Debating an Atheist

[TrumanSmith]

Backwoodsman wrote:

Did you read the description of Rask's book on Amazon.com?
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Affirmi ... 936320606/

I couldn't help but notice this: "There is found to be universally a logical disconnect between the purported evolutionary experiments or observations and their evolutionary conclusion. The most common logical error was the fallacy of affirming the consequent."

A quick explanation of "Affirming the consequent":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

Apparently you don't recognize that most of what you say is based on this logical disconnect and fallacy. You won't listen to us; Rask has some scientific education, so maybe you'll listen to him.

Dr. Rask sent me his book (he is a listener to The Narrow Path) and I have read it. I don't know if Truman has. If he has, he shows no evidence of understanding Dr. Rask's argument.

Dr. Rask is very sharp. Before publication he subjected his manuscript to be reviewed by two evolutionary scientists, asking them to notify him of any factual or reasoning errors that they might find. He includes their criticisms and his responses. It appears to me that even they did not quite grasp his point. It is becoming clearer to me all the time that scientists are not necessarily the most logical thinkers (you'd think they would be).

Dr. Rask's logic seems impeccable. He is 100% correct about evolutionist's case resting on the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent." He also has debated Truman before. It is on Youtube. Truman gave no indication of understanding Dr. Rask's obvious (and repeated) point.

To put Dr. Rask's thesis in a nutshell, the concept of evolution is not empirically nor logically provable, and it is statistically impossible. Every alleged proof of evolution comes down to "affirming the consequent", which looks like this:

1. If evolution is true, then such-and-such data would be observable;
2. Such-and-such data is observed, and is consistent with evolution's prediction;
2. Therefore, evolution is true.

The failure here is to ask whether the data might be equally consistent with any number of other assertions besides evolution by random mutation and natural selection (e.g., special creation, panspermia, spontaneous generation of each species separately, etc.). A simple example of this fallacy would be (and Dr. Rask gives this example, as I recall):

1. If I had eaten a whole pizza, I would feel full;
2. I do feel full (consistent with the thesis that I ate a whole pizza),
3. Therefore, I have eaten a whole pizza.

This is a logical fallacy, because there might be some thesis alternative to my eating a whole pizza that might as surely account for my feeling full.

I am pretty sure that Truman does not understand this logical fallacy and does not know when he is engaged in it, even when it is pointed out to him (watch his previous debate with Dr. Rask).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO3xfGgCrmQ

Yes- I've seen Bart's book. I've already debated him at Portland State University and I have that debate at my YouTube channel here:
http://youtu.be/IO3xfGgCrmQ

I'm going to debate him again 9-22-13, details:
https://www.facebook.com/events/212927125534150/

Bart's book wasn't really peer reviewed, like he claims. In actuality, he just got some feedback and printed it. It wasn't thorough or anything like a real peer-reviewed scientific paper. So basically, he's using a different meaning for the word "peer-reviewed," not like how normal scientists would use it.

Steve Gregg, said, unwiitingly: "The failure here is to ask whether the data might be equally consistent with any number of other assertions besides evolution by random mutation and natural selection (e.g., special creation, panspermia, spontaneous generation of each species separately, etc.)"

Steve is right, and I pointed this out (except about panspermia, which is not about creating species but rather origins of the first life). What other hypotheses is there? I pointed this out in the debate. Bart offered none. What about ID? He still declined, saying he didn't know enough about ID to defend it. So the failure is really on Bart by not offering potential other hypotheses... and the only alternative really is creationism, which fails on many fronts. Bart offered some calculations in the book and I offered some reasons as to why they couldn't be trusted (flaws in assumptions); and a biologist in the audience offered more reasons.

[TrumanSmith]

Truman's argument from imperfection (which Stephen Jay Gould once said was the only remaining evidence for favoring evolution over special creation) boils down to "It doesn't make sense that God would make it this way" (The example of the panda's "thumb" provided the title for one of his best-selling books).

Yet, for my money, I'd sooner bet on God's ability to make sense than on Truman's. Dawkins and Futuyma follow Gould's line also, as if it is the province of those who deny God's existence to tell us what He is or is not likely to do! There is a passage in Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial that I always think of when I hear such arguments. I paste it below:

Sexual selection is a relatively minor component in Darwinist theory today, but to Darwin it was almost as important as natural selection itself. (Darwin's second classic, The Descent of Man, is mainly a treatise on sexual selection.) The most famous example of sexual selection is the peacock's gaudy fan, which is obviously an encumbrance when a peacock wants to escape a predator. The fan is stimulating to peahens, however, and so its possession increases the peacock's prospects for producing progeny even though it decreases his life expectancy.

The explanation so far is reasonable, even delightful, but what I find intriguing is that Darwinists are not troubled by the unfitness of the peahen's sexual taste. Why would natural selection, which supposedly formed all birds from lowly predecessors, produce a species whose females lust for males with life-threatening decorations? The peahen ought to have developed a preference for males with sharp talons and mighty wings. Perhaps the taste for fans is associated genetically with some absolutely vital trait like strong egg shells, but then why and how did natural selection encourage such an absurd genetic linkage? Nevertheless, Douglas Futuyma boldly proclaims the peacock as a problem not for Darwinists but for creationists: "Do the creation scientists really suppose their Creator saw fit to create a bird that couldn't reproduce without six feet of bulky feathers that make it easy prey for leopards?"

I don't know what creation-scientists may suppose, but it seems to me that the peacock and peahen are just the kind of creatures a whimsical Creator might favor, but that an "uncaring mechanical process" like natural selection would never permit to develop.

Notice that "not knowing" is not an argument for either side. It is the logical fallacy of "appeal to ignorance," closely related to "God of the gaps." Johnson can wonder all he wants... and so do scientists as they look for answers... but it is a logical fallacy to say "Because no one knows, therefore...." So this argument proves nothing either way.

We DO know so much, such as with the relatively new field of genomics (comparing DNA across different species and analyzing for descent). There's a reason why scientists use this data to validate evolution, but young earth and old earth creationists (usually) don't talk about it because it invalidates creationism (one exception is Fazale Rana of Reasons to Believe who I think is a smart and nice guy... I don't agree with his conclusions, but I see some honesty with him by him at least grappling with some of the major issues).

[steve]

Bart Rask and Phillip Johnson were not trying to prove any alternative theory. Both of them have one point they are trying to make: Those who say that evolution has been scientifically proven are claiming more than one can legitimately claim from the evidence. This, I believe, both men very ably demonstrate.

It is possible that both men could provide a more compelling case for Intelligent Design than can be provided for naturalistic evolution. That is not their goal. Unlike many evolutionist and creationist writers and debaters, these men are not agenda-driven. They are not concerned to answer empirically the questions that cannot be answered empirically . They are trying to clarify the state of actual scientific knowledge on the subject, and to show that it has not proven what evolutionists claim it has proven.

The question of what other possibilities there may be, besides naturalistic evolution, opens a separate inquiry. Neither of these men are intending to raise that question. Evolutionists act like one is not allowed to show the failure of an existing theory until he has an alternative theory to replace it. Johnson points out that this is like telling a defendant in court that he cannot present his alibi and prove himself innocent until he can identify the real criminal. "Until we know the real culprit, you will have to be the one."

Johnson and Rask both probably have very well informed opinions about some alternative or other to evolution, but they are wise enough not to claim proof for their opinions. In this, they exceed the evolutionists in candor and clarity of thought.

[jriccitelli]

One: The long route really does nothing. The purpose of the nerve is known. Why it is so long is also known (evolutionary reasons in development). These both demonstrate there is not an intelligent mind doing that design...
Two: There's no valid deduction to conclude that God designed the 10 million other things, esp. considering other artifacts of descent, like pseudogenes. (Truman pg.17)

One: Again, the whole rest of the Toyota (the Giraffe).
Two: The fact that the nerve grew down turned around, found its way back and attached itself in just the right place, by chance?
If evolution were controlling the process then ‘all’ the nerves would have run down and ‘all over’ the place before finding their place of attachment. You wouldn’t have just one seemingly lost nerve, you would have a megamess of nerves running all over, in all mammals, before finding a productive and functional place of connection. Biological reproduction would not necessarily eliminate the unnecessary wiring if it didn’t have to.

Often at my work a wiring cabinet can have hundreds of wires all running in knots and circles and still work, but the professional cleanly executed (data rack, power supply, whatever) will have the wires all neatly run. An autopsy of any mammal reveals a professional installation of the wiring.
Still, you have fifty billion wires in the body all landed at the right spot. They all grew and reached their destination on their own, without a plan? They also have stops along the way, depend on checks and balances, the circuitry continues with back up systems and knowing all along ‘how’ it would be powered and with ‘what sort’ of transmission code and interpretation?

The most amazing thing is not the ‘pseudogene’, it is the 'tube'.
Try and form a tube out of a material cell by cell, in a circle, starting from one point and build out in a circle forward, continuing the shape and size of the circle uniform, without blocking or restricting, and grow this circle of cells forward (past and around thousands of other growing forming circles) all the way to your destination, make a seal at your destination, and remember this tube built cell by cell cannot have a crack or hole for 60,000 miles (note also remember to add flanges that prevent backflow throughout, and don’t construct these so they stick or work in the wrong direction). You also have to get the tubes to replicate themselves into a circle and replace themselves back into the circle while maintaining the uniformity direction and integrity of the tube, without any leaks. You also have to convince the tubes to grow at a rate uniform with the rest of the body, and all at the same rate to prevent tearing or pulling while growing. There is much more you need to talk the vessels into doing, which wont be easy because vessels have no reason or mental motivation to grow. And you need ‘all’ the blood vessels in 'all' mammals, of all shapes and designs to grow uniformly and in a circle.

If you found a wristwatch on the Moon would you determine that there was intelligent design involved?
Would you first suppose it ‘must be’ evolution, why wouldn’t intelligent design be the obvious choice?
How much convincing should a person receive from evolutionists before accepting that the watch was ‘not’ designed?

[Paidion]

"Affirming the Consequent" is a logical fallacy insofar as a strict logical proof is concerned.

Notwithstanding, from my limited understanding of science, I see it as quite usual that a scientist produces a hypothesis to explain a phenomena, and then makes predictions based on his hypothesis. If all of these predictions turn out to be factual, then his hypothesis, though not rigidly proved, becomes "likely" and may even gain the status of a "theory." His theory is then assumed unless there are counter-examples which demolish it.

Let's say one holds the hypothesis that all ravens are black. If we display hundreds, thousands, millions of ravens all of which are black, then people have a lot of confidence in the hypothesis. But it doesn't prove it to be true. One need display only one non-black raven to disprove the hypothesis. However, then the hypothesis may be altered to accomodate this one counter-example. It might now be stated, "Virtually all ravens are black" or "Nearly all ravens are black."

It seems to me that restating of the evolution theory has been done over and over to accomodate discoveries which contradict its original form. One example: Cosmic evolution in the 50s and 60s predicted that due to the lengthy past ages, the surface of the moon would be covered by many feet of space dust. At the time, scientists predicted it to be somewhere in the range of 50 to 180 ft. of dust. As it turns out the depth of the dust is a mere 2½ inches. Did this result in scientists discarding their view that the moon is billions of years old? Not in the least. They now claim that the understanding of the day as to the rate of space dust deposit was totally false. Believers in a "young" earth (less than 10,000 y old) seldom use the moon dust argument for a young earth anymore.

However, whether the moon dust "clock" argument is valid or not, the approach of evolutionists of any variety seems to be that no matter what discovery is made which contradicts their position, they never consider scrapping the theory itself—they only adjust the theory to accomodate the newly discovered facts. This means that for an evolutionist, the evolution theory IN PRINCIPLE cannot be disproved. Where that is the case, one does not have a genuine theory. For a theory (or any statement for that matter) to have any meaning it must be falsifiable IN PRINCIPLE. If one asks, "How would the universe (or the earth) be different if the evolution theory were false, and no significant difference can be offered, then what does the "theory" actually offer us.

If someone holds the "theory" that everything in the unverse doubled in size last night, and yet everything appears exactly the same as it did yesterday, what meaning would his "theory" have? In reality, he is giving us no information whatever about the universe.

[Homer]

TrumanSmith wrote:

Pseudogenes also show descent because the closer-related the different species are, the closer the mutations. The pseudogenes have a tree structure, just like the evolutionary descent has a tree structure. Perfect match, because different animal species actually evolved rather than made separately by special design.

We DO know so much, such as with the relatively new field of genomics (comparing DNA across different species and analyzing for descent). There's a reason why scientists use this data to validate evolution, but young earth and old earth creationists (usually) don't talk about it because it invalidates creationism.....

Upon our property is a very old shed, there when we bought the property. Someone is said to have lived in it once long ago. It is constructed of rough-sawn lumber, stacked like logs and nailed together. Some of the siding is shingles while other siding is metal. The floor is simply dirt. There are shelves inside.

Then there is an improved shed, with concrete floor, stud walls with T-111 sheathing/siding, electrical wiring for lights and an outlet, lumber fastened together with nails, and it also has shelves for storage.

Then there is a shop, also with a concrete floor, stud walls and similar siding to the newer shed, but the walls are insulated and finished with sheetrock. There is a gas furnace controlled by a thermostat, electrical panel and complete wiring for 220v and 120v outlets.

And then there is a modern home with all a modern home has in the construction and materials.

So it appears obvious the new shed evolved from the old, the shop from the newer shed, and the house from the shop. Just look at the common "genes" - the lumber, nails, siding, shingles, etc. etc. Steady improvement is obvious when considering the buildings yet they share many of the same materials and design with right angle corners, perpendicular walls, sloping roofs, etc.

It all looks like a "slam dunk" example of evolution. But the house was built first, the shop next, and then the newer shed. All had a designer and, naturally, many common materials.

So much for Truman's so-called proof of evolution. Needs to give up on that one.

[jriccitelli]

It’s true; in debates with evolutionists they make such a leap of logic and classification between the organic and non-organic as if they come from two different worlds. But both are composed and constructed from the same electrons and protons, and generally from the same elements, and all come out of the same ground, and from the same planet - both the non-living and the living.

The 'reason' for growth and survival must have been ‘put into’ the system, as elements by themselves have no reason to ‘want’ to live, it seems as if ‘something outside’ them wants them to form and live.

Like with the tube, imagine the cells are actually dogs. Dogs are Intelligent creatures that want to live, in a sense.
But try and get 10 dogs to form a circle, and try convincing 50 dogs to form a circle and then continue to form continuous circles without breaks, and so on. Why are cells more intelligent, or in control of themselves more than dogs?

If a wristwatch demonstrates design, why doesn’t logic tell you that the digestive system shows purposeful design?

[TrumanSmith]

Steve Gregg said: "Bart Rask and Phillip Johnson were not trying to prove any alternative theory. Both of them have one point they are trying to make: Those who say that evolution has been scientifically proven are claiming more than one can legitimately claim from the evidence. This, I believe, both men very ably demonstrate. It is possible that both men could provide a more compelling case for Intelligent Design than can be provided for naturalistic evolution. That is not their goal. Unlike many evolutionist and creationist writers and debaters, these men are not agenda-driven. They are not concerned to answer empirically the questions that cannot be answered empirically . They are trying to clarify the state of actual scientific knowledge on the subject, and to show that it has not proven what evolutionists claim it has proven."

I agree, Bart Rask had no alternative theory to present. In critical thinking on any subject, it is elementary to analyze all the competing hypotheses to see which is best. Bart, in my debate with him, refused to offer an alternative. He said he didn't know enough to offer an alternative. I think if he studied the alternatives, he would see that evolution is the best choice, and when you see why the others fail, it makes evolutionary theory even strong. Ultimately there are only two choices for the creation of humans, either by miracle from scratch or from descent (whether god-guided or not god-guided descent). The evidence clearly shows descent.

It is intellectually lazy to just shoot holes in a hypothesis without considering alternatives. Like I said, this is why, in my eyes, "Reasons to Believe" is much more credible than young earth ministries; because they agree, and seek, to present an alternate origins model. That is intellectual and academic integrity. Young earthers don't have that. Bart is a young earth creationist, although he doesn't like to admit it in public.

It isn't a matter of being "agenda driven." It is more about a correct critical thinking process on any strange belief (existence of God, UFO's, spontaneous combustion, etc.). To see what the best hypothesis is, you need to study them all. There really isn't an infinite number of hypotheses to consider for every claim... usually 2 or 3, normally under 10. If you don't think rigorously like this, then you are apt to choose whatever is most convenient or random.

These questions can be answered empirically by looking at DNA evidence. Again, Steve Gregg dismisses evidence without even first understanding what it is.

The "actual state of scientific knowledge" is important, and it is known as "scientific consensus." There is a strong scientific consensus on biological evolution. When Steve Gregg says there isn't, that is not the truth. That is wrong, plain and simple. Every major State University in the USA teaches biological evolution in their biology classes. None of them teach that the subject is controversial. It is only controversial to young and old earthers. Plenty of evangelical Christians now also accept evolution fully. Even Baylor University, a leading evangelical Christian university, will teach you that evolution is true.

From Baylor University:
http://www.baylor.edu/chemistry/index.php?id=68470
The Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Baylor University is committed to the highest standards of scientific inquiry in the search for objective truth about the natural universe. From the time of Francis Bacon, this search for truth has been through the scientific method, in which the veracity of a hypothesis is tested by experimentation. Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biological sciences, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence. It is fundamental to the understanding of modern biochemistry, and our faculty incorporate the principle of evolution throughout the biochemistry curriculum. We are a science department, and we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously.

Yes- there is a crisis over evolution with evangelical Christian academia, something my booklet talk about. This is why I wrote about it. People like Steve aren't even aware of it apparently. Bible teachers like Steve Gregg need to come up-to-speed on science.

Steve Gregg said: "The question of what other possibilities there may be, besides naturalistic evolution, opens a separate inquiry. Neither of these men are intending to raise that question. Evolutionists act like one is not allowed to show the failure of an existing theory until he has an alternative theory to replace it. Johnson points out that this is like telling a defendant in court that he cannot present his alibi and prove himself innocent until he can identify the real criminal. "Until we know the real culprit, you will have to be the one." Johnson and Rask both probably have very well informed opinions about some alternative or other to evolution, but they are wise enough not to claim proof for their opinions. In this, they exceed the evolutionists in candor and clarity of thought."

Creationists do have an alternative theory, but they are afraid to mention it because they know it is nonsense, scientifically. They have a different kind of "science" called "creation science." Creation science is nonsense. It is true that "creation science" requires not only faith, but faith that runs CONTRARY to science.

[jarrod]

I think if he studied the alternatives, he would see that evolution is the best choice, and when you see why the others fail, it makes evolutionary theory even strong.

Ultimately there are only two choices for the creation of humans, either by miracle from scratch or from descent (whether god-guided or not god-guided descent). The evidence clearly shows descent.

Creation science is nonsense.

Truman,

I have enjoyed this thread. I am a slow thinker, but I was really interested to hear what you had to say about evolution. I viewed a couple of your youtube links and tried to follow the different conversations other people were having with you.

However, I have a hard time doing so. You seem to make more assertions about the validity of evolution than actually explaining your reasoning for why it is true or why it debunks creationism (like the statements above). I understand that other people teach X, or some scientist said Y, and that some schools claim Z, but I was really interested in listening to your explanations for scientific proof. I genuinely may have missed it, but this is what I come away thinking more than not.

Also, I have seen a lot of good questions people have posed to you during a conversation that you never respond to. I see you pick and choose a lot of times, skipping over anything that seemed to difficult? Perhaps you didn't find them interesting? I do not know your reasoning.

Anyway, I know I didn't add any content to the debate. I just wanted to give a couple of my observations.

jarrod

[jriccitelli]

Truman, you should know it is politically and professionally prohibitive for someone to mention belief in God in this culture because of the plague of political correctness, the new separation of Church and state, and the blatant and ballooning love for immorality being embraced by so many, that’s why people are persuaded by evolution.

Evolutionists keep referring to science, why not appeal to engineers since they would know far more. Again, Science is basically conclusions about observations. So where is it observed that something evolved? Creation science would basically mean you have a different conclusion about what is being observed. Evolutionists observe change and demand it is evolution, yet they cannot show that the change could not have happened as a result of a DNA code that allows for adaptation to circumstances, or just plain variety, something common to most any complex ‘design’.
Was the Giraffe nerve one of these great scientific proofs?
(Is this the same logic that is applied to other observations?)
Do you have something besides ‘pseudogenes’?