Theory of Evolution: Questions and Doubt Remain

Acceptance of a Common UNKNOWN Ancestor is a Matter of Faith

by Babba Zee
Outraged Spleen of Zion

[NOTE: Babba Zee has published a truly massive post on the questions surrounding the Theory of Evolution. Part 1 covers the "It's Just a Theory" argument. "Circular Reasoning" and "Evolution Isn't Testable" is Part 2; Part 3 has five topics, including "Scientists Doubt the Theory"; the Conclusion contains seven additional topics/arguments and the summary. The arguments originally come from July 2002's "No Nonsense" by Do-While Jones, an answer to Scientific American's June 2002 "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense”.]

Introduction

Francis Galton, the cousin of Charles Darwin, said the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859 “marked an epoch in my own mental development, as it did in human thought generally.” Writing in Memories of a Life, Galton wrote that the book’s “effect was to demolish a multitude of dogmatic barriers by a single stroke, and to arouse a spirit of rebellion against all ancient authorities whose positive and unauthenticated statements were contradicted by modern science.” For Galton’s part, the rebellion prompted by The Origin of Species included sarcastic attacks on religious dogma, including the belief in the power of prayer. Galton, for example, asked how the public might react to a proposal for a “special inquiry” to determine “whether the laws of physical nature are ever changed in response to prayer.” Such an inquiry, he suggested, might measure whether “success has attended the occasional prayers in Liturgy when they have been used for rain, for fair weather, for the stilling of the sea in a storm, or for the abatement of pestilence.” He concluded—happily, for him—that “the modern feeling of this country is so opposed to a belief in the occasional suspension of the general laws of nature, that most English readers would smile at such an investigation.”

Galton proposed a replacement for traditional religious dogma, the new field (with a name he coined) of eugenics, which he defined as “the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations, whether physically or mentally.” He proposed that after eugenics first gains acceptance as an academic matter and then as a practical matter, that it should enter a third and final stage: “It must be introduced into the national consciousness as a new religion.”

NO Nonsense

Fela Kuti – Teacher Dont Teach Me No Nonsense

Scientific American claims to have “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense”. But the answers, not the questions, are nonsense.

According to Scientific American, creationists use fifteen arguments that are “nonsense”. We will look at all fifteen, in order, and see if they really are nonsense

It is “Just a Theory”

The first argument creationists use, according to Scientific American, is

Serious creationists rarely, if ever, use this argument. We have been publishing this newsletter for almost six years. We invite you to look through all the back issues, and you will see we have never used it.

But some “casual creationists”, who don’t believe in evolution but don’t really know why, sometimes do dismiss evolution because it is “just a theory.” We saw the argument used once in a letter to the editor of our local newspaper. So, we really can’t blame Scientific American for attacking this idea. Their argument is,

This is actually an indictment of the public school system. They should not be blaming creationists for this misunderstanding if it is what is taught in public schools.

One place where we have seen this “hierarchy of certainty” expressed is at the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History (which certainly isn’t a cesspool of creationist propaganda). We told you about their “Facts, Theories, and Speculation” display in our December, 2001, newsletter. The Field Museum presents a theory as being somewhere between a fact and speculation on the continuum of certainty. So, blame the public schools, and blame the Field Museum, too, if you are going to blame creationists.

Usually, when evolutionists try to combat the “only a theory” argument, they drag gravity into it. They say Newton’s theory of gravity is “just a theory, too.” The difference between gravity and evolution, of course, is that one can do repeatable experiments to test the theory of gravity. Engineers can measure the amount of force it takes to stretch a spring a certain length. Then, they hang various masses from the spring and measure how far it stretches. From this they can determine the force of gravity pulling on the mass.

Furthermore, the theory of gravity made some interesting predictions. Astronomers noted that some of the outer planets did not orbit in the path one would expect. They calculated that some other gravitation force must be acting on them. From that they calculated where an unknown planet must be. They looked in that location and discovered Pluto. The theory of gravity predicted a planet of a particular size in a particular orbit, and it turned out to be a correct prediction.

The theory of evolution isn’t like the theory of gravity. We have neither the time, talent, nor the material to build a lifeless planet just like Earth orbiting around a star just like the Sun to see if life will evolve on it after a few billion years. But we can perform some interesting experiments on a smaller scale. Many scientists have done experiments trying to find some way for lifeless chemicals to assemble themselves into living cells. Just as alchemists, after many failures, admitted that there isn’t any way to turn lead into gold, evolutionists will someday have to admit that there isn’t any way to turn brackish water into bacteria. In fact, those origin of life experiments have shown us some good reasons why chemicals can’t come to life by purely natural processes.

Breeding experiments have shown that there are limits to how much artificial selection can modify a variety. There is every reason to believe that natural selection would have the same limits as artificial selection does. In fact, with what we now know about genes and information theory, we understand why those limits are there, and why mutation and natural selection can’t cross them.

Unlike the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution doesn’t have a lot of experimental confirmation to support it. In fact, the experimental evidence against evolution would certainly have caused the theory to have been rejected long ago, if it weren’t for the religious implications that go along with it.

The theory of evolution doesn’t have a very good record when it comes to prediction, either. Darwin said that the fossil record should show innumerable transitional forms. It doesn’t. The “Cambrian explosion” of fossils is not what would be expected if the theory of evolution were true. Evolutionists first tried to explain away the scientific observations by saying that there were gaps in the fossil record. More recently, they have tried to explain it away with “punctuated equilibrium” (which we have discussed on several occasions, the most recent being last month).

If evolution were true, there would not be such clear divisions between classes, orders, and families. It should be really hard to decide if certain living creatures were reptiles or mammals because there should be innumerable living transitional forms.

So, serious creationists don’t reject evolution because it is “only a theory.” They reject it because it is a theory that is not consistent with modern scientific observation.

Continue Reading “No Nonsense”:
Part 2: Circular Reasoning
Evolution Isn’t Testable
Part 1
Part 3
Conclusion
Back to DBKP.com Front Page

Tags: Babba Zee, doubts, evolution, nonsense, Scientific American, theory