|
Proposed Missouri Law Write Your State Rep Sign the List Other Resources |
|
 |
|
|
Literature |
A
Tidal Wave of New Books Creationists frequently refer to an "explosion of evidence" that supports their claims. Below is a quote from a popular creationist website, followed by a close look at each title on the list. None of them supports the author's contention, which is that legitimate, secular scientists are disputing the basic fact of evolution..
1. Darwin Retried (1971) by Norman Macbeth Norman Macbeth was a retired lawyer with no formal scientific training, and his argument against evolution is a trial lawyer’s argument, meant to appeal to a jury of laymen. This is problematic, since the format of a trial requires an opposing side for its validity. Lawyers are zealous advocates by training; their function is not to present a fair or objective picture, but to state one side of an issue as convincingly as possible. Macbeth exploits the lack of counter-argument to no end, as in attaching great significance to the supposed tautology of the phrase survival of the fittest: “Someone asked how we determine who are the fittest. The answer came back that we determine this by the test of survival; there is no other criterion. But this means that a species survives because it is the fittest and is the fittest because it survives, which is circular reasoning and equivalent to saying that whatever is, is fit. The gist is that some survive and some die, but we knew this at the onset. Nothing has been explained.” (p. 47) If an evolutionary scientist were to defend his profession, he would surely respond that he and his peers do not merely explain everything by absurdly reciting the phrase survival of the fittest. Despite its tautological appearance, the phrase is simply a shorthand way of referring to the idea--not obvious 150 years ago--that the generally competitive nature of life allows beneficial traits to become predominant in a species, while detrimental traits die out. By claiming that the tautology explains nothing, Macbeth reveals either a shocking ignorance of his subject, or a lawyer’s tendency to slant the truth. 2. The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982) by Francis Hitching Francis Hitching’s oft-cited book takes issue with many aspects of classical Darwinism, but does not dispute evolution. Hitching writes: “Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a fact, if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two centuries from geology, paleontology (the study of fossils), molecular biology and many other scientific disciplines. Despite the many believers in Divine creation who dispute this (including about half the adult population in the United States, according to some opinion polls), the probability that evolution has occurred approaches certainty in scientific terms." (p. 12) Creationists are supremely disingenuous in using “experts” who pose problems with evolutionary theory, while hiding the fact that these “experts” wholeheartedly believe in evolution. Hitching devotes an entire chapter of this oft-cited book (Chapter Five) to ridiculing creationist “science.” If it is any consolation to the creationist community, Hitching--who has no scientific background--has also written books on astrology, ESP, miraculous healing, dowsing, pyramidology and Atlantis. 3. The Great Evolution Mystery (1983) by Gordon Rattray Taylor "Darwinism," says Gordon Rattray Taylor, "is not so much a theory as a subsection of some theory as yet unformulated." Thus opines another author cited by creationists who wish to disprove evolution. Yet throughout this work, Taylor expresses unwavering implicit confidence in naturalistic evolution as the correct view concerning the origin and development of life. Though not a scientist by training, Taylor was well-read in scientific issues and had great literary skills, putting him in a category above “evsploitation” authors seeking to cash in on public interest in a subject. As such, he doesn’t offer a sensational alternative theory to evolution, only the confidence that naturalistic evolution is the only plausible explanation, and that a satisfactory scientific foundation for it will be found eventually. 4. The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984) by William Fix Another “pyramidologist” author, William Fix, endorses neither evolution nor creationism in his book The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution. Instead, he advances his own theory called "psychogenesis." Despite a lack of formal training in any relevant discipline and no field research, Fix has managed to dispel the creationists’ notion that there are no alternatives to evolution and creationism--in addition to solving the mysteries of the Great Pyramid in his book Pyramid Odyssey! It is curious that, like Hitching, Fix is cited by creationists as an expert on evolution, but dismissed entirely for his views on creationism--in the same book. 5. Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities (1984) by I. L. Cohen Cohen employs a modest understanding of statistics to make a charlatan’s argument based on conditional probability. His point is neither original nor mathematically valid: The chance of things happening the way they did is so small that they could not have happened by chance, and therefore they must be the product of an intervening intelligence. The argument is identical to saying that since the odds of being dealt a particular hand from a deck of 52 cards are incredibly small, being dealt any hand is rigged. The author’s failure to appreciate this error suggests a high school education at best, and no formal training in science or mathematics. Cohen’s most embarrassing gaffe comes when he attacks the theory of punctuated equilibrium as an example of making the theory fit the data. (How is that a criticism? That’s the scientific method!) 6. Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987) by Sören Lövtrup Sören Lövtrup is a professional biologist who has written textbooks in the fields of Systematics and Developmental Biology. With such impressive credentials, one wonders why creationists haven’t put him front and center in their battle for academic equality. Perhaps it might be because Lövtrup believes evolution to be one of the best substantiated theories in the natural sciences. Distinguishing between the fact of evolution, the history of evolution and the mechanism of evolution, Lövtrup claims that Darwin's theory of natural selection fails to give an acceptable explanation of the mechanism of evolution. Despite his sensationalist title, the author does not presume--as creationists do--that incomplete knowledge renders an entire field invalid. 7. Adam and Evolution (1984) by Michael Pitman This book is difficult to characterize because it is so obscure, and no information is available about its author. However, since it is so liberally quoted on the creationist website evolution-facts.org, certain aspects about it are clear. First, for someone who is not a Christian apologist, Pitman seems overly obsessed with exposing evolution as an atheistic device which was eagerly embraced by communism: “With its denigration of non-material aspects of human life, and its mission to uproot tradition and destroy creationist concepts in men’s minds, communism remains one of Darwin’s strongest adherents…. After 1949 when the communists took control of China, the first new text introduced to all schools was neither Marxist nor Leninist, but Darwinian." (p. 24) The validity of such historical analysis is irrelevant to the issue of whether evolution happened. (One can convincingly argue that the development of particle physics has negatively affected humanity, but that argument does not address the existence of nuclear weapons.) Elsewhere, Pitman demonstrates an absurdly simplistic understanding of evolutionary theory: “No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don’t see them: there is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty.” (pp. 67–68) Pitman is dead wrong in asserting that pre-functional organs and systems are “basic to evolutionary theory.” Just the opposite is true--the theory is clear that a complex system can develop only if some benefit is derived from every step along the way. To make such an assertion, Pitman reveals a profound misunderstanding of basic evolutionary theory that calls into question his authority to challenge it. Moreover, by posing ridiculous predictions for evolution and then contending that they don’t exist, Pitman echoes the rhetorical devices of earlier Christian creationists such as Gish and Morris. If there is any remaining doubt to the religious origin of his scientific views, here is a final quote: "An atheist believes that evolution is the result of chance. Theistic evolutionism believe God, having created the universe, let purposeless chance evolve life. A creationist, dismissing this hybrid view as absurd, contends that an intelligent creator creates complex machinery, such as a living body, deliberately." (p. 22) 8. Educators Against Darwin, Science Digest Special (Winter 1979) Immediately following the list of books, a Science Digest article is quoted to make it appear as if it portrays a positive view of creationism:
However, the same article points out that “most or all of the Creationists are devout fundamentalist Protestant Christians. Many of them testify that they adopted their creationist positions in childhood, long before their professional training, and have not wavered since.” One of these scientists proudly declares, “I have always accepted the Bible as God’s unchanged and unchangeable word.” Another quoted scientist calls evolution “among the great Satanic lies.” Clearly, this Science Digest article does not portray the creationist movement as one composed of objective scientists. 9. Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith Following this, a scientist is quoted on the website as follows: "One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design:
But here are some more of Dr. Wilder-Smith's personal views: "I believe, myself, in a living God who did it. I believe that this God, who supplied the information, revealed Himself in the form of a man - so that man could understand Him. We are made to understand. I want to understand God. But I can only do it if He comes down to my wavelength, the wavelength of man. I believe that God revealed Himself in the form of Christ, and that we can serve Him and know Him in our hearts as the source of the Logos - all information is necessary to make the universe and to make life itself. "....Look at the beauty of nature around us. When you consider that it all grew out of matter injected with information of the type I have been describing, you can only be filled with wonder of the wisdom of a Creator, who, first of all, had the sense of beauty to do it, and then the technical ability. I am filled with wonder as I look at nature, to see how God technically did it and realized the beauty of His own soul in doing it. The Scriptures teaches perfectly plainly, and it fits in with my science perfectly well, that the one who did called Himself THE LOGOS. That Logos was Jesus. Jesus called Himself the Creator who made everything - 'for Him and by Him'. Now, if that is the case, then I am very happy and filled with joy that He made the Creation so beautiful and that He made the Creation so beautiful and that He also valued me enough to die for me, to become my Redeemer as well." 10. Secular Researcher Richard Milton The page concludes with a quote by "secular researcher" Richard Milton, which details the wane of Darwinism in various scientific disciplines. Richard Milton is not a professional scientist, but an alternative science author. His opinion, like that of others in his field (who research subjects such as the Bermuda Triangle, pyramid power, Bigfoot and the Lost Continent of Atlantis) are suspect for a very simple reason: Unlike professional scientists, whose salaries are the same regardless of the outcome of their investigations, popular science authors are not paid unless the public buys their books. Thus, they have an enormous monetary interest in finding an outcome that is startling, unexpected, sensational and mysterious. To illustrate the point, many people remember that Charles Berlitz brought public attention to the mysterious disappearances in the Bermuda Triangle, aka the Devil's Triangle; but does anyone remember who eventually proved that the disappearances were not statistically significant? |