Evolution Conversation, Part 6: Conclusion

Here is the final installment of the conversation Chip (the Christian) and Mark (the atheist) had about Evolution. This is a compilation of a few exchanges that are shorter as we wrapped it up and decided to close.

I decided to post 5 and 6 back to back, because I have other topics I'd like to get to. I hope you have enjoyed seeing these guys trad thoughts as much as I have!

No need to add this bit to the debate since Mark deserves to have the last word.

I just want to point out that I stand by my statement that evolution is counterintuitive. If it were not, then there would be no disagreement about it, and it would have a much longer history as an explanation for the diversity of life. I realize that a theory of gravity is also not very old (in terms of human culture), but as Mark pointed out, everyone directly experiences gravity. No one directly experiences evolution.

One other thing. It is somewhat disingenuous to claim that "evolutionists have no problem with the belief that human beings have a divine soul created by God in God's image." What about Carl Sagan's famous dictum that the cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever shall be? What about the atheists such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins who use evolution to browbeat Christians and portray them as hopeless troglodytes? I can separate the science from the metaphysics, but apparently it is not only Christians who have a problem doing so.

I have to say this has been interesting. I've always been ambivalent about evolution because the science seems so unassailable and yet the objections to it seem also serious. In truth I've actually written on both sides of the issue, trying, I suppose, to justify the arguments of Christians to evolutionists and vice versa. As I said a few posts back, "I do not insist, however, on a particular method for creation." I mean that. I find evolution to be an acceptable explanation for the diversity of life. Having said that, though, I still find it troubling. If I did not, I don't think I could consider myself a thoughtful Christian.

By the way, just because arguments are repeated, does not mean there is anything wrong with them. The arguments I've raised are reasonable. That doesn't mean that they're unassailable. In fact, it would be very strange if I raised arguments no one has thought of before, and with the long history this debate has enjoyed, it's little wonder the arguments have now been tagged, cataloged, and laid out on a Bingo grid. But that does not mean they've all been "soundly debunked."

Thanks for a great conversation! It's rare to hear intelligent argument from anyone instead of name-calling and invective, especially online.



___________________________


"If it were not, then there would be no disagreement about it..."

Chip, it seems evolution is only counterintuitive to conservative Christians and maybe Muslim fundamentalists. Outside of those two groups, there really is no disagreement about evolution anywhere.

"...and it would have a much longer history as an explanation for the diversity of life."

This is irrelevant to the intuitiveness of scientific theories. Continental drift "plate tectonics" is very recent theory and very intuitive. Just look at an atlas and chart where volcanic eruptions and earthquakes occur and you get an outline of where the tectonic plates collide. This wasn't theorized until 1915 and not accepted till the 1950's. It's common knowledge today.

"No one directly experiences evolution."

I don't directly experience your love of Jesus either but I know it's there and is an undeniable fact, right? I know this because there is evidence for it. Same goes for evolution.

What about Carl Sagan's famous dictum that the cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever shall be? What about the atheists such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins who use evolution to browbeat Christians and portray them as hopeless troglodytes?

What about them? What do their personal God beliefs have to do with facts like evolution or gravity? You're committing the guilt by association fallacy here, Chip.

Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort f "reasoning" has the following form:

It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.

Therefore P is false

It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."

The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people. Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate).

"...and with the long history this debate has enjoyed..."

Well, there's really no debate. There hasn't been any for 150 years. The only objections to evolution come from Christians. As I pointed out, they only object because of religious reasons, not for scientific reasons. If there was ANY evidence, ANY evidence at all that could falsify evolution, the lucky Christian would win the Nobel Prize. Chip, you've provided no evidence to support your own views in this debate. All you've done is try to poke holes in what I've provided. That's not really what I'd characterize as a frank exchange of views.

_______________________________

Mark, I think the number of people who disagree about evolution might be somewhat larger than you think. Nearly half of Americans question common ancestry. And in case you didn't notice, I was not claiming that because Carl Sagan, et al. believe evolution, that makes it repugnant. I was claiming that Christians are not the only ones who confuse science and metaphysics. Scientists use evolution to support their own metaphysics, but complain when Christians reject evolution for that very reason. That's not guilt by association. If scientists insist on making metaphysical or religious claims, then they will find themselves in religious debates.

As to a frank exchange of ideas, you haven't answered ANY of my religious objections. You just keep pointing to the science, which I've already conceded.

_______________________________

Mark, I think the number of people who disagree about evolution might be somewhat larger than you think. Nearly half of Americans question common ancestry.

But you've just made my point for me. How does, "it seems evolution is only counterintuitive to conservative Christians and maybe Muslim fundamentalists. Outside of those two groups, there really is no disagreement about evolution anywhere" contradict "Nearly half of Americans question common ancestry" It's no coincidence that it's only conservative religious people who have trouble accepting common ancestry. Common ancestry is just a fact that they have a tough time accepting because of their religion.

"If scientists insist on making metaphysical or religious claims, then they will find themselves in religious debates."

The three scientists you named were atheists and you think "atheism sucks." Hence, when you associate them with evolution it becomes guilt by association. It became obvious when you said, "[Sagan, Dawkins, Harris] use evolution to browbeat Christians and portray them as hopeless troglodytes." I think "hopeless troglodytes" is an exaggeration.

Why didn't you associate evolution with Dr. Francis Collins. He is a conservative Christian evangelical who is the team leader of the Human Genome Project. He is also an evolutionist. How about Ken Miller, who you saw in the NOVA program? He is a Catholic. Their religious views should demonstrate to you that evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive. Certainly Sagan, Dawkins, Harris, et al, have just as much right to claim there is no God as Collins has a right to claim there is. Chip just remember this, the God claims of both groups have nothing to do with the fact that species share genetic traits, common ancestry.

Scientists use evolution to support their own metaphysics...

I say evolution has nothing to do with metaphysics at all. It's like claiming atheist scientists use the theory of gravity to support their own metaphysics. Atheist scientists believe in gravity as a manifestation of space /time therefore the theory of "intelligent falling" (The theory that God makes things fall) is false? Ridiculous!

As to a frank exchange of ideas, you haven't answered ANY of my religious objections.

Fair enough. When you consider the fact I don't believe in the Christian God, provide an example of how you'd want me to answer, instead of pointing to the science. I'll follow your lead.

And with that, it pretty much ended. Mark later told me: "I enjoyed [the] conversation very much and that I hope we can do it again. I had fun doing this." You saw a similar comment by Chip above. As I said at the beginning, the goal was not to come to an agreement and convert the other, but to have a fair, respectful exchange of ideas. I think we have done that. It has given us ample information to check out and think deeply about.

I want to thank Chip and Mark again for participating and for being gentlemen.

So, as we wrap up, any comments on the conversation?