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.
Are you saying that no prediction can be made about the results? If the results are random how can this applet mean anything?
The big lie which is being promulgated by the evos is that there is some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't. In order to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you would need a religion whicih operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be voodoo and Rastifari.
Careful that Reep (VadeRepo) and JennyP don't go off halfcocked and accuse you of "spamming(TM)"...
How can that be spamming? I am quoting you. Since I don't wish to fight a battle about misquotes or out of context quotes, I used the whole enchilada. I expected to be pilloried because I did not quote another source. You know what happens when anything with ICR in its hyperlink is presented.
This is a concept creationists have a lot of trouble with for some reason. I will try to break it down. Mutations (the random element here) gives rise to many diverse phenotypes. The selection of those phenotypes (by nature - competition for mates, resources etc.) is NOT random. Successful genes will exapnd and further be improved upon by many,many many millions of rounds of selection. No mysterious intelligent guide required...only survival.
Beyond doubt? Hardly. There may be yet be a beneficial effect of all those transposable elements/repeats (LINEs, SINEs etc.) which make up over 50% of the human genome, but Gore's assertion that they play a direct role in gene transcription is highly unlikely. The intronic enhancers Gore3000 speaks of have been known for almost 20 years and this is not a new contribution to the field of gene regulation. Also the genome is filled with a ton of leftover vestigal-junk from our past called "pseduogenes". These are genes that were presumably important during some point in our evolutionary history, yet are currently not expressed due to the accumulation of mutations (they are no longer under any selective pressure). There GLO gene (vitamin C metabolism) is an example of this. Not only that but often the same error (or very similar type of error) is seen in related species - strong evidence for a common ancestor.
The genome is chock full of similar kinds of (what can only be referred to as) "mistakes" which lead to only two interpretations....either organisms evolve, or a creator purposely designed patterns in the genome for what would appear to be evidence for evolution.
There is no evidence for any selective pressure on the amount of "extra" DNA in mammailian chromosomes. Bacteria are a different story since their survival requires rapid proliferation.
You are consistent. You allow as you are the sole possessor of certainty.
Care to propose a function for all of these pseudogenes scattered throughout the genome (mutated beyond repair in most instances)? You would make quite a splash in the field!
Random results do not mean that everything is unpredictable. One may have a system wherein one of outcomes has a probability of one-half but which outcome occurs at a given time is completely undetermined. One can compute means, variances, first passage times, etc.
OOBFOO
Is this how you're going to find the Creator/creation...in the world of mush-flux-trash-gumbo-jumbo-sewers---EVOLUTION!
I'm not into just so stories so I decline the offer for extrapolation.
But since you appear to be interested in those mysteries, I'll ask you---
Care to propose a function(s) for all of the copies of this post in all of their various forms on all of the computers between me and you?
Not from a single result and maintain any semblance of meaningfulness.
ha, so if I have an imprecise ruler, an inch is equivalent to two inches? :-)
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.