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.
So was Jim Wright, Congressman.
Probably half the stuff on the Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource came from Vade. What have you contributed, hmmm?
Here.
Is it possible for your God not to be a part of His Creation and, if so, how so; i.e. what did your God have to work with?
Mathematical truth is manifest in every aspect of existence. You know how Carl Sagan was always saying, "we are star-stuff"? I say, "we are God-stuff".
Can such thinking be classified as anything more than a fundamental assumption, always acknowledging that such assumptions are indeed important?
There are always axioms.
I think you've nailed it.
These evo threads always have the same old arguments - never anything new, just the same things said different ways by different people. I noticed that some of the atheist evo people seem to have bible verses in hand, all ready to argue with against believers so it would seem to be a set-up from the start with no purpose other than to flaunt their atheism and proclaim evolution as the 'truth' and once again engage in useless arguments that apparently the atheists feel they need to do on FR. The thumb in the eye analysis seems about right. The lead article's title: "Final Debunking of Creationism" is really a hoot.
Next year it'll be "The Really, Final Debunking of Creationism; We're not kidding this time!".
I see no point in engaging in these useless evo/creation arguments with people who would not be swayed by any argument as their minds are just as closed and sealed as they accuse the Christian's minds of being.
Like you, I usually skip them or skim them for anything new, which there never is. Your post seemed to sum up my thoughts on the never-ending atheist/evo threads on FR so I wished to concur but frankly, this argument and the thread should be on the religion forum, not a news forum, as certainly none of the arguments are news to anyone any longer.
Science can be wrong for decades ... the Bible is wrong forever.
:-)
You nailed it. My mind is definitely closed to anything but verifiable data and logical argument.
BRRRRP!!!! Wrong!! Science is wrong forever, by definition. Science can't be "proven", remember.
So then by definition 'modern science' excludes even the possibility of God having a hand in our origins.
You're absolutely right. But we have a problem: Atheists would never admit that atheism is indeed a religion, would they? Of course they wouldn't admit this, even though they are people of faith just like we are people of faith. Our faith is in God. Their faith is in science.
Faith is faith, right?
But anyway, these threads are not news to anyone. On top of that, these threads aren't going to change anyone's mind. An atheist at the beginning of one of these threads is still an atheist at the end of the thread. Same goes for creationists.
So, none of this is news, and therefore, what is the purpose of these threads?
You be the judge.
Come up with a testable hypothesis regarding God's existence, and prove it to be true, and we'd HAVE to acknowledge God's role in our origins.
There are no ID experiments. How could such an experiment be constructed? This is precisely why ID isn't a scientific concept.
Since ID is not expressed as a falsifiable statement, this is entirely true--and meaningless, within the context of science, as nonfalsifiable statements cannot be tested via the scientific method.
On the contrary, every single experiment has thus far proven ID theory.
Oh, REALLY? I'd LOVE to see some proof of that little claim.
Have you ever thought about the wonderful capabilities in your body, how your eyes work, how your lungs work, your brain, and all the other amazing functions of our body and other living creatures, I cannot believe that a single celled anema was the start of this process. Have a good day.
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.