No evidence for evolution, says the Reverend
The Rev David Blunt is Minister at North Uist and Grimsay Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), Bayhead, North Uist, not to be confused (Heaven forbid!) with the benighted folks at North Uist, Grimsay, and Berneray Free Church of Scotland, Carinish.
He subscribes to a catechism that states that unless God arbitrarily decides otherwise, I (he, too, come to think of it) am “foreordained to dishonour and wrath, … to the praise of the glory of his (God’s,not the Reverend’s) justice” because of the guilt of Adam’s first sin, rendering us liable to “everlasting separation from the comfortable presence of God, and most grievous torments in soul and body, without intermission, in hell-fire for ever.”
If he really believes that that is what he believes and preaches, that is no one’s business but his own and his congregations (although I would have grave misgivings should he be preaching such sadistic doctrine to children.)
The Reverend also believes that the devil seeks to confuse us through the teaching of evolution, and that everything was created over a period of six days, and in order to justify this belief he takes from time to time to the pages of the Hebridean News, where he tells us that
The notion that evolution is responsible for a process of development in living things, beginning with microbes and leading ultimately to men, must be rejected as there is not a single proven fact to support it.
I initially responded,
The Rev David Blunt says that “there is not a single proven fact” to support evolution. If he goes to the website http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ he will find, spelt out in detail, 29 separate arguments and hundreds of supporting facts that show that evolution is true. If he goes to the Biologs website, and looks up Dennis Venema, he will find a brilliant explanation of all this by a devout evangelical.
If the Rev does not choose to inform himself about the facts,that is his business. But he denies their existence, he is bearing false witness.
The Reverend is clearly a fast reader, since within two days he had digested the 60 or so sections in talkorigins, and Dennis Venema’s excellent 28-part series. And so he was able to reply:
The sort of ‘facts’ which are essential for the theory of evolution to be true include the following: the existence of mutations representing the increase in genetic information necessary to arrive at more advanced life forms; the existence of life forms (extant or extinct) which are obviously transitional in character; the existence of billions of years of time.
Mutations … overwhelmingly detrimental… We still look in vain for specimens which are intermediate between one life form and another. The fossil record, which Darwin expected to provide examples of missing links, has yet to yield them.
Aeons of time are crucial to the theory of evolution yet it cannot be proved that the earth is billions of years old: indeed many scientific facts point to a much younger earth… [Evolution] must be able to account not simply for microbes to men but molecules to men – or even more precisely – particles to people. In other words it must be able to explain how life can arise from non-life. That is a real leap of faith!
There is no observable evidence for the theory of evolution. It is not testable over time and cannot be verified.
My response:
To pretend that biological evolution has to include an explanation of the origins of life is at best mistaken, at worst dishonest. Consider that before the 1950s, we did not know the origin of atoms. Nonetheless, atomic theory had been the central concept of chemistry since before the 1820s. Similarly, we do not know the origins of life, but evolution has been the central concept of biology since before the 1870s.
No one doubts that most mutations are harmful. A few of them do increase fitness. Harmful mutations are bred out, while fitness-enhancing mutations spread. It’s really that simple. Indeed, the whole of plant and animal breeding is one vast demonstration of evolution, albeit evolution directed by us rather than by the pressures of the natural environment. The Rev Blunt admits the occurrence of evolution under the pressure of artificial selection. How then can he claim that it is in principle impossible under natural selection, or that evolution has never been verified?
doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2012.10.012
Posted on September 18, 2013, in Creationism, Scotland, Uncategorized and tagged Age of the earth, Australopithecus, Evolution, Hebrides News, intermediate forms, Mutation, Radiometric dating, Whale evolution, Young Earth creationism. Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.
I’d ask him about the research facts that he’s asserting. So far, you’re defending your position, but not attacking the warrants he’s offering.
LikeLike
What warrants, David? I give specific references for all my statements. He chooses not to, and we can draw our own conclusions.
LikeLike
Warrants don’t have to be explicit: he’s implied warrants, (eg. “indeed many scientific facts point to a much younger earth”), and they need to be challenged otherwise it appears their validity is being conceded. After all, even if your version of events can’t be proven true (which isn’t how science works anyway), that doesn’t automatically mean his version of events is more valid. In this case, it’s weight of supporting evidence and absence of acceptable contradictory evidence which points towards evolution as opposed to any competing hypotheses.
LikeLike
No. The burden of evidence always rests on on whoever makes the claim. If the Reverend thinks he has warrant, let him produce it.
LikeLike
I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying: he is inferring warrants and you aren’t challenging them. In other words, he has asserted evidence exists for his position, but this goes without comment from you. Your response is merely a defence of your position, but doesn’t weaken his position on an evidentiary basis.
LikeLike
I disagree on principle. If you make a statement in public debate, as he is doing, you must display your warrants. Otherwise there is no end to the flow of nonsense that could be passed off as “unchallenged”.
But I recognise that you may think otherwise, and we must leave it at that.
LikeLike
When asked to produce a transitional organism simply point to yourself, or any individual in any of the billions of species: every organism (living and dead) is a transitory organism.
LikeLike
Won’t work. When presented with a a zillion such counter-examples, the creationists all the way from AnswersInGenesis to Behe redefine their terms so that they don’t count.
LikeLike
Don’t I know it! Not much you can do with willful ignorance.
LikeLike