In his decision in the controversial 2005 Dover Area School District case, a clueless district court judge concluded—among many other things well outside his purview—that there’s no contradiction between Neo-Darwinism and theistic belief. But in an article at AiG, Jerry Bergman amply demonstrates how wrong His Honor was:
Many, if not most, eminent biologists openly disagree with [the judge] and have expressed this disagreement in the strongest terms possible.
Just about every one of the scientists who would differ with the judge are evolutionists:
“Evolution substituted a naturalistic explanation of cold comfort for our former conviction that a benevolent deity fashioned us directly in his own image, to have dominion over the entire earth and all other creatures.” — Stephen Jay Gould
“Mutation and selection have jointly driven the marvelous process [of evolution] that, starting from microscopic organisms, has yielded orchids, birds, and humans. The theory of evolution conveys chance and necessity, randomness and determinism … this was Darwin’s fundamental discovery, that there is a process that is creative, although not conscious.” — Francisco Ayala
“[The] implications of modern science produce much squirming among scientists, who claim a high degree of rationality. Some, along with many liberal theologians, suggest that God set up the universe in the beginning and/or works through the laws of nature. This silly way of trying to have one’s cake and eat it too amounts to deism. It is equivalent to the claim that science and religion are compatible if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism. Show me a person who says that science and religion are compatible, and I will show you a person who (1) is an effective atheist, or (2) believes things demonstrably unscientific, or (3) asserts the existence of entities or processes for which no shred of evidence exists.” — William Provine
“Not only do we not find any point to life laid out for us in nature, no objective basis for our moral principles, no correspondence between what we think is the moral law and the laws of nature … the emotions that we most treasure, our love for our wives and husbands and children, are made possible by chemical processes in our brains that are what they are as a result of natural selection acting on chance mutations over millions of years. And yet we must not sink into nihilism or stifle our emotions. At our best we live on a knife-edge, between wishful thinking on one hand and, on the other, despair. Living without God isn’t easy.” — Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate
“[I]nstead of examining the evidence for and against rival theories [of the origins of life], I shall adapt a more armchair approach. My argument will be Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism, that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining [the origins of life] … even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory … we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.” — Richard Dawkins (spoken like a True Believer, Richard!)
It goes without saying that a theory with “no actual evidence” to support it isn’t science but a degenerate species of religion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Resources:
Bergman’s article is here.
Another article on evolution is here.
Several books that deal with evolution are available on Amazon.com: The Revised & Expanded Answers Book — The New Answers Book II — The New Answers Book III.
Stephen C. Meyer had a recent bestseller — Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.
—Mike Gray
Geoff — This weblog is not the place to endlessly argue the merits or demerits of “evolution” (by which I mean macroevolution). However, unless your dictionary defines “controversy” is some way radically different from mine (‘Big Bird’s Sesame Street Dictionary’, 7th ed.), then your statement — “The theory of evolution is a controversy about as much as the theory of gravity or the theory of electromagnetism is, at least among actual scientists” — is easily refuted with a single mouse click:
http://www.arn.org/
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php
http://crev.info/
http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_tp.htm
http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/does-intelligent-design-have-merit
http://evolutionfacts.com/
If you have any further comments or queries on this subject, please refer to those websites.
—Mike
Geoff, your comments confirm my point that where one ends up in the evolution discussion is typically wherever one started. There’s plenty of room for science-based concern about the lack of support for Darwinian natural selection in the fossil record. Interesting articles here and here. I understand your need for dogmatism and certainty in the matter, but I simply don’t share it.
At S.T.: Here’s a list of SOME known transitional vertebrate fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
You can see that intermediate fossils are not lacking at all. Of course that is merely one example of the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution but you specifically mentioned transitional fossils.
At Mike: To say that microevolution is possible but not macroevolution is absurd. It’s the exact same process. That’s tantamount to saying that it’s possible to walk to your neighbor’s but not to a neighboring town. If you accept microevolution (changes in a population’s gene pool, leading to relatively small changes within an organism) then it’s no great leap to macroevolution (the same changes, over a significantly longer period of time, leading eventually to organisms that can no longer reproduce with each other).
The theory of evolution is a controversy about as much as the theory of gravity or the theory of electromagnetism is, at least among actual scientists. The definition of evolution is simply change over time. Is that so difficult?
You wrote a lot of other stuff that I would like to address, but since it was aimed at different commenters I would like to give them a chance to respond if they want.
Thanks to everyone for responding.
Geoff – I’m no scientist, but I have been following this controversy for thirty-five years now and am fairly conversant with most aspects of it. Thus, I have spent some time at Talk Origins; I believe in wide reading and credit where it’s due. The preponderance of opinion there (and that’s what it is, opinion) favors that macroevolution (from gregarious molecules to, billions of years later, gregarious humans) has been proven when what they’re actually discussing in most cases is microevolution (in Sam’s words: “… evidence only of evolution within species, which no one denies.”) The term “evolution” is all too commonly used without qualification or even definition, as if everyone clearly understands what it means (the same confusion arises in terms like “immigration,” without the qualifiers “legal” and “illegal”). In order to understand an argument and its counter-arguments, everyone needs to define terms first; otherwise people only wind up talking past each other. (Ask any ten scientists to define “science” and you’ll probably get ten different answers.)
RickK – ‘Signature in the Cell’: Like I told Geoff, I believe in wide reading and due credit, even if I don’t happen to agree with all or even any of what that person asserts. “your faith”: How did you know I’m an archdeacon in the Church of the SubGenius? Fnord!
Jack – “… even if there was no evidence that it’s still a stronger theory than ‘god did it’ because the explanation is naturalistic and not supernatural”: That has an embedded and unwarranted assumption, that only nature and not some kind of supernature exists. Prove it. Carl Sagan fell into the same logical error: “The universe is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be.” Alas, it’s too late for Carl to prove that one – not that he’d ever seriously try to. “abiogenesis”: The laws physics and mathematics absolutely preclude biological evolution. I’ve read that if the odds against any event occurring are 1 in 10 to the 50th power (10e50), it will NEVER happen. Evolutionist Frank Salisbury once calculated that the odds of a single medium DNA molecule containing 300 amino acids correctly organizing itself into a functioning unit at 1 in 10e600, a number for which no name exists. So if 10e50 means it can never happen and if Salisbury got his sums right, where does that leave Darwinians?
Janis V. – “your religion” and “your beliefs”: See my remark to RickK above. “… as a science, evolution has no agenda”: Again, we’re up against undefined terms. How do you define “evolution”? In the macro- or micro- sense? Change within species is observable – it happens all the time; change from one species to another has never been observed, either in real life (see the TAC article about fruit flies) or in the fossil record. No wonder Charles Darwin looked so unhappy in late photos: He said the fossils would either prove or disprove his theory, and by then he knew the strata weren’t going to save “his” notion. “… evolution has no agenda”: Maybe not, but evolutionists do: Taxpayer-subsidized grants, prestige, and saving face hinge on keeping the macro-evolution narrative (that’s a “story”) going.
Sam – “… I think that his discussions of the matter bring up important points about how people’s worldviews affect their behavior, the culture, and ultimately society, the economy, and all aspects of life. I believe that such discussions are urgently needed today, and that an awareness of the limitations of our present knowledge is essential to truly wise decision-making.”: That’s why I’m here. That’s why you’re here. In fact, that’s why TAC is here.
Thanks for your comment, Janis. A couple of thoughts in response. One, please note that I did not write this article, and Mike Gray’s opinions are his own. Although I do not share Mike’s position on the incompatibility of Darwinism and theism, I think that his discussions of the matter bring up important points about how people’s worldviews affect their behavior, the culture, and ultimately society, the economy, and all aspects of life. I believe that such discussions are urgently needed today, and that an awareness of the limitations of our present knowledge is essential to truly wise decision-making. Thus Mike’s exposure and questioning of many Darwinians’ complacency and arrogance is a very good thing indeed, in my view.
As it happens, I personally believe that one can indeed be a good Christian and still accept Darwin’s theory. Yes, it’s quite obvious that a multitude of people cling to Darwin’s theory as a comfortable way of denying the existence of God. That, however, in no way falsifies Darwin’s theory, nor, on the other hand, does it establish that everyone who accepts that theory is collaborating in the undermining of belief in God.
On the contrary, I think that declaring that one cannot believe in both God and evolution by natural selection undermines belief in God, because forcing people to believe one or the other means that some people will surely choose to reject religion on the basis of a false belief that it is incompatible with science. Thus I disagree strongly with those whose position is equivalent to adding to the Apostle’s Creed a clause specifying precisely how the world came to be filled with life. I do not think that the Bible requires such an attitude. In fact it teaches people to refrain from putting anything between people and God.
Where I differ with you is in your claim that there is a “mountain of evidence” supporting Darwin’s theory. On the contrary: there is a wonderful variety of species on the planet, which Darwinians choose to believe came about strictly by natural selection among mutating creatures, despite the fact that intermediate species are lacking in the fossil record and that decades of experiments attempted to prove it have failed. Darwin himself said that his theory would be tested by the presence of intermediate life forms–or lack of same–in the fossil record.
That is what a real scientist does: posit a hypothesis and then test it against reality. The “mountain of evidence” you claim as proving Darwin’s theory, however, can invariably be explained as evidence only of evolution within species, which no one denies. How natural selection could possibly have created the great variety of species we see today is a matter of charmingly dogged speculation and does not adduce any facts that only it can explain. I state this, I stress, not as a religious point but as a scientific one.
In the spirit of true science, my own view of Darwin’s theory is the Scottish one: not proven. I think that this is the very most one can claim for Darwin’s theory at this point, and this assessment has the advantage of according with Darwin’s own standard regarding his theory.
In my view, hardcore Darwinists and creationists are on equal scientific and philosophical footing, revolting as that will sound to the former. Creationists believe that God created all the species discretely. Their theory explains the existence of the great variety of species but does not show direct evidence of the essential factor behind it: God. Darwinists believe that all species evolved from strings of molecules which formed into proteins, etc. That theory explains the great variety of species but does not show direct evidence of the essential factor behind it: anything remotely approaching a sufficiency of positive genetic mutations and the mechanism creating bizarre jumps in complexity necessary at numerous points in the evolutionary process.
In short, I think that both sides of this debate could benefit from a good dose of humility.
I have to strongly disagree with your premise Mr. Karnick. Keep in mind that as a science, evolution has no agenda. It is simply a means of explaining natural processes.
That hoopla about it not being “real science” by the way is completely off. There is a mountain of evidence behind it, so much in fact that it’s scientific credibility is comparable to that of gravity or of the cell (which are both “just theories” as well).
The contradictions between Darwinism and religion are ones that Christians find themselves and become uncomfortable about. Darwinism isn’t attempting to discredit your religion, it is simply explaining natural phenomena. If the facts seem to contradict your religious convictions perhaps you should reconsider or reshape your beliefs as a previous poster suggested.
Finally, evolution simply explains diversity of life. You are making the common mistake of confusing it with abiogensis. My email is included, please do not hesitate to email me for book recommendations as you do not appear to be very well versed on this subject.
[…] Click Here […]
Dawkins didn’t say there isn’t any evidence for evolution. The point of that statement was that, even if there was no evidence that it’s still a stronger theory than “god did it” because the explanation is naturalistic and not supernatural. That is to say it’s at least a testable premise. Further, it’s a premise that DOES have a stunning aggregation of data behind it.
That said, you’re way off. The theory of evolution says nothing about how life started, just what it does once it’s up and running. What you’re actually arguing against is called abiogenesis.
[…] ‘Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism’ […]
It is interesting, Mike, that you promote “Signature in the Cell” while calling evolution a “theory with no evidence”. “Signature” is firmly based on common descent and the idea that species evolve through random mutation and natural selection. Meyer postulates an “intelligent designer” to get it all started, but does not deny that species evolve just as Darwin said they did.
As for “a theory with no evidence” – you know very well that there is more genetic evidence for common descent than there is DNA evidence for every criminal trial in history combined. How do you reconcile your faith’s admonition against “bearing false witness” with the blatant false statements in your writing?
“Even if there were no actual evidence…,” is the quote. He didn’t say there wasn’t any. There is of course plenty of evidence for evolution (here’s a good starting point: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/), which is what distinguishes it from religion. However, accepting the theory of evolution is not tantamount to rejecting religion. Dawkins is wrong on this point. Evolution certainly makes it intellectually tenable to be an atheist, however Christians are free to mold the Bible around whatever other worldviews they have, which is what they do all the time anyway. Not even the worst fundamentalist is an absolute literalist.