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.
Lie #10.
You don't understand chromosomal structure.
Lie #11.
This is the problem. You are talking about something you understand only as words you've read about but you don;t know what they are.
Lie #12.
It always comes down to this.
Yes, it does always come down to you making baseless false accusations you are unable to substantiate.
lol.
But if you don;t know a sine is a repeating element you just don't get it. By the way you talk one can tell you don't really understand it.
As I said your interest is commendable.
I have not "overlooked" that at all. Of course they must. But the point is that a school can have a ton of high-scoring SAT students, and still end up with fewer National Merit Scholars than a school which has fewer high-scoring SAT students, if the poorer school more aggressively works to get their qualifying students *applied* than the better school.
Thus my original point: The number of NMS scholars is a poor indicator of educational quality, since there is a factor involved (application rates) which can significantly affect the results for a given school. Instead, let's just compare SAT scores *directly*, and not number of NMS scholar finalists as you have attempted to do.
They qualify based on the test, and then further consideration is based n a combination of tests, essay, academics, etc.
...none of which will results in an NMS finalist if the student or school drops the ball and doesn't bother to ensure that every qualifying student actually SENDS IN AN APPLICATION.
Not only that, but you ignore the fact that you said, A much better indicator would be raw SAT rates or some other indicator
Where in the hell do you hallucinate that I "ignored" what I wrote?
Raw SAT qualifies them in the first place.
Yes, I know. But that still doesn't change the points I've raised. If you're still unclear on the point I'm making as to why NMS numbers are not necessarily a good indication of school quality due to the statistically biasing effect of self-selection, try reading it again until the little light goes on.
Because they are.
But if you don;t know a sine is a repeating element you just don't get it.
If you think that I ever said that they weren't, *YOU* don't get it. On the contrary, I stated that they were. Work on your reading comprehension, and/or stop lying about what I've written.
By the way you talk one can tell you don't really understand it.
By the way you talk one can tell that you frequently lie, and can manage to totally screw up even elementary issues in biology and randomly post citations to papers which you apparently didn't read and/or understand.
As I said your interest is commendable.
Your behavior is not.
...we are dealing with the God revealed by reality.
Most believers in the Bible prefer to reconcile the two, under the assumption that the one described in the Bible is the same one as the God that matches reality.
You, however, denounce this as a "fallacy".
Others prefer to simply reject reality if it contradicts *their* personal reading of what they think the Bible is saying. For example:
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record,"There's a word for people who deny reality when it contradicts their personal beliefs...-- AnsersInGenesis, Statement of Belief
I'd respond by saying work on your writing skills.
What are the differences we have? Try to get away from constant shrill screaming lies.
What point are you making. Where do we differ on a specific subject or topic?
It does change the point that you wrote.
Besides, this is an easy enough debate to settle.
We can look at the number of SEMI-FINALISTS for the Nat'l Merit Scholarship. They are made same by virtue of their test scores.
I'm betting that the public skools around here would sell their own sister to Satan to get one additional NMS semifinalist. And unless he/she has a criminal record, they will send that kid's file up to the next level. (And even if they do have a criminal record which is sealed for juveniles)
Do I have to go look this up, or do you just want to believe someone who's lived in this area a long, long time?
Actually, I'm the Prof. And that was a professional as in "for pay" project.
Live with it.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
"Let God be true, and every man a liar."
As you can see, it requires no such thing that I reject evidence. My attitude is very simple, I have confidence that the future will reveal more and more that will continue to demonstrate that God is correct.
I do not reject; I hold it in abeyance until the explanation arrives.
Didn't some geneticist recently postulate "Eve" as the mother of humanity?
The bottom line: (1) The Bible is right; (2) The bible is wrong.
Why would it be right in its overall message, if it is wrong in its foundational message? That is, Christ's atonement was necessary because of the fallen race of man descended from Adam.
If Adam is a "myth," then what does that say about Christianty? And what does it say about evolution's real attitude toward Christianity.
On the one hand....myth. On the other hand...factual knowledge.
It says that evolution is actually atheistic.
No, it most certainly does not.
Besides, this is an easy enough debate to settle. We can look at the number of SEMI-FINALISTS for the Nat'l Merit Scholarship. They are made same by virtue of their test scores.
That would be a somewhat better indicator, but even that will still bias towards schools which push their students to take the PSAT in order to qualify for the NMS. Trying to qualify for the NMS is listed as one of the most common reasons for taking the PSAT/NMSQT , and indeed the test is even named and sponsoeed by the NMS (thus the "NMSQT" in its full name: "National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test". Any school which aggressively presses to pump up its NMS numbers by ensuring that qualifying students complete their applications will also obviously press students to *take* the PSAT/NMSQT in the first place. Thus high NMS numbers will correlate with high numbers of SEMIfinalists as well, due to level of school involvement and not necessarily higher score numbers.
I'd be far more interested in seeing the test RESULTS, and not just the raw number of students who have achieved over X on the test, since this says *nothing* about the number of students who actually *took* the test. For all you know, that Catholic school ensured that most of its students *took* the test, while the public schools didn't bother and had low turnout. This alone would ensure more semifinalists and finalists for the Catholic school, EVEN IF THE STUDENT'S ACTUAL TEST RESULTS WERE IDENTICAL across the schools. This is is why I point out that the raw number of NMS finalists is a poor indicator of actual school quality.
I'm betting that the public skools around here would sell their own sister to Satan to get one additional NMS semifinalist.
I'm betting you have it exactly backwards. Public schools don't need to "advertise" for students, nor is their funding based on how many NMS semifinalists or finalists they can manage to produce. PRIVATE schools, on the other hand, have a very strong incentive to gain academic "bragging rights" of various sorts which they can use to try to justify why parents should part with their hard-earned dollars and send their kids to that private school as opposed to public school or some other private school.
If I ran a private school, you can bet your a** I'd be pushing for every single student to take the PSAT/NMSQT in order to pump the school's numbers up as high as possible, and to beat on every student who made semifinalist to make sure they damned well sent in their applications. Public schools, on the other hand, frankly don't have to care whether a particular student takes the qualifying test or not.
Do I have to go look this up, or do you just want to believe someone who's lived in this area a long, long time?
Yes, you really do have to look it up. And don't just find the number of semi-finalists, since that tells little for reasons I've described above. Find the RATE at which students qualify (i.e., number of semifinalists divided by the total number who *took* the test), or even better, find the distribution of actual test scores among all students who took the test at each set of schools.
If you're going to try to "argue with statistics", then you're going to have to do the hard work of making sure that you acquire the most directly relevant statistics, and just not ones that can or have been skewed by parties who are less than disinterested -- like private schools that have a strong incentive to "produce results" which they can use to "sell" their school to parents in exchange for tuition fees. NMS numbers can be too easily skewed simply by the level of school participation, entirely apart from any difference in actual test scores.
What's bugging us? The fact that you tell frequent lies like the one you just told here, despite the fact that it has been made quite clear to you on a number of occasions that it is, in fact, a falsehood.
One more time: An acceptance of evolution is in no way synonymous with atheism or the belief in an "impersonal" God, or even a rejection of orthodox Christianity.
Are you a shameless liar, or just stone stupid? Or simply childishly troll?
"Science" is atheism as of the laudatory Dover ruling! Hooray! A light unto the nations, is Dover PA! The Center of intellect in the US of A is Dover PA!
I'm saying that there is no message about theistic evolution in the Bible. It simply is not there. Nor is a lot of different things. Therefore, they are not biblical teachings.
That is the bottom line, and it is unassailable.
I am not talking about what I "think" the bible is saying. I'm talking about what is there in its pages. Noah is there, Moses is there, Jonah is there, Jesus is there.
Xzins is not there, Ichneumon is not there, Little Red Riding Hood is not there, Snow White is not there....all of which are probably interesting stories. But they are not in the bible.
Theistic evolution is not there. Creation is there.
As for who I am. Sure, you can say I'm out of touch, a dreamer, a bit 'tetched' BUT....
Call me Pilgrim.
13 These all died in faith, F38 not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
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.