In fairness to the very charming young men who frequently attempt to engage me in conversation, I must say the first page does say: "Jehovah's Witnesses believe the creation account as recorded in the Bible book of Genesis. However, Jehovah's witnesses are not what you might think of as creationists."
With this in mind, I intend here to look at one of the techniques used by the leaflet to counter the accepted scientific explanation of Evolution. The first is:
The Creation of Straw Men:
Did God Use EVOLUTION to Create Life? (Title, pg. 9)
and
WHAT IS EVOLUTION? One definition of evolution is "A process of change in a certain direction." However, the term is used in several ways. For example, it is used to describe big changes in inanimate things - the development of the universe. In addition, the term is used to describe small changes in living things - the way plants and animals adapt to their environment. The word is most commonly used, though, to describe the theory that life arose from inanimate chemicals, formed into self-replicating cells, and slowly developed into more and more complex creatures, with man being the most intelligent of its productions. This third notion is what is meant by "evolution" as used in this article.
(Box at bottom, pg. 9)
A straw man argument is based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position (Wikipedia). It can be a successful way of persuading people, but is not actually very truthful – the argument has not been countered, people have simply been persuaded.
So where is the straw in the examples above?
It is packed around the definition of Evolution.
Evolution is:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
(Quoted : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html )
Two things to notice:
1) There is no mention of the Origin of Life (or Creation if you take the religious view);
2) There is a clear distinction made between the Biological use of the word and other Scientific and everyday uses.
I suspect, judging from the first part of the ‘Awake’ definition, the writer of this argument is very aware of the slight of hand he (or she) is trying to perform here – No scientist would ever claim EVOLUTION created life – life, and its reproduction, needs to exist before evolution can take place.
I also suspect (but do not know enough to state more definitely) that those many members of the Catholic and Anglican Churches, as well as Muslims and Jews, who both believe in an act of creation by Divine Intervention and the theory of Evolution would be a little upset at the representation of their views in such a distorted way.
A second straw man is set up in the article: Is Evolution a FACT? (page 13)
The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:
- Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.
Natural selection leads to the production of new species.
The fossil record documents macro-evolutionary changes in plants and animals.
The biggest amount of straw here is in the third point.
The suggestion is that fossils, and only fossils, provide evidence for ‘macro-evolution’.
This is very far from the case.
Four major areas of evidence exist for evolution in general (including macro-evolution):
the Fossil Record
the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
the geographical distribution of related species
the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations.
(Quoted from: Evidence of Evolution).
By ignoring what is by far the larger amount of evidence, focusing on (what is perceived to be) the weaker and then challenging it, the article attempts to disprove, in the popular mind, evolution as a fact.
It is worth noting I think at this point that Darwin himself used the anatomical similarities between species as a major piece of evidence and to claim the argument for evolution doesn’t include anatomical similarities is downright misleading: But that is the point of a Straw Man – set him up, make sure he can’t fight back, then knock him down.
(Next time I want to look at the note from point one I refrained from quoting.)
4 comments:
While I appreciate your opinion on the magazine, I strongly disagree with your conclusions.
You see a straw man in the magazine's definition of "evolution." To prove this you have quoted the definition given by an evolutionary biologist, which doesn't mention the origin of life. The problem is that the magazine does not claim to use a scientific definition proclaimed by some (or one) evolutionary biologists; it claims to use the "commonly used" definition.
The reason the article you pulled your quote from used it in the first place was to give the public an idea of what scientists mean when they use the term. That same article goes on to give "the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community [which] are different." These definitions tend to focus more on what the term connotes for most people, the change from lower life forms to higher life forms, e.g. humans were once ape-like. Still, the title of the magazine is Is There a Creator?, so one should expect the given definition of "evolution" to include the common understanding of what the theory claims was the origin of life. Most people understand, for good reason, that evolution calls for an origin of life that occurred without a creator, from inanimate substances that formed the first cell(s).
So when you say, "No scientist would ever claim EVOLUTION created life," you are confusing the article's claim of what the common use of the word means with what scientists mean. Moreover, to the common man, "evolution" is a theory that directly conflicts with the idea of a creator. So the magazine's definition, which is meant to represent the public's understanding of it (like you mentioned, Awake! has a distribution of 32.4 million), is accurate and suitable given the subject matter.
You also mentioned here that some religions would take exception to this definition of "evolution." But there is no distortion, it is fully acknowledged in that same article that some try to combine evolution with a creator. It is then shown conclusively that the Bible simply does not allow for such a hybrid teaching.
The second straw man you claim to have found comes from the magazine's consideration of the fossil record. Because it does mention all of the evidence used to prop up evolution, you claim that it is being dishonest. But the article says, "The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions." Probably because space is limited, and by far the evidence most used in attempt to prove evolution to the general public is the fossil record, the article focuses on this line of evidence. There is nothing dishonest about this, since the word "main" certainly allows for other lines of evidence. Some, or possibly all, of the these other lines are addressed to some extent elsewhere in the magazine. For example, on pages 15 and 16 (actually within the same article) a case is cited in which a research group documented changes in finches over generations. This did not prove evolution however (using the common definition), nothing "new" was produced, they were still finches. And on the back of the magazine, a coupon is featured for a free copy of the book, Life; How Did It Get Here? By Evolution Or By Creation?. This 256-page book goes more indepth on all of these topics for those desiring more information.
So while I find the magazine to be using solid reasoning, I still appreciate your interest in this area. Even if you don't believe as we do (I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses), it's always nice to have an intelligent conversation over these types of things with persons like yourself.
Take care,
TJ
Sorry, but:
Some of your points I will be returning to as I write more on the debating techniques used by creationists (small c) of whatever hue (Christian and non-Christian) to discount and debase the scientific arguments for Evolution (such as the finch beaks you mention). I note the wish of Jehovah's Witnesses to distance themselves from some of the views expressed by even stronger advocates of Creationism (big C).
And please be clear, I am in no way attempting to insult, belittle or deny anyone’s belief in the existence of a God or Gods - that is a matter of belief, which is not up for scientific debate.
To take the second "straw man" first - the title of the piece is, Is Evolution a Fact? - that does not say, ‘is the view held by many none scientists with a strong Christian commitment in the USA of what evolution is, a fact?’
The illustration of Darwin and a monkey next to the title imply (strongly) scientifically defined Evolution is up for discussion.
Richard Dawkins - a prominent and respected biologist - is quoted.
Darwin's, On the Origin of Species is quoted (Notice, by the way – on the origin of Species, not of life).
The scientific term, macroevolution is used.
The ‘evidence’ quoted is from the scientific community.
For you now to claim the article is addressing ‘a common definition’ which the scientific community (but which keeps being quoted as evidence), would not use, is a little disingenuous.
As someone who has taught evolution I can assure you, the MAIN evidence for evolution – taught evidence that is (“The TEACHING of macroevolution”) is most certainly NOT the fossil evidence – nowadays it would be the genetic evidence, the similarities and differences of anatomy (which was the foundation of evolutionary theory long before fossils came into the picture) and then the historical record.
The point of a straw man is to distort the picture – claiming fossil evidence is the main (implication: not just one of, but the most important) evidence is a distortion of the truth.
The first straw man – the definition of Evolution – is claimed to be what ‘most people’ think, to be ‘common understanding’ to represent the ‘public’s understanding’. Not one piece of evidence is given to support the assertion that this is indeed what ‘the public’ think. And, even if it were proved that the public thought this, what weight should be given to this common misunderstanding of a scientific theory? Surely it would be more honest, and profitable, to show the limits of public understanding and challenge the actual theory of life’s origins, than to muddy the water further?
But, (as demonstrated above) this same definition is used when attacking a scientific theory – not a generally misunderstood idea of what the theory actually says.
The appeal to a false authority (general public) is a justification for setting up the straw man – which is then used to attack the theory of evolution by making bogus claims about the extent of the theory.
The title of the magazine is: Is there a Creator? – True: I would therefore not expect any reference to evolution at all, as the theory of evolution does not support any particular theory of the origin of life – materialist, extra-terrestrial or Deity.
Again, I am not a Christian and do not claim any depth of biblical knowledge, but I do know the Catholic Church’s view on Evolution specifically states, and overtly, that it is talking of the scientific definition – not the ‘generally accepted’ one of the magazines own construction.
To therefore claim, ‘… most prominent “Christian” religious groups seem willing to accept that God must have used evolution in some way to create life” (pg. 8, emphasis added) – is downright untruthful in the case of the Catholic Church – the most prominent Christian religious group.
You said, "For you now to claim the article is addressing ‘a common definition’ which the scientific community (but which keeps being quoted as evidence), would not use, is a little disingenuous."
I think you missed my point, I am not 'now claiming the article is addressing a common definition' of "evolution" the article itself says that from the beginning! You are simply misrepresenting what the magazine explicitly says about its definition. When you gave your own definition, you quoted one biologist, when the article it was taken from gives different definitions, and even admits that your quote differs from the "common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community." You have not addressed this. Even in the centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species, W.R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control in Ottawa, said in its introduction: "As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process . . . It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution."
Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene, is one example of a biologist attempting to prove the origin of life through evolutionary light. He said that while the ocean was a lifeless, "organic soup," it was then that "a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident," that being a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. (p. 16, emphasis added) The general public assumes these types of theories to be included in the general theory of evolution. I'm not sure why you seem to be arguing that the scientific community does not include this aspect of evolution in its discussion.
You seem to be basing your conclusions on the premise that this journal is meant as a comprehensive argument against evolution, in all of its versions, for the divided scientific community specifically, which it certainly is not. It is meant to argue against the "commonly" understood theory of evolution, which to most of the 32.4 million readers is a theory that directly contradicts the idea of a creator. It does this by examining the main supports (the ones taught in public schools, most likely) for evolution from a scientific perspective. It is meant to show another side to these issues that people don't hear in the schools or on TV. Never is it stated, or even implied for that matter, that the journal covers all of the support scientists may use for evolution; and it does invite readers to send away for more (free) information on the topic.
You said, "As someone who has taught evolution I can assure you, the MAIN evidence for evolution – taught evidence that is ('The TEACHING of macroevolution') is most certainly NOT the fossil evidence."
Well I can only speak as one who has very recently been taught evolution in public schools, and the only line of evidence in the books WAS the fossil record. Lots of pictures of fossils. And speaking as one who regularly speaks with people, door to door, in the community about issues like these, I get the general feeling that the fossil record is the evidence people are most aware of. Still, can you give me an example of the "genetic evidence" which you claim is missing? From what I can see, it is dealt with, especially in the book that readers are invited to request.
You said, "The title of the magazine is: Is there a Creator? – True: I would therefore not expect any reference to evolution at all, as the theory of evolution does not support any particular theory of the origin of life – materialist, extra-terrestrial or Deity."
As I have shown in the Dawkins example above, the evolutionary theory, at least some of its versions, certainly do include a view on the origin of life that exclude a creator. And to say that evolution has nothing to do with whether or not there is a creator shows a real disconnect with public opinion, from my point of view.
You said, "I do know the Catholic Church’s view on Evolution specifically states, and overtly, that it is talking of the scientific definition – not the ‘generally accepted’ one of the magazines own construction."
Now I don't know much about the Catholic Church's position, but can you tell me exactly what scientific definition "it is talking of?" There seems to be more than one out there.
Thanks for your time,
TJ
Quickly:
You said, "For you now to claim the article is addressing ‘a common definition’...
Notice the quote is taken after the reasons I gave (all the scientific evidence in the original article) for disputing the claim for applying a 'popular' definition (No, did not misunderstand what you wrote).
you quoted one biologist
No, I give the generally accepted definition of Evolution in the Scientific community as stated by one of the most prominent Biologists in a standard textbook - and I give a hyperlink to the site I took the quote from which is to one of the most visited sites on Evolution according to the priority given it by my google search.
(That ain't one biologist!)
...the article it was taken from gives different definitions...
YEs, and doesn't say which is the accepted definition used in the scientific community to define Evolution - and then settles for a 'popular' version with the intention of setting up a straw man.
"As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process . . . It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution."
Yep - but where does it say there is disagreement on the definition of the term itself - or inclusion of abiogenisis? To quote Wiki:
In the physical sciences, abiogenesis, the question of the origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth might have evolved from non-life sometime between 3.9 to 3.5 billion years ago.
No Evolution there.
Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene, is one example of a biologist attempting to prove the origin of life through evolutionary light.
No, again, your definition of Evolution means you compound what is abiogenisis with evolution - Dawkins does indeed address the issue of abiogenisis - and then deals with the evolution of the material produced.
Well I can only speak as one who has very recently been taught evolution in public schools, and the only line of evidence in the books WAS the fossil record.
Sorry your school experience was so out of line with the experience of people in other parts of the world:
You should read the Sparknotes on this -
Today, evidence for evolution comes from several different fields. Paleontology shows us that gradual change in organisms can be seen in the fossil record. The study of biogeography gives us an idea of how species spread to new habitats. Comparative anatomy, a technique that has been used since the very beginning of the study of evolution, allows us to judge dissimilar organisms in an effort to see whether they share a common ancestor. Most recently, the field of molecular biology has shown us that even the molecules of life change over time, and these can be used to tell just how far back in history any two organisms last shared an ancestor.
http://www.sparknotes.com/biology/evolution/evidence/summary.html
or this site:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/index.shtml
(Both US sites)
Now I don't know much about the Catholic Church's position, but can you tell me exactly what scientific definition "it is talking of?" There seems to be more than one out there.
No, not scientific definitions of the theory of Evolution - definitions in the minds of the public fostered by confusing straw men promulgated in magazines which aught to know better.
Post a Comment