| |
Alright, to the conclusion now.
The
most important point that you raised, in my opinion, is the following
"I feel safe to say that there seems little hard evidence to support the
claims of evolutionists. All we have at the moment are incomplete
fossil records and a great deal of speculation about how man "could"
have descended from lower life forms, or how something intelligent
"could" emerge by chance"
This
is a loaded sentence with many dimensions and so deserves special
treatment.
I have
already dealt with the intelligence by chance issue in the part 1 of my
response by stating that having every point in a continuum is not a
chance, being there is.
The
fossil record is incomplete, true, and it will neither be ever complete
nor did anyone expect it to be complete. Fossilization is a chance event
and happens very rarely but its not the amount that is significant, its
the pattern. Fossils were being discovered in Darwin's time and even
before that but what was missing was the dating techniques that modern
science has provided. At Darwin's time, they could only roughly estimate
the fossil's age based on how deep it was buried. Now they have precision
dating techniques of which I won't go into any detail. Theory of
evolution predicted the pattern of the fossils and there lies the
biggest evidence of the validity of the theory. It predicted that as you
go from older to newer fossils, you will see changes in organism's
characteristics that would be compatible with the prevailing environment
of that time. That's not all it predicted. The more significant
prediction was that, from this progression of characteristics, you will
see that it won't be a straight line; there will be a lot of branching
along the way. Ever since Darwin, these predictions have been proven
right time and again and there isn't one instance that has gone against
those predictions. That is why I would beg to differ with your statement
that all we have at the moment are incomplete fossil records and a great
deal of speculation. Based on the fossil record, the theory of evolution
is now a proven and demonstrable fact. There is very little left to
speculation and to this point I shall return in a little while.
One of
the most well documented evolution in fossil record is that of our
modern horse Equus. I don't have the details on me right now but I can
provide them if you require. The fossils that trace the Equus back to
its parent species resoundingly prove the theory of evolution. The
fossils start at around 55 million years ago with a dog like creature.
Within a couple of million years, it branches to at least two different
species. In one, a couple of toes vanished and in the other a different
jaw design appeared. When, about 40 million years ago, the climate in
North America went thru a major change getting drier and drier, we see
more evolution in the species (these names I remember) resulting in
Mesohippus that responded to the change in the climate by developing
tougher teeth. There was a sudden speciation at this stage that created
a new species called Miohippus and luckily all the intermediates between
Mesohippus and Miohippus were fossilized so we have a clear track. Meso
went extinct but Mio went on. This new species had extra crest on the
upper teeth and totally re-engineered ankle........ have I bored you
enough?
Maybe.... so let me sum it up. The incredible lineage of modern horse
back to 50 million years is fossilized and incredibly documented. The
theory of evolution is proven at every step of the way. There is gradual
change according to the changing climate and a lot of branching. Many of
the branches went extinct while the others evolved. The result of this
incredible tale is the modern horse, the modern zebra, and the modern
donkey etc. For a far more interesting account, please read Stephen Jay
Gould's essay "Life's little joke" in his collection
Bully for Brontosaurus.
I
maintain, and always available to demonstrate, that evolution is not a
hypothesis anymore. Its a scientific fact. That does not mean that it
has answered all the questions. There are speculation (to which you
referred to in the series of "could" haves) but that's OK. When we talk
about a scientific theory, we usually divide it into two parts; the main
body of the theory and fringe issues. The standard of required evidence
is not same for the main body and the fringe issues. There are
unanswered questions in evolution but those questions do not deal with
the main body. For instance, I can not, understand
and neither has any biologist successfully explained how a bad, costly
and inefficient system of sexual reproduction could have evolved thru
natural selection. Does that mean that the main body is still in doubt?
Not at all. The evidence requirements are met for the main body (unless
some 500 million years old fossil of a modern mammal turns up and brings
the whole thing down. Highly unlikely though but if it does, we'll have
to come up with a new and better theory to explain the fossils we currently have.
Creationism would still not be a viable option). As
for fringe issues, it is an established tradition of science that "could
have" is an acceptable proof. In a murder case, a different standard of
proof is required to tie the suspect with the murder weapon but once
that is established, how he got the weapon can be dealt with a "could
have". Let me explain this further by shifting focus to another branch
of science.
I,
personally, see many historical parallels between the theory of
evolution and the theory of Big Bang. Charles Darwin was not the first
person who introduced the concept of evolution, he was the first one to
formulate it in any detail. Similarly, theory of Big Bang existed for
many years unless someone formulated it in its detail. That someone
is the most unsung hero of science; George Gamow. Gamow's fingerprints
are on many aspects of science and yet he is virtually unknown. He
was a Soviet scientist who defected to USA because his scientific views
clashed with Soviet Union's official religion (communism) and like any
theological state, Soviet Union tried to suppress his views. Anyhow, he
was the first one to formulate the theory of Big Bang but he couldn't
prove it at that time. This was exactly the state of the theory of
evolution in 1856 in absence of the concept of genes. However, Gamow
developed a backing and vociferously advocated the theory. Almost
instantly, the Pope endorsed his theory because it provided the concept
of a single instance of creation. Today, almost all the major religions
find it agreeable but science doesn't care. Science is not in the
business of proving or disproving religions. Anyway, for a long time to
come, the theory of Big Bang wasn't proven. Along came Hubble who showed
that the galaxies are receding and their distance is directly
proportional to their speed. In a bang, the theory of Big Bang was proven.
Had it answered all the questions? Not at all but the main body of the
theory was accepted in the scientific community except a few who clung
to their notion of Steady State Universe and the leader of that pack was
the British physicist Fred Hoyle who, coincidently, didn't believe in
the validity of theory of evolution as well.
One of
the most seething questions unanswered by proponents of the Big Bang
theory was the creation of heavier elements. The theory could easily
explain how Hydrogen and Helium were formed after the Big Bang but what
about elements that have more than 5-nucleons? How were they formed? No
explanation was possible since 5-nucleon is a highly unstable element
and for any element to form with more than 5-nucleons, it had to pass
thru that unstable stage, at which it would break down. Scientists
thought and thought but they couldn't figure out this question. Eventually, and this is why I am in
complete awe of science, a theory was formed and the person who
contributed most to the solution was none other than than Fred Hoyle, the
most tenacious and vocal opponent of the theory of Big Bang. The
toughest question for the theory was answered by the biggest critique of
the theory. Please note this as its very important, Fred Hoyle didn't go
back in time to show how the nucleosynthesis happened. Neither did he
show it in the lab since it needed, in the literal meaning of the word,
stellar resources. This was a "could have" solution which is perfectly
acceptable for a fringe issue while the main body of the theory is
proven. Like evolution that predicted the state of recovered fossil
records, the theory of Big Bang predicted the existence of Cosmological
Microwave Background (CMB) radiation which was discovered years later at
AT&T labs a few miles away from where I live. Has the theory of Big Bang
answered all the questions? No. There are many things unanswered. Like
the theory of natural selection is yet to state how sexual reproduction
evolved, the theory of Big Bang is yet to answer how galaxies were
formed. For both of these questions, a "could have" will be acceptable
as long as it agrees with all the current scientific data.
What
are the biggest questions being asked to these two theories (and I hope
you have seen the parallels).
The
theory of evolution is challenged often to show how life first arose on
the planet. Absurd question because its outside the realm of the theory
of evolution because it doesn't deal with the origin of life. It only deals
with variations in organisms. The theory that deals with the spontaneous
birth of life is the theory of abiogenesis that, if proven, can provide
strength to the theory of evolution but its not for the theory of
evolution to answer that question.
Likewise the theory of Big Bang is asked to explain what was there
before the Big Bang. Absurd question because of the word "before". The
time as we know was created at the instance of Big Bang so its like
asking what was before the time, the time was created. Its not the job
of the theory of Big Bang to answer that question although once answered
it can provide strength to the theory of Big Bang.
And
that's all except for a little disclaimer.
You
have said in your letter that I and Dr. Qazi have scientific
backgrounds. While its certainly true in the case of Dr. Qazi, in the
spirit of full disclosure, I am not trained in
biology, or any other faculty of science, in an academic setup. During
my student life, two subjects that I hated most were biology and
chemistry. I was in love with mathematics and physics (still am) and
believe it or not, it was my love for math that took me to the theory of
evolution. The precious little knowledge that I have about science is
acquired in a non-traditional way. The theory of evolution is what
changed my views at the time when I unconditionally believed in the
validity of Islam and used to be a permanent fixture at the weekly
Dars-e-Quran classes by Ghulam Ahmad Parvez who used to be my
ideological mentor. Darwin did it for me. Now, I "speculate" that the
life arose spontaneously. I have no evidence of that so I don't believe
in it. Some people, in their haste, slap a label of "atheist" on me. I
refuse that label. That is too strong a word for me. I don't firmly
disbelieve in the deity. My doors are wide open for God, Allah, Vishnu,
or whoever is there, if he/she/it/they is/are there. All I need is
evidence. I will go where the facts take me. Blind faith in a creator
who created everything with a purpose that isn't shared with me and who
designed all the living organism with all the apparent flaws in them,
while immensely convenient, is not something that I find acceptable.
Thanks
for reading and sharing your thoughts.
Rafi
Aamer
rafiaamer@comcast.net
|
|