New York Times: Evolution is Evolving
An article back in 2007 in the New York Times (Link) makes an interesting comment about a new paradigm shift happening within Evolution.
Evolutionists have been touting this very overhauled idea since the late 1800s but it has only been in the past 100 years that scientists have begun to realize the flaws in this Victorian theory. Darwin wasn’t living in an age of Scientific Enlightenment, so a lot of his predictions and thoughts ended up being wrong. However, since Evolution has been fueled by certain philosophies, it’s necessary that it carry on as long as possible. Since it obviously has errors, it’s time to do some patch-work.
2 of the problems in Evolution have been the Fossil Record and DNA & Genetic theory. With the Fossil record, there’s no history of these “Evolutionary Changes” which Darwin Expected to find. (Darwin himself noted this problem.) As far as DNA & Genetics go, there’s a whole host of problems. First, DNA can only replicate species after their own kind. Secondly, there’d have to be too many mutations (which are BAD things) to happen to achieve well-structured DNA.
Evolutionists, though, feel rather sorry for Darwin. They saw that he made some mistakes, so they’re nice enough to want to fix them. How kind 🙂 Even though Darwin would probably of abandoned his theory if he had lived today, Evolutionists are just too “nice” to let the theory go out of style. In order to keep up with these flaws, they Evolve the theory to fix new problems (which is what the article talks about, though in a subtle way).
The Creationism and Intelligent Design movements, however, haven’t had to fix any “new” problems which modern science might reveal. (Side note: this is much like how the Bible hasn’t been shown to be historically incorrect amidst new archaeological evidence.) When new scientific evidence arises, the theories of the 2 movements are strengthened. As Robert Jastrow said,
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” [God and the Astronomers]
apologetiks 
Good blog post. 😀
I especially like the last quote by Robert Jastrow.
Thanks! 🙂 I’ll try to make some more good posts in the future!
Of course evolution evolves, it is called science and susceptible to change and improvement by new findings. Not like the monolithic block of religion.
Congratulations for stating the obvious.
So what’s the issue with Evolution Evolving?
Theories are allowed to legitimately change over time. However, you don’t bad theories and patch them until they’re good, especially when you have better theories standing next to it. E.g., there’s no need to patch the theory that “the earth is flat” (flat earth society) when you have the theory “the earth is round” sitting right next to it. If your original theory is patching itself to agree with the other theory, chances are something is wrong. There are still 2 issues here:
1) Some scientists have the unscientific chutzpah to say that Evolution is no longer theory, but fact (a scientific impossibility). If it’s fact, why change it? By changing a fact you are removing the very essence of the word.
2) Darwinian Evolution has too many problems. So what do you do? I would examine the other theories and see if they make the same mistakes. If Darwinian Evolution is Truth, it must both implicitly or explicitly show why no other belief can answer the same “unanswerable” questions.
Hope this helps.
Thanks everyone for the comments
Christianity has never changed since it’s conception.
As far as Creationism, it has been stating facts for thousands of years that Evolutionists just now start to agree with.
Evolution “evolves” is just a coin phrase. It’s basically saying “my theory isn’t good enough so I gotta change it”. This might be alright (seeing as theories are susceptible to change) IF Evolution wasn’t illogically claimed as “fact”.
The point is that Evolution is a weak theory. It ends up conforming to other stronger theories like Intelligent Design. But wait…why not just accept ID in the first place?
Thanks for the comments.
Putting aside that the basis of the flat earth society are several biblical passages I’m getting the impression that it is an out of control pun on religion; not unlike the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
There are several well established theories that have undergone huge transformations. Each transformation further refined the original but did not invalidate it.
Example: Newton’s theory of gravitation, Einstein’s theory of relativity, Einstein’s theory of special relativity, Quantum gravity, Quantum gravity in the M-string theory, and still science hasn’t found the 100 percent correct answer yet.
But that does not imply that gravity is the hand of god pushing us down on earth.
I have noticed that religion is very generous in handing out this “unanswerable” label. Thanks to religion the scientific progress was halted for hundreds if not thousands of years. You were killed if you offered strange fire to anyone, you had to publicly denounce your idea the earth was round in fear of being burned alive as a heretic.
Now that scientific knowledge is finally picking up speed you expect them to answer everything with the snap of a finger.
You, religion, christianity want a theory to be either completely accurate or utterly false, everything that is not completely accurate must therefore be utterly false and therefore abandoned.
Unanswerable is not the same as unanswered.
To me evolution is Fact but we don’t have all the facts on this fact yet. When science finally gets it straight it might look entirely different from the original theory proposed by Darwin but I think it will still be evolution.
Why not accept ID? Because it is a lame and transparent attempt to gradually introduce the Judea-Christian creation theory again.
3 Points to make:
1) I honestly don’t agree with your popular categorization of “Religion vs. Science” or “[Christianity] has halted Science”. I think these are myths. I would suggest some of my previous posts that talk about this, primarily ‘the myth’. (http://apologetiks.com/2008/04/18/creation-evolution-and-science-part-3-bible-vs-science/)
Short version: Christianity is not in conflict with Science. It is in conflict with Darwinian Evolution.
2) Here’s the problem I see with current debates on this subject (including ours). People accept the Theory of Evolution FIRST and then try to prove it afterwards. Is this good science? To make a good scientific approach, I’d work with the Evidence FIRST and then develop the most plausible theory. If I proposed Evolution before any “facts,” were given, I would just be trying to prove myself right. Is this not what is happening today?
3) Once again, I disagree with your final assumption with ID. I’d say most of the scientists disagree too. Those who established the “Center for Science and Culture [ID]” organization specifically stated that they arrived at ID without any religious or irreligious pre-commitment. This is the stance I take.
I do not believe in ID because I believe in God. I believe in ID because of Scientific Evidence. I don’t personally view Creationism as a Scientific Theory as much as a philosophical or worldview idea. Even though the Bible has scientific facts, it’s not a “Science Textbook.”
To stay on topic I will not comment on your fist point and read your article at a later time
On your second point you couldn’t be more wrong than that. Your statement is false! It is the Judea-Christian creation theory described in the Thora and Bible that is taken as the conclusion. It is only in the second step the search for evidence to support this conclusion will take place. Evolution is a scientific theory that is based on evidence presented in nature. Other scientists have evaluated this, agreed with its findings and continue to build on it.
In the case of science it is first the evidence (what we have) then the conclusion (the theory).
In the case of Christianity it is first the conclusion (the Bible) then the evidence (to support the conclusion).
You are sourly mistaken if you believe it would be the other way around.
If the general population believes in evolution it is not because they accept the conclusion before the fact, it is because they trust accuracy of the scientific methodology to which those scientists adhere; a methodology they value above the biblical one. Furthermore you can not expect everyone to get a degree in biology so they can fully evaluate evolution for themselves nor have a degree in astrophysics so they can evaluate findings from the Hubble telescope nor have a degree in physics so they can evaluate the M-string theory.
As for your third point you are either deluded or blinded by this pseudo-science that is inspired by the Christian religion. The core of ID claims an un-named supernatural designer which is merely a repackaged version of creationism. When tracing the path of the Intelligent Design movement, the trails lead to Christian supporters who believe that the theory of evolution has stripped God from life, and therefore created immorality in the world today. There is a misrepresentation of the information disseminated, and when peeling away the cloak, there is very little science held within the theory of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design cannot be tested and most of their proponents, such as William Dembski, have failed to show testable proof. It falls upon whether or not you have faith in the possibility of a supernatural creator, which is the ideology carried upon religious belief. Key people involved in this movement hail from the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. Philip E. Johnson, a lawyer and author, is said to be one of the major founders of this movement, and has publicly expressed views against evolution, while promoting creationism as an alternative. He went as far as to develop strategies called The Wedge with evidence of this strategy found in his book “The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism”. The Strategy involves three phases, a five-year goal, and twenty-year goal all of which outline an attempt at replacing the scientific views on evolution with a theistic explanation and understanding that nature and humans are created by God. He does not hide behind the cloak of Intelligent Design in his views, but rather reflects the true nature of his views as being religious in nature. One only needs to read the mission statement of the organization that aligned itself with ID (Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness), on their website, to see what they are really advocating – a religious agenda with no interest in validating Intelligent Design as a legit theory of science. Intelligent Design has failed to prove itself as a viable scientific theory. There is no supporting basis of observational and experience evidence, no method of testability, and no way to be proven or disproved; and is that not what religion is: unquestionable faith? Intelligent Design is religion, or at least, an attempt to accept supernatural reasons for creation, without giving an understanding of how such a theory can be tested or used in scientific investigation.
1st Big statement regarding Evidence then belief: I agree in part. It is my personal opinion that Creationism is believed because of a Biblical viewpoint. If the Bible is true, then Creationism is as well.
However, my scientific views are not the same. On a purely scientific level I examine the evidence and see the conclusion. The Scientific Evidence points me to an Intelligent Designer who seems to possess certain attributes. This is my scientific opinion, not a “religious” one. I didn’t accept ID before I saw the facts.
I don’t blame people for believing in Evolution anymore than I blame others for believing other things. E.g., if you believe pantheism or a non-creational account. If, however, you’re going to say that Evolution is true science, you’re going to have to backtrack. You look at the Evidence and then see if it leads you to Evolution. I honestly don’t believe many have come to the conclusion properly. Most people I’ve encountered have been indoctrinated with Evolution since 3rd and 4th grades.
2nd Paragraph:
I don’t have a problem with “fact” being published in school textbooks. Evolution, on the other hand, is just a theory. It’s not a scientific fact. I have no problem with Theories being mentioned in scientific textbooks as long as they are addressed at that. Schools should teach the pros and cons to a theory and let the people decide for themselves.
3rd Paragraph:
I agree that Intelligent Design usually leads to a belief in God. That’s the most rational explanation I see. When you see the scientific evidence for a Intelligent Designer, you also see individual attributes of the Designer. In my personal opinion, these attributes line up best with God, especially when you take into context the other Evidence for God all the pieces fit.
ID, however, is not just faith-based science. If it was, there would be no need for its development and creation. I have no problem with people promoting Creationism in light of ID. But my point, however, was that people in that movement generally state that it’s on pure scientific grounds. The founding of CSC stated that it arrived at its conclusions without any pre-commitment to any religion.
If people find the God of the Bible via Intelligent Design, I don’t find that to be incompatible. Just because people arrive at a conclusion doesn’t mean that they have forgone the evidence. Scientifically, I’ve seen the evidence for Intelligent Design and then I make the rational jump. People of any worldview, religious or non, can claim Intelligent Design. I’ve heard Atheists make the claim in the belief. Your worldview does not credit or discredit ID if you arrived at ID on a scientific basis.
If you hold to the opinion that ID is just another pseudonym for Creationism that’s fine. You’re entitled to your opinions. I respectfully disagree.
Conclusion:
I foresee this being quite a hot topic. If you want, we can exchange some emails on the topic (mine is jfoxe1@gmail.com) or you can hang around until I offer some actual scientific evidence for ID (I don’t have too many backposts on which I addressed this topic much).
Thanks for the comment, be it ever so heated.
I’ve started writing half an essay to question the validity of ID as a science but it would be futile, you probably heard it all before.
This is however a mayor topic I still like to mention:
“Schools should teach the pros and cons to a theory and let the people decide for themselves.”
If you talk about abstract concepts like art and religion I say a definite yes! No question about it. If you talk about science it is an absolute NO! You can not “decide for yourself” in high school where most adolescent teenagers don’t even understand the basic foundations of scientific methodology. Yet you would let them decide for themselves whether or not some scientific theory is true or false. You can not “decide for yourself” whether chemistry or alchemy is correct. You can not “decide for yourself” whether psychology or phrenology is correct. These things are decided in the scientific arena where scientists each within their respective field of expertise apply the necessary scrutiny to any theory by carefully analyzing the evidence, findings, proof, testability and falsifiability. This process should NOT take place in the high school class room.
I find many issues within the 3rd paragraph, too many to mention so I will just skim the surface. Most issues are about the validity of ID as a science and the origin of CSC.
The main issue revolves around what you do after you find a something that you conclude to be created by an intelligent designer. The ultimate conclusion of an intelligent designer would be a supernatural entity aka God; if not who then designed the intelligent designer. The supernatural by definition can not be explained by the laws of nature and as a result is unexplainable or unanswerable. (see the post of August 5, 2008 at 3:29 am). Aside from the fact that your research stops here -because the supernatural or unexplainable is not testable or falsifiable- this was not science in the first place because science is the search for a natural, reproducible, consistent and comprehensible explanation of our environment.
From there on it is only a short step to ”I can’t explain or it’s too complex it so it must be designed” And this is what ID is after: anything that we currently can not explain will be attributed to an intelligent designer aka God. If you now add the wedge project created by the founders of CSC you know the ultimate goal: The removal of naturalistic explanations of our environment and the introduction of creationism in the science class room of the school system. This is not just some lame conspiracy theory, evidence presented the US court came to the same conclusion: ID is a religion, not science.
I respect that you disagree but the evidence speaks against you.
I strongly prefer to continue the discussion here. I am reluctant to provide my real e-mail address and name as a protective measure from the internet rather then a wish to remain an anonymous debater.
I agree that you don’t debate things like “alchemy” or “chemistry” or a lot of general sciences.
The main issue between us, as I see it, is this: is Evolution a 100% fact or is it a “good” theory? You should teach the basic science princples, but when it comes to the Origins of Life, I don’t think mainstream scientists should just pick a theory and hope it’s right. I can only see a handful of examples where examining the pro’s and con’s of theories has been harmful. If you want to raise kids that are objective, you should teach them both sides to the story and let them draw their own opinions. In some cases, adults shouldn’t do the thinking for the children. When only one side is taught, students are usually at the mercy of Modern Universities that are more likely (even though not THAT much more) to present both sides.
ID states that science points us away from random chance/mutation/etc… This does not equate it with a religion. If it leads to a Christian conviction, so be it. Even if it’s fueled by Creationists so be it. The issue is not whether or not ID is close to Christianity or Evolution is close to Atheism. The issue is scientific. Where does science point us?
The Enforcer of this website does have your email address which I could use. If, however, you do not wish to be contacted, I’ll respect this.
It would be arrogant and unscientific to state that evolution is 100% fact –and is never clamed as such by professionals- but multiple fields within evolution today are already well known and understood and are fully backed up by findings in palaeontology, geology and genetics. It would be an underestimation to call evolution only a “good theory” or as I often heard “after all evolution is ‘only’ a theory”. With today’s scientific knowledge, evidence and facts, evolution has become so much more than merely a “good theory”. I am not going to sum up all the pro’s of evolution since this would (A) be off-topic and (B) the list would be far to extensive.
When it comes to the origin of life, ID jumps right on the bandwagon of Christianity and is hailed by most Christians and some creationists. The fact that ID calls itself a science is an added bonus because now it can supposedly compete with the much hated theory of evolution.
A common misunderstanding however is that evolution describes how speciation occurs and NOT the origin of life, evolution describes how the phylogenetic tree came into existence through micro- and macro-evolution but there is no mention whatsoever within evolution that explains how life on earth began. Evolution does not say life began on earth because lightning struck a mud puddle. Ben Stein popularized this in his promotion campaign about his movie “Expelled: No intelligence allowed”, but it is a falsehood, just like evolution says nothing about gravity or thermodynamics.
Origin of life is a major issue dare I say the only issue left within science that stands between evolution and fact due to the current inability to produce testable or reproducible experiments. However the search for the origin of life within science belongs to the field of abiogenesis not evolution.
I have nothing against stating the pro’s and con’s of a theory. But this does not result in the right of ever Joe, Jane, Jack and Janice to come up with a theory -that can’t stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific world by the way- and demand it to be taught in school because it presents a potential alternative. The world of science is not a democracy. If you look at the spokesmen of ID you don’t see scientists, you see lawyers. Lawyers whose scientific knowledge doesn’t even resemble high school students when heard defending ID. Lawyers who state that ID will prevail in debate rather then experiment. That is not science, that is politics and that matches up with the reality of proponents of ID going to court to get ID in the science class room.
Whether or not this is the issue the following is another grave error of comparison: “The issue is not whether or not ID is close to Christianity or Evolution is close to Atheism.”
Just as “Darwinism” doesn’t exist nor does “Newtonism” or “Einsteinism”, evolution is close to science not atheism! This is a Christian view because evolution steers us away from the Christian creation myth. It is fueled by the wrong impression that atheism is an ideology. Atheism is the rejection of theism nothing more nothing less.
ID is science at the same level creationism is sometimes called creation science. If ID wants to be introduced in school, let it be taught alongside creationism where it belongs due to its view on a supernatural and/or mystical creation process. ID belongs to science class no more then early English literature belongs to math … for example because the complexity of literature can pose an alternative on our number system. The book “Of Pandas and People” originally written by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon presents compelling evidence that intelligent design is creationism re-labeled.
With evidence presented here and in earlier posts the goal of the Intelligent Design Movement is to repeat this: http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/DarkAges.gif
I’ll comment where it’s the most relevant:
“I have nothing against stating the pro’s and con’s of a theory. But this does not result in the right of ever Joe, Jane, Jack and Janice to come up with a theory -that can’t stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific world by the way”
I’m not suggesting that anyone can just come up with whatever theory thy want and call it science. I think you should show the pros and cons of the different theories and let the other people make up their own minds. I’m not stating that they can come up with theories and call them scientific. Science is not a democracy, but not all “Science” is the normal “factual Science”. The best scientific textbooks I’ve ever seen never commented on the Origins of Life. They never mentioned Darwinian Biology or Intelligent Design.
You probably wont’ like my answer so let me boil down our arguments: “my opinion is that you seem to believe that since Evolution is the best theory out there it’s a foregone conclusion. The only other theory that people hold do is Intelligent Design, and that’s because of a non-scientific religious motivation.”
This is the heart of the issue. Is ID a good enough theory to be mentioned in Scientific textbooks or not? We won’t agree on the conclusions of an thought until we can agree on the thought itself!
I believe in ID because I see it has good scientific evidence. Since you don’t agree in the slightest with this, we’re probably going to run around in “circles of communication”.
“If you look at the spokesmen of ID you don’t see scientists, you see lawyers.”
This is a Dicto Simpliciter argument. You’re making an unqualified generalization. I MUST disagree with this:
In a previous post entitled “The Rebels” which is full of hundreds upon hundreds of people that have signed documents saying that they are skeptical of Evolution, a lot of them also go on to support ID (though, unfortunately, not all). In order to sign the list you had to have finished either Graduate or Doctorate studies in one of the sciences. There are hundreds and hundreds of Dr.’s that are on this list.
Where does that leave us? I don’t know but I can say where it left me: skeptical. If Evolution has dissent that proclaims it has better scientific Evidence, I decided to do my own investigation and see where the Evidence lead me. I wasn’t (and still am not) a scientist, but I was still capable of making up my own mind. This is what I want to be promoted in schools. Do your own investigations as objectively as possible and see where the Evidence leads.
I’ve only just read the link you suggested (http://apologetiks.com/2008/04/18/creation-evolution-and-science-part-3-bible-vs-science/ “The Myth”) I have truly made a mistake not reading that article sooner.
I’m seriously thinking about cutting our conversation short. After reading some random and suggested articles on your site I find that your interpretation of fact is rehashing statements to suite your own needs then putting them out of context to create an argument that is full of outdated information, half-truths, misrepresentations of statistical anomalies and outright lies. Some of these lies are in this very article and is also used by the ID movement to attack evolution rather then defend their own God … I mean designer. Your article The Myth was really the last drop for me.
It has become obvious to me that you do not possess any useful working knowledge of the different fields of science you wish to refute. That or willingly play ignorance when presented with the evidence or willingly misrepresent said evidence. You have even used it recently in an article “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” I suggest you should concentrate on that quote a little more.
It has become obvious to me that you will go through any length to achieve your goal … while always keeping a friendly and well mannered tone, something that can’t always be said about me for which I apologize.
“It has become obvious to me that you do not possess any useful working knowledge of the different fields of science you wish to refute. That or willingly play ignorance when presented with the evidence or willingly misrepresent said evidence.”
I’m disappointed that you have come to this conclusion when we really haven’t discussed THAT much science.
I will not personally make the claim that YOU do not possess any “Working knowledge of the different fields of science” simply because we haven’t even talked about all the fields of science. We’ve only briefly touched on Biology.
I also continually reject your idea that ID has only attacked Evolution while not defending itself. As I’ve stated in “Tests of a Worldview,” Truths have to not only prove why it’s right, but why others are wrong (and in this case, vice versa).
I will go to any length to spread Truth. That’s just one of my personal ambitions. When I finally find something out to be True, I like to share it with others. That’s one main reason why I created my blog.
However, I think you will go to any length to spread Truth as well. I’m sure you honestly believe in your Worldview and you want to tell others about it as well. In the case of Evolution, I respect that you have found an idea that you like so much. For all I know, you’re spurred on debating by your dislike of my Worldview and/or its views on the Origin of Life. However, I like to think it’s the former.
Also, don’t be too hard on yourself for not being “well mannered”. The last 2 or so atheists I’ve conversed with were so fanatic that you couldn’t get one word out. They tossed out every contradiction in the book, all the while cursing at me.
As far as cutting off our comments, I’d say that it “depends.” Since we’ve really just just been debating on the Surface of Evolution & Intelligent Design, we haven’t really gotten into much meat about it. You said that from what you’ve seen, ID is all about attacking Evolution without offering evidence itself. I obviously don’t think this is right because it was the Evidence that convinced me.
But now we’re faced with a dilemma. Let’s say we go off on this Safari of Evidence and end up talking about some big issues and evidences. What’s going to happen? Speaking only for myself, I can commit to being as objective as possible as we debate the Evidence. I try to follow the evidence. If you produce good evidence I’ll give serious time and thought. I’m not perfect, but I can do my best. With respect, will you say the same?
It is true that we haven’t discussed much factual science between us but the content of your articles betray you.
I find it strange that you would mention worldviews in a discussion about science. Science (and in this case evolution) has NEVER been proposed as a worldview or ideology. Evolution may FIT INTO a worldview but is not one in itself. In that respect (please take special notice: I have said “in that respect” not “in general”) Science and evolution doesn’t care about “The Truth” and leaves this topic to philosophers who may in their turn use the conclusions from science to find the/their truth.
“I’m sure you honestly believe in your Worldview and you want to tell others about it as well.” I must concede to this statement. Also as I have seen you act the same way I will also act when falsehoods are spread about elements with my worldview (this topic) or when misrepresentations are presented to falsely gain additional credibility for other worldviews (scriptural inerrancy).
I don’t think it will be useful to continue to discuss evolution vs. intelligent design between us. It boils down to unanswered vs. unanswerable, these are in direct opposite of each other. It will remain a yes/no game until science has answered some of the unanswered/unanswerable questions.