Humanist Groups Network A rebuttal of "The Delusion of EVOLUTION" Links Discussion Forum

Loughborough Logic

This Web page has been introduced in an attempt to provide a rebuttal to the booklet "The Delusion of EVOLUTION" printed by New Life Publishing of Nottingham.

This booklet, which is very professionally produced on high quality glossy paper, begins with an Editorial under "Evolution - A house of cards".

In this Andrew Halloway asserts that "The academic establishment is blindly pro-evolution - the theory that life arose by chance - but it is fighting a losing battle to maintain the crumbling facade"

Here in his opening paragraph he makes the first invalid claim. Evolution is the theory that life has developed due to natural selection, which has very little to do with "chance".

For a simple explanation of Natural Selection click here.

The next section entitled "Thinking outside the box" alleges that there are other "scientific" theories apart from evolution that should be examined. In this the author alleges that evolution is taught as "one of the established truths of science". Here we get into semantics, but in science there is not "established" truth only "accepted" truth which can be changed as soon as contradictory evidence is found. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method for an explanation of the Scientific Method. In other words scientific "theories" must be testable.

The author also attempts to divide science into two broad categories - operational science and historical science. The first relating to present technological progress (which builds computers) and the second to hypothesises about the past. This is a completely false division. Einstein hypothesised about the universe (general relativity)and about quantum theory, both of which relied on evidence from near time and the billions of years observed in astronomy. Indeed his theories partially over-turned "accepted" Newtonian theory. Without Einstein's theories we would not have computers.

The author quotes a scientist as saying of science that "materialism is an absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door" suggesting that "evolution is an entrenched dogma". Again he fails to understand that science has to be testable and so by definition must be materialistic. Any theory has to be testable so a hypothesis that "all life is due to the fairies at the bottom of my garden" would never be examined as it is not possible to test it based on material evidence. That doesn't necessarily mean that life isn't the result of fairies at the bottom of my garden.

The third section is entitled "A new theory of 'Intelligent Design' pulls the rug from under evolution".

This is basically a return to the "holes" argument against evolution. Essentially we can't see the whole picture so "god" must be responsible for the bits we can't see/understand.

This has now refined itself into the theory of irreducible complexity. Essentially this is that some things in nature are so complex that they must have been designed and anyway there is no way that they could have evolved as there is no way of getting to this position that would work.

The example now given (previously it was the eye) is that of the bacterial flagellum which has a marvellous little bi-directional motor-driven propeller. The author states that for "Darwinists to disprove ID, they would have to get a detailed testable step-by-step scenario of how these systems could have formed according to some Darwinian trajectory or pathway, and if they did for a number of such systems." A detailed testable step-by-step scenario of how these bacteria evolved can be found at www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

The forth section is entitled "Things that your biology teacher never told you".

This alleges that much out of date information on evolution is being taught in schools (as may well be the case if the teacher hasn't kept up to date). In fact it would appear that the author is out of date.

The first allegation is that most animal life forms appear suddenly without ancestors in what is known as the Cambrian explosion with vast changes compressed in less than 5 to 10 million years [now thought to extend to 30 million years] which "evolutionists" can't explain. This is well covered in an excellent BBC Radio programme "An Earth made for Life" that can still be heard at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/rams/earthmadeforlife_20050601.ram. and for a more academic paper see The Cambrian "explosion" of metazoans and molecular biology: would Darwin be satisfied?

It then uses an argument about Homology (structures, such as bones, are said to be homologous if they are alike because of shared ancestry) stating that this theory is then used to support a second "theory" evolution. This is purported to be a circular argument. However, to the biologist, this is simply part of evolutionary theory and not a separate theory.

Next it looks at Haeckel's "recapitulation theory" (1866) which claimed that an individual organism's biological development parallels and summarises its species' entire evolutionary development. While this theory is now discredited, it is now thought that if a structure pre-dates another structure in evolutionary terms, then it also appears earlier than the other in the embryo. Species which have an evolutionary relationship typically share the early stages of embryonic development and differ in later stages. Examples include [1]:

• The backbone, the common structure among all vertebrates such as fish, reptiles and mammals, appears as one of the earliest structures laid out in all vertebrate embryos.
• The cerebrum in humans, the most sophisticated part of the brain, develops last.

If a structure vanished in an evolutionary sequence, then one can often observe a corresponding structure appearing at one stage during embryonic development, only to disappear or become modified in a later stage. Examples include:

• Whales, which have evolved from land mammals, don't have legs, but tiny remnant leg bones lie buried deep in their bodies. During embryonic development, leg extremities first occur, then recede. Similarly, whale embryos (like all mammalian embryos) have hair at one stage, but lose most of it later.
• All land vertebrates, which have evolved from fish, show gill pouches at one stage of their embryonic development.
• The common ancestor of humans and monkeys had a tail, and human embryos also have a tail at one point; it later recedes to form the coccyx.
• The swim bladder in fish presumably evolved from a sac connected to the gut, allowing the fish to gulp air. In most modern fish, this connection to the gut has disappeared. In the embryonic development of these fish, the swim bladder originates as an out pocketing of the gut, and is later disconnected from the gut.

For further detail please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory#Modern_theory

Next we are told that the Miller-Urey experiment (1953), that showed that the molecules necessary for life could have arisen by simple chemical reactions on an early earth, had been invalidated since the atmosphere assumed at the time used by the experimenters was now known to be different from that used. However this does not invalidate the experiment, it just moves the appropriate conditions to earlier in the Earth's life since the reason for invalidation is the presence of oxygen which requires photosynthesis. For more details of the ongoing debate see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey

The next point is about "The peppered moth" and here the author has a point that science has challenged the original experiment and found flaws in it. Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.of the Department of Molecular Cell Biology, University of California has said [1] "the classical story, elegant and appealing though it may be, should no longer be presented as a textbook example of evolution in action. If the purpose of science education is to teach students how to do good science, then instead of re-telling the classical story textbooks would do better to focus on how science revealed its flaws." Indeed the work lead to other conclusions but nothing was revealed that contradicted an evolutionary explanation. Indeed it demonstrates that science involves continuous revision or our understandings, unlike holy texts that are deemed correct for all time. For further information on this experiment and its outcomes please go to http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmoth.htm and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_2_3.html.

The next point made is that the Archaeopteryx fossil originally claimed as a missing link between dinosaurs and birds is now known to be simply another bird.

The first intact specimen of Archaeopteryx, discovered just two years after Charles Darwin published 'The Origin of Species', set off a firestorm of debate about evolution and the role of transitional fossils that endures to this day. However, even if this and some subsequent discoveries showed that scientists are not (and do not claim to be) infallible, it does not disprove the theory of evolution, it merely shows that scientists make mistakes which they correct once they are identified. For further information on transitional fossils see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

In a separate blue box headed up "The claim that evolution is 'happening today' is just wishful thinking" the author claims that "The primary mechanism of evolution is supposed to be mutations".

Natural selection[1] incorporates five basic ideas:

1. Organisms will produce more offspring than their habitat can sustain. There will be a "struggle to survive".
2. Not all the offspring will be identical.
3. Some of the differences between the offspring will be due to variations in their genetic makeup.
4. Genetic variations that allow an organism to survive and reproduce will be passed on to the next generation. Genetic variations that do not help an organism to survive and reproduce will be lost.
5. Over time, these genetic variations will accumulate until a new species results.

Major mutations are usually destructive as the author points out and rapid "big bang" changes are not required to explain evolution, merely small incremental cumulative changes which can involve the removal of features or their development. For evolution this doesn't matter, life will evolve to fit the environment it finds itself in. Thus life forms can remain stable for very long periods or if say predators disappear, over time, herbivores may lose the ability to run as it will no longer be necessary to survive.

The author then attempts to show that the appearance of "superbugs" is not due to "evolution" but "the characteristics that help them survive were already dormant within the genes but have been brought out by the artificial selection resulting from human interference". But this is exactly how evolution by natural selection works. If the weather gets colder only those in the population with characteristics/genes able to cope with cold weather will survive.

He also states that "some people mistakenly believe that dog breeding is evolution - just speeded up by human selection". He claims that "they couldn't produce new breeds unless the genetic information was already available in the genes. No evolution is happening." He then asserts that "in a natural environment, most artificial breeds would die out in competition with natural breeds."

In this he is quite correct apart from the sentence "No evolution is happening." The selection by a breeder meets all 5 points relating to evolution shown above. Indeed the Australian Dingo is probably descended from an early domesticated dog that was selectively bred from the Grey Wolf - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingo. To all intents and purposes a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua are separate sub species even if they could interbreed if they mated. For more on speciation see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html.

There is then an article by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer "Nature's nanotechnology shows every sign of design". Dr. Meyer earned his Ph.D. [1] in history and philosophy of science in 1991. His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes : a methodological interpretation of origin of life studies." He is a is a founder of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture, which advocates the controversial concept of intelligent design, and a leading proponent and lobbyist in the intelligent design movement.

He is a controversial figure who advocated a "teach the controversy" strategy following a presentation to the Ohio State Board of Education in March 2002. The presentation included submission of an annotated bibliography of 44 peer-reviewed scientific articles that were said to raise significant challenges to key tenets of what was referred to as "Darwinian evolution". In response to this claim the National Center for Science Education, an organisation that works in collaboration with National Academy of Sciences, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and the National Science Teachers Association that support the teaching of evolution in public schools, contacted the authors of the papers listed and twenty-six scientists, representing thirty-four of the papers, responded. None of the authors considered that their research provided evidence against evolution.

In this article Dr. Meyer returns to the argument dealt with under "A new theory of 'Intelligent Design' pulls the rug from under evolution" relating to bacterial flagellum.

He then moves to the double helix of DNA which provides the information by which life replicates on this planet, maintaining that "there is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by change alone". He argues that this provides the basis on which it can be claimed that "ID is not based on religion, but on scientific discoveries".

Here we have another inconsistency. DNA shows how all species are related and how they have evolved with the changes in gene makeup. So if you accept that DNA explains how life evolves you cannot accept the anti -evolution argument put previously in the document. At this level the argument is that the coding system used by DNA is so complex it must have been designed to enable evolution to take place. It would appear that the producers of this document want to have their cake and eat it.

For a simple explanation of variances in DNA occur click here. As to how DNA arose, here we have to turn to RNA and the fact that this is not mentioned in the article would seem to indicate that the author is not fully familiar with the subject. For a more detailed but simplified explanation of how RNA relates to DNA try http://www.postmodern.com/~jka/rnaworld/nfrna/nf-index.html. While it would be correct to say that we still do not understand completely how RNA was formed and how it built into DNA, this does not mean that we shall not discover this. So it is almost certainly premature to introduce "intelligent design" since the simple answer is that we just don't know and need to do more research.

As to how these building blocks could come together randomly, Michael Forrest of Hathern makes an interesting point. In the early days of cheaper mass produced clocks, roomfuls of young girls spent their days assembling lantern pinions - a cheaply produced pinion made of two drilled end plates with steel pins through the holes to give a lantern like structure which on an arbor functioned well enough.

One day, accidentally or expediently, all were put in one barrel, and the following morning a high proportion had roughly assembled themselves, and with minor adjustments, had an arbor fitted and were finished. Those incomplete went back into the barrel with the next batch.

Since the evolution of DNA would involve self assembly this would suggest that the odds aren't unrealistic for the production of DNA from a mixture, particularly as these mixtures would have been combining in many locations across the Earth for around 1 billion years with billions of RNA strands in each mix. It would only take one successful self replicating form of DNA to come into existence and survive to kick the whole process of life off.

The next article "Science's leading evolutionist admits he can't prove evolution" is an attack on Richard Dawkins based on his statement "I believe, but I cannot prove, that all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection." The author claims this means that the evidence doesn't prove evolution. Since to a scientist all knowledge can be challenged on the basis of evidence, Dawkins position is no more nor less than one would expect and why he cannot be described as a fundamentalist. Creationists on the other hand always attempt to make the evidence fit the descriptions in their "holy text" (which is deemed to be correct for all time) and will not change whatever evidence is produced and therefore can be described as fundamentalists.

Richard Dawkins is quite capable of defending his own views and you can read these in his recent book "The God Delusion" or on his website http://richarddawkins.net/home where the first chapter of the book can be read that set out in summary most of his arguments.

As we move through the booklet the arguments become less sensible and the evidence provided less robust and so we move to the article "Evolutionary dating exposed". Again the author appears to be regarding science as a religion so if you show one of its texts to be incorrect you disprove the whole proposition. Whilst this may be true of fundamentalist religions this is the antithesis of science which by definition is always subject to revision as new discoveries are made or previous mistakes revealed

The first point made is about the period the Neanderthals were extant for. Current understanding is that this sub-species was active between 350,000 and 24,000 years ago. If some were still surviving 3300 years ago this makes little difference to our understanding and simply extends the estimated period of activity by c.5%.

The piece refers to a controversy over the 'Bischof-Speyer' skeleton where an at best incompetent professor of anthropology at Frankfurt University, Reiner Protsch misidentified and misdated human remains. A bad scientist doesn't invalidate the rest of science.

The author then cites some examples of apparent "radioactive" misdating, although no references to studies are given. Although radiometric dating [1] is accurate in principle, the precision is very dependent on the care with which the procedure is performed. The possible confounding effects of initial contamination of parent and daughter isotopes have to be considered, as do the effects of any loss or gain of such isotopes since the sample was created. Additionally, measurement in a mass spectrometer is subject to isotopic interference of other nuclides with the same mass number. Corrections may have to be performed by measuring isotopic ratios of elements which interfere with the target isotope. Good scientists are aware of these problems and will use different techniques and attempt to corroborate their estimates using other data. However, this does not invalidate the method.

They then move to The Grand Canyon and claim that the 2 billion years represented by the exposed strata as calculated by geologists have disappeared based on the dating methods they had previously found to be unreliable. They are out to prove that the Age of the Earth is thousands rather than billions of years as believed by Young Earth creationists.. This is shown by the background of the "academics" quoted.

Phillip E. Johnson (born 1940) is a retired UC Berkeley American law professor and author. He became a born-again Christian and is considered the father of the intelligent design movement, which criticizes the theory of evolution, and promotes intelligent design, as an alternative. Johnson also denies the predominant scientific view that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the sole cause of AIDS.

For the past ten years Dr Andrew Snelling BSc, PhD, the CSF's geological spokesman, has been the only prominent Australian creationist with geological qualifications. His credentials are not in question here, only his influence on science education in Australia. He writes articles for creationist journals and lectures in schools, public meetings and churches.

It would probably be more accurate to describe him as a Protestant evangelist, not as a geologist. He is a member of the Creation Science Foundation which means that he has subscribed to a statement of faith that includes: "The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator and Redeemer." and "The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life." Some CSF literature openly refers to him as a 'missionary'. His statements as an evangelist appear to contradict some of the papers he has produced as a professional geologist. See Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?

In another box the author refers to "A 'Living fossil', the Coelecanth. The text states (probably correctly) that this fish is unchanged for the last 340 million years and this proves that either there is no evolution or the original fossils are not that old. In fact creatures that fit their environment can survive unchanged for vast periods of time. The Horseshoe crab is another ancient creature that had survived successfully for getting on for 500 million years and was given as such an example in David Attenborough's Life on Earth programme.

The penultimate main article, "Science Fiction" is by the retired lawyer Professor Phillip Johnson referred to above. This is a tirade against evolution and its supporters which makes some kind of sense if you accept what went before.

Another box refers to Deep sea desperation and talks about Black smokers. "'Smokers' are volcanic towers of rock that spew out torrents of black scalding water, around which some organisms manage to exist, despite the intense heat, pressure and darkness." The claim is made that evolutionists attempt to use this to show that life could have arisen in the harsh environment of the early earth in "their 'proofs' of evolution". Again this shows their ignorance of science. Nothing in science can ever be proved absolutely, scientists simply develop the best model they can based on the evidence available and then modify it if fresh and different evidence is found. Consequently those who oppose evolutionary theory have to aim at an ever moving target which is presumably frustrating for those who advocate an immutable holy text.

Finally we get "World famous atheist switches to God because of new scientific evidence". Professor Anthony Flew (born 1923)is reported to have become a deist. He is quoted as saying [1] that "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism". However, as a aged philosopher, he wasn't up-to-date with the science. In a letter to Richard Carrier of 29 December 2004 he retracted his statement "a deity or a 'super-intelligence' [is] the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature." "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction."

The final box provides details on "The ABC of how to discover your Designer" which provides detail on how to contact a "Bible-believing church".

[1] based on content in Wikipedia (Dec. 2006).

Home