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.
I'm telling you what we observe -- we observe consistency to the laws of phyics. Violations of physical laws are very disconcerting -- in fact they aren't known to happen, except as theories have been updated. There are no know cases of violation of conservation of momentum, for instance. This is from the largest galaxy super clusters to the smallest subatomic particle.
Science is systematized observation of reality and model formation test against observation. Our observations continue to show that reality follows particular laws without fail -- physical laws, chemical laws, etc.
If there is divine intervention, it is through these familiar forms. Hence, through the process of evolution and not just spontaneous creation of species out of the nothingness. There is no evidence for that, but there is plenty of evidence for an evolutionary emergence.
Very true. In fact 150 years after Darwin, they are even farther from proving their theory than back then. If one reads Darwin, one must be struck by how many times he asks us to believe in evolution, how many times he tells us that the proof will be seen in the future. One also needs to notice how the whole of his works are just a jumble of factoids in no way attempting to give a complete explanation of any of the propositions made in it.
And that He has systematically deceived us since Day One.
Sorry, that may be YOUR God, but that isn't MY God.
Because it fits nicely with the observed evidence. Unfortunately, Biblical creation and even ID do not. If you have something better than evolution to explain the evidence then you are going to be famous, and relatively well off (the Nobel Prize has quite a bit of money attached to it).
Not possible. New religions crop up every day. Many old religions have died out and left no record. We know a bit about ancient Egyptian Sun god worship, but not a lot. Various tribes of humans roamed widely in small groups, each developing their religious theories. Most of those are long lost. We see today a few of those that caught on and survived into the modern era. Pagans were largely wiped out in Europe, and so today we have neo-paganism, an emerging new religion. But there are many others, many variants. A lot of new-age stuff.
Surely a rhetorical question...
Because we were made in the image of God?
That is merely your speculation, since that hasn't occurred. It reflect your belief, not anyone else's. Sorry.
And both your arguments and Patrick's were refuted in the respective threads. Of course neither you nor any evolutionist was able to answer the refutations. And you are right, they were silly arguments. Why don't you post them here so we can all have a good laugh again.
But nobody here is arguing for that theory of evolution. We're arguing for this theory of evolution, and there's no way you can deny that it's falsifiable.
You might as well complain that there was no point in falsifying Ptolemaic astronomy, because the science of astronomy still exists. Science is under no requirement to be falsifiable to the point of complete eradication.
My first reponse, post 72, was to something injected into the discussion. My next two, 78 and 84 addressed the article. I am waiting. As I wait I am pointing out the hypocrisies in some of the posts. The one to which you responded is in agreement with what I pointed out on Friday. It is ironic, that the person in agreement with me is the focus of my first post on this thread.
In order to believe that evolutionism is the correct way to explain "life", you have to take at face value that the earth was created from all new matter. If this is the case, then how do you explain the law that matter cannot be created or destroyed.
My personal belief is that the matter that created the earth is much older than the earth itself. I also believe that one day in the near future, carbon dating will be deemed inaccurate and irrelevent.
God only reveals to man, the knowledge that they are ready to handle. In the end, I believe that the evolutionists will have to admit defeat and failure and through scientific evidence creationism will no longer be a theory but will be accepted as fact.
If you wish to go into theological discussion, possibly. It is evidence of free-will.
see your post #156 from which I have excerpted the following snide and ad hominem attack " Here is someone whose IQ probably doesn't top 110, but who wishes so desperately to be regarded as an intellectual that he clings to the pant leg of those he regards as 'free thinkers'". If a comment about his IQ (a topic about which you know zilch) is not ad hominem to you, then I submit you should not be using the terms when you have no idea what they mean. Oh, and the pant leg comment is clearly snide by anyone's definition.
You should take your tactics to the DU, where no inconsistency is too large to be noticed...around here, you have to have at least a shred of consistency in order to be taken seriously, a test you have certainly failed today.
'Why are there still monkeys? and 'Why are there still bacteria?' address different issues. In answer to the first question, there is no claim that the common ancestor of humans and monkeys is extant, unchanged from the time of divergence. There are species, however, which have remained largely unchanged for billions of years. And why is that? The simple answer is success of the species in many different niches. Bacteria, however, are not genetically isolated and extensive lateral transfer of DNA, speaks against genetic insulation required for an unchanging species.
So, the answer to the second question, in fact, is more complex and the question not ridiculous.
You are really blind.
That is interesting. So then is the fossil record what it is or what evolutionists want it to be?
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.