Argument from
Evolution
From Wikipedia,
the free
encyclopedia
Jump to:
navigation,
search
The argument
from
evolution is
that
intelligent
design is
not a verifiable
scientific
theory and is,
in fact,
pseudoscience[1],
with
evolutionists
noting that "IDers"
have theological
rather than
scientific
objectives. This
argument is
based upon the
premises that:
-
Science,
via
evolution,
provides
sound
explanations
for the
origin
and
diversity of
life,
and the
origin of
the Universe.
-
Evolution is
commonly
accepted by
biologists
because of
extensive
testing of
its premises
and
predictions,
whereas ID
has not been
and cannot
be tested
because of
its theistic
basis and
reliance on
a
supernatural
causer/prime
mover.
Thus, ID is
neither
provable nor
falsifiable,
two of the
key
requirements
for any
truly
scientific
theory.[2]
-
Using the
concept of
parsimony,
scientists
note that it
is far more
likely that
the universe
is a result
of natural
processes
rather than
of creation.[3]
-
ID lacks
consistency
except
internally,
i.e., it is
only
consistent
and logical
within the
framework in
which it
operates. ID
at its
foundation
relies upon
an
unsupported,
unjustified
assumption:
That
complexity
and
improbability
must entail
design, but
the identity
and
characteristics
of the
designer is
not
identified
or
quantified,
nor need
they be.[4]
A common
misconception is
that evolution
is an argument
against the
existence of
God, but
evolution does
not conflict
with a belief in
God, in fact,
evolution does
not deal in any
way with the
existence or
non-existence of
a god or gods.[5]
Two examples
that illustrate
this follow.
Many people
believe that
evolution
occurred as
scientists
theorize, while
maintaining a
belief in a
deity.
Evolutionary
creationists
accept the
scientific
theories of
evolution, but
see it as having
been guided by a
deity.[6]
[edit]
Overview
The theory of
evolution states
that due to
natural
selection
and genetic
variation,
populations and
species undergo
genetic change
over time.
According to
intelligent
design, life is
too complex to
have been a
result of
evolution, and
must have been
designed by an
intelligent
agent, who most
supporters
believe to be
the God of
Abrahamic
religions.
In other words,
intelligent
design claims to
be a
scientific
theory,that
stands on equal
footing with, or
is superior to,
current
scientific
theories
regarding the
origin of life[7],
that can be used
to explain the
origins of life
on Earth.
The validity of
the scientific
claims regarding
ID have been
dismissed by an
overwhelming
majority of
scientists[8],
as the theory
was proposed by
people with
religious rather
than scientific
objectives. This
opinion was
clearly
articulated in
Judge
John E. Jones
III's
decision in the
Kitzmiller v.
Dover Area
School District
(2005).[9]
[edit]
Evolutionary
arguments
against
intelligent
design
[edit]
Intelligent
design is not
science
The term ‘science’
refers to the
systematic study
of the structure
and behavior of
the physical
world,
especially by
observing,
measuring and
experimenting.
Being that
intelligent
design relies on
supernatural
phenomena, it
does not fit
under this
category. A
scientific
theory must
undergo what is
known as the “scientific
method” to
be
scientifically
acceptable. The
scientific
method is the
process by which
scientists,
collectively and
over time,
endeavor to
construct an
accurate
representation
of the world. It
involves a
number of
important steps.
These are, in
proper order:
-
observation
and
description
-
formulation
of a
hypothesis
-
experimentation
to test the
hypothesis
-
acceptance
or rejection
of the
hypothesis
[10]
Rather than
following these
steps,
intelligent
design has
instead reversed
them. Supporters
of intelligent
design began
with a
conclusion and
are currently
working to prove
it. This
presents a
number of
problems:
-
Beginning
with a
conclusion
has a
tendency to
skew data
and results
in an effort
to support
the
conclusion;
-
Were
students to
be taught ID
in school,
their
understanding
of the
necessity of
using the
scientific
method might
be
compromised;
-
Performing
"research"
in this
manner has
led
mainstream
scientists
to refer to
the IDers as
"apologists,"
thus the
relegation
of ID to a
pseudoscientific
non-theory.[11][12]
[edit]
Definition of
"theory" and
"evolution"
Intelligent
design
proponents,
argue that
evolution should
not be the only
"theory" taught
in public
schools. They
propose an
argument based
on semantics,
claiming that
evolution is
“only a theory,”
and it should
not be favored
over other
theories. In
addition, the
Wedge strategy
of the
Discovery
Institute,
has begun
calling
evolution a
"theory in
crisis" as part
of its
Teach the
controversy
campaign.[13]
While it is
correct to say
that evolution
is a theory and
not indisputable
fact (no
scientific
theory makes any
claim to be
fact),
scientists take
exception to
DI's assertion
that it is a
theory in
crisis, noting
that with
additional
fossil finds,
and
DNA and
genome-mapping,
evolution is far
better supported
today than it
was even twenty
years ago.
The second
problem is that
of the common
definition of
"theory", rather
than the
scientific, is
often used to
imply that
evolution is
just an idea.
While "theory"
in this sense
refers to
abstract
reasoning and
conjecture, the
scientific
definition of is
much more
rigorous.
According to the
scientific
definition, a
scientific
theory must be
repeatedly
tested through
the scientific
method and
accepted by the
scientific
community.[14]
While evolution
has passed
repeated testing
thus rendering
it a true
scientific
theory,
intelligent
design has not.
In fact it has
not, and
cannot, be
scientifically
tested as its
central
argument, that
life forms on
Earth were
created by an
unknown
intelligent
agent,
introduces
supernatural
phenomena that
can be neither
proven nor
disproven.[15]
However, the
problem lies not
just with the
definition of
theory, but also
with that of
evolution,
which, like so
many other words
has more than
one meaning. Its
strict
biological
definition is "a
change in
allele
frequencies over
time." By that
definition,
evolution is an
indisputable
fact. Most
people seem to
associate the
word "evolution"
mainly with
common descent,
the theory that
all life arose
from one common
ancestor. Many
people believe
that there is
enough evidence
to call this a
fact, too.
However, common
descent is still
not the theory
of evolution,
but just a
fraction of it
(and a part of
several quite
different
theories as
well). The
theory of
evolution not
only says that
life evolved, it
also includes
mechanisms, like
mutations,
natural
selection, and
genetic drift,
which go a long
way towards
explaining how
life evolved.[16]
[edit]
Common ID
arguments
disproved
The following
are some common
arguments
against
evolution and
why they are
wrong.
[edit]
Evolution has
never been
observed
Biologists
observe
evolution
occurring all
the time, as
they define
evolution as a
change in the
gene pool of a
population over
time. One
example is
insects
developing a
resistance to
pesticides over
the period of a
few years. Even
most
Creationists
recognize that
evolution at
this level is a
fact. What they
don't appreciate
is that this
rate of
evolution is all
that is required
to produce the
diversity of all
living things
from a common
ancestor.[17]
Another example
is the evolution
of
Ensatina
Salamanders
in the Western
United States.
One ancestral
species in
Oregon
spread southward
and populated
the
San Joaquin
Valley. Once
the salamanders
had spread south
and converged
into one area,
two
non-interbreeding
species had
emerged. In
other words,
adaptations to a
changing
environment as
they spread
south resulted
in enough
variation to
prevent
interbreeding
and therefore
creating, by
definition, two
separate
species.[18]
Even without
these direct
observations, it
would be wrong
to say that
evolution has
not been
observed.
Evidence isn't
limited to
seeing something
happen before
your eyes.
Evolution makes
predictions
about what we
would expect to
see in the
fossil record,
comparative
anatomy, genetic
sequences,
geographical
distribution of
species, etc.,
and these
predictions have
been verified
many times over.
The number of
observations
supporting
evolution is
overwhelming.
What has not
been observed is
one animal
abruptly
changing into a
radically
different one,
such as a frog
changing into a
cow. This is not
a problem for
evolution
because
evolution
doesn't propose
occurrences even
remotely like
that. In fact,
if we ever
observed a frog
turn into a cow,
it would be very
strong evidence
against
evolution.[19]
Evolution has
been observed at
a microscopic
level as many
bacteria species
have become
immune to
certain
antibiotics that
have worked on
them in the
past. At the
same time
bacteria of the
same species
with no immunity
are killed by
the antibiotics
but the immune
ones remain to
reproduce. This
is an example of
both evolution
and natural
selection.
[edit]
Evolution
violates the
second law of
thermodynamics
This statement
of an alleged
violation shows
more a
misconception
about
thermodynamics
than about
evolution. The
second law of
thermodynamics
says, "No
process is
possible in
which the sole
result is the
transfer of
energy from a
cooler to a
hotter body."[20]
In and of
itself, this
statement does
not appear to
have aught to do
with evolution.
However, the
confusion arises
when the second
law is phrased
in another
equivalent way,
"The entropy of
a closed system
cannot
decrease."
Entropy is an
indication of
unusable energy
and often
corresponds to
intuitive
notions of
disorder or
randomness.
Creationists
thus
misinterpret the
2nd law to say
that things
invariably
progress from
order to
disorder.
However, they
neglect the fact
that life is not
a closed system.
The sun provides
more than enough
energy to drive
things. If a
mature tomato
plant can have
more usable
energy than the
seed it grew
from, why should
anyone expect
that the next
generation of
tomatoes can't
have more usable
energy still?
Creationists
sometimes try to
get around this
by claiming that
the information
carried by
living things
lets them create
order. However,
not only is life
irrelevant to
the second law,
but order from
disorder is
common in
nonliving
systems, too.
Snowflakes, sand
dunes,
tornadoes,
stalactites,
graded river
beds, and
lightning are
just a few
examples of
order coming
from disorder in
nature; none
require an
intelligent
program to
achieve that
order. In any
nontrivial
system with lots
of energy
flowing through
it, you are
almost certain
to find order
arising
somewhere in the
system. If order
from disorder is
supposed to
violate the 2nd
law of
thermodynamics,
why is it
ubiquitous in
nature?
The
thermodynamics
argument against
evolution
displays a
misconception
about evolution
as well as about
thermodynamics,
since a clear
understanding of
how evolution
works should
reveal major
flaws in the
argument.
Evolution says
that organisms
reproduce with
only small
changes between
generations
(after their own
kind, so to
speak). For
example, animals
might have
appendages which
are longer or
shorter, thicker
or flatter,
lighter or
darker than
their parents.
Occasionally, a
change might be
on the order of
having four or
six fingers
instead of five.
Once the
differences
appear, the
theory of
evolution calls
for differential
reproductive
success. For
example, maybe
the animals with
longer
appendages
survive to have
more offspring
than
short-appendaged
ones. All of
these processes
can be observed
today. They
obviously don't
violate any
physical laws.[21]
[edit]
There are no
transitional
fossils
A
transitional
fossil is
one that looks
like it is from
an organism
intermediate
between two
lineages,
meaning it has
some
characteristics
of lineage A,
some
characteristics
of lineage B,
and probably
some
characteristics
part way between
the two.
Transitional
fossils can
occur between
groups of any
taxonomic level,
such as between
species, between
orders, etc.
Ideally, the
transitional
fossil should be
found
stratigraphically
between the
first occurrence
of the ancestral
lineage and the
first occurrence
of the
descendant
lineage, but
evolution also
predicts the
occurrence of
some fossils
with
transitional
morphology that
occur after both
lineages.
There's nothing
in the theory of
evolution which
says an
intermediate
form (or any
organism, for
that matter) can
have only one
line of
descendants, or
that the
intermediate
form itself has
to go extinct
when a line of
descendants
evolves.
To say there are
no transitional
fossils is
simply false.
Paleontology
has progressed a
bit since
The Origin of
Species
was published,
uncovering
thousands of
transitional
fossils, by both
the temporally
restrictive and
the less
restrictive
definitions. The
fossil record is
still spotty and
always will be;
erosion and the
rarity of
conditions
favorable to
fossilization
make that
inevitable.
Also,
transitions may
occur in a small
population, in a
small area,
and/or in a
relatively short
amount of time;
when any of
these conditions
hold, the
chances of
finding the
transitional
fossils goes
down. Still,
there are still
many instances
where excellent
sequences of
transitional
fossils exist.
Some notable
examples are the
transitions from
reptile to
mammal, from
land animal to
early whale, and
from early ape
to human.
The
misconception
about the lack
of transitional
fossils is
perpetuated in
part by a common
way of thinking
about
categories. When
people think
about a category
like "dog" or
"ant," they
often
subconsciously
believe that
there is a
well-defined
boundary around
the category, or
that there is
some eternal
ideal form (for
philosophers,
the
Platonic idea)
which defines
the category.
This kind of
thinking leads
people to
declare that
Archaeopteryx is
"100% bird,"
when it is
clearly a mix of
bird and reptile
features (with
more reptile
than bird
features, in
fact). In truth,
categories are
man-made and
artificial.
Nature is not
constrained to
follow them, and
it doesn't.
Some
Creationists
claim that the
hypothesis of
punctuated
equilibrium
was proposed by
Niles Eldredge
and
Stephen Jay
Gould to
explain gaps in
the fossil
record.[22]
Actually, it was
proposed to
explain the
relative rarity
of transitional
forms, not their
total absence,
and to explain
why speciation
appears to
happen
relatively
quickly in some
cases, gradually
in others, and
not at all
during some
periods for some
species. In no
way does it deny
that
transitional
sequences exist.[23]
In fact, both
Gould and
Eldredge are
outspoken
opponents of
Creationism,
with Gould
having stated,
"But
paleontologists
have discovered
several superb
examples of
intermediary
forms and
sequences, more
than enough to
convince any
fair-minded
skeptic about
the reality of
life's physical
genealogy."[24]
[edit]
Random chance
"The theory of
evolution says
that life
originated, and
evolution
proceeds, by
random chance."
There is
probably no
other statement
which is a
better
indication that
the arguer does
not comprehend
evolution.
Chance
certainly plays
a large part in
evolution, but
this argument
completely
ignores the
fundamental role
of
natural
selection,
and selection is
the very
opposite of
chance. Chance,
in the form of
mutations,
provides genetic
variation, which
is the raw
material that
natural
selection has to
work with. From
there, natural
selection sorts
out certain
variations.
Those variations
which give
greater
reproductive
success to their
possessors (and
chance ensures
that such
beneficial
mutations will
be inevitable)
are retained,
and less
successful
variations are
weeded out. When
the environment
changes, or when
organisms move
to a different
environment,
different
variations are
selected,
leading
eventually to
different
species. Harmful
mutations
usually die out
quickly, so they
don't interfere
with the process
of beneficial
mutations
accumulating.
Nor is
abiogenesis
(the origin of
the first life)
due purely to
chance. Atoms
and molecules
arrange
themselves not
purely randomly,
but according to
their chemical
properties. In
the case of
carbon atoms
especially, this
means complex
molecules are
sure to form
spontaneously,
and these
complex
molecules
can influence
each other to
create even more
complex
molecules. Once
a molecule forms
that is
approximately
self-replicating,
natural
selection will
guide the
formation of
ever more
efficient
replicators. The
first
self-replicating
object didn't
need to be as
complex as a
modern cell or
even a strand of
DNA. Some
self-replicating
molecules are
not really all
that complex (as
organic
molecules go).
Some people
still argue that
it is wildly
improbable for a
given
self-replicating
molecule to form
at a given point
(although they
usually don't
state the
"givens," but
leave them
implicit in
their
calculations).
This is true,
but there were
oceans of
molecules
working on the
problem, and no
one knows how
many possible
self-replicating
molecules could
have served as
the first one. A
calculation of
the odds of
abiogenesis is
worthless unless
it recognizes
the immense
range of
starting
materials that
the first
replicator might
have formed
from, the
probably
innumerable
different forms
that the first
replicator might
have taken, and
the fact that
much of the
construction of
the replicating
molecule would
have been
non-random to
start with.
Finally, one
should also note
that the theory
of evolution
doesn't depend
on how the first
life began. The
truth or falsity
of any theory of
abiogenesis
wouldn't affect
evolution in the
least.[25]
[edit]
Many scientists
view intelligent
design as a
viable
scientific
theory
While the above
argument has
been offered as
a means to
establish
intelligent
design as
science, it is
clearly untrue.
An overwhelming
majority[26]
of the
scientific
community views
intelligent
design not as a
valid scientific
theory but as
pseudoscience or
junk science[27].
The U.S.
National Academy
of Sciences has
stated that
intelligent
design "and
other claims of
supernatural
intervention in
the origin of
life" are not
science because
they cannot be
tested by
experiment, do
not generate any
predictions and
propose no new
hypotheses of
their own.[28]
In fact the
American
Association for
the Advancement
of Science
(AAAS) stated
the following in
its
Resolution on
Intelligent
Design Theory:
Recognizing that
the "intelligent
design theory"
represents a
challenge to the
quality of
science
education, the
Board of
Directors of the
AAAS unanimously
adopts the
following
resolution:
Whereas, ID
proponents claim
that
contemporary
evolutionary
theory is
incapable of
explaining the
origin of the
diversity of
living
organisms;
Whereas, to
date, the ID
movement has
failed to offer
credible
scientific
evidence to
support their
claim that ID
undermines the
current
scientifically
accepted theory
of evolution;
Whereas, the ID
movement has not
proposed a
scientific means
of testing its
claims;
Therefore Be It
Resolved, that
the lack of
scientific
warrant for
so-called
"intelligent
design theory"
makes it
improper to
include as a
part of science
education;
Therefore Be
Further It
Resolved, that
AAAS urges
citizens across
the nation to
oppose the
establishment of
policies that
would permit the
teaching of
"intelligent
design theory"
as a part of the
science
curricula of the
public schools;
Therefore Be It
Further
Resolved, that
AAAS calls upon
its members to
assist those
engaged in
overseeing
science
education policy
to understand
the nature of
science, the
content of
contemporary
evolutionary
theory and the
inappropriateness
of "intelligent
design theory"
as subject
matter for
science
education;
Therefore Be
Further It
Resolved, that
AAAS encourages
its affiliated
societies to
endorse this
resolution and
to communicate
their support to
appropriate
parties at the
federal, state
and local levels
of the
government.[29]
Additionally, a
coalition
representing
more than 70,000
Australian
scientists and
science teachers
called on all
schools not to
teach
Intelligent
Design (ID) as
science, because
it fails to
qualify on every
count as a
scientific
theory. In fact,
the opening
sentence of
their resolution
was,
"Intelligent
design is not
science".[30]
Finally, a
parody by the
National Center
for Science
Education (NCSE)
of creationist
lists of
scientists who
"doubt
evolution",
Project Steve,
was created and
named in honor
of the
paleontologist
Stephen Jay
Gould. The
NCSE's list only
contains
scientists named
Stephen or
variations
thereof
(Stephanie,
Stefan, Esteban,
etc.), thus
representing
about 1% of the
total
population.
Despite this
restriction, it
is longer and
contains more
eminent
scientists than
any creationist
list, including
Stephen Hawking
as well as both
Nobel Prize
winning Steves
in science,
Steven Chu
and
Steven Weinberg.
There are 696
Steves as of 30
January 2006,
while the
DI poll has
481 signatures.
[edit]
Conclusion from
evolutionary
arguments
The pimary
difficulty with
intelligent
design is that
its goals are to
oppose evolution
by taking the
guise of
offering a new
scientific
theory, and to
clearly replace
what IDists
refer to as
"materialism"
with theology.[31]
However, ID and
evolution are
not truly
comparable as
they exist as
two distinct
views on the
explanation of
nature.
Evolution deals
with science,
and ID with
supernaturalism.
They are not
compatible, and
are, in fact,
polar opposites,
thus ID's
attempt to
supplant
evolution is not
likely to
deceive an
average
"objective"
observer.[32]
[edit]
Notes
-
^
Devolution—Why
intelligent
design
isn't.
H. Allen
Orr. Annals
of Science.
New Yorker
May 2005.
Also,
Robert T.
Pennock
Tower of
Babel: The
Evidence
Against the
New
Creationism
ISBN
026216180X,
ISBN
0262661659.
-
^
"ID's
rejection of
naturalism
in any form
logically
entails its
appeal to
the only
alternative,
supernaturalism,
as a
putatively
scientific
explanation
for natural
phenomena.
This makes
ID a
religious
belief. In
addition, my
research
reveals that
ID is not
science, but
the newest
variant of
traditional
American
creationism.
With only a
few
exceptions,
it continues
the usual
complaints
of
creationists
against the
theory of
evolution
and
comprises
virtually
all the
elements of
traditional
creationism."
Barbara
Forrest
April 2005
Expert
Witness
Report.
Kitzmiller
v. Dover
Area School
District.
[33]
-
^
Evolution
is Not the
Whole Story
-
^
consistency
-
^
see question
2
-
^
see
Evolution
and God
-
^
Stephen C.
Meyer, 2005.
The
Scientific
Status of
Intelligent
Design: The
Methodological
Equivalence
of
Naturalistic
and
Non-Naturalistic
Origins
Theories.
Ignatius
Press.
[34].
See also
Darwin's
Black Box.
-
^
See
Kitzmiller
v. Dover
page 83.
A
Newsweek
article
reported The
Discovery
Institute's
petition
being signed
by about 350
scientists.
The AAAS,
the largest
association
of
scientists
in the U.S.,
has 120,000
members, and
firmly
rejects ID.
More than
70,000
Australian
scientists
and
educators
condemn
teaching of
intelligent
design in
school
science
classes.
List of
statements
from
scientific
professional
organizations
on the
status
intelligent
design and
other forms
of
creationism.
-
^
Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_et._al.
-
^
uc.edu
-
[35]
Blogging
the Dover
Trial
-
[36]
Scientific
Thinking and
the
Scientific
Method
-
^
analysis of
Wedge
Strategy
-
^
Definition
of theory
-
^
Claudia
Wallis.
Evolution
Wars. Time
Magazine,
15 August
2005
edition,
page 32
Behe admits
premise
-
^
Definition
of evolution
-
^
Misconceptions
-
^
PBS
-
^
Misconceptions
-
^
Atkins, P.
W. 1984. The
Second Law.
New York:
Scientific
American
Books, pg.
25 --
ISBN
071675004X
-
^
Misconceptions
2LOT
-
^
Misconceptions
Transitional
fossils
-
^
Punctuated
equilibria:
an
alternative
to phyletic
gradualism
-
^
Stephen Jay
Gould,
Natural
History, May
1994
-
^
Misconceptions
- Random
chance
-
^
See
Kitzmiller
v. Dover
page 83.
-
^
Devolution—Why
intelligent
design
isn't.
H. Allen
Orr. Annals
of Science.
New Yorker
May 2005.
Also,
Robert T.
Pennock
Tower of
Babel: The
Evidence
Against the
New
Creationism
ISBN
026216180X,
ISBN
0262661659.
-
^
"Creationism,
Intelligent
Design, and
other claims
of
supernatural
intervention
in the
origin of
life or of
species are
not science"
In
Science and
Creationism:
A View from
the National
Academy of
Sciences,
Second
Edition
National
Academy of
Sciences,
1999
-
^
Resolution
-
^
text of
resolution
-
^
"Our
strategy has
been to
change the
subject a
bit so that
we can get
the issue of
Intelligent
Design,
which really
means the
reality of
God, before
the academic
world and
into the
schools."
Johnson
2004.
Christianity.ca.
Let's Be
Intelligent
About Darwin.
"This
isn't
really, and
never has
been a
debate about
science.
It's about
religion and
philosophy."
Johnson
1996. World
Magazine.
Witnesses
For The
Prosecution.
"So the
question is:
"How to
win?" That's
when I began
to develop
what you now
see
full-fledged
in the
"wedge"
strategy:
"Stick with
the most
important
thing"—the
mechanism
and the
building up
of
information.
Get the
Bible and
the Book of
Genesis out
of the
debate
because you
do not want
to raise the
so-called
Bible-science
dichotomy.
Phrase the
argument in
such a way
that you can
get it heard
in the
secular
academy and
in a way
that tends
to unify the
religious
dissenters.
That means
concentrating
on, "Do you
need a
Creator to
do the
creating, or
can nature
do it on its
own?" and
refusing to
get
sidetracked
onto other
issues,
which people
are always
trying to
do."
Johnson
2000.
Touchstone
magazine.
Berkeley's
Radical An
Interview
with Phillip
E. Johnson
"I have
built an
intellectual
movement in
the
universities
and churches
that we call
The Wedge,
which is
devoted to
scholarship
and writing
that
furthers
this program
of
questioning
the
materialistic
basis of
science."..."Now
the way that
I see the
logic of our
movement
going is
like this.
The first
thing you
understand
is that the
Darwinian
theory isn't
true. It's
falsified by
all of the
evidence and
the logic is
terrible.
When you
realize
that, the
next
question
that occurs
to you is,
well, where
might you
get the
truth?"..."I
start with
John 1:1. In
the
beginning
was the
word. In the
beginning
was
intelligence,
purpose, and
wisdom. The
Bible had
that right.
And the
materialist
scientists
are deluding
themselves."
Johnson
1999.
Reclaiming
America for
Christ
Conference.
How the
Evolution
Debate Can
Be Won
-
^
Kitzmiller
v. Dover
Area School
District
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_evolution"
|