The first alleged "anti-creationist argument":

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists’ conclusions less certain.

That is really all he has to say about this supposed argument against creationists. Three paragraphs and he’s done; not a little bit of arrogance here. The first thing to notice about this alleged rebuttal is that the main point has nothing to do with distinguishing between a creationist model of origins versus an evolutionary model. It is about semantics and the philosophy of science, not the facts supporting either model. As such, we could dismiss it altogether.

His description of "the fossil record and abundant other evidence" as "clear, unambiguous and compelling" begs the question, and upon examination of the raw data is revealed to be an outright falsehood. In the words of the evolutionists themselves:

"Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)

"The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms." (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641)

"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors." (Eldredge, N., 1989, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22)

"Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95)

Yes, all these quotes are from sources published in the 1980's. However, these are all prominent evolutionists speaking. Despite the absence of recent quotes here, the evidential situation has not improved regarding the fossil record. This is not to say any of these scientists consequently hold to a creationist model. However, what is "clear, unambiguous and compelling" in Mr. Rennie’s composition is the display of either extreme ignorance of his own evidence, or a deliberate attempt to twist the facts by an appeal to an authority that is not there.

In addition, his last paragraph totally misses the point. The indirect evidence to which he refers is still based on repeatable observations made in the present. The events surrounding the origin of life and speciation on this planet are neither reproducible nor observable directly or indirectly.

Yet another problem with Mr. Rennie’s alleged rebuttal is something we will see quite frequently, and that is what is called a "straw man argument." His disdain for creationists apparently leads him to make the most unfavorable assumptions about what they believe, rather than doing the research necessary to determine what they believe. Now, there may, in fact, be some who use the above argument, but they do so unadvisedly. If we are truly seeking truth, it behooves all parties, creationists and evolutionists alike, to depend on the best evidence and arguments. It helps neither to use faulty ones. In Refuting Evolution 2, the last appendix is actually a listing of arguments creationist should not use, with reasons for not doing so. We find there that this precise point is an argument disavowed by creationists as well:

"Evolution is just a theory."

What people usually mean when they say this is "Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically." Therefore people should say that! The problem with using the word "theory" in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known theories such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, as well as lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

At this point it would be good to review a little philosophy of science and what science can and cannot do both for the present argument and for future reference. A good basic starting point is found here, where Mr. William McComas (who is not a creationist by any means) describes for us Ten Myths of Science.

Myth 1: Hypotheses Become Theories Which Become Laws

This myth deals with the general belief that with increased evidence there is a developmental sequence through which scientific ideas pass on their way to final acceptance. Many believe that scientific ideas pass through the hypothesis and theory stages and finally mature as laws. A former U.S. president showed his misunderstanding of science by saying that he was not troubled by the idea of evolution because it was "just a theory." The president’s misstatement is the essence of this myth; that an idea is not worthy of consideration until "lawness" has been bestowed upon it.

The problem created by the false hierarchical nature inherent in this myth is that theories and laws are very different kinds of knowledge. Of course there is a relationship between laws and theories, but one simply does not become the other--no matter how much empirical evidence is amassed. Laws are generalizations, principles or patterns in nature and theories are the explanations of those generalizations.

Myth 2: A Hypothesis is an Educated Guess

The definition of the term hypothesis has taken on an almost mantra- like life of its own in science classes. If a hypothesis is always an educated guess as students typically assert, the question remains, "an educated guess about what?" The best answer for this question must be, that without a clear view of the context in which the term is used, it is impossible to tell.

The term hypothesis has at least three definitions, and for that reason, should be abandoned, or at least used with caution. For instance, when Newton said that he framed no hypothesis as to the cause of gravity he was saying that he had no speculation about an explanation of why the law of gravity operates as it does. In this case, Newton used the term hypothesis to represent an immature theory.

The remaining myths are instructive as well:

One of the classic works on the methodology and philosophy of science is Karl Popper’s work, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. In this work, we find confirmation of many of the myths in this list. For example, (emphases are Popper’s):

"Science is not a system of certain, or well-established, statements; nor is it a system which steadily advances towards a state of finality. Our science is not knowledge: it can never claim to have attained truth, or even a substitute for it, such as probability."

"Yet science has more than mere biological survival value. It is not only a useful instrument. Although it can attain neither truth nor probability, the striving for knowledge and the search for truth are still the strongest motives of scientific discovery."

"We do not know: we can only guess. And our guesses are guided by the unscientific, the metaphysical (though biologically explicable) faith in laws, in regularities which we can uncover –discover. Like Bacon, we might describe out own contemporary science – ‘the method of reasoning which men now ordinarily apply to nature’ – as consisting of ‘anticipations, rash and premature’ and of ‘prejudices’."

(Popper, K. R. (1968). The Logic of Scientific Discovery, (2nd ed. revised). New York: Harper Torchbooks, page 278.)

In conclusion, we find the first alleged argument against creationists to be anything but valid, or convincing. We may now turn our attention to his remaining attempts to discredit and refute creationists to determine if he can manage a significant challenge or not.

First Installment

Previous Installment

Next Installment