You will find that it is you who are mistaken, about a great many things. ...
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.
A circle is not a sphere. And neither "circle" nor "sphere" accurately describes the shape of the Earth, so the bible is wrong in either case.
In either case, flat earth theory didn't come from the Bible.
I did not say that any "theory" comes from the bible. I said that the bible reflected the cosmology of the people of the ancient middle east. The bible didn't originate the belief, it merely reflected the then-existing beliefs of the society of the men who authored the bible.
They were, by modern standards, ignorant goat herders, with beliefs about the universe that are, to modern ears, humorously backwards. Their written creations, such as the bible, reflect that.
I mean specifically, what rights, privileges, qualities and situations in America did NOT derive from Christianity?
Here's just a small taste that I think answers your question: First. Baseball doesn't derive from Christianity. And I like the fact that we have baseball. Further... I like the fact that we don't let the religious have a special say or privileged place in the structure of our society. I like the fact that if people want to be immoral or sinful in a way that does not breach secular law that the Christians can't convene religious courts to punish that sin. I like the fact that people have the freedom to purchase pornography or if they wish. I like the fact that people are free to believe, say and proselytize that there is no God, that Jesus never existed, or that their particular god or gods should be worshiped. I like the fact that the law will punish any Christian who tries to officially retaliate against the person who says there is no God. I like the fact that the law will punish any Christian who abuses his position and tries to use public money, public settings or public laws to further Christianity. I like the fact that we've embraced pre-Christian aspects of Western Culture, such as democracy and republicanism. I like the fact that people are not required to honor their father and mother or covet their neighbor's goods. I like the fact that there has been a lessening of first Protestant bigotry, then Christian bigotry, now religious bigotry in official American life. I like the fact that scientific progress isn't held back by the rantings of biblical literalists. I like the fact that one doesn't have to be bothered by you "respecting the Sabbath," if he himself doesn't wish to. I like the fact that Americans are free to manufacture and worship idols. I like the fact that a Muslim, or agnostic, or Sikh, or Buddhist or atheist or a Wiccan or Shintoist, upon merely holding a belief in American political philosophy and achievement of citizenship, can be as American as the descendants of the very first Protestant Christians. I like the fact that America, from early on made it known to the world that we are not a Christian nation. Basically, I like the fact that I am permitted in America to live my life in the manner of my own choosing and not have to worry about some self-righteous pig giving me crap because the way I choose to live my life differs from what he believes his "god" requires.
I've already explained why this is a false dichotomy, so, cleverly, you just repeat the same fallacy again (now where have I seen that before, oh yes, it is a given behaviour for most evolution/science rejectors on FR crevo threads). You really need to work on your reading comprehension, but given your performance so far in this thread I'm not holding out a lot of hope for you,.
I await that, with baited breath. I'm sure your original source text is just as authoritative as the one that told you lies about Columbus, and mistranslated "circle" in Isaiah.
But in the meantime, please tell me one thing about the oh so scientific evolution. What is its mathematical formula?
While I am thinking of what that might be, you can refresh my memory with the mathematical formula for germ theory, or the mathematical formula for atomic theory.
It's science, right?
Yes
Gotta be reducible to a formula.
No. Thank you for sharing your ignorance of science with us. Some might be embarassed by having posted the amount of ignorant nonsense that you've managed in this thread, but you continue right on doing it, unaware, like the sad drunk at a party where everyone else is sober, what ass you are making of yourself. Clothed in the armour of Holy Righteousness...
And leave time out of it, as has been stated ad nasuem by evothinkers, time is divorced from evolutionary processes.
What on earth have you been sniffing? When you can phrase that question and its assumptions coherently in english (the preferred language of FR) I'm sure someone will have a go at answering it.
What's the scientific formula for evolution again?
There isn't one. Lots of scientific theories aren't expressible as formulae. If you knew anything at all about science you would know this.
A suggestion. Before you post again about science or evolution, try to learn something about it first. Otherwise you just earn my scorn, and the predictive scorn of St Augustine, who had a lot to say about people like you.
"A flying squirrel is still a squirrel. A flying lemur is still a lemur. And there is no clear evidence that these so-called "flying" forms evolved from "non-flying" squirrels and "non-flying" lemurs.
Whether or not the squirrel is still a squirrel and the lemur (which is not a true lemur) is still a lemur is irrelevant to the question you asked, which was specific to the change in function of a given feature, independent of the organism that exhibits the feature. The claim you made was that there exists a point between the initial and the end function of a feature undergoing change where the costs of carrying the new function is enough to prevent the organism from surviving long enough to pass on the new function. There are enough extant examples of organisms which, whether actively undergoing change or not, have features whose function is intermediate between the normal function of those same features on other organisms to clearly show the cost/benefit ratio of that particular change.
"My main point here is, of course, that a bat has pretty sophisticated flapping wings--not mere gliding structures. For that matter, the terms "flying squirrel" and "flying lemur" are misnomers (at least for the purposes of your argument). They cannot fly in the sense we associate with birds or bats or dragonflies.
This is true. However the gliding organisms are good examples of the cost/benefit ratio that needs to be examined during any change in the function of a feature. Most intermediate features show multi-functionality. It must be stated that new functions may affect the morphology of a species as much as changed morphology affects the function of a feature.
If we examine the colugo we see an organism that is poorly adapted to purely arboreal locomotion but is limited to gliding rather than flying. It is farther along in the transition (Again, it is not necessary to assert that it will ever become a flying organism as we are only concerned with the cost/benefit ratio between the two states) between purely ground based to purely air based than the flying squirrel so is experiencing a higher cost in its arboreal life than does the flying squirrel. However the cost/benefit ratio in the changes to the colugo's adaptation is still biased toward the benefit side, as is born out by observation.
If you want to claim that there exists a point where the c/b ratio leans towards the cost side to such an extent that it either terminates the change - prevents the changed function from being passed on to succeeding generations -, or the species suffers extinction you need to identify those conditions.
" Furthermore, squirrels and lemurs that can glide are not in the process of evolving into species that can truly fly anymore than Olympic ski jumpers are evolving into human eagles.
This assertion has no value in the debate, it is simply an opinion and an appeal to emotion.
Because evolution is reliant on incremental stepwise changes over humanly significant time periods it is highly unlikely that we would witness the change between one function and another in a given feature of a given species. What we can expect is to see are features with functions that appear to be intermediate between the functions exhibited by other species. This is indeed what we find.
"In this sense, gliding is a "non-starter."
Gliding is an example of the cost/benefit ratio exhibited by any organism who has undergone the change from ground to air. It shows quite clearly that the change in function does not lead inexorably to the demise of the organism or the function.
"Anyway, you ought to go back and look at my argument more carefully. It is correct. (It is also very simple, which makes it devastatingly elegant [ha!])
Your argument is that there exists a point in the change of function and morphology of a feature where the organism inevitably suffers a higher cost than benefit; although you called it thermodynamics.
"Several rather thoughtless evolutionists have carelessly theorized that bats evolved from rats, but it doesn't work. The really serious problem is seen in the early going, when the poor rat's deformity will not even facilitate gliding, much less bat-like flight. And, of course, the deformed rat cannot run, either.
That 'deformity' as you call it would be a flap of skin that confers the ability to glide. There would not need to be some monstrous deformity to go from the bat ancestor to the bat, all intermediate steps, whether they occurred independently or concurrently, can be achieved without biasing the c/b ratio significantly in the direction of cost.
"Please notice that this is correct, hb.
Sorry.
"So, even if I were to agree that gliding is surely a "starter," I would have to point out that the rat will never reach the stage of being able to glide through the air.
Assertion, appeal to emotion.
"Invoking aeons of time and zillions of generation doesn't help at all. The evolutionist's zeal to offer anti-creationist explanations makes him sloppy to the point of scientific dishonesty. It is very self-deceiving. the poor fellow cannot believe that the creationist's objections to evolutionary theory are scientifically sound. But they are scientifically sound. (They just aren't fashionable in our enlightened age [ha, again!].)
It appears you have stopped making arguments.
'Creation Scientists' can and have been shown to ignore past and current science and the scientific method. Many not only ignore the current laws of physics but twist them beyond recognition.
"In short, there really are peculiar thermodynamic barriers between species. Your theory invokes itself past these by strangely ignoring them.
If you are so sure that there are thermodynamic barriers to evolution, present them.
"I would urge you to think again about the problem at the level I presented in my earlier post--not just go waving your hands (flapping your non-wings?) to invoke illustrations that do not, indeed, cannot support your case.
I have yet to see you be specific enough to have presented a problem. Please be more specific.
"(Ah, but that is precisely what evolutionists do. They wave their hands a lot [and yell]. Evolution is just plain bad science. It is more religion than science.)
Ad hominem is not an argument. What differentiates a religion from a science and how does creation science follow the scientific methodology and how does the study of evolution not follow the methodology?
Well at least you got him to stop POSTING IN ALL CAPS.
THAT I DID. IT'S A START.
:)
Direct evidence (eyewitness testimony) used to be given more weight over circumstantial evidence, but that has changed over the last century with fingerprints, DNA, fiber analysis, etc.
But to get back on topic:
None of the the four Gospels are autographed, but internal and external evidence clearly points to 'Luke the Physician', a disciple/companion of Paul, as the author of Luke-Acts.
Unfortunatly for your argument, Luke doesn't claim to be an eyewitnesses. He had to 'investigate' the 'eyewitnesses' (NIV Luke 1):
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us,
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Moving on ...
Of the Gospel of Mark; Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, who in his famous 'Ecclesiastical History', quotes Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis quoting 'John the presbyter' :
"And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."
As for Matthew, be aware that there were two 'Gospel of Matthew', the first in Aramaic (cf. Irenaeus) and a second one in Greek.
In 'I Clement to the Corinthians' we have two quotes from Matthew, but they are significantly different from the Greek text in our New Testament. So if Clement was quoting the Aramaic version then either the Greek version has some major errors in translation or it is not the thoughts of Apostle Matthew.
Finally there's The 'synoptic problem'. It's been known for many years that Mark, Matthew, and Luke share so much common testimony that they can be read literally side-by-side thus 'syn-optic'.
Regardless of what you think is the cause, why would the story of an eyewitness like Matthew even be vaguely similar to two non-witnesses? More amazing is that his text is so closely related that it can be read 'side-by-side'.
While the Gospel of Matthew is perhaps the best candidate for eyewitness testimony, it fails in that it agrees too much with the others.
And then we come to the Gospel of John. The gospel is a well developed and highly literary testament. Not something that you would expect from a 'unlearned and ignorant' man (Acts 4:13).
Uniquely, John describes the miracles of Jesus as 'signs', further the miracles are a call to faith not the results of faith. In short, John is an evangelacal book.
It is the first gospel to come right out and say that Jesus was the 'Son of God'. The book combines religous features like Gnostic dualism (yin/yang - light/dark - male/female - word/life) with Hellenistic-style teaching:
Jesus says something; The disciples don't understand;Jesus explains himself.
These features are not seen in the other gospels.
John 1:1 & 14 borrows the 'Logos' directly from Philo of Alexandria. As Hellenised Jew, Philo sought to reconcile the Jewish YHWH with the Greek deity of reasoning and wisdom, the 'Logos' and 'Sophia' -- source of an ordered and understandable world.
Remarkable stuff from a 'unlearned' Jewish fisherman.
While clearly intelligent, 'John' doen't seem aware that Jesus and his followers were welcome in the synagogue (Jn 9:22, 12:42, 16:2). It wasn't until the Council of Jamnia in c. 85CE that the Christians were expelled from the synagogue. And John seems ignorant of the Sadducees, which reflects the post-temple Judaism. But the Sadducees were a big factor at the trial of Jesus. Why didn't he mention them?
Maybe eyewitness John just forgot all that stuff while he was studin' up on Philo and Plato; But I doubt it -- as do most of the scholars.
The first external attribution of the text to Apostle John is by Bishop Papias. But then Papias goes on to say that "he [John] was killed by the Jews.". So unless the Jews were wont to kill doddering old men, then it couldn't have been Apostle John, as he would have been well past 90 years old by the time gospel was written.
Of course Papias could be wrong about the death of John, but if so, why then trust him on the authorship?
In the Church, the earliest documented evidence of the gospel is Justin Martyr (c. 150-160), Tatian (c. 170), and Irenaeus (c. 180)
But the earliest known usage of John is among Gnostics. Valentinian texts cited by Clement of Alexandria (c. 140-160), and Irenaeus' Adversus Heraeses about the same time.
In fact the oldest known bit of New Testament is a fragment of the (probably Gnostic) Gospel. It's the John Rylands p52 (Nassene) fragment found in Egypt dated c. 120-130 CE.
The Gospel of John was late coming to the NT. As for why, the first hypothesis is it was written to counter the Gnostics by appealing to the pagan Greeks with it's esoteric themes. Another hypothesis by Fr Raymond E. Brown is that the Gospel started in a Gnostic sect that he calls the 'Johannine community'. As the assault against gnosticism increased this community split, a minority joining the orthodox and a redacted their gospel to make it suitable for the hierarchy in Rome. The majority remained Gnostic and were eventually converted or killed.
Yet a third is by Ramon K. Jusino follows Brown's hypothesis but argues that Mary Magdalene was the venerated leader and the fourth Gospel is her testimony.
If you don't like the disciples' version there's always Josephus for extrabiblical corroboration.
You seem to have me confused with someone that denies Jesus existed. That is not the case, I'm reasonably certain that Jesus did in fact live in the first half of the 1st century. What I can't say is that Jesus as portrayed in the Bible is accurate, because obviously it is not.
PS you still aren't "getting it"
CJ, it's you that's not "getting it". That Bible on your nightstand with it's faux leather cover and gold tipped leaves did not float down from God on a gossamer parachute.
The Bible was developed by the Church, for the Church, and anything that didn't serve the Church was either changed or sequestered. Usually in a violent manner.
Like it's history, the Bible was a Church monopoly for 1,500 years.
The point is the disciples LIVED WITH AND SAW JESUS UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL IF THEY KNEW HE WAS A FRAUD, THEY WOULD NOT LAY DOWN THEIR LIFE FOR HIM.
Well, clearly not the authors of the four Gospels.
Moslem whackjobs are dying for Muhammad today, but I doubt that you believe that ol' Mo was God's prophet. Kinda selective logic, don't ya think?
BTW, in the old days of USENET, argument by CAPs was considered a sign of mental instability.
Just thought you'd like to know ...
I had some kippers for lunch.
I'm not sure I follow what you are trying to say. Age comes before evolution simply means that scientists were aware of the great age of the earth before Darwin put together the theory of evolution. We cannot separate the age of the earth from evolution, the changes in species takes too long for us to see even a tiny portion. What we can do is take snippets of time by examining the organisms around us. There are species that exhibit just about every intermediate function/feature we have questions about.
"And, by the way, what is the scientific formula for evolution?
There is not one but many mathematical models used in the evolutionary sciences. In addition, every decision made that places a given species at a specific spot in the phylogenetic tree, or a link determined between two species is based on statistical analysis.
"Got to be reducible to an equation for it to be true science.
This is simply not true.
"Got to be explained in mathematical terms for it to be "science".
You have a very naive concept of science. You have a very naive concept of the evolutionary sciences.
You will find that it is you who are mistaken, about a great many things. ...
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.