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.
This is a false comparison. You need to compare the RC schools with other private schools -- the numbers would be very different.
Your grade: F-. Live with it.
I-can't-believe-I-read-all-this-crud placemarker.
I would be wrong based on the text. Frodo carried the ring.
Someone, however, could come along and say, "Well, Gandalf really "carried" the whole enterprise, and in that way it could be said that he really carried the ring to its doom."
The first is exegesis: simply reading what's there.
The second is eisegesis: reading into the text.
The Bible includes no notion of "theisic evolution."
It simply isn't there. It has to be "read in" by some other means.
The bottom line is this: the Christian faith is revealed in the pages of the Old and New Testament. There are some things that are not in the pages of those texts,and among them are: (1) the 3 billy goats gruff, (2) the ID, the ego, and the Super-ego; and (3) Theisic evolution.
It is not a false comparison. Of all the schools in the area, the private schools (to include Catholic schools) have far fewer students and far outshine the public schools academically. (And athletically, too, in most seasons....although my county school alma mater won the state last year. :>)
It's simply a fact.
You can give me a zillion reasons for why you think it is that way, but you cannot change the fact that it is that way.
Reading his reply, it appears he's going for box number 2. A one trick pony, our tallhappy. You know no biology. I know no biology. Only tallhappy knows biology. Appearances to the contrary are, like fossils, the work of the devil.
Looks that is what humans are all about is pre-suppositions.. according to their qualia.. Each human has their quales.. some convex some convoluted in other ways.. All formulated in simple or complex iterations of them.. Who is free of them?.. Most humans have no idea the difference between their body and their spirits.. except thru superstition or some mythical quales..
How to get free of them?.. maybe we can't.. The last thing the arrogance of humanity would propose.. Freedom from those cherished "realities".. That we are mice in a maze for a test.. and thats a good thing... may be the last thing any human would admit.. i.e. that the reality we see is stunted ON PURPOSE.. and mathematics is a parlor game in the maze.. With the deepest mathematic formula known to current humanity is;
1 x 1 = 1... 1 + 1 = 1 and that 1 / 1 = 1..
Could very well be.. At-one-ment being the lesson..
lol. No pain/no gain.
It is? Seems to me that, if we leave aside theological questions such as whether evolutionary theory should be taught in schools, public compulsory education is morally neutral - and, given the increasing level of technical ability that is required simply to compete in a national economy, may be a moral imperative.
In Dec. 2005, the unemployment rate of those without a high school diploma was around 8%. The unemployment rate for high school graduates without any college was around 5%. The rate for those with any college or an associate degree was around 4%. With a bachelor's degree or higher, the unemployment rate was under 2%. Also interestingly, the college-educated saw the most stability in employment in the time-frame between Dec. 2004 - Dec. 2005. The high school dropouts saw wild fluctuations in the unemployment rates - as high as 9% in August 2005.
Neglecting education dooms children to a future of either unemployment or dependancy upon the government. And you want to say that compulsary public education is immoral? You're wrong, my friend. Your issues are not with the concept of public education - or at least it should not be - but rather over whether evolution belongs in that curriculum.
Actually, to get hyper-technical, a 7th Cir. ruling is binding precedent only in the 7th Cir. In my own circuit (the 2d), it might be pursuasive authority if the Court considers the arguments compelling, but it is nothing more.
No one says to "neglect education," just remove it from the public bureaucracy and return it to the private sector under parental leadership.
If member accountability is good for our government and good for our Presbyterian church, it's likewise good for the education of our children.
And the vacuous PTA does not count.
Frankly, that idea frightens me - but not for the reasons that you might think.
Most of the parents in the circles in which I, and probably you, move would probably be able to do just as well or better if they were able to select their kid's schools with vouchers, or if the vouchers could be applied to home-schooling costs. But there is no shortage of parents who have no business making those sorts of decisions about their kids - they'd end up sending them to the educational equivalent of the con nursing homes you see on 60 Minutes.
Public education is important because there are some things that children need to learn in order to participate in a democratic republic. If we are going to grant the franchise to all citizens, then all citizens need to be indoctrinated into the basic beliefs of America, and the fundamental knowledge and skills they need to making a living - whether the parents like it or not. The question, therefore, is not whether or not schools should exist; the question is whether evolution belongs in the curriculum.
Guess I outed myself as a statist.... but Thomas Jefferson, as an advocate of public education, would probably agree with me on this one.
I don't mean to be rude, just informative.
Then make sure your information is correct.
The National Merit Scholars ARE selected on the basis of their SAT scores. That is the determining criterion.
Ahem:
Oh, look, filling out and sending in an application is a necessary part of the NMSP program. Just as I said.
And since you brought it up:
...and I went to a public high school school.
...and yet I can't type without stuttering, apparently.
Member accountability works in the Presbyterian church because the church is a community you choose to associate with, and if you don't like it, they can ask you to leave.
Society, however, does not have those solutions. I've seen too many parents who couldn't give a damn about their children's educations. They;re too busy with with their sexual affairs, booze, drugs, pimping around, and plasma TV's. Parents like this shouldn't have a say as to whether their children get an education. These kids will grow up to be voters and, if they don't learn a trade or a knowledge-set, I'll have to pay to support them on welfare. No thanks.
That sounds a lot like things I've been saying for quite a while. I wouldn't stop anyone from choosing a private school, but the demise of public schools would have a downside of the "unintended consequences" variety. Here are a couple of past posts I've written when that subject came up:
I can't think of a single good reason why people can't choose between an 'evolution-in' school and an 'evolution-out' school.And:I'm not against school choice or vouchers or home-schooling, but I *can* think of "a single good reason" or two why there might be a downside to it.
1. It accelerates the balkanization (i.e. cultural fragmentation) of America. For better or worse, uniform public schooling has been one of the stronger influences assisting the "melting pot" effect of America.
2. It's not going to help America's competitiveness in today's technological world when a significant portion of the younger generation has been taught that large portions of established scientific knowledge are bunk, that scientists in general are deluded fools, and that science itself is a poor way to acquire knowledge about how things work. Many parents would choose to send their children to schools which taught these views.
But there's a silver lining to this ominous cloud -- it will hasten the demise of government schools.Works for me, since it appears they are beyond repair, unfortunately. I'm concerned, however, that if all public education is done via private schools, before long it would lead to (or since it may already be underway, hasten) a Balkanization of the US.
In the past 2-3 generations, the biggest forces maintaining the "melting pot" nature of the US have been public schools, and TV. Back when TV (and before that, radio) was limited to a few major stations, everyone was exposed to the same news, same broadcast opinions, and the same entertainments (e.g. the sitcoms on the "big three" networks and "American Top 40" on radio all across the country) to be discussed around the water cooler. Whether they accepted those opinions or not, or viewed the news in the same way, etc., it still provided a central, core, common focus to American life that everyone shared as a society.
Likewise for public schools, which while they suffered from many of the problems of institutions formed by consensus (i.e. community consensus, state standards, etc.), they still provided a common foundation of facts, ideas, and teachings which everyone shared as a starting point for their lives.
But with TV and the news/entertainment sources fractioning into thousands of cable channels and internet sources, and primary education devolving into countless private schools and homeschooling, is there really any common American experience anymore? While there are many upsides to parents and individuals being able to choose and customize their own news, entertainment, and educational choices, the big downside is that America may fractionate into multiple insular social groups which find little if any common ground with others, and even less reason to seek any.
Like the Balkans, we may find ourselves with a single geographic expanse inhabited by multiple groups of people with incompatible religious/social/political "national" identities.
Not only that, but you ignore the fact that you said, A much better indicator would be raw SAT rates or some other indicator
Raw SAT qualifies them in the first place.
They were selected from 15,000 finalists and 1.3 million high school students who entered the program by taking the 2002 Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test as juniors.
All finalists compete for one of the National Merit $2,500 Scholarships. The number of winners in each state is based on its percentage of the national total of graduating seniors.
A selection committee that included college admissions officers and high school counselors reviewed the information submitted by finalists and their schools, evaluating each finalist's academic record, scores from two standardized tests, leadership, essay and a written recommendation.
And that's how education should work, too. The private sector can educate children far better than today's unionized, socialistic, homosexual-leaning bureaucrats.
Parents like this shouldn't have a say as to whether their children get an education.
When you get to be a parent, your condemnation of other parents will have more weight.
They just don't get it from reading the bible which is the foundation of the Christian faith.
Since theistic evolution can only be read from "nature," then we are not dealing with the God revealed in the Bible. We are dealing with some other god who hangs around a long time in his laboratory prodding living things in certain directions.
He must be long-lived, wouldn't you think? Or is he a series of beings who hand down this herding/breeding task on their own demise? But.....I speculate......don't I?
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.
