The first thing that impresses me about your acquaintance’s response is that it really contains nothing that qualifies as an argument - although this was clearly what you requested. So maybe you should start by asking your question again, then get back to me. I’m obviously being slightly sarcastic, but I’m also being serious. If I’m missing something, please let me know. The only argument that he advances is a fallacy. He, at one point, defends his belief in evolution by saying that it is a theory of the same caliber as gravity. Yes, it is considered a theory by science, right alongside cell-theory and relativity, but this isn’t your fault. A theory in science is an accepted fact, regarded as no longer needing proof. Cell theory, of course, needs no further proof because it’s been observed time and time again. If you walk up to an particular oak tree, you don’t need to observe it under a microscope to be scientifically certain it is made up of cells, because you know that other oak trees have been observed and been shown to be made of cells. But, of course, as he himself says, theories are subject to modification. At one point, gravity or “gravitational theory” (as he oddly puts it) was thought of, by science, as being a sort of Star Wars tractor beam, emitted by a celestial body, sucking objects toward it. Now we know (or think we know) that it is caused by a ripple in the single fabric of space and time caused by the mass of the celestial body, which when followed by smaller objects causes them to drift towards it.. He also states that gravity is “not generally questioned by the general public”. This is another aspect of the same fallacious “argument”. I guess he’s saying that since virtually nobody questions it, neither should you. I know you well enough to know that isn’t going to satisfy you. The point is that Evolutionary Theory is certainly not a theory in the same sense that Cell Theory and the Theory of Relativity are. Both of these latter are clearly observable, but Evolutionary Theory is not, except for in the fossil record which falls far short of proof, most notably because fossils are dead and contain little or none of the fossilized life’s original material. Also, I believe, the reason that many scientists generally consider the Theory of Evolution as an accepted fact is because it, or some derivation of it, is the only choice available within their worldview (religion??). This makes the creation/evolution debate really a question of philosophy or metaphysics. Therefore, while the Theory of Evolution may be accepted fact to modern science (or modern scientists) it is most certainly not in philosophy or metaphysics. If you accept it as such, he has won the argument by default.
Most “scientific” people are loath to recognize the philosophical/metaphysical nature of the creation/evolution debate, but it is certainly true. Evolution is the choice of atheists, because it dovetails with their religion. Really the word “choice” is not applicable. Theists believe that God created the universe, atheists believe that the universe created the universe. Theists have faith in the supernatural, atheists have faith in nature. Both points-of-view require faith. Theists have no choice in the matter, neither do atheists. Theists may have more freedom to maneuver than atheists though. Theists can choose between the biblical creation account or a more deistic view of God as the driving force behind an evolutionary process. The latter is almost as weak as the atheistic evolutionary theory, but at least one isn’t left with blunt instruments like mutation and natural selection as driving forces. Atheists are stuck with Darwin in all his pre-genetics glory. If you can think of another option, let me know. Furthermore, this option basically amounts to spontaneous generation, a concept that died with the 19th century. To mask this embarrassing truth, evolutionists, almost uniformly, resort to personification of natural selection and mutation and even throw in “Mother Nature” from time-to-time, assigning words like “design” and “plan” to inanimate forces incapable of intent. In light of this, his statement that “the scientific process starts with observations and ends with a body of facts” is nonsense.
He doesn’t really give any of the “overwhelming evidence for evolution” that he refers to, but I’m sure he has the fossil record in mind. Moreover, he throws out fearsome references to “endogenous retroviruses”, “phylogenetic inference” and “molecular data” apparently referring to evidence for evolution in genetics. This sounds a lot like a smokescreen to me. If someone told me to feel free to research <fill in name of discipline here> and you’ll find I’m right, I’d be more than a little suspicious. He never gives any of the overwhelming evidence that’s in the fossil record or in genetics, so I wouldn’t know how to counter him. Sometimes I think, that the evolutionist “argument” bears more than a passing resemblance to the Stalinist/Maoist “big lie”, i.e. if a lie is told often enough without challenge, it becomes accepted fact. We, Christians, must be extremely careful not to fall into the trap of arguing with the restrictions set in place by our opponents. I don’t mean that you shouldn’t argue from science, we just shouldn’t allow our opponent to dismiss our concerns casually, which is what happens. You put my problem with the fossil record as proof of evolution very succinctly when you said “every species reproduces after its own kind, and such patterns are genetically predetermined”. Basically, you are quoting the Bible’s “each according to its kind”. The fossil record shows exactly that, but this argument is often casually put off as the overly-simplistic explanation of a religious zealot and scientific neophyte who’s copped out by resorting to magical explanations. Before moving on, we need to demand an explanation for the lack of transitional species. If evolution were true, the fossil record should show unbroken transitions of species. As a matter-of-fact, I think it should be somewhat hard to tell where one “kind” begins and another “ends”.
In regard to genetics, again you sum it up well, saying: “The form is a direct representation of the information from whence it comes.” If you were to study genetics for decades, I doubt you could come up with anything better than that as a summary. Does the DNA of a fish have the “ability” to eventually become a dog? Certainly genes can mutate, but can they make a leap of that magnitude? (Never mind that the effects of mutation are most often deleterious, as he admits) It’s at this point that the evolutionist usually resorts to “billions or millions of years” as the secret sauce that makes all possible. It always seemed to me that it is “billions or millions of years” that are the evolutionist’s god. Who knows what can happen in this amount of time?? Clearly, we can’t be satisfied with that, we must find a biological mechanism. Also, Darwin’s original theory relied heavily on his belief in the inheritance of acquired traits, i.e. if I become deaf from a childhood disease, I may father children who are also deaf. When this was found to be untrue, Darwin’s view of natural selection, to a large degree, broke down.
When I was younger, I would often attempt to take the initiative in an argument and seek to prove my case. This is fine, but when you aren’t an expert on the subject (and it’s impossible to be an expert on every subject), it can be very difficult. Your father once told me, in reference to apologetics, particularly against cult beliefs, that it’s much more important to know what YOU believe rather than what the other guy believes. This can take you a long way. You’re a smart guy, so make them explain themselves to your satisfaction (and hopefully to theirs as well). A statement like “The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems” is obviously used fallaciously here. When you’re talking about something as all-encompassing as evolution, I’m not sure what constitutes an open system or a closed system. Is it an open system then? If so, what is it open to? God? His obtuse analogy: “...is like tying your unlaced shoe and claiming that the complexity did not just increase” also doesn’t pass muster as bolstering his argument, but it might bolster yours. In context of this discussion, I think it just might be God who’s tying your shoe. His dismissal of the term “macro-evolution” is also self-serving. This is clearly an attempt to use a little sleight-of-hand to re-frame the argument in his favor. “Micro-evolution” like the famous black moths “succeeding” over white moths in England as the Industrial Revolution began is obviously true to the point of being a truism. Lumping the metamorphosis of single-celled organisms into humans (macro-evolution) in with these moth’s success (micro-evolution) is almost breathtaking in its audacity.
My point is that you don’t need to commit every scientific tome to memory in order to argue with people like your acquaintance. On the contrary, I believe it can be a hindrance. You’ll more often than not fall into a “forest-for-the-trees” blindness and confusion. Put this debate into its proper place: metaphysics. You will find that just beneath all the impressive-sounding jargon lies the real reason for his belief in evolution: his atheism. That, far more than anything else determines his views. He can’t believe in God, so he, as a matter of course, must accept the humanist evolution myth. Metaphysics should be your point of “attack”. Moreover, in my opinion, you’ve already “won” the initial round of the argument over the physical evidence by default since he did not advance any counter-arguments to your assertions that a) the fossil record supports creation by “kind” and b) our modern knowledge of genetics tells that a “kind” reproduces only another of its “kind”. He must confront these assertions with something other than a smokescreen before discussion of the particulars is appropriate.
Isn’t it a shame that we live in an age when philosophy and metaphysics is largely viewed as quaint and antiquated? These disciplines were rightly seen as foundational for millennia and nothing has changed. In fact, the first scientists were, of course, clergymen. We have morphed from a nation of thinkers to a nation of technicians. Since you are a thinker and scholar, I don’t need to tell you that this is a bad thing. Such a nation is a follower nation, not a leader. A follower nation since we are no longer able to metaphysically justify our actions as good or bad. Macro-Evolution is simply another symptom of secular humanism, which has come to the fore since The Enlightenment. Others include socialism, judicial activism and justice as rehabilitator rather than punisher. As a military man, you know that as recently as World War II this nation was capable of seeing itself as an force of good set against a force of evil. Now it seems we are not, since we are unable to denounce, or at least publicly denounce, something as obvious evil as the Islamist movement.
I hope this helps. At any rate, it was fun to think about and discuss with a brother. And hopefully, at some point in the future, we will be able to discuss things further over a pint.
