Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use
Posted by DuaneJul 28
In the interest of honest, intellectually sound arguments that are based in Scripture, logic, and scientific research, several Christian ministries maintain a list of arguments they think creationists should avoid (e.g. moon-dust thickness, and Darwin’s recantation of his evolutionary beliefs on his deathbed).
Similarly, I recently discovered that Answers in Genesis have a list of 12 Arguments they think evolutionists should avoid:
Argument 1: Evolution is a fact
Argument 2: Only the uneducated reject evolution
Argument 3: Overwhelming evidence in all fields of science supports evolution
Argument 4: Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity
Argument 5: Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat
Argument 6: It’s here, so it must have evolved
Argument 7: Natural selection is evolution
Argument 8: Common design means common ancestry
Argument 9: Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity
Argument 10: Mutations drive evolution
Argument 11: The Scopes trial
Argument 12: Science vs. religion
Something that struck me about this list though, is that it comprises many arguments that evolutionists do make on a regular basis. So I wondered how many on the list evolutionists themselves would concede are bad arguments that evolutionists should not use and whether there were other arguments that are not on the list that they’d advise proponents of evolution to steer clear of.
In other words, I’d like evolutionists to be self-critical and provide a list of arguments they would endorse as "arguments evolutionists should not use." It’s a serious request and I ask only to be better informed of the kinds of arguments that evolutionists themselves think are unjustified in attempting to make their evolutionary case. I invite anyone who considers themselves an informed evolutionist to contribute to this humble project.
On the other hand, if you’d like to explain why any of the arguments above should not be on that list [you know you want to], I’m happy to receive those objections. But in the interest of give and take, I’d also appreciate it if you could provide at least one argument that you think evolutionists should not use and why.
PDF 
20 comments
Comment by JS Allen on 28 Jul 2010 at 14:02
I would agree that most items on the list are bad arguments, but I'm not sure why they included 7-10. These aren't arguments so much as statements of what biologists, geologists, anthropologist, etc. believe. I'm probably just missing some nuances that the authors of the list presumed their audience would know about.
Comment by Duane on 28 Jul 2010 at 15:24
To the person who attempted to post a comment, about half of which was spent ridiculing YEC’s, rather than making a genuine attempt to have a rational discussion in the spirit intended: I would have been more than happy to publish your comment without the derision. But seeing as you consider it such a “colossal waste of time” and “an exercise in futility” to argue with YEC’s (which was not in the spirit of my post in the first place), I won’t waste the time of our readers by inflicting your diatribe upon them. Nor do I expect you to ignore your own advice by attempting to take any further part in this discussion, which is a shame considering the intention of the post.
Comment by Duane on 28 Jul 2010 at 23:24
Note to readers,
The question I am asking in relation to bad arguments is made with complete sincerity out of a desire to learn what evolutionists think, rather than simply taking my cues from a Christian website.
You may disagree with the entire list that AiG have posted. That’s fine. But in response, I seek a genuine attempt by those who are capable of reflecting on the merits and shortcomings of an argument, to provide their thoughts on any argument(s) for evolution they think is lacking and why.
It is not an opportunity to attack the Christian world view; there are many posts on this site where readers are given that opportunity. This is not one of those posts. But it is a chance for people to drop the façade (and for some, the attitude that comes with it) and just be honest about those arguments for evolution that they believe should not be used.
Comment by Duane on 28 Jul 2010 at 15:41
Thanks JS,
Actually none of the points above are meant to be taken as arguments proper, but rather an extremely brief summary, acting like a pointer to something more constructive. For example, "Evolution is a Fact" is not an argument in this form. The argument for evolution being a fact, however, is much more complicated and involves the definition of evolution and examples of evolution of that kind, etc. There is a kind of syllogism involved.
Some of the more ambiguous titles, like "Science vs. Religion" and "The Scopes trial" (and the ones you alluded to) could perhaps have been worded a little better. But when you dig a little deeper you discover that they too point to actual arguments in favour of the evolutionary world view.
Comment by Nocterro on 28 Jul 2010 at 16:24
Ok, I'm not going to comment on every point due to time constraints, but here's a few preliminary thoughts.
1)Evolution is a fact.
Depending on what you mean, it is a fact. To quote Gould, "Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered." [1]
2) Only the uneducated reject evolution.
Well, of course there are otherwise well-educated people who believe very silly things. Perhaps it's better to say "only the uneducated in evolutionary biology reject evolution". But even that's not right, as someone may become educated in evolutionary biology, yet have certain prior beliefs that prevent him from accepting evolution.
3) Overwhelming evidence in all fields of science supports evolution.
The link states "The irony, of course, is that for centuries prior to Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species, the majority of scientists found the opposite to be true: the “evidence” supported creation. What changed? Not the evidence. Rather, the starting point changed (i.e., moving from the Bible, God’s Word, to humanism, man’s word)." This, however, doesn't account for Christians who accept evolution. The evidence *did* change – we found more of it, and what we found pointed to evolution via natural selection.
4) Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity.
Some silliness from the list linked to: "Take a pencil or pen. Hold it in the air. Then drop it to the floor. That’s gravity. Next, make a single-celled organism—like an amoeba—turn into a goat. Go ahead. We’ll wait. . . . No?" This is just laughable! An amoeba "turning into a goat" would falsify evolution. It's clear that the author of the list hasn't taken Biology 101.
10) Mutations drive evolution.
The list states "virtually every time mutations come with a cost." Oh? This is a pretty bold claim. I'd love to see this demonstrated, but I'll settle for explained. What cost is this talking about?
11) The Scopes trial.
Anyone using "the scopes trial" to defend the claim that evolution is true doesn't understand anything about science.
12) Science vs. religion
As I have stated before, there are Christians who accept evolution. Francis Collins is a great example – he's even the head of the Human Genome Project.
[1] http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact...
Comment by Duane on 28 Jul 2010 at 17:58
Thanks Nocterro,
I'm happy for you to critique the merits of the list and it's not my intention to engage you on that. I am really more interested in finding out if there are any arguments that are not on the list, that you think ought to be. (e.g. Kettlwell's Peppered Moth experiments?)
Comment by Nocterro on 29 Jul 2010 at 05:15
Well I’m not sure if “arguments” is really the right word, but have you seen these?
[Moderator (Duane): Please see my remarks below regarding the moderation of this comment]
Comment by taco on 29 Jul 2010 at 06:58
re: "The evidence *did* change"
evidence is inherently theory-laden..
Comment by Duane on 29 Jul 2010 at 13:26
Re: Moderation of Nocterro’s comment
It is at this point that Nocterro provided three links to the Talk Origins website, all of which contained vast amounts of information describing what evolution is and why it's true. The links have been removed due to irrelevancy – see our comments policy regarding the appropriate use of external links.
And please notice that this again fails to answer my question. Seriously, is what I am asking so difficult? Am I being unclear? I simply want people to provide examples of bad arguments for evolution. I even gave an example of the kinds of things I am after, in Kettlewell’s moth experiments. But instead I get sent to an evolutionary evangelistic website. And when I get there I skim through the pages trying to find just one answer to my question, to no avail. But that is hardly the point. It's not my job to read through copious amounts of evolutionary dogma to try and distil the information I seek. Heck, I could’ve done that without the interaction and intellectual honesty I was hoping to foster through this post.
Comment by Nocterro on 29 Jul 2010 at 13:41
@Duane:
I apologize for misreading your comment – I thought you were asking for more "arguments" for evolution in general, good or bad.
That being said, well, there are an infinite number of bad arguments. Some examples:
Evolution is true because my cup is green.
Evolution is true because I had spaghetti for dinner.
Evolution is true because I need to take out the trash.
Why focus on bad arguments? We should be focusing on *good* arguments for positions contrary to our own. That's how we learn. I'm wondering about the motive behind collecting "bad arguments for evolution". In the interest of fairness, are you going to do the same for creationism? Are you going to post a list of good arguments for evolution, ones that you might have some difficulty answering? If not, why not?
On a side note, what is this "evolutionary dogma" of which you speak? Are you trying to imply by this statement that belief in evolution is a religion, or that people who believe it do not question it?
Comment by Nocterro on 29 Jul 2010 at 13:45
"evidence is inherently theory-laden.. "
Why is it that people from almost all backgrounds (atheist, agnostic, deist, christian, muslim, buddhist, etc.) accept evolution, while denial of evolution is almost entirely exclusive to theologically conservative minorites, such as christian and muslim fundamentalists?
You've got it backwards – theories (in the scientific sense, at least) are inherently evidence-laden.
Comment by Ryft on 29 Jul 2010 at 21:55
It's not that your question is confusing or difficult, Duane. It's that our evolutionist respondents are either dishonest or out of touch with reality; namely, they know there are bad evolutionary arguments and refuse to provide examples of them, or they are convinced there is no such thing as bad evolutionary arguments. Nocterro is a particularly interesting case study: all of his responses do everything BUT answer your question—and I am probably not the only observer who is wondering why.
Comment by AristoDuane on 29 Jul 2010 at 22:20
I had mentioned to Adam only two days ago that if I did get any examples of bad arguments that evolutionists should not use that I should not be surprised to find that they are disingenuous ones like "evolution is true because my cat has furballs". How unfortunate that you could not prove me wrong. On the other hand, compare this to the genuine example I gave in Kettlewell's moth experiments. Nocterro, you are doing no favours for your kind in persisting in this manner.
My motive for wanting to know what evolutionists think are bad arguments is two-fold.
1. I wanted to know if evolutionists were able to be critrical and honest about poor arguments for their point of view. (Not doing so well on that count so far are we?)
2. When I read the list on AiG's website, it occured to me that many evolutionists would reject it out of hand because of the source. So I wanted to know from evolutionists themselves, the kinds of arguments that they think really do belong on a list like that. Apparently, that it is just too difficult?
It's funny that you ask me if I'm going to produce the same kind of list for creationism. Did you even read the post?
Finally, in using the term "evolutionary dogma", I meant to imply that it was evolutionary dogma. I know many people want to equate evolution with religion and I think that has merits, but that is not what I said or implied. I do think however, that it is rare to ever see it questioned by those who believe it. And if I was wrong about that, you'd think it would at least be possible to get some genuine examples of bad arguments that evolutionists shouldn't use.
This is your last chance Nocterro. If your next comment(s) fails to engage the topic at hand, it will not be published. Promise.
Comment by Nocterro on 29 Jul 2010 at 14:33
"1. I wanted to know if evolutionists were able to be critrical and honest about poor arguments for their point of view. (Not doing so well on that count so far are we?)"
Did my comments regarding 11 and 12 in my original post on this article not imply that I thought they were bad arguments?
"So I wanted to know from evolutionists themselves, the kinds of arguments that they think really do belong on a list like that. Apparently, that it is just too difficult?"
11 and 12. As for others that may belong on the list, I don't tend to remember or keep a list of stupid things people say. So, if you would like, you can present me with an argument you've heard for evolution, and I'll tell you whether I think it's good or bad (btw, "peppered moths" are an observation about allele distribution, nothing more).
Comment by Duane on 29 Jul 2010 at 23:24
Nocterro,
I really wish you would read more carefully. I already acknowledged your assessment of the items on the list. But then I asked you, “if there are any arguments that are not on the list, that you think ought to be.” To which your response is, “… I don't tend to remember or keep a list of stupid things people say”. OK, so basically you don’t know and it’s taken several posts by you for all of us to learn what we could have learned simply by your silence in the first instance. Thanks for wasting everybody’s time with your distracting prattle. As Ryft once said of a comment on an earlier post, “Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it,” to quote from Billy Madison.
Comment by Marc on 29 Jul 2010 at 15:27
Nocterro,
For someone who refuses to answer two simple questions on the other thread (one being merely to cite one recent YEC book you've recently read) and who prefers to write in generalities, I can only conclude that you haven't even bothered to research your opponents' case. This, I suggest, indicates your wholesale dishonesty.
Comment by thepolemicalmedic on 30 Jul 2010 at 03:29
The article in AiG just seems deeply confused. There’s a difference between ‘you shouldn’t offer an argument because it’s factual premises are wrong’, compared to ‘you shouldn’t offer an argument because it’s irrelevant or invalid.’ Yet half the time it is offering counter-arguments instead of ‘well, it’s irrelevant either away’. Leave alone the bits which don’t seem to be talking about an argument at all. Meh.
Moderator (Ryft): First portion of comment removed, for it simply provided commentary on ‘why’ the evolutionary arguments listed in the article are good or bad. That is not what Duane asked for. He asked evolutionists to provide their own examples of other bad evolutionary arguments they’ve seen used.
Comment by taco on 30 Jul 2010 at 04:29
“You’ve got it backwards – theories (in the scientific sense, at least) are inherently evidence-laden.”
Feel free to refute Thomas Kuhn anytime soon.
Comment by JS Allen on 30 Jul 2010 at 21:41
Duane, I was fully aware that the points clearly labeled "Argument" in your post were not "arguments proper". But I stand by my claim that most of them point to bad arguments. And I also stand by my point that the remaining 4 *might* point to bad arguments, if only someone would clarify the nuances of what arguments are being referenced.
Comment by Nocterro on 31 Jul 2010 at 01:23
Oops, I somehow missed this comment. Sorry.
I actually read "refuting evolution 2" by Jonathan Sarfati recently. I found it absolutely terrible, and trivial to answer his objections. I didn't even have to open a google search to do so. Email me if you would like to discuss it further, however – Nocterro42@gmail.com