Theism Predicts (Part IV)

Last time, our theist tried to dab his toe into the waters of evolution, and didn't do such a good job. This time around, we find that the theist is still having trouble with reality. For instance:

9. Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford)

The first sentence is not even close to being true. No one is claiming that most mutations are beneficial. Most mutations are either deleterious or neutral, with some being advantageous. Mutations, however, are not "overwhelmingly detrimental." This is incorrect. And, there are not serious questions as to "whether there are any truly beneficial mutations whatsoever." The only ones making this claim are unserious creationists like Behe and Sanford who are roundly ignored, debunked, and/or chided for their unscrupulous inattention to the evidence.

What evidence? Try Lenski's work, genetic algorithms, or the many observed instance of speciation. How can they claim credibility when they deny the obvious evidence that has been produced?

10. Materialism predicted a very simple first life form which accidentally came from “a warm little pond”. Theism predicted God created life – The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD)

Again, the theist puts words into the "materialist's" mouth. The first life was very simple, but how it came about is probably not in "a warm little pond." We don't know exactly how life arose or in what conditions, but we do know that it is possible in quite a few conditions.

Our theist, of course, jumps to the claim that life is complex, but this doesn't at all show that the first lifeform was not simple. Of course, to go from simple to complex we need a mechanism that accomplishes the task. Luckily enough for us, we have evolution, which is more than adequate to the job and has been demonstrated to have the ability to go from simple to complex (see above and/or pick up any textbook).

Finally, that something may be more complex than anything man has made doesn't necessarily imply that it was made in turn. We could make the counter argument that we see complexity in nature that we can not hope to match, so what makes the theist think that anything could create that complexity? Both are non-starter arguments and the fact that the theist must rely on such arguments indicates that the theist is not operating from a position of strength.

11. Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11) – We find evidence for complex photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth

If materialism did predict that it took a very long time for life to appear on Earth, well that is correct. The Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago (bya). The oldest rocks we've found are from about 4 bya. The oldest life we've found is from about 3.5 bya. IOW, life formed about 1 billion years after the formation of the Earth. Apparently that's abrupt to the theist?

Of course, that's up for some debate, and I give the theist some credit here as some recent finds may indicate older life, maybe from as early as 3.8 bya. Still, this does not support the theist's position, especially when the reference to Genesis is made. Genesis goes right out the window when discussing billions of years. Genesis refers to days and abrupt changes that simply did not happen. Genesis is disproven. Sorry Mr. Theist, but as soon as you brought Genesis into the discussion, you lost all credibility. Still, the next installment will deal with the last of the supposed predictions.


Other posts in this series...

In the Beginning...

Science is something that we, as humans, would have a hard time living without. Science has the power to verify truths (to the best extent possible) and show us what our universe is like. Science has the power to negate positive claims made by theists as well, as many theists are well aware. Because of this, there is a lot of effort made by theists to show how science is compatible with their holy books - especially Xians trying to show how science is compatible with the Bible. One of these arguments goes like so:

1. Genesis says that god created the universe.
2. The big bang shows that the universe was created out of nothing.
3. Therefore science supports the Bible.

This is a horrible argument, however.

I have no qualms with number 1, except for one thing. Genesis goes on to explain how god created the universe, in time scales, order of creation, etc. It gets a lot of things horribly wrong. It's disingenuous of the Xian to take one piece of the passage out and claim that science supports the Bible while brushing the rest of the passage under the rug, hoping that no one will notice.

Number 2 is where the problems really exist, however. The big bang theory actually states that the matter and energy that are our universe came into the forms that we now recognize over a long period of time that started at time t=0. OK, that's a long-winded way to say that the big bang theory does not state that our universe was created or poofed into existence from nothing. What we call our universe came into existence when time came to exist, since we measure time by the speed of light (roughly), and before that time would have no meaning to us, but this does not mean that we know what was there prior to the universe. It's a stretch and a half to conclude that this somehow supports "goddidit" in any way, shape, or form. In short, this is simply not a credible argument, no matter how badly the Xian wishes to shoehorn science into her holy book.

Testing?

Why does god test us? For instance, take Genesis 22, where god orders Abraham to sacrifice his own son, Isaac. Abraham is ready to do it too, until god stays his hand at the last second. god explains that he was testing Abraham to see if he would do it, and satisfied that Abraham would take his own son's life, god relents at the last second.

Wow.

Isn't god omniscient? Shouldn't god know what Abraham will do? Why the need to test him? What about all the other tests that god puts all of us through, are they necessary? The only possible answer is, "No." So, why would god put us through all these things unnecessarily? This is sadism on god's part. The only possible answer is that god wills to put us through misery, and the testing is really not a part of it. god is a sadist who loves to see us suffer.

(It should also be noted that god does order people to kill their children, and we have proof of it in the Bible, so who's to say that modern day parents who kill their children based on god's orders are not really receiving orders from god to do so?)

Perfection?

If god is perfect, why does he make so many mistakes? Let's take the story of Noah's ark, for instance. In Genesis 6:6, god is repentant for creating man. This is an explicit admission of a mistake on god's part. He feels sorry for what he has done. So, he decides to wipe the Earth of all creatures to wipe out the wickedness of humanity, thus taking out his anger at humans on all animals.

According to Xians, we are all wicked, so why is there still wickedness? Didn't god wipe it all out with the flood? Shouldn't he have known that his plan wouldn't work? In Genesis 8:21, he again seems to be repentant for doing what he has done, which is another admission of error as well as an admission of immorality. Why worship this god that obviously is incompetent and immoral?

god Lies

Open your Bible to the book of Genesis, chapter 1. In it, god relates to us all how he created the universe. Do you believe the Genesis account is correct? Let's say that you don't. Well, then god lied about how he did it, plain and simple. The only other alternative is that god was speaking metaphorically or in parables or something, but there's nothing in there to support that.

Now, let's say that you think Genesis is correct. Well then what about all the evidence that we have that contradicts this account? god is lying to you by deliberately placing false evidence to shake your faith. Either way, god is a liar.

Creationism

I've just finished Dan Dennet's influential book on Darwinism, and passing mention was given to a certain species of rat; they live underground in tunnels and have a queen. When this queen gets grotesquely large from pregnancy she is unable to eat her own excrement (a popular option, it seems, for these rats); therefore she begs for that of other rodents, and sees that it is good.

A type of fly like to propogate their genes by laying eggs. In the heads of ants. When these eggs hatch they turn into maggots. Which eat through the brain of their hosts until they are large enough to survive in the wild.

The ichneumon fly is parasitic in the living bodies of caterpillars and the larvae of other insects. With cruel cunning and ingenuity surpassed only by man, this depraved and unprincipled insect perforates the struggling caterpillar, and deposits her eggs in the living, writhing body of her victim.

Do you still believe in God?

Righteousness

What makes someone righteous? I think the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a good guide here. It starts with the ridiculous scene between god and Abraham where the omni-benevolent, all-loving god decides that the he needs to commit mass murder on all the inhabitants of S and G. Abraham barters with him and gets god to agree to spare the righteous inhabitants. If Abraham had not interceded, then god would have simply killed the whole lot of them (no pun intended).

So, god sends his angels down and Lot gives them shelter, thus making him righteous. Apparently. It also - apparently - makes his family righteous somehow; but probably because he only had a wife and two daughters (although it should be noted that the sons-in-law were to be spared as well) and well, they're just property, right? Well, god generally treats women that way, so at least this is consistent. Anyway, this righteous man tries to placate the crowd of angel-sodomizers by offering to send his two daughters out to be raped. (Interesting side note: his daughters were married, yet they were still virgins for some reason?)

Long story short, they flee the city and god destroys all the other inhabitants, but decides his wrath is so great that even looking at the destruction shall turn one into a pillar of salt, without warning of course. So, Lot's nameless wife looks back (she doesn't need a name since she's Lot's property as per god's decrees, right?) and is instantly turned into salt. How dare she look back at her home that she just had to flee! Of course, Abraham looks at the destruction too and nothing befalls him, but perhaps this is explainable in that he might not have watched it happen but only seen the aftermath. Any way you slice it, no one comes out looking good in this story.