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.
I didn't know the acronymn.
I don't pretend to know something if I don't.
Your assumption that everyone should know about this is biased and wrong.
Back in high school, one guy in my circle of friends was always "joking", but his idea of humor always involved ridiculing, insulting, or belittling someone else. He kept accusing us of having "no sense of humor". He considered himself a great wit, but everyone else considered him a major asshole.
It's a big deal to you because it was promoted as some sort of big finding relating to evolution by the subculture of religious evolutionites.
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.
so, as should have been clear before you asked: yes, there are concepts and notions which can be and are referred to as "common sense" - and these concepts and notions, when extended beyond the most mundane situations (good common sense: Don't stick your hand in a fire - odds are you'll get burned), are often quite erroneous (example of incorrect but REAL common sense: The sun moves around the Earth, based on observing that it rises and sets - an understandable error stemming from perspective and ignorance) when they are not outright cultural-bias nonsense (see previous examples).
Who have I insulted today who did not begin with an insult on me?
losing?
battle?
odd.
the contents of your #308 is clear evidence of your lack of knowledge of and interest in the subject matter.
how refreshingly honest of you
Five minutes ago you didn't know what it was. Now you're pretending to have enough knowledge of it to claim it's old hat and passé. You can see, surely, why your credibility is, ahem, somewhat risible.
*That's* gonna leave a mark...
Also, lest we lose track of "tallhappy's greatest screwups" whenever he beats his chest about how he understands these topics far better than us mere mortals, let's not forget this great blast from the past where I caught him making *two* utterly bone-headed, totally elementary mistakes in the same sentence:
[Me, responding to tallhappy:]I stand by my point-by-point examination of your anal nitpicking and its followup.
It was shortly after that when you went off the rails and tried to falsely and ludicrously claim that there were "only nine integrations" in a nine-patient gene-therapy study when in fact, there were TENS OF MILLIONS of treated cells (thus a similar magnitude of integrations) PER PATIENT, as anyone actually familiar with gene-therapy would know, and you also ludicrously claimed that the troublesome LMO2 integrants were at "the same site", when in fact they were on OPPOSITE SIDES of Exon1 of the gene, oriented in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, nearly FIVE THOUSAND BASEPAIRS apart.
In light of size of this amazing flub, it's *really* funny that you loftily proclaim, "I am completley correct in relaying the most detailed understanding [...] retroviral transduction and insertion". If so, why did you f*** it up so badly on such elementary points?
You're either incompetent or a liar, I don't care which. But neither option inspires confidence, and neither justifies your pathetic bluster:
If I wanted to deny their implications, I'd say that. That is, if I weren't a scientist.
Especially for an unnecessary enzyme.
Join the genomic era. Stop living in the previous centuries.
See 453.
Just cause you read something written on TO a long time ago doesn't make it Gospel. To you it does, but you just don't understand biochemistry, virology or chromosomal structure nor are up to date on the literature and thinking.
No insult, just a nice comment.
this thread is one for the ages.
entertaining from pre-dawn to post-dusk.
"No one has proved that everything came naturally from nothing."
Evolution doesn't say it did.
"I have a record of straight A's in Science from grade school through college."
I'm sure this is supposed to mean something.
yanno, if there was no such thing as wikipedia and google, it'd be entertaining to test your claims of scientific acumen with a few pointed questions.
Wow, what a *lame* retort... My identification of your two incredibly bone-headed errors regarding the gene-therapy trial had nothing whatsoever to do with any material from Talk.Origins. It simply identifies two amazingly naive/ignorant errors you made, and documents that they are contradicted by a) the most basic and elementary knowledge of how gene therapy is done, and b) the contents of the journal articles themselves which deal with the gene-therapy trial you were making the bizarre claims about.
If this is the best "defense" you can muster, I don't know why you even try, unless you *want* to make yourself appear a pathetic and clumsily blustering buffoon.
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.