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.

[VadeRetro]

I think you're confusing "generation" and "life span." Your model may be bad in other ways as well.

[Junior]

Evolutionists insist that evolution be taught in schools. What they fail to insist on is that it be taught as a theory (rather than a scientific law)...

Considering the difference between a scientific theory and a law has already been addressed, it is obvious you have no clue as to that to which you speak.

[PatrickHenry]

Are you trying to tell me that evolution says nothing on the subject of the very first species coming to life? Are you trying to say that Darwin does not theorize on how life began or begins? If you are, I suggest you go back and re-read his books.

Clearly, despite the tone of your post, you've never read Darwin. Permit me to assist you. Here is the last chapter of Origin of Species. Darwin mentions the origin of life in the last sentence of the last paragraph. That's all there is. Now you know.

[Dimensio]

Are you trying to tell me that evolution says nothing on the subject of the very first species coming to life? Are you trying to say that Darwin does not theorize on how life began or begins?

The very first life form would be the very first species. The theory of evolution does not cover how the very first life form came into existence, and this has been the case since Darwin wrote Origin of the Species. Darwin said that the process of evolution began once the first life forms came into existence, speculating (but not including as part of the theory itself) that it was the work of a Creator.

The method by which the first life form came into existence is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. It could have been natural processes causing various molecules to come together in the right formation, it could have been aliens seeding the earth, it could have been time-travelling humans planting the seeds of their own existence or it could have been a divine entity zap-poofing the first life forms into being, or it could have been something else entirely, and the theory of evolution would not be affected by one bit.

[DouglasKC]

I think you're confusing "generation" and "life span." Your model may be bad in other ways as well.

Generations would be even shorter. Life span for a fruit fly from egg to death is one week. Generations would be even shorter. I was being generous.

I don't care how it's set up. Set it up anyway you like. Find a shorter lived creature like a gastrotrich, some of which which has a 3 day life span.

The point being that surely someone should be able to make a fruit fly change evolve into something other than a fruit fly. Yet it hasn't happened. Why?

[Heartlander]

First off, intelligent design is not creationism.

Secondly, there is reason for cognitive darwinian dissonance.

[GarySpFc]

It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."
I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

You seem to think my interpretation is a false creationist's interpretation. WRONG! I am simply interpretation Collin Patterson's words literally, "But such stories are not part of science, for their is no way to put them to the test." The problem is the Darwinists' use of "justso stories," because there is no way to put them to the test.

[puroresu]

A billion generations of fruit flies would lead to nothing but more fruit flies.

[cainin04]

I have read Darwin's works--thanks for posting it though. I could not find an internet version, so I have had to try and thumb though the books to make my points.

That begin said, you can suggest that Darwin did not make the case for no need for a God if you wish (the origins of life and the non-directional or random change in living organisms), but that assessment is different than mine.

I make no bones about the fact that I agree with the majority of the book. Ideas such as "natural selection" are clearly true and nobody in their right mind would attempt to argue that fact.

But is the claim that existing animals and plants cannot have appeared separately but must have slowly transformed from ancestral creatures that I have a major problem with. Perhaps his later work "Decent of Man" is a better example of this than is "Species"--sorry if I have confused the two works during this discussion. This book elaborates on the transformation of species, a subject he did not fully discuss in "Origin of Species."

The theory makes the claim that humans evolved from apes! Nowhere in the fossil record is this suggested to be correct. It also goes against the God from the Bible--which I believe. If life did evolve in this way, there is no purpose for life and humans are nothing more than supped-up animals--and I disagree with that notion.

I apologize if my "tone" seemed harsh or that I had not read the material--I have--and I disagree.

[VadeRetro]

All quote-miners do the "He said it, I just quoted it" brazen. There's not an ounce of integrity in any of you. You're down to that. A creationist quote mosaic is a lying picture made with little bits of truth.

If you meant the quote the way Colin Patterson meant it in the context in which he said it, it's irrelevant to this thread. We have not been arguing about whether fossil A can ever be said with total confidence to be the direct ancestor of fossil B. (Or even fossil species A of fossil species B.)

If you meant the quote the way you appeared to mean it by waving it around on this thread, it's dishonest.

[PatrickHenry]

You still here? Good, because I want to tell you something. First, you have failed to give me your one best quote to examine. I've asked for it at least three times. Second, I've kept a log of your conduct in this thread ... the endless spamming, the several times I asked you to stop ... the times I asked you to give me ONE quote so I could examine its legitimacy ... all that stuff.

Now then, if you pull a stunt like that in any other science thread, I'm not going to wait around. I shall immediately hit the abuse button and request that you be banned as an abusive spammer. This is something I very rarely do, but I'll do it in your case.

So that's where we are. Or rather, that's the position in which you've placed yourself.

[Dimensio]

you can suggest that Darwin did not make the case for no need for a God if you wish (the origins of life and the non-directional or random change in living organisms), but that assessment is different than mine.

My assessment is based on the fact that Darwin specifically referenced a Creator in his work. What's your basis?

The theory makes the claim that humans evolved from apes! Nowhere in the fossil record is this suggested to be correct. It also goes against the God from the Bible--which I believe. If life did evolve in this way, there is no purpose for life and humans are nothing more than supped-up animals--and I disagree with that notion.

False dichotomy fallacy. Believe it or not, not everyone who disagrees with your theological viewpoint is an atheist.

[Enlightiator]

To: KTpig
It takes more "faith" to believe in it than Creation. Creation follows sound scientific principles.

You don't know the meaning of the word "faith." You also don't have a clue about the scientific method. But that's okay, because we're here to help: The scientific method.

Preaching again, Brother PartickHenry? lol. What the heck are you trying to do on FreeRepublic with your countless Evolution threads, convert the masses to your God, the "Evolutionary Process"? ;)

[NewLand]

By your own (threatening) words, you are now limited to providing one link to make your case. If you provide more than one, I will also hit the abuse button on you, which I probably should do so now considering the way you are threatening and harrassing this man. There is no rule that prevents someone from posting as much info as they want, especially if it is relevant to the topic of the thread, which it is.

You are NOT the dictator of FR or science threads or anything. Stop acting like one.

Gary, keep up the good work. You are making progress. Don't be intimidated. That has always been the EvoFreeps way of "debate".

[GarySpFc]

Well, Mithras was the son of god (Zoroaster) born of a virgin; he was worshipped on Sunday with a meal of bread and wine; he died and rose from the dead and he was prophesied to return and judge the world. His cult arose at roughly the same time as Christianity, and there is strong evidence that early Christians changed the day of worship from the Jewish sabbath to Sunday to accommodate and attract converts from Mithraism. It is widely accepted that Christianity did coopt the Dec. 25th birthday of Mithras.

Nonsense! br>
Christianity affirms the physical death and bodily resurrection of Christ. Mithraism, like other pagan religions, has no bodily resurrection. The Greek writer Aeschylus sums up the Greek view, "When the earth has drunk up a man's blood, once he is dead, there is no resurrection." He uses the same Greek word for "resurrection," anastasis, that Paul uses in I Corinthians 15.

Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of it's God and no concept of rebirth--at least during its early stages...During the early stages of the cult, the notion of rebirth would have been foreign to its basic outlook...Moreover, Mithraism was basically a military cult. Therefore, one must be skeptical about suggestions that it appealed to nonmilitary like the early Christians.

Mithraism flowered after Christianity, not before, so Christianity could not have copied from Mithraism. The timing is all wrong to have influenced the development of first-century Christianity.

[cainin04]

Ok, if you say that Darwin "specifically referenced a Creator" that is great.

Also, I am not calling anyone an atheist. If we simply disagree with the manner inwhich God Created the world and its life-forms, then we agree on the biggest point--THERE IS A CREATOR OF LIFE.

The original point of the discussion was that other theories should not be taught in school. I am totally open to marco-evolution being taught as a theory, but the other major idea that explains how "species" came to exist should be taught as well--ID.

Take the Fox News slogan "We report you decide." That is how it should be in the schools. You have to admit that many people (especially in college) have tilted toward atheism because they were taught that evolution eliminates the need for God (atleast that is how the professors I have had--except for one--presented it). On a many of college campus you will be laughed at if you believe in God--and the person laughing will cite his biology professor! This whole issue is nothing more than another example of liberalism run wild in our schools.

All I ask is that both sides of the story be presented and let people make their own judgements from there. I would think that the open-minded members of the FR would agree with that premise. I can't believe many of you do not.

[narby]

Gary, keep up the good work. You are making progress. Don't be intimidated. That has always been the EvoFreeps way of "debate".

Threat by Creationists is at the very heart of this issue. It is threat, by use of government power to insert religion into science class, that is at the center of this argument.

And as for making progress. That's funny.... Very funny....

[Junior]

Mithraism and Christianity formed about the same time. I wouldn't expect you to believe Christianity borrowed anything from Mithraism (Sunday, December 25th, whatnot) because you are renowned for dismissing evidence that disagrees with your particular world view.

[NewLand]

Friends of the EvoFreeps

[narby]

All I ask is that both sides of the story be presented and let people make their own judgements from there.

I'm sure the athiests will love that. An opportunity in a government run school, away from church teachers, away from parents, to start the discussion of Creationism vs. Evolution. And from there on to the discussion of "is there a Creator/God".

Those young impressionable people are going to make up their minds on their own what to believe. Probably never change their mind after that, as young people often set their beliefs early and never change them.

Oh, the athiests are just going to love that. And the Creationists are just begging for it too. Wonderful [/sarcasm]

I'm just astounded that it doesn't occur to some people that perhaps its better to surrender than fight an issue that really isn't central to faith in God. He has the power to have created Evolution too, you know.

They taught me in Sunday school to avoid temptation. Yet here Creationists are setting up their young children for the biggest temptation of all. To reject the existence of God completly, in a setting completly away from the influences of church or family.