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.
Most moral codes (especially the Christian one) have much that does not pertain to self-preservation. In fact, Christianity teaches us to love our enemies. That idea is certainly NOT consonant with self-preservation (or with evolution, either).
Fair enough. I'm interested in Dawkins's writings on evolution myself, but when he starts drawing the conclusion that, as a result, God doesn't exist, he can leave me at the platform and steam ahead without me - God may or may not exist, but evolution certainly doesn't prove it one way or the other ;)
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.
Sure. There's a thread about that very thing going right now, although I haven't checked it out myself. I'm not particularly impressed with the evidence for a literal global flood, but opinions will vary ;)
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.
Well, I don't know about that. It all depends on what you consider "proven", don't you think? In one sense, it will never be conclusively proven true, but most things in life never are proven conclusively true. It all depends on how convincing you find the evidence, really.
Perhaps that's because every evolutionist I've ever met (my own personal experience) has been an atheist. If there truly is a difference between the two, please explain it. True evolutionists flat-out reject a supreme being having anything to do with life on earth. Evolutionists (who really do require a leap of faith to believe what they say is true) point to a set of circumstances that "just so happened" to create life on this planet, and brush off the billions and billions of other possibilities that COULD HAVE happened without life being created. (Can you say "intelligent design" or at a minimum "intelligent intent?")
It seems to me that believing in evolution requires just as much "faith" (for lack of a better way of saying it) as believing in God does. Oh the irony in that statement.
Even Darwin at the end of his own life, had serious doubts about his own theories of evolution. Carbon dating has been shown to be terribly flawed, that is fact. The same process has been proven to date a pencil that was manufactured last week to be as old as a dinosaur that allegedly roamed the earth 65 million years ago.
A very good point.
So you say. The record speaks for itself, I think. And there I really will leave it now, barring something egregiously stupid or slanderous in response....
Good question!
You would have to be willfully blind and foolish to trade in all the wisdom and truth in the Bible because you are concerned about the value of pi to five places!
Not a tough call for most of us, but I guess you have not seen you fair share of fools who have been wrong, all of their lives. Some of us are not fooled by "intellectual idiots".
Such as? Would leading a Christian life presuppose one to bad surprises if Buddhism were true? I don't see how.
Most Christians are so because they are indelibly attracted to the radical and enormously brilliant goodness laid out by Christ and by God. I don't think following Christian principles could be possibly likened to (truthfully!) going over a cliff. On the other hand, I've seen many go over cliffs for not following Christian principles.
Please do not draw any conclusions about what I believe about the Bible.
The specific claim that I was addressing is that the Bible is without error. If there is ANY error in it ANYWHERE, in ANY detail at all, that claim is false.
The Bible is God's revelation of Himself to us. It is not a science textbook.
Now, do you accept the value of pi as determined by men measuring it, or do you take the Bible's value because the Bible is completely without error?
If you claim Scripture as your authority for believing in young-earth creationism, based on its supposed inerrancy, then you cannot contradict the Bible's valuation of pi.
Awaiting your decision here...
Well, an awful lot of people seem strongly attracted (of their own free will) to Christ. I would infer that there is more truth (and more of value) residing there than with the Athenians.
Is the relation among horses, donkeys, the two species of zebra, etc, micro-evolution, macro-evolution, separate creation, or what?
Well, show me someone who presented a Christian morality and who preceded Christ.
Right. Most conservatives oppose abortion. Such is rooted in this Judeo-Christian belief. Most conservatives were opposed to having an adulterer president. Such is rooted in another of the 10 Commandments. Private property rights are rooted in the commandment that forbids us to covet another's property, and so forth.
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances. -article part 2 -
The problem with the above is that it has been proven to be a lie. First of all, the famous 'Darwin Finches' are not really separate species, they can and do interbreed with each other, produce viable offspring, and those offspring produce viable offspring also. Therefore, these finches are not different species. The differences that we do see amongst them are due to environmental differences in the islands they inhabit. These finches have adapted themselves to the situation in these islands - from the genome pool they all share (they are an interbreeding species). Further, the changes in beak size are not additive. In fact the same species changes its beak size making it larger and smaller to conform with current environmental conditions. The particular environmental change that affects the beak size is the amount of rainfall. When there is lots of rainfall, the seeds to be eaten are larger and therefore larger beaks are more useful. When rainfall is little, smaller beaks are more useful. The same species have been observed growing larger beaks in heavy rainfall times, and smaller ones when rainfall was scarce. This was observed to happen back and forth in less than a decade. Certainly too short a time for mutation/evolution to have made any effect. What is even more important is that the species themselves changed back and forth from large beaks to small and back again. Clearly it is ludicrous to think that there was genetic change back and forth in such a short time. It is also ludicrous to use as examples of evolution birds which have had in total ZERO change in their genome and visible traits. In fact, it is not ridiculous, it is a blatant lie like just about everything else in this article.
The birth of the universe may have been the effect of a cause, within a greater universe than ours.
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.