rris, himself, in a 1961 work says, "It is because the Bible itself teaches us these things that we are fully justified in appealing to the power of God".

Creationists have yet to provide one single legitimate example of contradiction or error to the findings of those sciences. They may correctly point out that the records and findings are not yet complete, but that, in and of itself, is no evidence of error.
(R) Why should they bother, since within their interpretational context most (if not all) of the scientific data can be used to bolster creation?
(MB) If they wish to be taken seriously, they *must* "bother". Is it not the height of arrogance to say things such as "we don't have to bother to prove our point" on the basis of a claim to be occupying some moral high ground?
By the way, Creationists like to claim that scientific data supports their ideas. However, that has yet to be demonstrated in so much as a single instance. This is a rather dreadful track record considering the claims of having so much "support". If you have any examples to the contrary, I would appreciate hearing about them.

If one could run a 10-million-year laboratory experiment on cats, we would see macroevolution in them, too.
(R) Would we? How do you know this, since no one has ever seen it? This is a statement that goes far beyond what evidence exists to support it.
(MB) Not at all. Just because a given process takes a long time to complete and is, therefore, inconvenient or even impossible to witness in its entirety, doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean that that process is a fairy tale. How can one use such an argument against evolution and still believe in Creation? After all, nobody actually witnessed it directly, did they? Would somebody claim that stars and planets don't exist because we have never been able to create them in the laboratory?

(R) An example from statistics may prove instructive. In regression analysis (which fits a line to data) it is sometimes tempting to assume that the relationship observed between two variables can be extrapolated to values of the independent variable for which no data were collected. It is possible that the relationship observed at the range of variable values collected would hold at different ranges of the independent variable, but we have no evidence to tell us that it would. Hence, to state that it would is an error of interpretation.
(MB) It's only an error of the level of certainty involved in that interpretation. As more and more data points are collected, the equation governing the line which connects all data points becomes more accurate. It is not 100% accurate until all data points are accounted for, but we can reasonably assume that the final form of the equation will not vary significantly from the initial statistically-confident versions.
Applying this to the argument on evolution shows the difference between scientific and Creationistic interpretations. The scientist claims that the theory describing the known data is correct so long as future data continues to uphold it. He further claims that predictions can be made from the initial theory as to the nature of future data. The Creationist, on the other hand, claims that the entire theory is completely invalid and unworthy of consideration, despite any and all data which agree with it, because there are still data points outstanding. Since it is not possible to collect all possible data points, the Creationist will never accept the theory that defines their relationship. The scientist, however, will use the theory to do useful work and increase his understanding. If future data is discovered which show the theory to be in error, a new theory will be formed and the learning process continues. The Creationist will always be stuck with his basic premise and is incapable of advancement.

Homo sapiens is not likely to speciate again during our stay on this planet because our population has become so intermixed that mutations are "smoothed out". However, should we manage to colonize another planet, it is possible that the small, isolated population of that colony would evolve much more rapidly.
(R) I respond to this because it contains the phrase "it is possible." To be prudent,evolutionists should be including this phrase every time they make unwarranted generalizations from their lab experiments. My hunch is that they do, because they are trained scientists, and then others take their tentative conclusions and bombastically pronounce them to be indisputable facts.
(MB) You need to avoid the mistake of lumping degrees of proof for general statements such as "evolution occurs" with those for specific statements such as "this is *how* evolution occurs". General statements can, indeed, be indisputable facts, even if the exact mechanics underlying them are still open to debate. This applies to every theory of science. For example, "gravity" is a fact. How gravity is actually manifested in space-time is still under debate.

No one will claim that there are no holes or gaps in the fossil record. However, a "gap" does not mean an "error" - as Creationists would have us believe. Remember that the science of paleontology is less than two centuries old and only a fraction of the Earth has been examined for fossil remains.
(R) This is true as far as it goes. But consider that there have been millions of fossils found of all kinds of life forms. With that much evidence I would think that the holes should be pretty much filled.
(MB) Why? There are currently some 30 million species of animal life on planet Earth and 99% of all species that have *ever* existed are now extinct. We've filled some holes in the fossil record, but, by no means, have we filled all of them. Creationists incorrectly claim that "absence of evidence" means "evidence of absence". Combine this with their unwillingness to accept evolution until *all* data points are known and you get the main thrust of their argument against fossil record support for evolution.

(R) The latest evolutionary ideas, however, have been constructed in such a way to take these gaps into account: isolated populations mutating very rapidly, a sort of slow-motion hopeful monster.
(MB) This is lifted directly from Gish's combination of distortions of the punctuated equilibrium theory of Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge with his ridiculing of the phrase "hopeful monsters" used in a paper by Richard Goldschmidt to describe the appearance and survival of macromutations. Gish tries to claim that scientists support the notion that, in his words, "that one time a reptile laid an egg and a bird was hatched from the egg!". In reality, nobody claims anything of the sort. Mutations are the engine of change in living things and they are more likely to survive when they occur in isolated populations where competitive pressures are lessened. In such an environment, the mutated creature (or "hopeful monster") has a much better chance of surviving to reproduce and pass along an overall change to future generations in that population.

(R) It may make the theory of evolution stronger in many eyes, but think of how many times we were confidently told that the holes would be filled!
(MB) This has never been claimed. To do so would require retrieving the fossilized remains of every single creature that had ever lived on this planet -- and that is simply impossible.

(R) These theories are likely to change, and who knows, they may continue to change in such a way as to evolve into something even closer to what creationists have been saying all along.
(MB) That is highly unlikely. For that to happen, there would already have to be some scientific support for Creationism -- and none exists. It is indeed a fantasy to think that an entirely unsupported idea will suddenly blossom into a bedrock of science in the face of all the evidence against it.

(R) Recent changes in evolutionary theory have taken creationist criticisms into account (or at least have taken into account the data inconsistencies that creationists have pointed out).
(MB) Could you detail a few of those changes and the Creationist argument that caused them?

New findings are made constantly and, to date, not a single one has contradicted evolution theory.
(R) What kind of fossil evidence would be interpreted as contradicting evolution theory?
(MB) Finding dinosaur fossils in pre-Cambrian strata. Finding human remains in Cretaceous strata. Finding mammal or bird fossils prior to the appearance of reptiles. Obvious things like that...

(R) I think that the response of the evolutionary community to a troublesome find would be to modify the theory of evolution without seriously considering the most obvious alternative at hand: special creation.
(MB) Why would nonsense merit serious consideration if an established theory was challenged by new data? Creationism is an idea that must sink or swim on its own merits (or lack of them). Argument against evolution is not also argument in favor of Creationism (discounting any ulterior motives of the one promoting the argument). The answers to questions concerning the nature of life on planet Earth are not found in a simple binary decision tree.
Actually, the Creationist argument is structured very much like a political campaign that concentrates almost exclusively on mud-slinging. In politics, a candidate can win votes either by making positive points about himself or by running down his opponent. Mud-slinging is easier, however, and that's why it's so widespread. All that's required are negative allegations. Few people will bother to check the facts and rebut the allegations. Even if they do so successfully, the "sting" of the allegations will linger and can be drawn upon in future arguments - usually made to a different audience. Cogent points against the mud-slinging candidate can be glossed over by appealing to the emotions of the voter in cleverly-worded speeches. Bill Clinton is a master of this technique and it's won him two terms in office.
Creationists understand this all very well. In fact, Morris' 1975 work, "Introducing Creationism in the Public Schools", is a primer on *how* to present Creationist argument for best effect. It has nothing to do with whether or not the arguments themselves are worth a load of fetid dingo's kidneys. Just as in the political campaign, image is everything. For example, he encourages students who believe in Creationism to advance questions in class, but to be "winsome and tactful, kind and patient" and that "cleanliness and neatness don't hurt either". Of course, those qualities contribute absolutely nothing to the truth or fiction of their arguments, but, then again, the Creationists aren't primarily concerned with such niggling details.

(R) The evolutionists seem to hold onto their theory with a great deal of tenacity, not any specific theory, but there is unquestioned loyalty to the idea of evolution. This betrays a rigidity and scientific intolerance which does not become these supposed searchers of truth.
(MB) Again, there seems to be some confusion here between the overall theory of evolution and the details of its mechanics. It is hardly "intolerant" to subscribe to a theory which has survived constant interrogation for over a century and for which there is no significant or serious competition. The search for truth is satisfied at that level, but continues at a feverish pace in the effort to answer all of the remaining component questions. That is where the only controversy lies. There is none about the overall grand theory. Even most Creationists agree on that point. They just try to claim that God is responsible for it all and that the Bible is a literal and accurate explanation for it.

Created with Allaire HomeSite 4.0 .......... Last Update: 04 Jun 98
E-mail: mlbakke1@bakkster.com

Earthlink Network Home Page

Go to next reply

Return to "Evolution vs. Creationism" essay

Back to Philosophy page
€NìIõ´îñ<NiP›€gÌJNÆ¥?$I+X8YZðN)ƒ7&,•@NiNi NIGHT OWL MK. II -- Philosophy/Evolution vs. Creationism (Reply #5c)
Night Owl Mk. II

Go to next reply

Return to "Evolution vs. Creationism" essay

Back to Philosophy page

Please feel free to E-mail me with your own comments on this issue or on anything else included in my Philosophy of Life section. Debate is good!

Please report any problems with this page to the Webmaster!


Boldfaced statements are parts of the original essay (or a subsequent reply) to which the respondent has directed his comments.

Italicized/emphasized comments
prefaced by (R) are those of the respondent and are presented unedited.

My replies appear under the respondent's comments in blue text and are prefaced by my initials (MB).

This is the third of a four-part reply. Select the "Go to next reply" link at the end of each part to read the next part of the reply.

Why accept something that is patently untrue? If someone had, indeed, refuted evolution - especially in a major way - the whole thing would have come down long ago.
(R) I don't think that this is true. The fossil record refutes it, as I have indicated already. New theories have emerged (evolutionary mechanism still unclear) taking the fossil record into account, it is true, but they are still evolutionary theories.
(MB) Again, if you can see the difference between the overall idea of evolution and the details that comprise parts of it, your worries will be assuaged. The fossil record does not dispute evolution. Interpretations (good, bad and bogus) of it have fostered debate about certain mechanics of evolution. Creationists have tried to advance their own ideas to account for the fossil record, but each has gone down to humiliating defeat.

(R) Dr. Gish points out many examples of different forms of life (butterfly, bombardier beetle, the woodpecker) that have very elaborate systems that could not have evolved piecemeal. No known or postulated evolutionary mechanism can account for their existence. These examples are either ignored or explained away with a "trust us, we'll find the answer some day: just keep the faith" from the evolutionists.
(MB) Just because Gish can't (or chooses not to) understand how things happen does not qualify as evidence that they did not happen. He also loves to postulate wild ideas that require structures such as the eye, for example, to suddenly appear overnight. He then uses them to put down evolution. The examples you refer to primarily concern the development of the wing. Again, he expects that fully-feathered wings suddenly had to appear on the offspring of a reptile in order for evolution to be affirmed. As this is obvious nonsense, he cites it (and similar examples) as "proof" of Creation.
    As to the notion that "there is no known or postulated evolutionary mechanism" for such things, this is another example of deliberately ignoring what has been written. There are a vast number of articles discussing exactly those mechanisms. A good summary of many of them is given by Ernst Mayr in "Evolution and the Diversity of Life" - a work which was available to Gish prior to his publishing his own work. It is clear, then, that Gish's claims are somewhere between uninformed, at best, and deliberately deceitful, at worst.

(R) I rather doubt that anyone has ever asked Dr. Gish, for example, what his Ph.D. was in, only to receive an evasive answer.
(MB) Indeed, not. As I have stated previously, Gish is one of the few Creationists who actually has some idea of what he's talking about. He is a biochemist by training - although he spends most of his time arguing paleontology.
    Creationists love "degree-dropping" in order to bolster the "argument by authority" angle. Normally, however, they merely state that so-and-so is a Ph.D. while carefully leaving out the discipline in which the degree was earned. In all but a few cases, the degrees are in fields whose relevance to evolution are rather questionable. It is instructive to refer to a Creationist publication entitled "21 Scientists Who Believe in Creationism". Investigation of the names listed that pub will reveal that three of them hold doctorates in education, two in theology, and five in engineering. There are also one physicist, one chemist, a hydrologist (Morris), an entomologist, a psycholinguist, and a Ph.D. in "Food Science Technology". The remaining five hold degrees that have peripheral relevance: two biochemists (including Gish), an ecologist, a physiologist, and a geophysicist. (An additional widely-quoted Creationist "authority", R.L. Wysong, is a veterinarian.) Where are the biologists, zoologists, paleontologists, geologists, etc. that might have real and direct expertise in relevant subject areas?

(R) To say that Ph.D.s trained in similar fields don't count is like saying that physicists don't know math because their degrees were in physics and not mathematics.
(MB) At least those are related disciplines. In any case, you are correct to a point. Any amount of higher education is better than none at all. However, when one flaunts his degree(s) in the interest of promoting "argument by authority", it then becomes proper to consider the relevance of his sheepskin. It should also go without saying that the average layman is more impressed by the arguments of a Ph.D. than by those of an untitled speaker.
    The proper way t