How to debunk evolution (Shermer)
February 15th, 2008 | Published in Evolution, Science, Quotes | 1 Comment
A quick and simple way to debunk the theory of evolution would be to find a fossil horse in the same geological stratum as a trilobite. According to evolutionary theory, trilobites and mammals are separated by hundreds of millions of years. If such a fossil juxtaposition occurred, and it was not the product of some geological anomaly (such as uplifted, broken, bent, or even flipped strata—all of which occur but are traceable), it would mean there was something seriously wrong with the theory of evolution.
–Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design (Times Books, 2006), p. 16.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:05 pm (#)
Hi Josh,
Your quote is a dishonest evolution argument. It is hypocritical for an evolutionist to state that because something is not seen in the record that a theory-wide conclusion can be made/presumed. The same evolutionist is going to defend/dismiss the problem of missing transitional links by saying that the fossil record is simply incomplete.
In your quote the evolutionist is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. On one side he says that the lack of evidence shows something to be true/false. And on the other side he says that the lack of evidence means nothing because as time goes on more will be discovered.
If he was honest he would say that the fossil record shows gaps in both areas and that in time new discoveries might resolve both issues (and he would be even more honest to say that while no missing links have ever been found, there are multiple discoveries of fossils being where they should not be).
In addition, his argument/assertion is small and weak compared to the bigger problems of the fossil record (Where are the millions of missing transitional fossils? Why does every species appear in the fossil record as fully formed? Where are the millions of predecessors of the Cambrian Explosion?), what are the unexplained evolutionary mechanisms to account for the millions of highly complex beneficial mutations that we see, and how can evolution science depend on (read: have faith in) the presumed millions of multiple beneficial mutations when under the scientific method successive beneficial mutations, that macro evolution requires, have never be seen/produced, despite repeated pro-evolutionists experiments to see/produce them?
It is painfully typical to read quotes like the one you provide. People read them and draw the conclusion that once again evolution must be correct. What the author does not mention is that evolution has massive problems. The author attempts to poke a hole in ID, yet he forgets/hides/ignores/fails to mention the immense holes in evolution.
-Steve