Is Evolution True? Let’s Vote?
On January 03, 2008 in In the News, Science Related
Sorry, but that’s now how we determine what is and is not true, and certainly what is and is not Science. A recent article from www.livescience.com suggests that 61% of people feel that Evolution is true. Is this how we determine what is true and what is not? I don’t think so, or else truth would be nothing more than a relative term reflecting the mere emotions and opinions of the greater majority. 51% of people disagree with 49% that water-boarding is torture, therefore it’s truth that water-boarding is not torture? I certainly hope we don’t start enforcing this as a device to decide other things.
Unfortunately, like practically every other article on the subject, we’re not given the definition of “Evolution”. 9 out of 10 times we’re talking about a scientific process, but unfortunately, there variants of the term that do not qualify as “scientific”, since they cannot be tested, reproduced, or verified by alternative sources. These are the form of Evolution that are not scientific, regardless what your voters think.
If I tell you that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, how do you know if I’m telling the truth? Well, you could expose a culture of bacteria to some antibiotics and check up on them later. The culture will be smaller, and then begin to repopulate with the new strain that is now resistant. That is Science. Now, if I tell you that some 4 billion years ago lightning struck a mucky soup on the earth and life sprung forth, how would you test that? You can’t. It’s not observable, it’s not repeatable, and it certainly isn’t mathematically plausible, so why do we call it Science? And why do we teach it with Evolution?
Proponents of Evolutionary theory often times release their cry that the Scientific Method is of sacred nature, and should always be used in science. Shoot, even Livescience mentioned this.
“The introduction of ‘non-science,’ such as creationism and intelligent design, into science education will undermine the fundamentals of science education. Some of these fundamentals include using the scientific method, understanding how to reach scientific consensus, and distinguishing between scientific and nonscientific explanations of natural phenomena.”
Survey: 61% Agree with Evolution
http://www.livescience.com/history/080102-evolution-teaching.html
Oddly enough they refuse to use the Scientific Method when it comes to Evolutionary theory. Many bogus claims are made, such as life from non-life, deer-like creatures becoming whales, dinosaurs becoming birds, and fish scales becoming teeth. None of these claims are valid when investigated within the Scientific Method - it cannot even touch them, because they’re not observable!
Wikipedia states that the Scientific Method “consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.”
So how do we observe the metamorphosis of scales becoming teeth? Or deer becoming whales? The whole theoretical tree comes crashing down when the Scientific Method is involved. None of it is observable, it’s all guess-work based upon a tooth here, an ear-bone here, etc. So why do they have this double-standard?
They claim that Intelligent Design and Creation-Science are both bad for business. They feel that it will “undermine the fundamentals of science education.” But is that really true? Or is it the opposite? I cannot speak for Intelligent Design, but I can speak for Creationists (since I am one). When Christians view the world, we view it as a very complex created object. With innumerable lilliputian devices showing the magnificient work of our Creator.
When we view the World, we feel the overwhelming desire to know why our Creator did something a specific way, and how our Creator did it. We want to know when it happened. If we learn more about the creation, we in turn understand more about the Creator. It is the passion for the Creator that drives a Christian to study the creation.
“Speak to the Earth, and It shall teach thee.”
Job 8:12
The Bible encourages Science. This is why when Evolutionists came across the Human Eye they brushed it aside as a blunder of evolution, since the blood vessels are in front, and not behind as they are with an octopus, or some other creature. They stop studying it, they threw it aside because that’s just how Evolution did it. Turns out, they were wrong. Read “Is our ‘inverted’ retina really ‘bad design’?” at AnswersInGenesis.org.
Why is the teaching of Naturalistic Origins so sacred to Evolutionists? How many medical miracles have come by the understanding of Evolution? Zero, nada, zip - that’s even the view of Evolutionist Phillip S. SKell who had the following to say:
“I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”
Philip S. Skell
“Why do we invoke Darwin?“, The Scientist 2005, 19(16):10
This is from an Evolutionist who feels “Darwin’s theory of evolution offers a sweeping explanation of the history of life.”
So while Evolutionists are busy playing in the dirt trying to find ancient broccoli, Scientists like Raymond Damadian are pioneering scientific advances such as the MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) that will save innumerable lives. Dr. Damadian is also a Creationist - be sure to thank him the next time you need the life-saving services of an MRI.
So what is Evolution good for? It doesn’t help us in any way at all, by the admission of Evolutionists themselves. It doesn’t explain anything with any degree of certainty. As Dr. Skell put it, it’s nothing more than a narrative gloss brought in after the fact.
LiveScience finished their article off with the following:
“The bottom line is that the world is round, humans evolved from an extinct species and Elvis is dead,” Weissmann said. “This survey is a wake-up call for anyone who supports teaching information based on evidence rather than speculation or hope; people want to hear the truth, and they want to hear it from scientists.”
All I can say is this, Screw the Scientists, listen to the Science. The Scientists are going to tell you whatever they need to bring in that check, even if it’s B.S. Meanwhile, Scientists out there like Raymond Damadian are saving lives, advancing our medical understanding, and doing REAL Science - so if you’re going to pick a scientist to listen to, pick one who offers testable science, and not some fairy-tale.
Sorry, but that’s now how we determine what is and is not true, and certainly what is and is not Science.
And yet I haven’t encountered anyone who claims such a thing. Well, except for Creationists who cite different polls showing a much lower level of acceptance of the theory of evolution in the United States.
I note that you haven’t actually offered any reasons to doubt the validity of the theory of evolution. Apparently you believe that badmouthing it a sufficient substitute for a meaningful argument.
Demensio,
You accuse me of “badmouthing” evolution, and you’re probably right. Excuse me for scoffing at ignorant ideas! To tell me that a deer-like creature evolved into the largest mammal ever known based upon the finding of an ancient ear-bone has got to be the pinnacle of stupidity, and well worth my “badmouthing”.
I would never badmouth natural selection, or mutations - those actually happen and are understood. However, those are a totally different issue from the historical nature of 99% of Evolutions nonsense that helps absolutely nobody in the sciences today just as your own Evolutionist buddy Dr. Skell mentioned.
Evolution is nothing more than a “narrative gloss”, and a crappy one at that.
Jonathan
Not only are your cool tech videos great, but your arguments are strong.
Dimensio, I’ve came across my friend who argues that since there are more non-Christian scientists, Christianity is phony. What an aggressive and illogical statement that is.
Anyhow, I think Sampson is correct on badmouthing the unscientific science-based-loyalty towards Evolution. In most Biology books, they not only say Evolution is real, they interwoven it into the theme of the book. That should make a truly scientific person boil with anger.
To tell me that a deer-like creature evolved into the largest mammal ever known based upon the finding of an ancient ear-bone has got to be the pinnacle of stupidity, and well worth my “badmouthing”
And if an ancient ear-bone were the sole basis for the conclusion, you might have a point. But it’s not, so you don’t. Your willful ignorance in refusing to understand evolution beyond scoffing at heavily watered-down journals in lay publications is not going to falsify the theory of evolution.
Dimensio, I’ve came across my friend who argues that since there are more non-Christian scientists, Christianity is phony. What an aggressive and illogical statement that is.
But I’ve not made such a claim, so your statement is a total non-sequitur. Is it easier to knock down dishonest strawman than it is to form an argument based upon fact?
Do try to address what I have said, and not what your “friend” has said. I am not your friend. My positions are not your friend’s positions. You cannot win an argument against me by attacking statements that I have neither made nor endorsed.
Anyhow, I think Sampson is correct on badmouthing the unscientific science-based-loyalty towards Evolution. In most Biology books, they not only say Evolution is real, they interwoven it into the theme of the book. That should make a truly scientific person boil with anger.
Do you have an actual argument against the theory of evolution, or are vague claims about “most Biology books” the strongest point that you can make?
Dimensio,
So what is the evidence for deer-to-whale evolution? What evidence do you have that the respiratory-system of a deer changed to drastically as needed, its tongue became as heavy as an elephant, some blood vessels large enough for a human to pass though, a heart the size of a car, and a body larger than any creature ever known to have existed. Please, do share your evidence for such a ridiculous conclusion.
Jonathan
One thing is repeated in both sides, and it’s word “theory”. So neither of them is a fact, but a theory. It’s insane to try to back theory with another theory. I believe that Creationism makes more sense because life is to complicated to be a product of an accident but that is just my belief! I could be wrong, but so could evolutionists.
Samson,
While you are right that “theory” is the descriptive term for both views (Creation Theory vs Evolutionary Theory), I would like to point out that “theory” is often times synonymous with “fact” in Science. Such as Gravitational Theory, or Germ Theory.
Unfortunately, this distinction isn’t made when the term is used. Sometimes it’s used to represent an un-proven thought, and yet other times it’s used to represent a solid observation. This equivocation is one of my main frustrations with Evolution-lingo.
Regarding belief in Creation-Science, or Evolution - “belief” is discouraged. Creation makes sense because we see evidence of design and intelligence, just as we do in forensics or archeology. When Archaeologists find a finely-shaped stone representing an animal, they don’t attribute it to natural formation, but instead attribute it to an unseen designer from long ago.
In forensics, when somebody is murdered and found with a knife in their back, inspectors don’t contemplate how the knife was inserted naturally, instead they Scientifically deduce scenarios including intelligence and design that would explain the situation.
We see the same things in Astronomy with the fine-tuning of the Universe, in Biochemistry with complex systems such as the blood-clotting cascade, and in Microbiology with Irreducibly complex systems such as the cilia in your lungs.
There’s little need for “belief” in true science….until you bring in Evolution, which requires belief almost exclusively, since it has no functional assistance to science today.
Jonathan
One thing is repeated in both sides, and it’s word “theory”. So neither of them is a fact, but a theory
A theory, in science, is a coherent and comprehensive attempt to explain observations that has attained a high degree of confidence amongst scientists in relevant fields. An explanation must be supported by extensive confirming evidence before it can be called a “theory”. A theory is an attempt to explain facts. Your statement suggests that you have no understanding of the meaning of the word “theory” within the context of science and, as such, your claims on the subject of evolution cannot be considered credible.
We see the same things in Astronomy with the fine-tuning of the Universe, in Biochemistry with complex systems such as the blood-clotting cascade, and in Microbiology with Irreducibly complex systems such as the cilia in your lung
Please justify these assertions. Also state the mechanisms proposed to explain “fine-tuning”.
So what is the evidence for deer-to-whale evolution?
You could start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
Dimensio,
I’ve been a reader of TalkOrigins for almost 6 years now, and I still have yet to be convinced with their rhetoric and charm. Indohyus isn’t even mentioned in their exhaustive snow-ball attempt to prove whale evolution - Pakicetus is however.
By their own admission, Pakicetus is known from fragmentary remains - which isn’t completely true anyway. More bones were eventually found later, showing the creature to be similar to a wolf and not a whale, but hey, when a tooth is enough to convince you, then who am I to discourage you.
Lest we forget the nonsense extrapolations from a single tooth that happened in the Nebraska Man evidence. A whole theory extract from a tooth of an elaborate evolutionary transition between modern man and his ape-like ancestor…turned out to be an extinct pigs tooth.
Oh well, maybe they got it right this time…right? Say, got any other hard-core scientific facts supporting your silly ideas?
Jonathan
I’ve been a reader of TalkOrigins for almost 6 years now, and I still have yet to be convinced with their rhetoric and charm
Of course you aren’t. I won’t ask what you find deficient in their explanations, though, because no one who badmouths TalkOrigins ever gives specifics.
Lest we forget the nonsense extrapolations from a single tooth that happened in the Nebraska Man evidence.
What, you mean where speculation never went anywhere and never had any broad acceptance because it didn’t pan out and was debunked within three years, with the man who found the tooth expressing skepticism over it two years later? Nebraska Man is nothing more than a footnote that creationists parade about as though it were some terrible blow to the theory of evolution, even though it was never considered a major find an it was never considered a viable specimen. I suppose it’s not surprising that creationists like to use Nebraska Man as some kind of evidence against the methodology used in explaining evolution; it’s not like they have any real evidence for their assertions.
Dimensio,
Nobody ever gives specifics? I think you are either confused, or you don’t care enough to do your research. Many Scientists have gone back and forth with TalkOrigins over specifics, which was the primary reason TrueOrigins.org was started, but I guess it floated just out of range for you, right?
What about Ian Taylor’s back-and-forth with TalkOrigins ( http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_it_02.asp ), or even Dr. Humphrey’s response to Henke, found online at ( http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp ) regarding Helium Diffusion in Zircons?
Or what about Dr. Spetner’s long discussion with Dr. Max from TalkOrigins? ( http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp ) - I suppose your loose adherence to the facts doesn’t convict you of making bold claims that nobody ever gives specifics? Oh well.
Regarding Nebraska Man, it simply goes to show that Evolutionists (Even reputable ones) will find what they want in any amount of Data. Similar to Piltdown Man, which was completely fraudulent, yet heralded for many years as one of the greatest transitional discoveries by many of the leading scientists of that time.
Your dear Pal,
Jonathan Sampson
He didn’t respond, I was anxious to read something totally interesting….
“Now, if I tell you that some 4 billion years ago lightning struck a mucky soup on the earth and life sprung forth, how would you test that? You can’t. It’s not observable, it’s not repeatable, and it certainly isn’t mathematically plausible, so why do we call it Science? And why do we teach it with Evolution?”
I stopped reading the article here. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Please at least research the basics of evolution before trying to argue against it.
David, I’m fully aware that biological evolution is not dependent upon specific criteria for abiogenesis. But that doesn’t change the fact that practically all atheistic evolutionists accept it as equally true - so I’m not in error to mention it when talking about evolution. I can assure you that no matter what textbook you pick up on the subject of evolution, the origin of life will likely be discusses in the same area.
This double-standard kills education. If you think Origins shouldn’t be discussed next to Evolution, then I hope you get on your local textbook committee and have it removed from the textbooks when Evolution is the subject matter.
Add A Comment