Darwin Day: Celebrating a mediocre theory
Today is what’s being called Darwin Day, in honor of the scientist Charles Darwin, whose theory of evolution is taught in every public school in America.
The Darwin Day movement enlists schools to spend the day, Darwin’s birthday, educating children about the naturalist’s theory and science in general.
While I’m all for science education, what’s almost always lacking from teaching about evolution is recognition that it is a theory, not proven fact, and it’s a theory with some serious problems at that.
1) It’s untestable. A scientific theory has to be testable. No one has ever successfully tested evolution under controlled conditions.
2) It doesn’t match observations. No one has ever documented a case of a species evolving. It’s important to understand that evolving is not the same as adapting. Adapting simply means that a species either changes its behavior to accommodate changes in the environment, or that certain characteristics that already exist in the species are favored by environmental circumstances. Evolution specifically is the development of advantageous characteristics that did not exist in the species previously. Evolution has never been seen in nature or proven in the fossil record.
3) Failed predictions. Darwin observed hundreds of species during his time in the Galapagos Islands. Evolution theory suggests that at least some of the species in the Galapagos would have evolved over the course of the century and a half since Darwin’s visit. Not a one has.
4) Flawed logic. At the heart of the problem with the evolutionary theory is that Darwin’s concept of natural selection does not answer the key question of how a species can acquire a trait it doesn’t already have. Natural selection, often called “survival of the fittest,” can only explain how certain already-existing characteristics might be favored by particular environments. Mutation, the current supposed mechanism for developing new traits, in real life almost always proves detrimental. French evolutionist Pierre-Paul Grasse noted that, “No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” There are no X-Men in real life.
5) Unanswered question. Evolution theory says nothing about how life arose from inanimate matter.
Now having said all that, I’m going against a whole host of assumptions held by … well, just about everybody. Every student who’s been in a biology classroom, every professor who has based his work on the idea that evolution is true, every textbook publisher and liberal lawmaker will be feeling the urge to smack me around and call me names right now.
That’s fine; that’s human nature.
But here’s a question for you to ponder: If I, a layman, can notice some of the problems with evolution theory, then what’s the real motivation for the almost rabid promotion of the idea? Perhaps the support for evolution has little to do with the quality of the science and more to do with politics.
Subscribe to the RSS feed
“Perhaps the support for evolution has little to do with the quality of the science and more to do with politics.” You are not alone in believing that it has a lot more to do with politics. Otherwise why don’t they allow the teaching of other theories, even if just in passing. The mere mention of other theories in textbooks for public schools is not even tolerated.
And speaking of public school textbooks, will you be writing about the Los Angeles Unified School District losing parents and students (and of course the state’s $$$) EN MASSE over the latest kindergarten curriculum?
It was in our local news last night, where they discussed and showed a textbook with men kissing each other on the lips.
And before everybody jumps all over me too, let me add that it is NOT the gay aspect that bothers me the most. I find it very disturbing that LAUSD and the textbook publishers who sell to other districts and other states, find it fitting to teach kindergarten children about kissing even if it were between a married mommy and daddy. Shouldn’t they be taught reading, writing and arithmetic? Aren’t the state’s test scores low enough? Do we truly have time to teach about kissing when we don’t have time for PE, art, music or drama? And to a kindergarten child, isn’t gay men (or straight couples) kissing and having to do school work about it, the equivalent of what would be pornography to an adult? But that’s what our public schools ARE teaching. We have bad test scores on the most basics, but we still have the time for extracurricular kissing.
I hadn’t heard about the textbooks until you brought it up.
As far as evolution, Darwin’s original concepts don’t even hold up for scientists who support the general idea of evolution. Darwin’s concept of a gradual change was disputed in 1972 by what’s called “punctuated equilibrium,” which states that a species or population will show no change for most of its existence then in rare events show rapid change. Punctuated equilibrium brings evolution theory closer to accounting for what we actually find in nature and the fossil record, but it still suffers the other shortcomings of Darwin’s theory.
There aren’t a lot of alternatives, however. Creationism is fine for Christians and other believers. Intelligent design hasn’t yet been able to establish itself as a strictly scientific theory separate from Creationism. Panspermia, the idea that life on Earth is “seeded” through extraterrestrial influence (asteroids or aliens — take your pick) is a possible alternative — believed in by Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, by the way.
To my thinking, the main problem with the lack of acknowledgment of evolution’s shortcomings and the politicization of the theory is that it discourages the search for other ideas. A lot of people like to say that evolution is fact because “look at all the different kinds of life forms.” But that glosses over the point that the concept of evolution is a process. Life forms are finished products. It’s the process that we’ve never observed or been able to prove.
Comment by infinitygoods — February 12, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
But here’s a question for you to ponder: If I, a layman, can notice some of the problems with evolution theory, then what’s the real motivation for the almost rabid promotion of the idea?
Here’s what the actual experts say: “The discovery and understanding of the processes of evolution represent one of the most
powerful achievements in the history of science. Evolution successfully explains the diversity of life on Earth and has been confirmed repeatedly through observation and experiment in a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines.” –The National Academy of Science
Maybe the real problem is that your understanding of evolution is incorrect; you are a layman, as you yourself admit. Maybe–just maybe–biologists understand their field of specialty a little better than auto mechanics or street preachers do.
See, this is the appeal to authority we get when we ask questions. That statement from the National Academy of Science is demonstrably false, and you don’t have to be a scientist to see it. But since I am a layman, I get the “shush, now, we have white coats and letters after our names” routine.
This is the same sort of nonsense that goes on with global warming. If you don’t agree with the phony “consensus” then you must work for Big Oil (which is really funny, since oil and other energy companies are primary sources of the money behind the global warming lobby effort).
One hopes that biologists understand their field, but when one has been trained to believe something that is untrue, told that everything one works on must support it, and one’s funding is dependent on backing the party line, then it’s probably difficult to say “uh, guys, wait a minute. …”
But I’m open minded. Name an evolution “experiment” or a documented observation of evolution in action (actual change of one species into something else). Enlighten me. Or maybe I just work for Big Religion. …
Comment by Captain Howdy — February 13, 2008 @ 3:11 am
Interesting,
If evolution were the truth, wouldn’t questions be allowed? All would be answered.
Why then are the Darwinists so afraid of questions and alternative ideas? Because it’s political, it’s how they can justify their abortion policies, their education policies, stem cell research and on and on.
Thanks for letting me comment
Steve
Comment by Steve — February 13, 2008 @ 7:27 am
Steve is right. If evolution were the truth, they wouldn’t be afraid of questions and they would have real answers, not just because we’re the experts or because we’re the consensus. Consensus just means because we’re the bullies and you’d better give me your lunch money (taxes & extra fees) or else.
Comment by infinitygoods — February 14, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
In my opinion: Simple reasoning is sufficient to show that evolution is possible. To argue otherwise, one has to claim that one of the following is wrong: (1) That there are random mutations, (2) that lifeforms generally resemble their ancestors more than arbitrary lifeforms, (3) that different fenotype can affect the chances of reproduction on an organism and that the particular effects of a given variation in fenotype are, to some degree, dependent on the environment of the creatures in question, or (4) that the circumstances in which a species live can change.
By “species”, I mean a set of living creatures such that the offspring (of suitable gender) of any of the creatures are fertile.
Given all of the above: Take an arbitrary species of animals. There will be internal differences among the representatives of that species by assumption (1). By assumption (4) it is possible that the environment changes significantly; assume this happens to only some members of the species. Given that the environments are different, by (3) and (2) it is possible that the different branches of the species will start diverging in some way that makes it harder for there to be fit offspring between the differing brances. By (1) these differences may grow to the point that the two different branches of the original species must actually be regarded as different species by the definition.
A note on the first condition: Any influence that seems random by human standards qualifies: It may be actual randomness, ir may be a god of some sort, it may be an alien race, whatever. As long as it works as a random element, it fulfills the same function.
This only argues that evolution is possible, but does it from a baseline set of assumption. To argue that evolution is necessary, one has to read some scientific literature in which evolution has not thus far been disproven. Science can never achieve certainty, but it does get closer and closer to it.
Scientists are very willing to consider alternate theories for, well, almost everything. Personally I have not seen a scientific theory, in the sense that it could be falsified, that explains the diversity of life. Maybe the good posters here can educate me on the subject?
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
I’m not ready to chuck evolution. Some version of it may very well be true. My particular concern is that even I, layman, though I am, can see holes in the way it’s been taught in schools and the way it’s popularly understood. When I first realized that things weren’t adding up, I figured that it was just me, that I just didn’t get it, but then I discovered that there are a lot of credentialed scientists out there who also believe evolution theory doesn’t hold up. Even scientists who generally seem to believe in evolution have acknowledged that there are things that Darwin just didn’t get right (i.e., punctuated equilibrium instead of Darwin’s gradual change). I would consider the whole issue just an interesting debate, but it seems that there are a number of scientists who go against the grain who are simply being squelched — losing grants, losing jobs, being banned from publishing, etc. So my main concern with the whole issue isn’t whether some type of evolution is occurring but rather that people who seem to be quite well qualified to ask the right questions are simply being tossed off the train by an authoritarian establishment. I’ve noticed the same tendency in other scientific issues, such as the whole global warming fiasco, stem cell research, or even cancer studies. And frankly, I’m alarmed that there seems to be a scientific bureaucracy that is resistant to new ideas and that seems to only have authority not because its ideas are superior, but because its members are the ones guarding the purse strings. Even more alarming to me are the numerous hints that the deeper issue seems to be religious, and the effect is of a politically active brand of atheism kicking the Christians off campus. I think we need to resist authoritarian science and restore open inquiry.
Comment by Tommi — April 30, 2008 @ 4:30 am
Let’s see if it gets through this time:
1) You’re wrong.
2) You’re wrong.
3) You’re wrong.
4) You’re ignorant.
5) You’re ignorant.
Che, for future reference, I don’t usually post pingbacks and links to other blogs unless there’s a relevant comment attached. Just my policy. Thanks for commenting.
Comment by Ubiquitous Che — April 30, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
Okay, politics.
I think Expelled and the climate change swindle are both propaganda (so are Michael Moore’s films and doubtless many others). I’d go as far as to say that they are hateful, unnecessary propaganda, creating imaginary problems or at least greatly exaggerating any problem that exists. See the links in the relevant wikipedia articles, for example, or just the articles. Expelled and GGWS are controversial enough to have pretty good sources and citations in the articles.
Personally, I classify any claim about a minority of scientists keeping a majority silent as an unlikely conspiracy theory. A majority silencing a significantly smaller minority is more credible.
Comment by Tommi — April 30, 2008 @ 11:47 pm