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

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.

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.

Then why does science set up experiments to observe processes all the while postulating what WILL HAPPEN if a theory is correct?

Because those things are controlled experiments. Because we don't understand ALL of the processes that are at work in the real world, one attempts to limit the outside influences to test the things that are most easily testable. As we begin to understand what affects a certain process, then we can relax those restrictions and understand what happens with other processes.

Science doesn't get into predicting the future because it would need an extremely complex model that would accurately examine every aspect of life on the planet. Think of the computer hardware that would be necessary for such a thing. Since we can't do that, we do controlled experiments on the things that are easy to understand, and perhaps, someday, we'll have that model.

That's why predicting the future is not a feature of science. It can't. Yet.

I donno if this helps, but I wrote it to describe the "refusal to connect the dots" problem. It's an analogy to the science of criminal detection, which (like evolution) attempts to explain past events by studying the evidence we find in the present. Neither science, of course, predicts the future.

Suppose there is evidence of a series of murders, each one of which can be reliably dated (due to the last known sighting of the victim while alive, followed by the subsequent discovery of the victim's remains); and the evidence shows that these murders each happened one month apart. But there are no eye-witnesses.

Suppose further that these monthly murders occured in a series of cities across the US, the earliest being in Seatle, the next in Boise, Idaho, and then moving sequentially in time across the US, in a pattern that goes progressively from Seatle to Atlanta, the site of the last known crime.

Suppose further that each such murder has indications of a similar, very specific technique, so that criminologists can determine, with a high degree of certainty, that the same person probably committed each crime. Additionally, the same fingerprints are found at some of the crime scenes.

Further, upon arresting a suspect in Atlanta, his fingerprints match those at the crime scenes, and his credit card charges show that he has traveled during the relevant period from Seatle to Atlanta. Purchases he made reliably place him in some of the cities during the times when the crimes took place; and no such purchases show him to be very far from the crimes at the times when they were committed.

All the pieces fit; and no evidence is contrary to the hypothesis that we've got our man. But what would we think of his claim that there is no case against him? He argues as follows:

It's true that he's been traveling across the country, but so what? Many people do the same, and there is no reason -- other than pure bias -- to single him out.
There's no solid proof that places him squarely at the scene of the crimes at precisely the moment of the murders. The evidence of his travels is full of gaps which the police can't account for. During those gaps, he may have taken side trips that don't appear in the evidence, and which would prove him to be innocent.
The credit card evidence is useless. While he innocently slept in a nearby city, some bimbo could have stolen his car and credit card, traveled close to one of the crime scenes, forged his signature while using the card, then snuck back into his room and slipped the card once more into his wallet. Stranger things have happened. There's no proof that he made those purchases.
Besides, even if he were at some of those cities, the timing is inexact, and no one actually saw him commit the crimes. Again, there's no proof.
The similarity of the murders could just be a coincidence. They could be unrelated crimes. There's no proof that one man did them all.
Fingerprint experts are sometimes mistaken.
Also, many people have been wrongly convicted, and therefore police methods are notoriously unreliable.

His position seems to be that unless a helicopter actually followed him, and videotaped his progress across the country, the police have no reason to even suspect him; and unless there are eye-witnesses who saw him commit each of the crimes, there is no way to say that he is responsible.

We know that although that kind of evidence he's demanding would clinch his guilt, no one actually needs that kind of evidence, and it is unreasonable to demand it. The evidence we actually do have is more than sufficient. We have the crimes, their similarities, their timeline, his travel itinerary, and the fingerprints.

Similarly, with evolution, we have the timeline (geological record and radiometric dating), the similarity (the fossil record) and the fingerprints (DNA relationships).

"I just have the feeling you have no idea what "enzyme specificity" means."

My kid has a genetic disorder - Cytochrome-C oxidase deficiency. Because of this (and other studies unrelated), I'm very familiar w/ enzyme function in the body, and at one point could even relate every step of glycolosis and the krebs cycle, as well as how much ATP each generates. I'm not familiar with every biological process in the body, but I have a general understanding of how cellular processes work.

"Evolution does not proceed in any set direction. "

I never claimed otherwise. What I said is that any view of evolution has to account for increasing complexity.

"Sickle cell helps the population survive in malarial areas blah blah blah blah..."

This is exactly what I was saying. Simply elaborating on the mechanism does not invalidate my point.

"Why do you think "Lying for God" is a good thing?"

Please point out any lie I have made.

He's going to just dodge that one.

ANSWERED: Who thought up the geologic column?
ANSWERED: What hydrologic processes were involved in the formation of the Grand Canyon? (As if my brief answer would satisfy a penchant for story telling.)

DODGED: How much water is presently on the earth?
DODGED: How much of the geologic record has been exposed for scientific observation and study?
DODGED: How does Stoke's Law apply to a reptile ascending a river bed?
DODGED: Where has science observed the PROCESS of evolution?
DODGED: What kind of expiriments would be suitable for testing and observing the PROCESS of evolution?
DODGED: How were laws of nature established and set into motion in the complete absence of intelligence or deisgn?

I could have predicted as much, and I'm not even a scientist.

You don't know anything but the pig-ignorant science available on YEC sites. Don't know big rocks sinks faster than small ones. Don't know sampling error. Don't know the history you argue. Don't know squat, and nobody can stop you from coming back dumb as a stump on the next thread.

And that's a list of your strengths.

Aw shucks. Did I strike a nerve? I know its tough to have your faith undermined by mathematical facts and probabilities, but don't blame me. I didn't invent the facts. I don't need to make up stories to verify what I think the facts are. I certainly don't need to devise a scheme that fits all data and then call it science when everything fits the scheme.

As I've said over and over, it doesn't take a genius to understand that, if he seeks out a McDonald's restaurant there's bound to be a cheeseburger in there somewhere. That's about as useful as the so called science of evolution gets.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.