Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / December 2005

TEN REASONS WHY "EVOLUTION ONLY"

IS LOGICALLY, SCIENTIFICALLY AND LEGALLY CONTROVERSIAL

This discussion of origins science deals only with biological origins - the
science which

seeks to explain the origin of life and the origin of the diversity of
life - WHERE DO WE COME

FROM? This subject is covered in most 9th and 10th grade biology textbooks.

The following list of Ten Reasons Origins Science is so Controversial
explains why

objectivity is necessary in origins science.

"Objective" means "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or
prejudice;

based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion." The Supreme Court has held
that to qualify as

scientific knowledge "an inference or assertion must be derived per the
scientific method.."

Objectivity is a concept fundamental to the scientific method. Not only does
it lead to good

science, but it also promotes concepts of religious neutrality and academic
freedom mandated by

the establishment and speech clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The images of
an umpire and a set

of scales reflect the idea. Lets do origins science - a very subjective
historical science that

unavoidably impacts religion - Objectively, per the scientific method, and
without, naturalistic,

philosophic or religious bias or assumption.

2

TEN REASONS

WHY ORIGINS SCIENCE IS CONTROVERSIAL

and

WHY IT SHOULD BE CONDUCTED AND TAUGHT OBJECTIVELY

1. It appears that science and the State are taking sides against theism in
a subject that

unavoidably impacts religion. Any answer to the question which the State
chooses

to ask - "WHERE DO WE COME FROM?" - either positively or negatively

impacts religious belief. An answer that natural processes alone are
sufficient to

explain our origins supports agnosticism, atheism and secular humanism

("nonreligion").1 An answer that life may be the product of an intelligent
cause

supports theistic religions. Ray Vasvari, the Legal Director of the ACLU of
Ohio

acknowledged this effect when he said: "Where did we come from? is

fundamentally much more a theological than it is a scientific question."2 As

discussed below, a little known rule3 used by prominent science associations
and

most science educators philosophically suppresses any evidence that supports
other

than a natural cause for our origins. Many claim that State use of the Rule
in

teaching children about where they come from amounts to state sponsored

indoctrination in Naturalism and state sponsored denigration of most
theistic

religions. The claim is that the State is improperly taking sides in an
inherently

religious issue - the State is not being religiously neutral.4

2. Explanations regarding origins are controversial because they consist of
subjective

"historical narratives" that can not be confirmed by experiment as is the
case with

experimental sciences like physics and chemistry. According to Dr. Ernst
Mayr,

"Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a
historical science

-- the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have
already taken

place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication
of

such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative,
consisting

of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the
events one is

trying to explain."5 Controversy arises when two different interpretations
arise

about how "the dots" should be connected - how a "particular scenario"
should be

"reconstructed" via the use of our minds. More controversy arises when only
one

explanation is allowed in this very subjective area.

3. Science organizations that control science education prejudge the answer
to the

question. They use an assumption (that permits no contradiction) that
natural

processes are adequate to explain all phenomena and that teleological or
design

conceptions of nature are invalid. The technical name of the assumption is

methodological naturalism.6 Use of this assumption in origins science is
extremely

controversial because it causes the question - where do we come from? to be

answered before it is asked. We come from an unguided natural process -

Darwinian evolution.7

3

Those opposing use of the assumption in origins science claim that:

a. The assumption is not scientific, rather it is a philosophic construct
that is

not based on an evidentiary finding.8 Design is ruled out not because of a

lack of evidence, but because of a philosophical decision to not consider
it.

b. The assumption is inconsistent with evidence collected per the scientific

method that the biological information processing systems and networks of

life may be the product of intelligence.9

c. A naturalistic assumption that prejudges the answer to the question -
where

do we come from? - is inconsistent with logic and good science.10

d. The assumption is inconsistent with the testing requirements of the
scientific

method.11

e. Use of the assumption by the state dictates that the state take sides -
the side

of a naturalistic explanation in a subject that admittedly impacts religion.

The assumption censors evidence because the implications of the evidence

supports theistic religion. This is claimed to violate the obligation of the
state

to remain neutral regarding practices that "touch" religion12

4. It is claimed that students are misled because textbooks generally do not
disclose the

use or the effects of the use of the naturalistic assumption. For example,
Biology the

Dynamics of Life, (Glencoe-McGraw Hill, 2000), a tenth grade biology text
that is

used extensively throughout the country, does not mention use of the
assumption.

Instead the book leads one to believe that the theories and explanations
discussed in

the book are grounded in facts and evidence that have been developed per the

scientific method. However, the discussion of the scientific method does not
mention

the assumption and how the assumption conflicts with various requirements of
that

method relating to hypothesis generation and testing. This is claimed to be
highly

misleading. The claim has also been made that a failure of textbooks to
disclose use

of the assumption has the "effect" of converting the use of methodological

naturalism into the promotion of philosophical naturalism.13 Science
educators

generally agree that it is inappropriate to use philosophical naturalism in
public

school science education.14

5. Current origins science starts with a controversial assumption that life
originates

from a purely naturalistic process. The validity of the assumption is
questionable

because (1) science has not been able to provide a coherent theory as to how
life

could have arisen from a natural process15 and (2) because the weight of
existing

evidence arguably favors an intelligent cause.16 If an intelligent cause is
even a

candidate for the origin of the initial "blueprint" of life, then it would
seem also to

4

be a viable candidate for any modifications to the "blueprint" it may have
created.

This provides natural selection, which is presently claimed to the sole
source of

modifications to the blueprint, with an obvious competitor. Accordingly,
until

science can rule out the

competitor on the basis of the evidence, natural selection as an explanation
for all of

the diversity of life remains nothing more than a very controversial
speculation.

Using an assumption to eliminate the competition does not cure, but just
makes

worse, the speculative nature of the theory.

6. Current origins science uses a controversial assumption that all of the
diversity of

life has resulted from an unbroken chain of gradually accumulated
"adaptations" to

the descendants of a single common ancestral cell.17 The validity of the
assumption

is questionable because of the challenge of irreducible complexity
articulated by

Michael Behe in Darwin's Black Box. The fossil record also contradicts
gradualism

as it reflects sharp and sudden bursts of increased complexity as witnessed
by the

Cambrian explosion18 and the origin of life itself19 The controversy over
the fossil

record is discussed in great detail in Icons of Evolution at pages 29-59
where

Darwin's Tree of Life appears more like a thicket than a tree.20

7. An "evolution only" assumption is controversial because it requires us to
ignore our

minds and intuition that lead us to a contrary design inference. Why must we

"assume" that the apparent design we see in nature, and particularly in
living

systems, is an illusion and not real? This is the $64,000 question. The work
of Dr.

Behe and Dr. Dembski that has attracted the interest of a growing number of

scientists suggests that our intuition may be correct and that design theory
merits

continued investigation and discussion. According to Stephen C. Meyer,
Ph.D., and

Paul Davies, Ph.D., there is no known law which accounts for the sequencing
of

nucleotide basis along the sugar-phosphate backbones of DNA.21 Statistical
studies

suggest that a random arrangement for just one gene is statistically
impossible.22

The issue is controversial because an application of Methodological
Naturalism does

not even permit a discussion of the evidence, much less any serious
investigation of

it. Only scientists are qualified to investigate and analyze the evidence of
design - it

takes biochemists, geologists, biologists, molecular biologists,
mathematicians,

statisticians, physicists, chemists and information theorists to do the job.
If

scientists are not allowed to do that job, then it will not get done.
Theologians,

historians and sociologists are not qualified. The result will be to assign
the evidence

of design to an intellectual black hole.

8. Much of the evidence that supports Darwinian Evolution is controversial.
Perhaps

the most articulate statement of the controversial nature of the evidence
may be

found in Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth: Why much of what we teach
about

evolution is wrong.23 The book is summarized by Dr. Wells in Survival of the
Fakest

an article originally appearing in the American Spectator.24 Icons discusses
use of a

5

discredited experiment to support a naturalistic account for the origin of
life -

chemical evolution (Chapter 2), a fossil record and evidence of molecular
biology

that upsets Darwin's Tree of Life (Chapter 3),25 the circularity of
arguments

regarding the similarity of vertebrate limbs to support claims of common
ancestry

(Chapter 4), the use of false pictures showing similar embryonic states to
support

claims of common ancestry (Haeckel's embryos - Chapter 5), the use "story
telling"

to support claims of so-called "missing links" in the fossil record (Chapter
6), the use

of staged photos of moths resting on tree trunks to demonstrate the efficacy
of

natural selection when biologists have known since the 1980's that moths don't
rest

on tree trunks (Chapter 7),26 difficulties in using micro changes in finch
beak size as

evidence to support natural explanations for major changes in body plans and

developmental systems (Chapter 8), difficulties in using mutant fruit flies
whose

lethal extra set of wings that do not work as evidence of evolutionary
mechanisms

(chapter 9), discussing how philosophical assumptions seem to be driving
Darwinian

explanations rather than the evidence (Chapter 10). Reviews of Icons have
failed to

find fault with the accuracy of the work. Criticisms primarily argue that
the overall

effect of the work has been to give a "false impression" of the adequacy of

evolutionary theory. In view of the highly speculative nature of this
historical

science and the protection given to the theory via methodological
naturalism, the

"false impression" claim, is itself subject to reasonable doubt.

9. Evolutionary theory is controversial because most of the evidence which
supports it

is also consistent with the design hypothesis. There is hardly any evidence
that

supports Darwinian theory that is not also consistent with a theory of
common

design. Increased complexity in the fossil record, similarity of anatomical
features

and systems, common gene sequences, some similarities in embryonic
structures,

and so-forth all are consistent with common design - much the way Bill Gates

designs new software for a myriad of different information processing
applications.

Without the naturalistic assumption, much of the evidence for Darwinian
evolution

becomes neutral at best. Common sense dictates that evidence that is
consistent

with a competing hypothesis proves neither.

10. Evolutionary theory is controversial because the naturalistic assumption
protects it

from adequate testing and falsification. As pointed out by Dr. Ernst Mayr
and

Carol Cleland historical hypotheses can not be tested via experiment.27
Ernst Mayr

also acknowledges that many aspects of evolutionary theory are not
falsifiable.28

Under these circumstances, the only remaining test is one which seeks to
rule out

competing hypotheses on the basis of the evidence.29 According to Carol
Cleland,

the failure to rule out or to seek to rule out a competing historical
hypothesis leaves

the hypothesis to be tested nothing more than a speculation or a "dreaded
just-so

story."30 "A theory may be falsified ....by demonstrating ..that the
assumptions

underlying the theory are unfounded or false."31 However, the irrebuttable

assumption of Methodological Naturalism does not permit one to show the