Evolution of creationism: Pseudoscience doesn't stand up to natural selection

Daytona Beach News-Journal ^ | 29 November 2004 | Editorial (unsigned)

[PatrickHenry]

In a poll released last week, two-thirds of Americans said they wanted to see creationism taught to public-school science pupils alongside evolution. Thirty-seven percent said they wanted to see creationism taught instead of evolution.

So why shouldn't majority rule? That's democracy, right?

Wrong. Science isn't a matter of votes -- or beliefs. It's a system of verifiable facts, an approach that must be preserved and fought for if American pupils are going to get the kind of education they need to complete in an increasingly global techno-economy.

Unfortunately, the debate over evolution and creationism is back, with a spiffy new look and a mass of plausible-sounding talking points, traveling under the seemingly secular name of "intelligent design."

This "theory" doesn't spend much time pondering which intelligence did the designing. Instead, it backwards-engineers its way into a complicated rationale, capitalizing on a few biological oddities to "prove" life could not have evolved by natural selection.

On the strength of this redesigned premise -- what Wired Magazine dubbed "creationism in a lab coat" -- school districts across the country are being bombarded by activists seeking to have their version given equal footing with established evolutionary theory in biology textbooks. School boards in Ohio, Georgia and most recently Dover, Pa., have all succumbed.

There's no problem with letting pupils know that debate exists over the origin of man, along with other animal and plant life. But peddling junk science in the name of "furthering the discussion" won't help their search for knowledge. Instead, pupils should be given a framework for understanding the gaps in evidence and credibility between the two camps.

A lot of the confusion springs from use of the word "theory" itself. Used in science, it signifies a maxim that is believed to be true, but has not been directly observed. Since evolution takes place over millions of years, it would be inaccurate to say that man has directly observed it -- but it is reasonable to say that evolution is thoroughly supported by a vast weight of scientific evidence and research.

That's not to say it's irrefutable. Some day, scientists may find enough evidence to mount a credible challenge to evolutionary theory -- in fact, some of Charles Darwin's original suppositions have been successfully challenged.

But that day has not come. As a theory, intelligent design is not ready to steal, or even share, the spotlight, and it's unfair to burden children with pseudoscience to further an agenda that is more political than academic.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I'm so glad no one is like you in my real life.

I can understand how discomforting it can be to meet with someone who so pointedly and concertedly questions your faith in evolution. Think of me as reality.

[Fester Chugabrew]

We've been sampling for over 200 years. If all we have is a sampling error, it's the biggest, most utterly incredible sampling error in human history.

The size of the error is proportional to the size of the object being sampled. I'm asking you to let me know where we're at. A percentage figure would be helpful. Can you supply it? What percentage of the earth's geological record has been exposed for scientific observation and analysis? This isn't exactly a question a scientist would shun, is it? Or is the ego so big that such a fact cannot be mentioned, let alone asked?

[VadeRetro]

I can understand how discomforting it can be to meet with someone who so pointedly and concertedly questions your faith in evolution.

I can't imagine you can see how this looks to anyone not utterly nuts. More than discussions of science, creationists are what bring me back to these threads. People so at war with the universe, fact, and logic they are compelled to endlessly demand that which they can only refuse to accept.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The size of the error is proportional to the size of the object being sampled.

False. You really need to studeysome basic mathematics before making statemets of this type.

[VadeRetro]

The size of the error is proportional to the size of the object being sampled.

What does this post say? Your knowledge of statistics is of a piece with your appreciation of Stokes's Law. And it doesn't matter if your misstatements have been refuted already on the same thread, does it?

If you really gave a damn about science you'd know SOME of this stuff. You don't.

Never mind what creation/ID has to teach us. What does ignorant bleepism have to teach us?

[Fester Chugabrew]

We've been doing geology for 200 years. So far, we see a geologic column.

200 years? Is that all? Better keep digging.

LOL! How far would the average inhabitant of the earth have to travel before he found an exploratory cavity into the geologic record that went, say, five miles below the surface?

The only geologic columns you've seen are in textbooks written by certain folks who had it all figured out before they began to dig.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Note that the Creationists not only are anti-geology and anti-biology (and anti-physics and anti-chemistry), they even fail at simple mathematics.

[VadeRetro]

The only geologic columns you've seen are in textbooks written by certain folks who had it all figured out before they began to dig.

An interesting assertion. Source? Who thought up the geologic column and how did he get it into the mountains near my home?

[VadeRetro]

Note that the Creationists not only are anti-geology and anti-biology (and anti-physics and anti-chemistry), they even fail at simple mathematics.

We're witnessing another of those funny dances one has to see to believe. This is ID in action, folks!

[Fester Chugabrew]

If the object being sampled is homogenous to some degree, I can understand why Stoke's Law might apply. Given the size of our planet, I'd just as soon let Stokes prove himself. Or do you believe the geologic record to be more or less homogenous after sampling the tiniest fraction? Also, is Stoke's Law as well-understood and well-tested as the Law of Gravity? How much faith shall I put in this "law?"

[Old Student]

"66% of Americans are in favor of using public tax dollars on teaching an unprovable, silly religious story?"

How, exactly, is this different from using their tax dollars to teach gay tolerance, or principles of Islam, or any of the dozens of silly things the liberals want taught? At least, this way, the religions conservatives get something for their money they are willing to pay for. Sounds like a supermajority to me, anyway. ;)

[Fester Chugabrew]

An interesting assertion.

And a true one. If I were to visit your home I would not find your personal records of a geologic column; your own digs and your own findings. I dare say you've not ventured outside you home to dig a hole more than ten feet deep. Or have you?

Who thought up the geologic column? I'm sure there are several intellectuals who could be named. It's not a bad idea. It just hasn't been demonstrated in real life, just like the processs of evolution.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Note that the Creationists not only are anti-geology and anti-biology . . .

I fail to see how questioning the presuppostions and conjectures of evolutionists makes one either of the above, but I am acutely aware of the degree to which evolutionists have invested their egos and are thus willing to defend unobservable and unrecorded phenomena at the expense of true science.

[AndrewC]

Sampling error doesn't depend on the population size. It only depends on the sample size.

Sampling error

There are no sampling errors in a census because the calculations are based on the entire population.

Characteristics

Sampling error

• generally decreases as the sample size increases (but not proportionally)
• depends on the size of the population under study
• depends on the variability of the characteristic of interest in the population
• can be accounted for and reduced by an appropriate sample plan
• can be measured and controlled in probability sample surveys.

Sample size

As a general rule, the more people being surveyed (sample size), the smaller the sampling error will be. Many people are surprised by the small size of well-known surveys. For example, polls that try to predict voting patterns are taken from sample sizes ranging from 1,000 to 2,000 people, with samples of about 1,000 people being the most common. Ratings for television programs are estimated from approximately 2,000 viewers. This small sample represents the television preferences of a total population of 12 million Canadian households! Despite a widely-held perception that such polls are reliable, some statisticians question their accuracy because of the small sample size.

If one of the survey objectives is to look at sub-populations or measure rare events, then a larger sample will be needed. However, it is important to note that increasing the sample size also means increasing costs.

Population size

Except for very small populations where the relationship is more direct, the size of a sample does not increase in proportion to the size of the population. In fact, the population size plays an almost non-existent role as far as large populations are concerned.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . they even fail at simple mathematics.

If you are referring to myself, fine. I was never good at math. But like your friend who ascribes "disgrace to humanity" to someone who accidentally misquotes a word, you have made a sweeping judgment based upon a very small sample, and math ain't got squat to do with that until one realizes how grossly innaccurate are your words.

Meanwhile, have you done the math yet? How much of the earth has been exposed for scientific observation and analysis? If it does not matter how much of the earth has been sampled, then why refrain from boldly proclaiming the percentage?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Stoke's law has nothing to do with sampling. Again, you would be well-served by learning some elementary mathematics.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Correct. (Although surprising at first glance.)

[Fester Chugabrew]

Again, you would be well-served by learning some elementary mathematics.

If I pull two clubs in a row out of a deck of cards, the whole deck is clubs in my view, and no amount of math will convince me otherwise. As you would have me understand it, the size of the sample has nothing to do with it.

How does this example work out mathematically in comparison with the amount of earth exposed for scientific observation and analysis?

[Doctor Stochastic]

If I pull two clubs in a row out of a deck of cards, the whole deck is clubs in my view, and no amount of math will convince me otherwise.

Las Vegas was built on people with your understanding of probability (but with a greater propensity to gamble though.) The probability of 1 club is 13/52, if you draw without replacement the second club has the probability of 12/51; multiplying gives 156/2652 or about 6%, not rare.

Of course, using your reasoning about cards, as all examples of geologic columns support the conventional view, the whole Earth is described by the conventional geology. After all, the second sample agreed with the first, as did the third, and the thousandth.

[NeuronExMachina]

Bottom line. If you turn the clock back far enough and if you believe in evolution you have no option but to believe in non living things giving rise to living things.

Sorry, but that's not the case. Evolution only covers what happens to living organisms -- it makes no claims about where the initial organisms came from. Similarly, Newton's theory of gravity only covers objects which already exist -- it makes no claims about where those objects came from, or even what gravity itself is.

As far as evolutionary theory is concerned, it doesn't matter if life initially came about due to God saying some powerful words, autocatalytic chemicals, self-replicating vesicles, or a giant tortoise. All that matters is that it fits the data we currently have, and accurately predicts future data.

Granted, I happen to also think that the abiogenesis hypothesis will ultimately have evidence to support it, but recognize that it's not a scientific theory as there isn't any concrete evidence for it. Until the laboratories working on the problem show autocatalytic sets or self-replicating vesicles emerging from conditions like those of early earth, we can't really say for certain.

Where are the transitional life forms?????? There are none.

Problem is, whenever someone finds a fossil which fills a "gap" in the fossil record, creationists just point at it and say, "Look! Now you have two gaps!"

To delve into the math a little, species can also be thought of as somewhat like local minima of a gradient descent function. At least in computer simulations and the biological experiments which have been done so far, when a group gets knocked out of its current minima, it converges towards a new minima FAST.