Jump to content
IGNORED

Bad scientific arguments against evolution: Part 1


one.opinion

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430) was one of the most influential theologians of his age. His work also had a profound impact on the Reformation via Martin Luther and his work is still important to this very day. Augustine also had some very serious comments on the intersection between Christian doctrine and science. This is one of his more famous comments on the topic:

Quote

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

My point with this thread (and others to come) is not to argue against a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, but to point out bad arguments that are repeatedly (and erroneously) used against evolution. If one stands up for the name of Christ, but argues against the scientific consensus regarding the process of evolution, it looks better for ALL Christians to avoid arguments "which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn".

The Second Law of Thermodynamics DOES NOT refute evolution

It has probably been a while for most of us since we first learned about the Laws of Thermodynamics back when we were in school. There are four that are commonly taught now, but if you went to school around the same decades I did, you were probably taught only 2.

First Law - Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but can be converted from one form to another.

Second Law - When energy conversion takes place, a portion of the energy is lost as entropy.

"The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; the total quantity of energy in the universe stays the same. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about the quality of energy. It states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. The Second Law also states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state." (https://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html)

Again, there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state. You may have heard arguments like "Evolution can't be true! If I leave a pile of bricks in my back yard, they will not eventually organize into a building!" The key that is missing to these arguments is that ecosystems on the planet are NOT isolated. Terrestrial ecosystems on the planet are typically based on solar energy being converted to chemical energy by photosynthesizing plants and the raw chemical materials of life are passed from the producers (plants) to consumers. The consumers can be arranged in levels like in a "food chain", but the energy powering the ecosystem is the constant supply of solar energy. Now, if the sun were to hypothetically burn out overnight and the planet stopped receiving the constant energy input, the entropy of the Second Law would absolutely take over and the now-isolated system would indeed break down. But for the foreseeable future, the sun is going to keep on shining and solar energy will keep driving our ecosystems.

The principles of Thermodynamics work on a cellular level, too. Cells are able to use raw materials (primarily lipids, carbohydrates, and amino acids) to build the complicated structures that make up our cells. The Second Law is held back because of constant energy input. Plants and other photosynthesizers can directly harness that solar energy and convert it into chemical energy, while animals generally consume those plants (or other animals) to maintain energy intake that allows the temporary suspension of that Second Law. If that energy harnessing stops, then so too does the suspension of the Second Law and entropy takes over on the organic material a dead body leaves behind. There is a driving force that "temporarily overrides" the effects of Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Now on to the topic of evolution. As you are likely aware, the concept of evolution relies on mutations (or changes in DNA sequence) of organisms that are passed down to subsequent generations. We know that mutations occur constantly in individuals and if these mutations occur in cells that are directly involved in forming gametes, these mutations can be passed on. It stands to reason that most mutations are either neutral (see a wiki page on Neutral Theory of evolution) or even harmful, but the driving force of evolution is natural selection. As long as organisms are present in a system that includes continual energy input and there is a driving force to sustain change, then the Second Law of Thermodynamics in no way prevents evolution from taking place.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • This is Worthy 1
  • Brilliant! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  13
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,015
  • Content Per Day:  1.34
  • Reputation:   1,220
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  02/05/2018
  • Status:  Offline

36 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430) was one of the most influential theologians of his age. His work also had a profound impact on the Reformation via Martin Luther and his work is still important to this very day. Augustine also had some very serious comments on the intersection between Christian doctrine and science. This is one of his more famous comments on the topic:

My point with this thread (and others to come) is not to argue against a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, but to point out bad arguments that are repeatedly (and erroneously) used against evolution. If one stands up for the name of Christ, but argues against the scientific consensus regarding the process of evolution, it looks better for ALL Christians to avoid arguments "which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn".

The Second Law of Thermodynamics DOES NOT refute evolution

It has probably been a while for most of us since we first learned about the Laws of Thermodynamics back when we were in school. There are four that are commonly taught now, but if you went to school around the same decades I did, you were probably taught only 2.

First Law - Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but can be converted from one form to another.

Second Law - When energy conversion takes place, a portion of the energy is lost as entropy.

"The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; the total quantity of energy in the universe stays the same. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about the quality of energy. It states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. The Second Law also states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state." (https://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html)

Again, there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state. You may have heard arguments like "Evolution can't be true! If I leave a pile of bricks in my back yard, they will not eventually organize into a building!" The key that is missing to these arguments is that ecosystems on the planet are NOT isolated. Terrestrial ecosystems on the planet are typically based on solar energy being converted to chemical energy by photosynthesizing plants and the raw chemical materials of life are passed from the producers (plants) to consumers. The consumers can be arranged in levels like in a "food chain", but the energy powering the ecosystem is the constant supply of solar energy. Now, if the sun were to hypothetically burn out overnight and the planet stopped receiving the constant energy input, the entropy of the Second Law would absolutely take over and the now-isolated system would indeed break down. But for the foreseeable future, the sun is going to keep on shining and solar energy will keep driving our ecosystems.

The principles of Thermodynamics work on a cellular level, too. Cells are able to use raw materials (primarily lipids, carbohydrates, and amino acids) to build the complicated structures that make up our cells. The Second Law is held back because of constant energy input. Plants and other photosynthesizers can directly harness that solar energy and convert it into chemical energy, while animals generally consume those plants (or other animals) to maintain energy intake that allows the temporary suspension of that Second Law. If that energy harnessing stops, then so too does the suspension of the Second Law and entropy takes over on the organic material a dead body leaves behind. There is a driving force that "temporarily overrides" the effects of Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Now on to the topic of evolution. As you are likely aware, the concept of evolution relies on mutations (or changes in DNA sequence) of organisms that are passed down to subsequent generations. We know that mutations occur constantly in individuals and if these mutations occur in cells that are directly involved in forming gametes, these mutations can be passed on. It stands to reason that most mutations are either neutral (see a wiki page on Neutral Theory of evolution) or even harmful, but the driving force of evolution is natural selection. As long as organisms are present in a system that includes continual energy input and there is a driving force to sustain change, then the Second Law of Thermodynamics in no way prevents evolution from taking place.

I'm with you in principle, but I am reticent to accept "evolution" as any sort of origin of species. That said, I do get a chuckle out of YEC's. The first of the seven days begins in Gen 1:3. But we have no clue how much time passed between Verses 2 and 3, nor do we know how long verses 1 and 2 took.

i.e. Often when people vehemently defend "the word of God", what they are really defending is their interpretation of what the bible says. And often it is because they are parroting what they learned as a very young child and that makes it VERY difficult to unlearn.  And often, the adult they learned it from learned it the same way, etc. 

  • Thumbs Up 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
10 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

I'm with you in principle, but I am reticent to accept "evolution" as any sort of origin of species. That said, I do get a chuckle out of YEC's. The first of the seven days begins in Gen 1:3. But we have no clue how much time passed between Verses 2 and 3, nor do we know how long verses 1 and 2 took.

Actually the Bible says that the days were 24 hour days and the Bible makes that clear when the days of creation are mentioned outside of Genesis.  The original audience was pretty intelligent and if God meant for us to understand the days of creation to be epochs of time, it is possible to intelligently communicate that in the original Hebrew, but God didn't do that.  If the days of creation were long periods of time, then God is a rather poor communicator.

Quote

i.e. Often when people vehemently defend "the word of God", what they are really defending is their interpretation of what the bible says. And often it is because they are parroting what they learned as a very young child and that makes it VERY difficult to unlearn.  And often, the adult they learned it from learned it the same way, etc. 

No, it's not like that at all.  If we take anything less than a literal approach, we run into a host of theological problems, namely the fact that all major Christians doctrines find their point of origin in a literal approach to Genesis 1-3.  A non-literal approach with millions of years and stuff does violence to that fact.

It's not about holding on to children's fairytales, but taking God at His word instead of changing what he says to make the Bible more suitable to our tastes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  13
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,015
  • Content Per Day:  1.34
  • Reputation:   1,220
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  02/05/2018
  • Status:  Offline

6 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Actually the Bible says that the days were 24 hour days and the Bible makes that clear when the days of creation are mentioned outside of Genesis. 

I can agree with that. I'm talking about before the first day. The bold part below:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. "

When it says the earth was formless, I believe we are talking about a planet with no mountain ranges and covered by Ocean. But I could be wrong. It doesn't affect my salvation nor my relationship with my Creator. 

He'll give me more detail if and when it actually matters. :)

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

3 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

I'm with you in principle, but I am reticent to accept "evolution" as any sort of origin of species. That said, I do get a chuckle out of YEC's. The first of the seven days begins in Gen 1:3. But we have no clue how much time passed between Verses 2 and 3, nor do we know how long verses 1 and 2 took.

i.e. Often when people vehemently defend "the word of God", what they are really defending is their interpretation of what the bible says. And often it is because they are parroting what they learned as a very young child and that makes it VERY difficult to unlearn.  And often, the adult they learned it from learned it the same way, etc. 

One of the problems with the term "evolution" is that it can mean so many different things, depending on context. I completely understand the reticence in accepting evolution for development of species, so I'm not getting into that here. What I really want to do is help Christians drop poor arguments, because when these poor arguments are presented, it reflects poorly on ALL Christians.

  • Thumbs Up 2
  • Brilliant! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Actually the Bible says that the days were 24 hour days and the Bible makes that clear when the days of creation are mentioned outside of Genesis.  The original audience was pretty intelligent and if God meant for us to understand the days of creation to be epochs of time, it is possible to intelligently communicate that in the original Hebrew, but God didn't do that.  If the days of creation were long periods of time, then God is a rather poor communicator.

No, it's not like that at all.  If we take anything less than a literal approach, we run into a host of theological problems, namely the fact that all major Christians doctrines find their point of origin in a literal approach to Genesis 1-3.  A non-literal approach with millions of years and stuff does violence to that fact.

It's not about holding on to children's fairytales, but taking God at His word instead of changing what he says to make the Bible more suitable to our tastes.

This thread isn't about me trying to convince anyone about the legitimacy of a evolutionary perspective. It is much more about getting Young-Earth Creationists to abandon poor arguments against evolution that can be easily refuted with a 5-minute session on Google. The particular bad argument addressed on this thread is the argument that evolution is refuted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430) was one of the most influential theologians of his age. His work also had a profound impact on the Reformation via Martin Luther and his work is still important to this very day. Augustine also had some very serious comments on the intersection between Christian doctrine and science. This is one of his more famous comments on the topic:

Except that what he said really would not apply to evolution as evolution isn't science.

Quote

Now on to the topic of evolution. As you are likely aware, the concept of evolution relies on mutations (or changes in DNA sequence) of organisms that are passed down to subsequent generations. We know that mutations occur constantly in individuals and if these mutations occur in cells that are directly involved in forming gametes, these mutations can be passed on. It stands to reason that most mutations are either neutral (see a wiki page on Neutral Theory of evolution) or even harmful, but the driving force of evolution is natural selection. As long as organisms are present in a system that includes continual energy input and there is a driving force to sustain change, then the Second Law of Thermodynamics in no way prevents evolution from taking place.

Those mutations would have to produce new information in order for evolution to works. So, where is the evidence that mutations produce new information not previously contained in the genes of an animal or person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 minute ago, shiloh357 said:

Those mutations would have to produce new information in order for evolution to works. So, where is the evidence that mutations produce new information not previously contained in the genes of an animal or person?

I could start another thread for discussing your question, but that is not the purpose of this thread. Do you have any questions about the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

10 minutes ago, Cobalt1959 said:

Your premise is based on the theory that all the known laws of physics existed in their present form from the beginning of creation, and you have no way of knowing that.  If God's creation was perfect, at the beginning, there would be no purpose of the law of entropy and it is far more likely that the law of entropy was a result of the Flood which broke at least part of the system.

If you are guessing at what thermodynamics may have looked like prior to the Fall, it is still a poor argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I could start another thread for discussing your question, but that is not the purpose of this thread. Do you have any questions about the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

I was actually addressing what you posted in the OP, so the question is relevant.

The point is that if thermodynamics is not preventing evolution from taking place, where is the evidence of evolution taking place in terms of mutations that should be adding brand new information?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...