15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense [THE FINAL DEBUNKING]

Scientific American ^ | 17 June 2002 | John Rennie

[f.Christian]

5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.

This is double talk, and merely closing ranks against creationists. This is the old trick of claiming ‘there is no doubt that evolution occurred; the only disagreement is about the mechanism.’

But modern evolutionary theory is all about providing a plausible mechanism for explaining life’s complexity without God. If the disputes undermine favored mechanisms, then the materialist apologetic crumbles. The supporters of various evolutionary camps score mortal blows against the mechanisms proposed by rival camps, so it’s perfectly reasonable for creationists to point this out.

For example, with the origin of birds, there are two main theories: that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory), and that they evolved ‘trees-down’ from small reptiles (the arboreal theory). Both sides produce devastating arguments against the other side. The evidence indicates that the critics are both right—birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!

Similarly, supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution (saltationism and its relative, punctuated equilibria) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of gradual evolution point out that large, information-increasing change is so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with both: punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!

Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists’ comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements.

Pure assertion. This ‘quoting out of context’ is a common fetish repeated by skeptics and their churchian allies. The silliest thing of all is to write to the author and ask whether he had been misquoted, which some anti-creationists actually do, as surprising as it may seem. All one needs to do to demonstrate misquoting is to compare the quote with the original.

Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution. (Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervals—which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.) Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould’s voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution, …

They do no such thing. Rather, they make it very clear that Gould was a staunch evolutionist, but criticised many aspects of neo-Darwinian theory. Quoting Gould was the perfectly honorable strategy of using a hostile witness. See Gould grumbles about creationist ‘hijacking’.

… and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs.

First, most creationists present Gould’s ideas correctly, and those ideas are not the exclusive property of evolutionists. Second, even many evolutionists think that Gould has largely himself to blame because of his injudicious (from an evolutionary viewpoint) comments. For example, Richard Goldschmidt was famous for promoting a ‘hopeful monster’ theory, which indeed said something very much like a bird hatching from a reptile egg. And Gould wrote an article called ‘The return of hopeful monsters’11 where he said:

‘I do, however, predict that during the next decade Goldschmidt will be largely vindicated in the world of evolutionary biology.’

When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory.

Easy to assert, but another thing to prove. If there is any ‘out-of-context’ quote on our Web site, for example, we would like to know about it, because we are not about misleading people. Where such things have very rarely occurred in our literature over the years, we have willingly corrected them. Rennie has made sweeping assertions, but without substance.

[Right Wing Professor]

Oh and how come he did not win the Nobel Prize if his research proves evolution? One would think that research that would finally prove what evos have been trying to prove for 150 years would have won a Nobel Prize, don't ya think?

No. Sorry. You don't win Nobel Prizes for proving the earth is round, even though a tiny minority of people believe it to be so. And you don't win Nobel prizes for 'proving' Evolution, because the entire scientific community, barring a few nuts, accepts it. I mean, I'm sure you boys think you weigh heavily on the minds of the Nobel committee, but honestly, if they think of you at all, it's with amused contempt.

[TopQuark]

However, the same thing can be observed in several ways: such as electrons as both waves and particles. Could you please explain what you meant by this? And who specifically observed the electrons differently?

[TopQuark]

A lot of the arguments here are based on an unsupported first theory, i.e. that only science is true,

I do not know whom you are quoting here, but a science cannot be true or false. There may be specific statements that are true or false, and there may be valid or invalid inferences.

As for theories, they are primarily characterized by consistency and completeness. And, as has been pointed out by Godel, these cannot be ascertained simultaneously.

There are scientists (and nonscientists), that are atheists. It is only logical for them to rely on science exclusively, since they believe there are no other entities involved. It is not, therefore, a separate religion, but merely atheism.

[LadyDoc]

However, the same thing can be observed in several ways: such as electrons as both waves and particles. Could you please explain what you meant by this? And who specifically observed the electrons differently?

Science is the way to describe a way of describing reality, not reality.

You first test an idea you have, then you do an experiment, then you change your explanation according to the experiment's results.

Electrons have weight in one experiment, so they are particles. But in atoms, they have a wave like attributes. They also act like waved when used in things like Electron microscopes.

I don't remember the names of the various experimenters, but will look them up and post these when I have a chance, with references.

[TopQuark]

Thanks, Doc.

Electrons have weight in one experiment, so they are particles. But in atoms, they have a wave like attributes. Electrons do have mass (incidentally, it is different from having weight: the latter exists only in the presence of gravity, whereas mass is a property of the object itself).

It is a misconception, however, to think that waves do not have mass. You must have been thinking about light: that wave is indeed massless.

All objects, even the Sun and the Earth are described by waves. Some have mass and some don't. When the masses are relatively large, the wavelike properties become inessential, and the object behaves classically, "like a particle." You are correct, of course about the atoms: there the masses are small, and the wavelike properties are essential. The wavelike properties are always there, however: they are merely more visible at the atomic level.

There are no two different realities.

Regards, TQ.

[LadyDoc]

There are no two different realities.

I never meant to imply there are two different realities.

My original post was pointing out that the arguments on creation vs darwin are based on the idea that only science can describe reality, and that the way we describe reality is reality itself.

Reality exists, and science is one way to try to find reality. I'm not a philosopher, but what I mean is that the argument mixes up the means (science and the scientific method) with the end (reality).

Wilde once quipped that a cynic is a person who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. Evolution as described by Darwin has been stretched to mean many things outside of a scientific observation; this includes the rejection of God, the idea that morality is a construct, and that it is okay to kill six million untermensch that stand in the way of evolution.

And after reading Peter Singer's book, I hate to tell you that this last reality is still alive and kicking in our universities.

[TopQuark]

Thank you for clarifying your point, Doc. I understand and agree with the fact that science and evolution have been misconstrued by many.

We are now in the realm that you probably know better than I do: that is psychology, not science. As you argued, the object may be different from how it is preceived. So is science, with respect to which people often misconstrue two things: what the implications of a finding are, and statements by a scientist that he makes outside his or her profession. By the latter I mean that, when a scientist says, "I do not believe in G-d," it is unrelated to his professional knowledge. SUch words of a scientist weight no more than when spoken by a plumbe. Yet no one argues with the plumber about G-d, and everyone argues with the scientist.

How evolution is applied is indeed the question of values, but this is no different from gun control. Guns do not kill, people do --- depending on their values. Evolution is much the same: it is not responsible for the genocide, people are. Very same people who were at the healm of various leftist regimes in the past century, and many of those that teach in our universities. It is they, and their values are to blame, not science itself.

[restornu]

crevo threads are so confusing!

[TopQuark]

crevo threads are so confusing!

Especially if one revives them after they've been dormant for a year.

[xzins]

Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design.

ID is a mathematical model that establishes a probability of X happening randomly. It is not a theory of origins.

It says that accidental progress to where we're at today is pretty darn unlikely.

That mathematical model gives impetus for those using any particular model of origins to relook what they're theorizing.....even evolution.

[PatrickHenry]

This thread's been dead for a year. I suggest that you bring up your ID arguments in the next appropriate thread -- a new one. I'm sure one will pop up in the next day or so.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your post!

Indeed, I suspect there will eventually be a formulation - which cannot be denied - that illustrates there was not enough time and information content to have evolved biological life on earth through an unguided process of random mutation and natural selection.