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.
ROFL! You're in your own special little world, aren't you? The one where evolutionary biology and nuclear physics are crumbling, while the belief in an Earth no more than 6000 years old, where humans lived alongside dinosaurs, where mammoths are "flash-frozen" by floods and isotopic decay rates are merely "assumptions" and analytical methods are just "sideshow tricks" is winning, eh?
You amuse me.
But tell me honestly -- do even you believe your own spin?
more to the point: facts are unaffected by their popularity
What specific objections do you have to the theory of evolution?
Great! Did you know, by the way, that he was an operative of Darwin Central?
I don't seem to be the one in need of a reassuring lecture about what common sense is. You guys are losing the battle and think you aren't getting your message out though most of America knows it and rejects it. You can't get your heads around that and insist they just don't understand when in fact they do and reject your ideology because of it rather than inspite of it. Rationalize away if it helps you cope. You'll still be losing ground and I'll still be laughing about it in the face of years of condescention, mouthyness and abuse from your ilk. The day we all start acting like you guys and fight back you think the world is ending. Welcome to reality.
To make you wonder about it - that's why he's a wonder chimp
No special world needed here. Most Americans reject Evolution. You can try to spin that all you want. You guys are the ones whining about not getting your message out. Ya'll are the ones terrified about the dangers of Ken Ham and Dr. Dino - what a hoot. I'm glad you're amused. Hope your sense of humor stays intact - you're gonna need it.
Facts are unaffected by their popularity. I would agree. Evolution wishes it had some so they could gain some popularity based on facts. As of now, they're still trying desperately to convince people they have transition fossils in absense of having any. They've had to redefine what a transition is in order to try and sell the idea and it didn't sell. Apparently demand was high and supply was so low that by the time they got the knockoffs on the shelves nobody wanted them anymore. Seems filed down skulls and plaster replicas don't do anyone any good.
Also would seem that countless billions of experiments in farming on a yearly basis have largely solidified a fact that is noteworthy. Planting billions of kernels of corn will always produce ------- CORN. Amazing isn't it. Not green beans, oranges, apples, tomatoes or orangutans.. just corn. Proving that by billions of tests every year for hundreds of years in which corn might have produced a dolphin, it just doesn't happen. Facts are unaffected by popularity. A seed will only ever produce what it itself is intended to produce. You plant corn, you grow corn if anything sprouts from the seed at all. It's so well tested that it's relied upon as a law of nature by every farmer out there trying to make a living by growing anything. They don't plant soybeans hoping like heck that soybeans will grow. They plant them knowing what they will get so long as the weather holds and the harvest is good.. lots of soybeans.
Perhaps all you evo nuts could try peer pressure and stand by the fields guilting the seeds into wanting to be something else?
Specific objections? I think all of it is a good place to start. There is almost nothing about evolution that stands up. Thusly it has to rely upon obfuscation such as macro vs. micro to sell itself. It has to rely on lies in textbooks to sell it to schools which I understand despite claims that this has been addressed is still ongoing.
The theory itself defies logic in that what we observe annually with crops around the world provides a world wide laboratory in the zillions of seeds that could in one year provide sound basis for denying the possibility of any change from what is planted to something new. The facts belie the theory. As I noted in my prior post, It is so well known and expected by farmers that seed will only bring forth after it's kind that it's banked on. Corn produces corn. And they know when they plant it that is exactly what they will get and nothing else. The same is true with green beans, pairs, potatoes, you name it. When we plant it, we know what will come out of the ground by the millions of acres every year. It's so well tested it's fullproof.
Yet we're to believe that corn somehow might produce a stork tomorrow. And of course I'm being fecetious to embarrass you and illustrate the point. If you went and told a farmer you wanted to watch his crop grow to see if you could get a panda to pop out of the ground he'd laugh you off his property as soon as he would hearing you say you wanted to see if greenbeans would pop up out of his orchard off his peach treas. It's absurd because we know it cannot happen and will not happen. You would blanche and say pandas wouldn't pop out of the ground. I would respond "how do you know if you've never witnessed speciation?" You can't argue the conditions if you've never witnessed it. You can argue what you think might happen; but, if it's never been witnessed, your blanching is just plain nonsense. In absence of any witnessed event, anything must then be possible or it's not at all.
I've been through this before with others. Evolution isn't directed. It isn't a thinking entity that knows where it's going or that knows what will embarrass you. It doesn't know that Whales shouldn't pop out of the ground when you plant a potatoe. Evolution is a moron and given totally to random chance. If you told it to put on a shoe, it might tap it's head instead, assuming it could find it. Evolution, being a non-sentient thing has no idea what it's doing, it just does it. I'm taking all this from the notion that it works at all which I don't believe for a minute.
Yes I've been knowingly absurd, as I noted, to make the point in no way unclear. Evolution has never been witnessed, is not observable, isn't possible based on farming alone and will never see anything produce other than it's own kind no matter how many zillions of times it's tested. Corn, peanuts, pick your food. It all proves evolution wrong by the Billions and billions of counted on, harvested and eaten morsel every day. Every day. Not once in a blue moon. It may have been harvested seasonally; but we count on it every day and without fail know we can rely on it to be the case. Were evolution even possibile, one time in all those zillions, we should have had our expectations ruined. But I'm sure fate conspired against you and the odds and some farmer hacked the plant from the ground and tossed it aside knowing he'd be world famous for proving evolution, yet it's never happened.
What specific objections? All of it. Including calling it science. It isn't. It's a blind ideology with no observeable proof.. not one iota. There's plenty of evidence out there in the world. When Evolutionists produce something other than spin, an eyebrow will go up. It has yet to happen.
Yet we're to believe that corn somehow might produce a stork tomorrow.
And you expect to be taken seriously?
Read what I said. I noted specifically that I'm being fecetions; but, let's say for argument's sake that I'm not. Why should that bother you. As I noted, you've never seen speciation happen. How do you know what form it would take.
You can guess, impose your intuition on it, draw pretty pictures of what you'd like to see; but, if you've never seen it, you can hardly play the expert on it and tell us what it will or will not look like. The question you're asking is one I'd ask of you. You sell us a concept that you've never seen - ever. Nobody has. And when your own theory embarrasses you, you expect us to take you seriously. You guys may be an expert on how you'd like us to believe it happens; but, assuming it happens at all (which i do not) it's very nature defies you telling it or us what it can or cannot do until you've seen it even once.
At one time on this planet there were exactly two experts in the world on the matter of flight. They were experts because they did it and perfected it.. not because they theorized endlessly about what it might look like. Thousands of others did that with their miserable failures documented endlessly.. which I might suggest is quite similar to the history of evolution - endless documented failure. But, do tell us about how we should take you seriously, experts.. *chortle*
No, I don't think so.
Guess that's just your problem then, huh.
"So, you have devolved to name calling when you disagree with someone?"
Darwin was an agnostic in 1859, whether you believe it or not. :)
Guess that's just your problem then, huh.
Or maybe I recognize when someone is saying what they really think but doesn't have the courage to come right out and say it without equivocating.
I think my statements make plain what I think - very plain without having to hide it. I've no need to hide anything.
My points are in no way unclear:
-it's absurd.
-many of you are embarrassed by it.
-you've never witnessed it nor have i nor will we ever.
-the known everyday zillions of acres of food planted tell us it's impossible because cord always grows corn.
-You've no proof and to the extent that proof exists it hurts your case rather than helps it - see the corn.
-People who have never seen it happen once pretend to be experts on something never witnessed, then want to tell us how it can and cannot happen though not having ever witnessed it, that would be a leap of faith rather than a matter of expertise.
-etc...
Given all that, I guess it must really irk you that 42 isn't the answer I could have given and didn't. No fish for you.
Ok, got a great idea for a cartoon.
Frame one, Opus looks at hodge as hodge peers through an open bedroom door at a sobbing man.
Opus: What's wrong with him?
Hodge: Gone nuts.
--
frame 2
Opus looking at the man. leveled field clear through room window.
Opus: Nuts?
Hodge: Mowed his corn down - 300 acres. Wife is out trying to save what she can..
--
Frame 3
Opus - puzzled.
Opus: mowed it down?
Hodge: Yep, didn't get what he wanted.
--
Frame 4
Opus looking out at corn through rear window, hodge standing next to the man still shaking his head.
Opus: what did he plant?
Hodge: Corn.
--
Frame 5
Opus pushes Hodge out of the room
Opus: Out, out, out!
Hodge: what? You goin nuts too?
--
Frame 6
Opus hangs sign on door, places hand on hodge's shoulder
Opus: Robert Frost.. evil eye.. get it.
Hodge: Got it.
--
Frame 7
zoom in on sign.
sign: Do not disturb: Evolutionist coming to grips.
Already being inked and copywritten. Thank you. lol
It is a belief system. Valid obseravtions, but to infer to totality from a limited set -- that's religion.
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.