The Problem with Christians

[Redbeard The Pink]

Based on semantics like that, I could call anything "speculation" with the intention of dismissing it.


Geology? That's just speculation based on what we observe about rocks.


Chemistry? That's just speculation about what we observe when we mix stuff.


Theology? That's just speculation based on what we observe in religious texts and testimonies.


That's just an intellectually dishonest word game, bro. Shame shame. 


When both genetics and metabolic processes connect older forms of life with newer ones, and the older forms of these processes appear to be more simple than what we currently observe, then yes, it is reasonable to "speculate" that these processes continued to grow and refine over time as some of these organisms evolved into newer, more complex things.


Please tell me you're not trying to throw down the "you weren't there, therefore you're just speculating" argument. You're not, are you? If that argument were sound, forensic science would be totally useless, and so would many other forms of science. We do not have to observe an event directly to know that it occurred. We can reason that an event occurred by the evidence it leaves behind. This is why field evidence trumps eyewitness testimony in both the lab and the courtroom.

There is a fine line between observations and speculation. Chemistry is not speculative, you can measure amounts of reactants and products and intermediates to develop mechanisms for reactions. Speculative chemistry would be saying that chemicals could get together to form life on their own. 

I'm not saying you can't speculate. I'm saying that speculation is not the same as empiricism. You can compare multiple speculations against the evidence to see which one is more likely to have happened. But if you have only have one hypothesis that works after centuries of the brightest people in the world trying to come up with an alternative, then you can reasonably say that it is likely to be true.

Bingo. That is why the Theory of Evolution is likely to be true and probably won't be overturned any time soon. It is the best explanation for a lot of empirical evidence (most notably genetics and the fossil record) according to centuries of work by the most gifted academic minds (many of whom are Theists even today). The question of whether or not the Theory of Evolution is true has practically nothing to do with whether a divine creator exists, although the evidence does pretty much rule out the story told in Genesis. Even if Evolution were proven false tomorrow, though, it still wouldn't get us any closer to knowing there's a god, or which one it is. Building away from one conclusion does not inherently build toward another one. That's a false dichotomy.