Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Designed to deceive: Creation can't hold up to rigors of science
CONTRA COSTA TIMES ^ | 12 February 2006 | John Glennon

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.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: biology; crevolist; cultofyoungearthers; evolution; idiocy; ignoranceisstrength; lyingtoinfidelsisok; science; theocraticwhackjobs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,501-1,5201,521-1,5401,541-1,560 ... 2,421-2,439 next last
To: Californiajones; CarolinaGuitarman
I asked you for personal eyewitness photos which would trump both our Googling.

If you think that a few amateur photographs would in any way trump the geologic and compositional analysis of the not-actually-a-boat site, you're even more confused than I had previously concluded.

1,521 posted on 02/15/2006 2:36:25 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1515 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

The surest way to prove the Ark's existence is to see for oneself; no need for swearing.


1,522 posted on 02/15/2006 2:37:11 PM PST by Californiajones ("The apprehension of beauty is the cure for apathy" - Thomas Aquinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1518 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Like I just said to another Evo, the surest way to prove the existence of the Ark is to see for oneself.

No need to get personal; we surely have "evolved" beyond that?
1,523 posted on 02/15/2006 2:39:19 PM PST by Californiajones ("The apprehension of beauty is the cure for apathy" - Thomas Aquinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1521 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
The change in salinity plus the change in PH would have been devastating.

It's impolite to talk about someone and not ping them.

1,524 posted on 02/15/2006 2:39:55 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1483 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
Years ago, I used to spend weeks at a time debating the evolutionists here on FR. I had the respect of a number of them, including Patrick Henry. I stopped for lack of time and weariness over going in circles: The same arguments came up every single time, with the same refutations and counter-refutations.

True. You were always sincere, and never nasty. Your posts were always welcome. (Sometimes wrong, but never malicious.)

1,525 posted on 02/15/2006 2:46:53 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1495 | View Replies]

To: Californiajones
Like I just said to another Evo, the surest way to prove the existence of the Ark is to see for oneself.

No, it would not -- that only demonstrates the existence of *something* which is visible enough to photographed. It in no way establishes what it *is*. And the analyses which have already been done on that thing on Ararat establishes quite well what it is (a sedimentary formation) and what it is not (remains of the Ark, or any other boat for that matter).

Are you being lamely coy, or just missing the point yet again?

1,526 posted on 02/15/2006 2:48:29 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1523 | View Replies]

To: Californiajones

"The surest way to prove the Ark's existence is to see for oneself; no need for swearing."

The claims have already been shown to be hoaxes, as the evidence I provided shows. Also, have YOU been there personally? Why do you expect a level of evidence from me that you don't feel you need for yourself?


1,527 posted on 02/15/2006 2:50:58 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1522 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

"It's impolite to talk about someone and not ping them."

Since we are all the same person, it seemed redundant to ping myself.


1,528 posted on 02/15/2006 2:52:03 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1524 | View Replies]

To: Californiajones; Ichneumon
Like I just said to another Evo, the surest way to prove the existence of the Ark is to see for oneself.

of course. The ol' "Were you THERE" lame defense. California, you do realize how absurd this is, right? Your worldview is reduced to your house, yard, car interior, and workplace. Are we really fighting a war in Iraq? Do the SI Swimsuit models REALLY look like that (Damn fine crop this year)?

WERE YOU THERE?
1,529 posted on 02/15/2006 2:54:21 PM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1523 | View Replies]

To: Californiajones
How much water do you think it took for the Grand Canyon to be the Grand Canyon? Looks like an ocean's flood to me.

Then you are ignorant of geology, soil mechanics, and hydrology. In numerous ways the Grand Canyon looks exactly like what it is, the result of the Colorado River winding across a desert for millions of years as the Kaibab uplift slowly rises (this tectonic uplift is ongoing and measurable). Clue for the clueless: Dambursts and ocean floods don't cause meanders. Nor do they cause 1000ft sheer drops in tough limestone.

1,530 posted on 02/15/2006 2:55:46 PM PST by Thatcherite (More abrasive blackguard than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1433 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

I agree. That's why I have "faith".


1,531 posted on 02/15/2006 2:57:40 PM PST by Californiajones ("The apprehension of beauty is the cure for apathy" - Thomas Aquinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1529 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

No, I can appreciate erosion and other geological processes. However, you failed to answer the question as to how much water, as in cubic measurements would it take to carve out the Grand Canyon?


1,532 posted on 02/15/2006 2:59:26 PM PST by Californiajones ("The apprehension of beauty is the cure for apathy" - Thomas Aquinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1530 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Well, I have been to the Holy Land and seen, for example, the ruins of Ephesus and the archaeological proof of the Bible's authenticity in Israel, etc. The Biblical archaeological evidence is astounding.

As to the Ark, I'm just using a legal prerogative that eyewitness accounts trump circumstantial evidence most times.

No need to get huffy. You have "evolved" past that, I'm sure?
1,533 posted on 02/15/2006 3:04:27 PM PST by Californiajones ("The apprehension of beauty is the cure for apathy" - Thomas Aquinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1527 | View Replies]

To: Californiajones
I don't know but I do know from the shots and dimensions they got off the petrified pieces of the Ark up there in the snow on Mt Ararat that it was big nuff for several dinosaurs. Google is your friend if you really want to know; also I believe the dimensions Noah used were... generous

So, where did they keep the 20 million+ species of insects, with their different dietary and environmental needs for a year? And how did 8 people look after them? Before answering have a chat with a zookeeper about how many people are needed to keep a few-hundred animals, with room to exercise themselves, and light and air. Don't forget to factor in the food deliveries and sewerage removal that zoos have, and vet services they can call on from outside, and light/heat/water all on tap. And BTW a supertanker wouldn't be big enough. But I bet mucking out the tyrannosaurus was even more fun than mucking out the brontosaurus. ;)

1,534 posted on 02/15/2006 3:06:13 PM PST by Thatcherite (More abrasive blackguard than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1485 | View Replies]

To: Californiajones
You have "evolved" past that, I'm sure?

I'll use your tired attempt at humor in an effort to educate you on something which I'm sure you are wholly ignorant. Individuals do not evolve. That's (one tiny) why you and your creationist cronies' ideas about porcupines giving birth to koala bears or whatever insane fantasies you guys harbor is completely stupid.
1,535 posted on 02/15/2006 3:07:16 PM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1533 | View Replies]

To: Californiajones
" As to the Ark, I'm just using a legal prerogative that eyewitness accounts trump circumstantial evidence most times."

Since neither of us have been there, we are both relying on other people's accounts. If you are going to say that your evidence is better than mine, you have to actually present an argument as to why this is so. I stand by the evidence (which isn't *circumstantial*) that the claims for an ark on Mt Ararat are demonstrated hoaxes. You refuse to address this and instead make silly demands like telling me to go and take my own pictures.

" No need to get huffy. You have "evolved" past that, I'm sure?"

I get heated when someone insults my intelligence with silly arguments while evading the issues I raised.
1,536 posted on 02/15/2006 3:09:28 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1533 | View Replies]

To: Californiajones
That's why I have "faith"

... and I have knowledge, evidence, and facts. But I know you don't even care about that - so be it. However, you are doing the millions of religious folk a HUGE disservice by equating bold pig ignorance with "faith." To somehow twist the entire body of biology (and astronomy and geology, to name a few) to fit your "faith" in a book orally passed on and then written by uneducated nomadic shepherds 2000 or so years ago leads me to believe that this "faith" think you speak of should be avoided at all costs.
1,537 posted on 02/15/2006 3:10:14 PM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1531 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
No, you accused me of believing in only what I could see. I took the Kierkegaardian leap of faith -- just as you do with Evo belief, btw.
1,538 posted on 02/15/2006 3:11:35 PM PST by Californiajones ("The apprehension of beauty is the cure for apathy" - Thomas Aquinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1537 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

"faith think" = faith thing. but in retrospect, "faith think" has some interesting Neo-Orwellian fundamentalist ring to it.


1,539 posted on 02/15/2006 3:12:07 PM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1537 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Actually, the writings of the "uneducated nomadic shepherds 2000 or so years ago" proved to be pretty accurate according to the Dead Sea Scrolls.

And Paul, formerly Saul, was educated in the Pharisaical tradition of Roman and Greek rhetoric, btw. But intellect does not lead to faith, as Saul found out on the Damascus Road one blindingly bright day.
1,540 posted on 02/15/2006 3:13:52 PM PST by Californiajones ("The apprehension of beauty is the cure for apathy" - Thomas Aquinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1537 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,501-1,5201,521-1,5401,541-1,560 ... 2,421-2,439 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson