Post by Randall Lord on Apr 7, 2006 16:33:12 GMT -5
Part 1
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down
real science, but their arguments don't hold up
By John Rennie
www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EE
DF&pageNumber=7&catID=2
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural
selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely,
but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular
biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond
reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the
public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced
nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade
politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly
supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent
design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As
this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether
to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson,
a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of
Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to
serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.
Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to
defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use
are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies
about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put
even well-informed people at a disadvantage.
To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most
common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs
readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science
has no place in the classroom.
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle
of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated
explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts,
laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a
theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So
when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or
the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing
reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with
modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a
fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all
practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant
other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no
one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear,
unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see
subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence
by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers.
The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less
certain.
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those
who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
"Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural
selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of
survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or
less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under
given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a
slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food
seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the
food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage
may tip to the slow breeders. In a pioneering study of finches on the
Galápagos Islands, Peter R. Grant of Princeton University observed these
kinds of population shifts in the wild [see his article "Natural Selection
and Darwin's Finches"; Scientific American, October 1991].
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to
survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of
whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.
3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It
makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be
re-created.
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that
divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and
macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over
time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species.
Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species
change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA
comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been
upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit
flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among
Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as
chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes
in populations over time.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from
fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical
sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as
evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether
they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable
predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that
between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years
old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years
ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features
progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil
record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils
embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago).
Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and
precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the
spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter,
then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have
originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit
for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely
evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced
such evidence.
It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining
characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the
1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest
interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too
many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down
real science, but their arguments don't hold up
By John Rennie
www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EE
DF&pageNumber=7&catID=2
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural
selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely,
but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular
biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond
reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the
public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced
nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade
politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly
supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent
design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As
this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether
to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson,
a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of
Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to
serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.
Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to
defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use
are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies
about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put
even well-informed people at a disadvantage.
To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most
common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs
readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science
has no place in the classroom.
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle
of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated
explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts,
laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a
theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So
when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or
the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing
reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with
modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a
fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all
practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant
other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no
one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear,
unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see
subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence
by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers.
The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less
certain.
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those
who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
"Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural
selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of
survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or
less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under
given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a
slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food
seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the
food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage
may tip to the slow breeders. In a pioneering study of finches on the
Galápagos Islands, Peter R. Grant of Princeton University observed these
kinds of population shifts in the wild [see his article "Natural Selection
and Darwin's Finches"; Scientific American, October 1991].
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to
survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of
whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.
3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It
makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be
re-created.
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that
divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and
macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over
time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species.
Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species
change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA
comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been
upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit
flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among
Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as
chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes
in populations over time.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from
fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical
sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as
evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether
they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable
predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that
between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years
old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years
ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features
progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil
record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils
embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago).
Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and
precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the
spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter,
then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have
originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit
for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely
evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced
such evidence.
It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining
characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the
1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest
interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too
many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.