Posted on 06/17/2002 3:10:50 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.
Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.
To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
CONCLUSION
"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.
In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)
Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? 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. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.
Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas.
Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.
The Author(s):
John Rennie is editor in chief of Scientific American.
I'm not sure if I can explain this, but I think this is a circular logic. You seem to be assuming for a fact that evolution is true (which I think some slight evolution, probably best referred to as "adaptation" is true), and then, since the facts of multiple plants, animals, etc. don't line-up with what would seem logical, that older versions would die out (since the only reason they are evolving is to survive, thus the non-evolving species should perish), you simply state that that is "not how it is" so to speak, since obviously there are many different kinds of plants and animals. There is probably a Latin term for this kind of circular argument, but that complexity is over my head.
Oh, so you're claiming that all experiments prove that "natural phenomena" happen by design! I thought you were only saying that experiments cannot disprove ID (or IIF). Wow, that is a much worse argument than I thought you were making.
I'm still waiting for you to give me an example of a non-designed version of my experiment in #1001.
And no matter how they try to get around it, evolutionists have to assume random chance, intelligent design, or a combination of both. The last 2 are anathema to the evolutionary cultists. Random chance has been pretty much rejected by most of the rest of the scientific world. Even in computer science, no true random numbers (with the exception of Jay Gould or Richard Dawkins - although I consider them more of irrational numbers...) have been found.
And now you're trying to grab onto the "no really random numbers" argument? That is a very desperate move, IMO.
It may be true that all random sequences are really psuedorandom in some sense, in that if you know the algorithm used to generate it + the seed value then you can recreate the sequence. But in the real world, contingent occurrences are, um, contingent on a vast number of starting variables & non-linear interacting "algorithms". It's theoretically intractable to exactly recreate the starting conditions for a specific biological event. If you went back in time to a month before my conception & merely brushed my mother as you walked along the sidewalk, I doubt very much that I'd be here today. How would you make sure, this second time around, that the same sperm as before would join the egg before all the others, just for starters?
Nope, the "no real random numbers" shield is paper-thin, at best.
Duplication is just the beginning of a new use for the same sequence. Once a segment of DNA is duplicated, only one of the sequences is constrained to its original use while the other can mutate without any deleterious results until it hits upon a sequence that can may be useful.
Unless I am mistaken, [extra code is not always necessary to create a radically different creature.] is speculation.
Not speculation at all. Control sequences which modulate the expression of genes were identified long ago. The differential expression of genes accounts for a vast variation in phenotype. As it turns out, (and there was an article discussed on FR, recently), much of the difference between chimp and human brains can be attributed to the differential expression of the same genes.
Been there, done that, took some pictures and bought a t-shirt placemarker.
Interesting link. They have a great domain name. This is from their "What we believe" section:
We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a "God-breathed" revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings. While God the Holy Spirit supernaturally superintended the writing of the Bible, that writing nevertheless reflects the words and literary styles of its individual human authors. Scripture reveals the being, nature, and character of God, the nature of God's creation, and especially His will for the salvation of human beings through Jesus Christ. The Bible is therefore our supreme and final authority in all matters that it addresses.I wish them well, but I doubt that they can provide much help to anyone in understanding evolution.
Has anyone observed this situation - where replicated DNA has mutated into something useful? Or is the argument always going to be that it just takes a lot of time to occur? If so, then I must relegate your comment to the realm of speculation.
Question. Does DNA by itself and in the presence of only unit bases in a constant pH and temperature replicate without intervention?
But this has not been shown to occur.
As for being an atheist meaning I have no Authority Figure watching my every move, that is true. I had to arrive at my philosophy of life by thinking everything through.
Agreed. But after thinking everything through, an atheist may well decide they don't need to be concerned about others' welfare (and many do decide such). A Christian does not have that option. Finally, I would add that Christianity is hardly a non-thinking religion! On the contrary, it requires deep thought to put into action its morality. At the end of the day, Christians are called to treat others in a certain way. Atheists are not (unless they happen to decide that there should be a reason for such).
Actually, to compare Christians vs. atheists is somewhat flawed, since atheists is a more general class than Christians. The real comparison should be between theists and atheists, or between Christians (in your case) and Objectivists (in mine). There is great variety in the moral codes of the various theistic religions, and ditto for the various types of atheists.
Objectivism teaches that morality is a tool that Man created to ensure the Good Life. You can't have any chance at maximizing your eudaimonia - your flourishing as a human - without living in a certain type of civilization, and you can't sustain such a civilization without a certain class of moral code.
Each one of us has an obligation, if you can call it that, to maximize our values. (Well, maybe call it an "opportunity" instead.) And to do that, we must make the most of our lives as human beings. Our being human implies certain things about our nature: We are the only animal that has any real capability for abstract, rational thought. It's our only real survival advantage over the lions, so to speak. This ability (& instinctual urge) to learn things both concrete & abstract, plus the fact that we are born with almost no specific instinctual knowledge at all means that each one of us will become an individual, individually responsible for our actions. Right there you have the basic rationale for a society based on individual rights, the rule of law, respect for contracts, etc.
(I'll try to make this quick, 'cuz I must do some errands:) To an Objectivist, a morality grounded in individual-rights is a well-tested methodology to achieve our highest values, in the same way that buying low and selling high and investing the profits instead of spending them today is. (It's more important than that, since no-one would dream of mandating buy low/sell high as law, but it's of the same class, IMO.)
One last thing: Please don't confuse "self-interest" with "self-serving". We're talking about what kind of moral codes come out of theism vs. atheism. No moral code can be self-serving. Every time you make a decision that has moral consequences, you're implicitly stating to the world that you want everyone else in a comparable situation to act the way you are about to. So I ask myself: What would this world be like if everyone acted this way vs. that way, whenever a comparable situation occurred? Would I want to live in that kind of society? Would the best things about our society have been possible in the first place if people acted in this way vs. that way?
Anyway, I gotta go. I hope that was halfway clear. :-)
So what is your explanation for the sequential appearances of different forms throughout the fossil record? Why (for example) are extinct marine mammals like Plesiosaurs and Icthyosaurs never found in sediments that also contain marine mammals or other more recent creatures? Clearly there is a long and continuous sequence of differning/modified organisms in the rock record. Where these created sequentially?
If one holds the following postulates -- that (following some original beginning to life) living things only come from other living things by means of reprodution, and the principles of superposition of strata and cross-cutting relationships that were fundamental to geology long before Darwin -- then it follows necessarily that later forms must be related by descent to earlier ones.
Who says so?
Nebullis, with all due regard, you are speculating. What would cause "the other" to mutate, how can we ensure there are no deleterious effects (mutations are generally extremely deleterious), what determines a favorable direction and what target is there for a sequence to hit upon? Do you see how these words "don't get us there" and are, at best, wishful thinking?
[The creation of a new creature is] not speculation at all. Control sequences which modulate the expression of genes were identified long ago. The differential expression of genes accounts for a vast variation in phenotype. As it turns out, (and there was an article discussed on FR, recently), much of the difference between chimp and human brains can be attributed to the differential expression of the same genes.
Well, what does this mean, "the differential expression of genes" and what is the control mechanism? You are again speculating. You surmise that differential gene expression results in differential phenotype, and while it would now seem logical, it is not established.
The First law of Thermodynamics.
Heat is work and work is heat
The Second law of thermodynamics.
Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body
Heat won't pass from a cooler to a hotter
You can try it if you like but you'd far better not-a
'Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a rule-a
'Cos the hotter body's heat will pass to the cooler
Heat is work and work is heat and work is heat and heat is work
Heat will pass by conduction and
Heat will pass by convection and
Heat will pass by radiation
And that's a physical law
Heat is work and work's a curse
And all the heat in the universe
Is gonna cool down,
'Cos it can't increase
Then there'll be no more work
And there'll be perfect peace
Really?
Yeah, that's entropy, Man.
And all because of the second law of thermodynamics which lays down:
That you can't pass heat from a cooler to a hotter
Try it if you like but you'd far better not-a
'Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a rule-a
'Cos the hotter body's heat will pass to the cooler
Oh, you can't pass heat from a cooler to a hotter
Try it if you like but you'll only look a fool-a
'Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a rule-a
And that's a physical law That's because you've been working!
Oh, Beatles, nothing!
That's the first and second laws of thermodynamics. (TA DA!))
No problem. I understand completely. Today's my day for not having a good day.
I spent the past four or so hours, working on a post which would have better explained what I was talking about concerning the rocks and fossils, when my browser exploded, taking all my work to wherever dead posts go :-).
So, I'm just going to post this little bit now, and then see if I can reconstruct what I was working on before. Maybe, because it was quite long, I got very detailed and had some images also, I'll just write it up and stick it on the web server I put the images on, and just link to it.
A lot of what I was going to talk about can be found in the work of Dr. Walt Brown. I know a lot of people don't care for him, but his thesis and on-line book are something I find interesting. By linking to his site doesn't imply that I accept everything he writes, lock, stock and barrel. The book can be had from amazon.com for a lot less than Nature wants to see McGinnis' paper on genetics.
Let me just quickly clear up this one point.
"I've heard of the Omphalos hypothesis, frequently satirized as Last Thursdayism."
Oh no. Those ideas represent the vain efforts of biblicists (I think I just invented a new word there), to reconcile one of many misunderstood creation accounts with evolution. No, I had no intention of going there.
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.