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.
Cheers!
My company retains 40 year old Fortran as if it were the Tablets of Moses. And it ain't no small company.
That reminds me, wasn't there a recent thread where someone claimed "Nebraska Man" was on the cover of time magazine, and there was some pesky omitted punctuation involved?
Yes, it's a tough scene on the crevo threads. . .
Cheers!
It is different insofar as certain religious beliefs imbued people with the expectation of discoverable rules underlying the universe, and the impetus to discover them.
Putting on shoes in a different order does not inform your philosophical expectations (various pro athletes observing rituals before "the big game" notwithstanding).
Cheers!
...but...but...
then NOBODY will read my puns!
Hey! You forgot the horseshoe crab! :-)
Cheers!
Please don't start a Microsoft/Apple or Microsoft/Linux flamewar too :-)
Cheers!
PS Why "lazy" particularly? Do you have the original design specs for DNA? And do you know the development hardware is free from malware and hackers?
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.
BUZZ! WRONG! Geologists had described the geological column and the progression of species in it *before* Darwin published Origin of Species. Geologists already knew before Darwin's voyage on the Beagle that (a) the earth is much older than a literal reading of the Bible suggests (b) there has not been a global flood as described in Genesis and (c) fossil species are not the same as modern ones, and look less like modern ones the deeper in strata you go. The geologists influenced the theory of evolution, not the other way round. Those who want to question science should get basic facts about the history of science right.
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.
Looking out of my window I can see that the level of the sea is about 1.5 metres lower than it was 1 hour ago. Extrapolating backwards in time I conclude that my house cannot have existed in its current position for more than around a day, and that about a year ago the tops of the tallest mountains on earth were covered. Evidently by the logic of creationists Noah's flood only finished last year.
3. The risible 2% population growth argument has been pulled to pieces by others.
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
Absolutely incredible evidence! Most ancient civilisations (nearly all of which were coastal or by great rivers) have myths about floods in which nearly everybody died. I can't believe how that can be! Can you imagine where these stories come from? Let's go and ask the citizens of S Louisiana, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia if they can imagine where myths of incredibly destructive floods might originate.
On a more serious note the flood model of sedimentary deposition is falsified on numerous cross-confirming pieces of data that confirm mainstream geological observations. Flood geology has no answer for the simple and common phenomenon of angular unconformities (other than frantic handwaving). Likewise flood geology doesn't explain the fossil pattern that we actually have, just one that creation scientists would like us to have. If flood geologists are right then they should understand how to find mineral deposits much better than conventional geologists. Where are their mineral finds that run counter to mainstream expectations? Flood geologists explain the fossil record by suggesting that more modern creatures were "better at running for higher ground" and thus are found higher in the geological column. Presumably more modern plantlife was also "better at running for higher ground"
I think you can see where I am going with all this. I've got too bored to answer the rest of the tripe that you unwittingly repeated. Creation science: It is bad theology, because it is based on lies, and it isn't science at all.
Not brilliant, as you asked. Aged relative problems. :( But I try to keep smiling and get my spirits back up by giving illogic and the rejection of observed reality a good kicking on FR. :)
Even that one doesn't qualify depending on how you wrap your mind around it.
OK. I get the following possibilities.
I still say that the serious contenders are 1 and 2, so we should be agreed that life has appeared on earth from non-life at least once, and that the argument is natural versus supernatural origination.
BTW, you haven't yet answered my questions about the nature of stars. Do you accept that stars are hot balls of fusing gas, inconceivably far away?
I missed the question about the stars. Sometimes, though, in the middle of these discussions with more than a few participants firing questions and comments, things get missed.
The evidence seems to indicate that your definition of star is adequate.
If all of humanity were wiped out except for Noah and his family, then there shouldn't be any Flood traditions from any other cultures. Only Noah's story should survive. The fact that there are hundreds of such tales, each of which somehow survived The Big One spoken of in everybody else's tale, indicates that none of them were global.
That's a good argument. I wish I'd thought of it!
Thanks.
but the difference is that before the bright light, etc., he had gone around dispossessing people of their homes and putting them to death: and AFTER the revelation became better behaved.
By modern Christian standards and what we read of him, probably so. But then the biblical sources of Paul's character is Paul himself, no bias there. ;-)
From the (then) Jewish standard, he went from being a devout upstanding lawman to an heretical apostate luring the faithful into a blasphemous cult of Jesus. Very bad behavior.
Kinda the opposite of those Moose-limb terrorists, BTW.
While I don't hold any love for the muslims, the history of Christianity from 313 to 1649 was hardly christian.
I only hope that it won't take 1,300 years and millions killed before Islam gets there.
How do you reconcile the physical evidence (all of which is inferential rather than direct) with the clear, simple, biblical language that speaks of stars "singing" and "falling to earth". The writers of the Bible had a very different image of stars to the scientific image of stars that has become accepted over the last 200 years. They appear to be quite small and close, probably a few-thousand miles up in the air at most. "Singing" is a clear indication of spiritual lifelike properties but the ancients would have been unaware that the sound of singing doesn't carry through vacuum; they appear to be describing might-spirits or angels, plausible for those who have no cosmology in the modern sense. Why don't you reject the modern astronomical models on the grounds of clear biblical authority? From all appearances you reject the idea that evolution can be reconciled with scripture. How is modern astronomy, with its ridiculous stories of trillions of galaxies each with billions of suns, (99.9999999999999999999% of which cannot be seen without powerful instruments, and whose existence is largely inferred from the fact that distant galaxies look the same as close ones, except smaller because they are further away) reconcilable with scripture, which doesn't even seem to be aware at all that our sun and the stars in the sky are the same class of object?
Further, the "historical Noah tale" believers appear to mostly be unaware that it is a distorted version of an earlier Middle Eastern fable, the "Epic of Gilgamesh", reworked as a morality story of divine retribution for the sins of men. About the only people who don't accept that the Noah story is derived from the Epic of Gilgamesh are Christian Young Earth Creationists. Everyone else, believer or not, accepts the mainstream dating of the two stories.
I was disappointed by the portrayal of scientists in that movie. We're so much cooler and better looking than that :-)
Do they need programmers? :-O
Did you win the powerball?
Yepp, however there are also different ways in which code can be reused.
For some strange reason this ominous designer only reuses code that's been inherited from previous versions but never code from other unrelated 'source code' which means that he has to "reinvent the wheel" quite often.
In other words, if you look at the work of this "designer" you get a treelike structure whereas if you examine the way humans usually design things, you get more of a spider's web.
Designed to hit 2200.
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.