Though originally scheduled to take place today, volunteers gathered yesterday on college campuses across the United States to distribute free copies of Darwin's seminal work On the Origin of Species. The volumes included one extra item not found in the original book: an introduction by creationist Ray Comfort, which offers arguments against the theory of evolution. Among his challenges are the common ad hominem attacks against Darwin: accusing him of being a racist and sexist; assertions that Darwin's theory is directly responsible for eugenics, euthanasia, infanticide, and Hitler's philosophy; claims about the lack of transitional fossils; claims that DNA and other complex biological structures could not possibly have emerged via evolution; and even the claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. He also implies that one must reject evolution to be a good Christian. The National Center for Science Education has already created their own online resource -- The Don't Diss Darwin Institute -- to counter the arguments used by Comfort in the introduction. The site offers a detailed analysis of Comfort's introduction along with explanations for why his challenges don't stand up. They also provide a printable pamphlet and bookmark to help "correct" Comfort's materials. The NCSE are not the only ones tackling Comfort's "edited" Origins, however. Christian and evolutionary biologist Ken Miller has also released a pamphlet addressing the preface that was included in the distributed copies.
Though we see no need to compile a pamphlet of our own, the BioLogos Web site and Science and the Sacred have already addressed many of Comfort's arguments against evolution:
- Karl Giberson's post "Who Cares About Darwin?" looks at why ad hominem attacks against Darwin do nothing to disprove the validity of his theory, and addresses the supposed "link" between Darwin and Hitler.
- Our question "How is BioLogos different from Darwinism or Social Darwinism?" explains why the scientific theory of evolution is not the same as Social Darwinism -- a gross misapplication of the theory. The two do not go hand-in-hand.
- Our question "What Does the Fossil Record Show?" gives several examples of transitional fossils, dismissing the idea that no transitional fossils have been found.
- Our question "How can Evolution Account for the Complexity of Life on Earth Today?" and our series of blogs "On Reducing Irreducible Complexity" show why many so called examples of "irreducible complexity" can be explained via evolution, and why the idea of irreducible complexity is philosophically unsound.
- Our question "Does Thermodynamics Disprove Evolution?" address this commonly used but scientifically flawed challenge to evolution.
- Finally, our Questions section, as well as many of our suggested books, challenge the myth that one must choose between Christianity and evolution.
Ultimately, despite its unique pairing alongside Darwin's work, Comfort's new preface adds nothing new to the dialogue on creation and evolution. Comfort would have us believe that science and faith don't mix. For a different perspective, have a look at the upcoming statement generated by the participants at the recent BioLogos workshop.
--
Editor's Note:
Due to concerns about unhelpful comments on the Science and the Sacred blog, we have decided to block posts that do not engage the topics in a meaningful way. We welcome both critical and supportive voices, but request that all posts offer something relevant to the posted topic, and not simply be inflammatory accusations or lengthy, unrelated monologues.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
their Population Genetics model was blown away by three independant peer reviewed science papers issued by evolutionists Lewinton, Speiss and Roughgarden
You have managed to get two of the three names wrong, so it's clear you haven't read any of these papers, the latest of which dates from 1981 - science has progressed considerably since then. Nor did they claim what you say they claim. You can read about the matter here .
DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT A BOOK PUBLISHED IN 1859, WHEN DNA WAS UNKNOWN, TELLS US ANYTHING OF USE?
Origin of Species is of great historical interest, but entirely irrelevant to current research in evolutionary biology. That you don't understand this is just another proof of your complete ignorance.
Do you really think that Hemoglobin can come into existence by the Laws of physics and chance alone?
You once again show that you simply don't know what you are talking about. Natural selection is neither a law of physics, nor chance.
Mendellian Genetics explains variations from generation to generation without any appeal to evolution, except for mutations that corrupt the Genetic code such as the mutations that cause Hemophilia, Gay Tsachs disease, and Sickle Cell Anemia. Arthur Biele
You're simply displaying your ignorance once again. First it's "Tay-Sachs Disease". That you can get something so simple wrong shows clearly that you are just copy-pasting without understanding. Second, sickle-cell anemia is an excellent example of evolution by natural selection in action. Heterozygotes for the allele that causes it show enhanced resistance to malaria - which is why it is most common in areas where dangerous strains of malaria are a serious problem. That you would choose this as your example confirms your complete ignorance. Hemoglobin provides an excellent example of longer-term evolution: the hemoglobin molecule found in humans and most other vertebrates is made up of alpha and beta hemoglobin molecules, while lampreys have a simpler molecule. It is evident to experts that the genes for alpha and beta hemoglobin have resulted from an event of gene duplication and subsequent divergence. You can start your education by reading about this. Come back when you have something worth saying.
Arthur,
Again, if you really think that genetics was, or is, a challenge to evolution than you are sadly mistake. Please do some research on the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, which incorporated genetics with evolution. I think that genetics has provided the strongest evidence for evolution yet. When I was a creationist I didn't understand genetics at all, but when I actually started studying evolution for myself one of the things that really changed my mind was the genetic evidence for evolution.
Again, you are arguing against Darwin, not modern evolutionary theory. Darwin could have thought that storks brought down babies from heaven, or he could have thought that a purple space alien named Zork zapped creatures with new traits, and it wouldn't invalidate modern evolutionary theory. (Just to be clear, Darwin didn’t believe those things, based on your posts illogic I am worried that you might think I am saying Darwin really believed those things).
Even if Darwin did steal the idea of Natural Selection (which you falsely charge), that has no bearing on if it is true or not. Also, just so you know, even Answers in Genesis says that the argument that Darwin stole the idea of natural selection is a dishonest argument that creationists shouldn't use.
To say that Mendelian genetics reestablishes the fixity of species is laughable balderdash! First, fossil evidence and even direct observation has shown that species aren't fixed, so if you bizarre misunderstanding of Mendelian genetics was true than direct observation contradicted that idea. Second, modern genetics is very different than Medals rudimentary understanding of genetics. I'm not trying to take anything away from Mendel, his observations are incredibly important and I admire his discovery, but our understanding of genetics has progressed a huge amount since him. We now understand the role that mutation, transposable elements, polyploidy, polygenic loci, and gene duplication play in evolution and genetics.
You should probably be aware that the theory of inheritance that was commonly believed in Darwin’s day was the blending hypothesis. Darwin freely admitted in The Origin that blending was a problem for his theory of natural selection. In fact, the current understanding of inheritance was one of the major arguments that Darwin’s critics used against him! Mendelian genetics would have been a HUGE help to Darwin’s theory. Supposedly Darwin actually had a copy of Mendel’s book, but hadn’t read it. This might just be a folk tale, but the reason this story is passed on is because everyone who understand evolution sees the irony that if Darwin HAD read the book and understood genetics it would have helped him immensely in making his case for evolution! Your argument really just shows that you don’t understand Darwin, science history, modern genetics, modern evolutionary theory, or Mendelian genetics.
You wrote "For instance, Adam and Eve's offspring would be free of genetic defects (as harmful mutations to the DNA would not have yet occurred) and they contained all the genetic information necessary to produce all the known human characteristics we observe today in the human races (minus the defects."
Wow. I'll just say that if you think that in a few thousand years was enough time for all the genetic variety that we see in humans to have evolved, then you believe that evolution can happen at a much faster rate than I can. Genetics absolutely refutes the idea that all known genetic variability was contained in two people a few thousand years ago. A huge amount of beneficial mutation and natural selection would have had to have taken place for you wild hypothesis to be correct. It’s ironic that you are saying genetics falsifies evolution, when in reality genetics falsifies your belief that all present genetic variation was in two people a few thousand years ago! That impossible based on our understanding of genetics.
You wrote, "Darwin was mistaken about his use 'natural selection', Natural Selection can only select genetic information that already exist, it plays no role in causing new traits to evolve into existence."
Did you read the articles I pointed you too that show unequivocal mechanisms for how new beneficial genes and traits arise in population? It’s almost like you are arguing with me without even bothering to look up references that prove you wrong. I told you that Dr. Ohno's work 40 years ago explained how new information could come about. I also told you that NO evolutionary biologist says that natural selection increases information. The mechanisms are in the articles I referenced.
Also, are you or are you not the Arthur that said he earned 4 separate BA degrees in 5 years (including in physics) and then said that the 2nd law overturns evolution? Are you the same Arthur that gave me two examples of physicists you said used the 2nd Law argument against evolution, even though one guy really said he fully accepted evolution, and the other guy accepted common decent and never mentioned the 2nd Law? Why are you dodging the question?
Again, Darwin was certainly wrong on several things, but that has NO bearing on if MODERN evolutionary theory is correct. You might as well try to use Newton's ignorance of atoms to disprove particle physics. That would be just as "logical" as your arguemnt.
I just wanted to say that claiming to bridge a gap between Christianity and science is just plainly blasphemous. To even suggest that between what God says happened and what happened is foolishness, even to the point of either calling God a liar or the Bible not the word of God. No arguments were presented here, just statements that Ray Comfort is wrong. I understand that the reason he is handing out the book to University students is to stop darwin being presented in a romantic light. There are many cut down versions of the book available, so it's only fair to present both sides of the argument (clearly evolution is the only view being taught although arguably we should start teaching alchemy too as it has similar scientific validity). Here in Australia we have the secular media pumping out Idas (remember the lemur like creature that was exposed as the missing link) pop up almost every three months, but what happens when they are exposed as a fraud? The media stays strangely quiet. There are many scientists who write against evolution. I would suggest that they are as equal woth of attention as Ray, perhaps more so because Ray see his mission as bringing the gospel to people. Rather than to argue evolution. So on that basis as 'beliefnet' shouldn't you be pleased for Ray to be bringing the good news to people?
No arguments were presented here, - Andrew Lacey
Andrew Lacey, you are a liar. What puzzles me is why you tell a lie which anyone can identify as such, just by reading the post and the thread. I guess you must also be extremely stupid.
MediaCurves.com conducted a study among 304 viewers of a news clip discussing a new introduction to Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species”. Results found that viewer support for teaching creationism in schools declined after watching the video. Furthermore, the majority of viewers (65%) indicated that they would read the original version of “On the Origin of Species”, while fewer viewers (60%) indicated that they would read the new introduction. More in depth results can be seen at: http://www.mediacurves.com/Religion/Darwin%20Additions/Index.cfm
Thanks,
Ben
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.