Question evolution!
A grassroots movement to challenge the anti-Christian dogma of evolution
Published: 4 May 2011 (GMT+10)
What is the Question Evolution campaign? This grasroots campaign involves people empowering people to stand firm together against the evolutionary indoctrination so rampant in our schools, universities and media. You can encourage your friends to ‘Question evolution’—especially if you are a student who is being force-fed evolutionary dogma.
Get involved yourself and get your church involved as well—let us work together to spread the truth.
What good questions can you ask? Our exciting ‘Question evolution’ tract, 15 Questions for Evolutionists, provides 15 critically important questions that evolutionists cannot adequately answer. Share them with your friends, family and fellow students. These attractive tracts [view / order] are very affordable, or print your own from our downloadable PDF document [plain A4-size, plain letter-size]. See a web page of the complete 15 Questions including links to further reading and references.
Students certainly should question Darwinism in their schools and encourage others to do it too—after all, don’t teachers urge students to “question everything”? Students have a right to question the evolutionary pseudoscience peddled to them.
You can also get shirts, hats and caps, bags, mugs, stickers or badges printed with “Question evolution! / Creation.com” or “Evolution—The greatest hoax on Earth? / Get the facts at Creation.com”.
Wearing Question evolution! clothing will clearly show your opposition to evolutionary dogma. Christian students can wear these shirts or caps at their high schools, colleges/universities, or when ‘hanging out’ with friends.
By simply sharing a tract or wearing a shirt, cap or badge, others will visit creation.com and find out the truth, empowering them to reject the lie that “everything made itself without God”. Christ as our Creator and Redeemer sets people free!
Get involved in this grassroots revolt against the force-feeding of everyone with evolutionary ‘there-is-no-need-for-God’ thinking.
Visit the CMI webstore to order very affordable Question Evolution! resources available in your country. You can make your own shirts, caps, etc., or arrange your own supplier (e.g. VistaPrint is easy and affordable), using our free downloadable artwork, pdf and jpg versions available.
For students who have to wear a uniform, you can put a sticker on your bag or books, or wear a badge. Others can use the special Question evolution! coffee mug or badge at their work place.
Get your church involved in this exciting campaign! Organize a bulk order to save money. The rejection of the Creator’s authority via evolutionary indoctrination is a core issue in the erosion of traditional Christian values. Please get involved in this exciting campaign!
CMI is promoting this campaign through creation.com, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, and through other avenues as well. Help spread the word!
Contact us if you want to discuss other ways of getting involved.
Endorsements
The following people outside of CMI have endorsed the Question Evolution! Campaign: Dr Duane Gish, Dr John Sanford, Michael Oard and Ian Juby (would you like to add your name?).
Dr Gish: “As one who has debated over 300 evolutionists, I am delighted to see this Question Evolution campaign under way. The 15 Questions for Evolutionists brochure hits all the major questions on origins that evolutionists have no satisfactory answers for. The questions should be propagated widely. I commend the campaign.”
Dr Sanford: “I enthusiastically endorse the campaign to encourage all thinking people to question evolution. The era must come to an end where all things with the single exception of evolution are subject to critical examination. How sad that so much evidence has been suppressed, such that most people who consider themselves to be ‘well informed’ have in fact only heard one side of the question. Indoctrination, intimidation, censorship—this is not how science is supposed to operate. Let us return to the true spirit of science, which is critical thinking, dialog and open inquiry.”
Ian Juby: “The Question Evolution! Campaign is an innovative, grassroots anti-evolution campaign which I believe will have a lasting and far reaching impact. The campaign is worldwide in scope and I hope to see it serve as a uniting force within the biblical creation community. I heartily recommend getting involved in this grassroots anti-evolution movement.”
15 Questions summary
Note to would-be evolution defenders: please read the full brochure and linked articles before attempting to answer the questions, otherwise you will likely be wasting your time boxing at shadows. Also, please look at the answers that have already been put forward (see the 3-part series on responses under Related articles below), or you could be wasting your time duplicating what someone else has done.
- How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
- How did the DNA code originate?
- How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
- Why is natural selection taught as ‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
- How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
- Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
- How did multi-cellular life originate?
- How did sex originate?
- Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
- How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?
- How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
- Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated as ‘science’?
- Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
- Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as the operational science?
- Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?
Readers’ comments
From where did God get his power and knowledge?
There are many questions other than the 15 that we could ask. However, I think that this is a minor question compared to any of the 15 questions.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xsxubk_charles-darwin-and-the-tree-of-life-david-attenborough_shortfilms
I suspect it does not answer all of your 15 questions, or even address them. But surely we don't need to have all the answers to believe in, and logically pursue a theory.
As you say, the video does not answer the questions (any of them?), but it also adds to the confusion.
Attenborough is a good story teller; you need to be to sell evolution. Other than some nice cinematography, there is little new in the documentary (a lot of recylced clips from yesteryear).
Since we are sharing documentaries, I recommend Darwin: The Voyage that Shook the World, which does have new illuminating information never seen on BBC or Attenborough documentaries.
Of course you can believe anything you like without sufficient evidence, but the 15 questions show that evolution is like the emperor with no clothes (almost no one is game to call it as it is). A meeting of 16 top evolutionists agreed that evolution has very serious problems. For example, it has no mechanism to explain the plethora of information being found in the DNA of all organisms, for example, or how one kind of organism can change into something with a different body plan (and much more).
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The correct statement would be "Unfortunately, most of professors are not unbiased truth-seekers ...".
Please do not include me and many other among described crowd. Thank you.
You suggest that an independent third party should have produced the questions. I wonder where you would find such a thing? Neutrality is really not possible when it comes to our origins; see The myth of neutrality.
You are asking questions and scientists are trying to answer. It can take years but most of the time, science find an explanation and empirical evidences. In a way you are a good thing for the scientific approach, so thanks.
And yeah, Evolution is just a theory, but then so is gravity and I havn't seen anything strong enough to defie it :)
And yeah, we don't say "Evolution is just a theory". You did not get that from us. But gravity, unlike evolution, is a matter of operational/experimental science. The origin of life and the diversity of life are matters of history that are not accessible to experimental testing, unlike gravity. But here is an irony: no one has any idea what causes gravity. In that regard it is like evolution, which also has no viable mechanism, as the questions show.
I do, however, feel that creationism and religion in general deserve just as much thought and questioning as evolutionary theory. Creation, especially a 6 day creation occurring 6,000 years ago, is simply not able to be supported by any science whatsoever, and intelligent design is not a scientific theory at all, it is religious conviction that suggests if we don't currently understand something, then it must be because God did it! Under that same reasoning, we would never have scientific progress or discoveries.
While I agree that people should question evolution and examine the evidence for or against it, those same people should question religion just as much. When someone starts from a neutral standpoint and evaluates both options and examines the evidence for each, evolution is really the only scientifically supported theory. As soon as scientific evidence supports another theory more effectively, I will be one of the first to change my mind!
I realize you probably won't publish this under your list of 15 questions... I do think that this is the height of hypocrisy though because censoring once side of an argument is truly not questioning that side with any intent on getting legitimate answers or thoughts on the topic.
"Creationism and religion in general deserve just as much thought and questioning"? Did we imply that people should not question these things? creation.com is replete with answers to questions about these subjects, which of course means that we are also posing the questions. Have you had a look?
Creation is "not supported by any sciene whatsoever"? That confirms that you have not read anything much at all on creation.com. It is a sensible thing to actually research what you are against before you go into argue in opposition so that you don't 'lead with your chin'.
The argument from design is not 'I don't understand it, so God must have done it'. Again this shows that you have not tried to engage the argument at all. The argument comes from knowledge, not ignorance. The more that is known about a biochemical system, the more it speaks of design. Several of the questions deal with this (1,2,3,5,6). You clearly did not read the article linked from Q6: Is the design explanation legitimate?
"When someone starts from a neutral standpoint"? I wonder where you would find such a species when it comes to the issue of origins. Indeed, your own bias is showing very clearly; that you don't like the idea of divine design is clear. It is also clear that you have not even read the comments to this article, because this issue of being unbiased/neutral was dealt with in response to Will W., United Kingdom, 10 September 2012.
You call it the height of hypocrisy to censor one side of the argument. So I guess you are lobbying the evolutionary establishment to cease censoring scientific critiques of evolution, even to the extent of having evolution skeptics sacked? See Cracking the wall in science.
Yes it is hard to argue with someone who uses logic and reason, and particularly a biologist who has some detailed knowledge of evolution. :-)
I take it from your silence that you now understand that some amino acids formed in the Miller-Ury experiment provide no basis for believing that life made itself somewhere in the universe? Did you read the article?
It is evolution that has harmed science and continues to do so. Here are more links for you not to read: How evolution harms science and Blinkered thinkers. To these examples we must add the modern ‘junk DNA’ debacle, which is yet another failed prediction of evolution; a monumental failure. The latest ENCODE results (last month) should be the final nail in the coffin for the ancient Greek idea of evolution popularized by Darwin in the 19th Century. Modern science is incompatible with such naive notions of phenomenally sophisticated molecular motors making themselves by chance changes in DNA nucleotides. So why do people like Andrew P. believe it and defend it with such vigour, such 'religious fervour'? Let me quote from atheist and evolutionist Professor Michael Ruse:
See also, What all atheists have to believe (something else for you not to read because you might be affronted with a mention of the Bible) and Would Darwin be a Darwinist today?
Evolutionary biologists do not generally regard mud skippers nor lungfish as transitional between sea and land creatures. This might appear in populist propaganda for evolution, but it is not what evolutionary biologists propose. Indeed the stasis in lungfish is a problem for the evolutionary story.
Humans are not evolving, even after your clarification; we are devolving, because of the number of mutations occurring in each person, which is yet another huge problem for evolution: Geneticist: Evolution Impossible.
You wrote, "Of course I'm not going to read your responses because most of them depend on you Bible reasoning ..."
And how would you know that "most of them depend on you Bible reasoning" if you have not read them? Actually, this proves that you have not read them, because there are many scientific arguments presented, which you have clearly not considered. This all suggests that you not at all interested in an open-minded search for truth.
You say that we are "unwavering to new ideas"? On the contrary, we welcome new scientific knowledge. The more that is known, the more incredible the notion of evolution becomes. This an exciting time to be a creationist! Note, I am talking here about facts, not daydreaming about what happened in the past, which is not 'scientific knowledge'. See It's not science!
I wish you well and do hope that you will begin to look at the evidence. There are over 7,000 items on creation.com. You could start with the articles I have already recommended. But ultimately, I hope that you secure your eternal destiny with God and not the alternative, which will happen if you continue on the course you are on, even if you don’t want to believe it. There is Good News!
1) "why evolution is statistically impossible," I say you have painted an incorrect picture. Yes life is a statistical anomaly on a small scale but when cast on the backdrop of a vast, potentially infinite, universe the probability rises drastically. As for evolution being a statistical anomaly, again we see examples evolution from within the past millennium, so what you mean to say is human evolution is a statistical anomaly. To that I say poppycock, humans are no more special than the rest of existing life, so of course we have undergone evolution.
And how dare you call my ideas dogmatic without even subtly calling yourself a hypocrite. Baptized and confirmed catholic I am no stranger to dogma, but the difference between scientific "dogma" and regular religious dogma is that scientists are not afraid of going back and admitting their mistakes; for their goal is that of truth through experiment and not pre-ordained knowledge. Sure, we all can't be the smartest people in the world and we have to relinquish power to those who can fathom certain experiments, but the ability is there to obtain the knowledge and study the result for one's own self; unlike regular dogma which always falls back onto one piece of human history and does not allow for modification even if new "truths" are brought to light. So please, dogmatic... that seems a bit silly coming from Don Batten.
I have read through the 15 questions, and some are just silly:
1) How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
You pose intelligent design in your question as if this is a designated answer. That is a charged question. You should know they have created the amino acids that form the building blocks of life in a lab while trying to mimic conditions on the early earth. So it looks like life happens where conditions are "ripe," and again that happens on a regular basis in our incredibly vast universe.
2) How did the DNA code originate?
Perhaps scientists are unaware of the formulation of DNA as of yet, but instead of throwing their hands up to God almighty and saying it was your work and could never be understood, they are out there, right now, trying to imagine the procedure that might have led to DNA. Also, it turns out that certain organisms on the planet do not require the usual elements, i.e. carbon, to compose their DNA, so it seems as if life as we know it, even on Earth, is not unique and therefore has multiple ways of forming.
Personally, Don, I am not an atheist. I was raised Catholic in fact but alas I am no Christian either. I believe in the human inability to attain the knowledge of either the existence or non-existence of a God. I strive to know more about this universe through scientific study and relentless probing of my own mind. My problem with your religious dogma is that it is literally stunting minds across the globe. Instead of wonder and a sense of unknowing you fill a child's mind with an answer that cannot be argued with, not even subtly, so of course he/she is going to believe it without a doubt and shy away from anything questioning that "truth". Science has been at the back hand of religion for the entirety of written history, but those days are dwindling. People are waking up and deciding to think for themselves and not let God do it for them. A new day is dawning for man, the day of freedom from pre-ordained knowledge. And you may say, well, hum hum hum, science assumes pre-ordained knowledge, and I say only for explanation. If you were to inspect it for yourself, and do so in an unbiased, rigorous and accurate fashion as scientists do you would come to the same conclusions as the rest of the scientific community. Evolution is universal, everything evolves. That is it. If you are living you are evolving, slowly but surely.
"15 Questions summary
"Note to would-be evolution defenders: please read the full brochure and linked articles before attempting to answer the questions, otherwise you will likely be wasting your time boxing at shadows. Also, please look at the answers that have already been put forward (see the 3-part series on responses under Related articles below), or you could be wasting your time duplicating what someone else has done."
You say, "And how dare you call my ideas dogmatic without even subtly calling yourself a hypocrite". Now I would only be a hypocrite if I said I was not dogmatic and I did not say that, did I? You were the one doing the accusing and I was merely making the point that the tone of your comment was extremely dogmatic. Writing "LAW OF EVOLUTION" (shouting in writing) seems rather dogmatic, don’t you think? However, how is asking questions of evolution being "dogmatic"? Is evolution such a protected species that people are not allowed to ask questions without being accused of being dogmatic?
You say, "Yes life is a statistical anomaly on a small scale but when cast on the backdrop of a vast, potentially infinite, universe the probability rises drastically."
This shows that you did not read the linked article because the article clearly shows that even with the backdrop of the universe (which is not "potentially infinite", as the big bang at the least recognizes) and its supposed billions of years, life could never form of its own accord. Please read the articles!
I will just deal with your response to the first evolution question to show that you are not engaging intellectually with the arguments.
1) How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
Andrew: "You pose intelligent design in your question as if this is a designated answer. That is a charged question. You should know they have created the amino acids that form the building blocks of life in a lab while trying to mimic conditions on the early earth. So it looks like life happens where conditions are 'ripe,' and again that happens on a regular basis in our incredibly vast universe."
Such an inadequate answer, that the formation of some amino acids explains the origin of life shows that you know next-to-nothing about the problem, which means you have not read the linked articles or the related reading. Please read the articles!
Andrew: "Evolution is universal, everything evolves. That is it. If you are living you are evolving, slowly but surely." This is the old equivocation trick. I am living and getting older and that is evolution? I think not. Evolution is not just change, Andrew. Again this betrays a complete failure to engage the debate.
Andrew: "Science has been at the back hand of religion for the entirety of written history"? Actually, historians of science recognize that modern science is a product of Christianity, especially following the Reformation. See: Review of Peter Harrison on Protestantism and science and How the Fall inspired science.
Perhaps the future utopia you envision without the ‘strictures’ of ‘religion’ will not be the Paradise on Earth that you hope for: Fools' Heart (it has been tried before: the French Revolution, the USSR, Albania, North Korea, Mao’s China, etc.).
You protest that you were raised as Roman Catholic and you are not an atheist. I did not say you were an atheist; note the wording. But if you live as if God does not exist, which you clearly do, you live as if you were an atheist, however you want to describe it. There is no neutral fence to sit on. Being raised in the church does not of itself make you ever a Christian, any more than putting a horse in a dairy makes it a cow. Like other ex-Catholics, ex-Episcopalians, ‘ex-brand-X’ I have met, it seems that you have had just enough ‘religion’ to immunize you against the real thing, which is not religious dogma and ritual but a living relationship with the Creator who made us, which is all possible because of His love for us through Christ. Jesus said, “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.” (John 10:10)
Please think about it, Andrew.
Using one's preordained beliefs to interpret scientific data can only lead to misinterpretations. Truth be told, in the scientific community there is no longer a debate of whether evolution is actually a real phenomena, we know it is. Instead the argument has devolved, pun intended, into the idea that the human and all life on Earth has been somehow immune to this clearly universal law by the intervention of a higher being. To that I say, what happened to the science? Using a religiously charged argument in the field of science has little contribution since their is no empirical data for its consideration.
To the Christians reading this, and I'm guessing you are all mostly Christian if you spend your time on sites like these, I say if you are going to question everything, question your own beliefs in your religion; for they are based much more loosely on empirical data than the LAW OF EVOLUTION.
Your dogmatism also indicates that you have not engaged with the 15 Questions at all (there is nothing in what you have written that indicates anything but a cursory look). You have provided no evidence for evolution or answers to the questions here that evolution does not answer, only assertions. Ipse dixit?
I hope you are open to questioning your own religious attitudes, because atheism (for example) actually requires more 'faith' than believing in a supernatural creator-God (see Who created God?).
BTW, new traits do arise, but the sort of new traits that we see give no confidence that natural processes are capable of creating the phenomenally complex and sophisticated nano-machines that we are finding in living things. See: Mutations and new information, by Dr Rob Carter.
We agree that undoing 'deep time' thinking is crucially important. Contrary to what many think, carbon dating is a big problem for 'deep time' as it can only give thousands of years and fossils, coal, oil, and even diamonds that are all supposed to be many millions, or even billions, of years old consistently 'date' at thousands of years by carbon dating. See also: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth.
As a christian I know that in the final days of creation people will make up stories to make them feel better. So, if atheists care more for what they feel and less for the truth, I'm not gonna spoil it for them. I just want the evolution theory to be treated for what it is, together with all other kind of magic/vudu/garbage that now is served to people through mass media and education as established knowledge.
Your agenda is mindlessly obvious.
As your name is Creation Ministries International I can only assume that, from an early age you have been indoctrinated so as to live your life revolving around biblical teachings, creation theory included.
I am of no doubt that this has coloured your view of evolution, it being totally perpendicular to your belief system, it's not your fault. However you must surely be able to see that this is responsible for the utter corruption of the purpose of your campaign.
I would consider that you would receive a far better reaction from the scientific community if you were to distance yourself from the God rigmarole, this would after-all simply turn you into another peer review system.
If the minds behind the Question Evolution Campaign want to play in the same league as the scientific establishment then, unfortunately for you, you have to play by the rules of science. To that end I have a challenge for you: I require you to submit the answers to your 15 questions, and in doing so prove that your hypothesis is more valid than the currently held theory of evolution. This is important as the implication of the "unanswerable" questions is that your theory is superior as it can answer them.
If you yourselves are unable to answer these questions then surely you must concede there irrelevance in deciding which is the better of the two options.
We are waiting.
You say, "Your agenda is mindlessly obvious"
Perhaps you meant "blindingly obvious"? Well, yes, we are 'up front' about our agenda, unlike so many academics who use evolution to inculcate atheism. At least Richard Dawkins is also 'up front' about his atheistic agenda.
Everyone has an agenda when it comes to matters of origins, because one's view of these things affects the way we see ourselves, God, life, and everything. Paleoanthropologist Milford Wolpoff remarked, "I believe a philosophical frame-work is not something that can be eliminated in order to provide 'objectivity'. In my view,'objectivity' does not exist in science. Even in the act of gathering data, decisions about what data to record and what to ignore reflect the philosophical framework of the scientist."
You also say, "As your name is Creation Ministries International I can only assume that, from an early age you have been indoctrinated so as to live your life revolving around biblical teachings, creation theory included."
I can see that you are no prophet, because the three PhD biologists who wrote and/or checked these 15 questions all once believed in evolution and have all come to see that it is like the emperor with no clothes (with no one in the royal entourage willing to say so).
You want us to play by 'their rules' so we will be welcomed at their table? Well, that's the whole point; we don't agree with their rules! See: The rules of the game and It's not science!.
One important purpose of the 15 Questions is to demonstrate that evolutionists are pretending to have answers to the fundamental questions regarding the origin of life and its diversity. It is not necessary to provide an alternative to an idea to demonstrate the bankruptcy of the idea. Nevertheless, the implication is that intelligent design (or divine design) is responsible for the major origin events.
Of course evolutionists commonly complain that proving evolution wrong does not prove creation correct. However, evolutionists themselves use this dichotomous approach to argument when they try to argue, for example, that 'bad' design proves no design so evolution must be true. Darwin himself used the 'I can't see why God would have created things this way (so therefore he didn't)' argument. See also my response to N. W., Canada, 19 June 2012.
From the link you provided about the creation stories; and the conclusion of said article:
"All remaining worldviews also collapse eventually under close inspection due to inconsistency scientifically, historically and/or morally. Only Christianity provides a person with the knowledge of the past, present and future, makes sense of the design and beauty in the world and answers life’s dilemma’s like the problem of evil.
Most importantly it offers the only solution to the grim reality each of us must face; the problem of our sin and guilt before our Creator. The creation account (including the fall of man) in Genesis explains every person’s greatest need, the need for the only saviour of mankind, Jesus Christ."
And that is the thing, many cultures deal with the problem of evil differently; for some of them God(s) is not necessarily omnibenevolent; so evil exist; as simple as that.
The problem of our sin, a guilt and the necessity of a savior is part of the Jewish creation story (Genesis) so using those problems as the basic premise for your conclusion is a logical fallacy called “petitio principii” or circular reasoning.
The “Creation Stories” article touches some good points about the common background in many of the creation stories but the problem of our sin, guilt and necessity of a savior is almost unique if not absolutely unique to the Jewish creation story; latter adopted by the Christians.
My answer to my question, even if it´s the same as yours; comes more easily; for me the creation story that stands out is Genesis. Why? Because I believe so.
Many believers feel the need to justify why they believe in what they do; in they efforts to do so they tend to mix things as earthly as science with what should be solely spiritual.
I think that is the basic definition of Faith; to believe in something without proof or even more, without the need of proof.
However, I don’t see how what we say is circular reasoning. On a slightly different angle, see Using the Bible to prove the Bible?
We don’t argue that because other cultures share some elements of the Bible’s history that this makes the Bible’s history correct; but the shared events (such as the Flood) make a strong extra-biblical case for the reality of such events recorded in the Bible, thus opening up non-believers to realize that the Bible speaks of real events in time and space; it is not mythology.
You say, “the problem of our sin, guilt and necessity of a savior is almost unique if not absolutely unique to the Jewish creation story”. Not so; it is very common in many cultures around the world. Don Richardson, a Christian missionary, wrote Eternity in their Hearts, which documented some of the many examples of non-Christian cultures that had various elements of the Bible’s view of sin and the need for sacrifice for forgiveness and even the idea of a coming One who would save them from their sin. Australian aboriginal tribes, for example, had stories of Creation, the Fall and the Flood. The Chinese have had the concept of sin and the need for blood sacrifice for forgiveness from Shang Di, the Creator-God, for 4,000 years. See: The original unknown God of China and How do creation and global flood legends from different cultures compare to the biblical account?
However, do I believe the Bible because of these corroborating evidences of a shared history? Not now. I believe it because I believe it to be the Word of God (See Authority of the Bible). However, I came to believe this about the Bible because of evidence from the Bible that it was indeed divinely inspired; no mere human book. Such evidences are very useful for helping others to see that the Bible is not ‘just a story’ but real history.
Jesus called us to spread the gospel, to evangelize, and much of the New Testament records the activities of the first Christians in evangelizing the world. In doing this they continually provided evidence for the truthfulness of what they were proclaiming, as well as logical argument that connected with the existing beliefs of the people (such as Paul in Athens in Acts 17, which is our approach to things). We are just following this same tradition.
“Many believers feel the need to justify why they believe in what they do; in their efforts to do so they tend to mix things as earthly as science with what should be solely spiritual.” No, it is not about justifying why I/we believe, but “giving a reason for the hope” (1 Peter 3:15) to those who don’t believe in the hope that they will come to believe. What you are proposing is fideism and is a prime reason why the church today is in such a bad state in many countries that were once strongly Christian. Separation of faith and reality is not at all helpful and not consistent with the Bible’s teaching.
And Genesis is not "solely spiritual"; it is largely about history and the spiritual aspects depend on the reality of the historical events. I hope you would not apply this reasoning to the Resurrection: "It doesn’t matter if it happened or not; what matters is the spiritual lesson". That would be ridiculous (although there are liberal 'theologians' who play such mind-bending games). The Apostle Paul said we Christians would be of all people the most miserable if the Resurrection did not actually happen.
"I think that is the basic definition of Faith; to believe in something without proof or even more, without the need of proof." The Bible continually speaks of evidence; it is not 'just have faith' and it is because there is evidence that men ignore that God holds them accountable for living as if He does not exist (see Romans 1:18ff). Faith goes beyond evidence to putting personal trust in God for our salvation, but it is based on evidence. The early Christians continually appealed to the evidence for the Resurrection, for example, citing the number of witnesses to this event in appealing to people to come to faith in Christ. See:
The importance of evidence and also
Who has an answer? Providing real answers may arrest the hemorrhage of young people from the church once they leave home (and related reading at the end).
I hope this is helpful in clarifying why we do what we do and what our approach is.
Luis replied:
"By my last post I'm not meaning that faith should be blind; but that some things cannot be explained with the usual tools; just as morality, love and emotions in general have no scientific explanation.
"Faith goes beyond that; God, to me, is self evident hence, no proof necessary".
Don:
Agreed that science is not the way of knowing, but a way of knowing. Many important things are beyond science, but that does not stop some (e.g. 'sociobiologists') from trying to explain everything using 'science'.
Also, a relationship with God of course confirms to us that He is, but this does not help someone else who does not know him; hence the need to be able to share logical reasons for our faith (more than 'I just know its true').
Elements of the biblical account are common to other stories, because all people share the same original experience of the Creator-God and the Flood of Noah's day. However, the other stories often embellish things with fanciful aspects (e.g. the Sumerian flood story has a cubic boat), or leave out important parts. If you will compare them, the Bible's account is the 'stand-out' one.
See: How do creation and global flood legends from different cultures compare to the biblical account?
Part of the answer is the evidence is also that the Bible is 'the word of God' and therefore carries the orginal and true account of creation. See: The authority of the Bible (also available in Spanish). See other articles about the reliability of the Bible.
which creation "theory" or "myth" of whatever is better to call it is the right one?
Every culture has one so which one is the correct and why?
Mayans? Aztects? Vikings? Greeks? Sumerians? Jews (include Christians in these since it´s the same one)?
For a perspective see: World creation stories
I like the point, question everything but your questions are leading at best and just dishonest at worse
"Note to would-be evolution defenders: please read the full brochure and linked articles before attempting to answer the questions, otherwise you will likely be wasting your time boxing at shadows. Also, please look at the answers that have already been put forward (see the 3-part series on responses under Related articles below), or you could be wasting your time duplicating what someone else has done."
You have clearly not done that, otherwise you would not have written what you have.
BTW, feel free to disagree, but there is no need to be disagreeable about it; accusing us of being disingenuous (deceitful/lying). When you do that, it does not strengthen your argument but rather suggests that you have no argument.
The cruncher for me though is question 11. Emotions and feelings, what makes me me. There are a whole pile of emotions and feelings that I experience. Where did they come from? Are we not sentient beings? Where did this come from?
Incidentally I find it really funny when people call the Bible a book of fairy stories but it's the evolutionary text books that begin with 'Millions of years ago....'
Keepup the good work.
Furthermore, in contrast to evolution, which is fundamentally a grand story about history, gravity is testable by experimental science (and daily experience!). See "It's not science!".
Ironically, physicists have little idea what causes gravity, in contrast to your smugness about this matter. It remains one of the great mysteries of the universe.
Perhaps the best way to get your message across is to actual put it through the scientific method (without sneaking it through peer review!) Disprove evolution via experimentation. Then maybe we'll take you seriously.
We don't argue that evolution is unscientific and creation is scientific. See: "It's not science!" Understanding what we are saying before launching into criticism would be a wise thing to do.
I also don't see how we could restrict our material to "scientific illiterates"; we have no control over who visits creation.com or who comments. We often get scientists commenting. We happily interact with anyone who is genuine and we like those who do their homework (actually read/study what we say); it's much more interesting and more convincing to the onlookers. Have you checked out the Journal of Creation? The archives are on creation.com
Experiments to disprove (microbes-to-man) evolution? That would be rather difficult because no one can do experiments in the past! But to the extent that evolution can be tested in the present, it has been shown to be failed paradigm (e.g. Drosophila mutation experiments and E.coli selection; no new genes, only wrecked existing ones). Mutations are supposed to be the engine of evolutionary change from less complex to more complex, but they have proven to be the cause of net degeneration; see: Mutations: evolution’s engine becomes evolution’s end!
The fossil record is about as close as one could get to 'disproof of evolution'.
But all these things and much more are encapsulated in the 15 Questions, which you don't seem to have bothered to read (including the linked reading).
"Sneaking through peer review"? You are tacitly conceding that the only way creationist scientists could get anything published against evolution (no matter how sound the science?) would be to 'sneak' it through the system? The real question is, 'Is it true?', not is it science or not, or has it got through peer review, which excludes anything that the peers don't like! The history of science is riddled with opposition to new discoveries or anything different to the norm of the day.
There is no conflict between the two.
Why the insistance that they do conflict?
Life evolved from primordial elements formed on the early Earth billions of years ago by chance (or rather, by divine providence).
Genesis affirms the truth that God is behind this, and tells us in a non-literal way (though still more than true) how mankind has chosen the disobey God and walk his own path.
Why is there the need to put the two truths at odds?
If it is chance, then God is not behind it. If God is behind it, it is not chance. The two are mutually contradictory.
If Genesis is non-literal, how do you know that it teaches "the truth that God is behind" our existence or that mankind disobeyed God? Perhaps these are "non-literal" too? Genesis is meant to be understood as history, as Jesus and the Apostles did. That is the way we understand it, which is the basis of the gospel. Please read the article above.
1) It seems to me that judging by the picture of Darwin crossed out in a 'no circle', you want people to dismiss it entirely, not examine it. I can evidence this by the use of a no circle instead of a question mark. Have you people forgotten your own teachings, that your god burns deceivers? At least be honest and tell people your true intentions.
2) Most of those 15 questions have already been answered and you know it. If some of them haven't, at least scientists are now converging upon truthful answers. However, I do agree, that people should question evolution, that is why the scientific method demands that theories remain open to scrutiny. Scientists have been questioning the scientific theory of evolution for 150 years, but they only seem to arrive at the same conclusion, that life has been and still is evolving.
3) It seems to me very interesting indeed, that creationists like yourselves whilst sporting a smirk, continually associate evolution with atheism.
*Evolution- descent with modification
*Atheism- lack of belief in god or gods.
The two do NOT go hand in hand. There are many persons whom embrace beliefs in a particular God, but also believe evolution is a valid scientific theory.
4) Most creationists asking people whom believe evolution to be true, will not know or understand the answers to the questions themselves. Besides, even if something is unanswerable
at the time of asking, the vacuum should not be filled with the unscientific nonsense that is creationism. (refer to Kitzmiller v Dover trial ruling creationism or Intelligent design 'not science').
I am not going to continue too much. I understand that attempting to break the barriers of deliberate ignorance and dishonesty is near impossible. I just want to let you know
that reason will triumph, your cause is a joke and will ultimately fail.
Kind Regards
Your points:
1. The 'No Darwin(ism)' logo reflects what we expect would be the outcome for anyone who questions evolution with some degree of objectivity, as encouraged by the 15 questions. Accusations of dishonesty (which seem to be all too common from atheists who can have no basis for such an objective moral standard), are way off the mark.
2. More bizarre accusations of dishonesty. Why would we put up questions which we know have ready answers? That would be stupid in the extreme, setting us and our supporters up for a big fall when the answers are provided. Clearly you have not bothered to read the related reading, where the best attempted answers to the questions are provided in three parts. There are no adequate answers to any of these important questions; that's the very point of them!
Evolution (microbes-to-microbiologists) is not open to testing with the scientific method (see Question 14; did you even read the questions and the linked articles?)
Most scientists arrive at the same conclusion because most share a common mindset of naturalism (a religious position). Add to this fear of 'the mob' disapproving of them as well as fear of losing jobs and you have a powerful incentive for 'toeing the line'. See Expelled: digging deeper.
3. Yet more insinuations of dishonesty! We are totally consistent in this, that evolution and Christianity (not just belief in 'god') are contradictory. But it is atheists themselves who claim that evolution means atheism: Check out Richard Dawkins, Will Provine and the philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, for example (search creation.com. The (secular) Humanist (aka atheist) Manifesto has evolution as part of the atheists' 'faith'. Those who protect evolution from criticism, such as Dr Eugenie Scott, get 'gonged' by the atheists for their services to atheism. Check out the Who's Who of Evolutionists. In fact Scott's organisation, set up to protect evolution, was founded and financed by atheists.
4. I guess in that case most evolutionists would not understand the questions or have the answers either? And again, evolution is 'unscientific' by the very criteria that Skeptics erected to try to exclude creation from science: Is evolution pseudoscience?.
As for court cases in America, since the one you cite it was not appealed to a higher court, it is not a binding legal precedent anywhere outside of the Dover school district. It is also rather bizarre to be citing a sole judge in a district court who had no expertise in either science or the philosophy of science as an adjudicator on evolution versus creation. Perhaps you are tacitly admitting that evolution is not really a matter of science? On the broader issue, I recommend: Creation and the court room.
"Deliberate ignorance and dishonesty"? Wow! I guess when you can demonize those you disagree with it is easier to ignore their arguments that you can't answer.
"Kind regards"? I'm glad you weren't being nasty! :-)
When critics resort to accusations of lying, it is clear that they have no reasonable response to the questions.
Bless you for your efforts. Some will come to Christ, be sure of that.
Edmund
I was sent this article [about 'evolution' of multicellularity in yeast]. Basically they put single celled yeast in a flask and shook it every now and again. After 60 days, it "evolved" into a multi-cellular organism. Would you like to work your usual magic and help me out?
We covered this in Creation 34(1), page 9, January 2012.
Here is the clue that gives it away entirely: every one of the culture lines made this transition to ‘multicellularity’ independently. This strongly suggests that the yeast have the genetic programming to enable clumping under certain environmental conditions. That is, this is a pre-programmed adaptive feature of the yeast. So this is not de novo evolution of multicellularity.
There was no study to demonstrate genetic changes (new or modified genes) that would give some substance to the claim that multicellularity had evolved from non-multicellularity.
I hope this comment gets posted somewhere where people can read it. More to show that not all atheists (a label I wear reluctantly) are not religion bashing, close-minded fools. I’d welcome anyone’s response to my opinions because debate and discussion are important. Its when we start blindly believing in anything that we are truly lost.
I dusted it off, and put it on the table, etc …
This happened three days in a row!
Then I got a better idea. Every week I paste copies of the articles in Creation mag on my door, and since my office is next to the tea room, everyone who goes there has to walk past the office door! Now everyone will get to see the articles whether they want to or not! Since it is on my door, no one (so far) has dared to remove it! Thanks so much for this list of 15 questions. It will be on my door very soon! God bless!
But people would definitely need to read up on the expected arguments and learn some tactics on how to present/defend the gospel before that day.
While I wait for the T-shirt he has promised me, I looked at the 15 questions. Most are good questions. But will your readers be prepared to listen to the answers?
There is a big difference between firstly a genuine question from a person who will honestly consider the answer, however long it turns out to be and whereever it takes them AND secondly a rhetorical distraction thrown into a debate or interview which cannot be answered in the time.
It will be very good for CMI supporters to ask these questions with an honest heart and mind. I see nothing new in these questions.
If put genuinely, even I could answer them, and I am not a scientist.
Meawnhile I have my own genuine question: We can see that your criticisms of evolution are made because the Bible account is different. We are told how that came from Moses. When he gave his version, why should people have believed him?
PS you may publish my whole name and add ‘Barrister, Sydney’ if you wish.
In my view, asking questions is almost always a good thing, universally, and I think that by asking the questions you have, that it will spur more people to gain an interest in interesting scientific topics. I mean, when I saw the question on sexual reproduction, I immediately began reading up on the topic. It’s interesting what some of the current hypothesis are, but unfortunate that the issue cannot be tested definitively. Even if the evolution of a sexually reproducing eukaryote occurred in a laboratory, there is no guarantee that method of natural selection for sexual reproduction is the method that occurred in the past, all it would prove is that the concept is possible.
Still, this is a very interesting campaign that appears to be a well executed critique of modern understanding of certain evolutionary concepts. I’d like the campaign a lot better though if you avoided terms like pseudoscience when referring to evolution. I’m not going to ask you to call it science, as I understand that you do not agree with that, but it is just a bit rude to say something so dismissive of your opposition. It’s similarly rude to say that you are empowering people to visit your particular website and find out the "truth", followed by "rejecting the lie that everything made itself without god". Frankly, the movement would be a lot better balanced if you avoided purporting a specific explanation (ie. creationism) as the truth opposite to evolution, and instead kept it as a pure critique of evolutionary theory that did not have an agenda to promote the explanation you prefer. Rather you should encourage people to find an explanation, any explanation, that adequately fits the evidence presented, rather than your specific explanation, otherwise you risk appearing biased, and alienating people that might otherwise find your cause worthwhile.
Also, please be careful with the comments you censor. I think you are right to silence people who are being disruptive and acting in anger, because behavior like that isn’t really acceptable, but the fact that you are censoring people at all leads me to expect that you are throwing out all people of an opposing viewpoint. I apologize if this is not the case, it’s just a general trend in internet forum censorship that I have noticed.
All in all, I really love the aim and content of this movement, but I’m kind of put off by the occasional mudslinging. If you kept this to a minimum, then maybe you would garner more favorable response from the people you are trying to convince.
Thank you very much for providing me with these interesting thought provoking questions, please have a nice day.
I am not sure I agree that it ought to be kept purely as a critique of evolution without any offer of an alternative explanation. I can agree that it may be rude to say that we have the truth and our opponents the lie, however, I do not believe it is arrogant to present evidence to support a theory that we believe to be true and that we believe answers these 15 questions. Similarly, I am confident that the fine scientists in the creationist camp would be happy to accept a challenge of 15 questions that evolutionists believe unanswerable by our theory.
I will join this campaign
God bless you in this campaign.
They cannot be talking seriously …
Great program—keep up the good work—terrific website! Christ is being magnified.
I wondered what would happen if i placed these questions on the pin-board outside the biology rooms. On the first few days it went up it had gone again by the time I had finished my morning lectures (only about 1 hour after posting) then, on I think the fifth day, someone had scrawled “Creationsism is … (insert cuss word) …”.
Are people really this afraid of the truth? Keep up the good work!
I copy and pasted the 15 questions onto a document and fashioned it into a pamphlet myself and went to witness as I usually do. Feeling empowered by these questions I proclaimed Gods love to all and sundry but those who took my pamphlet (usually politely throwing in the bin around the corner)—can’t save everyone!) were far more hostile to the fact I was promoting evolution as a falsehood!
I had one woman who decided to make it her duty to tell me off in the street. She was quite rude and I felt very threatened as she knocked my pamphlets on to the ground (I am only 16 years old!). When I was stooped to pick them up the kindly gentlemen I spoke off earlier came past and was helping me until he noticed the subject. He suggested that it was MY fault! He said that evolution is a known fact and no one wants to hear different.
I was gobsmacked! It has only strengthened my resolve and I will not stop.
Thank you CMI!
Thanks for sharing your experience with us and encouraging us. Much appreciated!
Your experience reminded me of this article: Creation evangelism: cutting through the excess.
This one might be helpful to you in witnessing: Why not? And why? The power of asking the right questions.
Thanks again for encouraging us. May God bless you abundantly as you are faithful to Him and may He continue to give you courage to keep on witnessing.
Every blessing in Christ our Wonderful Saviour.
Hello, I am a little sceptical that you will print this, but we shall see.
I wonder when you go out with your 15 questions, will you stop once you have met anyone who can give you a reasonable answer? Obviously not everyone is going to have the knowledge to answer the specifics, but if you meet a Biologist for instance who can clearly explain the current state of scientific knowledge will you stop? If you don’t stop will you at least inform the next person without knowledge of the evidence you have been presented with?
Personaly as an Atheist I would rather you did not go around bothering me on the street or in my home, (I am only here because of a link in a debate about removing Religiousus indoctrination from schools) I think it would be far better if you realised that your thoughts are private ones and should not be forced on others. You believe in god, I don’t believe in your god or anyon else’s and I have no interest in "learning" about them beyond an interest in cultural varietyty.
You may quite rightly wonder why I am taking time to post this, It is simply that at the moment we are embroiled in a debate on removing the prayer indoctrination from our child’s school, if just a few of you could recognise the rights of others to a reasonable secular environmentent, we could all move on and end these sometimes bitter quarrels. You have your views, apply them to your own work and lives and leave others alone
Thank you
P.s I would rather not have my name published as it is very rare in my country and i don’t want any more christians at my door!
A couple of comments from Don Batten:
How can random mistakes create such beauty and order with all its astounding perfect complexity? I gave up on evolution a long time ago—it has no answers and creates big questions that need better, more logical answers, instead of faith based claims. Atheists love it because it offers them “The way, the truth and the light.” Sound familiar?
Don Batten comments: It certainly takes a lot of ‘faith’ to be an atheist, to believe that everything came from nothing with no cause (see Who created God? and Evolution preposterous). However, everyone has ‘faith based claims’; it is really a question of which ones are most reasonable. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem effectively shows that ‘faith’ (unprovable assumptions) are unavoidable (see: Does logic need faith?)
As is stated in the form you filled in to comment:
And then you are given an option to: “publish my name if my comment is selected for publication on the Internet.” [emphasis added]
Clearly the opportunity for commenting is conditional and not provided carte blanche. There is good reason for this, in that it seems wherever an open forum is provided on the Internet, too many of those full of hate for God abuse such opportunities with a torrent of vitriolic spam, rendering the forum useless for civil interaction.
You even you resorted to abuse (”intellectually dishonest”) rather than just debating the issues. The 15 Questions were written by a PhD biologist and vetted by two other PhD biologists, so your accusation of us misleading those who don’t have “a good understanding of science and scientific theory” is baseless.
Atheism does not require faith? I believe it requires far more ‘faith’ than it does to believe in a supernatural Creator. See: Who created God? and Familiarity breeds … respect?.
“Creationism is an archaic idea”? Yes, of course it’s an old idea, it’s been around since the beginning when God created everything! But I hope you don’t subscribe to the illogical notion that merely because something is old it is no longer true! And you can rest easy that it is not blasphemy to say that; blasphemy is to use God’s name in a disrespectful way, such as a swear word. Criticizing someone’s religious beliefs is not blasphemy; at least not with Christianity.
Creation is discarded because it acknowledges God; that’s all. See: Amazing admission. This was not the attitude of the founders of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, widely acknowledged as the greatest scientist ever.
It is ironic that you proffer cosmology and carbon dating as ‘proof’ of deep time. James Gunn of Princeton University, co-founder of the Sloan survey, said that “Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.” (Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.)
Also, creationist cosmologists have devised models of how the universe could have formed in the Earth time frame of 6,000 years. And these models match a number of observations that are a problem for the big bang model. There are many relevant articles here: Astronomy and Astrophysics Q & A.
As for carbon dating, it is actually strong evidence against deep time. See the chapter on radiometric dating from the Creation Answers Book: Chapter 4: What about carbon dating?. Note particularly the section: “14C in fossils supposedly millions of years old", which is a huge problem for the belief in millions and billions of years. See also: Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe.
I hope this is at least helpful in clarifying your understanding about what us Christian creationists believe, even if you choose to disagree.
The adaptation of bacteria to feed on nylon waste (’nylonase’) involved two point mutations that are both adaptive in an existing gene. The mutations sequentially decrease the specificity of an existing esterase enzyme, enabling it to hydrolyze the same type of bond in a slightly different chemical, a nylon waste compound. This is not proof that such random changes in genes created aldolases/esterases in the first place, or the myriad other distinctly different genes, gene regulatory networks, metabolic pathways involving multiple enzymes, fantastically sophisticated nano-machines, etc. (see Clarity and confusion). That is what evolution must explain. Just read a few papers on ATP synthase or DNA polymerase, RNA polymerase, gyrases, or dyneins, or kinesins or any enzyme/protein that is well-studied (I am not talking of what we don’t know here, but what we do know). Such discoveries of modern science scream ‘creation’. Antony Flew was the most famous atheistic philosopher of last century and he abandoned atheism because of the strength of such evidence (see Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God).
The Bible’s statement that no-one has any excuse for denying God’s existence (Romans 1:18ff) has never been truer, especially for those who study molecular biology.
As for some of the other users commenting, I am disappointed that there has been little, or no "rebuttal". All there has been thusfar is what I hear on a daily basis when I voice my disbelief: “Evolution is a closed case as proven as gravity” (insert either an ad hominine or straw man argument here).
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.