Note: If you have not signed up to join my blog email list, please click on “contact” above and send me your name and email address. You will receive a personal notice when I post a new blog and avoid missing future blogs in this and other series. I do not share email addresses.
Part Eleven: Responding to Skeptics Who Claim Evolution Is Undisputed Scientific Fact Using “Offensive Apologetics” Tactics
1. Evolution best explains the origin of life and the universe!
- How did our orderly universe evolve by pure chance from the disorder of the alleged Big Bang explosion?
- How can the universe suddenly come into existence out of nothing when no laws of physics can account for it? In fact, how could there have been laws of physics if nothing prior existed?
- How can you claim life emerged from non-life when the theory has never been observed in nature or performed in a laboratory?
- It’s been demonstrated statistically that even a four or five-billion-year-old earth is still not old enough for life to emerge from non-life and evolve into the myriad life forms on earth today. So how can you claim evolution best explains the origin of life?
- Evolution is science; creation is religion!
- Why should I believe that when the facts and evidence of science fit creation by divine design better than random, purposeless evolution? Can I suggest some material you can read by world-class scientists to prove this?
- The debate is not about religion; it’s about the facts and evidence of science. If scientific facts independent of Scripture best fit a creation model of origins, why would creation be just religion?
3. Evolution is a fact of science!
- Since it can’t be demonstrated that life originated and evolved through random accidental processes, isn’t that belief more faith than fact?
- Scientific facts are established through repeatable observations and experimentation. Evolution depends mainly on assumptions and speculations. How can you say evolution is a fact of science?
- Can you point to any verifiable transitional fossils showing one kind of animal evolving into an entirely different kind of animal, such as a half-leg, half-wing, or half-scale, half-feather? If not, aren’t you making an assumption?
4. All serious scientists are evolutionists!
- If that’s true, how do you explain the scientific work of Drs. Michael Behe, Stephen Myers, Jonathan Wells, Henry Morris, and thousands of other scientists—many of them well known in their respective fields—who are not evolutionists?
- Why should only evolutionists be considered “serious scientists?” Isn’t that a philosophical statement rather than a scientific one?
- There are thousands of creation scientists who were originally evolutionists but are now creationists. Are you saying they’re no longer scientists?
5. Intelligent Design is all about a divine Creator; therefore, it’s religion.
- If Intelligent Design is religion, why do Intelligent Design proponents use the same scientific evidence secular scientists do and refuse to bring their religious beliefs into their writings?
- If secular science rejects any evidence not supporting evolution, doesn’t that make evolution a philosophical claim rather than empirical science?
Next week I’ll examine the existence of God.