I believe in creation science - that is, roughly what most scientists believe, integrated with the belief that chance, probability and anthropic principles aren't likely to create what we see today - IOW - it was spurred on by GOD. My point here is, the arguments listed here against evolution that the author claims to have been made are either made by ignorant people, not made at all, or grossly distorted.
Here are your 15 claims:
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law. - That's never been a claim that a person who respects science will make. The observations clearly point to evolution as the only plausible theory. I'm not about to claim the earth is 6000 years old. That would be rediculous.
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest. - Not a claim I would make either. SOTF clearly exists - we see it today. As to the mechanism and the clearly defined criteria for how it creates new species, thats something else all together.
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. - Again, not a claim I would make. Like, #1, it unilaterally disqualifies the theory of evolution without any quantification.
4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution. - Nope. Haven't done a poll, wouldn't expect this to be true anyway. I don't believe evidence points to anything else as strong.\
5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution. - Another example of a member of the scientific community trying to strengthen their case by distorting arguments against them.
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? - How lame. One answer that comes immediately to mind is that we don't occupy the same environments. This explains why there are no neanderthals around. No respectable scientific creationist will make this argument. However, the author's analogy of child to adult is equally lame. Children will inevitably become adults. Humans will not inevitably become monkeys.
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth. - This can go either way. Proof of that is in the immediate paragraph alone, the author uses words like "remains much a mystery", "could have", "hint that", "might have", and "may solve". However there is no need to criticize and attack each other on this one. Let the record show that science does not have the answer at this point, and may never.
The author's only statement of rebuttal states, "If life turns out to have a nonevolutionary origin, evolution would be confirmed by many macroevolutionary studies..." Uh.... huh?
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. - I'm surprised the author doesn't use anthropic principles as defense. But his defense isn't much better...
"natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times." ---ahhh the million dollar question. Prove it. And I don't mean "thats what we observe in the fossil record" - thats circular reasoning...
And using another analogy with statistics involved doesn't do us any good. There's no basis for any correllation, for probabilities related to the topic at hand, we could be talking about something thats ten orders of magnitude less likely...
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. - The rebuttal is true, and this is not an argument I'd make.
10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features. - I agree with the rebuttal. However, mutations can produce freaks. Some freaks have an advantage over others. But to create a new species? Okay. Due to a mutation I grow an eye out the back of my head, giving me an advantage. Am I ever going to start a new species? And even if I do create a race of three eyed people, is it a new species because I can still copulate with regular humans?
11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life. - Theological wishful thinking, and not a valid argument.
12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. - Due to time, this isn't a valid agument either. But here's the meat of it... Finally a discription of the core question - what defines a species? The author admits that scientists often disagree on the definitionof a species... I would think thats kind of important when you're studying evolution of SPECIES.
Really, a good definition for species would be the boundary that physically prevents two organisms from bredding sucessfully. But obviously scientists cannot use this because it would eliminate intermediate organisms from evolving from past speciesA to future speciesB. So I guess now their definition is what's "refusing" to breed with the other. The bottom line - a fruit fly is still a fruit fly, a finch is still a finch. There's bound to be specialization, preference to certain niches, enviroonments, climates, etc. Just look at humans for such variations. But in the end, we're all still humans.
13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. - Fossils initially tabbed as transitional have all had those tabs removed, AFAIK. Neanderthals, once considered human ancestors, are now believed to have branched off entirely... And Archaeopteryx is a joke. I forget the years, but it was first discovered in Bavaria I believe, in rocks that were younger than those occupied by dinosaurs. Fair enough. There was also another species with feathers that were found in rocks older than dinosaurs... What about that? Let's have the scientific community agree that Archaeopteryx is the ancestor of birds before coming to Creationists. I assure you they have not agreed...
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. - Another wishful thought by Creationists. Whether true or not, its not scientific, and I won't go there.
15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution. - A moot point to argue. The conclusion will never be definitive. I hold this to be self-evident, and as such, will claim that pure science will require a certain amount of faith, not conincidentally, so does a belief in my Christian God.
Most of you have already made up your minds, which is fine. But ask yourself some questions.
1. Why can't we clearly define a species? Is it to allow the scientific community leeway in coming up with their theories?
2. Can we quantify the probability of proteins coming together randomly to produce self-replicating complex single celled organisms? And even though microevolution does exist - what does it prove? If I put on a coat to escape the cold, does that make me a higher being and preclude me from copulating from lower oder species?
3. There are dozens of constants that exist in the universe - the gravitational constant, the mass of a neutron, the charge of an electron, the weight of a hydrogen atom, the ratio of helium atoms to hydrogen and a whole bunch of other ones - if any of which had changed by even the smallest fraction, would render this universe unlivable.
The anthropic principle states that we exist, therefore things had to have turned out the way they did, luckily. Yet the chances of these constants turning out as they did are astronomically small.
How often do you win the lottery?
Facebook
Twitter