|email - January 2011|
Evolutionists object when we don’t play by their rules.
Joe wrote to us from an email address at a well-known Catholic university.
Good evening! Today I came upon your site for the first time and decided to go through several of the "Disclosure" newsletters. While I see many arguments against the theory of evolution, or at least several aspects of it, I have been thus far unable to find a counter-solution. While I understand that the main point of the site is a rebuttal to evolution theory, it would be nice to see your theories as to the alternatives. Am I just missing this somewhere?
We wrote back to him, referring him to two recent articles 1 which explained why we don’t present any alternatives, or feel the need to. One of these articles presented a legal analogy (an innocent person need not prove someone else guilty in order to be acquitted), and the other used a medical analogy (a doctor need not make a final diagnosis before ruling out one or more possible diseases).
Joe’s response was instructive.
I find the logic behind both of these reasoning [sic] to be a bit strange. By comparing theories for (or by extension against) evolution to a crime or disease, you seem to be implying that there are immediate negative consequences related to belief in evolution; your examples of a false conviction or mistreatment. Putting the rhetoric aside, the only consequence of accepting one of the theories of evolution as a possibility (emphasis on theory and possibility) should be to encourage exploration of said theory with the hope of uncovering more or stronger evidence either denying or (hopefully) confirming it.
As it stands, contemporary theories of evolution are those that we have the most evidence supporting. While I agree with you that they are neither perfect nor solid (far from it in some cases), to close our minds to even this possibility would be to start from scratch with no theory at all, which could not only slow down our attempts at finding a true solution, but provides no real scientific benefit.
I strongly support the concept of your site; to provide a reasonable academic rebuttal to theories of evolution. I do not agree with your practices of not accepting it as even a possibility, given that the evidence for both sides of the argument have their relative strengths and weaknesses.
My point: The future of science should encourage open-mindedness and cooperation from all involved parties to find the one true solution. By taking a polarizing stance either for or against this, both your followers and the staunch evolutionists are discouraging this future.
Please do not regard this message as a personal attack, I would simply like to engage in a more serious academic discussion.
Thank you very much for your time,
Joe doesn’t dispute any of the facts in our newsletters. He objects to our approach and tone. He wants us to play by his rules. We aren’t conforming to his academic prejudice of how a discussion should be conducted.
In his first letter, he wanted us to present an alternative to the theory of evolution. This would have allowed him to use a debate tactic termed, “the red herring.” The term conjures up the image of an escaping prisoner dragging a smelly fish across his trail to prevent a bloodhound from following him. It is a way of diverting the discussion away from a weak position.
There are dozens of alternatives to the theory of evolution including (but not limited to) Greek Mythology, traditional Cherokee legends, and the Multiverse Theory rooted in quantum physics. Suppose we present the Cherokee creation story as the alternative. We can’t prove it is true, and Joe can’t prove it is false; but it allows Joe to avoid talking about the many weaknesses of the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution should be evaluated on its own merits. The merits (or lack of merit) of any other explanations are irrelevant.
Since we didn’t follow the first red herring, Joe came up with a second red herring. He wanted to draw us into a discussion about the proper tone and method to take when discussing evolution. He wanted to talk about anything other than the scientific arguments against evolution.
Joes said that “to start from scratch with no theory at all … could not only slow down our attempts at finding a true solution, but provides no real scientific benefit.” That’s nonsense. It is better to start over from scratch than to continue down the wrong path. A correct theory will never be found as long as one holds on to an incorrect theory.
As long as Joe continues to believe that the theory of evolution is generally correct, but wrong in a few specific details, he will never find a solution. That’s why “there are immediate negative consequences related to belief in evolution.” There is no positive benefit to believing something that isn’t true—especially if it is an obstacle to finding the truth.
Despite what Joe says, we do encourage exploration of the theory of evolution. The more you explore it, the more you will find wrong with it, and the sooner you will reject it. That’s why we subscribe to the expensive professional scientific journals and tell you what they say about evolution. We give you a glimpse into the serious academic discussions going on in the professional literature about the weaknesses of the theory of evolution.
If Joe really wanted to promote a serious academic discussion about evolution, he would write to us about recent articles in the peer-reviewed professional literature. Instead, he asks us to defend alternatives and our tone. But, coming from academia as he does, he probably doesn’t even realize what he is doing.
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month
http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v15i1e.htm and http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v13i12f.htm