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.
Ianesco would be proud....
" yet science seeks to explain ALL aspects under God's purview, including the human soul."
No, science has nothing for or against to say about the existence of a soul.
" There is NO field where science does not say: I can explain that, God; you are not needed here."
You are mistaking the epistemological reality that science has limits (the existence of God being outside it's scope) with the claim that science says there is no God.
Given we've talked in the past about Biophysical Society meetings we've attended, I'd have thought you might be aware I know you are a biophysicist. But, as has been established, you are dim and slow.
Given this one would also think you were familiar with the term "dig" as in a dig at someone. But again, you are a bit slow and dim.
My credentials are I am not slow and dimwitted.
I won't get in to the issue of whether all biophysicists are biologists.
Lastly, in response to my initial comment, your reply was only about your hurt feelings over the tender dig at you (the if you were a biologist crack) not about the statement.
All your paramagnetism belongs to us.
Are the society meetings still this time of year? Oughtn't you be on the way? Where is it this year? I quite enjoyed the Biophysical Society meetings. Perhaps I'll go next year and I can laugh at you in person.
Take care friend.
Spam-a-lot.
"The point is the chicken or the egg question and mans beginning are the same."
How?
As predicted.
"It's self explanatory."
So you will have no trouble explaining it. Go for it. :)
When they figure out what came first the chicken or the egg they will figure out how mans existance came into being. There is NO missing link.
"(3) presumes without a whit of evidence that scientists working on the issue are doing so in bad faith,"
Actually, I have first hand evidence in that during my PhD studies in the late 80’s and working with DoD and NASA on a variety of space programs we kept hearing what a cash cow
"global warming" was going to be in the coming years. I talked with one researcher after another who was cashing in the scheme. We all knew it was a liberal BS push to attack petroleum, chemical, and human population issues. Hell, even the public knew it, but repeating that lie seems to have had it affect. People like you now believe it to be absolutely true. In the 80’s I worked with the DMSP program, which measures energy around the planet 24 x 7. When the first global warming alarms were raised, along with the conclusion that man should stop polluting the earth, stop driving cars, and a whole host of other liberal agenda items, the DMSP group was laughing its ass off. They had several decades of real scientific evidence that not a single shred of this “evidence” of global warming was true.
“Global Warming” is just another liberal eco-terrorist attack on humans.
It's not just money (although it is money) --there's that ego thing going that you often find with retired, out-of-work, untenured or otherwise marginalized "scientists"--
I'm afraid I disagree. You seem remarkably slow on the uptake, to the extent I find it questionable you could possibly make a living in science.
My resume is a matter of public record. Yours is a fantasy.
Nothing more pathetic than someone who puts down the qualifications of others and then, when challenged on his own, hides behind anonymity.
"That's not what Behe said."
Wriggle and squirm from this, if you will. Theories don't have to be true. I love it. He just wants to redefine scientific theory so that he can get ID under the bar, but he has to acknowledge that his redefinition also lets astrology in under the bar too. "a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences" is only a small part of what every other scientist in the world regards as required for theories.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
Put more simply, he wants conjectures hypotheses and theories to be lumped together under a single heading, which is "theory". Disengenuous, mad, charlatan? Your call.
My guess is you are not offering me a grant.
I find it interesting that you think it somehow wise or necessary to advertise yourself on an internet forum that is not even a scientific forum.
I came to free republic many years ago because of its political nature and to participate in political discussion and information distribution.
When I want to say something about scientific matters I will write an article also discuss topics of interest with friends or others in various fields. I cannot for the life of me understand why any scientist would hang out at a political internet forum to use superficial discussions of biology or other sciences as a means to participate in a culture war relating to religious beliefs.
I find it very strange.
It is also not appropriate for you to try and obtain or demand personal information from people. You have a strange psychological reason for wanting to advertise yourself, fine. But no one else is required to give specifics on their personal life or such information.
So my friend, believe anything you want to believe. I am a janitor in Chula Vista having recently crossed the Rio Grande (illegally of course) from old Mexico.
Pro-ID school board members in Dover, PA swept from office
______________________________
Presidential politics: Dover is in York County, which supported George W. Bush in the last two presidential elections. According to unofficial vote totals for 2004, Bush received 114,621 votes and John Kerry received 63,628 votes. [my note: that's about 64% for Bush!]
http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/politicalInfo.php?locIndex=275620
________________________________
And note these two GOP figures backing away from ID in science classes:
Your #629 - I would expect that. I've never seen it myself, but there are always has-been scientists looking for a comeback. Just look at the asteroid issue. When there seemed to be money to be had every scientist and organization came out of the woodworks. When the money dried up, so did the story.
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.