You are hereBlogs / jeremy's blog / Scientific American: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
This is a must read for anyone concerned about the debate over what is taught in public schools.
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.
Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.
To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.
I've read the article. SciAm (purposefully?) fails to understand a basic fundamentals about Creationary philosophy (that is: logical reasoning based off scientific observations):
The creation worldview supports (as opposed to denies, as the SciAm article implies) and even requires genetic variation within a population. Scientific (i.e. observed) concepts such as natural selection and genetic variation are supported. Creationary thought also emphatically supports speciation.
I'd also like to state that many evolutionist propagandists confuse their listeners/readers with multiple definitions of the words science and evolution within the same arguments and articles; that is, they assign observable, empirical phenomena (which are supported in the Creation framework) with the definitions of science and/or evolution, while, in the same argument, assigning unobservable, untestable ideas (such as one ancestor for both monkeys and men existing 'x' number of years ago) with the definition of science and/or evolution. The speakers/authors who know of their equivocatory usage of these words do it, presumably, with the purpose of bringing public understanding of large-scale evolution/macroevolution(a bit of a misnomer as the meaning behind the word implies something other than the large-scale version of microevolution [which is itself a misnomer for processes such as genetic variation, plasmid transfer, etc])/'genetic mutations resulting in significant increases in information' (e.g. developing wings where the information wasn't originally encoded genetically [e.g. through a gene turning on dormant information]) evolution to the level of empirical science. Since true (i.e. observable, empirical) science deals solely, directly and indirectly, with phenomena observable in real time, macroevolution is philosophy, by definition (m-w.com, dictionary.com: "a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means", "Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.").
I recommend learning about Creation largely from Creationists before one judges the truth of it, and, if believed wrong, before criticizing it. A fine start would be to visit this link--which also approaches the specific misunderstanding of the SciAm article in question: http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp .
I can be reached at tyleringlis@hotmail.com (MSN) or TylerSJI1 (AIM) if you desire to discuss Creationvs.Evolution further.
Awesome link, thanks! I'll post it on my sidebar.
Ray,
Did you bother to read the article that this links to?
Please
Show me one scrap of evidence that supports evolution.
Ray
Post new comment