Scientific American (SA) is a respected and generally excellent popular scientific journal aimed at an audience that is educated but not necessarily professional scientists. An SA article by John Rennie that was printed back in June of 2002 is going to serve as the fodder for the next post series, as, for some reason, it has been recently referenced on a news website I frequent (whose identity I’ve unfortunately forgotten...a hazard of aging?) as a good response to "creationist nonsense." Indeed, the article in question is entitled, "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" with a catchy explanatory subtitle that reads, "Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up."

As one who is a professional scientist and a creationist, I propose to analyze these alleged counter-arguments point by point to determine if this title contains any truth to it. In so doing, I hope to engage in an examination of the issues in this area and hopefully generate some helpful and edifying commentary for my readers. Do we creationists really want to "tear down real science" as Mr. Rennie asserts? As the article is somewhat recent and is within the bounds of the current debate on intelligent design versus evolution, it should be instructive to spend some time examining it closely. Interestingly, given the breadth of the controversy, the article’s author spends only ten pages (when the whole article is printed to a PDF file) on 15 answers, so an in depth rebuttal was not even seriously attempted, suggesting significant contempt for the opposing view. (Granted, he says he will provide additional sources of information.)

Before we dive in to the deep waters of this controversy, however, let us see how Mr. Rennie introduces the subject as this will give us some idea of context and from where he’s coming, if the title and subtitle haven’t given us enough clues already. I do not want to be accused of taking his words out of context, so here they are en toto.

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere – except in the public imagination.

Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.

Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.

To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.

The first paragraph may be summarized as an attempted argument from consensus, and it is fallacious at best, in part because it exaggerates the size and efficacy of the body of evidence alleged for evolution (I will have more to say on that in later posts). As Michael Crichton has so eloquently observed (emphases added):

...Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

(speech at California Institute of Technology, January 17, 2003)

Well, that was refreshingly clear.

Since I allege the accusations Mr. Rennie levels against creationists can be turned around and applied to evolutionists as well, we really should have this debate and let the facts decide the issue. Unfortunately, this is an area where emotional responses on both sides can end up generating more heat than light.

This is reflected above in the condescending airs in which creationists, those poor benighted souls who believe in ideas that are "specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution," are described. And there is an elitist air about the declaration, if I may fill in the blanks, that all True Scientists know the truth and it is only the Neanderthal John Q. Public (i.e., politicians, judges and ordinary citizens) that just isn’t catching on to how their brilliant intellects have fathomed out the depths of the mysteries of our world. And slight distortions are thrown in to further incite the reader to indignation: those troglodyte creationists are said to be arguing that "creationist ideas ... be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms." And here I thought schools were the place to teach children how to think, to have open academic discussions, which includes the pros and cons of all/most sides of a controversy! Silly me! Note, no mention is made that it is not being said that evolution should not be taught. Instead, he whimpers that poor science teachers find themselves having to defend evolution against creation. Um, if the facts are on your side, what is the problem with that? If you are interested in truth, what is wrong with teaching our children how to arrive at that truth by "teaching the controversy?" (Not that an evolutionist will give the correct version of the creationist model, but still....)

Well, at any rate, the gauntlet has been thrown down. I am not the first to take it up, but let us here at the Interface peal back the rhetoric, try to set aside the sarcasm (my own included, hard as that may be given my sense of humor) and evaluate the data, following the facts to where they lead, boldly going where no man has gone before. You are invited to attend future posts on this topic and comment on their accuracy. As always, civility, logic, facts and data are primary in such comments.

Next installment