Posts from — August 2006

Voldemort Can’t Stop the Rock!

I’ve begun listening to a podcast called Evolution 101. Dr. Zach Moore is the host. It is an attempt to provide clear, straight forward answers to questions about evolution. Technical answers that are in laymens terms. It is a ‘science outreach’ podcast.

Each episode is around ten minutes long, which is good because that’s about the time I spend commuting to work these days. There are twenty something episodes already out, so I’m pretty far behind. But I don’t figure it will take long for me to catch up. This morning I listened to episode 3, “Darwin Day”. There are transcripts available, which is helpful for me to provide some quotes as I interact with the podcasts. But not always the most accurate. I am assuming that they are his script, and he sometimes deviates from them at points.

At one point in this episode, Dr. Zach discusses Darwin and how he arrived at his theory. He praises Darwin for being ‘his own worst critic’. Darwin knew the fossil evidence of his day didn’t support his theory. Dr. Zach then makes this statement, “Fortunately, the discovery of countless fossils since his death and the burgeoning field of paleontology have provided and incredible amount of evidence in support of his theory.” But wait! There’s a comment that is left out of the transcript that was made in the podcast. A comment that, from all appearances, is meant to clarify the previous one. He says, “There’s nothing that has been found that contradicts Darwin’s basic theory”.

But is that the same thing? Is a lack of contradicting evidence the same thing as the presence of supporting evidence? No, it isn’t.

But what’s really interesting is that, as you’ll recall from my post the other day, evolution isn’t falsifiable! Evolutionists will never find contradicting evidence, because their theory (when presupposed as fact) can be used to explain any and all observations.

Paul Nelson makes a good point. And it applies to more than just Intelligent Design.

Coming Soon….

Jason tagged me…

1. One book that changed your life:
Reforming Marriage, Doug Wilson

2. One book that you’ve read more than once:
Leave It To Psmith, P.G. Wodehouse

3. One book you’d want on a desert island:
The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tokien

4. One book that made you laugh:
Penrod, Booth Tarkington

5. One book that made you cry:
Guess How Much I Love You, Sam McBratney

6. One book that you wish had been written:

7. One book that you wish had never been written:
Congo, Michael Crichton

8. One book you’re currently reading:
Darwin’s Ghost, Steve Jones

9. One book you’ve been meaning to read:
The Lord’s Service, Jeffrey Meyers

10. Now tag five people:
I shall refrain from this, but if you want to take part in the fun, by all means, list me as having tagged you!

Lately I’ve been reading and listening to various commentaries on Intelligent Design, from those in favor of it and those rabidly opposed, and those in between. I’ve been trying to get a grip on the general attitude towards it. I’ve decided that the general attitude is that it is tantamount to creationism. I disagree.

Of all the criticisms the one that is both most common and most persistent is that Intelligent Design is not science. The simple argument from those opposed to ID is that it is not falsifiable. Now, I don’t think this is actually the case, but rather than make a positive argument that it is, I want to instead ask how the alternative is falsifiable. The alternative, of course, is Darwinian Evolution. If DE is real science, how would it be falsified?

Perhaps we could look at the fossil record? DE hypothesizes that innumerable transitional forms will be found in the fossil record. To put it bluntly, this ain’t so. The fossil record, for an evolutionist, would more accurately be called the fossil non-record. It does not match in the slightest the expectations of the evolutionary theory. The Darwinist will claim that they have thousands of transitional fossils. And, this is true, but its a word game. The transitional fossils they have are transitions between two species of clams (which, the observant will note, are both clams), for example. There is nothing in the way of transitions between major body forms, which is predicted by the theory and required to support it. It would appear that the fossil record falsifies Darwinian Evolution.

Or, maybe its the molecular evidence? Passing over the question of how, exactly, DNA and the genetic code (an informational system) evolved in a random, Darwinian fashion, what does the DE theory predict? Casey Lusken, from The Center for Science & Culture (a pro-ID group), recently quoted Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling answering just this question…

It will be determined to what extent the phylogenic tree, as derived from molecular data in complete independence from the results of organismal biology, coincides with the phylogenic tree constructed on the basis of organismal biology. If the two phylogenic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished. (“Evolutionary Divergence and Convergence in Proteins.” in Evolving Genes and Proteins, p. 101. (1965))

In short, the prediction was that the molecular ‘tree of life’ will largely agree with that of the one built upon body forms. And, again, it just ain’t so. The molecular data gives us something quite different, if it can even be considered a coherent phylogeny. The molecular phylogeny, then, would appear to falsify DE.

There are many other areas of evidence we could turn to, but let’s get to the point. The point is this: Darwinian Evolution is not falsifiable. It is a theory that can explain everything, whether expected or not. But in explaining everything, it explains nothing. A scientist can come up with a hypothesis, like ‘if evolution is true, then X will be observed’. X can then not be observed, and yet evolution has an explanation for it. As Dave Heddle put it not too long ago,

All evolutionary post-dictions, either explicitly or implicitly, have the luxury of boldly proclaiming how what has already happened was inevitable. Evolution is in a class by itself in proving that the past unfolded as Darwin’s marionette. They are decidedly less adept at predicting the next act.

Maybe it’s the cyclist in the park, trim under his sleek metallic blue helmet, cruising along the dirt path… at three miles an hour. On his tricycle.

HT: pduggie