Frames of Reference - Evolution

Evolution and the Beginnings of the Universe: Case Closed

yeager — Thu, 06 May 2010 23:40:50 +0000

We’ve written on evolution and beginnings for a while now, but the discussion doesn’t change much; debates over side issues continues to occur, while the foundations rarely receive much attention. For a sadly humorous read, find out what happens when evolutionary data is asked to be supplied, just about everything but scientific evidence for foundations pops up. If overwhelming evidence and support for evolution proves it as fact, someone should be able to supply peer-reviewed, experimental data for the following (after all, evolution can’t begin, let alone complete, unless all four are true). We’ll give a tongue-in-cheek summary of the theory of beginnings and evolution, and then in parentheses give the scientific principle requiring experimental data.

First there was nothing (matter comes from nothing).
And then it exploded (explosions produce order. Mythbusters would have fun with this one).
From the goo, to the zoo (abiogenesis — life comes from non-life. Another one for Mythbusters).
To you (new species evolve from mutations).

If you don’t have all four of those, evolution doesn’t work. Period. Yet where are the scientific studies for those four items?

Remember the movie “Apollo 13” where Tom Hanks argues with his fellow astronauts about what needs to be done to get back to earth? Hanks states they’re arguing about step 2,214 while they’re on step two. That’s the way evolution “science” works; evolution attempts to ignore first steps and instead build their building without a foundation beginning on the 13th floor — with nothing but air under it supporting it.

But it’s not science–what experimental data exists for the foundation? Science should follow the following procedure, known as the scientific method:

Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

Here’s how it (should) work—let’s pick abiogenesis (life springs from non-life). First, observe it. Hmmm, in trouble right there, no observations (perhaps in some college dorm-room refrigerator—“When potato salad goes bad”, but we digress). Struck out on the first pitch. But suppose it had been observed, then make a hypothesis (guess) as to how it happened. Then, make predictions, and finally test the hypothesis via experiment (reproducing it in the lab).

Wow. Doesn’t look like much “science” has occurred with abiogenesis. It’s still from the goo to the zoo to you … without any science. Without repeatable, verifiable, published and peer-reviewed experiments it’s not science! Evolution might be entertaining as philosophy perhaps, but definitely not science as it fails to follow the scientific method; first steps in evolution must be taken on faith as they lack data using … drum-roll please … the scientific method! It’s by definition unscientific.

Thus, we’re putting this discussion (you can still read articles on evolution) on the back burner until they … you know, actually have science behind them we can discuss. If anyone has actual science for those foundational principles, please leave a comment so we can research them (please cite the journal/book/research paper, experiments, results, people involved, and dates so it’s easier to look up).

Philosophy might be interesting, but it’s not science.

CASE CLOSED.

Carl Sagan's Belief in Spite of Facts

yeager — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:40:47 +0000

Carl Sagan provides many quotes loved by both atheists and evolutionists in an attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of God and religion in general. Here’s a popular Sagan quote:

You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief isn’t based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to believe. Carl Sagan

We’d agree as the God denier Sagan himself provides supporting evidence in another of his famous quotes:

The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.

Sagan believed in the (now discredited) theory of the infinitely old universe — the eternal existence of the cosmos simply isn’t true. The universe did have a beginning — the question remains when and how, both of which are currently subject to considerable debate.

Sagan held the wrong belief (as far as we know) up until his death — in spite of evidence to the contrary. Why? Because his world-view (secular atheist) required it. Even after most accepted the “big bang” theory, Sagan didn’t — he couldn’t — because it conflicted with his world view. His belief wasn’t based on evidence or science, but a deep seated need to validate his worldview (also a case of confirmation bias, a subject we’ll take up in future post).

… Hoyle dislikes the idea because, as he puts it, “The big bang theory requires a recent origin of the universe that openly invites the concept of creation”. Barry Parker sums up the feelings of most cosmologists: “If we accept the big bang theory, and most cosmologists now do, then a ‘creation’ of some sort is forced upon us” (Herren, Fred “Show Me God” page 107–108)

You frequently can’t reason with atheists and evolutionists — their belief isn’t based on evidence, but on a deep seated need to deny the existence of God, as Carl Sagan brilliantly demonstrated. You have to admire Sagan, however, not many people (especially those claiming to be scientists) would continue to hold an absurd position to suit their worldview, when abundant evidence proves them wrong.

It’s sad many quoting Sagan miss the irony.

Oops, We Goofed Again - No Missing Evolutionary Links

yeager — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:21:33 +0000

The search for the evolutionary missing link continues. It’s funny how those “missing link” proclamations receive big attention, but what happens they’re found out to be false? Have you heard archaeopteryx and Ida aren’t what they were originally claimed to be? Probably not.

The feathered creature called archaeopteryx, easily the world’s most famous fossil remains, had been considered the first bird since Charles Darwin’s day. When researchers put its celebrity bones under the microscope recently, though, they discovered that this icon of evolution might not have been a bird at all.

An examination of its bone cells revealed for the first time that the 150-million-year-old creature had the slow growth rate of a dinosaur, not a bird, an international research team reported this month. Comparing it with other early fossils, the researchers concluded that the telltale physiology of modern birds likely didn’t emerge until 20 million years or so after archaeopteryx flapped its broad wings across primordial lagoons.

“They didn’t grow like a modern bird,” says Mark Norell at the American Museum of Natural History in New York and a senior author of the research paper published in the online journal PLoS One. “They grew like typical nonavian dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx was not so special. There were lots of animals just like it.”

Archaeopteryx frequently comes up as proof of transitional forms and so on. But now they discover it’s nothing like what they originally claimed. Oops. And what about Ida? It’s not as bad as the disaster of piltdown man, but it turns out in the quest to accept any evidence these two are not what they hoped for — the holy grail of evolution, the missing link between species.

Controversial German specimen is related to lemurs, not humans, analysis of an Egyptian find suggests

A 37-million-year-old fossil primate from Egypt, described today in Nature, moves a controversial German fossil known as Ida out of the human lineage.

Teeth and ankle bones of the new Egyptian specimen show that the 47-million-year-old Ida, formally called Darwinius masillae, is not in the lineage of early apes and monkeys (haplorhines), but instead belongs to ancestors (adapiforms) of today’s lemurs and lorises.

Whenever new “evidence” appears heralding the dawn of final proof of evolution — no, this time we really mean it — give the new discoveries a few decades, as these two pieces of history don’t really conform to what they were proclaimed to be after discovery. And of course, evolution remains susceptible to the piltdown man hoax, where “scientists” lose their objectivity and desperately cling to anything which “proves” what they hope for — classic cases of confirmation bias.

Once again, the hopes and prayers of evolutionists are dashed against the cold hard rocks of reality. Keep digging guys. The truth is out there. Honest.

Richard Dawkins Proves God Exists - by Mistake

yeager — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:00:53 +0000

Devotees of evolutionary dogma face a problem as it’s widely accepted neither the time the universe has existed (let’s just use 15 billion years) nor the amount of matter in the universe allow for random mutations to produce what surrounds us. So what’s a disciple of evolution to do? Declare the non-randomness of evolution, as atheist Richard Dawkins does — only one teeny tiny problem, which we’ll get to after the quote.

You often find people who say, well, evolution is a theory of chance, in the absence of a designer. If it really were a theory of chance, of course they would be right to dismiss it as nonsense. No chance process could give rise to the prodigy of organized complexity that is the living world. But it’s not random chance. Natural selection is the exact opposite of a chance process.

Dawkins states evolution isn’t a random, chance process — in other words it contains information. And information is non-random and (gasp!) designed. For example, if a computer programmer only bangs on the keyboard randomly, no program would ever exist. But by non-random inputs of information, the programmer creates computer software.

But in Dawkins’ alternate universe, he wants the non-random input created by … nothing — since in Dawkins’ worldview he boldly proclaims no God exists (an absurd and illogical premise by itself, for the atheist can’t say no God exists unless he has all knowledge — atheism being illogical and trapped in its own absurdity).

Either evolution follows random chance occurrences (in which case Dawkins admits it’s absurd), or it’s non-random which implies a designer — some outside force pushing it along. You can call it god, the “force”, or whatever you want, but Richard Dawkins admits something designed life. You can’t have it both ways, Mr. Dawkins. Either evolution is random (and thus absurd), or it’s not and some “god” designed and guided it. Which is it?

We don’t think Dawkins meant to admit the existence of God in his interview, but he did.

Richard Dawkins Equates Scientific Inquiry with Holocaust Denial

yeager — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:28:03 +0000

Richard Dawkins makes absurd claims which don’t withstand even a casual glance, but at least provide some entertainment value — get the popcorn, this could surpass the best summer movie. You’ll watch as Dawkins equates scientific inquiry with Holocaust deniers. The suspense! The thrill! The betrayal! See Mr. Dawkins replace the scientific method by his own vision of truth by fiat! It’s the greatest show on earth! Get your tickets now for the best comedy of the year! Oh the humanity!

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips …

Leaving for the moment his bizarre notion equating Holocaust deniers with scientific inquiry of evolution (when you have nothing logical to argue, call ‘em names, a loose corollary to Goodwins Law), the remainder of his article is no less absurd by allowing his atheist dogma to cloud what remains of his scientific judgment (hardly the “clear thinking oasis” his website claims).

Evolution is a fact in the same sense as it is a fact that Paris is in the northern hemisphere. Though logic-choppers rule the town, some theories are beyond sensible doubt, and we call them facts. The more energetically and thoroughly you try to disprove a theory, if it survives the assault, the more closely it approaches what common sense happily calls a fact.

We are like detectives who come on the scene after a crime has been committed. The murderer’s actions have vanished into the past.

The detective has no hope of witnessing the actual crime with his own eyes. What the detective does have is traces that remain, and there is a great deal to trust there. There are footprints, fingerprints (and nowadays DNA fingerprints too), bloodstains, letters, diaries. The world is the way the world should be if this and this history, but not that and that history, led up to the present.

Mr. Dawkins misunderstands science, yet again. It’s not the job to disprove evolution after he assumes a priori its truth, it’s his job to prove it scientifically — via the scientific method — otherwise it’s not science. Call it philosophy or some other discipline, but it certainly isn’t science.

To demonstrate the absurdity of Dawkins’ idea, suppose we proposed the following theory: Just before you read this page, aliens placed you and everyone else on this earth, with all memories intact, and created the world around you to match your memory; what you thought happened yesterday is just an implanted memory.

Prove that false. Since it will survive the assault, according to Dawkins we would “happily call that fact”. Absurd? Of course, but thus so is Dawkins error as he desires to substitute his dogma for science.

Actual scientific theory builds on experimental evidence. If you don’t have that, it’s not science. So where is the repeatable, verifiable experimental evidence for the following evolutionary ideas?

Matter comes from nothing.
Non-living material can spontaneously become alive.
Species can change from one to another.
Explosions produce order.

If you don’t have the first three, evolution doesn’t work. Surely such foundational and critical ideas in evolution have huge amounts of experimental data? Well, no, they don’t. Remember, they must all be true — if even one doesn’t have valid, experimental data, the theory isn’t science. These questions don’t exist on the periphery of evolutionary theory, they form the basis for it. Where’s the data? As Mr. Dawkins states evolution is a fact, certainly he can supply copious experimental results for those ideas.

Well, Mr. Dawkins? If you don’t have that, it’s not science, by definition. In other words, evolution is not science. No experimental data, no science. Evolution is a (bad) guess for people desperately clinging to the dogma of atheism (itself illogical, though that’s a topic for another time). That’s it. You can call evolution religion, philosophy, or any thing else — just not science.

“The murderer’s actions have vanished into the past” as Mr Dawkins says wonderfully by his own mouth admits evolution isn’t science. No experiment, no science. And of course, DNA evidence can now be created in the lab to fool those blindly trusting it (similar to Piltdown man) revealing how “science” can be easily fooled, as even the evolution zealots at talkorigins.org admit:

The hoax illuminates two pitfalls to be wary of in the scientific process. The first is the danger of inadequately examining and challenging results that confirm the currently accepted scientific interpretation. The second is that a result, once established, tends to be uncritically accepted and relied upon without further reconsideration.

Honest debate and discussion is good for science — lacking that science descends into personal attacks about what someone thinks is right, instead of discussing experimental data (or the lack thereof). Attempting to squelch scientific discussion by dogmatic fiat isn’t good for science, and Mr. Dawkins should be ashamed at himself for proposing the idea, while actual scientists should distance themselves from his attempts to be un-scientific.

We’re sure Mr. Dawkins’ filled his book with citations of experimental data covering the foundations of evolutionary theory. We’d like to review the book (it’s likely an entertaining read), so if Mr. Dawkins would send a copy, we’d like to review the evidence for ourselves. After all, if the evidence he presents is so overwhelming it should easily convince everyone with it’s voluminous scientific experiments proving foundational principles.

Mr. Dawkins desires to throw out the scientific method and proclaim evolution as fact by his own fiat. Sorry, Mr. Dawkins you don’t get to proclaim scientific truth to fit your dogma by your own fiat — that pesky scientific method rears its ugly head again, or perhaps we can call it “The Evolution Delusion”.

After all, blind acceptance of dogma allowed the piltdown man evolutionary hoax in the first place, did it not?

"Useless" Organs Really Aren't

yeager — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:06:22 +0000

Many times you’ll hear both atheists and evolutionists point to something as a mistake by God as a reason for denying God’s existence and creation. Various so-called vestigial organs become used as evidence against God, for those organs don’t appear to perform any function — but perhaps vestigial organs aren’t so useless.

For example, recently we’ve found out the spleen isn’t so useless after all:

Scientists have discovered that the spleen, long consigned to the B-list of abdominal organs and known as much for its metaphoric as its physiological value, plays a more important role in the body’s defense system than anyone suspected.

Reporting in the current issue of the journal Science, researchers from Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School describe studies showing that the spleen is a reservoir for huge numbers of immune cells called monocytes, and that in the event of a serious trauma to the body like a heart attack, gashing wound or microbial invasion, the spleen will disgorge those monocyte multitudes into the bloodstream to tackle the crisis.

Hubris describes the problem with both the atheist’s and evolutionist’s argument — if they don’t understand something or how it’s used, it must be absurd. That logically means they posses all knowledge, for how can you claim something isn’t needed unless you posses all knowledge? It’s also a classic case of confirmation bias — evaluating any data as favorable to your hypothesis (in this case, seeing a lack of understanding as proving your idea).

Evolutionary Data

yeager — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:54:04 +0000

Introduction

Throughout history, simple inquiries in science start firestorms of controversy. While we certainly don’t claim to be in the same league as Einstein (and his quantum theory), our simple query regarding evolution and the scientific evidence supporting it generate much response. As we’ve written before^[1], we seek simple answers to scientific questions using the scientific method. Nothing more, nothing less.

Matter can come from nothing.
Non-living material can become alive.
Explosions produce order.
Species change into another.

Nothing radical here, just basic foundational principles of evolution.

It’s important before continuing to establish exactly what science is, and the principle means of its advancement, the scientific method. Understanding the scientific method allows cutting through the fog, misplaced passion and personal attacks (which have no place in science).

The Scientific Method

A scientific method or process is considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence. Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives. Any theory which is cogent enough to make predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way. The method is commonly taken as the underlying logic of scientific practice. A scientific method is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidenced understanding of our natural world. ^[2]

Observation, reason, and experiment make up what we call the scientific method. ^[3]

The scientific method is simple — make a hypothesis and then perform experiments to prove or disprove the hypothesis, using reason to determine if the theory fits in with established understanding.

Evolution is a hypothesis. If it’s true with overwhelming evidence we should have proof for the previously mentioned ideas, correct? If not, it’s not science. No (reputable) scientist disagrees with the scientific method — it’s the basis for all fields of science (except one, as we shall see).

Logical Errors

Before beginning the responses, it’s important to understand common logical errors. This issue involves science — nothing more, nothing less. It’s analyzing evidence for evolution, scientific data and experimental results to prove its validity. A simple request for data is asked, and a simple response with peer-reviewed experimental data is the only requirement (citing articles and journals).

Yet two common logical errors frequently occur in this discussion — the ad hominem attack, and the dummy subject (also known as the straw man). Any time you see these errors (and a lack of data), you should question why the author fails to stay on a scientific subject. Science is about data. Period.

The ad hominem argument — the argument, as the Latin phrase says, “to the man” — is a second common form [of error]. Here, the tactic is to condemn the morals, motives, friends or family of one’s opponent and hence to divert attention away from the substance of the opponent’s argument. ^[4]

The dummy subject is another device commonly used for avoiding the question. As the label implies, the technique is to stuff, set up, and knock down a dummy issue that is substituted for the real issue. ^[5]

Original Scientific Request

John Donovan’s June 2 letter, “Evolution isn’t a philosophy”, illustrates a common and often repeated error. He states evolution’s “validity depends solely on evidence … overwhelming support.” But is it scientific?

The scientific method depends on repeatable, verifiable experiments. So I’ll wait for the overwhelming number (hundreds) of experiments showing a few scientific foundations of evolution. First, matter can come from nothing. Second, non-living material can become alive. Third, species can change. Fourth, explosions produce order. And for bonus credit, name 50 transitional forms.

But please pardon me if I don’t hold my breath waiting.

A simple scientific inquiry for evolutionists to demonstrate scientifically the data they have proving their hypothesis. No personal attacks, no mention of the Bible, creation, God or anything else — it’s about science and the evidence. Either the data exists, or it doesn’t. Either way, let’s get the cards on the table.

Yet this simple scientific inquiry started a firestorm of responses.

Responses

Response one

Darrin Yeager (letters, June 9) requested the names of 50 transitional life forms, and I am happy to oblige: Cladoselache, Tristychius, Ctenacanthus, Paleospinax, Spathobatis, Protospinax, Acanthodians, Cheirolepis, Mimia, Canobius, Aeduella, Parasemionotus, Oreochima, Leptolepis, Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion, Panderichthys, Elpistostege, Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Pholidogaster, Pteroplax, Dendrerpeton acadianum, Archegosaurus decheni, Eryops megacephalus, Trematops, Amphibamus lyelli, Doleserpeton annectens, Triadobatrachus, Vieraella, Karaurus, Proterogyrinus, Limnoscelis, Tseajaia, Solenodonsaurus, Hylonomus, Paleothyris, Captorhinus, Scutosaurus, Deltavjatia vjatkensis, Proganochelys, Hylonomus, Paleothyris, Petrol- acosaurus, Araeoscelis, Apsisaurus, Clapudiosaurus, Planocephalosaurus, Protorosaurus, Prolacerta, Proterosuchus, Hyperodapedon, Trilopho- saurus.

More than 50 forms, and these include only fish, amphibians and reptiles up to the Triassic! All information easily found on the Internet.

As to Yeager’s other objections, all but the third have nothing to do with evolution, and the third, speciation, has been observed in nature and the laboratory. If Yeager would like explanations for the other matters, specifically abiogenesis, thermodynamics and the Big Bang theory, he may ask me or any other high school chemistry, biology or physics student. ^[6]

This student gets a “A” for effort, but fails answering the question, spending time on a list which was only bonus credit hoping the extra credit would hide the “F” in answering the previous questions (it doesn’t).

The claim none of these questions have anything to do with evolution is false; science bases results on the work of previous ideas in much the same way as a building rises from the foundation. To say these basic questions have nothing to do with evolution is to say the Sears Tower has no need of the foundation sunk into the Chicago bedrock beneath it. Without a base, building is impossible. If the base fails, so does the building.

In the same way, evolution ignores fundamental, unresolved issues at its base. It’s trying to build a building, but beginning on the third story in the middle of the air. It doesn’t work, and ignoring fundamental issues is unscientific.

It’s about science and experimental data.

Where is the experiment showing life comes from non-life? That’s all we want to know. For the big bang, for what reason do you believe an explosion would produce order when it’s never been observed? Where is the experimental data?

As for species changing, where is the data? Some experiments using moths changing color or the equivalent turn up frequently, and then the great (unscientific) leap is made this shows species can change into another. But in the end, the moth is still a moth. It never changed species.

Sure, we can selectively breed dogs, yielding the dachshund and the mastiff. But they’re still both dogs. Where is the data if species changing into another has been “observed in nature and the laboratory” (two citations needed, one for nature, one for the lab)?

Give him an “A” for effort, and a “D-” for science.

Response two

Darrin Yeager (letters, June 9) demands scientific proof for the theory of evolution.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I would venture to guess that he is perfectly amenable to accept without any proof that Joshua blew a wall down with trumpets and had the Lord stop the sun. If these events can be taken on faith, why not evolution? Actually, the earliest proof of evolution may be found in Exodus, where Moses’ cane evolved into a serpent; what more proof is required?

Perhaps Yeager is a fan of the Creation Museum in Kentucky, which blithely shows humans and dinosaurs co-existing. Maybe he and the curators of the museum are fans of “Alley Oop” and “The Flintstones.” The characters in these comic strips also live harmoniously with prehistoric animals. Yabba dabba doo! Pity the poor shepherds trying to protect their flocks not only from wolves but from a ravenous T-rex.

Considering the disparagement and scorn Yeager and his ilk heap upon science, is it any wonder that every year the personnel needs of our technical industries are not fulfilled internally and thus the increasing clamor to expand the H1-B visa program so as to import more foreign engineers and scientists to meet our needs? ^[7]

When did religion enter into this discussion? We’re talking about scientific data and experiments, and the lack of same for evolution. Why digress into both ad hominem and straw man arguments? The only response needed is the answer to a scientific question. The respondent has no scientific discussion at all, instead wandering off-topic. Let’s stay on the discussion — it’s about science and experimental data.

The final paragraph is the classic straw man — claiming economic problems for simply asking for scientific evidence for a theory in which its proponents claim massive, overwhelming evidence (as long as you don’t ask to see it). The truth or falsity of evolution is what it is, and blaming economic problems on it isn’t a scientific problem. If having the moon made of cheese was good for the economy, should we allow science that falsity as well?

It’s about science and experimental data.

Response Three

Letters like that of Darrin Yeager (letters, June 9) always remind me of the opposition Galileo encountered when he proposed the preposterous theory that the Earth orbits the sun. The Bible clearly states that the Earth is the center of creation, that should settle the issue.

The answer to Yeager’s request goes beyond the scope of a letter to the editor, of course. If Yeager really wants to learn about evolution he could do an online word search on something like horse evolution, whale evolution or (I almost forgot) human evolution.

I recently completed a one-semester course on Earth’s history that covered the issues Yeager mentioned. It’s amazing how much has been discovered since I was in college 40 years ago. Geology and biology are fascinating subjects, and you won’t find much reliable information in the Bible. The Bible was never intended to be a science textbook. ^[8]

Why waste all those hours in college when we have the Internet? The Internet can be a fabulous resource, but much of what it contains is sketchy at best.

This person cites no scientific data either; no answer for the fundamental questions. If the class had any reputable instructor, they must have covered the scientific method. Where is the data?

It’s about science and experimental data.

Response Four

Darrin Yeager’s June 9 letter, “Five flaws in evolution theory”, is less of an indictment of the scientific community’s overwhelming support for evolution than it is an example of Yeager’s profound misunderstanding of the scientific method and evolutionary theory.

Yeager’s letter is typical of the false arguments that periodically turn up in The Register-Guard. I find it odd that Yeager did not include the real reason why he does not accept evolution, namely, evolution theory runs counter to his particular set of religious beliefs. Let us take a quick look at his implied objections.

Matter can (not) come from nothing. In general, this statement is true. However, there is every reason to think that the Big Bang provides an exception to this rule. Regardless of the answer, this says nothing about the validity of the process of evolution through natural selection.

Explosions (do not) produce order. Again, this statement is true. And once again, this is neither an argument against the Big Bang nor evolution. It is incorrect to compare the Big Bang to an explosion in the normal sense of the word.

Nonliving material can (not) become alive. This is an odd statement considering the fact that living organisms are fundamentally composed of nonliving material.

Yeager’s assertion that species can (not) change and there are few transitional forms is simply a complete denial of the evidence. I refer Yeager to the Web site talkorigins.org, where he can begin to answer this question for himself. ^[9]

Profound misunderstanding of the scientific method? Let’s remind ourselves what the scientific method is, as Richard Feynman^[10] explains:

Observation, reason, and experiment make up what we call the scientific method. ^[11]

Religious beliefs don’t belong here. The question is science, the scientific method, and the evidence (or lack thereof) for a theory. Whether evolution runs counter to any religion is irrelevant; it’s about science and experimental data. And for the record, many religious people do believe in evolution (that discussion is for another time), but what people believe is irrelevant in a scientific discussion. It’s about science and experimental data.

“The scientific community’s overwhelming support for evolution” is also irrelevant. Remember Piltdown man? Once heralded as the “missing link”, it garnered huge support from evolutionists, only later to be uncovered as a hoax. Just because a theory has support doesn’t make it true — science has been wrong before, many times.

So matter can come from nothing? The only reason to believe the big bang violates known physical laws is if experimental evidence exists (that pesky scientific method again). Where is it?

The statement on nonliving material doesn’t make much sense. I’m sure the letter writer would believe he’s alive, so the statement doesn’t yield much insight. Evolution in brief is “From the goo to the zoo to you”. Where is the data proving goo can become anything but goo? What we’re talking about is billions of years ago, in some pool, suddenly a single-cell being appeared.

Where is the evidence? No answers here either.

The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth” ^[12] … Observation, reason, and experiment make up what we call the scientific method. ^[13]

Response Five

I appreciate the newspaper’s publishing the recent letters on evolution.

The editors wisely did not use the title topic word “debate.” Much of the public thinks there is a debate. There is no debate, even though President Bush and others often slyly intend to imply there is a debate to be taught.

Science overwhelmingly supports evolution. The beauty of science is that it has a built-in error-correction system called the scientific method. I suggest that The Register-Guard expand its informational role to readers by establishing a weekly column or section on science matters. Surely, a staff person or a University of Oregon professor would be honored to produce the section. It can run the gamut from astronomy to zoology.

Such figures as Archimedes, Galileo, Columbus, Newton, Einstein, Sagan, Saulk, TV’s Mr. Science, today’s astronauts and most readers will surely count as a few supporters. ^[14]

Again, a claim that science overwhelmingly supports evolution. But where is the data?

At least this person accepts the scientific method. So he must understand without data, evolution is un-scientific. Evolution isn’t a debate; it’s not even science. It survives as its followers blindly cling to its dogma, refusing to consider experimental evidence (or lack thereof).

Conclusion

The questions remain. None of these attempts address the fundamental questions using the scientific method (to say it another way, evolution is not scientific by definition). We’re still issuing a simple request for scientific, repeatable, peer-reviewed experimental data for the following (if evolution is true, all four must have evidence):

Matter can come from nothing.
Non-living material can become alive.
Explosions produce order.
Species can change into another.

If we assume a scientific basis for evolution, repeatable scientific experiments must exist for these assumptions. You cannot claim parts of the theory (which violate known scientific laws) “just happened” without experimental data.

In order to enter in to this discussion, you must have an open mind^[15], and examine the data on a scientific basis only. To perform that task, you must throw off the existing evolutionary dogma and begin your quest for scientific data on its merits alone. Evolutionary supporters claim overwhelming evidence for the theory, but seldom desire to scientifically cite it.

These aren’t gaps in a scientific theory — there is no scientific theory. There is only a story about how a bear might have fallen into the ocean and become a whale …

In the end, evolutionists’ only argument is contempt. The cultists know that if people were allowed to hear the arguments against evolution for just sixty seconds, all would be lost. So they demonize the people making those arguments. You’re just saying that because you believe in God! You probably believe in a flat Earth, too! You sound like a Holocaust revisionist! That’s all you ever get. ^[16]

You will begin to notice that the Darwiniacs’ answer to everything is to accuse their opponents of believing in God — and a flat Earth for good measure — even when responding to an argument based on biochemistry, physics or mathematics. ^[17]

Straw men and personal attacks have no place in science. Unless you have nothing scientific to say.

It’s about science and experimental data.

^[1] Posts tagged evolution

^[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method (wiki’s aren’t the best sources, but in this case it’s fairly good.)

^[3] Richard Feynman “The Feynman Lectures on Physics”, Volume I page 2-1

^[4] “The Heath Handbook”, twelfth edition, 1990 page 281

^[5] “The Heath Handbook”, twelfth edition, 1990 page 281

^[6] Register-Guard Newspaper

^[7] Register-Guard Newspaper

^[8] Register-Guard Newspaper

^[9] Register-Guard Newspaper

^[10] Manhattan project, space shuttle Challenger investigation, Feynman Lectures on Physics. That guy.

^[11] Richard Feynman “The Feynman Lectures on Physics”, Volume I page 2-1

^[12] Richard Feynman “The Feynman Lectures on Physics”, Volume I page 1-1

^[13] Richard Feynman “The Feynman Lectures on Physics”, Volume I page 2-1

^[14] Register-Guard Newspaper

^[15] A mind is like a parachute, it only functions when open.

^[16] Ann Coulter “Godless” page 244

^[17] Ann Coulter, “Godless” page 205

Frames of Reference - Evolution

Evolution and the Beginnings of the Universe: Case Closed

Carl Sagan's Belief in Spite of Facts

Oops, We Goofed Again - No Missing Evolutionary Links

Richard Dawkins Proves God Exists - by Mistake

Richard Dawkins Equates Scientific Inquiry with Holocaust Denial

Related Articles

"Useless" Organs Really Aren't

Evolutionary Data

Introduction

The Scientific Method

Logical Errors

Original Scientific Request

Responses

Response one

Response two

Response Three

Response Four

Response Five

Conclusion