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 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 1,841-1,857 next last
To: cainin04; All
Since my list addresses your particular "argument" I address this to you in particular (see second argument):

The theory of evolution is just a theory

The word theory means something different in science than it does in common usage. Theories are the result of a hypothesis, or educated suggestion, being tested and found to be consistent with observation. A theory coherently explains a large range of observations. It is in contrast to a law which simply expresses a regularity seen in observations without attempting to explain that regularity. Theories do not become laws. Laws are not somehow more certain than theories. Both are on equal footing in science.

There's no way life could have arisen from non-living chemicals/There's no way to get from the big bang to humans

Neither the origin of life nor the big bang is covered in the theory of evolution. Evolution only applies once life has begun. It makes no difference how life began.

The second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible

The second law of thermodynamics states that IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, entropy always increases. The earth is not a closed system. The earth receives energy from the sun. This release of energy from the surface of the sun at a temperature of 6000K to space at a temperature of ~3K represents an enormous increase in entropy. Therefore, even taking evolution into account, the entropy of the earth/sun system does indeed increase over time.

Creationism is just as valid a theory as evolution/Evolution is not really science

To qualify as a theory in science, an idea must explain observations in such a way as to be falsifiable. This means that it must predict something and finding that this prediction is not true would require abandonment or serious modification of the theory. Evolution meets this requirement. For example, evolution predicts that in billion year old rock layers, no fossils of modern humans will be found. It predicts that all organisms on earth will have nucleic acids as their genetic material. It predicts that it will be possible to observe changes in the genepool of organisms. All of these predictions have been borne out by observations. If any of them are not, then evolution would have to be seriously modified or abandoned. I am sure that someone with more knowledge of biology could provide many more such examples. Creationism, on the other hand, by its very nature can offer no such predictions. The most basic premise of creationism is that there is an omnipotent God who created the universe. By virtue of God's omnipotence, there is no possible observation that could falsify this premise. God could have made the universe appear any way He wanted it to appear.

Evolution has never been provenNeither has quantum theory, or relativity, or any other scientific theory or law. Science never offers proof, merely strong evidence for an idea. Evolution is backed by a large amount of observational evidence.

121 posted on 11/29/2004 8:09:41 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

> And in this example lies the problem with a Theory of Evolution that explicitly rules out the possibility of intercession by intelligent agents.

In no way does evolutionary theory deny the possibility of intentional genetic tampering. It does, however, provide a straightforward way to explain biodiversity without the need for falling back on conspiracy theories.


122 posted on 11/29/2004 8:10:36 AM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Why are you putting all those bogus quotes...

These people didn't say these things?

123 posted on 11/29/2004 8:10:54 AM PST by Woahhs (America is an idea, not an address.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

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

No. It is just annoying babble and spamming the thread. (New tactic?)

124 posted on 11/29/2004 8:10:56 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

p


125 posted on 11/29/2004 8:10:57 AM PST by Quixotical (Private Pyle is that a Jelly Doughnut)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KTpig
Science can not prove the theory of evolution.

No theory in science is ever proven. The argument that the theory of evolution is not proven is used only by those ignorant of scientific terminology and those trying to play dishonest semantic games.

It takes more "faith" to believe in it than Creation.

What "Creation"? Christianity's Creation myth isn't the only one out there.

Creation follows sound scientific principles.

Really? Could you elaborate on this, or do you think that simply asserting it and running off is sufficient to make a reasoned argument?
126 posted on 11/29/2004 8:11:08 AM PST by Dimensio (Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://www.aa419.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
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?

Erich von Daniken theory "we were created by aliens" should be taught as part of "Intelligent design"

127 posted on 11/29/2004 8:11:14 AM PST by Oztrich Boy ("Ain't I a stinker?" B Bunny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: UseYourHead
who use less than 10% of their brains to understand very nearly nothing

I hate to break this to you, but the idea that we only use 10% of our brain is an urban legend.

128 posted on 11/29/2004 8:11:43 AM PST by Shryke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: KTpig
There are laws in this universe and Creation follows them.

Evidence?

So you are here to HELP us discover we evolved from apes and have no purpose in life.

"No purpose in life" is not a logical implication of evolution. That you claim that it has relevance in the discussion only shows your ignorance.
129 posted on 11/29/2004 8:12:10 AM PST by Dimensio (Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://www.aa419.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...

Please enlighten me as to what exactly ID predicts and how our current set of observational data show that these predictions of ID are true.


130 posted on 11/29/2004 8:12:55 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Oooooh! The babbling of a psychologist. And from 1983. How very authoritative.

And you're a scientist? I would suggest you learn to read his credentials first.
131 posted on 11/29/2004 8:13:04 AM PST by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: bzrd
And what is 'evolution' besides a godless creation story?

Evolution implies nothing regarding the existence of gods. This is a common creationist lie.

Evolution is not a theory, it barely qualifies as a hypothesis.

Really? Funny how nearly all of the world's leading biologists disagree with you. But please, explain the statement and present your credentials, so that you may collect your Nobel prize.
132 posted on 11/29/2004 8:13:27 AM PST by Dimensio (Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://www.aa419.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
What a cute irrelevancy.

Why not try and honestly address the question I posted?

133 posted on 11/29/2004 8:14:09 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Oh good grief! NOt this crap again.

No matter how many times you tell a lie, evolution, it still doesn't make it true.

If "natural selection" was a viable theory we'd all be perfect. To this day, imperfections in people are still not fully understood - deformities and other problems. Imperfections HAPPEN and "natural selection" is a farce that defies reality.
134 posted on 11/29/2004 8:14:21 AM PST by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc

"I was just kidding" - Moses, on describing his authorship of The Book of Genesis


135 posted on 11/29/2004 8:14:33 AM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive
We should be devolving if we follow this fundamental law of physics.

If your interpretation of the "law of physics" were correct, there would be no life at all, since every living thing violates your interpretation.

Of course, your interpretation of the second law is nonsence.

136 posted on 11/29/2004 8:14:41 AM PST by js1138 (D*mn, I Missed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping!


137 posted on 11/29/2004 8:15:44 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

What about the Norse mythology creation story? How about Islamic creation? What about Vedic creation? What about Last Thursdayism? What about the theory that the Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed the universe out? Should we give "equal time" to all of these (and many other possibilities) or should we stick with the scientific theory in science class?


138 posted on 11/29/2004 8:16:00 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...
The vast weight of scientific evidence and research supports intelligent design.

Not that you've bothered to support this assertion.

Ban both evolutionary and creation teaching from the public classroom. Great idea. Ban the teaching of evolution, because it makes people uncomfortable!

Here's the human eye - here's how it works, here's how it relates to the rest of the body, the biology of it, differences from one eye to the next etc etc - where did it come from? Oh, that's a mystery and we don't need to go there to understand the eye.

I'm sorry, but I do hope that you're not serious, because that is truly one of the more disgusting sentiments that I've heard in these discussions.
139 posted on 11/29/2004 8:16:33 AM PST by Dimensio (Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://www.aa419.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Instead, pupils should be given a framework for understanding the gaps in evidence and credibility between the two camps.

Sure. Jump right to graduate level biology and archaeology subjects when the students are reading at 4th grade levels. That'll work.

140 posted on 11/29/2004 8:17:09 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th% (Bush wins!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 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