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.
Obviously - that's why you all needed to rely on a hit squad to attack me personally and parrot it yourselves instead of talking substance and is why you continue to do so. Your position is unsupportable and indefensable or you'd have done it by now.
"Khan, I'm laughing at the superior intellect" - Star Trek II
Your disputants on this particular point maintain that the "not-an-Ark" site is more than circumstantial evidence.
I don't know since I didn't click on that link if the references cited therein are "peer-reviewed" but they would in some sense be "forensic" -- I'm not quite sure if they'd be treated as "hearsay" or how "chain of custody" issues would be resolved.
Would it help explaining to Californiajones that the posting of a website counter to his expectations is not just (so to speak) "We'll, you've got a website, and here's mine, so we're EVEN !" TM.
Perhaps a discussion of the importance of peer review, of Occam's razor, what have you--that the scientific approach is specifically used in order to WEED OUT things which sound good but can't be substantiated, or which may even be false...even with the best of intentions?
Cheers!
Christianity founded most of the sciences. Don't take your IQ out and dust it off much do you. Just because a bunch of heathens with an anti-God agenda and a nutjob ideology took over the sciences doesn't make your nonsense true.
Christianity and Judaism have a long history supported by archeology, science, etc that bolster their positions. What do you have? Endless theories derived from the imaginations of a nutjob racist. Bully for you.
As for taking the Bible literally - how would you know. And the word isn't literally as it happens, it is "seriously". And that is your problem.
Begging the question.
Christianity and Judaism have a long history supported by archeology, science, etc that bolster their positions. What do you have? Endless theories derived from the imaginations of a nutjob racist. Bully for you.
Strawman + argumentum ad ignorantiam
As for taking the Bible literally - how would you know. And the word isn't literally as it happens, it is "seriously". And that is your problem.
So meaningless as to defy classification
100% Logical Fallacy. Standard CRIDer "argumentation."
Oh, wait, they don't.
Evolution is science -- just like Physics, Astronomy, Math, etc. Creationism is mythology -- just like fantasy, theology, fiction, etc.
They do teach Creationism -- but in the proper forum.
But who set in motion the replication and incredible dna code that the body uses which is more complicated than a computer code? It had to be some intelligence.
THAT is where evolution intersects with Christianity.
Most of us believe that God set in motion the fabulous workings of the universe. Many an athiest scientist has arrived at the conclusion that a wonderful architect operates OUTSIDE of the obesrvable universe.
The more we learn of physical law and history, the more we stand in awe of God and His works. The fact He set this all in motion and allows it to progess unimpeded is something that we can wonder at and hopefully someday ask about when we are called Home.
This is a complete misstatement of the Evolutionary theory. Things do NOT "spontaneously create themselves." They react to their environment incrementally to varying degrees (N.B. This is a MASSIVE simplification of the TTOE -- I have to dumb it down for people who aren't familiar with it.
Lying by misrepresentation does not help your cause
And I'm saying that these purported evolutionary processes would naturally relate to the process of creating something out of nothing, i.e. creation itself.
Again, a blatant misrepresentation. You should read up on the Evolutionary theory before you comment on it. Your assertions are on par with a child's.
It is Evos who claim to have deconstructed a creative force of the universe; therefore they need to prove it by reconstructing or creating something. So until an Evolutionist can create something out of nothing -- they can talk all they want.
Please point to one aspect of the evolutionary theory that supports this assertion. You continue to post meaningless and unsupported nonsense.
All this talk about Darwin never talking about God per se, or declaiming the Bible, or that one can believe in the God of the Bible, just divorce Him from what He said or what is written -- just leads me to believe that EvoThink it a religious belief in an of itself -- an anti Judeo Christian belief.
There is nothing in TTOE that speaks to or against God. Your assertion is like saying that if we don't believe that angels hold airplanes aloft we must therefore not believe in God.
However categorized, Evolution is a cold and pleasantless belief -- they lose the grandeur and beauty of Creation because they disbelieve that a loving and intelligent God might have simply made the earth and all its potential goodness for our good pleasure. I think about that every time I eat a piece of ripe fruit or have fallen in love. God made it good. For us. Very cool.
See my earlier post of the wonder of God and how His work is revealed in the natural Universe.
"Only God can make a tree" means something. But it is clearly too complex for you supporters of the {poof} MAGIC school of thought.
Every person I admire out of history believed in a Christian God. Lincoln, Washington, Tolstoy, Frank Capra, Reagan.. To me, that is the mark of exalted intelligence. As to the men of history who have not believed in a Christian God -- Marx Nietzsche, Hitler Stalin Mao have left horrorshows of bloodshed in their swath.
So what? (your clumsy attempt at a Strawman argument is laughable). Many people who understand TTOE are also Christians. And we don't lie to move our agenda forward.
Ye shall know them by their fruits.
Lies, deceit, and misrepresentation. All hallmarks of CRIDers. Yes, the fruits of your deception are the work of Satan and are on display for all to see. Satan delights in making the pious sin to prove their point.
You are spinning a story. One of you says it takes so long for breeds to spread that it's impossible to happen since the flood of Noah. Prior to that, one of you noted that it happened so recently and quickly in the case of dogs that people are amazed. Whatever is required to say to defend the current argument is the methodology. Busted in other words. So, yes, you do need to get your story straight.
And Creationists don't have to scramble over any "mounting" evidence. The evidence more often than not fits the Biblical model. I like to look to Egyptology a lot for examples of this and David Rohl is a good person to highlight in that regard. Rohl called the timelines and dating methodologies into Question using Egyptian evidences. In the doing, he exposes the faulty nature of traditional dating methodologies. And that, largely is already in question by those of us who don't accept assumptions associated with the methodologies as "reasonable". Reasonableness is determined by having a basis in reality for knowing whether something makes sense or not. If you've never seen an indy car do 400 miles per hour, it would not be reasonable to assume that it could do so. If you've seen one pushed to the redline to do 220, then it becomes unreasonable to assume they can go much faster because you know the care is redlining at 220 - which means the engine is near blowing. In other words, it takes the known to determine reasonableness. How then can one claim it reasonable to assume that 14C was remaining constant in the atmosphere when it isn't currently. How can one "reasonably assume that half-lives remain constant over time if you have no basis in knowledge as to whether such an assumption is reasonable or not. Assumptions like these are what technical dating methodologies largely rest upon. And in the end, they are gauged to something far less reliable - the geologic column. And there you find more assumptions which give you multiple assumptions upon which the technology now rests - none of which can be said to be reasonalble because you can't say how the layers of sediment were all deposited. You can guess; but, you can't say. You have to assume that too. Assume, assume, assume. And you've no basis in the long run to say any of the assumptions are truly reasonable. It isn't evidence that is mounting, it's assumption and theory based upon assumption that is mounting.
Right, and the guy that got the Redbaron was a beagle dog on a red dog-house.
Again, you are frantically misrepresenting the actual discussion, and you're doing it very transparently. Do you think that actually helps your credibility any?
No, I think I noted that I confused two posts earlier and corrected myself. And did it to the person who I confused the other with. Helps if you Keep up, son.
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?
Heh. No comment. After the attempt by your side to hijack the thread and shut me up with vile assassinations of my person because you were all looking so bad, one can't help but laugh at your nonsense. Next.
That's what Michael Moore says about conservatives too, and for the same reasons.
Well, if you must delude yourself. I'm not the one having to do damage control here. All I have to do is point out what you're saying and damage control drones move into action.. lol. Dog breeds proliferated recently and so quickly it amazes people yet, they can't proliferate that quickly.. Don't need to say much more, just point to it.. lol.
Nonetheless, despite your bluster, I very frequently get thoughtful FreepMails from screen names I've never seen before
"I am Underwhelmed" - Erwin Ellmann
Please forgive my misposting of your name.
I have been on call since I got home tonight and have been FReeping between phone calls from work. I am a more than a little bushed, since my day starts at 7:00 am.
The last I heard "they" (the they that are doing an all-night development session) will either call me back or let me go to sleep.
Gracias a Dios to sleep I go! :) Midnight local time and I sill have to be in there 7 am local time.
All bluster and pride. - underwhelmed.
As for the answer, you had it last night. And it was a pretty well crafted answer if I do say so myself. Again, if the numbers hold up under scrutiny, I've no problem. Apparently they don't or you wouldn't have a problem with the answer. See how great that response becomes. I know you do, that's why you're mad and want a different answer.
When you are called home and have to give an answering to God for calling him a liar? Isn't that when he uses first, middle and last name... *snort* Good luck, er, sorry, luck don't work for that one..
Not begging the question, but making a starkly relevant point. Christians founded the branches and have no fear of them. Your bluster is just that, bluster. Scare tactics as it were. Michael Mooring the facts.
True... Walking on unfrozen water seems impossible.. maybe it ain't.. Physical reality might not be so physical after all.. it just depends on the reality your walking in..
If the willingness to die for one's beliefs is some kind of measure of the truth of those beliefs then we'd better all become moslems.
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.