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.
Because anything can be chalked up to "Goddidit." How does one debunk such a proposition? ID is not falsifiable in any way, shape or form and is thus not science.
and what have you added to this thread other than exactly the same you claim the others have done. In the one paragraph I clipped from your post, you make snide comments, throw around ad hominem attacks, and generally say nothing.
Thanks for your input
as any other science.
I suppose if that were possible it would have been done already. What sort of hypothesis would have to be proven true for you to accept it? According to the author's own definition of modern science supernatural explanations are not allowed. So how do you prove the existence of a supernatural being when supernatural explanations are not allowed, again, by definition.
Nobody's trying to say that your god doesn't exist because of science. Science has nothing to do with whether you believe in your god if that is what your faith calls for. I don't hate religion, i just don't see it as a necessary part of my life's fulfillment. I do not need religion to explain life to me.
I believe that God makes the sun rise and set. I believe that gravity is how He did it.
I believe that God created humanity. I believe that evolution is how He did it.
I agree with you there. However, why do so many people use science as an excuse not to believe in God, because He cannot be scientifically proven to exist?
Great!!
Does this mean that we will no longer hear from the deviants with the hidden agenda, way too much time on their hands, continuing to beat the dead horse which should be pretty much mush by now...?
I wish...
I wont go on a tirade against science like you have against religion as I feel I am above that. Can you possibly humble yourself and do the same?
I don't see how those that must use science to prove or disprove anything before they can believe it will never agree totally with those who have faith in the Lord. You can use all the high dollar terms you like. Call me what you like. I KNOW that the Lord made me in his image. I do not need some "intellectual" to explain to me how it was done.
What "explains life" to you?
Oh yes they are, one is jlogajan in his "brainless" comments. Now I wont honor such talk because I know it doesnt add anything to a discussion.
Religion isnt necessary for a fullfilled life. Jesus is (in my opinion).
Exactly the point.
Untestable and unprovable hypotheses do not meet the grade for "science." Science does not speak to the existence or nonexistence of God.
"Creation Scientists" and "Intelligent Design" adherents have one major problem that they cannot overcome: in order for them to claim scientific rigor, they have to bring God into the arena of science, and God most assuredly does NOT fit under the microscope lens.
As I said earlier: I believe that God created evolution to suit HIS ends. I also believe that God works very subtly; if He were to leave His fingerprints all over the place, we would not have a real choice on whether or not to believe, and I believe that He gave us free will (again, for His reasons).
It would be as if there was an elephant in your bedroom. You COULD deny that the elephant was there, but you'd get increasingly hard-pressed to explain why the bedroom had gotten so doggone crowded...
Anyway, if you used to have faith in a Creator, it wasn't the size of a mustard seed (if you were so easily removed from it). Now you have faith the size of a pumpkin in evolution.
Weren't you one of those who have said that the Bible was written by "sheepherders?"
That nothing has a purpose insomuch as I don't buy into the "God wanted another angel with Him" B.S. that I often hear when I loved one dies. Life is unpredictable and the bumps aren't challenges that someone puts in front of you so that you can become stronger, have your faith renewed, etc. They're there because those are the breaks.
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.