A revolution for evolution - Intelligent design must not replace hard science in classrooms.

Minneapolis Star/Tribune (aka The Red Star) ^ | 11/11/05 | Editorial Staff

[Dimensio]

How about simply saying "Nobody really knows how life on Earth began?"

That's not part of evolution, though. Evolution says nothing whatsoever as to how the first life forms came to exist.

[Dimensio]

Call me when evolution is based on "hard science."

If you have objections to the currently presented evidence presented for evolution, perhaps you could make them known specifically rather than blindly asserting that evolution is not "hard science", as if the last 150 years of research in biology did not occur?

[blowfish]

How about simply saying "Nobody really knows how life on Earth began?"

We know a remarkable amount about the nature of early life on earth, considering how long ago these events were. Saying "Nobody really knows, so let's throw all the hypotheses out there" makes it sound like they're all equally likely and equally supported by evidence. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is *zero* scientific evidence for divine intervention, 'ID', creationism etc. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

It's frustrating, having spent so much of my life immersed in real sciences, to see so many people eager to abandon science in favor of mysticism and superstition.

[Dimensio]

Evolution is not based on hard science but faith.

So many creationists assert this, just before demonstrating that they don't understand what evolution is at all.

Life forming from lifeless chemicals?

And you don't disappoint. Evolution says nothing whatsoever regarding "life forming from lifeless chemicals". Objecting to evolution on this basis only demonstrates that you don't understand the scope of evolution.

A force that has not been proven changing animals from one species to another?

You mean mutations and natural selection haven't been observed? That will come as a real shock to the hundreds if not thousands of biologists who have observed just that.

It takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in ID.

How would you know? You've already demonstrated that you don't actually understand evolution by first lumping it with abiogenesis, which evolution does not address, and then claiming that the driving force behind evolution has not been observed when it very well has.

No, I am not an IDer or an evo person.

Why is it that so many people come in, spout bad arguments against evolution, demonstrate that they don't have a clue about what evolution is or what evidence exists for it, and then claim that they're not on the side of ID/creationism when they use the exact same arguments that ID/creationism pushers use? I've never seen someone come into a discussion and totally misrepresent ID (though that's hard to do because even ID pushers can't agree on exactly what it means) or Biblical creationism and then claim that they aren't trying to advocate evolution.

I believe that no one knows what really happened or why.

Apparently, but that seems to be because you've not actually done any research.

Until they get some hard proof, real hard proof, not conjecture, I will hold off my judgement on both.

Theories in science are never proven. You're holding evolution to a standard to which nothing in science is ever held.

[Dimensio]

Unfortunately evilution theologists demand that children be force fed the whole religion. From the primeval soup creation myth

Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. You've been told this before, so why are you lying about it still?

To allow the above statement to be made and questions to be asked undermines and subverts the communist and athiest goal of destroying Christianity.

Creationist lie #378: the theory of evolution is a deliberate conspiracy to destroy Christianity.

[Lexinom]

WHAT hard science? We're talking conjecture about events that happened ages ago, not phenomena that can be measured, observed, or repeated. Either side - evolution or ID - must be held by faith at the deepest level.

BTW stating the premise as the conculsion and then interpreting all the evidence to bolster that conclusion does not cut it for the evolutionists. Too bad more of them didn't study formal logic.

[torchthemummy]

The bottom line is that evolution is a theory with alot of physical evidence that both shows promise but in the end always fails to fill the gaps. ID is a theory not exclusive to evolution.

All we need is for schools, scientists etc. to briefly acknowledge that evolution is a theory (not 100% proven fact which it is not) with a testing of the physical while ID is the testing of the spiritual. Both are theories.

In regards to this article it is both ridiculous and dishonest to portray ID supporters as people who want no physical sciences taught and just want all science classes replaced with "theology." I have heard no such proposal so the whole premise of this article is specious to say the least.

[supercat]

There were almost certainly other factors at work that we don't know about and may never understand.

Fine. Show your evidence. Otherwise, this is just philosophical armwaving, not science.

So you are claiming that there are no factors involved in the origins of life that are not undersood?

I'll admit my statement was not scientifically very meaningful because it was absolutely not falsifiable (there's no way it could ever be proven false). On the other hand, I would have thought it pretty much self-evident: on almost every subject, there are factors which are not fully understood and never will be; why should the origin of life be any different?

For natural selection, as it is understood, to result in the creation of a new species, a fairly tricky chain of events has to take place. It is likely that such chains of events have occured occasionally, and that some species exist because of them. On the other hand, there's a big difference between saying a process might create a new species here and there, and saying that all species owe their existence solely to that process.

[blowfish]

So you are claiming that there are no factors involved in the origins of life that are not understood?

No. You stated there were 'almost certainly' factors other than evolution in play, then listed things like an extra terrestrial ark as examples of 'other factors'. Lacking any evidence for such sensational ideas, I conclude you've just been reading too much science fiction or something... :^)

[blowfish]

In regards to this article it is both ridiculous and dishonest to portray ID supporters as people who want no physical sciences taught and just want all science classes replaced with "theology."

Only because they haven't found anything in chemistry classes (for instance) that offends their biblical view of the world. They are quite happy to inject miracles and supernatural forces and influences into biology class. When you start saying 'some unknown guiding hand caused the changes in Eohippus, using some completely unknown mechanism', that's not science, that's mysticism.

[blowfish]

BTW stating the premise as the conculsion and then interpreting all the evidence to bolster that conclusion does not cut it for the evolutionists.

You're absolutely right, it doesn't cut at all for us. When we see the bible thumpers trying to distort, disregard and discard a vast body of scientific evidence to try to pretend that the bible is scientifically accurate, we protest.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. You've been told this before, so why are you lying about it still?

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=16-0738201960-0
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=1-0198504934-7
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=1-0471317004-10
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=2-0743212622-4
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=1-0520233913-0

Just a handful of links to your religious writings. Who is lying about evilution theology having nothing to do with origins of life again?

[Lexinom]

You missed the point. The "vast body of evidence" you cite was interpreted with the wish, the hope that evolution were true. For example, the marker fossils in the geologic strata prove evolution occurred, yet because we know evolution occurred, the fossils occur in certain strata. This is so dogmatic that, as often happens, when a fossil is out of place it is considered an outlier - because it doesn't conform to the theory.

It is like a religion, nay, it is part of a religion, a longstanding brotherhood, just as dogmatic as any other with evolution one of the articles of faith. Evolution is a wish, and neither you nor anyone cannot prove it to someone who has not already accepted it beforehand as the conclusion.

[Tempest]

The title is idiotic. there is no such thing as hard science. When it's applied to the THEORY of evolution. For goodness sakes the title itself should make it obvious.

[Lexinom]

Correction:
Should be "can prove", not "cannot prove".

[taxesareforever]

Voters there rejected a school leadership group that had tried to discredit the theory of evolution

Evolution is already discredited, what do they mean "tried"?

[Señor Zorro]

All politics is local, or should be. Individual schools should be left alone to decide their lessons. Unfortunately, the Civil War dismantled this option. So have the courts, executive, and legislative branches of state and federal government

You are tragically correct. Constitutionally speaking, this is a decision left to the states and to the people. The loser, whoever that may be, will appeal to the Federal level, and the Feds WILL get involved despite the fact that they are overstepping their jurisdiction.

[From many - one.]

Evolution is not about how life began.

[aruanan]

The support for evolution is hard science and real and proved. The great Apes have the same blood types as humans. Their genetic sequence is almost 99% the same as ours in relationship to genes. We did not descend from the great apes. They and humans had a common ancestor in the past. Even plants and humans share some of the same genes. Evolution is real.

The above is all question-begging. Please learn the difference between this and hard science.

Sincerely,

A Hard Scientist