Question Evolution
m (added Category:Side-by-side articles using HotCat) |
(→1. How did life originate?) |
||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
The word “evolution” simply means “change over time.” In the context of [[science]], that word refers to an aspect of [[biology]]. Specifically, it is a process of varying [[genetic]] frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphological or physiological composition, which – when compiled over successive generations - can increase biodiversity. Continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups can eventually lead to one or more descendant branches becoming increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins. More simply, it is how life forms diversify via “descent with modification”. | The word “evolution” simply means “change over time.” In the context of [[science]], that word refers to an aspect of [[biology]]. Specifically, it is a process of varying [[genetic]] frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphological or physiological composition, which – when compiled over successive generations - can increase biodiversity. Continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups can eventually lead to one or more descendant branches becoming increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins. More simply, it is how life forms diversify via “descent with modification”. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Of course, scientists do have several hypotheses for the origin of life, although they do not know if any are valid. Why do the creationists assume that creationism is a better explanation than these explanations, especially with the lack of evidence for it? | ||
The problem creationists have with evolution is not that it challenges belief in [[God]], because it doesn’t. Their problem is that evolution, like every other field of science, challenges the accuracy and authority of the storybooks which creationists equate with God. As such creationists insist that, for evolution to be true at all, it must utterly replace God and account for everything they attribute to God. It follows that, whenever they meet someone trying to explain or endorse evolution, the first thing creationists ask is where “everything” came from. Creationists do deliberately misrepresent evolution many different ways in all their arguments. | The problem creationists have with evolution is not that it challenges belief in [[God]], because it doesn’t. Their problem is that evolution, like every other field of science, challenges the accuracy and authority of the storybooks which creationists equate with God. As such creationists insist that, for evolution to be true at all, it must utterly replace God and account for everything they attribute to God. It follows that, whenever they meet someone trying to explain or endorse evolution, the first thing creationists ask is where “everything” came from. Creationists do deliberately misrepresent evolution many different ways in all their arguments. | ||
Revision as of 18:06, 12 June 2011
| Goddidit! |
| Key claims |
| Science |
| Random articles |
Question Evolution is a campaign created by Creation Ministries International, the object of which "is to have ordinary people, including high-school and college students, question everything that they have ever heard about evolution".[1]
On principle this is a very good idea as it's always unwise to believe anything at all based on faith, and evidence should be our guide. Furthermore, there are many questions that are not presently answered by evolution. That is why scientists are investigating them and it is probable that science will never finish investigating and finding new questions to ask about the universe.
However there are two meanings to the idea of "can't answer" in respect of evolution.
- Can't answer because it's unanswerable.
- Can't answer at the moment as the matter is still under investigation.
Obviously there are a vast number of items in the second category while those in the first category wouldn't even be science.
However CMI would like people to imagine that any qeustion in the second category means either/or:
- "Can't answer" is the same as can never be answered.
- "Can't answer" means God did it.
Accordingly, CMI potentially could have read the literature and have come up with a series of interesting and challenging questions based on what evolutionary scientists are presently investigating - although that would have involved some real research and understanding of the subject. So instead of doing this they took the unfortunate decision to regurgitate a list of hackneyed questions which fall into four categories:
- Questions which show that they don't really understand what evolution is.
- Questions which were under investigation last century but which are resolved.
- Some questions which could conceivably relate to ongoing evolutionary investigation.
- Logical fallacies such as appeals to authority and quote mining.
See if you can spot which questions go into which category.
Of course, in typical CMI style the campaign isn't about finding answers to their questions, it's about perpetuating a series of myths and misconceptions about the subject, all while making money for their idiotic organisation.
15 Questions for Evolutionists
The Question Evolution campaign produces a pamphlet entitled 15 Questions for Evolutionists[2] that evolutionists "cannot adequately answer"[3] (never mind that they can answer, and if they don't, it's generally because they've already answered before). The 15 questions are as follows.
15 Questions From CMI |
RationalWiki Responses |
1. How did life originate?Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? creation.com/origin |
This, of course, has nothing to do with evolution, and CMI must know this, having been told many times by people who understand the subject properly. Abiogenesis is entirely unrelated to evolution. Evolution does not rely on abiogenesis nor does it have to explain the origin of life. This pamphlet only appeals to the authority of a few cherry-picked professors. While the origin of life may presently be obscure, that does not mean that creationists can insert whatever fantasy they wish to fill in the gaps. The word “evolution” simply means “change over time.” In the context of science, that word refers to an aspect of biology. Specifically, it is a process of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphological or physiological composition, which – when compiled over successive generations - can increase biodiversity. Continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups can eventually lead to one or more descendant branches becoming increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins. More simply, it is how life forms diversify via “descent with modification”. Of course, scientists do have several hypotheses for the origin of life, although they do not know if any are valid. Why do the creationists assume that creationism is a better explanation than these explanations, especially with the lack of evidence for it? The problem creationists have with evolution is not that it challenges belief in God, because it doesn’t. Their problem is that evolution, like every other field of science, challenges the accuracy and authority of the storybooks which creationists equate with God. As such creationists insist that, for evolution to be true at all, it must utterly replace God and account for everything they attribute to God. It follows that, whenever they meet someone trying to explain or endorse evolution, the first thing creationists ask is where “everything” came from. Creationists do deliberately misrepresent evolution many different ways in all their arguments. Even when they know better, many creationists still insist that evolution necessarily requires the godless origin of life from inorganic matter. This is simply not true; for one thing, all the building blocks of life were already organic long before the first organism, before anything could be considered alive. We’ve even detected vast amounts of organic matter in deep space. Creationists habitually misdefine their terms, and commonly insist that evolution means “life from non-life”. But of course that’s not right either. Evolution explains how life diversifies, not how it began. Since evolution at every level is - by definition - limited to the variation of allele frequencies inherited over generations of living organisms, then it obviously can’t operate where no genomes yet exist. The evolutionary process starts with genetics and can’t start before it. Proteins are not randomly sampling all the possible combinations in amino acid space; instead, they are working from a previous copy of a genome with small modifications, some of which work well, others that do not. Studies of cumulative selection indicate that only a small sample of protein-space is sampled, and hence what exists is far more likley than a truly random sample. |
2. How did the DNA code originate?The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? |
Again, not relevant. Evolution is about gradual changes to species, not the DNA that underlies them. This question is based on some major misconceptions (addressed later). Its overriding logical error, however, is that it is an argument from ignorance. One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer. Information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement consists of shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information. Nothing needs to assemble itself. Evolution and abiogenesis do not exclude outside influences; on the contrary, such outside influences are essential. In abiogenesis, it is observed that complex organic molecules easily form spontaneously due to little more than basic chemistry and energy from the sun or from the earth's interior. In evolution, information from the environment is communicated to genomes indirectly via natural selection against varieties that do not do well in that environment. |
3. How could mutations create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? (about 3 gigabytes, by CMI’s estimate)How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins and also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See creation.com/meta-information. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate? creation.com/train |
Even if we accept that estimate, the first living cells appeared roughly 3 billion years ago, which gives plenty of time for mutations. If only eight mutations occurred per year that were subsequently passed down to the present day, that's 3 gigabytes of variation. Evolution does depend on mutations, and these do appear to be random. But each cumulative mutation may become significant factors for that organism once pitted against the dynamics of the environment in which they are introduced. Thus natural selection isn’t random; it’s deterministic. Many creationists will even admit this. And as some computer models have already shown, natural selection can actually even exceed the skills of human designers. In fact, natural selection can be so deterministic that it often leads to innovations which some perceive as evidence of intelligent design, and which even rationalists describe as having the appearance of having being modified for intended benefit. Creationists insist that mutations are very rare and are usually, if not always harmful. But the fact is that the vast majority of mutations are completely neutral. They’d have to be because, according to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, there is an overall average of 128 mutations per human zygote! So apparently, in creationist terms, “very rare” means “more than a hundred per person right from the point of conception”. Because those are just the mutations we start out with. Our cells will mutate again 30 more times over the course of our lives, and some of these subsequent mutations can be passed on to our children too – usually with no more effect than those we recognize as family traits. |
4. Why is natural selection taught as “evolution,” when natural selection selects, but does not create?By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? creation.com/defining-terms |
This question doesn't make sense. Nobody claims that evolution is about creation - see the answer to question 1. Natural selection is about how new physical traits from mutations can become the norm for the population. This question focuses more on how do traits arise rather than how it helps them survive. Evolution via natural selection can adapt and bring forth new traits like beaks. Biological evolution is both variation through mutations and natural selection; hence, the understanding of both is important for evolution. Since the creationists emphasized mutations in the previous question as a part of evolution, why do they ignore it now? |
5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30+ at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence? Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” creation.com/motor (includes animation) |
There is no reason to think that the life around today is comparable in complexity to the earliest life. All of the simplest life would almost certainly be extinct by now, outcompeted by more complex forms. Self-replicators can be incredibly simple, as simple as a strand of six DNA nucleotides (Sievers and von Kiedrowski 1994). This is simple enough to form via prebiotic chemistry. Self-replication sets the stage for evolution to begin, whether or not you call the molecules "life." Furthermore, looking at the biochemical processes in detail at a moment in time does not indicate the evolutionary history of an organism. Scaffolding is a means to develop a process. Furthermore, evolution is established on the macroscopic level through morphology as well as on the molecular level with genetics. As the understanding of biochemistry proceeds (as it is a much younger science), a better understanding will develop. Furthermore, as Michael Behe learned at the Dover trial, there is a lot known about the evolution of proteins, such as with the immune system. |
6. Why do living things bear the hallmarks of design, if no one designed them?Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes? creation.com/design_legit |
Because you're looking at them with the mind of someone used to designed goods. If you were to look closer, you'd see that many living things bear the hallmarks of bad design. That's the kind of accident you'd expect to happen with evolution rather than if someone had put together organisms from scratch. Evolution does depend on mutations, and these do appear to be random. But each cumulative mutation may become significant factors for that organism once pitted against the dynamics of the environment in which they are introduced. Thus natural selection isn’t random; it’s deterministic. Many creationists will even admit this. And as some computer models have already shown, natural selection can actually even exceed the skills of human designers. In fact, natural selection can be so deterministic that it often leads to innovations which some perceive as evidence of intelligent design. Intelligent design proponents have provided their small sample of microbiological organisms that appear designed, but each of them have been thoroughly discredited. There is no model to distinguish deliberate intelligent design and non-design. However, we know intelligent designs strive for simplicity, not complexity. Dawkins's quote begins a long explanation of how biological complexity is not designed; it is misused here in this question begging section. Science restricts itself to naturalistic causes by definition. |
7. How did multi-cellular life originate?How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals? |
Single-celled organisms found it beneficial to work together. For instance, mitochondria, the "power sources" of cells, were once separate organisms. Other cells benefit from their ability to generate power while the mitochrondial cells benefit from a constant stream of food supplied to them by the larger organism. The intermediate stage between one-celled and multicelled life need not have been two-celled. The first requirement is for signals between cells, which is necessary if cells are to cooperate in division of labor to break down a food source. Many bacteria utilize a variety of different signals. The evolution of a signal for cooperative swarming has been observed in one bacterium (Velicer and Yu 2003). The transition to multicellularity has been studied in experiments with Pseudomonas fluorescens, which showed that "transitions to higher orders of complexity are readily achievable" (Rainey and Rainey 2003, 72). Choanoflagellates, which are unicellular and colonial organisms related to multicelled animals, express several proteins similar to those used in cell interactions, showing that such proteins could arise in single-celled animals and be co-opted for multicellular development (King et al. 2003). Desmidoideae is a class of conjugating green algae, phylum Gamophyta. Most desmids form pairs of cells whose cytoplasms are joined at an isthmus (Margulis and Schwartz 1982, 100). The bacterium Neisseria also tends to form two-celled arrangements. As noted above, this may not be relevant to the evolution of multicellularity. |
8. How did sexual reproduction originate?Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs). |
Sexual reproduction allows for evolution at a much faster pace then asexual reproduction. Organisms that exchanged DNA were thus able to evolve out of situations that might have killed their asexual counterparts. The variety of life cycles is very great. It is not simply a matter of being sexual or asexual. There are many intermediate stages. A gradual origin, with each step favored by natural selection, is possible (Kondrashov 1997). The earliest steps involve single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information; they need not be distinct sexes. Males and females most emphatically would not evolve independently. Sex, by definition, depends on both male and female acting together. As sex evolved, there would have been some incompatibilities causing sterility (just as there are today), but these would affect individuals, not whole populations, and the genes that cause such incompatibility would rapidly be selected against. |
9. Why do the millions of “missing links” remain missing?Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also admit the problem. |
They don't. Every fossil ever found is a link between older and newer forms. Anybody expecting to find the fossil of a half bird, half cow doesn't understand evolution. There is no expectation of countless millions of transitional fossils. When something dies, it is usually disassembled, digested, and decomposed. Only rarely is anything ever fossilized, and even fewer things are very well-preserved. Because the conditions required for that process are so particular, the fossil record can only represent a tiny fraction of everything that has ever lived. Darwin provided many environmental dynamics explaining why no single quarry could ever provide a continuous record of biological events, and why it would be impossible to find all the fossilized ancestors of every lineage. But despite this, he predicted that future generations, having the benefit of better understanding, would discover a substantial number of fossil species which he called “intermediate” or “transitional” between what we see alive today and their taxonomic ancestors at successive levels in paleontological history. In fact, in the century-and-a-half since then, we’ve found millions of evolutionary intermediaries in the fossil record, much more than Darwin said he could reasonably hope for. The transition fossils that have been found such as Tiktaalik and Ichthyostega provide clear evidence of transitions, in this case from water to land. There are three different types of transitional forms and we have ample examples of each. But creationists still insist that we’ve never found a single one, because what they usually ask us to present are impossible parodies which evolution would neither produce nor permit. A decade ago, Kathleen Hunt, a zoologist with the University of Washington, produced a list of a few hundred of the more dramatic transitional species known so far, all of which definitely fit every criteria required of the most restrictive definition. Myriad transitional species have been, and still are being, discovered; so many in fact that lots of biologists and paleontologists now consider that list “innumerable” especially since the tally of definite transitionals keeps growing so fast! Several lineages are now virtually complete, including our own. The creationist quote-mined Stephen J. Gould. |
10. How do “living fossils” remain unchanged while so many other life forms are supposed to have changed radically? (The classic examples: coelacanth, lemmulus)Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.” |
No longer it isn't. Thanks to the works of Gould himself for developing the theory of Punctuated equilibrium, which is based on positive evidence, including extensive studies of living and extinct species groups (Eldredge and Gould 1972). When creatures find no need to adapt to changing situations, they don't change. It's quite possible that despite an almost identical exterior appearance, the examples you supply have changed their biochemistry, but this is something that cannot be deduced through fossils alone. Having said that, there is some debate on this issue within the scientific community. Richard Dawkins for example, is not convinced by the Punctuated equilibrium hypothesis and has argued that the apparent long periods without change are simply an artifact of the fossil record. However such debate is exactly what one would expect in science - where facts are not set in stone from an ancient book.
|
11. How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning and morality?If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes? creation.com/chesterton |
This is Argument from adverse consequences and a straw man. Evolution makes no statement about the existence of God. The concept of "God" is irrelevant to the theory of evolution and so is morality or the meaning of life. Creationists should know this, but they repeat this lie shamelessly. Although the theory of evolution does not necessarily refute God (or Gods or fairies) it certainly and clearly does away with a literal belief in the book of Genesis. And this is what creationists are really trying to defend: an infallible authority of a story that tells us that the universe was the product of magic. Intelligence is a simple evolutionary trait. Its development has led to humans becoming one of the most successful species on the planet. Meaning and morality are entirely human-generated concepts. Furthermore, organisms develop from egg to full organism all the time through "blind" chemistry. Is that a problem? |
12. Why do evolutionists tolerate the telling of “just-so” stories in their work?Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS (USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.” creation.com/sexstories |
Evolution “just-so” story is based on facts, unlike creationism or any other alternative. Evolution with natural selection is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or scientific validity. There has only ever been one alternative theory against it, and it was an earlier version of evolution (Lamarckism). No branch of creationism has ever met even one of the criteria required of a theory. They can’t because science demands both accuracy and accountability. So there has to be a way to detect and correct any errors in a given explanation, and determine for certain whether it’s wrong in whole or in part, or whether any of it is true to any degree at all. A theory has to be tested indefinitely. It demands understanding instead of belief. So it must be based on verifiable evidence; It must explain related observations with a measurable degree of accuracy; It must withstand continuous critical analysis in peer review, and it must be falsifiable too. If it doesn’t fulfill all these conditions at once, then it isn’t science. If it meets none of them, it may be religion. |
13. What scientific breakthroughs resulted from evolutionary theory?Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers ….” Evolution actually hinders medical discovery. Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? |
Evolution is an extraordinary breakthrough in its own right. It explains how, through a series of simple steps, every living thing on the planet came into existence. These days, evolutionary concepts are being applied to fields such as electronics to help create efficient circuits. There are many evolutionary breakthroughs, and the first person this pamphlet provided admitted it. As for the second, he forgets evolutionary theory is not only beneficial to medicine but also agriculture. In 1970, Norman Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because his understanding of the theory of evolution helped him mass produce crops to feed millions of people. The quote from Dr Skell is a prime example of an appeal to authority. That is to say that as a chemist he is speaking outside his field[4] when he refers to evolution.
|
14. Why is evolution taught as operational science, when it does not involve true experiment?You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.” |
There have been plenty of experiments carried out that prove evolution. One of the most famous is one carried out by professor Lenski, which led to so many creationist red faces. The fact that CMI refuse to accept the results tells us a lot about CMI but little about evolution. Evolution can be observed and tested right now. You certainly can observe what happened in the past. If you come across a crime scene, detectives observe and test all the available evidence to come to the truth. The fossil record and genetics provides us with a observation what happened in the past. Creationists demand how do we know we descended from apes, where is the tests and evidence? How about the fact we are apes right now? |
15. Why is evolution accepted and taught as science when in fact it cannot explain the evidence?Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ....” Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught? |
It can. CMI simply refuse to acknowledge this. Evolution is not dogmatic or a fundamental religious idea! Evolution is the branch of biology which explains biodiversity. As such it doesn’t permit supernatural explanations, has no doctrines, nor dogma, nor fables with morals; it has no rituals, traditions or holidays, nor either leaders or defenders of the faith because it doesn’t allow faith. It holds nothing sacred, there’s no place of worship, no enchantments, no clergy, no fashion of garb, and it neither promotes nor discourages belief in gods or souls, and says nothing about how we should live or what happens after we die. Evolution is therefore NOT a religion, and creationists KNOW it's not –but they say it is anyway. Popper's use of the word "metaphysical," contrary to the hopes of creationists, does not mean religious, but rather refers to an untestable idea that still leads to testable predictions. Popper also said of evolution: "And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that."[5] Popper also later changed his mind on the testability of natural selection: "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation."[6] The quote from Michael Ruse is misleading. Ruse objects when, in his words, "evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion." Ruse argues that anyone who does this should be careful to distinguish between science, and philosophical viewpoints based on science. |
External Links
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ Creation advocates start campaign to ‘question evolution’, Conservative News and Views, 4 May 2011
- ↑ http://creation.com/images/pdfs/flyers/15-questions-for-evolutionists-p.pdf
- ↑ http://creation.com/question-evolution
- ↑ Panda's Thumb on Dr Skell
- ↑ Talk Origins Index of Creation Claims CA211.1 Popper on natural selection's testability
- ↑ http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/06/20/karl-popper-and-evolution-is-evolutionary-theory-based-on-a-tautology.htm