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.

[Doc Savage]

Look genius, take the structure of a bird's feather. In order to "evolve" such a complex structure via "the evolutionary process" you would have to start at event A. Each of the countless additional genetic steps required to arrive at the completed structure requires a genetic mutation, the vast majority of which are lethal to the host. Further, the deletion, translocation, etc., to move from A to B (The end point being Z) must, according to your Darwinian Bible, occur at random, and these mutational changes must being successfully passed on to the next generation.

The odds of a "correct" mutational change occurring in the correct sequencing in random are so overwhelming that the odds of such a rachis and barb structure evolving are nil.

Irreducible complexity sides with Intelligent Design to a much greater degree than it does with Darwinian theory.

These are theories, not proven facts. If scientists had overwhelming proof that "evolution" has occurred, they would have long, long ago called a World Symposium and changed the name to the Law of Evolution. But they don't have that proof. Now it remains to be seen if they ever will, or if any of us will be able to prove differently. After all, we hardly know why we exist, let alone how we came to be as we are!

[narby]

To assume that over time dogs could "evolve" past their species boundary is just that, an assumption with no basis in the observable world of science.

I suppose that I'm only assuming that Earth history will go on, so I guess I am only making an assumption that dogkind would evolve into something seriously different given enough time.

Since Creationists have no described mechanism to their "species boundary" theory, then I will further assume that it is (to quote Dataman) "just a guess".

[narby]

Law of Evolution.

You need to back up and start with the posts on the differences between "theory" and "law".

You've got some reading to do.

[NJ_gent]

"The odds of a "correct" mutational change occurring in the correct sequencing in random are so overwhelming"

Two things; first of all, if the odds weren't overwhelmingly against this happening, then it would happen in 100 years instead of 100 million years. Secondly, evolution is driven by more than just mutation. It's also driven by genetic variation. Ergo, traits which may be pre-existing but dormant can, under the right conditions (and with a huge amount of luck) come to dominate a species. Genetic variation works hand-in-hand with mutations to drive forward the changes necessary for adaptation to occur.

"These are theories, not proven facts."

This is absolutely true, and anyone trying to claim that the theory of Evolution is either perfect or complete is extremely misguided. It is, however, probably the best scientific theory we have thus far which explains how species have adapted over time to changing environments.

[r9etb]

Alas, you're creating a hypothetical where I asked for a real example.

I gave you a clear example -- the thing you're typing on right now. It would have been incomprehensible to the "contemporary rational processes" available to the people of 1000 years ago. And yet computers are clearly not "mystical," they are obviously created. The methods and processes of a hypothetical designer could in the same way be so subtle and advanced as to escape our rational assessments. Again: this line of thought does not work.

After all, we've pretty much figured out the mitochondion, and that's orders of magnitude more complex than a transistor.

Uh huh. You see the irony in your statement, surely. To equate the figuring-out of a designed object, to the figuring-out of an allegedly randomly-formed object, simply points out the problem with your argument. What is it that would tell you the transistor was created? And what is it that tells you that the mitochondrion was not?

This is fun, but I gotta go. Maybe we can pick it up tomorrow.

[narby]

What is it that would tell you the transistor was created? And what is it that tells you that the mitochondrion was not?

When you can tell me how the creator came to be created, then maybe you've got a point.

[Dimensio]

Then "it all happened via random mutation" is likewise a fundamentally worthless statement for two reasons:

Not if fossil evidence reveals an impossibility for evolution, such as a large mammal in Precambrian strata.

[puroresu]

#####I suppose that I'm only assuming that Earth history will go on, so I guess I am only making an assumption that dogkind would evolve into something seriously different given enough time.#####

It would seem to me that the two things (earth history going on; "x" evolving into "y") are mutually exclusive. Not to mention that we have observed earth's time passing, but have yet to observe a dog evolving into something else.


#####Since Creationists have no described mechanism to their "species boundary" theory, then I will further assume that it is (to quote Dataman) "just a guess".#####

You're free, of course, to assume that it's just a guess that there are species boundaries, but dog breeders, chicken farmers, and many others have been crashing into those barriers for years. You seem to be saying, though, that barriers observed daily are "just a guess", but an assumption that those barriers could be breached, though such a thing has never been observed, is to be taken as a given.

[Trinity_Tx]

"is not GOD and His Word one of phoenix0468's sources...?"

For claiming that Darwin refuted his own theory?

You claimed that Patrick Henry was calling God Himself a Liar because he said the sources of that claim were frauds.

Patrick rightly said that was a completely false accusation and asked you to check, then to be decent enough to retract it.
Instead, you repeat your false accusation, and say you "will not be able to read and respond to your response to this post."

A shame, because you owe Patrick a huge apology.

(Freepmailed too.)

[Right Wing Professor]

I gave you a clear example -- the thing you're typing on right now. It would have been incomprehensible to the "contemporary rational processes" available to the people of 1000 years ago.

I'll stipulate your hypothetical, and claim that given a computer, Francis Bacon could have figured out in large part how it works, by suitable empirical tests.

The methods and processes of a hypothetical designer could in the same way be so subtle and advanced as to escape our rational assessments.

This is conjecture. More than that, it may be provably wrong. Mathematics, for example, has explored not just the algebra we use in high-school, but the set of all possible algebras. It has looked at the behaviors on N-dimensional spaces, not just the 3 or 4 dimensional spaces we live in. Moreover, I don't buy the idea that we can't distinguish with a high degree of certainty between a bug and a feature without the source code or a knowledge of the mental processes of the programmer.

[johnnyb_61820]

"There areobservable species boundaries."

Don't rely on your eyes - they'll lie to you far too often. Two animals that may look similar may be totally different species.

This isn't the eyes. This is actually the result of breeding experimentation for tens of centuries. There _are_ observable species boundaries.

Also, the lines between species isn't always clear. I think there are cases where breeding can still occur between genera. Classification isn't all its cracked up to be.

A progressive fossil record is the evidence, showing change through time. This is not equivalent with proof for evolution. Creationism allows for both (a) progressive creation, and (b) certain kinds of speciation. Both of which equate to change over time. However, thousands of years of breeder experimentation has shown that there are, indeed, limits to change.

Darwin's view on this was simply that nature both causes and allows more change than breeding. However, this is pretty much just conjecture.

[johnnyb_61820]

'Since Creationists have no described mechanism to their "species boundary" theory, then I will further assume that it is (to quote Dataman) "just a guess".'

It's called "existing DNA". Random mutations are usually harmful and degenerative (in fact, even the "beneficial" ones are still degenerative). If you aren't already programmed for it you won't be programmed for it tomorrow. Existing programs may break, however.

[narby]

However, this is pretty much just conjecture

And the idea that a space alien just snapped her fingers and there were creatures is not speculation?

I think it's a lot more believable that species evolved over time, given the fossil record at hand.

Yes, there are holes in the record. Just like there are holes in the evidence on what happened on 9/11.

But the idea that 19 arab hijackers did 9/11, and that evolution changed species over time are both the most practical answers.

Whether God was involved, in either case, is outside the realm of science.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . neutrinos are pretty 'iffy' . . .

Yes indeed, just like theories of evolution. As I said, since all these conclusions are based only upon observations of the status quo, there is no way to prove their history with any more certainty than the existence of God.

[MissAmericanPie]

That failure of the fossil record is rather a biggie. So big in fact that Darwin himself said his theory should be 86'ed if fossil evidence was not forth coming and it hasn't been. The study of DNA, genetics, species, certainly has it's place, but it's study should not begin at the point of an unproven assumption which is exactly what one branch of evolution teaches.

[puroresu]

Narby, just for the record, I wouldn't call it scientific to say that God created the universe and all life within it. That would be outside the realm of human knowledge and science, and a matter of faith.

However, I think proponents of the theory of evolution are often so dogmatic about their theory because it's viewed as a way to shove God out of public discourse. If evolution is treated as anything other than concrete fact, they feel it opens intellectual discourse to the possibility of God. This leads them to defend evolution in a way that is downright fanatical. They treat it as concrete fact, when it is really just a theory. And as a theory, it is sufficiently weak in terms of evidence and logic that its proponents really should be quite humble in putting it forward, rather than as arrogant as they often are.

[cainin04]

Ok--wow--if you submit that the theory of macro-evolution has nothing to do with how life began, then we are on two different playing fields.

My studies are fairly extensive on the issue of ID. I have never heard a scientist who claims that Darwin's theory is not a theory of the origin of life.

The very title of Darwin's book says exactly what his theory is about...Origin of Species. According to Webster's, "Origin" means--The point at which something comes into existence or from which it derives or is derived.

Therefore, this means he is giving his theory of--"the point at which "species" (living things) came into existence.

I do not understand your thoughts that the two have nothing to do with each other. But, I do believe this is where we are going astray on our debate.

If you are arguing that evolution could be the means by which God decided to produce life, you can make that argument, but it is not Darwin's argument.

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks for the support, but I don't expect an apology. They never apologize. These people are clueless, shameless, unprincipled, without honor, and no one of any consequence takes them seriously.

[RightWingNilla]

hee hee

[PatrickHenry]

600?