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.

[GarySpFc]

“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!”

Bozarth, G. Richard, “The Meaning of Evolution,” American Atheist (February 1978), p. 30

[stremba]

Natural selection does not require perfection. Natural selection selects for individuals with genetic makeups that are such that these individuals are more likely to reproduce. Creationism, OTOH, does imply perfection (unless you believe in a God who isn't perfect).

[newgeezer]

FR has this thing called the "View Replies" link. Check it before posting, and you might discover someone already covered your point.

Thanks anyway. :-)

[PatrickHenry]

It sounds as if you cannot stand the heat.

The heat? It's the spam that's getting a bit too much. Tell you what. Pick your favorite quote from among all those you posted. The one that makes what you consider the strongest case for your side. Post that one again and I'll deal with it. Prediction: It's either (a) out of context; (b) untraceable; (c) by someone who's not a professional biologist; or (d) worthless for some other reason. But I promise you if you give me your very best quote I'll deal with it. Then, we can go on to your second favorite. Okay?

[orionblamblam]

> 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."


You ARE aware that C.S. Lewis had a death-bed conversion to Islam, aren't you?

[Shryke]

Really? Would you care to bet?

[stremba]

Of course those don't count. Show me evidence, but any evidence you have doesn't count.

[Dimensio]

Yeah, I did check your sources. At least one of your quotes is phony.

Tell me again how you're intellectually honest?

[orionblamblam]

> macro evolution is not verifiable.

How so? If you observe a species evolve into another species... blammo, it has been verified.

[narby]

two-thirds of Americans said they wanted to see creationism taught to public-school science pupils alongside evolution.

Oh, yeah, there's a good way to help convert non-believers. Take a bunch of impressionable young people, put them in a GOVERNMENT run classroom. And have the teacher put a religious belief up against science with physical evidence in abundance.

Guaranteed to spark an immediate discussion of "proving" the existence of God, and cement the idea forever in many young people's heads that He doesn't exist.

Believers can shoot themselves in the foot so bad sometimes. I mean they're only talking about some Old Testament stories, not anything really important in everyday religious life.

There is no real conflict between Genesis and Science, except in the minds of some believers.

Then we get into the possibility of puting all those animals in the Ark, and how was it that Noah saved all those dry land plants from drowning?

[GarySpFc]

“Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with deterministic principles or chance. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable. The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.”

William B. Provine, “Progress in Evolution and Meaning in Life,” in Evolutionary Progress, ed. Matthew H. Nitecki (University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 65 Provine was Professor of History of Biology, Cornell University

[Dimensio]

Snopes can't be trusted. They're a liberal website. We know this to be true, because they've "debunked" a number of unflattering stories about liberals that we want to be true.

[GarySpFc]

“The conflict is fundamental and goes much deeper than modern liberal theologians, religious leaders and scientists are willing to admit. Most contemporary scientists, the majority of them by far, are atheists or something very close to that. And among evolutionary biologists, I would challenge the reader to name the prominent scientists who are ‘devoutly religious.’ I am skeptical that one could get beyond the fingers of one hand. Indeed, I would be interested to learn of a single one.”

William B. Provine, “Progress in Evolution and Meaning in Life,” in Evolutionary Progress, ed. Matthew H. Nitecki (University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 69 Provine was Professor of History of Biology, Cornell University

[Dimensio]

Ah, another dishonest creationist mined quote.

[NJ_gent]

"It assumes that matter does the work of mind."

Without explaining this at all, I can only imagine that you believe there is a will behind genetic variation and gene mutations. In fact, some mutations are fatal, others do nothing at all, others cause such severe problems that the organism is unable to live long enough to breed, and once in a long, long time, a mutation will be beneficial to an organism.

Give a blind man a gun and tell him to shoot a target. If he gets it on the first shot, then it's almost certain that there was a will guiding his aim. The theory of evolution, however, says that if you give the guy a few billion bullets, have him fire in random directions, and give him a few million years, he'll eventually hit the bullseye.

Gene mutations are a provable fact. Genetic variation is a provable fact. Natural selection is a provable fact. The only question is, what happens if you let them all play together for a few million years? That's what the theory of Evolution describes - what happens, under different circumstances, if you let those three main forces play together over long periods of time. Combined with the fossil record, it paints a reasonably complete picture, considering how young we are as a species capable of observing it.

"Thirdly, the system is thoroughly atheistic, and therefore cannot possibly stand."

No good scientist so readily dismisses things. Anything is possible - it's all a matter of probabilities. You can apply Occam's Razor to put together a rather plain understanding of things. Most of us enjoy a bit of complexity in the world around us, as that fuels the imagination and the natural, innate curiosity of man.

"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."

And what of those who leave themselves open to possibilities on both sides of the fence? Einstein was a religious man, yet he explained a lot about the world to us mere average folks. His was a genius not constrained by any dogma - religious or secular - which allowed him to persue the ultimate goal of truth unencumbered by such inflexible preconceptions.

"God called a living germ ... into existence," ... "since that time God has no more to do with the universe" "This is atheism"

Belief in God is atheism? Or is it that not sharing your particular beliefs about God is atheism? It's understandable that a system which doesn't require any maintenance at all would seem foreign to such imperfect beings as us, but is it truly beyond the realm of possibility that God created just such a system? In the argument between creationists and evolutionists, I find it striking that few seem willing to acknowledge the concept that the Pope has already said: that evolution need not be incompatible with religion or religious beliefs.

I also find it funny when I think about how some must view the early Earth - with men running around being chased by dinosaurs. :-)

[Shryke]

Aw. Poop.

In reality, I am actually hoping he claims something of that nature (eyes closed, fingers in ear kinda thing) so that we can produce even more evidence.

[GarySpFc]

“A widespread theological view now exists saying that God started off the world, props it up and works through laws of nature, very subtly, so subtly that its action is undetectable. But that kind of God is effectively no different to my mind than atheism. To anyone who adopts this view I say, ‘Great, we’re in the same camp; now where do we get our morals if the universe just goes grinding on as it does?’ This kind of God does nothing outside of the laws of nature, gives us no immortality, no foundation for morals, or any of the things that we want from a God and from religion.”

William B. Provine, “Progress in Evolution and Meaning in Life,” in Evolutionary Progress, ed. Matthew H. Nitecki (University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 70 Provine was Professor of History of Biology, Cornell University

[Oztrich Boy]

Bozarth, G. Richard, “The Meaning of Evolution,” American Atheist (February 1978), p. 30

Strangely enough, that's exactly what Ken Ham says. Who said Atheists and CReationists can't agree?

[orionblamblam]

> Then again, maybe Hitler was right, if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it

Thus explaining the Creationists.

[Modernman]

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

I've heard this explained that we only really understand what 10% of our brain is for, but that doesn't mean we don't use the other 90%.