If evolutionary theory is so wrong then why is it used?

[Late_Cretaceous]

If evolutionary theory is so obviously wrong that a layman without any real background in biology or science can falsify the theory, then why do scientists rely upon evolutionary theory so much?

IF evolution so fundamentally flawed that it violates the basic principles of logic and natural laws, then why hasn't science dismissed it?

Does science have some kind of irrational or vested interest in maintaining some theory that - excuse me - is so ****** stupid that only a moron would accept it?

If evolution is so offensive to christianity, then why do the overwhelming majority of christians (including the clergy) accept it?

Can lay people really know more then scientists about science?

 

[Vance]

You will likely get the "conspiracy of evildoers" type response, or the "inertia" type response (scientists have a vested interest in following the company line). Both of these are incorrect. Evolution arose out of the evidence, and was clarified and more correctly defined out of the evidence. There is no hidden agenda.

Also, the entire process by which the scientific community works is built around tearing down other's ideas wherever possible! You know that over the last 150 years, countless scientists have tried to find the fatal flaws in evolutionary theory, hoping to be the one who "falsified evolution". He would be the most famous scientist of his generation. Every scientists dream. The fact that no scientist has been able to do more than point out minor areas to be clarified in the details is very telling about the overall correctness of the theory.

Also the fact that other branches of science, like medicine and chemistry actually use the evolutionary principles as base concepts in their own studies and experiments, and the results of those experiments work *because* those evolutionary concepts are correct.

Also of immense importance is that even the leading YEC's have come to accept that EVERYTHING about evolution is true, except that they place a barrier on how far it can actually create change in populations. They accept mutation, selection and the resulting change. Everything about the actual mechanism of evolution is no longer really in dispute, only the effects that can result from these mechanisms.

So, the entire debate should be limited to the whys and wherefores of this degree of change. Those in favor of evolution explaining why they think that the resulting changes can create new species and new "kinds", and those opposed should argue exactly what the scientific barrier is to the mechanisms creating that degree of change.

But no YEC's want to discuss these issues.

 

[Thatguymorgan]

I think that you are right when it comes to science not facing the facts in the matter. But like us scientists are people with emotions and views. And they have presented evolution as the best theory available for a non-creation view. Therefore it will remain to stand as a “solid” theory. One reason that it continues to be used is because people, as scientists, are thinking backwards. Instead of looking at the facts and creating a hypothesis from their experiments, they go looking for evidence that can support their preconceived thesis. Now I don’t exclude this problem to Atheist or evolutionist. Christians tend to do the same thing when it comes to preconceived notions. We look for things that support what we believe already. This is not good science. As Christian we should look at evidence and draw a conclusion from what we see. Only this mind set brings people to God. Because I think atheist are tired of bad science on the Christian side. That is why they assume it all to be myths because they heard something from a Christian that turned out to be false on all accounts. Truth is what we need to seek.

 

[Vance]

But, evolution did not develop out a preconceived idea, but out of an observation of the evidence and the development of an hypothesis accordingly. This has been tested over and over again, and found to be sound. Scientists have attempted to falsify over and over and have not been able to do so. This is good science.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

The very basic foundation of science is to base conclusions on evidence, and not allow pre-conceived notions bias one's conclusions.

To charge that scientists are "thinking backwards" is to claim that they are doing the exact opposite of what science really is.

Don't you think somebody would have caught this by now?

Scientists build their careers on presenting evidence to their peers for review. They also build thier careers on picking apart the research of others. There is a lot of competition among scientists for everything from reputations to research funding. IN an academic setting, as most scientists work in, the pressure to publish research is immense. And that research is scrutinized.

Nothing can boost a career like being adept at finding flaws in others' methods and conclusions. Then again, nothing boosts one's career like being able to consistantly present research that withstands the barage of criticism and critique.

For something to become consensus among the majority of scientists, like evolutionary theory is, means that it has had to withstand a lot of detailed analysis.

Scientists in general are not geered to simply agree with one another's conclusions. Part of their very nature is debate and skepticism.

Certainly, there are examples of bad science that manages to get published. What usually happens in those cases is that the other members of the scientific community decend upon shoddy research as a pack of wolves on a sickly moose.

You may as well accuse all lawers as not knowing the law, or doctors as not knowing basic anatomy.

 

[Thatguymorgan]

First of all the science and their “backward thinking” are related in my last response to those scientists that are trying to prove the thesis of evolution with limited facts. I’m not as arrogant to say all scientists are making bad science. Just simple that some do not follow the scientific model of developing hypothesis.
Second the argument that evolution is right because it has been around for a while is a perfect example of not using scientific thinking to reach a conclusion. The earth was thought flat for many more years than evolution has been thought a hypothesis, but we don’t believe the earth is flat because the facts state otherwise. But have you ever thought about how many years after the facts were presented before people began to see the truth. This is a parallel to the current thesis of evolution. Evolution has been picked apart and has been found lacking. But the change we not come about over night. The history of new discoveries has shown this time and time again. You say that evolution has been probed at, but only found minor flaws. I would then ask you have you looked at some of the cases against macro-evolution. I would say they are much more than minor points of conflict. There are some major problems found in the theory of macro-evolution. Here take a look at a small handful of books on this topic. If you have not read them I would encourage you to take a look. Remember these are just a couple, but there the one’s I have found helpful to me personally. Notice I did not put the author’s credentials for the sack of time. If you would like them give me their name and I will write back and tell you what degrees they have and where they work. It is important to note that these are scientist on the forefront of new hypotheses about evolution and not old books written by Science teacher at your local high school.
“the cosmic origins of life on earth” Christopher Chyba
“The Source” John Clayton
“Forbidden Archeology” Cremo, Michael A. and Richard L. Thompson
“The origins of species revisited” Bird, W.R.
“Evolution of living Organism” Grasse, Pierre-P
“The Ediacaran Experiment” Gould, Stephens J.
“Darwin’s Black Box” (sorry I forgot the author. I don’t have it with me)
“Understanding Evolution” South Bend, John Clayton
“Evolution: The Challenge of Fossil Record” Gish, Duane T.
“Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” Denton, Michael
“Of Pandas and People” Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon
“The Bone Peddlers” Fix, William R.
“The Extinction of Darwinism” Johanson, Donald and James Shreeve
“In the Beginning” Horgan, John
“The Natural Limits to Biological Change” Lester, Lane P. and Raymond G. Bohlin
“The Dawn of Man” Parker, Steve

Thirdly, notice I said macro-evolution and not micro-evolution. There is a discrete difference between the two. One has been shown by facts as the books above demonstrate and the other, macro-evolution, runs into some problems with science. Take a look at these sources you may find them shocking.

 

[Vance]

Morgan said:
First of all the science and their ""backward thinking"" are related in my last response to those scientists that are trying to prove the thesis of evolution with limited facts. I’’m not as arrogant to say all scientists are making bad science. Just simple that some do not follow the scientific model of developing hypothesis.


Well, first, scientists are not trying to prove evolution, they have established that it is a valid and working mechanism, they are now just trying to establish more and more of the details about how it works in particular situations. In fact, scientists never try to prove a theory. Once they come up with a hypothesis of how things might work based on the evidence in front of them, they immediately begin trying to FALSIFY it. If it can not be falsified, then it is given more weight and is tested and tested and tested until it is well considered enough to be considered a theory. Like gravity, which is just a theory. I am sure there are scientists who may not follow the scientific methods, but if they don’t their hypotheses will never stand the intense scrutiny of falsification. Evolution is a theory that arose directly from the evidence and was detailed and fine tuned based on hypothesis and testing.

Second the argument that evolution is right because it has been around for a while is a perfect example of not using scientific thinking to reach a conclusion. The earth was thought flat for many more years than evolution has been thought a hypothesis, but we don’’t believe the earth is flat because the facts state otherwise.

No, evolution is not right because it has been around for a long time. It is most likely correct because it has survived the intense scrutiny of many generations of scientists who have attempted to falsify each aspect of it, which of course was not true for flat earthism (which, by the way, was not accepted by most scientists since ancient times). And it is most likely correct because it has been shown to correctly predict events in many areas of science beyond biology. Further, there is no debate anymore even by leading Creationists that the actual mechanisms of evolution are exactly what science indicates. The only remaining debate is over the degree of change this process can produce. We are no longer even fighting over evolution per se, but how much change evolution can bring.



But have you ever thought about how many years after the facts were presented before people began to see the truth. This is a parallel to the current thesis of evolution. Evolution has been picked apart and has been found lacking. But the change we not come about over night. The history of new discoveries has shown this time and time again. You say that evolution has been probed at, but only found minor flaws. I would then ask you have you looked at some of the cases against macro-evolution. I would say they are much more than minor points of conflict. There are some major problems found in the theory of macro-evolution. Here take a look at a small handful of books on this topic. If you have not read them I would encourage you to take a look. Remember these are just a couple, but there the one’’s I have found helpful to me personally. Notice I did not put the author’’s credentials for the sack of time. If you would like them give me their name and I will write back and tell you what degrees they have and where they work. It is important to note that these are scientist on the forefront of new hypotheses about evolution and not old books written by Science teacher at your local high school.



I will not have time, of course, to review each of the list of books that you presented, but I will definitely look at a some of them. The problem I see right at the top is that many of them are hard-core YEC’s who have an agenda to pursue, and one that is not based on furthering scientific knowledge. If what any of them are saying is true, then their conclusions will peer reviewed and found persuasive and will be accepted in the scientific community, which is not averse in the least to overturning established concepts. That happens all the time and the overturning scientists are praised and rewarded. I have not seen any major arguments against evolution stand up to peer review.



It might be helpful if you summarize some of their points for the group. It is very likely that all their points have been heard before and responded to in some way. If not here, then over in the science forum.

 

[Vance]

Morgan:

I have not yet had a chance to review these books, but hope to in the not-too-distant future. In the meantime, you might want to check out the following reviews of a couple of them at the following links. If you have read the book and find it persuasive, it behooves you to at least read the rebuttal before coming to any conclusion. Equally, I would not consider the rebuttal conclusive unless I have also read the book, of course.

For Denton’s book:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

For Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

On this last one, I have read a bit on the subject of "irreducible complexity" and find it lacking. I have not read this review (and there are others linked on the page), but over in the Science forum, there was a very good analogy of a metropolitan city as an "irreducibly complex" system and a discussion why IC just doesn’t hold up.

 

[Vance]

I think we should take a look at some of these authors, so we know who we are dealing with:

Chyba: seems to believe that life on earth was seeded by comets

Clayton: a former atheist who now claims that modern science does not contradict the Bible.

Bird: is a lawyer and not a scientist. Hey, I am a lawyer as well, maybe I will write a book on the subject!

Gould is a leading evolutionist, and his discussion in this particular book, from what I understand, has been clarified by some more recent discoveries.

And here is AIG’s take on a couple of the others:

"Where do they really stand? Behe has no problem with the idea of man descending from the slime, via fish—so long as it didn't happen ‘by chance.’

Denton, who was an agnostic when he wrote his book, has since moved much closer to theistic evolution, not Genesis creation."

From what I hear, Denton has recanted his conclusions in the books listed.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I think that you are right when it comes to science not facing the facts in the matter. But like us scientists are people with emotions and views. And they have presented evolution as the best theory available for a non-creation view. Therefore it will remain to stand as a ?solid? theory. One reason that it continues to be used is because people, as scientists, are thinking backwards. Instead of looking at the facts and creating a hypothesis from their experiments, they go looking for evidence that can support their preconceived thesis. Now I don?t exclude this problem to Atheist or evolutionist. Christians tend to do the same thing when it comes to preconceived notions. We look for things that support what we believe already. This is not good science. As Christian we should look at evidence and draw a conclusion from what we see. Only this mind set brings people to God. Because I think atheist are tired of bad science on the Christian side. That is why they assume it all to be myths because they heard something from a Christian that turned out to be false on all accounts. Truth is what we need to seek.

If evolution didn't work, experiments and observations would eventually reveal this. They haven't so far, so it is the best theory out there.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

It seems pretty arrogant to sit there and dismiss something complex (like evolutionary theory) without having any real understanding of it. I suppose I could start to critique the validity of our criminal justice system, even though I am not familiar with it at all - but hey I could watch a couple of episodes of Law and Order.

 

[lucaspa]

I think that you are right when it comes to science not facing the facts in the matter. But like us scientists are people with emotions and views. And they have presented evolution as the best theory available for a non-creation view.

Some scientists have presented evolution has this. But the first evolutionists -- Darwin, Asa Gray, Lyell, Hooker -- presented evolution as a creation view. This is simply how God created.

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.

From Origin of the Species:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.
Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

See? Particularly the second quote: this is creation. It's simply how God works -- thru evolution.

One reason that it continues to be used is because people, as scientists, are thinking backwards. Instead of looking at the facts and creating a hypothesis from their experiments, they go looking for evidence that can support their preconceived thesis.

LOL!! You are projecting creationism onto science! This is exactly what creationists do. But it's not what Darwin did or what scientists do.

Remember, Darwin started out as a creationist. When Darwin set sail on the Beagle, he was a convinced creationist. Now, if he did what you say scientists do, he never would have changed that or thought up evolution, would he?

Also, creationism was the accepted scientific theory from 1700-1831. Now, if scientists behave as you say, how is it they dropped creationism and changed to evolution?

Sorry, your view of science simply won't stand examination. The data doesn't support it but falsifies it.

Which is how science does work. Here are some "evolutionists" describing how science works. Doesn't sound like what you say:

"The only rule of the scientific method is that we must discard any scientific statement if the evidence of our senses shows it to be wrong. To be scientific, we must be able to go to nature to see if an idea works, to see if it fits. If we cannot go out and test the validity of a notion directly, we can take a more circuitous route: if an explanation about the world is correct, it must imply some further consequences that we can observe in nature. If we fail to find these predicted consequences, if instead we observe something else, then our explanation can't be correct. If we *do* make the predicted observations, temporarily the explanation has defied our attempts to show it false."
Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business, A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, pg. 27-28.

"If, after repeated testing using different systems, equipment, organisms, etc. by large numbers of scientists over days or weeks or years, the hypothesis has not been refuted and continues to explain the hard data, then that hypohtesis is accorded the status of a theory of science. *If, however, the hypothesis fails the tests, it is discarded.* Tim Berra, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, pp. 2-3.

"1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory -- if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions.
3. Every 'good' scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it.
5. Confirming evidence should not count *except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory:* and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory." [emphasis Popper's]
Also Popper wrote: "I thought that scientific theories were not the digest of observations, but that they were inventions -- conjectures boldly put forward for trial, to be eliminated if they clashed with observations, with observations which were rarely accidental but as a rule undertaken with the definite intention of testing a theory by obtaining, if possible, a decisive refutation." Karl Popper

 

[lucaspa]

Second the argument that evolution is right because it has been around for a while is a perfect example of not using scientific thinking to reach a conclusion.

It's shorthand for "it's been around awhile because it has been tested thoroughly during that time and no one has been able to falsify it."

If you want to get just a taste of how much evolution has been tested, go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and enter "evolution" as your search term. Then start reading. You can go to "Limits" and check on just how far back in time you want to search. I suggest doing each increment in turn and noting the increase in the number of articles. You will find that the number of articles that tested evolution have actually increased in recent years.

Evolution has been picked apart and has been found lacking.

People have attempted or claimed to have picked evolution apart. But those claims get the same testing as the claims about evolution. Critical examination and testing shows the criticisms to be false.

If you have not read them I would encourage you to take a look.

I have read many of them and many not on your list. We can discuss them in detail whenever you want. I suggest you make a separate thread for each book.

Before I get to specifics, let me make a few general comments:

1. All of these books are advocating some form of special creation. The problem here is that special creation has already been falsified. Therefore the theory they are advocating can't be valid. That's what Origin of the Species really did: falsified special creation.

2. All of these books attack a strawman version of evolution. It's easy to find flaws in strawman -- you made the strawman with the flaws to begin with. But that is why you make a strawman: you aren't capable of finding flaws in the real thing.

3. These books are all anti-Darwinism, but they contradict each other on major points. Don't you find tha interesting? For instance, Forbidden Archeology says humans are billions of years old (and the universe is that old). However, Gish, Parker, and Bird say humans are less than 10,000 years old. Both can't be right. Behe says that many features of organisms have evolved by Darwinian evolution (IC systems excepted) but Gish, Parker, Bird, and Davis & Kenyon insist that no structure of any organism arose thru Darwinian evolution. Again, both can't be correct.

It is important to note that these are scientist on the forefront of new hypotheses about evolution and not old books written by Science teacher at your local high school.

But not all of these books exist, either. And many don't argue against evolution

“the cosmic origins of life on earth” Christopher Chyba

This is one book that doesn't exist. Instead you have the book Comets and the Origin and Evolution of Life edited by Paul J. Thomas, Christopher P. McKay Christopher F. Chyba Perhaps you were referring to the essay in this book. This book is not against Darwinian evolution. Instead, it proposes that the basic building blocks for life were delivered to the earth when it was young by comets.

“The Source” John Clayton

That isn't the full title. The full title is The Source: Creation--Eternal Design or Infinite Accident. The title gives the strawman: evolution is not pure chance or accident. You've been conned.

“Forbidden Archeology” Cremo, Michael A. and Richard L. Thompson

This is a Hindu version of creation. The flaws are too numerous to mention here but we can go into them if you want. This contradicts Creation Science just as much as it contradicts evolution.

“The origins of species revisited” Bird, W.R.

A rehash of Bird's earlier work. Bird advocates instantaneous formation of each species. Transitional series and observed speciation falsify his claims.

“Evolution of living Organism” Grasse, Pierre-P

Again, not a full title. Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation. This seems to be a new mechanism of evolution, not a denial of it. I'll have to look into it more.

“The Ediacaran Experiment” Gould, Stephens J.

Not anti-evolution. No flaws in the basic idea of evolution. Gould is simply discussing particular lineages. He does discuss Bauplan but this issue is firmly within Darwinian evolution.

“Darwin’s Black Box” (sorry I forgot the author. I don’t have it with me)

The author is Michael Behe. Introduces irreducible complexity and a strawman version of natural selection. Behe falsifies himself in other writings and this article thoroughly refutes the contention that IC can't be reached by Darwinian evolution: http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/articles/jtb.pdf

“Understanding Evolution” South Bend, John Clayton

This book doesn't seem to exist. Not under that title or that author.

“Evolution: The Challenge of Fossil Record” Gish, Duane T.

I have Gish's The Fossils Say NO! instead of this one. Strawman versions of what is a transitional or intermediate fossil. Also poor knowledge of the literature because the transitions he says don't exist really do.

“Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” Denton, Michael

One of the first ID books. Are you aware that Denton has changed his mind? See his new book Nature's Destiny : How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe? Denton accepts a teleological version of theistic evolution here. He really upset his (former) colleagues at www.arn.org with this one!

“Of Pandas and People” Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon

Read this one. A proposed ID textbook. We can discuss its flaws in detail.

“The Bone Peddlers” Fix, William R.

Don't know this one.

“The Extinction of Darwinism” Johanson, Donald and James Shreeve

Another book that doesn't exist.

“In the Beginning” Horgan, John

This isn't a book. This is actually an article in Scientific American in February of 1991.

The most famous quote by creationists from this is: "DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins." Horgan, John, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, vol. 264 (February 1991), pp. 117-125. This is untrue. Proteins can form without DNA. In fact, the protein glutathione in modern cells is made without DNA. Made by other proteins. Horgan is talking about the system in modern cells called "directed protein synthesis" and its evolution. It turns out that there are several ways that this system can evolve. We can discuss them in a separate thread.

“The Natural Limits to Biological Change” Lester, Lane P. and Raymond G. Bohlin

This is a 1984 book. It has since been falsified by phylogenetics. If there were such a limit, then phylogenetics would have showed independent units. It didn't.

“The Dawn of Man” Parker, Steve

Don't know this one but I do know Parker is a YEC.

Thirdly, notice I said macro-evolution and not micro-evolution. There is a discrete difference between the two.

I noticed. But there isn't the discrete difference you think. That difference exists only in the minds of creationists who are trying to move the goalposts to defend special creation.

Now, several of your books don't even deal with macroevolution. The first doesn't, for instance.

Macro-evolution is speciation. And it too has been shown by facts. Gish's whole book is an attempt to deny those facts. Besides, notice that none of the anti-evolution books even discuss the hundreds of instances of observed macroevolution in real time.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I was wondering why I could not find any reference to a few of those books. It never occured to me that they didn't exist (or perhaps they were published in some small run by a private church run publishing house).

This is a good example of why one should not use books as examples unless one has at least read it.

BTW, I think you may have scared him away.

 

[Vance]

Oh, I think Morgan does have these books and has read them (because I like giving people the benefit of the doubt and he seems like a straight shooter). I just think they are from such a small press to fly below the radar, or may be journal articles or something.

 

[Bushido216]

Did I ever mention how much Paul scares me?

 

[lucaspa]

Oh, I think Morgan does have these books and has read them (because I like giving people the benefit of the doubt and he seems like a straight shooter). I just think they are from such a small press to fly below the radar, or may be journal articles or something.

Vance, both Clayton and Johanson are mainstream authors. Donald Johanson is a respected anthropologist, found Lucy, and is currently a curator at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. He wouldn't be published by small-time publishing firms.

John Clayton has several books on science -- straight science and not creationism. Do a search on Amazon.com like I did. I too would like to Morgan the benefit of the doubt but I can't on these two.

 

[lucaspa]

Did I ever mention how much Paul scares me?

No. But it's nice to know.

 

[Bushido216]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Macro Evolution merely a hind-sight tool? A collection of Micro Evolutions that we can neatly bundle as leading up to the current state of affairs?

 

[lucaspa]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Macro Evolution merely a hind-sight tool? A collection of Micro Evolutions that we can neatly bundle as leading up to the current state of affairs?

Yes and no. Macroevolution is speciation. But it's also looking at the trends and changes within a lineage of species. For instance, there is Cope's Law. This states that in any given lineage the trend over many speciations will be for species to become larger. So, what is the long-term selective pressure for larger individuals?

So, in looking at lineages, macroevolution is what you say it is -- hindsight looking at the trend of accumulating micro changes and speciation.

However, notice that "and speciation". This is where micro evolution stops. It does not necessarily lead to clagogenesis: splitting of a population into new species. Yes, accumulation of changes within a lineage will lead to chronospecies -- a new species but later in time. But that means simply that you have 1 species and now it is another species. 1 to 1. Cladogenesis is taking 1 species and making 1 or more new species, so now instead of 1 species you have 2 or 3 or more. A lot of macroevolution studies have looked at the mechanisms to get reproductive isolation = new species.