Take for example, Ben Stein. Mr. Stein wrote the smash hit Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed which recieved a whopping score of 10% out of 100 on Rotten Tomatoes. He frequently seems to equate evolution with the Big Bang Theory and with Abiogenesis and often with gravity, as pointed out by Thunderf00t in one of his many anti-creationist videos.
The problem with this is that it shows that these people have absolutely no understanding of what the theories state. Evolution is not the origin of the universe. Evolution is not the origin of life. Evolution is the origin of species, which is the title of Charles Darwin's famous book. Evolution describes the diversity of life and how it came to be, not how it originated.
The theories are as follows:
The Big Bang:
The Big Bang describes the origin of the universe as a massive expansion that still continues today. 13.7 billion years ago, all the matter in the universe was in one single point called singularity. This singularity was extrapolated using Albert Einstein's general relativity theory. I won't go through the details but the theory is there was a massive amount of energy and matter and it was expanding rapidly. This matter and heat ultimately formed into subatomic particles and meanwhile the four fundamental forces of physics came into being (strong force, weak force, elecromagnetic force, and gravitation). The universe was full of quarks and antiquarks which annilated each other on contact but there were an overabundance of quarks so matter won out. Where this overabundance came from is still disputed. Ultimately, the quarks became subatomic particles which became hydrogen, and helium and eventually stars, planets, quasars and everything else in the universe (source, I'm not a fan of wikipedia, but I could not find the National Geographic that had the Big Bang article from a few years back).
Abiogenesis:
Best described in one of my past posts here.
Evolution:
In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations (source.) Thus evolution describes how organisms change to better suit their environment over time. The title of Darwin's book is On Origin of Species and species is about the diversity of life, thus the title is saying "how life diversified into various species."
Now that we understand these three theories can we please stop confusing them with each other?
Even still, there are several misconceptions about evolution, several arguments that are used ad nauseam, even after being proven wrong. And yet, these arguments only require a high school level understanding of evolution to see why these arguments are wrong.
1. Dogs give birth to dogs! Cats give birth to cats! Dogs can't give birth to cats! Thus speciation (the process which occurs that causes an organism to evolve into a new species) can't occur!
Well the problem is here is that the creationist assumes several very erroneous things. First, he assumes that dogs are directly related to cats genetically. They are not. Dogs and cats don't share the same genes, obviously or they'd be the same species. Secondly and more importantly, speciation occurs in very gradual steps. It'll take many, perhaps hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions (depending on the organism) of generations before a new species develops. A dog will not give birth to a new species. Rather, a dog gives birth to a dog with a beneficial mutation, who passes on that mutation and gives birth to another dog. Thousands of generations and thousands of mutations later, we have a new species of animal develop that is no longer the same species as that first dog.
2. I'm not descended from a monkey!
Very true. Humans and monkeys are cousins, and monkeys are not our ancestor. However, we do share a common ancestry with primates (apes, chimps, monkeys, etc.) Take the chimp for example. We have a 94% (Scientific American) similarity within our genes with chimpanzees. We both have 4 limbs, fingers, similar faces, abilities to use tools and can walk upright. The evidence of our relationship is in our genes. Chimps are our cousins, not our ancestors however. We do however have a common ancestor.
3. But why do monkeys still exist?
Because, ignoring the fact that modern monkeys are our cousins, not our ancestors, evolution does not require that the parent species go extinct. Perhaps one population in the species became isolated and evolved one way while another population evolved in another way. Evolution evolves to fit the environment and will go in different paths in different environments.
4. There are no transitional fossils!
A transitional fossil is a fossil of a creature that is transiting from one species to another, like a fish becoming a new species of fish.
And there are transitional fossils. In fact, we've found the fish that climbed on to land just a few years ago. Meet Tiktaalik Roseae, found in Greenland in 2006.
Of course, Kirk Cameron, actor and born again Christian took his own approach to the transitional fossil question. A few years ago on a debate with his pal Ray Comfort (who proved God's existence with a banana, completely ignoring that bananas are heavily modified by man [thanks again Thunderf00t]) against two athiests. Kirk, in all his genius claimed that if evolution had in fact occured, one of these would exist:
He then went on and added the bullfrog (part bull, part frog) and the sheepdog (part sheep, part dog), submitting not pictures of the actual animal, but computer generated images of the two animals mashed together, like Crocoduck above (source.) This video here (not made by me) sums up my reaction to this (warning, an f-bomb or two). I was astounded but more to the point, this proves that Cameron does not even have a basic understanding of evolution. Otherwise he would understand that crocodiles and ducks are very distantly related, and I mean very. Birds and reptiles both go back to the dinosaurs certainly, but there is no way a modern crocodile and a duck would ever fuse under evolution's mechanics to form "crocoduck." That thing wouldn't even survive in the wild, much less evolve into existence and if it can't survive to reproduce and pass on its genes, it can't evolve. Bulls and frogs are extremely distantly related, one is a gigantic mammal (compared to frogs) the other is an amphibian. Sheep and dogs are both mammals but still very distantly related. In all three cases, the situation in which that combination occurs would NOT happen. The lack of their existence is not proof that evolution doesn't occur. It simply proves that Cameron's imagination is a bit overactive.
Its similar to saying that because the unicorn (horse and narwhale) doesn't exist, evolution doesn't exist. Or how about I just pick two unrelated animals, combine them and complain that evolution doesn't not exist because that animal doesn't exist? NO! Do your research first. And Cameron, go back to acting.
4. There has to be a creator!
One of my favorites. It's a syllogism that goes like this:
- Something created must have a creator
- The universe was created
- Thus there must be a creator
5. Evolution = Atheism = Evil!
And this is the fun one, the one where the creationist equates athiesm with immorality. And then they equate evolution with atheism, claiming that evolution is an atheist evil. Yet, if one goes to the wikipedia site on evolution and does a search for the word "god" all you find is "goddard" and "godfrey" in the references. Why? Because evolution makes no claim about god. It neither proves nor disproves him. It doesn't care about god nor does it consider him in any way. The reason for this is simple, god is supernatural. Evolution only explains naturalism and thus cannot prove or disprove god. If it could, then god would not be supernatural.
Furthermore, this argument also claims that atheism is evil and immoral. In a past post, I talked about this. Atheism is morally neutral, while religion can be morally bad or good depending on who is using it. Sure, Stalin was an atheist and an evil man, but he was evil because he was a paranoid lunatic, not because he was an atheist. Atheism does not teach morals, creationists are correct about this, but religion does not hold a monopoly on morality. People can learn to be moral without religion. We can learn it from our mistakes, from our elders and from our instincts. And we are not the only animals with a sort of morality built in.
In fact, morality is partially given to us through evolution. As explained in this video, we needed morality to survive as a species for the one million years we survived as hunter gatherers.
In the end, religion is not the only source of morality. Atheists are humans. Most are moral, some are immoral, as it is with all different human groups. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism and being an evolutionist neither makes you an atheist, nor does it make you evil.
In fact, most religions believe in evolution. Heck, in 1950, Pope Pius declared that there was no conflict between the beliefs of a catholic person and the theory of evolution. Pope John Paul in 1996 reaffirmed the Church's stance on evolution. Overall, the Church's stance on evolution has been more positive than negative (same source as above, next paragraph.)
In fact, most objections against evolution seem to be from American protestants, but I digress. Point is, people of any faith support evolution, and they can be moral or immoral, it has no bearing on the validity of evolution.
6. There is no observed instance of speciation!
Oh yes there is!
And they have more!
7. But it is 'just a theory!'
There is a colloquial meaning for the word theory and that is "an educated guess, a hypothesis."
This is not what scientists mean when they use that word. They use the scientific meaning of the word theory. A theory is an explanation for a phenomenan, that is well supported and well substantiated through facts and observation gathered through the scientific method. Gravitation, for example, is 'just a theory.' Gravitation is an explanation for the attractive pull one mass has on another and it is well supported and well substantiated. Hold a ball in the air and let go. Earth's mass produces a massive gravitational effect on the ball and the ball is attracted to the earth. The ball also produces a gravitational effect on the earth, but the difference in mass is so vast that such a force is entirely negligible, a fraction so small that it isn't worth discussing. Evolution is the same way. Evolution is an explanation for a phenomenon, it is well supported and well substantiated.
Evolution has been tested, observed, and has a mountain of evidence. It is out there for these creationists to look over and base their arguments off of. They have NO EXCUSE in this age of the internet to make arguments that can be easily disproved with google, wikipedia and youtube. I could source these links but why should I work for their laziness? All they need to do to find the mountain of evidence is visit GoogleScholar, EbscoHost, or any academic search engine and immediately find hundreds of thousands of hits. Or they can visit a library and look within numerous books on the subject. There is no excuse for them to continue to make idiotic statements because they didn't do their homework before opening their mouths. Reading an evolutionists paper doesn't mean you have to agree with him guys. There is no way to win an argument if you don't understand the basics of your opponants argument. None. And all of you are losing this argument because you don't understand the scientific viewpoints on the origin of the universe.
These 7 points aren't the only mistakes they've made. Not even close. I could mention the genius who believes that evolution is false because peaunut butter doesn't come alive but I'm tired and frankly, the stupidity speaks for itself.
Do your research creationists, BEFORE opening your mouths.
"Carl! What if I accept evolution! Will you stop shooting me? Please?" Kirk Cameron
"No because you've spread intolerance for years and made people dumber on account" Carl Sagan (not really but funny video I found)
J Kuhl Signing Off
