Here’s a textbook example of "evidence for evolution".
Welcome to Critical Thinking Scan, where we
look at how you can think about ANY faith-challenging
message and arrive at a biblical, logical
conclusion yourself.
I’m Patricia Engler and today, I’ll share
how I’d apply the 7 Checks of Critical Thinking
to an example my own first-year biology textbook
presented as great “evidence for evolution.”
This was the first point under the heading
“Evolution is supported by an overwhelming
amount of scientific evidence,” and it described a 
study about insects in Florida called soapberry bugs.
This study found that soapberry bugs which
dined on fruits with deep seeds had longer
beak-like mouth parts than the bugs living
in areas where fruits had shallower seeds.
The bugs with shorter beaks could feed more
efficiently on shallow seeds, so it makes
sense that natural selection, as possibly
other mechanisms, would not favour the long-beaked
bugs from those regions with these plants.
However, in regions with deep-seeded fruits,
natural selection favoured bugs with longer beaks.
And my textbook presented this as a prime example
of Darwinian evolution as a whole.
But is that true?
Well, let’s think about it using the 
7 Checks of Critical Thinking.
#1: Check scripture: how does this message
compare with God’s Word?
Well, Genesis says God created living things
to reproduce according to their kinds, and
in this example, we see that soapberry bugs
did indeed produce…soapberry bugs.
There aren’t any changes BETWEEN KINDS of
living things going on, so the real observations
are quite consistent with Scripture.
How about Check 2, check the challenge?
Even though the study’s observations did
not challenge Scripture, the textbook is using
this example to claim that all life evolved from a 
single common ancestor, which DOES conflict
with clear teachings from the Bible.
So, we’ll move onto Check 3, check the source.
Where is this information coming from?
From evolutionary textbook authors whose worldview
starting point is man’s word, rather than
God’s Word, which will affect the way they
are interpreting their information.
We can also check how this information was collected 
by going back to the original research article.
When I did that, I was surprised to see that the sample 
sizes, or the numbers of bugs that the data
was based on, were a lot smaller than I’d expected—as 
high as 64 but as low as 18 individuals.
While I don’t doubt that natural selection
was likely happening, researchers have found
that sample size can really affect the accuracy
of results in natural selection studies.
Well, how about Check 4, check the definitions?
Remember, evolution is one of those words
with multiple meanings; the study is about
“evolution” in the sense of variation
within the soapberry bug kind, but the textbook
is claiming this as “evolution” in the
sense of variation BETWEEN kinds of living
things, from a single-celled ancestor onwards.
And, as you can learn about in the resources
linked to this video, the types of processes
that lead to variation within kinds of living
things can’t account for the new genetic
information required to produce changes between
kinds of living things, so calling both equal
types of “evolution” is a bait-and-switch fallacy.
What about check 5, check for propaganda?
Why could the claim that this study shows
Darwinian evolution is a fact, sound persuasive?
Because it’s coming from an authoritative
textbook, with a professional-looking diagram,
which an intelligent professor is teaching
in a classroom where everyone else seems to
go along with what’s being said.
All of that can make a message harder to resist
psychologically, but none of that makes the
message automatically true.
Now we come to Check 6, check for interpretations.
What part of this message is fact from observational
science?
Well, the observation is that soapberry bugs tend to have 
different beak lengths in different environments,
as natural selection removes genetic variation for 
less-appropriate beak sizes from the bug populations.
The interpretation from historical science
is that this type of change is evidence that
all life evolved from a single ancestor.
But, like you can learn from the linked resources,
natural selection can’t produce new genetic
variation for that to happen.
So, a biblical explanation is that God created
soapberry beetles with built-in genetic variation,
which we see natural selection acting on in
the present.
At this point, we’ve probably caught most
of the relevant fallacies for Check 7, check
the logic, so that’s where I’d cap this example.
For more on how to think critically about
other messages that challenge the Bible’s
teaching, you can access my other CT Scan
videos packed with tactics, tips and tools
that helped me as a Christian student at secular
university.
Thank you for watching!
Hey, it’s Patricia, just wanting to let
you know that if you like these videos, are
on board to share the message of biblical
authority and want to give, you can help Answers
in Genesis CA produce more content like this
and equip more people to defend their faith
by making a one-time donation or becoming
a monthly supporter by clicking the link below.
Thanks so much!
