Re: Critique on Science Project Requested.

On 2007-07-24, joe-no <jonathan.dean2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I am a Creationist and so I am hurt whenever a Creationist comes up
with an isanely stupid, misleading and illinformed argument.

I'm hurt (as in, "ow, that makes my head hurt") whenever anyone calls
themselves a creationist, yet decides to critique other creationist
arguments. They are all absurd, and picking one for special attention
is like standing in a field of cowpies, picking one, and saying that
_this particular_ cowpie is the one that is causing all the stink, that
if it weren't for this one cowpie, the entire field would smell like
flowers.

For my
science project this year, I have decided to put together a short
documentary evaluating both sides of the argument. This is where you
come in. Could you please critique this, letting me know of any
factual errors, wrong information and if this is biased more to one
side than the other.

Created or Evolved?
The Origin of Species.


SCRIPT

[Title is a picture of an ape to man progression on one side and a
picture of a cross on the other. A lightning bolt splits the two.
Music is "If Everyone Cared" by Nickleback, played softly. Fades to
narrator.]

Narrator: G'day and thanks for putting the time aside to watch my
doco. In this documentary I'll be dealing with a highly sensitive and
controversial issue - the debate between Evolution and Creationism.
Many people just dismiss Creationists as a bunch of ill-informed, anti-
science fanatics who would rather see things reverted to where you had
to be a Christian or you would be put to death. While most Christians
do not think this, they all - well, with some exceptions - are against
evolution.

This is misleading, if not actually untrue. The fraction of Christians
who accept evolution is significant, if not an actual majority.

The question is, do they have a point? Are they correct in
thinking that it would be impossible for single cells to, through
random occurrences and mutations, form organisms comprised of billions
of cells?

It is far from clear that the majority of those who call themselves
creationistsare in anyway educated enough to have an informed opinion.
In that sense, what they "think" is likely to be irrelevant. Still, it
doesn't necessarily mean they are _wrong_, so let's press ahead.

My intention is to use this documentary to explore and
explain both sides of the argument as clearly as I possibly can,
attempting to rule out bias.

[Cut to image of a monkey scratching its head. Title reads: What is
Evolution? Cut back to Narrator.]

Narrator: Many members of our community know about evolution and that
we supposedly evolved from simpler forms, but how many actually know
what the Theory of Evolution really is?

[Cut to video of narrator asking people what the Theory of Evolution
is. Cut back to narrator.]

Narrator: Well, according to Understanding Evolution, a website that
is a collaboration between the University of California Museum of
Palaeontology and the National Centre for Science Education, evolution
is: "Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification.
This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene
frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-
scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common
ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the
history of life." Of course, that's a simple definition to help people
understand the Theory better.

Right, so now that's sorted, let's see what Creationism is.

[Cut to a video of the narrator asking people what they thought
Creationism is. Cut back to narrator.]

Narrator: So, that's the public opinion. In some cases, they were
right and in others they were wrong. In fact, there are eight or nine
different types of Christian Creationism. Most of them deal with an
old Earth but new life -or something along those lines - whilst the
other two believe in a young Earth.

Is that the breakdown? Upon what data do you base this generalization?

Essentially, old Earth creationism accepts the geological findings
about the Earth, but not what Evolutionists say, whilst Young Age
creationists believe that the Earth is only around 10 000 - 6 000
years old. Yet maybe they are right. Maybe we did not evolve from
single celled organisms, but were created by a divine being. Let's
examine the evidence.

[Cut to a picture a puzzled person. Title reads: What Does Evolution
Have going for it?]

Narrator: Now that we know what Evolution is, we should probably find
out what evolution has going for it.
There are many things that support evolution. After all, if there
hadn't been, then Charles Darwin would never have been able to make
his famous observations. It also makes sense that these changes could
be made through genetic variations. For example, look at Darwin's
example of the finches on the Galápagos Islands.

When Darwin first saw these 14 different species, he thought them to
all be of a different Order, that is, he thought that they had little
or no genetic similarities. However, after a friend of his had
examined the captured birds, he discovered that they were all belonged
to one order. This became a major part of Darwin's theory of
Evolution.

The idea that Darwin derived from the Finches was that, over time,
mutations had occurred and so the isolated populations had eventually
become different for each other.

From Origin of Species, regarding pidgeons:

I have discussed the probable origin of domestic pigeons at
some, yet quite insufficient, length; because when I first
kept pigeons and watched the several kinds, well knowing how
truly they breed, I felt fully as much difficulty in believing
that since they had been domesticated they had all proceeded
from a common parent, as any naturalist could in coming to a
similar conclusion in regard to the many species of finches, or
other groups of birds, in nature. One circumstance has struck
me much; namely, that nearly all the breeders of the various
domestic animals and the cultivators of plants, with whom I
have conversed, or whose treatises I have read, are firmly
convinced that the several breeds to which each has attended,
are descended from so many aboriginally distinct species. Ask,
as I have asked, a celebrated raiser of Hereford cattle, whether
his cattle might not have descended from Long-horns, or both
from a common parent- stock, and he will laugh you to scorn. I
have never met a pigeon, or poultry, or duck, or rabbit fancier,
who was not fully convinced that each main breed was descended
from a distinct species. Van Mons, in his treatise on pears
and apples, shows how utterly he disbelieves that the several
sorts, for instance a Ribston-pippin or Codlin-apple, could ever
have proceeded from the seeds of the same tree. Innumerable
other examples could be given. The explanation, I think, is
simple: from long-continued study they are strongly impressed
with the differences between the several races; and though they
well know that each race varies slightly, for they win their
prizes by selecting such slight differences, yet they ignore all
general arguments, and refuse to sum up in their minds slight
differences accumulated during many successive generations.
May not those naturalists who, knowing far less of the laws of
inheritance than does the breeder, and knowing no more than he
does of the intermediate links in the long lines of descent, yet
admit that many of our domestic races are descended from the
same parents--may they not learn a lesson of caution, when they
deride the idea of species in a state of nature being lineal
descendants of other species?

In other words, the prevailing wisdom of the time was in the immutability
of species, but Darwin actually proposed the opposite.

[Cut to a photo of a Vampire Finch]

For example, the so called "Vampire" Finch has a beak that can easily
peck through skin and into the blood of other birds, something that it
does only when there is very little food. Apart from that, its beak is
perfectly made for eating seed and even extracting nectar from certain
flowers.

I'm not sure how this example advances your discussion.

[Cut back to narrator]

There are other things that seem to bear out Darwin's theory.

[Cut to picture going from ape to man]

This is probably the most well known example of evolution. It shows
the transitions between ape and man, something that seems to proven by
the similarities between ape and human DNA. Considering the way the
various fossils gradually get more and more human like, it does not
seem so impossible that a series of changes could eventually produce
us,

You claim that it "seems to be proven", and conclude "it does not seem
so impossible". If it is proven, it is obviously not impossible. If it
is impossible, it is obviously not proven. Your attempt at equivocation
is not particularly useful.


[Cut back to narrator]

So, now let's take a look at how the eye, according to Darwin, might
have evolved.

Ouch. Whiplash.

A creature, such as a mollusc, has a light sensitive patch of cells,
allowing it limited abilities to sense enemies. As it can sense its
enemies some of the time, more of this species survive than the other
ones. As time goes on, mutations occur. Firstly, the light sensitive
patch forms a depression, allowing the organism to have a mall amount
of directional sensitivity. Next, it narrows down to form a pin hole,
increasing the directional abilities of the eye.
Eventually, a clear piece of tissue forms over the entrance,
protecting the sensitive cells from physical damage, and a transparent
humour forms. Soon, a lens starts to form out of this humour, and the
transparent cells holding everything thicken into a cornea. Years pass
and things mutate, eventually forming the eyes that we humans, along
with other mammals, have today.

Your description makes it sound as if these changes are happening to
single organisms, rather than populations of organisms over time (not
just years, but millions of years). It also tends to sound as it
the development is teleological, that some goal is being worked towards.
This is not consistent with prevailing scientific theory.


[Cut to a title saying: What Does Evolution Have Against it?]

Narrator: So, we've seen what Evolution has going for it. Seems
pretty convincing, doesn't it? Well, now let's take a look at what
Evolution has against it.

[Cut to video of the narrator asking people about what Evolution has
against it]

Narrator: The question is, are the public right? The answer varies,

No. It doesn't. Either they are right, or they are not. It doesn't
actually vary at all.

depending on what opinions people hold, but one thing remains the same
for all. Evolution is not science.

This is an egregious falsehood.

Science is, by definition, "The
observation, identification, description, experimental investigation,
and theoretical explanation of phenomena." I will now dissect this
definition and show how Evolution fails to fit it.

· Macroevolution cannot be observed and, as there has
yet to be any proof, microevolution does not necessarily lead to
macroevolution. Yes, it is true that microevolution can be observed,
but to this day it has yet to be observed causing macroevolution.

This too, is an egregious falsehood. It also introduces a term which
you have not defined (macroevolution) and therefore is likely to confuse
rather than illuminate.

· There is perhaps one thing that Evolution does fit in
with: it can be indentified. It is obvious that some form of
microevolution has occurred to turn a butterfly's wings grey, allowing
it to blend in with the newly introduced world of smog and smog.

So, why is one sort of change allowed and another not allowed?

· Can evolution be described? Only in the case of
microevolution. Macroevolution cannot be described as we can't see any
cases of it.

This too is an egregious falsehood. Perhaps you think that by not defining
your terms, you can get away with it.

· Now comes the part that proves that evolution is not
science. It is impossible for anyone to prove that we evolved from a
common ancestor to both us and the apes.

That's odd. Nothing about your definition of science mentioned anything
about "proof". Of course we can't "prove", in the mathematical sense that
humans and apes (incidently, humans are apes, but I'll let that slide for
now) shared a common ancestor. We also can't prove that the world wasn't
created last tuesday, or that invisible giraffes live in your refridgerator.
None of these things have the least bit to do with science.

Even if, somehow, a
population of our supposedly common ancestor was brought back through
time it would be impossible to prove that they were our ancestor.

This claim too, is rather odd. After all, we have these things called
"paternity tests" which are generally accepted as _legal proof_ that someone
is the ancestor of another. What in principle prevents us from doing
the same with our proposed time-traveling ancestor?

Let's say that we had several seal chambers that appeared to be the
entire world and that we could control the environment in each. Even
if we could do all that, there is no guarantee that the experiment
would even work.

Did you delete a paragraph? What experiment?

Assuming that it did, there is also no chance of it
being repeatable, due to the randomness of the genetic mutations.

I wonder what you think the point of that is.

· Because we have not seen macroevolution, we therefore
cannot come up with a theoretical explanation for it.

This is an almost comically egregious falsehood.

Those factors combined prove that evolution is not science.

You've made a number of pure assertions, all of which are false. It is
hard to understand how asserting false things can prove anything.

However, not everyone agrees and an educational site aimed at helping
teachers it presents several arguments as to why Evolution is science.
· Fossils such as Archaeopteryx give us snapshots of
organisms as they adapt and change over time.

Yes, all fossils do that.

· Studying modern organisms such as elephant seals can
reveal specific examples of evolutionary history and bolster concepts
of evolution.

In fact, studying all animals (plants too!) do that.

· Artificial selection among guppies can demonstrate
microevolution in the laboratory.

Indeed. The study of cichlids is fascinating, and provides substantial
evidence in support of evolution.

· Laboratory experimentation with fruit flies
demonstrates the power of genetic mutation.

Indeed.

These arguments, with the possible exception of
Archaeopteryx - which may only be a unique species - are wrong because
they do not show macroevolution.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Also, the above are not "arguments". They are evidence. If you'd like to
argue that the arguments in support of evolution that are made using them
are wrong, it would seem to me that you'd have to actually present those
arguments and show where they are wrong.

Studying modern organisms gives us a
better understanding about how gene pools change and fluctuate (it
also shows that that a limited gene pool would not help a species
develop), the microevolution amongst the guppies was brought on
artificially (weakening Evolution's case against Intelligent Design)
and the experimentation with fruit flies proves that nowadays genetic
mutations seem to do more harm than good.

Nonsense. These too are egregious falsehoods.

Another thing worth mentioning is that Homo erectus
could quite easily be an early variant of Homo sapiens, before genetic
variation was as great as it is today.

Uh. I don't even know what that means. I bet you don't either.

Evolutionists also agree that
Neanderthals are Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, showing that only a
small amount of microevolution would have to occur in order for them
to become Homo sapiens sapiens.

While I believe this is still debated, it is generally thought that modern
humans are not descended from Neanderthals.

Note that this is not macroevolution
because the Neanderthal is still in the Homo sapien genus.

Perhaps you should introduce the subject of "genus", and "species", and then
go back and revisit this claim.

[Cut to a picture of God Reaching out to Adam. Title reads: What does
Creationism have going for it.]

Narrator: Now we move onto the next part, Creationism. What do the
public think?

[Cut to video of narrator asking people what their thoughts on the
matter are. Cut back to narrator]

Narrator: Scientifically, Creationism has nothing going for it. Just
as evolution can be considered to be not science, Creationism isn't
science.

Well, at least you got this part right.

In fact, the only thing that Creationism has going for it is
the fact that if Evolution is wrong, then there must be something to
fill in the gap.

It is far from clear how creationism "fills" that gap. If the ToE were
somehow wrong, it doesn't mean that creationism is right, or even more
likely to be right.

In fact, the bible, namely Hebrews chapter 11 verse
three, even states that it is through faith and faith only that we
come to accept that God created the world.

Unfortunately for us, many feel that they need to prove that
Evolutionists are bigoted idiots who can't make up their minds. There
probably are some around, but the majority aren't. I would like to ask
all of you to check any quotes in Creationist literature to make sure
that they haven't been taken out of context, deliberately or
otherwise.

Good advice. I wonder if you will take it. Granted, most of the falsehoods
you've presented here don't seeem to be quotes from Creationist literature,
but rather simple echoes of it, combined with academic and intellectual
laziness.

It should also be noted that Evolutionists do this, only on
a much smaller scale.

Examples?

Many believe that Evolution is wrong and so accept Creationism in one
of its several of forms. It is interesting that these often come into
conflict. For example, young-Earth and long-age Creationists are often
at odds, due to their different interpretations of the bible.

My interpretation of the bible is that God created everything how it
is now, who knows how long ago. Eventually, light from the stars
reached the Earth and then God sculpted the Earth into what it is
today in the seven days. Remember, this is only my interpretation, so
I suggest that you read Genesis Chapter 1 and make up your own mind.

Is it common for your personal beliefs to be subject matter in documentaries?

Now, I was going to have what Creationism has against it, but as you
can see, I ran into a brick wall on what it had going for it, and as I
have already pointed this out, I really don't think that I need to do
that.

Well, how 'bout it's almost pathological penchant for dishonest argument?

[Cut to a title that reads: Make up Your Own Mind!]

Narrator: This brings me to the conclusion of this documentary. During
the time that I researched for it I have had my beliefs challenged and
have had to struggle with what I truly believe. Because of this I now
have a better understanding of both sides of the argument than I ever
did.

Now, I have given you but a brief overview of both subjects. I
haven't even gone into the area of misconceptions and there is so much
more out there. So go on, look things up and make your own mind up.
Don't let anyone do the thinking for you.


Bibliography

http://www.answers.com/science&r=67
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/evolution_of_the_eye.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Steven Leisk, Bsc. Science (Major: Evolutionary Science, Minor: Marine
Biology)

It's odd that this documentary actually didn't document anything, doncha think?

Mark

.

Loading