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.

[Baytovin]

"Science isn't a matter of votes -- or beliefs. It's a system of verifiable facts".

True, but the theory of evolution is still in need of a whole lot of 'verification' in order to fit this definition.

[ColdSteelTalon]

People witnessing events in history can falsify "original" records much easier scientific evidence can be falsified that can be reviewed with secondary opionions over and over. Therefore I believe scientific evidence represented by fossils over human "history" any day.

Whoa, you are making a circular argument. Don't compare history to science then back out of it again. Re-read your posts dude.

[narby]

This is a forum for politics.

Evolution is a political subject. It has been used by Susan Estrich and other leftists to critisize conservatives. It is necessary that such dumb issues as Creationism be debunked, lest conservatives enhance their existing reputation as "uneducated hillbillies".

[Dimensio]

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.

Only for a very specific and narrowly-defined God. Many people make the mistake of assuming that if a god exists, it must have very specific properties, and if these properties are not reflected in the universe, no gods exist at all. I see this kind of faulty reasoning from some people who argue that there are no gods and from others who assert that a certain scientific theory implies that there are no gods.

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.

No bearing on the theory of evolution, since evolution doesn't occur until life already exists.

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."

The "Cambrian Period" is commonly brought up by creationists who don't understand that it's already been well addressed. Animals don't simply "appear" as though they arrived fully formed.

Ernst Haeckel's "Embryo drawings"--this theory--although proven to be a hoax--is still taught in some books.

Haeckel's drawings were used in textbooks as an illustration of embryos, not because the textbooks are presenting Haeckel's falsified hypothesis as fact, and not because the drawings are used as evidence for Haeckel's falsified hypothesis. This is a common creationist misconception, but a lack of full understanding hasn't stopped them from trotting out this line.

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.

This is simply false, yet I hear it all the time from creationists.

Did you realize that there are actually labs in Malaysia that produce faked fossils--designed to "prove" evolution.

Citation?

[Oztrich Boy]

Jesus Christ impacted the world more than any other person in history.

I'd give that distinction to Muhammad

[NJ_gent]

"What they fail to insist on is that it be taught as a theory (rather than a scientific law), and that the weaknesses of/holes in/scientific arguments against the theory of evolution be taught along with the theory."

In the schools I went to as a child (private, Catholic schools), the theory of Evolution was taught as just that - a theory. Though it was given considerable weight as being the only really mainstream scientific theory to explain how we've gotten from point A to point B, it was never hailed as a perfect, factually indisputable law of nature. Creationism was never mentioned, except in religion class, where Genesis was talked about but never preached as word-for-word fact.

Why it is that folks can't agree that that's reasonable remains totally beyond me. I suppose there will always be zealots on both sides. Me? I'm just sitting in the middle, searching for the truth.

[NJ_gent]

Zeus periodically impregnated human females, usually without any physical contact. The distinction did seem, however, lost on Zeus' wife. ;-)

[chronic_loser]

The only thing worse that stupid fundamentalists who read a Duane Gish tract and think they have it all figured out are the materialist acolytes who haven't a clue as to how FAITH BASED their own assertions are re: the history of life.

If you want unreasoning dogma, talk to a fundie. But if you want sheer stupid prejudice that doesn't even recognize its own dogmatism, and thinks there is no difference between philosophical prejudice and "science," talk to a biology prof at a state university.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

I notice that you ducked the issue so that you could make a snide comment.

I didn't duck anything. The question was posed to Fester and he answered it.

[PatrickHenry]

That's an interesting comment coming from someone who is obviously starting these threads as a trolling expedition. It isn't funny, it doesn't make either the initial post or the respondants appear anything more than juvenile, and should really be discussed in a back room. This is a forum for politics.

Interesting post, coming from someone who is calling me a troll. Nevertheless, I shall respond as if you were genuinely seeking information about what's going on here. First, these threads have been going on for longer than the five years I've been registered at this website. That means they've virtually always been a part of FreeRepublic.

Second, there are, right now, raging conflicts in several states about how science should be taught in the government schools. So the immediate "political angle" should be obvious.

Third, most of us on the science side of these debates are deeply concerned about the future of the conservative movement, and we don't want it to be hijacked by Luddites. That would confirm the dems' worst fears about us. If teaching "creation science" in the schools, for example, became a fixed plank of the Republican party, we fear it would doom our party's hopes for success. Thus, we intend to proudly wave the flag of reasoned discourse, not only about evolution, but several other science topics as well.

If this topic doesn't interest you, or if for some reason it offends you, there are other threads that may be more to your liking.

God bless America.

[Dimensio]

Looking at life on Earth, the bottom line is this: there's no reason for us to rule out the possibility that intelligent designers played at least some role (not necessarily an exclusive, or even a predominant role) on the way life has turned out here. The best reason for not tossing out that possibility is that we humans have been doing intelligent design for millenia.

Thing is, an explanation in science holdsup if it is supported by the evidence, not if it's just something that you can't prove to be false. Non-falsifiable statements are fundamentally worthless in science.

[r9etb]

Non-falsifiable statements are fundamentally worthless in science.

Then "it all happened via random mutation" is likewise a fundamentally worthless statement for two reasons:

a) We know from the fact that humans practice ID, that it is a potentially viable explanation for any given characteristic, especially those we have not directly observed to occur;

and b) if Design is not falsifiable as an explanation, then neither is the alternate claim that random mutation accounts for any and all characteristics that we can observe.

[Oztrich Boy]

1. Higher authority makes us equal.
2. Freedom to live and to peaceably persuade others.
3. Family values and perpetuating good citizenry.
4. Charitable and forgiving attitude with those around us.
5. Quality of life based on Character, not power or prestige.
6. The idea to harmoniously blend multiple cultures under one God.

These are uniquely American Values!

Yeah sure.

But the Mohammadens make similar claims about them being uniquely Islamic values. who's a guy to believe?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Neutrinos, black holes, quantum theory, The Big Bang, String Theory, quantum entanglement, etc, etc, etc...

These are all based upon obersrvation of the current universe. Their existence does not necessitate extrapolations backwards into the unobserved. Otherwise they've exceeded the bounds of scientific method and have entered the realms of historic possibilities and probabilities that are no more "provable" than the existence of God.

[Right Wing Professor]

Later some of the offspring exhibit 'behavioural isolation' (like Chihuahuas and Great Danes) but this is irrelevant as a sign of species status.

You deny behavioral isolation is a mechanism of speciation? But if you remove behavioral isolation, lions and tigers will mate and produce offspring, as will zebras and horses, as will literally scores of generally recognized bird species.

BTW, are chihuahuas behaviorally isolated, or physically isolated? At least int he case of male great danes and female chihuahuas, I claim the latter.

[puroresu]

I don't consider the variation within dogs to be micro-evolution. I don't think the extremes within dogkind are part of some trend leading to something else millions of years down the road. They're simply the outer parameters (in this case in terms of size) of variation within a particular kind. I would propose that variation within kind is not micro-evolution, but a form of conservation. Allowing for some variation within kind promotes survival of the kind. For example, long haired wolves might survive an ice age that would kill short haired wolves. Smaller species members might survive a food shortage that would starve the larger ones.

It should also be noted that man has pushed against species boundaries to produce extremes such as Chihuahuas and Great Danes, but we only got that far because dogkind (for lack of a better term) had the genetic capacity for those size extremes already. We can't push past them. We can't breed dogs with wings, or horns, or other attributes not possible within the dog genetic code.

To assume that over time dogs could "evolve" past their species boundary is just that, an assumption with no basis in the observable world of science.

[NJ_gent]

"These are all based upon obersrvation of the current universe."

Oh really... Well, first of all, neutrinos are pretty 'iffy' right now as to whether they've actually been detected at all. They're by no means something we're able to 'test' with just yet. Black holes cannot be observed by their very nature. The only thing we can observe is specific effects upon surrounding things (such as stars), which we then infer are the result of black holes because we have no better explaination. Quantum theory/quantum mechanics exists at a level so small that oberservation and testing begin to lose meaning. It exists more in equations on paper than anywhere else. I'll skip the Big Bang, as that becomes funny with something else you said. String Theory is something which completely exists on paper. We have no way of observing the 'strings' themselves, let alone watching them vibrate.

The Big Bang is the funniest one, in light of your comment that, "does not necessitate extrapolations backwards into the unobserved.". Ok, so looking back on Earth a few million years necessitates extrapolations backward into the unobserved, but looking back several billion years to some unknown point in the universe does not? Fascinating. The formation of the elementary particles during the cooling of the universe is really amazing stuff, but it's a complete extrapolation of something inherently unobservable by anyone born of this universe.

[Dimensio]

have no problem with evolution also being taught, but for it to be presented as "the way that life began" is not right.

You're right, since the theory of evolution doesn't address how life began.

[NJ_gent]

"Thing is, an explanation in science holdsup if it is supported by the evidence, not if it's just something that you can't prove to be false. Non-falsifiable statements are fundamentally worthless in science."

He's absolutely right that the possibility exists. Any good scientists must acknowledge the possibility that something beyond anything we can see or understand is driving the forces of the universe (including evolution). That doesn't mean that such concepts be given a high probability assessment by individuals, but the possibility, however remote, does indeed exist. You are quite right though that ideas which cannot be tested (such as the metaphysical) are not within the boundaries of things valued by science. It's not that they're impossible - just that if they're true, we have a problem. :-)

[Right Wing Professor]

You've basically said that since it doesn't make sense to you it must not be designed.

Not at all. I've said that there are generally recognized features of intelligent design. Enginers and architects take design classes, and get graded based on these features. You think their grades are bogus? If you take a course in C, and spend hours writing your own subroutine instead of making a call to a more efficient library function, and you get points knocked off for that, is that an arbitrary, subjective, capricious piece of grading?

Modern electronics would have been incomprehensible to people even 100 years ago, and certainly to people 1000 years ago. (They're still incomprehensible to most people, including me, even today.) The technology of 100 or 1000 years hence may well be equally incomprehensible to us. Would it be "mysticism" to claim that future technology could achieve things (including the creation of life) that is not comprehensible to us now?

Alas, you're creating a hypothetical where I asked for a real example. And even your hypothetical is dubious; had we been presented with a transistor in 1890, from who knows where, do you really think we couldn't eventually have worked out how it works? After all, we've pretty much figured out the mitochondion, and that's orders of magnitude more complex than a transistor.

And even before we had our present understanding of the mitochondrion, we understood in broad terms what it does, and we could make statements about its limitations, its efficiency, etc.. So, I won't claim to completely understand the genome, but I can state, without much fear of being wrong, that the defective gene that prevents humans from making vitamin C, but which is still present in our genomes, is a bug, not a feature. Your claim, in contrast, seems to be that the great Bill Gates in the sky may have included it as a feature, but hasn't bothered to document it.

(Is it clear yet I'm a Mac user?)