Announcement of Fundie Duane Gish's "Evolution vs. Creationism" lecture at the University of Alaska - Fairbanks in 1986. It's been over a hundred years and these bozos still can't provide falsification tests for their own claims! And they have the nerve to say Evolution is "not a science"!
Incredibly, lowbrow fundies with nothing better to do with their time but make up fantasies (or idiotic cartoons depicting humans talking to relatives as monkeys - yuck yuck), are still circulating the canard that “evolution can’t be tested” or that "there’s no evidence" for it. One wonders where they’ve lived for the past 100+ years. Mayhap in caves? Evolution has been tested and re-tested and found to be consistently validated over short and long term time arcs. A typical fundie, pro-creationist blogger wrote recently - after seeing my blog ( 'Teaching the Controversy" ...Uh No'):
"Both creation and evolution are faith-based systems in regards to origins. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back billions (or thousands) of years to observe the origin of the universe or of life in the universe. Evolutionary scientists reject creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a scientific explanation of origins."
But in truth evolution does provide evidence, so is hardly "faith-based"! For example, we have actual photographic evidence assembled for the telomeric fusion of the ape 2p and 2q chromosomes to become the ‘2’ chromosome in humans. In other words, prima facie evidence of a common ancestor. (See, e.g.: Yunis and Prakash, 1982, Science, Vol. 215, p. 1525, 'The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy')
Then we have the evidence from the DNA (genomic) sequencing of the human and chimpanzee which discloses the remarkable fact that BOTH have the exact SAME cytochrome –c sequence! If evolution were false we’d expect the human and chimp cytochrome-c sequences to vary dramatically given that it exhibits 10^93 variations in functionality with other organisms. That is, 10 followed by ninety three zeros.
In evolution we also have assembled more than 29+ evidences for macro-evolution all of which were originally set out in the context of falsifiable hypotheses, and then accepted because they passed those observational tests. See more at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Another key point showing his lack of education is mixing up the origin of life (or the origin of the cosmos) with evolution. The origin of life falls under the theory of abiogenesis :i.e. the theory of the original inception of life, as opposed to its later evolution by natural selection. The origin of the universe, meanwhile, falls under the theory of cosmogenesis.- or how the cosmos originated. If he can't tell either of these disciplines from Darwinian evolution - how can anything else he writes be trusted? I go even further, and assert that if his education is so defunct he ought not be writing about evolution at ALL!
Yet he goes on to blabber:
Evolutionary scientists reject creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a scientific explanation of origins. Evolution, at least in regard to origins, does not fit the definition of “science” any more than creation does. Evolution is supposedly the only explanation of origins that can be tested; therefore, it is the only theory of origins that can be considered “scientific.” This is foolishness!
NO! The preceding is foolishness! Evolutionary biologists reject creationism because it isn't based on any scientific tests of validity (which can be confirmed) but rather BELIEF, specifically tied to biblical bunkum, as in Genesis ('Adam & Eve', Earth made before Sun etc.). Creationists don't even provide their own tests for falsifying their own alleged theories! For example, the evolutionist provides a falsfication test for his theory of common descent (i.e. that both Man and apes are descended from the same common ancestor) by using the cytochrome-c sequence, say as disclosed in chimps and humans, and asserting that beyond a certain (probability) threshold the test fails. In other words: the probability of Humans and apes coming from a common ancestor is low if the null hypothesis - say, that the cytochrome -c sequence variance occurring in both species is greater or equal to 0.5, is true.. However, the actual probability for this falsity is so very low (roughly 10 followed by ninety three zeros to one) that common descent thereby passes the test. I.e. if evolution were false we’d expect the human and chimp cytochrome-c sequences to vary dramatically given that it exhibits 10^93 variations in functionality with other organisms.
WHAT tests do the creationists offer to falsify their own theories of creation? They offer nothing because creationism is not science but based on beliefs!
Then he compounds his ignorance by saying "supposedly evolution is the only theory of ORIGINS that can be tested" - failing to note evolution is NOT a theory of "origins" - like abiogenesis or cosmogenesis - but a theory of how species separated and developed by natural selection. Again, he shows he lacks understanding of the most basic principles! As Richard Dawkins has accurately noted:
"The theory of evolution by CUMULATIVE NATURAL SELECTION is the ONLY THEORY we KNOW OF that is capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity."
But what does Mr. Fundie say? He claims: "Scientists who advocate evolution are rejecting a plausible theory of origins without even honestly examining its merits, because it does not fit their illogically narrow definition of “science.” This is why radical heathens like our blogger friend are so afraid of letting our students look at both sides."
This again is doggerel since there are not two sides! If there were then the creationists would be able to provide tests for the falsification of their own theory! This they do not provide, so they are proffering a belief system, not one based on evidence! Another example: The creationists claim that the Earth is no more than 6,000 years old yet we have rocks that have been subjected to radio-isotope testing putting them at near 4 billion years old. How do they reconcile these? Well, they cop out by blaming the radio-isotope testing as being "in error" instead of admitting THEY are the ones peddling bollocks! And they want us to use precious class time to push this malarkey on students! And now the evidence for the proof being in the pudding, proving my point that he and his looney tune ilk are pushing religious beliefs not offering any science. He writes:
"If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God"
Note that rather than counter the evidence as I showed at the beginning, they dream up “supernatural theories” of creationism or "God" which can neither be tested or falsified. Also noted his own logic is inverted. It isn't "if creationism is true then there is a Creator" - but IF it is true there must be scientific tests for evidence which are met! This proves my point that they aren't about scientific testing, for which they'd be able to offer falsification tests for their claims, but pushing BELIEF in a "Creator", i.e. a RELIGION. As for evolution being an "enabler" for atheism, I am afraid the guy has no clue and doesn't realize atheism stands on its own whether or not Darwinian evolution is true. But yes, the facts of evolution (i.e. the same cytochrome -c sequence in humans and chimps) DO allow a theory - a truly scientific theory- independent of incorporating any external agents like "creators" or books like the Bible! Does creationism allow a counter scientific 'theory' for a creator? Obviously not! There are no creationist falsification tests provided! This means we must clean up his last remark : ." Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe."
No, evolution proves that a truly scientific theory exists independent of any religious belief in a god. We have all the evidence and other data to show that the hypothesis of a "creator" is redundant, unnecessary. Hence, we follow the principle of Ockham's Razor: that extra hypotheses are not to be increased without necessity.
Evolution is a theory based on actual facts and tests that have been repeated and confirmed thousands of times. If the fundies wish to join us in the 21st century, they will have to accept that -else maybe figure a way to build a time machine to go back to where they really belong: two or three thousand years ago!
No comments:
Post a Comment