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.
Sucking up bandwidth by making pointless one line responses isn't helping anyone, but thanks anyway!
Persuade f.Christian of that, and I'll be truly impressed ;)
200 posted on 6/17/02 8:21 AM Pacific by general_re
Knock yourself out!
‘Love never fails’ (1 Corinthians 13:8)
"Love, as revealed in Christ, does not fail because it sets up a standard for evaluating human behavior. It establishes a goal for human effort; one to strive towards, away from lesser ways of living."
"At our house, we were doing some renovating. We started with the kitchen. It having been done, the rooms adjacent looked very bad. So we had to renovate them too. When a beautiful thing is brought in, it shows up everything else around it. It sets a standard by which other things are bound to be assessed."
"Love (as in Christ) is just such a beautiful thing. When a person glimpses it, he/she at once recognizes a level of personal life, to fall short of which would henceforth be experienced as some kind of failure."
"The last few hundred years of European, and American history bear this out. Children were used as a pool of labor; Women were the property of men; black people were enslaved to whites. These practices were considered normal by many, yet the quiet power of Christian love was at work."
"Men and women came to the conviction that the love of God rendered them terribly wrong. Love... does not fail---because it does not let us be satisfied with what is less than it."
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--RENAMING/CLAIMING 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!
I don't know. The only way I know of to make ice, as opposed to just storing it, would be to have some sort of compressor that worked on the same principle as modern refrigeration. But it seems unlikely that they had anything like that in Rome - it's been a while, but I'm certain my Roman Civ prof would have mentioned something like that. And given how dependent they were on techniques like salting and pickling for food preservation, can't see that refrigeration was really widespread.
Guess we'll have to wait for Balrog to help us out...
I recall reading -- somewhere -- that they did have ice in Rome, at least the very rich did. It was actually transported from the Alps. I have no idea where I read this, but my lingering impression is that it was authoritative. Now that I think about it, I wonder ... even with good Roman roads, could a large cart of ice blocks last long enough to make the journey?
The ancient Romans were as fond of putting ice in their drinks as we are today. In the 1st Century AD, no Roman banquet would have been complete without the provision of lavish amounts of ice or snow for guests to put into their wine goblets. The famous Roman philosopher Seneca condemned snow-shops and ice-cold drinks as a clear sign of ever-growing decadence. The Roman emperor Elgabalus used donkey trains to transport a literal mountain of snow to his hot summer villa: an early form of air conditioning! Mideastern Sultans used their camel-driven postal system to transport snow all the way from the Lebanese Mountains to Cairo, Egypt. In the early days of the British Empire, perishable Norwegian ice would be sent 8,000 miles around Cape Good Hope to colonies in India.From this website: HERE.
*...'subliminal kid' talk!
Well, that's also the only (low-tech) method I can think of now but as far as I know for the Romans that would be high-tech and I can't imagine that they used it.
The ancient Romans could also have used primitive forms of refrigeration to keep food fresh. They could produce cold by certain forms of evaporation or by collecting snow and ice in winter to store for use in warmer weather (Forbes, Vol. VI 105). The ancient Romans knew of natural caves which could have been used for the cold storage of food; however, it is thought that these caves were not utilized for this purpose. Despite these resources that the Romans had available to them, there is no clear evidence of the preservation of foodstuffs by cooling. Instead, food was often placed in the cellars of houses, which may not have always remained cool enough to keep the food from spoiling (Forbes, Vol. VI 106). There is little information on the collection or preservation of snow and ice (Forbes, Vol. VI 112-113). In Italy, the ability to gather and use ice was probably limited, with most being obtained from snow rather than being cut from ponds (Forbes, Vol. VI 113), although this would vary by region. The major use of snow and ice was for cooling the drinks of the wealthy (Forbes, Vol. VI 107). These ancient cooling mechanisms were not used by a majority of the population; rather, they were a luxury of the very rich.
Organ X is, of course, the Object of Barney Frank's Odious Obsession. This can be abbreviated OOBFOO. I may be onto something here. Perhaps I'll try responding "OOBFOO" a time or two. Or maybe it's sufficient that the incoherent one knows from this post that he's an OOBFOO. I don't know. Mulling it over.
[Note to moderator: Come on, don't be a spoil-sport.]
No, if I am at war with anything, I war against how facts and evidence are perceived and interpreted.
A stone is a stone. That is fact. It is evidence. Yet, you perceive it to be ancient due to the assumption of evolution. I perceive it to be young due to the assumption of a literal, biblical Creation. This is the root of the disagreement. It is a philosophical difference, and it is an irreconcilable difference.
"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.""
The first part of your statement is represenative of the pride and arrogance that is wolven throughout the fabric of the evolutionaty establishment. They are so full of themselves, so convinced that theirs is the only way; that they have effectively dispatched G-d, as to be nearly insufferable.
What is wrong with a clear, unbiased presentation of opposing views? Even if they are nonsense, an unbiased presentation, side by side, with a rational view, would be sufficient to allow one or the other to stand or fall, based solely upon it's own merits. To do otherwise is a tyranny over the mind.
Again, you interpret the facts and evidence as proof that evolution is a fact, and that not to teach this proven fact is irresponsible.
You cannot accept that something other than naturalistic processes could be responsible for the universe. You cite as supporting evidence, an imperfect collection of facts and evidence, interpreted through your assumptions, and rationalized as proof positive for you thesis. Therefore, I am being irresponsible to so much as suggest otherwise. In fact, to even mention that assumptions color conclusions is considered a heresy. I have never, ever stated that a similar attitude should be adopted in the case of creationism.
Since evolutionists have all the money, control all the research facilities and educational institutions, and influence more politicians, I don't think any of you have to be too concerned about me, misleading anyone.
"Walt Brown's theories (and any other Young Earth theories outside of that Omphalos thing) aren't just inadequate. They're ridiculous."
As I said, when I first brought up Brown's theory, it does not pretend to supply all the answers. It has some merit and deserves investigation. However, because of the conditions stated in my previous paragraph, it is doubtful that anything other than superficial research into Brown's, or any other non-uniformatarian thesis will ever occur. This includes the evolutionists who subscribe to catastrophism, and there are several (no, I can't name one, but their work has appeared in Scientific American and National Georgaphic. I have read them in those publications, but it's been awhile).
Anyhow, in the final analysis, the stone we both observe, remains a stone, no matter how we view it, as does the enigma of the Bombardiere Beetle.
Is that gibberish or you are gibberish...vulgar too?
This has nothing to do with evolution.
I will answer. Science indeed existed. Darwin just added to that continuous body of information that further refines our models of how this universe works.
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.