Bronze-level articleQuestion Evolution

From RationalWiki
Revision as of 00:15, 23 April 2012 by Genghis Khant (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search



Icon creationism.svg
Key claims
Random articles

Truth fish transparent.png

Question Evolution is a self-described grass roots campaign created by Creation Ministries International and promoted in the United States by the anti-gay hate group Traditional Values Coalition.[1] The campaign's objective is for high-schoolers, college students, and non-scientists to question the validity of evolution and make up their own minds about the subject (i.e. reject it in favor of creationism).[2]

In principle, questioning evolution is a very good idea if the aim is to examine evidence for and against a scientific theory rather than uncritically hold a belief based on ignorance and faith and judge scientific theories and evidence only in light of that bias. Science is a process of attempting through exploration and evaluation to provide natural explanations for natural events. In that light, science will never stop asking questions, even when they already have a "good" theory. Many valid scientific questions remain about the theory of evolution; thus, the scientific community is actively engaged in examining every aspect of the theory in a diverse group of related fields of study. As the consequences of the fact of evolution are ubiquitous in the life sciences, scientists never cease to "question evolution."

However, the Question Evolution campaign is not pursuing such scientifically valid questions. Rather it is centered around the distribution of a religious tract called "15 Questions for Evolutionists,"[3] which purports to ask "15 critically important questions that evolutionists cannot adequately answer."[4] What CMI doesn't tell its credulous followers - who are so often schooled by other fundie zealots and likely ignorant of the science CMI blithely misrepresents - is that there are several reasons "evolutionists cannot adequately answer" CMI's questions, and this has nothing to do with evolution being an invalid theory.

The questions fall into several broad categories:

  • Ones that are adequately answered by the theory of evolution, with its vast explanatory and predictive power; creationists reject these answers because they conflict with their religious dogma. (Questions 5, 8, 10, 13, 14)
  • Questions that flat out misrepresent the state of the science. (Questions 1, 7, 8, 11, 12)
  • Some questions are derived from religious beliefs that have nothing to do with the scientific question of whether the theory of evolution adequately explains the diversity of life on Earth. (Questions 1, 12)
  • Some rely on vague and unscientific terms like "information," a term only creationists use in this context, or the teleological argument offered in support of the implication that CMI's god is the presumed "designer," rather than any of the other agents or alleged deities up to the job, and one can discern purpose and intention rather than the familiar creationist claim of the theory of evolution stands for the proposition that we're all just an accident. (Questions 3, 4, 5, 11)
  • Ones that misrepresent the nature of the theory of evolution as "just-so story telling," a "fundamentally religious idea" and "dogmatic belief system," and a hindrance to scientific advancement, which, even if true, are contentless claims and irrelevant to whether the theory of evolution is good science. They thereby merely badmouth the theory's superior explanatory power rather than making any principled argument. (Questions 4, 12)
  • Many questions are predicated on the false notion that no sound conclusions can be drawn about unobserved events in the past - this is a favorite creationist canard trotted out over and over again to falsely elevate the standing of creationism to that of the theory of evolution, by asserting that they're both equally unscientific. (Questions 4, 12, 14, 15)
  • Several questions ask about irrelevant matters such as biogenesis and even morality. (Questions 1, 3, 4, 11)

And finally, as in any area of scientific inquiry. ...

  • ... many questions cannot presently be answered because of our limited knowledge. The modern evolutionary synthesis of Darwinian natural selection, Mendelian genetics, and population genetics is a recent scientific development that is highly dependent on technological innovations.[5] (Questions 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11)

Obviously - and fortunately for those studying the science of evolution - there are a vast number of open questions in the last category all of which are under active consideration. CMI, however, would like people to draw the conclusion that any unanswered question means:

  • It will never be answered. ...
  • ... because God did it.

CMI could have read the literature and have come up with a series of interesting and challenging questions based on what evolutionary scientists are presently investigating - although that would have involved some honest research and understanding of the subject. But instead of concentrating on these real questions, CMI employs the typical creationist strategy of dissembly and deflection by perpetuating myths and misconceptions about the theory of evolution, all while making money selling religious tracts, t-shirts, buttons, hats, bumper stickers, coffee cups, and tote bags.[6][7]


15 Questions for Evolutionists

Without further ado:

15 Questions From CMI RationalWiki Responses

1. How did life originate?


The theory of evolution is not concerned with abiogenesis or the origin of life. “Evolution” simply refers to "descent with modification," or the change of allele frequencies among a discrete population of organisms over time. Evolution occurs when genetic mutations have either a positive or negative impact on the organism's fitness to survive in its environment leading to (usually subtle) changes in its morphology. When compiled over successive generations, cumulative genotypic changes manifest significant enough phenotypic differences between discrete populations of organisms that they can no longer interbreed, leading to speciation. This and similar explanations of biodiversity are evolution's sole concerns, not the origin of life itself.

CMI's irrelevant question of origins is only presently unanswerable because science is not sufficiently advanced. In that sense the Davies quote is perfectly truthful. However, the lack of an explanation for abiogenesis has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the unrelated theory of evolution. Notwithstanding this, CMI urges that because scientists don't have a complete explanation of abiogenesis the theory of evolution must be false, which does not logically follow.

But wait, CMI even gets abiogenesis wrong! The most fundamental mistake CMI makes is to define life based on what we observe in the complex organisms we see today. They then try and calculate the odds of this form of life arriving spontaneously. This is a classic straw man argument. Early life would look vastly different than what we see today and likely did not involve protein synthesis at all. Life is also not a binary term. There is a continuum between non-life and life which can easily be seen today with things like viruses or prions occuping a space that is difficult to define. Current thoughts on abiogenesis are focusing on autocatalytic and self assembling nucleobases (usually into RNA) that can easily emerge spontaneously in the lab.[8] The building blocks upon which RNA and DNA operate to create peptides (polymers of amino acids) can also spontaneously emerge in the lab. Miller and Urey's famous 1953 paper discussed the spontaneous creation of 5 amino acids in a sealed flask under hypothesized conditions on the early Earth. Shortly after the paper was published, further analysis proved the presence of carboxylic and hydroxy acids, which are used biologically for long chain polymerization. The flask upon which they based the paper was analyzed using contemporary methods and determined to contain not just the initial 5 amino acids but 14 amino acids and 5 amines, which include the by-products of amino acid breakdown and signaling chemicals used for intercellular communication. Still later analysis of a flask that Miller and Urey did not analyze for their paper revealed the presence of 22 amino acids and 5 amines.[9] This exciting research confirms without a doubt that complex, and autocatalyzing and self assembling chemicals and the chemicals upon which they operate can form spontaneously in the lab.

There is a huge amount of research being done on these early proto-life structures with some fascinating potential benefits (such as random chemistry being used to produce new drugs and vaccines). CMI's thought process of trying to calculate the odds of a eukaryotic-like organism spontaneously arising is a perfect example of how embracing creationist dogma would kill scientific progress and knowledge.

Beyond butchering even the most basic understanding of abiogenesis research there are some broader logical fallacies that further highlight the anti-intellectualism of CMI. It claims that, even assuming the "supposed evolutionary age of the universe" (i.e. 13.8 billion years),[10] functional proteins emerging from a primordial soup is so improbable that the only acceptable explanation is to assume a designer (goddidit). This is fundamentally an argument from ignorance premised on these lazy thinkers' refusal or inability to honestly consider the evidence and likely explanations. It is also predicated on the logically unsound premise that highly improbable events do not occur, which we know is false. Just because the odds of something occuring are too small for a creationist to conceive of they are not therefore zero. Improbable things happen all the time. People get struck by lightning. Someone will eventually win the lottery.

The problem creationists have with evolution is not that it challenges belief in God, because it doesn’t. Their problem is that evolution, like many other fields of science, challenges the accuracy and authority of their literal reading of the bible. As such, creationists believe that if evolution is true, their literal reading of Genesis is not, which according to their literalist dogma is correct. What is not correct is the belief that the theory of evolution necessarily supplants any need for a belief in god. A lot of theists accept the theory of evolution and still maintain devoted religious lives. They're just not biblical literalists.

In cherry picking the Davies quote, CMI makes a subtle appeal to authority in order to impugn the scientific process. It's true that scientists presently do not know how autocatalyzing and self assembling biological molecules could use readily available building blocks to create the first living cell. That absence of a complete explanation says nothing about the truth or falsity of the unrelated theory of evolution.

2. How did the DNA code originate?


Scientists are actively investigating the genetic "code" and why it is what it is and how it might have emerged. Just like with abiogenesis CMI tries to take the more complex genetic sequences in modern organisms and ask how something like this could spontaneously arise. This, of course, is scientifically ignorant and does not reflect what science actually says. There is a continuum of complexity. The likely precursor to the modern genetic code are short strands of RNA that are autocatalytic (the chemical structure of the RNA strand produces a byproduct of itself). The "code" in this case is a basic copy and paste, there is no complex language or syntax. Since the odds of this early genetic code arising spontaneously are very high CMI ignores it.

The question of how the modern code emerged from these early predecessors is evolution itself. Random deviations in the nucleic acid structure would change the byproduct produced, if the byproduct was more efficient at replicating it would overwhelm less efficient codes. This gradual change in the complexity of the underlying code is useful in explaining many aspects of biological theory. Such as why RNA is used as an intermediate between DNA and protein synthesis.

More generally this highlights a common theme in all of these questions. CMI demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the basic science behind the concepts they claim to be poking holes into. They butcher even the science that has nothing to do with evolution or that they should have no conflict with. In this case their understanding of the "DNA code" which refers to the way specific nucleic acid sequences on the DNA strand "code" for specific amino acids in the formation of proteins. The phrase "with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters" is laughably ignorant and shines a bright light on how the biased thought process of CMI is deadly to scientific advancement. Metaphors like "code" and "language" are simple tools that allow us to more easily grasp the basics for what might be going on, but they are just that-- metaphors. But because CMI is assuming an intelligent designer they make the mental leap that the metaphors have some sort of reality outside of our own mental constructs. This leads them to think that some how the "DNA code" can be separated from basic chemicals and biological pathways.

In reality the whole thing is completely based on chemical properties. The a specific sequence of nucleic acids in the DNA chemically bonds to a specific sequence of nucleic acids in an RNA strand, which in turn chemically binds a specific amino acid. If we were to change the electro-chemical properties of the nucleic acid then the whole process would fall apart. You could describe the reaction between vinegar and baking soda as "the foam is a product of a communication between aggressive vinegar and the more passive baking soda in their effort to reach a more stable and comfortable environment." Most people could recognize this as a bit of a tortured metaphor, but not as an actual physical description of what is going on. People realize that there is a chemical reaction taking place that has nothing to do with communication or internal emotional states of the chemicals. Someone who tried to argue that the common explanation of the reaction between baking soda and vinegar is false because there is no evidence that baking soda is emotionally passive would be laughed at.

And that is why we laugh at CMI when they try and take the metaphoric language scientist sometimes use and turn it around into a scientifically illiterate argument against evolution.

3. How could mutations create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? (about 6 gigabits, by CMI’s estimate)

How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins and also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate? As an initial matter, the notion that the amount of "information" in a genome depends on its length is specious and reflects CMI's bad faith in presenting a question it knows is predicated on a false premise. Elsewhere CMI describes the concept of "information" as describing a specific genetic instruction, though it's very difficult to know what special significance CMI gives to one such instruction over another and why one would contain more information than any other. Nonetheless, CMI admits that genotypes are determined by instructions in individual and combinations of codons, which on its own reflects CMI's insincerity in claiming the amount of information is determined by the length of a genome. As CMI also admits that there is a good amount of non-coding DNA, though some of it may have some non-coding function, so CMI ought to know that its description of 3 billion ACGT's being "information" is scientific gibberish and inconsistent with other scientific gibberish it has advanced elsewhere about "information."

Creationists insist that mutations are very rare and are usually, if not always, harmful. But the fact is that the vast majority of mutations are completely neutral and have minimal effects. Harmful mutations are those such as a deletion mutation or an addition mutation, e.g. removing or adding a nucleic base. They’d have to be because, according to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, there is an overall average of 128 mutations per human zygote![11] So apparently, in creationist terms, “very rare” means “more than a hundred per person right from the point of conception”. Because those are just the mutations we start out with. Our cells will mutate again 30 more times over the course of our lives, and some of these subsequent mutations can be passed on to our children too – usually with no more effect than those we recognize as family traits. Large additions of genetic information occur when genes or even whole chromosomes or genomes are duplicated and these duplications are inherited. This is why there are structural similarities between the chromosomes found within each cell. They have been duplicated from one another.

4. Why is natural selection taught as “evolution,” when natural selection selects, but does not create?

By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? This question is not even wrong. Nobody claims that evolution is a spontaneous creative process - see the answer to question 1. It is not concerned with addressing "goo-to-you." It is capable of explaining the extraordinary variety of living things, including finches and their beaks. As creationists accept, natural selection is about testing the fitness of new traits arising from mutations, which, if they provide an advantage, become distributed through the population of organisms. While mutations are random and at first blush appear incapable of creating new traits that last, natural selection is a highly creative mechanism: the effect of culling organisms whose mutations render them less fit is to concentrate successful mutations that provide an advantageous adaptation against selective pressures in the remaining population.

Though they have no non-frivolous objection to the proposition, creationists will not accept that the cumulative effect of natural selection is the substantial morphological variety we see in living organisms and the fossil record. Despite the fact that CMI and its adherents downplay their previous use of "microevolution," which they accept, and "macroevolution," which they don't, they continue to implicitly rely on some unstated distinction between the terms in denying universal common descent. The real question is, despite their acceptance of the basic function of natural selection to create variety (albeit only within "kinds" according to creationists), why are they more prepared to accept a biblical explanation riddled with more serious problems than authorship, provenance, or accuracy that raises more questions than it answers over the compelling evidence of common descent.

Biological evolution is both variation through mutations and natural selection; hence, the understanding of both is important for evolution. Since the creationists emphasized mutations in the previous question as a part of evolution, why do they ignore it now?


Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30+ at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence? Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” (includes animation) As stated on Talk Origins:
There is no reason to think that the life around today is comparable in complexity to the earliest life. All of the simplest life would almost certainly be extinct by now, outcompeted by more complex forms.


Self-replicators can be incredibly simple, as simple as a strand of six DNA nucleotides.[12] This is simple enough to form via prebiotic chemistry. Self-replication sets the stage for evolution to begin, whether or not you call the molecules 'life.'[13]


6. Why do living things bear the hallmarks of design, if no one designed them?

Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes? They don't. The claim that living things bear the hallmarks of design is, at best, a mere assertion based on the argument from ignorance that evolution's supposed failure to explain biological complexity, labeled as "too much design," necessarily entails a designer. It doesn't. If there is a designer who created this universe, then that designer is clearly imperfect because of the abundance of imperfect phenomena such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and microbial life that can inflict death and disease on its victims. Clearly such design is imperfect. Creationists love to point to the seemingly "beautiful" appearance of DNA as evidence for design, yet they do not take into consideration the harmful mutations and genetic deformities that are sometimes caused by the faulty coding of DNA. Obviously, deformities are not evidence of a perfect creator. Despite creationists' subjective characterization of the appearances, their claim of the existence of a designer does not logically follow from evolution's perceived lack of explanatory power. As Kenneth Miller puts it, the illusion of design to a creationist is
a negative argument in the sense that their proof of the existence of a designer is the alleged inadequacy of evolution to account for these complex features. What's wrong with that explanation is that it's a contrived dualism. It's an argument that says, "Either evolution can explain everything, or we can invoke an intelligent designer" ... The whole idea of intelligent design is a confession on the part of its advocates that they actually can't get any evidence at all in favor of a designer. So what they resort to is the notion that it's either evolution or it's design. And if evolution right now, today, cannot explain everything, that lack of a complete explanation amounts to evidence for the other side.[14]

Richard Dawkins is addressing the pervasive illusion of design in the quote CMI uses. CMI omits Dawkins' long explanation of why biological complexity does not require a designer, which is a central premise of The Blind Watchmaker. Francis Crick's is also here expressing his awareness of our innate tendency to ascribe motives and intentionality to unguided physical processes. And it's really no wonder that scientists are vigilant against indulging the innate human bias toward assuming complexity entails design. After reading On the Origin of Species, which details Darwin's explanation of how the unaided laws of physics could mimic design, Thomas Huxley exclaimed “How extremely stupid not to have thought of that.”[15]

Were one to play the game of supposing what an intelligent designer would do, it would at least be according to the familiar principle that designs should strive for simplicity, not complexity. Yet, this is the opposite of what we see when we examine things closely. The great variety of complex biological structures is the kind of accident you'd expect to happen with an unguided process like evolution rather than if someone carefully put organisms together from scratch. Thus, in presuming to ascribe motive to a designer, one actually finds examples of bad design.

Nonetheless, science isn't concerned with ascribing motives to physical processes, but with providing naturalistic explanations. Thus, it's odd that CMI makes an unstated distinction between "naturalistic causes" and "logical causes" when the success of Intelligent Design Creationism as a scientific theory depends on its ability to identify purported design consistent with the scientific method, i.e. by providing naturalistic explanations. One then assumes that "logical causes" is a codeword for goddidit, which is an argument from ignorance that's not a tool available to science. Scientists don't reject goddidit a priori out of some dogmatic bias against religion. Science is concerned with naturalistic explanations because invoking the supernatural violates Occam's razor by raising more questions than it answers. That is why science should be "restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes." Or, as Richard Dawkins put it,


7. How did multi-cellular life originate?

How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to co­operate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?

It was beneficial for single-celled organisms to work together. For instance, mitochondria, the "power sources" of cells, were once separate organisms. Other cells benefit from their ability to generate power while the mitochrondial cells benefit from a constant stream of food supplied to them by the larger organism. "The intermediate stage between one-celled and multicelled life need not have been two-celled. The first requirement is for signals between cells, which is necessary if cells are to cooperate in division of labor to break down a food source. Many bacteria utilize a variety of different signals. The evolution of a signal for cooperative swarming has been observed in one bacterium.[16]"[17]

"The transition to multicellularity has been studied in experiments with Pseudomonas fluorescens, which showed that 'transitions to higher orders of complexity are readily achievable'.[18] Choanoflagellates, which are unicellular and colonial organisms related to multicelled animals, express several proteins similar to those used in cell interactions, showing that such proteins could arise in single-celled animals and be co-opted for multicellular development.[19]"[17]

"Desmidoideae is a class of conjugating green algae, phylum Gamophyta. Most desmids form pairs of cells whose cytoplasms are joined at an isthmus.[20] The bacterium Neisseria also tends to form two-celled arrangements. As noted above, this may not be relevant to the evolution of multicellularity."[17] Recent studies have shown that the jump to multi-cellular may not be as big a jump as once thought[21]

8. How did sexual reproduction originate?

Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs). "Sexual reproduction allows for evolution to occur at a much faster pace than asexual reproduction. Organisms that exchanged DNA were thus able to evolve out of situations that might have killed their asexual counterparts. The variety of life cycles is very great. It is not simply a matter of being sexual or asexual. There are many intermediate stages. A gradual origin, with each step favored by natural selection, is possible.[22] The earliest steps involve single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information; they need not be distinct sexes. Males and females most emphatically would not evolve independently. Sex, by definition, depends on both male and female acting together. As sex evolved, there would have been some incompatibilities causing sterility (just as there are today), but these would affect individuals, not whole populations, and the genes that cause such incompatibility would rapidly be selected against."[23]

9. Why do the millions of “missing links” remain missing?

Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolu­tionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also admit the problem. They don't. Every fossil ever found is a link between older and newer forms. Anybody expecting to find a half crocodile, half duck in the fossil record, or indeed anywhere, doesn't understand evolution. There is no expectation of countless millions of transitional fossils. When something dies, it is usually disassembled, digested, and decomposed. Only rarely is anything ever fossilized, and even fewer things are very well-preserved.[24] Because the conditions required for that process are so particular, the fossil record can only represent a tiny fraction of everything that has ever lived. Darwin provided many environmental dynamics explaining why no single quarry could ever provide a continuous record of biological events, and why it would be impossible to find all the fossilized ancestors of every lineage. But despite this, he predicted that future generations, having the benefit of better understanding, would discover a substantial number of fossil species which he called “intermediate” or “transitional” between what we see alive today and their taxonomic ancestors at successive levels in paleontological history.



The creationist quote-mined Stephen J. Gould.

10. How do “living fossils” remain unchanged while so many other life forms are supposed to have changed radically? (The classic examples: coelacanth, lemmulus)

Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.” No longer is this considered as much of a problem as creationists might lead you to believe. Thanks to the works of Gould himself for developing the theory of Punctuated equilibrium - which is based on positive evidence, including extensive studies of living and extinct species groups - the stability of a species isn't a barrier to evolution.[26] Simply put; when creatures find no need to adapt to changing situations, they don't change. Punctuated equilibrium is a model where plenty of evolutionary change can happen rapidly due to (relatively) fast changes in the environment. Without this sort of selection pressure there is little driving force to cause evolution to progress - it's simply not right to say that creatures should be constantly changing.

However, there is some debate on the issue of punctuated equilibrium within the scientific community. Richard Dawkins for example, is not convinced by the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis and has argued that the apparent long periods without change are simply an artefact of the fossil record. We know that fossilisation is a rare occurrence, and technically we're lucky to have any, so the alternative explanation is that long periods of slow change are simply smeared out in the evidence record and not recorded. However such debate is exactly what one would expect in science - where facts are not set in stone from an ancient book, and evidence is gathered to refine views.

Evolution can also be more subtle than creatures dramatically changing. It's quite possible that while living fossils have identical exterior appearance, they have in fact changed their internal biochemistry fairly dramatically. Proteins that carry oxygen in the blood, for example, can be slightly altered in structure to change their loading rates as a reaction to slowly changing oxygen levels - and yet the outward appearance of the organism may remain unchanged. Certainly in the relatively large leaps in evolution observed in the lab, whether it be speciation of fruit flies or the Lenski experiment, massive changes in appearance aren't necessarily observed, but the change is instead confined internally.

11. How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning and morality?

If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes? This is an argument from adverse consequences and a straw man. Evolution makes no statement about the existence of God. The concept of "God" is irrelevant to the theory of evolution and so is morality or the meaning of life. Creationists should know this, but they repeat this lie shamelessly. Although the theory of evolution does not necessarily refute God (or Gods or fairies) it certainly and clearly does away with a literal belief in the book of Genesis. And this is what creationists are really trying to defend: an infallible authority of a story that tells us that the universe was the product of magic.

Intelligence is a simple evolutionary trait.[27] Its development has led to humans becoming one of the most successful species on the planet.[note 1] Meaning and morality are entirely human-generated concepts.

Furthermore, organisms develop from egg to full organism all the time through "blind" chemistry. Is that a problem?

  1. Depending on the definition of "success." Time will tell what species comes out "on top".

12. Why do evolutionists tolerate the telling of “just-so” stories in their work?

Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS (USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.” Evolution “just-so” story is based on facts, unlike creationism or any other alternative. Evolution with natural selection is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or scientific validity. There has only ever been one alternative theory against it, and it was an earlier version of evolution (Lamarckism).

No branch of creationism has ever met even one of the criteria required of a theory. They can’t because science demands both accuracy and accountability. So there has to be a way to detect and correct any errors in a given explanation, and determine for certain whether it’s wrong in whole or in part, or whether any of it is true to any degree at all. A theory has to be tested indefinitely. It demands understanding instead of belief. So it must be based on verifiable evidence; It must explain related observations with a measurable degree of accuracy; It must withstand continuous critical analysis in peer review, and it must be falsifiable too. If it doesn’t fulfill all these conditions at once, then it isn’t science. If it meets none of them, it may be religion.

13. What scientific breakthroughs resulted from evolutionary theory?

Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers ….” Evolution actually hinders medical discovery. Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? Evolution is an extraordinary breakthrough in its own right. It explains how, through a series of simple steps, every living thing on the planet came into existence. These days, evolutionary concepts are being applied to fields such as electronics to help create efficient circuits. In computer science, genetic algorithms, which are based on evolutionary concepts, are very effective in many kinds of applications – for a simple illustration, see Dawkins weasel. (Dembski disagrees, of course, but he didn't exactly understand the point of using GAs to begin with, as our discussions of his papers show.) There are many evolutionary breakthroughs, and the first person this pamphlet provided admitted it. As for the second, he forgets evolutionary theory is not only beneficial to medicine but also agriculture. In 1970, Norman Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because his understanding of the theory of evolution and genetics helped him mass produce crops to feed millions of people.[28] Also, evolutionary psychology and neuroscience investigates the complexity of biological characteristics that give rise to psychological disorders and neurotic behaviors by developing an understanding of evolution. Evolutionary psychology examines psychological traits such as memory, perception, and language from a modern evolutionary perspective.

The quote from Dr. Skell is a prime example of an appeal to authority. That is to say that as a chemist he is speaking outside his field[29] when he refers to evolution. Evolutionary physiology is a distinct field, and there is a journal devoted to molecular biology and evolution.[30] Any study of DNA sequences over time or sequence comparison between organisms could be considered evolution biochemistry or molecular biology. Skell's assertion about evolutionary medicine is unsupported. The distinction between "experimental biology" and "evolution" is a straw man, as there are experimental instances of evolution.

14. Why is evolution taught as operational science, when it does not involve true experiment?

You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.” There have been plenty of experiments carried out that demonstrate evolution. One of the most famous is one carried out by professor Richard Lenski, which led to so many creationist red faces.

The fact that CMI refuse to accept the results tells us a lot about CMI but little about evolution. Evolution can be observed and tested right now. You certainly can observe what happened in the past. If you come across a crime scene, detectives observe and test all the available evidence to come to the truth. The fossil record and genetics provides us with a observation what happened in the past. Creationists ask for evidence that we descended from apes - when the most obvious evidence for this is that we are, in fact, apes.

15. Why is evolution accepted and taught as science when in fact it cannot explain the evidence?

Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ....” Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught? It can. CMI simply refuses to acknowledge this. Evolution is not dogmatic or a fundamental religious idea. Evolution is the branch of biology which explains biodiversity. As such it doesn’t permit supernatural explanations, has no doctrines nor dogma and it doesn’t allow faith. It holds nothing sacred; it neither promotes nor discourages belief in gods or souls, and says nothing about how we should live or what happens after we die. Evolution is therefore NOT a religion, and creationists KNOW it's not –but they say it is anyway.

Popper's use of the word "metaphysical," contrary to the hopes of creationists, does not mean religious, but rather refers to an untestable idea that still leads to testable predictions. Popper also said of evolution: "And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that."[31] Popper also later changed his mind on the testability of natural selection: "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation."[32]

The quote from Michael Ruse is misleading. Ruse objects when, in his words, "evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion." Ruse argues that anyone who does this should be careful to distinguish between science, and philosophical viewpoints based on science.[33]

See also

External Links


  2. Creation advocates start campaign to ‘question evolution’, Conservative News and Views, 4 May 2011
  5. It was only in the 1930's that Mendelian genetics was proposed as a mechanism of evolution, and 1952 that the Hershey-Chase experiment confirmed that DNA is the operative material of genetics. Significant advances in molecular biology run apace and even snowball, yet it is only creationists who are so demanding of the scientific community that it answer all these questions right this very moment. And even then their focus is strictly on scientific fields perceived to conflict with their peculiar religious dogma; one will never see similar impatience directed toward "creation scientists'" failure to advance their various "fields of study." Nor will Creationists ever be critical of the 218 intervening years between Isaac Newton's 1687 Principia and Albert Einstein's 1905 On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.
  8. James P. Ferris, et. al, "Synthesis of long prebiotic oligomers on mineral surfaces", Nature, Vol. 381, 2 May 1996, pp. 59-61
  9. Indiana University. "'Lost' Miller-Urey Experiment Created More Of Life's Building Blocks." ScienceDaily, 17 Oct. 2008. Web. 6 Jul. 2011.
  10. "Evolutionary age" is a creationist code word for "older than 6,000 years and therefore incompatible with our dogmatic worldview."
  12. Talk Origins cites 1.Sievers, D. and G. von Kiedrowski. 1994. Self-replication of complementary nucleotide-based oligomers. Nature 369: 221-224.
  16. Talk Origins cites Velicer, G. J. and Y. N. Yu. 2003. "Evolution of novel cooperative swarming in the bacterium Myxococcus xanthus." Nature, 425, 75-78.
  17. 17.0 17.1 17.2
  18. Talk origins cites Rainey, Paul B. and Katrina Rainey. 2003. Evolution of cooperation and conflict in experimental bacterial populations. Nature 425: 72-74.
  20. Talk origins cites 2. Margulis, Lynn and Karlene V. Schwartz. 1982. Five Kingdoms San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
  22. Talk Originis cites Kondrashov, Alexey S., 1997. Evolutionary genetics of life cycles. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 391-435.
  26. Eldredge, Niles and S. J. Gould (1972). "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism" In T.J.M. Schopf, ed., Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman Cooper. pp. 82-115. Reprinted in N. Eldredge Time frames. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1985, pp. 193-223.
  28. Wikipedia: Norman Borlaug
  29. Panda's Thumb on Dr Skell
  30. Molecular Biology and Evolution.
  31. Talk Origins Index of Creation Claims CA211.1 Popper on natural selection's testability
Personal tools