Does evolution stand up to these arguments?

Question

The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel student edition
The Quantum theory states a space vacuum sometimes spits out objects for a brief amount of time then it is destroyed. The Kalam cosmological argument states these three things: every thing that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, and the universe has a cause. Experiences suggest that the first part of the Kalam argument is true. A research professor William Lane said, “The subatomic particles the article talks about are called ‘virtual particles.’ They are theoretical entities, and it is not even clear that they actually exist as opposed to being merely theoretical constructs.” Still we have to answer where the quantum vacuums came from. It appears step one of the Kalam held up. Early Christian Scientist used mathematical reasoning to show an infinite past is impossible. Imagine you have an infinite number of marbles and you gave me an infinite number of marbles. This would leave you with zero marbles.

Answer 1

Yes evolution stands up to all those arguments because none of them have nothing to do with evolution.

Answer 2

If I have an infinite number of numbers (1, 2, 3...) and gave you all the even numbers (2, 4, 6), I would have given you an infinite number of numbers.

Better, I would have given you the same infinite number of numbers as I originally had. (This is an easy first-year math proof: for every number N in your set of even numbers, there exists a number N/2 in the original set; therefore the two sets have the same size).

So, I start with an infinite number of numbers. I give you the same infinite quantity of even numbers, and I am still left with the same infinite quantity of odd numbers...

Careful with analogies that use infinities. They can easily lead you astray.

By the way, virtual particles can be turned to real particles (Stephen Hawkins showed one way this could happen), they are more than mere theoretical constructs, even though very few of us get to actually see one.

By the other way: evolution has a cause. Environmental conditions have an impact on which individuals survive and get to reproduce their DNA in subsequent organisms. Therefore, by the Kalam argument, evolution exists.

The existence of evolution is not a proof that a creator does not exist. If there is a creator, who are we to dictate to Her how She should run the show? However, too many people try to run down evolution because their own self-serving theory of a creator requires evolution to not exist.

"Early" Christian scientists tried to show that the past (and the future) was infinite. Of course, it depends on who you identify as "early" scientists -- until the 4th century, there were not many "scientists" among christian leaders.

They may have influenced Einstein so much that he had introduced a cosmological constant in this theory, to prevent the conlusion that the universe was expanding. After Hubble's discovery (the astronomer, not the space telescope), Einstein removed the constant and said that creating this constant had been the biggest mistake of his life.

There are quite a few books and papers that describe where the vacuum energy comes from. True, they are difficult to understand for most non-scientists. However, they do make sense and are difficult to disprove (some scientists spend their career trying to disprove such things -- that is how science works).

Answer 3

This has nothing to do with evolution. At the quantum level, conservation of energy is not true: ΔE Δt ≥ h/4π. You can violate the law for very brief periods. Quantum tunneling, an observed phenomenon essential in semiconductors, relies on the loophole in conservation of energy.

These are laws within the universe. We have no idea what the rules are for supermassive singularities (or singularities in general) nor for before the universe unfolding.

Answer 4

Very easily. The passage claims (without offering proof) that everything has a purpose. Maybe evolution happened for a reason. Therefore, evolution, based on your logic is possible.

The passage also explains that God or a God could exist. However, the existence of a God doesn't prove the stories in Genesis. After all, God could exist, but he may not have been involved in the making of the Bible.

Answer 5

Based on this, the Kalam appears to be useless.

Thanks for the marble analogy, although I suspect it's you, not me, who has lost his marbles.

Answer 6

The math in this argument is flawed. Infiniy minus infinity is not zero.