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.
Sounds like it's right up your alley.
Lev 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.
Leviticus is a bit older than Confusion.
So the way I look at it, she selfishly (gasp!) persued her own desires. Therefore she's not all that different from someone like Madonna, who likewise follows her own desires. People get their pleasure in different ways.
1093 posted on 6/18/02 6:43 PM Pacific by PatrickHenry
Two thoughts--questions...
You can find the CREATOR via 'evolution'?
The same thing...carnal(modonna) and enlightened morality/unselfishness(Mother Theresa)---the same thing?
Answer:
Only in the world of gumbo-jumbo...EVOLUTION!
Alert--whammy...
jennyp---evo post...
In Economics, this is called "Communism". Remember Communists? They were always railing against the "anarchy of the marketplace" in favor of rational design of industries & economies by highly trained soviets armed with 5-year plans. They were convinced that this ID approach would create lasting prosperity the likes of which... anarchistic, evolutionary Capitalism---could never hope to approach.
12 posted on 6/7/02 12:24 PM Pacific by jennyp
Capitalism/science/history via evolution!(????)
Looney logic...history---political science too(EVOLUTION)!
740 posted on 6/17/02 6:42 PM Pacific by f.Christian
THe only evolution going on...is stupidity--ignorance---depravity!
Evolution is REALITY DISSONANCE--disorder!
I think you’ll find that geology tells us that the age of the rocks, not biology. The age of rocks is completely independent of whether or not life evolved. If ID biology replaces evolutionary biology, the rocks are still old. What are these eleven basic layers you speak of?
First, if the geologic column were to be compacted together, layer upon layer, its height would exceed 100 miles. This is a problem because one must consider the earth's crust is no greater than 30 miles thick and sedimentary rocks are never found exceeding 15 miles in depth.
Erosion and deposition? Even today, in parts of the world, rocks are being eroded, while in other parts, the sediments are being deposited. Rocks are also destroyed in subduction zones while new ones are created through volcanism, intrusions, sea-floor spreading… all that plate tectonics stuff.
The Grand Canyon also presents a problem to the evolutionary geologic column because several sedimentary layers, such as the Cenozoic and Mesozoic strata, are absent.
First of all, I don’t know the age of the Grand Canyon formations, but I’ll take your word that they’re older than 250 million years (i.e. older than Mesozoic). If this is the case, then the problem the Grand Canyon poses for evolution is that it can’t tell us anything about Mesozoic or Cenozoic life. So, we look elsewhere for rocks of the appropriate age.
Another problem in the evolutionary theory is the inconsistency in strata succession form old strata to young In over 500 locations globally the succession of strata is inverted and younger strata is found lying beneath older strata.
Inversion of strata sequences is a common occurrence associated with folding. Thrust faults also may cast young strata over older ones. Its all part of plate tectonics.
The discovery of fossils and footprints in the geologic colmnn below levels in which they should be located is also a problem to the evolutionary geologic column. One of the most stunning evidences against the supposed vast ages of the earth and the geologic column is the presence of human footprints in layers dated older than the Quaternary Period.
Paluxy?
In addition to footprints, human fossils have also been found in areas of the geologic column which represent time periods supposedly millions of years prior to modern man.
Examples?
According to evolution the formation of coal seams occurred over millions of years. However, the presence of fossilized trees in these coal beds indicate that they were formed very quickly since a tree could not survive for a million years while the surrounding vegetation solidified.
Once again, geology gives us this info, not evolutionary biology, although I'm not sure if it states that formation of all grades of coal takes millions of years, rather that the seams are millions of years old. These trees do tell us that the plant material from which coal is formed was laid down relatively quickly. Not far from where I live, 10 feet of peat was laid down over several thousand years since the last Ice Age ended, complete with upright tree stumps which did not fully decay due to the acidity of the environment. As far as I remember, feet of moss peat can even be laid down in decades. However, this is merely the first step in the formation of coal. Conversion into coal requires heat and compression i.e. burial. The deeper and longer the burial, the better the grade of coal. Anthracite is formed when the coal is subjected to folding and deformation associated with mountain building.
The problem? You're telling the kids we haven't learned anything since ancient times about what fossils are and what you can tell from them. You just don't like what we know so you reject it. Letting you teach would be a crime against education.
This is the Luddite aspect of creationism: the cheering for the gaps, the consignment of well-founded modern knowledge to the waste-bins of "speculative," "conjectural," "controversial."
If paleontology were medicine, what you propose would be keeping medical students at the Ancient Greek level of medical expertise. You would send them out to maim and kill, when all that we have learned is in fact there to be taught. Educator malfeasance.
Nothing in Walt Brown's stuff that I have ever read comes close to explaining the real-world geologic column. I believe he tries to use the sorting action of the Great Flood for this purpose and flood sorting actions won't do it.
Walt Brown's theories (and any other Young Earth theories outside of that Omphalos thing) aren't just inadequate. They're ridiculous. You think it's adequate to excuse not teaching the real scoop with your mumble about "I'd point them to a few sources from all sides and let them make up their own minds." You're being paid to teach, not mislead.
You're at war with the truth. God should not be telling you to do this.
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives who advocated growth and progess---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality...the nature of man/govt. does not change. These were the classical liberals...founding fathers--pribciples...stable scientific reality/society---industrial progress!
Then came the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin...atheist secular materialists INSANITY through evolution removed the foundations...made the absolutes relative and calling all technology/science === evolution to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC!
Liberals/Evolution BELIEVE they are the conservatives--guardians too!
Hypnotism--witchraft ideology--politics--religion--BRAINWASHING--superstition--BIAS---EVOLUTION...
all liberalism--evolution insanity/revisionism!
Actually, Julius Ceasar's troops made ice and ice cream in the summer in the Sahara Desert. It wasn't random at all.
The big lie...
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives who advocated growth and progess---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality...the nature of man/govt. does not change. These were the classical liberals...founding fathers--principles...stable scientific reality/society---industrial progress!
Then came the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin...atheist secular materialists INSANITY through evolution removed the foundations...made the absolutes relative and calling all technology/science === evolution to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC!
Liberals/Evolution BELIEVE they are the conservatives--guardians too!
Hypnotism--witchcraft ideology--politics--religion--BRAINWASHING--superstition--BIAS---EVOLUTION...
all liberalism--evolution insanity/revisionism!
No problem.
I didn't know that Julius Caesar was ever in the Sahara. Any reference for this?
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.