Creation is not a scientific alternative (Evolution)

Name: bigbtommy

Hello doyoo user, You have to be logged in to use these functions... Login or register Close window

Send message to member

Product:	Evolution
Date:	11.07.04 (337 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Evolution is good science

Disadvantages: Creation is non-science

Let my first start by saying this. I am currently writing a book on bizarre beliefs, and creationism forms a large part of it. In this review, I intend to set out to prove that creationism is not a viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution or the surrounding theories of abiogenesis, and the natural study of the Earth.

The arguments put forward by creationists are fallacious, disingenious and are red herrings on the path to scientific understanding. Creationism or intelligent design should not be taught in school science classes for a number of reasons, which I will delve in to later. There is a great deal of controvesy in both Britain and the United States over the teaching of creationism, especially since Sir Peter Vardy opened a number of schools in the North of England which teach creationism as a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution.

I will first start with the philosophical objections to creationism, then get to the practical objections to the claims made by creationists and demonstrate that creationism is not science and it is nothing but apologia for religion.

First of all, one of the biggest claims made by the creationist and intelligent design movement (a movement, incidentally, which is just creationism but with the word "designer" replacing "god", thus taking it out of a religious context and in to a pseudoscientific context) is that evolution is only a 'theory' and that we have a degree of uncertainty as to the origins of life.

This claim is disingenous because of what theory means in the context of science. Theory is not a synonym for guess. It does not imply any uncertainty or doubt in science as it does in other fields. Theory means a group of general principles that are used as scientific explanations of observed phenomena. Evolution is a theory because of the principles that it encompasses: Darwin's theory of natural selection, mutation and the contributi
ons made by genetics. They explain the observed phenomena (the speciation of the planet) in a way that encompasses what we know from science.

But, the creationist would now claim, creation does similarly. Creation explains the observed phenomena - God did it. Creation encompasses all the evidence and nuances of life on earth - God created it all.

But that is not scientific. Science demands, first of all, that a theory is naturalistic. That it relies on natural explanations to explain the observed phenomena. God, by definition, is not a natural explanation but a supernatural explanation. Second, science demands that a theory is falsifiable. Evolution is falsifiable. One only needs to find part of the fossil record that is different from what evolution predicts. Or observe the creation of a new specimen. Or demonstrate that natural selection does not happen, instead that there is some kind of predeterminism.

Falsifiability is an important part of science. If you can't prove a theory wrong, then the theory could explain everything. Creation does similarly. If you accept creation, there is no evidence that I could prevent to you to sway you. If I prove that the geology of a place does not mean that Noah's Flood happened, then you can say "Well, God changed it after the flood to befuddle the scientists".

Another part of creationist dogma that I find bizarre is the idea that even if they prove Darwin wrong, that does not make creation right. If you prove Darwin wrong, creationism is also still not acceptable because it's unfalsifable and unscientific. That's the equivalent of saying that if a man with no legs kills a man with legs that he will be able to walk again. It's simply ridiculous to claim so, because if Darwin's theories were proved incorrect, scientists would simply be forced to find a better theory rather than revert to creationism.

Another bizarre philosophical claim that creationis
ts make is that evolution is inherently atheistic, that it supports a worldview with no god. This is patently ridiculous. Evolution merely describes how speciation happened. Evolutionary biologists are not all atheists. Theology has nothing to do with evolution, and the personal philosophical or theological convictions of scientsts has no implication in the science which they study. Medicine is medicine. Gravity is gravity. Evolution is evolution.

I have heard a number of creationists make the claim that evolution is a religion in an attempt to give balance to their beliefs. Kent Hovind has done so. Duane Gish (of Institute for Creation Research) has done so. But I do not define myself as an evolutionist. Nobody does. If asked my religion, I list atheist, non-religious or nontheist. I don't write evolutionist, because it's not a religion. If you define evolution as a religion, how do you differentiate that from Christianity or atheism or Judaism or Buddhism? You can't. Because you change the meaning of religion if you try to include evolution as part of it.

Then the claim is often made that if life evolved naturally, there can be no meaning in life. Meaning only truly comes from a creator, because if there is no creation, there can be no overall purpose or reason to exist. But people find their own meanings. Including atheists, agnostics and others. This is an emotional appeal. Simply because evolution gives a better explanation, the emotional appeal of the previous explanation is lost. That does not change the fact that evolution happens. I've found meaning in life: playing with ideas and enjoying the company of my family and friends. My meaning requires no creator. Nor does it require evolution. Origins is irrelevant.

Then you get the truly wacky observations. Evolution is immoral because Hitler believed in evolution. And by that nature, movies are immoral because Hitler watched movies (so does Kim Jung-Il). Or motorways
are immoral because Hitler built motorways (or autobahns). Water is immoral because Hitler drank water. The ethical arguments against evolution are possibly the weakest ones: we are nothing but animals and thus we will behave so. Darwin once corresponded with Karl Marx, thus his theory is evil. (Actually, the thing about Marx was proven wrong, but is irrelevant nonetheless).

Young-earth creationists claim that the universe is between six and ten thousand years old. Some even claim it to be younger. Yet science has shown the Earth to be 4.5 billion years old. We have numerous confirmations of that age. To claim that it is six to ten thousand years old is absolutely amazing. How, then, does speciation happen according to the creationist?

Well, according to the Biblical literalist, God created a number of different 'kinds' of animals. A dog is a kind. A cat is a kind. A giraffe is a kind. Hovind (yes, I know, it's a cheap shot to argue against Hovind) claims that kinds can be determined by a child. They all get on the Ark, and are carried through the big Flood. Of course, getting all the animals on the ark along with enough food and water to feed them all is pretty much impossible. And how Noah kept order with thousands of types of animals is answerable by anyone who has ever been in a classroom with thirty students - it would be impossible. Then the Flood is over, and all the animals get off the boat.

How, then, have they speciated? Well, by evolution within those kinds. That's what the creationists claim. That the dogs evolved only from other dogs and the giraffes from other types of giraffes. But when one looks at the amount of 'types' they claim to have on the Ark - a few thousand - and compare that with the amount of different species we have now, a far quicker type of evolution must have happened over the last few thousand years than the millions of years which evolution predicts.

If we are talking chanc
e (which I'm going to come on to in a second), then it's far, far less likely that the speciation that has led to what we have today happened in the period stated by young-earth creationists than what is stated by scientists. Millions of years is enough for mutations to develop and natural selection to favour the mutations that are beneficial. Thousands of years is ridiculous.

As for the 'chance' point, creationists claim that it's highly unlikely for life to evolve 'by chance' and that creationism makes much more sense. That is, of course, if you ignore the fact that the existence of a deity is far more of a probability leap than saying that the world evolved. The 'tornado in a junkyard' example is brought up as an analogy. If a tornado goes through a junkyard and produces a 747, the same odds could be applied to the evolution of life.

Ridiculous! A tornado going through a junkyard is a singular event. If you took someone blindfolded and asked them to shoot a penalty, there is a high chance that they will miss. But if you took someone blindfolded and asked them to shoot hundreds of penalties, they will probably score one eventually. And once they have scored one, that is all it takes. The evolution of species is not a process by chance. It is completely the opposite of chance for natural selection to favour mutations which are beneficial.

Other claims that creationists make include a bizarre one about radiometric dating. That it is inaccurate. But when you compare radiometric dating (such as carbon-14 dating) with other measures of time, we can see it's accuracy. Tree rings match up with carbon-14 dating. It's consistent with Milankovitch cycles, the luminesence dating method and a number of other dating methods. We have also tested human artifacts - books or pieces of art - where we have human records as to the age. Carbon-14 dating, and radiometric dating in general, is proven to work with rec
ent human artifacts. This leads me to wonder whether it is the creationists who are just misusing carbon dating in the same way they manhandle the other sciences.

Possibly the most frequently trotted out argument is this: "if humans are descended from apes, why are apes still around?". This argument is so unbelievably clueless, it makes even the radiometric dating look like an intelligent argument. Evolutionists are not arguing that humans are descended from what we call apes. Instead, we come from an ape-like anscestor, possibly the same ancestral heritage as other modern primates.

Evolution, unlike creationism, is a scientific theory. By theory, I mean explanation. And it's an explanation that has survived many, many attacks. The evidence for common descent and natural selection is everywhere. Cichlid fish in Lake Victoria. Basilosaurus isis - a whale which serves as a transitory fossil between whales and limbed mammals. Evening primrose (Oenothera gigas) we have seen to evolve from the similar Oenothera lamarckiana.

Creation is simply not science. It is a religious or philosophical construct. Creationists refuse to play by the methods science demands. Instead of demonstrating their theory, they sit at the edge taking potshots at evolution and hoping that if they change the public's perception of evolution, that they will be able to show creation as a viable alternative.

Let there be no illusions. Creationists aren't interested in proof. Or science. Or evidence. Or truth. They are simply trying to validate their religious beliefs by misusing science.

Summary: