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.
*Sigh* The evidence from molecular genetics alone is enough to strike down creationism. Still no comment on those pseudogenes Gore? The clusters of related genes? The duplicated genes in bacteria and flies? Not that I would expect you to comprehend the implications at this point anyway.
The answer(s) to your question is yes, and potentially many ways. A striking example which illustrates how the developmental program can be modified involve the hox gene family . In all animals these genes serve as the “master” switches for embryonic patterning (limbs, legs, head, abdomen etc.). Interestingly the hox gene products share quite a bit of similarity between different animals which include flies, fish and humans (they are evolutionarily conserved). Yet we have enough information to know that there are species-specific differences. It was recently demonstrated by two independent laboratories that mutation of a couple of these hox genes results in the switch from a crusteacean-like limb pattern to the familiar six legged insect we see today (Nature 415,910-913 and 914-917) . As the genomes of more organisms are sequenced, it will help us to elucidate which specific changes in the hox genes lead to the observed phenotypes. Of course mutations in other many other gene families can have effects on development as well. There is no reason based on what we know about how DNA mutations occur to believe these changes did not arise randomly, which brings me to my next point….
You specified “random” in your question and that is where the lottery analogy was brought into the previous argument. Random mutations just give rise to the existence of a wide diversity of phenotypes. Most changes will probably not bode well for the organism. Yet every once in a while there are changes which will aid in survival in some way. The point I was trying to get across to Gore3000 was that it could have taken 100,000,000 bacteria to experience that beneficial mutation, but once it occurred, that single bacterium gave rise to more progeny due to the advantage it now had. Soon the mutation which originated in that single bacterium predominates in the overall population. Each bacterium is a “lottery ticket” and so as a population we have a tremendous number of chances to win the “jackpot”. The same principle occurs in higher organisms, (the ones with the fancy developmental program) although this is a bit more difficult to directly observe in nature since animals take a much longer time between each generation (although there are several examples). Nonetheless, it is safe to assume many random mutations in the development program were “tried out” - most failed, yet some changes in must have led to a morphology which was better adapted to that particular environment. Those mutant genes became more prominent in the gene pool and another round of mutation and selection begins.
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality--UNDER GOD...the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values GROWTH!
Then came the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...Atheist secular materialists through ATHEISM/evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations(separation of state/religion)--TRUTH-GOD...made these absolutes relative and calling all the residuals---technology/science === evolution to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...anti-God/Truth RELIGION--crusade--IMTOLERANCE!
Liberals/Evolution BELIEVE they are the conservatives--guardians too...
the shield between state and religion(evolution/atheism) is gone---this is chernobyl---radiation poisoning!!
Hypnotism--witchcraft ideology--politics--religion--BRAINWASHING--superstition--BIAS---EVOLUTION/ATHEISM is a Hate CRIME
ps...Atheism/evolutionism is the essence of liberalism/socialism---State secular religion!
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality--UNDER GOD...the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values GROWTH!
Then came the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...Atheist secular materialists through ATHEISM/evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations...demolished the wall(separation of state/religion)--trampled the TRUTH-GOD...built a satanic temple over them---made these absolutes subordinate--relative and calling all the residuals---technology/science === evolution to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...anti-God/Truth RELIGION--crusade/WAR--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY against God--maqn--society!!
Liberals/Evolution BELIEVE they are the conservatives--guardians too...
the shield between state and religion(evolution/atheism) is gone---this is chernobyl---radiation poisoning---NUCLEAR SOCIAL ANTARTICA/AMERICA!!
Hypnotism--witchcraft ideology--politics--religion--BRAINWASHING--superstition--BIAS---EVOLUTION/ATHEISM is a Hate CRIME
ps...Atheism/evolutionism is the essence of liberalism/socialism---State secular MONOPOLY religion forbidding the freedom of speech/religion of everything except atheism!
He has learned from his intellectual leader, the master spammer.
If you haven't got anything new to say, your best bet is to be quiet. Remember, it is better to remain silent and be thought an idiot then to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
This advice is good, but it's too late now.
Doubtful. Gore3000 has proven himself to be pretty unreasonable about this. He seems to think if you accept evolution, this automatically makes you an atheist and a communist (of which I am neither).
But thanks for trying scripter.
Good post here and the implications are quite interesting. Yet clearly 5 years from now we will know a great deal more about these processes, 10 years from now even more, etc., so at some point ... Gore will have to either have to admit that some of his beliefs are incorrect or he will be moved into the medved-zone by default.
I love it!
I'm assuming no one here wants to get this thread to 3000 posts.
G3K, could you, please, in your own words, explain the way sickle cell works? Do you see how it is maintained by classical Mendelian genetics and selected for by the presenece of malaria? Can you see how a single mutation in a single person could have (in fact almost surely) started it?
This is new information from a random event. The mutation not only makes bad hemoglobin, but it also protects against malaria.
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.