The following discussion between myself and an Atheist who goes by Leehamism took place due to my VIDEO: The View – Joy Beyhar evolution smack down Ben Carson.
Leehamism began by quoting some statements I made within the video:
“Indoctrinated in to atheist evolution….unless you get in to that field there after….”.
Please can you be a little more clear about what happens if you study biology after being “indoctrinated”? Email the top 100 universities and ask the biology departments if we evolved over millions of years from a common ancestor to apes. We both know their overwhelming response will justify your conspiracy theory. In your email ask the geology departments if tectonic plate movement has anything to do with earth quakes – ask the chemistry departments what the half life of carbon 14 is – ask the microbiologists if bacteria has anything to do with food poisoning from 3 week old chicken wings – are all tonsillectomies necessary or just a way for doctors to pay off their BMW. Surely Carson has a greater responsibility than most to lift the lid on this massive lie biologists are, for some bizarre reason, perpetuating and also investigate any other science conspiracies. How likely is it that the majority of the world’s best scientists find it strange that a man of Carson’s education can hold such bizarre beliefs? Yes, indoctrination is a mighty powerful thing!
My reply:
One issue is biology, which is a science, versus evolution, which is a worldview-philosophy. For example, it is not science but rather a worldview-philosophy that asserts that we evolved from an un-observed, un-evidenced, un-proven and unknown crypto-zoological mythological chimera called “common ancestor.”
Leehamism:
To suggest the evidence for evolution is in some way lacking is entirely bizarre and obviously makes me wonder how I could ever expect to get a coherent answer to any question I might ask of you. To assume you would agree that a tertiary education in biology would increase the likelihood that someone would believe/understand evolution might be a stretch and might explain why you ignored my previous “indoctrination” question. It leads me to tentatively ask whether you think Carson’s beliefs are unusual when compared to others with similar medical credentials? Roughly (at a guess), how many of the world’s top 100 neurosurgeons would you say have similar beliefs to Carson?
Ken Ammi:
This is most interesting. I pointed out that evolution is a worldview-philosophy and you absolutely verify that by wondering how you could ever expect to get a coherent answer to ANY, mind you, question you might ask me solely based on my suggestion the evidence for evolution is in some way lacking. Thus, you are using evolution as THE standard. I will note that you did not address my statements. Also, you did not ask any “indoctrination” question but rather, you asserted, “Yes, indoctrination is a mighty powerful thing!” Now, whether “a tertiary education in biology would increase the likelihood that someone would believe/understand evolution” is not as simple as it seems. I would imagine that your implication is that even more indoctrination in to evolution after a dozen years of school and being exposed to pro-evolution books, movies, documentaries, etc. since before even getting into the first grade would increase the likelihood that someone would believe/understand evolution. But what does that mean? I mean “a tertiary education in biology would increase the likelihood that someone would believe/understand evolution” may only mean that over a dozen years of indoctrination works! That says nothing about whether evolution is accurate. And, by the way, we are discussing evolution without defining the term thus, that “suggest the evidence for evolution is in some way lacking” is meaningless. I have not seen a study on how many of the world’s top 100 neurosurgeons have similar beliefs to Carson. Yet, that can very quickly get us into the area of arguments from authority (also neurosurgeons are not authorities on biology). Also, obviously Carson’s views on this issue have had no negative impact on his work as a neurosurgeon. And, when ideas—scientific or worldview-philosophies—are overturned it generally begin with a minority and by a minority who is persecuted for questioning the dogma de jour.
Yet, I am most interested in why any of this is an issue for you whatsoever however.
Leehamism:
Yes, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Based on his outstanding credentials I would guess Carson could be a more important anti-evolution voice that someone like Ken Ham. I’m not going to go into how important Carson could be in rectifying the significant number of misconceptions being deliberately and unintentionally perpetuated in so many areas of science because I guess you have already thought about that. Carson’s unoriginal and erroneous comment that “faith” is required to believe evolution really leads to a further discussion as to what constitutes reliable evidence. This is because, as Carson I’m sure understands, faith is the belief in something with little or no evidence OR a high level of trust in someone or something OR etc (we can both open our dictionaries if required). Tectonic plate movement, an isotope’s half-life, dna, fossils, etc can all be studied independently of any “world view” pertaining to evolution. (How is evolution a worldview?) The scientific process is not perfect and, like all walks of life, science has its fair share of crooks and con artists. If evolution is not true then we have much more to worry about than just this one scientific theory. For any “fact” there may be weak evidence, strong evidence, little evidence, lots of evidence, very reliable evidence, not very reliable evidence. Then there would be have to be evidence to verify the reliability of a reliable source, etc. Yes, it can be complicated and most of us do our best in weighing all of it up. It has much to do with our beliefs and actions in all facets of life. I find this an important issue because of the suggestion that evolution is, at best not the best explanation for life’s diversity or at worse a conspiracy perpetuated by much of science. By the way, you did mention that my doubts concerning a coherent response did absolutely verify that evolution is a worldview. Is this what you constitute as sufficient evidence to verify something is true? I presume not. I presume, as we all do at times, you may have been highlighting your point through hyperbole. A little ironic as my coherence concerns (possibly less hyperbolic now than at first) were to do with how you understand the evidence and how it verifies evolution.
Please explain, if you wish, “evolution as THE standard” Also, could you please suggest which of your statements you would like me to address. Clearly this is an issue we both find interesting/important and if we continue this conversation I will do my best to not to be terse in my responses.
Ken Ammi:
Well friend, that “the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous” is a mere assertion. Keep in mind that without defining “evolution” then there is nothing to discuss. I did not state refer to “evolution as THE standard” but wrote, “you are using evolution as THE standard.”
You may find this interesting/important but why?
Leehamism:
Hi Ken. It looks like we won’t get far understanding each other in the YouTube comments section. Good to share our thoughts though. I’m still not sure why you say we are without a definition for evolution. Oxford and Merriam Webster have the basics. National Academy of Sciences or The Royal Society probably explain it a bit further, then we could go all the way to the papers and text books regularly referred to at places like Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, etc.
I’m quite sure Carson could sit with biologists and happily agree that there is a large amount of evidence for evolution. It is that he probably doesn’t agree with much of its strength or validity. I guess he also points to other evidence he believes contradicts the evidence for evolution (some of which is religious in nature). The reliability and strength of the evidence and how it is pieced together to form the theory is maybe significant for some people who don’t believe evolution. I know there are plenty of other reasons why Carson and others don’t believe but I’m just tossing around some ideas and I would like your thoughts. To attempt to answer your last question as simply as the YouTube comment section will practically allow – I enjoy science and I have studied science at university level (I hope that will suffice) The defining evolution issue is, I guess, your most significant hurdle in progressing with this conversation and I wonder why you would upload a YouTube video on the topic if this is the case. Regards, L
Ken Ammi:
Indeed, I am aware that the term has been defined (how could I not be?). However, there are various definitions of “evolution” so without knowing which one YOU are employing I know not of what you speak. For example, if it is any and all changes to bio-organisms then I believe in it but if it is on the origin of new “species” (whatever that means) from other previously existing species then I do not. I care not to defend nor protect Carson but based on the little he was able to say he seems to accept small changes within “kinds” or “species”—micro-evolution—but does not accept large changes that would turn one kind/species into another—macro-evolution. On the point about “interesting/important but why?” I mean if we are all temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organisms sitting atop a spinning rock, orbiting an average star in the backwaters of a temporarily and accidentally existing universe then what does it matter what the scientifically extremely successful Carson believes on this issue?
In fact, his belief as well as yours and mine would be nothing but interpretations of bio-sensory neural reactions occurring within haphazardly evolved brains which, by the way, evolved for survival (for some unknown reason) and not necessarily for ascertaining empirical truth.
Well, apparently ending the comment with “Regards” meant that they were done replying that that was the end of the discussion—which I hope has been instructive.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.