Trying to Make Sense of Noah’s Ark

At the time the story of Noah’s Ark was first written thousands of years ago, it actually made some sort of sense to talk about building a boat large enough to carry representative samples of each of the various kinds of animal on earth. After all, the people who wrote the story didn’t actually know about the existence of most of the different species existing on earth. Sure, they knew about camels, horses, goats, cows, sheep, wolves, cats, bears, lions, elephants, etc., but they had no idea whatsoever about, say, kangaroos and koalas, sloths, penguins, opossums, and all the rest of the animals that lived beyond their small universe of experience. So if you’re only talking about hundreds of different species instead of thousands (or millions), then it makes perfect sense to think about somebody building an ark to hold them all.

OK, so maybe not perfect sense, since you’d still have to deal with feeding them all, disposing of all their waste, and constructing such a monstrous and unseaworthy vessel in the first place using bronze age technology, but you get the point. Those are all minor issue compared to the big one of fitting millions of animals.

That was then, though. Nowadays, we are fully aware of the vast number of different animals that exist today across the globe and not even the most die-hard, blinded by faith, Young Earth Creationist would ever consider denying the existence of these animals. Nobody goes around claiming that kangaroos are a hoax perpetuated by scientists the way that they might claim that evolution is a hoax. After all, we can all go to zoos and actually see many of the animals that were completely unknown to the authors of the Noah story. So, given the fact that there truly are just way too many different species of animals that could ever possibly fit onto a single ark, even the most die-hard, blinded by faith, Young Earth Creationists have to admit that it’s just a made up story, right?

Yeah, right. And Flat-Earthers are all going to finally admit the Earth is round because NASA has provided proof that it has satellites and space stations orbiting the planet. Not gonna happen, sorry.

So, how do Biblical literalists still make sense of the story of Noah’s Ark given what we now know about the animal kingdom? Well, first of all, they claim that there were certain types of animals that Noah didn’t need to bring on board. Sea creatures, for example, could all survive in the water and many species of insects could have probably survived by hanging out on mats of floating vegetation or something similar. Forget the fact that the sudden influx of fresh water and the co-mingling of fresh and salt water would have killed off many marine creatures that have evolved to only live in fresh or salt-water environments. It all sort of makes sense, right?

Second of all, Noah only brought juvenile members of each species onto the ark. Little baby animals (even little baby dinosaurs) take up a lot less room and don’t eat nearly as much as full-grown adult animals, right? I mean, ignore the fact that this isn’t actually mentioned in the Biblical account anywhere, since it could have happened, right? Even if it did happen that way, though, we’re still talking about way too many animals to ever fit into an ark. Which brings us to…

Third, and most important of all, instead of bringing two (or, in some cases, seven) of each species of animal onto the ark, Noah brought two (or, in some cases, seven) of each “kind” of animal. Now, “kind” is not a scientific term, but Young Earth Creationists use a sort of “common sense” approach to determining what is and is not a “kind.” For example, instead of bringing representative samples of dogs, coyotes, jackals, dingos, hyenas, etc., on the ark, Noah would have just brought a pair of some “dog-like” creature (perhaps similar to a wolf). Similarly, instead of bringing lions, tigers, jaguars, ocelots, lynxes, etc., Noah just brought a pair of “cats.”

So, yeah — perfectly sensible, right?

Except… no. The problem with this explanation is that it requires the speciation of thousands and thousands of different “kinds” to occur over the last 4000 years at a speed which would make an evolutionary biologist blush in embarrassment and without anybody actually noticing it happening (Young earth Creationists love to attack things like evolution by claiming it has never been observed, but then they are perfectly willing to accept this).

Just to out this into perspective, after the ark landed at Mt. Ararat, the descendants of this breeding pair of “felines” would have had to rapidly speciate to produce all the different types of cats we see today. Yes, one breeding pair of “cat” was responsible for all the Lions, Tigers, Jaguars, Panthers, Leopards, Ocelots, Lynxes (Canadian, Iberian and Eurasian), House Cats (all the different breeds), Snow Leopards, African Golden Cats, Asian Golden Cats, Bobcats, Caracals, Chinese Desert Cats, Clouded Leopards, Fishing Cats, Servals, African Wild Cats, Andean Mountain Cats, Black-footed Cats, Bornean Bay Cats, European Wild Cats, Flat-headed Cats, Geoffroy’s Cats, Iriomote Cats, Jaguarundi, Jungle Cats, Kodkods, Leopard Cats (different from leopards, mind you), Marbled Cats, Margays, Oncillas, Pallas Cats, Pampas Cat, Pumas (a.k.a Mountain Lions or Cougars), Rusty Spotted Cats and Sand Cats. And all this happened in the last few thousand years or so without anybody seeing it happen.

And that’s just cats, mind you. Repeat the same process with horses (zebras, asses, etc.), dogs (wolves, foxes, coyotes, etc.) and every other “kind” of creature for which we now have many different existing species. All of this happening far more rapidly than has ever been observed in nature, and all without a single person in history ever noticing all these new species miraculously appearing overnight (“Hey — that jaguar just gave birth to an ocelot!”).

Oh, and since dinosaurs must have lived at the same time as humans, Noah also had to bring one representative pair of “dinosaurs” on the ark as well, but they were very small. And they died off right after the ark landed. Or else they lived long enough for their offspring to cover the earth with their fossils and then suddenly died off, again without anybody actually seeing it happen even though it would have been happening right in front of us during all of recorded history.

And, of course, not only would this rapid speciation have to occur without anybody ever taking note of it, but you would also need to explain how all the animals managed to travel to all the distant parts of the word where they eventually ended up. How did the Kangaroos and Koalas make it to Australia? How did the Sloths make it to South America? How did the penguins make it to Antarctica?

The only answer to all of these questions that Biblical literalists can provide is, of course, “God did it.” How could Noah build an ark big enough to carry all the necessary animals with only Bronze Age technology? God showed him how to do it. How could such a monstrosity be seaworthy? God performed a miracle and kept it afloat. How could all the different “kinds” of animals rapidly speciate and distribute themselves globally? God made it happen. Etc., etc., etc. If you want to believe this, go for it. God is a god of miracles, after all, and with God nothing is impossible (so they say). But, please, I wish people would stop trying to come up with rational-sounding and pseudo-scientific explanations for how it was all possible or how the story could possibly make any sort of sense. Just admit it was impossible and say that God can do impossible things, end of story. Stop trying to prove that your illogical and irrational beliefs are based in science and just own your beliefs for what they are.

Evolution and Why Labels Don’t Matter

Theists (especially Young Earth Creationists who deny the reality of evolution) love to make a big deal about the emergence of species, constantly asking for evidence of one species (or “kind”) turning into another, or asking how the “first” member of a species could have possibly shown up suddenly one day if it had no other member of its species to mate with, etc. Here’s the thing that these folks either do not understand or else choose to ignore, however:

We humans looooove labels. We just can’t help ourselves. We have this innate burning need to distinguish everything from everything else and give it all labels to make sure that everybody knows what we are talking about. We have chairs and we have beds. When somebody invents something that can be used as both a chair and a bed, we call it a futon rather than just admitting that “chair” and “bed” are arbitrary labels in the first place. We label eating utensils that have tines as “forks” and eating utensils that have bowl-like depressions as “spoons”. But then somebody comes up with a utensil that has tines and a bowl-like depression, and we have to come up with a new label “spork” (or “runcible spoon,” if you prefer) because we just can’t deal with something that contradicts our previously defined labels.

The same is true with biology. We have “cats” and we have “dogs” and we have “birds” and we somehow think that just because we have come up with these labels that nature somehow cares one whit about making sure that reality conforms with them. And, sure, it’s pretty obvious that cats and dogs and birds are pretty distinct from each other, but things get awfully muddy when you start labeling each individual species of cat, dog and bird. Not to mention ape. We have arbitrarily defined “species” as groups of animals that can interbreed with each other, but this is simply our way of labeling things and not a hard and fast natural law. That’s why there are things like “ring species” where one group of animals can interbreed with a similar group living in proximity to them, and that group can interbreed with another group that lives in proximity to them, etc., but you eventually get to a group that can interbreed with their closest neighbor but can not interbreed with the original group. We then feel compelled to label the last group a different species from the first group.

All of this is to say that, yes, evolution is true and occurring all the time and yes, this means that any labels we put on things with regard to species, genus, etc., are necessarily going to be imprecise and have gray areas and be subject to revision. Which is, of course, why it is so ironic when some people who deny evolution claim it’s impossible for one “kind” of animal to evolve into another “kind” over time, as if they themselves have some infallible way of labeling things.

The "Theory" of Evolution

I've lost count of how many times I've heard or seen fundamentalist theists (whether Christian or Muslim) disparage the entire concept of evolution by saying, "it's just a theory."  As in, "Scientists claim that man evolved from apes, but the Theory of Evolution is just that -- a theory!  It's nothing more than a guess!"  I've also lost count of how many times I have heard or seen people (whether atheists or just rational theists) respond to this claim, but the responses always seem to be one of two different approaches.  Some people go with a glib response to the tune of, "Evolution is 'just' a theory the same way gravity is 'just' a theory!"  Others point out that the word "theory" has a different meaning when used in a scientific context than it does when used colloquially.  In other words, while theory can certainly mean "simply a guess or conjecture" when used colloquially, when scientists use the term they mean "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena."

Neither of these two standard responses are particularly helpful, in my opinion.  The first suffers simply because it is glib, and doesn't really offer enough information to change anybody's mind on the subject.  Glib responses, in my experience, are best suited to making the person making the response feel superior, but don't typically have much affect on the respondent.  The second response, while informative and accurate, suffers because it completely misses the entire point.  It doesn't really matter if "theory" is defined to mean that it's not "just" a guess but is instead supported by evidence and generally accepted as true.  That still lets fundamentalists claim that it doesn't have to be true.  "After all," they might argue, "for centuries it was generally accepted by scientists that the earth was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth, or that everything was made up of earth, air, fire and water."

No, I think the best response to the whole "it's just a theory" argument is to point out what the Theory of Evolution actually is, not what the word "theory" means.  And no, I don't mean explain all the details of the theory and point out all the evidence that supports it (although that can certainly be helpful if you have the scientific background to pull it off).  I'm talking about something a lot more basic which always seems to get missed in these discussions.  It is important to explain that the Theory of Evolution is not the proposition that there is such a thing as evolution in the first place, that all currently existing species (including man) have evolved from previously existing species, and that all life on earth shares a common ancestor who lived billions of years ago.  Instead, the Theory of Evolution is the proposition to explain how and why all of that took place.

Evolution, in other words, is an observable, demonstrable fact and not a theory at all!  The Theory of Evolution is our best explanation (supported by evidence and commonly accepted as accurate) as to what caused (and still causes) that fact.  And just because our best explanation might be incomplete or inaccurate or just flat-out wrong doesn't say anything about whether scientists are at all unsure as to whether evolution is a real thing.  This is similar to how the "Theory of Gravity" does not seek to explain whether or not there is gravity, but instead seeks to explain why there is gravity and how it works.

Evolution is an observable and demonstrable fact, plain and simple.  We have a multitude of evidence from various sources, such as the fossil record, comparative anatomy, DNA analysis, etc., that shows unequivocally that all life on earth has evolved from prior life forms over time and that all living creatures shared common ancestors in the past.  Evolution itself is not a theory -- it's simply an observation.  The Theory or Evolution deals with how and why evolution occurred, and the commonly accepted explanation is that evolution is caused by the occurrence of random mutations within a population that gives rise to variety, and that changes in environment cause different variations within the population to either thrive or perish, which over vast time scales can lead to entirely new species, genera, orders, classes, phyla and even kingdoms.

Whether this theory is wholly accurate and complete can certainly be discussed.  It is, after all, "just" a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction.  Maybe there are additional factors at work that we haven't figured out yet.  Maybe some of the factors we currently believe to be involved aren't as important as we think.  Maybe we've got it completely wrong and there is a totally different explanation for how evolution has occurred (and is still occurring).  Maybe that explanation is even "God did it" (or "aliens did it" or "magic pixies did it").  But none of that uncertainty changes the fact that evolution has occurred and continues to occur.

Evolution is a fact.  The explanation as to how it works is a theory.  A very good, commonly accepted theory that can be and has been used as principles of explanation and prediction, but a theory nonetheless.  And this, I believe, is the best response to the whole "evolution is just a theory" argument.  No, the "Theory of Evolution" is a theory, but evolution itself is an an accepted, observable, demonstrable fact.

Every Theist vs Atheist Debate In a Nutshell

All right, so maybe the title of this post is a wee bit broad, but after watching (and engaging in) many debates between "Theists and Atheists" (a.k.a "Creationists vs Scientists", "Christian Apologists vs. Agnostics" or what have you), I've finally realized that every single debate always ends up following the exact same pattern.

From the atheist side comes the following points, stated in a wide variety of forms:

• There is no empirical, verifiable, reproducible evidence for any sort of God that is actually worshiped by any religion on earth (leaving open the question whether some sort of timeless, immaterial, non-interventionist, supernatural being might possibly exist beyond our ability to perceive it in any way).
• The various holy scriptures used by different religious beliefs to justify their faith are all deeply flawed insofar as they have descriptions that are at odds with reality (either readily observed or experimentally verified).  These include descriptions of the creation of the world, supposed miracles, historical events, prophecies, etc.
• Therefore, since there is no good evidence to support the existence of God and what little evidence is offered is flawed, there is no good reason to believe in God.

From the theist side comes the following points  (again, stated in a wide variety of forms):

• The holy scriptures state that the entire universe was created by God and therefore "God did it" is an all-encompassing explanation for everything in the universe.
• Atheists (or scientists) cannot completely explain every single observed phenomena in the universe and provide exact description of every single historical event or process that led the universe to be the way it is today.  And for things that do have a scientific explanation, atheists (or scientists) cannot prove those explanations to be 100% true and accurate in every single case.
• Therefore, since atheists can't explain everything perfectly and theists have a book that lets them use "God did it" as an explanation to explain everything, there's no valid reason to not believe in God.

In other words, theists and atheists are basically having two completely different conversations, and debates between theists and atheists are therefore usually "won" or lost" based entirely on how the debate is framed.  If the debate is framed by theists as "who can claim to have a source of All Truth," then the theists are going to win every time since atheists aren't actually making any claims to knowledge.  If, however, the debate can be framed as "is there any good evidence to support a belief in God or isn't there," then the atheists have a shot.

The problem comes, however, when theists almost always shift the debate away from their own burden of proof and atheists let themselves be put on the defensive as they try to prove how science has better methods of explaining the universe.  Atheists, however, don't actually need to provide an alternative explanation for everything theists claim can be explained by God, and they should really stop letting themselves get drawn into that sort of discussion during a debate.  Sure, it's awfully nice that modern science has well-tested and verified explanations for such things like how stars and planets form, how life evolves, etc., but that really has nothing to do with whether or not God exists.  Even if science had no explanations whatsoever to explain anything about the world around us, that would simply prove that "we don't know" and not that "God did it."  If a theist wants to prove that "God did it," it's not enough to simply point out that atheists don't have a better explanation -- they need to offer compelling evidence that God did, in fact, do it.

Once the debate is shifted away from "atheists can't prove that God didn't do it", it's possible to actually examine and refute any evidence offered by theists to prove that God exists.  If they go with the argument from design, point out the flaws in that argument.  If they claim their holy book is inerrant, point out all the things that it gets wrong.  If they claim that God is required to have absolute morality, point out that the Bible is full of moral laws that no longer apply today and that every single religion interprets God's laws in a different way (not to mention the fact that many atheists perform good deeds while many theists perform atrocious acts, often justified by their belief in God).  If they go with a cosmological argument that requires some sort of "creator,"point out how much of that argument depends on creative use of definitions (if you can), point out the inconsistency in claiming that everything except for God requires a creator (if you can make a special case for God, why not a special case for the Universe?), and point out that "proving" the existence of a timeless, immaterial being who -- by definition -- cannot possibly interact with the material world or be detected in any way doesn't really provide evidence of any sort of God actually worshiped by anybody.  If they resort to personal anecdotes ("I felt Jesus come into my heart") or so-called "Faith Promoting Stories" ("Little Bobby was lost in the woods and prayed, and then he was rescued!"), point out that anecdotes are not the same as evidence and that confirmation bias let's them ignore all the times Jesus didn't come  into someone's heart and heartfelt prayers weren't granted.  Finally, if they claim that a belief in God gives them comfort, acknowledge that being comforted by a belief isn't actually evidence for the truth of what is believed.


Shifting how a debate is framed isn't always easy, especially when theists know that the only way to succeed is to avoid having to actually justify their own position.  No matter how many times you try to point out that they have no good evidence for what they believe, they will constantly try to get you to provide 100% perfect explanations for everything.  And even if you do manage to shift the debate to actually discussing the evidence for God, it can be an uphill battle wading through the mountains of misinformation and, sad to say, outright lies that get offered as evidence that everything in the Bible is literally true or that religious miracles really did occur, etc.  If you know your stuff, however, and keep the debate focused on the actual topic, you might just get theists to admit that they don't actually have any good evidence for their beliefs and are relying primarily on faith instead.   And that's pretty much as far as you can hope to go, in my experience.  After that it's up to the theists (and those those in the audience watching the debate) to decide whether faith is enough to justify the way they choose to live.

Another Evolution Analogy

In a previous post I discussed (among other things) Richard Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable," in which he laid out a good analogy comparing the gradual process of evolution to a walk up a very gradual slope that eventually leads to the top of a very high mountain.  It's a very good analogy, but I fear it may require a bit too much work to accept it since (a) not everybody has experience with climbing up gradual slopes and (b) a change in altitude is not really in the same conceptual ballpark as the change that species undergo over time.  It's strength is, I believe, primarily in the way it conveys how extremely small changes can add up to large changes over extreme lengths of time.  But some folks will probably still reject it because they simply can't get their minds wrapped around the comparison of time to distance.

After much thought, I believe I have come up with, if not a better analogy, at least a complimentary analogy to the one Professor Dawkins discussed.  It lacks the sense of vast time in Dawkins' analogy, but is more grounded in everyday experience and deals with actual biological processes.  It also helps deal with the common objection heard by Creationists that there are no "transitional" fossils that show one species evolving into a completely different species.

Let's imagine a father who photographs his newborn child and decides to take a new photograph of the child once every minute of every hour of every single day from that point on. At the end of the first day, the father has 1400 pictures, after one week he has 10,080 pictures, and at the end of a year he has a whopping 525,960 pictures. At the end of ten years, the stack has grown to 5,259,600 pictures, and by the time the child is 50 years old, the stack has grown to 26,298,000 pictures. And (assuming the father was extremely long-lived or passed the duties on to somebody else), by the time the child is 90 years old, the stack has a massive 47,336,400 pictures, all showing the gradual growth of a baby into an elderly man one minute at a time.

Now, over a period of ninety years, the child has changed from a newborn infant to an elderly man, and along the way the child progressed through various well-defined stages (infant, toddler, child, pre-teen, adolescent, young adult, adult, middle-age, senior citizen, elderly) . And if you randomly selected any example from that stack of 47,336,400 pictures, you would be able to clearly identify which stage of life the child was in at the time that photograph was taken. No photograph, however, would show a clear "transition" from one stage to the next. You wouldn't, for example, find a picture showing the child with the body of a baby and the head of a toddler. Or the arms of a teenager but the legs of an adult. Or (to mirror some of the extreme examples asked for by Young Earth Creationists), the body of an infant and the head of a senior citizen.

The point is that the change from infant to elder is so gradual that there are no clear-cut transitions from one stage of life to the next. Somebody may legally be considered an adult at the age of 18, but it would be impossible to detect any physiological differences between a person one minute or one hour or even day before his 18th birthday and one minute, hour or day after his 18th birthday. And this isn't to say that there aren't any transitional photographs of the child; instead, it means that every single photograph shows a transition from the previous minute to the next minute and the supposedly "well-defined" stages of life are really just shortcuts we use to describe people instead of actually having some sort of absolute definitions.

The same is generally true with regard to the fossil record and the evidence it provides for evolutionary processes.  Just as children gradually change into adults over time, species gradually change into other species over time.  The only difference is that species change over millions of years instead of 90 years, but the principal is the same.  Just as you will never find a photograph of somebody who has the head of an infant and the body of an adult, you will never find a fossil showing the head of one species and the body of a previous species.  And this isn't to say that there aren't any transitional fossils; instead, it means that every single fossil shows a transition from the prior generation to the following generation and the concept of "well-defined" species is really just a shortcut we use to describe life instead of actually having some sort of absolute definition.

Dishonest Arguments

People in the skeptical community (and elsewhere) often discuss the various "dirty" debate tactics used by people who argue on behalf of religion (or any other topic, for that matter).  Most of these tactics involve one form of logical fallacy or another, such as a straw man argument (misrepresenting your opponent's argument so you can score points by attacking it), an appeal to authority (a famous historical figure or Internet blogger said it, so it must be true), confirmation bias (focusing only on evidence that supports your argument and ignoring the evidence that doesn't), etc.

One tactic I have seen more and more often lately, however, which doesn't seem to get mentioned much, is when people just flat out lie in a debate.  This tactic is very hard to defend against, partially because it's often very hard to catch somebody in a lie or prove that they are lying, and partially because we tend to accept that people making an argument are sincere in their beliefs and probably aren't even aware that they are using "dirty" tactics in the first place.

Where I tend to see this most often is when people lie about their background, the research they have done and/or the things they have personally experienced in order to lend credence to their argument.  For example, when discussing the various barbarous acts described and promoted in the Old Testament (slavery, murder of children, rape, etc.), it's not enough for these people to simply state their belief that these things had a different meaning back then than they do now and/or point to a Christian apologist web site that argues the same point.  Instead, they have to justify their argument by claiming to have spent many, many years researching the issue, traveling all over the world, learning different languages, etc., despite the fact that they actually have no formal training whatsoever and have reached conclusions not shared by people who do actually have formal training in the subject.  Not surprisingly, all their many years of esoteric research has led them to form beliefs exactly mirrored on Christian apologist web sites and nowhere else.

Similarly, when discussing the Theory of Evolution, it's not enough to simply state that you have trouble accepting the evidence and/or refer to a Creationist web site that supports your point of view.  No, instead, these people have to claim that they have studied the topic in great detail for many years and have come to understand it far better than any of the so-called "experts" in the field (despite the fact that they themselves have no education or training whatsoever in any relevant field of study) and are therefore justified in the claims they are making.  And, once again, it's always interesting how their arguments somehow manage to end up consisting of quotes lifted directly from various Creationist websites.

It's not limited to religious discussions, of course.  When discussing topics such as anthropogenic ("man-made") climate change, some people can't simply state their belief that it's all a hoax or point to a particular web site that claims to debunk the theory, lest somebody with more knowledge respond with actual facts.  Instead, they have to lie about all the many years of independent, non-biased research they have themselves performed (despite not having any actual education or training in the field) to let them confidently state that they know more than any of the so-called "experts" out there.  And yet, once again, their arguments somehow manage to quote almost verbatim from the same discredited web sites that every other climate change denier references.

This also spills over to political discussions, of course (and perhaps it's not a coincidence that the people who use these techniques to argue in favor of religion and against science also use them to argue for conservative causes as well).  Here in the U.S.A., the Fox News channel is the primary (if unofficial) mouthpiece for the Republican Party and spends endless cycles obsessing over one so-called "scandal"after another that might make President Obama and/or his administration look bad, even after the scandals have been completely debunked by every other reputable news organizations and even after exhaustive investigations have shown that the scandals had no basis in fact whatsoever.  Whether it be the so-called "IRS Scandal" or the so-called "Benghazi Scandal," Fox news will continue to talk about it long after everybody else has either dismissed it or forgotten all about it.  Everybody, that is, except for this certain breed of arguers that I am discussing today.  And, since they are who they are, it's not enough for them to simply quote Fox News and state their agreement.  No, instead they have to blather on and on about how they have done the research and looked into the facts and gone beyond "simply clicking on the first link that comes up with a Google search," etc., before coming to a conclusion that (a) ignores the actual facts and (b) just so happens to agree verbatim with whatever nonsense is currently being promoted on Fox News.  Funny how that works.

Now, I am not a psychologist and have no idea whether these people even consciously know they're lying or whether they have somehow deluded themselves into thinking they are experts on the subject.  Or perhaps they are consciously lying, but feel that it is OK to lie since deep down they truly believe in what they are arguing and think it's vitally important to convince others of their beliefs using any means necessary (hence the phrase "Lying for Christ").  Or perhaps they are just dishonest trolls who purposely lie because they revel in sowing confusion and doubt.  Whatever the case, however, it is important to recognize that not everybody who you debate with has pure motives and it's quite possible that some people will flat out lie in order to win the argument.

The Scientific Method vs Theism

As an atheist, I have come to appreciate the scientific method as the best – if not only – way to determine truth. The basic principles of the scientific method are (a) observing a phenomenon, (b) coming up with a hypothesis to explain that phenomenon, (c) performing experiments and/or gathering data to support that hypothesis and (d) refine the hypothesis to fit the experiments and data (or even reject the hypothesis entirely if the experiments and data disprove it). The key point is that the hypothesis needs to match the evidence and not the other way around.

When I was a theist, however, I was taught to start with an acceptance that God existed, the scriptures were true, etc., and then look for evidence to support that belief if necessary. This is superficially similar to the scientific method (and many theists claim that they in fact follow the scientific method), with one key distinction. Whenever data is discovered that fails to support (or even contradicts) the belief in God, the data needs to be tweaked (or sometimes outright ignored). If, for example, geological evidence clearly shows that the Grand Canyon was created via slow processes over millions of years and this data contradicts the notion that the earth is only 6,000 years old, it’s important to selectively ignore the evidence until you can explain the remaining evidence as having been produced by a global flood.

Proponents of “Creation Science” (a.k.a. Intelligent Design”) often point to, say, the perfection of the human eye as proof that it must have been the product of a divine, perfect creator. The eye, the argument goes, is just too complicated and works so well that it couldn’t possibly have happened just by chance. Ignoring for the moment the fact that this is really just an argument from ignorance (“the eye is just too complicated and works so well that I personally can’t understand how it could possibly have happened just by chance”), and also ignoring for the moment that the Theory of Evolution explicitly posits the concept of natural selection as the driving force behind the development of complex structures such as the eye instead of chance, this argument does have the superficial appearance of following the principles of the scientific method. The phenomenon of a complicated, perfectly functioning eye is observed, and the existence of a divine, perfect creator is offered as a theory to explain that phenomena.

Where things go off the rails, however, is when you point out that the eye is not, in fact, perfect. The human eye has a blind spot inherent in its design, which is perfectly explainable when you consider how the eye might have developed over millions of years but doesn’t make much sense for a perfect creator to have done it that way. In addition, human eyes are susceptible to all sorts of abnormalities and diseases, and many people have to resort to corrective lenses or surgery in order to see clearly. In fact, many people are actually born completely blind. Under the scientific method, evidence that contradicts a particular theory causes the theory to be refined or rejected. Under “Creation Science”, however, the response is typically that we live in a fallen state due to the sins of Adam and that is why the eye is currently not perfect (or why people get diseases or why animals feed off each other or why there is so much pain and suffering in all aspects of the natural world, etc.). And this is because, rather than truly following the scientific method to fit the theory to the facts, theists start with a set of assumed “truths” (i.e., that God exists, that He created the universe in a perfect state originally and that we now live in a fallen universe due to the sins of Adam) and then look for any observable facts that support those “truths” while rejecting any that don’t support them.

If perfection of design proves the existence of a perfect creator, imperfection of design can’t somehow also prove the existence of the same perfect creator.  Looking just at the observed phenomena, without any preconceived, unchallenged assumptions as to the existence and nature of God (which is, of course, the very thing that is supposed to be proved so it can't be assumed), imperfection of design is instead evidence of an imperfect creator, or perhaps a malevolent creator, or of no creator whatsoever.  The one thing it absolutely cannot be is evidence of a perfect creator, unless you already believe in the God of the Bible and are simply looking for a justification of that belief instead of actually trying to come up with a theory that best explains the evidence.

People are, of course, free to believe whatever they choose to believe, and the whole reason churches exist is to let people with similar beliefs congregate and share those beliefs with one another. And there’s nothing wrong with that (assuming, of course, those beliefs don’t lead the believers to harm other people as a result). But this essential difference between the scientific method and theism is one of the main reasons why “Creation Science” or “Intelligent Design” has no place whatsoever in a science classroom. Call it what you will, it just isn’t scientific as long as it exists to fit the facts to the theory instead of the other way around.