Evidence for Supernatural Origin of ...
Retorts to Evolutionists' Objections and Criticisms
The following list of creation representations and claims (total of fifteen) are in the words of Rennie, and do not necessarily reflect legitimate creation claims or represent all creationists' positions.
1. The meaning of “theory of evolution” does not suggest reservations about its truth. Evolution is an unambiguous and compelling fact. Rennie’s answer to: Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Webster’s dictionary and the wide-spread use of the word “theory” will not bear out the National Academy of Sciences’ preferred definition of theory and law. It is obvious they have a conflict of interest in taking on both the task of defining theory and persuading people to accept evolution as an indisputable fact.
Rennie’s first point is really an irrelevant semantic issue since the many definitions of theory in Webster’s dictionary assign different degrees of validity to it. All Rennie is attempting to say is that evolution is an indisputable fact rather than a disputable explanation.
However, Rennie is wrong. Many scientists do have reservations about the theory of evolution. It is but one explanation used to explain the origin and development of the universe, life, and species; however, it lacks supportive evidence for several of its critical claims like spontaneous generation and biological relationship between major groups of life. The intelligent design movement among scientists is evidence that evolution claims are not indisputable, unambiguous, and compelling.
2. The natural selection of ‘Survival of the fittest’ is not circular reasoning because it is just a conversational way to describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Rennie’s answer to: Natural selection is based on circular reasoning : the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
Once again Rennie attempts to defend evolution by defining phrases. However, the following quote points out that even the reference to leaving the “most offspring” is tautological.
"The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti- Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that is a tautology. A tautology like "All tables are tables" is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. And C. H. Waddington even says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that "Natural selection...turns out...to be a tautology". However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an "enormous power...of explanation". Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here" (Popper K.R., "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind," Dialectica, Vol. 32, Nos. 3-4, 1978, pp.339-355, p.344. Ellipses in original).
Rennie attempts to establish that “survival of the fittest” is simply a conversational phrase rather than a true description of natural selection. By one author disagrees stating,
"Another philosophical question regards the very definition of the word 'selection'. One of the original formulations of selection was 'the survival of the fittest'. If you open a standard textbook of genetics 'fitness' will probably be defined as 'the ability to survive' or something similar. But if the 'fittest' are defined as 'the best survivors' then the idea of natural selection becomes 'the survival of those best at surviving'. So what else is new? If there is no more to Darwinism than a truism then the whole theory rests on very shaky ground." (Leith B., "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, p.21)
The next quote points out dissent among scientists regarding evolution theory and the fact that natural selection is indeed tautological.
"I have quoted some voices of dissent coming from biologists in eminent academic positions. There have been many others, just as critical of the orthodox doctrine, though not always as outspoken - and their number is steadily growing. Although these criticisms have made numerous breaches in the walls, the citadel still stands - mainly, as said before, because nobody has a satisfactory alternative to offer. The history of science shows that a well-established theory can take a lot of battering and get itself into a tangle of contradictions - the fourth phase of 'Crisis and Doubt' in the historic cycle and yet still be upheld by the establishment until a breakthrough occurs, initiating a new departure, and the start of a new cycle. But that event is not yet in sight. In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection - quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology." (Koestler A., "Janus: A Summing Up," Picador: London, 1983, pp.184-185).
3. Evolution is scientific because it is falsifiable. Rennie’s answer to: Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
Rennie attempts to divide the general theory of evolution into smaller parts and then cites aspects of it that are testable. However, historically, models of science that cannot be observed to occur or cannot be repeated in the laboratory have been considered unscientific. Evolution (origin of the universe, life, and species) falls into this category of not being science. Worse yet, evolution as an explanation for the origin of the universe and of life contradict laws of science. That makes it unscientific.
A few falsifiable points included in the general theory of evolution does not make the whole concept scientific. Further a true model of science do not contradict established laws of science.
4. No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Rennie’s answer to: Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
Rennie cites evolutionists who have been “searching” for legitimate scientists who believe in creation. Of course, no mention of possible conflict of interest is mentioned in his answer. The following disagree with Rennie.
"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin," Science Digest Special (Winter 1979), pp. 94-96.
"...A tidal wave of new books... threaten to shatter that confidence - titles like Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth; The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching; The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), Taylor; The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), Fix; Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities (1984), Cohen; Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Lovtrup; and Adam and Evolution (1984), Pitman. Not one of these books was written from a Christian-apologetic point of view: they are concerned only with scientific truth - as was Sir Ernst Chain when he called evolution 'a fairy tale'." Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 1992, 1997), p. 12.
"Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started." Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 1992, 1997), p. 277.
Evidence for Supernatural Origin of ...