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.
"..explain to me how you see God and evolution fitting together." ~ xzins
Here's how one (non-RCC) Christian scientist sees it fitting together:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-93Fisher.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF3-94Fisher.html
~ Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
As the previous pope pointed out, there are several theories of evolution. When OP speaks about evolutionISM, he is referencing the specific theory of evolution embraced by atheists like Dawkins.
The terms "evolution" and "creationISM" must be specifically defined before one goes on to use them in arguments. It's a matter of semantics - the words mean different things to different people. I see people wasting time arguing apples and oranges here all the time.
For example, I think the previous pope nailed down the bottom line pretty well when he said:
"..What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.
A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
5. The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God. The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God willed for itself."
In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity, and self- giving with his peers.
St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created. But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity.
All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ. It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God.
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ..."
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/articles/johnpaul.html
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). The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.” In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”Source: here.[snip]
In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes nontheistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.
[snip]
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.
This is no big deal. Protecting the alleged sensitivity of a prisoner.
The important thing to remember is that the whole issue of atheism being religion or not is not relevant to evolution. Evolution isn't atheistic.
Where is this God of whom you speak and where is this belief you are speaking of recorded?
Good post, but I find no revelation detailing Pius XII's opinion.
It is speculative.
Correct. Only the mindless claim that science is some kind of competing religion. Instead of getting themselves all worked up about science, they should worry about Islam (their brothers in creationism).
" Where is this God of whom you speak and where is this belief you are speaking of recorded?"
Lots and lots of people believe this. It's called theistic evolution.
I did already know the term, but I do thank you.
However, what I'm asking for is the sacred document that clearly reveals this doctrine you have named?
"However, what I'm asking for is the sacred document that clearly reveals this doctrine you have named?"
Does all theism have to be based on a sacred document? Besides, most theistic evolutionists are Christian.
Semantics. Tell it to one of the most out-spoken mouthpeices for scientists, Dawkins. His definition of evolution IS atheistic.
Of course, his definition of evolution is in reality, evolutionISM because it embraces a materialistic (naturalistic) doctrine of origins.
How about yours?
Here's what you keep missing -- we don't have "a story" that we need to "get straight". We're not spinning any "story". It's the *creationists* who have a story they have trouble agreeing upon or reconciling with reality.
Science, on the other hand, just determines what the evidence indicates -- what an examination of the real world tells us about what really happened.
I say that dog breeds developed rapidly because indeed they did. We say that the Earth is on the order of four billion years old because indeed it is, as indicated by overwhelming amounts of evidence. It's not about trying to "beg credulity" or what "bothers" us or not. It's about finding the truth, by examining the real-world evidence of what actually occurred, and testing potential explanations against that reality.
*Creationists* are the ones who keep scrambling to justify or reconcile a pre-existing "story" they'd like to maintain in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. Science on the other hand is the province of those who prefer to find the "story" that reality itself tells us actually happened, whether or not it matches our preconceptions, whether or not it matches any "story" we might have had in mind to start with, whether or not it "begs credulity" (and many scientific discoveries do, like quantum physics -- *very* strange stuff), or whether or not it "bothers" someone who would have prefered to cling to ancient myths.
Science is about finding the truth, *wherever* it leads, without regard to personal wishes or cherished notions.
Get that through your skull for a change and the majority of your bizarre misconceptions about science, about us, and about your fears of having your beliefs challenged will vanish. ...or is that what really bothers you after all?
"Good post, but I find no revelation detailing Pius XII's opinion. It is speculative." ~ xzins
I didn't mean to imply that I agree with that specific "immediately created" aspect of what he wrote.
See the chart of the periodic table of elements HERE, that FReeper TXnMA posted a while back. Below the chart, he/she(?) made this significant point:
"Note that it was the "dust" that was "created", and that man was "formed" (a process that occurs across time)." 89 posted on 09/20/2005 9:50:11 PM EDT by TXnMA
Gotta get to work, now.
Thank you, MPI, I'll check out your suggestions.
And entertaining, albeit short-lived, and in a macabre sort of way.
The subject I asked you about is "the origin of matter", and I don't think you "told me" yet. If I'm mistaken, please tell me again, just to clarify. Because from some of the things you write, you gave me the impression that you hold to a naturalistic (materialistic) view of origins, is that right?
Yes, I agree with that.
However, their thoughts on this subject are pure speculation. There is no sacred text that reads "out" this notion. It is an idea that can only be read "into" the text.
This is the interpretive fallacy known as eisegesis.
I don't want to belabor my point, though. The bottom line is that theistic evolutionists have no supporting revelation. They made it up. They needed evolution to fit creation, so they came up with this answer that has "God guiding the evo process."
There is nothing, however, in sacred Christian scripture that SAYS such a thing.
No, you don't. You just have your own ability to misunderstand, and to misrepresent in a way that isn't fooling anyone. You're only fooling yourself when you think that your trolling is helping your cause. Instead it just highlights the frequent confusion, lack of education, and dishonesty of the typical anti-evolutionist.
I got one telling me there's a conspiracy to destroy the sciences when he's selling it on the basis that it will destroy tech advances and his proof is that he's afraid his ideology will go down the toilet as he picked topics of proof that deal not with tech; but, with his ideology (evolution).
Again, you are frantically misrepresenting the actual discussion, and you're doing it very transparently. Do you think that actually helps your credibility any?
On and on. It's a target rich environment.
Yes, we know you can fling childish ridicule in all directions. Liberals do that as well. But the only target you hit is your own credibility. Why do you bother?
If I took you guys on the road for three days and just let you carry on, you'd do more damage to your own cause than Me, Hovind, Ham,
Yeah, yeah, yeah... That's what Michael Moore says about conservatives too, and for the same reasons.
Nonetheless, despite your bluster, I very frequently get thoughtful FreepMails from screen names I've never seen before (i.e., people who lurk more often than they post), making it clear that between your "side" and my "side", they have no problem recognizing who is doing "damage" to their cause and who is winning their respect. Here's one of the most recent ones:
It doesn't appear as if you're fooling anyone, Havoc -- they see right through you.Re: False Fear Epidemic over Critical Analysis of Evolution Spreads to Wisconsin
From [elided] | 02/08/2006 4:59:56 PM CST read
I have been reading your posts on these ID threads for a while and I finally had to drop you a few lines saying how much I enjoy reading them.
I really didn't know much about the ToE beyond what I learned in my freshman plant biology class, but I have learned a tremendous amount by reading your posts and links.
This subject is a bit personal to me.. I attended a small religious school for elementary/high school and our science curriculum espoused creationism (This was in the mid-late 90s.. I dont think ID was the fashionable term yet). Anyway, not even knowing most of the factual evidence for the ToE, I thought [ID] was garbage back then.. the textbook the school used had all the creationist strawmen in them, Piltdown man, finding a watch on the beach.. logical fallacies even an 8th grader could pick out.
Anyways, just wanted to say thanks for increasing my knowledge in the subject. As an aside, I have to say you are a much more patient man than I am. I dont think I have ever seen a more willfully ignorant or intellectually dishonest group of posters than ID proponents .. (possible exception might be the 'true believers' who inhabit some of the War on Drugs threads.. :P )
Btw, has anyone even attempted to rebut your retrovirus evidence for common descent? I see on most threads people clamor for evidence and then promptly ignore what you post.
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.