Guest writer Sheri
I know many of you have blogged these arguments in the past, but they pop up so often, I thought I would put up my responses here. Please add thoughts on these silly arguments and feel free to add your own favorite argument!
The first one is, "That's just micro evolution! That's adaptation! It's not MACRO evolution!"
This is a horrible argument! Religious folks fought micro evolution too last century. Before that they fought the evidence that the earth was in the center of the universe.
They fight it until the data are insurmountable, then they move the goalpost so that they don't look like complete idiots denying clear science.
Among scientists there is no discussion. There is no controversy. Call it micro, call it macro, it all is evolution. The boundaries are purely arbitrary and human imposed. Careful analysis of the fossil record shows that macro evolution is a consequence of successive rounds of micro evolution. A few years ago evolution itself was questioned, but when we can demonstrate that it occurs just as predicted, then they have to change their position (or risk looking silly) and call what is provable in a weekend, microevolution, knowing darn well that we can't do a ten million year experiment. That's some intellectual honesty there!
Argument two, "Scientists aren't open to Creation/ID."
Wrong! There are no anti-creationists in science. Scientists must remain 100% open to the idea of creation of everything in 6 days, 6000 years ago on a flat planet in the middle of the universe. You have to be open to it to be scientists.
However, until there is a shred of evidence to support these ideas, we have to stick with the millions of objective, peer-reviewed, independently reproduced, scientifically valid reports that are consistent with evolution via common descent. There is no evidence that a magical being in the sky had a hand in anything.
Argument number three, "Evolution is just a theory!" (everyone's favorite!)
The problem is relating scientific language to that of the lay public. Scientists rarely speak about things as hard facts, mostly because they are always open to revision. This is great, because the more evidence that comes in, the better our view of the phenomenon in question. That said,
Gravity is a working and healthy scientific theory backed by empirical data.
Relativity is a working and healthy scientific theory backed by empirical data.
Memory as a process based on specific neurotransmitter release is a working and healthy scientific theory backed by empirical data.
Evolution is a working and healthy scientific theory backed by empirical data.
From a layperson standpoint, these are certainly facts. It is difficult to deny that gravity exists, even though we don't fully understand it. Certainly relativity is in action and must be considered in any calculations to accurately adjust space exploration. It is a fact that is factored into everything. And yes, evolution happened, it is happening and will continue to happen. It is a fact, at least in familiar jargon.
See, those that understand science can decipher the language. Science is a language subject to revision, so it is silly to call anything a fact, unless it is a physical constant or law. Evolution is a process, and it is and always will be subject to revision from new hard data and inquiry. It is a robust and firm explanation of the massive amount of objective data that have arisen from study of how life originated and changed through time. Sure there are places where it does not make sense, but the same can be said for relativity and gravity (even more so!).
So if you talk to a scientist, a person that deals in conservative language, evolution is a theory that consolidates the vast preponderance of hypothesis-derived, reproducible data. There is no debate, there is no discussion, not because it is not welcome (as some would like you to believe), but because in science we deal with evidence that supports a hypothesis. Using this strict rule, evolution is the only interpretation. One might say a fact.
Bad argument number four, "Evolution can't be tested or observed so it isn't a scientific theory"
Cleary they don't understand what a theory is. Don't feel bad, most non-scientists don't get it. A theory is the best consolidation of facts, a unified umbrella that represents the synthesis of hundreds, thousands, (or in the case of evolution) millions of independent, reproducible, testable lines of experimental evidence.
Evolution can be tested. It may be tested in the laboratory, as mutation leading to variation and adaptation has been demonstrated in bacteria, fungi, C.elegans (a non-segmented worm) and other simple systems. The systems have to be simple because evolution is dependent upon change through time and is bottlenecked by generation time. We can see evolution overnight in bacteria because they can go through hundreds of generations and can be forced to change to fit an stringent environmental challenge.
Predictions are also tested. Scientists have made predictions about the strata where certain fossils would be found, based on how evolutionary history would overlay time. These predictions overwhelmingly fit with the central tenets of evolutionary theory. Moreover, there are no surprises. You don't find a human skeleton in the Devonian strata, etc.
So, evolution is both observed and testable, and continues to be observed and tested everyday. It stands as one of the most well-understood scientific principles.
These arguments are funny coming from religious folks. What part of ID, creation, etc are observed or testable. None. These ideas (not theories) are supported by claims of "irreducible complexity" as their central evidence. How is this observable or testable? It inherently says that it cannot be reduced (of course, scientists can show ways to reduce the "irreducible" with comparative morphological, physiological analyses, but anti-scientists don't like to hear that). Why would anyone that is anti-evolution argue with observable and testable as their criteria for validity?
It's a nice try, but again, non-scientist drivel. You'll have to excuse me, I have to go to another blog now. A group that believes in astrology wants us to add horoscopes to an astronomy class. ;-)