Macro and Micro Nonsense

I recently came across this video by a YouTube "vlogger" who goes by the name "God Rules".  In the video, he claims that "macro-evolution" is not science because there is no factual evidence for it. I had a bit of a debate with myself as to whether or not to respond; while I accept the overwhelming scientific consensus behind evolution by natural selection I don't tend to say much about it because biology is not really one of my areas of interest. I eventually decided, however, to comment on this for two reasons: First, a few days ago, I criticised the Atheist Community of Austin for letting Don Baker spew his rubbish about Christian history without pulling him up, it feels wrong for me, as a Christian, not to take fellow Christians to task in the same way. Second, the whole thing about "macro-evolution" pressed some buttons of mine in that, while I don't know much about biology, I do understand the importance of good definitions.

For those who may not be familiar, "macro" and "micro" evolution is a distinction invented by creationists to get around the obvious fact that at least some form of evolution happens. Evolution simply means change and change happens in the biological world: new breeds of dogs come into existence, animals adapt to different environments, change happens. The response of creationists to this is to admit that these undeniable examples of evolution happen but to label them "micro-evolution" and to declare that this is something totally different from "macro evolution" such as humans and other apes having evolved from a common ancestor.

When asked to define the actual difference, creationist fall, broadly, into two camps. In the first camp, fall those who define Micro evolution as "adaptation within a species." while macro evolution (which, they deny happening) would involve new species coming into being (what biologists call speciation.). This school have at least this to be said for them, they at least have the courage to take a clear position, to nail their colours to the mast.

This is, evidently, the school to which "God Rules" belongs. At about the five minute mark of his video he begins claiming that atheists don't understand science and simply accept, as scientific, anything which supports their existing beliefs. As an example of this, he cites macro-evolution, saying that atheists accept it as science, in spite of there being absolutely no evidence to support it. He says that micro-evolution is a science, explicitly says that micro-evolution is "adaptation within a species" and concedes that the fact support the conclusion that this happens. He then tells us that there are no facts or evidence to support the proposition that macro-evolution happens. That was it, a blank assertion; he made no effort to interact with or refute any of the claims of evidence.

Unfortunately, for God Rules, there is very detailed observed evidence for speciation you can read about here and, in more detail, here. Put simply, the claims of this school are wrong and are documented as such.

Note: The preceding paragraph was edited, from its original form, in light of comments made in the comment thread below.

The second school of creationists have learned from the mistake of the first school. They define macro-evolution as a change, not in species but in kind. Comfort acknowledges that change in species happens, indeed in his recent debate with Matt Dilahunty, he declared that "we all believe in" speciation. (It's at about the thirty-one minute mark if you want to listen for yourself.) So, as an aside, let me congratulate "God Rules", in denying speciation, you have actually taken a position so widely at odds with the evidence that even Ray Comfort acknowledges that your claim is untenable.

Comfort's position, however, while, in a sense, cleverer, is also, let's call a spade a spade here, dishonest and cowardly. This was well illustrated in this video in which Comfort is interviewed by his fellow creationist Todd Friel. Comfort says that "change of kinds" has not been proven. In a way, Comfort is right. Change of kinds can't really be proven because, to be proven, a proposition needs a clear definition and there is no clear definition of the term "kind." In their interview, Friel asks Comfort about the meaning of kind (the relevant part of the interview starts at about six minutes, ten seconds into the video). Comfort gives the example of dogs as a kind. He says that different breeds of dogs are different species but they are all dogs and thus all one kind. Even if this were true (and it isn't, if Comfort had bothered to do basic research he'd have discovered that all dog breeds are members, not merely of the same species but of the same sub-species: Canis Lupus Familiaris) an example is not a definition. Comfort goes on to claim that kind is a well defined scientific term. To support this claim he says that "we have a clear definition of the word kind from a biological website."

I assume anyone with any discernment can see the snake oil here but let me spell it out: Comfort claims to have "a clear definition" but doesn't bother to tell us what the definition is. He says it comes from "a biological website" but doesn't cite the name or address. For example, what does "a biological website" mean?

Normally, when polemicizing against someone, I presume that that someone is arguing in good faith. In light of the above, I don't think Comfort can be extended that presumption. He is arguing dishonestly and deserves to be called out.

P.S. As a brief aside, if Comfort is actually saying that the domestic dog is a kind of animal, then his claim that animals reproduce only after their own kinds is easily refuted: the domestic dog (Canis Lupus Familiaris) can interbreed with the Eurasian Grey Wolf (Canis Lupus Lupus)

Science, Philosophy and God

Noted Christian philosopher, Dr. William Lane Craig and atheist scientist, Prof. Laurence Krauss, will be debating at Sydney Town Hall tonight. I will be there. Richard Schumark, of the Centre for Public Christianity has written this piece, in anticipation of the debate.

I think Schumark (if you read this, forgive me, is it Mr. or Dr.?) makes some excellent points. For example, he points to the stupidity and downright intellectual laziness of imagining science and philosophy to be in competition. Science relies upon philosophical conclusions, you cannot, for example, perform an experiment unless you take the laws of logic as given, and those laws could not possibly be scientifically proven, they rellie on philosophy.

I think, however, that Schumark makes some arguments about the relationship between philosophy and science, that are more than a little wide of the mark. He writes:

“In the same way Craig’s claim is necessarily scientific in the sense that he marshals arguments for how all the available evidence points to the likelihood of there being a divine designer and creator.”

That may be true of some of Craig's arguments, but not of most of them. Take, for example, Craig's signature argument, the Kalam Cosmological Argument (not, I must stress, and argument I'm a fan of). While Craig does sometimes use scientific claims the bolster his second premise, the argument is not scientific at all. Schumark suggests it is because Craig “...marshals available evidence...” but marshalling evidence is not peculiar to natural sciences but to any rational activity.

Science is based on testable hypotheses. You put forward a scientific theory and then expect the world (or the particular part of the world you are experimenting on) to act one way if your theory is true and a different way if your theory is wrong. Classical theists don't claim the world would act differently without God, we claim that the world wouldn't exist without him. Our claims are no more subject to scientific testing than the laws of logic are.

Schumark, goes on to say that he doesn't think God's existence can be proven with full scientific rigour. If he means that God can't be proven by the scientific method, he's right, however, the claim of classical theists is that God's existence can be proven philosophically, and that these philosophical proofs are more, not less, certain, than scientific ones.

Schumark, however, seems to think that a God whose existence can't be certainly proved is plus for Christianity. He suggest that a God who left “hints” of his existence but no certain proof is more in keeping with a “personal and relational God.” He even quotes, with approval, philosopher Paul Mosser and arguing that this is exactly what we would expect of a God who values relationships first and foremost.

I have to say, I can't see why we would think that. I'm personal and I place a high premium on relationships and when I want a relationship, in either the friendly romantic, or any other sense of the word, with someone, I don't leave cryptic hints that I might exist lying around for that person to find. If possible, I generally walk up to them, say hello and introduce myself, thus, unless they have some reason to fear they are having a psychotic episode, they are generally left in no doubt of my existence.

Also, while Schumark doesn't explicitly say, I assume, given where his article is posted, that he is a Christian. In that case, I have to say that the God he believes in, the one leaving us with hints but no definitive proof of His existence, does not sound to me at all like the God revealed in the scriptures. In, for example, the first chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, it is declared that God's existence is clearly revealed in creation, leaving unbelievers “without excuse.” It is to this clearly existing God that traditional Christian philosophy points.

Just one Evolution

Jimmy Akin is a Catholic Apologist who I'm generally a fan of and who has written a lot of stuff that I have found very helpful over the yeras. Having said that, I think this article, which he wrote recently is more than a little off-base.

Mr. Akin attempts to examine the debate on the origins of the human species. He notes that views on said question fall on a broad spectrum and divides that spectrum into four groups: Creationism, Intelligent Design, Theistic Evolution and Atheistic Evolution. He does acknowledge that the spectrum could be divided in other ways but says that “... it seems that, today, most participants in the origins discussion would say that they advocate one of four major positions.”

I have to say, I doubt this very much. I am a theist (I believe in God) and I am also a person who accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus that evolution happens. I reject the label “Theistic Evolution”, however, because I don't see the two issues as directly related. This isn't to say that I see no link, I'm philosophically convinced that the very existence of scientific laws requires a certain metaphysic and that metaphysic implies a God. This however, is a philosophical question. The question of whether or not humans are evolved from other species is a scientific one. To lump a person's positions on the two questions together seems arbitrary and silly. People's beliefs about physics are not divided into those who believe in “theistic gravity” and “atheistic gravity”, there is just gravity.

Lest I be misunderstood, let me repeat myself; in saying that the two subjects are not directly linked I am not saying there is no link at all. As I said, I'm convinced that the very existence of scientific laws requires a certain view of reality and that view of reality, if consistently applied, leads to God. Alternatively, I am aware that many atheists see the regular structure of the universe as doing away with the need for a God.

Having said the above, I'm quite confident that, if you asked the majority of practising evolutionary biologists, by which I mean people actually studying evolution, they would tell you that they and their colleagues, whether theistic or not, are all studying the same process and believe in the same evolutionary process. There is no such thing as theistic or atheistic evolution; there is just evolution.

p.s. There are other things in Mr. Akin's article that I disagree with. If anyone writes a critique of some other part of his article, send me a link, if I agree with it, I'll happily post the link.