Evolution deniers usually frame the argument as a contest between only two possibilities; evolution or divine origin, evolution or spontaneous generation, evolution or Lamarckism, evolution or Lysenkoism, evolution or creationism, evolution or intelligent design. Then they point out a fault in evolution, claim this proves evolution is wrong in total, and then proclaim that their system must be right if evolution is wrong.
The flaw with these arguments is that whatever gaps might exist in the science of evolution there are far greater chasms in any of the alternatives that have been offered - most of these alternatives can’t even stand up to the same tests that these believers use to “disprove” evolution. Evolution may be displaced someday; but it will be by a theory that’s better, not one that’s just different.
Another factor, as you pointed out, is too many people don’t understand the distinction between what they don’t comprehend and what is incomprehendible.
Isn’t the possibility of the IPU manipulating all the atoms of that organism to make it"evolve" incompatible with the conservation of energy and that laws of physics hold everywhere, everytime? and can’t god be disproved by the same logic?
If the creationists are so eager for a “test” of evolution, why don’t they come up with a test of ID? Why did a Creator do what he did, and were there “outside influences”?
Not entirely. A non-divine creator could have modified animals’ genetic code much the same way we do in real life, today. The long and slow way is selective breeding – the way we get Dalmations and Poodles and Saint Bernards. The quicker way is direct genetic modification.
A lower-case “g” god could operate in materialistic ways, within the laws of physics.
so that materialistic god manipulates the DNA of every animal that is conceived? and we cannot detect it? if that is the case shouldn’t you see energy being put into or being removed from a system let’s say two breeding plants, in an isolated environment? Needless, the presence of aliens manipulating the DNA of every living thing wouldn’t go unnoticed.
The problem with trying to test God away is that literally no matter what evidence or argument you put forth, the creationist can simply respond, “Well, that’s how God wanted it for some reason.” In other words, it is not a testable hypothesis. There is no conceivable experimental result or possible observation that cannot be “explained” with that statement.
Another serious weakness to ID is the many cases of truly bad design.
An outstanding example is found in the human eye. Can we call a designer “intelligent” who brings the nerves out on the side of the retina where the light comes in?
One tenant of rational thought is you don’t have to explain everything, and you never have 100% certainty about anything.
The evidence says that evolution is, by far, the highest probability of being the reason for life working out like it has. So high that it is a near certainty. Nevertheless, it isn’t an absolute certainty, and that is ok. You do not have to disprove a creator, you have to produce strong and convincing evidence that your “creator did it” theory has merit. As of yet, no one has produced such evidence in a form that can be reproduced and peer reviewed.
Why every single animal? It could be done strategically, simply altering one animal in ten, or one in a hundred. Over time, the effect could work out.
It would appear exactly the same as occasional random mutations.
Again, not “every living thing.” Just the line you want, and just judicious alterations. It would be hard to detect – not impossible, just very hard. And it doesn’t violate any laws of physics.
The real argument against it is – why the hell bother? Why go to the absurd effort of conducting a process that looks like trial and error? (Especially the errors! The process has to include dead ends, mistakes, and alterations that masquerade as detrimental mutations.)
“Theistic” or “guided” evolution is not falsifiable. It’s rotten science. It’s very strength – that it cannot be detected – is also its weakness. It doesn’t explain anything that the prevailing standard model – random mutation and natural selection – doesn’t explain more readily.
Don’t worry about it: it’s a perfectly valid possibility, but it is of no interest to anyone who is serious about understanding the origin of species.
Indeed, I have seen the same accusation just recently launched against climate science, particularly about the computer models, since we can not build another atmosphere/ocean then some contrarians claim that everything is guesswork; not so, as nature throws many changes and opportunities to then test the models and the theories.
Even when one can get a thing like HIV in a lab and experiment with it, it does not mean that observations should be ignored, far from it, they are still an important part of science.
And, importantly, you can form models and make predictions in observational science.
I’ve seen many creationist arguments that labour under the misapprehension that to make predictions you need the phenomenon to repeat in the future.
But no, it’s perfectly valid to make predictions about what data we will find in the future. For example, when Neptune was discovered it was (more) confirmation of newton’s laws of motion (which had been applied to predict its location and size). The fact the planet had been there all along and was not a new phenomenon is irrelevant.
ToE has been used to make countless predictions like this.
ETA: of course evolution is something continuing into the future, and we can readily see that. But the standard handwave of that is to say that that’s microevolution and the macro kind is only a hypothesis about our past.
I’m not sure this would help in the context of the so-called ‘debate’ between creationism and evolution - creationism already tries to drive a wedge between the categories of ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ evolution - this would just provide them the opportunity to divorce the theory from the reality.
The thing the non-evolutionists don’t understand is that because DNA replication is not perfect, it’s almost impossible to NOT have evolution.
It’s just a side-effect of our physical environment. Creating exact duplicates of anything would require much more energy than something that is just pretty close.
The evolution is backwards from the way many non sciency folks see it. Beak size will always be a range. If a larger beak allows easier or more successful feeding or better defense from predators, more larger beaked finches live long enough to mate and pass those genes on. The differences are subtle and can take hundreds of generations to see a tiny shift in average beak size.
they dont just grow longer beaks, they are born more likely to survive well as a finch.