Freethought & Rationalism Archive

beekay · 02-20-2003, 12:08 PM

I write a weekly column for my town's newspaper every Wed. Last week I wrote about Darwin's birthday and evolution. You can read it here: http://www.haughtbk.com/wc021203.html

I've written about evolution before and got a number of responses, mostly negative. This time around was no different. Despite having touched on controversial subjects in other columns, it's evolution that gets people worked up around here (western NC).

Well, here are two responses to the column for your enjoyment:

Quote:

To the editor:
Hello, and thank you for the opportunity to respond to the piece Wednesday by Brandon Haught concerning Darwin's birthday. There seems to be two ideas presented by the writer that I often hear "anti-creationists" repeat. First, is the notion that believing in Creation is shomehow unscientific. I think that true scientific method only supports the fact that the Earth was specially formed, tilted, rotated, and placed in motion at just the right distance around our life sustaining source of energy, the Sun. And the same scientific method shows us that without a doubt that our sun and solar system cannot possibly be any older than roughly 10,000 to 15,000 years. The sun's mass decreases each day as heat and light energy is given off. E=MC squared. As energy is given up, mass must be reduced. The sun's size is measurable and we know that it is getting slightly smaller each day. One simply needs to look up recorded measurements of the sun's size over the last fifty years and observe the rate at which it is getting smaller. For it to be millions or even hundred's of millions of years old then its diameter would have been larger than the orbit of Mercury or even Venus and those planets would not exist.

The second idea I often hear and I saw in Haught's Darwin piece is that belief in evolution and belief in God can somehow be mated together. Of course people can believe whatever they wish, but Christ believed in and talked often about the Creation. It is specifically recorded twice where Jesus spoke about Adam's son named "Abel" in Matthew chapter 23 and in Luke chapter 11. Either Christ lied, or two separate gospels are false, or it is the truth. Psalm 119 verse 160 says that God's "word is true from the beginning."

And here is #2:

Quote:

To the Editor:
Darwin Day? The recent op-ed by Brandon Haught is a good example of how those defending Darwinian Evolution have sought to mislead the public. With broad strokes, Mr. Haught seeks to end debate on the issue by proclaiming that science has discovered "indisputable" and "irrefutable" evidence to support the theory. He states, "The evidence is there for anyone to examine and yet evolution opponents refuse to acknowledge it." He also brands those who dare to question Darwinian Evolution (which he claims is the "cornerstone of biological science") as "Biblical literalists."

It is a two pronged attack on the opponents to Darwinian Evolution. First, claim that science has proven evolution, then, marginalize the opposition by painting them as religious fanatics. It has worked well for many years, causing people of faith to stand down. It is not working now, however, because the light of truth is beginning to shine, even in the halls of science.

The evidence for evolution that Mr. Haught refers to is evidence for what is more accurately termed, micro-evolution. These are the observed changes in organisms over several generations. Darwin's famous finch beak observation is a good example of this. Another example is in the increase in the average height of Americans over the last two hundred years. Yes, these type evolutionary changes do occur.

The problem occurs as this evidence is extrapolated to indicate that one species changes into another. This is called, macro-evolution, or what I have referred to above as Darwinian Evolution. In the 144 years since Darwin's watershed book was published, precious little evidence for macro-evolution has been presented. By contrast, numerous hoaxes, such as the Piltdown Man, and the discovery of the staged photos of the Peppered Moth(1) have come to light. Why resort to lies if the evidence is so strong? The fact is, it isn't.

The evidence for macro-evolution is not only lacking, it actually points in the direction of intelligent design. By the means of natural selection, Darwin proposed that tiny changes in organisms accumulated over millions of years to give us the various plants and animals we see today. However, there is a problem with the evidence found in the fossil record. Instead of showing a slow, gradual development over long periods of time, it shows just the opposite -a sudden burst of life known
as the Cambrian Explosion. Fully formed body types with no transitional forms is the opposite of what Darwinian Evolution predicts. This dilemma has prompted Darwinist, Steven J. Gould, to propose a different mechanism of change called "punctuated equilibrium " (sudden changes with no transitional forms). His only evidence is that the fossil record shows no transitional forms.

Many in the scientific community are beginning to subject Darwinian Evolution to the same rigorous examination that we have come to expect from good science. At the top of this list is Michael Behe, Associate Professor of Biochemistry, Lehigh University, who's 1996 book, Darwin's Black Box: the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution is still creating headaches for the evolutionists. Another is William Dembski, Ph.D. in mathematics, University of Chicago. His most recent work, No Free Lunch, has committed Darwinist, Michael Ruse, issuing a stern warning to his colleagues. He says, "He (Dembski) should not be ignored."(2)

Why would scientists claim that Darwinian Evolution is true when the evidence for it is so weak? The answer lies in their view of what makes good science. Most scientists operate from a naturalistic world view. This view says that only natural phenomenon can be studied, and only natural causes postulated. This view of science works quite well until we reach the realm of ultimate questions, such as "Where did we come from?" Even though all the evidence might point to our world being the product of intelligent design at the hand of a creating agent, most scientists refuse to play that game. To bring in a creator is to appeal to the supernatural for an explanation, and frankly, to a person committed to naturalism, that is like cheating. Therefore, even though there is no plausible mechanism demonstrated by which macro-evolution could occur, the fact remains that we are here, and the scientists who will not appeal to the supernatural, find only one explanation remaining - Darwinian Evolution.

Finally, why does this issue even matter? Isn't this evolution-creation debate between scientists and religious fanatics? No, it has a very real world consequence. What we teach our children about our origins has a profound impact on how they see the world {their worldview) and how they view moral authority. This is clearly illustrated in the events of April 20, 1999, in the library at Columbine High School. According to witnesses, one of the two young men responsible for the carnage, pointed a gun at Cassie Bernall and asked "Do you believe in God?" When she courageously answered yes, the gunman asked "Why?" and pulled the trigger. His question, "why?" should haunt us. "Why believe in God, science has proved evolution?" he might have argued.

The young gunman didn't believe that God exists, therefore, he didn't believe in an ultimate moral authority. Consequently, life to him had no meaning beyond the moment. He had no respect for the gift of life -not even his own. Now it would be unfair to blame only the teaching of Darwinian Evolution for this tragedy, but there is no denying that it played a role. If we give our young people the permission to disregard God, then we are opening ourselves up for more of the same chaos.

Yes, it matters what we teach our children. We ought to teach them truth, and the truth is that Darwinian Evolution is more naturalistic philosophy than it is science. Do we really want to throwaway all moral authority for a mess of naturalistic pottage?

1 Hooper, Judith, Of Moths and Men: The Untold Story of Science and the Peppered Moth. W .W .Norton Company, New York, 2002.
2 Dembski, William A. No Free Lunch: Whv Specified Complexitv Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: New York, 2002. Quote from the dustcover reviews.

I will go back and clean up the formating on those quotes shortly--I'm pressed for time right now. My editor said this is the first time he has ever had footnotes included in a letter to the editor. Good Grief!

Let's see here ... I read somewhere about that whole sun shrinking thing being debunked ... I'll have to see if I can find that again. I also know that the Columbine shooting story is false ... a kind of urban myth thing out of control.

Anyways ... have fun with these. I need to decide what kind of response to write in a future column. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

(edit -- cleaned up the quote formating some; should be easier to read now.)

KC · 02-20-2003, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Finally, why does this issue even matter? Isn't this evolution-creation debate between scientists and religious fanatics? No, it has a very real world consequence. What we teach our children about our origins has a profound impact on how they see the world {their worldview) and how they view moral authority .This is clearly illustrated in the events of April 20, 1999, in the library at Columbine High School. According to witnesses, one of the two young men responsible for the carnage, pointed a gun at Cassie Bernall and asked "Do you believe in God?" When she courageously answered yes, the gunman asked "Why?" and pulled the trigger. His question, "why?" should haunt us. "Why believe in God, science has proved evolution?" he might have argued.

The young gunman didn't believe that God exists, therefore, he didn't believe in an ultimate moral authority .Consequently, life to him had no meaning beyond the moment. He had no respect for the gift of life -not even his own. Now it would be unfair to blame only the teaching of Darwinian Evolution for this tragedy, but there is no denying that it played a role

One of the most intellectually dishonest arguments I have ever heard.

KC

Autonemesis · 02-20-2003, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by beekay
I also know that the Columbine shooting story is false ... a kind of urban myth thing out of control.

Even if it were true, they only have the Columbine shootings to blame on Darwinism. We have the Crusades, the Third Reicht, slavery, witch-burnings, and on and on and on and on, which we can blame on Christianity with as much or more credibility. I'm happy to play the blame game with them, because they cannot possibly win it.

MrDarwin · 02-20-2003, 12:29 PM

Quote:

In~tead of showing a slow, gradual development over long
periods of time, it shows just the opposite -a sudden burst of life known
as the Cambrian Explosion. Fully formed body types with no transitional forms is the opposite of what Darwinian Evolution predicts. This
dilemma has prompted Darwinist, Steven J. Gould, to propose a different mechanism of change called "punctuated equilibrium " (sudden changes with no transitional forms). His only evidence is that the fossil record shows no transitional forms.

Here the writer exhibits a typical creationist misunderstanding of puncuated equilibria and Gould's reasons for formulating it. Punc Eq has nothing whatsoever to do with the Cambrian explosion or "fully formed body types", and also has nothing whatsoever to do with transitions between higher taxa (phyla, classes, orders, etc.).

And, of course, we now know that the "Cambrian explosion" extended over several million years, and Cambrian creatures are preceded in the fossil record by several Precambrian organisms, some of which are clearly connected to the Cambrian forms.

Quote:

The second idea I often hear and I saw in Haught?s Darwin piece is that belief in evolution and belief in God can somehow be mated together. Of course people can believe whatever they wish, but Christ believed in and talked often about the Creation. It is specifically recorded twice where Jesus spoke about Adam?s son named ?Abel? in Matthew chapter 23 and in Luke chapter 11. Either Christ lied, or two separate gospels are false, or it is the truth. Psalm 119 verse 160 says that God?s ?word is true from the beginning.?

If you want to twist the knife a bit, simply point out that Behe, cited by the second writer, explicitly accepts an ancient earth and the common descent of life--and cannot by any means be called atheist or even agnostic.

tgamble · 02-20-2003, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KC
Finally, why does this issue even matter? Isn't this evolution-creation debate between scientists and religious fanatics? No, it has a very real world consequence. What we teach our children about our origins has a profound impact on how they see the world {their worldview) and how they view moral authority .This is clearly illustrated in the events of April 20, 1999, in the library at Columbine High School. According to witnesses, one of the two young men responsible for the carnage, pointed a gun at Cassie Bernall and asked "Do you believe in God?" When she courageously answered yes, the gunman asked "Why?" and pulled the trigger. His question, "why?" should haunt us. "Why believe in God, science has proved evolution?" he might have argued.

First, the story is totally false.

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../996front.html
http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/.../carrier1.html
http://www.infidels.org/wire/states/CO.shtml

Second, there's no evidence that the killer's accepted evolution. Given the state of science education in the US I doubt they knew anything about it.

Third, even if it were true, evolution is still a fact.

"And the same scientific method shows us that without a doubt that our sun and solar system cannot possibly be any older than roughly 10,000 to 15,000 years. The sun's mass decreases each day as heat and light energy is given off. E=MC squared. As energy is given up, mass must be reduced. The sun's size is measurable and we know that it is getting slightly smaller each day."

You might point out that the sun shrinking argument assumes a constant rate, something creationists deny when it comes to decay rates. Creationists often express contempt for uniformarisim but they don't mind useing it when it can be used to support their myths.
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/proofs.html#shrink

"In the 144 years since Darwin's watershed book was published, precious little evidence for macro-evolution has been presented. By contrast, numerous hoaxes, such as the Piltdown Man, and the discovery of the staged photos of the Peppered Moth(1) have come to light. Why resort to lies if the evidence is so strong? The fact is, it isn't. "

Actually, in the 144 years, lots of evidence has been found. The peppered moth photo's are not, of course, a lie. They were staged because it's silly to sit around waiting for moths to rest on trees. Creationists parrot the lie that they never do but they are (as usual) wrong.

His claims about the cambrian explosion and Behe's nonsense have been shown to be wrong by others already.

gravitybow · 02-20-2003, 03:58 PM

Shrinking sun argument from the infidels library.

lpetrich · 02-20-2003, 05:05 PM

From beekay's second letter:

Quote:

What we teach our children about our origins has a profound impact on how they see the world {their worldview) and how they view moral authority ... (stuff about how the Columbine assassins...)

The honest version of that sort of view is Plato's Royal Lie. Some 2350 years ago, he expressed the view in his Republic that his society's sacred books ought to be banned from his ideal city because they feature lots of (to him) bad examples. And in their place was to be a different religion -- a "royal lie" designed to demonstrate the legitimacy of the city's rulers.

Albion · 02-20-2003, 05:38 PM

Shrinking Sun argument from TO:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html

Valentine Pontifex · 02-20-2003, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albion
Shrinking Sun argument from TO:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html

I might add that this FAQ was recently updated.

Valentine Pontifex · 02-20-2003, 05:51 PM

I might add that the YEC #1 quoted in the first post was not using the standard version of the shrinking sun argument. The standard version is that the sun is getting smaller due to contraction -- not due to having a smaller mass. The idea is that it is the contraction that powers to Sun (though some YECs have contraction plus some fussion). It would be a fairly trivial calculation to show that at the rate "mass" is being turned into "energy" in the Sun is extremely trivial.

Notice how the creationist stories evolve over time. :-)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-20-2003, 03:58 PM	#6
gravitybow Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Washington, NC Posts: 1,696	Shrinking sun argument from the infidels library.

02-20-2003, 05:38 PM	#8
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Shrinking Sun argument from TO: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html

02-20-2003, 05:51 PM	#10
Valentine Pontifex Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 3,092	I might add that the YEC #1 quoted in the first post was not using the standard version of the shrinking sun argument. The standard version is that the sun is getting smaller due to contraction -- not due to having a smaller mass. The idea is that it is the contraction that powers to Sun (though some YECs have contraction plus some fussion). It would be a fairly trivial calculation to show that at the rate "mass" is being turned into "energy" in the Sun is extremely trivial. Notice how the creationist stories evolve over time. :-)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.