Part One
Ivan Seeking said:
I think in part what people want is for science to as a policy admit that it could be wrong. Scientific theories are presented as flawless compared to faith based beliefs, and science [the consensus opinion, whatever that means] is not flawless.
I agree, and that has been the basis of my objection. I will explain, hopefully better, in my answer to Russ below. It will take me two posts to answer.
russ_watters said:
Les Sleeth said:
Write this down so you will remember “I told you so.” What is going to happen is the exaggerations are going to be found out, fully exposed, for all the world to see. Science is going to take a blow to its credibility, and then what do you think the next development will be?
Can you place a timeframe on this prediction? Evolution has been around for 150 years, an has gotten stronger with time, not weaker.
I’ll make one more effort to communicate my point. Maybe it will help if I first state what I don’t want or believe, and what I accept.
I
do not think intelligent design should be taught as science, especially if it means trying to make it fit Biblical accounts or religious dogma. In case you haven’t seen me say this before . . . I am not religious. So my objection has absolutely nothing to do with creationism or ID, it has to do with scientific objectivity and fair play.
I
do accept the theory of common descent. It is supported reasonably well by the fossil record, extremely well by the genetic code, and somewhat by modern observations of speciation.
Mark Ridley sums up the major evidence concisely in his summary here http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_evidence_for_evolution_Summary.asp" where he says:
• A number of lines of evidence suggest that species have evolved from a common ancestor, rather than being fixed in form and created separately.
• On a small scale, evolution can be seen taking place in nature, such as in the color patterns of moths, and in artificial selection experiments.
• Natural variation can cross the species border, for example in the ring species of gulls, and new species can be made artificially in the processes of hybridization and polyploidy.
• Homologous similarities between species suggest that the species descended from a common ancestor. Universal homologies - such as the genetic code - found in all living things suggest that all species are descended from a single common ancestor.
• The fossil record provides
evidence for evolution in the origin of new species and the order of succession of major groups in the fossil record.
However, apart from common descent, another issue gets mixed in with evolutionary theory, and that is the ability of microevolutionary mechanisms to produce organs and organisms. When the two issues aren’t separated, then evolution is presented as though every bit of it is equally supported with evidence. I incessantly read in books, and hear on nature shows, that “natural selection decided …” (i.e., how some organ or metabolic function etc. would turn out).
The truth is, the issue of what caused the genetic changes which developed organs, organisms, and biology’s complex biochemistry is unknown. So when evolution is taught in such a way that it gives all the credit to mechanistic theory, that is where you find the biggest complaints coming from the religious side. In my case, I don’t believe mechanistic processes can be so creative as evolutionists are claiming, and since it isn’t proven yet that they can be, I don’t like mechanists acting like they’ve all but proved it.
My personal issues aside, you asked for a timeframe for my prediction. Well, obviously I don’t know. But what I sense is a growing awareness of this practice of using the certainty of macroevolution to surreptitiously sneak in the idea that it is almost as certain that microevolutionary mechanisms are the sole creator of life forms. It’s all over the internet in fact, with one creationist group after another talking about it (there is, of course, lots of the normal creationist nonsense too).
But not every Christian is a fundamentalist. There are liberal Christians too, and they, I predict, are going to expose the mechanists’ little trick. The liberal Christians are perfectly willing to accept common descent, and microevolution too as long as the teaching of it sticks to what has actually been observed (see below). But there are now scientists among the Christian liberals who are weighing in, and that is why I say science should back off from implying it can explain all the development of a life form. One such liberal group, “The Discovery Institute,” published this complaint here
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118":
The Scientific Controversy Over Whether Microevolution Can Account For Macroevolution © Center for Science and Culture/Discovery Institute, 1511 Third Avenue, Suite 808, Seattle, WA 98101
When Charles Darwin published “The Origin of Species” in 1859, it was already known that existing species can change over time. This is the basis of artificial breeding, which had been practiced for thousands of years. Darwin and his contemporaries were also familiar enough with the fossil record to know that major changes in living things had occurred over geological time. Darwin's theory was that a process analogous to artificial breeding also occurs in nature; he called that process natural selection. Darwin's theory was also that changes in existing species due primarily to natural selection could, if given enough time, produce the major changes we see in the fossil record.
After Darwin, the first phenomenon (changes within an existing species or gene pool) was named "microevolution." There is abundant evidence that changes can occur within existing species, both domestic and wild, so microevolution is uncontroversial. The second phenomenon (large-scale changes over geological time) was named "macroevolution," and Darwin's theory that the processes of the former can account for the latter was controversial right from the start. Many biologists during and after Darwin's lifetime have questioned whether the natural counterpart of domestic breeding could do what domestic breeding has never done -- namely, produce new species, organs, and body plans. In the first few decades of the twentieth century, skepticism over this aspect of evolution was so strong that Darwin's theory went into eclipse. (See Chapter 9 of Peter Bowler's Evolution: The History of an Idea, University of California Press, revised edition, 1989).
(continued in the next post)
You didn't know that? You don't believe this stuff do you?