Here are the questions, without the comments:
How did life originate?
How did the DNA code originate?
How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?
Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
How did multi-cellular life originate?
How did sex originate?
Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?
How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?
Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?
Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?
Good questions, Usagi.
ReplyDeleteI would add that evolution as taught does not offer a good explanation for why sexual reproduction came to be. In fact, all evidence would point toward sexual reproduction being selected against over the eons.
Same goes for intellect. It would take to long to cultivate and select for, when moderate increases in brain function would only yield insignificant advantages - so insignificant that they would not likely be selected for.
My biggest concern, which is addressed in these questions, is that while natural selection is fact, and recognized as such, evolution as an origin of anything above the species level does not qualify as theory, as it has never been observed. Observation is one of the tenets of the scientific method.
- Rueben.
Quite the can of worms you've got there. And since I can't interact on your blog, I can't address all of the points - each should be a separate post, really. Let me just point out that your intial framing of the argument is off - no one claims that evolution is the origin of life, just that it provides a physical mechanism to explain the diversity of life that we see. The actual origin of life is far more theoretical and controversial. But as to your questions regarding the theory of evolution itself, they are all thoroughly answered in undergraduate-level biology and geology textbooks - and in a way that does not challenge what I consider to be a reasonable intrepretation of the first few chapters of Genesis. Science can not address the question of a First Mover; as soon as it tries, it ceases to be science and becomes philosophy.
ReplyDeleteAnd theories addressing processes that take too long for human observation are tested by trying to falsify them with evidence from the geologic record; hence the teaching of the theory in schools. This testing has resulted in many modifications and refinements of Darwin's original theory - you could almost say it has evolved...
Message me if you respond here, btw, since I can't get notification of follow-up comments!
ReplyDeleteRich,
ReplyDeleteAs always, great points, my friend.
Of course these questions did not originate with me, but with the author at the link provided. I do concur with them.
Several of the questions are, of course, rhetorical, hence the reason they are answered easily at high school or undergrad level biology. I think they are given to make a point - that point is that evolution in the sense of natural selection is a proven fact. However, evolution as an origin of kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, or genus is completely unproven (if I may ad-lib from what my take on what Reuben posted just before you).
It is a fascinating study, IMO, in the way that even "scientists" will bend facts and points of view to fit their own agenda, as opposed to consistent application of principle.
I guess the questions lie in what you are trying to prove, and the level of proof you require. For example, I would defy any scientist to "prove" that a higher power was not involved in how the earth and all that is in it got to be the way it is today. Without an assumption of naturalism, it's impossible. By the same token, though, saying that we can see evidence for an Intelligent Designer opens us up to the god of the gaps, because every challenge to the theory of evolution has a plausible response from a naturalists' point of view. I don't understand why some Christians hold so firmly to the idea that one species can change into another - after all, Genesis makes no mention of HOW God created each kind, only that he did. And a strong argument can be made that the "days" in Genesis are arranged to prove God's power over all the things that pagans worshiped in OT times, and not in the literal order he created them.
ReplyDeleteJust to speak to two points, though: Sex is advantageous in that it allows for more rapid creation of diversity - which aids in survival as things try to colonize new niches or are subjected to new stresses. And intelligence is advantageous, even with the increased cost, because it allows groups of individuals to cooperate to increase chances of survival.