Titus 3:3
"I suspect the average person comes to accept modern evolutionary theory, not through a series of careful arguments, but through a near-constant drip of pro-evolution propaganda.
"I suspect the average person comes to accept modern evolutionary theory, not through a series of careful arguments, but through a near-constant drip of pro-evolution propaganda.
The propaganda comes in many forms and from many directions. Here I want to focus on just one source, popular news stories about evolution, and specifically on a couple of parlor tricks often embedded in these articles.
Probably the most common trick begins with a news headline or lead sentence promising a new discovery of evolution in action. The article then highlights an actual, observed species changing over time. But the example it cites is mere microevolution, such as a change in fur color or minor changes in beak size or leg length.
That won’t do. If Charles Darwin had argued that nature can produce modest variations in existing species, the collective response would have been, now tell us something we don’t know.
Probably the most common trick begins with a news headline or lead sentence promising a new discovery of evolution in action. The article then highlights an actual, observed species changing over time. But the example it cites is mere microevolution, such as a change in fur color or minor changes in beak size or leg length.
That won’t do. If Charles Darwin had argued that nature can produce modest variations in existing species, the collective response would have been, now tell us something we don’t know.
*Evolutionary theory needs to provide evidence of its distinctive claim, namely, that purely natural mechanisms can and do produce major innovations — something like the first wings, the first eyes, new molecular biological machines, or novel animal body plans.
A recent example of this bait-and-switch begins with the headline, “Long-term Lizard Study Challenges the Rules of Evolutionary Biology.”
A recent example of this bait-and-switch begins with the headline, “Long-term Lizard Study Challenges the Rules of Evolutionary Biology.”
The headline gives the impression that maybe the lizards in the study, refusing to play by the restrictive rules of standard evolutionary theory, hauled off and evolved in a much more daring way than conventional thinking had allowed. But then we learn that the study’s big finding helps explain cases where evolution doesn’t generate anything impressive — that is, cases of stasis, where a species remains largely unchanged for millions of years.
Hmm, that sounds like the opposite of impressive evolutionary daring-do, doesn’t it?
Troubled by this inconsistency but undaunted, we read on and are soon informed that the researchers have solved a big evolutionary conundrum. The news story invites us to wonder how there could be so many cases of stasis in the history of life when we see evolution doing amazing stuff right before our eyes all the time.
Hmm, that sounds like the opposite of impressive evolutionary daring-do, doesn’t it?
Troubled by this inconsistency but undaunted, we read on and are soon informed that the researchers have solved a big evolutionary conundrum. The news story invites us to wonder how there could be so many cases of stasis in the history of life when we see evolution doing amazing stuff right before our eyes all the time.
--The article doesn’t mention any of these amazing broad-daylight transformations.
--Instead it informs us that the study found that the lizards varied in minor ways (e.g., longer or shorter legs) and that the changes, rather than accumulating into something dramatically novel, canceled each other out. Voilà — an explanation for stasis.
That’s it. That’s the study’s big finding. No macroevolution. Just the observation of what was the common view before Darwin’s theory of evolution — that healthy members of a species can vary a bit, but only within strict limits.
To sum up the parlor trick: Promise to demonstrate bigtime evolution. Demonstrate minor changes and hope the audience doesn’t notice the difference."
That’s it. That’s the study’s big finding. No macroevolution. Just the observation of what was the common view before Darwin’s theory of evolution — that healthy members of a species can vary a bit, but only within strict limits.
To sum up the parlor trick: Promise to demonstrate bigtime evolution. Demonstrate minor changes and hope the audience doesn’t notice the difference."
EN&V
