The State has a selection of viewpoints called “IN FOCUS: Debate over evolution“. It should be called “NEEDS FOCUS“, since it’s a pretty good compilation of all kinds of misconceptions about evolution and science as a whole.
Looking at some bits of the article should be instructive.
One writer rails against naturalism.
The naturalistic world view, which undergirds modern science, is privileged, so that to object to a naturalistically framed theory, such as Darwinian evolution, is to have one’s intelligence questioned.
I think the letter author misses the point, here. To object to a theory in science is not at all a sign of poor intelligence, if one has data and observations to back up the objections and an alternative that explains them. Intelligent Design folks effectively have neither. They have objections, but no backup. And they have no explanations, except “God, whoops … sorry … The Intelligent Designer, who might be God, but could also be space aliens, did it”. If they had something that explained as much or more data than current evolutionary theory does, scientists would be all over Intelligent Design.
Far from protecting our children from state-sponsored religion, we actually continue to indoctrinate them in one: scientific materialistic naturalism.
Science merely requires that things that fall under its umbrella be observable in some way and testable in some way. At least this letter writer appears to be honest – it’s not so much evolution that he rejects, it’s all of science. And this is why I, a humble chemist, care about this whole creation/evolution debate. It won’t stop with just evolution.
Another writer appears merely confused, preferring to fall back on so-called “problems” with evolution copied from out-of-date creationist literature or web sites.
Statistically, it is more likely that a tornado whirling through a junkyard will emerge leaving behind a fully assembled and functional Boeing jet than it is that evolution alone is responsible for our being (i.e. evolution in the context of being random and spontaneous) or that all the components for the jet were there when the tornado came through (analogy: that all of the life-sustaining components are here on Earth randomly and coincidentally, in the right mix).
Fred Hoyle’s objection is one that biologists and other scientists have answered time and time again, and it’s getting old. Would the writer have a problem with a bunch of randomly distributed sodium and chloride ions in salt water coming together and forming ordered, cubic crystals of sodium chloride as water evaporates? That’s a simple example, but it proves a point – chemistry is not a completely random process.
Not much has happened to animals and mankind since the extinction of life and species at the time the dinosaurs departed this Earth.
I guess that’s better than saying that evolution has not been observed, but not a lot better.
While some evolution may occur over time (billions, not millions, of years), a goodly number of highly notable physicists and astronomers now agree that all this didn’t just happen.
Fred Hoyle and, er, … Fred Hoyle? (And why does this writer want to only cite physicists and astronomers? What about biologists? You know, people who actually study the stuff?)
This topic deserves to be fully and openly discussed and all the facts presented, even if some of them are in fact rooted in religion.
If the “facts” are observable and testable, I don’t think scientists would have a problem including them. But these may not be the “facts” the the writer wants presented.
Yet another writer doesn’t like science’s focus on the natural world.
Evolution assumes a closed, naturalistic universe – all is mechanical – time plus space plus chance – like rocks tumbling down a hillside. Where does the breath of life come from? Where do our consciousness, conscience, soul and spirit originate? Who or what installs it?
The issue of where consciousness comes from is an old one, and most scientists are probably comfortable saying that they, well, can’t yet explain the origin of consciousness. But anyone who’s taken an introductory psychology course knows that things that happen to the brain affect personality, behavior, etc.
Evolution proclaims the “survival of the fittest.†Applying that to people seems to preclude the need for compassion, charity, welfare for the weak, hurting, the aged and hurricane relief. Should smaller, weaker ethnic groups be eliminated, too?
This one is another old question, and partly a misunderstanding of what “fit” means. (I like the linked comic, but the link at the bottom of the page is more informative.)
We apparently need more evolution education, not less!