4g) How some Refute these Criticisms of the Theory of Evolution
The key issue in the Creation vs
Evolution debates is the Question of Origins.
Regardless of the processes we see ongoing today, we must at some point
admit that we need to explain how it all got started. Here is the dilemma. In
one case, we can surmise that there never was a beginning. This implies that our universe is eternal
with no begninning and no end. Some
would say that there is a thinking God outside this universe, Who is eternal,
but one way or another you need to fill in that question mark at the origin.
So, Creationists immediately
default to a God external to this universe, which would by definition be a
“supernatural” explanation.
Evolutionists on the other hand are trying to find the answers within
this universe. Either way we have to
recognize that it would have taken an infinitely long time to get to where we
are now. This demonstrates our
inability to comprehend infinity and thus anything that is eternal.
Nevertheless we can use our
scientific method to assess observable facts.
And, if all the facts we need are in this universe, then we might
eventually be able to explain our origin with science alone. Unfortunately, if the answers are not in
this universe, eg if an external God has been creating this universe in His
mind as I have postulated all along, then we’ll never get enough observable
evidence to resolve the question of origins. [ Note: It’s just like looking for other Life in the universe. How long do we look for it before we
conclude, “it’s just not there”?] This should not stop us from trying, I
suggest, because in our search we will come closer to the First Cause than if
we never seek It at all.
Now, the chief complaint about
Creationism is that it seems to preclude the search for other explanations. The
chief justification for studying Evolution, however, is that it is eliminating
one-by-one the alternatives to a Creator God.
Here
is a short summary of what we can find on the Web about “Evolution
Science”. These are attempts to keep
open the question of origins so we can continue to look for other explanations
within this universe that are totally open to our investigations. I say go for it! I say that these studies are all flawed, but they are all worthy
of investigation anyway. I say they are
flawed because they are most certainly not conclusive in any sense. They are merely suggestions that perhaps
there is still some worldly explanation, even though we can’t find one
yet. I suggest that the Question of
Origins demands a supernatural First Cause, and given that such a God must
exist, we are only arguing about what He’s doing now. A very interesting study and one which suggests that either there
is a purpose to this universe or not.
What a strange question. If
there is a purpose, I’d certainly like to understand it better and how I fit
into it all. If there is no purpose,
then what a disappointment. Faith is
actually required in either case.
Arguments Refuting Criticisms of Evolution Theory
In the century since he proposed
it, this source contends that Mr. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural
selection has become nearly universally accepted by biologists, but has proven
controversial among the general public. Darwin's critics raise five principle
objections to teaching evolution:
1. Evolution is not solidly
demonstrated.
"Evolution is just a
theory,"
Darwin's critics point out, as if
theory meant lack of knowledge, some kind of guess. Scientists, however, use
the word theory in a very different sense than the general public does.
Theories are the solid ground of science, that of which we are most certain.
Few of us doubt the theory of gravity because it is "just a theory."
2. There are no fossil
intermediates.
"No one ever saw a fin on
the way to becoming a leg,"
critics claim, pointing to the
many gaps in the fossil record in Darwin's day. Since then, however, most fossil
intermediates in vertebrate evolution have indeed been found. A clear line of
fossils now traces the transition between whales and hoofed mammals, between
reptiles and mammals, between dinosaurs and birds, between apes and humans. The
fossil evidence of evolution between major forms is compelling.
3. The intelligent design
argument.
"The organs of living
creatures are too complex for a random process to have produced them. The existence of a clock is evidence of the
existence of a clockmaker."
Biologists do not agree. The
intermediates in the evolution of the mammalian ear can be seen in fossils, and
many intermediate "eyes" are known in various invertebrates. These
intermediate forms arose because they have valuebeing able to detect light a
little is better than not being able to detect it at all. Complex structures
like eyes evolved as a progression of slight improvements.
4. Evolution violates the
second law of thermodynamics.
"A jumble of soda cans
doesn't by itself jump neatly into a stackthings become more disorganized due
to random events, not more organized."
Biologists point out that this
argument ignores what the second law really says: disorder increases in a
closed system, which the earth most certainly is not. Energy continually enters
the biosphere from the sun, fueling life and all the processes that organize
it. Just as a mother's energy "organizes" a child's otherwise messy
room, so the sun through photosynthesis powers the organization of life on
earth.
5. Proteins are too
improbable.
"Hemoglobin has 141 amino
acids. The probability that the first one would be leucine is 1/20, and that
all 141 would be the ones they are by chance is (1/20)141, an impossibly rare
event."
This is
statistical foolishness you cannot use probability to argue backwards. The
probability that a student in a classroom has a particular birthday is 1/365;
arguing this way, the probability that everyone in a class of 50 would have the
birthdays they do is (1/365)50, and yet there the class sits.
6. Natural
selection does not imply evolution.
"No scientist has come up
with an experiment where fish evolve into frogs and leap away from
predators."
Is microevolution (evolution
within a species) the mechanism that has produced macroevolution (evolution
among species)? Most biologists that have studied the problem think so. Some
kinds of animals produced by man-made selection are remarkably distinctive. If
future biologists only had Chihuahuas, dachshunds, and greyhounds from the
fossil record, they would surely consider them to be different species, perhaps
even different genera. While all dogs are in fact the same species and can
interbreed, laboratory selection experiments easily create forms that cannot
interbreed and thus would in nature be considered different species. Thus
production of radically different forms has indeed been observed, repeatedly.
To object that evolution still does not explain really major differences, like
between fish and amphibians, simply takes us back to point 2these changes take
millions of years, and are seen clearly in the fossil record.
7. The irreducible complexity
argument.
The intricate molecular
machinery of the cell cannot be explained by evolution from simpler stages.
Because each part of a complex cellular process like blood clotting is
essential to the overall process, how can natural selection fashion any one
part?
What's wrong with this argument
is that each part of a complex molecular machine evolves as part of the system.
Natural selection can act on a complex system because at every stage of its
evolution the system functions. Parts that improve function are added, and,
because of altered changes, become essential. The mammalian blood clotting
system, for example, has evolved from much simpler systems. The core clotting
system evolved at the dawn of the vertebrates 600 million years ago, and is
found today in lampreys, the most primitive fish. One hundred million years
later, as vertebrates evolved, proteins were added to the clotting system
making it sensitive to substances released from damaged tissues and so greatly
increasing its sensitivity. Fifty million years later a third component was
added, triggering clotting by contact with the jagged surfaces produced by
injury. At each stage as the clotting system evolved to become more complex,
its overall performance came to depend on the added elements. Mammalian
clotting, which utilizes all three pathways, no longer functions if any one of
them is disabled. Blood clotting has become "irreducibly complex"as
the result of Darwinian evolution.
Darwin's theory
of evolution has proven controversial among the general public, although the
commonly raised objections are without scientific merit.
http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/index.html
http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage16.html
19 Nov 2004
For more on this and a response to any questions, please email any comments to nasamike@nasamike.com