Here's an excellent, and brief, article that explains in easily understandable terms why evolution is a poor theory.
This autumn 18 gifted UGA students and I are spending six weeks examining Stephen Hawking’s best-selling book “A Brief History of Time.” Therein Hawking states, “A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements. And it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.”There's more, it's short, and I suggest you read the whole thing.I consider Hawking’s statement to be an excellent definition of a good theory. How does evolution stack up to the two demands of a good theory? By the term “evolution,” I mean the claim that random mutations and natural selection can fully account for the complexity of life, and particularly macroscopic living things. ...
The second requirement for a good theory is far more problematical for the standard evolutionary model, sometimes called the modern synthesis. Over the past 150 years evolutionary theorists have made countless predictions about fossil specimens to be observed in the future.
Unfortunately for these seers, many new fossils have been discovered, and the interesting ones almost always seem to be contrary to the “best” predictions. This is sometimes true even when the predictions are rather vague, as seen by the continuing controversies associated with the purported relationships between dinosaurs and birds.
(HT: Donald Sensing -- glad you're blogging again!)
Update:
I appear to have gotten my links confused, and the post above has been corrected.
Here also is a peer-reviewed article by Stephen C. Meyer titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" in which "Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms." (Linked to previously.)
Evolution has gaps in it that question its validity as a workable theory...
... but so does the Bible and its "theory" on how life as we know it came to be.
Mark: The Bible doesn't really present anything that could be categorized as a scientific theory, nor does it claim to. After all, any apparent difficulties can be brushed aside as a miraculous act of God.
The funny thing is, Mark, that the bible doesn't have to be right for evolution to be wrong. You know that the Bible is religion because its adherents will continue to claim that it is right even when the evidence contradicts it.
Unfortunately for science, the scientific community is applying the same standard to evolution -- it must be right even though the evidence is against it. Science, in trying to "beat" the bible and making it an either/or choice has become religion. It is time for it to become science again, reject evolution as it stands, and either fix what is wrong in the theory or discover the third way.
Well said, Phelps.
Scientists in other areas don't hesitate to simply say, "I don't know." But that isn't allowed with evolution. The unspoken (untrue) premise is that the scientists MUST have some kind of theory on the origin of life, and evolution is the best they've come up with---so they'll defend it to the death against those knuckle-dragging religious cretins. Their fervor to defend their theory smacks of religious zealotry, which is precisely what makes evolution such a hot issue.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm skeptical of both evolution and religious orthodoxies.
But what kind of theory which explains the phenomena which evolution tries to could possible compete against the great quantitative theories of physics? Aside from the fact that physicists have had roughly four times the time in which to mature their ideas, the nature of the questions are so different. We have no right to expect the universe to always be as predictable as certain kinds of atom or solar system. Evolution is very good at explaining / predicting qualities of behaviour: parasitism, symbiosis and whathaveyou; but understandably less good at predicting population statistics and exact characteristics and locations of fossils...
I'll concede that the great physics theories are more spectacularly brilliant theories; evolution is often compared with gravity for its wealth of evidence, and that comparison is reasonably fair.
Unfortunately, the whole question of origins has become both polarized and politicized to the point where fundamentalists on each side are controlling the debate. There is a strain of scientific fundamentalism - "scientism" - that simply makes faith claims about what science is and what it can do. S.J. Gould was one.
But science, as everyone knows, is "objective" while religion is not. Well, science may be objective but that doesn't mean scientists are!
Of course. We humans are great at taking something pure and turning it into something perverted.. something used to divide rather than unite. It happened to spirituality and mysticism (hence, all of the world's religions) and it happened to science (the aformentioned "scientism"). It can happen to almost anything.
"Evolution is a poor theory?" The article makes no such statement. Very Republican of you to throw in the little elipsis, editing out a section of the article you didn't care for as much.
Just what is it you are trying to say? Evolution has shortcomings, yes. That's why it's called a "theory." If facts proof otherwise, science is willing to adjust to the facts. Can your religion say the same? Why do Christians feel threatened by science? Scince is based on facts, whereas religion is a belief. They really do not need to be in conflict with one another. A belief in Evolution does not predicate a belief in Atheism. Likewise believing in God should not mean you should argue against science. Look at science as the way in which god operates.
Or perhaps we should all go back to the dark ages, believing the earth is flat and the center of the universe. Lets break out those leeches.
Wow, Darwin himself has commented on my site! How Republican of him.
"The unspoken (untrue) premise is that the scientists MUST have some kind of theory on the origin of life, and evolution is the best they've come up with"
What is wrong about having as theory the one that fits better to the facts that have been watched?
If you can make a better theory come on, make it, and then test it against ALL the facts that have been taken into account with evolution. Yea it seems a hard work.
The fact that scientists have clung so tightly to the theory of evolution, in the face of the mounting evidence against it, is a good indication that it requires faith.
Simply because it is the "best they've come up with" is no reason to blindly cling to it. If it is proven wrong, scrap it and start thinking again.
-- Sorry I'm late to the party - I just discovered this blog. It's existence has long been a theory of mine, now proven :) --
Greg: Right, but when "there is no God" is your number one axiom, evolution can sound pretty good if you ignore all the holes.
great article
Please go to http://www.talkorigins.org/ and then discuss evolution.
In physics, the merging of gravity and quantum mechanics is still a problem, but we have not thrown out either theories.
Also, physics and chemistry can explain many simple interactions. But both fail to explain the complexity of human life or the simplest amoeba life forms. This does not exclude them as theories.
By the laws of physics and chemistry, the human body is only a very complex machine. Certain people though believe that humans have souls and that love is not a bunch of biochemical interactions. Yet they don't throw physics or chemistry out the window.
It's not surprising that we don't know how our species originated. It's a very difficult problem. Something that would require a combination of disciplines and probably multiple chemical and computational experiments. Hell, we don't even know how most medicines work and we spend billions researching them.
Evolution has not been proven wrong.
If another theory or law proves better, then evolution will be replaced.
Theories are generally not facts. Theories are a type of hypothesis. A means to organize ideas and to make predictions. Some theories in evolution are facts.
A law is similar but more concise and usually more precise i.e. mathematical.