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.
As you might gather from my last post, it's because their ancestors at some point were forced to believe at spearpoint.
I'll heartily concede that Christianity is "better for you" than Islam, and many people do make a more-or-less informed decision about which belief system to accept or reject. And both these religions have converted specific peoples, at one time or another in their histories, more thru evangelism than thru force alone.
But the sad fact is that historically both of these huge religions acheived their impressive growth thru State-sanctioned oppression.
(Nice try.)
Take Darwin, substitute cellular engineering for random mutation and substitute cellular engineering and natural culling for natural selection. Stir, use brain, and proceed. Any other questions, wait for the book, "The Death of Darwin". Coming soon.
If I were the only human being still alive tomorrow, would my perception of the color green be invalid because there remained no other human being alive to discern the color green?
Would the color green lose its "greenness" if I were then also to die?
Nope. Just an also ran. He could remain a mesonychus nephew for all it matters.
You don't think all the human sacrafice, cannibalism, headhunting, and debauchery and what not had anything to do with the demise of paganism??
I mean, you can read about pagan rituals in the old testament till the cows come home and it's all the same and, if anything, they'd gotten worse by Christian times. Consider:
I mean, what kind of a rotten SOB is gonna burn his kids alive for the benefit of some stupid stone or wooden idol? Better yet, how is somebody doing that kind of #### gonna be worse off for being converted to Christianity?
Model evolution precisely, replace the words "mutation and natural selection" with "this generation's separate, distinct, and slightly improved version from the Designer" and voila! If anyone asks what your theory explains better, say, "It explains all future observations better!"
If anyone asks what it explains less well, say, "Extinctions."
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.
No Christian ever did this. Ever.
You judge by appearances. That is where you fail.
Ah, I see: A Christian is defined as someone who does two things:
That is an airtight definition there, Kevin! :-)
You can substantiate this shocking bit of news? What replaced Paki as the most likely common ancestor of whales and hippos circa 55 mya? Show me the article.
And it's still true that whales didn't used to have walking and amphibious ancestors. Evolution predicted them. They turned up.
| 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 |
Unlike evolutionists, I can be objective and look to objective science as well as common sense to know that God created all we see and don't see. An evolutionist can't get beyond him/herself and don't believe in God. An atheist could NEVER accept that there is a God and that they inspite of their NUMEROUS hoaxes still can't find the "missing Link". They never will because it doesn't exist. I find it amusing. It's like watching a dog going around in circles chasing its tail. Their logic, if you can all it that, is also circular and defies the very laws of science that they worship. Evolution is good for a few laughs but this thread has me laughing even harder at the lengths an evolutionist will go to villify truth and how the idea of God, scares the crap out of em.
LOL to evolutionists! They are the most illogical emotional people you'll ever meet.
You're dodging the question. Cite the true definition--not the one you made up.
“When its empirical resources are exhausted, science itself closes the door to naturalistic explanation. -William A. Dembski
Once ID is let in to biology we can use it, as any other design theory, to make predictions:
Variability Problem -- What degree of perturbation allows continued functioning? Alternatively, what is the range of variability within which the designed object functions and outside of which it breaks down?
Restoration Problem -- Once perturbed, how can the original design be recovered? Art restorers, textual critics, and archeologists know all about this.
Optimality Problem -- In what sense is the designed object optimal?
Separation of Causes Problem -- How does one tease apart the effects of intelligent causes from natural causes, both of which could have affected the object in question? For instance, a rusted old Cadillac exhibits the effects of both design and weathering?
Intentionality Problem -- What was the intention of the designer in producing a given designed object?
Identity Problem -- Who is the designer? -William A. Dembski
Nope, big rocks from the sky does that quite well, thank you very much.(extinctions that is)
Of course God knew evolutionist wackos would be here today and wanted to give everyone a good laugh, watching them try to explain that one.
Pick a better word if you don't like it.
Do you know why "believes in Christ" is not sufficient?
If you don't know the true definition of a Christian, how can you accuse any "Christian" of these atrocities?
Is this how you do science as well?
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.