Evolution: Fact or Fiction
I sometimes get replies from people who read the newsletter and fear that I might offend Christian readers of the newsletter with statements such as "While a few snakes do have small spurs, the remnants of hind legs shrunken by many years of evolution...".
As someone firmly ensconced in the evolutionary camp I find it hard to fathom that this may cause offence. The implication being that evolution is, after all, only a theory and an incorrect one at that. The email also went on to contend that it has been proven wrong.
I may be missing something here but I have searched and searched the reputable scientific papers an journals and cannot find anywhere that states it has been proven wrong.
Well, theory it may be. Evolution as a theory has been around for over 100 years. It was contentious when it first appeared and was continuously ridiculed. But it has persisted. Similarly, people have been trying to knock it down for over 100 years, but with no success.
In fact, I contend that most Christians happily live with evolutionary theory and a belief in God. The Roman Catholic Church is not bothered by it, nor are most religions.
The faiths most bothered by evolution are those that believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible and the 6000 years old (or 10000) theory.
I don't think any amount of evidence I provide will satisfy them. I know I should not lump them all into one category but the issue of Intelligent Design is a banner that is held dear to creationist beliefs and one that is put forward as a theory but is closer to a belief.
There should be plenty of evidence for intelligent design if it is true. As Fred Hoyle wrote when talking about the ease at which Helium turned into a stable Carbon atom:
"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggest s that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars."
However, from a philosophical point of view David Deutsch says:
"One can take off from that starting point in a variety of directions. One way is to say, ah well, this is providence, this is evidence that the world was designed with the intention of having life in it. Of course, that kind of explanation would bring science to a dead stop because that could explain absolutely anything. And an explanation that could explain absolutely anything is not very good; you canÂt show that itÂs wrong.
And if the only role that the designer is playing in oneÂs theory is to explain design in the universe, then you havenÂt gained anything because the designer is then himself, or itself, an entity exactly as unexplained and complex and with exactly the mirror image of all the properties that youÂre trying to explain, except that itÂs an extra entity. So itÂs philosophically untenable because it simply takes the same problem and projects it onto another layer thatÂs unnecessary."
Some recent correspondence cited a website called Dr Dino. I found these paragraphs below from http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=100 more emotive than rational. They indicate that the writer has neither read or understands evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theorist are not cultists, nor would they ever suggest that snakes ever walked on two legs. To say that it is devolution is also ridiculous as that assumes that the snakes evolved body shape is less suited to its purpose than the one it has eventually formed.
"Furthermore, the bones that have interpreted as remnant legs apply only to hind legs. Are they suggesting that boa constrictors walked upright with two legs and had no arms? This would make for an amusing image. Perhaps the mindless designer of the evolutionist cult failed to provide them with front legs and made the rear legs go away for symmetry's sake. That, of course, is devolution, not evolution. Of course, if this devolution took place, we'd have to explain how a mindless designer determined that there was a problem with the original design in the first place.
This would be like positing that a man that was sound asleep designed and built a watch, and later, while still asleep, altered its design by removing parts that were not necessary. How could a mindless designer be concerned with symmetry, and how could it design anything that worked? These creatures, like the whole universe, were designed by a designer that was an artist and an engineer, not by a chaotic, undefined force, and even the evolutionary cultists imply that in their writings at the exact same time that they are denying it. One might call that an oxymoron, but there are no oxymorons, only morons who posit contradictions."
I also fail to understand the sleeping man analogy. There is not 'design' at work, merely small changes escalating over time that best suits and individuals' circumstances. Yes, it is chaotic but there is no 'force' and no, it's not an oxymoron. But animals that are able to best adapt will survive and procreate more effectively.
I liked this quote from Robin Williams, a science writer, although it is more tongue in cheek...
"With around 5 million and possibly 10 million species of insects on the Earth, the Intelligent Designer must like them a lot.
If made in His, Her or Their image, the intelligent designer or designers may have six legs.
He, she, it or they are sadistic, preferring to design the icumenid wasps with an intricate interdependence on their prey that requires them to parasitise a grub or spider so their
young can eat them alive from the inside out.
He, she, it or they must also have perverse Oedipal tendencies judging from the design of
the button beetle where the mother copulates with her sons before eating them.
That's beautifully balanced by other beetles where the newly hatched males insert their
heads back into mummy's reproductive aperture and devour her from the inside out.
It must take a devoted misogynist to design the Australian seaweed fly, who beats up his girlfriends before raping them.
And then there are the dubious ethics of a designer who put together the female preying mantis, who has to snack on the head of her partner during copulation.
I don't know what this says to you about a potential intelligent designer but he, she, it or they surely don't sound very Christian to me."
Possibly cruel but funny nonetheless.
More recently a fossil was found that shares features with primitive fish fins, but also has characteristics of a true limb bone and one that bridges the gap between fish and amphibian. Creationists have long been hanging onto the fossil records as being disjoint and lacking in intermediary steps. This certainly begins to bridge the gap, although it can never be fully bridged as flesh and bone are too easily destroyed in the harsh oxygenated and thriving environment we live in.
From a breeding point of view we now have more species of dogs, cats and domestic animals than we ever did in the past. In fact some farmers work hard to retain the genetics of some of the oldest breeds. Surely this is evidence of animals (and plants) ability to evolve, albeit more rapidly when human intervention is involved.
I had a look at some other articles on Dr Dino's website. One said the following:
"Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago. Evolutionists wish to construct their own truth; the earth formed slowly over billions of years. Both of these are subject to the same scientific method. When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old)."
Three things in this paragraph grabbed me.
1) "Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago."
Scientists do not claim to know the truth. They collect, measure and analyse data to arrive at theories that support the evidence. If the theory becomes unsupportable, then it is thrown out. Evolutionary Theory has not been thrown out by the scientific community and in fact becomes more secure as evidence continues to mount in its favour.
2) "Both of these are subject to the same scientific method."
Not so. Creationism is not subject to scientific method - and in any event they do not need to do so as they already know the truth.
3) "When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old)."
Again, not so. It supports the opposite. Creationist theory will tell you otherwise but the weight of evidence, the chemistry, the physics and the overwhelming evidential data, not just radio carbon and the various isotopic dating methodologies but also remnant magnetic dating of seafloor rocks, ice plug sampling, geo-physical data and modern astronomy, including the most recent findings and the rate of expansion of the universe all point the other way.
Aafter visiting Dr. Ken's (Dinos) website and viewing some of his videos and presentations, I came to the conclusion that some of his misinformation is not helpful to the current debates on environment and future understandings of the issues confronting the planet. In my opinion these issues run much deeper than creationism and were my real concern about the sites information.
In one video he discusses over crowding and population issues as if there is no challenges around population growth. I think he uses a ridiculous scenario of 150,000 people per square inch based on non-intervention, non-bottleneck, smooth exponential population growth graphs. On the next slide are photos of open plains etc. Totally spurious evidence and nonsense. The issue is resources - water, energy, food, deforestation, animal populations, plants and raw materials, not people numbers per se. I think he knows this but chooses to twist the arguments to make those who are concerned about these issues look wrong.
Well I've said my bit and got it off my chest. Anyway, on another more cheerful note, I just published another edition of "Keeping Reptiles". It's free to subscribe and I welcome contributions - those that disagree and agree. It's all in the fun.
As someone firmly ensconced in the evolutionary camp I find it hard to fathom that this may cause offence. The implication being that evolution is, after all, only a theory and an incorrect one at that. The email also went on to contend that it has been proven wrong.
I may be missing something here but I have searched and searched the reputable scientific papers an journals and cannot find anywhere that states it has been proven wrong.
Well, theory it may be. Evolution as a theory has been around for over 100 years. It was contentious when it first appeared and was continuously ridiculed. But it has persisted. Similarly, people have been trying to knock it down for over 100 years, but with no success.
In fact, I contend that most Christians happily live with evolutionary theory and a belief in God. The Roman Catholic Church is not bothered by it, nor are most religions.
The faiths most bothered by evolution are those that believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible and the 6000 years old (or 10000) theory.
I don't think any amount of evidence I provide will satisfy them. I know I should not lump them all into one category but the issue of Intelligent Design is a banner that is held dear to creationist beliefs and one that is put forward as a theory but is closer to a belief.
There should be plenty of evidence for intelligent design if it is true. As Fred Hoyle wrote when talking about the ease at which Helium turned into a stable Carbon atom:
"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggest s that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars."
However, from a philosophical point of view David Deutsch says:
"One can take off from that starting point in a variety of directions. One way is to say, ah well, this is providence, this is evidence that the world was designed with the intention of having life in it. Of course, that kind of explanation would bring science to a dead stop because that could explain absolutely anything. And an explanation that could explain absolutely anything is not very good; you canÂt show that itÂs wrong.
And if the only role that the designer is playing in oneÂs theory is to explain design in the universe, then you havenÂt gained anything because the designer is then himself, or itself, an entity exactly as unexplained and complex and with exactly the mirror image of all the properties that youÂre trying to explain, except that itÂs an extra entity. So itÂs philosophically untenable because it simply takes the same problem and projects it onto another layer thatÂs unnecessary."
Some recent correspondence cited a website called Dr Dino. I found these paragraphs below from http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=100 more emotive than rational. They indicate that the writer has neither read or understands evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theorist are not cultists, nor would they ever suggest that snakes ever walked on two legs. To say that it is devolution is also ridiculous as that assumes that the snakes evolved body shape is less suited to its purpose than the one it has eventually formed.
"Furthermore, the bones that have interpreted as remnant legs apply only to hind legs. Are they suggesting that boa constrictors walked upright with two legs and had no arms? This would make for an amusing image. Perhaps the mindless designer of the evolutionist cult failed to provide them with front legs and made the rear legs go away for symmetry's sake. That, of course, is devolution, not evolution. Of course, if this devolution took place, we'd have to explain how a mindless designer determined that there was a problem with the original design in the first place.
This would be like positing that a man that was sound asleep designed and built a watch, and later, while still asleep, altered its design by removing parts that were not necessary. How could a mindless designer be concerned with symmetry, and how could it design anything that worked? These creatures, like the whole universe, were designed by a designer that was an artist and an engineer, not by a chaotic, undefined force, and even the evolutionary cultists imply that in their writings at the exact same time that they are denying it. One might call that an oxymoron, but there are no oxymorons, only morons who posit contradictions."
I also fail to understand the sleeping man analogy. There is not 'design' at work, merely small changes escalating over time that best suits and individuals' circumstances. Yes, it is chaotic but there is no 'force' and no, it's not an oxymoron. But animals that are able to best adapt will survive and procreate more effectively.
I liked this quote from Robin Williams, a science writer, although it is more tongue in cheek...
"With around 5 million and possibly 10 million species of insects on the Earth, the Intelligent Designer must like them a lot.
If made in His, Her or Their image, the intelligent designer or designers may have six legs.
He, she, it or they are sadistic, preferring to design the icumenid wasps with an intricate interdependence on their prey that requires them to parasitise a grub or spider so their
young can eat them alive from the inside out.
He, she, it or they must also have perverse Oedipal tendencies judging from the design of
the button beetle where the mother copulates with her sons before eating them.
That's beautifully balanced by other beetles where the newly hatched males insert their
heads back into mummy's reproductive aperture and devour her from the inside out.
It must take a devoted misogynist to design the Australian seaweed fly, who beats up his girlfriends before raping them.
And then there are the dubious ethics of a designer who put together the female preying mantis, who has to snack on the head of her partner during copulation.
I don't know what this says to you about a potential intelligent designer but he, she, it or they surely don't sound very Christian to me."
Possibly cruel but funny nonetheless.
More recently a fossil was found that shares features with primitive fish fins, but also has characteristics of a true limb bone and one that bridges the gap between fish and amphibian. Creationists have long been hanging onto the fossil records as being disjoint and lacking in intermediary steps. This certainly begins to bridge the gap, although it can never be fully bridged as flesh and bone are too easily destroyed in the harsh oxygenated and thriving environment we live in.
"The transition wasn't all or nothing," said Ted Daeschler, a vertebrate zoologist with the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia "It's not that some animals were thrown on land. There were certainly other functions intermediate."
As I see it, Evolutionionary Theory also explains why we can morph animals. We understand the basics of genetics and breeding to change animals and use it to create new roses, different and new bog breeds and various snake morhs over relatively short time frames. Creationist ideas are religious beliefs, based on faith and belief systems. Religion and science come from two different directions. Science asks the how and religion asks the why.From a breeding point of view we now have more species of dogs, cats and domestic animals than we ever did in the past. In fact some farmers work hard to retain the genetics of some of the oldest breeds. Surely this is evidence of animals (and plants) ability to evolve, albeit more rapidly when human intervention is involved.
I had a look at some other articles on Dr Dino's website. One said the following:
"Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago. Evolutionists wish to construct their own truth; the earth formed slowly over billions of years. Both of these are subject to the same scientific method. When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old)."
Three things in this paragraph grabbed me.
1) "Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago."
Scientists do not claim to know the truth. They collect, measure and analyse data to arrive at theories that support the evidence. If the theory becomes unsupportable, then it is thrown out. Evolutionary Theory has not been thrown out by the scientific community and in fact becomes more secure as evidence continues to mount in its favour.
2) "Both of these are subject to the same scientific method."
Not so. Creationism is not subject to scientific method - and in any event they do not need to do so as they already know the truth.
3) "When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old)."
Again, not so. It supports the opposite. Creationist theory will tell you otherwise but the weight of evidence, the chemistry, the physics and the overwhelming evidential data, not just radio carbon and the various isotopic dating methodologies but also remnant magnetic dating of seafloor rocks, ice plug sampling, geo-physical data and modern astronomy, including the most recent findings and the rate of expansion of the universe all point the other way.
Aafter visiting Dr. Ken's (Dinos) website and viewing some of his videos and presentations, I came to the conclusion that some of his misinformation is not helpful to the current debates on environment and future understandings of the issues confronting the planet. In my opinion these issues run much deeper than creationism and were my real concern about the sites information.
In one video he discusses over crowding and population issues as if there is no challenges around population growth. I think he uses a ridiculous scenario of 150,000 people per square inch based on non-intervention, non-bottleneck, smooth exponential population growth graphs. On the next slide are photos of open plains etc. Totally spurious evidence and nonsense. The issue is resources - water, energy, food, deforestation, animal populations, plants and raw materials, not people numbers per se. I think he knows this but chooses to twist the arguments to make those who are concerned about these issues look wrong.
Well I've said my bit and got it off my chest. Anyway, on another more cheerful note, I just published another edition of "Keeping Reptiles". It's free to subscribe and I welcome contributions - those that disagree and agree. It's all in the fun.
posted by Mark Chapple at 8:31 PM
0 comments
