|
Essays on Environment and Health-Related Science Scientific Politics and Misconduct |
Rebuttal to Scientific American “15 Ways to Expose Creationists Nonsense”:
(NOTE, THIS DOCUMENT IS
INCOMPLETE WORK IN PROGRESS)
This purpose of the essay is to rebut the subject article which is clearly not scientific and is no more than a blatant personal atheistic philosophizing by the editor of the magazine. The editor has for some time been publishing a number of articles and reviews biased heavily to the atheistic viewpoint of the implications of the findings of science.
It
is worth noting that the magazine did not allow scientists who believe that
there is merit to the creationist’s arguments to state their arguments.
The editors extreme bias leaves no alternative other than to write a rebuttal and to
suggest that people of faith give serious
thought as to whether or not such a magazine belongs in their homes or their
children’s schools.
The editor and author claims that the listed arguments are
those of creationists and in doing so he is trying to lump all who
question macro evolution theory into a group which are makes the same
“common” arguments. The fact is
that the range of people who object to the extreme claims for the explanatory power of
Darwinian evolution, range from those with no scientific background who intuitively know it to be questionable
to top level scientists with scientific training. Scientists
outside the life science professions have a viewpoint unclouded by monetary
and peer pressures see it as very questionable science when Darwinism claims to be a mechanism for
creating all life forms from a single ancestral crude life form in the beginning.
It is very questionable when Darwinism claims to generate new
phyla.
It would not be valid to paint all lifescience scientists as hyper
biased in their opinions as the editor certainly seems to be from his article.
It is likewise not at all valid to paint all creationists into the lowest common
denomination of scientific understanding either.
It would be interesting to know where he got the arguments. Certainly there are groups who go beyond reason to reject atheistic scientific claims. There are, however, many reputable scientists writing arguments on the web and books that are quite different from arguments based on religious faith with can never be fully scientific. The arguments made by scientists have solid scientific reasoning for their questions.
Science is supposed to be an unbiased testing of theories, the bias shown in the article is clear and the arguments are not fundamentally scientific. The rebuttals that follow are also not purely scientific but at least shown the editors views and arguments to be at best, very questionable in themselves. We are attaching an essay on what a real proof or at least substantial evidence of Darwinian macroevolution would look like which we have written to this essay for reference. One can look at the attached essay and then review the article and see that there is not such evidence referenced in the article (nor to the best of our knowledge anywhere by any proponent of Darwinian macroevolution.)
Referring first to the numbered arguments in the article:
1) The article says that opponents of macroevolution claim “Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.” Mr. Rennie is correct that there are hierarchies of certainty. What is certain is that evolution at some low level does indeed occur (bird beak lengths can change.) Few if anyone argues that point. It is good that in the article, the author states “The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed”. That is actually not true of macroevolution and one of the prime weaknesses of evolution theory beyond the level of small changes. Not one has every observed life being formed, no has ever observed the evolution of a whole new functional type of life, no one has ever observed any new morphology except for extra or misplaced parts (despite, for example intense laboratory pressure on fruit flies, for instance, they always remain flies normal or malformed with misplaced wings or eyes etc.) Yes life has evolved through time, but there is no “repeatable evidence” that descent with modification has created any large-scale novelty that would improve survival and cause the modification to be preserved against a much larger gene pool which would tend to dilute that possibility. The hard evidence for evolution is limited to small-scale changes only.
The author (Mr. Rennie) is right that all science at times relies on indirect evidence. He says, “The absence of direct observation does not make the physicists conclusions less certain.” If that were true then the idea of a “design” component in the evolution of life would be as valid as evolution theory even though there is as yet not absolute evidence or direct observation of it. It is of course true that direct observation does in reality make things more certain and no direct observation of macro evolution is one of its many weaknesses. Macroevolution is not based on hard evidence and in fact is a very uncertain conjecture/theory, and probability calculations show that it is highly improbably that it is the full explanation for life.
2) The article says opponents claim, “Natural selection is based on circular reasoning--” Here he makes an odd statement “the key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival;”? He doesn’t actually refute the claim of circular reasoning. In reality, no one argues that the fittest survives. Mr. Rennie’s comment is rather strange and not really explained. The question is whether or not selection of the fittest operating only from random variations in the genome provides the necessary new morphologies and the necessary level of information to move from non life to life and from one phyla to the next. While it might be possible for such a Darwinian mechanism to generate new species (small but sufficient changes to prevent interbreeding) there is no proof that such a mechanism can generate significant macro novelty nor that such a mechanism would have any reasonable possibility of filling the world with the many different life mechanisms and combinations that fill almost every niche in the biosphere with incredible novel/unique and very well fit forms of life.
3) The article says opponents claim “Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable.” It is quite interesting that here he divides his supposed counter argument into microevolution (which relates to species) and (macroevolution which relates to taxa.) (At least this shows that one science writer realizes the profound difference between the two.) He then makes the claim without any real support that “Natural selection and other mechanisms-----can drive profound changes in populations over time.” The fact is that no such profound changes have ever been observed relative to taxonomic characteristics, but at least, he admits the possibility of other mechanisms. He does not, however, address the possibility that there is some form of life “field” which governs and directs evolution and the complex morphologies and interacting systems of life. While such life fields have not been directly observed, if they exist, that would explain in part how life becomes so complex, so ubiquitous on earth, and so well adapted.
Talking about life fields is an inference, but Mr. Rennie admits that macro evolutionary study itself involves inferences. That is quite an admission since certainly “inferences” are not anywhere near the level of a scientific proof. He tries to make a case from the similarities between apelike animals and humans. Similarities doe not prove relationship of course, unless one assumes such an evolutionary relationship and ignores that the laws of physics and a common environment would inevitably produce commonalities, as would a common designer. (We are also attaching an essay titled “Similarity versus proven relationship, which with simple reasoning we believe shows that similarity does not prove relationship.)
He somehow then implies that those who disagree with macroevolution theory should demonstrate generation of a complex life form spontaneously from inanimate matter. It is highly unlikely that anyone opposing macroevolution has ever suggested that science demonstrate the generation of any level of life from inanimate matter and since science cannot demonstrate or even postulate even a partial explanation of a reasonably probable explanation for how inanimate matter could lead to the simplest form of life, it would be fair to ask them to do that first.
He finally seems to reject the philosophy that a theory should be falsifiable to be scientific by claiming that such would eliminate other branches of science as well as macroevolution. That is a false premise and there is no problem, of course, with sciences proposing theories to be tested which might not be falsifiable as the science is no understood. The problem is when scientists claim a proof exists of a theory which is so hyper broad, general, and tautological that it is claimed to be obvious as a total explanation when in fact the data which science is able to come up with is limited to showing only commonalities and possible relationships but does not give actual evidence which can lead to only the conclusion that the theory does in fact fit reality.
4) The article says opponents claim, “Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.” Most of his arguments relate to articles in science journals and he ignores the many books written by scientists who raise numerous major objections about macroevolution theory. Of course science journals controlled by editors with atheistic bias like Mr. Rennie himself and the attacks such scientists would be subject to by their peers with monetary interests in maintaining the status quo of funding of studies make it extremely unlikely that anyone needing funding and support from peers would ever even submit an article or paper raising the major questions. Sadly, the herb protection mentality of the evolutionist scientific community make the only path open being that of scientists outside of the field writing books. There are many such books raising many serious questions about the incredible improbability of macroevolution ever happening only via simple Darwinian selection from random mutations. Mr. Rennies does at least does not dispute (surprisingly again) that there are unsolved and difficult problems with macroevolution theory. He does not then admit that such should preclude macroevolution from being claimed as proven, when to many scientists with no monetary or career axes to grind, it absolutely has not been proven to say the least.
5.) The article says opponents claim, “The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.” He does not deny such disagreements exist, but then claims “evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nevertheless universal in biology.” It certainly is not universal as he claims since there are many books written by biologists which dispute macroevolution. In this argument Mr. Rennie conveniently does not differentiate microevolution from macroevolution. That is probably to make his statement about universal acceptance more defensible. He then talks about Mr. Gould (who was not a creationist) implying that he accepted macroevolution when in fact Mr. Gould has been quoted as saying; “I think punctuated equilibrium has an overwhelming dominant frequency in the fossil record, which means gradualism exists, but it’s not really important in the overall pattern of things.” Please note that Mr. Gould would have defended evolution in some form, but his repeated statements show that the evidence is far from conclusive in terms of macroevolution:
“The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became
an embarrassing feature of the fossil
record” - S.J. Gould, ‘Cordelia’s Dilemma’, Natural History, Feb 1993, p 15
STEPHEN GOULD, Harvard, "...one outstanding fact of the fossil record that many of you may not be aware of; that since the so called Cambrian explosion...during which essentially all the anatomical designs of modern multicellular life made their first appearance in the fossil record, no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record.", Speech at SMU, Oct.2, 1990
“I believe that our failure to find any clear vector of fitfully accumulating progress…represents our greatest dilemma for a study of pattern in life’s history” – S.J. Gould, ‘The paradox of the first tier: an agenda for paleobiology’, Paleobiology, Vol 11, No 1, 1985, p 3
It should be noted that other statements by Mr. Gould would support a macroevolution theory of some form, but his many statements certainly also show that there is nothing like a proof in the fossil record for a Darwinian like evolution of new phyla.
It is not just Mr. Gould raising serious questions, other similar quotes from scientists include:
“One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.” – Eldredge & Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p45-46
"The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of more and more efficient forms leading up to the present is not borne out by the evidence.” - N.D. Newell, Why Scientists believe in Evolution, 1984, p 10, American Geological Institute pamphlet
“...the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.” - David E. Schindel, Curator at Peabody Museum of Natural History
“Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. … In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the transitional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny” – P.L. Forey, Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stories, 1982, p 120-121
“The gaps in the record are real, however.
The absence of a record of any important
branching is quite phenomenal” – R. Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection,
1991, p 45
“For all of the animal phyla to appear in one single, short burst of diversification is not an obviously predicable outcome of evolution” - Peter Ward & Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Feb 2000, p. 150
“One of the most difficult problems in evolutionary paleontology has been the almost abrupt appearance of the major animal groups” - A. G. Fisher, Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1998, fossil section
According to Mr. Rennie, the problem is that such quotes are taken out of context. He would have us believe that many scientists repeatedly make such statements when they believe that such are not of standing alone or that the scientists would so very often be careless in their writing from which they are judged as scientists. The fact is that usually the statements mean what they appear to mean. If anything, the reality of their doubts came through even when they were being careful to keep from offending anyone with control of what they can publish and how much funding they can get for their future research.
6.) The article says opponents claim “If we are descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? This is not a major scientific claim against macroevolution and not itself of much importance. Mr. Rennie’s does broach a better argument against macroevolution, however, when he says that “populations of organisms become isolated --- and acquire sufficient differences”. This is an indirect admission that if not isolated, genes modifications would become diluted in a large population. This however, leaves the problem for macroevolution that the isolated population will almost always be small, thus reducing the gene pool that can be changed by random mutation. Such small populations will have an even lower probability of mutation and survival. Macro evolutionists argue that the reason the fossil record does not show any continuous or nearly continuous set of mutations is that the small founder populations are too small to be found by paleontologists. That of course, also makes such populations too small to have a reasonable probability of actually mutating significantly before they go extinct from changes in the environment or disease.
7) The article says opponents claim “Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.” This is true, and he admits to this mystery and after some talk about “could have” and “hints”, he goes on to talk about a possible extraterrestrial origin. This is a common ploy of pushing the problem to some place away from earth so that science can supposedly ignore it. He then claims there are supporting “macroevolutionary studies”. He does not cite any macro evolutionary proof in the fossil record or in the laboratory anywhere in the article (to this writers knowledge, no hard physical evidence exists.)
8.) He says that opponents claim “Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.” He then argues that evolution works on “nonrandom changes by preserving “desirable” (adaptive) features”. He kind of sticks his foot in some tar here. Opponents would argue that if macroevolution occurs it would be because of “nonrandom” changes in the genes. Proponents argue that selection by improved survival fitness from random changes in the genes gives an appearance, which does not look random.
The reality is that many mathematicians have in numerous ways shown that while such a mechanism is possible for small changes, the probability of it explaining the occurrence of life at all, let alone the incredible complexities even at the cellular level (the average animal cell is an extremely complex self reproducing chemical factory) or with the complex feedback systems in even the simplest life forms is infinitesimally small to the point of being absurd as an explanation for life. He shows a chart which shows that 30% of postgraduates and professionals believe in God’s creating man within the past 10,000 years or so. This is an admission that the “proofs” of evolution do not fail to convince only those who have not had the opportunity to go to college. His showing such a chart at all is a demonstration of the arrogance, which some scientists fall into.
He talks about a computer program that of course uses “rules” built into the software, which produces rapid selection from random changes. That in no way proves anything but that rules are at work when there is organization selected out of random variation occurrences. He also does not mention that such programs have proven to be extremely limited and will generate complexity to only a very low level and then stop producing any more complexity. This all shows the opposite from what he claims. The simple rule of survival of the fittest is limited in the complexity it can produce. The information needed for such complexity comes from somewhere else. The programs do show that the whole can be or at least seem to be only a limited amount more than the simple sum of the parts and the unbridled reductionism is very questionable and probably not applicable to a full explanation of something as complex as life.
9.) The article says that opponents claim, “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.” Most of what he says is valid but the arguments against macro Darwinism based on thermodynamics and information are far more complex that what he wants the reader to believe.
He is essentially correct in what he says until he says “Thus our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat onto it” implying that simple laws of thermodynamics place not limit on the complexity that can arise just from adding energy to a system which is not true. He then says “Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.” This is correct but misleading in context. Simply having fuel does not lead to unlimited complexity.
When he talks about crystals growing, what is happening is that the underlying laws of physic are acting and determining and limiting the form and complexity that results. Energy fuels crystal growth, but crystals do not grow in forms with unlimited complexity and the complexity is not even remotely like that of the simplest living cell. As a matter of fact, the incredible energy efficiencies involved in life of any form are another fact inexplicable by simple Darwinism and extremely improbable to have occurred by random mutation and survival of the fittest selection.
Essentially, the main argument against Darwinian macroevolution boils down to it being inadequate to explain the complexity of life. Such Darwinists would like to have the public believe that life is just a matter of adding together/stacking in simple forms a bunch of molecules. The reality is that even at the cellular level, life is extremely and amazingly complex. The simplest living cell involved numerous molecular motors, pumps, and feedback systems including energy balancing systems, waste elimination systems, protection systems, and reproductive systems. Darwinian evolution is just to simplistic to have any reasonable probability of explaining such incredible complexity.
10.) The article says opponents claim; “Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. The cannot produce new features.” His first example is the mutation of bacteria to resist antibiotics. This is again an example of micromutaton and scientifically knowledgeable creationists generally do not and should not argue against micromutation.
He then talks about regulatory genes like the homeobox genes. Science has indeed found control genes the existence of which in fact just makes the arguments against Darwinian macroevolution even stronger. The fruit fly tests he talks about just show that such genes can cause abnormal flies but manipulation of such genes does not produce whole new functions or whole new bugs. He admits that the mutations involving genes have only been show to produce mistakes but then jumps to the conclusion (as is usual with evolutionists) that such mistakes show that natural selection by testing can make such unfit flies evolve into something survivable. Such genes show that the nature of life is incredibly more complex than just a bunch of molecules stacked together the right way. There are controls on life built into life on many levels and Darwinian evolution is even less likely to generate control genes that to begin with would be unfit or at least less fit to control what had previously and which still exists.
The idea of information being concentrated in control genes is less likely as is it being less likely to find a computer assembled and everything working together properly as opposed to each of the pieces existing with some function by themselves. Evolutionists would argue that the pieces have other functions, which make them survivable and ignore the fact that such arguments only require even more information and function to have evolved thus making such evolution even more unlikely.
In the last paragraph here he talks about accidental duplication and comparisons of proteins which supposedly show evolution over millions of years. He may be correct to a limited degree, but again, this is not anything like a scientific proof rebutting the high probability of macroevolution being woefully inadequate to explain much at all, let alone all of life.
11) The article says opponents claim; “Natural selection might explain microevolution but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life. He says biologists are open to other possibilities as well. (If this is true of more than a tiny minority, it is very new phenomena and probably a reflection of the increasing evidence of the inadequacy of macroevolution theory.
Actually he (like most evolutionists) confuses the issue in his claim by mixing the idea of new species with higher orders of life. Most of the opponents of macroevolution do not doubt that evolution can produce new species (minor changes which prevent interbreeding.) Such new species do not ever show real novel morphological changes and the evolution of new Taxa or Phyla has never been observed. Again, just a typical ploy to confuse microevolution and macroevolution.
He says at the end, speaking of possible forces beyond natural selection; “those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, unscientific terms, is unproved. Note that he does not say that science can rule out God. He just doesn’t want science to look for Him. Seems like the ultimate in arrogance for him to say God must be ruled out. Actually, that is what essentially all atheistic scientists say because their pitiful science cannot begin to comprehend or address God.
This writer is virtually certain (which is with the atheists not a proof) that no test has ever been done by science that proved that God does not exist and that no such test will ever be done. God is simply beyond science.
12) The article says opponents claim; “Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. This is again misleading since it tries to drag the question back to microevolution. Most opponents think of species as some life form that is truly novel. It does not take macro novelty to get a new species. The real issue is the origin of new Taxa and Phyla and certainly no one has observed that. He discussion of fruit flies shows that even extremely intense laboratory selection which accelerated tremendously mutation rates, experiments have not generated novelty which produced anything other than a deformed fly with extra or missing parts which not only didn’t have a survival advantage, but which quickly died.
If any of the reports the author refers to actually showed any mutational novelty, why do not of the supporters of macroevolution ever cite them. The answer is clearly that all these studies show that the changes are very limited and that is the problem with macroevolution. The only real novelty that results from these experiments is the interpretations dreamt up by macroevolutions in interpreting the experiments as supposed proof of macroevolution so as to justify more funding from the scientific (atheistic) elite who are married to the theory and who control the purse strings.
13.) The article says the opponents claim; Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils—creatures that are half reptile and half bird for instance. His statement is true to a degree, but opponents do not limit their objections to half of something and half of something else. It is true, however, that combinations of features generally associated with different phyla do not prove transition or ancestral relationship from one to the other.
He refers to whale fossils or what could be whale relatives with legs when even evolutionists admit that such legs would be useful for grasping during sex, for example, and did not at one time have to be functional on land. They could be useful in the shallows and such mammals do go into shallow water for holding or added propulsion when the water does not cover the body to hunt for penguins and seals. Also horses of different size don’t prove anything except that horse can grow a little differently in different environments.
He is right that creationists do not accept such evidence as he sites but misstates what is asked for as evidence. Yes evidence would have to be some series of steps and not something with a fully formed feature/function seen elsewhere. The problem is in the discontinuities between Taxa and Phyla that are not logically consistent with a series of minor changes having supposedly happened which made the life form more survivable. There is no hard evidence for that having happened.
The author mentions molecular biology as supposed support for macroevolution, but here again, there is no proof for macroevolution. There are molecular similarities but they do not fit macroevolution and would be expected since the same laws of physics limits things and since the organisms exist in the same molecular environments. Some of the support he mentions is really some support for the theory if interpreted in only one way, the problem is that other interpretations are more probable and in any case, support is not proof. It not that the theory cannot be a theory, the problem is that the theory is claimed to be proven and taught to our children as a proven fact.
14) The article says opponents claim; “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 products of intelligent design, not evolution.
This is in fact one of the strong arguments against macroevolution. It would be one thing for Darwinian evolution to result in simple additive or separated structures, it is something else completely for a set of complicated interdependent non linear systems to occur from a continuous process of small changes. It cannot happen in any reasonable period of time relative to the age of the earth or even the universe for that matter.
15) The article says that opponents claim; Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution. This is true and in this last case, we also suggest reading the extensive response in the following site;
15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry: A point by point response to Scientific American
Is Scientific American unscientific?
A Scientific Critique of Evolution