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.

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.

You made my point. If you Know something, then assumptions based on what you know are reasonable within limits. If you don't know something, then assumptions with regard to unknowns are blind and therefore not "reasonable". Practicality.

When using Carbon 14 to date recent ages, potential variances are taken into consideration.

That's what I hear..

Do you really think scientists would miss something as obvious as that?

Apparently they did for some time as the fact of variable nature of 14C sent everyone into a CYA dance for a while. I remember the flurry of articles about it.

If half-lives were shorter in the past there would be evidence of such. Really, how would you know what that evidence would be? Some have suggested that "assuming" the conditions of the origin of the earth, the result would be extreme heat that would have destroyed the earth. That's great if their assumptions are right. Given they don't know the conditions and that any such assumptions are inherently unreasonable as a result, No one can really say heat would be problematic.. much less detectable.

They were eyewitnesses to the things that He said and did.

Like Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Paul?

If Mark was an 'eyewitness' why would he need to relate what Peter said? (cf. Eusebius and Papias)
And if Matthew was an eyewitness why would he have to borrow so much from non-eyewitness Mark?
Luke, to his credit, admits that he depended on the testimony of others. That and some liberal 'borrowing' of Flavius Josephus.
John, of 'Gospel of John' fame, seems to have a pretty high Hellenic-style Christology for an unlettered and unlearned Jewish fisherman. Not to mention that he didn't seem to care to much for Jews ...
Paul claims he was blined by a bright light and heard a voice. Stuff which now days usually gets you admitted to hospital, but I guess in the first century you could become a shaman and found a religion.

Therefore, if they went to their deaths voluntarily for the sake of His name, it is proof that they believed that Jesus was who He said He was and they were willing to die for what they knew, firsthand, to be true.

So what about the followers of Zeus, Aphrodite, or Apollo? Or the followers of Allah?
Jan Huss, the Waldensians, the Cathars all died for what they 'believed'.

Is that proof that they 'believed'? Certainly.
Is that proof that what they believed was true? Certainly not.

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.

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.

You know. Those things can be picked up almost immediately. Here is my answer to them.

2 December, 2004

CHINA

Party’s secret directives on how to eradicate religion and ensure the victory of atheism

The Department of Propaganda has prepared a new paper to promote atheism and ban religions and superstitions. It is intended to stop conversions among leading party cadres and youth.

Beijing (AsiaNews) – ‘Westernising’ and ‘disintegrating’ trends in the name of religion threaten China and the government must “be patient and meticulous in imperceptibly influencing the people”, especially the young and leading party cadres, so as to stop the “growth of religions, cultic organisations and superstitions and strengthen Marxist atheism”.

These are the main points presented in a paper prepared by the Department of Propaganda of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) to stop the growth of religion and spirituality among the Chinese.

Conversions among the young and leading party cadres are of particular concern. For this reason, the government is particularly interested in exploiting all the means of communication at its disposal, especially Internet, as privileged “tools to conduct Marxist atheism propaganda and education”. According to the paper, Internet is a new resource for improving the moral development of the young who are its greatest users in the country.

In a summit on religions held in Beijing in October, the government stressed that, given China’s special conditions, it is opposed to “laws based on western mentality”. Religious freedom is in this sense a concession of the state, not an innate human right.

The secret paper for party members only was leaked to the West by party members opposed to the government’s atheist policies and released to the public by a Canadian Website: The Voice of the Martyrs.

It is divided in eight parts; here’s a synopsis by AsiaNews of its main points:

Part one stresses the importance of increasing research, education and distribution of Marxist atheist information in order to stop the growth of cultic organisations and superstitions. ‘Westernising’ and ‘disintegrating’ trends in the name of religion are seen as a threat to China; hence, the importance given to the expansion and purity of the CPC and to improving every aspect—spiritual, moral, scientific and cultural—of national life.

Part two explains how to broaden the appeal of Marxist atheism and its goals, especially among the young and leading cadres of the party, who have been rediscovering faith and spirituality

The paper insists on the “need to promote the development of every individual in terms of the needs of the people”. Propaganda and education are key elements requiring “patient and meticulous efforts to imperceptibly influence the people, above all the young and leading party cadres”.

Part three emphasises the goals of Marxist propaganda. There is an absolute need to “eliminate fatuity (i.e. weakness or imbecility of mind) and superstitions” and replaced them with the norms and dogmas of “scientific thought”.

The people must be helped to recognise “the general process and rule of the development of human society” so that it can “voluntarily and firmly stick to the historical view of Marxist materialism.”

Reaching this goal means educating people in the “natural sciences” so that they can have “the basic knowledge about life, [. . .] the universe, the origin of life, the rule on human evolution, and correctly deal with various natural phenomena, natural disasters, birth, aging, disease and death.”

The paper stresses the importance of good health and healthy bodies which must be promoted by helping people “acquire the habit of good behaviour, and scientifically and reasonably conduct of physical exercises, health care, living, sightseeing, recreation and entertainment.” Health care, sports and leisure must find inspiration in Marxist atheism and follow the practical directives of party members.

Integrating Marxism in the education system is the main focus of part four. This is to be achieved through Deng Xiaoping’s four standards, namely ideals, morals, knowledge and discipline.

The paper reiterates the party’s absolute monopoly over education and the need to “stick to the principle of separation of national education and religion [and] integrate Marxist atheism propaganda and education into the syllabi of the course of political theory”.

Part five explains how to integrate Marxist doctrine in everyday spiritual activities. Marxism must permeate all activities in everyone’s life so as “to change old habits into new ones, conducting people’s cultural and sports activities, satisfying people’s spiritual and cultural demands, [and] popularising knowledge on laws, rules and regulations”.

Media are dealt with in part six. Television, radio and newspapers represent important channels through which “Marxist atheism propaganda and education can be conducted”. Internet is particularly prized as a new frontier from where to broaden the appeal of Marxist culture. “We shall enrich,” the paper says, “the pages and sections related to morals of some key websites, strengthen the instruction and management over online comments, and make Internet a new tool to conduct Marxist atheism propaganda and education.”

Part seven is dedicated to integrating Marxist atheism research, as a key subject, into the social science. Superstition, pseudoscience and cults are harmful and must be removed from the minds of leading party cadres and the young. This will be done by strengthening Marxist atheism departments, training of talented people, running well atheism research institutions and related departments in colleges and universities.

Lastly, part eight highlights the importance of spreading Marxism in order strengthen the power of the party leadership. Party members, especially leading party cadres, must boost “the party culture continuously, firmly hold a materialist worldview, and voluntarily set an example in studying and disseminating Marxist atheism” among the people. (DS)

Printable page

Wolf

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.