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.

[FatherofFive]

The second law of thermodynamics (or the law of entropy) seems to work against the spontaneous generation of life. All real-world change is seen to follow, or be motivated, by this law. The second law, in its most general form, states that the world acts spontaneously to minimize potentials, or equivalently maximize entropy. The balance of the second law says that in all natural processes the entropy of the world always increases. We should be devolving if we follow this fundamental law of physics.

[GarySpFc]

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Theodosius Dobzhansky, Darwinist

"A true scientist would say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evidence." Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution"

[Alkhin]

I dont recall ever being given ANY religious instruction whenever discussing the scientific method in reference to how the world became what it is today.

[mikeus_maximus]

Here's a link you left off. I'll supply it for anyone with an actual open mind to consider for themselves:

FAQ’s about ID:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/faqdntsl.html


Snippet:

“Q. What are the objections to ID? A. Common objection to ID include:
· ID is just creationism: Critics object that ID is just another name for creationism. This is done either to marginalise ID as young-Earth creationism, in order to capitalise on that position's attendant scientific difficulties, or as "religion" in order to capitalise on judicial decisions based on the US Constitution's separation of church and State provisions. However, as previously stated, ID is not based on the Bible, or the tenets of any religion, but on the evidence of nature.

· ID is not science: This objection is often made in conjunction with the above claim that ID is creationism or religion, and therefore is not science. Other objections are that ID papers have not been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, or that ID fails to meet the criteria of true science, like testability, falsifiability, observability, repeatability, predictability, naturalistic, etc. The first objection fails because, ID papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals, even scientific journals, and other ID papers which have been submitted to scientific journals have been rejected either with no explanation or on philosophical grounds. Also, ID has been critiqued in scientific journals, and ID has held scientific conferences which mainstream naturalistic scientists have attended. The claim that ID does not meet the criteria of true science, fails on at least three counts. First, the issue of criteria to demarcate science from non-science is itself controversial with philosophers of science. Second, ID does meet the above criteria of true science anyway, where that is appropriate to its subject-matter. Third, if ID is declared to be non-science, then other sciences which depend on detecting design, like archaeology, forensic science, information theory and SETI, would also have to be declared unscientific.

· ID cannot identify the designer: This objection is often made in conjunction with some of the above claim that ID is not science. This objection fails because ID does not claim to be trying to detect a designer, but design. It is not a requirement in the other sciences above which depend on the detection of design that they must identify the designers before they can conclude design. To be sure, design necessarily implies a designer, but only of sufficient intelligence and power to account for the design in question.”

Here’s another link you omitted that people might like to check out for themselves:

http://www.arn.org/dembski/wdhome.htm

[GarySpFc]

That the theory of evolution is atheism: "

First, it shocks the common sense of unsophisticated men to be told that the whale and the humming-bird, man and the mosquito, are derived from the same source. Not that the whale was derived out of the hummingbird, or man out of the mosquito, but that both are derived by a slow process of variations continued through countless millions of years. Such is the theory with its scientific feathers plucked off...

A second remark is the theory (evolution) in question cannot be true, because it is founded on the assumption of an impossibility. It assumes that matter does the work of mind. This is an impossibility and an absurdity in the judgment of all men except materialists; and materialists are, ever have been, and ever must be, a mere handful among men, whether educated or uneducated...

Thirdly, the system is thoroughly atheistic, and therefore cannot possibly stand. God has revealed His existence and His government of the world so clearly and so authoritatively, that any philosophical or scientific speculations inconsistent with those truths are like cobwebs in the track of a tornado. They offer no sensible resistance. The mere naturalist, the man devoted so exclusively to the study of nature as to believe in nothing but natural causes, is not able to understand the strength with which moral and religious convictions take hold of the minds of men. These convictions however, are the strongest, the most ennobling, and the most dangerous for any class of men to disregard or ignore.

In saying that the system is atheistic, it is not said that Mr. Darwin is an atheist. Nor is it meant that every one who adopts the theory does it in an atheistic sense...His theory is that hundreds or thousands of millions of years ago God called a living germ, or living germ, into existence, and that since that time God has no more to do with the universe than if He did not exist. This is atheism to all intents and purposes, because it leaves the soul as entirely without God, without a Father, Helper, or Ruler, as the doctrine of Epicurus or of Comte." Charles Hodge, Princeton Theologian, Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1975, vol. 2, p. 15

[GreenFreeper]

ping

[RadioAstronomer]

Ahhh! Wonderful spam! You are a master at it.

[VadeRetro]

The Quixotic Message.

[Woahhs]

In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have."

How so? I understand the explanatory power, but is there any predictive benefit in the macro sense?

Also, why guild the lilly with subtle distinctions on terminy when by normative understandings of prior claims such as chromosome pairs and heliocentricity could just as easily be called "wrong."

[UseYourHead]

Exactly - nobody is exempt and the name calling by some here just serves to create a wedge rather than a productive discussion on the subject.

[RadioAstronomer]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

[KTpig]

"You're just going to keep pumping out that trash one post at a time, aren't you?"

LOL, you are hitting a nerve, keep posting short quotes, they get read.

[Dimensio]

Evidence?

[r9etb]

Of course, only Natural Selection fits the standards of science, being verifiable, disprovable and observable, while all the rest are faith-based handwaving, but hey... so long as we're gonna teach one form of Creationism, why not teach them all?

Of course, you're completely wrong. For example, scientists have successfully added jellyfish genes to monkey DNA. Natural Selection does not explain such a thing -- nor should it, since it is a true case of Intelligent Design.

And in this example lies the problem with a Theory of Evolution that explicitly rules out the possibility of intercession by intelligent agents. A thought experiment will show you why. Suppose that these monkeys escape into the wild -- on an island, say -- and over the next 1000 years form a large population. A scientist finds the population, and discovers this special "glow in the dark" gene. You and I know that this gene was explicitly a product of human intervention, but I suspect that our future scientist would not be able to test for human influence in the monkey gene. Would it therefore be "scientific" for the scientist to think up an alternative, purely "natural" explanation? Would it be "unscientific" for him to suggest that somebody placed the gene into the monkey DNA?

[Shryke]

Might as well put the other theory on the table, too.

You are more than welcome to, should you come up with one. You'll have to aexclude Creationism and it's lab-coat cousin ID, as THEY ARE NOT THEORIES.

They can never, EVER be tested. Period. Therefore, they cannot be theories.

[Dimensio]

You know, it is funny that men like Einstein and C.S. Lewis (two of the most brilliant minds of the 20th Century) were not supporters of macro-evolution.

Cite on Einstein? Not that it would matter too much, since he wasn't a biologist. C.S. Lewis wasn't even a scientist, so his opinion on the matter counts for even less.

I read a quote from Lewis once where he put it in really simple terms..."If there was nothing in the beginning, without a Creator, there would still be nothing."

Do you think that this is a statement on evolution, or are you just changing the subject?

The very idea that life evolved from non-life has been challenged from the top Physicists, Chemists, and even some biologists (especially DNA scientists).

Life from non-life has nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution.

So, I'd say this writer is a scared liberal--afraid that the weak theory he agrees with is on the way out--it has been that way in science for a while, it's about time the schools catch up!

Given the absymsal ignorance that you're pushing in this post, I'll take someone else's word for it first.

[RadioAstronomer]

How so? I understand the explanatory power, but is there any predictive benefit in the macro sense?

Clarify what you are driving at here please.

Also, why guild the lilly with subtle distinctions on terminy when by normative understandings of prior claims such as chromosome pairs and heliocentricity could just as easily be called "wrong."

Because science uses subtle distinctions. People need to understand what the definitions are inside the scientific world as apposed to the layman use.

[r9etb]

Your post makes valid points, but ultimately ID & Creationism both rely on a 'God' (an Intelligent Designer).

That "ultimately" is precisely the problem, though. You have no way of assessing it -- for it to be valid you must make assumptions such as those I described above.

[orionblamblam]

> Anyone who looks at creation and fails to acknowledge the Creator would do well to be afraid.

Just make sure you acknowledge the *right* Creator. All those Christians are gonna be in for a shock when they are confronted by Crom...

> However, "Evolution" is at least as much unprovable religious theory

Codswallop. Evolution is an observable fact... evolution is merely the byproduct of mutation and natural selection.

[Dimensio]

By the way, Darwin personally refuted many of his own claims later in life.

It seems as though the creationists have run out of new lies as of late, so they're resorting to dredging up the old ones. As if that weren't dishonest enough, they're not even trying to support their lies with twisted, distorted evidence anymore. They just toss them out and hope that they'll stick.