I was listening to the Skeptic Zone podcast the other day and it featured an interview with Dr.Paul Willis, a paleontologist, discussing his experiences debating Creationists. One thing that he said resonated with me – instead of trying to defend evolution against their attacks ask for scientific evidence for their stance. To anyone familiar with creationism it will be obvious that this is something that they are unable to do.
Part I described Creationism and the beliefs of its proponents. Part II will discuss the further the beliefs of Creationists and the evidence they have for their beliefs and the arguments they have against evolution.
Creationists believe that the Earth (and the universe) was all created in six days less that 10000 years ago. Although somewhat confused arguments seem to be those that refute scientific understanding rather than compelling evidence for their beliefs. Using the Christian Fundamentalist Conservapedia as a reference it can be seen that Creationists argue that evidence for the age of the universe derived from observations of the light of receding stars is called into dispute. They suggest that either God expanded the universe after the creation of the Earth or that God created a strong gravitational field around the Earth so that it appeared that billions of years had passed elsewhere, while in our solar system time passed normally. There is no scientific evidence offered for these theories.
Geologists have shown that the age of the Earth is about 4.54 billion of years through the measurement of the decay of radioactive isotopes. Geologists also show that the shape of major land forms and continents have formed and reformed through natural processes such as volcanism, erosion and plate tectonics. While trying to discredit the scientific evidence Creationists claim that changes to the Earth’s geology were created by cataclysms such as the Flood. To them the Flood accounts for sedimentation and the movement of continents to their current positions.
Creationists claim that an Intelligent Designer (God) created all life on Earth just as it is now and that Darwinian evolution does not explain complex life. Rather than offer evidence for their own ideas Creationists instead attack evolution. The main prongs of the Creationist attack on evolution are gaps in the fossil record and that random genetic mutations couldn’t account for complex structures in organisms.
The fossil record presents evidence for evolution. By examining fossils from different strata we can see the transition of organisms from one form to another. For example we can see the development of whales from land mammals. We can look at fossils that show the movement of the nostrils from the front of the skull to the top. We can see the development of the forelimbs from legs to flippers. We can see the hind legs become smaller and vestigial before disappearing. An excellent video describing this may be seen here. Despite the obvious transitional nature of the fossil record Creationists claim that there are gaps and that these disprove the whole of evolution. Whenever new transitional fossils are discovered Creations claim new gaps. Imagine a fossil of an early human and the skeleton of a modern human. Creationists would claim a gap that disproves evolution. Were a transitional fossil discovered that fitted neatly between the early human and modern humans Creationists would claim two gaps instead of one.
Creationists claim too that there are structures in organisms that are irreducibly complex. The two most commonly cited structures are the eye and the flagellum of bacteria. They use these structures as evidence that they must have been designed as each would not be functional were it missing any of its component parts and therefore must have come into existence at once, not evolved. The eye, it is now understood, could well have developed as an area of light sensitive cells that over time developed more sensitivity, a concave structure, a pin hole, and finally a lens. The flagellum of the bacteria has been shown to be related to a syringe-like structure in other bacteria. Neither is irreducibly complex.
There is a claim by Creationists that evolution is only a theory. This assumes the literary concept of a theory as being an unproved idea. In science a theory is a “testable model capable of predicting future occurrences or observations and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation”. Evolution predicts what should be found in the fossil record successfully. Evolution successfully explains the development of life from simple organisms like bacteria to complex organisms like an elephant over geological time. Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense. Intelligent Design is not even that. It is not science, it is psuedoscience.
There is nobody actively researching Intelligent Design. There are no scientists doing experiments. There is no peer review. It is not science.
Creationists believe that if they can poke holes in evolution, earth sciences and astronomy then people will be forced to accept their account of the creation of the universe. The suggests that there is an either or relationship between the two. IF evolution is incorrect THEN Intelligent Design must be correct. This is logical fallacy. There is a possibility that Darwinian evolution is not correct and that some other scientific theory will replace it. If that is the case then the replacement will not be Intelligent Design.
Creationists also attempt to use disagreement in the scientific community to create the false impression that scientists are not certain that evolution is correct. For example Stephen Jay Gould, the prominent American palaeontologist, believed that the fossil record indicates spells of geological stability followed by rapid spells of branching evolution such the Cambrian Explosion. Many evolutionary biologists, including Richard Dawkins, disagree with this believing that evolution continues over long periods of time and that it is the fossil record that is incomplete. Neither Gould nor Dawkins at any time question evolution, merely the nature of one aspect of it. This is what good scientists do.
Instead of welcoming discussion and examination of the evidence that they possess Creationists are more likely to attack the person questioning their ideas and the branch of science that person follows.
Given that they appear to be on a very sticky wicket, why is it that Creationists persist? Part III will look at what motivates the Creationists and why the scientific community must unite to repel this threat to science.
