The Way of Science

Your in-class exam (Exam #3) will be on these topics.

A Guide to Discussing the Four Arguments - In-Class Assignment

1. Young earth argument

According to YECs, the earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old, and perhaps even less than that. Since physicists, astronomers and geologists say that it is about 4.5 billion years old, they must be wrong. Obviously, the methods used for dating must be grossly in error.

Here are questions for you to answer in class.

• If the earth is, in fact, very young, how does this youth argue against Evolution? Which aspect of Evolution (fact or theory) does it oppose? Does it oppose both? Explain.
• Where do YECs get their figure of 6000 to 10,000 years? How is age determined by physicists?

Specifically, read your texts for understanding of the following items: radiometric dating, unstable isotopes, half-lives. These are very important concepts, so be prepared to discuss/explain them in class! Try to figure out how some Creationists attack radiometric dating "scientifically." (Hint: pay particular attention to the concept "half-life.") Additional "evidence" for a young earth is based on the amount of salt in the oceans, and the amount of Helium in the atmosphere. If there is time, your instructor may discuss these two with you, to show that we are dealing with pseudoscience.

2. Transitional forms

You need to understand what an Evolutionary biologist means by this term. Transitional (i.e., intermediate) between what and what? The film will supply some answers; the whale material in Science and Creationism, pp. 20-22, will help also. In class, we will concentrate on one very famous fossil, regarded by paleontologists as a transition form between reptile-like ancestors and modern birds. This species, in the genus Archaeopteryx ("ancient wing"), lived about 150 million years ago. The Creationists insist that this creature is a bird, not a transition form. Try to understand their two arguments, one based on anatomy, one based on classification. You will see an overhead of one specimen in class, and your instructor will point out important anatomical features. You should be able to explain to non-biologists why this species is, without a doubt, a transition form.

Evolutionary transitions can also be found in living forms. For example, the very diverse group of animals called molluscs show a tremendous variety of eye structure, ranging from extremely simple to the superb eyes of squids and octopodes. (Yes, that is the correct plural form of "octopus.") This spectrum probably represents the Evolutionary sequence that developed over hundreds of millions of years. Your instructor has an overhead that will show this sequence. Alas, finding fossilized eyes is nearly impossible, as such soft tissues are rarely preserved.

3. Complex designs and "perfect" adaptations

These two closely-related themes have a long history: Darwin's 1859 publication was attacked with these very arguments. Read the material in Bennetta first. Then read the summary argument, below, as it might be presented by a Creationist.

(Creationist speaking.) If one looks at all organisms, one is struck by how complex many structures are. Such complexity is much like the exquisite intricacy of, say, a fine watch: there are many, many intricately connected parts, all interdependent to produce the function required. A watch doesn't appear, when masses of gears, screws, etc. are thrown together; the whole structure shows design at work, and a designer is absolutely necessary for any explanation of origin. Evolution is a random process, analogous to tossing watch parts into a bag, shaking the bag, and expecting to get an assembled, functional watch. In addition, Darwinism says that the assembly consists of small, gradual, cumulative changes. But how could that be? Take a mammalian eye, for example. How could a part of an eye, or a partial eye, be functional? Small gradual changes would not be of any advantage to the individual; in fact, such a partial structure would be "excess baggage," and the owner would suffer.

Even worse for Darwinism: many complex structures ("adaptations") are perfectly designed. There is no better way to make such structures. How could the sloppy randomness of Evolution produce such complex perfection?"

There are the arguments, and you may recognize Behe's "irreducible complexity" as belonging here. Now, it's your job to counter-argue, and show that all these positions are packed with flaws. For some help, be sure that you read Bennetta on eyes, and look at the squid/mammal eye comparison on page 22 of Science and Creationism. Also, be sure to consider the mollusc eye sequence from the section on transitional forms!

Here's more ammunition for you. Consider vestigial structures and organs. For example, pythons and modern whales have rudimentary, non-functional hind limbs. In humans, consider the rudimentary and non-functional ear-flap muscles, plus the vermiform appendix, wisdom teeth, and "tailbones" (properly called "vestigial coccygeal tail vertebrae"). What is the significance of all these items?

Here's another very important and basic biological concept that is relevant to the complexity/perfection argument. This extremely important concept is homology, explained and illustrated on page 14 of Science and Creationism. Creationists say that very different structures (bird and bat wings, whale front flippers, human arms and thumbs, etc.) must have been designed as adaptations by a designer. However, examination of bones reveals that these structures are all examples of "tinkering" with a small basic set of parts (exactly what one would expect if variation/selection were at work). For example, it is possible to find an ulna (one of the two bones in human forearms) in all the examples cited. Sometimes it is elongated, sometimes reduced and vestigial, but clearly recognizable by position and embryological development.

Here's one more fact for you to contemplate when considering arguments against ID. Judging from the fossil record, paleontologists conclude that most species that have ever lived have gone extinct (99%, probably). What is the relevance of this fact in the ID argument?

4. Argument from thermodynamics

Creationists, particularly the prominent YEC Henry Morris, often present this "logic," below.

"One of the most fundamental and important laws of physics is the second law of thermodynamics. This law says that systems must go from complex to simple; disorder (entropy) must increase. Evolution, according to biologists, is exactly the reverse: biological systems (organisms) get more complex over time, not less. This sequence violates the second law, and therefore Evolution never happened. All organisms were created at once, and have been going extinct ever since (entropy at work)."

The second law is very important (hint, hint). All Americans, not just scientists, should have some grasp of what this powerful statement means. For example, understanding the law would prevent you from wasting money on energy sources that claim 100 %, or greater, transfer of energy. There are several such devices being peddled in the US right now. Perpetual motion violates the law, so don't waste your money on those either.

To understand this complex subject, start by reading the material assigned in Science Matters, and then consider the following items.

Start with the first law. Be sure that you understand how E= mc2 fits in here. To help you with the second law, consider a box which prevents energy, in any form, from entering or leaving. Inside the box is a rubber ball, suspended at the top. A timer triggers release of the ball, which falls and bounces. Potential energy of the suspended ball has been converted to kinetic energy of bouncing. Soon, the ball ceases to bounce. Where did the energy go? What form does it now have? Could we somehow convert this "missing" energy completely back into eternal bouncing, without opening the box? Explain.

When you understand the second law, consider Morris's claim that Evolution is impossible because it is a decrease in entropy. It is quite true that Evolution represents an increase in order and complexity (decrease in entropy). Is Morris correct after all?

Although we have barely touched the volume of Creationist "evidence," these samples are commonly used, and are very typical of the approaches used by anti-Evolutionists. A very interesting recent book (Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things) draws a striking parallel between anti-Evolutionists and holocaust deniers ("the holocaust never happened"). Both use incomplete and selected bits of information, taken out of context, and so on. One lesson that can be learned from both kinds of "deniers" is that many people prefer to accept what they would like the Universe to be, rather than what the evidence, and the specialists say.