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.
So now you think you're a geologist? You just said that the slower you fold the rocks, the more destructive to the sediments they contain. Sorry, professor! The faster you fold them, the more energy they have to absorb locally and the more likely they are to be pulverized/melted/metamorphosed. It's simple physics.
Also, check out this page on predictions of Biblical catastrophism. I suspect it applies to your model.
Now, while they say "gene duplication" is responsible for the added HOX genes, evolutionary presupposition only, stands in the way of the genetic material being assembled that way from the start.
I notice everywhere you make any evidence you don't like by saying "conjecture," or "supposition." If I really could drag all the evidence in front of you, you'd be waving away so much your arms would get tired.
Hmmm. 20 Evidences for Macroevolution.
If things evolved as the result of random, naturalistic processes, I would not expect to find the same genes controlling the development of similar structures in diverse organisms, but rather, similar genes doing different things in different species because of the randomness factor if for no other reason.
Evolution is not random. Variation is random. Evolution is common descent with variation and natural selection.
When I became a Christain and a creationist, I didn't check my brain at the door.
Conjecture.
Nor the death of it. A cheap knockoff. And that designer ain't God.
If you do, what gives you that confidence?
How do you know God didn't design life? Are you suggesting you can logically prove with complete certainty that God had no role?
That ought to be simple. Your proof, please.
Typo number 2,764 today. 29 Evidences.
AndrewC's theory has a designer who I say isn't an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent God. "Prove me wrong."
Are you suggesting you can logically prove with complete certainty that God had no role?
Are you suggesting you can find where I said that?
That ought to be simple. Your proof, please.
WTF are you talking about? Read the thread before you jump in sometime, Bozo.
"Ahhhh. Yeah! (Can you say "non sequitur?")
Well, I did mention it was mostly a theological reason, just so you wouldn't wonder.
"This kind of thing gets really dumb. It's the creationist's Desperation Last Defense. Anything a human does in the area of research can be argued to be designed. Pointing that out doesn't overthrow the result of the research."
Well then I ask you, if it's verboten to question research such as Hardison's as not representing random natural processes, why do you think that Rennie would have included that work in one of his "answers"? It makes no sense to me. Actually, when I was the evolutionist and in college, such "experiemnts" didn't make any sense then, either. Those experiments are designed to prove the unprovable and they just don't work as desired. Since the goal is to prove a process that admittedly is supposed to take untold millions of years of random naturalistic processes to achieve it's result, that is the environment the experiment must be conducted in, and according to those rules, or as best they can be determined. In other words, it's a waste of time because you'll not live to record the result.
Tinkering with the natural process (writing a program to "simulate" a set of random processes or conditions) would be no different than G-d creating something ex nihilo. The random, natural process is corrupted by the action of an outside force, using a plan.
Great comeback, I'm impressed..... NOT!. You're not even a challenge. The same old stuff. "Because I or Don Lindsay say so you are wrong" is your total repertoire. Woese(although he is probably wrong), Shapiro, Behe, Gee, Venter, etc. etc. etc. Although they are not all what you term IDers, they all know that something in biology stinks. The only thing there at the moment is Darwin(as you all seem to point out), so guess what is rotting.
Your proof, please.
Ought to be a piece of cake.
Why did it take so long to move on from bacteria to cells with nuclei? HE--the real HE--could do more than that in six days, I heard once. What are all these extinctions? What are all these unfit creatures your cheap knockoff of evolution says have to die. Why? Because HE couldn't make them right to begin with!
Yes, you can make a creation theory that mimics evolution. But it won't make your church doctrine into science anytime soon.
I made no such claim. So leave me out of your argument.
Your "ID" theory just lost all hope of appealing to the ID movement.
Post 812. Now prove me wrong.
Still waiting for you to back this up. Show me where I said this.
| That designer (YOUR designer) not only isn't God, he's barely good. Why did it take so long to move on from bacteria to cells with nuclei? HE--the real HE--could do more than that in six days, I heard once. What are all these extinctions? What are all these unfit creatures your cheap knockoff of evolution says have to die. Why? Because HE couldn't make them right to begin with! Yes, you can make a creation theory that mimics evolution. But it won't make your church doctrine into science anytime soon.
|
Hey Vade, everything dies!!! Surprise!!
Darwin is on the rocks, you just can't get over it. Go back and quote Don Lindsay, He's more entertaining than you are. Probably writes better books 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.