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.
Bumpola! Maybe we can drag these people's minds into (year) 2002.
Let me think ... starting with the year 1,000, which feels about right ... we've got 1,002 years through which to drag some of these folks ... I donno if we can do it. But I'm willing to give it a try.
just the govt. siphon--subsidies---SEWER--free loaders!
I pointed out and refuted an often told evolutionist lie. Whether RWN new it was a lie or not, I do not know, but those evolutionists that made up that lie, sure did.
RWN is now throwing a smoke screen because he cannot refute the fact that it is impossible for a program such as the one by which a human develops from conception to birth could have been modified at random through evolutionary means.
Question for RWN: Do you think it's possible for a program such as the one by which a human develops from conception to birth could have been modified at random through evolutionary means? If so, how?
Ballrog is just talking nonsense. He keeps arguing that random chance has a memory or some convoluted sophistry to that effect.
Question for balrog666: Do you think random chance has a memory? Why or why not?
Your question is poorly phrased since, by definition, random means not predictable. I will attempt to illustrate the concept with some trivial examples.
Flipping a coin: in general, the answer is no, excepting that some people can control their flip everytime.
Rolling dice: in general, the answer is no, excepting some people can control their rolls to some degree.
Lottery: again, no, unless, like above, it's deliberately fixed.
Building a protein chain: Meaningless question since it's not a random process.
Shall we now discuss the meaning of probability, statistics, or the concept of sample size?
As mentioned earlier I haven't been following this thread very closely. From your response I take it your issue with gore3000 is that you're saying the process involved in building a protein chain is not random and gore3000 says otherwise. Is that correct? If so, if you've already explained how the meaning of probability, statistics or the concept of sample size fits in here, please provide the post number and I'll bring that up to gore3000. If not, would you mind stating how that all fits in and perhaps the discussion can move forward?
You're stuck on this?
Actually, this was a side discussion about the chance of winning the lottery with one ticket as opposed to 100,000,000 million tickets. Gore asserted that there was no difference and kept restating the proposition in weasel words and responding with ad hominem replies. The applicability to building protein chain was implied but not direct - it was an outgrowth of an analogy used in the discussion.
In summary, the point was that he refused to admit that he was wrong on even so trivial a point as this, let alone the other 100 real points that he's been called on. So what good is there in discussing anything with someone who refuses to hear your words, think about the ideas involved, or respond with facts, logic, or courtesy?
Actually, no. By acting as a self-imposed moderator (of sorts) I was trying to help move the discussion forward as you guys don't seem to be getting anywhere. But that will only work if both of you participate.
I agree. But participation is more than spamming and trying to shout down opposing viewpoints.
As for me, I'm simply fed up with the spamming from medved, the bizarre posts from f.Christian, and the obstinacy and circular reasoning of Gore3000, AndrewC, and Phaedrus (sorry if I left someone out) and, from time to time, call them on it.
I assume you mean, if it gets past 2000 and remains undeleted. Yes, I would imagine it would be a record, then.
And you're doing a fine job...
I would also have to avoid being permanently banned in order to enjoy the numerical climax. That won't be easy.
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.