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.
I thought about it, but it would take more than one sentence to show what she was getting at, so it's too long for the list.
It would absolutely be a part of the process, sister in Christ, to listen to the Holy Spirit about any doctrine.
Above all, what does that doctrine say about Jesus the Messiah coming in the flesh?
Then we could assign a number from the scale.
Wrong.
According to the United States Seventh Court of Appeals, which stands as currently existing US Court Precedent, Atheism IS a Religion for First Amendment purposes.
And really, in terms of the Constitution, that's all that matters -- it does not matter if Human-Sacricifing Satanists claim that their Murder-Cult is a "religion", the Courts of the United States say that it isn't -- just as the Courts of the United States also do not protect the Polygamy-Harems of Old Mormonism as a First Amendment Religion.
But according to the Courts of the United States, in terms of Our Constitution: "Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics. As such"... Atheism IS a Religion.
And therefore, Atheistic-Religionism is THE ONLY First-Amendment-Recognized-Religion which enjoys a $500-Billion-dollar-a-year Publik-Skool Government Subsidy in favor of its own Evolutionistic "Creation Myth", over and against the Creation Theories of all other Religions.
As such, Atheistic-Religionism in America is the greatest single beneficiary of the Government Establishment of Religion in the history of Mankind.
Best, OP
Even if atheism was a religion (it isn't), it wouldn't matter. Evolution isn't atheistic. You have no argument.
Oh, I see, so when you said that "white gold is actually purer than yellow gold" you weren't talking about actual white gold (which is yellow gold mixed with silver or nickel and therefore not "actually purer than yellow gold"), you were talking about "white" gold--that fantastical creation of your imagination. Too bad you chose a name for this mystery metal that was already in use.
Thanks. Appreciate it.
I have already demonstrated that evolution relegates the Christian creation story to "myth."
It allows for no alternative explanations.
Evolution is a theory that is necessarily IN ITS IMPLICATIONS, atheistic.
I have already demonstrated that evolution relegates the Christian creation story to "myth."
Evolution is not required to relegate the 'Christian creation story to "myth" '. Any religion that does not agree with your views on 'Christian creation' will do.
Another religion's view of Christianity does not relegate the Christian creation story to the status of "myth."
Evolution makes a truth claim about REALITY by virtue of its claim to be science as opposed to faith.
CG, for you to claim that evolution is THEISTIC, then the burden is on you to describe the nature of this God you envision and something about this God's methods and intentions.
Will you please do that?
Wrong.
According to the Courts of the United States, which is all that matters for Constitutional Questions, Atheism IS a Religion -- and therefore, Atheism is the ONLY First-Amendment-Religion which currently enjoys Government Subsidy for its "Creation Myth", to the tune of a $500-Billion a Year Monopoly in favor of Evolutionism-Only in the Publik Skools.
Incidentally, for someone who claimed to "not be an Atheist", you sure are defensive on the subject, C-G. I can deal with an honest Atheist; I never mind debating against someone who's willing to stake his claim, and stand by it. But someone who minces words and dances about the subject, while at the same time trying to libel your opponents as "Un-Christian" (even though Christianity is a subject you know little or nothing about)... for that, I have little tolerance at all.
OP
Evolution makes a truth claim about REALITY
Most, if not all, religions make a 'truth claim about REALITY'. If another religion's claim doesn't agree with your religion's claim, it is relegating your religion's claim to myth because is denies its reality. And BTW, the TOE and science are not religions.
Not a helpful answer.
To claim that evolution is not atheistic, you must have some reason for claiming that it can be theistic. It only follows.
There is no allowance for neutral as an answer. In this particular case, neutral is simply repeating the claim that it can be one or the other, in which case, one should be able to describe the nature of the God that exist under this system.
Either one can address that description or one is simply repeating a statement that has been picked up.
Every time you insist this you are insisting to everyone who accepts the overwhelming physical evidence for evolution that the Christian creation story is indeed a myth. Is this is the conclusion that you want drawn?
If religious belief conflicts with physical evidence what do you believe? For example the Bible speaks of stars "singing" and "falling to earth". It does so with simple literal precision that would have made perfect sense to people 2000 years ago who thought of the stars as night-time sky-spirits (angels?) probably quite small and a few miles above the earth. There is no hint in the Bible that the stars are the same class of object as the sun.
What do you think stars are? If you think they are balls of fusing gas untold trillions of miles away (unlikely to "sing" or "fall to earth") then how do you reconcile this with the clear message of scripture? Those fool scientists who speak of trillions of galaxies each with billions of suns like our own, (of which about 5000 can be seen with the naked eye on a clear night) must just be wrong, mustn't they? You reject the evidence for evolution on similar grounds after all.
So, accepting that ridiculous "very distant enormous fusing balls of gas" theory relegates christianity to a myth, by your own logic. What do you think stars are?
Physics, decay rates, energy, etc. Take a good look at the "fine structure constant" and what it implies.
Actually, you are wrong. Another religion's perspective might claim Christianity's to be wrong, but it still allows for a supernatural claim to be made.
Evolution, on the other hand, makes a uniquely naturalistic perspective on reality . It says that reality is ONLY naturalistic.
BTW, anything that requires faith adherence and makes claims about ultimate questions is a religion.
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.