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.
You: You cannot have read that many of these posts yet. Or perhaps you omitted the "</sarcasm>."
I assumed you would know that tag was intended. I strongly suspect that Scientific American published this article as an aid to hapless school boards who are being beseiged by creationists (and so-called "Intelligent Design" advocates) so they could have a handy reference for use in the heated debates which are raging all over the place.
Please share with us your obvious expertise in such things.
Your God is too small!
My God is also the "sum of all possible mathematical Truth:" because He is the author of the laws that define that Truth, but He is so much more. You ought to consider that there may be more to your God than you thought.
The reason that there is order in the universe is because that is the way it was created. Random chance would not create the ordered universe that we observe today, and are able to quantify so well.
Peace.
The current thinking is that the proto-amphibians adapted fins into limbs because it enabled them to wriggle through dense aquatic vegetation more easily. That the limbs enabled them to move clumsily about on land was fortuitous.
This statement applies equally, if not more, to evolutionists! None of evolution theory's tenets meet the standards for scientific proof. To be scientifically correct, one must always include the descriptor, THEORY, when mentioning evolution. The overuse of the term "evolution" without the proper descriptive term, THEORY, has misled millions to accept this unproven THEORY as valid science.
Free Republic's pro-evolution posters would gain credibility if they would admit that their BELIEF in evolution THEORY places them on equal footing, at best, with their opponents!
Although this has always been a very divisive argument, those of us who believe in The Creator, who actually know Him personally because of Jesus' sacrifice in our place, only debate hoping that others earnestly seeking Him will also accept His offer of forgiveness and come to know Him.
You believe what you believe quite strongly, but it is not necessary to attack your opponents in such a sophmoric manner, especially if you are trying to show yourself more learned.
The very title of the thread is sophmoric. The opinions of Scientific American writers and the High Priests and Priestesses of evolution are not the final word on how things came to be.
The fact that a publication such as Scientific American would stoop to such tactics, to say nothing of the tactics of groups such as the National Association of Biology Teachers, the American Humanist Association, ACLU, National Science Teachers Association, the American Geological Instutute, the American Chemical Society, the National Educators Association, the American Institute of Biological Sciences and the American Anthropological Association, speaks volumes concerning the motovatations of these adherents to the theory of evolution.
These, and other groups, have been working together through a national "comminucations network" for over 20-years, according to a 1981 article published in Scientific Integrety (Scientific Sophistry might make a better title), by Wayne Moyer, NABT Executive Secretary, to marginalize and demonize Creationists and keep their opinions out of education and the public venues.
The published articles and papers I have collected over that time tell me one of two things. 1) Evolutionists are a collective of control-freaks who cannot tolerate their views being questioned; or, 2) They know their positions are untenable and they are very afraid of having to share the millions of dollars funneled into their research and education programs by governments every year. Perhaps they are a mixture of both.
I was taught long ago that, when seeking the truth concerning a thing, one must be prepared to accept the possibility that one's own theories and beliefs will be called into question. That it is often necessary to cast aside those theories and beliefs from time to time, if truth is what one really seeks.
When I read these creation-evolution threads, I have to wonder, what is it that is being soughtafter.
However, the true goal and wish of both the Darwinist AND the Aliens-On-Other-Planets crowd is that:
The Creationism and Genesis of the Bible somehow be discredited
"Proof" that somehow man is NOT THE one creature in the Universe of whom God created as per Biblical teaching
The self-evident fact of 'Intelligent Design' somehow be discredited (by any shred of vague "evidence") and thus deemed a figment of imagination.
A question which I never hear evolutionists answer is why if evolution goes on all the time, if evolution occurs because species must adapt to survive, why are amoebas, such simple creatures, still around after some billion years? Why if evolution goes on all the time, these creatures remain simple and unchanged?
77 posted on 6/17/02 9:27 AM Eastern by gore3000
No, he's just frustrated by the antics of certain creationists on these threads who shotgun these threads with tens of half-truths and misleading statements, and then never defend their misleading statements. I share his annoyance, I just choose to ignore the offender after the first few attempts, while he is trying to get the offender to admit the error of his ways. It's like herding cats, I know, but someone has to try, and I respect him for it.
And we still have "walking catfish" moving about on land. Walking catfish .
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.