Evolutionary theory has become sacrosanct

From EvoWiki

Contents 1 Claim 2 Source 3 Responses 4 Fallacies contained in this claim 5 References 6 Related claims 7 See Also 8 Acknowledgments

Claim

Evolutionary theory, for a variety of nonscientific reasons, has obtained the status of sacred revelation. To express doubts by bringing up the counterevidence to the theory is to brand oneself an intellectual infidel.

Source

• Wiker, Benjamin D., 2003. Does Science Point to God? Part II: The Christian Critics. [1]

Responses

1. The problem with this claim is that the premise is downright false; evolution isn't seen as sacred. The claimants seem to believe that if someone defends an idea, no matter how well established in science, they are defending it as though it were sacred. This is incorrect because they are only defending the facts. There is nothing sacrosanct about the evolutionary theory - it is defended in the same way that the Theory of Gravity or Heliocentric Theory is defended. It is only the action of scientists defending science and facts from non-science and interference.
2. As with all established theories in science, counterevidence is welcome, but presenting it does risk ridicule if the evidence turns out to be obviously misinterpreted (as most do). But, if the evidence is strong enough and plentiful enough, then the paradigm will shift.
3. Evolutionary theory has obtained its status through entirely scientific reasons. For the first 50 or so years, it was on the defensive against counter-claims, but eventually won out because the evidence is on its side.
4. Regardless, this claim doesn't prove that the theory is untrue.
5. Hypocritically, all creationist organizations require all of their employees to follow Statements of faith, in order to ensure that they do not uncover evidence that will potentially contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible.
6. add more responses

Fallacies contained in this claim

• Straw Man (evolutionary theory isn't sancrosanct)
• Red Herring (even if true, it has no bearing on evolution's validity)
• add more fallacies

References

1. AIG, n.d. Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. [2]
2. Kimura, M., 1983. The neutral theory of molecular evolution, Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge.
3. Margulis, Lynn, 1981. Symbiosis in Cell Evolution, New York: W H Freeman & Co.
4. Ohta, Tomoko, 1992. The nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23: 263-286.
5. Woese, Carl R., 2000. Interpreting the universal phylogenetic tree. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(15): 8392-8396 [3]

Related claims

• Evolution is a religion
• Evolution requires as much faith as creationism
• Scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma
• Evolutionists don't accept debate challenges
• Biologists will want to throw you out of the class if you don't believe in evolution
• Biologists will want to have you jailed for mentioning Bible or creation in public schools

See Also

• Why is Creationism not a Scientific Theory?

Acknowledgments