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.
Again, jlogajan, you are wading into areas with which you may not be familiar. Yes, many sins described in the Old Testament of the Bible prescribed death as a punishment. Homosexual conduct was one of them; adultery was another; incest was another. Christians believe that God chose a people a long time ago (the Jews), into whom to pound a moral code. The pounding process was long and hard, and people resisted (though those that did not led, on average, far happier and better lives). Christians further believe that God sent Christ to this earth to establish a new and everlasting covenant between Him and us earthlings. Under this covenant, sins were to be forgiven (with true repentance). Homosexuality (the conduct, that is) is still a sin for Christians, but no longer punishable by death. Just as the adulteress in the New Testament was forgiven by Jesus with an admonishment to sin no more.
Then He'd better do something to distinguish them from the Earthly cacophony of irreconcilable directives, all purporting to be the Will of God.
In other words, what if your principles are irrelevant to Him?
Then I'll just have to look Him in they eye and make my best case for them.
The above is an example of the silly little games that evolutionists play to "refute" opponents. This one is called putting words in people's mouth which they never said.
The correct position enunciated by the anti-evolutionists is that natural selection can only eliminate traits and that mutations are almost invariably detrimental to an organism.
As to the truth of the anti-evolutionist's statement, it is obviously true. Selection cannot be the source of genetic change. It only destroys species and individuals, it does not create anything. For creating things the evolutionists must therefore rely on mutations. While mutations do occur, no mutation has ever been observed that is little more than a small adaptation of the existing organism. It is in no way close to the transformations required to turn a bacteria into a man. While evolutionists for example, make ado about viri and bacteria being able to become immune to certain medicines, the change required for it is abysmally small. Medicines are made to be quite specific against a certain offensive agent and a slight change of shape of the offending organism will make the medicine useless. So a single point mutation can achieve this immunity to medicines and is nowhere close to the requirements of evolution to create new genes, new faculties, new organs, new traits. It is the creation of these new genes, new faculties, new organs, new traits through mutation which the anti-evolutionists say is impossible and no one has been able to give scientific evidence against it.
...must...not...comment...must...not...comment...
You are confusing evolution with atheism. They're totally different. A person can be either one or both or neither.
Difference is between falling systems and Mutations of Genome.Science has now quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.0000001%) of an animal's genome is relentlessly fatal.The genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6% Calculated out that is a gap of at least 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random changes. And a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal. Geneticist Barney Maddox, 1992 )
That would keep me from being an evo but, near as I can tell, evos are pretty much immune to logic. You need to try to frame arguments like that in language simple enough for their little minds to grasp. The way Alexander Mebane put it was to compare the situation to that of the coyote who comes to the 2000' straight drop of the Grand Canyon and decides to make it across the 20 mile gap to the other side in 3' steps. Maybe if you can get evos to watch RoadRunner cartoons long enough it will sink in...
As the very word "evolution" implies, the theory is strictly about the development, and not at all about the causation. People who say, "life evolved, but God breathed the first spark of life into the dead clay" are considered by both sides to be evolutionists.
No, but many conservative principles, and many conservative social positions are rooted in Judeo-Christian morality (in this country, anyway).
Crybabies!
I do believe this is classic ad hominem as it doesn't explain the fossil record nor explain who created the creator.
Right. Which is why liberals, as an example, see nothing wrong (or so they say publicly) with killing a perfectly formed baby 2 seconds before it leaves the birth canal.
I agree, although my interest in the Bible and its history may be for different reasons that yours. It's my understanding that many of the texts were eliminated primarily because their provenance and authenticity were somewhat suspect - e.g., there's a Gospel according to Mary Magdalene that pretty clearly falls into this category. Thomas is different, IMO - with the unearthing of the Nag Hammadi scrolls in the Dead Sea, and with Egyptian Coptic versions of it in existence from very early on, it can be pretty reliably dated to at least 120-150 AD, which puts it at the tail end of when the traditional Gospels are thought to have been recorded. That is to say, the provenance and authenticity of the Gospel of Thomas is at least as good as it is for the other Gospels that are accepted as part of the canon.
However, the Gospel of Thomas is...uncomfortable for other reasons, not least of which is its essentially gnostic (not Gnostic in the heretical sense, though) outlook, wherein it is suggested that churches and religions and such are not the way to come to know Jesus and God, but rather that God exists within everyone and everything - Heaven is not a place where you go after you die, it's a place that you find with in yourself, and a place that can be realized on earth. When you're forming a church and a religious authority, words purporting to be from Jesus suggesting that churches and religious authorities are not the way to find God can be something of a hindrance ;)
Which is a shame, if for no other reason than because some of the language in Thomas is deeply and lyrically beautiful, IMO - dropping it from the canon has removed it from the view of people, which was, of course, the point of dropping it. But still, whether you accept it as the sayings of Jesus or not, it's well worth reading...
Has he speculated on your IQ yet? He give me a 110! Boy does not know how to insult. You've got to at least go for "room temperature" or maybe "single digit."
Amazing - you're distorting my words. Gosh dang, never thought I'd see that from the C side...
That's a pretty good way of putting it. You have to step outside the traditional mode of thinking, certainly.
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.