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.
The genome encodes for the information it requires to replicate. Cells, organisms etc. are simply the vehicles used by DNA to propagate it into the next generation. I apologize if I made a semantical error. Or maybe you wish to get into a chicken-egg debate :)
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.
Well during mitosis the cell must make two copies of the entire genome, so I am unsure why you say "certain parts" (unless you are referring to telomeres). Also I thought the term "molecular machine" might be a bit more descriptive for the purposes of that discussion than "protein". Go back and read what I wrote and you will realize this.
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.
What are you basing this upon? "very small"? . Just about every gene I can think of is categorized into a hierarchical arrangement where it can be safely assumed they have arisen from duplication of an ancestral precursor. For example there are thousands of protein kinases in the human genome. They all have a very, very similar ATP binding pocket. Some kinases are serine/threonine kinases, others are tyrosine kinases. Each of these genes share characteristics with their members of their class and so on. In many cases these genes (within a certain sub-family) are sitting right next to each other at the same chromosomal position which to me is very strong evidence of gene duplication and subsequent divergence. I suppose you could say that a designer made genes in such a way and put them there like that. This explanation would be superfluous in light of what we know about molecular genetics.
I won't pretend that I understand your motivations better than you do. But it's possible -- just possible -- that the activities you actually end up persuing are those which give you the most pleasure. Even selfless acts (or so they may appear) may delight you. If they truly caused you agony, I suspect (but I don't really know) that you would avoid them. Anyway, this is my personal take on Mother Theresa, and so I'm applying it to you. But I don't know you, so I could be wildly off.
BRRRRAPP!!!
Don't stretch my prior post all out of shape. Obviously Madonna and Mother Theresa are very different. I only suggest that they both persue (persued in Theresa's case) those activities which gave them the maximum pleasure.
Ah ... what? I see no reason why different moral codes can't work in practice. Let anarchy reign!
BRRRRRAPPP!
Typically when you refer to a gene you are talking about not just the protein coding regions, but also the elements upstream which regulate its expression. Also introns break-up the protein coding region and may themselves regulate transcription. The stop codon is not where it ends though either, you have regions further transcribed downstream which will contain information which regulates how stable the mRNA is and how efficiently it will be translated. None of this is new to anyone and it is generally not what we are talking about when we are talking about Junk DNA. There are vast stretches of DNA in the genome which are nowhere near a gene or ceratinly not close enough to have any effect on gene expression via the mechanisms we know of. Perhaps there are indirect effects....?
If one man says it is raining and another says it is not, will you not find only one correct when you look outside…
Right for what purpose? Without specific context, we only speak in vague generalities.
If one man says it is raining and another says it is not, will you not find only one correct when you look outside…
I must admit I've never seen thought of rain (or any question of observable fact) as a moral choice, only one of sanity.
Isn't that the problem most of us have with medved's fantasies?
The numerous posts of Bible bashing on this thread by the evolutionists more than disproves the above. Also evolution specifically denies that God created man - a central tenet of Christianity. That evolutionists do not tell the truth about their theory is not to be wondered at. Darwin from the beginning lied about his atheism. Further he did not even dare mention that man descended from apes like the rest of the species descended from other species until his 2nd book. So yes, evolutionists have been lying about evolution being an attack on religion since the beginning. Also kindly note that there are no atheist 'creationists' or ID'ers anywhere on these threads.
Nope, it is a statement of fact. Most of the evolutionists on these threads are self-admitted atheists.
You posted this identical piece to me in another thread a day or two ago. I replied politely. Now it appears that you're a "reflex poster" and you're just dumping the same thing into any thread where you find me. As I told you before (without making a dent in your reflexive posting mechanism), here's the scoop -- but this time it's not for your benefit, it's for the others on the thread: The real Patrick Henry lived and died before Darwin published his work, and back in those days, virtually everyone was a creationist.
What a hypocrite. Check out post two. Pseudo-Patrick Henry has posted his little saved list of links so often they've got mold on them, but I repeat my post to him once, and he is all hot and bothered about me being a "reflex poster." I'm glad he realizes this country was founded by creationists, since "virtually everyone" was one back then. He seems upset that I quoted from the real Patrick Henry, with quotes that made it abundantly clear that P.H. was a creationist. A word of advice to Pseudo-Patrick Henry: When a man spits into the wind, he spits in his own face.
Your post should be entitled "The Latest Rantings of a Frustrated Man." The Bible says "The fool has said in his "heart" [not his head] that there is no God." The reason you are so vehement is because of your sinful heart.
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 "For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
Patrick Henry (1736-1799), was an American Revolutionary leader and orator, who spoke the now famous phrase, "Give me Liberty or give me death!" He was Commander-in-Chief of the Virginia Militia, a member of the Continental Congress, a member of the Virginia General Assembly and House of Burgesses as well as having helped to write the Constitution of the State of Virginia. He was the five-time Governor of the State of Virginia, (being the only governor in United States history to be elected and re-elected five times).
Patrick Henry was offered numerous positions by President George Washington and Congress, but declined them all, including: Secretary of State, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, U. S. Minister to Spain, U. S. Minister to France and U. S. Senator.
Prior to the Revolution, in 1768, Patrick Henry rode for miles on horseback to a trial in Spottsylvania County. He entered the rear of a courtroom where three Baptist ministers were being tried for having preached without the sanction of the Episcopalian Church. In the midst of the proceedings, he interrupted: "May it please your lordships, what did I hear? Did I hear an expression that these men, whom you worships are about to try for misdemeanor, are charged with preaching the gospel of the Son of God?"
On March 23, 1775, the Second Virginia Convention had been moved from the House of Burgesses to St. John's Church in Richmond, because of the mounting tension between the Colonies and the British Crown. It was here that Patrick Henry delivered his fiery patriotic oration: "For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery... It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country... Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt.... An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!.... Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the Holy cause of Liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.
Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God who presides over the destines of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battle for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.... Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
On June 12, 1776, as a member of the committee chosen to draft the first constitution of the commonwealth of Virginia, Patrick Henry helped champion article 16 of the Virginia Bill of Rights: That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
Patrick Henry wrote on the back of The Stamp Act Resolves passed in the House of Burgesses, May, 1765, a summary of the pivotal events preceding the Revolution. He ends with this admonition: "This brought on the war which finally separated the two countries and gave independence to ours. Whether this will prove a blessing or a curse, will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings, which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation. Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this, and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others."
Patrick Henry boldly declared: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
Patrick Henry, once interrupted while engaged in Bible reading, held up his Bible and said: "The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed."
Patrick Henry wrote to his sister Ann in Kentucky, upon learning of the death of her husband, Colonel William Christian: "Would to God I could say something to give relief to the dearest of women and sisters.... My heart is full. Perhaps I may never see you in this world. O may we meet in heaven, to which the merits of Jesus will carry those who love and serve Him. Heaven will, I trust, give you its choicest comfort and preserve your family. Such is the prayer of him who thinks it his honor and pride to be, Your Affectionate Brother, Patrick Henry."
On November 20, 1798, in his Last Will and Testament, Patrick Henry wrote: "This is all the inheritance I give to my dear family. The religion of Christ will give them one which will make them rich indeed."
While Patrick Henry was dying, he spoke: "Doctor, I wish you to observe how real and beneficial the religion of Christ is to a man about to die.... I am, however, much consoled by reflecting that the religion of Christ has, from its first appearance in the world, been attacked in vain by all the wits, philosophers, and wise ones, aided by every power of man, and its triumphs have been complete."
Patrick Henry's grandson, William Wirt Henry, described Henry as one who: "Looked to the restraining and elevating principles of Christianity as the hope of his country's institutions."
Patrick Henry Fontaine, who was also a grandson, said Patrick Henry had committed himself to the: "Earnest efforts to establish true Christianity in our country."
The first hint that Darwin was a racist can be seen in the subtitle selected for his “Origin of Species.” The words chosen were: “The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.” This subtitle has been eliminated from all modern printings of the book, but it’s in bold letters on the original. If there is any doubt that Darwin was a raging racist, these words should leave no doubt: “At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes (the black race) ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.” A half century later, Darwin follower Henry Fairfield Osborn writes: “The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters, such as the teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens [light skinned races, according to Darwinists].
It should be no surprise that no less a racist villain than Adolph Hitler picked up on Darwin’s evolutionary theories. Karl Schleunes writes: “Darwin’s notion of struggle for survival was quickly appropriated by the racist ... such struggle, legitimized by the latest scientific views, justified the racists’ conception of superior and inferior peoples ... and validated the struggle between them”
Before Darwin’s works, many racists had questioned whether blacks were of the same species as whites, but they had no scientific foundation for their predjudice. Things changed once Darwin presented his racist evolutionary schema. Darwin stated that the African race could not survive competition with their white near-relations, let alone be able to compete with the white race. According to Darwin, the African was inferior because he represented the ‘missing-link’ between ape and Teuton (John C. Burham, Science, vol. 175 (February 4, 1972) p.506).
“Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless” (Professor Louis Bounoure, Former: President of the Biological Society of Stassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, writing in “The Advocate,” March 8, 1984, p. 17).
Your post should be entitled "The Latest Rantings of a Frustrated Man." The Bible says "The fool has said in his "heart" [not his head] that there is no God." The reason you are so vehement is because of your sinful heart.
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 "For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
Two very good points. In fact, they have been able to do something a lot easier, there is one organism which while alive, while much studied, while able to mutate fairly easily has not been able to by any method devised been able to be turned by scientists into a true self-replicating organism - viruses.
The excess capacity of the brain can also not be explained by evolutionists and in fact they often deny it when it comes to the phony science of paleontology. That phony science claims that intelligence depends on the size of the skull, an utterly ridiculous statement. Indeed if intelligence depended on skull size we would be able to visually tell the IQ of different people!
Thank you. You proved my point.
OK, what is a fossil to you?
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.