Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?

quote:

---

So far as I know, there is one and only one assumption of science --- that we can find out about the world by looking at it.

---

This is actually the same reason that WhatYouOughtToKnow.com authors the Brothers Winn criticize the theory of Evolution (they also criticize Intelligent Design). As quoted from their show on the subject:

quote:

---

Beyond that, I have one real major issue with intelligent design: it’s not science. At least, no-one to date has been able to show me the theory in a truly scientific light. They say some things are complex, so complex that they must have been created intelligently, rather than accidentally. Okay. But at what point of complexity? I mean, where do you draw the line? It seems arbitrary, and that’s not very scientific. Uh, maybe we shouldn’t teach it as science. Maybe philosophy or something. But there are other philosophies that get taught in science class. You know, like evolution. Woah, buddy — don’t tangle with the Dawkins doctrine.

​

Let’s examine the facts around evolution: if it ever did take place, it isn’t now. At least not that anyone can demonstrate. And the odds of it happening are really, really, really long. If scientists and educators could own up to that, I’m sure ID never would have even come up. But most people who believe in evolution aren’t willing to admit how unlikely it is, because it dramatically weakens their argument. And if you disagree that it’s unlikely, then you’re in another pickle, because if the odds are good, then you figure we’d have seen evidence of it by now. Like, concrete evidence of it. People like to point out natural selection and the resulting speciation as evidence of evolution, because there’s a mountain of data to support both of those as testable, observable science. But don’t forget: we define what a species is, and no amount of ash on trees has ever changed a moth, dark or light, into a bee or a bird.

​

They also like to point at bacterial mutation as evidence of evolution, but I have an issue with that, too. We’ve been watching those little guys since the invention of the microscope over 300 years ago, and while they’ve changed genetically and adapted as bacteria, they’ve never evolved into a new, higher form of life. Think about this: if a bacterial generation is 20 minutes, and a human generation is 20 years, then they should be evolving 525,000 times faster than we are. And if it took 3.2 million years for Lucy, the alleged missing linke, to become modern man, we should expect to see similar evolutionary advancements in bacteria in a period of just six years. [Whistles]. Wow. And I’m talking about real evolution. Not just slight alterations to DNA, or building up immunities to this or that, but transforming, actually evolving into something more complex — a brand new form of life. A higher form of life. They ought to have their own little civilization, and have bacto-mobiles, and at least be insects by now. I dunno.

​

Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening, says Dawkins. It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you — the detective — hasn’t actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English. But ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh! Dr. Dawkins! Pick me! Pick me! Circumstantial evidence is subject to interpretation, and doesn’t necessarily prove anything. It’s like seeing two bones on the ground 40 feet apart and assuming it came from the same animal. Skullcap, thigh bone — Java Man!

​

The evidence of evolution may indeed spell out a message in plain English. We’ve never seen it happen. We can’t prove it happened, we can’t reproduce it, but it’s the best we’ve got, so we have to believe it. Which is a pretty poor qualifier for teaching it as an undeniable fact to impressionable young minds. Why don’t we just teach the truth? We don’t know how life came about. Why is that so threatening? You can’t prove that evolution happened, or that it didn’t. It’s beyond the current capacity of science to draw a conclusion with any degree of certainty. And if we were to subject evolutionary theory to the same rigors that scientists want to impose on ID, it probably wouldn’t pass the test to be classified as science, either.

---

That last statement is especially good - while I.D. may not fit the test to be classified as science, evolutionary theory if subjected to the same rigors would likely not pass either.We've never seen evolution happen. It's beyond the current capacity of science to draw a conclusion either way with any degree of certainty.We can prove natural selection and adaptation. However, neither proves that all species had a common ancestor, which is a pet philosophy of Darwin's. He at least admitted to it though in 'On the Origin of Species' and examined alternative possibilities, such as the alternative of parent species (which would allow for the Genesis accounts to be accurate, and animals evolving within their own species rather than from one single original life).But hear Darwin's own words for yourself:

quote:

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species."

​

...

​

When we attempt to estimate the amount of structural difference between the domestic races of the same species, we are soon involved in doubt, from not knowing whether they have descended from one or several parent-species. This point, if it could be cleared up, would be interesting; if, for instance, it could be shown that the greyhound, bloodhound, terrier, spaniel, and bull-dog, which we all know propagate their kind so truly, were the offspring of any single species, then such facts would have great weight in making us doubt about the immutability of the many very closely allied and natural speciesfor instance, of the many foxesinhabiting different quarters of the world. I do not believe, as we shall presently see, that all our dogs have descended from any one wild species; but, in the case of some other domestic races, there is presumptive, or even strong, evidence in favour of this view.

​

...

​

Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?... But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

​

"On the Origin of Species", Charles Darwin. pp. 3, 17, 171, 280.

---

Darwin, for all that I disagree with him, was not shy about expressing the potential flaws in his theory, and honest enough to admit there were noticeable problems to be addressed. He admitted that parent species were an alternative to his belief that all species had a common ancestor, and that the lack of transitional forms was the 'gravest' objection to his theory, though he asserted confidence that it was merely an incomplete fossil record responsible. Darwin also spent an entire chapter puzzling over why sterility would prevent crossing between species if all did indeed have a common ancestor and were immutable. I found it ironic though that he accepted as proof that all species were immutable that merely crossing between different kinds of geese, or varying types of canaries, proved all were immutable. After all, it's hardly the same as crossing between a frog and a cat, or some such thing. I was disappointed in what struck me as hasty and poorly reasoned conclusions on the subject. If there were indeed parent species, canaries, regardless of their technical classification, would be expected after all to fit into the same parent species.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

If at some point you see fit to address my points rather than trying to attack me with ad hominem tactics, let me know. Until then, you've left me nothing to respond to that wouldn't dissolve this topic into a petty name-calling match.

If you'd actually tried pointing out flaws in the argument I would've responded.

If you really want to get into this, aren't YOU 'singularly unqualified' to make these objections according to forum rules?

quote:

---

2. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.

​

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

​

10. Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person.

---

What I take offense to is that, unable to beat the logic or reasoning of an opponent's argument, you are forced of necessity, to try to silence me by saying unless I provide X qualifications my opinion and freedom of speech are worthless and irrelevant. While I am not sure what communist country you speak this from, this is typically frowned upon in my native nation.

quote:

---

But Dr Adequate does raise a good point concerning how you're approaching your topic. The Forum Guidelines try to encourage people to introduce evidence and make arguments in their own words rather than through links or lengthy cut-n-pastes.

---

True - as I looked at the forum rules, I realized I was skirting that line more than I'd realized. Still, I have less than 50 posts right now, not 4000, and until you just mentioned it it had not been objected to. I will avoid the cut and pastes from now on to make arguments primarily in my own words (though I already made that effort, it was in addition to the pasting).However, I didn't see Dr. Adequate bring up this point. All I was hearing was, "unless you prove you're a scientist you have no room to say anything on this forum", a requirement I'd been unaware of. Naturally this appeared belittling, condescending, arrogant, spurious, and a direct assault on the American ideal of freedom of speech.

quote:

---

Let’s examine the facts around evolution: if it ever did take place, it isn’t now. At least not that anyone can demonstrate.

What evidence leads you to believe this is an accurate statement?

---

My point is that while we keep hearing about the ability of animals to make drastic evolutionary leaps between species, we have yet to see any evidence of it. As the Brothers Winn point out, we've been watching bacteria since the invention of the microscope, and while they have adapted as bacteria, they've never become a new, higher form of life. Same with canaries. They may adapt within an apparent parent species, but do not become an entirely new line.Were we still actively considering parent species as an alternative, which Darwin himself stated as the opposing view, then the evidence would appear telling that this is the case, and an objective examination lead to more thorough analysis of the competing possibility.This is why Creationists always differ between microevolution and macroevolution. We can observe natural selection and adaptation right now. However it is faith by which one relies upon interspeciary evolution, which appears more a philosophy of Darwin's that all had a common ancestor, than one of his more solidly supported facts.Evolutionists will say that it takes so long to occur we can't see this type of evolution, that it takes so long we won't be able to see it happening. Nevertheless, what it results is again, taking on faith that this is indeed what's happening. It's circumstantial evidence open to interpretation. We used interpretation to try and force the evidence to fit this view, rather than equally considering the alternative of parent species, lining up species to try and make orderly lines between one another.However, this has also resulted in certain infamous fossil finds which were falsified (Java Man, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man). It has also resulted in several surprising mistakes recently, such as the discovery the newly christened 'rat squirrel' was in fact the already existing Laotian Rock Rat, or that Homo Floresiensis, aka hobbit man and labeled a missing link, had in fact lived up until modern times and thus could not be an ancestor, or that Habilis and Erectus lived at the same time and would have to be knocked off the lineage, or that Ardipithecus Ramidus, older than Lucy, looked nothing like an ape and walked upright. The news has had major press received that the human family tree is now instead a 'bush' with dead ends everywhere.Again, not only is there a complete lack of proof for this interspeciary change, but discoveries are beginning to knock out one after another of the missing links that already exist, or else alleged new ones are found wrong. Yet at a time when we should be more seriously considering the possibility of parent species, many are still religiously adhering to Darwin's beliefs of a single common ancestor; macroevolution.

quote:

---

That is completely false. Genetics alone is enough to establish human and chimp common ancestry as a fact. The theory of evolution explains why we are different.

---

I know that they share in common a great percentage of their DNA (though I believe Neanderthal Man was even closer). It's around 95 or even 98%, correct?And yet, genetics has now proven the existence of a 'mitochondrial eve', a direct human ancestor to all humans. By Darwin's own words, wouldn't this show evidence of parent species rather than all species having a common ancestor, since this is the exact sign he said would prove the alternate theory instead of his own?

quote:

---

When we attempt to estimate the amount of structural difference between the domestic races of the same species, we are soon involved in doubt, from not knowing whether they have descended from one or several parent-species. This point, if it could be cleared up, would be interesting; if, for instance, it could be shown that the greyhound, bloodhound, terrier, spaniel, and bull-dog, which we all know propagate their kind so truly, were the offspring of any single species, then such facts would have great weight in making us doubt about the immutability of the many very closely allied and natural speciesfor instance, of the many foxesinhabiting different quarters of the world. I do not believe, as we shall presently see, that all our dogs have descended from any one wild species; but, in the case of some other domestic races, there is presumptive, or even strong, evidence in favour of this view.

---

Isn't this the exact same thing he spoke of? Showing all human species descended singularly rather than via mass evolution? And that it would show parent species, not a single common ancestor for all species? And if not, then what evidence was he saying would be needed?

What is more, this is 1 of only 2 falsifiable tests I know listed in the book for determining which of these 2 competing theories, a single parent species or multiple ones, is the correct theory; the other being a lack of transitional forms. Therefore, its emphasis is crucial.And if so, genetics would actually prove, according to Darwin's own words, the competing theory of multiple parent species as opposed to one common one for all species.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.