Posted by
Jack Fisher on Wednesday, February 04, 2009 11:42:33 AM
Recently, Marvin Olasky posted an article detailing ways to start dialogue between what he called 'darwinists' and believers like himself. The article tried to appear reasonable, but Olasky made no secret of his bias.
First off, he makes one key mistake. There is no such thing in the scientific world as "Darwinism." It isn't an ideology and it isn't a philosophy. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is just that, a theory. And a theory, which Olasky seems to confuse with blind speculation, is defined in science as a coherent explanation about natural phenomena supported by evidence. Olasky then goes onto list what he considers weaknesses of evolution, which if he did any research whatsoever would have known were illogical and disproven claims made by creationists.
First off, he claims there has never been an observed instance of one 'kind' of animal turning into another 'kind.' But he never gives a single explanation for what a 'kind' is. He claims nobody ever saw a dog produce a cat. Well of course! Evolution doesn't allow that. It allows for speciation and common descent from a common ancestor. And speciation has been observed in the wild and in the lab many times. Check the link below for peer reviewed evidence of it:
Then he goes onto claim DNA is like a computer and as such it needs a programmer. But this isn't what DNA is and it's a totally false dichtomy. DNA is NOT like a computer. It is product of chemistry and physics. And moreover, the origin of DNA has NOTHING to do with evolution. That would be Abiogenesis, which does have a body of evidence supporting it, but of course Olasky doesn't make that distinction. No dogmatic, anti-science creationist would. It may cause them to think too much. Moreover, DNA is not necessary to survive. Simple bacteria function just fine without it. They use only RNA. So Orlasky clearly hasn't read a high school science textbook either because anybody with a capacity to check facts would know that.
Lastly, Olasky makes the old irreducible complexity argument, championed by Michael Behe, a noted Intelligent Design advocate. He claims DNA and cells are just too complex to have emerged from natural processes. But once again he shows more ignorance when he says mutations can't account for such change because they're often disadventageous. This is completely wrong and any textbook will confirm that. Most mutations are completely nuetral. And it has been estimated that there are well over 100 per zygote after conception. And over time mutations do accumulate in DNA so that when conditions change, the previously neutral mutation may provide a benefit or detriment. Natural selection takes over.
Orlasky, like all creationists, is working off the assumption that god created everything as it says in the bible and evolution is by definition flawed because it conflicts with his beliefs. This is completely wrong not to mention self-centered. Just because a theory happens to contradict a certain story about a certain deity and believers don't like it doesn't mean that it has to be false. Evolution is true because evidence supports it. And many different fields cross confirm it including palentology, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, and taxonomy. Creationism and Intelligent design isn't cross confirmed by ANYTHING. It's wild speculation from creationists who are trying ot sound more scientific. But they make the same mistake. They try to inject their spiritual beliefs into science and that violates the very definition of science. Science by its own design can only deal with natural forces. Anything supernatural is the domain of speculation, faith, and psuedo-science.
It's also worth noting that people like Orlasky are singling out just one theory. It's easy to forget that biblical dogma also contradicts the heliocentric theory, the theory that the Earth revolves around the sun, and it also contradicts germ theory because the bible says in many passages that disease is caused by evil spirits (1st Samuel 16:14-16). So why evolution? Well evolution is easier to doubt because it deals with the past and there's always a touch of uncertainty when dealing with the past. Even when the evidence is blatently clear, that's not enough for believers. Any gap must discredit the entire theory, thus vindicating their cherished beliefs.
Orlasky ends his article with very dry references to these 'darwinists' he refers to. He plays the old addage that life is such a miracle and it couldn't possibly have just happened naturally. Well that's not a scientific fact. That's a subjective opinion. Science is not nearly as arrogant as Orlasky puts it. Science is willing to state that it does not have all the answers, but it always investigating. Pepole like Orlasky and other creationists adherents are so arrogant they try to make it sound as though they know what science doesn't and only ask that people suspend their reason and believe Bronze Age folklore on faith. Not only is that completely unscientific, it's an afront to human curiosity. Orlasky like every creationist before him doesn't understand what science is, but is willing to attack it if he sees it as an afront to his beliefs. He is willing to ignore all the good that science does just so he and others like him can be content in their beliefs. It is arrogant and conceit in the highest regard and deserves only the greatest of scorn.