How to Block a Slam Dunk – Part 2

In this series we’re addressing the article entitled, “How to slam dunk creationists when it comes to the theory of evolution” that Paul Braterman wrote in “The Conversations” on August 2, 2017.
In Part 1 we addressed the first sentence of the article where he used Sahelanthropus to support evolution.  You can check that out if you’d like.
In Part 2 we’ll address his claim on how “creationist” supposedly “play” with words.  The example he gives is Vice President Pence responding to a 2001 challenge on evolution.  There he stated that evolution was just a “theory,” therefore we don’t have to accept it as truth.
Well, Dr. Braterman’s argument is pretty long so I’ll try and tighten it up.  Here goes:
He says that, when creationist argue that evolution is just a “theory”, which means that it’s not necessarily true, don’t argue about the word “theory”.  Just agree that it is a theory, just as gravity is a theory.  Doing this shows that the evidence proves that evolution is true since gravity is true and creationists are just playing with words.
One quote that I find very interesting is, “Pence has drawn us into a discussion about words, when our focus should be on the evidence.”  I have to say that I agree with that statement.
So, let me ask a question.  Is the evidence for the theory of gravity the same as the evidence that:
Something came from nothing, mutated to eventually create life from non-life, which mutated to eventually turn into a microscopic organism, which eventually mutated over millions of years to turn into an amoeba, which mutated to turn into a worm, which mutated to eventually turn into a fish, which mutated to eventually turn into an amphibian, which mutated to eventually turn into a mouse-like animal, which mutated to eventually turn into a ape-like animal, which mutated to eventually turn into black humans in Africa, which mutated to eventually turn into smarter white humans in Europe?
By the way, that’s a very brief synopsis of what evolution teaches.  It by no means even comes close to the full story, which teaches that we’re related to tree’s.  Don’t believe me, just listen to Neil deGrasse Tyson in the newest “Cosmos” series.
What do we do?  How could we ever handle the claim that evolution and gravity are on the same level?
To make it simple, how about we test gravity.  Is that possible?  I’ve got an idea, go jump off a bridge and see what happens.
Can you test gravity again?  Do you want to jump off a bridge again?  I didn’t think so, but you could if you wanted just to make sure that gravity still works.  (And yes, it’s gravity that’s pulling us down, and NOT the earth moving up as is becoming increasingly popular in some circles today.  That’s a different article though.)
Now, please tell me how you test any one of the supposed transitions in the fairy tale of life arising from non-life.  Can we test or replicate the transitions from amoeba to worm, worm to fish, fish to amphibian etc.  You can’t!  And that’s because they are NOT the same.
Talk about playing games with words Dr. Braterman!  Just because you say that evolution and gravity are the “same” doesn’t make it so.  Sir, please follow your own advice and focus on the evidence.   Please use the scientific method to test what is being taught.
But, we must also pay attention to words.
What I find is that folks like Dr. Braterman actually do play games with words, and in a big way.  They’ll make statements like, “Evolution is a fact, science has proven it!”  Ever heard that before?  How do we defend against it?
Whenever I hear that phrase I ask the person to define their terms.  “What do you mean by evolution?”  Typically, the response will be something like, “change over time.”
When that’s the case, I can’t argue with them about evolution.  Yes, change over time is a fact!  When I look at pictures of myself from the past, I’ve definitely changed!  But, that’s not the question.  The question is, can those tiny changes that are a fact turn non-life into life, amoeba into worm, worm into fish . . .  Sorry, you’re sick of hearing this example, I get it.  But seriously, can “change over time” turn a worm into a fish?  No, it cannot!
And, by the way, go all the way back to the beginning.  How do you turn non-life into life?  You cannot have mutations until you have genetics and you don’t have genetics in rocks or gases. There’s NO mutation that will take place in a dead thing to turn it into a living thing unless you’re Dr. Frankenstein!  But even that example wouldn’t work because he took something that was once alive and reanimated it.  Evolution has to take something that was never alive and through some unknown process bring it to life.  And, no intelligence is allowed, thank you very much!
Even when you have genetics, there is no known process that would produce ENORMOUS amounts of new genetic information to go from the simpler life forms to the more complex life forms. The amounts of NEW and HIGHLY COMPLEX genetic information required to go from an amoeba to a worm is the equivalent of entire libraries of new information. Information that IS NOT present in the amoeba. So forth and so on at every step.
So, as to “creationists” playing words games.  I’m sure some do.  We’re all sinners and we all have our feet of clay.  But I’m not getting into an argument on words.  I want to deal with the actual evidence.  And that my friends does not support that non-life turned into life, amoeba’s turned into worms and worms turned into . . .  I know, enough already!
Next time we’ll deal with what he calls “Evolutionary Ammo”.  Join us then and let’s learn how to Block a Slam Dunk!  Until then . . .
Stay Bold!