Evolution as "Science" Debate Intro
Updated: Jun 27
This was the most time-consuming debate I ever engaged in to-date…twenty-six humanists versus one Christian. The debate stretched over the course of at least one week. Even with the many hours of crafting responses, I believe the time and effort was well worth it, given the direct engagement with two of the twenty-six who were willing to have respectful dialogue.
The debate took place on the Friendly Atheist Facebook page, which is a common venue for me, as one can see from my previous blog posts. Hemant Mehta, the “Friendly Atheist” (who does not seem friendly) shared one of his own blog posts on his Facebook page that took issue with Ken Ham’s position that public schools should allow field trips to the Ark Encounter in Williamstown, Kentucky. In previous debates on the Friendly Atheist Facebook page, I would typically start a discussion by replying to an existing comment thread. This time, I started my own comment thread in response to Mr. Mehta’s post, which made my comment more visible to others. This must have been a key reason why I drew enough attention to solicit twenty-six humanists to join the thread.
Blogging about this particular debate requires ten different posts for brevity. For each individual post, I will share transcript portions in somewhat of a topical order for clarity, but I will also number the posts to maintain chronological integrity. By the time I finish my final post on this series, I will have shared the entire debate transcript. Below is Part 1 of 10 of what I call the "Evolution as 'Science' Debate."
Original Facebook Post by Hemant Mehta, the "Friendly Atheist":
Teaching science isn't the same as preaching atheism. Ken Ham still doesn't understand that. http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018/09/10/ken-ham-atheists-are-bullying-us-by-saying-schools-cant-visit-ark-encounter/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
1. Kevin [commenting on Mr. Mehta's post]:
If science is supposed to be observable, testable, and repeatable, then how does evolution qualify as “science”? Can you provide an observable example of an organism adding new genetic information and functionality, such as an originally blind organism evolving eyesight, or an originally flightless organism evolving the ability to fly?
CB thank you for commenting. This does not provide an adequate answer to my question though. The finches are still finches, and the beaks are still beaks. Different combinations of already-existing genetic information, or even loss of genetic information, create variety within a created “kind.” Natural selection is not the same thing as “molecules-to-man” evolution (https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/). I’m asking for an observable example of an organism that added brand-new genetic information and functionality.
Have a good night. I won’t get to see any additional responses until tomorrow night.
Evolution is a fact. Here is some evidence: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/
Just stop.......evolution is fact!...the evidence you need is our museums,libraries and universities..or crack a book. The world is not flat,evolution is real and god is imaginary......next!.......
[Note: Humanists posted 25 more comments after I went to bed that night, and I will share those in subsequent blog posts. For now, I am skipping ahead to show my responses to comment numbers 5 and 6]
AC: No, because that article does not provide evidence that the skinks did not originally have the ability to switch back and forth between egg-laying and live birth. (https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/adaptation/australian-lizard-live-birth-lay-eggs/)
RW: if that’s the case, then why don’t you try answering my question?
At the time of publishing this post (which is more than 3 months after the debate), I have not seen any further responses from CB, AC, and RW. The few “evidences” that were presented by these humanists, from finch beak variation to skink birthing techniques, are easily expected within the context of biblical creation. The Answers in Genesis links that I shared within the debate provide more information to refute these supposed "evolutionary evidences.”
Comment numbers 7 and 8 come from humanist KY who posted four YouTube videos and a picture of an evolutionary diagram. I will share that in my next post.