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.
Ahhhh. Yeah! (Can you say "non sequitur?")
So then what? You can start charging fees? I expect you have your shingle ready.
420 posted on 6/17/02 11:09 AM Pacific by PatrickHenry
Evolution, being an ideology...a psuedo-science, requires no faith/brains---intelligence at all, just fantasy/fabrication--observation of non-existant data and the application of made up/rationalization/ego/vanity/pride---reason/BIAS.
On second thought, it is obviously so you can justify all your previous Ad Hominem.
Depends on what you mean by "lawyering" - fallacies of ambiguity are a fairly common lawyer's game. Also see fallacies of presumption...
To know that would require knowing His purpose, and that's way beyond my scope.
Yes, but the question is how did all those things arise from your mathematical God?
To discover that is the most sacred task of mankind, IMHO. It has been my privilege to spend my life helping to elucidate a tiny (but crucial) piece of that puzzle.
If making mistakes is proof of the other guy's position, how about famous author Jonathan Wells claiming that the experiment produced mutant shrimp? The excuse: the initial press release on the experiment was vague and it was necessary to get out a response the same day, Clinton-War-Room style.
Evidence has been posted, you ignore it.
If you mean the followup article from Wells's group, it's so full of AndrewC-style arguments as to be practically gibberish to anyone not already familiar with most details. Lots of Tah-dah!s on irrelevant, nitpicky points. Lots of squirmy misdirection and deliberate confusion. I leave the confirmation to the lurker.
Evidence is what caused you to change from mesonychus to pakicetus. Pakicetus is hanging on by a thread. When they find the Hippo/whale link you can kiss him goodbye as a whale. What will they call him then? Pakihoaxus?
Your fantasies are not evidence. And explain to your creationist cohorts, if you will, what you mean by this "Hippo/whale link" you expect to show up. I'm sure gore and cowboy and Heartlander and Sublunar Kid and everyone else would be fascinated. Wouldn't such a thing be evidence for evolution?
Atheists can feel comfortable if they choose to make themselves number one. Christians cannot.
Ahhh, I'm not sure you really want to go there. The early Christians did things to the pagans that were at least as despicable as the Mohammedans did and are doing to their competitors:
It was not just the Christian emperors and lay Christians who persecuted the pagans. Their theologians and prominent ecclesiastics joined in the orgy of hatred. One such example is St. Ambrose (c339-397), Bishop of Milan. When Gratian (359-383) became Roman emperor in 375, Ambrose, who was one of his educators, persuaded him to further suppress paganism. The emperor willingly obliged: he confiscated the properties of the pagan temples; seized the properties of the vestal virgins and the pagan priests, and removed the statue of the Goddess of Victory from the Roman Senate. [2]
When Gratian delegated the government of the eastern half of the empire to Theodosius (c346-395) in 379, the situation became worse for the pagans. Theodosius prohibited all forms of pagan worship and permitted the temples to be robbed, plundered and destroyed by "monks and other enterprising Christians." [3]
A good example of how the early Christians treated the pagans is the case of the philosopher Hypathia of Alexandria. Hypathia was the daughter of the mathematician Theon. She was certainly one of the most learned individual of her time. She taught and elucidated Greek mathematics and philosophy. She lectured widely in Athens and Alexandria. But her popularity and her intelligence, coupled with her lack of interest in Christianity, irritated the Patriarch of Alexandria, Cyril (d.444). Acting in the interest of their patriarch, the Alexandrian monks murdered Hypathia in the year 415. [4] The cruelty of the method of her murder can be seen by the description of it by Gibbon:
[modesty prevents me from posting the gory details in a family forum. Those of you with strong stomachs can click the link -jp]
It should be mentioned that, for his relentless defence of orthodoxy and, as an obvious corollary, his zealous destruction of heretics and infidels (such as Hypathia), Cyril is considered a saint by the Christian church.
In the year 416, a law was passed to bar pagans from public employment. [6] All this was done to coerce pagans to convert to Christianity. Paganism therefore disappeared from the world for two reasons: the relentless persecution by Christians and the assimilation of pagan ideas into Christianity. [a]
Thank you for your post.
I cannot imagine how this post responds to anything I said or helps you in any way establish the truth of creation.
A good and fair answer. Also, still waiting to here how your machine will find rolled up dimensions. I have a degree in physics and AM interested!
Well, instead of eventually, say an infinite amount of time. FAPP, it will never happen.
In Economics, this is called "Communism". Remember Communists? They were always railing against the "anarchy of the marketplace" in favor of rational design of industries & economies by highly trained soviets armed with 5-year plans. They were convinced that this ID approach would create lasting prosperity the likes of which... anarchistic, evolutionary Capitalism---could never hope to approach.
12 posted on 6/7/02 12:24 PM Pacific by jennyp
Capitalism/science/history via evolution!
Looney logic...history---political science too!
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.