Why is evolution so controversial?

I think we all agree evolution is contentious. That's why this site exists. But it isn't contentious within scientific circles. Body plan changes? You mean that happened recently rather than 500 million years ago? From what we understand of evolution, body plan changes would be pretty unexpected at this point. And *I* would say that those who say they reject it on scientific grounds are misrepresenting the truth that their grounds are actually religious. If they actually rejected on scientific grounds then they would actually know something about evolution. Such as that it doesn't predict that we should be seeing new body plans.--Percy

I just told you that evolution doesn't predict that there should be new body plans today. What are you, the visual equivalent of deaf? Every unique mutation creates new information. Evolution doesn't predict we should see complex functional machines being created before our very eyes. Everything we know about evolution says that it makes tiny changes to what already exists, and that these accumulate over time into change of ever increasing magnitude. We do see what evolution predicts we should see, and of course it makes perfect sense that we do not see what you're making up. Good luck defining scientific knowledge as limited to what we learn through experiment.In reality, science includes hypothesis, experimentation, observation, analysis, inference, replication and theory building.--Percy

You're going to confuse more than just Cedre if you insist that neo-Darwinism and the modern synthesis are no longer accepted within evolutionary science. According to the the Wikipedia article on Neo-Darwinism, this term's definition has "evolved" over time, and it says at one point: But it also goes on to say that as eminent a personage as Ernst Mayr demurs from this view, but that others like Dawkins and Gould (ironically) agree in accepting it as applying to modern evolutionary theory.So maybe there's a little controversy about the term, but do we need to have that debate in *this* thread?--Percy

Here's our boy as a patient: --Percy

From the Wikipedia article on John C. Sanford: Sanford rejects evolution because of his religious beliefs. And if you think Sanford's beliefs are scientific, then since he probably shares your mistaken beliefs about the nature of science why don't you write and ask him to describe the experiment where he observed "special creation, by God." She appears in a list that appears in nearly identical fashion at what may be hundreds of creationist websites: Other than her presence on this list, she appears to have no existence on the Internet whatsoever. I can find nothing about her. What makes you think she rejects evolution? He appears immediately after Ms. Berrine on the list above - is that how you chose him? He wrote The Chemistry and Biology of Antibiotics back in 1983, otherwise I can find nothing about him. What makes you think he rejects evolution? He's a professor a biology at Union College, a Seventh-day Adventist college. He has articles posted at Answers in Genesis. In In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation he writes: It's safe to conclude his views derive from his religious beliefs. Mr. Baumann has been a professor of biology and chemistry at Cedarville University since 1964. Cedarville is "an accredited, Christ-centered Baptist institution." His bio there says he's a member of the Creation Research Society. He obviously lets his religion interfere with his science. Mr. Bohlin is the Director of Research for Probe Ministries, whose "mission is to present the Gospel to communities, nationally and internationally, by providing life-long opportunities to integrate faith and learning through balanced, biblically based scholarship, training people to love God by renewing their minds and equipping the Church to engage the world for Christ." He's doesn't sound like a scientist at all, and he's definitely very religious. Except that he's on the same list as Ms. Berrine and Mr. Betina, I can find nothing about him. What makes you think he rejects evolution?I could find no technical papers by any except John Sanford, and no papers at all about the scientific evidence against evolution.--Percy

It would be nice if you'd show a little interest in making sense. You're trying to convince us that increasing numbers of scientists are rejecting evolution, not because of their religious beliefs but because of their science. Where are the peer-reviewed scientific papers they wrote describing the research that led them to reject evolution and accept the truth?It was painfully obvious from the beginning that you're just blowing hot air, and now it's only a question of how many pages of discussion board you decide are necessary to sow with nonsense before you (once again) disappear.Since at least the 1950's creationists have been claiming that more and more scientists are abandoning evolution for the truth of Genesis. If there were any truth to this decades long exodus away from evolution then the scientific ranks would long ago have become dominated by creationists. But they're not. Because you're making it up.--Percy

Hi Cedre,Because you employ fallacies of the most transparent sort there is an air of the troll about you, but I'll play along for a while explaining the obvious. Which of these books is scientific, if any: Obviously just writing a book doesn't make it scientific, does it. Anyone can write a book.That's why science has peer review, and it takes place on a couple levels. There's the initial peer review conducted by the journal or conference, and once published or presented there's another form of peer review as other scientists attempt to understand and replicate the work.It all comes down to how stiff you're going to make the criteria for deciding what is true about the world and what isn't. The criteria of science are pretty stiff: peer review, replication, theory building, consensus. Science is how we know that creationism, the Maya apocalypse and homeopathy are bunk, and that relativity, quantum mechanics and evolution are not. I didn't notice his scientific reasons because he didn't give any. If you thought he provided scientific reasons then please tell us what they are. Here's the link again: In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in CreationBut you'll be searching in vain for scientific reasons. The reason the article appears at Answers in Genesis and not in a scientific journal is because it contains no scientific reasons. What it contains is fallacies dressed up to sound scientific to those unknowledgeable and unfamiliar with science. Well, yes, that's the way creationist websites work. When something apparently convincing appears at one creationist website then it gets cut-n-pasted to many other creationist websites. I don't think the creationist willingness to cut-n-paste crap makes the crap any less crap then it already is. How do you know he even exists? How would you distinguish between "Prof. Vladimir Betina" and a fictional person? Same question for "Dr. Kimberly Berrine." You quoted what I said, so why are you asking me where he says he rejects evolution because he is religious? I never claimed that he said that, so why ask me where he said that?What I did say was that he's a member of the Creation Research Society, and I concluded from this that he lets his religion interfere with his science. I didn't say he rejects evolution for religious reasons. The most relevant portion of what I said is that he's not a scientist. You claimed to be giving us a list of scientists, remember? People who reject evolution for scientific rather than religious reasons. His chapter in the book is a personal story describing the role spirituality plays in his daily life. There's nothing scientific in it. What makes you think he rejects evolution?To conclude, you claimed that evolution is controversial within scientific circles and that increasing numbers of scientists are rejecting evolution for scientific reasons. But there's no evidence of any controversy within science greater than those over relativity or quantum theory, and legitimate peer-reviewed scientific reasons appear in scientific journals, not in popular press books or articles at creationist websites. So far you've been unable to support either claim.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo, minor clarification in final paragraph.

First, of course the changes are unguided. That's why we call them random mutations. But random change is acted upon by selection, and selection is guided - by the environment. Selection is what explains adaptation.Second, why the doubt that small changes can accumulate into large changes? Do you doubt that stringing a few million tiny steps together one after another can transform your location from New York to San Francisco? Do you doubt that welding one little girder at a time can transform a pile of steel into a skyscraper? Do you doubt that Haymarket Square in Boston was created by filling in a mill pond one little cart full of dirt at a time (this was in 1807 in case you're wondering why they used carts)?So why do you doubt that tiny mutations acted upon by selection can accumulate into significant change? Science observes tiny mutations causing tiny changes upon which selection operates, and there are no barriers to the degree to which these changes can accumulate. Were there any barriers to change (beyond selection) then science would observe them.--Percy

Hi Cedre,You seem to be losing your way here and forgetting the claim you're supposed to be defending. You claimed that evolution is controversial within scientific circles, and that increasing numbers of scientists are abandoning evolution. You have not so far been able to support either claim.Even you must concede that your first claim about a scientific controversy is obviously false because you've admitted that creationists don't publish in scientific journals. They write popular press books and write articles for creationist websites. There's a public controversy about evolution, but not a scientific one.Concerning your second claim that increasing numbers of scientists are abandoning evolution, you've been unable to provide any support whatsoever. All you've done is shown what we already knew, that creationists with scientific credentials exist. No one doubts that Henry Morris and Duane Gish and Steven Austin and Andrew Snelling are real people, but such people exist in no greater numbers than they ever did, and their writings appear in popular press books and at the websites of organizations like the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society, and not in scientific periodicals like the Journal of Geology or the Journal of Cell Biology.You seem to be taken by the weird idea that if you claim someone is a scientist who rejects evolution for scientific reasons that it is true until someone proves it false. That's not rational or scientific. We don't think claims are true until proven false. Rather, we view claims skeptically until supported by sufficient evidence. You have so far been unable to provide any support for this claim that increasing numbers of scientists are abandoning evolution.Even worse, you haven't provided any evidence that the people you listed are scientists who reject evolution, or in some cases that they even exist. But I didn't "equate peer review with science." You seem to be having continual trouble with reading comprehension. What I said was, "It all comes down to how stiff you're going to make the criteria for deciding what is true about the world and what isn't. The criteria of science are pretty stiff: peer review, replication, theory building, consensus. Science is how we know that creationism, the Maya apocalypse and homeopathy are bunk, and that relativity, quantum mechanics and evolution are not."So I ask you again: What criteria are you using to decide what is true about the real world and what isn't? At the core of scientific efforts is the scientific method, and around this is constructed an assessment process consisting of peer review, analysis, replication, theory building and consensus. What's at the core of creationist efforts at understanding the real world? Just as people don't go around proving that unicorns and griffins don't exist, it would make no sense trying to disprove assertions for which no evidence has been offered. You haven't offered any evidence there were any scientific reasons in the article, so I have nothing to disprove. Here's the link again: In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. Knock yourself out finding the scientific reasons in there. Sorry, I got Betina confused with the name just before his in your list, Dr. Kimberly Berrine. There's no evidence she even exists.Concerning Betina, yes, I know there's a Vladimir Betina who has written books, I said as much back in Message 68: "He wrote The Chemistry and Biology of Antibiotics back in 1983, otherwise I can find nothing about him. What makes you think he rejects evolution?"So I repeat the question: What makes you think he rejects evolution? If you can find nothing he wrote about evolution, how do you know he rejects it, and why? I remind you again, all you did was find his name in a list that you cut-n-pasted. Until we started challenging your list you likely knew nothing about any of them except maybe Sanford. Well of course no one has to follow my lead, but no one has to follow your lead, either. You're the one who claimed that Dr. Donald Baumann is a scientist who rejects evolution for scientific reasons, and you have so far offered no evidence of this. I, on the other hand, pointed out that he has been a professor of biology and chemistry at Cedarville University since 1964 (Cedarville is "an accredited, Christ-centered Baptist institution"), and his bio says he's a member of the Creation Research Society. All you've done so far is cut-n-paste his name into a message. Did *I* read the book? Well, obviously I've read more than you. Evolution gets only a single brief mention in the preface, which says about its purpose (and I also include the mention of evolution, which is only one of a list of issues): So that pretty much puts the kibosh on your claim that the preface makes it "clear that this is a heavily antievolution and pro-creation book." Obviously the book's sympathies are antievolution and pro-creation, but it isn't anything like a central focus. So maybe Bosanquet wrote on evolution in his chapter, maybe he didn't. Google Books doesn't provide a complete extract. If you've got the full chapter available to you and you can find where he writes about evolution, maybe you can provide excerpts for us. If you do then that would be the first time you've offered any evidence of what anyone on your list believes about evolution.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix typo.Edited by Percy, : Minor clarification to final paragraph.

You're just making up an excuse for not having an answer. There was no speculation, no analogy, and you're misdescribing science again. As I said before, good luck defining scientific knowledge as limited to what we learn through experiment. In reality, science includes hypothesis, experimentation, observation, analysis, inference, replication and theory building. It is not limited to what was eye-witnessed, so you're going to have to try again.Almost all offspring possess a small number of new mutations. Their parents also had a small number of new mutations. And their parents' parents had a small number of new mutations. All their ancestors back to the beginning of time had small number of new mutations. We know this because we've observed that cell division is not perfect - not today, not yesterday, not last week, not last year, not ever. This is not speculation.These tiny mutational changes accumulate over time. If you imagine that there's some process or some barrier preventing change beyond a certain point and that prevents one species from becoming another or one body plan from becoming another, then please describe the evidence for it.--Percy

I don't think I have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times its been explained to you how easily falsifiable evolution is.But then immediately after you claim its unfalsifiable what do you do? Why, you try to falsify it, of course. Brilliant!And your reasons for why it's false? More brilliance, let's enumerate:

• It's built out of hot air
• It's about events from prehistory about which nothing can be known
• Microevolution is evidence for creationism
• Mendel observed that there is variation within species (which is probably true, but credit for this observation predates Mendel)
• That complexity can't be explained by evolution is self-evident, meaning that you can't explain it
• That labeling objections with no reasons as arguments from personal incredulity is more hot air
• Evolution is the biggest fraud of all time.

Yep, brilliant!--PercyPS - Faith, please, no more senseless objections of "You're distorting my meaning, that's not what I said." You're going to have to stop objecting that people don't understand you when they don't use the exact same words and phrases you used. The English language is very rich, there are many ways of saying the same thing.

Shapiro doesn't fit Cedre's need for scientists who have abandoned evolution. He accepts that species evolve into new species, that evolution produced the body plans we see today, and common descent.--Percy

Hi Faith,Let me start where you end: You bring this all on yourself, witness: So you begin by saying evolutionists are either dishonest or deluded and that the theory is hot air built of mental cobwebs and mental castle building and "has all the substance of navel gazing", and later you complain that you're probably going to get "silly, rude and nasty" answers. As illogical as ever, you for some crazy reason known only to yourself believe you're entitled to polite responses to messages full of insults. If you mount your steed and charge into a crowd swinging your battle axe, just what do you expect the response is going to be. That we'll all bow down and swear obeisance to Lord Faith? Get real.Sticking to the facts and eschewing insults would help your cause a great deal. You're responsible for the problem you're complaining about, and the means of remedy lie within yourself. Well, that's bogus. I won't even try to guess at the logic in that statement. Anyway, finding a giraffe in the Permian where there are many land animals would equally falsify evolution. Yes, quite correct. One giraffe in the Permian would be a conundrum, not an evolutionary revolution. How many fossils (of all types from the largest to the smallest) do you think we've uncovered so far? Probably millions, and every one is in the layer it belongs in according to geological and evolutionary theory. If there are, let's say, a million fossils then one fossil in the wrong layer would be a millionth of all the evidence. The odds that a million fossils are painting us the wrong picture and that just one fossil all by itself is providing the true story are extremely tiny.It would be like excavations at Jericho uncovering an iPod. Even if there were no evidence of disturbances or rare events or chicanery, no one in their right mind would propose that Joshua entered the city earbuds on while listening to a medley of Jewish battle hymns. Until many more iPods turned up we'd have to believe the iPod was modern, even if we couldn't unravel the mystery of how it came to be buried there.And so after finding a giraffe in the Permian we'd do what the scientific process tells us to do: attempt replication. We'd conduct more paleontological digs seeking giraffes (actually, finding any modern animals would do) in the Permian.There are people who believe the Earth is flat, others who believe the sun orbits the Earth, and still others who believe the Earth is only 6000 years old. Heck, some people think they're Napoleon. That such people exist has no bearing on the facts. That they believe as they do is both inexplicable (though less inexplicable in the case of those driven by religious belief) and irrelevant.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Minor improvement.

Cedre is apparently away for a bit, so I thought I'd clarify what we're looking for from him. Cedre claimed that increasing numbers of scientists are abandoning evolution. Putting a finer point on this claim, he's saying that increasing numbers of scientists who worked in relevant fields and who accepted evolution eventually abandoned it, presumably finding it scientifically untenable. We're asking him for evidence supporting this claim. A list of evolutionary scientists who eventually abandoned evolution would be ideal.The list Cedre actually provided was for something else in response to Ringo in Message 51: This is a list of scientists who reject common ancestry, not who once accepted evolution and later abandoned it. If Cedre thinks this list serves both purposes then that's fine, but he should let us know if he thinks that's true.I should make clear that the claim on our side is not that no evolutionary scientists ever eventually abandon evolution. The claim is that it happens no more often than it ever did, which I believe is also true of creationists who eventually abandon creationism.The claim that increasing numbers of scientists are abandoning evolution has been around since at least the 1950's. Were it true there would be no evolutionists left around today. The more pertinent question is why creationists so often issue obviously bogus claims.--Percy

"Do pay attention?" You gotta be kidding. What incredible chutzpah! Faith, you're the one paying absolutely no attention. The only voice you seem to hear is your own.The particular wrong layer doesn't matter. Discovering that cows existed in the Precambrian would falsify evolution. Discovering that cows existed in the Cambrian would falsify evolution. Discovering that cows existed in the Silurian would falsify evolution. Discovering that cows existed in the Devonian would falsify evolution. Discovering that cows existed in the Permian would falsify evolution. Discovering that cows existed in the Triassic would falsify evolution. Finding a cow in any layer but the layer where it makes any scientific sense would falsify evolution.Please, let's not turn this thread into a discussion of your issues. Cedre has raised a couple points about how evolution is controversial and about whether there's an ongoing sea change of scientists abandoning evolution. Could you please focus on those issues? Or at least on issues that are somewhat related?--Percy