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.
Did you know that ancient Egyptians had marriage and divorce, that women were not property but could divorce their husbands as well. There were democracies in ancient Greece, etc. Scholars pre-existed Christianity.
One might say that humans behave in certain ways due to their evolutionary social nature and that some institutions form naturally, such as cooperative enterprises. Each religion is glad to claim credit for inventing these things, but alas, it is unlikely. They merely borrowed heavily from past behaviors. As they say, there is nothing new under the sun.
But there would be an unpleasant surprise if the world's tens of millions of Christians just happened to be right about some things!
I calls 'em, "Liars for Ch...", oh never mind. :-)
And more surprises still if the Athenians are right!
Funny thing is that evolutionists never say what the theory of evolution is. However, whenever they hear something that seemingly refutes their theory, they always say that is not what evolution is. Reminds me of a person I knew who said she spoke ten different languages. However, each time someone asked her if she could speak this or that language she always said no. Only language I ever heard her speech was English. The evolutinists are pulling the same trick - they fail to say what their theory is and then they tell people that is not what evolution is about. Even the article does not say what the theory of evolution is even though it says that the claims of anti-evolutionists do not refute it!
Clearly, evolutionists are very well aware that their silly theory is in deep doodoo and they are totally unwilling to state it for fear of being loudly laughed at.
Well, first of all, Physicist, the universe has an awful lot of stuff that looks less than perfect (broken electro-weak symmetries, as an example). But as to people, most religious people believe that God gave people free will. Along with the free will came the possibility of doing bad things, of evil. The whole point of God's intercessions, for Christians (and in particular, sending us Christ), is to help people get back on track, and to convince, cajole and push them to reject evil and to embrace goodness. (As per the Lord's prayer... "and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil...)
Yes, JediGirl, but how do you KNOW that? What if God's way actually can provide more happiness and fulfillment over time?
I apologize for nothing. I simply point out the difference between the two 'at the end of the day.' If that threatened you out of your comfort zone and caused you to go into attack mode, then that's your problem.
As far as my Biblical/Christian perspective against evolution, I believe that I only mentioned the Flood theory for sediment and fossil structure. This is just a theory, though it is used by some evolutionist. Yes the story can be found in the Bible, as well as many other cultures. It also has it's own scientific merits as far a theories go. I am not quoting scripture, as scripture is not the basis of my argument. I only want to show that Macroevolution is not scientifically proven. If someone tells you it is fact they are lying are ill-informed or are stupid.
I suggested no such thing. Please, point out where I did so I may clear up your confusion.
I suppose, if you still wish to remain delusional. I was trying to make some logical sense out of your claim of contentment. But I stand corrected, you are still delusional. Forgive me for distorting your words into sense. I have learned my lesson. You are adamant in your error.
(supposing you don't mean people from Athens)Besides you, who is the other?
Relevance?
Right! Rightness and wrongness can only come from something higher (unless they are totally arbitrary). That's one reason many people believe in God.
Many infer such knowledge.
But there would be an unpleasant surprise if the world's tens of millions of Buddhists just happened to be right about some things!
So, with that in mind, what is the value of pi to five decimal places?
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.