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.

[orionblamblam]

> Judeo-Christian principles permeate our reality.

Indeed so. But then... so do pagan principles and sources. The pagan Greeks gave us science, that lifts us from subsistence farming. The pagan Norse and Roman gave us our concepts of law. Today is named after the moon. Tomorrow is named after the Teutonic god of war. The day after is named after the chief of the gods. The month we are currently is was named by the pagan Romans. Our primary holidays are derived from pagan or secular sources... Christmas from Mithras, Easter from Ostara, 4th of July from revolutionaries, Yuri's Night from a bunch of Commies. Our western cultural heritage was in large part preserved by the *Muslims* of all people, only returned to the west after the conquest of Spain in the 15th century.

[r9etb]

I wouldn't hold my breath either since evolution doesn't work that way.

Yes it does.

[NJ_gent]

"Your example of chromosome change makes no sense since you can change the DNA sequence all you want and it's still DNA."

I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were referring to a specific nucleotide sequence that should be shared among all living things. To answer your original comment (now that I more accurately understand it), I'll say that everything (to the best of my knowledge) that's been classified as 'alive' thus far makes use of nucleic acids (including some things which are supposedly 'not' alive). I would also point to the part of my previous response in which I mentioned that multiple organisms could have formed independently of one another. If something did indeed develop and survived all this time that didn't make use of nucleic acids, I'd be impressed. However, from everything I've seen about how life as we know it functions, that would seem to be fairly difficult. I'd also point out that it's very possible that the first lifeforms on this planet made no use of nucleic acids whatsoever, and that nucleic acids only became necessary to sustain more complex organisms such as bacteria. Aside from all that, assuming we were to find a living organism which doesn't use nucleic acids, that would only prove what everyone but the zealot nutballs believe - that the theory of Evolution is neither perfect nor complete. It wouldn't suddenly mean that evolution's explanations about how RNA/DNA-using organisms developed over time - it would simply mean that there are some living things evolution does not explain.

"Prions may be an example of a stage of the process by which abiogenesis occurred, but they are not postulated to be a common ancestor to all living organisms."

Ambiogenesis is a nasty thing most evolutionists like to keep stuffed in the closet. I agree with you that prions could well be evidence that it is, in fact, a reality. Obviously, without some divine being coming down from Heaven to make life (metaphysics), ambiogenesis is a required part of evolutionary theory. I think the lab experiments in which amino acids and carbon compounds form under simulated early-Earth conditions also lend credence to ambiogenesis being a reality, but that next step (getting to something we'd actually consider 'alive') has not, to my knowledge, yet been observed.

"We have never seen any self-replicating organisms that do not use some form of nucleic acid."

True, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; hmm? :-)

"(I would consider DNA and RNA to be basically the same genetic material since their structures are so similar and mechanisms exist for the incorporation of ribose rather than deoxyribose into the sugar backbone of the chain.)"

Mostly agreed, though RNA does behave quite a bit differently from DNA, especially in terms of stability (for obvious reasons). Let's just say that, as a human being, I feel a hell of a lot better off with DNA, as opposed to RNA, forming the backbone of my genetic code. :-) As a side note, I sincerely doubt that early life forms would have used DNA. For one, it's rather bulky and wasteful for such simple creatures. For another, it would certainly slow down evolution by quite a ways, and that's bad news for early-Earth dwelling beings that need to (on the scale of a species) adapt quickly to an ever-changing hostile environment. RNA might be unstable enough to allow for the quick changes necessary, but I think something even simpler would have been more suitable.

"I was trying to provide a relatively simple example of an observation that would falsify evolution as it currently is understood."

Without undermining one of the pillars of evolution (specifically, the mechanisms that drive it), it's difficult to falsify it as a whole, though not terribly difficult to poke small holes here and there. If we had a complete fossil record, things would be far easier. As usual, Mother Nature is far from willing to comply there. With incomplete knowledge comes incomplete theories to explain it all.

"I would agree that ID is not a scientific theory. It is indeed unfalsifiable."

Which is why, from a scientific perspective, I find the idea unpalatable. I like things that can be disproven. I like things where evidence can be presented for or against. My problem with ID is that it inherently requires the application of metaphysics, which is beyond the range of good science. ID would probably look more acceptable to me in the total absence of a competing, testable theory. Thus far, the theory of Evolution has done reasonably well in explaining what we now see here today. ID seems to be stuck in the middle between creationists and evolutionists, with a plethora of supporters who all swing in different directions. Unless and until ID can put together a single-perspective argument that's able to be tested and doesn't involve metaphysics, I can't see myself looking toward it.

That being said, I find it far easier to swallow than the one about how the Earth was created a couple thousand years ago and the entire fossil record is a mass deception by God to fool us silly humans. I can only imagine that those folks must have been bleeding from the eyes after watching The Matrix for the first time...

[VadeRetro]

I've always liked Ichneumon's critique of Camp's critique of the 29 Evidences article. Sure saves lots of typing.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

...if anyone makes conservatism look bad, you're it because you have the anti-God message in common with the same "leftists" you hold in such low esteem.

Worth repeating. And the sad part is, he's not even the most outspoken atheist here at FR!

[ColdSteelTalon]

Nor is the existence of God, and thus, neither is "Intelligent Design"

You can have your Religion and I can have mine.

[orionblamblam]

> you have the anti-God message

That is a lie. You have nothing else to add, it seems.

[ColdSteelTalon]

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

Macro-evolution has never been obsevered and verified scientifically.

[orionblamblam]

> he's not even the most outspoken atheist here at FR!

How can I be, since I'm not an atheist?

Bah. You Creationists are not even worth talking to. You just make stuff up on demand to suit your egos. Sad.

[js1138]

The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the most documented event in history.

Define "documented" in a non-trivial manner.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I apologize for my quick response.

I still think from looking at your reply that what you're asking for is too tall an order for government school. This part alone, "A 'Framework for Understanding' would be logic, deductive reasoning, and the scientific method.", is beyond kids who read at a fourth grade level.

[narby]

Dataman sez: Theory, in the case of music, means 2. A set of rules or principles designed for the study or practice of an art or discipline. Theory, in the case of evolution, means, 4. An assumption or guess.

DM of course just assumes that He is the master of assigning which dictionary meaning is attached to which.

By the way, beware Dataman's penchant for changing the subject. I'm sure that will be coming soon.

[JeffAtlanta]

Yes it does.

No it doesn't. If you believe it does, then its no wonder that you have your doubts about evolution.

For starters, not all populations are able to adapt to their environment in a timely manner. This is why species go extinct every day.

[Modernman]

God is patient but, not forever.

Same thing with Allah, Zues and Shiva.

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

No, you subscribe to the Truth According to Newgeezer, which is just as credible.

[GarySpFc]

Quote mining usually involves taking a quote out of context or using the quotes of a non-authoritative person for that particular field. It seems very clever to the person doing it but its just sad and pathetic to those who have seen it all before.

Oh, then they cannot possibly be quoted correctly according to you. Yes, yes, and I'm also familiar with the pettifogging.

[bjs1779]

show me the transitional fossil, not just a toe bone and a lot of imagination

I should of been an evolutionist, I found solid proof already!

[Modernman]

show me the transitional fossil, not just a toe bone and a lot of imagination

Did you look at post #428?

[newgeezer]

It's little more than an evolved version of monkeys hurling their feces at each other.

Well, except for the "evolved" part, at least you acknowledge your position for what it is.

THAT is what I call an unfounded conclusion,

I wasn't the one who claimed to be "debating." However, my "unfounded conclusion" still seems like a good possibility based on what you've written about the "Christian God" and such.

jumped to out of ignorance and pride.

There you go again. You haven't a clue. Pride has nothing to do with it. Ignorance? Well, if in fact you do 'consider there is a Creator you must and will answer to someday,' I (1) failed to see any evidence of it, (2) trust you'll forgive me, and (3) wonder how you plan to face Him when that day comes.

[newgeezer]

No, you subscribe to the Truth According to Newgeezer, which is just as credible.

Mine is rooted in the Bible. Yours?

[Modernman]

Mine is rooted in the Bible. Yours?

Mithraism, which is what Christians copied to get many of their tenets.

Or Greek and Roman creation myths and culture, which is what our culture is mostly based on.

Or Murphy's Law, which seems to do a better job of describing the world than the Bible.

Take you pick.