We had three great topic suggestions: embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), the best arguments against evolution, and issues around how the First Amendment relates to the work of the church. I’ll start with my take on the best arguments when talking to people who resist the Christian worldview because, they claim, science has disproved the Bible through the discovery of evolution.
There are a couple of basic principles to keep in mind. First, remember that the evolutionist is the one making the claim here–not you. The burden is on him to defend evolution, not for you to prove that it is false. Keep him on the defense by asking questions. Questions like “What do you mean by that?” and “Interesting, how did you come to that conclusion?” cause him to clarify his position without you having to do any real work. Just listen and ask more questions. Most of the time, you’ll find that they have never been asked why they believe what they do. The simple act of asking the questions shows that they have no basis for their positions. In the case where someone has given it some thought, then their answers will guide you in how to exploit the weaknesses in their case.
Second, I like to stick to arguments that are immediately accessible to both parties. That is, I try to avoid arguments that rely on expert knowledge or particular research because those are difficult to settle and most people will not go off and do the necessary research. In contrast, here are a few ideas that they can walk away with and ponder.
Development of Two Sexes Simultaneously
This is probably the least scientific, but most easily accessible argument I know of. If we are to believe that every know life form has evolved from single-celled life, we must believe that for every species that reproduces sexually, both the male and female sexes evolved completely in tandem. That is, for a given species, two independent reproductive systems would have had to mutate in ways that kept it compatible with the opposite sex’s system, which would have to be mutating at just the same time, in corresponding ways.
If one ponders this synchronized mutation taking place in every species, and yet resulting in exactly two sexes of each species, it stretches the faith of even the most diehard believer in the system.
Natural selection states that small, random mutations over a large amount of time will result in an improving species because the mutations that make a creature more likely to survive are more likely to make it into the next generation. So, mutations that make the creature more able to survive are more likely to get passed on and become the norm for future generations. This implies that each small step along the way makes the creature more able to survive than it was before.
However, many complex systems, like the human eye for instance, provide no benefit until the entire system is in place. The eye, or any other irreducibly complex system, simply cannot be developed by a series of slight modifications. There are many examples of such systems on both the molecular level and visible systems. Imagine for instance the evolution of the wing. Until the creature could fly, what advantage would the early stages of a wing provide that would make the creature significantly more likely to survive? It seems like the opposite would be the case. Natural selection would eliminate those with useless, partially developed appendages.
Transitional Forms in the Fossil Record
This one violates my principle of using immediately accessible information, but it is too powerful to leave out. Darwin himself claimed that, if his theory were true, the fossil record would eventually show transitional forms of creatures between the state they are in today and where they started. It seems obvious that if all of these species are always evolving, little-by-little, over large periods of time, then the fossil record would be full of these creatures in transition. In fact, that would be most of what we would find, right?
Well, we have yet to find ANY bona fide transitional forms. Yes, there are one or two strange birds that evolutionists will point to, but there are easy explanations for them. And besides, are we really to believe that so many species have made such incredible changes over such large periods of time, and all we have to show for it is one or two fossils that look like transitions?
Those are three of my favorites, but I’d like to hear some of your best arguments.
I have one that’s kind of a meta-argument (ie. an argument about the argument) that goes something like this:
The scientific method never proves anything – it only disproves or supports a given hypothesis.Evolution is at best a theory (an accepted but unproven fact), though an honest person would say it’s really more of a hypothesis (a suggestion about how things might be).People who hold to evolution as a fact are violating the scientific method. They should be open to questioning it – in other words, consider it a theory or hypothesis.By holding to evolution as fact or even truth, they reveal that they hold to it as an article of faith – which is very unscientific-sounding.
I guess my bottom line is if you’re interested in evolution as a scientific subject, let’s talk in scientific terms and agree that it’s at best an interesting theory. On the other hand, if you’re interested in evolution as an antidote to this messy God thing, let’s just agree that you’re a God-hater and go that way. But let’s not pretend that evolution is the cosmic “gotcha” that puts the whole question of God to rest.
Eric, what would you say to those who point to “Nebraska Man” or “Neandertal Man?” Arn’t these transitional forms reliable? Why or why not?
I know this answer is really late but I noticed your question was not answered yet. I have found a number of sources on the web that talk about this. They all say that Nebraska Man was not a man at all. Only a tooth was found. When this specimen was first found it was thought to be a tooth of “transitional man.” This was highly advertised in things such as newspapers that scientists have found the “missing link.” Further research showed that this specimen was actually a type of pig. As for Neandertal Man, I found one source that shows Neandertal to simply be humans who had been deformed because of the elements (lack of nutrition, cold harsh conditions, etc…) I hope this helps.
I am a Christian and a Geology major, soon to have bachelors degree. I feel that I have learned a great deal about science and evolution and I am ansious to get started with helping bring atheist scientists to Christ. If anyone has any suggestions please leave a comment.