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.

[bondserv]

One has a eternal spirit the other doesn't.

[Virginia-American]

,,, how many new bacterial species have been seen? Any? ...

Actually yes, but they have been genetically engineered by humans...

here's a naturally-occurring bacterium that digests nylon. It would have had nothing to eat before the thirties.

[general_re]

Can we detect the existence of your soul by examining your bones?

Perhaps we ought to think of some other criteria.

[bondserv]

I know some animals. They are different than humans. Actually the word animal covers a wide variety of living things. Maybe we could just say humans are not animals, but animals are animals. :-)

Apes fall into the animal category. Humans do not.

[general_re]

It's not the most rigorous distinction we might hope for.

[bondserv]

It's not the most rigorous distinction we might hope for.

Humans have a unique creative, intelligent and relational nature.

These together are a clear distinction.

[general_re]

Humans have a unique creative, intelligent and relational nature.

Hard to detect that from your skull alone.

Perhaps we can think of something a bit more concrete.

[Dimensio]

Apes fall into the animal category. Humans do not.

Why aren't humans animals? What trait do they lack that makes them not animals?

[bondserv]

Hard to detect that from your skull alone.

Perhaps we can think of something a bit more concrete.

It depends on what we find with the skull. Apes generally don't leave cave drawings, flowers, armor, weapons, mementos, buildings, pottery... Results of the imbuing of the Creators image.

Better?

[bondserv]

Why aren't humans animals? What trait do they lack that makes them not animals?

Creative, intelligence and a desire for deep relationships. Animals are satisfied with none of these.

[Dimensio]

Sorry but I have zero intention of making my beliefs line up with others simply because they say they believe in ID.

Ah, so you have the one true ID belief, and all of the others are imposters?

Just like with the evolutionists, there may be lots of dissenting views and variations as to the details - or are you telling me that the evolution pushers DO get their story straight?

I'm saying that the disagreements amongst evolution supporters are nowhere near the magnitude of the disagreement between the claim that ID makes no claims regarding the nature of the Designer and the claim that ID speaks of a perfect, divine Designer.

My Bible says in several places that the creation was 'very good' - since this was in a pre-fallen world, that would mean perfect in my books.

What is "perfect", anyway? Could you explain what exactly is meant by "perfect"? It's a nice description for the unattainable, but when it comes to defining something that actually qualifies as "perfect", specifics get lacking.

Who's thoughts on this are you specifically referring to?

Yours. You claim that the world was "perfect" pre-fall. I'd like to know on what evidence you base that assumption -- beyond that of a 3000+ year-old religious story. I can look up the creation myths of popular religions on my own.

Nope, can't do it.

So you don't actually have any evidence. Thus it's not really something that science can explain. Of course, you left the realm of science by introducing a divine element into the mix in the first place, admitting up front that your version of ID has absolutely no place in school science classrooms.

However, there is tons and tons of evidence of a very different world that existed between the time of the 'perfect' world and the time of the flood and it was obviously very different from ours - but at what level of degradation creation had suffered by that point is an unknown.

Okay. Present some of this evidence, as it would likely turn a number of sciences on their heads.

This past weekend I had the opportunity to meet a fellow named John Mackay from Creation Research. He does digs all around the world - some of the fossils he has unearthed are absolutely stunning in their detail. Interesting thing is that many of the ones he showed are exact replicas of plants and animals that exist today - the big exception is that they are usually much much larger - a dragonfly with a wingspan of a metre, a horsetail plant which would have been over 10 metres high and so on.

Got a reference for his work? I'd love to see this.

Now, what is your one biggest single proof of evolution - take your best shot at the one thing you absolutely know to be true.

Sorry, science doesn't deal in "proofs", it deals in evidence. Nothing in science is ever "proven", and nothing can be said to be "absolutely known to be true".

[RightWingAtheist]

All animals have their own unique "creative, intelligent and relational natures," and this is evidence that behavior and intelligence are evolved characteristics which serve an adaptive function, as the specific intelligent and instinctual traits which are most favorable and iminicable to their survival are the ones which have won out. Our own mental and social structures have enable us to adapt to a wide variety of circumstances.

Why don't IDers ask themselves this: wouldn't the "intelligence" involved in the "design" of life have to evolved somehow, and if not, what designed the designer. Was Yahweh designed by Zeus, who in turn, was designed by Odin? Why can't they ever tell us who this designer is, or what its nature is, without resorting to the Bible or the Koran, or any number of other pre-scientific texts?

[RightWingAtheist]

Hey now! The Norse gods are PROOF of evolution!:

(And ID is a product of comic book minds!)

[AndrewC]

All animals have their own unique "creative, intelligent and relational natures,"

[Trinity_Tx]

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

---

LOL!

Seriously, though... IMHO, the real threat to our society is not the Theory of Evolution, but the high heel part of that picture.

[bondserv]

God calls Himself the "I AM". Yahweh. Jesus called Himself the "I AM" many times in the Book of John.

"I AM" implies inhabiting eternity. Outside of time.

For the Bible to describe God as inhabiting eternity prior to modern science's discovery that time is a physical property, lends much credence to those goat herders bead on the truth.

The prophetic record of the Bible convinces many, including Newton, that the God of the Holy Bible's ability to know the future clenches His ability to say that there is no other God besides Him.

Isa 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity,...

1Cr 8:4 ...and that [there is] none other God but one.

[jennyp]

God calls Himself the "I AM". Yahweh. Jesus called Himself the "I AM" many times in the Book of John.

Since the thread has degenerated into a religion thread, I have a question: Why is God ungrammatical? "I am the great I Am". OK...

"I AM" implies inhabiting eternity. Outside of time.

I Am Jenny. I yam wat I yam. No way does that imply anything about eternity. It simply says that I exist. And "I am Jenny" says it in a grammaticaly correct way.

Why does that "I Am who Am" line evoke such reverent awe with so many people? I just don't get it.

[AndrewC]

I just don't get it.

We know that. Would you be more impressed if God had said, "I am Fred"?

[jennyp]

Would you be more impressed if God had said, "I am Fred"?

Yes. That would be a parsable sentence.

[AndrewC]

Yes. That would be a parsable sentence.

So is "I am the great I am". As is "I am the man who shot Liberty Valance". But in any case, God spoke Hebrew, not English when He spoke to Moses.