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.
But an infinite amount of time is what it takes with one monkey. (An infinitely long-lived one, that is.)
The trouble with this (or at least, where it looks like you're about to go with this), is that your mother was right about that kind of argument. Essentially, the appeal to numbers is a form of an appeal to emotion - the argument that "everyone's doing it" didn't carry much weight with your mom, who undoubtedly went right to the mom playbook and asked you what you would do if everyone jumped off a bridge... ;)
More seriously, the fact that lots of people are doing it is not necessarily an indication of the rightness or wrongness of that thing. One of my philosophy professors once memorably labeled this sort of argument as the "eat sh*t" argument, since the form was identical to saying "Why not eat sh*t - after all, a hundred billion flies can't be wrong" ;)
ROFL............the hubris of some people just positively floors me.
People will go to any lengths to limit the power of God. The theory of Creationism is a prime example. Creationist are saying that God does not have the ability to create a universe by means of evolution.
What part of "omnipotent" do you not understand?
Argue with him. You say he made a mistake. I've posted what I care on the subject, enough for you to admit what actually happened.
Whale/Hippo is easy
“The graduate student asked: “Hundreds of thousands of scientists can’t be wrong, can they?” This question may be addressed as follows. First, any argument based on “counting heads” is fallacious. Philosophy professors instruct their students on various fallacies of human thought, one of which is the “fallacy of consensus.” In his book, Fundamentals of Critical Thinking, atheistic philosopher Paul Ricci discussed the “argument from consensus,” and explained its erroneous nature (1986, p. 175). Interestingly, however, in the pages prior to his discussion, Mr. Ricci offered the following as proof of evolution: “The reliability of evolution not only as a theory but as a principle of understanding is not contested by the vast majority of biologists, geologists, astronomers, and other scientists” (1986, p. 172, emp. added).
“Mr. Ricci fell victim to the very fallacy about which he tried to warn his readers—truth is not determined by popular opinion or majority vote.
“Often, scientific successes have occurred because researchers rebelled against the status quo. Sometimes consensual validation must be set aside for the sake of truth. If it is not, those of us who work in science shall become little more than cookie-cutter scientists rushing to fit into a predetermined mold. Nor should we believe that “science” provides the answer to every conceivable question.
To treat science as a secular substitute for God is not only naive, it is idolatry.... Science and technology are the activities of imperfect people. The tendencies to misuse and exploit for personal gain operate here as in every other department of life. But the answer to abuse is not disuse, but responsible use (Poole, 1990, p. 126).
Sorry to disagree with you, but an infinite amount of monkeys will produce all of the works ever written by man or will be written by man(assuming a finite man) in the time it takes to type the longest tome.
Now give a prediction in ID logic.
Either way, it's not a substitute for your own critical thinking faculties - one must be prepared to examine the evidence in order to arrive at one's own conclusions. Simply relying on what "four out of five dentists" think is not an acceptable reason to set aside your own powers of reason, although it can certainly be a piece of the puzzle that assists you to arrive at a conclusion.
I'll humor you. Same prediction, but not accidental.
Following or not following the tenets of their faith isn't the issue. You think people no longer worship Athena, etc., because they made some kind of rational decision. But history shows it's because the Christians murdered their priests, priestesses, philosophers, etc. as soon as they had the power of the State at their command. In other words, they persecuted them even worse than they were persecuted in the previous century. (A Christian in pre-Constantine Rome could legally stay a Christian as long as they rendered a yearly tax unto Caesar's gods like every other Roman citizen and didn't make waves with their proseltyzing. But Constantine's successors murdered the non-Christian intelligencia.)
In other words, people no longer worship Athena for the exact same reason why the people along the Northern coast of Africa no longer worship Christ.
No Christian ever did this. Ever.
You judge by appearances. That is where you fail.
Arrived at how? Why predict missing links? Need they have existed? If yes, why? If no, how do you know when to predict them?
Not much. I left the RC Church a long time ago on my own search for truth. I don't think I'm really qualified to comment on it, any more than I am qulified to comment on the spirituality felt by Shintoists - neither one speaks to me personally, so I will have to rely on others to share their experiences in my stead.
In any case, the principle still applies - I assume you are a Christian, and confident in your belief and what you feel. Would your beliefs change if you found that you were the only Christian left on earth tomorrow? Or would you be swayed by the fact that everyone else was a firm believer in something else - say, Hinduism?
I tend to think you probably wouldn't change your beliefs simply to go with the flow - I think you would realize that the truth is not contingent upon how many people vote for it, in effect ;)
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.