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.
Just on the Presbyterian side of the island.
The First Baptist Church of the Cargo Cult claims that the King James Bible (and only the KJV) fell out of the cargo hatch as well.
Your ignorance of epistemology is as pitiful as your ignorance of science. Substitute any idea for 'evolution' and you could make the same argument. So, we deduce that ideas do not exist. Brilliant.
Ideas are obviously rare things indeed within the bounds of your skull, but you shouldn't generalize from that to the rest of the world.
Propaganda piece. We're all supposed to be convinced by an logical fallacy - an appeal to popularity of the idea within the scientific community. Mercy me. Didn't know a dumb idea could be popular. Let me just drop all my concerns and hop on the bandwagon - not. How pathetic.
Funny, I read it and finished thinking "well, there's 10 minutes of my life I can't get back". Nothing new. Same old propaganda being spewed by every other evo that is loosing them the battle day by day. Haven't learned a thing and think themselves useful for their ability to restate the talking points. Why does this sound familiar. My advice.. You evo nutbags need more articles out there just like this one so people will know exactly what you think. Heck, even these threads should be published to show the american public precisely what you all think of them.. nothing quite like ticking off Most of America by imposing a minority unproven opinion on them as gospel and then telling them they're morons for calling you a charlatan. Please.. please.. pleeeeaaaaaaase! More articles like this. More more more. Cause the more of this nonsense they have to put up with, the faster they discard you - just like nutbag dims. And we love it when that kind of history repeats itself - useful idiots discarded to the asheap.. More. Do we have to beg?
No, actually, they aren't "the same rigors" at all. Psychiatry has entirely different standards and methods than the physical sciences (such as biology, physics, or astronomy).
I do wish that science writers would point out that Behe's "irreducible complexity" is a bastardized misapplication of the valid engineering principle called "irreducible simplicity"
Because... why?
Make sure you actually understand population genetics before you attempt a reply.
You mean, finally? Because so far, the results have made the creationists howl, and the "anti-creationists" quite comfortable indeed.
It seems that human beings are surprisingly un diverse for supposedly evolved creatures.
This is a nonsensical statement -- the amount of diversity in a population is independent of whether or not it is "evolved". All living things are "evolved", but the amount of diversity in various groups depends on various factors apart from that "evolvement". Try to learn something about a topic before you spout off about it.
In fact, we are only a small fraction as genetically diverse as chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos.
Yeah, so?
One would think that since we have covered the entire earth that we would be much more diverse than apes who are, and always have been very geographically limited.
"One would think that" if one were ignorant of how genetics actually works, and the many conditions which affect genetic diversity.
The lesser genetic diversity in humans is likely due to something as simple as a population "bottleneck" -- at one point in time there were fewer humans than chimpanzees (or more to the point, fewer humans who eventually left descendants which survived to present day, regardless of the raw numbers alive at any given time). That heavily restricts genetic diversity despite the fact that we have subsequently rebounded spectacularly and covered the globe. If I recall correctly (and I'm too tired to look it up right now), the DNA results indicate that humans went through a pretty severe population bottleneck right about the time of the last ice age, which makes a lot of sense.
Geographic "coverage" is far less a contributing factor to genetic diversity than sheer numbers.
Genetic diversity is also reduced by things which see-saw population numbers up and down, such as periodic wars, famines, plagues, etc., things which humans have tended to experience more often than chimpanzees have.
It is also becoming evident that human beings, homo sapiens sapiens, (not to be confused with hominid animals) originated in a single location (Africa, Mesopotamia region) from a very small population.
Again -- yeah, so? That's generally the case for most new species.
The "out of Africa" model appears to be the more accurate. Some suggest that instead of out of Africa, the model should be called out of Eden.
Only if one wants to be inaccurate and force religious agendas upon geographic realities. Look, all new species have a particular geographic "birthplace" -- the fact that humans as we know it have one too hardly "proves" any creationist claims, since it's entirely consistent with noncreationist evolutionary origins.
You promised results which "are not going to make anti -creationists happy", but all you've managed to present are things which are perfectly in line with the predictions of natural origins.
Another startling result coming from molecular anthropology is data that strongly suggests that the human female genetic genealogy is at least several thousand years older than the male genealogy. It is an interesting riddle for those who don't believe in God, but for those who do, it is very clear.
Wow, are *you* confused. Sorry, but you're grossly misunderstanding (and/or misrepresenting) the "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosome Adam" findings. They support nothing at all like the bizarre scenario you suggest. And it's no "riddle" at all for people who actually understand the results and what it says (and does not say) about our DNA.
Noah and his sons would be as far back as the male genealogy could be traced as they were effectively, our genetic Adams. Noah's wife and his son's genetic genealogy however, would continue right on back through time to the first homo sapiens sapiens.
That's a touching attempt to reconcile the findings of modern DNA analysis with ancient myths, but it falls on its face when examined in its details. First, you're grossly misunderstanding the actual significance of the "mitochondrial Eve" -- it is *not* our most recent common female ancestor, nor even the sole female ancestor of all living humans. The MtEve would have had female contemporaries who were *also* ancestors of modern humans, which blows away your whole attempt to equate her to the Biblical Eve right there. Furthermore, if she *had* been the sole female ancestor of all living humans at the time she has been determined to have lived (200,000 years ago, give or take a few), then human genetic diversity would be *FAR* smaller than it is today -- but it isn't. The facts are that the specific details of human genetic diversity *rules out* any "single ancestral pair" (like the Biblical Adam and Eve) at any time in our human history. Yes, there are clear indications that the human population has been "bottlenecked" in the past, but *no* indications that it was ever as restricted as a single pair, nor even a guy and his three sons and all their wives.
And so on, and so on. If you're going to try to "reconcile" the findings of modern DNA analysis with that of your Biblical scenarios, you're going to have to first make sure you actually *understand* the DNA results, and you very clearly do not.
To learn the many ways you have misrepresented the "mitochondrial Eve" results, see for example: What, if anything, is a Mitochondrial Eve?.
"This is your brain on creationism".
Failed to actually understand it, I see. Can't say I'm surprised.
Look, disagree with what it says if you wish, but for pete's sake, you're just making yourself look foolish when you make it clear that you didn't even grasp what it was actually saying.
What law of science creates something from nothing?
Actually, I think it would be even funnier if they pointed out that Behe stole the idea from Darwin and then tried to get credit for originating it.
Even more hilarious is that Behe ignored two warnings which Darwin made about what one has to keep in mind when trying to analyze whether something was "irreducibly complex", and as a result Behe's entire thesis is fatally flawed in exactly the way Darwin warned about 146 years ago.
ooo... that's just mean-spirited :)
No, this is your brain on common sense. Non-christians don't believe the tripe either. Guess they're creationists by fiatt?
Here you go: Vacuum fluctuations. And: The Casimir effect: a force from nothing .
Or the whole Universe for that matter:
"There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero."-- Steven Hawking, 1988, "1988. A Brief History of Time", p. 129
Keep telling yourself that if it helps you feel better.
Thanks for proving balrog666's point for him. But if you've already "been there, done that", why did you question his statement ("Well established populations of homo sapiens sapiens across the middle east 30,000 years ago? Can you provide a link to some credible evidence of that?") when you already were familiar with studies confirming it?
I don't need to feel better. I feel great. Perhaps you are feeling a little off? My side is winning. Your side is losing. I feel fantastic. But, I'll keep you in mind if I ever need consoling. *chortle*
Christians have no need to choose between religion and science.
BUMP
Other religious creeds hold that the universe is divinely created. Creationism is in no way owned by Christianity. Your comment is thus meaningless.
No, this is your brain on common sense.
In my observation, "common sense" is more often than not at best cultural tradition (or "received wisdom") rather than anything approaching independently acheived products of uncomplicated rationality or thought. Often enough, "common sense" is actually rather stupid.
Cases in point:
1. "It is just COMMON SENSE that more guns lead to more gun violence"
2. "It is just COMMON SENSE that young teens will engage in sexual experimentation no matter how much adults discourage it. So it is just COMMON SENSE to regale schoolchildren with explicit sexual material and distribute condoms to them."
3. "Just as God created Man to be sovereign over the Earth and all its creatures, so is it COMMON SENSE that God established certain men and/or families to be Lords over other men, sovereign over them, with all power over them." ("Divine Right of Kings")
4. "It is only COMMON SENSE that, if American society were truly ethnically "blind", all results would be statistically uniform acros all demographics. Since the results are not uniform, it is COMMON SENSE that America is still endemically and institutionally racist."
5. "It is only COMMON SENSE that cutting taxes only favors 'the Rich' and oppreses 'the poor', and it is only COMMON SENSE that raising taxes will increase tax revenues, and it is just plain COMMON SENSE that income-scaled taxation is 'progressive' and 'fair' - 'the Rich' must 'pay their fair share' yanno..."
Shall I continue -as I could, at great length- or will you cede the point that calling a notion "common sense" does not amount to a compelling argument in its favor?
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.