Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Opening Remarks - Evolution Debate (Part 2)

I have been asked by a lot of people in the last few weeks on both sides of the Atlantic (and Pacific) about my recent debate over creation vs evolution with Lars Viggers who is a college biology teacher in Denmark. What I intend to do over the coming weeks is post the entirety of my presentation for three reasons. Firstly because I did not get to present much of my research due to an inexperienced moderator (not that I am experienced either) who deviated a long way from the originally planned structure of the debate. Secondly because I believe the real facts surrounding the debate are very edifying for all true Christians. And thirdly because I believe there is a lot of very useful information for the Christian layman to use when contending for the Christian faith/worldview in our everyday secular lives.

Later on, I will also give my verdict on Lars' arguments that he brought to the debating table. I realize that this blog is not exclusively read by Christians and that some readers may question my objectivity. To those people I would say hey, all I can do is give my opinion (and yes, none of us are unbiased, I just happen to have a strong bias for the truth) and you can do with that what you will. To those who would object to my not posting Lars' presentation, there is a reason for that. Lars did not really come to the debate with any serious written presentation. Otherwise I would love to post Lars' arguments because most of them ultimately turned out to either support my worldview or expose evolutionary theory as a religion with no real scientific basis. With that said, today we start with my opening remarks:

First and foremost I ask you, the audience, for patience with me because I do find it difficult to discuss technical things in the Danish language. I may ask for help sometimes tonight and I hope you will understand that it will be to help me explain some things that are too advanced for my limited Danish.

My name is Cameron and I am a preacher and missionary who works in a factory. I am married to a beautiful Danish wife and we have three children. My main work in Denmark is in preaching and teaching the Bible. I have never been in a debate before and I am not coming here tonight to try and win a fight because there is a good chance that Lars is much smarter than me. There is also the slight chance that he may be a little better at Danish than me.

But I am here tonight because I think it is about time that the THEORY of evolution stopped being taught as a fact and I think everyone here deserves the opportunity to hear the facts that the Danish education system hides from you.

If you are here tonight to hear a debate between religion and science then you can forget it. The Danish schools don't want religion taught in their schools and yet that is exactly what you get with evolution! It is a religion with no scientific proof at all. True empirical science is observable, testable, repeatable, and measurable. That is why we have the LAW of gravity because it is observable, testable, repeatable, and measureable. Evolution is none of these things – nobody has seen a monkey turn into a man, tested it, repeated it, or measured it. It is a bigger fairytale than anything ever written by your very own Hans Christian Andersen. My opponent tonight is a man of great faith, because I personally don't have enough faith to believe that nothing created everything.

And Lars, please don't think that evidence of monkeys turning into different types of monkeys is evidence. That is just variation within a species. What you need to do to prove your case tonight is show proof of monkeys becoming humans. Species to species change – evolutionists need to prove this!

I am hopeful that my lack of experience in debate and my lack of formal education will only help to show that the true scientific evidence is very simple and very clear:

1. That “Darwin's theory of evolution” is still called a theory because it has no proof.
2. That the “missing link” is still called the “missing link” because no one has ever found it.
3. And that “creation” is still called “creation” because it has a Creator!

Go On To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1


Kristoffer Haldrup said...

You seem to fall into the rather big group of people that thinks that because something is called a "theory", it is less established than a "law". This may be quite correct in normal, day-to-day life and communication, but it is not correct when you are dealing with science and scientific theories. There is no well-defined demarcation line, or any line indeed, between what is a "law", a "theory", a "principle" or a "framework" and they are used interchangeably.

On a most general level, I would say that "theory" is most often used as a synonym for "framework", or an overarching idea that describes some set of observations or ideas. A "law" or a "principle" often, but not always, refers to single concepts within such a framework. As an example, take that favourite trope of creationists/apologists, the "law" of gravity. This is a highly specific rule ("law") describing the gravitational interaction between two objects, a rule that only becomes useful in practice when combined with the "other rules", namely with Newtons three "laws of motion". Taken together, a scientist would often refer to these rules as a theory such as e.g. "The motion of the space probe can be calculated within the theory of newtonian dynamics". -Well, actually, if the space probe had to be sent to Mercury, he would have to say something along the lines of "...using the laws of General Relativity", but that is an aside;)

Anyway, my point is that you confuse a minor linguistic point with something that reflects the "scientific trust" in a given theory/framework/principle...and this is simply not the case. The scientific idea of evolution is just as well established as the scientific idea of newtonian dynamics, albeit it is a much more complex one - on the surface. If you had ever had to deal with calculating the dynamical behaviour of granular materials, the impression of simplicity very, very quickly fades away and you might wish you were only dealing with the evolution of a few hundred genetic markers in yeast, humans or birds;)

R. Dawkins said...

I have the theory we are all Chinese. This is becaquse the evidence is so overwhelming, it is actually no theory anymore. Just in theory. This is some of the prove:

- Chinese are humans
- We are human
- Chinese are found all over the earth
- The DNA of Chinese is almost identical to all living humans
- The Chinese history goes back thousands of years!
- The Chinese are by far the largest group in the world

So, I think it is proved. Now I am going to make the theory heavy by using difficult latin names, and better: call everybody who doesn't believe it a religious nuts and a try to get rid of him.

Anonymous said...

R Dawkins Reflect:

That Christ is Lord and that when we die we don't vanish like a lion or a monkey or some animal. But our spirit lives on with Christ! Don't you want this instead of vanishing into thin air like the monkeys?

How I know this?
Because the Apostle Paul declared it! That if it was false and we don't live on then we are all Liars and deceivers!

1 Chronithians 15:1-18 NIV
...those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

Hear this testimony and do you really think you came from a pond? And that God is just some fantasy made up by crazy men?

African man - use to be violent and he kills people! But he changed! Hear if you dare!

Or a dutch women who suffered heaps and her family too for standing up and loving the jews!

Or how about this New age Women?

Now if you were keen enough to listen and read it do you really want to conclude that Christ is just some imagine thing?

Do give it serious thought Dawkins and you be amazed like the rest of us!

Kristoffer Haldrup said...

Thank you, anonymous posters above, for saving my day (if not my soul;) with these lasts two posts. -A poorly written attempt at sarcasm, followed by someone who took it for the real thing and tried evangelizing to the textually challenged sarcastic -- priceless, thanks:)