-
Network with eTrilobite
-
Entrecard
-
Recent Blog Posts
-
Design of the Month
-
Advertisments
-
Blogroll
- 100 Days of Science
- Bad Science
- Complexity Simplified
- DreamHost Blog
- Ediacaran
- Evolving in Kansas
- Hairy Museum of Natural History
- John Hawks weblog
- Laelaps
- Newton’s Ocean
- Paleo Errata
- PaleoQuest
- The Flying Trilobite
- The Loom
- The Tyrannosaur Chronicles
- The World We Don’t Live In
- Thoughts From Kansas
- WordPress Planet
-
Archives
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
-
Admin
Feb
13
I was amused to see that a Creationist blog linked to my Darwin day post, taking issue with my claim that Darwin discovered Evolution. The argument? Evolution is a “Theory” and theories are, by their very nature, created, and not discovered.
This is what Creationism finally comes down to? Evolution can’t be true because… Creationists don’t understand Science jargon!?!
Let me enlighten them:
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena
This quote is from the Wikipedia article on Theory. With a single Wikipedia search, I’ve managed to amass greater scientific knowledge than Creationists ever demonstrate when pulling the “only a theory” scam.
The article goes on to affirm that microevolution actually does occur, something that not even Creationists can deny, but that macroevolution has never been demonstrated, and is questioned by a large portion of the Scientific community.
I don’t want to call the writer of the post a liar, but the statements on macroevolution lack a certain element of truth.
First, the separation between microevolution and macroevolution is a false one. The author is saying that species can evolve a little, but that when evolution gets too far, it magically stops. This is completely nonsensical. There is no magical barrier that allows X amount of evolution, but not more than X. I mean, it’s a completely bizarre assertion!
Second. Michael Behe rejects evolution, and he hardly constitutes a large portion of the Scientific community. Biology graduates of Liberty University don’t count, sorry. You know, the Scientific community is a group of real people, and they know what their views on Evolution are. You don’t have to tell them.
There’s more bones too pick in the post. For instance, I could show the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, but that’s been done so very many times that if you remain unconvinced, I won’t be able to convince you.
Way to go! You know you’ve hit the big time when others start attacking what you’ve written. Good job in handling what was, honestly, a very predictable complaint from that group.
LOL!! One quote was a “slap in their faces” to those Creationists. In fact, I couldn’t agree more.
Why not try the Evolution not being linear approach?
Nice work — and better you than me. I find the anti-evolution argument bizarro, and I’ve decided (for now) to just write about the science rather than arguing about it. Keep the Bible in the religion classroom and out of the science lab, and I can call it good. Climate change, however … that’s a doozy and I’m just delving in. Wish me luck!
Of course! And things were *so* much more inconvenient before Newton “invented” (not discovered) the “Theory of Gravity”, Maxwell “invented” (not discovered) Electromagnetic Theory, and Leeuwenhoek “invented” (not discovered) the Germ Theory of Medicine.
I point out that Macroevolution is indeed demonstrable (agreement between disparate branches of science from paleontology, comparative anatomy, biogeography and genetics), repeatable (multiple transitional forms between major groups such as fishes->amphibians, reptiles->birds, artiodactyls->cetaceans, etc.)
I know another “theory”: “Poe’s Law”. It states that many displays of fundamentalism are so ignorant; so riddled with obvious error, that they are indistinguishable from parody. If so, that ignorant creationist should consider himself “invented” (or is that discovered?)
Evolution is difference from other theories of science. For example, Newtonian physics was not expanded upon (like evolution is when it’s predictions are falsified) as incomplete, but rather the Theory of Relativity replaced it.
“We do not see slow evolutionary change in the fossil record…Changes seems to be abrupt because the intermediate steps are missing. The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of paleontology.” The Richness of Life by Stephen Jay Gould, P. 263
“a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.” The Richness of Life by Stephen Jay Gould, P. 264
I can hear pro-evolutionists cry out, hey Gould still believed in evolution. Despite his faith in evolution, his observations confirms the creationist model not evolution.
Well, I tried.
I suppose the only thing I can grant this creationist is that sure, science minded folk should be wary of using “Darwin discovered evolution” as shorthand for “Darwin figured out evolution works mainly by natural selection”.
Now where are all the scientists in the news crying that religious people should wait,February is our time, they’re interrupting our special day, and how could insensitive religious people ruin a holiday of understanding and enlightenment? Where are the op-ed pieces in the media?
But if we make one crack during the whole month of December, we’re being strident, militant and shrill atheists.
Michael:
I could give you a few hundred quotes from Gould arguing the opposite of the quotes you have mined. Quote mining is not a valid argument against evolution, or anything else for that matter.
Also, your last quote seems like it has been taken completely out of context, because Gould made it clear on many occasions that he believed evolution happend at an irregular pace, not that species arose instantly.
Listen. I have no beef with religion, but it has no place in science. For instance, the byline of your blog “Promoting Curiosity of True Science which Confirms God’s Word” implies that you ONLY support science which confirms the bible. Does that mean that if solid science disagrees with the bible, you’re allowed to simply deny it exists? THAT is my beef with creationists.