Biologists, how would you respond to statements like this?

Question

I posted a question earlier in the Religion and Spirituality section in hopes of documenting what believers' or "evolution skeptics'" arguments against the theory were. While many of them were patently ridiculous, a few seemed to come from some intelligent (although clearly misguided) individuals. I'm curious what your responses would be to their statements about evolution. They are the last two responses located here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtSH61U.sXujiWO.Ka0WMcTsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080830133619AAZFlKM

Answer 1

My response to an intelligent but misguided individual would be to go to the library and check out Campbell & Reece Biology, Seventh Edition or Eighth edition, read it through, and then come back.

Answer 2

what I would first say..is science is the study of natural phenomena and not supernatural ones....and if they so had the answer as to the origin and present location of God  then by all means enlighten us   ..a Nobel prize surely awaits them. Arguments from personal incerdulity are not valid ..and these two arguments are posited on assumptions that are not capable of being subjected to scientific inquiry. This is often the case for antievolution forces  they have no evidence for their posiiton but TRY to undermine certain aspects of evolution , usually by obfuscation or totally wrong assumptions  and then conclude  well, since your 'theory " doesn't work..mine is right...a very common but still woefully inadequate bait and switch tactic ....please read the Dover descision and see how the IDers had their butts handed to them  when confronted with actual scientists who know evolution and could   discount every antievolution argument with well -documented  and published studies .......Behe and his minions were totally emabarrassed...as well they should be .

Answer 3

Both of those answer use the classic Creationist trick (which you anticipated in your answer) of conflating evolution with the origins of life (abiogenesis).  Why?  Because the theory of evolution is an solidly answered and accepted issues among biologists, and these Creationists know it.   But abiogenesis is not a settled question.

So the tactic is:

1. Group evolution together with abiogenesis as if they are inseparable and call this resulting blend "evolution."

2. point out objections and open questions to abiogenesis, and call this "refuting".

3. Conclude that you have "refuted evolution."

'Fire of Elijah' uses the ridiculous "Second Law of Thermodynamics argument" ... which does not disprove evolution or abiogenesis ... it only proves that he doesn't understand the Second law of Thermodynamics.   So I don't consider his answer to qualify as "intelligent."

'raismeup's answer spends most of his answer trying to equate evolution with abiogenesis, and it would take an equal amount of wording to show why he is absolutely wrong.   Evolution is governed by the process of natural selection ... abiogenesis is not.   *THAT* is why biologists keep them separate.   Evolution is both explained and non-randomly relentless.   Abiogenesis is not (yet) explained and it is random.  The processes are different, the mechanisms are different, the evidence is different.  They are NOT the same thing.

He spends only 2 paragraphs of his long answer actually addressing *evolution*.  Of these, I will say this to you.

You opened yourself wide open when you used the word "proof" in your question.

This allowed him to make the statement "There is absolutely no 'proof' that evolution has occurred."  If by "proof" you and he mean "evidence" then this is an absurdly false statement!   But if by "proof" you mean "proof" in the mathematical sense, then he is correct ... there is no more "proof" of evolution than there is "proof" of the force of gravity or "proof" of the existence of atoms.

That is why we NEVER say "proof" in science.

His second tactic is using the "no new information" argument ... which is the "second law of thermodynamics" argument in disguise.  It is an empty argument because *it doesn't define what information means*!   It just makes the claim that all mutations produce a LOSS of information, without any indication of what that means!   I have refuted this argument many times, but it always involves a constant squirming and moving of the goal posts ... "No, that's not what I mean by 'new information', I mean this."  It is a meaningless red herring.  And when pinned down, it is *EASILY* shown to be false.

The rest of his claims about how Biblical Creationists founded all the major branches of science is just obvious rubbish.   Of course, if he wants to pinpoint the foundations of science to before the time *all* Western thinkers were Biblical Creationists, he could make that case ... but then one can just as easily take the foundations of science all the way back to the Greeks (most notably Aristotle) who were NOT "Biblical creationists."   He is just engaging in Christian revisionism.

So they are par for the course for R&S answers (which is why I avoid R&S) ... but there is no real science there.