Designed to deceive: Creation can't hold up to rigors of science

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"And I'm all for scientific processes. Also love Socratic methodology. I'm just saying that EvoThink does not hold up until an Evo can demonstrate/recreate its purported processes. (the kink in EvoThinking seems to be that "over a serious amount of time, things can spontaneously create themselves" so Evos are loathe to commit to any quick demonstration.)

I shall assume you have fallen for the creationist red-herring of micro/macro evolution and are referring exclusively to macro-evolution.

Although many creationists resort to the 'macro-evolution can not be observed' canard it is simply a tactic to redirect your attention from the many lines of evidence science in general uses when developing theories. Specifically in evolution we have tell-tale markers in the DNA of extant species that links them genetically in very much the same patterns that the morphological evidence used to compile the phylogenic 'tree of life' produces.

Science does not need 'direct' observation to reach a high level of confidence in the accuracy of conclusions, indirect observation can frequently produce more than just a little convincing evidence. In fact one of the most important developments of the last 100 years - Quantum Physics (and all its parts) - is built on nothing but indirect observation.

There are many mechanisms in evolution that produce change in a species that would continue 'ad infinitum' restricted solely by the constraints imposed by the physical limits of a given environment (eg. aquatic organisms can grow larger than terrestrial organisms). For this change to not result in 'macro-evolution' a verified counter mechanism would have to be proposed. This mechanism has not been produced by the anti-evolutionists.

"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.

The link between the origin of the universe and the observed variance in earthly biota is tenuous at best. It would be very easy to suppose that a God created the universe in such a way that abiogenesis would occur on at least one planet. Evolutionary processes do not rely on a specific cosmology and are independent of the origin of life. One can explore the creation of a garment without knowledge of the origin of the fabric.

yeah, for anyone who blindly accepts what the Evo scientific community hands to them. It sickens me that any scientist who supports creationism, and or ID is automatically discounted by you evo Nazis as "A liar" or "someone who doesn't understand science", .. or several other general assumptions, as a matter of fact the only people you count as actual scientist, are supporters of evolution. When a point is argued, it is said, "bring me something from someplace other than a Creationist source" what do you expect, for us to bring support for creation from an evolutionist? That very concept is moronacy. I realize that to control the source is to control the conversation, but your control of the source is absolutely the most clear cut case of close minded thinking I have ever seen displayed. And here I thought science was supposed to be about open minded study to find the truth, not Communist methods of controlling peoples ability to question your small minded concepts. You do not fool anyone, just because you try to set the rules for a debate, that doesn't make you right, nor does it make the ABSOLUTE LIE of evolution true. Knowing that most of you closed minded evo morons will now proceed to attack my character, and intelligence, I may or may not return your post, depending upon the respect with which you respond to mine.

Go take it up with the Punk-Eekers. I'm not getting into an "Is too!" "Is not!" debate with you.

For a guy who is supposed to be better than this, the Grand Old-Timer coming back slumming, you're just running through the usual debunked canards like some newb right out of the Kent Hovind seminars.

Punk-Eek Source Number One. Note that Darwin seems to have been the first Punk-Eeker.

Punk-Eek Source Number Two. Note that Darwin seems to have been the first Punk-Eeker.

There is no "out" for you in that material. For all that, there was no question you're going to keep repeating your canard about transitionals in the fossil record forever. It isn't about the evidence. It's about the Holy War. The talking points have already been printed up.

" 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."

Change the gearing in an Indy car and 220 will not be a limit. Place an Indy car on a flat straight track and with current gearing 220 would not be a limit. CART cars were averaging 230mph at Indy and at Detroit. For the average to be 230mph on an oval, the straightaway speed would have to be a fare bit higher.
Our 'observation' of the limits of the current architecture (eg. redline point) does not make 400mph 'unreasonable'. What would affect the 'reasonableness' of 400mph is the understanding of the underlying physics involved in getting the car to reach that speed given its environment.

"How then can one claim it reasonable to assume that 14C was remaining constant in the atmosphere when it isn't currently.

When using Carbon 14 to date recent ages, potential variances are taken into consideration. Do you really think scientists would miss something as obvious as that? I'm afraid that with your level of knowledge you would be extremely hard pressed to come up with any problems with dating that scientists have not already considered.

"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.

E=MC².

If half-lives were shorter in the past there would be evidence of such.

I will take a crack at this...

A few weeks ago, I watched a TV program, on one of the religious channels, which was supposed to be showing a 'scientific' study of why evolution was incorrect...so I tuned in...whether you care to believe this or not, there was NO scientific evidence offered...a speaker came on, give a few anecdotal stories(none of them having to do with Creationism/ID/evolution)...then a commercial came on, selling creationism tapes and book...back to the speaker...more anecdotal stories...back to more commercials...this was only a 1/2 hr program, almost at its end,I am wondering when is the scientific stuff coming on...finally he gets out a paper, puts it up on the screen, complains about some squiggly lines, showing, I guess, some sort of supposed evolution, and then the program ends....more commercials follow...Now, I was all set and ready to see what they had to offer in the way of scientific evidence, and was disappointed because there was none...still dont know what to make of this...

When someone says, that they will support evolution, when say, a dog gives birth to a cat(or some such), within a generation or two, and they can be shown this, I must believe that they do not know what the ToE states...because what they have put forth is certainly not something the ToE would ever say or support...it shows a lack of understanding of what the ToE states...now, why is it wrong to point that out?...

The other thing that does upset me, is when someone who supports ID/creationism, states, as a fact, that no one who supports ToE can possibly be a Christian...now, that may be their own personal subjective view on the matter, it is hardly a fact...I take someones word for it, that if they say they are a Christian, then they do believe themselves to be a Christian...but often that is not good enough for a creationist/Id supporter...in other words, if one does not believe the Bible, in their own particular subjective personal way, then they cannot be a Christian...that is sickening as well...

And as far as being a liar...if anyone lies, no matter on side of this debate they find themselves, they should be called out on it...and often this is done, with posts from other threads to prove the lie...a lie is a lie, and when there are posts that show it to be so, there is nothing wrong with pointing that out, no matter who is doing the lying, or who is calling them on it...

I have remained civil, have not called you any names, not have I called into question your intelligence...just tried to answer some of your concerns...

"Dog breeds proliferated recently and so quickly it amazes people yet, they can't proliferate that quickly..

The variance in dog breeds is a result of selection through protection. Humans observed variances occurring in the dog population and made sure that those variations survived and were replicated. Variation that would normally result in replicative failure was selected for and supported by human intervention. This protection, something seldom found in nature, along with the unnaturally small population size, is what produced the speed of variation. In other words, dog breeds are the result of selection for difference not survivability. Interestingly enough this human selection also restricted the 'difference' to the humanly 'desirable'. Any variation deemed 'desirable' was reproduced with (relatively) remarkable speed, yet any variation that would lead to any 'undesirable' change was/is terminated. This is why we have a great variety of subspecies but no obvious speciation.

Note: The speed of variation within Canus familiarus has spanned a greater expanse of time than the 6000 years of the Bible yet shown much less variety than would be necesssary in the Noachian flood scenario.

The religious (not just Christians) started the sciences not because of their religion but because the vast majority of the population of the time was religious. This is still the case, most scientists are religious. Nothing but demographics.

Your attempt to equate religiosity with the ability to do science or to correlate scientific thought with religious thought is doomed to failure. Even the oft mentioned - at least by the anti-evolutionists - Newton was careful to divorce his religion and his successful science.

"Godwin's Law. You lose." I think not, just in case you haven't figured it out yet, I generally don't conform to individual set rules. I don't have a problem with authority, just people who try to exercise authority they don't have. "If you actually have a coherent argument against evolutionary theory, please provide it or slither away." I've argued this exact topic with all of you several times. but just as I have already stated, you accept no one as a scientist, unless they support evo, and that is an absence of common sense, or common base. "Slither away"? Oh please, I know someone of your credentials with academia can come up with something better than that, use your "Superior intellect" wild sarc to at least muster up some reasonable ego blow, or don't even try. It's like debating pre schoolers.

"And what varying degrees are Evolution dependent upon?

"Time mostly. That's the thing that Evos hide behind because it makes the claim indemonstrable.[Emphasis mine]

The long periods of time were evident long before Darwin put together the ToE. Time is not used as something to obscure the reality of fossil evidence, the dates of the fossils are based on dates already established for the strata.

Age came first, then evolution - not the other way around.

" I think not..."

Agreed.

"just in case you haven't figured it out yet, I generally don't conform to individual set rules."

You also obviously think that logical arguments are beneath you.

"I've argued this exact topic with all of you several times."

Than you'll easily be able to muster up some scientific arguments against evolution instead of resorting to nazi-name-calling.

"but just as I have already stated, you accept no one as a scientist, unless they support evo, and that is an absence of common sense, or common base."

No, we expect someone who has an argument against evolutionary biology, geology, cosmology, and all the other sciences that creationists are afraid of to actually PROVIDE said argument. Why is this too much to ask?

"It's like debating pre schoolers."

Yes it is, but I am a masochist and I do it any way. :)

I appreciate your civility. I don't exactly know how all of these threads work, but I have in the past brought arguments with support using Science, IE charting backward population growth, and argued that man hasn't been around long enough to have evolved from even apes to man, through micro evo. These arguments were not in any way addressed, just discounted simply because they don't coincide with certain views. Once again I appreciate your candor, and civility toward me, and my problem is not with you. It is however with those who have discounted anything I have had to say simply on the basis that I don't support evolution.

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.