the Braves over the Cubs, or the Cubs over the Braves, or some other team altogether, but that doesn't change the fact that the CHARACTER likes the Braves, and was not happy about them losing.

I just want to verify my facts, from the perspective of the character.

 

[stumpjumper]

I just want to verify my facts, from the perspective of the character.

OK. But the 'facts' that Creationist's use are only serious objections to evolution in their POV. I can understand what you are saying and I am sure that misunderstanding how evolution and Christian theism are compatible can lead some to leave their faith.

But, the fault lies with misunderstanding the fact that evolution does not contradict the Christian message in any way, shape, or form, not with evolution as a theory of biodiversification. So if you want to write a book about a Pastor that does not understand science or evolutionary theology than fine. But, don't fact check it because you will run into problem with who considers what a fact.

For what its worth though. Your original post is in line with the arguments of Creationists but alas they are scientifically incorrect.

 

[dianalee4jc]

Starjumper... thank you for your point of view.

The funny thing is, I posted this in a "Christians Only" furum because I hoped to avoid an argument like the one that has just taken place.

And for what it's worth, I happen to know of some brilliant theologians, thinkers, and scientists who reject the theory of evolution. I don't think it's a very good thing to just write them off as "fools or ignoramuses" as someone put it. Personally, I'm not a scientist, nor am I interested in jumping into debates about origins. The dialogue I wrote was informed by arguments that I have heard... I just wanted to make sure my memory was accurate without having to dive into a lot of deep research... for something that isn't even a big part of the story. I was able to find information about the Cubs vs. Braves with a few clicks on the Internet. I thought I could ask some folks who are more knowledgeable than me to just check my information.

Merry Christmas to you.

Diana

 

[gluadys]

Just to clarify something to those who are arguing in favor of evolution... that isn't the point. This passage argues from a creationists point of view, so arguments to the contrary are not relevant to the passage. I want to make sure that the points he is making are correct from a creationist's point of view.

Cheers,
Diana

Diana, the points which I bolded are not correct from any point of view--creationist or evolutionist. They are simply factually false.

That is why it greatly weakens a creationist argument to include them.

Of course, if your intention is to show how weak and foolish the creationist argument is, then by all means keep them in.

Since you are writing about a young person losing their faith, it is relevant to note that many young people who have been taught these things by their parents and religious leaders do lose their faith when they find out these things are not true.

If you go to any board dominated by atheists, you will quickly find a number of them attributing their current atheism to the lies told them by creationist parents and churches*. Once they learned they had not been told the truth about fossils or DNA or macroevolution, they began to wonder what else they had learned that was not so. And that led to doubting the bible and all it teaches. Next thing you know a young Christian like Randy in your story is an atheist.

*Not suggesting the lies were deliberate. They too are passing on what they learned from others. But the statements are still false.

 

[dianalee4jc]

Gluadys... you are operating under the presumption that evolution is TRUE. There are many well-respected scholars (incluiding non-Christians) from varying fields (including scientific fields) who do not agree with you. But if you read my post closely, you would have seen that Randy himself raised questions from a theistic-evolutionary point of view.

Randy does not walk away from his faith because of evolution... he walks away from his faith because of peer pressure. The argument presented by his father has the unintended effect of increasing the teasing Randy has to endure at school, thus increasing his anxiety and desire to be accepted. Therefore it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to the story, whether the argument is right or wrong, that his father take this position.

For myself, in the bit of research I have been able to do, I do not find evolution credible. But this is irrelevant to what I am trying to do with the story... and since I intend for this to be a series of stories, I may have another occasion to present YOUR point of view. In the meantime... it does not help me at all just to say that ID is false, false, false. The CHARACTER believes it is true.

So again, I am left (on this board, anyway) with no assistance, and the feeling that I am being beat up by my brothers and sisters in Christ just for having a differing point of view.

 

[dianalee4jc]

PS. -- young people lose their faith not because of the "lies" of Creationists, but because evolution is forced upon them as fact, and there is no possibility for discussion of any competing theory. Thus the kids are not taught, but indoctrinated. Under these conditions, of course they would question their faith. But more important for me personally, as a parent, is to teach my daughter that faith is not just blind acceptance of what a book (any book) says, but faith grounded in a relationship with Christ. Evolution (or strict Creationism!) cannot destroy that.

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys... you are operating under the presumption that evolution is TRUE.

I happen to agree that evolution happens. But in terms of your composition, I did not introduce anything from a pro-evolution point of view. I only pointed out things that are objectively false no matter what point of view you hold.

But if you read my post closely, you would have seen that Randy himself raised questions from a theistic-evolutionary point of view.

Randy does not walk away from his faith because of evolution... he walks away from his faith because of peer pressure.

I said "like Randy". As to Randy himself, of course he does whatever you as the author make him do for reasons you as the author assign.

The argument presented by his father has the unintended effect of increasing the teasing Randy has to endure at school, thus increasing his anxiety and desire to be accepted. Therefore it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to the story, whether the argument is right or wrong, that his father take this position.

Yes, I understand that. The question I am raising for you is whether you want the father to represent an intelligent creationist point of view or a foolish creationist point of view. If you want the father to look foolish, leave in the falsehoods I pointed out. If you want the father to have a half-decent chance at looking sensible, have him make his arguments without resorting to what is verifiably false information. I am not suggesting you have him change his arguments. Just that he make them without resorting to factual error.

And this has nothing to do with the validity of ID/creationism. Those bolded statements are simply factual error even if ID/creationism is true.

 

[gluadys]

But more important for me personally, as a parent, is to teach my daughter that faith is not just blind acceptance of what a book (any book) says, but faith grounded in a relationship with Christ. Evolution (or strict Creationism!) cannot destroy that.

Amen to that.