The Huffington Post ran an article on Five Reasons Why Evolution Is Important. It’s by Steven Newton, Public Information Project Director for the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), and was run on 12 February to celebrate Charles Darwin’s 201st birthday.
Newton gives five medical examples of natural selection and claims that proves “evolution” is important. This argument from natural selection has been shown to be faulty so many times that I’m sure they are aware of it. They have to be deliberately muddying the waters.
In a nutshell the confusion is because they use the word “evolution” in two different ways. It’s a trick. Newton gives examples of “natural selection”, which is one meaning of the word, and he implies that those examples explain “the diversity of life on this planet”, which is a different meaning. Yes, natural selection does produce change but this change is in the wrong direction to transform bacteria into bloggers (see The evolution train’s a-comin’).
Reason 1: H1N1 and Emerging Diseases. Newton says that the outbreak of “swine flu” in 2009 reminds us that “viruses evolve”. Viruses certainly change but such changes are not the sort of changes that molecules-to-man evolution requires (see Swine flu is not evidence for evolution).
Reason 2: HIV. Another virus that “evolves” so rapidly that no “vaccine” has been found. Once again, natural selection is not evolution in the molecules-to-man sense (see Has AIDS evolved?).
Reason 3: Vaccines. They have to change because viruses like the flue virus evolve. This is a repeat of reason 1 & 2. Newton would have to know that creationists accept natural selection because NCSE are continually fighting this issue in the courts in order to silence any discussion or criticism of evolution. He looks like he is playing politics and using political spin for a political advantage.
Reason 4. Antibiotic Resistance. He says it’s a “textbook example of natural selection”, and it is. But nothing has evolved here. No new kinds of bacteria have suddenly popped into existence. The bacteria that survived already existed when the antibiotic was applied and they already had the resistance. Natural selection has reduced the different varieties of bacteria leaving only the resistant ones. All the others are gone. (See Super bugs not super after all, and notice the date of the article. These answers have been around for more than a decade yet Newton keeps trotting out the same old argument. He must know. Makes you think there is more to this than science.)
Reason 5: Drug Development. Newton’s discussion of the Pacific Yew tree is another example of natural selection—variation among yew trees—yawn. But then he plays a little trick. Newton says “we know from evolution that we share a common ancestor with animals.” This is what you call “bait-and-switch“. He has been using “evolution” to mean natural selection, which is uncontroversial and which creationists would agree with. Now he switches the meaning to refer to animals evolving into people. He then claims that the reason we can test drugs for humans on animals is because animals and humans share a common ancestor. But there are other explanations. Animals and humans have similar cell structure and body configuration because they have the same designer—God (see Common design argument).
So, is evolution important? If by evolution you mean natural selection then yes. It’s important to understand natural selection just like it is important to understand the first law of thermodynamics, Newton’s laws of motion and the gas laws. Our understanding of these principles has transformed our world. But we don’t see the birthday of Isaac Newton, Lord Kelvin or Robert Boyle celebrated every year.
But, if by evolution you mean bacteria changing into bloggers over millions of years then NO. This idea is not supported by the scientific evidence and it has produced no scientific insights or inventions. There is only one reason why this kind of evolution is important, and Dawkins explained why. He said evolution enables him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. So, evolution, in the molecules-to-man sense, is all about dispensing with God. And that is why we see this endless adulation of Darwin.
Don’t be fooled by articles like this one from Steven Newton and promoted by NCSE. This issue is not about science, medicine or progress, about which there is no controversy. It’s part of their ongoing war against God.
Give me a break
Evolution is not a conspiracy against god. It is mearly the unity of evidence. Creationists try to make it into a war to unite others in their delusions.
Can you esplain Lesky’s E.coli experiment results? How about the gill arches in human embryos? I have asked you about them before and you didn’t seem able to respond. How about the ectoderm of chicken beaks still sending the chemical signals to make teeth? What about human infants born with tails? The blood vessels servicing the retina on the wrong side? Whales with vestigal hip bones?
Tas Walker
Give me a break:
Did you read the article? Do you understand the difference between natural selection and molecules-to-man evolution?
But at last you cite some arguments. I’ll answer the ones I’m familiar with.
1. Human gills. The folds in the skin are claimed to be gills but they are not (see The fish gills girl).
2. The gene pool of chickens includes a capacity to generate teeth. So? (See Chickens with teeth.)
3. Human infants born with tails. This is not correct. (See Human tails and fairy tails.)
4. Blood vessels on the wrong side of retina. Who says it is “wrong”? Do you have trouble seeing because of those blood vessesl. Of course not. There is a good reason for the blood vessels being where they are. The eye is excellently designed. (See Fibre optics in eye.)
5. Whales with vestigial hip bones. Bergman and Howe point out that they are different in male and female whales and are not useless at all, but help with reproduction (J. Bergman and G. Howe, ‘Vestigial Organs’ are Fully Functional, Creation Research Society Monograph No. 4 (Terre Haute, IN: Creation Research Society Books, 1990)).
Give me a break
1. So many lies, so little time to call them all. Let’s go through these one at a time. Your ‘evidential’ article addresses Haeckel’s ideas on embryology. Haeckel died in 1919!! You are using his ideas as evidence?? The ontogeny of the embryo is now far better known and by direct observation. Contemporary science distinguishes ‘recapitulation’ in both “strong” and “weak” forms. “Strong” recapitulation hypothesis views ontogeny as repeating forms of the ancestors (Haeckel’s view which is now regarded as incorrect), while “weak” recapitulation means that what is repeated (and built upon) is the ancestral embryonic development process.
The latter form of recapitulation is a fact. The gill arches (science does not claim them to be actual functioning gills) are remanent structures from the organisms ancestral heritage. The innervation and vasculation of this area is identical to that of a fish. These structures are present in reptilian, avian and mammalian embryos and is a powerful demonstration of shared ancestry.
The article you cite is nothing but a dishonest straw man argument that argues against an idea that no science minded individual actually believes. In doing so, it pretends the real evidence doesn’t exist because the author simply can’t deal with it.
You need to read real evidence for evolution if you want to understand it.
If you want proof that the article is appallingly dishonest read this – http://www.lab.anhb.uwa.edu.au/hfa213/week8/lec8devhead.pdf. You will note that it is from a university, a credible source.
Give me a break
2. re chicken teeth. Not so much dishonest this time as not addressing all the issues. You accept that ancestral birds had teeth, wonderful. The study to which I refer showed chicken ectoderm inducing teeth in amphibian mesoderm. Answer me this, why would chemical signals from a chicken’s genes trigger the formation of teeth in an amphibian?? The answer is again, shared ancestry and hence compatible genes. Creationism cannot credibly explain this at all.
But it gets worse for creationism. Fly body forming genes are laid out in the same basic pattern as mouse genes. Why is this so? The body forming genes of a fly are compatible with those of a mouse. That is, if inserted into the mouse genome will function as a replacement and induce the same tissue. Again, don’t take my word for it … read the real evidence – http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/pdf/l_034_06.pdf. Don’t rely on what you are told by other creationists where there is often a tendency to ignore things they can’t explain and pretend it doesn’t exist …. such as the fish gills article referenced above.
Give me a break
3. re human tails. Yes, it is.
“A true tail in a newborn girl is reported, and findings from a review of the literature are summarized”. This is an excerpt from an article written in 2008. You can find the reference at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119249820/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
“Human tail–caudal appendage: tethered cordHuman tail–caudal appendage”. The title of another article published in 2008. the article is from a credible source – http://www.nature.com/jp/journal/v28/n7/full/jp200839a.html
It is true that not all appendages are true tails, however some are as evidenced by the fact that they have vertebrae.
Tas Walker
Hi Give me a break,
Reply to your 1st comment.
Similar embryonic development is the result of a common designer. When you look at how it happens is should make you stand in awe of the Creator. And the development is such a complicated process where every step in the development has to be completed perfectly to achieve the end result it beggars belief that such a process could have evolved by trial and error even given millions of years. And not all features that have a similar design develop in the embryo the same way, thwarting the claim of common ancestry (see discussion on human and frog digits on this page).
Tas Walker
Hi Give me a break,
Reply to your 2nd comment.
Why should it be wonderful to accept that some birds have had teeth? It’s simply a design feature. Some mammals lay eggs and have bills. This simply demonstrates the remarkable creativity of the Creator. And playing with genes is no big deal. Genetic engineering is just tinkering with an incredibly amazingly designed language. It all points to intelligent design.
Tas Walker
Hi Give me a break,
Reply to your 3rd comment.
So? There are people born with six fingers, webbing between their fingers and abnormal hair covering, etc. These are errors that occur with the development of the embryo. Some genetic errors don’t cause much harm but others can cause much sadness. The biblical worldview explains why these things happen: we live in a fallen world where people have rebelled against their Creator and as a result things go wrong.
Give me a break
re Your statement – “Some genetic errors don’t cause much harm but others can cause much sadness. The biblical worldview explains why these things happen: we live in a fallen world where people have rebelled against their Creator and as a result things go wrong”.
The consequences of the punishment (birth defects) that you claim is metered out by your deity falls upon innocent children. Is that seriously what you are claiming?? Do you believe your deity that childish that he would have a tanty and payback a child for the indescretions others?
Tas Walker
Hi Give Me a Break,
As you suggest, all these issues affect us personally. No matter who you are you have to find an explanation that is personally satisfying. Richard Dawkins spoke of the implications of evolution this way, “We live in a universe with no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” You can take that explanation but I don’t think you will find much joy or comfort in it.
But the Bible says we live in a universe created by a holy, good and all powerful God. However, our world has been broken by man’s sin, yours and mine. That explains what we see and experience. We know that parent’s actions have consequences for their children. And bad things happen in the world—earthquakes, birth deformities, accidents, etc. That is the way the world is.
But, the Bible gives us hope. It explains that God has provided a solution through the gospel of Jesus Christ—the Son of God. That gives us the sure hope of a new heaven and a new earth and a new body that is incorruptible. Have a read of 1 Corinthians 15. Check it out.
Grahame Gould
How sad “Give me a break” that you blame God for sin and the effects of sin?
God created this world perfect, but with beings who could choose whether to love Him in return for the perfect creation He put them in charge of.
They didn’t. And still don’t.
The curse is the natural result of choosing imperfection, not the fault of a nasty god who won’t let us do what we want.
Unfortunately for you, this world in its current state is your standard, and your imperfections are not seen as such. But God hasn’t changed and neither has His standard because it is not arbitrary. God is perfect because it is His nature and God could be no other than He is or else He would not be God.
Blaming God for errors in DNA is like blaming the cops or parliament when someone gets hurt because an individual maliciously or accidentally wounds another. God is not the cause of human sin, and not the cause of the effects of sin in our universe. But note also that He did come in human form and live a sinless life to show us the way, to empathise with us (by experience) and to also take our sin in Himself and die (thereby killing the sin nature for anyone who, by faith, puts themselves in Him).
I know that much of this probably makes no sense to you, but I hope this at least causes you to step back and examine the paradigm you work within and be a little more understanding of what Christians are actually trying to say, and Who God truly is.
If you are willing to find the truth, God promises to show you, but you must search for Him with all your heart. See Jeremiah 29.13 and Matthew 7:7,8 in the Bible.
Give me a break
Actually Grahame I don’t blame god for anything, I am an athiest so for me gods do not exist.
So Tas you are clearly happy with the notion that your all good god pays out on defenceless children for the sins of others. I find that really sad.
If gill slits, gill arches and tails (yes the embryo has a tail too) on humans are signs of intelligent design then I must admit you have a totally different idea of the words than I do. How are gill slits on birds, mammals, and reptiles a sign of intelligent design? Can you please explain why your designer gave animals stuctures that they will never use? I mean, gill slits on birds??? Where is the intelligence???
Tas Walker
Hi Give me a break,
In Australia some 100,000 defenseless children were killed last year by their mothers before they were born. You would be against this practice, would you? It is a fact of life that no-one lives on an island. Decisions that parents make affect the lives of their children. Your decisions will have huge effects on other people. For your question about God being immoral see: The Bible is morally bankrupt?
Calling certain features gill slits, gill arches and tails is not correct. It is like referring to your ears as wings. These things are often called vestigial (functionless) organs but that was only because they did not know what the function was at that time. Check out ‘Vestigial’ Organs Questions and Answers.