Matthew_Green
August 3, 2005, 11:30 PM
Hey all,
I wanted to explain something interesting that I have come to realize these past few months. Earlier this year I decided to re-educate myself on the scientific case for evolution. I printed out Douglas Theobold's essay on the "29 Evidences for Evolution". As I was reading it, I was able to see answered many questions about evolution that were unanswered when I was a creationist. For instance, I saw very good answers to objections to the argument from vestigial organs. I saw the creationist arguments against vestigial organs and good answers.
However, since my high school years, I always had problems with the evidence for evolution; none of it seemed particularly compelling. For instance, I thought comparative homology was explained just as good by creation as it was by evolution so it wasn't really evidence of anything. Same with comparative embryology, vestigial organs, biogeography, fossil sequences, etc. Even after I deconverted from Christianity and become a freethinker ( I was a Deist at first) I still wasn't all that impressed with the case for evolution, especially comparative anatomy. I believed that evolution had happened but the traditional case for it wasn't all too compelling, or so I thouight.
When I heard Stephen Jay Gould or others appeal to "imperfections" in nature, I would think "Well that does no good; Creationists will appeal to original designs gone bad, fully functional organs going vestigial, 'flood biogeography'..etc" and for quite some time I was simply unimpressed with the case cited in favor of evolution.
Now all of this has changed. I came to realize something about Creationism that self-destructs and leaves evolution as the only logical interpretation of comparative homology, embryology, vestigial organs, biogeography, etc. I realize that Christians believe that God cannot lie. God cannot lie, God cannot be mistaken, God cannot be imperfect. Therefore, creationists have to believe that anything spoken of by God is a necessary truth in the Bible; there's no possible way it can be false.
Here's the rub: if the creation story in Genesis were indeed true, then it must be a necessary historical explanation for how the universe and life began. But yet creationists like those at Answers in Genesis believe that creationism and evolution are two different ways of interpreting the facts of science. The problem is that if biblical creationism were a necessary historical explanation, then no other interpretation should be possible. Creationism, as a necessary historical explanation should necessarily be true and no other interpretation can possibly be valid. The fact that it's possible to infer common descent and evolutionary change from living organisms and fossils shows that Creationism checkmates itself.
Creationism, by Christian reckoning, is a necessary explanation because it was spoken by God (who is a necessary being) and therefore it should be logically impossible to infer evolution because biblical creationism is necessarily true. Therefore, no other interpretation of the facts should be possible. In fact, God should've desgined all of life and living anatomy to make it impossible to infer evolution at all. Thus Creationism seems to me to refute itself and leaves evolution is the best, if not only, rational inference of comparative homology, embryology, vestigial organs, biogeography, etc.
I embarrassed that it took so long, but now I find the case for evolution more persuasive than ever before!
Matthew
I wanted to explain something interesting that I have come to realize these past few months. Earlier this year I decided to re-educate myself on the scientific case for evolution. I printed out Douglas Theobold's essay on the "29 Evidences for Evolution". As I was reading it, I was able to see answered many questions about evolution that were unanswered when I was a creationist. For instance, I saw very good answers to objections to the argument from vestigial organs. I saw the creationist arguments against vestigial organs and good answers.
However, since my high school years, I always had problems with the evidence for evolution; none of it seemed particularly compelling. For instance, I thought comparative homology was explained just as good by creation as it was by evolution so it wasn't really evidence of anything. Same with comparative embryology, vestigial organs, biogeography, fossil sequences, etc. Even after I deconverted from Christianity and become a freethinker ( I was a Deist at first) I still wasn't all that impressed with the case for evolution, especially comparative anatomy. I believed that evolution had happened but the traditional case for it wasn't all too compelling, or so I thouight.
When I heard Stephen Jay Gould or others appeal to "imperfections" in nature, I would think "Well that does no good; Creationists will appeal to original designs gone bad, fully functional organs going vestigial, 'flood biogeography'..etc" and for quite some time I was simply unimpressed with the case cited in favor of evolution.
Now all of this has changed. I came to realize something about Creationism that self-destructs and leaves evolution as the only logical interpretation of comparative homology, embryology, vestigial organs, biogeography, etc. I realize that Christians believe that God cannot lie. God cannot lie, God cannot be mistaken, God cannot be imperfect. Therefore, creationists have to believe that anything spoken of by God is a necessary truth in the Bible; there's no possible way it can be false.
Here's the rub: if the creation story in Genesis were indeed true, then it must be a necessary historical explanation for how the universe and life began. But yet creationists like those at Answers in Genesis believe that creationism and evolution are two different ways of interpreting the facts of science. The problem is that if biblical creationism were a necessary historical explanation, then no other interpretation should be possible. Creationism, as a necessary historical explanation should necessarily be true and no other interpretation can possibly be valid. The fact that it's possible to infer common descent and evolutionary change from living organisms and fossils shows that Creationism checkmates itself.
Creationism, by Christian reckoning, is a necessary explanation because it was spoken by God (who is a necessary being) and therefore it should be logically impossible to infer evolution because biblical creationism is necessarily true. Therefore, no other interpretation of the facts should be possible. In fact, God should've desgined all of life and living anatomy to make it impossible to infer evolution at all. Thus Creationism seems to me to refute itself and leaves evolution is the best, if not only, rational inference of comparative homology, embryology, vestigial organs, biogeography, etc.
I embarrassed that it took so long, but now I find the case for evolution more persuasive than ever before!
Matthew