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.

[Dimensio]

The Bible is a collection of different books from different time periods cobbled together all at once.

It also states that bats are birds, grasshoppers have four legs, rabbits chew cud, that the earth has "four corners" and that you can produce striped animals by having the parents mate while looking at a specific pattern.

[Dimensio]

The second law of thermodynamics (or the law of entropy) seems to work against the spontaneous generation of life.

If the theory of evolution actually addressed the "spontaneous generation of life", I would expose your ignorance of thermodynamics and how it works. However, evolution doesn't address that topic, so I'll leave it alone.

[newgeezer]

No. What you did was an intentional untruth. That's not better... that's doing the Liberals job for them.

What in blazes are you talking about? If you honestly believe my playing with your punctuation -- and plainly showing the change I made -- was intended to deceive anyone about anything, your tinfoil hat is way too tight.

Creationist (noun): Shock troops for the Leftists.

Evolutionist (noun): syn. COMMUNIST, NAZI

There, are you happy now?

[Modernman]

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

What makes you say that? Anyway, define "perfect." Naked and unarmed, which species is more "perfect," humans or hyenas?

[PatrickHenry]

Attention: Stop stalking me with those stupid quotes!

I'm trying to be fair with you. Read post 164 and respond to that. If you ignore it and keep stalking and spamming me with your junk, I'll hit the abuse button. Got it?

[Dimensio]

You don't really have an argument, do you? You're just tossing out an endless stream of quotes -- many of them dishonestly taken out of context or even outright lies -- and hoping that they mean something even though you apparently lack the intelligence to comprehend them yourself.

[GarySpFc]

"Lynn Margulis is Distinguished University Professor of Biology at the University of Massachusetts. Lynn Margulis is highly respected for her widely accepted theory that mitochondria, the energy source for plant and animal cells, were once independent bacteria cells. And Lynn Margulis says that history will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology." At one of her many public talks she asks the molecular biologists in the audience to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge goes unmet. Proponents of the standard theory, she says, "wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin -- having mistaken him......Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations), is in a complete funk.""

page 26 [Source: Mann, C. (1991) "Lynn Margulis: Science’s Unruly Earth Mother," Science, 252, 378-381]

[narby]

Forget the numerous missing links hoaxes and fallacious ascent records we used for many years to "prove" the religious nuts wrong.

Trying to establish some "guilt by association", that if there was one fossil hoax, then they "all" must be hoaxes is not a good argument for religious people to make. Others could talk about Jim Jones, Catholic alter boys, and many other such scandals in religious circles to tarnish the image of any religious person.

Those who live in glass houses....

[ThinkPlease]

So Gary. Since you are sure that these quotes are authoritarian, I dare you to produce context on EACH ONE of these quotes you are spamming us with. That includes the qualifications of the speaker (so we can all verify that he's qualified to speak accurately), as well as the sentences (if a written work) around which the quote has been taken from. I think if you especially look at the Patterson quote, you'll see that it has been misquoted by who ever thought it'd be a good idea to use it. What do you think of the credibility of a website that would misquote someone as "proof" of their theories. Is it ok because it is in the name of God?

[Legion04]

About 200 years ago or so, the church was against the THEORY that the earth revolved around the sun. I need not say more.

[Modernman]

One beneficial mutation? Here you go:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/23/sci-tech/muscles040623

[orionblamblam]

> What in blazes are you talking about?

You saying that observable facts are codswallop. It's utter insanity on your part. Perhaps you wish to deny the basical sperical nature of Mars, too?

> Evolutionist (noun): syn. COMMUNIST, NAZI
> There, are you happy now?

No, I'm not. I'm always dismayed to see that there are self-professed Conservatives who will believe such utter rubbish. Liberals looking for Useful Idiots need look no further that Creationism discussions... they will find many Conservatives ready ands willing to stain the entire moevement with crackpot superstitions.


P.S.: Neither the Commies nor the Nazis had any use for Darwin. The Commies were Lamarckians... the Nazis were deep, Deep, DEEP into Intelligent Design.

[Right Wing Professor]

Great. Just what we needed; more mindless graphics.

[qam1]

The Bible was written thousands of years ago. Yet, it was written with the knowledge that: the earth is a sphere- and hangs on nothing, stars numbered in the billions, light is in motion, the evaporation cycle, paths in the sea, winds blow in cyclones, air has weight, etc.

The Bible also says that unicorns, cockatrices and sayters are real creatures and the stars in the sky are just little lights that can fall to the ground and be "stomped on"

[KTpig]

"What "Creation"?"

Yes, there are many myths, the Genesis Creation account stands up to scientific laws/principles.

"ignorant of scientific terminology and those trying to play dishonest semantic games."

This seems prevalent from the evolution side of this discussion. I don't clain to be an expert, but I am not totally ignorant or dishonest.

"Really? Could you elaborate on this, or do you think that simply asserting it and running off is sufficient to make a reasoned argument?"

On what do you base this "running off" theory? You need more data.

In a nutshell, Creation is more in line with the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics than evolution. Something does not come from nothing and the organized tends toward disorganization.

The expanding universe shows it had a beginning and requires an outside source. "Chance" is unlikely, our planets and the life on it requires very specific conditions. There was a plan. There is adaptaion but not evolution. Genetic code does not allow reproduction outside of a species. Homology can show similarities but not relation.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Tell me again how you're intellectually honest?

Why don't you guys stop harassing members by calling them liars? I can cite a number of instances of scientists being dishonest and lying about findings if you'd like. Why would they lie unless their theory was bogus?

[GarySpFc]

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?

Take all of the William Provine quotes together. He clearly made those comments and they are not taken out of context. BTW, I also have some of his comments being made on video.

[BibChr]

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

Snip.

...evolution is thoroughly supported by a vast weight of scientific evidence and research

In other words, it is majority vote. It's just that it is a CLOSED vote. Only those who already agree get to vote. No other votes count.

Dan

[NJ_gent]

Genetic mutations are an observable and verifiable fact. Genetic variation is an observable, verifiable fact. Natural selection is an observable, verifiable fact.

Evolution is the theory that describes what happens when they play together over a few million years under differing conditions. Your request to see masses of evidence from a 150-year time frame is ridiculous when the overall scope is in the millions of years for drastic evolutionary species divergence.

You did, however, ask for beneficial mutations. Here is a nice page laying out a bunch of beneficial mutations in just humans. If you look at the grand scale of all organisms, from bacteria to primates, you'll see a vast array of beneficial mutations that have been observed in the small time we've been looking. From that page, here are a couple:

"Lipoprotein lipase (LPL) is the rate-limiting enzyme in the lipolysis of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, and the gene coding for LPL is therefore a candidate gene in atherogenesis. We previously demonstrated that two amino acid substitutions in LPL, the Asn291-Ser and the Asp9-Asn, are associated with elevated triglycerides and lower HDL cholesterol and are present with greater frequency in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients than in normolipidemic control subjects. Conversely, a third frequent mutation in this gene, the Ser447-Stop, is reported by some investigators to underlie higher HDL cholesterol levels and would represent a beneficial genetic variant in lipoprotein metabolism."

"These results demonstrate that a mutation in splice donor site of intron C can result in several variant mRNA transcripts and even permit partial correct splicing of FXIII mRNA. Further, even the minute amount of correctly processed mRNA is sufficient for producing protein capable of gamma-gamma dimerization of fibrin. This is a rare example of an inherited functional human disorder in which a mutation affecting splicing still permits some correct splicing to occur and this has a beneficial effect to the phenotype of the patients."

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Don't like it? Find another forum.