“The Angry Evolutionist” Setting Up and Knocking Down Straw Men Arguments
Today a colleague passed on Richard Dawkins’ Newsweek article wherein “Darwin’s rottweiler” went on another tirade against creationists.[1] As recent research on the Cambrian fossil records has hammered in the last nail in the coffin of Darwinian evolution, one of the last bad ideas of the nineteenth century that wreaked havoc in the twentieth century (another being Marxism), the rant is understandable.
What is Dawkins’ response to the proposition that the fossil record in general and the Cambrian fossil record in particular fails to support the Darwinian model, he just pontificates, “We don’t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution would be entirely secure even if not a single corpse had ever fossilized. It is a bonus that we do actually have rich seams of fossils to mine, and more are discovered every day.” Is not he just saying, “Don’t get bogged down with the facts, just believe me.”
Dawkins’ then brings up some analogy of a baronet being shot with the DNA, fingerprints, footprints, and motive indicating the butler did it. There’s even a security tape of the video of the butler with a gun in his hand. Well, the trial comes down and the defense attorney in a last ditch effor screams that the lack of eyewitnesses calls for resonable doubt, which is obviously a bad argument. Yet, the analogy is a double edged sword—it cuts both ways—and the ultimate question is where does the evidence lead. Readers must be mindful that creationists are proposing Cornel Mustard murdered the baronet with a candlelabra in the dining room; rather, they too want to look at the evidence and see where it leads. Yes, the butler killed the baronet, but does the evidence point to premeditation (murder) or an accident (manslaughter) and there is a world of difference bewtween the two.
Dawkins also does not explain how the existing evidence points so clearly to evolution, just demands that we accept him at his word.
The refutations of the propsition that the Cambrian explosion fossils suggests the sudden appearance of a diversity of species without prior gelogical records is convoluted. He asserts “Creationists believe that flatworms were created in the same week as all other creatures.” Yet, this just ignores what the research on the Cambrian Explosion theory, wich is “the geologically-sudden appearance in the fossil record of most major animal phyla during a span of less than ten million years,” and this “took place about 530 million years ago,” and “provides a major challenge to the traditional mechanisms of Darwinian evolution.”[2]
Dawkins’ avoids the burden of providing intermediate fossils that demonstrate one species evolving to another, and avoid the conundrum of having a new species birthed without another of the samekind of species to mate with for the propagation of the new species, he just simply notes that “No modern species is descended from any other modern species (if we leave out very recent splits). Just as you can find fossils that approximate to the common ancestor of a frog and a monkey, so you can find fossils that approximate to the common ancestor of elephants and chimpanzees.” What he does not take into account is the genertic information that differentiates between a frog, monkey, elephant, and man cannot be accounted for by random chance mutations.
Dawkins’ might respond that “Evolution not only is a gradual process as a matter of fact; it has to be gradual if it is to do any explanatory work.” Yet, time is not on his side. Chengjang research has shown discoveries of soft tissued embryos of sponges in pre-Cambrian rock strata, but no fossils of complex ancestors to the creatures of the Cambrian period. So one must still explain how these Cambrian creatures came to be in a relatively short geological time span.[3]
A sad reality is that many simply accept the angry atheist word without question, without realizing how little evidnce the arguments hold. While Dawkin’s stirs up a rukus whenever he publishes his rants against Christianity, a close examination of his arguments reveals they are simply “sraw men.”
For more info research done on the Cambrian fossil records and the implications to the longstanding Darwinian icon of evolution see Jonathan Wells’ “Deepening Darwin’s Dilemma” http://www.discovery.org/a/12471.
[1] For full text of article, cf.Richard Dawkins, “The Angry Evolutionist,” Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/id/216140/output/print
[2] Darwin’s Dilemma, “The Mystery of the Cambrian Explosion” http://www.darwinsdilemma.org/cambrian-explosion.php Dawkins’ also seems to insist that all creationist must hold to a young earth creationism, which is certainly not the case.
[3] YouTube, “Investigating Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion PART 2,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFM48XIXnk&NR=1
What is Dawkins’ response to the proposition that the fossil record in general and the Cambrian fossil record in particular fails to support the Darwinian model, he just pontificates, “We don’t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution would be entirely secure even if not a single corpse had ever fossilized. It is a bonus that we do actually have rich seams of fossils to mine, and more are discovered every day.” Is not he just saying, “Don’t get bogged down with the facts, just believe me.”
Dawkins’ then brings up some analogy of a baronet being shot with the DNA, fingerprints, footprints, and motive indicating the butler did it. There’s even a security tape of the video of the butler with a gun in his hand. Well, the trial comes down and the defense attorney in a last ditch effor screams that the lack of eyewitnesses calls for resonable doubt, which is obviously a bad argument. Yet, the analogy is a double edged sword—it cuts both ways—and the ultimate question is where does the evidence lead. Readers must be mindful that creationists are proposing Cornel Mustard murdered the baronet with a candlelabra in the dining room; rather, they too want to look at the evidence and see where it leads. Yes, the butler killed the baronet, but does the evidence point to premeditation (murder) or an accident (manslaughter) and there is a world of difference bewtween the two.
Dawkins also does not explain how the existing evidence points so clearly to evolution, just demands that we accept him at his word.
The refutations of the propsition that the Cambrian explosion fossils suggests the sudden appearance of a diversity of species without prior gelogical records is convoluted. He asserts “Creationists believe that flatworms were created in the same week as all other creatures.” Yet, this just ignores what the research on the Cambrian Explosion theory, wich is “the geologically-sudden appearance in the fossil record of most major animal phyla during a span of less than ten million years,” and this “took place about 530 million years ago,” and “provides a major challenge to the traditional mechanisms of Darwinian evolution.”[2]
Dawkins’ avoids the burden of providing intermediate fossils that demonstrate one species evolving to another, and avoid the conundrum of having a new species birthed without another of the samekind of species to mate with for the propagation of the new species, he just simply notes that “No modern species is descended from any other modern species (if we leave out very recent splits). Just as you can find fossils that approximate to the common ancestor of a frog and a monkey, so you can find fossils that approximate to the common ancestor of elephants and chimpanzees.” What he does not take into account is the genertic information that differentiates between a frog, monkey, elephant, and man cannot be accounted for by random chance mutations.
Dawkins’ might respond that “Evolution not only is a gradual process as a matter of fact; it has to be gradual if it is to do any explanatory work.” Yet, time is not on his side. Chengjang research has shown discoveries of soft tissued embryos of sponges in pre-Cambrian rock strata, but no fossils of complex ancestors to the creatures of the Cambrian period. So one must still explain how these Cambrian creatures came to be in a relatively short geological time span.[3]
A sad reality is that many simply accept the angry atheist word without question, without realizing how little evidnce the arguments hold. While Dawkin’s stirs up a rukus whenever he publishes his rants against Christianity, a close examination of his arguments reveals they are simply “sraw men.”
For more info research done on the Cambrian fossil records and the implications to the longstanding Darwinian icon of evolution see Jonathan Wells’ “Deepening Darwin’s Dilemma” http://www.discovery.org/a/12471.
[1] For full text of article, cf.Richard Dawkins, “The Angry Evolutionist,” Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/id/216140/output/print
[2] Darwin’s Dilemma, “The Mystery of the Cambrian Explosion” http://www.darwinsdilemma.org/cambrian-explosion.php Dawkins’ also seems to insist that all creationist must hold to a young earth creationism, which is certainly not the case.
[3] YouTube, “Investigating Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion PART 2,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFM48XIXnk&NR=1
Comments
Post a Comment