You should subscribe to the Ziztur.com RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Flimsy and I, along with some members of the St. Louis Atheist Meetup Group, attended something called the Truth About Origins Seminar, hosted by the West End Church of Christ. The seminar occurred Friday, April 17th, 2009, Saturday, April 18th, 2009, and Sunday, April 19th, 2009.
The seminar was sponsored by the church and featured young earth apologist speaker and writer Dr. Brad Harrub, who writes articles for publications and journals such Reason & Revelation, Apologetics Press and Focus Press.
On the first night of the seminar, Flimsy and I along with Saint Gasoline and some other folks showed up at the church after almost an hour’s drive. Even at 7pm, the parking lot was full as the sun slowly faded. We walked in and noticed that most people were dressed in their Sunday clothes. The demographic seemed mostly to be older adults, but there were quite a few people our age and several families, along with a few children and babies.
The church was moderately-sized, with padded pews in three sections – center, left and right. The church does not have a lot of frills and lacks the rock-concert quality of some of the non-denominational contemporary churches we’ve been to, so it was somewhere between classic and contemporary. We sat four rows from the front on the left and chatted idly until it was time to start.
Dr Harrub opened by saying that whatever our belief, we were welcome at the church, and then he told a story, which I will paraphrase here:
It is happening in more and more colleges and schools across the country. On the first day of a biology class, a professor walks into a full classroom, holding two books. The professor holds aloft the first book – a textbook on biology – and says, “This is the book that you’ll be reading and understanding this semester”. He then lets his arm drop, and holds aloft the second book – it is a Bible. They [the professors] often wait a moment for smiles. Then they say, “If, by the end of the semester, you think that this book is the truth, you will fail this class”. The professor then throws the Bible into the trash.
Dr. Harrub repeated that this is happening more and more on college campuses.
I don’t want to accuse Dr. Harrub of perpetuating a myth or urban legend, but I can find absolutely zero evidence that this is happening. No testimonials from students, no lawsuits (and there surely would be), nothing. Nothing at all. This did not happen when I went to college, and I have never heard of this happening until now. On the other hand, every college campus I know of has a campus ministry and prolific Christian or theist clubs.
So, if this story is not true (or even if it is, really), what is the point? The point is to create a false dichotomy – Either you believe in evolution, or you believe in the bible. The point also is to make an ad hominem argument. Essentially the point of the story is that college students are being “indoctrinated” to “believe” in evolution or face failing their classes. Since the professors are supposedly using fear tactics (accept my teachings or fail, you cannot question evolution) to teach, this is supposed to weaken the argument for evolution since people clearly have to be forced to accept evolution rather than accept it due to the overwhelming evidence for it.
Of course, the people in the congregation are supposed to be horrified. They consider the Bible to be the holy and inerrant word of their god, and so defiling it or giving it anything other than sacred respect is pretty insulting. Obviously, you know my opinion on this – if the reverse were true and I were sitting in a Bible study class learning about creation, I would not be particularly offended if someone threw away a biology textbook – I would probably just giggle. But this is supposed to represent how depraved our college campuses have become. Too bad there is absolutely no evidence that this is actually happening. I gave Dr. Harrub my business card so that he could respond to me here, so.. Dr. Harrub… Citation needed. Show me the evidence that this is happening. I am waiting.
Dr. Harrub went on to say that in schools and colleges, young people are only being taught one theory of origins, which is that the universe came about via the Big Bang and that Evolution by Natural selection is the cause of the diversity in life we see in th world. He says that this theory (which is actually theorieS, BTW) does not answer these questions:
1.Who am I (and what am I worth)?
2.Where did I come from?
3.Why am I here?
4.Where am I going when I die?
The various naturalistic scientific theories about how the universe operates does not answer the first or third question per se, but that is not the point of naturalism. It does, however, answer the second and fourth. the first and third questions are easily answered by individuals, so I don’t really understand the implication here that since naturalistic theories of origins are incapable of answering 1 and 3 that they are somehow inadequate. General relativity does not answer these questions either, but we don’t decry it due to this because General Relativity is not around to answer those questions.
Dr. Harrub went on to say that the Big Bang, when one boils it down, violates the First and Second laws of Thermodynamics. I expected him at this point to explain why, but something interesting happened. He quickly (almost hurriedly) clicked to the next slide without any explanation at all as to why the Big Bang violated those two laws. I am not sure why this is. Perhaps he will explain it at the next seminar? Maybe he glossed over it because the Big Bang has painfully little to do with Evolution?
To recap, the First Law of Thermodynamics basically states that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. I.E. It can change into different types of energy, but cannot come from nothing or simply disappear.
The Big Bang model of the origin of the universe does not violate this law because it does not state that all matter and energy came from “nothing”. I’ve actually discussed this before, and you can also find more information from someone who knows more about astrophysics here and here.
The universe also does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and I have actually written about his before, so rather than rewrite it, you can just read it if you click here.
Essentially, Dr. Harrub sets up a false dichotomy right in the very beginning of his seminar, insisting that there are only two models: the “creation model” and the “evolution model”, and thinks that by poking holes in the “evolution model” that he can prove the “creation model” is true. Throughout the first seminar, he made absolutely no attempts at showing how creation is true. Rather, he found supposed holes in various naturalistic explanations in both cosmology to natural selection.
I’m posting these WEC seminar posts in place of most Ray a Days, so until I am finished with this, Ray a Day will be on the back burner a little. I took about 31 pages of notes on a 7″X5″ notebook, and this was the first page. I don’t want my memory to impede my analysis, which I fear will happen if I post my analysis over a 2 month period. If anyone wants to Guest Post a Ray a Day, drop me a line via e-mail and I will drop you some pages of his book.
If Dr. Harrub, any members of the West End Church of Christ, or anyone else wishes to comment, I welcome anything you have to say!
Contact Ziztur at ZizturIsWrong at gmail dot com.
Follow Ziztur on Twitter
It can be “Ray a (every other) day”, or “Ray a (every so often) day”, ha.
But you have to do Ray a Day every day! Otherwise it won’t be Ray a Day any more!
I’d quite like to do a guest post actually, since you’re offering more opportunities to do them.
Hi Dustin,
I am wondering, are you in IT as in Hardware and Infrastrure or in Software and programming?
I am also in IT.
I just want to answer your questions with some analogies in IT concepts thats all.
Thanks,
G
Hi – Thanks again for coming to West End church of Christ and participating in the Origins Seminar. I look forward to reading more of your notes that you took and reviewing your opinions on what you witnessed and heard. I hope that you felt welcomed and that your friends did as well. The questions that you raised were interesting and I appreciate very much your thought and intellect. You are very well spoken in various topics around evolution and science. I do not hold academic credentials such as Dr. Harrub nor do I even have a “real” undergraduate degree. I am an IT guy and I was fortunate enough to get into my career field with training and experience that started in the US Air Force, with various IT certifications. So please forgive me in advance for not being as well versed in matters around astrophysics and thermodynamics! :) I would like to pose some various questions and I’m interested in your thoughts. When discussing complex IT architectures and solutions with people who are not as fluent as I am, I have found that simplification is a key element in helping them understand “the big picture”. When thinking about something so complex as scientific evolution I try to “dumb it down” for myself but I consistently have problems with doing so. So here’s a few questions that I would love to have your take on:
1. If humans truly evolved over the last x amount of billions of years from whatever we evolved from (apes, fish, proteins, etc) at what point in history do we have some kind of evidence that either documents this or supplies us with this knowledge? (artifacts, drawings, fossils, etc)
2. If we evolved from an ape like creature or species, would there not be some of those half/half type of species still around or some kind of historical proof that there at least used to be a half/half species (half human / half primate?
3. What kinds of species have evolved into other species since the beginning of the oldest known documentation that archeologists have discovered to this point? Let’s assume we have writings and documents from 7,000 years ago. (this is a guess) Would that be enough time for a species to evolve into another species?
4. Would it be a fair statement to say that the Bible documents and explains the origins of species and of man, as well as the creation of the heavens and the earth, and can be supported by historical artifacts (scrolls, stone tablets, etc). (I’m not asking if you believe in the Bible, rather if you believe that it documents the creation process)
5. If you agree that the Bible gives an account of the creation, wouldn’t something similar potentially exist that would have been passed on thru time that at least eludes to the fact that the first “intellectual human” that could speak or write would have documented the fact that their grandparents (or great grandparents) were primates? This to me is not meant to come across as a dumb question or comment, but a logical “simple” question that I have thought about. Even if those artificats or documents were billions of years old, would they not be re-produced over time (much like the Bible) and how could we possibly not have found anything in the last 8,000 – 10,000 years that supports a historical “geneology” chain from our human roots?
Again, I hope I am not coming across as too simple or dumb. :-) I really try to simplify and use as much common sense when weighing on a matter such as this. Thanks again for taking time to read through this and any response would be appreciated. Take good care and I hope you have a great week.
-Dustin
I’ll accept that only if you put the bracketed stuff in your post titles. Maybe not even then. For I am a fickle judge of post titles.
Dustin -
<>3. What kinds of species have evolved into other species since the beginning of the oldest known documentation that archeologists have discovered to this point? Let’s assume we have writings and documents from 7,000 years ago. (this is a guess) Would that be enough time for a species to evolve into another species<>?
Like Malimar said, everything is dependent on generations and not so much about time. Also, something else is a factor in natural selection: environment and availability of resources. A species may reproduce for thousands of generation without great change if they have a stable environment and good supply of food and water, but if the enviroment and the resources changes rapidly (but not so rapid that it kills off the species in one go), a species adaptations might split them in separate directions of evolution.
Think of wild goats and wild sheeps, they are different species but you do believe they are related don’t you?
<>4. Would it be a fair statement to say that the Bible documents and explains the origins of species and of man, as well as the creation of the heavens and the earth, and can be supported by historical artifacts (scrolls, stone tablets, etc). (I’m not asking if you believe in the Bible, rather if you believe that it documents the creation process)<>.
I will answer your question by asking you this, “Would it be a fair statement to say that <>Egyptian Hieroglyphic in various pyramids<> documents and explains < HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_religion#Mythology" REL="nofollow">“the origins of the universe”<>, as well as the creation of the heavens and the earth, and can be supported by historical artifacts?”
If your answer is “No”, then you have my answer to your question.
<>5. If you agree that the Bible gives an account of the creation <>(which I don’t)<>, wouldn’t something similar potentially exist that would have been passed on thru time that at least eludes to the fact that the first “intellectual human” that could speak or write would have documented the fact that their grandparents (or great grandparents) were primates<>?
I think early humans tens of thousands of years ago, by the time they are able to paint wall paintings and scrawl symbols in the dirt, would not be able to understand concepts such as “primate” or “mammal” or “invertebrate”. They would certainly know of concepts of “Competitor”, “Prey”, “Predator”. If they see other primates like a neanderthal, a lemur or a gorilla, they would label the creatures accordingly and start fighting it or run after it or run from it.
An early human would be lucky to see it’s grandparents alive let alone document whether it is a primate or it is a mammal.
By the time an “intellectual human” can understand concepts such as “Primate” and the technology to document ideas, we are careful to remove ourselves from the animal kingdom by saying that we are not apes. Even by every conceivable definitions we are.
Though interestingly we do not say that we are not mammals or that we are not invertibrates.
Most of your questions make somewhat misguided assumptions, Dustin. One problem is that you’re thinking in terms of tiny units of time. A thousand years is pee in the wind compared to the time scale on which vertebrate evolution operates. And the earliest writings we have are almost entirely myths and fiction anyway, and postdate the evolution of mankind by several orders of magnitude; why do you seem to put so much stock in the written word and so little in actual physical evidence?
1: There is <>abundant<> historical proof. We’ve uncovered countless fossils demonstrating in exquisite detail our evolution from, to give a truncated list, <>Sahelanthropus tchadensis<> to <>Ardipithecus ramidus<> to <>Australopithecus anamensis<> to <>A. afarensis<> to <>A. africanus<> to <>Homo habilis<> to <>H. ergaster<> to <>H. erectus<> to <>H. heidelbergensis<> to <>H. neanderthalensis<> to <>H. sapiens<>. Do a search on the internet sometime, there are lots of nice images of all the skulls we’ve discovered all lined up, demonstrating a beautifully clear progression from primitive apes to modern man. We’ve found similar fossils stretching all the way back to the dawn of animals with parts that are capable of being fossilized, though obviously there are far more fossils to be found from the very recent last 7 million years (the earliest creature I listed) than the 500 million or so years before that, older fossils are much more likely to have been destroyed by erosion or tectonic activity than brand-spanking-new ones like the australopithecines. Not to mention DNA evidence; that portion of our DNA which is considered “junk” differs from those of other species by a constant amount proportional to how long ago we split off from that species. This provides extraordinarily accurate evidence. And those are just the things that pop immediately into my head as immediately accessible to a layperson; there are some insanely nifty things that scientists have that I don’t know enough about even to mention specifically. The point is that every experiment we do, every metric we can come up with, every piece of evidence we uncover, supports the theory of evolution (with the obvious exception of those pieces of evidence that have led to <>modification<> of the theory; but all currently-discovered evidence supports the currently-accepted version of the theory. If new evidence muddles things up, we’ll just have to come up with a modification to the theory to account for it. That’s how science works).
2: As for currently-living halfway species: what do you think chimpanzees are? Their ancestors split off from the ancestors of us humans somewhat after the ancestors of modern gorillas did, so in creationist parlance, they are halfway species between humans and gorillas. The ancestors of modern gorillas split off after monkeys but before chimpanzees, so gorillas are halfway species between chimpanzees and monkeys. If there were australopithecines still around (there aren’t because a beneficial mutation will tend to spread throughout the entire gene pool, so barring reproductive isolation, speciation (roughly, the splitting of species into two) is always unlikely to occur), you would be demanding a living homo erectus. Let’s put it simply: <>all species are “halfway” species<>. The term becomes meaningless if you actually understand evolution. And as for historical proof, see question 1.
3: Many things, mostly things with very short lifespans, have evolved significantly since your arbitrary 7000-years-ago cutoff. These examples can be roughly split into two groups: 1.) creatures which have had their evolution “accelerated” enormously through domestication and subsequent artificial selection and 2.) creatures with extremely short lifespans. The most obvious example of observable evolution is of course microorganisms – with a generation measured in minutes and a penchant for passing chromosomes amongst themselves like trading cards, certain microorganisms can evolve fast enough to be noticeable in the lab. The obv
Hi,
I’m a Technical Architect that covers everything under the IT sun… hardware/software/facilities, etc. I design data centers from the ground up – but I will admit programming is my biggest weakness (that’s a whole other level of IT!) :-)
This text is coming up for publishing in a few days, but is relevant here:
Creationists like to say, that we have observed “microevolution”, that is small changes made in species, such as the chances in different breeds of dog (Dr. Harrub used for example, the wolf to pug transition) but that we have not observed “big changes” I.E. Macroevolution – as an example, he used “dog to fern”.
The “dog to fern” example is just silly. Microevolution and macroevolution have the exact same mechanism for change. For microevolution to be possible but macroevolution to be impossible, there has to be a reason why a population of organisms cannot change to such an extent that they can no longer interbreed (this is the definition of speciation, which is usually what people refer to when they mean macroevolution).
Of course, later on in the evening during the question and answer session, another member of our group pointed out that we have, in fact, observed speciation. Dr. Harrub dismissed this by saying that that was not an example of one “kind” of organism changing into another “kind” of organism. I’d really like to see him define “kind” in this instance.
Since we have observed small changes within species, and we have also observed speciation, the mechanism for “kind change” (whatever “kind” is defined as) is also the same. We don’t need to observe “kinds” changing into “different kinds” anymore than we need to observe the entire history of a river to understand how it became a river. What he is claiming is akin to saying that the formation of the Grand Canyon is impossible because rivers only erode a tiny bit of material a year compared to the material needed to form the Grand Canyon.
Creationists basically use the term “macroevolution” to mean “evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet” As such, macroevolution is nothing more than a moving goalpost. What I mean by that is that it is defined as something that is impossible to achieve. If we observe speciation of beetles, for example, this does not count because it’s just “a beetle changing into another beetle”. If we observe a beetle population evolving into a non-beetle population, that won’t count because it’s “an arthropod changing into another arthropod”. We’ll keep moving up along the biological classification system until we get to a point where evolution has not been observed, and this will be “macroevolution” and the creationists will claim it hasn’t been observed.
Here are some evidences for macroevolution, by the way. Here is an explanation of why the two are the same thing.
Ziztur and I, of course, will be analyzing the seminar in-depth over the next several days and weeks, and we’ll likely cover many of the issues you raise here, Dustin. These are good questions, too, some are commonly asked by creationists, and some are completely new to me. There’s a good chance we’ll incorporate a few of the specific questions you ask into our coming posts, if you wouldn’t mind.
For now, I’ll just expand a bit on others’ response to your 3rd question: “3. What kinds of species have evolved into other species since the beginning of the oldest known documentation that archeologists have discovered to this point? Let’s assume we have writings and documents from 7,000 years ago. (this is a guess) Would that be enough time for a species to evolve into another species?”
As others have said, species evolve at vastly differing rates. For larger, complex species with longer lifespans, they will evolve extremely slowly, compared to a small, simpler species. You might remember the first night of the seminar, the guy who got to the microphone and noted that we can make fruit flies split species? Fruit flies are so simple, and have such short generations, that we can make them evolve very rapidly. It will still take X number of generations, but those generations are so short, we can watch the flies evolve very rapidly. Larger, complex organisms have longer generations, so it takes them vastly more years to change a similar (tiny) amount. 7,000 years, though, is extremely short (it’s also not a bad figure – the very earliest documents from humans that I’ve seen go back 10,000 years). Several thousand years isn’t nearly enough time for a larger, complex species to change noticably.
Basically, species have changed in the last few thousand years, but in such a short time, larger animals would only change a little bit. People in those ancient societies didn’t have the science to describe them accurately. There probably have been changes to many species, but human societies that old just didn’t have the scientific language to describe such slight changes.
All, thanks for taking time to respond! I am traveling all this week and want to take time to do some follow ups on the vast information that you shared on this blog. Look for my response towards the end of the week or the weekend. Again thanks for responding!
Also, I am glad you guys took the time to respond to Dustin! After all of the writing I have done (I have written 7 blog posts so far, to be scheduled once a day) I didn’t have the energy to respond to Dustin’s good questions.
Dustin, thanks for joining us! Feel free to bring along reinforcements, too.
Dustin –
I just realised, to my horror, that in all my gibberish I keep referring to invertebrates incorrectly. What I meant to say is that we (humans) are vertebrates. We are NOT invertebrates.
Told you not to take biological advise from me :-)
I certainly have no issue with Ray a Day being bumped for this. Good work.
Hi Dustin!
Thank you very much for the courage and time to express your questions/doubts regarding evolution. Everyone here has done a great job of answering your questions, so I won’t address them individually, instead I’ll offer a few additional thoughts I think are pertinent to your questions.
From question 2, as Gord pointed out, the hominid advancement and progression is quite clear and well documented. Each one of those species for a time coexisted with the last. Since it gets more difficult to find artifacts from earlier periods and are self centered approach, we seem to tend to focus on the sapien/neanderthal overlap period which lasted around 10,000 years. There are differing theories on why the neanderthals were wiped out, such as;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080825203924.htm
but the general consensus is that homo-sapiens had better social cohesion, and through violent and/or sexual interaction (it is believed that there was quite a bit of inter-breeding) came out as the dominant if not also slightly hybrid species. As homo-sapiens spread around the globe the species did begin to differentiate slightly, to accomodate for the very different environments.
I personally do believe that the bible chronicles many historical events and places, but given the magnitude of space and time of geological events (which we can witness and have chronicled in a very brief period of time) Creation seems highly improbable to me.
We could take Creation and the bible as either the direct word of God, or a recording of an oral tradition.
The problem is, either way it was transcribed via human agents, and it has actually changed over the many editions, although I believe more so with the New vs Old testament. Additionally, in the early synods of the nascent church, the leaders made significant edits and decisions regarding inclusion/exclusion, to ensure that the bible would align with the morals and ideas they wanted to promote and protect. Again this was most significant for the new testament, but it points to very probable parallelisms when ancient Israelites framed their holy books, which the old testament depends on.
As Gord wrote, early civilizations looked to explain the things and events around them, in order to feel a sense of balanced control. Thus, as it is with many of us today, we feel compelled that everything must have a beginning, an end and a purpose that relates to us in some way. People would naturally look to authorities for answers. State and religious authority, which until quite recently has been nearly the same, must answer all of life’s questions, or their authority may be challenged. Thus, the most reasonable answers that do not conflict with other teachings is provided. A good parallel for this current debate, is to look at the reaction of the church to the current model for the solar system proposed during the 1500s. History has shown that the church is quite reactionary and un-neccessarily resistant to new scientific theories.
The Catholic church which is the most slow to change, concedes to evolution (sort-of);
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html
Lastly, as others pointed out, evolution occurs over vast periods of time. Changes are extremely rare. If some member of a species appeared that had different hair color, bone structure and facial feature alignment, it would be ostracized by the population and would not be able to mate and thus pass on its unique features. Changes are usually imperceptible, and contribute to the greater success of individuals and thus cumulatively gather over time frames of 100,000s or millions, or multi-millions of years to produce difference in appearance.
Therefore, no one, even if they possessed the ability to speak or write would have recorded dramatic changes across generational lines.
Creationists may believe these time frames are un-realistic or false, which you have to if you believe in a strict interpretation of Creation. I