This is the conclusion of a critique of a Greg Koukl podcast about the death of evolution (part 1here). Since some Christians refuse to stop embarrassing themselves with this stupid argument, I will continue to see it as a civic duty to laugh at them.

After much overconfident bluster about why evolution has breathed its last, Koukl finally gives the three reasons supporting this conclusion.

1. Abiogenesis. First you have the insurmountable problem of getting living stuff from dead stuff.... This is not just a problem. This is an insurmountable problem. (17:45)

Insurmountable? Write your paper detailing the proof and collect your Nobel Prize. (True, there is no Nobel Prize in Biology, yet, but Im sure that will change once Koukl documents his breakthrough.)

What will you do if a consensus view for abiogenesisdoesdevelop over the next decade or so? Let me guess: youll not apologize, youll sweep under the rug the fact that you backed the wrong horse, youll hope that no one remembers, and youll stumble forward grasping for some new as-yet-unanswered question within science, learning absolutely nothing from the experience.

2. Cambrian Explosion. Koukl focuses on the basics, which is that he doesnt like evolution and thinks that the Cambrian Explosion is fatal to it. Hes not so good on details like when it happened (hes off by about a factor of six; in fact, it began roughly 541 million years ago and lasted for 2025 million years).

The big deal about the Cambrian Explosion is that most of the 30-some animal phyla (the top-level category, which defines the basic body plans) appear for the first time in the fossil record in this relatively brief period.

Here are some reasons why this rapid emergence of phyla isnt a nail in evolutions coffin.

Source:Wikipedia (with changes)

3. Genes dont explain everything. Mutation of DNA is a key part of evolution, but DNA only codes for protein. Thats only part of the picture, Koukl tells ushow do you get the body? That requires epigenetics. Thats not in the genes. Now, theyre working on it, trying to figure it out, but if its not in the genes, if the genes arent doing the work, then natural selection doesnt do its work on genetic mutations, then that is neo-Darwinism, and its dead (22:10).

Im not sure what Koukl is getting at. Embryology is fairly well understood, and we can see a single cell develop according to the body plan defined in its DNA. Magic isnt necessary. And, yes, epigenetics is a new and exciting aspect of genetics. There is much to be learned. But a naturalistic explanation remains the best explanation. If evolution is changing, well, thats just what science does as it adapts to new facts.

Taking a step back, I see several problems. One is the unstated idea that if evolution can be defeated, Creationism will step in to take its place as the explanation of why life is the way it is. NopeCreationism can only replace evolution when the evidence shows that it can better explain the facts.All the facts.

Scientific theories stand on their own merits, not on the failure of other theories. Or, if I could use a schoolyard analogy that might be more in Creationists wheelhouse: tattling on someone whos misbehaving in class doesnt improve your grade.

That Koukl is talking to the public and not to scientists reveals both his agenda and his impotence. Hes got PR, not evidence.

The other problem is that this entire tantrum seems to be semantic. His agenda seems to be finding a loophole so that you cant call it the neo-Darwinian Project anymore (ignoring the fact that no one worth listening to calls it that).

In Koukls wildest dreams, biology would develop in radical new ways so that evolution taught twenty years ago, say, will be seen as inadequate or incomplete in important ways. But how does that help? Once Koukls smoke screen clears, the naturalistic discipline that explains how life developed on earth (whatever you want to call it) is still there, with no role for God to play.

Ive written about two related issues, theRube Goldbergappearance of life (rather than appearance of design) and the question ofinformationin DNA.

Koukl next brings up atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel, who says that evolution wont allow for consciousness.

This is yet another question that might get answered, as tends to happen with scientific puzzles. Koukls argument is nothing more than: Science has unanswered questions; therefore, God. Again, he forgets that a weakness in science (I see no weakness here, but lets pretend there is) does nothing to support the God argument. Such an argument must stand on its own.

He concludes by ticking off the unanswered questionsabiogenesis, the Cambrian Explosion, and the evolution of consciousnessand concludes, Incidentally, these are no problem whatsoever for our point of view.

YeahGod did it explains everything. Of course, youve given us no good evidence for the God side of the question, but never mind. The real problem is that God did it is unfalsifiable. You could apply it to anything, and I couldnt prove you wrong. Therefore, its useless. By explaining everything, it explains nothing. Scientific theories must be falsifiable.

Koukls argument reminds me of Michael Dentons 1986 bookEvolution: A Theory in Crisis. His 30th-anniversary edition was titled Evolution:Stilla Theory in Crisis (emphasis added). Creationists keep predicting that evolution is dead, and it keeps not being dead. Perhaps theres a lesson here that Creationists arent learning.

What we have in Koukl is a popular Christian apologist (who has a religious agenda) who talks with a popular Christian science-y person (who has the same religious agenda) about their rejection of the scientific consensus. They reassure each other that theyve indeed backed the right horse, and they shore up their argument with smug confidence.

Popularizing consensus science is one thing (this is what I do sometimes), but rejecting it is another (this is what Koukl does, often). I put Creationists in with the anti-vaxxers.

See also: A Response to David Gelernters Attack on Evolution

The difference between a cult and a religion:in a cult there is a person at the top who knows its a scam,and in a religion that person is dead. seen on the internet

.(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 2017-5-24.)

Image from Phil Fiddyment (license CC BY 2.0).

Original post:
Has evolution breathed its last? | Bob Seidensticker - Patheos