Why Albertans rejected Darwinian evolution

2008-08-17
By

My op-ed piece published in The Calgary Herald, Saturday, August 16, 2008, responding to radio host and commentator Rob Breakenridge, with links to sources:

In rebuttal – Theory needs a paramedic, not more cheerleaders

Denyse O’Leary

Re “What is it about evolution theory that Albertans don’t get?” (August 12, 2008), Rob Breakenridge has cobbled together key talking points of the American Darwin lobby. The resulting column is an excellent illustration of why one should not write about big topics without basic research.

The 2005 Judge Jones decision in Pennsylvania, to which Breakenridge devotes much of his column, has not crimped the worldwide growth of interest in intelligent design. That is no surprise. A judge is not a scientist, and Jones cannot plug gaping holes in Darwin’s theory of evolution. Evolution is—contrary to its (largely) publicly funded zealots— in deep trouble, for a number of reasons.

The history of life has not been the long, slow “survival of the fittest” transition that classical evolution theory requires. Life got started on Earth soon after the planet cooled. All the basic divisions of animal life took shape rather suddenly in the Cambrian seas, about 550 million years ago. Later, there was, for example, the “Big Bang” of flowers and the Big Bang of birds, where many life forms appear quite suddenly.

Modern human consciousness is one of these leaps, judging from the superb cave paintings from recent millenniums. The creationists whom Breakenridge derides may be wrong on their dates, but not on much else.

Breakenridge hopes that we can enlighten backward Albertans by teaching more “evolution” in Alberta schools. But that won’t help. Textbook examples of evolution often evaporate when researchers actually study them (instead of just assuming they are true).

For example, the peacock’s tail did not evolve to please hen birds; hens don’t notice them much. The allegedly yummy Viceroy butterfly did not evolve to look like the bad-tasting Monarch (both insects taste bad). The eye spots on butterflies’ wings did not evolve to scare birds by resembling the eyes of their predators. Birds avoid brightly patterned insects, period. They don’t care whether the patterns resemble eyes. Similarly, the famous “peppered moth” of textbook fame has devolved into a peppered myth, featuring book-length charges and countercharges.

And remember that row of vertebrate embryos in your textbook years ago? It was dubbed in the journal Science one of the “most famous fakes” in biology—because the embryos don’t really look very similar. And Darwin’s majestic Tree of Life? It’s now a tangleweed, or maybe several of them.

We seldom see evolution happening. Michael Behe’s Edge of Evolution (2007) notes that for decades scientists have observed many thousands of generations of bacteria in the lab. And how did they evolve?

Well, they didn’t. Worse, when evolution is occasionally observed (and widely trumpeted), it often heads the wrong way. For example, bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance by junking intricate machinery, not by creating it. Cave fish lose their eyes. But we don’t need a theory for how intricate machinery gets wrecked. We need a theory for how it originates and how it develops quite suddenly. Evolution, as we understand it today, apparently isn’t that theory.

We aren’t going to improve science education by teaching Darwinian fairy tales.

Breakenridge informs us that in a recent Angus Reid poll, “A shockingly low 37 per cent of Albertans supported the position that humans beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years.” Well, good, let’s drive the numbers lower still. That position is an article of atheist dogma. Evidence for it is hailed as a truth we must all embrace; evidence against it is shrugged off as a temporary setback. Try doubting the dogma, and you could end up starring in Ben Stein’s Expelled, Part II.

Breakenridge also frets, “An even greater number of Albertans—40 percent—agreed that humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years.” That’s easy to explain. It was the only other option (barring “don’t know”). The ever-popular “God uses evolution” choice wasn’t offered.

Forced to choose between excluding God and including him, I’d pick option two, even though I accept NASA’s estimate of our Earth’s age (4.5 billion years) and consider common ancestry a reasonable idea.

My guess is, Albertans diverged from the national norm because they considered the question more carefully than some folk. History, anyone?

This summer a meeting of key evolutionists took place at Altenberg, Austria, to revise the theory. So, Albertans, if you haven’t started believing it yet, don’t bother. Right now, the theory needs a paramedic, not more cheerleaders.

Denyse O’Leary is a journalist and blogger who is the author of By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy and co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist’s case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

(Note: I put this opinion piece up because I was beginning to receive correspondence about it, but could not find a link to the Herald, and in any event wanted to link readers to my sources. Thanks to Jane Harris-Zsovan for the scan.)

614 views

  • http://www.paulburnett.com/creation.htm Paul Burnett

    One of Denyse’s heroes appears to be Michael Behe, an ex-biologist who has a new career as a religious apologist. Behe is nominally employed at Lehigh Univerty’s Biology Department, which has this to say about him: “The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.” – http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/news/evolution.htm

    Denyse writes “The 2005 Judge Jones decision in Pennsylvania…has not crimped the worldwide growth of interest in intelligent design. That is no surprise. A judge is not a scientist…” Unfortunately, a columnist is not a scientist either, but a judge’s decision stands until overturned, and this decision was not appealed: “We have concluded that intelligent design is not science, and moreover that intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.”

    Denyse writes “This summer a meeting of key evolutionists took place at Altenberg, Austria, to revise the theory.” That’s not what happened. Contrary to the mis-information and dis-information deliberately crafted by the Dishonesty Institute’s Casey Luskin and confused journalist Susan Mazur, here’s a report on what actually happened: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/luskin-has-lost.html

  • Zorik

    One of the last seminars I heard at the university (before I got fired for spreading scientific facts by professor-boss wanted to suppress) was held by a biologist who said we need to “rethink evolution”. What he really meant was that new knowledge has shown that evolution makes no sense (it never did anyway) and they can’t really explain how we could have evolved.

    What it means is when you really look into the nitty gritty, eolution is a theory with no logical support, but they still have blind faith that evolution must be right.

    And they call that science. Duh.

  • Squiggy

    Paul Burnett said,
    That is no surprise. A judge is not a scientist

    No, but a biologist is. You can’t pick and choose Paul.

    By the way, what is an “ex-biologist”? I never heard of an “ex-doctor”, or an “ex-physicist”. Behe didn’t renounce his education. He just believes in God. Why does that offend you atheists so much?

  • http://www.paulburnett.com/creation.htm Paul Burnett

    The creationist sympathizer hiding behind the anonymous username of Squiggy said: “By the way, what is an “ex-biologist”? I never heard of an “ex-doctor”, or an “ex-physicist”. Behe didn’t renounce his education.

    Well, actually, he has. That was just a shorthand way of saying that Behe has dropped out of participation in the actual practice of biology and science. How many science articles has he had published in actual peer-reviewed science journals in the last decade or more? (As opposed to blatantly anti-science / pro-creationism non-peer-reviewed popular publications such as “Pandas II, or The Edge of Evolution.”)

    And Behe most famously provided sworn testimony in Federal court that for intelligent design creationism to be called “science,” the very definition of “science” would have be so dumbed down that astrology could also be called “science” – see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

    In the world of religion, that would be called apostasy.

    And you’ve got to admit that while Behe may not have formally renounced his education, his entire Biology Department has certainly renounced and denounced him – see http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/news/evolution.htm

  • Squiggy

    Creationist sympathizer????????

    Wow. You really have a large chip on your shoulder. So what if some other people with large chips on their shoulders have denounced him? To quote you – “see Galileo”.

    You atheist/libtards are really nuts. You firmly believe that anyone who doesn’t think like you is stupid. This is a classic mental disorder. You need help.

    And yes, I do have a degree in psychology.

  • agentorange

    “What it means is when you really look into the nitty gritty, eolution is a theory with no logical support, but they still have blind faith that evolution must be right. ”

    Zorik,

    Hmmm, lets look into your statement of looking into the ‘nitty gritty’. Here’s some nitty girtty, and I’ll be, it supports evolutionary theory. Who’da thunk it?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0

    “You firmly believe that anyone who doesn’t think like you is stupid.”

    Squiggy,

    I seriously think anyone who is normally rational and logical in their everyday lives, but yet when they compartimentalize their brains and (somehow?) considers a 6000 year old Universe/Earth, a talking snake, a global flood and other such things as historical as tenable reality, it tends to suggest they are a bit off the deep end.

    “And yes, I do have a degree in psychology.”

    Sure you do, and I am Queen of England. Either of these statements are equally worthless without actual evidence backing them up, essentially making them mere mearsays. Oh, but you knew that and why it’s illogical and that I’d state that, because well you have a degree in psychology!

  • http://www.paulburnett.com/creation.htm Paul Burnett

    The anonymous creationist sympathizer who continues to hide behind an anonymous username of Squiggy said: “And yes, I do have a degree in psychology.

    Oh, wow, like I’m terrified. You and I have been through this before – you only have a Masters in psychology, not a Doctorate – right? Big whoop, like that makes you an expert in…what? Creationism? Harassing those who support actual science as opposed to the fairy tales of intelligent design creationism?

    You said “ You firmly believe that anyone who doesn’t think like you is stupid. This is a classic mental disorder.

    Cool – what’s your diagnosis? Get out your DSM IV and give me a number and name for the “mental disorder.”

    Then look up 297.1.

  • Squiggy

    Oh goody. Paul has another troll on his side. I’m sure you’ll call him on his “anonymity” also, right? As for that, you have to be a nut to put your identity out for the internet crazies to grab, without at least some type of just compensation. What’s your compensation, “Paul”?

    Okay, you know I have no PHD so I’m not an expert, eh? And you’re an expert in biology, why? I believe you’re not degree’d, so let’s use YOUR logic – Paul Burnett – shut up and go away, troll.

    As for you “agentorange, same thing – go away troll. You think you know something about me (and the majority of readers of MND), but you don’t. You’re trying to collar me with a sixteenth century catholic monks thoughts on the age of everything. I’m not catholic, I’m not a monk, and I’m not from the sixteenth century (I’m way older than that).

    Knowing God exists doesn’t keep me from “believing” in science. I love science. Darwinism isn’t science. Global warming (as put out by the IPCC) isn’t science. For that matter, psychology doesn’t fit the parameters of science. Results aren’t reproducible, theories are rarely testable, and failure is never allowed. You just force the “facts” into whatever your preconceived notions are, and ignore what you don’t like. And if you’re like Paul there, you get really angry and throw things.

    AgentOrange, don’t be a Paul. Your life will be short and unhappy.






Search