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.
However "people engineered software code" never looks as if it was created using a genetic algorithm (except in the rare modern cases where it *was* created using a genetic algorithm, not really "designed" in the sense you are probably reaching for, but evolved)
Never. Which is why I like you sharpy. :-}
Slight misrepresentation, there, Thatcher, and one which your off-of-FR namesake probably wouldn't endorse ;-)
Moose-limbs are not dying for their faith, i.e. "renounce Allah or die!"
They are dying because they have been persuaded that dying while in the process of killing infidels is the sure way to 72 units of eternal nookie.
Personally, I prefer Harcourt Fenton Mudd's approach. At least until Scotty (RIP) and the rest of the Enterprise's crew jiggered with it ;-)
Cheers!
I just saw in passing the mention of your friend passing away.
I'm very sorry, I missed most of the relevant portion of this thread and your notification.
Have you considered asking the pro-cre folks on this thread (if the won't pray for those associated with a Darwinist...) at least to observe a moment of silence in the friend's memory?
My condolences and prayers. . .
No cheers, unfortunately. Whiskers now at half mast.
I just saw in passing the mention of your friend passing away.
I'm very sorry, I missed most of the relevant portion of this thread and your notification.
Have you considered asking the pro-cre folks on this thread (if the won't pray for those associated with a Darwinist...) at least to observe a moment of silence in the friend's memory?
My condolences and prayers. . .
No cheers, unfortunately. Whiskers now at half mast.
Along with Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, and Harun Yahya.
The comment was in reply to a post that said "life was inevitable" in some places. The only thing I'd seen along that line was to the effect that "conditions were such that life was possible." That is a different statement than the first.
Life does come only from preceding life. That is the rule, and there are no known violations of that rule....not that I've ever heard of, anyway.
Actually there has definitely been an absolute minimum of one violation of that rule in the history of the universe. It's just whether the mechanism of the violation was natural or supernatural that is at issue.
:>)
How's it goin' today, Thatch?
Even that one doesn't qualify depending on how you wrap your mind around it.
Thanks one and all for your kind remarks....I usually do try to remain sane,civil, and polite...but as my younger son, is prone to pointing out to my hubby(while speaking about me)..."watch out for her, shes pretty laid back, and you cant really tell what shes thinking...then all of a sudden her eyes seem to twirl, and smoke comes out of her ears, and you better hide, because she is ready to explode"....they know, I do let myself get irked and irritated and still remain calm...then I cross a line and explode...
Usually when I feel like exploding on FR, I just shut FR down for the day, and do something else...
But, thanks all, for the kind words...
Against evolution:
1.Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a … portion of the geologic column…the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time…over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance. The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled. This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.
2.Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.
3.World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.
4.The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers. It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.
5.Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form. ADD NOTE: Recently there have been evolutionists online in newsgroups and on blogs that have claimed Polonium 214 doesn't exist. Main reason being is because they declare the Granite in the earth's crust took many millions of years to form and finally cool and Polonium 214 takes less then a second to expend all its half-lifes. In order to save face, some evolutionists have decided to lie and say Polonium 214 simply doesn't exist.
6. Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.
7.Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.
8.Astronomical estimates of the distance to various galaxies gives conflicting data. The Biblical Record refers to the expansion of space by the Creator. Astrophysicist Russell Humphries demonstrates that such space expansion would dilate time in distant space. This could explain a recent creation with great distances to the stars.
9. The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells. This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans – all without knowing they are doing so.
10.A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in
10^4,478,296
You are making an unfounded assumption that complexity is necessarily limited to creation by an intelligence. This is a common mistake when considering DNA because most abandon the consideration of the simple chemical reactions that affect cell type. Chemical reactions are ubiquitous in nature and need no direction to occur. During initial ontogeny, cell development is determined by the amount and type of chemical found in the area a cell is developing (mitosis). This chemical triggers the release of other chemicals which direct the production of other cell types. It appears that bodies are born of a number of chemical feedback systems where one chemical affects and relies on a number of others. Feedback systems are not restricted to creation by any intelligences and are found in many natural systems.
"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.
This is simply argument by 'I don't think it could happen any other way'. As humans, any time we see something that seems to inexorably lead to a more 'complex' something we place a label on the process. This label is 'purpose', and because we use the term to describe our volitional actions we tend to assign intelligence to everything we label as purposeful. In the case of a biological process, the only 'purpose' is for the available chemicals to follow the chemical reactions that are dictated by chemical bonds, energy influx and the 2LoT. Purpose has become a shorthand way of anthropomorphizing that which does not have its own intelligence. This is done not because the situation warrants it but because of a desire to see something more than nature. We all have negative thoughts that make us doubt the designer of natural creation.
The designer of natural creation, according to design proponents, could very well be an alien race. Are you willing to worship this alien race as God?
Since you are still in high school, I will be more circumspect in my reply.
Every one of those arguments has been refuted time and time again in the classrooms, in scientific publications, universities, many places on the web (including our discussions here on FR), and finally in your very own textbooks.
I would recommend starting with a website called talk origins. Good info and easily understandable by the layperson.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Sheesh, guy, if you're going to steal, don't steal rubbish!
Darn, and here I thought I was in the cyber-presence of a true genius. I was starting to re-think all my ideas about science. Thanks for pulling me back from the brink.
Even in HS, he/she should know better. Sigh.
So far the results from "Christian" science all resemble Kent Hovinds mindless meanderings.
"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.
OK, some of the men that founded the modern branches of science were Christian. Got it. Many Christians do practice science and indeed do not harm science... unless they allow their religious bias to affect their conclusions. Some go so far as to manipulate the accepted laws of physics to prove the Bible correct. There is a difference between Christian Scientists (cough cough) and Scientists who are Christian. The former look to make science fit the Bible, the latter look to accept the findings of science and adapt their understanding of the Bible.
"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 don't remember this particular tangent but as old as I am, well...
Science is self correcting. Because research is available for all to inspect even those determined to make their mark by lying and fudging figures are unable to hide their dishonesty for very long.
"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.
Those Christians that insist on modifying the methodology of science to include the supernatural will indeed affect scientific study. Those that understand the reasons for the current methodology have no reason to change it.
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.