Part 2 of 2 (click here for part 1)
L.G.Modern high-speed supercomputers have now used large-scale number crunching to calculate the eons of time and probabilities that are required to develop a cell through chance and mutation. The result? The odds are essentially zero, no matter how many millions or billions of years pass. (p.6)
I flat out call bullshit on this one. I want to see references. First I doubt the claim that anyone has wasted the time on a supercomputer. Second I am unaware of anyone arguing that the first cell developed simply through “chance and mutation”. No one knows the process by which the first cell formed, therefore no probabilities can be attached its likelihood.
L.G. The famous astronomer Sir Fredrick Hoyle (Professor, and Founder of the Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge University) compares the probability of spontaneous life to lining up 1×1050 (one with 50 zeros after it) blind people, giving them each a scrambled Rubik’s cube, and finding that they all solve the cube at the same moment. (p.6)
The origin of life is a separate, though related, question from the evolution of life after it originated. But let’s set that aside for the moment and get to know the authority they are quoting on this a little better.
Sir Fred Hoyle was a noted astronomer who did important work in his field (he coined the term “Big Bang”, to mock the hypothesis). However later in his life he descended into crank-hood when he began writing books attacking evolution and putting forth his own beliefs on the development of life on Earth. Hoyle’s preferred alternative to evolutionary theory was directed panspermia. Basically he argued that some sort of alien intelligence somewhere in space would periodically rain illness causing viruses down upon the Earth; viruses which could also bring about rapid biological changes in certain groups of plants and animals. He even went so far as to suggest that not only viruses but perhaps larger organisms such as insects might also originate in outer space.
In at least one of his books on the subject he seriously put forward the idea that insects might be as intelligent as humans but were hiding this fact from us, playing dumb for some sort of strategic advantage.
The situation points clearly to one of two possibilities. Either we are dealing with an overt plan invented by an intelligence considerably higher than our own, an intelligence which has foreseen all our chemicals and flamethrowers, or the insects have already experienced selection Pressure against intelligences of at least our level in many other environments elsewhere in the universe.
There is a curious variant of the first possibility. Could the insects themselves be the intelligence much higher than our own? We are so conditioned to thinking that the intelligence of a species can be exemplified by an individual member that it is hard to assess a situation in which each individual might show little intelligence, but in which the combined aggregate of individuals might show much. Yet it is so in our own brains, where no individual neuron can be said to display intelligence but in which the aggregate of neurons constitutes exactly what we understand by intelligence.
The static nature of insect societies goes against this thinking. If an enormous intelligence inhabits the beehives of the world, we might expect more evidence of its presence. But this may again be to endow an opponent with our own restless characteristics. Perhaps concealment is an essential tactic. Perhaps the intelligence is static because it understands the dictum of sagacious lawyers: ‘When your case is going well, say nothing’.
The insect case is indeed going well. Along with the chemicals and the flamethrowers, there are nuclear bombs also. Insects are highly resistant to X-rays and other forms of ionizing radiation. Insects can frequent dumps of radioactive waste without harm. Nor are the plants on which insects feed harmed at all by radioactivity. This sets the scene for the future. From nuclear war only one creature will profit hugely, the insect. Insects may be close to inheriting the Earth without a struggle. It may well seem that man arrived in a brief moment, and then disappeared even more swiftly than he came. – Hoyle & Wickramasinghe (1981, pp. 127- 128) [Emphasis mine]
Creationists have been fond of quoting Fred Hoyle for some time because of his fame as an astronomer (giving him a false sense of authority) and his frequent antievolutionary statements. They are somewhat less fond of letting their audience know what Hoyle’s oddball alternative to evolution was or what some of his more eccentric ideas were. For more on this see my article: Antievolutionists’ Use of Quotations from Minority Or Fringe Scientists.
L.G.Those classic textbooks depicting various breeds of dogs as “evolution in action” are misleading. Why? Because all those poodles, labs, and shepherds are still dogs! Yes, there is evidence of change within a species, but there is no evidence of one species changing into a truly different form. (p.7)
The same thing is seen in artificial selection, with all the various modern breeds of dogs being more specialized than the parent (mongrel) population, but carrying less information–and thus less potential for further selection (you can’t breed Great Danes from Chihuahuas). In all these sorts of changes, finches are still finches and dogs are dogs. The limits to change are set by the amount of information originally present from which to select. – Carl Wieland (1992) [Emphasis mine]
“When weasels breed together, they produce more weasels, just like themselves.” This was one of the captions I read as I entered the display on Darwin and natural selection at the British Museum of Natural History, in London. As I continued on through the display, I discovered that dogs breed dogs and that moths breed moths. In fact, each kind of animal talked about in the display breeds its own kind, not an animal of a different kind. Certainly there was variation within a kind, but dogs always stayed dogs, and weasels always stayed weasels. – Ken Ham (1991) [Emphasis mine]
Dog breeders have used mutations to change the dog for hunting man’s way. They have made many grotesque forms and are still trying to make the ‘best’ domestic dog. But all results considered, man has still not made a dog into a non-dog or a more doggish dog (every postman can verify this). – L. Johannesen (1981) [Emphasis mine]
Darwin and other evolutionists have supposed that the varieties of finches now living in the Galapagos Islands, a group of islands lying 600 miles and more west of South America, have arisen from migrants from South America. The original migrants, it is believed, were more or less uniform, but mutation with natural selection has given rise over a long period of time to finches that now inhabit the various islands and which possess differences (mainly in size and shape of the bill) in response to variations in the type of food supply found on the several islands.
Creationists interpret these data in much the same way, with some important exceptions. They point out, first of all, that the variation that has apparently occurred among these finches is very limited, for these finches are not only still birds, but they are still finches. Neither the molecule-to-man idea of evolution, nor the idea that basically different kinds of birds, such as ducks, hummingbirds, and vultures, have arisen from a common ancestor is supported by such evidence. – Duane Gish (1975) [Emphasis mine]
Here we have another creationist standard. When presented with evidence of small scale morphological change from either animal breeding or observed evolutionary adaptations in wild populations, creationists wave it away dismissively with comments such as: “but they’re still moths”.
However no one has ever claimed that these were examples of anything but small scale changes. On the contrary, these small scale changes are the only sort of changes we should be able to observe in the limited time scales involved (within a human lifetime or two).
Basically creationists are demanding that scientists produce examples of large scale changes (like between fish and amphibians) taking place on a human time scale as evidence for evolutionary theory. The problem is standard evolutionary theory says this should not be possible; that such change require time on a more geologic scale to occur.
So we would have to essentially falsify current evolutionary theory to in order to corroborate it to their satisfaction. Heads they win, tails we lose.
L.G.A great example is the bat. Evolutionists believe the bat evolved from a mouse-like creature whose forelimbs gradually evolved into wings. But think through this evolutionary progression: The mouse’s front limbs mutate and grow longer, and skin begins to grow between the toes. Now the animal can’t run without stumbling, yet its forelimbs are not long enough to function as wings. So during this transitional stage, the mouse-bat has limbs too long for running and too short for flying. Unable to efficiently get around, it would become extinct.
It is difficult to explain or imagine how bat wings could have been formed in unplanned gradual stages – which may be why there is no geological evidence of this “transitional” process; the first time bats appear in the fossil record, they are fully formed, with wings. (p.8)
Ah, the classic argument from personal incredulity. If a creationist cannot imagine how something might have happened then it must not have. Fortunately nature is not limited by the imaginations of creationists and all one must do is look at other living things to find a few reasonable analogues for the ancestral bat.
Two obvious analogues are the flying squirrel:
And the colugo (“flying lemur”):
Click on the image above and go to the web-site that is the source of the photo for a much larger version. You can clearly see the webbing between the toes. There is also a wonderful picture of a female carrying her baby in flight.
A Less obvious analog is the Wallace’s flying frog with it’s elongated limbs and oversized webbed toes.
Seeing that creatures like these not only exist but get along quite nicely with their supposedly cumbersome skin flaps and toe webbing, makes it rather easy to imagine the ancestral bat looking something like a colugo with it’s wrist-to-hip skin membrane and long webbed toes. Initially gliding from tree to tree in some primeval forest and ultimately evolving the fully powered flight found in living bats.
L.G.Even Darwin assumed that we would eventually find a substantial record of such evolution among the millions of fossils uncovered in the 130+ years of searching. In his own words: “The number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great.” In fact, the fossil record as a whole, contrary to conventional wisdom, actually gives persuasive evidence against Darwinian evolution, as we shall see…
Top scientists agree about the weak evidence for Darwinianism in the fossil record (p.10)
They talk about “top scientists”, which in this case should be referring to “top” paleontologists and yet all they do is quote Michael Denton, a biochemist, and Stephen C. Meyer a philosopher of science?
They couldn’t even be bothered to quote a mainstream paleontologist out of context?
Or find a crank who wasn’t a past or current member of the Discovery Institute? They’re not even trying here.
Let’s start here with the 23 year old comment from non-paleontologist Denton:
L.G.“The gaps which separate species: dog/fox, rat/mouse, etc. are utterly trivial compared with, say, that between a primitive terrestrial mammal and a whale, or a primitive terrestrial reptile and an ichthyosaur; and even these relatively major discontinuities are trivial alongside those which divide major phyla such as mollusks and arthropods.
Surely such transitions must have involved long lineages including many collateral lines of hundreds or perhaps thousands of transitional species.”
“To suggest that the hundreds, thousands, or possibly millions of “transitional” species which must have existed in the interval between vastly dissimilar types were all unsuccessful species occupying isolated areas and having very small population numbers [i.e., we just haven’t found them yet] is verging on the incredible!” (p.10)
Amusingly they are giving us a quote from antievolutionist Denton’s 1985 book Evolution: A theory in crisis (antievolutionists have been claiming that evolution is in crisis since 1859), which is not only out of date but somewhat out of context as well. The quote in context is talking about punctuated equilibria:
While Eldredge and Gould’s model [punctuated equilibria] is a perfectly reasonable explanation of the gaps between species (and, in my view, correct) it is doubtful if it can be extended to explain the larger systematic gaps. The gaps which separate species: dog/fox, rat/mouse etc are utterly trivial compared with, say, that between a primitive terrestrial mammal and a whale or a primitive terrestrial reptile and an Ichthyosaur; and even these relatively major discontinuities are trivial alongside those which divide major phyla such as molluscs and arthropods. Such major discontinuities simply could not, unless we are to believe in miracles, have been crossed in geologically short periods of time through one or two transitional species occupying restricted geographical areas. Surely, such transitions must have involved long lineages including many collateral lines of hundreds or probably thousands of transitional species (see diagram on page 175). To suggest that the hundreds, thousands or possibly even millions of transitional species which must have existed in the interval between vastly dissimilar types were all unsuccessful species occupying isolated areas and having very small population numbers is verging on the incredible! - Denton (1985, pp. 193-194)
Here Denton agrees that punctuated equilibrium is a “perfectly reasonable explanation” for species level gaps in the fossil record, but not for gaps between higher taxonomic groups. However given the fact that PE was never intended by Eldredge & Gould to apply to gaps between higher taxonomic groups, Denton is attacking a straw man of his own construction.
From Eldredge and Gould’s original paper on PE:
In this paper we shall argue
(1) The expectations of theory color perception to such a degree that new notions seldom arise from facts collected under the influence of old pictures of the world. New pictures must cast their influence before facts can be seen in different perspective.
(2) Paleontology’s view of speciation has been dominated by the picture of “phyletic gradualism.” It holds that new species arise from the slow and steady transformation of entire populations. Under its influence, we seek unbroken fossil series linking two forms by insensible gradation as the only complete mirror of Darwinian processes; we ascribe all breaks to imper¬fections in the record.
(3) The theory of allopatric (or geographic) speciation suggests a different interpretation of paleontological data. If new species arise very rapidly in small, peripherally isolated local populations, then the great expectation of insensibly graded fossil sequences is a chimera. A new species does not evolve in the area of its ancestors; it does not arise from the slow transformation of all its forbears. Many breaks in the fossil record are real.
(4) The history of life is more adequately represented by a picture of “punctuated equilibria” than by the notion of phyletic gradualism. The history of evolution is not one of stately unfolding, but a story of homeostatic equilibria, disturbed only “rarely” (i.e., rather often in the fullness of time) by rapid and episodic events of speciation. – Eldredge & Gould (1972) [Emphasis mine]
And from Gould:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. – Gould (1981) [Emphasis mine]
More significant than Denton’s straw man criticism of PE is that the claims he makes about the lack of transitions between land reptiles and ichthyosaurs and land mammals and whales, have been made obsolete by paleontological evidence in both these groups.
First there is a pretty good temporal and morphological series of fossil ichthyosaurs ranging from basal forms that are not terribly different from terrestrial reptiles to highly derived dolphin-like forms fully adapted to marine life:
In this graphic we can see the pattern of change in ichthyosaur pectoral fin bones from a basal to a more derived form:
The situation with the cetacean fossil record has changed even more. We now have a fairly complete series of fossils ranging from completely terrestrial mammals to the fully aquatic forms that we are all familiar with:
The case for whale evolution is further buttressed by evidence from several different fields of study including comparative anatomy, embryology and genetics.
As for the gaps between different phyla such as “molluscs and arthropods“, the common ancestor of these groups (and other Protostomes, nematodes & annelids etc.) would have lived long before the Cambrian and probably was a tiny soft-bodied worm-like creature. It is possible, though uncommon, for such organisms to fossilize, and perhaps one day we will find something linking these groups.
This will not satisfy antievolutionists (nothing will) but anyone who reflects on the history of paleontology will see that there have been many cases where the fossil record of various groups consisted of one or a very few fossils for decade after decade only later to have new finds dramatically enrich our understanding in a relatively short period of time.
For example, for over a century the fossil record documenting the origin of birds was limited almost exclusively to Archaeopteryx but in the last 20 years or so this has changed almost miraculously with the addition of abundant new material from China and elsewhere (Chiappe, 2007). Likewise the fossil record of whales, discussed above, was fairly limited for many years and has only recently exploded into a far, far, more detailed sampling.
Antievolutionists had crowed for years about the lack of fossil intermediates in both these groups:
What is the true status of Archaeopteryx? Was it a transitional form between reptiles and birds? First, the general nature of the evidence: The sudden appearance, fully formed, of all the complex invertebrates (snails, clams, jellyfish, sponges, worms, sea urchins, brachiopods, trilobites, etc.) without a trace of ancestors, and the sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the first vertebrates) without a trace of ancestors, proves beyond reasonable doubt that evolution has not occurred. Quarrels about disputable cases such as Archaeopteryx are really pointless. Furthermore, there are three other basically different types of flying creatures—flying insects, flying reptiles (now extinct), and flying mammals (bats). It would be strange, indeed, even incomprehensible, that millions of years of evolution of these three basically different types of flying creatures, each involving the remarkable transition of a land animal into a flying animal, would have failed to produce large numbers of transitional forms. If all of that evolution has occurred, our museums should contain scores, if not hundreds or thousands, of fossils of intermediate forms in each case. However, not a trace of an ancestor or transitional form has ever been found for any of these creatures! – Duane Gish (1989) [Emphasis mine]
The marine mammals thus abruptly appear in the fossil record as whales, dolphins, sea-cows, etc. For example, in one of Romer’s concluding statements in his discussion of the subungulates (conies, elephants, sea-cows), he says “…conies, proboscideans, and sirenians were already distinct groups at the time when they first appear in the fossil record.” Olson states that if we seek the ancestries of the marine mammals we run into a blank wall as far as intermediate stages between land and sea are concerned. His remark included the seals, dolphins and whales. There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record between the marine mammals and their supposed land mammal ancestors. – Duane Gish (1980) [Emphasis mine]
If paleontologists had accepted their argument –that since intermediates had not yet been found in these groups, they probably never existed (and therefore not looked for them) – our knowledge of past life on Earth would be a lot poorer for it.
L.G.Paleontology confirms the abrupt appearance of the major groups of animals—dozens of genetic types—in the fossil record during a geologically sudden explosion of life in the Cambrian period, the so-called “big bang” of biology. How were all those major animal groups produced in such a relatively short span of time (a few million years according to conventional geologic dating)? (p.10-11)
Even though the gaps in the fossil record are found between each basic animal type, there are two huge gaps, which should be emphasized. The evolutionary distance between single celled organisms and the vast array of multicellular, highly complex marine invertebrates precludes even rapid evolution. In the supposedly 600-million-year-old layers of rock designated as Cambrian (the first appearance of multicelled life), sponges, clams, trilobites, sea urchins, starfish, etc., etc., are found with no evolutionary ancestors. Evolutionists don’t even have any possible ancestors to propose. And then the gap from marine invertebrates to the vertebrate fish is likewise immense. To make matters worse for the evolutionists, fish fossils are also found in Cambrian strata. If evolution is true, fish must have evolved from something, and invertebrates must also have evolved from something. Evolution has no ancestor to propose, but the evidence exactly fits the creation model, for creation insists that each animal type was created fully formed, with no evolutionary transition. - John Morris (1989) [Emphasis mine]
In the Cambrian geological strata there occurs a sudden, great outburst of fossils of animals on a highly developed level of complexity. In the Cambrian rocks are found billions of fossils of animals so complex that the evolutionists estimate they would have required one and a half billion years to evolve. Trilobites, brachiopods, sponges, corals, jellyfish, in fact every one of the major invertebrate forms of life are found in the Cambrian. What is found in rocks supposedly older than the Cambrian, that is in the so-called pre-Cambrian rocks? Not a single indisputable fossil! Certainly it can be said without fear of contradiction, the evolutionary predecessors of the Cambrian fauna have never been found. – Duane Gish (1973) [Emphasis mine]
The “few million years” of the Cambrian explosion is actually more like five to ten million years and rocks of Cambrian age are not the oldest containing fossils of multicellular life forms, for example, there are the Vendian/Ediacaran biota. Nor do all important groups of living things appear in the Cambrian, for instance, plants (save for some forms of algae) do not appear until much later. The same is true for some animal phyla such as Bryozoans.
But let’s have some more historical perspective. When Darwin originally published the Origin of Species in 1859 it wasn’t the “Cambrian explosion”, since fossil of complex organisms had not yet been found in Cambrian rock at that time. Instead it was the “Silurian explosion”:
On the sudden appearance of groups of Allied Species in the lowest known fossiliferous strata. There is another and allied difficulty, which is much graver. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group, suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. Most of the arguments which have convinced me that all the existing species of the same group have descended from one progenitor, apply with nearly equal force to the earliest known species. For instance, I cannot doubt that all the Silurian trilobites have descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known animal. Some of the most ancient Silurian animals, as the Nautilus, Lingula, &c., do not differ much from living species; and it cannot on my theory be supposed, that these old species were the progenitors of all the species of the orders to which they belong, for they do not present characters in any degree intermediate between them. If, moreover, they had been the progenitors of these orders, they would almost certainly have been long ago supplanted and exterminated by their numerous and improved descendants.
Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.
To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer. Several of the most eminent geologists, with Sir R. Murchison at their head, are convinced that we see in the organic remains of the lowest Silurian stratum the dawn of life on this planet. Other highly competent judges, as Lyell and the late E. Forbes, dispute this conclusion. We should not forget that only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy. M. Barrande has lately added another and lower stage to the Silurian system, abounding with new and peculiar species. Traces of life have been detected in the Longmynd beds beneath Barrande’s so-called primordial zone. The presence of phosphatic nodules and bituminous matter in some of the lowest azoic rocks, probably indicates the former existence of life at these periods. But the difficulty of understanding the absence of vast piles of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory no doubt were somewhere accumulated before the Silurian epoch, is very great. If these most ancient beds had been wholly worn away by denudation, or obliterated by metamorphic action, we ought to find only small remnants of the formations next succeeding them in age, and these ought to be very generally in a metamorphosed condition. But the descriptions which we now possess of the Silurian deposits over immense territories in Russia and in North America, do not support the view, that the older a formation is, the more it has suffered the extremity of denudation and metamorphism. – Darwin (1859)
As with the origin of whales and birds, the situation changed with new paleontological finds, so that in later editions Darwin changed it from the Silurian to the Cambrian. But perhaps we should just listened to the creationists and stopped looking for [more] Precambrian fossils. After all, they insist that the the ancestors of Cambrian fauna never existed and given their scientific track record how could we possibly argue?
Where does the science lead?
L.G. As we have seen, there is strong evidence from several areas of science for intelligent design—and equally strong evidence raising serious doubts about Darwinism. Why, then, isn’t the scientific establishment more open to allowing genuine discussion and debate over Darwinism? (p.12)
What we have actually seen is that intelligent design creationism is little more than the same old discredited “creation science” arguments against evolution, often almost word for word, without the more testable assertions involving a recently created Earth and Noah’s flood.
L.G. More than 700 scientists have signed this statement!
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” (p.12)
Here we have an appeal to authority. Yes they have a list of scientists, and many of them are the usual creationist suspects. Still others are scientists whose field of study is not particularly relevant to the subject of evolutionary theory. More importantly they constitute a tiny fraction of the global scientific community.
Besides there are more than 800 scientists who signed this statement:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.
All these scientists have relevant doctorates in biology, geology, paleontology and other related scientific fields and more significantly they are all named Steve!
L.G.In a 1998 survey, nearly 95% of biologists in the National Academy of Science identified themselves as atheists or agnostics. Similarly, in a 2003 survey of leading evolutionists, 87% denied the existence of God and 88% disbelieved in life after death.
[...] Given the anti-religious views of many leading Darwinists, it’s certainly possible that some of the current close-mindedness in the scientific community about intelligent design and evolution stems from personal prejudice rather than the facts of science. (p.12)
Then of course there is the Clergy Letter Project which has collected signatures of over 11,000 clergy who “believe that”:
…The timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.
What a bunch of materialist atheistic “Darwinists” they must be…
Why Does It Matter?
This section is a combination of two fallacious arguments both of which descend with little modification from “creation science” sources. First an Argumentum ad Consequentiam where they claim that accepting evolution leads to bad consequences like an increase in abortions and euthanasia (and whatever else conservative Christians don’t like).
When we look at the United States and other countries today, we see increases in homosexuality, support for abortion on demand, disobedience to those in authority, people who do not want to work, pornography, the abandonment of marriage and modest clothing, to name but a few examples. …It used to be that creationism was taught through the school system. People who weren’t Christians by and large respected and obeyed the laws based upon the Bible. A homosexual lifestyle was against the law; abortion in most instances was considered murder.
But what happened? A man called Charles Darwin repopularized an ancient pagan belief now called “evolution.” – Ken Ham (1987)
Secondly they present a Reductio ad Hitlerum argument, which is basically a charge of guilt by association. Nazis and other bad guys used evolution in their rationalization for persecuting and killing others and therefore evolution must be suspect or wrong. And again this is not new to ID creationism:
The evolutionary philosophy is the intellectual basis of all anti-theistic systems. It served Hitler as the rationale for Nazism and Marx as the supposed, scientific basis for communism. It is the basis of the various modern methods of psychology and sociology that treat man merely as a higher animal and which have led to the misnamed “new morality” and ethical relativism. It has provided the pseudo-scientific rationale for racism and military aggression. Its whole effect on the world and mankind has been harmful and degrading. Jesus said: “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit” (Matthew 7:18). The evil fruit of the evolutionary philosophy is evidence enough of its evil roots.
Thus, evolution is Biblically unsound, theologically contradictory, and sociologically harmful. – Henry Morris (1973)
Here is a creationist graphic that pretty much says it all:
It would be like arguing that since the formulation of relativity theory led to our ability to construct nuclear weapons (no IF about that) then relativity must be wrong or questionable, which of course would be absolute lunacy.
Of course the use of the Reductio ad Hitlerum argument also opens up other possible contributing factors to the Holocaust to criticism. One could make a much more compelling case that nearly two thousand years of traditional Christian antisemitism played a far more central role in the lead up to the Holocaust than evolutionary theory.
The fact that Christians have been persecuting and killing Jews for millennia doesn’t disprove Christianity any more than the fact that the Nazis used a bastardization of evolutionary theory to justify their barbarity disproves evolution.
It has been said that intelligent design is creationism in a cheap tuxedo. I’d say, judging by the Expelled Leader’s Guide, it’s more like creationism in one of those t-shirts printed to look like a tuxedo with a couple beer stains on the front.
Chiappe, Luis M. (2007) Glorified Dinosaurs: The origin and early evolution of birds, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Darwin, Charles (1859) On the Origin of Species, First Edition
Denton, Michael (1986) Evolution a Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler Publishers Inc. Bethesda, MD
Eldredge, Niles & Gould, Stephen Jay (1972)”Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism” In T.J.M. Schopf, ed., Models in Paleobiology, Freeman Cooper, San Francisco, CA, pp. 82-115. Reprinted in Eldredge, Niles (1985) Time frames, Princeton Univ. Press, pp.193-223
Gould, Stephen Jay (1981) “Evolution as Fact and Theory”, Discover 2 (May): 34-37
Hoyle, Fred & Wickramasinghe, Chandra (1981) Evolution From Space, A Theory of Cosmic Creationism, Simon & Schuster