Problems with evolution are evidence for creation
From EvoWiki
Contents |
Claim
Problems with evolution are evidence for creationism.
Source
- D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution, " Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4.[1]
Responses
- As a general rule, a problem with Theory X does not constitute evidence in favor of Theory Y. Mind you, it certainly isn't impossible that a problem with Theory X might be evidence in favor of Theory Y, but at the same time there is no a priori reason to believe that a problem with Theory X must be evidence in favor of Theory Y.
Suppose Theory X and Theory Y are both attempts to explain a particular set of evidence, and Theory X says that we should observe Data A in Situation S while Theory Y says we should observe Data B in Situation S. Let's say someone runs the experiment, and in Situation S, he does, in fact, observe Data B. In this case, his observation would be a problem with Theory X that does constitute evidence in favor of Theory Y.
That's fine, but what if the guy running the experiment didn't observe Data A? Suppose he, instead, observed Data C or D? In this case, his observation would be a problem with Theory X and, at the same time, it would also be a problem with Theory Y!
Now let's consider the case where Theories X and Y are both attempts to explain a particular set of evidence, and Theory X says we should observe Data A in Situation S, but Theory Y doesn't say anything at all about what we should observe in Situation S. Let's say that someone runs the experiment, and in Situation S, he observes Data B. Is this a problem for Theory X? Yes, it is. Does it constitute evidence for Theory Y? No, it doesn't -- and the reason why it doesn't, is that Theory Y has nothing to say about what we should observe in Situation S! If Theory Y had said, "You ought to observe Data B", the fact that Data B was observed would support Theory Y... but since Theory Y only said "I got no idea what data should be observed", no observed data would support Theory Y. - To be more specific, there are numerous possibilities.
- Evolution can conceivably happen by mechanisms other than natural selection, genetic drift, and related mechanisms. Including mechanisms like:
- Inheritance of acquired characteristics (Lamarckism)
- Direct induction by the environment
- Mysterious internal forces (orthogenesis)
- Design (genetic engineering)
- And evolution-by-design and special creation may be performed by entities other than many creationists' preferred ones, like extraterrestrial visitors and deities of religions other than theirs.
- Evolution can conceivably happen by mechanisms other than natural selection, genetic drift, and related mechanisms. Including mechanisms like:
- Objections to evolution cannot make 'Creationism' a Scientific Hypothesis; According to the Scientific Method (ref Popper), in order to be scientific, an hypothesis must make falsifiable claims. Most Creationists deny that there is any possible falsification of Creationism, because it is the Truthtm, and as such, not falsifiable. The fact is that, even were every objection of Creationism against evolution 100% accurate ( they aren't ), Creationism as expressed would not constitute a "scientific hypothesis".
- This claim is false, as Creationists have been demonstrated to be thoroughly unmotivated to solve these alleged problems of evolution beyond a token explanation of "God did it."
- This can be demonstrated to be inductive reasoning, using the much-cited example of the flagellum:
- A: There has been much search for the traces of natural selection in the bacterial flagellum.
- B: Scientists cannot find any.
- Conclusion: It can be assumed to be the work of a designer.
- Aside from the fact that B is not true, the logical, deductive conclusion would be Scientists are still searching for a natural explanation.
- add more responses
Fallacies contained in this claim
- False Dilemma (there are more than two options)
- Exclusion (that Creationists don't actually do any scientific research is conveniently ignored)
