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.
Variation. It's corn. It will be corn tomorrow and the next day and the next day. Do you know what Corn is?
Why should he have. You don't.
Evolution would not be nearly as controversial but for the rabid athiests, men such as Richard Dawkins (and even Carl Sagan, in his own time), who jumped out of science into religion and philosophy--claiming evolution disproved God. Of course since science and the scientific method are based on unprovable philosophical/religious assumptions in themselves (as they must be), nothing can be pure science anyway. I get tired of the scientific elites who tell us all how much more they know about an infinitely large and intricate subject (beginnings) than the rest of us. To disrespect religious solutions at all such as by using "speggetti monster" ridicule too, only proves that people that argue like that have an axe to grind, and are not making scientific arguments anyway.
It's very possible to believe in evolution AND intelligent design....as a matter of fact if you're an evolutionist and you don't, then logically you reveal yourself as an atheist, agnostic or at least a deist. Please make that clear...so we know what drum you are beating. When science and scientists stick to the scientific realm, then you can expect philosophers and theologians to stay out of science. But the self righteous bleating BS of evolutionary scientists over ID, (making even the mention of it in a philosophy class in school a federal case...) tells me their's is a religious cause too, just like that of the creationists--only they hide their atheism behind "science."
No, I'm not the one redefining it daily to make it more palletable. That would be your crowd. Speciation is one becoming something different. A dog, as it were, becoming a non-dog. So far, dogs are all still dogs and have not produced anything that can be in any fashion referred to as a non-dog. The exception might be that little mexican rat dog that never stops shaking.. nah, still a dog.
You guys are the ones constantly having to change theories, change definitions, change whatever - turn the earth upside down so that irrational banter sounds smart if viewed from just the right angle through a piece of red rock candy (thank you Josey Whales).
What makes it controversial isn't just the rabids. The rabids make the conversation distasteful. The theory would be just as convoluted and controversial otherwise. Thus it's failure to take hold and it's waning influence.
There is no conclusive evidence for evolution, is there ?
er - Josey Wales even. rofl. Loved that old indian.
Excuse me, but a guy with three arms, is that still a human being, or did he become inhuman because he grew a third arm.. troll. Just thought I'd clarify for those in the cheap seats.
It's ok, you can clear your throat and cover your face when answering.
Ah, you mean there is an overwhelming amount of things you could point to that can be attributed to anything under the stars but your spin is it's evolution. Still nothing concrete; but, a mountain of spin. Sorry, just providing the logic translation service for the hard of seeing.. Our side generally get's this, the translation is for yours.
My apologies, I thought that the post to which I had responded was from John Lenin, not you. Had I known it was someone who shamelessly lies and redefines terms to "prove" a point, including insisting that "species" means something other than what it has meant for over 100 years, I wouldn't have bothered wasting my time.
No, there is just a mountain of evidence. Evolution happens to be your pet favorite ideology. Thus to you it is the best
explanation in absence of any proof.
Fossils prove one thing - something died. There is no dna or family history to cross-examine to determine anything beyond that. You may not like that fact, but it is nonetheless a fact.
As for your nonsense about "ERV insertion points" I seem to remember discussions about "Junk DNA". As it turns out, there is nothing "Junk" about it - zip. And the only strong conclusion to be made is that from ignorance, your side slapped a label on from hypothesis and were slapped by reality when proven wrong. The norm in evo "science".
As for deciding without examining the claims, I think the whole point of these threads for years has been an examination of one claim after another that's been made and knocked down. You guys call this "science" as though we're all supposed to give you a pass when your claim doesn't pan out and let it roll off while you shift to the next evolution subtheory replacement in the arsenal.
To me, if you were pursuing science instead of your conclusion, we'd know a lot more and have to discard a lot less making you all look less moronic. But, hey, that's just me.
I think it's interesting how the article talks about an incredible little motor in our cells called the flagellum and yet don't see that some intelligence had to make it. When we see even the simplest devices outside our bodies we know that someone had to make them. The most complex robots that simulate humans can't come close to the complexity and effeciency of our bodies yet we would never say that they could ever evolve without a maker.
I didn't redefine species. Do you seriously want to argue that a dog isn't a dog? Are you going to argue that a mutation causing a man to grow a third arm makes the man a non man. Floor is yours, knock yourself out. But, this is precisely the kind of nonsense that people see through completely. It's offensive.
"The origin of new species by evolution (speciation) has been observed both in the laboratory and in the wild."
I've never heard this. Is this true?
No, it isn't. Doesn't stop them claiming it though.
Yeah, DNA and data files share a comonality, they both are chocked full of information useful only when presented to a machine and program capable of reading and acting upon them.
Ope, wait a second, Civilization 7 just randomly and spontaniously appeared out of a mass of nothing on my computer.. I stand corrected.. not. LOL.
do you know what a species of, say, ant is, troll? the distant multi-mutation descendants of an ant will still be "ants" - but what species? or are you so trollish that you will insist that the Pennsylvania Carpenter Ant is the same species of ant as the Brazilian Fire-Ant?
nevermind, troll - you are too evidently satisfied with your chronic craniorectal impaction for any argument to ever reach your ears, let alone your mind.
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.