Is Evolution Pseudoscience?

So what is a pseudoscience? A google search of the term along with 'definition' shows up many results. All of these results seem to point to the notion that a pseudoscience is a collection of beliefs believed to have a scientific basis to them. So while perusing through the CMI website today, I found an article asking this question about evolution (which can be found HERE).

The CMI author basis his claims on the in-depth definition of Pseudoscience from the Skeptics Dictionary ( Pseudoscience- The Skeptics Dictionary) and goes through 10 criteria to further his topic claim. The SD (the skeptics dictionary) uses creationism as its example of what traits a pseudoscience possesses, which may be a little unfair on their part, but has its merits in each of its points. This apparently outward attack is picked up in the CMI article, and retaliated upon, IMO, in a sort of childish school yard manner. So lets look at each of the criteria, and the CMI response one by one;

1. Some pseudoscientific theories are based upon an authoritative text rather than observation or empirical investigation.
In almost every debate about origins, the first argument given by the evolutionists is an appeal to authority. The National Academy of Sciences flatly asserts, ‘While the mechanisms of evolution are still under investigation, scientists universally accept that the cosmos, our planet, and life evolved and continue to evolve.’² [our emphasis]
We are supposed to respect these scientists because science has proven so powerful. But the people who preach evolution didn’t discover gravity or pasteurization or semiconductors. They just call themselves by the same name, ‘scientist’.

I'm actually a little unsure and confused by what this answer is trying to get at. The SD criteria of pseudoscience is that it is based upon an authoritative text ( in creationism's case, Gods true word is in the bible, therefore its to be taken as truth), and the CMI authors answer claims that the scientific community basis its trust in evolutionary theory because "the scientists said so". Unfortunately for creationist, this claim can still be put down; its the job of the scientific community to verify claims made based on empirical evidence, within the scope of evolution, the various areas that support the theory base that support on physical evidence that is found (i.e. fossils). Of course, I can guess that any creationist reading this post would argue that no evidence has ever been found, but the evidence is why people base their trust in the theory of evolution, evidence. The second bit of the CMI answer is just flat out childish, I really have no comment on that.

2. Some pseudoscientific theories explain what non-believers cannot even observe.The web site of the US Department of Energy admits that no one has observed evolution happen in nature or the laboratory, but explains, ‘As for the fact that we haven’t made evolving life in the laboratory yet, I think that you’re expecting too much of your species. Let’s say, as a first guess, that it took blind Nature a billion years to make evolving life on earth. … How much faster do you want us to go? Even if you give us an advantage of a factor of a MILLION in speed, it would still take us a thousand years to catch up … ’.
So it is totally unrealistic to expect to actually observe evolution, even under artificially accelerated conditions.
Richard Dawkins, Professor of Zoology, Oxford University, said, ‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it has not been observed while it’s happening.’ 

I think what needs to be defined in this case is the term evolution. I know for a fact that creationist organizations KNOW the meaning, yet continue to say that because it hasn't been observed as an organism is changing (meaning species to species) it simply does not happen. Again, doing a simple google search on the definition of biological evolution (which is what the specific case is) all points to the idea that organisms change over time, or through many generations through inheritance of genetic traits. So while we do not see populations physically changing all the time (due to the fact that we simply do not have the amount of time TO see a physical change), we do know that they do in fact change. Organisms (for example humans) may not necessarily change to different species, but in order for this sort of significant change to occur, different conditions would be needed for something new and significant to arise, as well as inheritance through many generations. So yes, it is totally unrealistic to expect to see a new species arise, especially in populations that do not grow at an exponential rate. BUT, organisms that do produce large population rates are and have been seen to produce various (different) populations, which has been, and continues to be done in controlled lab experiments. Again, the last bit of the answer is irrelevant to anything; the quote from Richard Dawkins only attempts to pin Dr. Dawkins in a vilified light, as in, a lying evolutionist.

3. Some can’t be tested because they are consistent with every imaginable state of affairs in the empirical world.
The next is essentially the same:4. … [or] are so vague and malleable that anything relevant can be shoehorned to fit the theory.
Evolutionists are always ready with a story to explain any observed trait of a species. Why do some birds, like peacocks and birds of paradise, have beautiful and elaborate tails? Evolutionists explain, ‘If a peacock can … find food and evade predators while dragging around a bigger and more conspicuous tail than his rivals do’ this demonstrates that he is particularly strong and capable, and thus makes a better mate. So evolution selects females that prefer males with the most elaborate tails.
But the same article also says, ‘it’s hard to figure what possible advantage these eye-catching but burdensome appendages offer … in the grim business of survival.’ If peacocks had small, streamlined tails, evolutionist would surely be explaining that an efficient tail gives an advantage in the struggle for survival (in escaping from predators, for example).
Evolution is just as good at ‘predicting’ things that never happened as it is at predicting things that actually did happen. A theory that can explain anything, predicts nothing and proves nothing.

Hmm... I think what the CMI author is attempting here, is to say that the theory of evolution just explains anything without evidence or study. As well that its just shoehorned to fit with what physical evidence shows... I really think that is more so what creationists do. Lets take the story of Babel; in the city, an apparent tower was built to reach up to the heavens, but God sees this and comes down to confound the citizens, so that they spread across the earth. Archaeological evidence shows that ancient Mesopotamian populations built large structure called ziggurat's, and adherents of creationism attribute these  structures as definite proof of the tower in Babel. There is no evidence to suggest that this event happened at all, but the physical evidence of ziggurats somehow proves that this is a factual, historical event.

The comment on peacocks; the same thing applies to any species, the most attractive are usually the ones sought out by potential mates. The mating produces offspring, who inherit the traits of their parents, and so on and so forth, which continues the trait of the large and vibrant tails. Again this relates back to inheritance through populations, traits remain. It is simply ignorant to state that the theory predicts nothing and proves nothing, when all areas of evolutionary biology, as well as paleontology, have predicted specific outcomes due to what evolutionary theory would predict ( genetic inheritance, progressively more complex fossils the higher the strata).

5. Some theories have been empirically tested and rather than being confirmed they seem either to have been falsified or to require numerous ad hoc hypotheses to sustain them.Evolutionists are forced to admit that the fossil evidence for their theory is slim to non-existent. For example, almost all major groups of creatures appear in the fossil record with no evolutionary past. ‘Something quite bizarre happened at the end of the Precambrian Era. Rocks from that time show evidence of an astounding variety of multicelled and hard-shelled life forms that seemingly appeared all at once. Scientists have long pondered the causes of this sudden appearance of new life forms, known as the Cambrian explosion.’
So the evolutionists offer ad hoc hypotheses to explain the lack of evidence. One popular theory is ‘punctuated equilibrium’, which says that sometimes evolution happens so fast that there are too few ‘intermediate’ generations for any to have much chance of being fossilized.
We cannot see evolution happening today because it goes so slowly, and we cannot see evidence of it in the past because it happened too quickly! 

While fossilization is in fact a rare occurrence, there is still an astounding number found throughout the geological timescale (ie the strata graphic layers). First off, fossil evidence is not non-existent,  but the conditions of fossilization are rare, producing fossils only in rare instances. As well, Cambrian species that have fossil evidence are mainly those that where hard bodied or shelled, giving a more likely chance of fossilization  rather than the soft bodied species that have less of a chance to fossilize. Overall, the answer here by CMI is to say that because of the lack in evidence of evolution in cambrian species, and the slow gradual change in species in the present time, evolution doesn't happen. But the wealth of knowledge and evidence thus far still  says otherwise, and of course science still has work to do to find the answer, which is what science does, working to explain whats not fully known.

6. Some pseudoscientific theories rely on ancient myths and legends …Okay, one that doesn’t particularly describe evolution, although evolutionary notions can be traced back to ancient pagan Greek philosophers such as Empedocles (c. 490–430 BC).

 Nothing to defened with here? How shocking! And I'm being sincere here. I've looked into the Greek Philosopher Empedocles, and found nothing on the sort of evolutionary notions (although I could be wrong about that). However, if Empedocles did give notions of evolution, it would have been due to observations (something physical). Creationism relies on ancient myths and legends though, and in order to put trust in creationist ideas, one needs to believe in the bible and the stories within ( which are myths and legends, passed on and inspired by other myths and legends).

7. Some pseudoscientific theories are supported mainly by selective use of anecdotes, intuition, and examples of confirming instances.Evolutionists try to find animals that fit into their ‘evolutionary tree’. In the classic ‘horse story’, they arrange a group of animals with similar body shapes in order by size and say it shows the evolution of the horse. But is this actual ancestry or just a contrived arrangement? Except for the supposed ‘first horse’, which it probably isn’t, far from being an example of evolution, the fossils show the wide variation within a created kind. As the biologist Heribert-Nilsson said, ‘The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks’. Most of the creatures that would have had to exist if evolution were true have never been found, and some creatures have been found that don’t fit in the evolutionary tree at all, like the platypus. But evolutionists seize on a few creatures that sort of look like they might be halfway between a badger and a horse, or between a reptile and a bird. These rare apparent fits ‘prove’ evolution as much as occasional good guesses by a psychic ‘prove’ that he can read your mind.

The horse story, hmm, so what this is saying is that fossils are found, then simply placed in ascending order from simple to complex to show evolution. Its not as straightforward as this though, any sort of specimen found from the horse family and placed in a gradual line (depending on whether ancestral traits are consistent with descendants) depending on where they are found in the various layers of strata.

Most creatures wont, and dont exists until theres evidence found for them, by the way....

8. Some pseudoscientific theories confuse metaphysical claims with empirical claims.Some evolutionists insist that evolution has no metaphysical implications. ‘Evolution does not have moral consequences, and does not make cosmic purpose impossible.’ But others make dogmatic metaphysical applications. The American Academy for the Advancement of Science website includes a whole section on ‘Science, Ethics, and Religion’, with statements like, ‘Evolution is the creation myth of our age. By telling us our origins it shapes our views of what we are. … In calling it a myth I am not saying that it is a false story. I mean that it has great symbolic power, which is independent of its truth. Is the word religion appropriate to it? This depends on the sense in which we understand that very elastic word. I have chosen it deliberately.’ Richard Dawkins said that ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist’.

I think the quote from AAAS may be out of context. I was unable to find the specific quote, which may be due to the re organization of the web site. The link on the CMI website led to a non-existent web page, so its hard to see what this quote was in fact saying.

*Edit

I finally found the source of the quote. It came from a paper published in the journal zygon, and indeed the quote was out of context, as well as misrepresented. The quote was from the opening paragraph, how odd to pick a quote from the opening paragraph of a 17 page paper, rife with many other positions and ideas on the philosophy of evolution being equated to a religion. Quote-mining at its best I suppose.

9. Some pseudoscientific theories … contradict known scientific laws and use ad hoc hypotheses to explain their belief.A pro-evolution web site states, ‘Until the 19^th century, it was commonly believed that life frequently arose from non-life under certain circumstances, a process known as “spontaneous generation”. This belief was due to the common observation that maggots or mould appeared to arise spontaneously when organic matter was left exposed. It was later discovered that under all these circumstances commonly observed, life only arises from life. … No life has ever been observed to arise from dead matter.’
But evolutionists dismiss the fact that their theory requires the violation of this well-established law of science. ‘Did [Pasteur] prove that no life can ever come from non-living things? No, he didn’t, and this is because you cannot disprove something like that experimentally … ’. The fact that all the experimental evidence of the past 200 years contradicts their theory is irrelevant, because they speculate that it’spossible that there is some experiment that no one has yet tried where it might work.

Life forming from inorganic matter has nothing to do with evolution... this more so deals with origins of life, not how they've changed over time (Abiogenesis anyone?).

10. Pseudoscientists claim to base their theories on empirical evidence, and they may even use some scientific methods, though often their understanding of a controlled experiment is inadequate.Evolutionists claim that their theory is science, but the National Center for Science Education, which is an anti-creationist lobbying group, admits that there’s a problem: ‘The failure of many students to understand and accept the fact of evolution is often a consequence of the naïve views they hold of the nature of science … . According to this naïve view, the key to the unique success of science at producing true knowledge is “The Scientific Method”, which, on the standard account, involves formulating hypotheses, making predictions, and then going into the laboratory to perform the crucial experiment. … In contrast, the work of many evolutionary biologists involves the reconstruction of the past. The methods they use do not conform to the standard view of “The Scientific Method”.’ So if you can’t actually prove your theory using the scientific method, which actually uses controlled experiment, as distinct from plausible story telling, simply declare that only ‘naïve’ people think that the scientific method has anything to do with ‘science’.

Another case of quote mining.... with a great amount left out to intentionally put the quote in a negative light, as if to say that 'Evolutionists admit themselves that their theory is defunct'. The quote comes from the NCSE, and the article discusses the way in which science is mistaught and misconstrued to the general public (lay people). The article can be found HERE and the various bits of the quote under the heading "Evolution and the Nature of Science).

The overall issue with many of these creationist publications is that they have an overall agenda to make any opposing ideas evil and corrupt. I encourage you, whoever reads this, or creationist publications to do more research than whats presented in CMI's or any other creationist publications. The more you look into what creationists are attempting to promote, and ultimately "dictate", over the masses, the more devious and unethical their methods become.

Atheism and families

Well,

Lets start out with an apology. I have almost seemingly neglected my duty to continue writing in this blog. No, its not by choice, but rather by commitment that I loose steam in doing posts. I'm hoping that this is a relevant apology though, as I'm quite unsure of how may visitors I actually get.None the less, I've found an interesting topic to blog about for today! I've begun to make a habit of visiting the major creationist websites (CMI, AiG being the main two) to seek out their literature. Today I found an article relating to another interest within the spectrum of the creationist termed "Evolution Controversy."Atheism and its apparently harsh implications on society.

The article om CMI, titled "Atheism, evolutionism (This is not even a recognized word) and families" found HERE , is an apparent commentary on another article published in Psychology Today titled "The Atheist at the Breakfast Table" by Bruce Grierson (Title leads to Griersons blog, where the article is published in full, and also contains a link to the shortened version published in Psychology Today). The CMI author(s), Douglas Oliver and Stuart Burgess, give a fairly brief overview of what Grierson's article talks about, and instead hyper-focus in on certain quotes and word usage to give a sense that the idea of Atheism (which somehow directly relates to evolution) is a spreading "disease" on modern society, and undoubtedly has "negative effects on churches, parents, and children."

Reading Grierson's actual article provides a much different, and less hostile, view of the topic within the article: Tolerance. Religious tolerance more precisely. In short, the religious-less (Atheists) are touted as a harsh group, and therefore, are looked down upon (especially within fundamental religious circles) due to a few within the group that promote it so outwardly (the late Christopher Hitchens, or Richard Dawkins as examples). But, there is another side to the matter that is not generally seen, the side that doesnt vehemently attack those in the religious sphere, which Grierson states, is "much larger than the section who does." A question was brought up in my mind: Why take an article, so obviously on the side of peaceful tolerance towards other, and twist it to put Atheism (as well as evolution) in such a bad light?

The CMI authors (I'm unsure of who did what) go on to present some examples of common misconceptions of Atheist, that Grierson's article apparently shows.

1) Atheists typically assume that they are open-minded, but they usually exclude even the possibility of a Creator, i.e. they are not. E.g., Julian Huxley famously said that “Modern science must rule out special creation or divine guidance”. Todd more recently admitted that he also believed that science excludes a Creator: “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic”.

There are many issues within this statement, and right off the bat as well. Creationist also assume they are open minded, they study the sciences too to look at the evidence brought up that opposes their position, but immediately, and illogically (attempt to) refute what is presented to them. As well, open minded "Christians" would not downplay other views (religions included) if there was such an open-minded ideology among them. Grierson's article does not present the idea that "Atheists" are contradictory in being open minded thinkers, quite the opposite actually, in that tolerance can only come about when more than one view is explored rather than being only exposed to dogmatic views (and not specifically that of Creationism, and Christianity). Next is a quote from Julian Huxley, however, science does not study what is not observable or empirical, or repeatable, and bringing in the supernatural would hinder an explanation attempted by scientists on a certain phenomena. Then a quote from Todd is brought up, which is confusing due to the fact that no mention of this "Todd" has been brought up until his name is mentioned. Further investigation reveals a bit more than the simple quote; Todd goes on to say that "of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism", making the presupposition that S.C. Todd (who obviously wrote the article, only made know in the references) encourages the notion that science doesn't want God. Without going into too much detail on the article, titled "A view from Kansas on that evolution debate" gives an overview on some of the rulings on the debate to teach creationsim within science classrooms in Kansas, where at the time of the article, had banned the teaching of evolution. Todd essentially makes the plea that science needs to be taught properly, not dogmatically. Quote bombing is a terrible thing, it simply makes creationists look highly dishonest.

(2) They assume that they are ‘quiet’ and ‘non-fundamentalist’ people, when in fact their position is just as ‘loud’ and ‘fundamentalist’ (in the modern derogatory sense of intolerant and exclusionary) as that of anyone! To essentially worship pleasure rather than God (2 Timothy 3) might seem to be a non-religious, non-fundamentalist position but it is actually an (atheistic) fundamentalist/dogmatic position. Furthermore, to ignore God (if He exists, which is the question at issue) is actually a very bold and provocative thing to do—not a quiet, reasonable thing

This next misconception shows more dishonesty on the part of the CMI authors, and is exactly the point the Grierson makes in his article. The overly outspoken proponents of Atheism tend to be "loud" and "fundamentalist", which Creationists attribute to all Atheists, but the quiet and non-fundamentalist side is what is explored in Grierson's article, to in fact show that there is more to it than the aggressive proponents who are outspoken on the view. The point is made that this loud and fundamentalist action of certain individuals within the Atheism sphere, represents a derogatory sense of intolerance and  exclusion, but why? Grierson's article has nothing to do atheists thinking they are just quiet and nice about their views, and like ive already mentioned, reflect that tolerance is what a widespread portion practice. A great deal of the article talks about how to handle this as a parent, and when religious views are thrown into the picture, how you can handle those situations as an atheist; essentially, TALK to your children, DON'T indoctrinate.

(3) They assume that the majority of academics do not believe in God. However modern science encourages people to keep silent about God; scientists are not allowed to mention God or give Him glory in their research papers. And if a scientist does mention God, his career can be negatively affected. However, our personal experiences as academics are that there is very significant (but not articulated) sympathy for, e.g., intelligent design among academics in secular universities.

Here, the last misconception talks about the view of academics in relation to some intelligent creator. Apparently the majority of academics really do believe in God, otherwise, why would Atheists assume this. While there is a definite presence of God believing academics, there is still a larger amount of those that don't believe in the God of the Bible. This is only the broad spectrum of academia; narrowed down to what creationists are actually concerned about, there is an even smaller amount that believe in a God, and a minuscule portion that are creationist. I dont think I need to link to any stats, but you can very easily find these sorts of numbers online. That was only the first sentence in the third misconception, the rest of it deals with the apparent censorship of God believing professionals. Modern science makes not law, nor endorses the idea that ideas of God must be kept silent. In what context would a scientist, religious or not, have the need to mention God or give glory to Him in any technical paper? Lets take a look at a fairly recent paper (also the topic of scrutiny in a CMI article): the paper is titled Feathered Non-Avian Dinosaurs from
North America Provide Insight into Wing Origins, and although this is just a title, I'm sure you could gather that the paper deals with wing and feather developments in non-flight dinosaurs, correct? The point of the article is to detail the study which the paper is about, and the establishment of it being about dinosaurs, feathers, and wings certainly does not give need to praise the Lord. In fact, the paper makes no mention of thanks or praise to anyone, deity or not, other than the mention of contributors names, and a reference list from which ideas have been used from (these can be taken as a form of thanks, but are far from being directly this). The statement that academics that do make mention of God have their careers negatively affected, is a horrific distortion of any sort of truth (providing that any of it is at all true, this article HERE gives an instance of the sort of dishonesty I'm talking about).

The rest of the article goes on to vilify Grierson's article even further by "putting words in his mouth" and making unnecessary and irrelevant claims about past and famous forefathers of the scientific community being creationists, as well as saying that Grierson (and essentially all Atheistic evolutionists) are locked in a conspiracy to swindle the mass populous into believing that Atheists are not bad, or horrible people (it also attributes proponents of historical atrocities, such as Stalin and Hitler, to the teaching of atheistic and evolutionary thinking... surprise, surprise).

The mass population of creationists are in such a dire state IMO, there never seems to be major headway with their movement, both within the areas of scientific advancement (creation "science" only aims to disprove their opposing ideas, which is not to advance scientific hypotheses) and the area of gaining any major support for their position. I really have to wonder where it all stops, relentless as they are, there will eventually be an end to this sort of dishonest thinking.