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.
AndrewC: Yes, I noticed that too. Are we supposed to wail and moan over the unfairness of the management? Something about freedom of speech needs to be yelled from the rooftops! On the other hand, maybe he did something he wasn't supposed to do, and did it more than once.
??? I'm getting the profile page.
I saw an interview once with a Maori who noted that Christianity was the best thing that ever happened to Indonesia and Borneo. The guys grandfather had spent ten or twelve years in colonial prisons for taking heads, and he said nobody had ever gotten a decent night's sleep in the whole history of the place (either because they were out all night hunting neighbors heads or worrying about other people taking THEIR heads), and that after the area was Christianized, all of that stopped and it became possible to lead productive lives. Basically, a man had to take at least one human head before he was elligible for marriage.
I mean, who the hell wants to live that way? Why would anybody in ancient Rome want to live that way? The decision to become a Christian, once the opportunity presented itself, was probably the easiest decision anybody in Rome ever made.
The story of the Maori is interesting, and for them Christianity was definitely an improvement. IMO, adopting Objectivism would've been a bigger improvement, but even adopting Islam would've been an improvement from a society based on headhunting!
But then you slyly try to slip in under the reader's consciousness the claim that headhunting was part of Roman culture! "Why would anybody in ancient Rome want to live that way?" So you're insinuating that in Rome, "a man had to take at least one human head before he was elligible for marriage."
I must say, nice tactic.
Yes, just about: 3.1 billion base pairs for humans vs. 2.7 billion base pairs for mice. Most of that is identical between the two genomes.
I think there are 3 billion polypeptides in human DNA so that would seem like a lot more than needed to make a mouse.
As you say, but the microbe Amoeba dubia has a genome that's 670 billion base pairs long, some 200 times what we have at our disposal. Who's to say what's needed?
(I though f.C was posting to TSK that F16F had been tossed).
I'll just go back to one of those thong threads now.
PMFJI, but there is a 3rd option: Live your life with an attitude of "tough love". Remember when Oprah started her purely private charity project where she adopted several inner city high school students & their families (IIRC)? The result was a disaster! It was just as bad as if the government had thrown (more) money at these families.For my own part, I will freely admit I am unlikely to be quick to help anyone other than friends and family. I'm not down at the soup line dishing it up for the homeless. Therefore I can't be calling on anyone to do that. But if they like to do that, more power to them.
But which makes for a better society? That in which one is implored and pushed (by society and by God) to do good works for others (including strangers), or one in which we send off a check to the government bureaucracy to do good works for us, and then sit back and wash our hands clean? As an atheist, you have no powerful presence in your life (that you discern, anyway) pushing you to give of yourself to others. I do not have that luxury.
As you can guess, my attitude is closer to jlogajan's in this regard. But this is a pragmatic question, which can only be answered by history & economics. (Which is why federalism is so great a concept: The "laboratory of democracy", someone called it.) The answer is a practical one, and in a free & open society the best constellation of attitudes, social structures, economic systems, & laws should eventually take over the meme pool.
But this is true whether we rationalize it as coming from some external Authority Figure or simply recognize it as the best evolutionarily stable strategy we've discovered so far.
As for being an atheist meaning I have no Authority Figure watching my every move, that is true. I had to arrive at my philosophy of life by thinking everything through. I believe it does take more mental effort to be a fully consistent moral athiest than it does to simply accept the religion you were born & raised with. But not much, really. Meanwhile you could say the same thing for someone who converts from one religion to another.
Here is a hint
| To: That Subliminal Kid Very nice ad hominem. Trouble is, it doesn't explain away the fossil record, nor does it explain who created the creator. Keep trying. You might get back on subject and actually offer something of relevance -- the closest thing to a miracle I can think of. |
Post 899 has been pulled.
For me context is everything. And depending on context the two (cubits and days) can be apples and oranges. I'll try to explain what I mean.
Both cubit and day are linear measures of sorts. While we'll never have the exact measurement for a cubit because of the nature of the measurement, we can calculate an exact measurement for a day. Yet through-out the Bible a day can mean different measures of linear time depending on context.
Here is some information for interpreting "day" in the Bible
The singular "day" is used for
We see this in Genesis 1:5. It can also be used indefinitely for a point in time, particularly in the future (such as in the phrase "day of the Lord"). It's use in Genesis 2:4 ("in the day that") can mean
And carries no special meaning. It's used as an analogy in Psalm 90:4 where one (or part of a) day is like "a watch in the night."
Time references to God in the OT are used in the normal sense. The reference to God's "years" in Psalm 102:24,27 really only makes sense if the years are understood in normal usage.
In reference to a period of time, the plural form "days" is used. We see this in Genesis 26:1.
Evening and morning are not mentioned for the seventh day. Does that make the seventh day an indeterminate period of time? Genesis 2:3 seems to say no, where God blesses and hallows that day, making it clear it's a specific special holy day. Then in Exodus 20:11 that blessed and hallowed day is identified with the normal Sabbath day.
Some of Hebrews chapter 4 hits on the topic. Look at verse 4. But this text does not address the length of the seventh day of creation.
I believe the only way to interpret "day" to mean anything other than what the context appears to say in context is to be guilty of eisegesis. A rule of proper hermeneutics is to use the Bible to interpret itself, and when done correctly, the context should tell you the original intent.
Does that answer your question?
Could you flesh that out a bit?
I don't understand your statement? Do you think that an amoeba is 200 times more complex than a man? If your 670 billion is correct then that sure implies that a lot is not used in the amoeba. In either I would hope that we agree that the order of complexity is amoeba, mouse, man though some of the processes are probably pretty similar within the mouse and the man.
Yeah, except you kept using this word "is", and I'm wondering what it means. ;^)
No, really, this is still the 2nd option. A Christian is called to help others, and to use his/her brain (Be as wise as serpents...). That certainly includes and does not preclude a tough love approach, when appropriate.
Agreed. But after thinking everything through, an atheist may well decide they don't need to be concerned about others' welfare (and many do decide such). A Christian does not have that option. Finally, I would add that Christianity is hardly a non-thinking religion! On the contrary, it requires deep thought to put into action its morality. At the end of the day, Christians are called to treat others in a certain way. Atheists are not (unless they happen to decide that there should be a reason for such).
But the 'best' constellation of attitudes, structures, systems to achieve what end? Pareto optimality, so that on average more people have more goods? Long life optimality, so that people live, on average, longer lives? Sexual optimality, so that people, on average, have more sex with more people? Christianity comes in the reverse way. It imposes a particular way of living, and presupposes that that way will lead (if followed) to happier lives (and less pain for others). People left to their own devices, as you suggest, lead to structures, attitudes, etc. that reflect both the good and bad qualities of people. Such bad qualities include: selfishness, using people for sexual gratification (like porn)(which is a kind of selfishness too), greed, etc. etc. Christianity tries to help people rid themselves of the not-so-nice tendencies, and assumes that society will be much better once that happens.
Not as an organism, but its genome certainly seems to be more complex.
If your 670 billion is correct then that sure implies that a lot is not used in the amoeba.
I would think so, but then it also seems that most of the human genome is similarly "unused" (although in each case it may play a structural role).
In either I would hope that we agree that the order of complexity is amoeba, mouse, man though some of the processes are probably pretty similar within the mouse and the man.
We undoubtedly would, but let's get back to the point I was addressing. CWRWinger was making the assertion that the amoeba's genome couldn't be modified to get anything like a horse or a human, because there wasn't enough code and no code could be added. As it turns out, there are several mechanisms by which code can be added, and there is no correlation between the complexity of organisms and the complexity of their genomes.
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.