Atheos Dialogue: Evolution v Creation

Evolution is false & absurd. God is the Creator of all.

Select an ideal response for:

Evolution cannot be true. All the evidence I see around me suggests life was created by divine hands.

That's quite a claim. What evidence is there to support it?

What evidence is there that supports this claim?

On what authority do you make that assertion? Are you an expert biologist?

So, you've actually observed divine hands producing life?

Select an ideal response for:

For one thing, the idea of 'macro-evolution' seems absurd to me. One species cannot give birth to another.

The nature of reality isn't affected by what you personally find absurd. The notion that Earth is spherical was once considered absurd.

Speciation is a process that occurs gradually, over generations—not instantaneously.

The idea of 'macro-evolution' doesn't even make sense. It's a term invented by creationist apologists.

Speciation typically occurs when populations are reproductively isolated & it takes place over many, many generations.

Select an ideal response for:

If that's true, we would see transitional species, but we don't. We see 'kinds' of organisms.

You know, a lot of sacred texts make mistakes with these 'kinds' (like labeling whales as fish, or bats as birds).

Ah, the 'God of the gaps' fallacy. This has been thoroughly debunked.

Actually, in that sense, all species are 'transitional.' Evolution is still happening!

As it happens, the fossil record is full of species that could be called 'transitional' organisms.

Select an ideal response for:

Give me a specific example for these so-called 'transitional species'?

A well-known example of an extant species is the lungfish, which has developed primitive lungs & also retains the gills of its ancestors.

I feel like if I provide examples you either won't be satisfied or you'll see two gaps in the fossil record instead of one.

Okay: Dogs! Look at how much they've changed in just the past few thousand years.

A famous example is the Tiktaalik fossil (375 myo), which illustrates transition between ancient fish & early terrestrial tetrapods.

Select an ideal response for:

That's certainly odd, but I still don't believe that something like evolution can be true.

What makes you believe it to be impossible?

What evidence could I provide that would make the facts of evolution more palatable? Is there a topic that concerns you?

Well, I don't know what to tell you. I've already provided fossil record evidence. Why can't you just accept that?

How is it that you can believe so fully in your supernatural creator, but not in the straightforward evolutionary process?

Select an ideal response for:

Well, what about entropy? Life is highly structured, but aren't things supposed to become more chaotic & disorderly over time?

The theory of evolution is based on observed natural selection mechanisms. 'Survival of the fittest' organically brings a kind of order into the system.

They are! Haven't you seen the news lately?

The law of entropy applies to closed systems (the universe as a whole), but doesn't deny ordered structures from emerging within those systems.

Don't the laws of entropy apply to energy more than to chemical or physical structures & mechanisms?

Select an ideal response for:

I suppose that's true. I still can't buy into the idea of random mutations forming life as it exists today.

Well, isn't that where the evidence leads us?

Mutations may be random, but evolution is certainly not. It is driven by the natural selection of non-debilitating mutations.

The theory of evolution by natural selection makes no such claim.

If anything, natural selection drives evolution. It's a matter of environmental adaptation through the elimination of detrimental mutations.

Select an ideal response for:

What do you mean by that? How is evolution not a random process?

For example, birds evolved wings in order to catch flying insects. If evolution were random, they might have evolved gills instead, right?

Natural selection allows for those organisms that are best suited to their environments at the time to survive while others die off.

While genetic mutations may be random, the question of which mutations get passed on & which die out isn't random at all. This is the 'survival of the fittest' rule at work.

Well, birds don't randomly give birth to fish. They give birth to marginally different birds.

Select an ideal response for:

I see. But then why would there be creatures like sharks & crocodiles that supposedly have not changed much at all in such a long time?

These organisms don't need to evolve anymore. They're just fine as they are.

These are organisms that are under minimal evolutionary pressure. They are already well-adapted to their environments.

They haven't changed much because they haven't needed to. Evolution doesn't strive for improvement, just for adaptation.

Sharks & crocodiles, among other species, are done evolving.

Select an ideal response for:

So, environment is what drives evolution? What about genetics? Scientists are always going on about DNA.

That's true. It ultimately boils down to having the right genes in order to live in certain environments & deal with certain situations.

DNA doesn't matter as much, so long as you can adapt to your environment.

The two factors are connected. A changing environment determines which genetic mutations facilitate survival & which don't.

Genetics determine an organism's physiology. Environment determines what physical traits promote survival & which genes persist.

Select an ideal response for:

Well, maybe that's just because you have FAITH in evolution. You presuppose it to be true when you look at evidence.

Science takes the opposite approach. Dogma of all kinds, like religious dogma, insists that one must accept presuppositions.

Just like how you presuppose your religion to be true?

I have no uncertainty. I am positive. Why aren't you?

I do not have faith in evolution. I accept the facts of evolution.

Select an ideal response for:

Why would Earth be immune to the effects of entropy where biology is concerned? It makes no sense to me.

Immune' is the wrong word to use here. 'Resistant' would be more appropriate.

Yes, this is confusing stuff. If we met with someone who could explain it to your satisfaction, would you still believe in the God?

If it could be explained in a way that made sense to you, would you discard your God belief?

It's not. If you look at the most successful organisms, they're often the most simple ones. Bacteria are a great example.

Select an ideal response for:

Wait, how does religion require presuppositions?

I'm not sure I ever said that it did or didn't. Could you please rephrase the question for me?

How does it not?

Seriously?

Huh? I'm not sure what you mean. Could you please help me better understand what you are saying?

Select an ideal response for:

That's not how I see it. Scientists seem to approach their work with the presupposition that evolution is true.

Quite the contrary: Scientific research aims to expose unseen flaws in existing theories.

Think what you will, but science doesn't work that way.

They don't. I promise you scientists don't hold such presuppositions.

Proper scientific research assumes a null hypothesis (that no phenomenon exists). If data suggests otherwise, then the hypothesis survives.

Select an ideal response for:

But how does one test evolution? It can't be tested or observed. Isn't that a requirement for the scientific method?

Actually, evolutionary phenomena have been observed in both laboratory settings & in the wild.

But the evidence is there!

A very good question indeed. If evolution could be tested to your satisfaction, would you stop believing in your God?

Those are indeed important considerations. If evolution was shown to be testable, observable & true, would your God belief end?

Select an ideal response for:

I'm not following... How can an organism's genes have to do with adaptation?

I'm glad you asked! That's the core of how evolution works. Genes unfavorable for survival go extinct, while favorable ones live on.

Very simply, only those organisms that exhibit the most favorable genes for their place in ecosystems survive & others die off.

It's pretty simple & straightforward. If you don't have the right genes, you won't be able to adapt.

Ever heard of the Darwin Awards?

Select an ideal response for:

That's awfully morbid. I don't like all this talk of death & extinction.

To quote Carl Sagan, 'The secrets of evolution are time & death.' It's a hard truth, as the most important truths tend to be.

It's true that there's a lot of death in the biological world, but it's necessary for life to continue.

I don't either. Sorry to bring it up.

Hey, you asked.

Select an ideal response for:

Evolution doesn't seem like a very pleasant concept when you look at it like that.

I suspect this is one of the main reasons people buy into creationism. In some ways, it's a nice idea—except it doesn't match the evidence.

Do you think that's why you preferred creation? Because it feels more pleasant, even if it isn't supported by evidence?

Nobody ever said it was supposed to be pleasant, but it's true.

Such is the harsh nature of reality.

Select an ideal response for:

You know, this is really starting to make sense. You've given me a lot to think about. Thanks!

Glad to be of service. Now, are there any other delusional beliefs that you need help overcoming?

Yeah, that was a good talk! Now I need to go do something about this headache that you've given me.

You're welcome! Cheers!

My pleasure. Glad we could talk! Perhaps we could do this again sometime?