Cordially,
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.
Cordially,
Cordially,
Your four types ("calcitic, aragonitic, siliceous and chitinous") look to me like shell types, not types of fossils. Many fossils are just impressions in ancient mud, hardened under pressure, with no trace of the original materials left. Some information, maybe the outline of a skeleton remains, but no animal trace.
So, in short, the fossil, to me, implies Divine Judgement, which is meaningless to people who have eliminated the divine from the equation.
All I'm asking you to do is tell me what you're telling me. If we're supposed to be teaching it in science classes, it ought to make sense.
I do reject the inference that fossils demonstrate a succession of life.
There's an astonishing worldwide preponderance of evidence that they do. There was nothing much more complex than a bacterium for almost 3 billion years. Cells with nuclei appear about 1.2 billion years ago, IIRC. Multicellulars appear last week, mammals the day before yesterday, humans about five minutes ago. OK, I exaggerate slightly, but only slightly.
In the Appalachians where I live, it is impossible to find a dinosaur fossil. Why is that? It is impossible to find a fossil ground sloth. Why is that? It is impossible to find a fossil mammoth or any other kind of mammal.
I won't keep you in suspense. These mountains are too old. They were already wearing away by the Permian/Triassic Extinction, when the last of the trilobites died off. The topmost sediments, the first thing below the topsoil that you hit when you dig, are older than any dinosaurs.
Does your system explain that?
It seems, at least if the commentary on FR is any indication, the only way to be considered "mainstream", is to subscribe to evolutionary thought.
FR is about as backwards as any part of the world can still be in 2002. That's one of the things I don't like about FR. It isn't FR that's your problem; it's the whole world.
Your simplified and designed argument against design does not consider effects and results out of your model. Your fairies are undocumented or are contrived by you to do your bidding, unless you have a link or source for the Ice Fairy believers. And your final contention of perversity in even considering an agency outside of randomness to explain the adaptation of life is a baseless charge against those that reject the just so stories you espouse.
Yendu bwam's brain must be stripping gears from the cognitive dissonance! :-)
The Philosopher Confucius (551-479 BC) - "do not do to others what you would not like yourself; then your public life will arouse no ill-will nor your private life any resentment".
Sound familiar?
calling capitalism evolution and calling evolution(flux) science(reality)...ok!
Zarathustra to a large extent (Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds). Some of the theology (as opposed to morality) differs: "The Almighty God is not a dealer, he is neither a buyer nor a seller, and does not need also to be flattered by his creatures."
Well, I found the book where I learned about the four groups of fossils. Fossils, An Introduction to Prehistoric Life, by William H. Matthews (1962). In the chapter, How Fossils are Formed and Preserved, Matthews writes: "For convenience in classification, fossils are arranged into four major groups according to their method of preservation. These methods do not actually represent four distinct and seperate kinds of fossil-making; rather, they generally work in combination, several frequently being involved in the preservation of any given fossil."
The author goes on to name and describe the different classes and sub-classes, citing examples of combining of methods, etc. There's a nice photo of a Trachodon "mummy" in here.
"All I'm asking you to do is tell me what you're telling me. If we're supposed to be teaching it in science classes, it ought to make sense."
If I were to teach a science class about fossils, I would tell them that fossils are the remains of life that existed in the past, portions thereof that have been captured in stone. I would describe the different classes of fossils and how different chemicals and minerals replace hard and soft tissues, as well as what environmental conditions are necessary for fossil formation.
Then, having done my utmost to present the evidence and facts about fossils, minus any philosophical interpretation thereof, I would leave it at that. If a student asked "how long ago", I would say that no one knows with any absolute certanity. There are several different theories which you can read about, here and here and here, etc., pointing out a balanced, understandable collection of uniformatarian and catastrophism books, articles and papers which the student could consult, thereafter drawing his own conclusions.
Depending upon the age of the student, I could talk some about how different assumptions effect the interpretation of data, but I'd have to weigh that on a case-by-case basis.
My beliefs concerning how and when they were formed are not relevant to primary and secondary classroom situations, because they merge physical evidence and demonstratable facts with philosophical interpretation. Those questions, I would consider to be, university, or at least, college level subjects. In those environments, a civil, no holds barred debate should be the rule of the day, as opposed to a mutual admiration society.
"There's an astonishing worldwide preponderance of evidence that they do." [Fossils demonstrating the succession of life].
Yes, that is what I was taught in school. I believed it too. Now, however, I look at the evidence and the facts, through older eyes, and from a different perspective. This latter perspective does not have an absolute answer for every possible question and neither does the former.
"Does your system explain that?"
Well, to a limited extent it does, but then that brings us back to the young earth/old earth, flood/no flood controversies, and their requsite assumptions and problems. The idea that large animal fossil beds are located in some areas, and not in others is answered by catastrophism, albeit not all that comprehensively, as it makes for even more questions, but at least it's an answer worth investigating, right along with the old mountains view.
"It isn't FR that's your problem; it's the whole world."
You know, in a way, that is the situation. It's roots, however, are theological, as I mentioned in an earlier post.
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.
