This house believes that evolution is more defensible than Young Earth Creationism

What is Evolution Evolution has multiple meanings. In the general sense, it is “merely change”, and change to improve. Evolution itself has never since creationism been an issue, simply because of its intuitive truth. Evolution includes literary movements evolving, art movements, economics, business, chemistry, physics, cosmology, as well as the issue of biology. While I could simply defend evolution in general, I am narrowing myself to the traditional, scientific biological evolution. The logical conclusion, however, of evolution occurring is dramatic speciation. It is logically deduced from my equation, which is what I am defending: natural selection + genetic mutation = diversification and speciation. There are three possibly disputable premises: 1) Natural Selection does not occur. 2) Genetic Mutation does not occur. My opponent disputes whether information can be added. 3) The two combine to diversify species to the point of speciation. My opponent has not disputed this. If all of these premises are accepted, then evolution must be accepted as fact. I’ll move on to defending the second and third premise further. However, I first want to reiterate the meaningless distinction of “historical science”. My opponent claims historical science is bias because it is done by those with a ‘wordlview’. While this may be true for creationism – which I shall argue under objectivity – it needs to be justified with argument or evidence and not ad verecundium claims to a man without true credentials or even respect in his field. By contrast, both Cleland and Sober are extremely respected thinkers. Moreover, “historical science” is just as testable as “operational science”, because we test them both the same way. All theories hold auxillary assumptions, or epiphenomenal beliefs. This means that if we think a steam train is going, an epiphenomenal belief is that there will be a whistling sound. Similarly, “historical science” theories make the same assumptions. Take a discredited theory of abiogenesis (Cleland, 2001). A good example is the Miller-Urey experiments (Miller, 1953) which were touted as supporting the hypothesis that life on Earth began in a primordial soup, but really supports the auxiliary assumption that some of the building blocks of life (amino acids) can be produced by electrical discharges on a mixture of methane, hydrogen, ammonia, and H2O. In this context it is sobering to note that most scientists now believe that the origin of life on Earth is not compatible with the conditions of the Miller-Urey experiment. It is thought that Earth’s early atmosphere did not contain abundant methane or ammonia, and that life may have begun near a deep-sea volcanic vent (Orgel, 1998). We can see through this example why historical science is just as credible as operational science: they test in the same way – through questioning auxiliary assumptions. Genetic Mutation – Additional information This claim has problems both empirically and simply logically. With the empiricism first, we see genetic variety being added in the Lenski experiment (a.c), the Lederberg experiment (a.c.), in Fungi (Hughes & Friedman, 2003), bacteria (Knox, Moews, & Frere, 1996), (I.D.Prijambada, 1995) and more, hundreds more in fact. However, we also have a logical problem: most evolution in fact usually suffers from reversion. That means that if for example a DNA base turns from an A to a G, it is likely to revert back to an A. So “For any mutation that results in a loss of information, logically, the reverse mutation must result in its gain. So the claim that mutations destroy information but cannot create it not only defies the evidence, it also defies logic.” (Page, 2008). I’ll be interested to see the gymnastics needed to redefine information in order to nuance the monolith of evidence that justifies information being gained by genetic mutation. Speciation We’ve seen speciation occur in the Lenski experiment (a.c.), as well as among bacteria (Dufresne & Hebert, 1994), Sphinx Moths (Le Roux & Rubinoff), and many others. Carr even proposes extremely rapid evolution mimicking saltation’s speed more than gradualism (Carr, 2000). Speciation is clearly justified. Criticising Creationism The million dollar question has hardly been answered. We firstly must acknowledge my opponent does not value historical science, but what else has he proposed? The “winding down process” is not justified except on a post hoc basis. What part of “God created the world 6000 years ago with life being no different as it is now” postulate animal life degrading? Moreover, the Carbon 14 claim is what is best described as a shot in the foot: even answers in genesis accepts this (Baumgardner, 2007). It brings up more questions against creationism than it answers: “Why do only some materials show evidence of this intrinsic radiocarbon? Why does some anthracite and diamond exist with no measurable intrinsic radiocarbon? Why is its presence in carbonates so much more variable than in other materials, e.g., wood and graphite?” (n.c.) this list goes on. Indeed, even though both claims are false, they neither justify a Young Earth Hypothesis of six thousand years (which is what we’re testing) nor, as false, disprove it. The Young Earth Hypothesis is unfalsifiable and bad science. Objectivity The addressal here just confuses me. The fallacy of reification is one of ambiguity, but I am anything but: I give two clear cut rules with source the long-term objectivity and trustworthiness of science. The fact that it is multicultural, and the fact that it ultimately bends to truth. Being multicultural, it means anyone coming in with differing outlooks – Christian or Atheist, Animist or Buddhist, Liberal or Conservative, Male or Female, Greek or Gentile – all are one in their acceptance of the evidence for evolution. By contrast, the creationist's background is universally religious fundamentalists with a narrow range of opinions, with the agenda to justify creationism (which is so obvious even to them that they publish books trying to make out we all are propagandists). Secondly, scientists ultimately bend to the truth. Though we may err in our beliefs, supporting Lamarckism or phrenology for some time, ultimately we are pursuing truth first and foremost and we change our minds to the straight and narrow. However, when creationists dare even make a testable statement (such as the disproven occurrence of the flood, or hydroplate theory), the hypothesis is tested, and clearly rejected. Yet, just as the other pseudosciences of astrology and homeopathy, its followers refuse to bow to evidence. They are contrary to science for creationism is not a rational enterprise. It does not “work”. And as such, I urge a vote PRO. [a.c. refers to already cited] Bibliography Carr, G. D. (2000). A new chromosome race of Calycadenia pauciflora Cleland. (2001). Historical science, experimental science, and the scienti@257;c method. Dufresne, F., & Hebert, P. (1994). Hybridization and origins of polyploidy. Proceedings: Biological Sciences. Hughes, A. L., & Friedman, R. (2003). Parallel evolution by gene duplication in the genomes of two unicellular fungi. I.D.Prijambada. (1995). Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Knox, J. R., Moews, P. C., & Frere, J. M. (1996). Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance. Le Roux, J. J., & Rubinoff, D. (n.d.). Evidence of Repeated and Independent Saltational Evolution in a Peculiar Genus of Sphinx Moths Miller. (1953). A production of amino acids under possible primitive Earth. Orgel. (1998). The origin of life—A review of facts and speculations. Page, M. L. (2008, April 16). http://www.newscientist.com...