Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution of creationism: Pseudoscience doesn't stand up to natural selection
Daytona Beach News-Journal ^ | 29 November 2004 | Editorial (unsigned)

Posted on 11/29/2004 6:52:41 AM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; darwin; evolution; unintelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 1,841-1,857 next last
To: GarySpFc
I did provide an argument regarding the Provine post. I can only assume that since you didn't address it that you think it is valid.

Note that there isn't any room for God in science, nor is there room for an invisible Purple People Eater that created the universe either. The fact is that science is a naturalistic explanation of the universe, and the idea of any supreme creator is simply not naturalistic. Nor is it repeatable. Provine's statements are an extension of that argument, but are simply his opinion, and I don't consider that it speaks for anyone but himself, considering that he doesn't logically explain himself (unless you would care to provide some sort of context).

See science can't say anything about a creator, at least at this time, because there never has been any evidence pointing to a creator, and because of the logical difficulties in have someone or something creating the universe (i.e. who created the creator, the "Its turtles all the way down" argument).

281 posted on 11/29/2004 9:31:11 AM PST by ThinkPlease (Fortune Favors the Bold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Can you tell me who told you the lie that a single mutation leads to an entirely new species?

So, you're telling me there has to be a whole bunch of mutations, all at once, to make a new species? LOL. That's a good one.

Too bad it's clearly bunk

Oh, yes, clearly. There are no truly intelligent Christians. How some people can seemingly be so bright and fall for such nonsense is the real mystery here.

Most everybody looks atthe world and see something quite different than what you claim to see.

Yes, that's the sad truth. I fail to see your point, though. Is it "majority rule" or something like that?

282 posted on 11/29/2004 9:31:15 AM PST by newgeezer (for further reading on this subject, see Romans 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: KTpig
Genetic code does not allow reproduction outside of a species.

How do you define "species"? Are horses and donkeys different species? What about lions and tigers?

283 posted on 11/29/2004 9:31:34 AM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
And the theory holds true thus far which states that almost every argument against evolution which comes from creationists or IDers stems from a misunderstanding of what the theory of Evolution states.

"can you show me a mutation that established a species?"

That would be a dead species, as species are generally distinguished as being unable to interbreed with other species. A single gene mutation that makes an individual organism unable to breed with anything else pretty much dooms that individual to be the last of its line. On the other hand, the theory of Evolution says that over time, with enough small changes via genetic variation, gene mutations, and natural selection, species will diverge (or converge in some instances) to occupy available niches.

"Look all around you at the order in nature, and tell us all how there is no Designer."

The existence of God is a question beyond the realms of good science. Ergo, the question of why evolution takes place and who caused the mechanisms controlling it to come into being also remain forever outside the realms of good science. In other words, I would have a dispute with anyone who says that it's impossible that God created the mechanisms behind evolution just as fast as I'd have a dispute with someone who said that the mechanisms behind evolution don't exist.

The theory of Evolution is, by no means, perfect, but it does give us the best picture yet of how we got from point A (early, lifeless Earth) to point B (now). There could very well come along a better theory in the future, and I'd be happy to entertain anything within reason. It's truly fascinating to me that some would actually deny the possibility that God 'created' evolution. It's almost as if some honestly believe it's beyond God's power to do so, yet they go on to talk about how God's power is infinite. What a bizarre contradiction. :-)
284 posted on 11/29/2004 9:32:20 AM PST by NJ_gent (Conservatism begins at home. Security begins at the border. Please, someone, secure our borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: nmh
If "natural selection" was a viable theory we'd all be perfect.

Natural selection has nothing to do with being "perfect". Its about populations adapting to the current environment. Some populations can't adapt so they die off - others adapt just barely enough to survive and they are far from perfect.

285 posted on 11/29/2004 9:33:24 AM PST by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Has there ever been a period in history when evolution occurred faster than extinction?

Do you have proof of such a period occurring, or do you simply assume that it must have occurred because otherwise evolution can't be true?

Why would single celled organisms, over time, evolve into things such as whales or dinosaurs when single cells are more fit to survive, and can in fact easily mutate to remain survivable?

I'm just asking questions here as a layman! :-)


286 posted on 11/29/2004 9:33:29 AM PST by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

"Nice to see that someone in the press understands what's going on."

Anh he/she had the guts to add his name, as well. /sarcasm


287 posted on 11/29/2004 9:33:54 AM PST by Preachin' (Democrats know that they can never run on their real agenda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narby
I don't believe in space aliens.

Neither do I. So, other than thumbing your nose at God, were you intending to make a point?

288 posted on 11/29/2004 9:34:02 AM PST by newgeezer (for further reading on this subject, see Romans 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

"The Bible claims God as its author."

True, but they don't pass the other tests. As with any book the Bible should be read in its entirety and with consideration to the many literary forms.


"But the Genesis account is to be taken literally. Or is it? I'm confused."

The Creation account is only a few pages. The Bible is not a scientific text. That is not its purpose. The question is whether the brief explanation holds up to what we know about this earth.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/testablecreationsummary.shtml


289 posted on 11/29/2004 9:34:28 AM PST by KTpig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

So any theory which doesn't cover anything and everything (including metaphysics) is garbage? You're going to have a pretty boring run of things until (and perhaps beyond) the discovery of the Grand Unified Theory.


290 posted on 11/29/2004 9:35:05 AM PST by NJ_gent (Conservatism begins at home. Security begins at the border. Please, someone, secure our borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: narby
If the Intellegent Design Theory gains any traction...

If? bwahahahahaha. It's coming to a school near you. Don't be on the wrong side of scientific history, narby.

291 posted on 11/29/2004 9:35:12 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo (The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: stremba
If you believe that intelligence requires a designer and that the designer is not God, then who or what designed the intelligent designer?

You've left out a very vast middle ground, including all of life on Earth. Above you will find a post of mine that spells out some of the assumptions you have to make in order to get to this point.

Ultimately, you are saying that "There Is No God." That's all well and good, but it's not a scientific position.

Or is an infinite regress of designers an acceptable idea?

It's not a necessary idea, so I see no point in arguing for or against it.

Additionally, you only address my point that ID implies perfection. You don't address my point that evolution does not imply perfection. That still stands even if my argument about ID is false.

There's no need to address it -- I have no problem with it. My goal on this thread is merely to highlight the unfounded and incompletely considered assumptions being made by allegedly "scientific" people on this thread.

292 posted on 11/29/2004 9:35:54 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc; ThinkPlease
Correct. Because so many "quotes" were posted, I asked for his best shot so I could deal with it. He hasn't yet provided it. No doubt he's pouring over the texts. It should be interesting. I've found a book review by his favorite source, William Provine. It's here. It's a good article. It should be interesting examining Privine's alleged quotes against evolution, as in his own words, from the linked site:
I concur with Bird [the author he's reviewing] on two of his major controversial arguments. I agree with him that evolution and other prevalent theories of biological and cosmological origins properly belong in science classrooms. [Later in the article he explains why, and it's most definitely not because he sees any value in creationism.] I teach an evolution course for non-majors in biology at Cornell University, and I begin the course advocating creationism in lecture and in the readings. Later, I advocate theistic evolution along the lines of so many religous thinkers from the time of Darwin to the present. Only later in the course do I become a modern evolutionist arguing that the evolutionary process exhibits no sign of purpose whatsoever.

[skipping]

How can Bird dismantle the basic truth of evolution by descent? Darwin was able to convince most of his contemporary biologists and educated persons who read his Origin of Species that evolution by descent had occurred. He was far less successful in convincing them that evolution had occurred primarily by his mechanism of natural selection. Since his death, the evidence for evolution by descent has accumulated at a rapid rate until at, the present, the rational evidence for evolution by descent is overwhelming.

[skipping more]

Another element of Bird's intellectual dishonesty is the way he uses citations from evolutionists. He quotes Stephen Jay Gould more often than any other person, so we can take him as an example. Gould has written more about evolution for a wide audience than any other evolutionist of recent times. And he has been wildly successful in attracting attention to the issues in modern evolutionary biology. Bird tries to skewer evolution by descent with quotes from Gould (what delightful irony for the creationists). The problem is that to achieve this end, Gould must be cited in such a way as to distort his meaning about evolution. No one reading Gould would ever come away with the impression that he had, in any of his writings, said anything that cast doubt upon evolution by descent.

That last paragraph is especially wonderful in this context.
293 posted on 11/29/2004 9:40:23 AM PST by PatrickHenry (The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

You've missed my point (I think). I don't argue that there's no God. I agree that science cannot make any such statement. I am arguing that if there is an intelligent designer, then such a designer must have either arisen as a result of natural processes or must have always existed. In the first case, why is it more plausible that an intelligent designer arose by natural processes than it is that a single celled organism did? In the second, I would contend that an intelligent being that has always existed would be recognized as a god (not necessarily the Christian one) by most people. In the first case, ID is pretty much equivalent to abiogenesis. In the second, ID is a form of creationism.


294 posted on 11/29/2004 9:40:29 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

So you honestly believe that there is a group of disinterested scientists working in the biological sciences who, quite without any ideological motivation, have honestly formulated a whole new theory of the origin of species?


295 posted on 11/29/2004 9:40:51 AM PST by Killing Time
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc
No, I am not using the source you mentioned. Neither are the sources bogus. I have quoted the sources and everyone is free to examine the resources for themselves to asertain if they are bogus or not. It sounds as if you cannot stand the heat.

No, its simply quote mining and is an old trick. You may impress others with quote mining, but we've all seen this approach before so its just silly to us.

Quote mining usually involves taking a quote out of context or using the quotes of a non-authoritative person for that particular field. It seems very clever to the person doing it but its just sad and pathetic to those who have seen it all before.

296 posted on 11/29/2004 9:40:55 AM PST by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; All

First--evolution removes the need for God in that it is taught that evolution is non-directed (Origin of Species). I believe God's actions all have direction. So, one removes the need for the other--if true.

Now,lets examine some of the "theories" of macro-evolution that are taught in the public schools.

1. Stanley Miller Experiment--he did not realize the facts about amino acids. We now know that amino acids most likely could not have survived the atmospheric conditions of the time.
2. Tree of Life--Darwin's theory suggests that it takes great amounts of time for species to change. He writes "it would not act slowsly by accumulting slight, successive, favorable variationss and that no great or sudden modifications were possible." We now know that there was what is called the "Cambrian Period." This is a time where most animals simply "appear."
3. Ernst Haeckel's "Embryo drawings"--this theory--although proven to be a hoax--is still taught in some books.
4. Missing Links--Darwins concluded that the fossil record did not back up his book "Origin of Species." 150 years later, the fossil record seems to go against his theory more than it did then. Did you realize that there are actually labs in Malaysia that produce faked fossils--designed to "prove" evolution.

Anyways, I could get more into detail about these issues, but there are volumes of books on the subject. I would suggest reading Lee Strobel's "Case for a Creator" or other books you will find at Barnes and Noble.


297 posted on 11/29/2004 9:41:53 AM PST by cainin04 (Concerned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: stremba
What observation would actually DISPROVE intelligent design?

I'm not sure I really understand what you're asking. Could you pose the question using terms that have unambiguous definitions?

298 posted on 11/29/2004 9:42:27 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Shryke
When I remember what book I read the general divisions of function of the human brain in I will try to get it to you. That's why I said less than 10%.

As far as education is concerned, I think the numbers of more educated people may be higher, but based on a percentage in comparison to the 18th century, I don't think we measure up. I will say there are MANY more in number and percentage who can barely read now because typically when you learned to read then, you learned to a greater level than what is required now to function in society. AND, of course we are talking about developed nations here.

299 posted on 11/29/2004 9:44:09 AM PST by UseYourHead (Smith & Wesson: The original point-and-click interface)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

Just an example of what I mean for evolution:

Evolution states that all organisms arose from some common ancestor. This implies that all organisms should have a common molecular basis for genetic material. We know that humans use nucleic acids as their genetic material. Therefore, evolution predicts that any newly found organism should have nucleic acids as its genetic material. If a new organism is observed that uses some other molecule as its genetic material, this would cause evolution to be found to be false. Give me a similar example using ID as a basic principle.


300 posted on 11/29/2004 9:47:12 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 1,841-1,857 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson