Proponents of intelligent design (ID) make a sport of arguing semantics. With no evidence whatsoever to support their point of view, they are left with only one option: try to punch holes in the opposition’s idea by playing word games. This approach does not lend itself to solidifying a scientific premise but instead only provides amusement.
And advocates of ID provide significant amusement, most often demonstrated in their feeble attempts to debate the issue on a scientific level. Lacking any scientific evidence to support ID is the greatest flaw, of course, but the second greatest is an inability to compete in the scientific realm. That shortcoming forces them instead to argue. You see, arguing is not debating: it is nothing more than attacking a position with whatever ammunition can be attained easily. Sadly for ID supporters, this means confuse the issue with gibberish and malarkey.
While I don’t claim to have all the answers, and I certainly don’t claim to know all of the silly nonsense spewed by IDiots, herein I wish to cover some of the more common and laughable aspects of the anti-evolution movement.
Evolution is just a theory, not scientific fact.
This is one of the most laughable of ID arguments. It truly is a shameful play on words that does tremendous disservice to science while not providing any traction for ID.
The word “theory” has two different definitions that cannot be intermingled. For the majority of uses outside of science, it means abstract reasoning or an idea formed via speculation. An example would be that I have a theory about who took the money from the cash register, or I have a theory about who might win the Oscar for best picture. No one would for a moment think that I am claiming to know exactly who took the money or who will win the Oscar, but instead they would know that I am speculating based on my own abstract reasoning and thoughts. That also means they must assume that the premise can be flawed and entirely inaccurate since it’s nothing more than personal conjecture.
In science, however, a theory represents a set of measurable, identifiable, and repeatable propositions, facts and/or principles that relate to one another to form a coherent explanation of natural phenomena or a group of facts, especially in such a way that would predict such phenomena in the future. When we say scientific theory, we do not mean a random set of guesses thrown together to explain something. Instead, a scientific theory is a conglomeration of solid criteria blended together and verifiable through the scientific method, all aspects of which can be viewed in whole as an explanation for some aspect of the universe. As I already explained, Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (the current theory of evolution) consists of several different scientific premises, including gradual evolution, common descent, speciation, the mechanism of natural selection, Gregor Mendel’s theory of genetics as the basis for biological inheritance, and mathematical population genetics.
The reprehensible act of obfuscating the difference with regards to science discredits all scientific theories as nothing more than popular beliefs. You may be surprised to know that gravity is explained by way of “gravity theory”, the interaction and consolidation of many different kinds of gravity. This includes Newtonian gravity, Einstein’s general relativity, quantum gravity, and a great many other aspects of the same phenomenon. If we are to dismiss evolution because it is a scientific theory, then we must also dismiss gravity and everything else we know about science — all of it — because it is all a part of one theory or another, if not many.
If we descended from apes, why are there still apes?
(This also results in “my grandpa wasn’t no ape” and other such childishness.)
This one is silly on many levels. To start with, the argument seems to indicate that our parents should not survive our birth. If that’s where we came from, why are they still here? Of course, apes are not our parents, but the premise is the same.
It also conjures a significant misunderstanding of evolution (not surprising, eh?) as it assumes that any species which adapts to its environment can only exist if the previous adaptation dies out. This is stunningly false. Domestic cats were once wild animals, yet wild cats did not die out when felines adapted to human companionship and domestication. Evolution does not tie an undeniable link between each species so as to ensure the end of one to compensate for the beginning of another.
Humans are the result of speciation from a common ancestor, but our development would have been in response to our environment. Once isolated from the other apes and thrust into an environment that required more intelligence and adaptation, we began to change and evolve. This would in no way kill off any other species parallel to or preceding us in the evolutionary chain.
Think of it this way: we see adaptation in viruses all the time. They change in response to their environment, and this often leads them to be resistant to drugs and difficult to treat. The virus’ change does not mean that its original form immediately ceases to exist. On the contrary, viral mutation in this way often leads to multiple strains of the same infectious agent. Consider the bird flu concerns for an example: if the bird flu jumps species and becomes dangerous to humans, did that suddenly kill off all of the bird-specific flavors? Of course not. Essentially, speciation can occur in a subpopulation of any group. It only takes a small portion of the main group to break off and become isolated for it to begin evolving on its own and independent of the original species.
Science is always changing its mind on how things work.
Yes, you’re absolutely correct. Real science is a process, not a collection of tidbits that can be displayed in the nearest museum. The more we learn, the more we change what we thought we knew. This does not negate what science does know for certain. While the theory of gravity continues to be modified, does that negate the scientific premise that if you jump up, you will fall down? No, of course it doesn’t, but it does mean we are constantly learning, and through that learning we clarify, adapt, modify, negate, or otherwise update our understanding of the universe at large.
Evolution can’t explain everything about life on Earth.
That’s technically accurate, but evolution does explain the vast majority of what we observe of life on this planet. What is most important here is that science is a process, and it is ongoing. Our current understanding of the universe is based on what we’ve learned to date. We are able to update our theories as our understanding deepens. I previously mentioned the theory of gravity, and now let me us it as a basis for response.
Even recently gravity theory was changed via the tendering of a new model: scalar-tensor-vector gravity (STVG). This new premise offers quantum effects as a possible explanation for previously inexplicable gravitational phenomena. Sadly, it too is unable to provide all of the answers for what is observed, but it does explain a trio of puzzling observations which did not agree with the previous model called Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). This new theory surprisingly still leaves holes in our understanding of the two aspects of gravity that we are trying to reconcile with a single theory:
Above a certain acceleration, called a0, objects move according to the conventional form of gravity, whose effects weaken as two bodies move further apart in proportion to the square of distance. But below a0, objects are controlled by another type of gravity that fades more slowly, decreasing linearly with distance.
No one will argue that gravity is a bad scientific theory, yet it too cannot explain all observable phenomena in the universe. Does that negate its applicability or accuracy? No. What it does point out is that science is indeed a process of learning as we go, and ultimately modifying our accepted premises until the entire theory comes into focus and explains all possible observations. What matters is time: science needs time to continue to study, investigate, experiment, and observe. Simply because a theory cannot explain all known facts does not negate it as valid; it simply points out the need for additional research.
We don’t know who the designer is.
Bah. Liars. There’s not a single believer in ID who doesn’t already assume the designer is in fact the Judaeo-Christian god. If they believe otherwise, then it could in fact be the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If a single ID advocate would admit this is as possible as any other explanation and would allow that theory to be taught alongside ID, this point would be irrelevant. Sadly, not one IDiot is willing to accept, given no determination of who the designer is, that the question is open for debate and all possible answers should be weighed equally. Enough said.