Designed to deceive: Creation can't hold up to rigors of science

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Camel J: "Are these the same scientists that accept the "scientific" studies relating to secondhand smoke?"

CarolinaGuitarmanDo you see anything here about smoking? If not, what does your post have to do with this topic? Do you actually have anything to add to the debate over ID?

From the article: 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.

And I won't add anything to the ID debate either. I just want to throw in to the mix that Lewontin is an uber-Marxist who also believes the scientific community should be running the world. He's a jerk! And furthermore,. he has to live with a dichotomy of Wilson having a very viable theory evolution operating within sociobiology which conflicts with the pseudo-egalitarianism the PC at Harvard hold as a sacrament. So there. ;=P

Anyway, while I'm being annoying, I will say this whole debate has made me start to jump deeper in to science books and videos from the library, and I commend the evos for sparking my interest and helping me to learn some things-I checked out a book about John Nash and his work that is very interesting so far! I still hold open the possibility of outside forces being in play not because of the field of biology, but more from the unanswered, wonderous questions astrophysics brings forth.

To recoup:

Ichneumon: This is your brain on creationism.
Havoc: No, this is your brain on common sense.
King Prout: [Derisional deconstructionism of "common sense"] ... Often enough, "common sense" is actually rather stupid. [a litany of derisional examples most of which are at best 'silly'] ... 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?
bvw: So you say there is no such thing as common sense? Or is your example a case study of how words and terminology that have valid meaning in context can be usurped and distorted?
King Prout: 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

Findings: Reader make your own. And please use your common sense!

Your post #305 and #307, are really nothing but wishful thinking on your part...no way does the majority of Americans reject evolution...every single trustworthy poll done on this, has reflected just about an even split on this subject....what those polls have consistently asked the participants, are two different things...The first question is usually, . do you consider yourself to be a Christian?...the majority of people answering the poll answer yes, thats true...and that is where many creationists/Ider advocates stop reading...they somehow believe that if one considers themselves to be Christians, that naturally they reject evolution...however take note of the second question..How do you believe that living beings on earth came to be in their present form? Here there is really a divide, which seems to be 50/50 at best...actually the division is divided up among three answers...1. Gods creation 2. evolution 3.either dont know or some other method...if one looks and understands and comprehends what these polls say, one must see that many of those polled, do claim to be Christian, and still support evolution...

Your remark that most Americans reject evolution is at best, wishful thinking on your part...and its incorrect...

I made no errors.

Lie #1.

You did not correct any

Lie #2.

-- you were just wrong.

Lie #3.

You mixed up the number of cells exposed to vector with integration evetns.

Lie #4.

*You*, however, "mixed up the number" of *patients* with the number of integration events, which was hilariously stupid and revealed a complete ignorance of the most basic principles gene therapy. Clue for the clueless (that would be you); *One* integration event per patient (which is what you bone-headedly presumed when you spoke of "only nine integrations" (there were nine patients) wouldn't accomplish squat, because *one* cell in the entire body pumping out the gene's product would be like trying to cure an entire city's population of a bacterial infection by putting a single drop of antibiotic in its water supply... In order to have a hope of being effective, gene therapy involves treating a *vast* number of cells in a way designed to produce a similarly vast number of gene integrations, such that enough cells are now in the patient's body producing the desired gene product to have the desired curative effect. Gene therapy, to be effective, involves a *huge* number of integration events per patient.

But you would have known this already if you had bothered to read and understand the research exerpt I had previously quoted for you on that thread:

Taken together, our data suggest that the following scenario might account for occurrence of the lymphocyte proliferations observed in these patients. LMO2 targeting suggests either that there is a "physical hotspot" of integration at this locus, or more likely, that random, activating, LMO2 integrants are selected simply by the growth advantage conferred on them. The chance of integration of any active gene is assumed to be $~$ 1 x 10^–5 (a rough estimate of a random hit within 10 kbp among the estimated transcriptionally active 1 x 10⁹ base pairs. It is likely that each patient received at least 1 to 10 LMO2-targeted cells, because the patients received 1 x 10⁶ or more transduced T lymphocyte precursors (estimating that at least 1% of the total number of injected transduced cells—92 x 10⁶ and 133 x 10⁶ for patients P4 and P5, respectively — could give rise to T cells).

In case you're *really* bad at math (and that seems a safe bet since you've demonstrated incompetence at far easier tasks such as basic reading comprehension), note that the above analysis and conclusion by the AUTHORS OF THE PAPER THEMSELVES presumes on the order of a 10⁶ (that's "a million" for you creationists out there) actual integration events (out of roughly a hundred million treated cells per patient, as mentioned in the same excerpt). So if *I'm* "mixing up" anything, as you allege, the researchers did too, and somehow I'll take *their* word over *yours* on this matter.

If you wish to issue any further lies about who here is "mixing up" the number of integrations (you say "nine" in nine patients, I say on the order of a million in each of nine patients), I suggest that you go take it up with S. Hacein-Bey-Abina, C. Von Kalle, M. Schmidt, M. P. McCormack, N. Wulffraat, P. Leboulch, A. Lim, C. S. Osborne, R. Pawliuk, E. Morillon, R. Sorensen, A. Forster, P. Fraser, J. I. Cohen, G. de Saint Basile, I. Alexander, U. Wintergerst, T. Frebourg, A. Aurias, D. Stoppa-Lyonnet, S. Romana, I. Radford-Weiss, F. Gross, F. Valensi, E. Delabesse, E. Macintyre, F. Sigaux, J. Soulier, L. E. Leiva, M. Wissler, C. Prinz, T. H. Rabbitts, F. Le Deist, A. Fischer, and M. Cavazzana-Calvo, the authors of the paper, who are under the impression that there really *are* on the order of a million integration events per patient, and not the "one" you hilariously claimed in your vast ignorance.

You never understood the non-random nature of the integration which resulted in the LMO2 amplication and the leukemias which led to the study being halted pre-maturely.

Lie #5.

You also did not understand and ignored the most recent studies on molecular retroviral insertion which indicates less randomness than previously believed.

Lie #6, in fact I specifically acknowledged it, while still showing that it does nothing to rescue your bogus position.

Are you *trying* to torpedoe your own credibility? If so, it sure is working. If not... Quit digging.

Intelligient Design overall is a much better theory than evolution.

So... Did you not bother to even read the article which started this thread, or did you just utterly fail to understand it?

Not only is "Intelligient [sic] Design" NOT a "much better theory" than evolution, it doesn't even qualify *as* a theory...

Read the essay in post #1 again -- I'm not going to waste my time going over the same material with you when it has already been posted at the very top of the thread. The whole freaking essay already covered this subject, and in fact that was its entire focus.

No one has proved that everything came naturally from nothing.

Sigh -- where to start:

1. Science does not deal in proof. "Proof" is an impossible standard in this real world. Proof is only possible in artificial realms like mathematics.

2. There is absolutely nothing in evolutionary biology which asserts that anything, much less "everything", came "from nothing". Not even physics asserts this, for that matter. Are you sure you have any idea what in the hell you're talking about?

If you believe that, you are foolish.

If you believe anyone *has* made any such claim, *you're* the foolish one. And if you don't believe that anyone has made that claim, why are you babbling on about it?

The fool has said in his heart there is no God.

Unfortunately, quite a few fools maintain there is a God as well. You don't even need to leave this thread to find several examples. The atheists have no monopoly on fools.

I have a record of straight A's in Science from grade school through college.

If so, then how in the heck did you manage to say so many stupid and inaccurate things about science in so short a post?

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.