Creationist Challenges to Science
It is ironic that in the most
scientifically advanced, innovative,
"can-do" nation on Earth, anti-science
propagandists have seized the initiative, and mounted
a surprisingly successful campaign against the very
sort of probing, critical thinking that produces the
many benefits of scientific advance. Armed with
self-righteous zeal, these agents of ignorance have
been able to bamboozle gullible citizens and
politicians alike into treating religious creation
legends as valid alternatives to solid science.
The current effort attempts to portray all ideas as
equally valid—flatly ignoring that some ideas
have substantial factual basis, while others do not,
and may even be contrary to fact. The appeal to
"fairness" and "cultural
diversity" is ironically reminiscent of
so-called liberal "political
correctness"—though it quickly becomes
evident that conservatives' idea of so-called
"diversity" extends only to the ideas of
their own sect. (We have yet to hear Christian
fundamentalists arguing for the teaching of Hindu
creation myth!)
This is not to say that the
subject of religion ought to be ignored; after all,
the religions of the world have for millennia been a
major influence in the shaping of civilization.
But to equate religion with science is to denigrate
both. If unchecked, a concentrated effort to
muddle the two would undermine serious education in
the sciences, and subsequently the ability of a less
rigorously educated public to think clearly and
critically about important issues in all spheres of
endeavor. The gradual flagging of scientific
and entrepreneurial expertise in the United States is
the prognosis, and the subsequent forfeit of
America's historic edge in innovation, technology,
and commerce (along with its former supremacy in
heath care) to Europe and Asia is the inevitable
consequence.
John Rennie, editor in chief of
Scientific American magazine, has on his own
web site an information page for confronting typical
anti-science propaganda.
Mr. Rennie's
responses are easily understandable and convincing to
most liberally educated people. However, they
are also rather long, and in some cases moderately
complex. Inasmuch as anti-science challenges
usually come from people of limited scientific
background and attention span, perhaps in addition to
the full answers we should also offer short ones, to
assist those who cannot seem to wrap their minds
around any intellectual task more complicated than
memorizing a Bible verse. (Not that any such
people are likely to be here reading this,
but you might happen to encounter a few such people
in the course of your life, and find yourself in a
position to straighten out some of their
misconceptions.)
This is not to suggest that
complex questions can be adequately addressed with
responses of only a single sentence, or even a single
paragraph. However, in rapid-fire situations,
brevity may prove useful in making a quick point,
where a comprehensive response might well get lost in
the noise. Here, then, I present Mr. Rennie's
list of 15 common creationist challenges (shown in
purple), but with some handy, short responses
(shown in red) useful for on-the-spot
confrontations. The short responses are
supplemented by other information, but even this is
broken down into separate, concise points for ease of
assimilation.
|
Fifteen Short Answers to
Creationist
Nonsense
1.
Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or
a scientific law.
Just
like gravity, biological evolution is both theory and fact!
-
With
gravity, the fact is that things fall down,
not up. With evolution, the facts are that
mutations occur and some are transmitted to succeeding
generations, and the
unmistakable fossil record, showing a
consistent pattern of incremental
progression of life from primitive to modern
forms.
-
Theories, on the other
hand, are the lines of reasoning used to
explain the facts, whether of gravity,
evolution, or whatever else. "Explanations"
that do not explain, and reasoning that does
not comply with the facts, cannot be
classified as scientific theory.
-
In
science, there is no such thing as "only
a theory."
Scientific theories are not idle
speculation. To acquire status as a
scientific theory, an idea must be based on
credible evidence, developed with clear
reasoning, and tested rigorously and
independently, to ensure whether it is
consistently in accord with reality.
2.
Natural selection is based on circular
reasoning: the fittest are those who survive,
and those who survive are deemed fittest.
Natural
selection is far more than theory; it's a carefully
studied phenomenon backed up by factual data.
-
We observe
that organisms well adapted to prevailing
conditions compete, survive, and reproduce
with greater reliability than similar
organisms which are less well adapted.
-
We also see that if
conditions change, such that different traits
become more advantageous, then organisms
possessing those newly favored traits begin
to gain dominance, and those which cannot
adequately cope become extinct. Natural
selection is simply life's response to
nature. The process is based on nature
itself, not on human reasoning—circular
or otherwise.
3.
Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable
or falsifiable. It makes claims about events
that were not observed and can never be recreated.
Science
makes reasonable claims about many things that have
never been directly observed: radio waves,
electrons, nuclear fission, and formation of fossils,
for example.
-
Although
no one has ever seen such things with their
own eyes, the indirect evidence for them
is overwhelming, and the theories hold up
under intense skeptical scrutiny, continued
testing, and practical experience.
-
Moreover, evolution
theory is indeed falsifiable; all it
would take is the observation of complex
organisms springing directly from entirely
non-living material.
4.
Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of
evolution.
That
is flat-out false!
-
With
modern biochemistry and the geological record
now providing overwhelming evidence
supporting every aspect of biological
evolution, only so-called "creation
scientists" persist in denying its
significance.
-
Nowadays, few serious
scientific papers challenge ideas about
evolution, and those that do are typically
proposals to adjust or augment existing
theory, not to discard it.
-
Scientists
of the modern world are virtually unanimous
in their recognition of the fact of
biological evolution, and of the validity of
the fundamental theory. The notion, that there is
a growing professional rejection of the
concept of biological evolution, is utterly
false.
5. The
disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show
how little solid science supports evolution.
That's
like saying that the discrepancies between Newton's
and Einstein's views of physics show lack of solid
scientific support for gravity!
-
The
disagreements among biologists regard only
the details of evolution theory; there
has been no serious challenge to its
fundamental basis or reasoning. Questioning and revision,
as tools in the earnest search for truth, are
considered not only normal and healthy in
science, but essential to it.
6. If
humans descended from monkeys, why are there still
monkeys?
Science
does not propose that humans descended from
monkeys. To assert that this is what evolution
teaches is to display inexcusible ignorance of the
subject.
-
The
evolution of a new species does not require
the extinction of the preceding one. The ridiculous notion
that an entire species somehow mutates into a
different species represents a fundamental
misunderstanding of the process of biological
of evolution (a misunderstanding
perpetuated and exploited, not only by
creationists, but by mass-market
sci-fi*). The emergence of a new fruit
fly species does not cause older fruit fly
groups to disappear; the existence of modern
fish has not caused ancient sharks to die
off; the breeding of domestic dogs has not
caused the extinction of wolves.
-
No one
claims that humans descended from monkeys. But regardless of whether
both forms arose from a common ancestor, as
long as both forms are viable under
prevailing conditions, and neither represents
a lethal threat to the other, they coexist.
-
Species
become extinct only if conditions become
intolerable.
That the common ancestor of monkeys, apes,
and hominids is now extinct simply indicates
that at some point conditions became
intolerable for it, though not for its
progeny.
*Cheap, mass-market
sci-fi is full of goofy and impossible notions
calculated to shock and thrill. It is in a
distinctly different category from intelligently
written, quality science fiction, which, while
imaginative, endeavors to adhere to the laws of
nature as currently understood by science.
7.
Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on
earth.
Neither
can electricity or gravity, though these are also
still valid!
-
Evolution
deals with the emergence of new species from
earlier ones, not with the emergence of life
itself.
-
However,
since 1950, chemistry and physics have
yielded a number of fascinating clues along
this line.
The chain of evidence is by no means yet
complete, but combined with evidence from
other fields, it points the way to future
development of reasonable and testable
explanations, as the human knowledge base
steadily expands.
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.
Complex
chemicals and structures, such as crystals, proteins,
and cells, are produced by the natural laws of
physics and chemistry, not by chance.
-
Chance is
but one component of evolution. It is
in no way the whole of it, any more than an
accelerator pedal is all there is to an
automobile. While
chance mutation is a crucial part of the
process of evolution, its function is little
more than a trigger for the rest of the
process.
-
The rest is powered and
controlled by well understood natural
processes, ratcheting up from one stable
state to another, testing for viability at
each stage, and governed by the well defined
chemical and physical behaviors of matter and
energy under prevailing conditions.
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.
If
this were true, then snowflakes and mineral crystals
would also be impossible!
-
The
Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to
"order" with respect to the
distribution of energy, not
to physical complexity. To confirm this, we need
only consider that many ordered structures
(such as water molecules) have lower energy
levels than their less complex components
(free hydrogen and oxygen).
-
In
addition, the laws of thermodynamics
describe only the general properties of
closed systems.
Local increases in order are allowable (and
indeed are commonplace) if driven by a
greater release of energy (decrease in order)
elsewhere in the system.
-
Moreover,
the earth's biosphere is not
a closed system. Its primary energy
source is radiation from the sun, which
converts tons of its own mass into energy
every second.
The result is an enormous increase in entropy
overall, despite the relatively minuscule
local decrease represented by the portion of
that energy which is stored and used by
earthly life. If the sun were to go dark and cold, the
surface of the earth would freeze and life would be
extinguished.
10.
Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but
mutations can only eliminate traits. They
cannot produce new features.
Single
mutations are routinely responsible for traits
ranging from common disorders to resistance to
antibiotics.
-
Mutations rarely generate
major new traits or eliminate old ones in a
single stroke.
Most
typically, small mutations incrementally
modify existing traits. Over time,
the cumulative modifications of traits
occasionally result in features clearly
distinct from the original. Earthworms don't suddenly
sprout eyes and ears, but they have gradually
grown well into their particular
environmental niche, despite retaining some
features that leave them vulnerable there.
11.
Natural selection might explain microevolution, but
it cannot explain the origin of new species and
higher orders of life.
That's
like saying that electromagnetic theory explains a
simple Morse-code radio signal, but cannot possibly
explain a pulse-modulated multi-channel microwave
system!
-
The
difference between microevolution and
macroevolution is primarily one of degree,
not of fundamental characteristics. Differences in species
and higher orders are simply the cumulative
effects of incremental changes, which, over
hundreds or thousands of generations,
eventually produce populations sufficiently
different that they cannot successfully
interbreed, i.e., new species.
12.
Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
Even
if this were true, it would not be surprising.
New species do not simply pop up overnight, fully
developed, differentiated, and distinct.
-
While
extinction can occur in a day, the
emergence of new species typically occurs
over hundreds or thousands of generations,
as incremental mutations gradually
accumulate. Meanwhile, humans have been
paying serious attention to such things for
only the past half-dozen or so generations.
-
Even so, artificially
induced speciation has been observed in
plants, worms, and insects.
Moreover, we may note some apparent natural
transitions in progress—the less
than full divergence of horses and asses, for
example, or the even less distinct division
between grizzly bears and polar bears, which
are still genetically the same species, yet
have become adapted to entirely different
conditions.
13.
Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional
fossils—creatures that are half reptile and half
bird, for instance.
Archaeopterix.
Eohippus. Ambulocetus.
Australopithecus. Homo erectus. (To name
but a few!)
-
The main
reason the fossil record is not perfectly
contiguous for all species is that fossilization
itself results from a chain of events which
is very chancy even under ideal
conditions.
Though very unlikely in any particular
instance, over immense spans of time
fossilization has occurred often enough to
record a fragmented, yet clearly
recognizable, chronologically delineated
sequence of development from ancient to
modern forms.
-
Additionally (as we
observe in this fossil record), transitional
forms represent developmental stages and
compromises. Such transitional
species typically are not equipped to take
optimum advantage of their environment, and
therefore tend not to establish large
populations, before subsequent mutations
nudge their descendants into more or less
stable situations. Thus their
appearances in the fossil record are
correspondingly rare—though
certainly not as unheard of as some suppose.
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 sophisitcated. The
only prudent conclusion is that they are the products
of intelligent design, not evolution.
Two
words on so-called intelligent design: "WISDOM
TEETH!"
-
Substantial variations in
analogous structures in different species
clearly indicates otherwise.
We do indeed
observe variants (some simpler, some more
complex) of features existing and functioning
in other species.
-
Note, for example, that
light-sensing structure and function are
quite different in flatworms, insects,
lobsters, squid, fish, reptiles, and
mammals. Yet, despite that creationists
may prefer not to acknowledge it, there is a
thread of commonality, even though it does
not always equate to "vision" in
the human sense.
-
Even so, the fact that
even the human eye includes such fundamental
"design flaws" as a blind spot near
the center of the vision field (to name but
one of myriad examples of an apparently
accidental nature) would seem to suggest
against "design," and indeed
testifies rather forcefully against "intelligent
design."
15.
Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic
level, life has a quality of complexity that could
not have come about through evolution.
The
roundabout, makeshift, hit-and-miss, inefficient, and
(in some instances) downright deleterious nature of
biological mechanisms clearly bespeaks a decidedly
accidental component of whatever process produced
them.
-
Recent
discoveries have shed tremendous light and
understanding upon the natural mechanisms
governing the many processes of
life—including their emergence and
progressive development.
-
Indeed, virtually any
complex structure or function to which one
can point in a modern organism can be found
in progressively simpler versions in less
developed and more ancient species.
These are quick responses to
the most common creationist challenges, and may serve
well enough in on-the-spot encounters. Readers
desiring greater detail and depth—for thought,
discussion, or writing—are invited to visit Mr.
Rennie's web site for more comprehensive information.
|
Scientific
American's
15 Answers to
Creationist Nonsense
by John
Rennie
Unfortunately, Mr. Rennie's website has been either moved or
deleted.
The link was
http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/pearly/htmls/gop-evolution.html.
If anyone knows the current whereabouts of this information
and can supply a working link to it, please use this
website's CONTACT OWNER option from the FEEDBACK menu at the
top of the Main Page to inform
the owner. |
It would appear
that many creationist challenges to science arise
from fundamental misunderstanding and
misinterpretation of scientific methods and
objectives. While some of this is certainly
accidental, due perhaps to innocent ignorance, a
significant portion of it appears to be part of a
deliberate and dishonest attempt to obscure or
distort factual evidence and valid theory, for the
purpose of shielding certain beliefs from the light
of nature itself. Whether the motives of
creationists are honorable or otherwise, we are
certainly justified in questioning tactics that
evidently seek to obscure rather than clarify human
understanding of the reality of nature.
|
Beyond the
Fearsome Fifteen…
Creationists might be
misinformed and misguided, but they certainly do not
lack for creativity and imagination. Certainly
they pose more challenges than the 15 common ones on
Mr. Rennie's lists. Not infrequently, we
encounter additional arguments, most of which are
easy enough to address as long as one is
prepared. A few are examined below:
Scientific
belief is as much based on faith as is religion.
Scientific
ideas—from those accepted as "laws"
all the way down to hypothetical conjecture—are
ultimately based on some observation of fact.
None of science's ideas are sacrosanct.
All are conditional upon their being consistent with observed evidence, and
are subject to revision or replacement as new evidence becomes
available. Scientific ideas are accepted on the basis of
confidence in the supporting evidence, not on blind faith.
Modern science makes a few
extremely basic and practical core assumptions, all of which are
inferences drawn from evidence.
These include:
-
that our physical senses
tell us something useful about a real
universe external to our own imaginations;
-
that the patterns we
observe and call "laws of nature"
are consistent throughout the observable
universe;
-
that the most reliable way
to learn about nature is by studying nature
itself; and
-
that learning about nature
is not inherently harmful, and might even
prove beneficial.
These precepts are very basic
and uncontroversial; they merely express in words
what most people take for granted about their natural
universe. Yet even these fundamentals are
subject to revision or rejection, should convincing
evidence indicate cause for question or doubt.
They are conditional beliefs about the
practical realities of nature, as distinguished from
committed belief in the idealistic dogmas of
politics and religion.
Beyond these, science relies
not on faith and unsupported conjecture, but rather
on methodical scrutiny of evidence, disciplined
reason, and exhaustive testing.
At its core, science is
not a system of authoritarian dogmas, but rather the
critical evaluation, rational comparison, and
unrelenting testing of ideas, in an earnest and
disciplined effort to discover which of these most
thoroughly and consistently explain what is actually
observed.
Furthermore, science's acceptance of such
explanations is always conditional, upon the
possibility that better explanations might be
developed or that refuting evidence might come to
light. It is the strength of science, not its
weakness, that it adapts itself to the available
evidence, rather than attempting to force its own
preconceptions upon nature.
Science
has postulated that the universe began with a
"Big Bang," but is powerless to discover
what produced the Big Bang itself.
The
ultimate objective of science is not to invent
explanations for everything, but to discover nature's
own explanations when and where it can.
It's true. Current
evidence strongly indicates that the universe is
currently expanding. The most obvious
implication is that the universe was previously much
smaller, denser, and hotter than it is today.
The ultimate extrapolation is that the cosmos might
have originated from a point source, but this is not
established as fact. There are several lines of
conjecture about what might have produced a Big Bang,
as well as about alternatives to the Big Bang
itself. But because there isn't yet (and might
never be) sufficient evidence to nail any of these
down conclusively, science forthrightly classifies
such lines of thought as "speculation" and
"hypothesis," and not as theory.
One of the glories of
science is that there is no shame, either in asking
questions, or in frankly admitting that we don't know
all the answers.
Science
is blatantly opposed to the will and beliefs of
religious people.
Science's sole reason for being
is the objective exploration of the reality of
nature. The reality of nature is not subject to
popular opinion, majority vote, political decision,
or religious edict. Science doesn't invent
nature; it simply investigates it as thoroughly and
impartially as possible, and makes its findings
known. If some people
prefer to remain ignorant or misinformed about
nature, that is their option. Their personal
choice should not, however, interfere with the
liberty of those who sincerely want to learn about
the universe and to benefit from that learning.
Science's
proper domain is nature, whereas religion's is the
supernatural. Science wisely does not seek to
trespass uninvited upon religion's rightful
territory, and in its own interest religion would do
well to emulate science's discreet example.
There
is a conspiracy of atheist scientists to deny the
Truth of Creation.
Scientists
represent a variety of religious persuasions, as well
as active disbelief and passive indifference.
If there is a "conspiracy" among them, it
is merely to follow the evidence of nature wherever
it leads.
Science is simply the
methodical investigation of nature. Science is
not intrinsically opposed to religion, but in due
course of impartial inquiry sometimes finds itself
confronted by a preponderance of evidence indicating
that the reality of nature is not what some religions
have historically asserted it to be.
If a religion finds
itself opposed to what has been discovered by science, then
its true quarrel is with the reality of nature
itself, not with scientists, who merely analyze and
report what they have discovered—often to their
own astonishment.
=SAJ=
|