Jump to content
IGNORED

Bad scientific arguments against evolution: Part 2


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

"If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" We've all heard this question before, usually from people convinced that it is a well-honed argument that cuts right to the foolish falsehood of evolution. However, this question shows 2 major errors in the understanding of what the "common descent" portion of evolutionary theory proposes.

1. Scientists that accept evolution do not propose that humans developed from the monkeys we see today. These scientists propose that modern humans and modern monkeys share a common ancestor. They also propose that biologically, humans are most similar to chimpanzees and bonobos that are alive today. This proposal has been around for decades, but recent genome sequencing data strongly supports this proposal. In some regions of the genome, humans actually share more sequence similarity to chimps or bonobos than the chimps and bonobos do with each other (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11128)!

2. This question also shows a basic misunderstanding of common descent. Nothing in evolution states that as new species evolve from previous species, that the old species becomes extinct. Old species may, in fact, go extinct after a speciation event, but understanding of the theory would show that newly-diverged species would co-exist with species they diverged from. There is no magic wand that would "poof" the entirety of one species into a new species.

Bottom line -- this is a very commonly asked question, but only exhibits, front and center, a misunderstanding of the theory the questioner is debating. It would be more straightforward to say "I don't understand your argument, but I'm going to show you why you are wrong."

The last thread in this series got a little long and off-track, so let me repeat my purpose with this thread. My purpose with this thread is not to convince anyone that evolution is true, but to point out obviously-flawed arguments against evolution. It is my hope that if my brothers and sisters in Christ reject evolution, that they do it with legitimate objections and questions and not with arguments that reflect poorly on the rational thinking ability of followers of Jesus.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,303
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

Hi One,

How many times have you heard this argument from young-earth creationists on this forum?

With respect, I think you should address arguments as you encounter them. It seems disingenuous that you would find the silliest arguments of an opposing position, label them "common" (as though they are typical), then discourage their use. You are essentially presenting a polite Strawman argument.

All philosophies have uninformed people making silly arguments that incorrectly reflect the informed position. All reasonable people have had the experience of wishing someone wasn't on our side - because of the ridiculous, easily refuted arguments they have presented on behalf of our position. Objective people understand that silly arguments from an opposing position are not necessarily representative of everyone holding that position. I would rather young-earth creationists not use silly, uninformed arguments. But anyone believing such arguments to be typical of the opposing position are not objectively participating in the conversation. That's their problem, not mine.

Creation Ministries International has a web page devoted to "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use" (https://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use). Informed creationists would be familiar with most of these (being that they have informed themselves about their own position), but others are happy to settle for anecdotal or 'grape-vine' arguments - perhaps focussing their study efforts elsewhere (hopefully).

The relevant section of the CMI webpage reads;

"“If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?” In response to this statement, some evolutionists point out that they don’t believe that we descended from apes, but that apes and humans share a common ancestor. However, the evolutionary paleontologist G.G. Simpson had no time for this “pussyfooting”, as he called it. He said, “In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.”

However, the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there’s nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.

It’s important to note that allopatric speciation is not the sole property of evolutionists—creationists believe that most human variation occurred after small groups became isolated (but not speciated) at Babel, while Adam and Eve probably had mid-brown skin color. The quoted erroneous statement is analogous to saying ‘If all people groups came from Adam and Eve, then why are mid-brown people still alive today?’
"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
On ‎9‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 10:07 AM, one.opinion said:

"If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" We've all heard this question before, usually from people convinced that it is a well-honed argument that cuts right to the foolish falsehood of evolution. However, this question shows 2 major errors in the understanding of what the "common descent" portion of evolutionary theory proposes.

No one makes that argument that understands the issue.  Modern creationism  doesn't claim that evolutionists believe we came from monkeys.  They correctly frame the evolutionist argument concerning a common ancestor. Evolutionists are still wrong, but no one says evolution is about man descending from apes/monkeys.    You really don't understand the creationist argument if you are going assign this value to us in this day and age.

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:

No one makes that argument that understands the issue.

I can safely agree with that. This post is not intended for those that have studied the issue well enough to avoid the argument, but intended for those that have not.

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

How many times have you heard this argument from young-earth creationists on this forum?

I've not heard this particular argument here, but I have heard worse arguments ? There are multiple posters here that believe in a flat earth, for example. It would be silly to pretend that just because I haven't read this argument presented, that no one here could possibly find that argument persuasive.

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

With respect, I think you should address arguments as you encounter them.

Your opinion on how I should address arguments is noted. However, I will continue to post as I see fit.

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

It seems disingenuous that you would find the silliest arguments of an opposing position, label them "common" (as though they are typical), then discourage their use. You are essentially presenting a polite Strawman argument.

I think you are missing the point of why I've started addressing these arguments. Those that accept a YEC viewpoint are my brothers and sisters in Christ (with exceptions for those of different faiths) and when poor arguments are made against evolution, it paints ALL Christians in a bad light. For the sake of proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I think it is important that Christians avoid arguments that are easy targets for derision.

You have the impression that I am speaking against the YEC viewpoint, but I assure you that is not my intent with these threads. My intention is to help individuals that do accept the YEC viewpoint do so in a way that exhibits a maturity of thought and consideration. Tristen, you and many others represent the YEC viewpoint well, but you are outnumbered by those that do not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,303
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

7 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I can safely agree with that. This post is not intended for those that have studied the issue well enough to avoid the argument, but intended for those that have not.

I've not heard this particular argument here, but I have heard worse arguments ? There are multiple posters here that believe in a flat earth, for example. It would be silly to pretend that just because I haven't read this argument presented, that no one here could possibly find that argument persuasive.

Your opinion on how I should address arguments is noted. However, I will continue to post as I see fit.

I think you are missing the point of why I've started addressing these arguments. Those that accept a YEC viewpoint are my brothers and sisters in Christ (with exceptions for those of different faiths) and when poor arguments are made against evolution, it paints ALL Christians in a bad light. For the sake of proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I think it is important that Christians avoid arguments that are easy targets for derision.

You have the impression that I am speaking against the YEC viewpoint, but I assure you that is not my intent with these threads. My intention is to help individuals that do accept the YEC viewpoint do so in a way that exhibits a maturity of thought and consideration. Tristen, you and many others represent the YEC viewpoint well, but you are outnumbered by those that do not. 

I've not heard this particular argument here, but I have heard worse arguments ? There are multiple posters here that believe in a flat earth, for example. It would be silly to pretend that just because I haven't read this argument presented, that no one here could possibly find that argument persuasive.”

But ultimately, you are criticising an argument that no one here has presented to you. You are telling us that we shouldn’t use an argument that we already don’t use – because you think that argument makes us look silly to outsiders (even though we don’t actually use that argument). Implying that we look silly because of an argument we don’t actually use is a classic Strawman strategy.

 

Your opinion on how I should address arguments is noted. However, I will continue to post as I see fit.

Obviously, you can do as you “see fit”. But I didn’t just state my opinion, I provided an argument as to why your strategy is fallacious. You have taken an example of the silliest arguments from an opposing position (which no one here has actually provided), labelled the silly argument as “very common”, and then suggested we stop using that argument (which we are not using) because it’s making the rest of you look bad.

If someone actually provided that argument, I would join you in attempting to inform their position. But without such legitimate provocation, raising this issue is a not-so-subtle dig at those who disagree with you. It is a Strawman fallacy.

 

I think you are missing the point of why I've started addressing these arguments. Those that accept a YEC viewpoint are my brothers and sisters in Christ (with exceptions for those of different faiths) and when poor arguments are made against evolution, it paints ALL Christians in a bad light. For the sake of proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I think it is important that Christians avoid arguments that are easy targets for derision.

You have the impression that I am speaking against the YEC viewpoint, but I assure you that is not my intent with these threads. My intention is to help individuals that do accept the YEC viewpoint do so in a way that exhibits a maturity of thought and consideration. Tristen, you and many others represent the YEC viewpoint well, but you are outnumbered by those that do not.”

I understand your perceived intention, but ultimately, in this context, you are employing a Strawman strategy to claim that an opposing position (YEC) is making Christians look bad.

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, Tristen said:

I understand your perceived intention, but ultimately, in this context, you are employing a Strawman strategy to claim that an opposing position (YEC) is making Christians look bad.

You are being overly sensitive. The argument is often made, or CMI would not feel the need to address it. Have you informed CMI of their disingenuous, strawman fallacy present in the link you provided?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,303
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

5 hours ago, one.opinion said:

You are being overly sensitive. The argument is often made, or CMI would not feel the need to address it. Have you informed CMI of their disingenuous, strawman fallacy present in the link you provided?

You are being overly sensitive.

I’m not being sensitive at all. That's you projecting. I'm just pointing out the fallacious nature of what you are doing in this thread.

 

The argument is often made, or CMI would not feel the need to address it.”

How “often” is the argument made? There are several young-earth creationists participating on this forum who haven’t yet made this supposedly “common” argument you attribute to YEC. I can only ever remember hearing the argument from anti-creationists seeking an opportunity to mock YEC. Obviously, someone has made the argument in the past, and maybe some still do – so it is legitimate for CMI to address it. Another possibility is that CMI addressed this issue to answer a common mischaracterisation by their detractors – i.e. to show that we don’t believe what they often claim we believe.

 

Have you informed CMI of their disingenuous, strawman fallacy present in the link you provided?

You are failing to consider context.

The CMI page is young-earth creationists educating young-earth creationists about which arguments should be avoided and why (i.e. in the event that we come across them through research or engagement with others). It is not a forum responding to a specific question, but a page providing a broad base of information to whoever visits. So on a page entitled "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use ", it is appropriate that they address every misrepresentation of YEC they can think of – regardless of how commonly it occurs in the public sphere.

Here on Worthy, you have engaged in arguments against young-earth creationism. Given that context, YEC is the opposing position to your position. Therefore, you pulling a silly argument out of obscurity, labelling it as common to our position, then telling us how silly it makes us look – is a mischaracterisation. You are portraying an opposing position in a negative light – and in a manner that is not representative (at least not representative on this forum). By contrast, CMI is providing information to those sympathetic with their own position – in the off chance that someone has come to an incorrect understanding. CMI are providing information to their own client base. You are providing a Strawman misrepresentation of an opposing position.

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

4 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Here on Worthy, you have engaged in arguments against young-earth creationism. Given that context, YEC is the opposing position to your position.

Yes, I have.

Also, I consider Christians that accept a YEC viewpoint are my brothers and sisters. My brotherhood in Christ is much more important to me than our differences in creation beliefs. CMI and I have the same interest in preventing Christians from using arguments that are, as you admit, silly. We make the same argument, and for same basic reason (avoid ridicule from non-Christians), but mine is somehow objectionable.

Reply if you wish, but this is not an argument I am interested in continuing.

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

49 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

Oh, but you do believe in evolution over the word of God - Adam & Eve + original sin = plan of Salvation.

When did I ever disagree with this?

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 hour ago, Abdicate said:

Everything you state is a double negative. "I don't not believe in evolution."

Since “everything” I state is a double-negative, there should be copious examples. Could you show me an example anywhere in this thread (or elsewhere)?

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

Rather than push that we're just dumb hicks, just show how evolution is wrong instead.

When did I ever say that Christians that accept a YEC view are dumb hicks? There are certainly poor arguments, and these can be used by smart people. There are posters that believe the earth is flat, it isn’t a stretch to preemptively point out poor arguments.

You seem to be offended when offending people is far from my intent with this thread. I’ve started two threads pointing out two poor arguments against evolution that make the arguer look bad. Use of poor arguments also tends to make all Christians (including those of us that accept an evolutionary creation viewpoint) look like poor thinkers. This is something to be avoided. I didn’t know CMI had a similar list, but coincidentally, the two poor arguments I have chosen so far are also on their list! I don’t think this is a sign that someone is a dumb hick any more than CMI does.

I based this post in an argument I read in another context recently. Like it or not, the argument highlighted in this post is still used frequently by my brothers and sisters in Christ. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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