But Isn't Evolution a Fact?

Welcome to evolution. Impossible. A production of three ABN, Australia. Television them. Our host is Dr. Sven Ostring with special guest Dr. John Ashton and our panel. Hello, I'm Dr. Sven Ostring, and welcome to Evolution Impossible. The question of where life originally came from intrigues everyone, no matter whether you're a seven year old girl or a distinguished professor. However, there is quite a variety of different theories about how life really did come about. In this series, we're going to be exploring the biggest theory in the world today, evolution. It's taught at universities and promoted in the media. But have you ever stopped to ask whether evolution is even possible? According to some experts, that's a question that should not even be raised in schools, which is really quite surprising. It makes me even more curious to explore whether evolution really works or not. Here with me to explore this really big topic is Dr. John Ashton, Ellie Turner, Blair Lemke and Stephen Aveling-Rowe. Thanks for joining me today. Now John, this is not a new topic for you, is it? It's a topic that you've told me you've been exploring for almost 50 years, which is more than I've been alive. And what I wanted to know is this what got you interested initially in exploring whether evolution really works or not? Well, I started going to church in 1970 and at that time I was working as a research fellow at the University of Tasmania. And when the church folk found out that I was a research scientist, they said, well, do you believe in evolution or do you believe in the Bible account of creation? Now, I'd studied geology at university for a while and so that's when I began researching the evidence. Where did the evidence sit? I actually had a friend who was doing his doctorate as well in the area of geochemistry, and he was studying a gold deposit in New Zealand and had a prospector's shovel handle radiocarbon dated and it came back at 6600 years from the radio dating laboratory. And we both thought to ourselves, how can this be that old in the 1880s in New Zealand, not 6000 years ago? Well, no, we didn't believe that the tree that it was made from would have been that old. So since then I've been doing a lot of reading and then another time I thought, well, why don't I ask scientists who do believe in creation why they believe in creation? And so I wrote to a number of scientists around the world, leading scientists, who I'd found out through connections were creationists and they what's the outcome of that project? Well, the outcome was that I put the articles together and became the book in six days why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. And that's been a bestseller on Amazon for, well, since 1999. That came out incredible. And then it's interesting, this whole concept that life arose through random mutations. Now of course, we know now that since the development and understanding of DNA, that we've got to change the DNA and mutations can change the DNA. So I was meeting actually, with some plant breeders at a leading Australian university, and we were talking about a new project that we were involved in. And I asked the lead plant breeder, do mutations produce new genetic information? And he said, oh, yeah, no worries. And so I said, well, can you give me an example? And he paused and he hesitated, and he said, can't think of one. But he said, Ask our chief geneticist. And none of the other guys at the table were having lunch at the time commented. But later that afternoon, I met up with the chief geneticist and asked him the same question. He said, no, never. He said, mutations destroy the information in DNA. He said, we produce changes, but we're producing changes by destroying DNA, not making new DNA. Interesting. And this was very relevant because really, the theory claims that the mutations are producing new DNA. Very interesting. And thank you so much, John, and I just want to really be interested in your perspective as well. So, Ali, why are you interested in the topic of evolution and creation? Look, for me, it really began during my schooling years. So my older sister, she's two years older than I am, she was going through high school, and she started being taught evolution, of course, but naturally became interested as well. She started really researching the different arguments for creation versus evolution. Yeah. And ever since then, it's been an interest of mine, and I've done a lot of reading on the topic. What about you, Stephen? Where did your interests arise from? I guess you could say it started around the family dinner table with dad being a biochemist and teacher in many schools. It's a topic that's foundational to the understanding of the sciences. And then for me, particularly as I'm into nature and wildlife in a big way, understanding the way speciation occurs and development of these species over time is really fascinating to me. So these are fundamental questions for me. What about you, Blair? Is it a sort of family kind of affair as well, with the whole evolution thing? Yeah. Look, for me, I work with a lot of young people, young people of faith, young people who are trying to learn about faith. And one of the key things that always comes up is the discussion of evolution and how that fits in, or does it fit in with the Christian worldview as a competing worldview. And so in my role working with young people that's come up often, and it's been a point of interest that has kind of started me asking questions and looking at the biblical account and comparing it against theories that are suggested in science, seeing where the two can fit together and where there's disconnect. It's big questions. It's the big questions of life. That all people ask, and young people particularly ask. It's interesting you should say that, Blair, because they've done research, a small research project. And what they've found is that as young people accept evolution and they go to university, often their faith is eroded because of that. So it's a big topic in terms of not only from a science point of view, but also from a faith perspective as well. But Stephen, I was just wondering, when you were at school with your science classes, what were you taught in terms of evolution? What comes to mind in terms of the evolution topic? For you? Look, for me it was a slightly different experience coming from a home educator perspective, but with that in mind nonetheless, I've been well grounded in both perspectives, free to make my own mind up. And so it's through much reading research, reading books like yours that have helped give me a perspective that I think holds water. What about you, Ali, in terms of did you do science classes and what were the things which were coming through in your science education? For me, the evolution was taught many times through high school, and it came through even when we were learning about other topics. It would come through again and again. And it was very much taught as fact. Very much taught as fact. There wasn't any question about whether it was true or not in the teacher's eyes, I guess. Yeah, it's interesting that you should say that, Ali, because, John, the fact is, for all of these guys here, they didn't necessarily do science in terms of at university, but even at the primary school and even in the high school levels, evolution was really promoted. So I want to know, what is the official position with regards to evolution amongst the education experts that you are aware of? Yeah, sure. Well, evolution is certainly considered as a fact of science now, and the different science academies around the world have published statements to that effect, that evolution is now considered a fact of science. What I find is very interesting is that when you read these statements, they're not supported by any scientific evidence. They make assertions that there is a large body of scientific evidence supporting those claims. Now, the interesting thing is, as I've been researching this, unfortunately, the use of the word evolution is very broad and it can mean just very small changes. And sure, we have evidence for very small changes, but the mechanisms that underpin these small changes are not the same mechanisms that would produce a new type of organism. And I think this is a very important point. And when I look further, there's actually no, I haven't been able to find any published paper that provides the evidence for a mechanism that can explain how evolution can be a fact, nor in the geological publications or paleontological publications of the fossil record and so forth. They don't show this gradual change of evolution either they show complete species and I find this is very interesting. So when these organizations make these statements now they're not supported by a list of references, they're just assertions that is a fact. Now, one interesting thing that I noticed in one textbook when I was at one of the universities in Melbourne, in their library one day was that they had this big statement chapter heading evolution as a Fact. And then in another section a little bit further on in the chapters that said one of the leading areas that evolutionists working on is trying to figure out how evolution works, how evolution happens. So in one saying it's a fact, but then they're saying, well hang on, we actually don't know how it happens. And it certainly comes to mind books by Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, where they really say evolution is fact right on the very first page. It's an amazing comment. So I guess John, I mean this whole series is all going to be about evolution. So we're going to cover a lot of different scientific topics. But could you just run through with us what is the evidence which scientists would use to say that evolution is a fact? What sort of is the pillars that kind of support this idea? Well, I think the main pillars are the belief in the long age for life on earth as being billions of years old. So somewhere between two and a half to 4 billion years or maybe 3.8 billion years. They say that this gives a long time, life has evolved over this long period of time and I think now we have evidence to question those long ages. We have a whole lot of data now available to us that says hang on, this whole uniformitarian principle has problems. The radiometric dating methods have major problems. And one of the things that people don't realize is that the radiometric dating methods have actually never been validated for prehistorical dates. So I worked as a chief chemist for a National Association of Testing Authorities registered laboratory and we had standard methods, the methods had to be validated using standard reference materials. And this is one of the interesting facts that with radiometric dating it hasn't been validated. And there are a lot of other evidence that we now have that suggest that hang on, the biblical picture of a young Earth, of young life on Earth actually fits the data much better. But of course secular science doesn't want to go there. They don't want to know anything about the Bible record. They want to be able to explain things in material things. But they're running into major problems in all the areas, not only in biology but in space science, in our understanding of time. A whole lot of these areas are really raising questions, particularly on these long ages and are pointing all the time in the direction of the biblical picture which I find is really exciting. But the issue is that this information, this new research isn't getting out to the young people. It's not being taught in our schools. They're still sticking with this old curricula that now the evidence is very, very shaky and crumbling. I just wanted to ask you guys did you have any questions for Dr. Ashland with regards to this idea that science is fact and evolution is fact and science really says that this is the way that life came about? Look, I was actually going to ask you just in relation to tertiary education for scientists and I guess how that's structured because I'd always thought that scientists were almost by definition taught to question the data. Yeah, to question theories, to question conclusions and test things again and again to prove science. So when you're talking about evolution just being taught as a fact without even references and that kind of thing I'm just wondering I guess whether how they are taught to think. Are they taught to think critically? Does this happen with other theories or is it just evolution that you see this happening with? I'm wondering if there's maybe just an agenda behind the teaching of evolution. I don't think there's necessarily an agenda. But most scientists are going to teach evolution because that's what they've been taught. They've been taught it in their science class. They've had to examine it. They haven't actually been taught to question it. And really, in a way it has become a sacred cow by scientists who are fairly political. So we have certain groups of scientists that are fairly political in that they are definitely pushing an agenda that God must be kept out of the classroom. That all the explanations of the physical world have physical explanation. There is no supernatural. There is no non material existence. Now, one of the areas that challenge this, of course, is the mind is consciousness. And Thomas Nagel, professor of Philosophy at the University of New York has questioned this recently in the book Mind and the Cosmos because that's a non material entity and he has actually begun to question that the Darwinian explanation can actually explain things. In fact, now a large number of scientists, over 1000 scientists who have doctorate qualifications in the area related to biology, molecular biology, zoology, palantology and so forth have signed a statement that they are skeptical that Darwin's theory can actually explain the diversity of life on Earth. And they have set up a website, Descentfromedarwin.org. One word descentfromdargan.org. So over a thousand scientists have signed that now. And I think this is what's happening is that scientists are now feeling a little bit more freedom now and are stepping up. Whereas if you go back, say ten years ago if a scientist spoke out against this he was likely to lose his job. And I think there was evidence for this. For example, when Dr. Avatar who was the chief scientist for the Israeli ministry of Health was newly appointed, and one of the things he said was, well, I don't want our students just being taught that we evolve from monkeys. I don't believe we evolved from monkeys. I want them to be able to look at other options. He was then immediately asked to resign, and he sacked, in fact. So that's a very high level Israel, very high standard of education. Their chief scientists within their Ministry of Education questioned evolution, and there was such a protest by a small number of other scientists, and that led to him being sacked. So that's the background that some scientists have been operating in. So then, following on from that, I mean, we're often taught that the mechanism for evolution is natural selection. And that's touted as the way that everything is able to evolve and become what it is, from microbe to microbiologists. So talk us through that. Would you explain your perspective on natural selection and actually what that does? Right. Well, this is probably an area that we're going to take a lot more time to get into, but we do observe natural selection in nature, and that is that. Sure. If you have, say, for example, dogs, and they happen to find there's a really cold snap come over, then the dogs with longer hair are going to survive better. The others might freeze out. So they'll breed and preserve those genes for long hair in that particular cold area. So we know, for example, there were ice ages in the past and these sort of things. So any dogs like that caught in that sort of environment, they're going to with the short hair, they'll die. Or another classic example cited on the Smithsonian site is that you've got the example of, say, mice out in a desert area. Mites migrate into a desert area where there's sort of yellow sand. The dark mice are going to be more easily picked off by the birds. And so only the paler, fur mice are going to breed. And so you're going to have a selection which improves survival in that area. The important aspect of that is that that's not new code, that's loss of code, right? It's loss of that genetic information. And this is a very important aspect where Darwin syrup oppose two things that you have mutations and then you have natural selection. It's the mutations that are supposed to produce new code, the natural selections. Then out of all the supposed random, all the different types of new organisms that were supposed to arise, natural selection would then select for the best ones because the environment would destroy the others. They wouldn't survive very well. And so natural selection is not a way of producing new organisms. It's a way of just eliminating the ones that aren't surviving. So the whole theory of evolution powerfully depends on the mechanism of mutations being able to produce new organisms. And that's its weak point to date. There's no evidence that that happens. Wow. Yeah. Dr. John, I had a question. I was wondering earlier on you talked about this theory of evolution where assertions are made, but there's no real scientific data or papers to support the underlying mechanisms to make it happen. I guess the question that I'm having and I mean, there's even papers that disprove those mechanisms and things like this. So the question I'm wondering is, why in the scientific world do scientists just not know about this? Are they disingenuous and not dealing with this data and this new information? Or is it something else? Why is there so much skepticism or lack of acceptance of some of these or questioning of evolution? Well, look, let me give you a personal experience back in about two six. The Discovery Institute in America, which promotes intelligent design, circulated DVDs on the evidence for intelligent design in nature to all the high schools in Australia. And the Biology Teachers Association of Australia put in full page advertisements saying, don't show this DVD. We think that it's not scientific, and so forth. And there were quite a few discussion articles about this in scientific journals. And one of those articles was published in Chemistry Australia, which is the Royal Australian Chemical Institute journal. And in that there was a professor who spoke up and said, well, look, if we taught intelligent design, we would need to teach spoon bending, alien abduction, astrology, all these crazy things. And I thought, this is so wrong. There are highly educated scientists such as myself who recognize the overwhelming evidence for creation as opposed to evolution. So I sent in an article to Chemistry Australia titled A Creationist View of the Intelligent Design Debate, and I listed my evidence and I cited my references, about ten references referring to the historical and peer reviewed literature supporting my position. As soon as that journal came out, which was the April 2 seven issue of Chemistry Australia, a number of scientists in Australia wrote to the Royal Australian Chemical Institute and said, professor Ashton has used made up arguments. Professor Ashton has used debunked articles, arguments. Essentially called me a liar and said, this is going to damage your reputation. So they pulled that article, even though it was a feature article in the journal and it had been peer reviewed, and I'd made the corrections according to the reviewers. And so, of course, they couldn't recall the journal, but the online issue deleted that. And so this was it. And in the following issue, the May, issue two seven of Chemistry Australia, they published the letters by those three scientists. And that's essentially how I know what they said. Now what I decided to do was ring them up and have a talk to them. Because I'm a scientist. If you have a problem with what I'm saying, show me where I'm wrong. I'm interested in learning. Now, a couple of them I couldn't get through to, but one guy I did get through to and I spoke to him and I said, Look, I'm Dr. John Ash. I understand you weren't very happy with my article in Chemistry in Australia. And he sort of changed his tack. And I said, you claim that I'm wrong. And I said, where's the evidence that I'm wrong? And his reply was, well, we don't have the evidence at the moment, but we will. What sort of evidence is know Jesus is coming again and he will. I'm going to put my faith in Jesus coming. It's not a crazy theory that they don't actually have evidence, but this gives you an idea of the political oomph that some of the people have. And what they're trying to do is at that stage was to stop scientists from publishing reputable journals. I had a reputable reputation, and this censorship has been occurring for some time, but it's being broken down now as more leading scientists are speaking out and saying, hang on. Guys like Jerry FODER, a professor of philosophy at Rutgers University in the US. Couldn't get his paper Why Pigs Don't Have Wings published in a science journal. So he had to publish it in the London Review of Books or whatever. So John would be really interested. I mean, the whole series will be looking at this topic, but could you just summarize? Since the 1990s, which is quite a while ago, scientists and philosophers have been identifying reasons why evolution doesn't work, why we should be skeptical about it. Could you just maybe give us a bird's eye view, quick skim over what's that evidence which has been found? Well, I think as we learn more about DNA, the structure of DNA and the molecular machines that exist in the simplest cells are just so complex they can't arise by chance. Even the probability of a simple gene arising by the orders of different amino acids coming together, mathematicians have looked at that and shown that it's astronomically impossible. The probability is less than finding a particular atom in a universe. Well, if there were as many universes as there are atoms in the universe, finding a particular atom in one of those universes, they'll take a very long time. So we know mathematically it's impossible. But biologists for some reason don't seem to be able to accept that. Hang on, these reactions are random chemical reactions. Therefore, the probabilistic evidence really applies to this sort of scenario, and it doesn't work. It's absolutely impossible. That's the main reason. Plus, we're not finding the evidence. There no mechanism yet. And you also mentioned in your book that there is not only sociological reasons to believe in evolution now, but there was sociological reasons to accept evolution back in Darwin's time. There was a social kind of situation which led them to really want to accept it. Could you just run, what was it at Darwin's time? What were they thinking about that made them want to accept evolution? Yeah, sure. Well, that was the development of the mechanical worldview. Machines had just been developed and they were really taking off and in the 18 hundreds as a steam inch and all this sort of thing. That was a massive scientific development of machines. And Darwin's theory provided a mechanical model for life. That was the crinch. It was a mechanical model that showed evolution. They saw the evolution of machines and now they had a mechanical model for life and that just took off, I guess. A question for you guys'panel. How do you feel when you hear about top scientists like the chief scientists in the Israeli state, the government being sacked because they simply questioned evolution? It just seems very unscientific. Science is the pursuit of knowledge and information and testing and it just seems very emotional and just doesn't seem very unscientific. I think it's quite outrageous when you consider that in the very recent past, scientists believed in things like spontaneous generation and they believed in things like a flat earth. To have a theory that can't be questioned and you'll be sacked if you question it, I think is quite outrageous. Without protecting freedom of speech, we cannot have a development and further understanding of these critical issues. As you can see, this is a really, really important topic and I can imagine that you wish you were actually here with us. Well, the good news is that you can join us by getting Dr. John Ashton's book it's Evolution Impossible. You can order it through a number of online bookstores right around the world, which is really good. What a fascinating discussion. We're only just getting into the topic. Will we be back next time to dig deeper into the theory that Darwin developed which literally changed the world. We look forward to seeing you next time. Thank you for joining us on Evolution Impossible, a production of three ABN Australia television. If you have any comments or questions, send an email to radio at threeABN australia.org au or call us within Australia on 024-973-3456. We'd love to hear from you.