Debate Fog Into Empty Victory (Intelligent Design vs Neo-Darwinism)

Here's a lesson in the political-style writing and speech that can often get in the way of good solid debate between Intelligent Design advocates and those who support Neo-Darwin Evolution.

The past couple of weeks I've been reading blog posts and write ups about a heated discussion/debate between supporters of Intelligent Design and Neo-Darwinist Evolution with regards to a newly published book "Science And Human Origins". The book is by Intelligent Design scientists and discusses all sorts of scientific studies, data and evidence that shows that the major questions about whether or not humans actually evolved from apes is still full of giant holes and doubts. However, when reading these blog posts, though the Intelligent Design supporters have made a number of good points, there's one particular point that they're making a big deal about that though valid, isn't nearly as big of a deal as they believe or say it is.

To see the latest post from ID supporters (and one of the authors of the book), and related articles, check out this link (at Evolution News).

Both sides of the debate are shouting their victory over the other, each claiming to have trounced their competition in the origins debate, but the reality is that neither side has done so as strongly as they believe (or want others to believe).


Chromosome 2: Apes and Humans

One of the key points of this particular piece of the debate is connected to chromosome 2 in humans. Chromosome 2 looks a lot like a pair of chromosomes found in apes that may have fused together in humans. Evolutionists surmise that if we really did evolve from apes, then a long time ago we too had two distinct chromosomes just like apes but that somewhere along the long timeline of very ancient pre-history these chromosomes joined together in humans but not apes.

There are many issues here, but one of the big points that both sides actually agree on is that in the grand scheme of things, this possible fusion event doesn't actually prove that humans came from apes, because humans could have originally had the two chromosomes separate just like apes, with the fusion happening relatively recently in the human genetic past. In other words, it's quite plausible that both humans (fully human) and apes (fully ape) had these highly similar chromosomes as two seperate chromosomes and that in recent human history, only in humans, they combined. That means there's no direct connection between the fusion event and supposed evolution from apes. The key point from the evolutionist is that the similarity in this particular chromosome to two chromosomes in apes indicates common ancestry. The Intelligent Design advocate says that this similarity simply means similar functional genetic code that works as intended, as designed by an Intelligent Creator, and that humans did not evolve from monkeys but that they were made as two unique kinds of living organism. So in the end, the fusion event doesn't really mean a whole lot, though it's interesting to study. Yet even while the evolutionist admits that the apparent fusion of chromosomes doesn't have to mean we came from apes, they still argue that it's good evidence for this belief.


"Victory" In Misdirection

Unfortunately both sides are arguing that they've defeated their opponents in the argument based on the idea of misdirection (clouding the real debate), while they themselves are actually throwing up misdirection themselves! It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. They're BOTH misdirecting readers and BOTH accusing the other of doing it in order to try and win a point.

The Intelligent Design side of the argument has made a number of good points, some of which have tied directly to the fact that the evolutionists have focused on just the issue of chromosome 2. "Science And Human Origins" is a big book with multiple chapters, each addressing different areas of science and data that show just how weak the evidence for human-ape common ancestry is. Chromosome 2 is only a couple paragraphs in the big book, but it's where a couple evolutionists have focused. Remarkably, the evolutionists admitted that they had not read the book itself, had not even read the chapter in question, and would NOT be reading it because they knew (believe) it would be garbage anyway. Win for the Intelligent Design group here! The evolution scientist won't even READ the detailed debate points and all the scientific articles cited by the Intelligent Design writers!

But as great of a point as this revelation is in favor of the Intelligent Design group, they then take the ball and run with it well beyond the winning goal. They started crowing about how the evolutionists haven't read their points (which is valid), and that to make matters even worse, the evolutionist refuses to even enter the arena of the greater debate itself. The evolutionist has focused on a couple paragraphs in a book he hasn't even read, and that's all. Win for Intelligent Design!... Yes, true, but also no. Let me explain.

This is misdirection on the part of the Intelligent Design writers. It's a good point, but to make such a big deal out of it is to warp it into being more than it is. The evolutionist has decided to focus on the issue of Chromosome 2 and not bother with the rest. He's focusing on Chromosome 2 specifically. Not reading the book in question is a dumb move and it certainly hurts his case, but focusing only on Chromosome 2 instead of all the rest as well is NOT an explosive victory for Intelligent Design scientists like they claim it is. A person can adequately debate or dispute a particular point without having to address all connected or related points (which can be a huge enormous undertaking)


Not A Nail In The Coffin

So the Intelligent Design scientists are saying, "We win because you're not addressing all the other information in the book, only focusing on Chromosome 2." While the evolutionist basically sits there and says, "I never meant to address the whole book at large, only this specific point about Chromosome 2. But because you're trying to drag me into discussion of all the other stuff, you're clouding the issues I'm bringing up." These quotes are not actual quotes, they're just paraphrases of the general points being made.

The evolution scientists are ALSO guilty of misdirection in that they've argued that the points made against common ancestry from the direction of Chromosome 2 indicates that the whole rest of the book must be garbage (a book they haven't read). They disagree about some interpretations of the scientific data regarding Chromosome 2, and by connection, ALL the points made by the Intelligent Design group must be wrong as well. That's their cloud of fog hanging over the debate.

So BOTH sides are arguing largely from one standpoint (ID the greater whole and evolution the one specific point), and both claiming victory over the other because the opposing side is trying to drag the other side "over the line" they've drawn in the sand like an old fashioned tug of war. BOTH sides cloud the debate, and then both sides accuse the other of doing exactly that, and by connection claiming victory over the other. Oi!

It's like both teams are playing with different sets of rules and neither one will compromise or agree to work in the same realm and so neither side can ultimately hold any kind of solid victory over the other. It means that many of the GOOD points and jabs are lost in the air amidst the fog. Essentially it's a case of both sides claiming the exact same victory podium based on the concept of debate itself, rather than the points within that debate. That's an empty win.

GENETICS: All Creatures From Noah's Ark?

Evolutionist Argument:  You believe that all animal life on earth died out in a giant global flood except for a male and female of each “kind” that were saved on a big boat. Now, a few thousand years later, you believe that ALL living creatures came from those few that were saved on Noah’s Ark… Seriously? All dogs, all cats, all reptiles, all bugs, EVERYTHING, from one large floating zoo? Crazy!

Animals Entering the Ark – from the movie Evan Almighty.

Any Evolutionist or atheist that makes such an argument as the one written above has made a monumental mistake of judgement and logic. Noah’s ark has no problem explaining how life survived the flood and became as it is today, while Evolutionists have a massively worse problem trying to explain ALL forms of life (all plants, birds, bugs, reptiles, mammals, bacteria, etc.).

Those of us that believe in Noah’s Ark believe that Noah, with the help of God, managed to collect and care for a male and female of every KIND of creature on the ark. Though we might not know what exactly constitutes a “kind” in every situation, we do know that if you only had to take one male and one female dog onto the Ark, and if you took them on as cubs, they’d be able to generate all the varied dog species we have today, given a cycle of many generations and natural breeding. As dogs spread all over the world, natural selection easily explains how the dog population can change into all different kinds of dogs over time, especially if they all originated from a pair of dogs with an immensely more diverse set of genetics. Such a situation is completely plausible, realistic, and adheres perfectly to our scientific understanding of how genetics and breeding works. But note that all dogs are still dogs, all cats are still cats, all monkeys are still monkeys, and all people are still people. No where does any of these surviving creatures “evolve” into different kinds of creature.

So we, as Bible believing Christians, have no problem explaining all kinds of living creatures today because we simply state that they have ALWAYS existed (since God’s Creation of Earth). Sure, they’ve changed and become much more diverse over many years, but they truly have all descended from one male and one female of their kind.

 

The Biblical Story of Noah’s Ark Fits The Science of Genetics

Biology and genetics are an incredible complex and wondrous field of science, but Neo Darwinism (evolution from molecules to single celled organism to all life on earth) actually goes in the opposite direction that science tells us it should, and does. The story of Noah’s Ark, however, and all living creatures that exist today since that time (about 4000 years ago), fit perfectly into the scientific understanding of genetics.

The Bible says that God created everything in a perfect condition, like a book without a single misprint or flaw. That being said, from the time of Creation to the Flood, is estimated to have been around 2000 years. 

Since we’re playing in the realm of genetics and reproduction here, what would happen if you had two dogs (a male and female) that contained the entire “dog” genetic library within their genes? The genes of those dogs would contain ALL the genetic possibilities and variability that God had “programmed” into them. Over time with each successive generation, new species of dogs would arise as different variations of those genes became dominant and/or lost. Mankind, throughout its existence, has bred all kinds of species for all types of different creatures (horses, dogs, livestock, chickens, cats, sheep, etc.). That’s all done through selective breeding, which is something Evolutionists AND Creationists completely agree on. It’s a proven well documented and heavily verified science. Dogs over time breed different kinds of dogs. That same principle works across all other forms of life on our planet both in the past and today.

 

Neo Darwinism Is In WAY More Trouble Than Noah’s Ark

What if we compare the Creationist explanation of modern day life to the Darwinist explanation? Not surprisingly, you find that the Darwinist is in WAY more trouble trying to explain the existence of all life (not just air breathing life) than Creationists are.

The argument against Noah’s Ark that exists at the start of this blog post states that believing all present day dogs (or any other kind of creature) descended from a common biological ancestor, is preposterous… But that’s exactly what Darwinists believe!!! That ALL living things on earth of ALL kinds (not just air breathing creatures) descended from common ancestors. Not just all dogs from dogs, but ALL things (plants, bugs, bacteria, mammals, fish, etc.) from a specific limited set of ancestor life forms! Mammals all evolved from the same thing, according to Darwinists. Cats, dogs, monkeys, bears, deer, gophers, rabbits, horses, cows, elephants and even humans! We ALL supposedly descend from the SAME common ancestors…

Tell me now. WHO is the crazy one? If all dogs cannot have descended from a single pair of dogs, then all mammals could most definitely not have “evolved” from a couple “almost mammals”, and absolutely NOT from a single celled organism, which itself evolved from a pile of chemical goo, so the Evolutionist believes.

An example of the Evolutionary “Tree of Life”. All life from a single celled organism. But they still can’t explain where that “single celled organism” came from.

 The Evolution Of Life Runs Backwards

Neo Darwinism (the modern theory of evolution) actually claims that life runs in the OPPOSITE direction from what history and science tells us it does. 

Genetics shows us that a small group of creatures have to be very similar genetically in order to breed together. Even many different species of dogs, or horses, or cats, or whatever else of the same kind, cannot properly breed with their own kind because over time their genes have become too different to properly and successfully “pair up”. Why? Because the genetic library (DNA) is finite, limited, and it digresses (falls apart and shrinks) over time. It does NOT expand or grow and develop brand new sets of genetic information and advancement. This is why if you take twelve similar dogs and breed them over and over and over again (performing no intelligent natural selection of your own, simply letting them breed on their own) you’ll eventually end up with a pile of very genetically weak and sickly dogs.

A couple years ago I visited a zoo and one of the scientists there briefly mentioned that there are so few cheetahs left in the wild now that they will never again be a strong vibrant species. Why is this? Because the genetic library of the world’s living cheetahs has shrunk so much over time that they can no longer produce an adequate supply of genetically healthy offspring. Their genetics are handicapped, forever, because there’s not enough genetic variability between them all anymore. This very same principle works within the population of mankind. Lock a set of people onto an island and don’t allow anyone from outside to join their population, and within a short number of generations you’ll end up with a very genetically weak and damaged population group. The babies that survive birth will be overflowing with tons of genetic defects resulting in all manner of physical and mental handicaps because their DNA is so polluted with copied and duplicated errors. This is why we can’t marry and have babies with our siblings, and why we shouldn’t even make babies with cousins. Because the genetic flaws in our own DNA are going to be very similar to a lot of the same genetic flaws in our near relatives, resulting in children born with genetics that ONLY contain the errors and have no alternate set of genes without the errors to make up for the genetic damage.

This is scientific fact! Genetics and DNA is a library of variability, but over time that library becomes polluted with countless copying errors that degenerate that library, making it inferior and weak. To combat this major problem, mankind even has laws in place to prevent people from marrying and having children with near relatives. Look at all the diseases and handicaps both physical and mental that exist throughout our population today. A good number of these (most of them, actually) have a genetic origin. They are caused by weak error-riddled DNA. Mankind’s population and genetic library is massive, yet it’s still so heavily damaged that we’re producing tons and tons of genetically damaged children. Copy errors in the genetic code are HARMFUL, NOT beneficial, like evolutionists so badly want to believe. Science shows us that the exact opposite of Neo Darwinism happens to DNA over time. It degrades and loses information. It does NOT gain it.

Creationists have NO problem explaining why this happens. We believe that God created a perfect genome, a perfect set of DNA for all life on earth (a perfect set of dog DNA, a perfect set of Turtle DNA, a perfect set of Human DNA, etc.) and that when mankind sinned and brought corruption into the world, that perfect world began to break down. So instead of a perfectly preserved genome existing in all kinds of life all over the planet, life is now running on borrowed time with a genetic library that is gradually falling apart collecting more and more copy errors with each new generation. There still exists a vast quantity of genetic variability in life and that variability results in all the different appearances and structures of life all around us today, but change within the DNA of life over time is degrading that DNA, NOT improving it, like Evolutionists believe. The funny thing is that Evolutionists know this and admit this, because it’s hard and proven science, but they blindly and wishfully believe that these laws of entropy don’t apply when it comes to their theory of Evolution, because it CAN’T have applied for their beliefs to have worked, or happened.

Non-Life Into Life

Making matters even worse for Neo Darwinists is that they still can’t explain how life actually began. They’ve been trying ever since Darwin first put forth his theories about the origins of life on earth, but they’ve never been able to make non-life become alive, despite our massive and impressive amounts of technology and scientific understanding. The problem is that life doesn’t just happen. It doesn’t appear out of no where. The only way to make life is to make it with more life. You can’t build life from the ground up no matter how hard you try. The “basics” of life are way too complex and intricate for that to ever work randomly or naturally. But Evolutionists believe that this must have happened at least once eons ago in the past because we’re surrounded by life today, despite the fact that science shows us this is impossible.

You cannot take all the basic components of a computer broken down into their simplest molecules, toss them into a box, mix it up and have a fully functional computer appear by random out of the mess. It’s impossible. The EXACT same problem exists when trying to explain life today. Evolutionists try to get around this by calling the molecules that make up life “organic”, but that simply means that the set of molecules they’re looking at are what life is made of. I can say the same sort of thing about the molecules that make up a computer (these are “computer molecules”), but it still won’t change the fact that mixing them together at random won’t ever produce a functional computer.

Life is very special, very complex, and even our vast intelligence and modern technology combined with our scientific understanding can’t do half of what life does constantly all around us every day. Life is no accident of nature. Life is an intentional creation, intelligently designed and supernaturally strung together and jolted into existence by Almighty God.

Conclusion

Evolutionists say that ALL life came from a single celled organism and a pile of mixed up chemical goo… And to them, this is realistic and plausible, despite science significantly showing otherwise.

Don’t ever let an Evolutionist tell you that all animals coming from Noah’s Ark is ridiculous, when they themselves argue that all life, period, came from non-life, by accident. That makes it pretty obvious which of the two parties in this debate have to have monumental amounts of blind faith. The Bible believing Christian’s understanding of the world and life matches perfectly with what science tells us about it, however the Neo Darwinist believes in the exact opposite of what science shows us in order to believe that all life evolved from non-life. Christianity has no problem with the real and observable scientific facts of genetics. Evolution does.

All air breathing creatures today came from all the creatures saved on Noah’s ark.