Criticism of evolution
From Wikinfo
- For criticism see Criticism of Criticism_of_evolution
Critics of the Darwinian Theory of Evolution have pointed out several problems with the theory, including whether it's a scientific theory at all, the problem of historical accounts and artifacts that contradict Darwinian evolution, and in the realm of scientific discoveries made since Darwin's day that have cast some doubt on the theory, including the problem of first life.
Contents |
Is it a scientific theory?
When looking at scientific method, we find a methodology that can study only the present. The present includes artifacts that have survived from the past, but even those give only a very imperfect picture of what happened in the past. In short, science can study only that which can be observed and the observation repeated. Events from the past cannot be observed, and if they were observed, those observations cannot be repeated.
Yet, in a nutshell, the definition for evolution is that all life has developed from simple, common ancestors by natural means over a long period of time. By definition, we cannot observe this long development which by definition occurred in the past, therefore, evolution cannot be a scientific theory. Or, for an exact quote, “This theory (which in common speech we are now justified in calling a fact) states that all organisms have arisen from common ancestors by a natural, historical process of change and diversification.”[1]
What about fossils? We can observe them. But can we tell when and how they were deposited? There are different theories as to how they could have been deposited, theories that contradict each other, without observation, how can we tell which of the contradictory theories is correct?
What about radiometric dating, the most well known is Carbon-14? Again, these are dependent on knowing the original concentrates of the radioactive isotopes, the ways the rocks were formed, measurements of leaching either in or out of the isotopes in question, all of these questions unable to be verified through observation, making these dating methods also unscientific.
What about Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands? Now the questions come up, how much do we know about genetics, speciation, genetic drift, and so forth? Did all of them stem from the same ancestors? How honest is the reporting about them? First of all, we don't know if they all had the same ancestors, that is a belief that cannot be observed. Secondly, we know that certain genes are expressed under certain conditions, while other genes under different conditions, so some of the variability reported can just be the result of which genes are being expressed? In other words, what we see as change may actually be only external changes without any genetic change? Thirdly, how many of the different varieties of finches really can't interbreed, in other words, they are really different races instead of different kinds of birds? Even the term "species" itself has a fluid, indistinct meaning so cannot be used as an absolute in proving evolution. Which brings up the final question, how honest is the reporting about them?
Because evolution is not based on observation, we must conclude that evolution cannot be scientific, never has been and never will be (unless someone invents a time machine). Because it cannot be scientific, it is merely a pseudoscience and its often use in pushing a philosophical or religious agenda only strengthens its role as a pseudoscience.
History
Both in verbal descriptions of animals who have lived in the past, and in artifacts—drawings, statuary, and reliefs—we find evidence of the coexistence of life forms that the theory of evolution concludes mankind never saw. In some remote areas, these descriptions continue for life forms that still exist.
If evolution truly were a robust theory that fits all the data that has been found, then researchers would have no problem with the historical data that has been found. Instead, we find that evolutionists try to hide data, and where data come to more public knowledge, such as the Ica stones in Peru which have been known to the Spaniards as early as the 1500s[1], or the statuary of Acambaro[2], both mentioned here [3], an effort is made to have these findings labeled as modern fraud. Or in others, they hope people just don’t notice them, such as the stegosaurus at Angkor Wat [4][5] or the Narmer Palette’s dinosaurs from ancient Egypt [6].
Scientific discoveries
When Darwin first described his theory, knowledge of the inner workings of cells was little known. Today, however, research reveals very complex machinery where we know only part of it. We still don't know the feedback mechanisms that tell the cell which genes to express and when. We find a complex self-replicating mechanism that allows the duplication of the information library that allows for offspring to be created. Even the simplest known self-replicating bacterium shows a level of complexity that is still only imperfectly understood.
Which brings up a question: if even the simplest known life is so incredibly complex, where did the first life come from? These are not the natural complexity found where nature acts without a designer, rather this complexity is of the type that one would expect with an engineer drawing out the plans. How were the information libraries that are the DNA formed in the absence of pre-existent life? How was the Krebs cycle used to break down organic material into energy and raw materials for cells developed, and the same cycle in reverse in plants to build up organic materials? People since Darwin have postulated models how these could have occurred, proposing models since the simple one proposed by Darwin concerning the development of the eye, but models are models which can be tweaked by the researcher to give the results that he desires. In other words, models, even those that are run on computers, cannot answer the above questions, all they can illustrate are speculations.
Working Arguments Challenging Evolution and/or supporting Intelligent Design
Tower of blocks
To look at intraspecies progressive variation, and from there postulate speciation, is as to look at a tower of children's blocks, and from there envision a path to the moon.
Estrus
Mammals supposedly branched off the evolutionary tree many years ago. Presumably, they had the ability to reproduce at that time. The reproductive system of all mammals is complex, in terms of anatomy, hormones, behavior, etc. Yet the monthly menstrual cycle of a human female is significantly different from the estrus pattern of the cat. Could a system as complex and critical system as the reproductive system have successfully evolved into such different forms after having already evolved into a working system?
Bar-tailed godwit
The bar-tailed godwit flies non-stop from Alaska to New Zealand. What could have been the intermediate step to evolve that sort of behavior?
Clotting cascade
A lecturer criticizing ID "debunked" the irreducibility of the human clotting system by pointing out a deep water fish which is missing the analagous protein to one part of the human clotting system, yet its blood clots just fine. In doing so, he supported ID in two ways. 1) In a totally different creature and a totally different environment, only a minor change is needed for the system to work normally. Computer programmers dream of such adaptable design. 2) By appearing to "falsify" a tenet of ID, he was in fact demonstrating that ID is, in fact, a scientific theory.
Language
In all cases where the word "evolution" is used, with the sole exception of biological evolution, the context is that of changes mediated by intelligent beings. This applies to political systems, computer software, industrial processes, cultural changes, etc.
Human Genome Project
The HGP has uncovered many thousands of genetic defects, but not a single instance of a gene which confers an advantage on the individual. This is inconsistent with the theory of evolution.
Conclusion
Evolution is not a scientific theory, rather merely a religious belief that some people have accepted. As for the legal, social and other implications of this recognition, leave that to other articles.
Other reasons some people reject evolution
Contradicts their religions
Seeing that evolution is itself a religious belief, it contradicts religions that have a different view of origins. The most prominent one it contradicts is creationism as described in the Bible, an influence in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Some, in their zeal to “disprove” evolution, will grasp at any argument that attacks evolution, even when some of those arguments turn out to be specious.
The converse is also true, that some people believe in evolution because it fits their overall religion. As such, defenders of evolution can be just as illogical in their defense of their faith as true believers in any faith. The most common fallacies include: straw man arguments where evolutionists misrepresent reasons to reject evolution, ad hominem attacks on the motives and qualifications of those who oppose evolution instead of addressing the issues brought up, a false claim that all scientists believe in evolution, the argument that because some arguments against evolution are weak or even wrong (see above) that therefore all arguments against evolution are wrong, and one of the most common is that evolution is simply assumed to be true therefore it must be true. For examples of these and more spurious arguments for evolution, see Criticism_of_Criticism_of_evolution and its links.
Social fallout from a belief in evolution
Already within a few years of the publication of Darwin’s books, it was recognized by some that if evolution were accepted and believed by societies, that it would lead to a coarsening of society, and indeed society has been coarsened. Some of the industrial “robber barons” have used it to justify their oppression of weaker members of society. All of the major mass murderers of the 20th century, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. have believed evolution, Stalin admitted that Darwin’s books are what set him in the direction that he later lived while others, e.g. Lenin, Hitler, pointed to evolution as the justification for what they did.
While it is true that this is not a proof against evolution, it has been a reason that some people have an emotional aversion to a belief in evolution, therefore have rejected it.
Notes
- ^ Simpson, George Gaylord and Beck, William S. Life, An Introduction to Biology Second Edition, Harcourt Brace & World, Inc. 1965 p. 17
See also
External links
- s8int.com a site that lists many historical artifacts that debunk the mythology of evolution. This site has one animation on its front page which may be expensive to download depending on your contract with your Internet Service Provider but which can be skipped (Turn off animations in Firefox).
- Creation science movement The Creation Science Movement is the oldest creationist movement in the world.
- Creation research A professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation.
