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.
Great post.
Creationism died 150 years ago. Get over it!
You're assuming God is no wiser or capable than you are. You're also assuming you can deduce in your mind the purposes God had for doing the things He did and allowing the things He allowed. Your standard is your own competence and intelligence. You cannot rise above it.
If God were a mere man--if he were no smarter than you--you would have a compelling point to make about his incompetence. But if He were no smarter than you, He would have never gotten this amazing universe and its astounding richness of life underway.
Go ahead, Vade Retro. You're a bright fellow. Create a universe and have it give rise to life.
Another great comeback! You seem to be fighting ghosts and losing.
I think that in one sense, "greenness" is an objective quality of objects, insofar as it represents light in a particular wavelength of the visible spectrum. But in another sense, saying something is "green" is entirely arbitrary, as there is no inherent connection between the label and the thing itself - we could have as easily decided that the sky was green and the grass blue, and so long as we behave consistently with those decisions, what's the difference?
You say you are incapable of experiencing "greenness", but you want to know what it is like - all I can do is try to reason with you analogically. It's the color of live grass in the summer. The color of unripe apples. It's light with a wavelength of around 510 nm.
And when you say to me "All that's fine, but I still don't understand green", then my ability to help you understand fails. Because at that point, I can't make you see something as subjective as "green" - I don't have an objective reference point for "green" beyond a collective decision that humans have made that the grass is "green", and when you have no perception of things that are objectively green, how can I make you understand something as subjective as "greenness" itself"?
Does the greenness of a thing change if you're the only one to see it? Does the "greenness" of a thing mean anything if you're the only one around to see it? Would it make a difference if you decided that the sky was green and the trees were blue? Who would it make a difference to? You? The trees?
When somebody catches God doing something, He has a place in science class.
I'll address any further rantings in the morning.
That's an interesting point. I don't know that I disagree with that entirely -- as the song says "Twas Grace that taught my heart to fear/ Grace my fear relieved/How precious did that Grace appear, the hour that I believed.
On the other hand, before Christ it appears fear of death was a far greater plague on humanity. Human sacrifice was fairly common to appease angry gods. There have been many reports of people sacrificing their own children.
My view is to believe things because they are true, not to seek a happy afterlife.
Nobody forces anybody to be a Christian today. Why do so many hundreds of millions around the globe make that choice?
Why no Athena movement in the world today? If the ideas behind it were so powerful, people would be fighting for the freedom to worship as such. The better ideas come forward over time (idea evolution?). Take communistic atheism vs. Roman Catholicism. One's dying out, the other is the largest religion in the world, and is growing as a percentage of total global population.
Yes, you're right. But it's a moot point, since can never have an infinite number of monkeys.
Well, of course you're right in one sense. The fact that a lot of people do something is not necessarily an indication of its rightness. But it is true that better ideas tend to win out over time in the hearts and souls of people. That's why Christianity is the world's most followed religion, while nobody eats sh*t. At the very least, a curious and open mind would want to know why so many people follow it, and what they get from it.
A wholly indescribable subjective awareness that is neverthless very objective and perfectly consistent in the way we experience it.
True Christians likewise collectively share an experiential awareness of the Holy Spirit every bit as vivid and real as the "greenness" of green. You can deny that you yourself can discern or experience it, but you cannot deny this collective experiential awareness on the part of Christians themselves.
And it is not as simple as describing color as a wavelength. All the detailed, measurable, weighable, chartable information about the electromagnetic wavelength that lies between the wavelengths of yellow and blue will not impart the experiential sense of "greenness" to someone who is color-blind to green.
Well, some would say that solving your problems is not the main intent of God. Rather, it would be (for many) to help form you into a better person (one who does more acts of selfless good, and fewer acts of harm to oneself and others). Of course, when one does so, many problems tend to evaporate over time.
It IS hard to explain morality (particularly self-giving morality, such as Christianity), consciousness, music, love, in all its forms, man's ability to solve mathematical theorems, and so forth, purely from evolutionary theory.
Patrick Henry (1736-1799), was an American Revolutionary leader and orator, who spoke the now famous phrase, "Give me Liberty or give me death!" He was Commander-in-Chief of the Virginia Militia, a member of the Continental Congress, a member of the Virginia General Assembly and House of Burgesses as well as having helped to write the Constitution of the State of Virginia. He was the five-time Governor of the State of Virginia, (being the only governor in United States history to be elected and re-elected five times).
Patrick Henry was offered numerous positions by President George Washington and Congress, but declined them all, including: Secretary of State, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, U. S. Minister to Spain, U. S. Minister to France and U. S. Senator.
Prior to the Revolution, in 1768, Patrick Henry rode for miles on horseback to a trial in Spottsylvania County. He entered the rear of a courtroom where three Baptist ministers were being tried for having preached without the sanction of the Episcopalian Church. In the midst of the proceedings, he interrupted: "May it please your lordships, what did I hear? Did I hear an expression that these men, whom you worships are about to try for misdemeanor, are charged with preaching the gospel of the Son of God?"
On March 23, 1775, the Second Virginia Convention had been moved from the House of Burgesses to St. John's Church in Richmond, because of the mounting tension between the Colonies and the British Crown. It was here that Patrick Henry delivered his fiery patriotic oration: "For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery... It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country... Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt.... An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!.... Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the Holy cause of Liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.
Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God who presides over the destines of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battle for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.... Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
On June 12, 1776, as a member of the committee chosen to draft the first constitution of the commonwealth of Virginia, Patrick Henry helped champion article 16 of the Virginia Bill of Rights: That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
Patrick Henry wrote on the back of The Stamp Act Resolves passed in the House of Burgesses, May, 1765, a summary of the pivotal events preceding the Revolution. He ends with this admonition: "This brought on the war which finally separated the two countries and gave independence to ours. Whether this will prove a blessing or a curse, will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings, which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation. Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this, and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others."
Patrick Henry boldly declared: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
Patrick Henry, once interrupted while engaged in Bible reading, held up his Bible and said: "The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed."
Patrick Henry wrote to his sister Ann in Kentucky, upon learning of the death of her husband, Colonel William Christian: "Would to God I could say something to give relief to the dearest of women and sisters.... My heart is full. Perhaps I may never see you in this world. O may we meet in heaven, to which the merits of Jesus will carry those who love and serve Him. Heaven will, I trust, give you its choicest comfort and preserve your family. Such is the prayer of him who thinks it his honor and pride to be, Your Affectionate Brother, Patrick Henry."
On November 20, 1798, in his Last Will and Testament, Patrick Henry wrote: "This is all the inheritance I give to my dear family. The religion of Christ will give them one which will make them rich indeed."
While Patrick Henry was dying, he spoke: "Doctor, I wish you to observe how real and beneficial the religion of Christ is to a man about to die.... I am, however, much consoled by reflecting that the religion of Christ has, from its first appearance in the world, been attacked in vain by all the wits, philosophers, and wise ones, aided by every power of man, and its triumphs have been complete."
Patrick Henry's grandson, William Wirt Henry, described Henry as one who: "Looked to the restraining and elevating principles of Christianity as the hope of his country's institutions."
Patrick Henry Fontaine, who was also a grandson, said Patrick Henry had committed himself to the: "Earnest efforts to establish true Christianity in our country."
Well, it's pretty amazing that a few powerless men could spread Christian ideas into the Roman world, and have the Roman emperor decree some years down the road that Christianity be the Roman religion (thus abnegating all Roman tradition and belief). JennyP, you are deluged in history. But today, few are coerced in their beliefs. Yet Christianity continues to grow (look at Africa, for instance). There must be something there that 1) is of great value to people; 2) stands the test of time; 3) is better than alternative ideas against which it is tested.
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.