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.
Ah, yes. That would be the colonic terminus. Actually, "Colon Terminus" would make a fine handle for the freeper in question, I think. Perhaps a generous donation to the powers-that-be could gain one a bit of consideration for a sudden, involuntary name change...
continuous body of disinformation
Evolution is non-intelligent design--cause...
but you believe that knowledge/technology(science) came into existence through evolution(accident)?
Strange--gibberish??
Interesting analogy. Our knowlege of science has undergone an evolution of sorts over the years. :-) Not unlike the branches of evolution that have died out over the years, science too has had its false trails die out too.
1 : a movement in revolutionary Marxian socialism favoring an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary spirit
2 : advocacy of revision (as of a doctrine or policy or in historical analysis)
- re·vi·sion·ist /-nist/ noun or adjective
You would block the teaching of theories with merit, solidly grounded in converging lines of evidence, just to keep it fuzzy, to keep it "controversial" that your theory was overturned by the evidence about 150 years ago.
Is it "tyranny over the mind" that we don't let students decide for themselves between alchemy and chemistry? Is it tyranny over the mind if we don't let them decide between astrology and astronomy? Is it tyranny over the mind if we don't let students pick for themselves among flat-earth, geocentric, and heliocentric cosmologies?
The trick is you want to take advantage of people who have been given no basis for spotting how bogus your ideas are, how rooted in superstition. You want first crack at the gullible meat.
There was a day when kids were taught some form or other creation in schools all over the world, and every scientist was some form or other of a creationist. It isn't true anymore because the evidence overturned creationism. People who didn't want to believe what the evidence meant soberly considered it and realized that the picture was going to have to change.
And you think it's reasonable to let you pretend to high schoolers that nothing has really been settled since the time before Darwin published. What would you say to letting someone tell them that nothing has been settled about whether heroin is bad for you? After all, evidence is a matter of interpretation yadayadayada and a lot depends on your worldview.
I'm arguing with a guy who thinks punctuated equilibrium has something to do with Satan. I realize you're never going to get my point here. Nevertheless, I'm glad I'm not a teacher but I'm also really glad you're not one.
Not offhand or with a quick search. As I recall he was chasing down Pompey in the civil wars. Perhaps I am mistaken about it being the Sahara desert.
Whatta yah think?
That would, of course, depend on one's point of view. For Barney, it is not the terminus, but the beginning, the commencement, the inception -- or the genesis, one might say. However, we shall not dwell on these proctological issues, as the principle point to be made is that the sphinctorial apparatus is analogous to the freeper we have in mind. He is, in my humble opinion, an OOBFOO>
And what does that have to do with the theory of evolution? Other than we revise the scientific model as new data comes to light. Thus is science.
From a long faded memory, they dug a pit, lowered a tarp, added water, and exposed it to the night sky. Then they covered it and used a cover and a wall of highly polished shields to keep it from warming up in the day. A few days and, voila, ice. I don't recall if there was anything more than that but I suspect insulated walls (furs maybe?) and a small handcrank to increase evaporation would make it even more efficient.
That was his nephew, Octavius. In Egypt, somewhat north of the Sahara. (Or am I confusing Pompey with Antonius?) The civil wars really got going after Caesar was killed. Or maybe he did wipe out Pompey. It's all getting hazy, and I ought to re-read that stuff. Anyway, I don't think the Romans ever went that far into Africa, although they did a significant traffic in exotic animals. I think African traders supplied the animals to Roman outposts along the Mediterranian.
You cannnot explain--interpret the metaphysical world with suppositions/bias/ideology. Science has limits!
Better yet...the metaphysical(knowledge) should explain--order the physical(technical/scientific).
Evolution got it backwards...denies the metaphysical world reality--existence!
A horse with no legs--eyes...
hamburger---rice krispy--marshmallow candy/cakes!
| For example, the taste for icy sweets predates the technology to mass-produce them; the emperor Nero sent slaves to the mountains for snow and ice to mix with nectar and honey. The resulting ice treat must have been the perfect culinary counterpoint to a baked Rome. |
Cold Comfort Getting the scoop on the science of a cool commodity
In my professional opinion, it would appear that there has been an almost total atrophy of the neural function in the cerebellum, and a corresponsing growth of pseudo-synaptic tissues in the extremity of the colonic region, as a compensating reflex of the organism. The subject seems to have been unaware of the gradual loss of cognitive function, and at this stage the condition has become irreversible. What function remains is severely degraded, and is now situated entirely in the lower abdominal cavity. Intervention is not advised. It would be best to permit nature to take its course.
Ah yes, I dimly recall a series of triumverates, with Octavius emerging as the top dog. Those were the days.
it would appear that there has been an almost total atrophy of the neural function in the cerebrum of each of the pack, as this deep fascination with proctological objects demonstrates.
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.