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.
Is that how you speak to your father? Shame on you.
I AM A GIRL.
GIVE ME A FORMULA FOR THE CHEMICAL PROCESS OF EVOLUTION AND THEN I'LL POST LESS LOUDLY.
Thanks.
It is true that John was written in a manner that the Greeks could understand, but the message is not Greek-- the message is the theology of the NT. Comparing Jesus to the Logos is the very same thing as saying that Jesus is the Torah, something He himself said.
The miracles of the book of John also are messages and follow one another in a logical procession, bringing in a deeper meaning to the text than mere biography. All four books have their roots in the OT and the bible is read as a whole book, the Word of God.
Scholars also deduce evidence for other manuscripts when comparing the synoptics, and they hold that Mark is the oldest and puts its origin during Peter's lifetime. The other books follow closely and so they have validity as eyewitness accounts no matter who copied them down.
Like CJ has said, the truth was so overwhelming that Jesus was the Messiah promised by Moses and all of the OT prophets that death was nothing to the Jews who believed, or to us either.
That was a a very eloquent way of stating the Truth.
Doubtful. I understand coincidence.
I'll tell you all about it sometime. Meanwhile, you can have all the baseball you want in Japan. Go for it if you hate Christian America so much.
First, I'm not Japanese, I am American, so why would I leave my native land? I have as much a right to it as anyone who was born or naturalized here.
Second, I don't "hate Christian America so much." That is a complete fabrication on your part, and kind of a straw-man argument. I love America. And part of it is understanding that although America is not a Christian nation, it is a nation with a lot of Christians in it. And so long as they don't try to use the power of government to push their religion, I've got no problem with them. (If they do, then they are a domestic enemy of the Constitution and should be handled appropriately.)
You know nothing of the history of this country and what the current culture war here is really about if you think you can easily divorce Christianity from the American pursuit of happiness.
I know lots about the history of this country and the "culture war." You are ignorant of history if you believe that the rights afforded by this country can be divorced from the philosophy of the European enlightenment and the development of civil liberty in England, and attributed solely to Christian thought. (And English thinking on this subject was explicitly a reaction to the religious basis for European monarchy, and a rejection of the Christian imprimatur that monarchy had enjoyed for a dozen centuries previously.) The American colonists weren't fighting for their rights as Christians, but their rights as Englishmen.
Freedom, feminism, I'd daresay even Capitalism all had their roots in Christian thought. And the leisure time created by technological advances of (Christian) Western Civilization made way for a sport like baseball, so there goes that argument.
LOL... Christians do have an annoying, rather Al Gore-like habit of falsely taking credit for everything that seems good. By such malformed phrases as "(Christian) Western Civilization" you are attempting to credit Christianity for all of Western Civilization, even those parts which were independent of--even a reaction to--Christianity. Concepts of freedom and individual autonomy are clearly a part of pre-Christian European civilization.
And the technological advances made in the West are a result of modern thinkers shrugging off theological thinking in favor of more scientific philosophies and not just relying on the word of a preacher, a bible or a mystic. This led to not only Darwin and his great theory, but also labor-saving inventions which made leisure time possible. So your baseball/leisure time/Christianity argument is really off base.
(Hitch a ride with Jimmy Carter next time he goes to Cuba and see what Christ free baseball is like.)
Actually, Cuban baseball is very high caliber. And while the Cuban government is atheistic, the Cuban people are very Christian, as the Pope's visit to Havana in 1998 showed.
The problem in Cuba is not that it is "Christ free" but that it is "freedom free." These are different things. There are free non-Christian nations (such as India or Japan) and history is littered with non-free Christian nations.
Yes, and all the freedom here is because Jesus only wants people to come to Him out of their own free will.
Bull. Freedom exists here because it is the way that we, as a people, wish to organize our society. It has nothing to do with the wishes of your Jesus.
That was the revolutionary thing about Christian thought. That is the essence of love, against such things there can be no law. That freedom is what makes our country great. Yes, I am saying that it is because we are a Christian nation that we allow freedom for ALL religions.
Again, the history of Christianity and freedom shows that there is no correlation between them. Historically speaking, Christian nations were ruled by autocrats who are, to a greater or lesser degree, despots. It was only with the rise of rational and enlightenment thinking that personal autonomy became more important than the populace's "duty to God" in the guise of owing obedience to and paying tribute to the King, Lord or other local power-monger.
Try to read the Bible aloud in a Muslim nation...
Again you mistake cause and effect. The lack of religious freedom in most Muslim nations is a deficit of freedom, (and the political and social institutes which allow them to exist). That this deficit is caused by a non-Christian religion is wholly trivial and immaterial. Christianity itself was as hostile or more hostile, historically, then the Muslim faith, to other religions. We just happen to live at a time when the so-called Christian societies exhibit much religious tolerance and the Muslim societies exhibit less. There were times when this was reversed.
Okay, hotshot. Me-um just a dumb Creationist, You-um biggum smart-type guy.
Since you know me so well, howzabout you explain the differences between Rushdoony's Calvinist Reconstructionism and Nymeyer's Calvinist Theonomic Libertarianism. Heck, I'll even make it easy, and allow you to provide explanations on three hot-button Issues:
I know this: you Evolutionist-Materialists have NEVER YET managed to make it past Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis; but when it comes to establishing the very basis for your Atheistic Speculations, the utterly-unproven (and indeed, entirely-unevidenced) Hypothesis of Chemical Abiogenesis...
...Y'all AREN'T SHY AT ALL about coercively employing the Power of the State to steal OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY in order to enforce upon OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN the unproven Speculations of your Atheistic Religion.
Put your Mouth where your Hubris is, kemosabe.
Best, OP
How about I don't?
Why the heck would I be interested in detailing the minutiae distinguishing the Galilean's Pleople' Liberation Front from the People's Front for the Liberation of Galilee? Once we've established the premise that the Laws of the United States are to be brought into conformity with Biblical law, the details are, in my mind, unimportant. It's an abhorrent idea, contrary to the US Constitution and principles on which this country was founded, and, assuming it ever gets beyond the theocratic fringe, will be fought with no quarter given.
Well, since no-one is claiming that anyone went knowingly to their deaths for a lie, you need to put up an argument against a position that I am actually taking up, as opposed to some imaginary position that you find it easy to argue against. I've lost count of the number of times that I've pointed out that your position on that issue is a false dichotomy.
I am amazed that for all the big talk about science, there is not one prooftext or formula or mathematical equation posted here to describe the CHEMICAL process of evolution. For that is what it must be.
Science is not required to avoid amazing you. Evolution cannot be described with chemical formulae (though some evolutionary processes can be, it doesn't make sense to think of evolution itself at that level, any more than it makes sense to discuss quantum mechanics or chemical formulae when considering the process of plant growth. Quantum mechanics is involved at a detailed level in both phenomena too, but it isn't a useful level of description either)
It is true, I don't think much, if at all, about evolution. The only time I have ever given it much thought is when C.S. Lewis mused upon it in one of his essays about art and culture, and compared it to a grand idea that shows some of man's inherent majesty -- to believe in such a vaulted lie -- a majesty the betrays his spiritual nature, but a majestic lie of evolution nonetheless.
That'll be C S Lewis the great biologist will it? Oh, wait, he never studied biology at all. No doubt you are happy to know that Lewis considered Genesis to be a folk tale, not a true story.
I remember deconstructing Spielberg's E.T. for its Jungian/Campbellian roots and recalling C.S. Lewis's lines about the counterfeit grandeur of evolution when thinking about that counterfeit Christ in the main character of E.T. But, that's about it. Who cares? No missing link. No half man/half whatever. Ever. It's complete bunk and a salve for people against the truth of their own sin and need for a savior against our own propensity to do wrong. For example, even as a child, I remember trying to keep the ten commandments for one day and was astonished that I broke one of them.
Content-free bullshit, both in its science and its ludicrous cod-psychology.
You try it. Then tell me if you need a savior. No man is sinless and this is the problem of the whole world.
I am quite sure that I am sinful. However since I believe in neither heaven, God, or hell a saviour is merely wishful thinking. I do try to avoid lying though.
As for evolution and Christians who claim that they believe in it, evolution does nothing for us in the moral quandaries and crisis-es of the day except give us a convenient excuse that we are really animals and all this moral stuff is just societal add ons.
Complete bullshit. I have never met anyone who excuses their bad behaviour on the grounds that they are descended from animals. That is just a nonsense position that those who feel that their religion is threatened by evolution make up and repeat quite frequently on FR.
Since apparently the only thing stopping you from behaving badly is your faith I suggest that you notify the police of your flakiness, in case you ever get a crisis of faith and start disobeying the commandments.
If my boredom with evolution has raised your scorn -- tough.
WRONG! What raises my scorn is your repeated willingness to make an ass of yourself by talking about things that you plainly don't understand at all.
No one has offered any prooftext or chemical description of what you all are hanging your hats on -- so be as scornful as you like. Augustine, would not have joined you, he would have been too busy listening to the Spirit who told him to "Pick up and read" and would've blown off evothink for the pagan avatarist lie that it is.
Spittle-filled rant noted. Have you read the relevant Augustine quote? It could have been written yesterday by any of the majority of Christian Scholars who accept evolution. Even in the 5th Century AD devout Christian Scholars like Augustine could see that Genesis is not literally true in its simplest interpretation.
I'm still waiting for you to show an iota of shame for making stuff up about the transparency of gold, or talking nonsense about Columbus, or revisionist translations of the word "circle" in Isaiah. I guess that being a bible-bashing "saved" person means you never have to say sorry for spreading misinformation, or repeating the lies of others. A free pass for repeating as much dishonesty as you like with no need to apologise to anyone when caught in the act; what a great religion you have.
Agreed. Which makes my point (or was it too subtle?). Luke admittedly was not a witness, so he can be excused for screwing up the date, the census, the genealogy, and borrowing from Josephus.
By tradition 'Mark' was not a witness and had to rely on what Peter preached. So we'll give him a pass on on his confused geography, OT Isaiah and his apparent Latinisms.
'Matthew', however, is supposed to be an eyewitness. Yet, he's in agreement (with minor variance in details) with non-witness Luke and non-witness 'Mark' - Syn-optic agreement.
How could 'Matthew' be in close agreement with the others unless he copied from them? But as an 'eyewitness', wouldn't he have his own story to tell?
'Matthew' is as much witness as the other two - that is, not an eyewitness at all.
The Jews were, and are, expecting a physical messiah, but we Christians understand that the messiah was to be spiritual and that he was to bring in a spiritual kingdom, the Kingdom of God.
Correct for the most part.
God will impose the "Kingdom of God" and give Israel the messianic king to rule it when the Jewish nation returns to the laws of Moses.
But that's hardly a Christian innovation. In 6CE, the revolt of Judas of Galilee expected to establish the "Kingdom of God". That revolt, BTW, was triggered by census that Luke used to setup his nativity story.
Anyhow, the uprising was eventually stamped out by the Romans. Reportedly, two thousand captured revolutionaries were crucified and thousands more supporters publicly flogged. The mostly Zealot followers of Judas (if they survived) slipped back across the border and went into hiding in the caves and hills around Galilee. Their hatred for Rome (and Roman lacky Antipas) didn't end. They would, on occasion, come out of hiding and harass Roman officials on the Judea side, as well as Herod Antipas' forces on the Galilean side. At this stage, the Zealots become known as "robbers". (cf. Josepjus)
It was from among these rebels that Jesus grew up and his initial disciples were found.
It is true that John was written in a manner that the Greeks could understand, but the message is not Greek-- the message is the theology of the NT. Comparing Jesus to the Logos is the very same thing as saying that Jesus is the Torah, something He himself said.
It most certainly is a Greek message, through and through.
And the idea of Jesus as an embodiment of Torah would be as completely alien to Jews as his 'this my blood and my body' communion.
Scholars also deduce evidence for other manuscripts when comparing the synoptics, and they hold that Mark is the oldest and puts its origin during Peter's lifetime.
Correct, Mark was written first. The hypothetical oral tradition may have been within Peters lifetime, but tradition and textual criticism puts it afterwards.
The other books follow closely and so they have validity as eyewitness accounts no matter who copied them down.
Not all that close, really.
65-80 Gospel of Mark
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-130 Gospel of Luke
90-120 Gospel of John
You seem to have a strange definition of "eyewitness account" on your planet.
Like CJ has said, the truth was so overwhelming that Jesus was the Messiah promised by Moses and all of the OT prophets that death was nothing to the Jews who believed, or to us either.
So where's the Third Temple? Era of world peace? The world-wide worship of God?
Correct for the all part.
Jesus appeared at the time predicted by Malachi, the last prophet before the NT. The NT picks up from Malachi and continues the story. John the Baptist, in Elijah's prophesised role, and as symbol of the HS, baptized the Jews, the virgin that would bring the Messiah. The worldwide peace is a spiritual peace, open to all who would accept it.
The prophet said that if the Jews accepted their messiah, then they would have the new temple, the Kingdom on earth. If they rejected him then he would ride a donkey into Jerusalem. Well you know the outcome.
Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;
5:35
And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.
5:36
For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
5:37
After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.
5:38
And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
5:39
But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
2300!
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.