Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
MORE THAN A CENTURY and a half since Charles Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species," evolution remains a controversial concept among much of the population. The situation is quite different in the scientific community, where evolution is almost universally accepted. Still, attacks on the teaching of evolution continue.
The more recent criticism of evolution comes from proponents of intelligent design, a new label for creation "science." They claim ID is a valid scientific alternative to explaining life on Earth and demand it be taught in science classes in our schools along with evolution.
Although intelligent design is cloaked in the language of science and may appear at first glance to be a viable theory, it clearly is not. In fact, intelligent design is neither a theory nor even a testable hypothesis. It is a nonscientific philosophical conjecture that does not belong in any science curriculum in any school.
A theory in the scientific sense is quite different from how the word is often used in conversation.
Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. They are based on extensive data and their predictions are tested and verified time and again.
Biological evolution -- genetic change over time -- is both a theory and a fact, according to paleontologist Stephen Gould. Virtually all biologists consider the existence of evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated in the lab and in nature today, and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming.
However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanics of evolution, which are supported by data and are constantly being refined by researchers whose work is subject to peer review.
But there are many established facts concerning evolution, according to R.C. Lewontin, Alexander Agassiz Professor Emeritus of Zoology at Harvard University. He, as do virtually all biological scientists, agree that it is a fact that the Earth with liquid water has been around for more than 3.6 billion years and that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period.
We know for a fact that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old and that major life forms now on Earth did not exist in the past.
It is considered a fact by biologists that all living forms today come from previous living forms.
A fact is not the same as absolute certitude, which exists only in defined systems such as mathematics. Scientists consider a "fact" to be something that has been confirmed to such a degree of reliability and logic that it would be absurd to think otherwise.
Denying the facts of evolution is akin to denying that gravity exists. What is debatable, with both evolution and gravity, are the theories of the mechanics of how each operates.
Supporters of intelligent design vehemently disagree, but they do not offer alternative theories or verifiable data. Instead, intelligent design proponents attack evolution with misinformation, half-truths and outright falsehoods.
Intelligent design does not develop hypotheses nor does it test anything. As such, intelligent design is simply a conjecture that does not hold up to scrutiny.
False arguments
Unfortunately, intelligent design has considerable credibility outside the scientific community by making specious claims about evolution. Below are some of the leading charges made by intelligent design and creationist proponents in the past several years.
• Evolution has never been observed: But it has. Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population of living organisms over time.
For example, insects develop resistance to pesticides. Bacteria mutate and become resistant to antibiotics. The origin of new species by evolution (speciation) has been observed both in the laboratory and in the wild.
Some intelligent design supporters admit this is true, but falsely say that such changes are not enough to account for the diversity of all living things. Logic and observation show that these small incremental changes are enough to account for evolution.
Even without direct observation, there is a mountain of evidence that confirms the existence of evolution.
Biologists make predictions based on evolution about the fossil record, anatomy, genetic sequences and geographical distribution of species. Such predictions have been verified many times, and the number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming and growing, especially in the field of genetics.
Biologists have not observed one species of animal or plant changing quickly into a far different one. If they did, it would be evidence against evolution.
• Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics: It clearly does not. This law of physics states essentially that disorder increases in a closed system. Some intelligent design and creationist proponents say this means that the order required in the evolution of simple life forms to more complex ones cannot take place, at least not on a long-term basis.
What critics of evolution don't say is that the Earth's environment is not a closed system. It absorbs enormous heat energy from the sun, which is all that is required to supply fuel for the evolution of plants and animals.
Order arises from disorder in the physical world as well, in the formation of crystals and weather systems, for example. It is even more prevalent in dynamic living things.
• There are no transitional fossils: This argument is a flat-out falsehood. Transitional fossils are ones that lie between two lineages with characteristics of both a former and latter lineage. Even though transitional fossils are relatively rare, thousands of them have been found.
There are fossils showing transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to whale, the progression of animals leading to the modern horse, and from early apes to humans.
• Theory says that evolution proceeds by random chance: This is an example of a half-truth perpetuated by intelligent design and creation supporters.
Chance is an important element of evolution, but it is not the only thing involved.
This argument ignores other forces such as natural selection, which weeds out dysfunctional species, and is the opposite of chance.
Chance takes place in genetic mutations, which provide the raw material of evolutionary change, which is then modified and refined by natural selection. But even at the genetic level, mutations occur within the framework of the laws of physics and chemistry.
Opponents of evolution argue that chance, even enhanced by natural selection and the laws of physics, is not enough to account for the complexity of DNA, the basic building blocks of almost all life forms. (RNA is the foundation of some microbes). However, there literally were oceans of organic molecules that had hundreds of millions of years to interact to form the first self-replicating molecules that make life possible.
Irreducible complexity
The attack on evolution that intelligent design proponents use most often today is one based on "irreducible complexity." This has become the foundation of their attempts to cast doubt on evolution.
They argue that certain components of living organisms are so complex that they could not have evolved through natural processes without the direct intervention of an intelligent designer.
Michael Behe, a leading proponent of intelligent design, defined irreducibly complex as "a system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
In other words, irreducible complexity refers to an organism that does something (a function) in such a way that a portion of the organism that performs the function (a system) has no more parts than are absolutely necessary.
The argument made is that the entire system with all its parts, such as an enzyme used in digestion or a flagellum used to propel a bacterium (an example Behe favors in his defense of irreducible complexity), would have to come into being at one time -- a virtual impossibility.
If one of the parts were missing, Behe argues, the system would not be able to function, and thus a simpler, earlier evolving system could not exist.
It is not as easy as it may appear at first glance to define irreducible complexity because there is not a good definition of what a part is. Is it a particular type of tissue, a cell, or segment of DNA? Behe is not clear. But even if he were able to define a true IC system, his argument would fail.
There are several ways an irreducible complexity system could evolve. An early version could have more parts than necessary for a particular function. The individual parts could evolve. Most likely, an earlier version of the system could have had a different function.
This is observed in nature. For example, take the tail-like flagellum of a bacteria, which Behe says supports irreducible complexity. It is used for functions other than motion. A flagellum can be used to attach a bacteria to a cell or to detect a food source.
Thus, a precursor to a more complex flagellum could have had a useful, but different, function with fewer parts. Its function would have changed as the system evolved.
Simply put, the irreducibly complex system argument doesn't work. Most, if not all, of the irreducible complexity systems mentioned by intelligent design adherents are not truly IC. Even if they were, they clearly could have evolved. That is the consensus of almost all biological scientists.
Intelligent design is not science
The theory of evolution and common descent were once controversial in scientific circles. This is no longer the case.
Debates continue about how various aspects of evolution work. However, evolution and common descent are considered fact by the scientific community.
Scientific creationism, or intelligent design, is not science. Believers of intelligent design do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data.
Instead, it appears that their ideas are based on religious dogma. They create straw men like irreducible complexity or lack of transitional fossils, and shoot them down. They fabricate data, quote scientists out of context and appeal to emotions.
Intelligent design disciples do not conduct scientific experiments, nor do they seek publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Still, they have had an impact far beyond the merits of their arguments.
One of their most persuasive arguments is an appeal to fair play, pleading to present both sides of the argument. The answer is no. They do not present a valid scientific argument.
Within the scientific community, there is virtually no acceptance of intelligent design. It has no more place in a biology class than astrology in an astronomy class or alchemy in a chemistry class.
Are you saying that you believe in EVOLUTION?
It was not me who claimed "Everything I post IS factual." and then proceeded to step all over that statement in the same post.
I believe in micro-evolution - variations within a particular kind of animal - ie dogs will produce muts, chi-hua-huas, bulldogs, etc.. Easy. We observe it, it's common sense, nothing to argue about. Other than that, no, I do not. Evolution is a fairytale.
You seem to be a member in the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton school of feigned injury.
Actually, the theory of evolution does predict such nonsense.
And that's how you get from single celled critters to giraffes, one type of creature endlessly spawning different types of creatures. That is exactly what evolution requires.
You just want to take exception over how long it might take or how blatent it is. Having never seen it happen, you can hardly tell us how it happens to the extent that it ever has..
just an interesting tidbit, that.
You want it every which way, that you imagine will save you. You can't have it...sorry. :^)
I'll be more concise.........
You couldn't think up your own answer, so you CCPed the first thing you found on a site on line.
That just happened to be inaccurate and a Catholic slander.
When called on it, you made excuses, which don't hold water.
When told that not EVERYTHING found on line is accurate, you went into personal attack. Not only a personal attack, but an irrelevant, OFF TOPIC, nonsensical one.
You are still whinging.
And that, is the whole of it.
BTW...do you REALLY believe that everything you find, when researching something via GOOGLE or any other search engine is always correct? If so, then that IS problematical.
That's really quite a strange argument he's put forth, if you have stated it as he has written it here.
Because, as with most other things, you grossly misrepresent much of it, and grossly misunderstand the rest.
"Janitor from Mexico" placemark
I sort of see where you are going with this, but IF you use words to mean something that others do NOT agree with/have another definition for, then you are not only in the wrong, but you do your position no good at all.
In Europe, "corn" is used to mean GRAINS of all kind. That is just NOT the case in America, nor in scientific usage.
What about the appendix? It has no purpose now, yet all humans are still born with one. Is THAT evolution or purposeful selective breeding?
hehe. If you had valid arguments and any amount of proof you wouldn't have to resort to trying to convince people that your opposition is a liar, taliban, etc. Sound like the dims.. vacant, utterly vacant.
What a loon.(<--ad hominem)My first answer was calling the Ad Hominem attack, Ad hominem. You didn't believe that so I chose another source. Pick many. The "flawed" example comes from the holocaust site. It is repeated in numerous other places including --European Society for General Semantics.
Define "kind". Be specific. Give objective evidence for your categories. We'll wait.
Other than that, no, I do not. Evolution is a fairytale.
Right, pay no attention to the vast mountains of evidence for it and research confirming it... If Havoc chooses not to believe it, it just doesn't exist, end of story.
If anyone is showing "feigned" or any other kind of injury, for argument sake, it is you.
We do. We've posted great gobs of it, you just keep dishonestly pretending we haven't.
you wouldn't have to resort to trying to convince people that your opposition is a liar, taliban, etc.
It's not "resorting" to anything, it's telling it like it is:
The United States holds a very tenuous position in the world. Historically, our great physical resources counted high, but today more than any physical resource we rely on the scientific and technological superiority born in our nation's schools. President Bush has recently realized this and is belatedly promoting math and science education. There are international organizations which have targeted science in our public schools. Fueled by religious extremism, they aim to destroy science education in America. The word "Taliban" referred to students in religious schools long before it meant anti-American terrorists. We are under attack from another set of religious subversives no less dangerous. Amazingly, these operations are not hidden. They even boast of their growth and penetration, eroding America's thin technological edge. The Los Angeles Times has just published a long article (11 Feb. 2006) largely lauding the efforts of these enemies of knowledge. Times reporter Stephanie Simon sees this subversion by Ken Ham, CEO of "Answer's in Genesis Ministry, Inc." as recruiting children "... to stand up for God as the Creator." How does Ham do this? I have made careful study of many of AiG's phantasmal "evidences" and have found then to be a combination of gross exaggerations and out-right falsehoods. ( c.f. "Dino-blood and the Young Earth" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html ). Last I checked, God didn't need that sort of support. What Ken Ham is actually promoting is the active denial of creation's realities to promote his marginal (but lucrative) biblical interpretation, one rejected by thousands of Christian clergy in America alone. (c.f. The Clergy Letter Project, http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm ) Originally an Australian operation, today Answers in Genesis Ministries Inc. is actively seeking to destroy America's science and technology base by eliminating science education and replacing it with religious indoctrination. Ham flagrantly encourages children to disrupt classrooms across America with such stupid challenges as "Were you there?" I dare say that Mr. Ham was not present at his grandparents' conceptions. His mere existence is more reliable than any eyewitness accounts and allows us to infer that these multiple independent events occurred. Factual support for evolution is as strong, if not stonger. The Answers in Genesis operation swears that "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record," (AiG, Statement of Belief). Their version of the Scriptural record is at odds with that of many Christians, none-the-less they demand us to abandon physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, anthropology as well as history and blindly implement their beliefs. We already feel the consequences of their dangerous mission as evidenced by the growing need to import scientifically trained personnel to maintain our industries and a growing American reliance on foreign graduate students to fill our university science programs. There are home-grown organizations with the same goals. One prominent example is the Discovery Institute which promotes "Intelligent Design" creationism. However, their internal documents revealed a mission no different from Ham's. Gary S. Hurd, Ph.D.
Please do not feed the troll.
I'm not exactly a creationist and I'm not much of an evolutionist either. But I do actually know about evolution and creationism; neither of which is what anything you say has been said here, is factual in the least. Unfortunately, some people DO lie, when nobody will agree with them and then go into the "I KNOW THIS BUT EVERYONE ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE IS WRONG" bit.
I can and shall give examples, IF you ask me to; though it seems as though there are lots of others who know this about you, from their own reading of your posts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.