A coworker of mine kept trying to get me to watch an hour long Youtube.com video titled "The Collapse of Darwinism" (even though in the video, they kept calling it "The Collapse of Atheism") and I finally broke down and watched it (I just finished it). I'd have to say that this was one of the least-researched documentaries that I've ever seen. It was horrible. First off, they kept quoting atheist philosophers and tended to stay away from confronting actual scientists. Most of the video talked about how life is too complicated to have happened by chance (which shows that they clearly don't understand natural selection - which gets rid of what doesn't work). All in all, nothing was "collapsed." The video essentially said nothing. Anyways... towards the end of the video they said that the biggest bit of "proof" against evolution was the lack of transitional fossils. This brought up a major question in my mind... How in the Hell did these people come up with that conclusion? I've seen hundreds and hundreds of examples and pictures of transitional fossils in my text books. There are transitional fossils linking fish and amphibians, early man and modern man... Basically... I'd like to know... does anyone know how this new (or maybe this is old) Creationist argument started? Because the lack of transitional fossils nonsense almost seems comical to me...
Transitional Fossils
You have to bear in mind that creationists are rarely interested in science - only when it can be twisted to support their belief system.
The issue of transitional fossils is a very old chestnut. It stems back to Darwin himself. He said, in 'On the Origin of Species' that a lack of transition fossils was
You will often see this quote from creationists in debate. What they don't say is that Darwin then went on to explain that this was because of the very scant geological record at that time. He also pointed out that such evidence as was available supported his theory. Interestingly enough, 2 years after 'Origin' was published the first Archaeopteryx was unearthed.
Since Darwin's book we have discovered many transitional fossils. A reasonably complete list can be found HERE and HERE
The term 'transitional fossil' is actually a human construct rather than an objective category. Modern evolutionary theory holds that all creatures are in transition, so a transitional fossil is simply a restrospective form that we choose, as being particularly representative of a particular transition. In a very real sense ALL fossils are transitional forms.
PS - I bet it (the video) included some, or all, of the following:
1) Karl Popper said evolution is metaphysics because it cannot be tested
2) Irreducible complexity means that evolution cannot possibly account for observed features like cilia (cf Behe)
3) It is mathematically impossible that organisms could have arisen at 'random' (cf Dembski)
4) DNA provides evidence of design (cf Dembski)
It is all really old hat and boring...they keep trotting the same discredited nonsense out, relying on the fact that most people have not read the source material, and certainly not the detailed refutations of that material.
The issue of transitional fossils is a very old chestnut. It stems back to Darwin himself. He said, in 'On the Origin of Species' that a lack of transition fossils was
| Darwin wrote: |
| the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory |
Since Darwin's book we have discovered many transitional fossils. A reasonably complete list can be found HERE and HERE
The term 'transitional fossil' is actually a human construct rather than an objective category. Modern evolutionary theory holds that all creatures are in transition, so a transitional fossil is simply a restrospective form that we choose, as being particularly representative of a particular transition. In a very real sense ALL fossils are transitional forms.
PS - I bet it (the video) included some, or all, of the following:
1) Karl Popper said evolution is metaphysics because it cannot be tested
2) Irreducible complexity means that evolution cannot possibly account for observed features like cilia (cf Behe)
3) It is mathematically impossible that organisms could have arisen at 'random' (cf Dembski)
4) DNA provides evidence of design (cf Dembski)
It is all really old hat and boring...they keep trotting the same discredited nonsense out, relying on the fact that most people have not read the source material, and certainly not the detailed refutations of that material.
| Bikerman wrote: |
|
PS - I bet it (the video) included some, or all, of the following: 1) Karl Popper said evolution is metaphysics because it cannot be tested 2) Irreducible complexity means that evolution cannot possibly account for observed features like cilia (cf Behe) 3) It is mathematically impossible that organisms could have arisen at 'random' (cf Dembski) 4) DNA provides evidence of design (cf Dembski) |
You pretty much hit it. They discussed that and the very old (and bad) argument that we're too complex to have arisen by chance. It was funny how they kept talking about the "collapse" of atheism when all they were doing was quoting atheist philosophers (like C.S. Lewis) who eventually came to the conclusion that God exists. They never gave any solid arguments for anything. A lot of their "evidence" was the same stuff that I've read for the young Earth theory.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| You pretty much hit it. They discussed that and the very old (and bad) argument that we're too complex to have arisen by chance. It was funny how they kept talking about the "collapse" of atheism when all they were doing was quoting atheist philosophers (like C.S. Lewis) who eventually came to the conclusion that God exists. They never gave any solid arguments for anything. A lot of their "evidence" was the same stuff that I've read for the young Earth theory. |
Yes, unfortunately you will become used to these lines of 'argument'. I have - over the last 25 years. Creationists cannot give rational arguments because, after all, they represent a faith position, not a rational position. Unfortunately, over the last few decades, a group of creationists has arisen that think they can combine faith and science. The movement started with a bunch who called themselves Creation Scientists. More recently they have 'morphed' into the 'Intelligent Design' movement.
The thing to realise is that they have a fundamental dishonesty which in the antithesis of true science. They frequently lie, misquote and quote out of context (quote-mining). That is why any scientist or science proponent is (and should be) wary about engaging these people in reasonable debate. I do debate them, on this and other forums, but I am careful to qualify my statements when I know I am debating a creationist - as you can probably see from previous threads in this, and the philosophy, forum.
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
Yes, unfortunately you will become used to these lines of 'argument'. I have - over the last 25 years. Creationists cannot give rational arguments because, after all, they represent a faith position, not a rational position. Unfortunately, over the last few decades, a group of creationists has arisen that think they can combine faith and science. The movement started with a bunch who called themselves Creation Scientists. More recently they have 'morphed' into the 'Intelligent Design' movement. The thing to realise is that they have a fundamental dishonesty which in the antithesis of true science. They frequently lie, misquote and quote out of context (quote-mining). That is why any scientist or science proponent is (and should be) wary about engaging these people in reasonable debate. I do debate them, on this and other forums, but I am careful to qualify my statements when I know I am debating a creationist - as you can probably see from previous threads in this, and the philosophy, forum. |
I've never been an expert on this subject, but I do know a decent amount about it. I try to keep myself above the level of ignorance in all subjects. You obviously have more experience in this subject (25 to 3 years). Anyways, I googled the quote that you posted... "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory..." It's funny... hundreds of websites against evolution came up and they all quoted that, and they convieniently stopped right after "urged against my theory." One website that made me laugh (at their ignorance) was this website:
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid1.htm
How can you ignore fossil records like this?
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Anyways, I googled the quote that you posted... "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory..." It's funny... hundreds of websites against evolution came up and they all quoted that, and they convieniently stopped right after "urged against my theory." |
Other examples would be:
a) The eye could not evolve
b) The Sun would have, by now, burned all its fuel
c) The Moon would be covered in metres of dust
d) The flood could account for the fossil strata
e) The flood could easily have carved-out the Grand Canyon and other river valleys.
f) Evolution contradicts thermodynamic theory
g) Evolution cannot explain the origin of life (it doesn't try to and never did).
and so on..
You even get some arguments which are blatantly obviously untrue, such as - men have one less rib than women (they don't - but the alternative reading of this myth is quite interesting).
The problem for creationism is that a multitude of scientific disciplines show that it is wrong, so, faced with the observable data (fossil record, radiometric dating, basic biology and anatomy, genetic biology etc etc), they are forced to hypothesise ridiculous changes - such as changes in the physical constants (speed of light, coupling constants/nuclear decay rates etc).
The problem I have with these 'creation scientists/intelligent design proponents'* is not just that they are wrong - everyone can be wrong. My problem is that I think they KNOW they are wrong, at least at some level of their consciousness, and still they continue. It goes beyond faith and into the realms of dishonesty/deception.
http://atheism.about.com/od/creationismanddi/Creationism_and_Dishonesty.htm
*as opposed to the people who are taken in by their nonsense
| Bikerman wrote: |
|
a) The eye could not evolve b) The Sun would have, by now, burned all its fuel c) The Moon would be covered in metres of dust d) The flood could account for the fossil strata e) The flood could easily have carved-out the Grand Canyon and other river valleys. f) Evolution contradicts thermodynamic theory g) Evolution cannot explain the origin of life (it doesn't try to and never did). and so on.. |
LoL, I heard everyone of those in church one time. I come from an extremely religious family (I'm related to several pastors). A relative of mine had just become an assistant pastor in a church (this was about a year ago) and I agreed to go one Sunday to see what his church was like. The main pastor (who I'm fortunately NOT related to) that Sunday was preaching on the young Earth theory (which was a sequel to his previous week's sermon on how it's mathematically possible, and historically proven, that Noah's Ark happened*). He used EVERY single one of those arguments. He also used:
h) Lack of consistency in different dating methods of rocks
i) Rate of population growth vs. current population and how that matches up with the 5,000-10,000 year range that the Bible places on the Earth's age
j) Lack of any proof (because no one has been around for billions of years)
k) and several others that I forgot (this sermon was about an hour long, so he filled it up with a bunch of other nonsense)
After that, I told my family that I was never going back to that church because the pastor was an idiot. I still occasionally go to other churches, to please my family (and because I like to keep an open mind about things), but never that one again.
*I think that any logical person would have trouble believing that Noah could collect millions of species and subspecies (did Noah have an African lion/lioness and an Asiatic lion/lioness?) and then fit two of each into a small ark and not have the lion kill the zebra. This is proven? Also, all these animals repopulated and went onto thrive in a few thousand years despite the lack of a large gene pool?
Coming from a religious family, I've heard a lot of their conversations, and they say the same thing about Atheists as you said about the Intelligent Design people. I've heard my family say things like, "How could anybody come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist? Human beings naturally want to believe in God. So the way I see it is anybody who doesn't believe in God is really just lying to themselves and denying what they truly believe in."
P.S. Thank you for the links. They had some pretty interesting things in them!
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| I think that any logical person would have trouble believing that Noah could collect millions of species and subspecies (did Noah have an African lion/lioness and an Asiatic lion/lioness?) and then fit two of each into a small ark and not have the lion kill the zebra. This is proven? Also, all these animals repopulated and went onto thrive in a few thousand years despite the lack of a large gene pool? |
Believe it or not some YECs have proposed an entire scheme by which this could be done - one of them even wrote a book on it - "Noah's Ark:A Feasibility Study by J Woodmorappe*"
Woodmorappe argues that only 'kinds' of animals would be gathered, not species. This is a common creationist argument, but Woodmorappe, like others, seems to be unclear about what a 'kind' is (they often use the word Baramin, as though using a new word gives the concept some validity).
According to Woodmorappe's definition of the word 'kind' (he uses the biological category of 'genera') you would need about 16,000 animals on the Ark. He then proposes a burst of 'micro-evolution' which would give us the observed species today.
(It's quite amusing that creationists are so avidly against evolution - what they call 'macro-evolution' - but are perfectly happy to use the concept when it suits their arguments
)
The arguments put in the book range from quite interesting, to breathtakingly stupid (like training the animals to defecate on command into buckets, so that the animal welfare can be handled by the people on the Ark). There is a review of the book on the TalkOrigins site by a chap called Glenn Morton**
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html
The is also a nice article on the National Centre for Science Education (NCSE) site which debunks the Ark story in some detail:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8619_issue_11_volume_4_number_1__3_12_2003.asp#Building%20the%20Ark
*A pseudonym
**Glenn Morton is himself a creationist - of the 'Old Earth' variety.
| Bikerman wrote: |
|
Believe it or not some YECs have proposed an entire scheme by which this could be done - one of them even wrote a book on it - "Noah's Ark:A Feasibility Study by J Woodmorappe*" Woodmorappe argues that only 'kinds' of animals would be gathered, not species. This is a common creationist argument, but Woodmorappe, like others, seems to be unclear about what a 'kind' is (they often use the word Baramin, as though using a new word gives the concept some validity). According to Woodmorappe's definition of the word 'kind' (he uses the biological category of 'genera') you would need about 16,000 animals on the Ark. He then proposes a burst of 'micro-evolution' which would give us the observed species today. (It's quite amusing that creationists are so avidly against evolution - what they call 'macro-evolution' - but are perfectly happy to use the concept when it suits their arguments :-) ) |
Wait... I know! The fact that Noah only took 16,000 (8,000 "types") animals onto the ark would account for the reason that there are thousands of fossils of other animals that evolutionists thought were species that lived millions of years ago. Dinosaurs couldn't fit onto the ark so the flood caused them to go extinct! I just came up with a new creationist argument!
I didn't want to read the entire book (although I read the review), and the review sort of got me into the mood to say something completely far-fetched (just like the stuff that I read). Like you said, it's ironic that creationists are against evolution, except when it benefits their cause. Woodmorappe clearly doesn't understand the time scale behind evolution. It's extremely ridiculous to believe that in a few thousand years, two rhinos could go onto evolve into the: Southern White Rhino, Northern White Rhino, Black Rhino, West African Black Rhino, Indian Rhino, Javan Rhino, Sumatran Rhino, Woolly Rhino, and several other extinct subspecies that I can't think of off the top of my head.
LOL...yes, you hit on one of the main problems with this whole line of argument - that of time wasting. Creationists typically come up with one impossible argument every few weeks and then it requires time and effort by scientists to debunk it. They then move on to the next impossible argument and the process repeats. This is the main reason that most scientists gave up with this rubbish long ago. Unfortunately the creationist/ID community then say that scientists have not addressed their latest numpty theory.
In science, once a hypothesis has been refuted then it must be ditched (or at least substantially modified).
In faith positions like creationism it is the other way around - the hypothesis must be true and any argument which refutes it must be wrong. That is why it infuriates proper scientists - these people like to claim they are scientific but they don't understand (or, more likely, do not choose to follow) the basic scientific method. That is the reason I call them dishonest and the reason that the term 'creation science' is an oxymoron.
In science, once a hypothesis has been refuted then it must be ditched (or at least substantially modified).
In faith positions like creationism it is the other way around - the hypothesis must be true and any argument which refutes it must be wrong. That is why it infuriates proper scientists - these people like to claim they are scientific but they don't understand (or, more likely, do not choose to follow) the basic scientific method. That is the reason I call them dishonest and the reason that the term 'creation science' is an oxymoron.
Maybe we should just set specific dates (maybe every 6 months) where leading Creationists and leading scientists can meet and bring all of their arguments to the table. That way scientists only have to waste two of their days per year. That would help the problem of having to waste time debunking nonsensical theories every fortnight.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Maybe we should just set specific dates (maybe every 6 months) where leading Creationists and leading scientists can meet and bring all of their arguments to the table. That way scientists only have to waste two of their days per year. That would help the problem of having to waste time debunking nonsensical theories every fortnight. |
Creationists don't do this, of course, because they don't do proper science. What they do is release their hypothesese via web sites and privately financed books/pamphlets, and then expect the science community to take it seriously.
PS - If you want a giggle then check out this clown:
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/kangaroo.html
For those that are curious, modern evolutionary theory does not really talk about transitional fossils in the same sense that Darwin or creationists do. Darwin talked about transitional forms - he wanted to see how (for example) a fish could evolve into a horse. Early Darwinist evolutionary theorists followed in his footsteps, and from those people we get the traditional view of evolution as two animals with a set of stages in between:
Nowadays, however, this kind of thinking is considered archaic. Modern evolutionary theorists don't talk about transitional forms, they talk about transitional features. They don't ask how "horses" or "man" evolved, because... exactly at one point does a "horse" stop being "plesippus" and become a "horse"? Instead, they talk about characteristic features of the horse, and ask how they could have evolved. For example, assuming horses were originally fish, how did they develop hooves? What stages did the hoof develop in? Those kinds of questions.
Needless to say, creationists only use this kind of thinking opportunistically. They talk about transitional forms most of the time because that is the easiest way to make ridiculous statements that sound like they undermine evolution ("Who has ever seen a fish evolve into a horse?"). Just read the testimonials from "converts" who "believed" in evolution, but then realized it was silly and embraced creationism, and you will see it as a recurring theme: they talk about how this or that form transition is too unbelievable, so they rejected evolution. Of course, when it suits them, creationists do talk about transitional features (the eye, the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, the immune system).
Watch out for that when you're thinking about evolution. Say to yourself: "transitional features, not forms". It clears up a lot of confusion. Once you understand evolution as transitioning features (and forms as simply a big-ass collection of features), evolution makes a lot more sense.
Nowadays, however, this kind of thinking is considered archaic. Modern evolutionary theorists don't talk about transitional forms, they talk about transitional features. They don't ask how "horses" or "man" evolved, because... exactly at one point does a "horse" stop being "plesippus" and become a "horse"? Instead, they talk about characteristic features of the horse, and ask how they could have evolved. For example, assuming horses were originally fish, how did they develop hooves? What stages did the hoof develop in? Those kinds of questions.
Needless to say, creationists only use this kind of thinking opportunistically. They talk about transitional forms most of the time because that is the easiest way to make ridiculous statements that sound like they undermine evolution ("Who has ever seen a fish evolve into a horse?"). Just read the testimonials from "converts" who "believed" in evolution, but then realized it was silly and embraced creationism, and you will see it as a recurring theme: they talk about how this or that form transition is too unbelievable, so they rejected evolution. Of course, when it suits them, creationists do talk about transitional features (the eye, the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, the immune system).
Watch out for that when you're thinking about evolution. Say to yourself: "transitional features, not forms". It clears up a lot of confusion. Once you understand evolution as transitioning features (and forms as simply a big-ass collection of features), evolution makes a lot more sense.
cool 
great pics
great pics
Related topics
 |