Does questioning evolution make you anti-science?

Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry said that evolution was “just a theory” and that it had “some gaps in it.”

Paul Krugman thinks that Republicans are dumb, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. In the not-too-distant future he sees a Republican half-wit delivering his acceptance speech as presidential nominee at the convention in grunts, beating his chest, and bopping his wife over the head with the a club as he drags her on to the stage by her hair.

Writing in The New York Times, Krugman says, “One of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge.

And, in a time of severe challenges – environmental, economic, and more – that’s a terrifying prospect.”

Terrifying indeed. What’s more frightening then the prospect of a bunch of underdeveloped orangutans with their finger on the nuclear button? But saying that Republicans are anti-science is about as accurate as saying that democrats are anti-religion, and one wonders which is more outrageous: the prospect of a primitive party of Republicans getting control of government, or a Nobel-prize winning columnist in one of the world’s most authoritative newspapers writing broad generalities about how they’re unlettered buffoons who hate learning and science.

What seems even more outrageous is the fact that Krugman’s ire was piqued by Texas Governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry’s comment that evolution was “just a theory” and that it had “some gaps in it.”

I am not a scientist. But beginning in about 1990, I started organizing an annual debate at Oxford University on science versus religion where the focus was almost always on evolution and which featured some of the world’s greatest evolutionists, like Richard Dawkins and the late John Maynard-Smith of the University of Sussex – then widely regarded as the leading evolutionary theorist. While I moderated the first few debates, I later participated in a debate against Dawkins at Oxford that he later denied ever took place, forcing us to post the full video of the debate online; in that video, it can be seen that Dawkins is not only the principal proponent of the science side, but actually loses the debate in a student vote. I later debated Dawkins again at the Idea City Convention at the University of Toronto, the video of which is likewise available online.

What I learned from these debates, as well as from reading extensively on evolution, is that evolutionists have a tough time defending the theory when challenged in open dialogue.

This does not mean that evolution is not true or that the theory is without merit or evidence. It does, however, corroborate what Perry said. Evolution is a theory. It has never been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be true.

Indeed, Dawkins and the late and celebrated Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould fiercely debated basic assumptions about evolution, with Gould arguing that the large gaps in the fossil record make a mockery of a theory of gradual evolution, which is why Gould advocated “punctuated equilibrium” – a variation on Darwinism in which evolution takes place in dramatic periods of change followed by long eons of stasis. Gould maintained this position precisely because, as Perry said, the theory of evolution has “some gaps in it” – in the case of the fossil record, quite literally.

No scientist has ever witnessed evolution directly; science itself says this is impossible given the vast amount of time needed for species to evolve.

Rather, evidence for evolution is found primarily in the fossil record, and evidence for natural selection stems from some famous contemporary observations. For example, prior to the Industrial Revolution, the vast majority of peppered moths (Biston betularia), which can produce light or dark offspring, were light in coloration.

However, with the rise in pollution during the Industrial Revolution, the lichens and trees against which the light-colored moths habitually hid from predators were darkened with soot, making the light-colored moths conspicuous to predatory birds and allowing the dark moths to survive.

A similar proof brought for natural selection is the Galapagos Finch, which Darwin theorized was originally a single species but over time changed very slowly in response to the demands of the environment.

For example, the large ground-finch had a big, powerful beak that seemed well-suited to cracking open seeds, while the vampire finch had a long, pointed beak, which allowed it to puncture the flesh of other birds and drink their blood. In each case, Darwin reasoned, beak shape had evolved over time to provide an adaptive advantage.

THE PROBLEM with both these observations is that they are manifestations of horizontal, rather than vertical, evolution, as they document how members of a species may change within the range of characteristics that they already possess. No new traits are generated. Vertical evolution, whereby natural selection can supposedly create entirely new structures, has yet to be directly observed and is thus a theory.

Other challenges remain regarding evolutionary theory, most notably the anthropic principle, which maintains that if the physical laws and constants governing our universe were even slightly different, we would not be here to notice it because the emergence of life could not have occurred.

The English cosmologist Sir Martin Rees argues in his book Just Six Numbers that the values of six numbers determine to a great degree many of the large- and small-scale properties of our universe, and if any of these were changed, even slightly, the universe might not exist at all.

The second number, epsilon, which is roughly .007, describes, roughly speaking, how durable matter is, because it tells us how much energy is required to separate an atom into its constituent particles. If epsilon were .006 – a difference of about 14% – the universe would consist entirely of hydrogen. No other elements would form, because the process of nuclear fusion could not occur. There would be no planets, very little light, no nebulae, no comets and certainly no life.

Nobel laureate Richard Feynman, in his typically flamboyant way, said of it: “It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say ‘the hand of God wrote that number...’” Many leading scientists, like Francis Collins – described by the Endocrine Society as “one of the most accomplished scientists of our time” – therefore believe that while evolution may indeed be an accurate theory regarding the rise of life, it still requires the guiding hand of a higher power in order to operate.

Indeed, Dawkins himself said in a famous interview with Ben Stein that the intelligent life in our universe may have come from “a higher intelligence” consisting of space aliens that seeded our planet with intelligent life.

IN THE final analysis, however, the biblical account of creation easily accommodates an evolutionary ascent, seeing as the narrative expressly relates that God created the mineral, the vegetable, the animal and finally human life forms in ascending order.

It would be wise of Krugman to remember that the very essence of science is to question, and that stifling doubt is a sin of which religion has been quite guilty in the past – one science should refrain from repeating in the present.

Dark Knight: "Natural selection is the theory...”evolution” is the observation. "

You have that backwards.
Both descent with modifications and natural selection are confirmed observations = facts.

Evolution is the theory which projects these facts backwards in time millions and billions of years to conclude that all life on Earth, or nearly all, arose from common ancestors.

And it is a theory, not just unconfirmed hypothesis, because it is confirmed by fossil records, by DNA analyses and by inputs from virtually every other branch of science.

As for some precise definition of the word "species", the only really important fact to understand is that there is no sharp evolutionary dividing line between sub-species which can interbreed and separate species, which cannot.
The complete "divorce" of one species from another only happens after long periods of separate evolutions.

Dark Knight: "the bottom line is: if you have a crappy definition over time of species, I am not sure you can have an argument that involves reason."

In nature there are no sharp dividing lines between, for examples, breeds, sub-species, species, genera, etc.

Partly, it's all a function of how readily they can interbreed, but really, it's more just scientific conventions which say, for instance, that certain species make up a genus and certain genera make a biological family, etc.

In short, nature as we find it today is exactly what evolution theory predicts we would find, thus again confirming the theory.

"So I ask, what exactly is your problem with that?"

I have no problem with what you say...throughout your discourse you openly use the verbiage:

"...some rough idea... when breeds and sub-species could, at least in theory...etc." Your own verbiage is indicative of the absence of hard proof. My problem is with those who insist that Darwinian Theory be taught at the exclusion of all others.

"You have an extensive fossil record showing the earliest Equids slowly changing into modern species."

That's not what the fossil record shows. That's what it appears to show. The fossils are static, so how does it show them "slowly changing." Speaking precisely, it shows what appear to be transitional forms over a period of time. That's fine, and it lends credence to your argument, but even you would have to admit we have no way of knowing if one of the "later" forms was actually descended from one of the earlier forms. The fossil records are snapshots, not movies.

"You have DNA analyses which confirm the degrees of separation suggested by fossils and careful taxonomy."

It does no such thing. Again, it establishes that their ATGC are organized and arranged very similarly. That could be explained via the avenue you are arguing, or, for a theory that relies on chance, it could simply be a random ordering that just happened to independantly turn out almost the same...or, if you want to go the intelligent design route, it could be that two similar organisms were designed for specific purposes/niches. The *evidence* you lay out just as strongly supports any of those possibilities.

“To which I would rephrase: “”My problem” is that no one has solved the ‘details of the mechanism’ that explains the Resurrection”.”

You completely misunderstand my point. I do not propose the resurrection as science nor should it be included in the science classroom. Nor should intelligent design. However, just proposing that given enough time the natural selection g-d will allow the blind to see, the lame to walk, and the deaf to hear, without identifying the specific mutations, the intermediates, and explaining how each mutation was critically advantageous to the mutated creature, then there is no real mechanism, and it is projection and surmising. So whether you believe in the g-d of natural selection or a superior intelligence with power to create, either way you accept it by faith.

“And you propose what, exactly, to replace it?
Do you imagine some Designer working in His laboratory, every few million years creating new sets of DNA which He somehow injects into old species, causing them to transform and advance towards the varieties we find today?

And you call that “science”?
That's not science, it's not even true religion, it's just wild & rambling imagination.”

I don't propose anything other than random mutation and natural selection to achieve new life forms has not been observed conclusively nor has, even on paper, a truly mechanistic path been proposed for changing a fin into a leg (for example). I realize that intelligent design, creation by a superior intellect, etc. is not “science” as defined. Doesn't belong in the classroom. However, it is fair in the classroom to point out Darwinian evolution to new body plans has not been proved, nor has its mechanism for change to new life forms even been proposed in detail for even one example.

Joe 6-pack: "My problem is with those who insist that Darwinian Theory be taught at the exclusion of all others."

There are no other scientific theories on this subject.
There are not even serious alternate scientific hypotheses.
And there are certainly no facts to support the hypotheses and theories which don't exist.

So there are no scientific alternatives to be taught, period.

And if you claim I'm wrong about this, then simply quote for us the alternate scientific hypothesis which you say should be taught along with Evolution Theory.

Joe 6-pack: "even you would have to admit we have no way of knowing if one of the "later" forms was actually descended from one of the earlier forms."

Short of finding some fossil's DNA -- as for example has been done with Neanderthals -- there's no way to establish a direct linkage from one extinct species to another.
And considering there are typically millions of years between ancient fossil stratta, it would be surprising if more recent fossils were directly related to those found below it.
More likely they were biological "cousins", not children or grandchildren.

But the progress of life in general, up through the fossil stratta, is indisputable, regardless.

Joe 6-pack: "if you want to go the intelligent design route, it could be that two similar organisms were designed for specific purposes/niches.
The *evidence* you lay out just as strongly supports any of those possibilities."

There is no scientific evidence of Intelligent Design -- zero, zip, nada.
And it's even worse than that: there is no scientific theory of Intelligent Design.
And it's worse than that: there is not even a serious hypothesis which spells out in detail exactly what is meant by the term "Intelligent Design".

That's why it's all nonsense.

Mudtiger: "I don't propose anything other than random mutation and natural selection to achieve new life forms has not been observed conclusively..."

Now you're just playing word games.
Descent with modifications and natural selection are confirmed observations = facts.
Evolution Theory simply projects the facts backwards in time millions and billions of years to conclude that all life, or nearly all, grew from common ancestors.
The theory is confirmed by fossils, DNA and many other scientific inputs.

So what, in your words, is "a new life form"?
A new breed? That can be done in just a few generations.
A new species? The fossil record and DNA analyses show that those can take a million years or generations.
A new genus? Maybe ten million years / generations.
Etc.

My point is: fossils and DNA prove that in the longer terms "life forms" change in the same way we can see them changing shorter term, only more so.

Mudtiger: "However, it is fair in the classroom to point out Darwinian evolution to new body plans has not been proved, nor has its mechanism for change to new life forms even been proposed in detail for even one example."

Utter nonsense and sophistry.
Your use of the words "new life forms" is gibberish scientifically.
And the mechanisms for descent with modifications and natural selection are well known and described in detail in scientific literature.

The fact that some people won't read the scientific literature doesn't mean it's not there.

You completely misunderstand my point.

I understood your point, it is just that it is a silly one. (I just love it when someone tells me what I understand, like they can see inside my head or something.) Do you require a doctor to explain all the details of the working of your heart before you allow him to operate to save your life? Do you reject physics because no one can explain precisely how a single electron can interfere with itself in the double slit experiment although it clearly does? Do you reject your thoughts because no one can explain in detail the mechanism of how they come about? Perhaps in your case, you should.

Actually, I gave you examples of the mechanism, you just chose to ignore them. The phrase the natural selection g-d is particularly irksome and prejudicial since there is no such “g-d”. The whole phraseology is equally problematic:

just proposing that given enough time the natural selection g-d will allow the blind to see, the lame to walk, and the deaf to hear, without identifying the specific mutations, the intermediates, and explaining how each mutation was critically advantageous to the mutated creature, then there is no real mechanism, and it is projection and surmising.

Since evolution doesn't assert to do any of the things listed in the coded language the blind to see, the lame to walk, and the deaf to hear then the whole premise is faulty. The conclusion, . . . then there is no real mechanism, and it is projection and surmising . . . is merely an opinion and has no real validity. A proposition is just that, a proposition. It is either consistent with the observed and verifiable facts or it isn't. Thus your closing statement is also a non sequitur.

So whether you believe in the g-d of natural selection or a superior intelligence with power to create, either way you accept it by faith.

A proposition based upon the best estimate of the available facts is not faith. Faith is believing something for which there is NO evidence, or as the oxymoron declared by Paul states, “the evidence of things not seen.” People believe all kinds of things for which there is no evidence, but to take as acceptable a proposition that appears to explain the world as we see it is not faith.

The proof of my point is that you simply dodged the question: Why do whales and porpoises have pelvises? Why did I have to have my wisdom teeth pulled? How can we share 98 percent of the DNA with chimpanzees and yet still be so different?

And even if you could prove evolution entirely false, (which is impossible) what would that prove?

The answer is nothing.

That is exactly what the evolutionist asks us to believe.

What some people "ask you to believe" is irrelevant. Just saying "you can't explain it to my satisfaction" doesn't make it invalid. Maybe you are just particularly dense.

There is plenty of info out there on the web now detailing the evolution of the eye. You don't accept it, fine. But I am not going to waste my time trying to educate someone who will reject every proposition out of hand before they are even heard. I've been down this road before, it is futile.

The issue is you have no position. You can explain nothing but take issue with those who attempt to. It is an intellectually lazy position.

It might be intellectually lazy and a bit presumptious to ask us flat-earthers and other ignoramuses to believe that birds descended from dinosaurs by mutation and selection yet not itemize the mutations and showing why each mutation would be naturally selected.

Just because every last bit of evidence has yet to unearthed doesn't invalidate the proposition. That why things are never 'settled' is science, despite so many claims to the contrary.

Don't include me in your You’re asking us to buy into a belief because I'm not asking you to buy into anything. That others may be . . . vehemently claiming they have . . . is your problem and their problem since I'm not 'vehemently claiming' anything. Maybe Dawkins, but not me.

But as to your “evidence not seen.” comment let's see if you can answer a single question, since you have steadfastly avoided it so far.

What then, are fossils?

“Just because every last bit of evidence has yet to unearthed doesn't invalidate the proposition.”

Propositions that whales come from bears, dinosaurs come from birds, or that all living things have a common ancestor are a long, long way from “every bit of evidence”, and while it doesn't invalidate the proposition, one would think that such wild-eyed propositions would not be put on the table as certainties and facts.

“Don't include me in your You’re asking us to buy into a belief because I'm not asking you to buy into anything.”

Nothing in my responses are intended to be directed to you personally. Prominant evolutionists are for sure asking us to buy in, even demanding, that government entities and local school systems buy in. Many reasonably intelligent people have considered the theories of evolution and consider them severely lacking, with a LOT of projecting and surmising. Just because they don't know of an alternative naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life doesn't mean they have no standing to question theories that have been proposed.

“What then, are fossils?”

Well I am sure that my definition would come up short, but I would say that a fossil is an imprint left in a hard medium such as rock, that gives some information as to the form or function of the creature from which the fossil is formed.

Propositions that whales come from bears, dinosaurs come from birds, or that all living things have a common ancestor are a long, long way from “every bit of evidence” . . .

I said “every bit of evidence” because of your rather unreasonable standard:

. . . that birds descended from dinosaurs by mutation and selection yet not itemize the mutations and showing why each mutation would be naturally selected.

Which is a demand for “every bit of evidence” i.e., “itemize.”

and while it doesn't invalidate the proposition, one would think that such wild-eyed propositions would not be put on the table as certainties and facts.

The first clause here concedes the point, so thank you. If you can't invalidate the proposition then what, exactly, are you talking about? Do you even know? Secondly, the phrase wild-eyed propositions is merely a hyperbolic opinion and has no bearing on the discussion. That they are put on the table as certainties and facts is problematic for some people who fail to acknowledge it is still 'The Theory of Evolution' but isn't for me because I am able to think for myself and am not threatened by the ill conceived certainty of others.

Be that as it may, the proposition is that cetaceans descended from a 'bear-like' creature (actually it appears more like a mammalian version of a crocodile according to the fossil record) is one thing. That birds descended from dinosaurs (not dinosaurs come from birds, [is your thinking this sloppy too?] is another and that all living things have a common ancestor yet another.

I would be curious to know, do you even accept the fact that dinosaurs once existed?

Prominant evolutionists are for sure asking us to buy in, even demanding, that government entities and local school systems buy in.

Yeah, and AlGore is demanding we do something about his fantasies too. His demands are more serious because they have real economic consequences. Any number of people are demanding all kinds of stuff, you spend your time opposing them as well? Might be time better well spent.

Many reasonably intelligent people have considered the theories of evolution and consider them severely lacking, with a LOT of projecting and surmising.

Well - First this is an Assertion Without Proof. Second, Many reasonably intelligent people assumes they are reasonably intelligent which is unproven and just an opinion. Third that they consider them severely lacking, with a LOT of projecting and surmising. says nothing other than that they have opinions. You know what they say about opinions, don't you?

Just because they don't know of an alternative naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life doesn't mean they have no standing to question theories that have been proposed.

True, but it does mean no one has to take them seriously. Any fool can question anything, can say “No, it isn't that”. It is the person who explains why and comes up with a better explanation for the 'facts of reality' that is to be taken seriously.

Well I am sure that my definition would come up short . . .

It not only comes up short, it doesn't even come close to describing the actuality.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.