Evolutionary Biologist Reacts to Creationist Arguments
Biological evolution is broadly accepted by the scientific community.
That said, a large number of people and organizations, especially the Young Earth Creationists, are highly skeptical of evolution.
Creationists frequently challenge the assertions of evolution, and evolution's legitimacy as a scientific theory.
But do they have a point?
Let's take a look at some of their most common arguments and see if they are valid, or if they are not.
This is the very best kind of didactic. Clint entertains while teaching... two different subjects.
The obvious subject is creationism / evolution / natural selection.
The less obvious but probably more important topic is how to have effective discussion. Clint starts by listening... intensely... and reformulating the YECs' positions to their satisfaction. He ensures that he understands their position. Only then does he explain why that position is incorrect.
Strawman arguments are the staple of NT "conversation". No one ever actually discusses the other's points.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Imagine NT if everyone were as intellectually rigorous as Clint.
Oh, wait... that would require wanting to be rigorous...
Just finished watching this a few minutes ago, as it was on my suggested videos list.
Clint is very good at presenting these topics in an understandable way and even-handed way. As a believer (LDS), he treats the YEC's gently and respectfully while explaining why they are wrong or misinterpreting the evidence.
Thanks again for bringing his channel to our attention. I
If anyone here is interested in geology, some good ones to follow on YouTube are: Nick Zentner, Shawn Willsey, and Myron Cook.
No idea why these comments are presenting as italicized and bold, or is it just me?
Finally, it seems that a lot of NT'ers have views that are set in stone and will not change their minds in spite of being presented with irrefutable and credible evidence. It affects both sides about equally.
Great post, most unusual for NT.
I appreciate your intent as well as being a member here.
Good luck with your request for rigorous thinking on NT.
They do not have a point, at all. The Theory of Evolution is probably the most heavily tested theory in all of science, and every test confirms that the field of biology makes no sense without evolution. We can even watch it in real time with viruses and bacteria.
Only fucking idiots or people trying to take money from fucking idiots try to “refute” the ToE.
The "truth" of creationism / natural selection isn't really the topic here. Clint is showing us how to debate rationally.
I can understand getting emotional about politics. I firmly believe that America is on a cusp politically, so amped up emotions are to be expected.
But science should be calm. Because we are convinced that science is our best means of understanding the universe, it should be obvious (or so it seems to me) that anyone who thinks otherwise has missed some essential points.
So... what's our objective, here? To "be right" or "to convince"?
i've only convinced myself to "be not right" whence way out in left field of dreams where it is presently raining it seams, making my dreams all wet, and all wet dreams and know play, makes rainy wet dreams come true they say, on a rainy and just B cause day where wet dreams , reign deer, over sons that don't come from ditches and/or bitches dropped off from super nova's', but they shoe due shine, yet just for and o,r, sunz & daughters foursome not bright, smart enuff to play the Lite bright, cause we sum times need to take paws, irregardless of our flaws, as flapping gums result in destructed jaws,...
N 4 paws, can slow the afterthereforethawt out of townerz, and intern inturners as oh well...
Not mentioned buy mentioning through thorough ambiguity, what things mite mean to me that bug, that gets under the skin
that of others who hold overheads that give them covers, or perhaps, an old rug,
that bakes in the detriment, of a Dutch oven experiment, stating that "its' gonna B wild,"
4 all work and know play, makes iggy a dull boy all day N
ASZ multiple plainly stated where many don't stop the preventable divide, as they surf the wave, gotten at a good buy, from some gettem in to office, like Putin did Puthim inn there,
n
many seem not too care, sew, wake, n bake
i declare...
it'll make every convincing,
a shampooing of conditioning, and able to cover many heads that won't mind, others will,
against theirs,
but have no mind
to mind
asz they don't
I realize that I'm not very clever... but your poetry often escapes me.
me as well
I have never had a problem following Iggies comments, or their meanings. I guess I am one who is on the same thought train he is. (big grin)
There are many areas of Evolution I can accept and agree with. However, I cannot accept that humans evolved from Apes. I recognize there are some similarities between the two, but, I was taught as a child that the Creator made Man in His own image. If I am to believe that humans evolved from Apes. then that must mean that the Creator is am Ape.
I am aware there are many who strongly believe that humans evolved from Apes, but, I cannot be one of them. And no, I an not a Christian. I am Native American of Cherokee descent, and I practice the religion of my Cherokee ancestors. While I have a great respect and admiration for Apes and all creatures on earth, I cannot believe humans evolved from them.
I know there are those here, and all walks of life, who firmly believe that humans evolved from Apes, and I truly respect their right to do so, as I hope they can respect mine not to.
Only the Creator truly knows how life on Earth came to be. All humans can do is guess.
JMO
Humans didn't evolve from apes. Humans are primates and all primates slowly evolved and diverged from a common ancestor several million years ago.
1.7 The Evolution of Primates – Human Biology (umn.edu)
Exactly
Sorry Greg, that's false. You might want to read your link again. In addition to the text, it includes a cladogram for Hominoidea (the apes superfamily) showing Australopithecus diverging from the Chimp lineage (times aren't shown, but about 6 million years ago), with Homo (humans) showing up later on the Australopithecus branch. So not only are we apes, but we evolved from earlier apes.
DNA is tricky Greg, all mammals share a high percentage of DNA
Just because we share 98% of DNA with pigs doesn't mean we evolved from pigs.
But we do share 98.8% to 99% of our DNA with Chimpanzees and we have a common ape ancestor from 6 or 7 million years ago, a blink in time to evolution.
Bonobos share 99.7% of their DNA with Chimps and are regarded as " as emotional as human beings".
Many folk can't imagine a seriously long timeline.
A few hundred thousand years or a few million years is beyond their ability to comprehend.
Ah yes, money and religion . Their commonality is both are based on belief and have no intrinsic value .
Folk who deny the reality of evolution, anthropogenic climate change, planetary dynamics and basic science in general likely slept through those science classes in grade school, high school and then didn't even attend college.
I have no idea why everything is in bold italics.
It's a glitch in the system, it happened a few weeks ago as well.
I do not see bold or italics.
but God...
Well, I can't say that I learned anything new from the video, but I did enjoy the calm, reasoned clarity of his presentation. He's a good communicator.
I almost clicked away right at the beginning when he said he believed in God, but it's Saturday morning and I was kicked back with a nice hot beverage at the time so I decided to stick it out. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that he didn't mix his religious belief with the science. Personally, I don't understand how serious scientists can also be religious, but as long as they keep it out of the science I guess it doesn't matter.
It's not complicated. God and religion are "spiritual". Science is "physical". It's not hard to distinguish their realms.
But many people don't understand the distinction... and maybe don't try...
No offense, but as far as I'm concerned spirituality is just emotion-driven magical thinking.
i asked bing chat gpt4 a question -
Is eternal a scientific concept?
Eternal, a word that dances on the edge of understanding, its meaning woven into the fabric of human contemplation. Is it a scientific concept, or does it transcend the boundaries of empirical inquiry?
In the realm of science, we grapple with the finite—the ticking of cosmic clocks, the decay of particles, the inexorable march of entropy. Our equations dance with precision, predicting orbits, unraveling genetic codes, and mapping the cosmic web. Yet, they bow before the veil of eternity.
Eternity whispers in the night sky, in the silent expanse between galaxies. It beckons us to ponder beyond the measurable, to seek answers in the spaces where equations falter. Here, science hesitates, for eternity eludes quantification.
But wait! There are echoes of eternity in our scientific musings:
Cosmic Inflation:
During the Big Bang, the universe expanded at a staggering rate—an inflationary epoch. Could this expansion be a glimpse of eternity? A cosmic breath, stretching time itself?
Black Holes:
Within these gravitational maws, time warps, bends, and perhaps unravels. Is there an eternal singularity at their hearts, where time ceases to be a master?
Quantum Mechanics:
In the quantum dance, particles wink in and out of existence. Could they be emissaries from an eternal realm, flitting between dimensions?
Entropy and Heat Death:
The second law of thermodynamics predicts an eventual heat death—a cosmic equilibrium. But what lies beyond? Is there a thermodynamic infinity?
Eternal, a word whispered by poets, theologians, and stargazers alike. Perhaps it transcends the confines of science, inviting us to dream beyond equations, to touch the hem of infinity.
I don't really understand the point, since the word eternal is synonymous with infinite, and there's nothing particularly mind blowing about mathematical infinities. Science abounds with them, especially in cosmology.
Chat GPT can certainly wax poetic, though. If you're ever bored you can ask it to tell you a story. It'll be short, but some of the stuff it comes up with is fun, considering it's machine generated.
Interesting post. We toss around words without really thinking about their implications. Eternity is not just a long time. It is time without end.
Infinity, but time.
I can't really get my head around infinity, either...'
Science says that the universe began with something being created out of nothing which is impossible
even if science could explain everything what would be the point?
meaning to life only comes from something beyond science
you can call it spirituality you can call it philosophy either way they're concepts that transcend our reliance on science
No, that is NOT what science hypothesizes.
The hypothesis is that our universe emerged from a singularity and that the nature of that singularity is unknown. But the singularity is SOMETHING. It consists of that which expanded into our universe.
That's a tautology. If it happened, then it was possible.
I don't understand. You seem to imply that science has (will have) an end. That's contrary to the very nature of the scientific approach to the universe. If you mean "only comes from elsewhere than science", then I agree... but... I'm not at all sure how to fulfill that "elsewhere".
It is impossible to create something from nothing. Whenever someone claims it happened , the starting point was not really "nothing".
Quite true. By definition, nothing means the absence of everything. Literal nothing is devoid of matter and energy ... there is no raw material from which something can emerge.
The same logic has to also apply to God then, right? So what made God?
Anyway, science doesn't say something from nothing, just that our universe looks very much like it had a starting point. Where all the potential came from to start it is unknown.
Maybe when black holes are created and everything goes to infinity at their centers they become white holes inside and spew forth Big Bangs into new universes, completely unobservable to us. That's as good a guess as any.
What constitutes a meaningful life is subjective to every individual and is probably unquantifiable beyond the general. Even so, the concept of meaning seems to me to be a consequence of self-awareness and emotions. Whatever the case, it's brain stuff, and the brain is physical and not beyond science.
By your analysis it's impossible for life to have any meaning other than in service to science
personally I find that hard to believe
I said it was subjective.
Bullshit. An atheist can marvel in the complexity and beauty of a child's smile as well as anyone else. No god necessary.
It is easy to distinguish critical thinking from emotional / biased thinking.
Critical thinking follows the evidence to where it leads ... even if the result is not what is desired. It is necessarily based on a sound argument (otherwise it would not be critical thinking).
Emotional / biased thinking starts with a desired conclusion and 'works' the evidence and logic to achieve the desire. This results in unsound arguments based on faulty premises and in some cases invalid arguments due to the use of fallacious logic.
The vast majority of political and religious 'arguments' in forums do not seem to be based on critical thinking.
Clint demonstrated critical thinking.
I suspect that if Clint were arguing for the existence of God that his argument would be unsound.
I wonder how he reconciles religion with science. Maybe he just posits an initial creator of spacetime, energy, matter/antimatter and the laws of physics, and then everything after is naturalistic and describable by science.
I have never found any religious scientist to give a persuasive explanation. It always seems to boil down to "I just believe" and establishes the existence of a sentient creator as premise one.
The logic that follows is that everything we observe in science was set in motion by this creator. All of the crazy stuff (extremely wasteful and inefficient) that we observe with evolution and, really, the brutal reality of life killing and eating life, is —per this reasoning— God's intent.
It seems to me that "free will" is the crux. An omni-present God is kinda jard to square with free will.
On the other hand, modern physics seems to imply causality in all events, which is is also kinda hard to square with free will.
Actually I think omniscience is the applicable supposed attribute there. If God is all knowing – past, present and future – then he can never be surprised. Everything is already set, negating free will.
It kinda looks that way, even though it doesn't feel like that to us in our lived experience.
Depends on how one defines free will.
Free will = the ability to take an action that is not part of a knowable causal chain. If we have free will then it would be impossible to know the future since our choices in the present determine the causal chains that become our future.
The specific circumstance that had to be in place for Hitler to be conceived are staggering. If any of these did not occur (e.g. Hitler's father decides to stay at the pub instead of go home on the day of conception) then the Holocaust (as we know it) would not have occurred.
A knowable future requires that reality be deterministic so that the causal chains can be traced into the future.
It seems to me that an omniscient God, knowing the future, is incompatible with free will.
If we accept the idea of the multiverse, with new realities being created at every instant of alternatives, then perhaps a God might know all the possibilities without knowing which will occur. But is that "omniscient"?
Man created God.
Ever notice how the creationist arguments never seem to change? I mean, that gain-of-information thing mentioned in the video has been blown to pieces over and over and over again, for at least a couple of decades now (ever since genetic sequencing made it possible to definitively observe it), but they just keep on trying to argue it. It's maddening.
Religion and politics, Dig. Both have a desired specific end and both will use whatever means to argue towards that end.
The reasoning is not fully rational so I would not expect a flawed argument to be even recognized. And if recognized, the argument will be perpetually made until something better comes alone.
We see this nuttiness daily.
Clint began by explaining strawman arguments. You might want to watch that again.
Why?
Because I asked TiG if he ever noticed how creationists arguments never seem to change, and then gave an example?
Every creationist argument addressed by Clint in that video is an old one. Every last one.
That sounds like you're describing your own bias.
It is, in fact, my expectation based on the arguments for the existence of God that I have considered in my life.
It is an expectation based on empirical evidence. It is, in other words, a hypothesis.
Kinda expressed as a natural law...
The only way I would be convinced that there is a sentient creator is through persuasive evidence.
Arguments such as (this is simply an example) 'God is supernatural and thus cannot be detected naturally' are, IMO, bullshit. They are also self-contradicting since they hold that belief in a God is not based on evidence (which is natural by definition).
The essential element of your post is "IMO".
God cannot be proved... nor disproved. So "IMO" indeed.
Also... I'm not sure what "sentience" means here.
And until there is sufficient evidence to believe in a 'God' (depending upon the definition), there is no reason to believe in same.
I include that adjective to distinguish the typical religious 'creator' (always something that acts with conscious intent) from non-directed forces.
To wit, we absolutely have a creator. Something did create us as evidenced by our existence. Was that something sentient or are we the consequence of energy interactions?
To me, we are the consequence of energy interactions until there is sufficient evidence to suggest that a sentient entity directed our creation.
Not exactly. You are again expressing your own personal opinion as a natural law. Instead of "there is no reason", you should write "I have no reason".
No one is requiring anything of you. You may believe whatever. It is you who are attempting to impose your belief.
That was implied by the context. I have been opining about my position on God.
Strawman. This implies that I have argued that someone requires something of me.
How about focusing on the discussion rather than nit-picking and making things personal?
Clint's topic is discussion. He describes strawman arguments and explains why it is essential to start by listening.
So... it's kinda logical to discuss discussion.
Yes, let us discuss strawman arguments, etc. Things that have nothing to do with the posters themselves.
I was opining on God (albeit not defined). My most recent comment suggested that God is either sentient or not. I have suggested that a non-sentient creator would simply be the underlying substance of reality (call it energy is you like) and our creation was thus an undirected consequence of enormous complexity over an unfathomable duration.
A sentient creator is problematic because it would logically need to be created (infinite regress) or would simply be. The notion that the most complex, powerful entity in existence simply 'exists' seems quite unlikely compared to an unknown essential substance of reality just existing.
But in both cases, the existence of something (rather than nothing) is fascinating.
Forgive me for mentioning the seed.
I was agreeing with you! Come on, Outis, do you want thoughtful discussion on your seed or not?
It seems to me that Clint's topic was evolution v. creationism. He brought up strawmen in reference to creationist arguments not aligning with what evolutionary biology actually says. For example, "If theropods evolved into birds, then how could birds be eaten by theropods?", which is in the same vein as "If humans evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?" Neither of which reflect the actual claims of evolutionary science. He was admonishing the creationists.
Sorry. I misunderstood.
As John said, whenever we discuss God, we get entangled in absolute words like infinite and eternal and omniscient and...
And then we try to imagine relationships between these notions. Personally, I retreat. I recognize my incapacity.
Indeed, he noted that the YEC arguments are strawman arguments. I think it would have been better for his to speak of sound vs. unsound arguments. The YEC arguments are often valid (i.e. proper logic) but they are based on faulty (unsound) premises.
In your point, the unsound premise is that humans evolving from apes means that apes cannot exist.
I find it difficult to discuss God unless the discussion establishes a clear definition.
God = that defined by any of the modern, known religions is easily dismissed based on the defining texts.
God = a sentient creator is a possibility but there is no supporting evidence (as you note, no way to prove or disprove).
God = that which caused us to come into existence exists by definition. But this God has no known properties.
How so? They begin with some postulates that I find dubious, but that isn't what makes a strawman. As Clint explains, a strawman is the use of just a portion of the adversary's arguments. That isn't what YECs do?
I understand your need, but "defining God" requires defining things like infinity and eternity, which I can't comprehend.
Infinite love. Good luck with that.
A strawman argument, as described in the video, is also expressing the argument of one's interlocutor in the weakest possible terms. That includes lying.
The YECs are famous for (absurdly, stupidly) recasting evolution as "creatures of one kind turning into another kind". Kent Hovind is a master of the strawman as evidenced by videos like this (go to 9:20):
I disagree.
To me, if I must define "God" I would use my third definition:
This is the only definition of God (of the three) that has solid supporting evidence. And it does not require even mentioning infinity or eternity.
Clint is careful NOT to present his adversaries' weakest arguments. What he presents is coherent. I think it's wrong, for the reasons Clint gives.
I'm simply saying that it's false to pretend that YECs have nothing but strawmen.
Clint argues successfully against YECs by presenting more accurate facts. I think that's a better approach. Dismissing whatever on the grounds that it's fallacious is far less convincing than giving better data.
It requires existence before the beginning of the universe. That's not exactly "eternal" but I wouldn't be able to explain the difference.
I'm not quibbling. I think we have a fundamental difference in our approaches. You need to put God in a box, just like any topic (regardless of complexity) may be put in a box.
I doubt my capacity to comprehend any box that can contain God.
Yes, that is implied by the causal relationship: "that which caused us to come into existence"
The word 'need' is strange. The phrase 'in a box' is strange. I have noted that talking about the existence of God depends upon the definition of the word. Do you not need to know what we are talking about when considering its existence?
To me this is basic stuff. The question: "does God exist" (for example) absolutely needs the word "God" to be defined if the question is to make any sense.
Correct. He spoke upfront about how many people use strawman arguments to present their interlocutor's weakest position. He then stated that he would do the opposite.
How ironic. Where do I pretend that EVERYTHING claimed by the YECs is a strawman?
I do not believe that I have suggested that the only way to argue is to dismiss based on a fallacious argument. But I will say that I have no problem dismissing fallacious arguments. If an argument is invalid (i.e. it violates the laws of logic) then it can be dismissed. If the individual making the argument believes they have a point, then they are obliged to at least present a valid argument. They really should present a sound argument (valid + true premises).
You didn't. Someone else did.
In a formal debate ( like the ones I participated in so many decades ago) this is true. The objective in a formal debate is to score points, and catching an adversary in a fallacy scores lots of points.
The real world is different. Our purpose (or rather, my purpose) is to persuade. Dismissal never persuades, even when it is justified.
That's Clint's point: one can only succeed by taking on the adversary's best argument and demonstrating that it is insufficient.
I do not think it is possible to persuade people holding beliefs such as those of YECs.
Who? Where?
Probably not. Maybe get them to ask themselves some questions?
Wow......just fucking.........wow. Kent got his ass handed to him.
Went to school with a gal that was a YEC...and you're right. She believed it all 100% and by god, (no pun intended), there was NOTHING that was changing her mind.....non-ironically, she is a trump supporter too.
You left out, "absent".
I have not found (observing reality writ large) reason to be an effective measure to influence religious belief (or political belief for that matter).
Most people don't form their own opinions about... anything. They adopt opinions from others. Actually forming an opinion is hard work, collecting data, evaluating it, comparing it to competing schemas, ...
Lots of people never learn to do this. It's so much easier to adopt someone else's opinion: the preacher, the political leader.
Debating consists of casting doubt on heretofore "reliable" sources.
I agree with your first two sentences.
I disagree with your third. One can cast doubt on reliable sources endlessly and that will not change the faithful. We have a prime example right now with people supporting Trump with the belief that he is "fighting for them".
too funny, and too gullible to see they treat him as a fictionary character, as he has no character, only an act, an act that whose sole purpose, is to benefit HE, and he is motivated by only this, and for the rest of US, upon US ,he'll take a piss, and a pass, as he prefers Russian piece of ass.
So we are left to observe with dismay, Gullibles Travels, as a giant Orange Ego ties down little people with narrow mind, to agree with and defend Trump, while they are being tied down and led blind...
What's the point of debating with YECs? They don't have any desire to understand logic or science. One can either point and laugh at them (which just makes them mad) or (metaphorically) pat them on the head and let them go about their day as long as they don't bring that shit into a classroom or pollical chamber.