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.
The Scientific American article raised more questions than answers (on the few questions I didn't already know the answers for). That's good from the point of view of scientific inquiry. If all the questions were answered the scientists could all go home and write computer games.
But the arguments till boils down (IMO) to two positions. One side can imagine natural events leading up to the current situation and is not concerned with the Origin of Life question. The other side can't and is. But imagination isn't proof in the positive or "a final debunking" and lack of imagination isn't proof in the negative.
Ultimately the question isn't whether evolution is "true" or "false". Ultimately the question is whether you know G-d. If you know G-d, you will find all your questions answered in the end. If you don't know G-d, it won't matter.
Shalom.
You cannot have read that many of these posts yet. Or perhaps you omitted the "</sarcasm>."
I have always liked your inputs on these threads and this is one example of why. This despite the anti-Creationist rhetoric, which is, I believe, disdain for the blind acceptance of any authority. This latter is OK by me, for that is how we learn (i.e. by adopting a perspective and taking it to its logical conclusion -- and THIS is definitively IMHO). As to your post, I would agree with you insofar as God must have a strong and deep mathematical aspect. Where we distinctly part ways is in the inference that that is as far as it goes.
One who desires justice such as we will never know on this earth,
who desires acknowledgement of him as father and creator (he has placed it in all mens hearts to know him, it takes work over years to deny him),
and one who used his "brain" to create all, including all the science you will ever know over a lifetime. We cannot ever expect to know fully the mind of God, we are but men...
If you insist, my server is being a snail right now and I can't find the estimated gene counts I had previously found.
All I can do is smile, Patrick.
The point is that IF there really was a Big Bang, there is no need to talk about a "before".
As soon as somebody asks the question, "what happened before the Big Bang," they are necessarily asking that question within the context of the model. They often expect that, within that context, there is no good answer to that question, but in fact, there is one.
The title says it all...
and reveals the complete and utter self-aggrandizing spirit of those involved in the "debunking."
It is why I normally stay away from these threads.
To argue with those who have placed themselves as God, is to argue with an illusion...
What does the theory of evolution have to do with conservatism?
Ahh, that famous Christian Love we read so much about. Makes the cockles of my heart glow with good cheer and happiness.
To condemn one to the absolutely ridiculous, silly, and insulting ooky spooky fairy tale of a "hell" is about as intelligent and thought-out as the genius who wondered why there are still monkeys in the world. The more you "argue" science (surely you must realize that denying evolution, for whatever reason, implicitly denies all the laws/accepted theories of: Astronomy, physics, quantum mechanics, paleontology, biology, ecology, geology, limnology, and oh, LOGIC, just to name a few). I know this "argument" (although it's really not) will go round and round in circles forever...ironically never "evolving" to become an intelligent discourse because the fundies and deniers are incapable of actual intellectual gains.
I've said my piece, and I'll go back lurking now. Flame away godsquad, but please examine yourselves before judging me. (I'll say it for you: "god will judge me one day and damn me to the lake of fire with a horned red guy with a pitchfork poking me in the butt every so often blah blah blah. Oogity boogity).
I personally don't consider this to be a mistake (although you are correct in stating that there is a point there that Ferndina does not understand). It is true that modern monkeys and humans descend from a common ancestor, but I'm fairly sure that our last common ancestor, if it could be examined by people today, would also be classified as a monkey (and our last common ancestor with apes, an ape). I thus have no difficulty in stating that humans descended from monkeys and apes.
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.