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.
I have no objection to the private funding of Evolutionist teaching.
Have you any objection to the Abolition of Government Schooling?
I think you're being a bit naive, but mythologies can lull to sleep.
That's big of you.
Yes, I do. If we abolish public education, large numbers of children will not be educated. It's an unfortunate fact that a significant fraction of parents would not cater to this basic need if they were forced to pay for it out of pocket. And their kids, not they, would suffer. While I tend toward libertarianism in most things, I don't think society has progressed to the point where we can totally privatize K-12.
I'm sorry but atheism = contra theism.
It is contra theism.
For example, if you will, explain to me how you see God and evolution fitting together.
I *meant* that -- in trying to lecture me on being "UnChristian" -- you have about as much knowledge of my "transgressions" against Orthodox Presbyterianism, as I have knowledge regarding your personal life.
It was an illustration -- not of a claim, but of our mutual lacking for any claim.
On the other hand, if you want to believe that I was claiming to have followed you around taking snapshots of your nocturnal activities -- well, believe what you like. If you don't get my point -- whatever, it's a free country (shrug).
The issue of whether government schools should be abolished (they should) is moot because IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN any time soon. Most people will be educated in government schools for decades at least. As someone who cares about the scientific literacy of this country, it is a moral treason to lie to children and say that evolution isn't the best scientific theory about the diversity of life we have.
Sorry. I'm unwilling to debate Policy, without addressing the underlying Philosophy thereof.
It is both short-sightedness and intellectual cowardice to wrangle about what is, without considering what ought.
True, or False?
Considering that the very notion of "K-12" is a modern invention: I would ask why you think it is "progress" for society to "advance" to the notion that a Government Bureaucrat is, on balance, a superior arbiter of a child's educational needs than his own parents -- and that the same Government Bureaucrat should be supported, by coerced tax-dollars, in his one-size-fits-all determinations, generally taken in excessive proportion from the most productive members of society (who are therefore the best-equipped, intellectually and financially, to provide their own children with superior Free-Market tutors)?
Humph.
No, that would be antitheism. The alpha privative a- (or an-) is simply a negation.
Somebody shoot me, I'm about to post on ANOTHER crevo thread! What am I nuts? Anywhere, here goes....
This is a post I made a while back on this thread, and I think it fits in nicely here.
Someone posted to me, One of those [universal elements of Christianity], accepted by ALL Christian traditions for the past 2000 years is that sin entered the world through the fall of the man Adam and thus the restoration from sin required the sacrifice of Christ.
And I replied thusly: Yes, however I don't see how believing in the evolution of the human body negates this. I'm not denying the universal element you described. I do not believe that Adam is a "metaphorical construct" totally separate from reality. I simply don't believe it's important to know exactly how his body was formed to understand and accept the message of salvation.
I don't know if you're a Catholic or not, and it doesn't really matter for this conversation, but one perfectly valid way (in my opinion) of viewing our nature is as Pope Pius XII stated regarding evolution:
"...the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).
So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are. source
So what's this saying? Basically it's saying that it's the soul of man ultimately responsible for our nature. Our soul is that which defines us, not merely our bodies (although, being created by God, the body is a part of us, but it's not what defines us ultimately).
Thus, our bodies very well could have developed through the process we call "evolution" today, (even though this is, I believe, of course a process guided by God, but that doesn't really change whether or not evolution as a process is real), but our soul has never and is never "evolved"; the soul is created.
So did Adam, the actual person live? I believe so yes. But how did Adam's body come into being? Does that really matter? That's the question. I submit it doesn't really matter what you believe. It doesn't really matter if you believe that Adam's body evolved from a common ancestor with apes, or if you believe that his body was literally formed from the dust of the earth. It doesn't really matter because our salvation is not linked to our body, but rather what we do with our soul.
Now again, you may disagree with this, and that's fine. I'm saying it's perfectly fine to believe that Adam was literally created from dust. I don't see why other Christians though seem to insist upon forcing such a literal interpretation on others? (and that seems to be the reason these crevo threads keep popping up, because if we just had a "live and let live" philosophy on this issue, then we wouldn't have the crevo threads, much less the recent brouhaha in Kansas, or Pennsylvannia)
So, if you still remain unconvinced, if you still believe there should be only a strict interpretation of Genesis, then that returns us to the (my) original point, which is, "Why should we take Genesis literally? Why is your [or any creationist's/IDer's] opinion of Scripture any more superior to mine, or to Pope Pius XII'ths or, ...........etc?"
No, I didn't.
I said that there is a United States Appellate Court ruling, which (as the next-highest level) stands as United States Legal Precedent unless overturned by the USSC (as usual, however, the Appellate Court cites the USSC in its Decision).
Do you have a name for that case?
Decided August 19, 2005
"...The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky.v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 125 S.Ct. 2722(2005).... Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics. As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman’s religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise." (etc.)
True, or False?
Because some of the parents are crack-heads, drunks, compulsive gamblers, etc? For your sake, I'll leave out 'religious nuts'. But in any case, many, many parents are not fit to raise their own kids. Surely you don't dispute this? And it's really not the kids' fault.
I had my kids in public schools. I was perfectly free to select courses from a wide range of choices (which the kids wouldn't have had at the local Catholic or Christain high schools). They got a good education and high placement scores; one is in grad. school and one will be going next year. I'm proud of and happy with our school district.
most productive members of society (who are therefore the best-equipped, intellectually and financially, to provide their own children with superior Free-Market tutors)?
Well-off, concerned parents will raise their kids well regardless. They don't concern me. What concerns me is raising a generation that contains even more unschooled, unproductive, unsocialized thugs than the current one.
Libertarianism is a goal and an ideal, not a practical political reality for early 21st century America.
Gotta go, gang. I'll be back.
The Sup Ct case you say they rely on is here: McCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al., PETI- TIONERS v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF KENTUCKY et al..
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.