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.
Please provide a link to what you a referring to here. If you are referring to promoter regions, these are typically included in the stretch of DNA labelled a "gene". While there has been much speculation as to what role (if any) all that "junk" DNA has, I know of no studies which support your bold statement above.
He is claiming that it and he does make some very valid points, especially in the paragraph below which you did not quote:
My argument still stands: You cannot honestly claim that the results of an ID experiment show the work of random chance. The most that can be said is that given a certain set of circumstances and assumptions, these are the results. But the results themselves were produced as a result of ID. - frumius -
The first point above is really quite good. Experiments are repeatable. Now how can a repeatable experiment repetitively confirm the occurrence of something that happens only at random? Clearly, whatever is repeatedly observed is not random at all.
The second point he makes is also quite good - the experiment was designed by intelligent beings. The people designing the experiment chose the how, when, where and used in many cases instruments not found in nature. So an experiment which tries to prove that something occurs normally in nature has the additional burden of proving that the circumstances replicated by the experiment do occur by themselves in nature. This is a heavy burden and in many cases I would say that they cannot be surmounted. Reason is this: if the experiment is replicating the conditions normally occurring in nature - what is the need for the experiment? One should be able to find examples of the what is trying to be proven in nature without doing an experiment.
That's because both the Secular Humanists and Socialists have moled their way into the bowels of America's governmental committees who are responsible for doling out OUR money into a black-hole of BS research.
And rest assured, somewhere, somehow, someone has gotten a government grant of $100,000 for "listening" in on, with much anticipation to E.T's first greeting to the "Earthlings".
In fact I have NEVER ONCE seen an evolutionist freeper flatly claim in any manner that evolution implies atheism. Furthermore many evolutionist freepers have explicitly denied that such an inference is valid (including some who are atheists and might otherwise be expected to further such arguments).
I've been hanging out in these threads longer than you have, and I agree totally with what you say. All the alleged "linkage" or even "congruence" of evolution with atheism comes solely from claims made by the creationists, who are always complaining that their religion is under attack. The evolution side always denies these charges, and always denies any assault on Christianity. Yet the claims of "evolution = atheism" never stop coming -- from the creationists.
Here's how I see the possibilities:
Theism ---+------> Creation as-is by a supernatural "person"
\
+----> Evolution by natural means, started by a supernatural "person"
+----> Evolution by natural means, started by natural causes
/
Atheism --+
\
+----> Creation by aliens who themselves have a
| naturalistic explanation
|
+----> Some unknown naturalistic process
There are loads of evidence that lead to evolution by natural means. Creation can be dismssed because it fits virtually no known facts. Neither is there evidence for the unknown process, nor for intelligent aliens.
What's left is evolution by natural means. But notice that we haven't eliminated theism nor atheism! This is because the Creator person could easily (more likely, IMO) have chosen to use evolution instead of creation in order to end up with humanity.
This is also Kenneth Miller's argument, BTW. He, a believer, thinks that God let evolution flow, and whichever species eventually formed with the capability of contemplating Him - that's the one that He would have the relationship with. To Miller, this is the true meaning of "Man was made in His image".
If I thought there was a God, this would make more sense to me than if He just thought up the finished product into existence in an instant: Now what does He do? How long before He'd get bored with his instant creation, which gives Him no surprises, since it's a static world?
No, given the existence of God, I'd positively expect Him to use evolution. It'd be the only method that's worthy of His infinite intelligence.
Calling RadioAstronomer, calling RadioAstronomer to the white courtesy phone. There is a person here who thinks there is government money going to the SETI program. I'm sure you can help them.
Worth repeating. I think that "atheist" is probably the creationist's attempt at a descriptive curse word.
I never said convenient describes human "flourishing." You want society to be structured in the way that most allows you to "flourish." (And why wouldn't you, if "flourishing" is your goal in life.) Isn't such a societal structure therefore the most convenient for you?
You say that like it's a bad thing!
ALL moral codes exist to ease the life of it's adherents. What other purpose could they possibly serve?
You know, Physicist, as an active member of two conspiracies - the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and the Vast Evolutionist Scientist Conspiracy, you must be doing quite well for yourself! Having two income streams is always a sure route to riches.
BTW, my check from the Scaife Foundation didn't arrive this month, and their conspirator support line is always busy. Did you get yours?
Agreed. Thus there's little reason for an atheist to choose selflessness.
Well it sure wasn't me! Dang! Please cite the source of this revelation.
Hey! How do I join?
No, the Christian moral code enjoins Christians to devote their lives to the service of others (even at the price of their own suffering). Mother Theresa followed her moral code; it certainly didn't ease her life (you know, emptying the bed pans of lepers, day in and day out amid extreme squalor).
That DNA carries information is certainly true, that it is 'self replicating' I strongly doubt. If were indeed self-replicating, the human genome size would vary widely amongst different individuals, this is not the case. Cells are self replicating, perhaps this is the source of your confusion.
The information, for the most part, consists of "genes" which are basically detailed instructions to create protein - molecular machines which do "things" whether it is to catalyze a chemical reaction or to serve as a shuttle to move other molecules around in the cell. During the replication process, sometimes (not often) a piece of DNA which contains a gene can duplicate itself in the genome.
More accurate would be to say that under cell replication DNA sometimes duplicates certain parts of the genome. You also forgot the most important role of genes, creation of proteins which form the structure of our human bodies.
That this can and has occurred there is no doubt.
True, but only up to a point. There is also proof that those replicated genes dissappear from the genome at great rates. There is a couple of reasons for it. A replicated gene is, until changed by a chance mutation, totally useless. The other problem is the passing it on to the rest of the next generation and the rest of the species. Since there is absolutely no advantage to passing it on until a new function has come about, the chances of being passed on at each generation are only 50%. This makes passing on such a new gene to the rest of the species almost impossible.
At first you have two genes which are encode for the exact same function. Over time, one gene is free to accumulate changes (via mutation), while the other remains intact. When enough changes (sometimes it may only be a single letter) occur, the other gene may encode for a new function. Voila, you have created additional "information".
No voila. The number of functional genes which appear to have arisen through duplication is very small. If this were the process by which evolution normally occurs there should be a large number of genes which would fit this bill. Especially when one considers the million plus different species still alive.
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.