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.

[stremba]

Why, do you seriously believe that if we found an earthly organism which had its genetics based on silicon oxides, that this organism is descended from a common ancestor as all the other life on earth? I would contend that an earthly organism with a silicon oxide based genetic material would be conclusive proof that evolution is false. I am not contending that such an organism will ever be found; that is not what is necessary for a theory to be falsifiable. It is only necessary that such a hypothetical observation exist. (BTW, there are many other potentially falsifying observations for evolution. This is not the only one.) What is the observation that would make you give up ID?

[Dataman]

So if I say that the reason I discount ID as an alternative scientific theory is where and how it is being used - not to foster real research, or to develop a better understanding of the world, but to alter the way we teach science in schools - then that would be a second reason, and I've falsified your statement, no?

Only if naturalism has a credible explanation for design. So far as I've read, the bulk of the effort has been invested in attributing the appearance of design to illusion. This is not an explanation of what we observe, but a denial of it.

[Right Wing Professor]

Setting up a bacterial colony to produce speciation through random mutation under selection pressure would be an experiment.

Problem is, the criteria we generally use for speciation don't apply to bacteria, which don't need to interbreed to reproduce.

[stremba]

My argument is not designed to argue against ID. It is designed to show that evolution is potentially falsifiable. Would you not conclude that the theory of evolution is false if you saw an organism that has silicon oxides as its genetic material. Such an observation would be fatal to evolution. We don't know for sure that such an organism will never be found. Evolution predicts that such a creature will never be seen, though. Therefore evolution is falsifiable. I imply nothing about ID in any of this. I do ask for a similar example using ID as a starting point. Namely, give me an observation that, if actually seen, would render ID false.

[PatrickHenry]

Let's not abandon our wonderful cyber-relationship. You spammed this thread with dozens of quotes taken from fraudulent creationoid websites, you ignored my repeated requests to give us a link to the bunch of them rather than spamming me with that stuff one at a time. Then, in post 164, in an attempt to halt you abusive avalanche of trash, I said:

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?

You haven't complied yet, except to tell me that all the Provine quotes are the best of the bunch. Are you ever going to give me your one best quote to play with? Are you still going to stick with Provine as your best example? Or, after I posted some genuine quotes from Provine, at post 293, are you now hiding under the bed?

Don't let it get to you. Remember: Creationism is never having to say your sorry.

[Modernman]

Or an intemediate between cats and dogs..any link!

The TOE would predict that there are no transitional fossils between dogs and cats;dogs did not evolve from cats nor vice versa. They share a common ancestor which was a predatory mammal but was not a dog nor cat.

[Right Wing Professor]

So far as I've read, the bulk of the effort has been invested in attributing the appearance of design to illusion.

All this comes down to finding objective criteria for design, and no one has - at least there's no consensus. I might be able to come up with some, but you wouldn't like them. As I suggested previously, in intelligent design, form follows function - but in fact, in nature, form very often follows phyogeny, not function. Intelligent design is parsimonious, efficient, and rational - but nature often 'solves' problems several different ways, and makes irrational choices between alternatives, at least viewed from the standpoint of function. Why design a penguin flipper like a bird wing; and not design a bird wing like a bat wing, or a penguin flipper like a whale flipper or a fish fin?

The closer you look at nature, the less designed it looks.

[VadeRetro]

How about half a wing, maybe fossiled. Or an intemediate between cats and dogs..any link!

Is this a wing or a dinosaur's claw?

As for an intermediate between cats and dogs, why should there be an intermediate form between you and one of your cousins? Unless you mean your grandfather, whom one or both of you may take after or not. The grandfather of cats and dogs would be the miacid, "e" in the figure below.

Moving further up the taxonomic hierarchy, the condylarths and primitive carnivores (creodonts, miacids) are very similar to each other in morphology (Fig. 9, 10), and some taxa have had their assignments to these orders changed. The Miacids in turn are very similar to the earliest representatives of the Families Canidae (dogs) and Mustelidae (weasels), both of Superfamily Arctoidea, and the Family Viverridae (civets) of the Superfamily Aeluroidea. As Romer (1966) states in Vertebrate Paleontology (p. 232), "Were we living at the beginning of the Oligocene, we should probably consider all these small carnivores as members of a single family." This statement also illustrates the point that the erection of a higher taxon is done in retrospect, after sufficient divergence has occurred to give particular traits significance.

Figure 10. Comparison of skulls of the early ungulates (condylarths) and carnivores. (A) The condylarth Phenacodus possessed large canines as well as cheek teeth partially adapted for herbivory. (B) The carnivore-like condylarth Mesonyx. The early Eocene creodonts (C) Oxyaena and (D) Sinopa were primitive carnivores apparently unrelated to any modern forms. (E) The Eocene Vulpavus is a representative of the miacids which probably was ancestral to all living carnivore groups. (From Vertebrate Paleontology by Alfred Sherwood Romer published by The University of Chicago Press, copyright © 1945, 1966 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. This material may be used and shared with the fair-use provisions of US copyright law, and it may be archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that this entire notice, including copyright information, is carried and provided that the University of Chicago Press is notified and no fee is charged for access. Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on other terms, in any medium, requires both the consent of the authors and the University of Chicago Press.)

Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record

[newgeezer]

That's a fine distinction. Same one used by Dean, as a matter of fact, when he'd trot out some psychotic conspiracy theory against Bush.

Wow. Previously, you compared me to "leftists." Now, to the hated Howie Dean. That's really an effective technique (if you're a third-grader)!

God is good and just. If you want to mock His word, you do so at your own peril.

[Dataman]

But leave it to Creationists to force their particular interpretation of the Bible onto public school children. They seem incapable of patient, quiet, humble, pursuasion.

Funny, that's exactly what naturalists are doing- except with taxpayer funds. If you people were persuasive, you wouldn't be losing the battle so badly.

[VadeRetro]

That said, however, is not GOD and His Word one of phoenix0468's sources (if not the only one)?

Not so far. You still haven't been right yet.

[stremba]

So humans caused the first single celled creatures to evolve into eukaryotes, and then into multicellular creatures? If not, then give me a way to test and see if some other intelligent designer did so. We are talking about different things. Certainly humans have interfered with the development of species for the past 30000 years or so. As far as I know, this is not what ID claims, however, nor is it particularly controversial. ID typically claims that some pre-human intelligence has interfered with the development of species at some point during the past billion or so years. What observation would falsify this claim (which we don't know for sure happened)? This is the claim that I am maintaining is not scientific. Not all true claims and ideas are scientific, BTW.

[PatrickHenry]

We're still waiting for the experimental verification part.

Where is the [allegedly mandatory] experimental verification for any of the following?

1. The solar system
2. Contenintal drift
3. The Big Bang
4. The cause of the "Meteor Crator" at Winslow Arizona
5. The cause of volcanos
6. The existence of periodic ice ages on earth

Would you care to reconsider the necessity of experimental verification?

[Ichneumon]

Bookmark for later.

[puroresu]

Actually, I do know how it supposedly works. Accumulated mutations over time are preserved by natural selection. It's not a complicated theory in that respect.

I just see no hard evidence to support such a theory, particularly to the degree of declaring anyone who doesn't buy into it to be some kind of ignorant hick. It reminds me of the arrogance of the liberal pundits who are painting Red Staters as being illiterate for having the audacity not to buy into their theories. And evolution is **ONLY** a theory.

[Rammer]

You would think a single mutation is all it would take. Just one.

[narby]

And evolution is **ONLY** a theory.

You missed the class on what a scientific theory is. Check out some of the early posts.

My daughter takes classes on Music Theory, and somehow I don't think there's any question about the fact that music exists.

[newgeezer]

Or maybe you're the one that got it wrong. Your rejection of Hinduism will lead to some very unhappy times for you in your next life. Personally, I consider Jesus to be a knockoff of Mithras.

Since you haven't experienced the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I am not at all surprised by your callous and confident mocking. But, if/when you receive His call, I hope you'll answer it. God is patient but, not forever.

Just pointing out that ignorance and lack of respect for other religions is not a virtue.

I don't subscribe to The Truth According to Modernman.

[VadeRetro]

Actually, I do know how it supposedly works. Accumulated mutations over time are preserved by natural selection. It's not a complicated theory in that respect.

So your whole previous post which ignored variability to concentrate on selection was just strawmanning.

I just see no hard evidence to support such a theory...

I'm going to guess that there's no making you see. Heck, let's make it a little scientific experiment, shall we?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. There's a lot of evidence there, but will someone who doesn't want to see it be able to see it?

... particularly to the degree of declaring anyone who doesn't buy into it to be some kind of ignorant hick.

Let's make some distinctions. There's ignorance. Then there's willful ignorance. Then there's militant ignorance.

... And evolution is **ONLY** a theory.

Theories are good. Science uses theories. Myths are useless.

[r9etb]

It's indeed telling that we haven't found anything of the sort.

You don't know whether "we've" found purposely manipulated genes or not. The going-in assumption is that a genetic characteristic (whatever it might be) occurred as a result of random mutation. That might be a valid assumption, or it might not -- but the incoming bias would automatically exclude the possibility of a purposeful genetic manipulation. Still, we know that humans do genetic manipulation all the time, so it is not scientifically sound to a priori exclude the possibility.

I'm not using my own ignorance. On the contrary, I'm saying, I know quite a bit about design, and what I look at in nature doesn't fulfill many of the criteria of intelligent design; efficiency, parsimony, etc.. If you're claiming that is because I'm in some way ignorant, then you had better show how.

You've argued against design on two bases. First, by criticism of design choices; and second, that what you see doesn't make sense to you. Arguments from "efficiency, parsimony," etc. are merely variations on these two themes, and they presuppose you have the knowledge to understand the design in place (if such a "design" were actually to exist). They do not address the question of design; rather, they address only your (or my) inadequacy in recognizing and understanding a design.

It's viable only if you throw out Occam's razor and empiricism..... The problem with 'designer' based origins is that, as best we can tell, one needs an incredibly powerful and intelligent designer who made many many idiotic choices. Is that likely?

Although at first glance this has the appearance of a powerful argument, in fact it reduces to silliness. On the one hand, you cite the need for an incredibly powerful and intelligent designer; and then you're apparently claiming that the same results could have occurred as a result of random mutations, with no intelligent interaction. So it's simultaneously an incredibly difficult, and an incredibly simple problem.

And, once again, we see that your argument has reduced to the same two claims: you'd do it differently ("many many idiotic choices); and "I'm not smart enough" ("incredibly powerful and intelligent").

Once again: these are not arguments against a designer. They're simply an admission that you are not adequate to the task of being a designer. (Nor am I, but I'm not trying to argue against a designer.)