Several people in my family and a couple friends have recently either posted or referred to a Youtube video by Joshua Feuerstein titled “Dear Mr. Atheist…allow me to destroy evolution in 3 minutes.” One of them posted the video twice! This response is for their benefit. In the video, Josh levels some of the old arguments against evolution. They are borne of ignorance and I used them myself in the past when I had no clue what I was talking about. Why would I bother correcting his video? Because people I care about are putting stock in it. They share at least some of the sentiments Josh expressed. I’m making this post for their benefit. Since Josh attempted to refute evolution with science I’m going to use it to correct him. He references the sun, moon, Earth, and tides as evidence of God and intelligent design. He states that the best explanation for the origin of life and the universe is God. This is what is known in science as a hypothesis – in this case, the God hypothesis. There is no need to read all of this as I will give you the short version here. Josh doesn’t understand the science he quotes so he gets it all wrong. His logic is faulty. If you want specifics read on. 1. The title of the video states he will destroy evolution in 3 minutes. I don’t want to nit pick but he went well over 3 minutes. Just sayin’. 2. Josh says an atheist called him “an idiot, moronic, and stupid” because he believes in God. He is an idiot, moronic, and stupid. Not because he believes in God. I did for most of my life. No, he’s an idiot for thinking he understands anything about the science he references in his video. He has it all wrong and makes a total fool of himself to anyone that knows the slightest bit about thermodynamics, evolution, heliocentrism, and so on. 3. Josh says that evolution is not science because it cannot be observed, it is not science but a theory, one man’s theory. a. On observation: What I think Josh is saying is that in order for something to be science it must be directly observed. This is ironic given that later he says he believes in God because he felt him – not a direct observation I would point out. That said, who says that evolution cannot be observed? Macroevolution or the big picture of changes in species cannot by its very nature be directly observed in large species. These changes take too much time. That said, there is plenty of evidence of these changes that can be readily observed. When Darwin wrote the origin of species he used evidence in living species – noting how different species had become uniquely adapted to their environments. Today we have a wealth of evidence we can observe that Darwin didn’t have. The fossil record paints a fairly clear picture of speciation over time as does DNA. All of this can be readily observed. We can observe microevolution (the smaller steps of change) in countless experiments that have been conducted with small species such as fruit flies and bacteria and we have been able to observe major changes in short periods of time. We can also see microevolution in the natural world when species adapt to new environments. b. On theory: To say that evolution by natural selection is one man’s theory is a negligent understatement. Among educated individuals there are only tiny pockets of doubt. The theory belongs to us all. That said, I think Josh doesn’t understand what a theory is. He seems to imply what so many believers directly say, that evolution is “just” a theory. Most average folks, when they say theory, are talking about this definition of the word, “a proposed explanation.” In science we call that a hypothesis. A scientific theory is defined thus, “a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.” A scientific theory is not just an idea to explain something. It has to be supported and substantiated through research, experimentation, and discovery. A scientific theory has to be subject to disproval and testable. It has to be able to make accurate predictions and it has to stand the test of time. Evolution by natural selection has met all these criterion. In fact, it has stood up to scrutiny so well that it is considered scientific fact. That is, “an observation that has been confirmed and is generally accepted as true even though it’s truth is never final.” Using God to explain the existence of things would be a hypothesis and not a theory because it is not a well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and it has not been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. 4. Josh goes on to say that evolution suggests we magically and mysteriously developed different characteristics because we willed it. This statement alone illustrates that Josh is woefully ignorant when it comes to an understanding of evolution by natural selection. It says no such thing. No species “wills” any adaptation or characteristic. This idea is absurd. The truth is very simple. Any adaptation or mutation that offers a survival advantage will be favored and increased over time. Those within a species that survive get to breed so they pass on the traits that gave them the advantage. Advantages are slowly accumulated over time developing unique species with unique characteristics. More interesting here is that Josh refers to the idea of evolution as mysterious and magical. Later in his video he said God just uttered a single phrase and the universe came in to being. Really? It takes too much faith to believe the vastness of life came from a single cell? That’s akin to belief in magic Josh? But to believe God just said a sentence and it all happened only requires a comfortable amount of faith? 5. Next Josh goes in to an argument that the laws of thermodynamics prevent a single cell from forming on its own and certainly prevent every other form of life coming from that single cell. I remember when I believed in God and I used the laws of thermodynamics to support my case. I know now that I was being a complete idiot at the time. Why? Because I never actually took the time to read and understand the laws I was referencing. Josh clearly has not either. If you believe in God do yourself a favor and take the time to actually research thermodynamics before you try to use them to your advantage. Believe me, they don’t support your cause, and in fact only serve to make you look like “an idiot, moronic, and stupid.” First let me explain entropy. It comes up in the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics and it’s what Josh was using to refute evolution and support the God hypothesis. Put simply, entropy is the measure of disorder and randomness in a system. Some refer to it as chaos. In his video Josh says, “You can’t argue that order came out of chaos.” Well Josh, if you actually understood the laws of thermodynamics you would know that no one is making that argument. Evolution certainly doesn’t make that argument. It’s absolutely crucial to note that the laws of thermodynamics apply to isolated or closed systems only. The earth is not a closed system. It’s an open system…more on this later. The law of thermodynamics most believers attempt to use to their favor is the 2nd law which states that entropy tends to a maximum. Or in other words, things tend toward disorder and chaos – they degrade and fall apart. Believers love to say this means that a single cell couldn’t possibly form in such a chaotic system. Then they say that God most have organized all life since entropy prohibits it from happening on its own. They say that because we have apparent order in our system God must have made it from the disorder. The problem with that is if anything (including God) is able to influence a system it is not, by definition, isolated or closed. Remember the 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. As I said before, earth is not a closed system. Almost every bit of energy we have on Earth does not come from the earth – it comes from the Sun. And the Sun is constantly providing the earth with new energy – that makes it an open system. Open because energy from the outside is coming in so no entropy. The power and energy from the sun is all that would have been necessary to produce that first single cell. 6. At this point I should probably mention another subtle flaw in Josh’s arguments. Evolution doesn’t even try to explain how life began. Evolution doesn’t explain how a single cell might have formed – that isn’t part of it. All evolution does is explain how we have so many different varieties of life so well suited to their environments. I do personally believe that a cell would have been able to form on earth. Scientists are close to recreating the way it was done. But, it is a moot point when it comes to evolution. Many educated believers have accepted evolution. They believe that God put a single cell or DNA or whatever on earth and the ripe conditions for evolution to take hold. So, it doesn’t really matter how the universe or life on earth began because evolution doesn’t address those issues at all. The discussion doesn’t impact the truth of evolution at all. Believe God started it if you want. 7. Next comes what is probably my favorite part of Josh’s video. It immediately jumped out at me as moronic and hypocritical. Josh says, “Look at the world we live in: the sun goes up, the moon goes out, we travel around the sun…” His point here is that this implies things are organized and that can’t be possible without violating the laws of thermodynamics. I’ve already explained that it doesn’t violate the laws because the earth and even the solar system are open systems. What is funny about this is he says that we travel around the sun. What he is referring to is heliocentrism which is the theory that the sun is the center of the solar system and everything orbits it. What!? That’s right, the idea that the earth travels around the sun is “just a theory”. It’s called, the Heliocentric Theory. It appears this is a theory that Josh has accepted because he states it as a matter of fact – “we travel around the sun.” There are some interesting points to be made here. 1. When Copernicus suggested the earth went around the Sun he pissed the church off. They believed that God created earth at the center of the universe. Who do you think Josh would have supported then? 2. The earth has never been “observed” going around the sun. Remember when Josh said something can’t be science if it can’t be observed? Well, how do you observe the earth going around the sun when you live on the earth? We can’t – it has never been directly observed. However it does meet the criteria of scientific fact. It is an observation that is confirmed and generally accepted as fact. We don’t directly observe it but we observe the evidence and it all adds up. When we put the sun at the center of the solar system everything we can observe (such as the position of other planets in our night sky) makes sense. So why is Josh okay with accepting heliocentrism as science and not evolution? Neither can be directly observed. Both are theories to explain the natural world that have been well substantiated. Both are generally accepted as fact. The best part about this is that we have way more evidence to support evolution as fact than we do to support heliocentrism. This means that we know with more surety that evolution by natural selection is a fact than we do that the earth orbits the sun. We just have so much concrete evidence for evolution. Some of it literally written in stone. 8. Josh says to imagine a tornado goes through a junkyard and produces a perfect shiny red Lamborghini. Then he says this is exactly what evolution suggests. Clearly, Josh doesn’t actually know what evolution is. He obviously hasn’t read up on it himself and doesn’t understand. I’ve heard many variations of this argument. I use to say, “Imagine a perfect Swiss watch forms from nothing. That would be impossible. And yet, the Swiss watch maker is even more complex. Only God could have made the watch maker.” I was so idiotic! I would say that because I didn’t know what I was talking about. Evolution by natural selection never suggests that any complex thing can just come in to being. It only explains how many very small changes over a very long period of time can result in many different species. How is that anything like a tornado going through a junkyard? The worst part about this argument is that it makes matters more confusing. Josh suggests that the variety of life on earth is too complex to answer with evolution so he answers it with God. The problem is, that if a being exists so advanced to be able to create us, the earth, and the universe that being will be way more complex than a Lamborghini and way more complex than us. In other words, God is the ultimate Lamborghini. Where did he come from? How did he form? If the question of our existence is complex and can only be answered by God then that begs the question of his existence and he is more complex than we are. By inserting God as the answer the question of existence becomes harder to answer. Again I would reference at the end of his video Josh said God just uttered one verse and BOOM – the universe. Uh, if a tornado creating a Lamborghini sounds ridiculous to you why doesn’t a sentence forming the universe? If believing in the Lamborghini means you should be taken to the asylum what should believing in the sentence creation idea mean? 9. Josh muses on the natural beauty of the world and suggests he can’t accept it is an accident. I’m not sure the word accident applies to evolution but even if you agree that it does this still begs the question of where did God come from? Josh believes he is the one who created all the “creations.” But who or what created him? Was he an accident? 10. In summary… Don’t talk about things you clearly don’t understand Josh – that’s what makes you an idiot, moronic, and stupid. If you are okay with an all powerful God influencing our open system here on earth why not just accept the sun as the source of power and energy here? Of the two propositions which one can we actually directly observe? The sun. Which one can we conclusively say is a significant contributing factor to life on earth because we have directly observed it working? The sun again. The sun provides energy to plants which store it. We eat the plants or other animals that ate the plants and that energy is passed to us and provides us life and health. We survive in the warmth of the fire of the sun. We see by the light. It is right there in the sky all the time. All you have to do is look up and you can directly observe the sun – an outside source that constantly provides energy to our very open system. Why insert God, who cannot be directly observed, into the equation when the sun is right there all the time? Apply Occam’s Razor. Of the two hypothesis which one is more simple? God is responsible for life on earth or the sun? Which one can we directly observe providing life? Which one requires faith? Which one can be explained and understood? You get the drift. Why make things more complex than they need to be? Josh clearly doesn’t understand any of the words he puked out of his mouth. To my friends and family I beg you to apply some critical thinking for your own benefit. Don’t share Josh’s video because he is an idiot, moronic, and stupid.
Posted on: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:10:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015