Creationism, Faith, Proof, and... Well, Does It Really All Mesh?

Despite tons and tons of scientific evidence, right-wing groups much like the ill-named "Family Research Council" spends much of their time and resources trying to scrape together enough "evidence" (READ: mis-read on purpose data to support preconceived silly notions) in an effort to "prove" the tales taken as history in the bible.

The latest round of "outrage" came in the form of an email entitled "Design Found, Intelligence Lacking in Latest Attack by Darwinians." Because, you know, that's what science is all about, right? Disproving a fairy tale! Despite the claims of the title of the article, they present no links OR names of the, and I quote, "peer-reviewed articles on the concept and the credentials of 700 doctoral-level scientists who have publicly questioned Darwinism." In other words, they know that if they tried to hold up any one of these "scientists" it could be blasted away by the common lay-person in a nano-second (which, of course, they would argue didn't exist as it isn't mentioned as a time period in the creation story).

The article follows here in its entirety:

---

The National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine have mounted yet another attack on the scientific theory of intelligent design, publishing an 89-page book titled Science, Evolution, and Creationism. The new publication falsely equates "intelligent design" (a scientific theory which infers the necessity for intelligent design from scientific evidence) with "creationism" (a term usually used for a theory of origins that begins with the Bible or some other religious text). It also lumps together concepts of microevolution within species (such as the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria), which are not controversial, with the more contested theory of macroevolution, which seeks to trace all existing forms of life to a common ancestor. It appears to dodge altogether the crucial question of how living things could have arisen from non-living things in the first place. It also slanders intelligent design as "unscientific" despite peer-reviewed articles on the concept and the credentials of 700 doctoral-level scientists who have publicly questioned Darwinism. Perhaps the biggest problem with the defenders of Darwinian evolution is that, ironically, they have reversed the roles in the supposed historical "war between science and religion," by declaring Darwinism to be inerrant dogma, and punishing its doubters by burning them at the academic stake.

---

Here's a clue about why microevolution (otherwise known as "adaptation on a small-scale) is EXACTLY the same thing as macroevolution: Macroevolution is nothing more than the accumulated sum of all the microevolutionizing that the species has been going through that has resulted in a distinct, new species.

Mind-boggling, isn't it?

I suppose we need to point out the differences between the terms before we can get into any lengthy (or not-so-lengthy, as the case may be) discussion as to why they are, at heart, one and the same.

---

Macroevolution: is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

Microevolution: refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.

Source: Macroevolution: Its Definition, Philosophy and History by John Wilkins

---

Despite what creationists would have you believe (and yes, "Intelligent Design" is just poorly disguised creationism...), macroevolution and microevolution and quantifiable, scientific terms which actually mean something--not just general lazy terms carried on the winds of whim.

Regardless, in science, there really is no "fine line" in which microevolution suddenly becomes macroevolution in all cases: at some point, however, science recognizes that a macroevolution has occurred when a species that used to be one and the same is now not interbreeding, cannot interbreed, and show distinct signs of being different.

For example, new species of plants arose via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (a new type of primrose), which was created when Primula verticillata and Primula florbunda (each with 18 chromosomes) interpollinated. The new flower, Primula kewensis has 36 chromosomes and cannot breed with either of its parent species, but can promote itself with itself, thus fitting the definition of a new species, having also the added benefit of additional chromosomes (meaning that the argument of creationists that all changes within genetic components are bad is a false claim). The new prim rose (pictured here) not only added to its genetic code beyond what was given it by its parents, it can now NOT go back and undo this! It can't even try to tone it down by continued breeding with its parent species! It is a NEW SPECIES. It is evidence of macroevolution.

Of course, creationists think that macroevolution only applies when dogs turn into fish and orangutan's turn into people! Not only is this a false use of the term (meaning that creationists think only when huge amounts of both micro- and macroevolution have occurred has macroevolution actually occurred) it shows a basic ignorance of very basic scientific concepts. And while creationists can continue to ignore vast amounts of evidence concerning both micro- and macroevolution (see here for 29+ evidences for macro [heavy reading, but well worth it!])

But this is all just smoke and mirrors to a creationist, isn't it? Their beef isn't really with evolution. We have to be honest (even if the creationists don't): The biggest issue creationists have with evolution is the misguided notion that somehow it should speak to where life came from, when all Darwin was doing was explaining where the variety of life came from. But it is a logical question to draw from a discussion on the variety of life: where did this life come from?

Of course, creationists would have you believe god sneezed into some mud, and that miraculously it made a man. And when god realized his mistake in not doing a double-sneeze, he then had to amputate a rib from Adam (as apparently, in the beginning, there wasn't enough dust to go around to make a woman) in order to try to make his mistake at least a fun time for Adam.

Yes, god allergies are easier to believe than sound, reliable evidence and facts, isn't it?

Science has actually made some amazing headway into this question! The following are just a sample of the amazing amount of actual scientific links (READ: NOT to Answers in Genesis or any other pseudo-science site) about some of the theories and discoveries about where life might have come about:

• The Origin of Life by Albrecht Moritz
• Prokaryotes, Viruses and Origin of Life from multiple web sites and BIOLOGY: The Science of Life by Wallace, King and Sanders 2nd Edition Scott, Foresman and Co. 1986
• Miller-Urey Experiment: Amino Acids & The Origins of Life on Earth
• The RNA World Website
• Origins of Life
• Did Life Begin In Space? New Evidence From Comets
• Latent Memory of Cells Comes to Life
• Introduction to Exobiology
• Could Adenine From Interstellar Dust Have Triggered Life On Earth? Elsewhere?
• From Primordial Soup to the Prebiotic Beach: An interview with exobiology pioneer, Dr. Stanley L. Miller, University of California San Diego
• Physicists Discover Inorganic Dust With Lifelike Qualities
• Life Began on Ocean Floor
• Over 100 Articles dealing with Origin of Life from Nature.com
• Clues to origins of life
• Over 80 articles dealing with Origin of Life from The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
• Over 134 articles dealing with Origin of Life from the Quarterly Review of Biology
• Life Cycle Mapped Of Unique Organism In Extreme Environments
• Deep In The Ocean, A Clam That Acts Like A Plant
• Discovery Provides Key Evidence Of Life's Beginnings

Really, this could go on forever. Is there any conclusive evidence yet? Of course not--and there may not be for some time! But I will tell you one thing conclusively--none of the evidence supports the God Allergy Hypothesis of Creationism!

As Douglas Adams once put it in his most brilliant of books, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy,

---

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It proves you exist, and so therefore, you don't. Q.E.D.."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

---

You have to wonder though--these fundies that, instead of relying on faith like a child, twist and falsely present data in order to make their faith seem more "realistic"--do they actually have faith at all? Does their over-riding need to try to "prove their faith correct" actually negate the faith they are supposed to hold above all else?