Designed to deceive: Creation can't hold up to rigors of science

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Stick around here and you'll see that the current hyper-posting creato-troll is only slightly more deranged in his rejection of reality than many internet promoters of creationism. Witness the number of FR creationist regulars who have patted him on the back in the thread, and the almost total absence of creationists attempting to stem his tidal-wave of nonsense. Surely there are at least some sensible creationists who find him an ambarassment. You'd think so, but apparently not. His witless laughing at his own feeble non-jokes *guffaw*, and delusional declarations of victory every time he sets up a straw man are entertaining at first but soon pall. Reading the whole thread would be an education for anyone rational who thinks there might be something to creationism, but probably not the kind of education that most creationists would like us to get.

By your assertion I guess we are down to the meaning of is and are, whatever nopardons.

No, actually he isn't.
Well my assertion stands on its own against yours, that is it.

You make this assertion against mine and then you ask a question, but give no corresponding answer to the question as it applies to your assertion. Then you make a conclusion based upon that.

nopardons, it appears to me you already have all the answers you want, the conclusions too, they all fit neatly for you. You may try to change this sometime if you wish.

Your conclusions, as your perceptions, as your questions
are wrong.. DOH!!

Wolf

I think that there are some parts of creationism that are true. Does that make me sensible partial creationist?

If so, then chalk me up as finding his posts and theories idiotic and objectionable.

BTW, I also find parts of evolution theory to be false. But since we all have appendixes, which do nothing, I can only assume that they once had a purpose, but through evolution, they no longer do.

And now, good night...................

What about the appendix? It has no purpose now, yet all humans are still born with one. Is THAT evolution or purposeful selective breeding?

I'll start with this first, because the latest information says it has something to do with the immune system. You might check your facts. It does serve a purpose. Not knowing what that is completely doesn't make it vestigial. That's the problem with scientists canonizing untruths as facts until they figure out what the truth is.

Second, This is a US political forum in which I give not one hoot what Europeans do with regard to corn. If you are confused by "corn" you have more issues than I can tell you how to deal with. I don't believe that to be the case. It largely resembles picking knits. Average people understand what corn is. And as I noted before, that is primarily why I use it - because they know what it is. It's called clarity. They also know what dogs are rather than some two to five word latin mess. Dog, we all understand. Simplicity. If I say a dog producing a dog, people get it. That level of clarity also disallows you from getting away with saying that a dog produced a non-dog because your label of "species" infers that to be the case. It isn't. You started with and ended with a dog. Your goal is to show macroevolution. Dog making dog is micro. Micro and macro are inequalities meaning you got work to do. Evidently, ya'll don't want to fess up to that or do the work or offer proof. Too bad. Not being mean, just not being hoodwinked.

You picked something which was not only completely irrelevant to the claimed, by you, ad hominem, but that which did not uphold your claim in the first place.

You are delusional! I picked an example of Ad Hominem in a discussion of Ad Hominem. You can hardly get more relevant than that. The example showed that name-calling was Ad Hominem. It is an example found on numerous sites. And finally, Ad hominem in the abusive form will abuse someone. That is why it is called abusive Ad Hominem.(although some ad hominem is not abusive but you can guess why post 1188 is missing.)

First off, there is poor Mamzelle, and his/her wild imaginings that there is really no group of pro-evolution people on FR...that in fact, those who support evolution can only number 2 or so posters, who obviously operate under many different screennames, and just spend the whole day posting to each other all the time...you know, Mamzelle has tried to float this delusional idea on other threads, I suppose trying to drum up support for this weird notion(and of course, his/her effort is a complete failure)...but, rest assured, he/she will keep trying to push this notion, you work with what little you have got...

Of all the posts that I wrote last night, the one I signed AndysAndMikesMom was the most fun. I write most of the creationist posts too, deliberately making them as stupid as possible (though I think people may be starting to notice the deliberate idiocy and suspect something), because that way its easier for me with my limited intellect to dispose of those arguments under my assorted evo personas. I'm not any of the posters with 2 M's though. They are all Slim Shady, who is an FR crevo debate fanatic, and he also ghosts Ichneumons postings. Dr Dre (whose PhD is from Harvard in physical chemistry) helps with some of the other evo responses; all the evo posters beginning with 'R' and 'V' are him.

I think that there are some parts of creationism that are true. Does that make me sensible partial creationist?

Numerous sensible people think that parts of creationism are true. I imagine the Pope does for example, yet the RC church is not in conflict with science. The creationism referred to on these threads has a more particular meaning, which is the rejection of science (particularly biology, but often also atomic physics, geology, paleontology, anthropology, archeology, astronomy, cosmology, genetics etc) because the findings of those sciences are at variance with one's religious beliefs.

Again, hogwash. Creationism in no way rejects science. Christians don't reject science. This is just a lie repeated endlessly as a scare tactic. It's propaganda hoping to be bought as truth. Christians and non christians have a serious problem with Evolution. And Evolution isn't science, it's ideology.. hence the need to lie about "creationist" goals to destroy science. Pure lies.

The thing that scares you is that your ideology might not recieve public funding anymore and that it may possibly force people to do actual science. No more gravy train. And wouldn't it be aweful if science was held to standards that required results. How aweful. Moaning and gnashing of teeth to be sure. The boogie man will get you.. booo.

I just wrote you a rather thorough answer, but have deleted it. It is both more or less against FR's rules and bad form, to write what I did; though it WAS all correct.

Instead, I ask that you read but two old thread: "WA-MART HOSTS APPRECIATION PICNIC FOR WALTER REED PATIENTS" and "DEMOCRAT UNDERGROUND THREAD on putting a ceiling on what a person can make a year." Both of these threads are from 2004.

BTW, he agrees completely with the DUers, that there should be a cap on what anyone and everyone is allowed to earn.

If this reply still doesn't satisfy you, I'll write you the facts, that I am laoth to do on this thread, in private. Or, you can always go read ALL of his postings.

Good night...................

Just to confirm that you don't reject science, and it is just evolution that you reject, which of the following mainstream findings of non-evolutionary science do you endorse?

The earth is billions of years old
The universe is billions of years old
Life on earth is billions of years old
There has been no global flood in the last several-million years
There has been no global flood in the time that men have been on the earth
There is no genetic bottleneck in the world's species in the last ten-thousand years
Archeologists have identified sites with continuous habition in the US going back ten-thousand years

The thing that scares you is that your ideology might not recieve public funding anymore and that it may possibly force people to do actual science. No more gravy train. And wouldn't it be aweful if science was held to standards that required results. How aweful. Moaning and gnashing of teeth to be sure. The boogie man will get you.. booo.

As I don't make my living out of science in any way shape or form your question has no application to my circumstances.

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.

While it's very often impossible to make any sense out of your posts, I"ll take a shot at this one. (At least you weren't madly laughing your head off while posting it.)

Allow me to point out how utterly moronic your concept of "kinds" and "dogs having dogs." Do you then realize that the brand of evolution you accept (so-called "microevolution") actually far outpaces and is far more fantastic that what evolution actually "does?"

That is, in your little head, the "dog kind" (whatever that may be) somehow produced everything from dingos to wolves to poodles to hyenas, etc. In 6000 years, give or take. The irony here is that you accept evolution on a much faster and grander scale than science does.

And while we're talking, could you please define this "micro-evolution" you so readily accept? I'm curious as to when nature (or God) knows when to hit the button to stop it from becoming a so-called "macro" event.

Ah, evolutionist dogma. Not science. Thought you were going to tell us all that we're trying to wreck science - you know, a mover of our economy, etc. You're interested in trying to play a shell game to say one thing when you're really trying to protect dogma by lying. I would say, if the science is accurate, you have nothing to fear, if it's not, then you should fear for your dogma, not science. lol. Kinda thought science was self correcting anyway.. isn't that the refrain?

As for whether you yourself make money from science, I didn't infer it. I merely posited there'd likely be no more free rides and that ideologues might actually have to work for a living producing real science instead of wasting taxpayer money on fairytales.

Thanks for your concern, but since you've been hostile and semi-pathological on previous threads, you'll understand why I don't take your sincerity at face value?<<

But you still come here at the slightest provocation.

You are a brilliant man. That is obvious. But you are perfectly willing to waste your time on these threads. I'm not that concerned for you. I hope you can take care of that yourself.

Just remember when you said something incredibly stupid, you retreated to the mods. You are not that boisterious icon that you imagine yourself to be.

You're just a man. Like everyone else. You have not a clue what a species is. But you are willing to harague a poster if they don't know what a dog is.

That is why evolution is a crappy theory.

Crappy defintions, crappy theory.

Got any GOOD applications?

Didn't think so.

DK.

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.