The Creation/Evolution Controversy
The creation/evolution debate can be heated at times. Many folks on the evolution side of the debate insist those who do not accept the theory of evolution haven't read anything on the subject or didn't understand what was read. Of course I disagree. To better understand the issues I purchased and read the following books by leading scientists:
- The Origin of Species, Darwin
- Brief History of Time, Hawking
- Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins
- Analysis of Vertebrate Structure, Hildebrand
- Evolutionary Biology, Futuyma
- Bully for Brontosaurus, Gould
- Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Gould
- Wonderful Life, Gould
- Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, Gould
- Time Frames, Eldredge
- The Age of the Earth, Dalrymple
- Science and Earth History, Strahler
If you don't see the evidence for evolution or have questions about some aspects of the theory, you're not alone. Luther Sunderland interviewed a number of well-known scientists and put the interview questions and answers in his book, Darwin's Enigma. Now, I'm not saying the scientists don't believe evolution is true, but what they admit behind closed doors is very revealing. Before interviewing Dr. Patterson, Luther Sunderland read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it Patterson had solicited comments from readers about the book's contents and a letter was written to Dr. Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979 he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows: Thanks for your letter of 5th March, and your kind words about the Museum and my book. I held off answering you for a couple of weeks, in case the artwork you mention in your letter should turn up, but it hasn't. I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps not: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job. Thanks again for writing. Yours sincerely, Colin Patterson Here we have a scientist making some very honest statements about the evidence for evolution. Some try to state the above letter is out of context but the context is quite clear. And the following statement by Philip Kitcher in a television debate on March 3, 1984 confirms the context: "Dr. Patterson, when he wrote that letter in 1979, he wrote that letter in complete ignorance of the political situation in the USA. He thought that he was writing a letter to a fellow professional scientist." Unfortunately, it appears the politics of evolution are more important than the truth. In Darwin's Enigma, Luther Sunderland compiled some very interesting statements by leading scientists. On pages 26-27: According to the generally accepted requirements of a theory in science, could Charles Darwin's theory qualify as a truly scientific theory? Dr. Patterson did not think so. In his book, Evolution, he wrote, "If we accept Popper's distinction between science and non-science, we must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific (metaphysical)... Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test." Colin Patterson, Evolution (London: British Museum (Natural History), 1978), pp. 145-146. Page 27 continues
In his interview, Dr. Patterson said that he agreed with the statement that neither evolution nor creation qualified as a scientific theory since such theories could not be tested. He liked a quote from R.L. Wysong's book The Creation/Evolution Controversy that both ideas had to be accepted on faith. A quote of L.T. More's, corroborating Huxley's comments, was: "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion...The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." Dr. Patterson said, in referring to this quotation, "I agree." From Darwin's Enigma, Page 39 Dr. Raup thought that evolution theory was falsifiable but, when asked why it had not been falsified when no intermediate forms had been found in the fossil record, he explained that the theory had just been modified to fit the evidence: "Well, whether it's valid or not, it's still possible to rationalize the lack of intermediates - rationalize it by simply modifying the original Darwinian theory." It was then pointed out to him: "In Debates, people say,'Sure, the original Darwinian theory has been falsified, but we'll come up with a new one as fast as you can disprove the old ones.'" He acknowledged that this was true: "I think that's true of any conventional wisdom." Sunderland replied, "But that's not science. You've got to have a theory which is subject to falsification, and if it's falsified, throw in the towel. Now if you want to come up with a new theory, OK. But after it has been changed a hundred times and it is still falsified, at some point someone ought to throw in the towel. Maybe you could say it has been proven as well as any fact of science." Dr. Raup replied, "Yes, I'm sure you've seen how slowly conventional wisdom dies and it really takes overkill." From Darwin's Enigma, page 116-117:
Norman Macbeth had some comments about the contribution of so-called population genetics to science: Lewontin says some shocking things too, but some of these men are regarded as "enfants terribles" who like to startle people. The professor had in that article that Gene Fairley called both Gregory Bateson and Marshall Sahlins and asked them what they thought of his creation myth theory - that Darwinism was a creation myth and you don't question creation myths. These two anthropologists answered, "That's not a bad idea." Bateson said, "I've just written something on that myself" and he read off a very sarcastic note about natural selection. "Wonderful theory," he said, "it demonstrates that if things are the way they are, they tend to remain the way they are. It's about as stupid as that." Sahlins in Chicago said, "That's not a bad idea. I never thought of it before, but it is all right. But why are you so excited about natural selection anyway? Natural selection is all bunk..." On the tape he said, "Science is like an eclair, it's firm on the outside but it is all mushy on the inside. It is good in the eating, however, so we enjoy it and go on with it." These are terrible confessions.
It was noted that those are the confessions of honest scientists and Macbeth replied, "They are outside the gang that have staked their life on it (evolution)." Norman Macbeth, Darwinism: A Time for Funerals - An Interview with Norman Macbeth, Towards, Fair Oaks, California, V.2 Spring 1982
See also: A critique of "29 Evidences for Macroevolution"
|
