Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Designed to deceive: Creation can't hold up to rigors of science
CONTRA COSTA TIMES ^ | 12 February 2006 | John Glennon

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.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: biology; crevolist; cultofyoungearthers; evolution; idiocy; ignoranceisstrength; lyingtoinfidelsisok; science; theocraticwhackjobs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 2,421-2,439 next last
To: tallhappy
"Canard after canard is put forth. it's a world view fight where there can never be anything wrong or descrepant, and that's troublesome."

And of course, you will enlighten us as to what each canard is? :)
161 posted on 02/12/2006 6:13:21 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
We've great advances since the Dark Ages and the findings of science upset some people. Actually, we owe Darwin a huge debt. When scientists casted aside errors and misconceptions, the state of human knowledge advanced. And one can confidently say there are no limits to what can be discovered in the future.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

162 posted on 02/12/2006 6:13:29 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws

With the wax on the floors still wet, no doubt.


163 posted on 02/12/2006 6:14:05 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
I'm happy you'd allow that scientists can pursue whatever they wish. That would be happy for all, unless you are taking that full license back by saying that does NOT include presuming action by a Designer, G-d.

I'm going to break out your (2) into three and respond to each.

  1. "Biology can only deal with the observable and testable."

    Yes, that is Darinistic claim, and it comes out of biology, or rather the mindset of biologists -- especially those invloved in classification. I've covered that bit about mindset already, so I'll leave it alone here.

    For biology this claim seems to have more validity than for other sciences, where the not-so-observable and not at all testable has consideration. See point next. Yet even in biology -- especially when it deals with fossils and even with complex issues of complex systems, observability and testability are reduced to ballparkian induction and what-if games.

  2. "Every science, can only deal with the observable and testable."

    Not at all. Super strings, multi-verses in physics, complex interrealtions in complex systems in all sciences, mathematics, psychology, psychiatry -- all are sciences where valid lines of intellectual pursuit are not necessarily observable or testable. As Karl Popper said about natural selection itself they are valid as "metaphysical research projects."

  3. "God doesn't fit either of those criteria."

    That, is your opinion. It may be shared by many but also to many, including myself, it is an opinion we do not share. For instant case I will say that G-d is obvious to me in the sheer unlikelyness by all known explanations by physics, chemistry ad biology of all we are being just as we are.


164 posted on 02/12/2006 6:16:38 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
Perhaps PatrickHenry will institute Polka night at the cafeteria - Friday nights along with the fish fry.

I gave a memo to the Grand Master, informing him that you suggested a Polka night. All he did was raise his eyebrows slightly, then he tossed your memo into the fireplace.

Sorry, no Polka night. Darwin Central is above that sort of thing. But it is permitted to go bowling on your days off.

165 posted on 02/12/2006 6:17:45 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
" Virtually all biologists consider the existence of evolution to be a fact."

What a phony straw-man. The ultimate scarecrow non-argument.

Everyone including IDers and even 6-day YECers, believes that evolution explains some, most, or all biological diversity. The difference is that "Big E" evolutionists are convinced that evolution alone can explain all biological diversity, and are consequently the dogmatists. They are the ones who regard dissent as heresy, and are fearful that people may have doubts.

166 posted on 02/12/2006 6:18:57 PM PST by cookcounty (Army Vet, Army Dad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

Aren't you in charge of the floors?


167 posted on 02/12/2006 6:20:06 PM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

Yes, now go take any you have down, and also take down the roof over you head as well. In fact go naked into the fields with your family. Be like the lillies on the field. Dig little holes and plant your naked feet therein. Right? Do I summarize your intent accurately?


168 posted on 02/12/2006 6:20:26 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
"Big E" evolutionists are convinced that evolution alone can explain all biological diversity, and are consequently the dogmatists. " -

Invincible Ignorance

169 posted on 02/12/2006 6:22:43 PM PST by ex-snook (God of the Universe, God of Creation, God of Love, thank you for life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Do we get new, "Darwin Central" bowling shirts? We can polka right after the bowling alley closes.


170 posted on 02/12/2006 6:23:09 PM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws

Yes. It's how I can speak so authoritatively about the wax. Fortunately, your Polka Night idea is now warming the Grand Master, which is about the best possible outcome.


171 posted on 02/12/2006 6:23:35 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Darwin himself said that he was observing and commenting on God's creation. Would you allow that to be taught in a public school class on his works? After all we cannot teach evolution without alluding to Darwin.


172 posted on 02/12/2006 6:25:31 PM PST by Eagles6 (Dig deeper, more ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: bvw
"I'm happy you'd allow that scientists can pursue whatever they wish. That would be happy for all, unless you are taking that full license back by saying that does NOT include presuming action by a Designer, G-d."

They can pursue whatever they wish, but God is outside of the scope of science. And *presuming* action by a designer is likewise untestable and therefore outside the scope of science. People can do whatever they wish however, whether it's scientific or not.

"Yes, that is Darinistic claim, and it comes out of biology, or rather the mindset of biologists -- especially those invloved in classification. I've covered that bit about mindset already, so I'll leave it alone here."

No, it's the mindset of all scientists, who only deal with the observable and the testable.

"For biology this claim seems to have more validity than for other sciences, where the not-so-observable and not at all testable has consideration. See point next."

No, it's true of all science.

"Yet even in biology -- especially when it deals with fossils and even with complex issues of complex systems, observability and testability are reduced to ballparkian induction and what-if games."

No, it's not at all.

"Super strings, multi-verses in physics, complex interrealtions in complex systems in all sciences, mathematics, psychology, psychiatry -- all are sciences where valid lines of intellectual pursuit are not necessarily observable or testable."

That's false. In fact, nobody has directly observed an atom.

" As Karl Popper said about natural selection itself they are valid as "metaphysical research projects."

Which, despite your lies, does not mean *supernatural* or *religious*. In fact, Popper changed his mind and did NOT consider natural selection a metaphysical research programme after he properly understood it.

" That, is your opinion."

No, it's a fact. God is neither observable or testable.

"For instant case I will say that G-d is obvious to me in the sheer unlikelyness by all known explanations by physics, chemistry ad biology of all we are being just as we are."

And in that God claim is neither observable or testable.
173 posted on 02/12/2006 6:26:01 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

Would you prefer the Ox Trot?


174 posted on 02/12/2006 6:26:11 PM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Good article! I agree (almost) completely!

".....nor do they seek publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals......"

For the most part, "Yes", however, they would LOVE to slip their dribble into a reputable journal.

175 posted on 02/12/2006 6:26:54 PM PST by DoctorMichael (The Fourth-Estate is a Fifth-Column!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

"Darwin himself said that he was observing and commenting on God's creation."

He was an agnostic who didn't believe that God was knowable.


176 posted on 02/12/2006 6:27:33 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws

Preference has nothing to do with it. It's the only dance I'm capable of.


177 posted on 02/12/2006 6:29:11 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
Do we get new, "Darwin Central" bowling shirts? We can polka right after the bowling alley closes.

How can we continue to rule the world if our agents are running around in bowling shirts and dashing off to do the polka? Even the janitorial pool has more class than that. Have you been hanging around with creationists?

178 posted on 02/12/2006 6:30:58 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: N2Gems
I checked three of your supposed sources for your claim that "Molecular anthropologists are coming to believe that homo sapiens sapiens originated in one location between 40 and 60,000 years ago," and noticed that two did not regard the origin and/or diaspora of modern humans. The third mentioned human origins and contradicted your claim.

The first source I checked is (Nila Patil et al., "Blocks of Limited Halotypoe[sic] Diversity Revealed by High Resolution Scanning of Human Chromosome 21", Science 294 (2001) 1719 - 1723)

This is a statistical experiment in common SNPs, potentially useful in the future for things like identifying genetic disease associations. What's the relevance? Nowhere in this article is anything regarding the origin of our species mentioned, nor timelines guessed at. Here's the last two sentences:

"Our results indicate that a very dense set of SNPs is required to capture all the common haplotype information. Once in hand, however, this information can be used to identify much smaller subsets of SNPs useful for comprehensive whole-genome association studies."

How, exactly, does this support your assertion that "Molecular anthropologists are coming to believe that homo sapiens sapiens originated in one location between 40 and 60,000 years ago?" Did you read this article before you offered it as evidence?

Second: Mary Clair King and Arno G Motulsky, "Mapping Human History", Science 298 (2002) 2342 - 2343)

This is an overview of previous studies on population genetics, and also does not make any mention of timelines for human origin or migration. It is essentially a summation of some previous studies with a short discussion on whether ethnicity is a medically useful descriptor. Where, exactly, does it provide support for your assertion? Are you picking these sources at random from Google?

Third: (Carl Zimmer, "After You Eve", Natural History, March 2001, 32-35)

This is a blog entry which includes a primer on mitochondrial DNA, a chat about his wife's pregnancy, and a mention of a couple studies, one of which put mitochondrial Eve at 200,000 years ago, and the most recent of which put her at 170,000 years ago. I suppose this is the closest your sources have gotten to supporting your statement on origins, since this one actually mentions origins. Unfortunately, the mentioned studies dispute your claim.

I'm not going to bother checking the rest of your list, so why don't you just quote me your source which says that "Molecular anthropologists are coming to believe that homo sapiens sapiens originated in one location between 40 and 60,000 years ago?" While you're replying, could you please explain why you included sources totally unrelated to, or contradicting, your claim? Did you hope no one would read them and take your word for it?
179 posted on 02/12/2006 6:31:23 PM PST by aNYCguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs; b_sharp

Too bad, polka, beer, brats and bowling all seem to fit so nice.

Now, what can we do with the OxTrot? Have the cafeteria serve up one of their more moving entrees? Cafe Ex Lax? We'll have to make sure b_sharp's got the stalls ready.


180 posted on 02/12/2006 6:32:40 PM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 2,421-2,439 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson