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.
Why would you do that?
No, evolution is chance mutation and natural selection. Mutation can produce variations in abilities. Competition can sort out variations -- who gets the food, who gets the mate, who avoids being eaten before he can reproduce.
Perhaps someone will frighten me into it someday with their stories about "lakes of fire" and the like. I suspect that almost all faith is ultimately born of fear.
Good answer. I especially liked this part, too:
It is assuming that scientists, like the religious leaders of old, are both infallible and have the ability to rule the rest of us.
Who will rule us? Truth be told, this is what it's all about. Power to shape our laws, our culture, and even the moral fiber of the world, this is what the fundamentalist evolutionists are after. In other words, they want a world of their own creation.
Typical evolutionist rant - beating up on non-existent strawmen. Most scientists believe in God and they do not consider their profession inimical to their religion.
Further, it must be added, that evolution is the anti-science. Science is about discovering the truth, evolution is about discovering justifications for its theory. Science is undirected, evolution tries to direct science for an ideological purpose.
It has been my considerable (multi-decade) experience arguing with religionists that it is indeed fear at the base of their faith. They talk love on the surface, but fear eternal hell and vengence most of all.
My point was that both exist. There is no need to reject one for the other. I am an ardent fan of science. But I am also realistic enough to know it doesn't come close to explaining our natural history yet.
Mind-reading is one of your occupations huh? I have no fear of what you speak. Love is sometimes very difficult to display especially when the object is so vehemently dislikeable. The fact that even under those circumstances love does shine forth is evidence for what you do not see. I would write God bless you to you, but I will show love and not.
Proclaiming anyone who has a faith in a greater being is not using their brain makes it apparent that you have no standing in that remark.
So you believe that we should kill homosexuals, that slavery is okay, that you shouldn't wear clothing of mixed threads, that women are "unclean" every month, etc. These are all in the Bible.
Your statement here mirrors my thoughts on this as far as FR is concerned.
The number of those who believe in evolution here is a fraction of one percent (not all evolutionists are atheists, however). So this in my mind begs the question: What is the purpose of the continuous posting of evolution threads amongst the supermajority of those who do believe in a Creator?
In my opinion, it is nothing but a mechanism to stir up trouble and put their thumb in the eye of the believer. These threads have absolutely nothing to do with conservatism, and if you would notice, the evo/crevo threads only have a handful of posters who delight in this type of thread and nothing else. I say evolution is nothing more than a theory and those who believe in it (at least the atheistic believers) must convince themselves daily that there is no God. If their "science" proves that there is no God, why get in a twist over the subject?
JimRob permits it, so my opinion of the threads being here is moot. However, the real motives behind these things are obvious.
Carry on, everybody. I could use some good laughs from time to time, and these threads never fail to provide those laughs.
To think we're at the apex right now and everything that doesn't fit the current mold must be false is a ludicrous idea. Reminds me of the fact that they once closed down the U.S. Patent Office because they thought every possible invention had already been created.
A question which I never hear evolutionists answer is why if evolution goes on all the time, if evolution occurs because species must adapt to survive, why are amoebas, such simple creatures, still around after some billion years? Why if evolution goes on all the time, these creatures remain simple and unchanged?
Wow...you really dont have a clue about Christianity do you? You are so far gone you think we hate homosexuals. We love them but hate their sin. BIG difference in your imaginary world of what you want Christianity to be. Maybe you should attend my church? And please show me where God tells me to murder homosexuals as opposed to a story of morality and Gods justice on those who turn from him after chance after chance to repent.
He certainly denies the Bible specifically. He denies that God is the Creator of man. Darwin was also an atheist and toyed around with the idea of also saying that God did not create life. However, he found trying to prove such as too hard so he left it up to others to make the conclusion. It should be noted that of the outspoken spokesmen for evolution there is not a single religionist. They are all (or were, many are dead already) atheists.
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.