Click here to view CMI's position on climate change.

Feedback archiveFeedback 2016

Evidence and evolutionary bias

Published: 18 June 2016 (GMT+10)

Today’s feedback comes from John H. from the UK, who writes in response to Question evolution!, promoting ‘evidence’ but failing to see that his own evolutionary bias blinds him to evidence for the God of the Bible. CMI’s Dr Don Batten responds with comments interspersed:

Thanks for the best laugh I’ve had in months.

That’s nice, but there is a saying that “He who laughs last laughs the loudest”.

I know I won’t be able to change your views as your mind is clearly made up, fixed, closed to the ongoing process of evidence-based-reasoning that is what scientists rely upon.

I probably shouldn’t bother to reply to you because clearly your mind is made up too. But I guess it is only the people you disagree with who are opinionated, obstinate, philosophically biased, not open to the evidence, etc. smiley face Please see this admission, which shows that your ‘high priest’ scientists are not as objective as you seem to think: Amazing admission. See also: Blinkered thinkers: How materialism harms science and society.

What I would point out is that just asking questions doesn’t prove your position,

Nowhere did we suggest that asking questions about evolution proves our position. But did you bother to look at the rest of the creation.com website? There are over 10,000 freely available articles that provide plenty of evidence for our position.

you have to provide more credible and likely answers, not just “what else could it possibly be other than God?” type questions.

Note that when it comes to the origin of things there are three possibilities:

  1. They always existed. This can be ruled out for the origin of life and species (but also the universe; see: who created God?)
  2. They made themselves
  3. They were created

That leaves two possibilities. Evolution is the materialists’ myth about how things made themselves. If the materialist explanation of origins is shown to be inadequate, then that leaves creation. Creationists did not invent this line of reasoning; evolutionists have been using it since Darwin. The modern day hero of God-haters, Richard Dawkins, uses the argument all the time. For example, he argues that the human eye is badly designed, so therefore it could not have been created by an omnipotent Creator; it must have evolved (the details of how are sidestepped). Of course Dawkins is wrong about the eye being badly designed, so his argument falls flat (see: Backwardly wired retina “an optimal structure”: New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins)

An entity you call God maybe did make the whole process start—but a) not one single piece of independently verifiable evidence supports that assertion; it is simply something you choose to believe.

This statement reveals either your ignorance or your bias. See for example, the article above, Who created God? You need also to think about just how rational it is to believe in incredible miracles happening with no cause, which is the sad position of an atheist (see Five Atheist miracles). Look also at some of the incredible evidence for design in living things, such as: Design in living organisms (motors: ATP synthase). If you can believe that this ~100% efficient, sophisticated nano-machine made itself (and all living things have it, so it appears to be essential for the first life), then you have more (blind) faith than any Christian (but note that Christian faith is based on logic and evidence; see: Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation and Superstition vs Christianity).

And b) although science has yet to reveal a provable theory as to how these early biochemical processes led to an organism; you can provide no evidence to show that it didn’t.

Science of the gaps, eh? Actually, the problem is further from solution than ever and gets more difficult every day. More knowledge just adds to the evidence that life could never form itself. Take for example, the research into what could constitute the minimal first cell. This has consistently shown that the first cell is more complex than anyone wanting to believe in abiogenesis ever believed.1 480 proteins (+) are essential. Do you know that not even one of these proteins could ever form, even in the whole universe, even with 14 billion years? See the calculations in Who created God? and the admissions of evolutionists in The origin of life. If this does not provide sufficient evidence for you that life could never make itself (the problem is insoluble for the materialist), then it shows that no amount of evidence would convince you. I would debate this issue on any university campus. Evolutionists are lately trying to say that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution because they haven’t the foggiest idea how life could have made itself (see for example the admissions here: Quantum leap of faith).

I don’t have enough ‘faith’ to be an atheist.

References and notes

  1. For instance, see: Digitale, E., New method reveals parts of bacterium genome essential to life, 30 August 2011; biox.stanford.edu/highlight/new-method-reveals-parts-bacterium-genome-essential-life Return to text.

Helpful Resources

Readers’ comments

H. G.
This is an interesting feedback from John H that clearly shows evolutionary bias. In the beginning of the feedback He was trying to state that his belief is based on evidence by writing ”the ongoing process of evidence-based-reasoning that is what scientists rely upon”. However, in the end of the feedback he admitted that he does not need evidence to believe in evolution.

“And b) although science has yet to reveal a provable theory as to how these early biochemical processes led to an organism; you can provide no evidence to show that it didn’t.” Translation: Evolutionists currently do not have evidence for abiogenesis, but I choose to believe it anyway.

Applause for a great response from Dr. Don Batten.
Robert D.
"He who laughs last laughs the loudest"
It is probably worth mentioning that there is only one who will laugh last - the Lord.

Psalm 2

1. Why do the heathen (Evolutionary Atheists) rage (against God), and the people imagine a vain thing (evolutionary "history")?

2 The kings (scientists) of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD (The Bible), and against his anointed (Bible followers), saying,

3. Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. (Let us use evolution to escape morality - for LGBT rights, pro-choice, self determination and rejecting Gods' laws)

4. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
5. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
Gian Carlo B.
It seems evolutionists like John H. are out of ammo in adequately objecting to creationists (particularly YEC's) when it comes to evidence. Instead of honestly examining their position, they must resort to boring talking points and float over their heads and nevermind the actual problems they have yet to address. [Stereo]Typical atheo-evolutionist fundamentalist.
Dan M.
I'd like to make a couple of points.
1. In the U.S. we have a thing called the Constitution of the united states. The first amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion. Unfortunately the religious establishment clause of the first amendment has been circumvented by the materialists stating that their religion is science. The U.S. government has given them billions of dollars to further their religion! They are famous for stating separation of church and state but violate this premise them selves, (hypocrisy).
2. I worked 16 years in aviation maintenance on complex jets and turboprops. My mind is constantly blown away by the biomechanical processes and MACHINES of Gods creation. The ATP Synthase motor and the bacterial flagellum just to mention a couple. They are molecular machines, (A pump and an outboard motor) and machines don't create themselves, PERIOD! I am also a computer tech. The atheists want me to believe DNA spontaneously arose by chance. Not a chance! That's like asking me to believe computers spontaneously arose with all its components and its operating system by chance. Again not a chance! When I look at DNA code I see a mind boggling complicated self replicating, self repairing code system that we could never replicate according to computer experts like Bill Gates. We at best, copy Gods nature and I doubt anyone has ever had an original thought, (Ecc 1:9-10).
Believe in materialistic evolution. Not a snow balls change of staying frozen in the lake of fire and they, (atheists) will be wishing they had one! SO SAD!
Don't be fooled by the atheist's and trust in God only. We creationists have the rational model given to us by God in his word and it fits very well.
God Bless.
Don Batten
The Supreme Court in the USA described secular humanism (atheism) as a religion in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins. So, if creation cannot be taught in schools because it is ‘establishing a religion’, then evolution should not be taught either, because it is establishing the religion of atheism (secular humanism). Evolution is the atheists’ creation myth.
Silviu P.
response/observation to 2 of John H's statements:

"An entity you call God maybe did make the whole process start—but a) not one single piece of independently verifiable evidence supports that assertion; it is simply something you choose to believe."

And what piece of "independently verifiable
evidence supports" your pick on the opposite
statement? What piece of evidence do you have
about the start? It is the same for you, "simply
something you choose to believe."

"And b) although science has yet to reveal a provable theory as to how these early biochemical processes led to an organism; you can provide no evidence to show that it didn’t."

So you're saying "what you state, you cannot
back, so it's faith; what i state, i cannot yet
back, but since you cannot prove it didn't
happen (how can i prove it didn't happen when
you don't state how it happened?) i can call my
statement science."

Then, as Don Batten responds, to the vaguely
stated belief that "it must have been, somehow,
this way", proper science and not
creation-beliefs, show that your position is
fairy-science at best. You have as much evidence
and belief as we do about what we both can't
factually prove anyway, and about your vague
attempts to lay down a temporal story line,
other parts of science say the contrary. You are
a scientifically self-contradicting believer in
your line of faith.
S. H.
On one level it doesn't matter what people think. God is true and it doesn't matter what people try to make up or believe to try to oppose this truth (because ultimately that's their only aim). You could tell me all day that my name is different to my actual name but it doesn't make it true. The irony of those who want to believe in science and rationale consistently using unscientific and even abusive language to try to sell their position is endemic. I've also heard and seen too many God-haters trying to interpret the Bible and Biblical truth to Christians. It's like me trying to tell someone about their wife on the basis of something I've heard or read about their wife, claiming I know more about her than her husband does. That would be ridiculous. Yet people who don't know God, don't believe in him and refute the truth of his existence like to lecture Christians on understanding God, his Word and nature. God is real and truth whether or not you believe it. People refute truth because it is inconvenient to their predisposed worldwiew that they accuse Christians of having. I also don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
Alan J.
I don't suppose the likes of John H ever respond to your well-written rebuttals....?
Don Batten
Sometimes we get a response, but not this time.
Joseph M.
Like John H, I also live in the UK and I find (along with an increasingly compromised state Church to secular thinking) that nearly every aspects of the educational institutions along with the media, cinemas, etc. are so biased and indoctrinated with evolutionary thinking (excluding any alternatives), that I can understand how John H can be so blind in his thinking and fallaciously equivocate or bait-and-switch between the science we can observe, repeat and test with things that actually need historical evidence for the scientific method to proceed satisfactorily.

The CMI article states the creation case simply and effectively, although I would state that in many cases in biology that creation isn't presumed or a God of the Gaps, but 'creation is actually a reasoned logical deduction'. For example:

1. creation is a logical deduction, when it comes to the irreducible complex original cell before it could reproduce itself. Whereas its a logical deduction that evolution fails. That is, no reproduction, means that one of the key processes evolution tries to use as its own i.e. natural selection doesn't work, hence no evolution.
2. Creation is a logical deduction when we observe information such as codes, languages in the cell.
3. Creation is a logical deduction when we observe in the cell built-in variation within limits along with maintenance systems such as repair, immunity systems, etc.
4. Creation is a logical deduction if a living organism comes first before natural selection can act on it.

I'd suggest that John H, properly understand the case for creation and become spiritually discerning.
Mark E.
Well put Don. The arrogance of those 'defending' a mindless, purposeless, undirected, pathetic existence will never cease to amaze me. Why anyone, who believes that there is no God for all that we see would get upset and verbally abusive towards those who hold to a different opinion is totally irrational. But of course, they can't see how biased, opinionated, unscientific and irrational they are...they won't allow themselves to actually allow the evidence and reason to penetrate their protective walls of self-doubt. I pray that this person will have the honesty, humility and temerity to pursue truth...but of course, each of these things are irrational in an atheistic universe.
Philip M.
John H comments: “. . . although science has yet to reveal a provable theory as to how these early biochemical processes led to an organism . . .” Question: What early biochemical processes? That’s putting the cart before the horse. If John H meant “. . . chemical processes . . .”, again, what chemical processes? We know ‘process’ is a term commonly used in science, whereas ‘event' is a term commonly used in history. We also know that natural processes are deterministic. The steps involved and their sequence, the intermediates, the final outcome(s) are all pre-determined. Introducing chance into the formation of a first biological cell immediately negates any process being involved – determinism has been destroyed. It would be nice if persons such as John H quit pretending that ‘scientific processes’ were involved in the formation of the first biological cell. From their perspective, they can talk only in terms of ‘historical events’ – ‘unknown historical events’ – ‘unknown chance historical events’ – ‘unknown mega-multiple sequences of chance historical events’. And how does John H think anyone can ever obtain verifiable evidence of unknown mega-multiple sequences of chance historical events from an unobserved and unobservable past? Where would one even begin? Yes, it is all faith, and will remain a permanent faith at that. The alleged non-existence of God is the only evidence that can ever be produced for the chance formation of the biological cell – which amounts to pseudo-religious evidence, not scientific evidence nor historical evidence. ‘Abiogenesis’ (their process-sounding name for it) is indeed a lost cause.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.