Theism Predicts (Part V - Conclusion)

Well, this series is almost at an end as there are only three more predictions to go. So, let's get started, shall we?

12. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. – The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas.

Ah yes, the Cambrian explosion that IDers like to go on and on about. Let's start with the obvious issues in that even if the Cambrian explosion showed what IDers claim it does, it would not help in their quest to prove Adam and Eve and all that stuff. So, it seems a bit of a pyrrhic victory at best.

Still, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that we do have a good fossil record and that the Cambrian explosion is not a problem for evolution.

Once again our theist is simply making things up.

13. Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record – Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils.

I've already dealt with the numerous transitional fossils claim above, so I won't rehash that, and it should be noted that this idea of sudden appearance and rapid diversity does not help the theist. Besides, is the theist arguing that god came down every couple million years and re-did his handiwork to put new animals on the ground and make the old ones extinct?

And, let's also look at this claim that, "Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils." What Chutzpah. The only people truly contesting the existence of these transitionals are the creationists! Evolutionary biologists (scientists) do not dispute these. The small disputes that do arise are over minute details that do not impact the overall theory. It would be like arguing over whether a large city has 10,345,632 or 10,345,658 inhabitants and having the creationist claim that this means that the city doesn't exist.

14. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record.

OK, numerous problems here. First of all, man didn't suddenly appear. We have quite a large collection of hominid fossils. Also, it must be noted that the we have observed instances of speciation.

Also, it's simply not true that there should be speciation on a "somewhat constant basis." Speciation happens when certain conditions are met. There's no guarantee that these conditions will be met on a "somewhat constant basis." Once again we see the theist doesn't actually know what he's talking about and argues against strawmen.

Conclusion:

This series has focused on 14 different claims made by a theist, and not one has really been worthwhile. Most (if not all) make claims about materialism or theism that simply are not true. Also, the theist has repeatedly made erroneous claims in order to try and buttress his already tenuous assertions, and has shown a complete ignorance of science, how it works, and what we know from it. If it were really as easy as this theist claims to say theism predicts this or that, then he would still be playing a losing hand.


Other posts in this series...

Q: What do you call a gay dinosaur?

We all know that dinosaurs didn't go with Noah on the ark, right? Not so fast. As it turns out, there is a way that Noah could have had dinosaurs on the ark and they would still have died off because they simply didn't reproduce. That's right, Noah could have unintentionally selected gay dinosaurs. (Obviously it would be unintentional since god would not have wanted Noah to collect gay anything, since gays are deviants and choose to be so and so are in defiance to god and all of that silly stuff.)

It's not so far-fetched. We know that there are examples of homosexual animals that obviously choose to spite god by being gay. Isn't it possible that the gay dinosaurs infiltrated the ark so that they would be saved, and in the process killed off their own kinds? Ha ha, take that evilutionists!

(Note: the answer to the title is either Megasauras or Lickalotapus.)

Drunken Monkeys

I'm back, but not fully, so I thought that I would share an interesting video on monkeys and their drinking habits. Notice how alike they are to humans, especially the percentages of binge drinkers, moderate drinkers, and teetotalers.

I also wanted to share part of an essay by Sam Harris, wherein he speaks about animal behavior:

And just how widespread must “glimmerings” of morality be among other animals before [Francis] Collins—who, after all, knows a thing or two about genes—begins to wonder whether our moral sense has evolutionary precursors in the natural world? What if mice showed greater distress at the suffering of familiar mice than unfamiliar ones? (They do.[11]) What if monkeys will starve themselves to prevent their cage-mates from receiving painful shocks? (They will.[12]) What if chimps have a demonstrable sense of fairness when receiving food rewards? (They might.[13]) Wouldn’t these be precisely the sorts of findings one would expect if our morality were the product of evolution?

...

11 Langford DJ, Crager SE, Shehzad Z, Smith SB, Sotocinal SG, et al. (2006) Social modulation of pain as evidence for empathy in mice. Science 312: 1967-1970. ↩

12 Masserman JH, Wechkin S, Terris W (1964) “Altruistic” Behavior in Rhesus Monkeys. Am J Psychiatry 121: 584-585. ↩

13 Our picture of chimp notions of fairness is somewhat muddled. There is no question that they notice inequity, but they do not seem to care if they profit from it. Brosnan SF (2008) How primates (including us!) respond to inequity. Adv Health Econ Health Serv Res 20: 99-124. Jensen K, Call J, Tomasello M (2007) Chimpanzees are rational maximizers in an ultimatum game. Science 318: 107-109. Jensen K, Hare B, Call J, Tomasello M (2006) What’s in it for me? Self-regard precludes altruism and spite in chimpanzees. Proc Biol Sci 273: 1013-1021. Silk JB, Brosnan SF, Vonk J, Henrich J, Povinelli DJ, et al. (2005) Chimpanzees are indifferent to the welfare of unrelated group members. Nature 437: 1357-1359. Brosnan SF, Schiff HC, de Waal FB (2005) Tolerance for inequity may increase with social closeness in chimpanzees. Proc Biol Sci 272: 253-258.

OK, so many creationists just don't get it - let me spell it out. The Flintstones was not a documentary.

First, let's get something straight. A scientific theory is a well supported explanation of natural phenomena, facts, and data that is has not been falsified, and best explains the data we have. Theories are the upper echelon of science. Theories are not wild-assed guesses, as some creationists like to pretend. Nor are theories simply problematic guesses trying to become laws. Laws and theories are quite distinct things in science and there isn't a hierarchy whereby ideas go along stages, with "law" being the last and best stage.

Also, science changes as new data becomes available. This is not a failing of science, but a strength. It shows a willingness to incorporate the best information we have in formulating the best explanations that we can.

Evolution is a theory. It is well supported by many independent lines of scientific inquiry (paleontology, biology, genetics, geology, etc.) We have many different independent lines of evidence that support it. Evolution is built on facts, many facts, and is the over-arching explanation of those facts. No other alternative "explanation" even comes close (and no, creationism and ID are not theories - they aren't even proper hypotheses). Evolution has been rigorously tested for over 150 years now and it is still weathering the test of time, even though it has made predictions that could have falsified it (like the chromosomal fusion of human chromosomes from our last common ancestor with apes that was predicted and found, for example).

Evolution, as an explanation, is (very simplified) that mutations to the genetic material of organisms provide for variation, which is then selected by nature for survival and the passing on of those genes.

All animals on the planet are just as evolved as we are. We are not more evolved than other animals. Evolution is happening still.

Evolution is not random. The variations that arise do have a random component, but selection is not a random process.

It does not mean that we should see giant flies with 20 wings, or dats (dog/cat crosses). It doesn't mean that we will grow another arm (not unless genetic material for another arm arises and is selected for over say the next 20 million years that is).

Now, why go through all this? It's because I'm constantly amazed at the amount of creationists who know just about nothing about evolution, but are dead sure it's wrong. They don't know what a theory is. They don't know how science works. They don't know how evolution works. They don't even understand the very, very simplistic overview that I just gave above.

But they do know that it all has to be wrong, wrong, wrong.

Do these creationists really think that either virtually all scientists are part of some atheistic conspiracy to dupe the public, or that virtually all scientists are stupid or blinded by atheism and that they, having done no research or any other lab work, somehow know more than the professionals? Any other options?

Puddles

Isn't it amazing how god made the planet just so, so that we can exist on it? I mean, look at how well the environment is suited to us. We happen to see colors, breathe air, eat food, etc. How could this not be god at work?

How many times have you seen the above argument? I happen to see it quite often, and the many variations on it. I think my favorite response is what Douglas Adams said. He likened this line of thought to a puddle looking at the hole that it is in and claiming that it so perfectly fit the shape of the hole that the hole must have been made to fit the puddle perfectly.

We know, of course, that due to the properties of water that it fits into the hole, and not the other way around. If we were to take that water and place it into a different hole, it would happen to fit that hole as well, regardless of the differences in shape between the holes.

The same can be said of animals on this planet, including humans. The reason that we can see color, breathe air, gain sustenance from food is not because the environment was crafted for us, but because we evolved to survive in the environment in which we live. When oxygen was in short supply in the atmosphere, lifeforms on this planet did not use it. It was a waste product. As oxygen levels built up, mass extinctions happened because the organisms living were literally choking to death on it. As variation and natural selection lead to organisms that could use this oxygen, a balance was established that has persisted to this day (after quite a few imbalanced mass extinction events). We breathe oxygen because our ancestors evolved the ability to do so. There's no reason to posit a god that came down and put oxygen in the atmosphere in order for us to breathe, and in fact, that's contrary to the evidence that we do have.

Randomness

One of the objections to evolution that creationists tend to use is that they believe that all the complexity of life could not have come about through purely random means - it's too improbable. They're right that it's hard to believe. It's a good thing, then, that this is not what evolution says.

Evolution is not a purely random process. One of the mechanisms (there are others) that allow for change to occur is random mutation, which is a random process. These mutations are impossible to predict and allow for small differences in off-spring that may or may not provide an advantage in survival and reproduction. This is done through natural selection, which is not a random process. By ignoring the non-random selective process, creationists and anti-evolutionists effectively create a straw man of an argument that does not represent what evolution actually says.

We Are All Animals

"How dare you claim that we are just animals! god made us special!"

Although I don't understand why so many creationists have this sort of reaction to evolution, as I see no reason to take offense to reality or the idea that we are indeed animals. There's nothing inherently wrong with being evolutionarily related to all the other lifeforms on this planet, nor does it take away from us as humans.

Still, how do they deny that every study we do of other animals seems to show that the differences between us are less than we thought? For instance, monkeys floss and teach their young to do the same. Actually, the idea that they teach their young is a huge find, that shows just how close we actually are to our closest cousins.

Like a Brick Through a Window

If any of you reading this are familiar with previous commenters on this blog, you may remember someone by the name of "Bud," who has commented here in the past. Bud recently left a new comment after a long lay-off on my god vs. the Unicorns post. It wasn't extremely long, but as with many creationist comments, it is like a brick through a window in that it creates a huge mess and take a lot more words to clean up all the misperceptions and errors in it. So, I've taken the liberty of making a post out of a point by point response to Bud's brick through the window. It's not anything we haven't all seen before, and warning it's long.

you ask for some evidence of God and His creation, well i would like to examine the evidence for evolution first, if that is ok.

I suppose so, but I hope you aren't going to make a god of the gaps argument...

now we have to consider that there is only 2 possible explanations for the existence of the universe:

it created itself
it was created.

Why do I have to consider that, considering that it's a false dichotomy? There are other options out there, including that this universe is an off-shoot of another universe (many worlds hypothesis) that arose from purely natural means (natural to the other universe and maybe ours), that the universe was always there but that we didn't have a representation for time (remember, the laws of physics break down at the singularity), etc. So, I'm sorry, but your assertion doesn't hold weight, and this has nothing to do with evolution.

scientists, like richard dawkins, admit at one time there was nothing.

There is not a single cosmological model of the origin of the universe that starts with "nothing." Please get your facts straight.

for just one protein to be created (assuming there is something to create it from, since the odds are approximately 1 x 10 to the 40,000th power against it. ( btw 1 x 10 to the 50th power is the longest odds ever observed.)

Yeah, those are long odds, and not at all a realistic interpretation of the latest scientific findings. This is a common error among creationists, however. The odds you cite are estimated, ballpark odds for an event that no one is claiming happened, namely the formation of complex molecules ex nihilo. In reality, what happened was the formation of easier molecules (we happen to know that amino acids can and do self-assemble from the Miller/Urey experiments and the subsequent experiments done based on the original) and that these building blocks then formed into proteins and cells. So, yeah, the odds of a cell simply spontaneously forming from nothing are pretty astronomical, but no one actually posits that that is what happened. Oh, and this still isn't evolution you're talking about.

every cellular mutation causes a loss of information stored in the DNA.

This is trivially false. For example, suppose a point mutation causes a T to change to a G in the genetic code. Would you say that's a loss of information? Now suppose that the G mutates back to a T. Is that a further loss in the information? Yet, this is what you are arguing. It's nonsense. Not only that, but you are relying on conflating definitions of "information." Please also see here:

Mutations and Information

skipping millions of necessary and impossible mutations, we come to humans.

So, you are finally going to talk about evolution?

the eyes alone would have taken over 250 million years to form, according to scientists.

This is actually false, as new studies have shown that eyes have evolved multiple times in shorter timeframes, but even if it were, so what? Life has been around for 4.5 bn years, give or take.

not to mention the nose, legs, arms, mind, and reproductive organs.

I fail to see what your point is. Evolution is a process that has been ongoing for billions of years, thus giving ample time for all the emergent features we see today to have evolved. Are you perhaps arguing that it took X number of years for one feature and Y for another, and so on, and that if you add up all those numbers it is an obscenely large number? This would not make sense, however, as all features are all evolving at the same time.

here is another problem, how did this undirected mutation get the direction to create the extremely complex reproductive system of both genders without guidance?

"Guidance" comes from natural selection. When undirected mutations occur, those that are beneficial are selected and outpace those that are not. This is elementary. Also, sexual selection has been around for a long time. And, it's obvious why it would be a good idea. There much bacteria in your body that can lead to illness and death that you constantly have to fight off. Given a set of genes from 2 parents, the bacteria that they pass you are not accustomed to your genetic makeup and give you a head start in the arms race that is taking place inside your body.

the "self creation" theory is proven by scientists who understand the laws of science, to be impossible.

I would say that your strawman version of what you think scientists say is pretty far fetched.

this takes more faith to believe than i am capable of, so i will stick to the belief that there must be a creator.

I'm so disappointed since you went the route of god of the gaps after all. You didn't present any positive evidence for your god, you simply asserted that evolution couldn't a done it, so god musta done it. This may have worked had you accurately presented a true dichotomy, but you didn't. In fact, you made quite a few false dichotomies in there that I simply haven't pointed out, like the implicit assertion that it's either evolution or god.

note: the idea of the universe being eternal is discounted because it would require no molecular movement, creating a virtual heat death.

Note: the laws of physics break down at the singularity level so we can't really say what was there "before" time, which is a bit meaningless anyway, since "before" time can't be measured by any means that we currently have.

please note that i may a little flippant, but, out of respect, i am not being sarcastic.

Please note that I am also not being disrespectful in pointing out your errors and misperceptions. But, I do suggest that you actually look some of this stuff up in a credible source.

Piltdown Man

Anti-evolutionists love to trot out the old Piltdown Man hoax as if it were some sort of proof against evolution, but if they understood what actually happened a bit better, they would not be so quick to do this.

Piltdown Man was a hoax. It was, however, never actually accepted by most of the scientific community. The reason for this was that it didn't quite fit the rest of the data that supported evolution. It was an outlier. Scientists were skeptical from the outset.

While the press was eating up this new find, scientists went to work testing the find, examining, trying to verify - in short, they did science. And, they soon discovered that their skepticism was well founded, the Piltdown Man was a fake. This was good news for evolutionary scientists, as the Piltdown Man was hard to reconcile with prevailing theory, so the realization that it was not real meant there was no more challenge. Further, it showed that science works. Scientists were able to police themselves by using further study, by using the process of science itself! This was not a black mark for science, it was a triumph!

In summary, when creationists trumpet Piltdown Man, they are effectively shooting themselves in the foot. It was never part of evolutionary theory, so the realization that it was a hoax presents no problem for evolution. Further, it wasn't creationists who even discovered the hoax, but real scientists doing real science that discovered it and set things right.

Conceptions of god

How many Xians think that they worship the god of the Bible? I'm sure that all of them think that. In reality, however, probably none of them do.

If you take two Xians, from the same church even, and ask them about their conception of god - which would be the god they would worship - you would get two different answers. Change that number to X and you would get X different answers. No two people conceptualize the same god. Logically speaking, only one of those conceptions can be correct, so only one person can really worship the god of the Bible.

Can they get close enough at least? Probably, but not most modern Xians. This is because Xianity has certainly changed/evolved since god set down his rules/dictates/words in his hold books. Modern Xian thought is more about the love and justice of god. Yet, these attributes are not in abundant supply in the Bible. The god there is definitely not loving, nor just. But, in accordance with the modernization, and more importantly, the secularization of the world, Xianity has had to adapt to survive. So, now we have the kindler, gentler god (or sometimes the more mysterious god that can evade our senses/science, even though the old god showed up all the time to intervene in our affairs and appeared to people regularly). Yeah secularism.

Evolution Denial

To those theists that deny evolution, here is a question:

What is your competing hypothesis?

Noah

I said I'd get to this sometime. When Noah was SIX HUNDRED YEARS OLD God told him that, although the rest of civilization were full of sin, Noah was perfect; thus, Noah was instructed to build a 450-foot boat. With eight people.

When the Ark was ready, two of each species were loaded on. (Where he got penguins in Israel I don't know. Presumably he took the smallpox virus with him as well.) Then God made it rain for forty days and forty nights. Which would make quite a puddle. Whether the entire Earth would be swallowed up by that is doubtful. Where Noah got water for all the animals I don't know either.

My point is that the Bible shows large marks of human creation. Although hardly anyone believes this story, my question is why anyone believes the other ones.