Design flaws in organisms indicate evolution, not intelligent design

[Compassionist]

The existence of design flaws in living organisms is often cited as evidence for evolution by natural selection rather than intelligent design by an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity. If such a being existed and created life intentionally, we might expect optimal design yet what we see instead are structures and processes that are inefficient, prone to failure, or even harmful.
Here are some significant biological design flaws that point to evolution rather than perfect design:
________________________________________
1. Human Birth Canal vs. Big Brain
Flaw: Human babies have large heads due to our large brains, but the human pelvis is narrow for bipedal walking.
Result: Childbirth is extremely painful and dangerous a leading cause of death historically.
Evolutionary Explanation: Our ancestors evolved larger brains and upright walking separately, leading to a dangerous compromise.
________________________________________
2. Wisdom Teeth
Flaw: Most people don't have room for third molars, causing impaction, infections, and pain.
Result: Many need surgery to remove them.
Evolutionary Explanation: Our ancestors had larger jaws due to diet, but modern humans' jaws shrank faster than tooth evolution could keep up.
________________________________________
3. Human Retina Is Backward
Flaw: The photoreceptor cells in the human eye are behind layers of neurons and blood vessels.
Result: Creates a blind spot and reduces image quality.
Evolutionary Explanation: The eye evolved incrementally, not from a clean-slate design.
________________________________________
4. Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve (Giraffe Example)
Flaw: This nerve travels from the brain to the larynx, but loops around the aorta.
Result: In giraffes, it travels over 15 feet instead of a direct path of a few inches.
Evolutionary Explanation: It's a leftover from fish ancestors, where this path made sense. Evolution modified existing structures rather than redesigning from scratch.
________________________________________
5. Human Menstrual Cycle
Flaw: Humans shed the uterine lining even if not pregnant, wasting resources and causing pain.
Result: Menstrual cramps, anemia, mood changes.
Evolutionary Explanation: Other mammals reabsorb the lining. Our approach may have evolved due to pathogen risks in internal fertilization.
________________________________________
6. Shared Path for Food and Air
Flaw: The esophagus (food) and trachea (air) share an entrance.
Result: Risk of choking a leading accidental cause of death.
Evolutionary Explanation: The throat evolved in stages, without foresight.
________________________________________
7. Human Spine and Back Pain
Flaw: Our spine is an S-curve not ideally suited for upright walking.
Result: Many people suffer chronic back pain, herniated discs, etc.
Evolutionary Explanation: Our ancestors were quadrupeds. The upright posture evolved later, leading to inefficient structure.
________________________________________
8. Brain Vulnerability and Mental Illness
Flaw: The brain is highly energy-consuming and prone to many dysfunctions.
Result: High rates of depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc.
Evolutionary Explanation: Natural selection favored reproductive success, not mental wellness or long-term wellbeing.
________________________________________
9. Knee Joint Design
Flaw: Knees bear immense strain, especially the ACL (anterior cruciate ligament), which often tears.
Result: Common injuries in sports and aging.
Evolutionary Explanation: Knees evolved from quadruped ancestors, not optimally engineered for bipedal running and jumping.
________________________________________
10. Genetic "Junk" and Mutations
Flaw: The genome is full of non-coding or redundant DNA and is prone to harmful mutations.
Result: Genetic diseases, cancer, and congenital defects.
Evolutionary Explanation: DNA accumulates "baggage" over time. There's no intelligent editing or streamlining process.
________________________________________
11. Susceptibility to Cancer
Flaw: Cells divide for life but are prone to mutations that cause cancer.
Result: One of the top global causes of death.
Evolutionary Explanation: Cell division is essential for life, but natural selection can't eliminate all cancer risk especially after reproductive age.
________________________________________
12. Human Psychology Biases
Flaw: We are prone to cognitive biases (e.g., confirmation bias, tribalism, overconfidence).
Result: Misjudgments, discrimination, and conflict.
Evolutionary Explanation: These evolved to enhance survival in specific environments, not to produce truth-seeking rationality.
________________________________________
If we were designed by an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent being, such flaws are impossible to justify. Evolution by natural selection, on the other hand, explains these quirks and imperfections as the result of a messy, blind, trial-and-error process where old parts are tweaked, not replaced, and survival/reproduction, not perfection, is the end goal.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

Evolution is a false, naturalistic religion.

Before you begin to explain away Creationism, by using evolution...you must first explain in abiogenesis, with evolution.

Can't do it.

Calling evolution a “religion” is simply false. It fails every meaningful criterion of what a religion is, and the move is rhetorical, not analytical.

1. Evolution has none of the defining features of a religion.

A religion typically involves at least some of the following:

Supernatural agents (gods, spirits, divine wills).
Sacred texts treated as authoritative.
Rituals or worship.
Moral commandments grounded in divine authority.
Faith-based beliefs insulated from disconfirmation.

Evolution has none of these.

It has:
No gods.
No worship.
No sacred texts.
No moral code.
No appeal to faith.
No immunity from falsification.

Evolution is a scientific theory: a testable, revisable explanatory framework grounded in evidence and constrained by observation. If decisive evidence contradicted it, it would be modified or abandoned. Religions do not operate that way.

Labeling evolution a “religion” is a category error, not a critique.

2. Evolution does not depend on abiogenesis.

This is another common mistake.

Evolution explains how life diversifies once it exists.
Abiogenesis studies how life may have originated from non-life.

They are separate research questions.

You do not need a complete theory of abiogenesis for evolution to be true, just as:

You don’t need to know how the universe began to study stellar evolution.
You don’t need to know how gravity originated to calculate orbital mechanics.

Even if abiogenesis were currently unsolved, evolution would remain supported by overwhelming evidence.

3. The evidence for evolution is vast and independent

Evolution is supported by multiple, converging lines of evidence, including:

a) Genetics

Shared DNA across species.
Endogenous retroviruses at identical chromosomal locations.
Predictable patterns of mutation and inheritance.

b) Fossil record

Transitional forms (e.g., fish–tetrapods, reptiles–mammals)
Ordered succession over time, not random distribution

c) Comparative anatomy

Homologous structures (same underlying design, different functions).
Vestigial organs that make sense only under descent with modification.

d) Observed evolution

Antibiotic resistance.
Viral evolution.
Speciation events documented in real time.

e) Predictive power

Evolution predicts where fossils should be found.
Predicts genetic similarities before sequencing is done.
Predicts patterns of biodiversity across geography.

Religions do not make risky, testable predictions that can fail. Evolution does, and it keeps passing.

4. Creationism is not a scientific alternative.

Creationism is not rejected because of “naturalistic bias.” It is rejected because:

It invokes an unconstrained supernatural agent without proving that this agent exists.
It makes no testable predictions.
It can accommodate any possible observation after the fact.

That is not an explanation; it is an exemption from explanation.

Evolution is not a religion.
It does not function like one.
It is supported by overwhelming evidence.
It does not require abiogenesis to be complete.

Calling evolution a “false religion” is not an argument - it’s a refusal to engage with how science actually works.

If someone wants to challenge evolution, they need to do so with evidence, not false redefinitions.

I am inviting you to prove with evidence:
1. The Biblical God is real.
2. The Biblical God created the universe and all living things in the universe.
3. The Bible is literally true.
4. The Biblical God is ethical.

[SiNcE_1985]

Calling evolution a “religion” is simply false. It fails every meaningful criterion of what a religion is, and the move is rhetorical, not analytical.

1. Evolution has none of the defining features of a religion.

A religion typically involves at least some of the following:

Supernatural agents (gods, spirits, divine wills).
Sacred texts treated as authoritative.
Rituals or worship.
Moral commandments grounded in divine authority.
Faith-based beliefs insulated from disconfirmation.

Evolution has none of these.

It has:
No gods.

The process itself is the "God". It is a non-sentient explanatory, creative, process/entity.

No worship.

Might as well be.

Evolutionists appeal to it as an explanation to explain origins, and defend it's truth value vigorously, and religiously.

No sacred texts.

Sure there is. Science text books are sacred. Anyone going against these sacred text books are pointed and laughed at, and called stupid/dumb.

No moral code.

Sure there is. The whole "do what's best for survival" is a moral code.

No appeal to faith.

The entire theory is faith based.

No immunity from falsification.

Because the objective truth (Christianity) cannot be falsified.

Evolution,

Evolution is a scientific theory: a testable, revisable explanatory framework grounded in evidence and constrained by observation.

Have you ever observed any reptile-to-bird transformations in nature?

No, you haven't.

So, your lack of observation, contradicts your given scientific methodology on evolution.

If decisive evidence contradicted it, it would be modified or abandoned. Religions do not operate that way.

Yes they do.

I was once a SDA Christian, but I abandoned that particular denomination because I found evidence that contradicted it.

We make adjustments to our beliefs, just like so called "scientists" claim they do.

Labeling evolution a “religion” is a category error, not a critique.

2. Evolution does not depend on abiogenesis.

This is another common mistake.

Evolution explains how life diversifies once it exists.
Abiogenesis studies how life may have originated from non-life.

They are separate research questions.

This is false.

If life cannot originate from non-life, then it can't diversify from non-life.

Or, you can enlighten me on how, if abiogenesis is false, evolution can remain true?

You do not need a complete theory of abiogenesis for evolution to be true, just as:

You don’t need to know how the universe began to study stellar evolution.
You don’t need to know how gravity originated to calculate orbital mechanics.

I have not looked into either of those, but if the evidence for either of those two are lacking, then the same thing applies to those as well.

Even if abiogenesis were currently unsolved, evolution would remain supported by overwhelming evidence.

If abiogenesis is false, then there is no evolution without a Creator.

3. The evidence for evolution is vast and independent

Evolution is supported by multiple, converging lines of evidence, including:

a) Genetics

Shared DNA across species.
Endogenous retroviruses at identical chromosomal locations.
Predictable patterns of mutation and inheritance.

DNA is a problem for evolutionists.

It is said that one single cell is more complex than a space shuttle.

It follows that if you can't get a space shuttle without intelligent engineering, then you can't get a single cell without the same.

Also, the reason the DNA is shared across species, is because we have a common designer.

Just like the same kind of lug nuts from two automobiles are shared between the two..does this prove evolution?

No, it proves common designer.

b) Fossil record

Transitional forms (e.g., fish–tetrapods, reptiles–mammals)
Ordered succession over time, not random distribution

Conjecture. How do you know that those fossils are not the remains of animals, in their original forms?

c) Comparative anatomy

Homologous structures (same underlying design, different functions).
Vestigial organs that make sense only under descent with modification.

Common designer.

d) Observed evolution

Antibiotic resistance.
Viral evolution.
Speciation events documented in real time.

Dogs produce dogs is all we observe.

e) Predictive power

Evolution predicts where fossils should be found.
Predicts genetic similarities before sequencing is done.
Predicts patterns of biodiversity across geography.

Everything but an observation of a REAL TIME reptile-to-bird transformation.

Religions do not make risky, testable predictions that can fail. Evolution does, and it keeps passing.

In Christianity, I predict that animals will bring forth after their kinds, just as the Genesis account indicates.

Dogs produce dogs, cats cats, fish fish, snakes snakes, etc.

That's what I "predict" will keep happening. Anything beyond that is fantasy land.

4. Creationism is not a scientific alternative.

Evolution is not scientific. It is naturalists way of coming up with a non-creationist alternative.

Creationism is not rejected because of “naturalistic bias.” It is rejected because:

It invokes an unconstrained supernatural agent without proving that this agent exists.
It makes no testable predictions.

I just told you the prediction; and so far, I'm correct.

It can accommodate any possible observation after the fact.

?

Evolution is not a religion.
It does not function like one.
It is supported by overwhelming evidence.
It does not require abiogenesis to be complete.

Calling evolution a “false religion” is not an argument - it’s a refusal to engage with how science actually works.

False teaching, false religion; whatever you want to call it.

The common denominator is; "false".

If someone wants to challenge evolution, they need to do so with evidence, not false redefinitions.

I am inviting you to prove with evidence:
1. The Biblical God is real.
2. The Biblical God created the universe and all living things in the universe.
3. The Bible is literally true.
4. The Biblical God is ethical.

We'll get to all that good stuff in small steps, not leaps and bounds.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #142]

The process itself is the "God". It is a non-sentient explanatory, creative, process/entity.

This is a category mistake.

Calling a non-sentient process “God” does not make it religious. Gravity is a process. Plate tectonics is a process. Nuclear fusion is a process. None are gods, none are worshipped, none issue commands, none are intentional agents.

You are redefining “God” to mean “any causal explanation I dislike.” That is not an argument; it is equivocation.

Might as well be. Evolutionists appeal to it as an explanation to explain origins, and defend it's truth value vigorously, and religiously.

Defending a claim with evidence is not worship.

By this logic, mathematics, aerodynamics, and germ theory are also “religions,” because people defend them vigorously when challenged incorrectly.

Disagreement ≠ devotion.
Argument ≠ worship.

Sure there is. Science text books are sacred.

This is demonstrably false.

Science textbooks are:
• revised
• corrected
• replaced
• sometimes withdrawn

Sacred texts are not.

Anyone who can publish better evidence overturns scientific textbooks. This has happened many times. That is the opposite of sacred authority.

Sure there is. The whole "do what's best for survival" is a moral code.

Evolution does not prescribe morals; it describes outcomes.

“X tends to survive” is not “X ought to survive.”

You are confusing:
descriptive explanations with normative commands.

The entire theory is faith based.

Assertion without argument.

Evolution makes risky predictions that could have failed:
• Nested genetic hierarchies.
• Fossil succession order.
• Endogenous retrovirus placement.
• Biogeographic distribution.

Faith-based systems do not risk falsification. Evolution repeatedly does.

Because the objective truth (Christianity) cannot be falsified.

This concedes the point.

Christianity is not a proven fact. It is a faith based on a book called the Bible. A claim that “cannot be falsified” is not an empirical explanation. That is precisely why it is excluded from science. Facts are established using evidence. Evolution is such a fact.

You have just explained why Christianity is not a scientific theory.

Have you ever observed any reptile-to-bird transformations in nature?

This misunderstands what evolution predicts.

Evolution does not predict single-generation transformations. It predicts gradual population-level change across many generations.

By your logic:
• You’ve never observed continental drift in one afternoon, so plate tectonics is false.
• You’ve never observed a mountain form instantly, so geology is false.

This is a misunderstanding of timescales, not a refutation.

Yes they do. I was once a SDA Christian, but I abandoned that denomination.

Changing denominations is not the same as revising doctrines based on evidence.

Leaving one sect for another is not methodological self-correction. Science discards entire frameworks when evidence demands it.

Christianity does not abandon the key events in the Bible i.e. the allegedly divine creation in Genesis, the alleged virgin birth of Jesus, the alleged crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, the alleged miracles performed by Jesus, etc. - no matter what evidence appears.

If life cannot originate from non-life, then it can't diversify from non-life.

This is a non sequitur.

Evolution does not claim life diversifies from non-life. It explains diversification once life exists.

If a God (Biblical or Quranic or Zeus or another God) created the first living cell, evolution could still explain everything after that.

You are conflating two separate topics:
• The origin of life.
• The diversification of life.

That conflation is an error.

If abiogenesis is false, then there is no evolution without a Creator.

False dichotomy.

Even if abiogenesis were false, evolution could still operate on existing life.

You are inserting a conclusion (“Creator”) that does not follow logically.

DNA is a problem for evolutionists.

No — DNA is one of evolution’s strongest confirmations.

Shared errors (e.g., broken genes, endogenous retroviruses) make sense under descent but not under intelligent design.

A competent designer repeating identical mistakes across species is not an explanation — it is ad hoc rescue.

Common designer.

This explains everything and therefore explains nothing.

“Common designer” predicts:
• any similarity
• any difference
• any error
• any pattern

A hypothesis that fits all possible outcomes is not explanatory.

Dogs produce dogs is all we observe.

Evolution predicts exactly that.

Evolution does not predict dogs giving birth to cats. It predicts populations changing over time while remaining within descent constraints.

This objection attacks a strawman.

In Christianity, I predict that animals will bring forth after their kinds.

That is not a risky prediction.

It forbids nothing, explains nothing, and cannot fail. It accommodates every possible observation after the fact.

That is precisely why it is not scientific.

Evolution is not scientific.

This is contradicted by every major scientific institution on Earth.

Evolution is foundational to:
• biology
• medicine
• genetics
• epidemiology
• agriculture

Declaring it “false religion” does not make it so.

False teaching, false religion; whatever you want to call it.

Labeling is not evidence.

Calling something “false” without demonstrating falsity is rhetoric, not argument.

We'll get to all that good stuff in small steps.

But until independent, non-circular evidence is provided, the claims of Christianity remain faith-based.

Please see the following threads I created earlier:

viewtopic.php?t=42683

viewtopic.php?t=42671

viewtopic.php?t=40324

viewtopic.php?t=42662

viewtopic.php?t=42742

I will abandon evolution if any one of the following occurred:

A. Genetic disconfirmation

Discovery that:

genetic similarity does not form nested hierarchies,

endogenous retroviruses do not align with common descent,

mutation patterns violate inheritance predictions.

B. Fossil record inversion

Mammals found in Precambrian strata,

Humans found alongside trilobites,

Or consistent temporal disorder in the fossil record.

C. Predictive failure

Evolutionary theory fails to predict:

biogeographic distributions,

antibiotic resistance,

viral evolution,

speciation under isolation.

D. Superior alternative explanation

A non-supernatural or well-specified supernatural model that:

makes better predictions,

explains more data,

forbids more outcomes,

and is independently testable.

[Jose Fly]

Calling evolution a “religion” is simply false. It fails every meaningful criterion of what a religion is, and the move is rhetorical, not analytical.

1. Evolution has none of the defining features of a religion.

A religion typically involves at least some of the following:

Supernatural agents (gods, spirits, divine wills).
Sacred texts treated as authoritative.
Rituals or worship.
Moral commandments grounded in divine authority.
Faith-based beliefs insulated from disconfirmation.

Evolution has none of these.

It has:
No gods.

The process itself is the "God". It is a non-sentient explanatory, creative, process/entity.

No worship.

Might as well be.

Evolutionists appeal to it as an explanation to explain origins, and defend it's truth value vigorously, and religiously.

No sacred texts.

Sure there is. Science text books are sacred. Anyone going against these sacred text books are pointed and laughed at, and called stupid/dumb.

No moral code.

Sure there is. The whole "do what's best for survival" is a moral code.

No appeal to faith.

The entire theory is faith based.

No immunity from falsification.

Because the objective truth (Christianity) cannot be falsified.

Evolution,

Evolution is a scientific theory: a testable, revisable explanatory framework grounded in evidence and constrained by observation.

Have you ever observed any reptile-to-bird transformations in nature?

No, you haven't.

So, your lack of observation, contradicts your given scientific methodology on evolution.

If decisive evidence contradicted it, it would be modified or abandoned. Religions do not operate that way.

Yes they do.

I was once a SDA Christian, but I abandoned that particular denomination because I found evidence that contradicted it.

We make adjustments to our beliefs, just like so called "scientists" claim they do.

Labeling evolution a “religion” is a category error, not a critique.

2. Evolution does not depend on abiogenesis.

This is another common mistake.

Evolution explains how life diversifies once it exists.
Abiogenesis studies how life may have originated from non-life.

They are separate research questions.

This is false.

If life cannot originate from non-life, then it can't diversify from non-life.

Or, you can enlighten me on how, if abiogenesis is false, evolution can remain true?

You do not need a complete theory of abiogenesis for evolution to be true, just as:

You don’t need to know how the universe began to study stellar evolution.
You don’t need to know how gravity originated to calculate orbital mechanics.

I have not looked into either of those, but if the evidence for either of those two are lacking, then the same thing applies to those as well.

Even if abiogenesis were currently unsolved, evolution would remain supported by overwhelming evidence.

If abiogenesis is false, then there is no evolution without a Creator.

3. The evidence for evolution is vast and independent

Evolution is supported by multiple, converging lines of evidence, including:

a) Genetics

Shared DNA across species.
Endogenous retroviruses at identical chromosomal locations.
Predictable patterns of mutation and inheritance.

DNA is a problem for evolutionists.

It is said that one single cell is more complex than a space shuttle.

It follows that if you can't get a space shuttle without intelligent engineering, then you can't get a single cell without the same.

Also, the reason the DNA is shared across species, is because we have a common designer.

Just like the same kind of lug nuts from two automobiles are shared between the two..does this prove evolution?

No, it proves common designer.

b) Fossil record

Transitional forms (e.g., fish–tetrapods, reptiles–mammals)
Ordered succession over time, not random distribution

Conjecture. How do you know that those fossils are not the remains of animals, in their original forms?

c) Comparative anatomy

Homologous structures (same underlying design, different functions).
Vestigial organs that make sense only under descent with modification.

Common designer.

d) Observed evolution

Antibiotic resistance.
Viral evolution.
Speciation events documented in real time.

Dogs produce dogs is all we observe.

e) Predictive power

Evolution predicts where fossils should be found.
Predicts genetic similarities before sequencing is done.
Predicts patterns of biodiversity across geography.

Everything but an observation of a REAL TIME reptile-to-bird transformation.

Religions do not make risky, testable predictions that can fail. Evolution does, and it keeps passing.

In Christianity, I predict that animals will bring forth after their kinds, just as the Genesis account indicates.

Dogs produce dogs, cats cats, fish fish, snakes snakes, etc.

That's what I "predict" will keep happening. Anything beyond that is fantasy land.

4. Creationism is not a scientific alternative.

Evolution is not scientific. It is naturalists way of coming up with a non-creationist alternative.

Creationism is not rejected because of “naturalistic bias.” It is rejected because:

It invokes an unconstrained supernatural agent without proving that this agent exists.
It makes no testable predictions.

I just told you the prediction; and so far, I'm correct.

It can accommodate any possible observation after the fact.

?

Evolution is not a religion.
It does not function like one.
It is supported by overwhelming evidence.
It does not require abiogenesis to be complete.

Calling evolution a “false religion” is not an argument - it’s a refusal to engage with how science actually works.

False teaching, false religion; whatever you want to call it.

The common denominator is; "false".

If someone wants to challenge evolution, they need to do so with evidence, not false redefinitions.

I am inviting you to prove with evidence:
1. The Biblical God is real.
2. The Biblical God created the universe and all living things in the universe.
3. The Bible is literally true.
4. The Biblical God is ethical.

We'll get to all that good stuff in small steps, not leaps and bounds.

Congratulations. That was one of the dumbest posts I've seen in a long time, and it's a good indicator of the state of this "debate". While the science side relies on data and empirical analysis, the creationist side relies on empty assertion and belief (and rather absurd ones at that).

I'm often baffled at how often creationists think "because I say so" is a valid form of argument. Evolution is a religion. Why? Because I say it is. Science textbooks are sacred. Why? Because I say so.

Also, just out of curiosity....did you go by the user name "Ilovemylilwifey" years ago at the old MSN groups?

[Jose Fly]

Also, I've seen "1213" posting in other forums and I hope by now y'all realize that all you're ever going to get from them is "I believe" "I don't believe" statements and nothing more. They will never look at any info you post to them (as evidenced by my latest posts in this thread).

You may as well be trying to have a debate with a bumper sticker.

[Compassionist]

Also, I've seen "1213" posting in other forums and I hope by now y'all realize that all you're ever going to get from them is "I believe" "I don't believe" statements and nothing more. They will never look at any info you post to them (as evidenced by my latest posts in this thread).

You may as well be trying to have a debate with a bumper sticker.

You are right.

[SiNcE_1985]

This is a category mistake.

Calling a non-sentient process “God” does not make it religious. Gravity is a process. Plate tectonics is a process. Nuclear fusion is a process. None are gods, none are worshipped, none issue commands, none are intentional agents.

You are redefining “God” to mean “any causal explanation I dislike.” That is not an argument; it is equivocation.

Look, I understand you want to avoid the "G" and "R" word like the plague...and you wouldn't be caught dead being associated with either one.

I get it.

But, creative agents, whether sentient or otherwise...that can create the universe, and sentient life...the belief that such an agent exists, I call it a "religion".

Feel free to disagree, but I stand where I stand.

Defending a claim with evidence is not worship.

By this logic, mathematics, aerodynamics, and germ theory are also “religions,” because people defend them vigorously when challenged incorrectly.

Disagreement ≠ devotion.
Argument ≠ worship.

Whether or not evolutionists are defending with evidence; that is the point of contention.

This is demonstrably false.

Science textbooks are:
• revised
• corrected
• replaced
• sometimes withdrawn

Sacred texts are not.

Anyone who can publish better evidence overturns scientific textbooks. This has happened many times. That is the opposite of sacred authority.

Right, and the new revisions becomes the new sacred texts.

Evolution does not prescribe morals; it describes outcomes.

“X tends to survive” is not “X ought to survive.”

Animals better equipped for survival, ought to survive.

Animals better equipped for survival, tend to survive.

Same thing.

You are confusing:
descriptive explanations with normative commands.

If your actions are based upon the best possible outcomes for survival, then that presupposes a moral compass.

"Thou shall not commit any actions which are contrary to survival".

God didn't say that. You said it.

Proves my point.

Assertion without argument.

The argument is; there is no observational evidence supporting it, in my opinion.

Science is supposed to be based on observation, and I simply don't see it.

Evolution makes risky predictions that could have failed:
• Nested genetic hierarchies.
• Fossil succession order.
• Endogenous retrovirus placement.
• Biogeographic distribution.

Faith-based systems do not risk falsification. Evolution repeatedly does.

None of the presented evidence actually proves the theory.

This concedes the point.

Christianity is not a proven fact. It is a faith based on a book called the Bible. A claim that “cannot be falsified” is not an empirical explanation. That is precisely why it is excluded from science. Facts are established using evidence. Evolution is such a fact.

You have just explained why Christianity is not a scientific theory.

Straw man. Who said or hinted that Christianity is a scientific theory?

This misunderstands what evolution predicts.

Evolution does not predict single-generation transformations. It predicts gradual population-level change across many generations.

This is nothing but the good ole "given enough time, anything can happen" bit.

You see, evolutionists need to provide a reason for why we never see none of this stuff happen in real time...so they sprinkle some "millions of years" sugar on to it.

No matter where you are in history, you will always be told..

"Sorry, you're too late. Had you been here X million years ago, you would have saw it. You missed it".

or..

"Sorry, you're too early. Unfortunately, we don't live long enough to see it. If you are around X million years from now, you'll see it".

If you don't see the scam/con in that, I don't know what to tell ya.

By your logic:
• You’ve never observed continental drift in one afternoon, so plate tectonics is false.
• You’ve never observed a mountain form instantly, so geology is false.

This is a misunderstanding of timescales, not a refutation.

I haven't looked into those things. For all I know, those claims could be false as well.

Changing denominations is not the same as revising doctrines based on evidence.

Leaving one sect for another is not methodological self-correction. Science discards entire frameworks when evidence demands it.

Um, to go from not worshipping Jesus as God (Jehovah Witness example), to now worshipping Jesus as God...that is a huge revision in doctrine...and a change as evidence demands it.

Christianity does not abandon the key events in the Bible i.e. the allegedly divine creation in Genesis, the alleged virgin birth of Jesus, the alleged crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, the alleged miracles performed by Jesus, etc. - no matter what evidence appears.

Yeah, well in that case, neither does science.

Oscillating models, Multiverses, Quantum theories, String theories, all were/are posited; precisely because cosmologists didn't like where the evidence is/was pointing..to a finite universe.

So, don't make it seem as if scientists are so granting of the evidence and willing to put there presuppositions aside and just go where the evidence takes them.

They are scratching and clawing to stay just where they were.

This is a non sequitur.

Evolution does not claim life diversifies from non-life. It explains diversification once life exists.

I'm not saying what evolution says. I'm saying what naturalists who believe in evolution says.

And that's what they contend; No God needed for the origins of the universe. No God needed for the origins of life. And no God needed for the origin and diversification of species.

If a God (Biblical or Quranic or Zeus or another God) created the first living cell, evolution could still explain everything after that.

You are conflating two separate topics:
• The origin of life.
• The diversification of life.

That conflation is an error.

But that's not what is being pushed.

No God needed, because the universe and everything in it is self-sufficient and contained; that is what is being pushed.

False dichotomy.

Even if abiogenesis were false, evolution could still operate on existing life.

If life can't originate naturally, how can it evolve naturally?

Makes no sense.

There is no false dichotomy. Either..

1. God did it without nature.

or..

2. Nature did it without God.

Those are the only two games in town, and I challenge you to bring forth another option.

You are inserting a conclusion (“Creator”) that does not follow logically.

God is the only game left in town after abiogenesis is negated.

If there is a third option, enlighten me so I can add it to the list.

No — DNA is one of evolution’s strongest confirmations.

Shared errors (e.g., broken genes, endogenous retroviruses) make sense under descent but not under intelligent design.

If God is taken out of the equation, I need you to explain how a mindless and blind process can create something as complex as a space shuttle.

You can't create a space shuttle unless you know what your doing...but a mindless/blind process doesn't know what it was doing, and absent of God, a space shuttle was created.

Makes no sense.

A competent designer repeating identical mistakes across species is not an explanation — it is ad hoc rescue.

Mistakes?

This explains everything and therefore explains nothing.

“Common designer” predicts:
• any similarity
• any difference
• any error
• any pattern

A hypothesis that fits all possible outcomes is not explanatory.

And on the contrary, a hypothesis that fits zero outcomes is not explanatory, i.e evolution.

Evolution predicts exactly that.

Evolution does not predict dogs giving birth to cats.

If you go back in time far enough, you'll find that the dogs of today looked absolutely nothing like it's grandparents.

This is a dog giving birth to a cat, not suddenly, but over the course of hundreds of millions of years.

It predicts populations changing over time while remaining within descent constraints.

This objection attacks a strawman.

"Given enough time, anything can happen".

Yeah, given enough time, Jesus will return, too.

That is not a risky prediction.

It forbids nothing, explains nothing, and cannot fail. It accommodates every possible observation after the fact.

That is precisely why it is not scientific.

It does explain something.

It explains that animals will only produce their own kind, and not a fundamentally different kind.

The prediction doesn't have to be risky, all it has to be is consistent with observation, which it is.

This is contradicted by every major scientific institution on Earth.

Evolution is foundational to:
• biology
• medicine
• genetics
• epidemiology
• agriculture

Declaring it “false religion” does not make it so.

Yeah, and hotdogs, popcorn, beer, halftime show, etc.

All^ have to do with the sport of baseball...but none of it have to do with the game, itself.

That's what evolution is to science.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #147]

Look, I understand you want to avoid the "G" and "R" word like the plague…

This is not about avoidance; it is about definitions.

You are free to call anything a “religion” if you redefine the word broadly enough. But once you do that, the term loses explanatory value.

If “religion” means:
• any explanation of origins,
• any causal account of reality,
• any framework people argue for strongly,

then everything becomes a religion — including geology, chemistry, arithmetic, and logic itself.

At that point, calling evolution a religion is no longer a critique; it is a semantic relabeling.

creative agents, whether sentient or otherwise… I call it a "religion".

This definition is idiosyncratic and not shared.

Science does not posit evolution as a “creative agent” at all — sentient or non-sentient. Evolution is a population-level statistical process, not an entity that creates with intent.

You are importing agency where none is claimed, then objecting to it.

Right, and the new revisions becomes the new sacred texts.

No — because they are not immune to revision.

A text is “sacred” precisely because it is authoritative regardless of evidence. Scientific texts are provisional summaries of current models.

The fact that textbooks are replaced is not evidence of sacralisation — it is evidence of the opposite.

Animals better equipped for survival, ought to survive.
Same thing.

No — those are categorically different statements.

“Tend to survive” is descriptive.
“Ought to survive” is normative.

One is a claim about what happens.
The other is a claim about what should happen.

No amount of repetition makes them identical.

If your actions are based upon the best possible outcomes for survival, then that presupposes a moral compass.

This confuses motivation with prescription.

Evolutionary explanations can describe why organisms behave as they do without endorsing those behaviours as morally right.

Describing why aggression evolved does not endorse aggression.
Describing why cooperation evolved does not command cooperation.

No moral imperative follows unless one is added by a human agent — not by evolution.

The argument is; there is no observational evidence supporting it, in my opinion.

Observation is not limited to watching macro-transformations occur in front of you.

We observe:
• inheritance patterns,
• mutation,
• selection,
• speciation,
• genetic divergence,
• fossil succession,
• biogeographic distribution.

Historical sciences rely on inference from constrained evidence, not eyewitness time travel.

If eyewitness-only observation were required, cosmology, geology, and archaeology would all collapse.

None of the presented evidence actually proves the theory.

Science does not operate on proof in the mathematical sense.

It operates on:
• explanatory scope,
• predictive success,
• consilience of evidence,
• elimination of alternatives.

By that standard, evolution performs extremely well. Creationism does not constrain outcomes and therefore cannot compete explanatorily.

This is nothing but the good ole "given enough time, anything can happen" bit.

This is a strawman.

Evolution does not say “anything can happen.” It says:
• variation is constrained,
• inheritance is structured,
• selection is non-random,
• outcomes are path-dependent.

Many things are forbidden by evolutionary theory. That is why it is testable.

I haven't looked into those things. For all I know, those claims could be false as well.

Then that is not a rebuttal.

Saying “maybe everything else is wrong too” is not an argument against evolution. It is a suspension of inquiry.

neither does science… cosmologists didn’t like where the evidence was pointing.

This misunderstands scientific model-building.

Alternative models are proposed precisely because evidence is taken seriously. Many are discarded. Some survive. That is how constrained inquiry works.

Proposing models is not evidence of bias; refusing to abandon core doctrines regardless of evidence is.

If life can't originate naturally, how can it evolve naturally?

Because origin and diversification are logically distinct questions.

Once life exists — regardless of how — differential reproduction, mutation, and selection follow necessarily.

You are insisting on a metaphysical conclusion where only a logical distinction is required.

Either..

1. God did it without nature.
2. Nature did it without God.

This is a false dichotomy.

Other possibilities include:
• unknown natural mechanisms,
• non-Biblical deities,
• deistic creation followed by natural processes,
• panentheistic or emergent frameworks.

Reducing all possibilities to two is not reasoning; it is selective pruning.

God is the only game left in town after abiogenesis is negated.

That conclusion does not follow.

Rejecting one hypothesis does not automatically validate another — especially one with independent unresolved problems.

a mindless and blind process can create something as complex as a space shuttle?

This is a false analogy.

Evolution does not assemble finished products from nothing. It operates cumulatively, preserving small functional changes over immense timescales.

A space shuttle is not the result of incremental reproduction with variation and selection. Biological organisms are.

Mistakes?

Yes — broken genes, shared errors, and non-functional sequences.

These are expected under descent with modification. They are unexpected under optimal intelligent design.

a hypothesis that fits zero outcomes… i.e evolution.

This is simply false.

Evolution fits:
• genetic hierarchies,
• fossil succession,
• observed speciation,
• antibiotic resistance,
• viral evolution,
• island biogeography.

Creationism predicts none of these uniquely.

This is a dog giving birth to a cat… over millions of years.

No — this is another strawman.

Evolution predicts descent with modification, not violation of ancestry.

Dogs remain dogs because ancestry constrains change. That constraint is part of the theory, not a failure of it.

The prediction doesn't have to be risky, all it has to be is consistent with observation.

Consistency alone is insufficient.

A hypothesis that forbids nothing explains nothing. Scientific explanations must rule out alternatives.

“Animals reproduce after their kind” is compatible with every biological outcome and therefore has no explanatory power.

That's what evolution is to science.

This is demonstrably incorrect.

Remove evolution and biology collapses into disconnected facts. Remove halftime shows and baseball remains intact.

The analogy fails because evolution is not peripheral — it is integrative.

• Redefining terms does not refute theories.
• Equivocating between description and prescription fails.
• Dismissing entire sciences without engagement is not argument.
• Evolution is constrained, predictive, and evidentially supported.
• Creationism explains everything and therefore explains nothing.

If you wish to continue productively, the next step is clear:

Provide an alternative model that constrains outcomes, makes testable predictions, and explains the data better.

Absent that, relabeling evolution as a “religion” is rhetoric — not rebuttal.

[SiNcE_1985]

Congratulations. That was one of the dumbest posts I've seen in a long time

And the last dumbest post you saw before mine, probably came from your own fingertips.

, and it's a good indicator of the state of this "debate". While the science side relies on data and empirical analysis, the creationist side relies on empty assertion and belief (and rather absurd ones at that).

Creationists: The painting came from an intelligent painter.

Atheists/Agnostics: The painting came from an explosion at a paint factory.

It is clear to me which one of the two is absurd.

I'm often baffled at how often creationists think "because I say so" is a valid form of argument. Evolution is a religion. Why? Because I say it is. Science textbooks are sacred. Why? Because I say so.

It is no less of a valid form of an argument than "because we (you guys) say so".

Also, just out of curiosity....did you go by the user name "Ilovemylilwifey" years ago at the old MSN groups?

Negative.

But I did frequent the old Yahoo groups in my younger apologetic years.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #149]

Creationists: The painting came from an intelligent painter.
Atheists/Agnostics: The painting came from an explosion at a paint factory.

This analogy fails at every relevant point.

No one claims that biological complexity arose from a single chaotic explosion. That is a caricature, not a position held by evolutionary biology.

Evolution proposes:
• cumulative change,
• heritable variation,
• differential reproduction,
• over vast timescales,
• constrained by physical and chemical laws.

An explosion produces disorder.
Evolution is a non-random process acting on random variation.

If the analogy were even remotely accurate, evolution would predict chaos, not highly structured nested hierarchies in genetics and fossils — which is exactly what we observe.

It is clear to me which one of the two is absurd.

What is clear is that the analogy does the argumentative work, not the evidence.

Analogies are illustrative tools, not substitutes for data. A bad analogy proves nothing, no matter how rhetorically satisfying it feels.

It is no less of a valid form of an argument than "because we (you guys) say so".

This is false, and the distinction matters.

Science does not say “because we say so.”
It says:
• because predictions succeeded,
• because alternatives failed,
• because evidence converges,
• because models are constrained.

If a claim can be overturned by better evidence, it is not “because we say so.”
Creationism, by contrast, does not specify what evidence would count against it.

That asymmetry is methodological, not tribal.

Evolution is a religion. Why? Because I say it is.

And that is precisely the problem.

Redefining “religion” so that it includes any strongly defended explanatory framework empties the term of meaning.

By that definition:
• mathematics is a religion,
• logic is a religion,
• chemistry is a religion,
• even your own reasoning would be a religion.

At that point, calling evolution a religion is not a critique — it is a semantic gesture.

The painting came from an intelligent painter.

The key difference you keep overlooking:

Paintings do not reproduce.
Paintings do not mutate.
Paintings do not undergo selection.
Paintings do not form genealogical lineages.

Biological organisms do.

Invoking “design” explains none of those features unless you specify:
• mechanisms,
• constraints,
• predictions,
• and failure conditions.

Without that, “designer” explains everything and therefore nothing.

I did frequent the old Yahoo groups in my younger apologetic years.

Longevity in apologetics is not evidence of correctness.

Ideas are not strengthened by age or repetition. They are strengthened by explanatory power and evidential constraint.

I am not arguing that science has already answered every question. I am arguing that beliefs should be proportionate to the evidence.

The claim under dispute is much narrower:

Evolution is a constrained, predictive, evidentially supported scientific theory — not a religion.

If you wish to challenge it, the path forward remains the same:

Present an alternative that makes testable predictions, constrains outcomes, and explains the data better.

Analogies and assertions cannot substitute for that work.