Craig begins by saying that there are other ‘more subtle’ ways of interpreting Genesis than those of the young earth creationists, claiming that there is lots of evidence from geology about that age of the earth. He then claims to be agnostic about evolution. How, may I ask, is one to be agnostic about evolution? It’s not like the philosophical question of whether or not God exists – for which there is no evidence and one can be agnostic. With evolution there is centuries worth of peer reviewed literature he could look at, the knowledge is freely available, there is no reason to be agnostic. If you don’t know about it, read a book, go to a museum, or talk to some evolutionary biologists – evolution is not something you can claim agnosticism about (unless you just can’t be bothered to look at the knowledge that is out there, but that would be a bit intellectually lazy of you wouldn’t it Mr. Craig?), you either study it and accept the well established facts, or you deny it based upon nothing more than a favour of scripture over observable reality. William Lane Craig is agnostic because he doesn’t want to admit to being a creationist.
But he is a creationist, as he explains later in the video. He is ‘honestly open to the evidence’, but isn’t convinced yet as there are ‘problems’ with evolutionary theory. The only thing that there is problems with is your unintelligible stance Mr. Craig. He claims to accept microevolution, but not macroevolution. However, earlier in the video he claims to accept the evidence for an old earth. I have news for you Mr. Craig, microevolution + geological time = macroevolution. Macroevolution is not huge evolutionary leaps in a very short time period, it is huge evolutionary progressions over a vast time period. Macroevolution is the history left by microevolutionary processes. So what is it that you don’t accept Mr. Craig?
He claims that macroevolution is a ‘huge extrapolation’ from microevolution. He clearly has no idea what he is talking about, macroevolution is nothing more than an extrapolation from the two things that he claims to accept. He claims there is no evidence for macroevolution… Go to a museum and look at the amazing fossil record Mr Craig! Go and read some papers about the genetic evidence for common descent! Learn about comparative anatomy and taxonomy! The evidence is there, you’re just in denial of it.
Craig then claims to be ‘very open minded’ about evolution, in which case he should have no trouble accepting it, except he does. He is a creationist but he’s not a young earth creationist – by his own admission, so why the denial of macroevolution then? What is this based on? He refers to compelling evidence against it – that he never provides, yet he should accept it given that he does not deny geological time, or microevolution. Craig cannot accept that sponges and bats share a common ancestor – on what grounds can he not accept it? It seems like he is arguing from incredulity here – he can’t understand how it could possibly happen, therefore it didn’t happen.
He claims that it cannot possibly have happened by random mutations, because the sun would have burnt out before it did. Yes that’s true, if evolution were just based on random mutations and nothing more, but it’s not, I has a highly selective non-random element that can produce exquisite adaptations over time (a time scale, and process that you accept Mr. Craig). If we look at the DNA of bats and sponges we will see clearly evidence of their common ancestry. Craig clearly doesn’t know what he is talking about when it comes to evolution, his acceptance of geological time, and microevolution is contradicted by his inability to accept macroevolution, and his arguments from incredulity demonstrate a complete ignorance of evolutionary theory.
You aren’t agnostic about evolution you’re a creationist. You have difficulty accepting established facts, and demonstrate an unwillingness to correct this despite claiming to be open minded. Mr. Craig, you’re an unintelligible fool.