First posted on 10 February 2009
I am an avid reader the New Scientist magazine. This magazine is obviously pro-evolution, and anti-creationism. Well, that’s what you’d think. They actually present very balanced articles on creation and religion, but have very little time for unthinking fundamentalist religion that poo-poos science. Or is just anti-scientific.
I believe that there is a way to harmonise science and religion (both are seeking truth, after all). I believe that there are great questions that Christians can ask scientists that help us all have excellent conversations about God, creation, eternity and so on. But the way in which many Christians approach science is counterproductive, and unhelpful.
Maybe I’ll come back to this issue sometime soon and talk about how I think we can harmonise science and religion. For now, for those of you interested in becoming better acquainted with science and creation, you may find the 24 myths and misconceptions about evolution to be very helpful. This is available from the New Scientist website – click here.
At very least, it will help you stop sounding like a moron when you speak to people who have done some work in scientific fields. And maybe this is something you should hearing at church more regularly.
The myths and misconceptions deal with include:
Shared misconceptions:
- Everything is an adaptation produced by natural selection
- Natural selection is the only means of evolution
- Natural selection leads to ever-greater complexity
- Evolution produces creatures perfectly adapted to their environment
- Evolution always promotes the survival of species
- It doesn’t matter if people do not understand evolution
- “Survival of the fittest” justifies “everyone for themselves”
- Evolution is limitlessly creative
- Evolution cannot explain traits such as homosexuality
- Creationism provides a coherent alternative to evolution
Creationist myths:
- Evolution must be wrong because the Bible is inerrant
- Accepting evolution undermines morality
- Evolutionary theory leads to racism and genocide
- Religion and evolution are incompatible
- Half a wing is no use to anyone
- Evolutionary science is not predictive
- Evolution cannot be disproved so is not science
- Evolution is just so unlikely to produce complex life forms
- Evolution is an entirely random process
- Mutations can only destroy information, not create it
- Darwin is the ultimate authority on evolution
- The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex
- Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics
And more… Go check it out now.
I started to read the article you have linked to , but as soon as I hit the peppered moth story, that was it! They continue a story that has been disproved many times over and is no evidence for evolution at all.
However, they also confuse the terms and should perhaps define them better. Are we talking of macro or micro evolution here?
I as a Bible based believer have no trouble with micro evolution, we see it often, it is repeated, it can be observed etc etc the basis for science.
But when it comes to macro evolution, the evolution of the solar system, metals and chemicals, the origin of life – then I have a problem.
Why do they never quote the full title of Darwins book? Which is:
The origin of the species by means of natural selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the struggle for life.
They portray Darwin as some form of scientist but his only education qualification was in theology!
Darwin had no compelling evidence – he had a theory, based on what he saw as he watched the life on the islands – there was no evidence and those creatures are still doing the same changes year after year depending on the weather! He saw micro evolution in action which we still see today!
In glancing through some of the other links from The New Scientist page, it strikes me how many times they use the words “Might, we think, Possibly, it is possible, perhaps, theory, etc etc” come on guys, you are supposed to be talking science here – where are the facts!
They refer to fossils – that are dated by looking at geometric charts that do not exists anywhere in the world – the figment of a lawyers imagination!
And still they keep confusing the issues and referring to micro evolution – and as previously stated: I have no problem with that!
From the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution
“The term ‘microevolution’ has recently become popular among the anti-evolution movement, and in particular among young Earth creationists. The claim that microevolution is qualitatively different from macroevolution is fallacious, as the main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other takes place over thousands of years (i.e. a quantitative difference).[3] Essentially they describe the same process.
The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[4] Contrary to belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level (“macroevolution”, i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed and documented by scientists on many occasions.[5]”
Therefore it is not surprising that New Scientist didn’t mention micro-evolution!