| Statements 1-14 | next page: statements 15-30 |
| Statement | My response | Comment | |
| 1 | I love science. | The evidence from this site suggest that this is not the case, but I’ll let it go and assume that you believe this statement to be true. | True |
| 2 | The further it advances, the more it disproves "Darwinian" evolution. | This is simply untrue. There is no such thing as "Darwinian" evolution. Evolution - in the sense that living organisms change over time - is an observable fact, and can be observed in the living world around us as well as in the fossil record. Darwin did not 'invent' evolution. "The Origin of the Species" starts with an account of evolutionary concepts reaching back as far as Aristotle (who, in case you don't know was perhaps the best known of ancient Greek philosophers, and lived from 384-322BC.). The theory of natural selection proposes a mechanism for evolution, and is based on the observation that 1) not all organism are identical and 2) small differences can improve the chance of survival. Darwin himself was well aware of the potential problems with his theory (a lot of the criticism of the theory found on creationist web sites is lifted indirectly from his own writings!). The development in our knowledge of genetics has overcome one of the problems - the lack of knowledge in Darwin's time of a mechanism whereby the variations can be passed on to the next generation. Nowadays we use the term 'the modern synthesis' to describe our best currently accepted model for evolutionary process. This combines natural selection with genetics, and has proved to be very robust. |
FALSE |
| Link - the Evolutionary Synthesis | |||
| Link - IN SUPPORT OF EVOLUTION | |||
| 3 | In fact, science has advanced to the point that almost all secular scientists have completely abandoned "Darwinian" evolution ... | Complete and utter
nonsense! I know of no biologist or palaeontologist (and I know a large number!) who has 'abandoned "Darwinian" evolution'. As a matter of record, less that 5% of all scientists in the USA believe in the creationist view (God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years), and the majority (55%) believe that God had no part in the process of evolution. It should also be noted that belief in special creation is a preculiarly American phenomenon. In Britain, a survey of churchmen showed that 97% did not believe that the world was created in 6 days! |
FALSE |
| Link - Public Beliefs | |||
| 4 | ...in favor of "rapid mutation", "radial symmetry", "punctuated equilibrium", or variations of this far-out theory. | This is making false distinctions. None of the other processes listed are anything other than different ways of looking at the evolutionary process, and none of them abandon Darwinism – i.e. the role of natural selection in driving evolution. I’m puzzled by the reference to “radial symmetry”; this is a property of some organisms, not an evolutionary model. Starfish have radial symmetry. | Misleading |
| 5 | It is the only explanation (in their minds) ... | Untrue – it is the best explanation of the evidence (and here I refer to the modern synthesis). Other theories simply don't stand up to scrutiny. | FALSE |
| 6 | ...for the complete lack of fossil evidence (despite literally millions of discovered fossils) of any species changing into another. | Untrue – there is a vast amount of fossil evidence. The fossil record is full of what a creationist would call ‘transitional forms’. | FALSE |
| Link - Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record | |||
| Link - Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ | |||
| 7 | There is no such thing as macro-evolution. | Untrue – there is a vast amount of evidence to show that large-scale evolution has occurred. In any case, this is drawing a false distinction between macro- and micro-evolution. Where can one draw the line? How much accumulated change constitutes macro- as opposed to micro-evolution? | FALSE |
| 8 | Micro-evolution, however, is very possible … | The distinction between macro- and micro-evolution is in any case meaningless. So, although the statement is true – and in fact micro-evolution is essential to evolution – it is deliberately misleading in that it is setting up a false dichotomy. | Misleading |
| 9 | …and is in fact explained in the Bible. "...all their "kinds" and all their variations." | This is an unsupported assertion. Unless a biologically valid definition of ‘kind’ can be made, the statement can be twisted to suit any interpretation. | Unsupported assertion |
| 10 | In other words, species adapt, sometimes quite quickly. | True! | TRUE |
| 11 | However, a finch is still a finch (irony intended) after adapting. A lizard is still a lizard and a monkey is still a monkey ! | This is misleading - drawing distinctions which do not exist in nature. Nobody would expect a finch suddenly to turn into 'something else'. To do so would require several speciation events, and take a long time. | Misleading |
| 12 | Charles Darwin himself summed it up best in his "book." | Why the quotes around book? Is the author implying that “The Origin of the Species” is not a book? Or a sort of pseudo-book? | ad hominem attack |
| 13 | "Noting the abundance of fossils, numerous transitionals must be found to prove my theory." | I can’t find this quotation in the 6th edition of the Origin. What I can find is this: “If then there be some degree of truth in these remarks, we have no right to expect to find, in our geological formations, an infinite number of those fine transitional forms, which, on our theory, have connected all the past and present species of the same group into one long and branching chain of life. We ought only to look for a few links, and such assuredly we do find--some more distantly, some more closely, related to each other; and these links, let them be ever so close, if found in different stages of the same formation, would, by many palaeontologists, be ranked as distinct species. But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor was the record in the best preserved geological sections, had not the absence of innumerable transitional links between the species which lived at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory.” So this is misrepresentation, misquotation, and taken out of context to mislead | Misleading |
| Enough said ! | Enough said! | ||
| 14 | Science, real science—the work that ferrets out empirical facts about the nature that surrounds us—has been co-opted by an ancient philosophical/religious doctrine the origins of which can be traced back to at least 400-700 years before Christ. Known today variously as scientism, evolutionism, metaphysical naturalism, and Darwinism, this doctrine has been so effectively interlaced with science that it is often difficult for the scientist, much less the layperson, to separate the two. | This assertion is made
without any supporting evidence. All I can say is that, as a scientist,
I am not a part of any “ancient philosophical/religious“ sect
who are telling me what I can and can’t say or do. One thing is for sure: real science does not start out with the statement "We believe in creation, first of all, not because of scientific evidence, but because of our faith in Jesus Christ and in His Word the Bible. " (taken from here). You can't claim to be a scientist if you don't offer up your underlying assumptions to sceptical criticism. |
Unsupported assertion |
| Statements 1-14 | next page: statements 15-30 |
";