The science in question is evolution.
Generally, a well-accepted theory, right?
Well, a youth pastor friend of mine doesn't subscribe.
Now, this guy has answered a few questions of mine about Christianity and religion, so, when he posted a blog about ID and evolution, (a subject of some familiarity to me), I thought I'd see what he said.
[Note: the question I'm asking, before you are bombarded with text, is am I being reasonable enough, but still clear as to the facts of the situation?
The original blog:
[wall of text warning]
Evolution is easily refuted if a person is honest about a few things.
1) Evolution is a theory. It's a theory because it cannot be subjected to scientific method and proven. (oddly enough so is gravity, but that's a side issue) The important thing to note here is that evolution cannot be proven beyond doubt. We can see in the fossil record that there have been apparent changes to the plants and animals on our planet, but we are missing thousands, maybe even millions, of links in the evolutionary chain. The only way the fossil record supports evolution is in the fact that there are animals that could possibly be ancestors to modern animals. Once again, there are NO in between stages in the fossil record. The few links that scientists claim as proof for evolution are often examples of micro-evolution not macro-evolution (more on this in point 2), or possibly an entirely different species that is related to the animals they claim are in the evolutionary chain.
2) Micro-E vs. Macro-E: Micro-E states that a change is made in an animal or plant so it can survive, or because of some sort of outside influence. Another way to say this would be to use the term adaptation. Human skin color is a great example of this. Skin color is based on melanin (pigment). Melanin is also responsible for people getting tans, but not burns. An increase in melanin produces a tan, which in turn protects from burns. People with more melanin in there skin have darker skin. In most cases people with darker skin come from an area of the world where they are more apt to be naturally tanned or burned anyway. Micro-E states that over many years people are born darker and darker to cope with the natural tendency to tan/burn. In places where tanning/burning is less likely people often have paler features - including skin color. Other examples of Micro-E include plant size or toxicity. For instance wild almonds and tomatoes are poison to humans. But through selective breeding (caused by humans - the afore mentioned outside force) we have two crops that are good for eating. Mangos originally were not eatable, but through human intervention have become a food crop. The boysenberry is actually a mix of three different berries. Many evolutionist use to these examples to support their views on evolution. They say that evolution has been aided or sped up by humans. While in a sense this is true, because we have seen and recorded Micro-E, however, it does not support Macro-E. The problem here is this: in no recorded cases can we see Macro-E. Basically Macro-E says that, for one reason or another, one species becomes another. For instance: A fish becomes an amphibian that becomes a lizard that becomes a bird, a mammal, or whatever. That kind of evolution has never been recorded, and cannot be proven with the fossil record. Once again there are no missing links - of any sort (plant or animal).
3) The best argument for creation over evolution is found in 3rd grade science. The second law of thermodynamics states that all things "tend toward entropy". Basically we do not see that ordered systems just start up. What we can see, record, and prove is that ordered systems break down. We do see growth in animals and plants in the form of eggs and seeds becoming adults, but this is simply a functioning of a system, not a new complex system that starts on it's own. For evolution to be true things like solar systems have to "start up" on their own some how. Order has to come form disorder. Even assuming that the big bang is true you still are talking about an explosion producing life. That's like saying that setting of a nuke in a vacuum will some how generate life in several billion years. It just doesn't happen, and we have scientific law to prove it. Evolution as a theory is easily proven wrong with one scientific law. Proponents of evolution will argue this point with many different explanations, most of which I have read. None of them can explain away this basic law if you are honest with the information at hand. We never find order coming from chaos without an outside influence. This leads to my next point.
4) "God created the world through evolution." Many Christians lean this way because they feel that science proves evolution. I think I have covered a few of the better reasons science does not support evolution, but still this idea remains. These Christians say that the creation story is a way to simply explain how God created the world through the different phases of evolution. First we had light (big bang), then earth and sky (creation of the earth through time and slow rotation of a gas cloud), after that all the other phases of creation. The primary problem with this idea is that the Bible does not support it. Here is why: God told Adam that when he ate the Fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, he would die. Prior to eating this fruit humans were immortal in their earthly bodies. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit death entered the world. This is found in Paul's writings - Romans I think - I'll look it up for you if you want chapter and verse. Because death entered the world when Adam and Eve sinned it is reasonable to assume that when Adam and Eve fell that all of creation fell with them. We see proof of this in God's cursing of the snake and the ground. Therefore, God creating the world through evolution cannot be true, because many, many things would have had to die for the evolutionary cycle to function. The Bible teaches that humans in Eden had complete dominion over the world. When they sinned dominion passed to satan, and part of what Jesus did on the cross was take that dominion back. These statements are proven in Hebrews and Romans - once again if you want chapter and verse I'll look up exactly where they can be found. This statement is important, because Jesus is called the second Adam. That through His perfect life and His sacrifice on the cross followed by His return from death - original order was restored, and any that choose to follow Jesus can walk in authority like Adam and Eve did.
[wall of text warning]
1) Evolution is just a theory, just like science itself is just a lot of theories.
However, ID is just a theory, too, and it has less scientific evidence supporting it, so you can't very well say "Your theory is wrong because it's a theory."
2) "Basically Macro-E says that, for one reason or another, one species becomes another. For instance: A fish becomes an amphibian that becomes a lizard that becomes a bird, a mammal, or whatever."
You seem to be over-simplifying. The only difference between macro-evolution and micro is time and scale. In other words, macro-E is the compounded effects of lots of micro-E.
And so, if micro-E is supported, then so is macro-E.
The effects of macro-E are simply too gradual for humans to spot in three or four generations, and thereby classify the new animal as a new species.
For example, dogs.
Dogs come in all shapes, sizes, and colors, but they are descended from a common ancestor and are still from the same specie. If a single taxonomic term (which is wide enough to include a mastiff and a chihuahua) is going to be the standard for a new version to be a new specie and, therefore, be evidence of macro-E, the lifespan of a human (or several humans) isn't enough for him to record macro-E.
And if you want evidence of a specie evolving into another specie in a time less than the average human life span, you might have to settle for bacteria.
I can't remember exactly, but I think that there was a study done where the bacteria had adapted enough to be considered a new specie...but I don't remember enough to find a link referencing it.
3) The 2nd Law states, in a nutshell...
Okay, I don't know how the 2nd Law disproves evolution, but, luckily, Wikipedia does, and has provided a rebuttal.
And, finally, 4) is accurate, according to the Bible.
But I don't think the Bible can be used to explain scientific theories.
[I mean, according to the Bible, pi is exactly three.]
[wall of text warning]
[as if you had some doubt...]
1) I agree that ID is also a theory in scientific terms. If I did not make that clear then it is only because I do not agree that Evolution has more support than ID. It depends on what you read, and how you interpret it.
2) You say I'm over simplifying, and that Macro-E is a combination of tons of Micro-E. That alone would disprove evolution. We have no record in all of the fossils we find of even one UNdenible missing link. That in itself leads to the idea that Micro-E can be true, but Macro-E needs better support. Link one or two missing links. You use dogs as an example, and that is very similar to the pigment example I used. The point is - over many years it's still a dog. Nothing about one dog makes it any different from another in the sense of it being a dog. For this is easily seen in how any one dog can breed with another and reproduce. If they had changed significantly they would eventually have to lose the ability to reproduce with one another. While size may hinder this it does not make it impossible.
3) I have read the many rebuttals including one like this. The problem is that the 2nd Law really does not allow for this on a grand scale. I agree that in a limited sense that self-organization is possible, but in reality there is a huge difference between this and evolution. Also keep in mind that we are talking about a scientific law verse a system that seems to be true. There are no rules that tell us exactly how S.O. works - only that it exists. I see that it is useful on a small scale, but it is not seen large scale anywhere - unless we assume evolution is true.
4) I did not mean to imply that the Bible should do so. Only that for a person claiming to be a Christian evolution can not be an option.
We're both wordy little buggers, aren't we?
Now, I know there is virtually no chance of convincing this guy to rethink his position, but I'm not sure if I should go back and clarify on the one or two parts where my reasoning was muddled...
[I also think the last thing he says is patently wrong on a spiritual level, but that's another forum.]
And, keep in mind, he's a good guy, and I don't want to make fun of him.
To paraphrase the rules page, make fun of his arguments all you want, but...