Posted on 12/13/2004 7:42:25 AM PST by Gritty
Destroying the unqualified and unjustified myth that "only religious fanatics oppose Darwinism", Dr. William Dembski's collection of essays presents a powerful and convincing case that exposes the many flaws and problems of Darwinism. Rather than having an agenda, the intellectuals that contributed to Uncommon Dissent exemplify the objective, rational, and scholarly manner in which they have both examined the various evolutionary theories and exposed these theories' many inconsistencies, oversights, and errors. The eloquence and thoroughness with which these essays critically analyze the Darwinian dogmas reveal that fanatical devotions to unproven theories are prevalent mainly in the mainstream secular scientific community - not among the many scholars and scientists who dare question the veracity and universality of various evolutionary models.
One of Dembski's key objections to the assertion that random changes created the vast complexity of life is a fitting summary of the structural problem of evolutionary thought. Dembski notes that "this blind process, when coupled with another blind process, is supposed to produce designs that exceed the capacities of any designers in our experience." This theoretical and chaotic process has been proposed and promoted by Darwinists as fact without the required scientific evidence to back it up. Furthermore, the intolerance shown to dissenting voices that question evolutionary theories reveals a dangerous pattern of repression and censorship within the scientific establishment.
The missing fossil data needed to support evolution is a crucial argument expressed by many of the book's contributors. If Darwin was correct, then scores of transitional animal forms must exist in the geological record. However, as Phillip E. Johnson points out:
The fossil evidence is very difficult to reconcile with the Darwinist scenario. If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate forms liking the vastly different organisms of today… with their hypothetical common ancestors.
Such evidence simply does not exist. According to Cornelius G. Hunter:
The observed fossil pattern is invariably not compatible with a gradualistic evolutionary process. The fossil record does not reveal a pattern of accumulated small-change.... New species appear fully formed, as though planted there, and they remain unchanged for eons.
In the face of such convincing evidence, one would expect evolutionary scientists to acknowledge some serious flaws in their theories. After all, science should be about searching for the truth. Unfortunately, Johnson notes:
When the fossil record does not provide the evidence that naturalism would like to see, it is the fossil record, and not the naturalistic explanation, that is judged to be inadequate.
Instead of admitting the problems and allowing for criticism, the Darwinist establishment ignores the data and muzzles the dissenters, choosing to discredit the messengers rather than face reality. As Dembski observes:
Darwinism has achieved the status of inviolable science, combining the dogmatism of religion with the entitlement of science.
Michael J. Behe's "irreducibly complex" organisms present yet another stumbling block for Darwinists. He observes that most organisms are "irreducibly complex, meaning they need several parts working together in order to function." According to Behe, this creates "headaches for Darwinian theory because they are resistant to being produced in the gradual, step-by-step manner that Darwin envisioned." For evolution to work, all the complex biochemical systems needed for an organism to live must "evolve" simultaneously and in perfect synchronization so this new creature can eat, remove waste, move, and survive. Since evolutionists maintain this must all happen by chance, only an enormous miracle (or an intelligent designer) can explain these countless chaotic processes instantly coming into existence -- with just the right fine-tuning and harmonization -- to allow even the simplest organisms to stay alive. Darwinism's gradual steps and trial and error explanations simply do not suffice.
Uncommon Dissent promises to not only "detail the weaknesses of Darwinian evolutionary theory," but to also show that "the preponderance of evidence goes against Darwinism." In both respects, the essays meet and exceed these expectations. Given Dembski's own impressive academic credentials and the solid intellectual qualifications of his contributors, this book provides a strong dissenting voice to challenge the many half-truths, obfuscations, and mistakes of mainstream evolutionary thinking.
The central weakness or "fatal flaw" of Darwinism is its inability to explain the existence of both rational thought and the origins of the inherent complexity of life evident in the huge variety of organisms and their immensely intricate DNA code. The very existence of such a "code" implies that a rational force was needed to encode it. Creationists like to call this God, while Darwinists call it chaos.
While Darwin's theory seems to explain how small-scale evolutionary changes or limited natural selection processes could operate within certain species, it fails miserably to describe, as Robert Koons observes, how such functional forms and processes "came to be there in the first place" and, as Edward Sisson notes, it "tells us nothing about when and how the genes we see today first came into existence." The cavernous gap that exists in the scientific evidence purporting to prove how one-celled organisms "evolved" into man remains an immense and significant problem for Darwinists. As James Barham so eloquently notes:
Epic poems and Boeing 747s do not come into existence by themselves, no matter how much time is available - and neither do cells, or even proteins.
Darwinists demand a bigger miracle than any creationist could ever claim, as they assert that "only matter in mindless motion" gave birth to intelligent life and consciousness. Indeed, the faith required to believe that chaos allowed inanimate matter to become alive and to eventually develop into rational beings is far greater than the faith needed to acknowledge that an intelligent Creator designed it all from the beginning. Dembski is quite correct when he concludes, "Getting design without a designer is a good trick indeed."
Chris Banescu is an attorney, entrepreneurial businessman, and university professor. He manages the conservative site OrthodoxNet.com, writes articles, and has given talks and conducted seminars on a variety of business and religious topics.
This Creationism/ID work reminds me of Eric Von Danigens "Chariot's of the Gods". An amazing number of people bought into that, like the "Burmuda Triangle" books before it.
There was a book completly debunking of the Burmuda Triangle stuff, but I don't think it did nearly as well at the book stores.
I'm not saying that God didn't create the universe. My point is that Creationism/ID as a "scientific" theory is a joke. One must believe in God on faith alone, not science.
That's a great analogy. Hope you don't mind if I steal it sometime.
I don't let anybody touch my precious bodily fluids either.
You're really entertaining, Dataman.
Not a problem. If you can improve upon it, reword it, hell, correct the lysdexic misspellings... even better.
> some evolutionists refuse to give up. It's over
Why do I have this image of someone sitting cross-legged with his eyes closed tight, his fingers stuck in his ears and loudly chanting "LA, LA, LA, it's all over, LA, LA, LAAAAAA....."
Glad you think so. I used to be an evolutionist like you. Some guys at the university tried to convince me of a young earth and I took your position. I asked my physical anthropology about some of the objections to evolution and he dodged the questions, became angry and refused to talk about creationism at all. I remember thinking that a college evolution professor should be able to painlessly refute the creation nonsense. But he didn't and apparently couldn't which is why he became angry. At that point I thought it that he was hiding something and began my own investigation. Indeed, he not only had something to hide (phony fossil men) but had something to protect (his job).
> This is a Leftist tactic if I ever saw one.
Oh, please. Pointing out simple facts is *not* a "Leftist tactic." Whther you liek it or not, Americans are as a whole massively ill-informed about science. Note how many of them go ape at the mention of nuclear power, and yet ahve not the sligtest idea of how it works.
> I would have you know that a vast majority of those disagreeing with the Theory of Evolution are conservatives.
It's a stain on the movement. However, as memory serves, 46% of *Democrats* also buy into Creationism.
> Conservatives, by nature, are more skeptical and concerned with truth.
In many areas. But Conservatives are also largely more religious than Libs. In this instance, religion and skepticism collide head to head.
You do know that Dataman will now respond with something along the lines of "because that's what you evolutionists do all the time", right?
I have a feeling you'll never be counted among the intellectuals that reject darwinism.
The theory of evolution is just a theory
The word theory means something different in science than it does in common usage. Theories are the result of a hypothesis, or educated suggestion, being tested and found to be consistent with observation. A theory coherently explains a large range of observations. It is in contrast to a law which simply expresses a regularity seen in observations without attempting to explain that regularity. Theories do not become laws. Laws are not somehow more certain than theories. Both are on equal footing in science.
There's no way life could have arisen from non-living chemicals/There's no way to get from the big bang to humans
Neither the origin of life nor the big bang is covered in the theory of evolution. Evolution only applies once life has begun. It makes no difference how life began.
The second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible
The second law of thermodynamics states that IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, entropy always increases. The earth is not a closed system. The earth receives energy from the sun. This release of energy from the surface of the sun at a temperature of 6000K to space at a temperature of ~3K represents an enormous increase in entropy. Therefore, even taking evolution into account, the entropy of the earth/sun system does indeed increase over time.
Creationism is just as valid a theory as evolution/Evolution is not really science
To qualify as a theory in science, an idea must explain observations in such a way as to be falsifiable. This means that it must predict something and finding that this prediction is not true would require abandonment or serious modification of the theory. Evolution meets this requirement. For example, evolution predicts that in billion year old rock layers, no fossils of modern humans will be found. It predicts that all organisms on earth will have nucleic acids as their genetic material. It predicts that it will be possible to observe changes in the genepool of organisms. All of these predictions have been borne out by observations. If any of them are not, then evolution would have to be seriously modified or abandoned. I am sure that someone with more knowledge of biology could provide many more such examples. Creationism, on the other hand, by its very nature can offer no such predictions. The most basic premise of creationism is that there is an omnipotent God who created the universe. By virtue of God's omnipotence, there is no possible observation that could falsify this premise. God could have made the universe appear any way He wanted it to appear.
Evolution has never been proven
Neither has quantum theory, or relativity, or any other scientific theory or law. Science never offers proof, merely strong evidence for an idea. Evolution is backed by a large amount of observational evidence.
Evolution isn't compatible with the Bible (or belief in God)
Evolution says absolutely nothing about whether or not God exists. Science in general makes no reference to God. Theories of gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear forces, quantum mechanics, and many other theories in science are make correct predictions (so far) without reference to God in any way. As covered above, God is simply not a proper subject of science. The idea that God exists (or the idea that He doesn't) is simply not falsifiable, and is therefore not scientific. There is no test or physical evidence that would be able to prove that those who believe in God are wrong. Similarly there is no test or physical evidence to show that those who don't believe in God are wrong. Both ideas are unfalsifiable and are thus outside the realm of science. I have heard arguments that "evolutionists are trying to eliminate God." This may be true, but it is beyond the scope of the theory of evolution to try to disprove the existence of God. This is the result of some subset of scientists (or non-scientific evolution supporters) trying to push their own opinions. I have also heard people who are entirely convinced that the Bible contradicts evolution entirely since evolution is not mentioned in the Bible. Such people need to remember that, while the Bible has not changed over all these millennia, our necessarily flawed human understanding of it has. We used to believe, as recently as 140 years ago, that the Bible said that the owning of another human being in a condition of slavery was acceptable, and some even went so far as to say that the Bible said that this was a desirable condition for both the master and the slave. We no longer believe this. Therefore the way we understand the Biblical word has changed. If you believe that your interpretation of the Bible is the only one that is possibly correct, then you are ignoring the fact that good people have struggled to understand the Bible for thousands of years. It is not a sign that someone is evil if he/she disagrees with your beliefs about what the Bible means.
> I used to be an evolutionist like you.
Somehow that seems doubtful.
> he dodged the questions, became angry and refused to talk about creationism at all.
Wise man. Anthropology professors should not get into Creationism; that's an area for the Mythology department.
Ah, damn. And I can't even claim that he changed his post to make my prediction fail, because his appeared only two seconds after mine.
Probably because it's impossible to respond to ideas like these because nobody's actually taken the trouble to do something simple that would allow them to be examined. By this I mean actally giving a rigorous definition of these terms. All of the definitions of irreducible complexity that I've seen, for example, are either circular or they rely on argument from ignorance. They say that something is irreducibly complex if there's no way it could have arisen without design. How do you recognize this? What property tells you that something must be designed? Why, irreducible complexity, of course! The other definition I've seen is that a system is irreducibly complex if it can't function if any of its parts are removed. How do we know it can't function, but function more poorly or function differently? How do we know that the original system didn't originally have a different function from that imputed to it by the ID proponents? Adding another part might allow it to perform a different function. These, therefore, are arguments from ignorance or incredulity. Essentially the ID supporter says that these things are irreducibly complex because they can't see how they'd have evolved naturally. BTW, reasonable evolutionary mechanisms have been proposed for systems that typically are stated to be irreducibly complex. If these systems are shown to actually have evolved, would they still be irreducibly complex? Or would ID proponents then state that they aren't irreducibly complex after all?
That's a good story Dataman.
The "college evolution professor" in my youth was also the Deacon of my Church who taught me that Genesis and science do not conflict.
This whole Evolution fight is more an interdenominational fight like those of centuries past between Protestants and Catholics, than between religious people vs. "science". Religious folks never could agree on what the Gospels really meant, much less those few words in Genesis about a creation not witnessed by any human.
Nowhere in the theory of evolution is there any mention of design, one way or another. The methodology of science is such that science will never be able to detect design (or the lack of design) in natural processes. What is true is that as a practical matter, scientists will assume the lack of design. This is as a result of Occam's Razor, which states that if two hypotheses give identical predictions, we should make use of the simpler one. In this case, you have the hypothesis that evolution occurs and the hypothesis that evolution occurs as directed by a designer. Both of these hypotheses predict the same observations, if you believe that evolution occurs according to the plan of an intelligent designer. The evidence points to either of these possibilities. Science will assume the simpler one, namely that no designer is necessary to explain observations. (Note that this is not the same as saying that science will assume that there is no design. There may well be a designer. This idea is simply not necessary to explain what has been observed.) Actually, the notion of ID is not scientific because it isn't falsifiable. There is no observation that would render the idea of ID false. This is because proponents can simply argue that the designer is sufficiently intelligent (or omnipotent) as to have been able to generate results consistent with any observation. By the way, if you seriously belive that a designer is needed to produce all the life on earth and you are not just using ID as a front to bring creationism into a scientific question, then who or what designed the designer? If something as complex as life on earth required a designer, then surely something complex enough to design life also would need one. Furthermore, the designer of the designer must also have a designer of his own, etc. on to infinity. That is, unless the designer that ID proponents have in mind is really God. If ID proponents want to be taken seriously, then they need to answer this argument or admit that ID is just a front for creationism.
It would also be useful if you learned what science is: The scientific method.
A creationist once told me that I was ignorant of evolution because I was not aware of the "six types" of evolution when I corrected him on the matter after he essentially repeated verbatim some of the opening "arguments" from that tract.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.