Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Responding to An Evolutionist Who Claims That Science Is Not Based On Observation

Last year, I put together a video blog responding to the How To Shut Up Pesky Creationists YouTube video posted by pariskillton back in September of 2007, a video that evolutionists use to this day as evidence of evolution.   You can see my video blog below:



Recently, a YouTuber named lobsterfork came across the above video blog and decided to throw some objections to my video blog into the comments section of the video.   You can see the ad hominem attacks in his response, but he does state some objections in his comments, and he ultimately agreed to giving me a chance to respond to his objections in writing, so I think it's very important to address his objections so that followers of Jesus can have answers to evolutionist objections like these.

lobsterfork's objections

The way that I am going to address lobsterfork's objections is that I am going to put his words in bold, and my responses to his claims will be in the normal font.  Let's get started:

Holy s--- man...Where to begin?  Your first point you mention that Dr. Miller 'knows'.  Science isn't about knowing. Science is a system of confident assumptions backed by evidence.  The example Dr. Miller gives is one of the many rigorous tenets of Scientific methodology. A strong theory must have falsifiable assumptions. Dr. Millers use of chromosome 2 and 13 to demonstrate a chromatic fusion is just a test in which a negative result completely disproves Evolution.  It is not the smoking gun you desperately want, because a 'true' smoking gun, or 100% proof, does not exist in Science. Albeit, as far as a smoking gun goes, this is about as good as it gets. So your point about Dr. Miller 'assuming' is moot. Science is nothing but the best case assumptions.

I am actually glad that you defined science and the scientific method in this way, because most evolutionists will not be honest and admit that their definition of science and the scientific method are different than the classical definition of the scientific method.  You get brownie points for honesty, but now it's time to dismantle this objection.

The classic definition of the scientific method is the following:  You observe something happening in nature, you make a hypothesis about the observation, you set up an experiment to verify or falsify your hypothesis, you perform the experiment, and then you analyze the data to see if your hypothesis was verified or falsified.  If your hypothesis is verified, and if multiple scientists in different locations perform the same experiment and get the same result as you did every time, then your hypothesis can become a fundamental fact of science.

The classic definition of science and the scientific method is what was taught to me during my time in the public school system, and I have seen many an evolutionist define the scientific method this way when they are trying to convince the public that there is no observational evidence supporting creationism and tons of observational evidence supporting evolution.

The problem with the evolution paradigm is that most of it has never been observed happening in action by any human being: nobody has ever seen one family of animals evolve into another; nobody has ever seen life come from non-life; nobody has ever seen a planet or star form; nobody has ever seen the origin of elements higher than hydrogen, and no human being has ever seen the origin of time, space, and matter.

The evolution paradigm itself that we're taught in school states that all this evolution happened before mankind came onto the scene, so by definition nobody has ever seen the five definitions of evolution that I listed in the above paragraph occur in reality.  The observational evidence that would have to exist for evolution to be true is so non-existent that Stephen Jay Gould made up the term punctuated equilibrium; this is how Wikipedia defines the term:

"Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that once species appear in the fossil record they will become stable, showing little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history. This state is called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another."

Let me translate that for you:  up until the time that Stephen Jay Gould made up this theory, evolutionists could not find a single shred of observational evidence that biological evolution by slow, gradual processes over billions of years was true.  Stephen Jay Gould realized that there was no observational evidence supporting evolution, but he still wanted to keep on believing in evolution and teaching it as a fact, so he made up a theory that basically states that biological evolution happened so fast that it left ZERO evidence behind.  In other words, not having evidence that evolution occurred counts as having evidence that evolution has occurred.

You might be wondering how Stephen Jay Gould's theory relates to you.  it's quite easy:  You and your evolutionist brethren today face the exact same problem that Stephen Jay Gould and his evolutionist brethren faced in their time.  There is still no observational evidence supporting evolution and its various definitions, and the observational evidence supporting creationism has been mounting for decades, so you and your evolutionist brethren have been forced to redefine the scientific method and science itself to make it not based on observation.  Your definition of science and the scientific method forces you to assume that the evolution paradigm is true before you look at any evidence, and when you get around to looking at the evidence that can be observed in reality, you let your presupposition of evolution being true sit in judgement over the observable reality instead of letting the observable reality sit in judgement over your evolution paradigm.

Your definition of the scientific method and science is incredibly self-serving, and it is illegitimate because you and your evolutionist brethren do not have the authority to redefine science and the scientific method in this way.  By defining science and the scientific method in this way, you have shown that you really don't care about evidence.  You are just like Dr. Scott Todd, who said the following in the article A View From Kansas On That Evolution Debate from the September 30, 1999 issue of Nature magazine:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism."

Young Earth Creationists like me can give you observable evidence all day that supports Young Earth Creationism and disproves evolution, but you and your evolutionist brethren have illegitimately redefined science and the scientific method to make it so that all our observable data doesn't count, just like Dr. Scott Todd did back in 1999.      


You then jump to silly argument of "You weren't there how do you know". That is not the point of Science! Science exist to explain phenomena that we cannot witness firsthand. If we could witness something first hand then that is an observation. Once you open the "You weren't there" door, where do you draw the line? Because it appears to me, that the line is drawn for theories that are inconsistent with your world view. You cannot just pick and choose which theories you want to believe because some of them may be in direct contradiction to your ill forged beliefs.

I find this objection hilarious because by saying that science exists to explain phenomena that humans couldn't have witnessed firsthand, you are the one who is opening the door that says that what we can observe in reality does not matter.  It doesn't matter that there is no observational evidence for evolution; we should believe that evolution happened because our high priests, the leaders of academia, tell us that evolution is a fact even though they weren't there to see it happen. 

By the way, when you makes claims about the past, such as the universe and everything in it came into existence out of nothing with no intelligent intervention before slowly evolving over billions of years, you are making a historical claim.  By definition, historical knowledge is different from scientific knowledge.  While we gain scientific knowledge through the classical definition of the scientific method, historical knowledge is gained by examining eyewitness testimony from the time period that you are making claims about.  Based off that, there is only one account that claims to be an eyewitness testimony about how the universe and Earth came into being, and that account is Genesis 1:1-2:3, which was written by the creator himself, God.

I can already hear you getting ready to say that we can't trust God's eyewitness account that he made documenting how he created the universe and Earth, but in order to claim that God's account is wrong, you would have to know what actually happened.  Since every evolutionist who has ever lived was not around at the beginning and throughout history to see the evolution paradigm happen, I have no reason at all to trust the historical claims that evolution makes.  

I love how you say, and I am paraphrasing here, "Dr. Miller assumes that all young earth creationist can do is say, well that's the way he made it". That is literally EXACTLY what you did in your next point.Why can't a designer possibly account for the fused Chromosome? You are talking about God. Why are you attributing a human standard to God? Isn't that incredibly blasphemous? An all knowing being can not account for his own design? What lol?

I can't exactly tell what you're saying here.  I don't know what human standard you're referring to that you say I'm applying to God, and you seem to be accusing me of claiming somewhere in my video that God cannot account for his own design, though I don't see any evidence of this anywhere in my video.  You really need to go back and rephrase your objection better so that I can deal with it properly. 

You are so unbelievably confused. It is not the fact there are fused chromosomes therefore Evolution. It is the fact that if we cannot account for the missing chromosome then evolution is wrong. You keep trying to think of Science as this method of absolute proof. When it is in fact, if anything, it is a method of falsification".  He did not explain how only Evolution could account for the fused Chromosome".  Only Evolution can account for the fused Chromosome because, at this point in time, there is no other falsifiable test which can be conducted to account for the chromosome fusion. Do you have any other ideas of how that could have happened? Ideas in which falsifiable predictions can be made. Probably not. Your argument is an argument from ignorance. As if asserting there could be other possibilities means there actually is.

So science is a method of falsification, eh?  You really are hanging yourself out to dry here.

According to your own definition, Evolution is not falsifiable.  Why do I say that?  As I stated in answering your first two objections, the evolution paradigm says that all the various definitions of evolution took place before any humans with the ability to understand and make records of their observations were around, and no evolutionist was around at the beginning of the universe and earth to testify to what happened.  Since no evolutionists were present at the beginning of the Earth and universe, and since the evolution paradigm says that evolution happened before humans with the ability to understand what was going on around them and make records of it came around, then evolution cannot be falsified; by definition, evolution not being able to be falsified makes evolution a religious belief about origins that must be accepted by faith.

By contrast, the Biblical worldview (which I espouse and hold on to) is very falsifiable.  For example, in Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, 44:24, 48:12-13, and 51:13, God says that he is the one who causes the universe to expand.  If what God says is true, then we would naturally predict that the universe will be expanding when we observe it; if the universe is not expanding when we observe it, then God would be wrong, and we'd have no reason to trust him.  Thankfully, the expansion of the universe was verified when Edwin Hubble found the red light shifts in 1927.

One more example: in Psalm 102:25-27, it says that God made the Earth and universe, and that the Earth and universe are wearing out like a garment before eventually getting discarded.  Romans 8:18-21 teaches that everything is the universe is decaying.  If what the Bible says in Psalm 102 and Romans 8 is true, then we should see the universe itself and everything in it wearing out and falling into disorder over time when we observe the universe and everything in it; otherwise, God would be wrong on this statement and we wouldn't be able to trust anything he has to say about salvation (John 3:12).  Lo and behold, the Law of Entropy states that the universe itself and everything in it is wearing out over time, to the point that it will all die off at some point in the future.  Funny how the Bible said the same thing a couple thousand years in advance.

In short, Evolution is not falsifiable, and is therefore unscientific, while the Biblical world view is falsifiable, and has yet to contradict anything we observe in reality. 

The law of entropy in a CLOSED system would disprove Evolution, but that isn't even a point worth mentioning. The earth is not in a closed system of entropy. We receive energy from the Sun at a constant rate. If there was no Sun feeding energy to our planet, then it is pretty obvious that life could not evolve because there would be no life, lol.  

The problem with this objection is that in order to test and ultimately verify the Law of Entropy, we had to perform the experiments on Earth.  Since the Law of Entropy was verified by experiments which were performed on Earth, that logically means that the Law of Entropy works on open systems as well as closed ones.  Evolutionists have known this since the 70s, but they have never dealt with the problem; they just sweep it under the rug.

But like I pointed out in my response to your first objection, the way you define science and the scientific method allows you to dismiss any evidence that disproves evolution without anything that remotely resembles a well-thought-out response or reason. 

I just cannot go anymore. You arguments are fallacious and absurd.

You can claim that my arguments are fallacious and absurd, but as I showed in answering your first objection, you define science and the scientific method in a way that is completely self-serving and that allows you to suppress and reject any evidence that disproves evolution.  You and your evolutionist brethren have to redefine science and the scientific method because if you stuck with the classic definition of science and the scientific method, and you allowed the evidence for Young Earth Creationism to be presented alongside the "evidence" for evolution, you would have the problem that Atheist Eugenie Scott described on page 23 of Where Darwinism Meets The Bible:

"In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science."

I don't know about you, but most evolutionists think just like Eugenie Scott does.  Even though they've got 70 percent of people 30 and younger believing in evolution and rejecting Biblical creationism, they can't stand the idea of even one young person leaving evolution in favor of Young Earth Creationism (which is part of the Biblical worldview) on the basis of observable evidence.  They won't be satisfied until everyone becomes an evolutionist, so your current-day evolutionist brethren illegitimately redefine science and the scientific method to make it not based on observable evidence, and much like Dr. Scott Todd, you discount any observable evidence that supports the Biblical worldview being true.

If anyone's arguments are fallacious and absurd, it's the ones you put forth in the comments section of my video blog.

3 comments: