Chapter 24 Chapter 12 Modern Controversy-2

The cladologist's argument caused more shock than Popper's dissent.Popper's critique, while aimed at Darwinism, can be applied to any theory that explains biological structure in terms of adaptation.According to Hall (Hul l, 1979), Popper objected to an "evolutionary script" based on putative adaptive pressures.Whether Popper realizes it or not, his argument can be applied to any mechanism of adaptation, Darwinian or Lamarckian.This script is the most speculative outgrowth of evolutionary theory, and it is the hardest to test, regardless of future improvements in our understanding of the mechanisms of change.Cladists go further when criticizing evolutionary trees, so that they attack the whole concept of genetic relationships between species, some of which have no dedicated mechanism.So cladists tend to place evolution in the same place as creationism: in neither theory the presence or absence of genetic relationships can be tested.However, modern creationism is only one of the alternatives to this orthodox scientific view of life history (ie Darwinism); there are alternative theories that cannot be easily considered more scientific.

alternative explanation Some of the most extreme forms of these alternative theories are of course considered by the scientific community to be wild guesses, designed to uncover fanciful ideas of public interest.As soon as Immanuel Velikovsky's theory of drastic changes in the earth's history came out, it attracted strong opposition from some scientists.Although the anger has subsided, experts have not taken his theory seriously, irritating a group of loyalists of the theory.Professional archaeologists and scientists have also objected to Eric von Däniken's article on "space gods."Advocates of such an unorthodox interpretation of the past must complain that scientists ignore their work because of blind prejudice.There are, however, some eminent scientists who have adopted elements of their beliefs in a very rational form and have seriously discussed them in their scholarly literature.A small number of "restless" scientists hope that by testing the plausibility of catastrophe or aliens, there is no strict boundary between orthodox and heretical views.

Velikovsky first put forward the so-called cataclysmic theory of the not-so-distant history of the earth in his book "Worlds in Collision" (Velikovsky, 1950), and this theory was developed in many of his later books ( eg, Velikovsky, 1952, 1955); all these books have been reprinted.The starting point of these books is the assumption that many of the great changes recorded in the myths of the ancients were real events.Interstellar collisions are thought to have caused disorder and chaos on Earth many times over the past few thousand years.Velikovsky used geological evidence to back up his ideas, and proposed that the motion between stars might be explained by electromagnetism in a way that standard astronomical theories could not.These collisions dramatically shifted the Earth's axis of rotation, causing changes in climate and the extinction of many species.He also proposed that mutations caused by cosmic radiation would quickly produce new species.This whole theoretical system challenges many fields in modern science, and thus invites skepticism and outright hostility from many experts in the field.Efforts to prevent the publication of Velikovsky's first book had the opposite effect, leading many countercultures to see Velikovsky as a persecuted martyr (De Grazia , 1966).More recently, his ideas have been openly debated, although a handful of scientists and archaeologists have found some satisfactory explanations in them (Goldsmith, 1977).Outside academia, there are still many who support Velikovsky's ideas (Ransom, 1976; Talbott, 1976).

Velikovsky's cataclysm theory is very similar to the earlier geological theories we have already studied (Chapters 2 and 5); indeed, much of his evidence is drawn directly from earlier sources.Some of the upheavals mentioned therein refer to ancient geological periods that predate Velikovsky's postulated sequence of astronomical documents.The target of his attack is the uniform orthodoxy that has dominated geology for more than a century.In order to support the idea that there have been recent upheavals, he is prepared to overturn the entire history of the Earth, arguing that it contains a series of unexplained upheavals.Not surprisingly, geologists have found it difficult to take his attacks seriously, just as astronomers have been reluctant to see the solar system as an interstellar pinball game.Much of what was once considered evidence of geological upheaval can now be explained in terms of gradual changes.What's more, it is now possible to explain what the fossil record shows in parts of the Earth that once had different climates based on the theory of continental drift.The new geology better maps the distribution of life change on Earth than the old geology.Developments in recent years have not only failed to confirm Velikovsky's ideas, but have made the gradient principle more solid.

At the same time, geologists have become more willing to admit that there are occasional cataclysmic events in the gradual development of the Earth's surface.The mass extinction of the dinosaurs and many other life forms at the end of the Mesozoic Era has been a mystery, although no less effort has been made to explain the event as the result of a gradual process reaching a certain peak.It is now being suggested that the planet's collision with Earth could have created a massive ash cloud that created temporary, extremely harsh climatic conditions that would have made it impossible for many life forms to survive.Evidence for this event comes from the discovery of iridium in less thick layers of rock in strata between the Upper Mesozoic and Lower Cenozoic; in some meteorites, iridium is abundant (Russell, 1982; Allaby and Lovelock, 1983).Some authors suggest that upheavals may also have been major changes in Earth's history.Fred Hoyle (Hoyle, 1981) believed that meteorite collisions caused the ice ages.Kluber and Napier (Clube and Napier, 1982) believed that the comet flow from the outer interstellar into the solar system caused periodic collisions, and they agreed with Velikovsky that this kind of collision occurred in the prehistoric period of human beings. view of the event.From this point of view, Velikovsky's general upheaval theory is reasonable, but because the interstellar collision mechanism he proposed is unreasonable, the upheaval theory is also unacceptable.

Both Velikovsky and his followers believed that the development of religion was determined by the magnificent changes in the sky that our ancestors saw.Eric von Däniken developed a different way of explaining the tradition of recording the actions of the "gods", arguing that the origin of humanity itself and the origins of the earliest human civilizations were after the visitation of aliens to Earth Caused.His "Chariots of the Gods" (D? niken, English translation, 1970) attracted widespread attention, in which he attempted to demonstrate that many ancient ruins could only be constructed using space-age technology.The archaeologist dismisses their views, and it is probably fair to say that his entire point of view is based on doubts about the technology and patience our ancestors possessed to build complete large-scale projects (White, 1976).Von Däniken also proposed that human beings are also products of aliens using genetic engineering technology.In a recent book (D? niken, 1977), he developed this idea into an idea that explained the entire evolutionary process. He hypothesized that the emergence of new types in the fossil record was due to the series of visits by aliens. .He cites the anti-Darwinian argument used by many creationists to explain the existence of some form of interference in the natural evolutionary process.Von Däniken interpreted what some creationists saw as miracles to be genetic experiments by the "space gods."

However, despite our skepticism about von Däniken's entire theory, Francis Crick has always agreed that an alien civilization may have "seed" Earth with first life forms (Crick, 1981).Crick had been studying the origin of life since being the first to elucidate the structure of DNA, and he had always been skeptical of the orthodox theory of chemical evolution.He argues that life is so complex that even the simplest structures of life could not have arisen naturally on ancient Earth.In order to avoid this difficulty, he absorbed the current idea among astronomers that there are many planets suitable for life in the Milky Way (Shklovskii and Sagan, 1966).There are some worlds that are much older than Earth, and others that have conditions more suitable for the origin of life.Therefore, in the distant past, in the Milky Way, it is possible that intelligent life with technological civilizations would have evolved.If the interstellar travel mentioned in science fiction is impossible, then a civilization may decide to send out spores that tend to preserve primitive life, in order to start the process of evolution on as many planets as possible.

Although by different routes, astronomers Fred Hoyle and Candela Wickramsinghe (1978) both believed that life first arose in the abundance of organic matter, and they believed that interstellar space is full of such kind of organic matter.In space, a large number of suitable physical substances will even undergo some extremely improbable chemical synthesis, so that life can easily be produced.Eventually, primitive organic life fell to the surface, and the evolution process of life began.Recently, Hogle and Wickramsinghe believed (Hogle and Wickramsinghe, 1981) that the genetic material accidentally drifted from space to the earth may be integrated into the life forms already existing on the earth. There are explanations for apparently sudden episodic changes in the process.Now, they claim (Hogle and Wickramsinghe, 1986) that the feather imprints on the fossils of the classic Archaeopteryx (Archaeoptenyx), which was used to support the theory that birds evolved gradually from reptiles, were deliberately added.Biologists have not taken the idea seriously, and there are now doubts that the interstellar medium contains the chemicals needed for the theory.

These ideas cannot be tested using the scientific method.Many scientists consider such ideas to be useless fantasies, and believe that the authors of these ideas are not experts and lack a real understanding of the field they are discussing.Scientists feel that the public is too easily drawn to fabricated stories of catastrophe and aliens, and unable to really appreciate how far these conjectures are far from orthodox theory at the level of expert research.The hard part is that existing theories do have flaws.Nonetheless, the emergence of alternative theories in the literature raises some important questions.The very first appearance of these alternative theories showed that radical ideas not only could prevail but could be supported by prominent scientists.Perhaps out of skepticism about professional affairs, popular writers seek out new followers, whereas experts sometimes prefer to explore hypotheses that might be formulated in a more rational way.New ideas deserve a chance to be taken seriously, even if they have little chance of success.The reason why scientists appear conservative is not out of short-sighted dogmatism, but because they know that if a new idea is to appear superior to those widely accepted theories, it must first overcome many difficulties and obstacles.Opponents of Darwinism have long argued that Darwinism is a blindly accepted dogma, arguing that recalcitrant biologists are blind to the theory's weaknesses.However, we already know (see Chapter 9) that Darwinism has been seriously challenged before.The emergence of a large number of alternative theories, both within and without science, clearly shows that there is no academic alliance to protect the modern theory of evolution.

Every scientist knows that existing theories cannot solve all the problems they face, but it is difficult to find an alternative theory that does not face greater difficulties.The sheer number of unorthodox ideas that have been put forward speaks to the complexity of the situation.Critics who accuse professional scientists of ignoring their own beloved theories are also usually at fault for failing to recognize the alternative theories that are being discussed when we turn to the most active anti-Darwinian roots in the modern world— We need to keep this in mind when we talk about special creation.If the claim of "creationist science" to try to enjoy the same amount of time in school is reasonable, should the same be true for some of the ideas mentioned above?Some of these ideas also won the support of many ordinary people and a few scientists.Shouldn't the ideas have the same display time?It is simply a theory that substitutes for orthodox theory, and if equal time was given to each alternative idea in the school curriculum, there would be no time to teach the views accepted by the majority of scientists doing research.

Creationism Religious opposition to the teaching of evolution in schools is nothing new in the United States.As early as 50 years ago, in the "Bibleland" [that is, the Christian southern part of the United States], it was widely believed that the theory of evolution was the spear of atheism to attack religion and morality.It has been widely believed in Christian countries that the theory of evolution is the spearhead of atheism's attacks on religion and modernity. Preventing the teaching of evolution came to a head in 1925 with the passage of the infamous Butler Act in Tennessee.Under the bill, John Thomas Scopes was prosecuted for teaching evolution at Dayton High School in Tennessee.In the high-profile "monkey trial," Scopes was sued by fundamentalist and politician William Jennings Bryant, and defended by agnostic lawyer Clarence Denlow ( Ginger, 1958; Scopes, 1967; de Camp, 1968, Settle, 1972).In the end, Scopes was found guilty and fined, but this sentence caused national public dissatisfaction with fundamentalists.Evolutionists are generally believed to have prevailed in this event, resulting in the demise of the Butler Act and similar laws in other states.In fact, fear of controversy forced textbook publishers to remove direct references to evolution, and it was rarely discussed in schools until several decades later (Grabiner and Miller, 1974).Later, a prominent biologist complained, "It's been the same century with or without Darwin" (Muller, 1959), and a movement arose to make evolution an integral part of American school science curricula content.Modern creationism is a direct response to this challenge (Numbers, 1982). This new creationism has changed tack and no longer looks to clear evolution from schools.Instead, this new creationism attempts to show that evolution has many weaknesses and to show that creationism is the only reasonable explanation of the facts.The new requirement now is to give "creation science" as much time as evolution in the school biology schedule (Nelkin, 1977).Although creationists have made many efforts to persuade several states to pass specific laws, the ACLU has so far made the case by pointing out that creationism is based on religion and thus violates the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state. successfully thwarted the campaign. In 1982, an equal time treatment bill passed in Arkansas was found unconstitutional, sparking public debate, and now the Supreme Court has struck down a more elaborate bill in Louisiana.A similar movement exists in parts of Canada, and in the UK there are sporadic attacks on evolutionists by a small number of creationists. Creationists make no secret of their hatred of the "atheistic" philosophy of evolution, but they nonetheless present their theories as scientific rather than straight-up biblical references.Some of their published works were intended for the general public and others as substitutes for school textbooks (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961; Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1967; Moore and Sluster, 1970; Gish, 1972; Morris 1974 ; Kofahl and Segraves, 1975; Parker, 1980).The basis of their argument is an attempt to show that biologists have overextended the success of evolution.In fact, the theory runs into many big scientific problems, but those problems go away if it is admitted that the creation of species is miraculous.Many arguments point directly to natural selection, which creationists believe is at the heart of materialist evolution because it emphasizes the trial-and-error assortment of random mutations.They argued that such a chance process could not have ensured complex structures in living things, and they re-used the God-design argument once advanced by Paley.The fossil record is used to assume that, if the gradual development of new species did occur, evidence must be left in rocks.Instead, they argue that what we see is nothing more than the sudden appearance of new types and classes.Because creationists believe there is no connection between humans and apes, they take particular criticism of fossils of intermediate types recently found in Africa. Creationists are good at turning scientists' own words against scientists.If any evolutionist ever expresses doubts about the applicability of evolution to a particular problem, creationists will borrow this doubt as the evolutionist's judgment on the theory of evolution as a whole.They argue that if evolution is indeed a science, its proponents will not doubt it because they already have a complete explanation for everything.Creationists have taken advantage of recent arguments that evolution is untestable and unscientific.This view seems to support creationism in its own right, as some reputable philosophers and biologists have also made such judgments.If the theory of evolution itself is untestable, then the idea of ​​miraculous creation should not be dismissed for presenting events that can be understood by indirect research. Only recently have evolutionists taken care to protect themselves from creationist criticism.They believe that special creationists have over-extended the problems faced by the theory of evolution in order to explain that the origin of life cannot be explained from the perspective of natural causes.Many creationist objections are based on outdated, distorted interpretations of evolution and its rationale.Many proponents of evolution believe that the theory of evolution is not at all on the verge of collapse because it rests on a great deal of solid ground, and they maintain that a century of successful scientific research has abandoned the reliance on miracles when it comes to evolution.In the creationist imagination, natural selection is so greatly simplified that it is easy to belittle natural selection in front of a non-expert audience.Creationists, like most opponents of Darwinism, believe that selection is based on individual mutations, and that most individual mutations are deleterious.This view ignores the modern concept that gene pools are repositories of genetic variation, allowing for substantial variability to meet environmental challenges.Some recent fossil discoveries, such as those from the Precambrian period, have been ignored; and some classic examples of intermediate transitional types have been misinterpreted, obscuring the true characteristics of these types.Finally, in response to the modern accusation that the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable, it should be pointed out that even Popper changed many of his earlier statements, and that cladists are but a minority in a small field of science biologist. As creationist challenges have intervened in the general debate about the nature of evolution, biologists have also begun to take more active action in defense of evolution (Eldredge, 1982; Godfrey, 1983; Halstead, 1983; Kitcher, 1982; Montagu , 1982; Newell, 1982; Ruse, 1982; Futuyma, 1982).Some of these books countered creationist attacks with detailed facts, but more and more evolutionists began to fight back by exposing the weaknesses of creationism.No longer content to harp on the evidence of evolution, they began to expose facts that were far less consistent with the bizarre theories put forward by creationists.This strategy is necessary because creationists use one-sidedness.It is an astonishing fact that the creationist literature is dominated by attacks on evolution rather than statements of their own.Creationists attack evolution with a host of arguments of varying persuasiveness, making the reader feel that if evolution is so bad, creation must be more plausible.Creationism, however, does not detail how scientists can construct a comprehensive explanation from the biblical Genesis story.This extraordinarily successful technique puts evolutionists on the defensive, while failing to expose creationists is also in danger of being attacked. The importance of proper testing of creationist theories is becoming increasingly apparent, but doing so raises deeper questions about the nature of science and forces evolutionists to reconsider their position.Creationists have had some success because they have exploited the public's simplistic vision of science, which is that science is a collection of facts.If the theory of evolution is to be scientific, then it must be "factual," and those who support it should be able to verify that their interpretations of all aspects of life history are correct.If it can be shown that there are still some gaps in the theory of evolution that have not been filled, that there are still some problems that have not been solved, then it is not a well-established fact and cannot be taught in schools.Because of the grandeur of the theory of evolution, there are areas in which evolutionists are bound to have no satisfactory answer to this attack.We don't yet have a complete theory of the origin of life, and there are gaps in the fossil record that we can't yet explain how evolution occurred.Creationists feel that once they admit this, they can argue that the whole theory of evolution is incorrect—at least that's what creationists say to their audiences who believe that evolution is a well-established fact. This argument hopes to set a trap for evolutionists.Evolutionists often claim that evolution is a proven fact, and they maintain the reputation of infallibility that scientists generally have.Yet to those who have heard the word evolution from anecdotal evidence, evolution is clearly not "fact".Due to timescale constraints, we cannot confirm that birds evolved from reptiles; we can only show that the known fossil record is consistent with this belief.We cannot prove that natural selection is the mechanism throughout the development of life on Earth, which is why some biologists consider other explanations, such as punctuated equilibrium.Creationists applaud these alternatives to Darwinian synthesis, arguing that their emergence marks the beginning of the decline of the entire evolutionary program.A public that remembers scientists who once confidently declared that they had solved all their problems can be forgiven for believing them to be true.In fact, the emergence of new hypotheses shows that the basic ideas of evolution are correct.This shows that new ideas are being considered and new avenues of research are being opened up.To understand why the emergence of this phenomenon is a good standard, and why creationists cannot catch up with this change through their own research, the public must become more rational about how science works.They must also be clear about the difference between fact and theory and better understand the true place of scientific knowledge. However, in order to do this, evolutionists must be willing to admit that they do not have a completely correct theory.A scientific theory is not a fact: A scientific theory is a hypothesis with strong explanatory power that can be used because it can continue to guide research along fruitful lines.No single theory can answer all the questions encountered, and therefore, no theory is guaranteed to be immune to criticism.The right idea is that scientific research depends on the existence of unanswered questions, on the acknowledgment that current knowledge is incorrect.If the general public could be persuaded to adopt this more accurate view of scientific activity, they would realize that it is impossible for evolutionists to answer all the questions they raise.They will also realize that their decision to abandon evolution and opt for creation is only justified if creationism becomes a better, comprehensive system of explanation that better guides research.It sounds absurd to think that the only way for creationists to get people to seriously analyze their anomalous theories is for evolutionists to admit that they can't prove their theories.Only by acknowledging that any theory lacks a certain coherence can we raise the debate to a new level, at which point creationists can no longer just attack evolution and have to present their own theories in order to stand the test of detailed and detailed theory. scientific test. Creationists argue that it is only fair that their theories be given the same amount of time in school, but if this requirement is adopted, then the time spent explaining the basis for their beliefs seems equally reasonable.Since their main focus is on attacking evolution, it's not really clear what point of view they support.At first glance, it seems that their only concern is to establish that at some point in the past new species might have been created by magical forces.Much of their literature acknowledges the fossil record and suggests that it shows new types arose in ways more consistent with ad hoc creation than evolution.This position is very similar to that of the catastrophists of the eighteenth century (Chapter 5), which recognized the existence of a sequence of geological time in Earth's history, but only believed that new types were suddenly created at some point in this sequence.Knowing this approach, it becomes clear that the attempt to turn creationism into a science means nothing more than limiting biologists to the basic notion of miracles within the framework of other orthodoxy about Earth's history.However, if we dissect their views in detail, most modern creationists are very stubborn in their position that creation [of living things] is explained in terms that are fully biblical, That is, the view that creation was a single event that occurred only a few thousand years ago.Converting this view into a scientific theory requires an additional explanation of the facts that scientists who study the history of the Earth and the universe are exposed to.If this could be done, the result would be the disappearance of the theory of evolution as the time scale of Earth's history is greatly reduced.It is for this reason that arguments against evolution have little to do with the general debate between science and religion over questions of past history. Could the basic idea of ​​creation be transformed into a usable scientific theory of the origin of species?Of course, it must be admitted that the idea of ​​a miraculous creation of all things does not agree with our understanding.There is no way to deny the idea that new species were created at some point in the past.Anyone who believes in the existence of a God who can interfere with the normal operation of the universe he created can naturally think that God created everything (or some) in the fossil record and in the world today. life type.However, there is no way〖HTH〗to prove that a miracle occurred in〖HTSS〗, or even that a miracle could happen, since apparently no such supernatural event occurred during the recorded history of mankind.Creationists argue that the theory of evolution is too implausible to be justified in rejecting the entire natural explanation for the origin of life; but this is a purely negative argument.If we admit that current knowledge is incomplete, but insist that our level of understanding can be improved through research, that does not ensure that there will be no outstanding problems in evolution that need to be resolved in the future. Neither [creationism nor evolutionism] can provide evidence, so the question can only be resolved in terms of which approach has the best promise of improving our knowledge of how life is distributed on Earth and in the fossil record.At this level, the idea of ​​miraculous creation is hardly a valid scientific theory. Let us first look at the question of the mechanism of new speciation.Perhaps the modern integrated theory of heredity and natural selection is flawed in some respects, but biologists have come up with new mechanisms to complement Darwinism, and in their research they have been searching for the hypothesis that best addresses practical problems.Creationists are obviously unable to undertake similar research projects on this level, because miracles, by definition, are supernatural events in which the laws of nature have become imperceptible to human observers.If we accept this model of the origin of new species, we have to force ourselves to believe that we will not understand the reality of the process.No matter what aspect of biology it touches on, creationism is a disappointment.Creationism encourages scientists to abandon all research that has problems because scientists cannot rationally answer those questions.It's hard to see this passive strategy as part of an active science project.In fact, no progress can be made in any field of science if difficulty is used as an excuse, if research is abandoned because of potentially unsolvable problems.Creationism is not a scientific approach to the study of the origin of species; creationism requires that one abandon the scientific method of studying this particular problem. To illustrate this, it is best to imagine that only 〖HTH〗 some 〖HTSS〗species were created due to magical powers, while others arose through natural selection.Unless we invoke apocalypse - which scientific creationism would not do - we have no reason to think that each unique form was created separately.Even die-hard creationists admit that the Galapagos warblers arose through natural divergence, but they maintain that the warblers are still part of the same "species" of bird.According to the classification of biologists, these birds not only belong to different species, but also belong to different genera, so the degree of natural evolution of this bird has been quite large.A few more sophisticated creationists (eg, Shute, 1961) argue that only major steps in the history of life require miracles, and that less important biological developments follow the natural way.But if we accept this view, how can we determine when the supposed miracle occurred?Does it require a miracle to produce a new order, or a new class, or a new phylum?The only way to find out the limitations of this view is to persist in trying to develop natural explanations as far as possible, since it is impossible to actively work with the concept of miracles.It is therefore possible to think that even if he believed in the possibility of miracles, he should conduct his research on the basis of the theory of evolution.If he resorted to other strategies, he ran the risk of having to give up before long, for a natural explanation of the problems he explained by miracles would require little research. The fossil record and the geographic distribution of species in the world are obviously impossible to study using creationism.Research in these fields can be reduced to purely descriptive work, since we cannot explain why a certain species existed at a certain time or place if we invoke miracles.Why are there discontinuities at some stages in the fossil record and regular trends at others?Creationists can only argue that the Creator's will is unpredictable.The creationist cannot predict what new fossils of known types will be found, because he has assumed in advance that gaps in the fossil record indicate genuine discontinuities in the development of life.If an intermediate transitional type is finally discovered, creationists will simply add one more miracle to their list.He cannot give a natural explanation for why species exist here and not there, he can only think that each species was formed in the place chosen by God.Why kangaroos and other marsupials were created in Australia, but not placentals, especially when you don't forget that the continent's climate has proved to be very suitable for mammals introduced by Europeans.Creationism cannot give a rational answer to this question.If we accept that species can be distributed anywhere at the will of their creator, then the entire research program that attempts to explain geographic distribution in terms of isolation, migration, and evolution has to be discarded. It can therefore be argued that even the most resilient form of creationism cannot provide the basis for a scientific theory of the origin of species.There is no way to prove that special creation is wrong, but special creation cannot guide our research, so special creation plays a role in limiting rather than improving our understanding.What is the fundamentalist view of creation that is very popular in the world today?是否认为创世的活动完全像《圣经·创世纪》中描述的那样？有哪种正规的科学程序会得出地球和地球上生居的生物是在几千年前的很短时间内形成的观点？如果这样认为的话，不仅要否定进化论，而且要重新确定考古学、古生物学、地质学、甚至物理学本身等科学。很难相信特创论者自己已经想到去确定他们工作的量级。他们必须提供可以覆盖这么宽广知识领域的理论，而且这些理论至少要像他们打算替代的理论一样有说服力。相反，他们所能拿出来的只是专为攻击正统理论的零星看法，以及有关替代理论的模糊建议，这些建议一旦经受详细的分析，就会瓦解。 特创论不可能覆盖它所涉及到的所有领域。举一个简单的例子：地层顺序及其中所含的化石。特创论者不得不否认地层顺序是地球历史长期沿革的产物。而他们却认为所有的沉积岩都是在大洪水期间形成的，而化石是死于这场剧变的生物遗迹。化石的分布是由于像三叶虫等原始类型灭绝得比较早，而高等的动物可以爬上高山，所以淹死得较晚。自从18世纪早期以来，没有一个从事过研究的地质学家会认真看到这种思想(见第二章)，而且，自1800年以后，甚至连维尔纳更加成熟的水成论都遭到了抛弃。即使是笃信宗教的地质学家，也不得不承认有证据表明了岩石的依次形成，其间还伴随着强烈的地壳运动。还有很多情况表明，在新的岩石沉积下来之前，较早期的岩石曾受到过扭曲和侵蚀。在比年轻的岩石所在海平面更高的地区，常常可以找到更古老的岩石。熔岩经常侵入到沉积地层中，有时侵入的规模相当大。偶尔我们会发现有的地层的构造是火山灰，而不是水成沉积。所有这些事实都符合现代的地球历史观，而和那种认为在广袤的海洋中发生过一次幕式沉积作用的观点不可能一致。 特创论者关于化石记录的解释陷入了同样困境。许多已知仅存在于更古老岩石中的类型都是水生生物，所以其中的一些为什么不能度过大洪水，而葬于后期沉积中？难道我们能指望在大洪水造成的混乱中所有死去的生物体在沉底之前会有〖HTH〗任何〖HTSS〗规则的排列？不要忘记，死于水中的尸体死后不久就会漂浮上来。我们怎样解释会出现恐龙及其它陆生动物的足迹化石？难道它们能在沉积形成期间在大洋底部行走吗？提出岩石可以在大洪水期间沉积这种建议并不难；但是难的是在面对大量详细的批评意见情况下依然可以证实这种观点，而且很多意见都是特创论用来批评进化论的。除非他们拿出能够满意解答这些问题的理论，否则他们无法坚持他们的观点像科学一样合理。他们必须提供一个至少像现在的地球科学那样全面和具有实际用途的解释体系。只有当油矿公司雇用受过洪水理论训练的地质学家后——因为他们比正统的同事能够更熟练地确定矿床位置，特创论者才能够说他们对于地球过去的解释更好。 最后，我们怎么看待挪亚方舟的故事？特创论者不得不真的以为这是使陆生动物幸免于世界性大洪水的唯一方式。这么多物种死去这件事本身就告诫我们不能刻板地理解《圣经》故事，因为上帝命令挪亚把所有现存物种都送上方舟。暂且不去考虑在一段时间内把所有物种放在一定空间有多困难，当方舟登陆后会发生什么？食肉动物除了捕食幸存的猎物外还能以什么为生？体重的动物怎么行走？绝大部分地面都覆盖着数千英尺厚的淤泥，需要相当长一段时间才能变得干硬。看一个更早的例子，为什么只有袋鼠等有袋动物只去了澳大利亚，而胎盘类哺乳动物却不能到达那个大陆？所有动物怎么从方舟停泊的地点开始长途跋涉？设想一下，像考拉这种很难适应长途旅行又特挑食的动物，居然还能不畏艰难地从阿拉拉特山来到澳大利亚！很多特创论者坚持这种没有说服力的幕式变化观点，这件事本身就清楚地证明他们的观点依据的是《圣经》，而不是客观事实。 纵观这些困难，如果特创论者不把时间花在考虑自身观点细节中的问题，而是花在攻击进化论上，他们或许应该开始重新考虑要求学校分配同等时间。即使赞同在学校的生物学课上会涉及到进化论者所面临的问题，但是这也并不意味着唯一的替代方法就是直接去讲述特创论。富有想象力的理科老师可能希望有机会讨论研究者们争论的其他思想。然而，在向那些需要通过考试的学生教课时，合理的教学安排应该是把重点放在现存理论中更明确的观点上。所有科学理论的前沿领域都存在一些薄弱环节，但在我们不能要求年少的学生先是掌握某个理论中存在的问题，然后再去学习这个理论如何在一个领域得到了成功的应用。特创论者要求重视在学校中应该教授什么科学的问题。我们是否应保持现行方式，为了减轻学生的压力，把已获承认的理论当作“事实”告诉学生？还是应当更公开地承认科学是一个发现的过程，而且事实上研究在改变着我们对万物如何运行的理解？教育事业必须以自己的方式解决这场争论，但是只在进化论领域，没有理由通过法律施加更灵活的方式。特创论者可能会提出反对意见，认为在涉及到进化论方面，道德问题太重要了，因此必须使学生意识到，还存在着比达尔文主义更鲜有唯物主义的理论。即使承认要由伦理问题来决定应该教授什么样的科学，也没有理由认为应该让信奉《圣经》的特创论作为唯一可替代的理论。一旦我们开始讨论更广泛的问题，就要考虑到所有可能性——很难理解为什么要给信奉《圣经》的特创论更多的时间。 现代特创论最令人困扰的方面还不在于它难以置信，而在于它公开宣称整个特创论都建立在《圣经·创世纪》基础上。对于所有宣扬“科学创世论”的创世研究会的成员来说，他们有责任忠实地信奉天启的真理。很难认为这种先于任何研究而对某个特定的解释精心维护的做法也算是科学程序。特创论的框架不可能改变或发展，因为对于信奉它的人来说，基于科学以外的基础，真理已经明了。事实上，这给了对手另一个可以用来反对他的武器，而且只要指出宗教记载并没有提供连贯性的创造如何发生的故事，就可以在一些公开辩论中取得胜利。研究《圣经》的学者现在已经意识到，《圣经·创世纪》是根据不同的来源编纂而成的（见Asimov，1981），所以对创世和大洪水的解释不尽相同。人是第一个还是最后一个创造的（比较一下《圣经·创世纪》Ⅰ和Ⅱ）？挪亚从每个“洁净”物种中挑了2个还是7个动物登上方舟（《创世纪》Ⅵ和Ⅶ）？绝大多数宗教思想者认识到，这些难免矛盾的文本可以用于宗教和道德说教，但是不能作为科学教科书。无论这种文本的本意有什么长处，但是都不能用作有关地球历史详细理论的基础，因为这种文本本身就有矛盾的地方，而且也不符合科学事实。 由于特创论与《圣经·创世纪》的关系，人们批评特创论是带有伪装的宗教，尤其是带有伪装的原教旨主义新教。如果承认这一点，那么在学校教授特创论的确违反了美国宪法。但我们并不是基于狭隘的法律原因，而拒绝特创论的占用同等时间的要求。很多学生的宗教背景并不一样，而令人反感的是却让他们在学校里接受某一特定宗教价值观念的熏陶。很多基督教派并不相信一定要忠实地用《圣经》来处理科学问题，而且他们也谴责原教旨主义，因为原教旨主义者过于简化上帝和人的关系。在美国、加拿大和英国，来自非基督教国家的大量移民反对将《圣经·创世纪》中得到了科学支持的观点教授给他们孩子，他们的要求很正当。在世界上的著名宗教中，有一些并不存在进化的问题，因为它们不含单一创世活动的信念。还有些宗教有其自身的困难，比如伊斯兰原教旨主义。我曾经在一个伊斯兰国家（马来西亚）教过三年书，遭到过一些伊斯兰学生的憎恨，因为他们认为进化论不符合真主的教诲。对他们来说，天启来自《可兰经》，而不是来自《圣经》，二者在人的创生问题上有很大的不同。在一个多元化的社会里，我们不能偏听偏信，把《圣经·创世纪》中的创生当作神示知识的唯一来源。难道信奉《可兰经》的特创论也应该在我们的学校中享受同等的授课时间吗？要么，我们便从中学会，对所有自称拥有优先的知识决定科学〖HTH〗必须〖HTSS〗发现什么的团体，一律要保持距离。 特创论者反对将进化论当作完全是唯物主义哲学的基础来教授，他们的这种认识还是准确的。曾几何时，科学专家也曾仰仗这种显得准确无误的理论［即进化论］来支持他们原有的道德信念。但是如实地回到《圣经》中的说法并不能解决进化论中的科学问题，当然更不能解决现代生活中面临的困境。特创论者之所以攻击达尔文主义，是因为达尔文主义的试错机制显得更有损于上帝设计的论点。从政治角度看，人们也总是将达尔文主义与极端保守主义联系在一起，这正是为什么绝大多数原教旨主义派系结盟的原因。拉马克主义也是一种进化机制，有人赞誉拉马克主义维护了上帝设计的作用，但是长期以来，拉马克主义就和政治上的左派有牵连。所以，不能将进化的基本思想归入到任何一种哲学或意识形态中。对于有些现象，一个人从中只看到盲目的生存斗争，而另一个人则看到上帝使万物趋于完美。甚至达尔文主义也不总被当作无神论。摩尔(Moore，1979)指出，在达尔文所处的时代，就有少数严格的卡尔文教派徒欢迎选择理论，因为他们怀疑所谓上帝设计的论点，而且相信受这样糟糕的法则［即选择原理］控制的宇宙，正适合负有原罪的人类。一个体系如果认为自然能够提供有关生活目标的直接信息，那么这个体系就是有危险的，因为它支持了我们〖HTH〗必须〖HTS S〗遵循预定法则的主张，从而限制了人类的自由，让人类去面临此世或彼世的结局。约翰·杜威和威廉·詹姆斯等哲学家曾经指出(见第八章)，可以认为达尔文主义鼓励自由，这主要是因为达尔文主义没有预测大自然和人类前进的目标。