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 human beings become attached to eachother. And it becomes normal once you've been around someone for such a long time to lose them and have your life's normal pattern interrupted. It takes getting used to.
i would say the efficacy of liberalism/statism is a good example of this. the preponderance of evidence that statism/liberalism is unefficacious to such an extent that even the russkys and eastern bloc nations abandoned it. yet today, morons here cry out for it as the answer.
Sure it can. If, for instance, we saw a species zap into existence ex nihilo (which is what creationists believe), that would be a falsification.
Did Weinberg change his mind again?
Out of order fossil layers would be totally unreconcilable with a naturalist explanation. Since fossil layers are all found in the correct ascending order, the naturalistic explanation remains persuasive.
If you believe this, then you don't understand the theory. The genetic interrelatedness of the world's life forms reflects in exquisite detail the development of life as revealed by the fossil record. If these disagreed, it would surely falsify evolution.
Then why should they ever kill each other?
Actually, it is the opposite. Man is being called upon to do that which he naturally does not want to do -- turn against the tyrant of sin (and even its religious works) and deliver himself from it through Jesus Christ.
The passion of Christ was to deliver men from the tyrant of sin through His own death and resurrection. It was for love's sake, remember? (John 3:16)
Those who do not receive Christ, as those who cried, "Give us Barabbas," are supporters and endorsers of a cruel, seditious, thieving, murderous tyrant -- sin. So, for not receiving Christ, they are "condemned already." And whether they know it or not, yes, they have good reason to fear. (I cannot sugar coat it -- God is righteous, and just, and holy, and must judge.)
The solution is so simple -- invite Jesus Christ into your heart to save you. It is the truly merciful, loving and right thing to do. And all it takes is asking.
Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name[.]
"Zecharia Sitchin's best-selling series The Earth Chronicles provided humanity's side of the story-as recorded on ancient clay tablets and other Sumerian artifacts-concerning our origins at the hands of the Anunnaki, those who from heaven to earth came. We can discuss this era, of their colonization: gold to replenish the dying atmosphere of their own planet. Finding this precious metal results in the Anunnaki creation of homo sapiens-the human race-who will mine this important resource.
In his complete works to date, Sitchin has compiled the complete story of the Anunnaki's impact on human culture from the fragments scattered throughout Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Hittite, Egyptian, and Canaanite sources-all ancient civilizations that benefited from knowledge brought to earth by these visitors from the 12th planet. Missing from these accounts, however, was the perspective of the Anunnaki themselves. What was life like on their own planet? What motives propelled them to settle on Earth-and what drove them from their new home? Convinced of the existence of a now lost book that formed the basis of ancient Sumerian texts and held the answers to these questions, the author began his search for evidence resulting in his latest "Lost Book of Enki". Through exhaustive research of primary sources, he has re-created here the memoirs of Enki, the leader of these first "astronauts." What takes shape is the story of a world of mounting tensions, deep rivalries, and sophisticated scientific knowledge that is only today being confirmed. An epic tale of gods and men unfolds, challenging every assumption we hold about our creation, our ancient history, and our culture."
About the Author
An eminent archeologist and linguist, Zecharia Sitchin is one of the few scholars able to translate ancient Sumerian as well as a host of other modern and ancient languages. He is a graduate of the University of London and worked as a journalist and editor in Israel for many years. He now lives and
Amen, brother!
Take a time machine back to day six with a doctor and a geologist, and a biologist.
The doctor says Adam's thirty years old, the biologist cuts down a big tree and says it's a hundred years old, the geologist picks up some rock and says it's a million years old.
JUST LIKE ME WHEN I WAS BORN AGAIN, I HAD NEW BIRTH DNA, GOD'S DNA PUT IN ME
BUT I DIDN'T LOOK "NEW"
Seven days before the time machine arrives, there was nothing, nothing anywhere.
Six days later it was all there, with visible indications there was a past.
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.