Image: MATT COLLINS
Preaching to the converted is unrewarding, so why should Scientific American publish an article about the errors of creationism? Surely this magazine's readers don't need to be convinced. Unfortunately, skepticism of evolution is more rampant than might be supposed. A Gallup poll from 1999 and a National Science Board poll from 2000 both revealed that close to half the American public rejects evolution. Inadequate education plays a part in this--confidence in evolution grows with schooling--but clearly a lot of remedial tutoring is in order: the NSB also determined that only about half the population recognized the statement "The earliest humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs" as false.
With respect to evolution and science education, this year has already had a mixed record. The state legislatures of Mississippi and Georgia considered bills that would have undermined the teaching of evolution (thankfully, the bills died in committee). The Cobb County Board of Education in Georgia voted to insert into new science textbooks a notice that evolution is "just one of several theories" about the diversity of life on earth. As of this writing, the Ohio Board of Education is still deciding whether to give equal time to the creationist ideas known as intelligent design.
This article was originally published with the title Bad Science and False Facts.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentFalse facts? Creationists and evolutionists use the same facts. They come to different conlcusions based on their "pre-existent" bias. Both are belief systems! Evolution cannot be done as an experiment in a lab to provide conclusive proof that it really does happen. It therefore must be judged differently. It is interpretation of facts much like the testimony in a courtroom. The validity of the witnesses causes the case of either side to stand or fall. Anyone you know who was there when the "pre-existent matter" (big) banged? I thought so. That makes it easy for me to take the testimony of the one who was there and told it to us (God to Moses, Genesis 1:1). One day, you will know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd what do you think evolution is? Or since you seem to believe that evolution is impossible, what do you think those who don't agree with your opinion think evolution is?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe you would be a little happier if you had a little more knowledge of the real world of biolgical evolution. It is very fascinating and does not require you to give up the more common religious views that science does not address.
While you think about it, I will consider what appears to be a part of your rather vague claim, and also your standard of proof:
[i]"False facts? Creationists and evolutionists use the same facts. They come to different conlcusions based on their 'pre-existent' bias. Both are belief systems! Evolution cannot be done as an experiment in a lab to provide conclusive proof that it really does happen.[/i][sic][i] It therefore must be judged differently. It is interpretation of facts much like the testimony in a courtroom. The validity of the witnesses causes the case of either side to stand or fall. Anyone you know who was there when the 'pre-existent matter' (big) banged? I thought so. That makes it easy for me to take the testimony of the one who was there and told it to us (God to Moses, Genesis 1:1).[/i][sic] [i]One day, you will know."[/i]
You are unfortunately incorrect. Evolution has been shown with microbes and larger organisms in laboratory settings. But other experiments outside the laboratory setting were much easier to see and measure, which I will explain below.
Evolution is observed as a change in phenotype from one generation to the next for a particular species. Speciation works along the same lines, but is more likely to occur as different groups of individuals of the same species become geographically isolated from each other. In either case, the phenotype change occurs over generations.
Over many generations, many changes can occur that are selected for (i.e., are advantageous in a particular environment) or against (which leads to extinction). Most of these changes in phenotype are selected by environmental factors. The process is called evolution by means of natural selection.
Dogs, cattle, and grains, for example, have been bred for particular traits over many generations. The resulting individuals are said to have evolved from the original breeding stock. All that means is that the phenotype being artificially selected for is different from the phenotype of the original breeding stock.
I suppose that is a difficult thing for you to accept, but for several thousand years human beings have been doing just that with both plants and animals. It is historical fact whether you agree or not. You undoubtedly will soon be eating food made of members from evolved groups.
Thus evolution does occur.
There is also much evidence to show that evolution occurs in nature sans human selection pressures. But I doubt that you understand what I am writing about here so I will not elaborate.
Obviously you know little about this topic (and most certainly even less about cosmology and astrophysics) but it is possible for you to find out more including massive data showing that not only has evolution occurred in the past, it is occurring right now.
You can upgrade your knowledge from an opinion based on ignorance to an informed opinion, although it will take some time and effort for you to acquire relevant knowledge, and probably some guidance as to where to find educational resources suitable for the task.
If your particular god will not tolerate this sort of thing, than will just have to stay ignorant of this particular field of knowledge. That would be an unenviable and undesirable circumstance.
I was not there when my father was born, but I am confident that "my father was born" is a true statement. Equally, you were not there when your god allegedly gave some fellow, Moses, the so-called Ten Commandments or any other intercourse that is said to have occurred between Moses and the god in question. Does that have any effect on your claim? By your standard it would appear to make your claim false.
I do not adhere to your irrational standards, and neither do I subscribe to your religion, whatever it may be. I really have no idea without you revealing your motivations why you would go out of your way to rant at people about things of which you have no knowledge.
I sometimes wonder if messages such as yours are sincere or if they are just some silly person making jokes to elicit a response. But I have seen enough suffering and misery arising from this sort of dogmatic thinking, not even necessarily related to religion, to conclude that life is much too short and much too wonderful to dismiss such messages as pranks.
--
Edited by Bradley at 06/17/2008 5:35 PM
I think the problem with Evolution comes from the use of the word. Evolution as a word can mean simply how computers evolved over time. But it can also mean how the fittest survive which results in different colored moths. To some Evolution simply means everything came from a common species, for some it goes further and says everything came from a single cell, and some go even further to say it means that inanimate things became the animate thinking humans of today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo when you talk about your evidence you need to be clear of what you are talking about. Evidence that animals adapt to their environment is obvious, and that form of Evolution creationist believe. Evidence that bacteria can adapt to its environment has been observed and that form of Evolution even creationists believe.
Even some creationists believe in speciation.
What they reject is the things that are often speculated and impossible to prove.
Now cells becoming complex species, that hasn't been observed in the fossil record, nor by any direct experimentation, that is speculation, which Creationists reject happens, or happened. Inanimate things becoming alive that has not been observed ever and is also rejected. As well as the idea of rational beings stemming from irrational things.
So what is the big argument ultimately here, not that things adapt, nor that the fittest survive, nor even that speciation occurs. The argument ultimately is something that cannot be proven by direct observation. Did God create things or not?
The cambrian explosion itself states that out of nowhere a majority of all phyla were created seemingly rapidly. There was a bunch of complex cells, and then out of nowhere skeletal complex species in the fossil record. In order to minimize God it is assumed that since things adapt and Evolve in life, that somehow those cells instantly became complex species, and that right there is purely a naturalistic argument and is not rooted in science, while Creationists believe God created the species and the cells, and programmed into them the ability to adapt and Evolve to the changing environment. The adapting and evolving of species can be observed, while Creation can be speculated.
As Evolutionists speculate that over long periods of time cells could become complex species (which hasn't been observed via experimentation or in the fossil record) all because adaptation happens in species and in bacteria , Creationists speculate that since even the smallest cell and the least complex species are so complex that it makes sense that it was created.
Specifically to you Bradley
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Dogs, cattle, and grains, for example, have been bred for particular traits over many generations. The resulting individuals are said to have evolved from the original breeding stock. All that means is that the phenotype being artificially selected for is different from the phenotype of the original breeding stock.
I suppose that is a difficult thing for you to accept, but for several thousand years human beings have been doing just that with both plants and animals. It is historical fact whether you agree or not. You undoubtedly will soon be eating food made of members from evolved groups.
Thus evolution does occur. "
Yes that is true, if that is all you mean when you say Evolution is true then there is no argument. But when you assume that cells became a species, that is where the argument lies. And I ask you, since you profess that you are knowledgeable about Evolution therefore would know that cells to species, and non-life to life has not been observed, what presuppositions are you making for your over reaching argument about Evolution. When you say you believe Evolution what exactly do you mean?
I think what would help your argument is if you used less attacks on people, and used less ad hominem and straw man rhetoric. If you were in a debate class you would not get a very good grade if you relied on that too much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHE LAW OF ADAPTATION WITH SUBSEQUENT LOSS OF LIFE
To read the entire article, go to: http://openwetware.org/wiki/User:LOTY_Pierre_Jean_Daniel
This newly discovered law comes as a death stroke to evolution theory. We have the guarantee from the nature of the underlying philosophy (Intelligent Design) that the resulting application (programmable bacteria) is free of eugenics.
First of all; let us recall the fundamental reasoning in evolutionism: natural selection coupled with mutations can transform a species S1 into a totally new species S2.
Then, let us assume an individual S1 is under difficult conditions and undergoes modifications.
What evolutionism did not consider is that at the same time, another process comes into play: difficult conditions cause S1 to enter into a resistant form, with a subsequent loss of life.
What if conditions improve? As shown with the 1970’s research led by Peter and Rosemary Grant, “in the years following the drought, previous finches (with smaller beaks) again dominated the population.
There was a reversal in the direction of the selection; the population subjected to selection oscillating back and forth each time the climate changed.”
Thus, modifications tend to reduce if difficult conditions do not persist. However, there is absolute need of a directional, steady line of changes, should the species cross over to a new form of life.
Now, in case difficult conditions do persist, two processes admittedly would run parallel. As modifications would increase, the “quantity of life” would decrease downward limits of tolerance. Modifications would at best help the species to cope, though with a subsequent loss of life.
Surprisingly, the species S2 that admittedly evolved from S1 is found with high “quantity of life”. But S2, which is assumed to have undergone the full amount of modifications, should have undergone accordingly the full amount of adverse conditions.
Thus, S2 would have been found with a lowest “quantity of life”. Indeed, natural selection, coupled with mutations leads necessarily toward the extinction of the species.
As evidenced by the law of recurrent variation, the range of possible adaptations is preprogrammed in DNA, thus imposing inherent boundaries between kinds (groups of species defined only through lineage criteria).
sorry fucking exactly what the world needs a TRUTH stamp from SCIAM for 10 dollar for 10 words like = ISBN123456789 hitler had a brain tumor = six dollar paypall = statements like euclides geometry = internet will be our histery book = do not organize again = nearest ISBN from client will do the job = aub svp pse help me to give this to sciam editors = it is GOLD
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thischristianity is the most ignorant religion on earth you preach love then start more wars than all religions combined i just wished there was a religous black hole ,so all you wankers could be sucked into oblivion . god if he exists is one crappy creator look at humanity one dud job if you ask me . at least science admits it does not have all the answers but you lot , inbread american southern hicks with an iq of two do. if god exists he got one thing right , he stuck us on a planet far far away from the rest of the universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Evolution cannot be done as an experiment in a lab to provide conclusive proof that it really does happen"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisContrary to popular belief microevolution is in essence fact. There is proof, I would cite the articles here, but I fear it would quickly become labeled as "evolutionary propaganda."
Why cant we just realizes that evolution is not an attack on religion? It is merely a statement of observable facts that in no way contradicts modern Christianity. The only fault arises in the believe in literal/young earth creationism. And to be quite honest I don't understand how one is so able to immediately reject certain parts of science, yet leave others alone. If this is your view, please feel free to take all the antibiotics you can, so that way, when resistant strains of infection are formed, you can tell us all that evolution is wrong...
"One day, you will know."
Why must it end in damnation? This form of intolerance does not bode well for you my friend...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod created the man first, then, after a period of observation, he saw the need to create the woman. We can see here a sequential creation model. The new form of life is based on the predecessor, with subsequent new features.
Back to the beginning, God created an original life form in the sea. After keen observation, he could create a new life form (based on information gained from creating the previous form) with additional features, that not preventing the previous creature (also functional) from existing within its natural environment. Gradually, God could design fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals then humans.
Led to this point, we can formulate the new ID (Itelligent Design) view of evolution: the life form evolves in Gods mind, only to appear in the next stage, already fully designed. This can explain both the visible pattern linking creatures and the notable gaps in between.
To illustrate, let us consider the aviation history. In specialised museums, an observer can trace out a pattern from the gradually sophisticated planes, though each plane would significantly differ from the other. Similarly, from the pattern wherein creatures find themselves, we infer a gradual design process.
Evolution is a good theory and it can provide us with many answers, only problem is, I don't really think we came from monkeys. We do share the same characteristics as monkeys, but in evolution, doesn't it clearly state that once something dies, it doesn't come back? Don't worry religion is not any better, especially when the facts in religion don't provide a relevant answer. Face it people, right now we are in a position, where we will keep arguing with each other. I only say that religion is an old way of thinking, it should be kept historical. We should look relevant factors of life, meaning seriously, has anybody ever seen what they say?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHuman beings are amazing, especially when we are good at creating problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou may of not come from Monkey's you evolved from a sub Species of Neandertall( spelt wrong sorry) Man, nobody ever said Man evolved directly from Monkey's ...but use the Monkey as a Genectic comparison , to the sort of Creature we may have evolved from ...this is definitley Guess work and can not be proved.....and Science reconise this ..by calling it the missing link, because that's as far back as we can go without proof......Proof is missing , missing link , no evidence or made up answers to be found .....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is pretty honest really, because if science started making stuff up...Evolutionist( as we are called by one faction only) would not stand for it , we have our own minds and do not take everything that is said by a faction as true , without them offering some sort of proof or evidence.
I have never heard a Scientist say , look believe me this is what happened ...just have some faith , because without some back ground evidence pointing to a possible truth , they would be laughed of the face of the Earth, ........do you really think God would of created a being that would not be curiose and would not keep questioning everything they see around them, if he created man in his own image, was that so that people could be led like sheep , and not make up their own minds. ?........there is no debate between Evolution science and Creationism Scitheory, it's just Science and religion like it as always been, and arguing( it's not a debate) with Creationist and such like religions, just makes it sound as though they may have a point, and it helps them add weight to their beliefs under the diguise of having a scientific point to make and this is almost a ecceptence to them, don't feed the fire, there is no scientific debate.......there is only one coin with two very different sides evidence and blind faith.....dont argue they don't want to listen .....and they can stage seminars and pay university's to host them invite there own people to fill it up film it , and pretend that even University's are showing an interest in Creation theory.....yeah right ,....Don't feed the fire guy;s they think that they are scientist cos they get some plastic degree in whatever( funny how it's never a degree in physics or Geology) ...They all study Biology, cos it the least offensive to their belief structure and offers them some credability.............stop arguing with Creationist they love it and it makes them feel like we are scared of what they are saying ...just see it for what it is .
Ps no spell check sorry and I can't spell,
Good Posting ..and I thought it was very fair
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think anyone is saying we came from Monkeys, ...I think it goes a little deeper than that , when we find the missing link we should be able to tell you which particular branch of beings early Man we came from ...I suspect that there were many forms of early humans that simply died out .........i guess that's evolution ...Rock on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJofez, we didn't come from modern monkeys. "Primates" are a large family of which Homo Sapiens is a member, so are modern chimpanzees and others. The stock-phrase "we descended from monkeys" is wrong. Modern monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas, all came from a common ape-like ancestor as evidenced by the multiple transitionary forms found in fossil remains.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaultline