It must be time for World Net Daily to renew its hold on "Wing Nut Daily". Editor Joseph Farah has written another piece criticizing evolution from a position of knowing nothing about it – or indeed, about science in general.
...continued in full post...
Take, for example, the latest findings in Australia. Last month, fossils of what were described as "the earliest species of sea turtle, believed to be 110 million years old," were discovered in Queensland's far west. The scientists were startled by just how little sea turtles had changed in 100 million years. They had not evolved. But that did not alarm them. That did not get them to question their premises. That did not cause them to think their dating techniques could be wrong.
Interesting argument. This is equivalent to saying, "That car can be proved to have been stationary for the past decade, therefore cars don't move." Using the editor's logic, we've just proved the "horseless carriage" to be a fraud.
I could discuss this further, but anyone who cares can look up the terms "stabilizing selection", "directional selection", and "disruptive selection" in a good biology book.
As for the reliability of the dating techniques used, I'd be very curious to see if he knows what dating techniques were used.
If he can answer that, then I'd love to hear him offer specific critiques of the methods used. Unseating mainstream science is going to take at least a bit more than writing an editorial that says "it's wrong somehow".
If he has specific objections or criticisms, I'd be willing to pay him $100 for every one that has not been addressed in great detail in the scientific literature, provided he's willing to pay me $1 for every journal article discussing any given objection in excruciating detail and trying to poke holes in it.
This is one example of hundreds, thousands, like it in so-called "evolutionary science." It is a science without any foundation. It is a theory not supported by facts, but countered by them.
Actually, the facts do support evolution. They may not support Joseph Farah's caricature of evolution, but the overwhelming evidence shows that life has gotten where it is through the operation of natural law, and not because someone had to work a miracle.
The alternatives don't work nearly as well. Without exception, they either contradict the facts, or are so insulated from reality that no conceivable fact could disprove them.
How about you? Do you still believe? Or do you think evolution, like the sea turtle illustration, is one big shell game?
I believe there was no need to violate the laws of nature in order to produce life, or us. So far, neither science, nor any of its critics, have found any phenomenon that demands the violation of natural law to explain it.
The first person to document such will be famous.
No comments:
Post a Comment