Since the 2005 decision in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial, we’ve seen a new creationist / cdesign proponentsist tactic on the horizon. The tactic goes something like this generally: “Well, since we can’t teach other [pseudo-scientific] theories…” and then is followed in public (as opposed to private) with “…let’s just teach the problems with evolution”.
Seems harmless enough, doesn’t it? Start out with one problem, then add a few more, then a few more, and… eventually you’ve got people saying “if it has so many problems, why are they teaching it [in school]?”
This is, most definitely, what the creationist front wants. In fact, it’s pretty plain to see that no one cares about supposed “problems” with evolutionary theory. Plain to see when you see quotes like this:
Evolution, as a stand alone explanation for all life on earth has been repeatedly found lacking (e.g. no transitional forms, the problem of infinite regression of causes, lack of vestigal organs) as a single explanation.
Tim, via the Orlando Sentinel.
Firstly, there are many, many transitional fossils. One discovered recently was a snake with something along the lines of legs (though I’m sure this terminology is used for lack of better terms to common people). There are also such things as Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx, both of which being very vivid and important transitional fossils. Tiktaalik transitions amphibians and fish, and Archaeopteryx transitions dinosaurs to birds. Why don’t you learn about this in High School? Because creationists have fought for years to keep this information out of school text books. Even more interesting is that Tiktaalik was found in 2004, and you probably didn’t see it on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc. Archaeopteryx was found in 1862, two years after Origin was published, and yet you don’t hear about it too often, especially as a transitional fossil.
Therefore, people believe they present “problems” for evolution. If people pimp suggestions such as that, it makes you wonder if they would try to include that itself as a problem for evolution in a school text book… If not, they accept the fossils as factual transitional fossils, and their whole argument against evolution is null.
I would hope, by now, you’re starting to see the silliness in all of this. Evolution is supported by so much evidence it’s not even funny, and the only way they can get around the evidence is by pointing out purported “problems” (such as the mathematics behind evolution, which actually prove it, and lack of transitional fossils, which is blatantly wrong) and just ignoring evidence. This is intellectual dishonesty. They know they’re wrong, but don’t want to admit it because they’re scared of something. Maybe it invalidates their faith in god, whether truly or in their own harebrained minds.
Not everything is known about evolution, but that’s not a problem at all. Nothing in science is perfect, not even purported laws of physics are perfect. We’ll always be improving on every scientific notion, because no science is completely perfect. However, just because we don’t have certain things figured out does not mean that it’s safe to call them “holes”. That, again, invalidates science’s purpose and completely undermines it.
Of course, this person’s post contains the obligatory fact vs. theory nonsense.
Clearly, scientific terminology is misunderstood, though to varying depths. The fact vs. theory stuff is always fun. Once upon a time, not too long ago, my father wished for me to watch a christian television show on evolution in which the first few words I heard was “it [evolution] is [just] a belief”. I walked away with that. It’s very strange how we can have all this evidence, but it’s just a belief, just a theory, et cetera. Certainly when artifacts for the Bible are found it’s always “wow, this proves the Bible!” (see also: Dead Sea scrolls), which makes the irony all that much more delicious.
After quickly overlooking the rest of the highly quotable comments, I decided the obvious: I covered enough ground on two comments to win this skirmish. Call me crazy, but science is strong and creationism — as a whole — is weak. Especially their supporters. We have evidence, they overlook or deny the evidence.
I guess the rest is… up… to you.