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.
Google "forbidden archeology Michael Cremo"
Spoiler:
Krishna Creationism with talking apes (non-human) every 300 million years.
Cites! Cites!
"Forbidden archaeology" is not forbidden, it is laughable.
If there was any good evidence for these claims, they would be mainstream. Instead, they are way out past the fringe.
Our creations maybe "unatural appearing" but our bodies are still more complex and efficient than a car. The incredible dna code uses information to manufacure all kinds of cells in our bodies. It's ordered and very purposeful. The function of our eyes are more complicated than the most advanced camera we have manufactured; something had to design it. We all have negative thoughts that make us doubt the designer of natural creation.
Not if you include everyone who has bought a video collection for $69.95 from Kent Hovind under the heading "scientist".
*snickering* That's the press anyway..
I'm not saying that at all, though I would offer that if it were an actual Christian foundation, it couldn't but help in some fashion. The nature of Christians, whether they accomplish it or not, is to attempt to be perfect in their morality. When you can rely on that being the case, you can generally rely upon results. But I would underscore Christian, not an "ism". Ism's are philosophical groups using Christianity by and large. As such, I can't speak for them.
The argument I've made is simple, read your history. Christians founded the branches and are responsible for their existance and much of the major discoveries. So trying to say Christians would destroy science is about the most moronic thing you could proffer.
As for the methodology, I would almost agree. Methodology is only as good as the morality putting it to use. If you have someone affecting methodology that has no moral compunction about say, oh, lying or deception... obviously, precision really becomes a moot point. So, there is something to be said for highly moral, upstanding and trustworthy people being in any position, scientific fields are no exception. But you're off on a tangent I never went to.
I merely rebutted the assanine notion that Christianity is out to destroy science. It just doesn't pass the sniff test or the bs-ometer and sounds like stark-raving lunacy no different than the liberal lunacy going on amongst dim circles right now. "The religious right will get you.."
Boo.
If you google "forbidden Archeology" there is a book by that title that goes into much of it.
No, good evidence is immaterial. If it doesn't fit the controlling regime, it doesn't get anywhere. IE, if it rebuts evolution, overturns popular assumptions, etc. Look at the way ID is being treated simply because it goes against evolution. There is nothing rational in the way it's being shot down without any real review. The controlling regime doesnt' like it, therefore they'll do everything in their power to stop it. Doesn't matter how valid it is.
*snort* Someone has been telling you pork-pies. ID doesn't go against evolution. The scientists accepting ID (Behe, Denton, Dembski, Meyer) are all on public record accepting the following:
Do you support ID? If so presumably you endorse those beliefs of the scientists who propose ID. *snickering*
There is nothing rational in the way it's being shot down without any real review.
*guffaw*. ID is the oldest origins idea under the sun. Its proponents have had thousands of years to get their act together and come up with some evidence for their proposition. So far they are batting zero. It isn't being shot down irrationally. It is being shot down because it is horse-puckey. Darwin anticipated and answered most of the ID arguments that Behe et al try to use 150 years ago.
Moonies and Hare Krishnas, joined together fightin' the good fight against Eeeeviloooshun. Brings a tear to my eye.
Good evidence is immaterial???? Not in science! Good evidence is critical.
That is why this "forbidden archaeology" gets nowhere--there is no good evidence. Same for ID.
You got to bring the evidence if you want to play the science game.
Or, as Heinlein wrote:
What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history' - what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your only clue. Get the facts!Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
You are so far from the line. As someone who pushes it repeatedly, I can say that with authority. You're one of the most polite and respectful posters around here.
(Not that the mods are entirely rational. Neither ModernMan nor SeaLion were given to posting abusive posts)
In fact I never saw a post from either of them that I wouldn't have been proud to post myself. Their style was uniformly mild and thoughtful, whatever the provocation. I hads been lurking for a few months and Sealion's incomprehensible banning, hot on the heels of Modernman's brought me back to active posting. Keep posting in your great style, AAMM, we need calm rational people like you round here.
Why should we be concerned with showing an exception to the observation that complex life such as a fly can not spontaneously arise from dead flesh when evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life and abiogenesis does not state that complex life such as a fly spontaneously formed? You are attempting to broaden Pasteur's conclusions to include inferences that can not be logically be taken from his experiments
It's an interesting diversion watching you relentlessly push your biased and misinformed opinion despite the corrections many have provided you. An observer might expect you fear your belief system collapsing if science is admitted to be correct.
Oops! Sounds like it's time for FR'ing for Mates!
Is a self replicating RNA strand alive or dead? Is a prion alive or dead? Is a virus alive or dead? How/where do you draw the line?
I suspect the 'list' you are referring to is PH's evo ping list. I'm on that list. When have I ever called you or a lying so and so?
It depends on what scale that you examine the artifacts at. At the microscopic level, there are lots of imperfections in the materials used in a car. At the atomic scale, there are no differences between artificial and natural systems.
If you take a good look at DNA you will find that it does not have unnatural symmetry or near perfection but is instead full of errors, duplications, abandoned 'code', inefficiencies and unnecessary redundancies.
Examine people engineered software code, it frequently contains abandoned (never executed) code, inefficiencies, and unnecessary redundancies. Particularly if it has been used for some time, and maintained and extended for a while.
However the likelihood that a planet somewhere in the universe having those particular conditions is far greater than zero.
That makes sense.
I does. But does the assignation of 'The Special Place' to a specific planet follow?
"Life is only possible from preceding life.
True only if you consider fairly complex life with no simpler non-life or proto-life precursors. If you consider the gradual development of cellular life from smaller non-DNA pre-life it has no meaning. If the studies into this bear fruit, as it were, then we can start talking about any 'evolutionary mechanisms' in abiogenesis.
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.