"1: You can't get cider from pears, you can't get men from monkeys, and that's that"
Bulmers pear cider, and evolution. Need I say more?
"2: Evolution is just a theory"
Sometimes the phrase "evolution is only a theory" will be heard. This phrase rests on the common assumption that a theory is something that is possible but not proven. Science, however, defines theory as a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or observation. This sets it at a significantly higher level of reasoning than "wild and unproven guess", which is what is implied when this argument is mentioned. Note that creationists don't say that gravity is "only a theory." And if anyone says you can't directly observe evolution, send them to professor Lenski.
"3: You can't falsify evolution, therefore it's not science"
This would be correct, if it weren't untrue. For any theory to be accepted as scientific it must be falsifiable. In other words it must be capable of making statements which could theoretically be disproved. Evolution's opponents claim that the theory of Evolution does not have this property, although this claim can be easily rejected. Theoretically, evolution could be falsified if scientists discovered an organism so complex and unique, with absolutely no explainable path as to how it could have evolved. Such an organism has not been found. Likewise, if it could be proven that mutations do not exist, or that, if mutation exists, it is not passed on, or, that if it is passed on, it doesn't affect the way it acts, these would all falsify evolution. However-it still hasn't been falsified.
"4: The eye! How could something as complex as an eye build up in small steps?"
Frequently, believers in creationism cite the eye as an example of something too complex to have evolved. The argument is frequently presented with a question of the type, "What use is half an eye?". However if the question is recast as "Given a choice, would you prefer to be completely blind or have 50% of your present vision?", then it becomes clear that the question is badly formed, especially when keeping in mind that many species manage to survive with significantly less advanced eyes. Examples include the polychaete worms, which can distinguish between light and dark;[5] the simple eye-cup of the flatworms, for finding the direction of a light source; jellyfish and scallops, with simple eyes for detecting movement;[6]the famous compound eyes of the insects, which can make out simple shapes, and ultimately the sophisticated single-lens eyes of the molluscs and vertebrates.
"5: If Natural Selection means that creatures evolve because of random helpful mutations, then explain the Peacock!"
As yes, the peacock. At first glance, it's bright, attention-grabbing feathers seem to defy evolution, for shouldn't such plumage attract predators and doom this mutant, therefore deleting it's genes from the genepool and making the bird a logical puzzle. However, a test was instigated. Male peacocks were introduced to females, some with tail feathers in tact, others with tail feathers clipped. The ones with clipped feathers got little to know mating, whilst the lucky feathered birds mated and thus produced offspring. You see, females instinctively seek males with vibrant tail feathers, as they have the stronger genes. So, evolution wins again.
"6: Evolution states the world is over 6000 years old. However, our good book states otherwise, so evolution is untrue"
This has been paraphrased to me over and over again. Each and every time I hear it, I say "So, it disagrees with your beliefs, and therefore it's wrong. Huh. I'm done talking with you". If someone lists this in a debate, than they're not worth debating with.
"7: God is outside the laws of nature"
So? If that were the case, then we could see God' unnatural affects on the world. No such evidence of any such processes have been documented. Therefore, God has not acted and is unimportant to any argument of science.
"8: Godditit"
Creationists can claim anything by saying Godditit. But for this argument to work at all, they have to prove the existence of God. Good luck, kids. Get back to me on that.
"9: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
This is usually considered to be argument from ignorance, summed up by the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Of course, it will be always impossible to disprove a supernatural explanation; the supernatural by definition hides in our lack of knowledge about the world. Originally, the gods made the plants grow until we noticed that plants came from seeds, then they pulled chariots across the sky in the form of the moon and the sun until we noticed that they moved of their own accord. Now, supernatural entities exist only where believers in them put them; "outside" the realms of reality, and when those are disproved, the boundaries will be pushed back further.
You will never disprove what, almost by definition alone, will lie outside what can and can't be disproved. But then again, that's the point of this particular escape hatch.
In a less supernatural sense, this argument is similar to Russel's teapot - disproving things can be very tricky when the burden of proof doesn't actually lie with you. We cannot conclusively disprove a global flood or the claim that it made the Grand Canyon, all we can do is state that there is no evidence for it and conclude that in all likelihood, there is no evidence because it didn't actually happen.
"10: The Peanut Butter Argument: You say matter and energy sometimes create life, shouldn't Peanut Butter (matter), which is exposed to light and head (energy), at least sometimes create life? But millions and millions of us open Peanut butter jars every day, and no monkeys or birds flu out of them!"
Yeah. The problem with this, of course, is that Peanut Butter jars, at least in my experience, are generally not billion year-old volcanic environments rich in ammonia and methane, being bombarded by high energy cosmic rays. Also, the millions of times you've tested it pale in comparison to the trillions of times it's been tested over earth's billion year history. Finally, how do you know there's no life? Most likely, any life created would be immediately killed by the preservatives inside the Peanut Butter (that is their job), and any that survived were consumed and digested by you. So know, shining light on peanut butter will not magically create birds, but it may create single strings of organised chemicals. Seriously, when was the last time you tested it?
No comments:
Post a Comment