DNA Origin of Life

11 Reasons Most Biologists Accept Evolutionary Theory in Spite of the Evidence

Below is a guest post from my friend Eric. I am still struggling with this wretched sore throat. It’s much better now, but I still can’t sleep through the night.

1. Many immediately reject creation or ID from the many embarrassingly bad “why are there still monkeys” arguments used by laymen. They assume there’s nothing beyond that.

2. It’s what they were taught in school and they never questioned it. “I didn’t give it much thought; It wasn’t my area of concern”, as Michael Behe reflected of his postdoc research days as an evolutionist. “college students have not been shown the weakness of Darwinian evolution” as Joseph Kuhn wrote in 2012.

3. A lot of biologists aren’t exposed to problems outside their own field. For example paleontologist and ID critic Don Prothero wrote that “Nearly all metazoans [meaning animals] show stasis, with almost no good examples of gradual evolution… the prevalence of stasis is a puzzle that has no simple answer” but lamented, “by and large the neontological [non-paleontologist] community still ‘doesn’t get it’… The journal Evolution continues to publish almost no contributions by paleontologists”.

4. Others just don’t talk about the problems. Renowned chemist James Tour (inventor of nanocars) describes his own experience: “Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone… I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go ‘Uh-uh. Nope.’ These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, ‘Do you understand this?’ And if they’re afraid to say ‘Yes,’ they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.”

5. Some see anything other than materialistic naturalism is seen as a violation of scientific professionalism. At one conference, “Chinese scientists encouraged the investigation of a variety of new hypotheses to explain the Cambrian explosion: hydrothermal eruptions, sudden seafloor changes, even intelligent design. This last was too much for one American paleontologist who stood up and shouted, ‘This is not a scientific conference!'” Likewise the famed Lynn Margulis (proposed symbiogenesis theory) said, “The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or ‘God did it.'”

6. Many biologists don’t have much training in engineering. Many of the patterns claimed to only arise by common descent are the same I see in the code I write or among other objects designed by humans.

7. Some recognize insufficiencies in evolutionary theory, but hope new theories will arise to resolve them. Evolutionists Depew & Weber published in 2012: “Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope… however, we are confident that a new and more general theory of evolution is evolving.”

8. A bias toward sensationalism in the media–which is true everywhere and not just with evolutionary biology.

9. It’s taboo to publish anything from the ID movement. As one example, Springer (a large scientific publisher) was going to publish 20-so-papers from ID proponents. They had already passed Springer’s internal peer review and Springer agreed to publish them. But a public campaign threatened to boycott Springer if they published, even though none any of the critics had even read the papers. Springer complied, but the papers were still published in World Scientific after also passing peer review there.

10. A small number of rather popular evolution “evangelists” shame anyone who dissents from the Party line. For example see Jerry Coyne’s response to Lynn Margulis claiming evolution doesn’t work (cited above). Coyne says she’s “dogmatic, willfully ignorant, and intellectually dishonest,” “wrong in the worst way a scientist can be wrong,” and “embarrasses both herself and the field.”

11. Rigged debates. Sean B. Carroll (well known biologist) wrote a critique of Michael Behe’s work in the journal Science: He cited “the tuning of color vision in animals” as a response to Michael Behe as an example of observed evolution creating through a long process of gradual steps. To support this, Carroll cites his own book where he describes (based on phylogeny) lineages would have had to evolve color vision multiple times, lose it, and then evolve it again. This would have happened among the presumed ancestors of reptiles, fish, and mammals so none of it is even observed to begin with. Behe correctly noted that Carroll’s papers show “different species have different protein binding sites” but “they demonstrate nothing about how the sites arose.” Behe submitted a brief response, only to have Science to trim the last 100 words. Science gave Carroll a far longer response chastising Behe for not addressing this very point he addressed in the 100 words that were trimmed.

4 thoughts on “11 Reasons Most Biologists Accept Evolutionary Theory in Spite of the Evidence”

  1. Much thanks, a subject near and dear to my heart. My family, especially women, love the sciences. Women are encouraged to get a higher, usable, education; in case of divorce or widowhood they then have a profession. While sons may fall out and need to come home for a while, women rarely do. Men tend toward military, ag, trucking, factories, anywhere we can work with hands and muscle. One brother went from computers to law practice to stock market to house painter and then bought a small horse ranch in Colorado where his ulcers healed nicely.

    Two cousins are biologists (retired), and both ID. They tell me I’d be shocked at the number of biologists who are Creationists. A forensic scientist, another cousin and former FBI lab, said the same of her profession. Psychologists in the family, same. God is very good to us. Consensus in science is not science, but politics. But, as Dr. Planck (ID Old Earth) said, “Science advances one funeral at a time.” As atheism is dying out in the lab, the sciences advance faster. According to PEW, 11% of scientists to day are Creationists, and only 11% or scientists are actual atheists. 64% of Nobel Prizes in Science go to Christians with Jewish scientists close behind.

    One thing to note, Darwin is dead, and with him long-ages. Many evolutionists are contemptuous of long ages, seeing it as a power scam. A lot of paleontologists are short ages. Not YEC, but side with them on things. Same with geology. Many, if not most Creationists were atheists on graduation college but their work led them to God. They kept up old friendships with fellow students and share work. Jack Horner of Jurassic Park fame opened up to Trey Smith that he’s ID. Dr. Crichton (authored Jurassic Park) said he had first heard of soft tissues in the early 60s while studying for a medical degree in California.

    Anti-Creationism is at long last fading, but fights with any weapon to keep it’s place. Science comes against atheism because scientists find it illogical and debased (see new atheism for that). As time passes, more of the Bible is proved true by science. Not simply historicity, but prehistory, the foreknowledge the authors of Genesis and other book should not have had. Six days of creation, light came before heavenly bodies. Scientists theorize plasma was the original light. It continues down the list. niio


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s