Michael J. Everhart, "Criticisms of evolution aren't based on science" (2005)

Posted on Tue, Mar. 15, 2005

Criticisms of evolution aren't based on science

BY MICHAEL J. EVERHART

In response to David Berlinski's obvious falsifications of scientific information regarding evolution ( "There are valid criticisms of evolution," March 9 Opinion), I would reply:

•  The theory of evolution is backed up by a vast body of data in the fossil record, current observations in the field, genetics and ongoing experiments.

•  Natural selection is readily observable in the fossil record, in many living species and environments, as well as in controlled laboratory experiments.

•  To say that we do not yet completely understand the origin of life on this planet in no way invalidates the process of evolution. We are still in the process of understanding the atomic structure of matter, but no one seriously doubts its existence.

•  It is exceedingly rare for anything to be preserved as a fossil, and it is unlikely that we will ever have a complete history of most of the species that have been found as fossils. Most of the untold billions of animals that have lived on this planet over millions of years were consumed by predators and scavengers, or destroyed by the elements long before they even had a chance to become fossils. Note that millions of buffalo grazed on the plains of Kansas up until they were nearly exterminated more than a hundred years ago, and yet very few of their remains can be found today.

Absence of evidence, however, is not evidence of absence. We are currently adding new specimens and new species to the fossil record as part of the scientific process, and it will continue to improve what we know about past and current life on this planet.

•  The argument regarding irreducible complexity is as old as it is invalid; science continues to research the structure and function of biological structures. Modern medicine is built on our understanding of how organs and biological processes work, including the functions of the cell and subcellular structures.

•  Use of a computer to replicate evolution is simply a tool to increase our understanding of how the processes might work. The computer program is obviously never going to be as complete or complex as the interaction of living organisms, and in no way invalidates the process of evolution.

•  On the contrary, fruit flies and other similar organisms used in genetic research continue to validate the process of natural selection. To say that the fruit fly doesn't evolve into a horsefly or something else is missing the point of the experimental process.

•  Current research into the structure and function of DNA and the genomes of various species shows conclusively that similar genes control the same cellular processes in a variety of organisms, and that all life on Earth appears to be based on the same basic building blocks. To deny the validity of the evidence produced by this scientific research is simply ignoring the facts of life as we know them. Does this mean that the proponents of intelligent design will attack the theory of genetics next?

Criticisms of the theory of evolution should be addressed by scientific evidence through the scientific process, and not by rhetoric and a blind, unquestioning religious belief in creationism or so-called intelligent design.