 A Critique of Refuting Evolution Note: In this critique I have listed the page numbers and my comments about that page. This works for the edition I have (3rd Edition 2004) but might be confusing for other editions. Sorry about that - maybe not such a good way to do it in hindsight! Refuting Evolution (3rd Edition 2004) I have ignored the introduction but its just one sided and blatantly misleading. However I don't expect a high standard in the introduction so I will leave any further criticism to the real content of the book. Page 15. It is a debate between two world views, but those world views aren't equal. The scientific world view is superior because: 1, it is a logical, common sense philosophy which most people agree makes sense as a method to reveal the truth; and 2, it gets result. 16. The "unproven ideas" have been proven to a reasonable degree. This idea that absolute proof is required is false. There is never absolute proof of anything (outside of maths and formal logic). We simply accept the best theory we have because it is supported by the most evidence. Sometimes the evidence for a theory will be so overwhelming that it could be considered proof (evolution is in this category). Implying that evolution is linked to the Big Bang is misleading. The two theories are separate and don't rely on each other for their accuracy. Why quote Watson from 1929? This is deliberately misleading. The evidence for the Big Bang then was weak, now its very strong. Everyone is biased to some extent but science can provide exact experiments which anyone can repeat and test. Creation doesn't. Again the author implies the two world views are equal where clearly they aren't. 17. Misleading summary of the scientific process. Because of peer review and multiple independent testing of theories the bad ones tend to get rejected no matter how much the originator supports it (that's why the Big Bang took over from Steady State). If we were being 100% precise we should never use the word "fact" but its a convenient "shorthand" for something which is so well supported that its reasonable to say its a fact. Evolution is in this category. The quote from Richard Lewontin is interesting but its a single opinion and doesn't represent any official scientific view, therefore it is misleading. 18. Whether the supernatural should be allowed into science is a point of contention but mainly because its a matter of definition. Most scientists would agree that its OK to test supernatural claims if a valid testing method can be devised. Many claims have been tested this way. Maybe what Dawkins is saying is that pure supernatural claims can't be tested because they have no effect on the real world. 19. The decision to treat some phenomena as natural and some as artificial isn't arbitrary. The "design" of DNA is clearly not of intelligent origin because its so bad! Also, its exactly what we would expect if known chemical and evolutionary processes occurred. If DNA was perfect in every way and showed no unnecessary duplication, junk material and other signs of billions of years of random change we would treat it as artificial too. Darwin didn't set out to destroy the existing idea of God. He was troubled by what he found because he lived in a deeply religious era. 20. Many atheists are atheists because of evolution. That's fair enough. One of the reasons we have religion is that people couldn't explain the world around them. Now that we can explain it we don't need to rely on superstition as much. Humanism receives a boost from evolution but evolution doesn't require or rely on humanism. One is a philosophy, one is science. Trying to make evolution look like a religion this way is misleading. 21. Accepting change is not a religious message, although it might be seen as a philosophical message and I agree it shouldn't be in an evolution document. 22. Now we get to the biggest lie of all: Evolution is a religion. It clearly isn't. Here's the definition of a religion: "religion (noun) the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods". Clearly evolution isn't a religion by this definition. Evolution is incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Bible but the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Catholics believe both, for example. 23. Finally something I agree with: a god who created with evolution is indistinguishable from no god at all. There's one of the reasons I'm an atheist! If evolution disproves Christianity should we pretend it doesn't? Science has to follow the facts wherever they lead. 24. Believers in literal creation are unreasonable and irrational. That's not a religious statement anymore than saying that believers in the theory that alien reptiles control the Earth (yes, some people believe that) are irrational. I also agree that leading scientists do reject god. Why is that? Its because they are intelligent and well informed so they know there is no good reason to believe god exists. Research also indicates there is an inverse relationship between intelligence and religiosity. So the smarter you are the less likely you are to believe. 25. I totally disagree with the idea that science started in Christian Europe. Christianity actually held up progress in Europe for centuries and it was only information imported from Islam and rediscovery of Greek science that got it started again. There is no faith involved in supposing the Universe acts rationally. If it didn't it would soon become very apparent in experimental results. 26. The list of scientists who allegedly believe in creation is meaningless. For a start most of them are from previous centuries when religion was much stronger. Also that is a very small number compared with all the scientists in the world today. Also they believe in various forms of creationism and not necessarily the one being supported by the book. 27. Sure there are some scientists who have produced research supporting creationism. But it has been thrown out by science because it doesn't fit the facts. The fact that science produces this research (even though it doesn't stand up to scrutiny) shows that it isn't biased and prepared to look at any claim. 28. Saying the scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming is true. Saying no true scientist disagrees with evolution is far more questionable. But the two things don't mean the same thing. It is true that truth isn't decided by majority vote but science does judge which theories are most likely to be true through an informal consensus. Who cares what C. S. Lewis said? He was a professor of literature and wrote children's stories. His opinion on science is hardly relevant here. 29. Science only deals with repeatable observable processes in the present. I'm sure a lot of scientists will be surprised to hear this! This simply isn't true. Science can and does study processes which only happened once (the Big Bang for example) and examining the past is extremely common. Evolution is in no way speculation. It is a theory backed up by thousands of pieces of real, observable evidence which are just as tangible as in any other area. 30. Pretending Genesis is a reliable eyewitness account is absurd. Its a myth written by a primitive tribe which borrowed heavily from existing myths. It has been disproven by thousands of independent pieces of evidence. Who was the eyewitness anyway? God? So we know God exists because God says he does. Sounds like circular logic to me! Chapter 1 Summary. So far this book is full of misleading statements, one sided propaganda and simple lies. However it is cleverly written and could easily persuade a person who is ignorant of the facts of evolution or who doesn't want to check the background of some of the information presented. Chapter 2. This chapter is much better. It admits most evolutionary processes happen but denies mutation can produce new information. Clearly it can though so they let themselves down there. It also talks about the Flood and the whole idea of the Flood is so ridiculous that their credibility is severely compromised. Page 31. Turning particles into people. An imprecise definition but basically agreed. Fish to philosopher. A very loose definition and if meant literally not actually correct but its just a throw away line so should be ignored. 32. Summary of evolutionary theory basically correct. Agreed. Explanation of genetics basically correct. Agreed. 33. The claim that mutations producing new information being contrary to information theory simply isn't true. However there is the promise of further explanation in chapter 9 so I will wait to see that, 34. The deterioration argument is invalid. Effectively a value judgement is being made on the merit of a genetic change. The benefit of a change isn't known until the appropriate change in environment occurs. Evolution has a very good theory on how sight arose and it has nothing to do with deterioration. The successive steps in the process are well documented. There is absolutely no evidence that the environments were perfect in the past. Even the idea of a perfect environment is fallacious because it depends on the requirements of different populations which live in that environment. 35. Removing defective animals. This is really natural selection expressed in imprecise terms. If defective means not well adapted to the environment then I basically agree. 36. This is simplistic but basically correct except that genes can survive even if they aren't selected for, if they are unexpressed for example. Also genes interact. One can block another, but in general the variation would diminish. 37. I haven't analysed the formula or the numbers presented here but genetic drift is a very well understood phenomenon and I've never heard a serious biologist ever mention it as a potential problem. New species can be formed through mutations (claimed only loss of information though, which is incorrect), genetic drift, natural selection. Most of this I agree with and this is evolution. The only problem is the denial that new information can be produced. 38. The Flood story is briefly mentioned but the Flood is completely ruled out by many different types of evidence. By linking a theory with the Flood its credibility drops significantly. 39. Agreed that multiple ancestors of today's species is a fair conclusion. In fact evolution doesn't require a single ancestor but the number is likely to be low and they existed in the distant past (billions of years). 40. Use of the word "kinds" is not helpful. Scientists don't use it, so if they just mean species here why not use that term? Again the claim that mutations only destroy information where there are known cases where information is added. One of the most common being duplicating existing genes. 41. The essential difference between this particular creation theory and evolution seems to be the idea that genetic variation already exists and is selected on to create new species. This process is accepted but there is good evidence that new information mainly comes from mutations which the creationists deny. 42. Just a repetition of the same claim again and the same criticism applies. 43. And more of the same. If we have two theories which predict the same sort of thing we need to find a way to distinguish between them. If creationism predicts that mutation doesn't lead to new information and we find that in fact it does then creationism is disproved. There are examples of new information through mutation so what is the logical conclusion here? 44. It is not a straw man because it is what creationists believed at the time (and what some still believe today). The fact that creationism isn't well defined (because its not a real scientific theory) means that its necessary to define which type of creationism is under consideration: young earth, old earth, literal Biblical, god guiding evolution, etc. 45. Fitting evolution into an old Earth model wasn't a matter of re-interpreting. Early evolutionists were puzzled by how the process could have occurred over a short time. It was only when independent branches of science proved the Earth is old that evolution made a lot more sense. Snails could float across the sea after the Flood but they were all killed (apart from those on the ark) during the Flood? This seems inconsistent. 46. The Flood story is mentioned again. There is ample evidence this didn't happen so if creationism relies on this story then it weakens its case. Chapter 2 Summary. In chapter two the author basically admits most of evolution is real but then denies the fact of new information being formed and favourable mutations appearing, among other facts observed in the real world. Chapter 3. Page 47. Darwin was worried because there were few intermediate fossils at the time. However there have been many discovered since then and they fit in with what evolution predicts. Predictive power of this sort is a significant indicator that a theory is true. 48. The quote from Patterson is taken totally out of context and is completely misleading. Patterson explains what he really meant in subsequent documents, but creationists still stick with the misquote because it suits their purposes. Gould wasn't a Marxist. According to his bio at Wikipedia: he "had been brought up by a Marxist father," he has stated that his father's politics were "very different" from his own. The Gould quote is also out of context and misleading. Gould was using the lack of gradual change to show that evolution happened in a slightly different way to what had been assumed before. He also said this "paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." 49. Bat evolution wasn't previously understood but since then new discoveries have been made which indicate how the process happened quite well. There will always be missing fossils because fossilisation is a relatively rare process. The fact that there are a considerable number of excellent intermediate forms known does show that evolution did happen. See the end of this chapter for a list. The evolution of the turtle is being debated but there appear to be at least two possible earlier forms. 50. Although the evolution of bats is one of the less understood areas, there are transitional fossils of earlier forms of bat lacking some features of modern species. 51. Quoting someone from 1944 is misleading. Since then transitional forms have been found for many mammals. For a book published in 1994 to include information from 1944 about a field of science which is rapidly advancing is so misleading that its really a simple lie. A partial list of extensive mammal transitions is included at the end of this chapter. 52. A valid scientific reason for the lack of fossils is hardly an excuse. 53. A flood would be one mechanism which would form fossils but there are many others and implying that fossils prove a global flood is untrue. The modern coelacanth is not the same as a 70 million year old specimen. All species continue to evolve and change the function of limbs, etc. Therefore the implication that modern specimens prove the function of ancient ones is false. 54. This is an extremely superficial and selective treatment of the evidence for transitional fossils. There are many more than listed in the book and they fit in with the expected transition process. Suggesting that all the thousands of transitional fossils which exists are fake or incorrectly interpreted is dishonest. If they showed the full quote by Kemp instead of being deliberately misleading they would get this: "Irrespective of one's view of the biological causes of such a pattern (and there continues to be much debate about this), it leads in practice to description of long-term evolution, or macroevolution, in terms of the differential survival, extinction and proliferation of species. The species is the unit of evolution." 55. Intermediate forms don't need to be functional for either the original or final purpose. Bird wings were initially used for cooling, then gliding, then flying. This is well understood and documented. 56. Accepted that soft body parts are not well preserved and often changes in those areas are deduced rather than observed. This is not always the case though because some more recent soft material is preserved. Also the soft material affects bones, etc. Attachment points of muscles, for example. Chapter 3 Summary. Creationists continually claim that transitional fossils don't exist even though there are many examples of these. I've included a few here... List of intermediate fossils (between major forms only) Chapter 4. Page 57. No major errors on this page. 58. The Feduccia quote is presented incomplete and out of context. It was part of a debate over which type of reptile the birds evolved from, not whether they evolved at all. Some people believe archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil but one which lead to a branch which died out and therefore not a true ancestor of birds. Either way, it is a transitional form. 59. In a table of 23 features, archaeopteryx shared 4 with birds, 15 with reptiles, and 4 partially or with neither. How does this make it a bird? 60. Sinosauropteryx was not claimed to have had feathers like a modern bird, but a primitive precursor to feathers. This is exactly what we would expect: that feathers would evolve from reptile scales over time. Mononykus has been controversial from the beginning. Whether it is a bird, or a dinosaur is debated but that doesn't seem to make the case for it being a link any weaker. The Time magazine graphic showing it with feathers was probably misleading, but Time is not a scientific journal. 61. Not sure why the dating of protarchaeopteryx and archaeopteryx is a problem. The accepted sequence seems to be: Archaeopteryx, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Unenlagia, Velociraptor, Eoalulavis. The book keeps quoting Feduccia but his opinion is in the vast minority in the scientific world. Also, he fully supports birds evolving from reptiles, he just thinks they evolved from a different branch. So if his opinion is so valued by creationists then they should take the evolution from reptiles seriously. 62. The claim that birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs because of the embryonic thumb is outdated. This objection was proved invalid in 1999 but the creationists who wrote the book don't seem to have updated this 2004 book. Feduccia and Martin's view is in the minority so finding fault with it is hardly relevant. 63. Feduccia and Martin have not provided strong evidence against bird evolution from theropods and most scientists support the theropod theory. If birds were created just like they are now on day 5 then just what are all the intermediate fossil forms? Finding uncertainties and debates regarding some of the details of evolution doesn't disprove it and make another theory with no supporting evidence at all more likely to be true. 64. The evolution of feathers can be explained through various intermediate stages which are independent of each other and result in the various features in modern feathers. Most of these have an evolutionary advantage not related to flight but help create a feather useful in flight. Therefore a complex structure can be built up in small stages. 65. The new information required for feathers is not an issue because the author of the book has already accepted that mutations happen. The genes for making scales could gradually change to make feathers instead. Natural selection would favour the intermediate forms according to hypotheses advanced by evolutionists. While it is difficult to prove these ideas at least there is a viable mechanism available and some of the intermediate stages have been seen in the fossil record. 66. Feathers which are most useful for insulation are different than feathers which are most useful for flight. But some of the structures in flight feathers would have been useful for insulation, so that would be a logical intermediate step in the evolution process. 67. Recent evidence indicates some theropods had a lung system with similarities to modern birds. This strongly supports the theory that birds evolved from theropods because this system isn't known in any other group. The paper discussing this is dated 2005 so it is more recent than the book, but the book's claim is clearly wrong. 68. Feduccia is quoted again. He is a serious scientist but in a rapidly shrinking minority. By misrepresenting his work as if it disproves evolution the author is being dishonest. Chapter 5. Page 69. No major errors on this page. 70. This is the old argument from personal incredulity argument. Just because the author finds it impossible to believe that these complex structures evolved he thinks that proves they didn't. That's really not good enough for a serious debate. 71. This is the old irreducible complexity argument. The problem is that there are an almost infinite number of evolutionary processes which result in complex structures. It takes a lot of work to discover the individual evolutionary steps which resulted in the final structure. But that doesn't mean the steps didn't happen. Other classic cases of structures which were claimed to be irreducibly complex have been explained, including the two examples most cited: the bacterial flagellum and the mammalian blood clotting process. There's no reason to think that similar processes wouldn't also be found for any structure if the time was spent looking for them. There is no excuse for saying there is a lack of transitional fossils for whale evolution because there is actually a superb collection of fossils which shows it very clearly. Either this page is hopelessly out of date (a lot of the fossils were discovered recently) or the author has simply ignored the facts. 72. If you actually research this properly you will find many more transitional forms than those mentioned in the book. There is also strong supporting evidence from molecular studies which are completely independent from the fossils but still support what the fossils show. 73. The pelvic girdle was missing from this specimen but later evolutionary forms had it intact and this confirms the hypothesis regarding locomotion. 74. Its true that the skeleton is incomplete but this is what we would expect after such a long time period. The parts that were found are sufficient to show a change in function of the limbs, however. I can't find any reference to the anomalies in dating of ambulocetus so I think this is probably a misinterpretation on the part of the author. Basilosaurus appears to be part of the evolution of whales which lead to a side branch which is not represented in existing whales. Therefore it is not a direct ancestor of whales but was still part of the evolutionary process because branching and dying out of most of those branches is an accepted part of evolution. 75. Since Basilosaurus is not an ancestor of whales we don't expect it to have a similar head structure. Random changes, some of which give an advantage to the species and therefore survive and others which are disadvantageous and die out are exactly what we expect from evolution. 76. Not mentioning it in a text book doesn't indicate it isn't a good candidate as an intermediate because there are many other possible reasons. 77. Its well accepted in the scientific world that reconstructions might be highly speculative. That doesn't change the validity of the conclusions made from the actual fossils. No one disputes the difficulty of interpreting fossils which are only small parts of the total animal. However any unjustified conclusions are quickly pointed out in the scientific journals. And every fossil is transitional in some way since life is always changing. The book didn't dispute this point earlier. 78. The idea that vestigial legs are best explained by creation is ridiculous. Vestigial organs often have a purpose which is different form the original. If god had created them for a different purpose its odd that he would have based them on an existing function in a related species, especially when the new function is often sub-optimal. Chapter 6. Page 79. Recent studies indicate that other animals are capable of more advanced use of speech and logic than previously thought. They don't use these in as advanced a way as humans but the difference seems to be just quantitative. Humans didn't evolve from apes or monkeys. That is a fact. They evolved from a common ancestor which technically wasn't a monkey or ape. It has nothing to do with being pedantic or pussyfooting. 80. Whether Lucy is a side branch or not isn't critical. Lucy shows that an evolutionary path exists. The Rest of the Book. I haven't finished my reading and criticism of the book yet. I will fill in further details as I get the time but I suspect they will be basically more of the same. Back Cover. The back cover makes evolution sound like the cause of all of our problems... "So, now we have digressed from the legalities of teaching evolution in our schools to a single mindset that evolution, although unproven, is the only answer to the question of human origins. And we wonder why we are having problems with children in our public school systems! The result of this mindset is the terror of unfathomable violence and aimless culture. Refuting Evolution shakes off the debris of hopeless, unsubstantiated theory, and shines a light of educational freedom where it is desperately needed." This is just silly, emotive stuff. Blaming a scientific theory, which almost no one understands anyway, for all of our modern problems, especially when religion itself has such a history of violence and oppression is just totally unjustified.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
REFUTING EVOLUTION