Here's my response to a tweet about evolution. It cites an article entitled "Why Evolutionary-Based Science Is A Menace To Scientific Research, Discovery, and Progress" and appearing in http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/evolution_menace.html.
As a general note, I must say that the article is nothing new. It's a repetition of the same intellectually dishonest creationist propagand that we've been reading for years. Below, I will illustrate why.
The first paragraph of the article talks about scientific bias. Sure, there are examples of this in all areas of scientific work. This is precisely why scientists have devised such methods as "blind experiment" and "double blind experiment". And is there a pro-evolution bias in science? Only to the extent that not many (in fact very very very few) even bother to try and question Evolution AS A WHOLE. It has been so firmly confirmed by scores and scores of research that only very very few would be inclined to seriously question it. Evolution has only been widely accepted for some 80-100 years. Prior to that, it went through a lengthy period of furious debate, faced with an adverse political climate (more on this later).
Let me move on to the second point.
"Because of this and the fact that most research dollars come from pro-evolutionary sources, scientific discovery and progress has been severely hampered and hundreds of billions of research dollars have been squandered over the years. What's worse is that, in a time in which almost ANY alternative thought is given a platform, the evolution industry openly censors ANY dissenting hypothesis that conflicts with commonly held evolutionary principles ... even when it's from fellow evolutionists!"
Firstly, let's make one thing clear: Disprove evolution and I guarantee you a Nobel Prize. Revolutionary and shocking claims are usually very welcome by science. They take time to become accepted but there's no doubt that, if subsequently confirmed, they give one claim to fame in science; and, face it, scientists are not in it for the money!
Originally proposed by Darwin, 150 years ago, The Theory of Evolution has been challenged with and CONFIRMED by a prethora of scientific knowledge found SINCE Darwin. Genetics confirms Evolution. I reccomend Francis Collins (the head of the Human Genome Project). He's not only a strong proponent of the Theory Of Evolution but also a devout Christian.
Now, getting back to the "political power" argument, it suffers from yet another blow. You see, when Darwin discovered Natural Selection, the political climate was anything BUT anti-creationism. It was the opposite. The Theory of Evolution managed to breach the political barrier precisely BECAUSE it's such a convincing, scientifically sound, and elegant explanation of how complex organisms have come into existence.
And there's a THIRD blow to the political claim in the article. You see, financial power in private enterprise, especially in the USA, lies mostly with the wealthy conservative Christian bracket of the society. Christians have A MASS of resources to conduct their own studies and publish their findings. Indeed, the Discovery Institute (with the cute but intellectually dishonest Michael Behe in its chair), has been spreading its pseudo-scientific Christian propaganda since 1990, and has been having an unfortunate but profound impact on naive members of lay (in the "non-scientifically aware";no religious pun intended)sectors of the population. They are rich, they are powerful, they are influential and they are out there.
Why aren't they heard by the mainstream scientific community? A financially powerful group has published all this information that apparently proves evolution to be wrong and yet not a single scientist has the nerve to get up and say "wow, I'll support that"? Despite the fact that a number (albeit small) of mainstream scientists ARE CHRISTIAN? Are all those Christian scientists so afraid of losing their position (which wouldn't happen) or their reputation (which MIGHT happen, depending on the credibility of the study in question) that they will not stick their little neck out FOR THE LORD?
The answer isn't that at all. The answer is that nobody in their right mind can treat Behe's "research" (and the like) as serious scientific work. He has published a wide array of "papers" with anti-evolution claims and each has been dismissed by a response from someone in REAL science. Behe's methodology is simply flawed. To some this spells "intellectual dishonesty" but I won't go as far as to argue this point. The diplomatic way is to put it on "flawed methodology".
Bottom line: lack of resources is not the issue here. Christians have dough, don't you worry about that.
Now, the rest of the article.
It then talks about Junk DNA and calls it "the biggest blunder of evolutionary science". Let's think about that. Junk DNA is DNA that has no function at all and yet exists in the genetic code of an organism. It is true that since the first discovery of Junk DNA, many claims have been made that particular ASPECTS of it may have a function. Now let's assume that ALL DNA has a function (not true, but let's assume it). In fact, let's assume that Junk DNA as a theory was indeed a blunder! How generous of me, right? Yes! Because it wasn't a blunder made by researchers of Evolution. It was a blunder made by geneticists. Their question was what role certain parts of DNA play. The question is genetic and not evolutionary. Junk DNA SUPPORTS the Theory of Evolution. Now, THAT is true. But a million other things also support the Theory of Evolution and junk DNA is just a drop in the ocean.
Typical intellectual dishonesty. And also irrelevant. Let's assume that in fact Junk DNA WAS a blunder of Evolution. So what? Scientists make mistakes. Of course they do! And they are corrected and proven wrong by other scientists. They publish papers about things. And again, do you think Darwin's theory was accepted overnight? No way. In fact, we can't say that it was truly accepted until some 1930's (that's SEVENTY years after Darwin first published The Origin). Scientific claims are scrutinised and by doing this scientists build their careers. Science contains a self-propelling (and in itself evolved on some level) mechanism for self-correction. Does religion? Is there any way you can verify or disprove the creation story or any aspect of it by the use of a rational (although non-scientific of course) process (and NOT relying on a mythology-like boook) ? If so, please do show it.
The bottom line is this, though. Scientists make mistakes, sometimes use flawed methodology, make an error in the way they interpret data or formulate their conclusion. And they stand to be corrected and they ARE corrected. It's thanks to this that science GROWS and are knowledge of the Universe becomes increasingly greater. Otherwise, we would have pretty much stood still. The working lightbulb is the effect of some 10,000 unsuccessful prototypes by Edison (not that he was the inventor of the lightbulb in the first place but that's a whole different phenomenon in the world of science - where to put credit). And this is why we have a lightbulb that works! Evolution is one of many (to date) different proposed explanations for speciation and diversity. And it's one that has breached an adverse political climate and managed to survive and thrive for 150 years. It gets confirmed with each new methodology available. It is convincing and it has unshakable evidentiary support.
The next section of the main article says this:
'See “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” list of scientists who doubt Darwinism and hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences, and/or hold a M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine. The list includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, and UCLA. (Many of these people are risking their careers by 'coming out' against the evolution industry, especially in the United States.)'
The claim is that a number of scientists have signed the following statement:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Then there's a list of scientists who signed that claim. I counted approximately 750 and the minimum requirement seems to be a PhD. It includes Dermatologists, Civil Engineers and people who specialise in instrumentation and automatic control; in themselves hardly relevant fields. I wonder if they subscribe to the above statement BECAUSE of some fault with evolution that they found WITHIN THEIR field of specialisation. No data on that...Wonder why. To be fair, the list does contain a number of biologists too.
But let's move on. 750 PhDs sign a statement. How many PhDs are there worldwide? There are 34,000 NEW DOCTORATE EARNED EACH YEAR in OECD countries. Each year the number of doctorates in OECD countries GROWS BY 34,000 (minus deaths) (1). And moving out of OECD in China, a staggering 50,000 PhDs were handed out in 2009 alone (Ibid).
There are hundreds of thousands of PhD's worldwide and some 700 have signed the above statement. This is statistically so insignificant that one might well argue that all 700 suffered from a mental blank on that particular day and did not fully understand what the question meant. And even if they did know what they were saying, they may not have wanted to upset their relatives, from ultra-conservative backgrounds. Or let's say they really do believe it. Believe what? That Evolution should be scrutinised? Of course it should! Everything in science needs to be scrutinised.
The article then mentions a number (again, small) of scientists (who apparently have questioned the Big Bang Theory) blacklisted by archive posting. It doesn't, however, explain just what archive posting is. And I'll tell you what it is. It's the Open Archives Website at the Cornell University. It is managed by a single man, named Paul Ginsparg (2).
So, a bunch of scientists gets blocked from someone's "blog" and what do creationists at http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/evolution_menace.html make of it? A worldwide conspiracy against those who dare to question the Big Bang Theory. Please do consider the level intellectual honesty involved.
The next point in the article is nothing short of highway robbery. Here's what the article says:
"Making a stand against the Big Bang Theory, 33 well-known scientists paid for and published “An Open Letter to the Scientific Community” in the New Scientist on May 22, 2004. (It was originally titled, “Bucking the Big Bang” but the title was later changed.) Since then, hundreds of scientists, engineers, and independent researchers have added their names to the list"
Problem number 1: Well if opposing the Big Bang Theory has such a huge support then why isn't all this published in peer journals? Or maybe it is. But if so, what are the responses to each of the claims published?
Problem number 2: These scientists oppose the Big Bang Theory. But what Theory do they PROMOTE? We don't know. There's cerainly NOTHING in the Open Letter that suggests that they are proponents of an iintelligent creator. Sure, there are alternatives to the Big Bang Theory. Just wiki it and you'll find them (or you can dig deeper, of course). But why do you use this in an article entitled "Why Evolutionary-Based Science Is A Menace To Scientific Research, Discovery, and Progress"? Evolution and Big Bang are two completely distinct explanations of our Universe and don't have anything in common (other that neither one POSITIVELY PROPOSES the existence of an intelligent creator).
So, this is an example of a false dilemma. Just because a scientist doesn't agree with the Big Bang Theory, doesn't mean he agrees WITH YOU!
We can only conclude that this Open Letter has nothing to do with Evolution and isn't relevant to the issue at all.
What can we conclude about the article then? Does it live up to its title? Does it demonstrate that Evolution is a menace to scientific progress? No, of course not. At its best, the article demonstrates that the Theory of Evolution has grown very very strong in the scientific community (no surprised there) and that there do exist a statistically insigniricant bunch of science-trained personnel who subsribe to the very cautious and diplomatic statement that a careful analysis of the evidence for Darwin's theory should be encouraged.
Next time perhpaps, whoisyourcreator.com will write an article that actually attacks Evolution as scientifically sound? Or maybe that would be too much to ask for.
Cited materials:
(1) http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110420/full/472276a.html
(2) http://www.archivefreedom.org/freedom/Cyberia.html
No comments:
Post a Comment