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.
Either the story of Jesus rising from the dead is true, or His disciples knew that they were going to their deaths for a lie.
There are many other possibilities, the moment you step away from the Bible being an inerrant document. The truth of the record in the Bible is a matter of faith.
Religious people of all faiths going to their deaths has been common down the ages. Given the different myths that they all believed clearly most of them were deluded, as you right now believe muslim suicide bombers to be deluded.
But who? Are you hearing owls? DNA code is inherited from parents generally of the same intelligence. What part of interbreeding populations do you fail to understand?
I appreciate your reply, AG.
I continue, though, simply to ask the question of what does and does not appear in the text. It is a fair question, and it should be the starting point from which honest discussion flows.
Moses does appear in the text as does Aaron, Noah, Jacob, Nimrod, etc. We must be honest that no "theistic evolutionary" God appears in the text. A Creator God does appear.
Once we admit these overt facts, we can then say: "Here is how I interpret this overt fact. Or, this is my opinion about what these things mean.
It is important to be honest about what is overt and what is interpretive or opinion.
Some doctrines are strongly supported by the overt text. Others can only be supported circumstantially. There is a final group that honesty requires we label as speculation because the opinion is premised on opinions derived from opinions.
That is the case with any doctrine of "theistic evolution."
If we were to place our doctrine on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being a doctrine absolutely overtly affirmed by scripture and by historic creed, and with 1 being a doctrine that is absolutely lacking in appearance in scripture or in creed, then we could assign a number to the doctrine of "theistic evolution."
I'm convinced we would have to choose a number less than 5. That does not mean it is a speculation unworthy of consideration, but it does mean there is a special requirement upon us to honestly admit that we are in the area of speculation or fancifulness.
WOW! Two posts about my long time friend and colleague who died this week, and only two freepmails. Boy, these threads are really focused!
Satan delights in lies.
All of your criticisms either point at me or fail to engage my arguments.
My arguments address your contentions point by point. Because you misrepresent Evolution on purpose, there is nothing there to engage. If I claim your are left-handed and you are not, there is nothing to "engage."
Evolution claims to have deconstructed a creative force of the universe. That's not a lie. That's my take on Evolution.
So if your take on aerodynamics is God holds planes aloft, that is a basis for discussion? Like I said, it misrepresents TTOE.
And what varying degrees are Evolution dependent upon? Time mostly. That's the thing that Evos hide behind because it makes the claim indemonstrable.
This supposed "gotcha" that you CRIDers shows just how low you will go to "win." Evolution takes place in a milleu of millions of years but it is not stepwise. It goes in fits and starts, depending on many complex factors. We sometimes see examples in measurable levels and sometimes we can't see it. But the archeological records provide proof for changes we can't actually see. We can deduce quite a bit, but that deduction is up for scientific scrutiny, which is why TTOE is always being revised.
And, doll, if you think that Jesus taught that we came from lower life forms, you worship a different Jesus than the one in the Bible.
Jesus taught theology, not biology.
So, you are saying that Jesus came for all the single cells that would someday become men? Don't think so.
This is a classic CRIDer strawman. Jesus came for Men. by the time He arrived, Men already existed in modern form.
Please keep your railing accusations to yourself. Such as calling someone a liar when they are just stating their own view.
Using logical fallacies, especially misrepresenation, ON PURPOSE, is lying. I merely point it out.
Your "Satanic" ones are pretty funny, "making the pious sin to prove their point"... kettle black here I'd say. I didn't lose my temper, or accuse anyone personally, or state anything but what I think.
I admit the Satanic reference is a little over the top. But the logic is valid (lies=Satan's work). Since you want to cast the discussion in terms of "what you think" then lets all put on our thinking caps and try to come up with a group of people who frame alll their debates in terms of thoughts and feelings and not facts?
So, sorry you have to call me Satanic in order to deal with simple opinion. But since you have projected upon me a "magic" as in "poof" Christianity, how would you describe Jesus' healing of the blind man or the empty tomb?
It is astoundng how many lies (fallacies) you pleace in so few words. To begin with, yes your opinion is simple and scientifically wrong and misrepresents the subject matter. The reference to Jesus' miracles is a theological discussion not a scientific one. I believe Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, died for my sins and was resurrected. There are a minumum of 3 billion people in the world, many very educated, who disagree.
A discussion of miracles, although interesting, has no place in this discussion.
Just askin'. Since you say you are a Christian...
Just answerin' since I am.
That's just what I've been saying. Darwin's theory INHERENTLY discredits the Bible. Sorry, but that's what the whole fight is about.
So physics discredits the Bible? Much of the Bible doesn't make sense scientifically. Numbers establishes a world much younger than is possible. The Bible is a theological text, not a scientific one.
""Your assertion is like saying that if we don't believe that angels hold airplanes aloft we must therefore not believe in God.""
No, I've been saying that just because Darwin never addressed the issue of God in his hypothesis, it doesn't mean that EvoThink does not contradict Him or His Word.
It also does't say anything about how freeways should be striped, what should be on the menu at Hoo Chong's Chinese Restaurant and a bazillion other things. When a subject is silent on another you can make no logical inferences. This is a perticularly pernicous lie you CRIDers try to run.
And just for the record, since Jesus said that His disciples will do even greater things than He did, so you, of course, believe in the power of miracles as a Christian? Just wondering. Your overly emotional response belies the true spirit behind the Evo argument, btw. As the Bible says, "words betray the heart" -- as you undoubtedly already know and believe.
As I said in the previous post, there is no relationship between miracles and evolution. Evolution is a scientific discussion, miracles a theological one (although scientific studies on miracles is interesting -- just a different topic). This is yet another strawman (lie) that you CRIDer try to get by on.
Yes, begging the question. Either put up with real logic or shut up. I don't even bother with your taunts anymore.
Everyone on every thread you are on see you as a little boy in his Mommy's basement hurling epithets because you don't have the brainpower or knoweldge to compete with the grown-ups.
Gonna tell us where your college degree is from? Or are you going to keep avoiding the question.
Oh, and quit FReepmailing me. You haven't said anything on those blovating rants that you can't say on the thread.
Well, you gonna tell us about it?
Bwaahahahaa ...
Sorry about your friend passing on RA. God bless him and you, it's always tough on those left behind.
I know that I get too focused on these threads sometimes. Its almost like an addiction at times. Your posting is a timely reminder to us all that there is a big wide world of wonderful and terrible things outside FR Crevo debates. It doesn't always seem that way though... :-/
By that token, being an atheist today would be equally unfulfilling intellectually because intellectual honesty demands an explanation for the very existence of life in the first place.
I think one can certainly be a fulfilled atheist, in the sense that Dawkins meant it, with the current state of knowledge about abiogenesis. Prior to Darwin, there was not even a theoretical foundation for an idea as to how the diversity of life arose. The equivalent is not the case regarding abiogensis today. Although there are many questions in this area of research (probably more questions than answers), the answers which we do have point the way towards an eventual understanding.
Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory designed not on the basis of the evidence, but to explain away a lack of evidence while retaining the evolutionary paradigm.
Punctuated equilibrium was the theoretical explanation for an observed phenomenon in the fossil record. It was based on evidence, and advanced the idea that an establish part of the evolutionary paradigm: allopatric speciation. Eldridge and Gould's original paper on punctuated equilibrium makes this perfectly clear. It was simply proposed as an alternative to phyletic gradualism.
Here is where we must separate, far more carefully than we do, the Theory of Evolution (an attempt to explain speciation) from the Religion of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution plainly admits that it has no solution for abiogenesis, for the Cambrian Explosion, for the lack of continuous change over time in the fossil record, no fossil evidence directly linking Man to other primates, etc. If that were all that was being taught in schools and shown on government-funded PBS specials, I don't think you'd hear nearly as much objection from my side of the issue.
What I see here is the religious community reacting to those portions of the theory for which they are 1) ill informed or 2) uncomfortable with because of the impact those parts have with their faith. I've noticed again and again on these threads that often times statements about evolution are made by evolution doubters and I know (even as a lay reader of evolutionary science) that the assumptions these people have based their arguments on are absolutely false. Not for nothing, but the things you think that "[t]he Theory of Evolution plainly admits that it has no solution for,"--the theory of evolution does have solutions for these things. (Of course, some of these solutions are only partial solutions.) Some people just don't accept or like them.
I think sometimes the problem is that they are looking for a different kind of answer, one that science can't give. Will we be able to identify the exact structure and composition of the first self-replicating entity which is the ultimate ancestor of all life on Earth? Doubtful. In fact, it's probably impossible to do so. That, however, doesn't mean abiogenesis didn't happen or make a religious explanation any more valid. It just means that the answers that science is able to give are not always the kind of answers that some people want.
For example, when I read someone arguing against evolution by pointing out the fact that fruit flies in a lab haven't evolved a higher taxon in a few thousand generations, I know that they don't really and truly understand evolution, the theory, and what it's about. There are times on these threads when I'm dumbfounded by posters who assert that the science of evolution is false, that these highly educated men and women are perpetrating a scam, but the posters don't know the difference between an ape and a monkey. That's astounding to me.
I'm a youth minister, among my other duties. I recently had some of the kids in my group come to me, disturbed because they were taught in their science class that it had been proven that life could "evolve" spontaneously from the so-called primordial soup with just a strike of lightning.
If students aren't being taught the science correctly, then the problem is with the teaching, not the science. Alternately, if these kids are being taught science properly, but are making unwarranted inferences, because of their faith is affecting them, then they need to have explained to them the limits of religious thought and the fact that sometimes religious beliefs do not conform with the natural world.
The fact that those on the evolutionist side of the debate demand that IDers and Creationists publish peer-reviewed research while making it impossible for anyone to do so (at least without sacrificing their reputations and careers) also bugs me. It's frankly hypocritical, and it actually retards scientific progress.
Not at all. It is part of the scientific process. Look, if there was any scientific validity to these ID or creationist theories, then having articles published following the normal protocols of peer review is the minimum that they need to do to have these things established as science. Because that's what science does, that's how it works. And if these theories can't stand up to scientific analysis, then they aren't science. You can no more expect science to embrace non-science than you can expect Christianity to embrace monotheism. The problem with ID and creationism is that they simply are not scientifically valid.
Excellent post
Whoops, this should have read, "You can no more expect science to embrace non-science than you can expect Christianity to embrace polytheism."
Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
You saved me a lot of effort. I was considering writing something similar, but it wouldn't have been as good.
Thank you :-)
Thank you. I truly appreciated the freepmail from earlier this week. (You have no idea how much that meant to me)
:-)
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.