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.
Insane and Out of Control Troll Warning.
Yes, I thought it was quite interesting how he backed away from the ID folks in the Dover case. Now why would he do that? Note also that Taft saw more upside than downside in snubbing ID in science classes.
I also thought it was just as interesting that the pro-ID school board members were completely routed. And this school district was in a county which went almost 2 to 1 for Bush over Kerry.
Interesting placemarker.
Um, actually..
Noting the Evolutionist capacity for precision *****
It is, my fingers moving in point of fact, and they are doing enough damage to your side that your guys have tried desperately to drop the subject and pretend they were elsewhere, didn't happen, didn't hurt. You guys are so transparent it's pathetic. You're like a cat that misses the mark and falls off the back of the couch, get's up then looks around to be sure nobody saw.. the cat just can't talk to say "that didn't happen." *snickering*
Perhaps you should tell that to Dimensio et al. They thought of it as an example.
Is that your attempt at a cry for prozac to make you feel better, or will you explain to us now how corn turning into corn is speciation. Still waiting.
So?
Indeed. ID has been the entrenched paradigm for several thousand years, and despite the fact that it is still batting zero for successful predictions or suggested lines of enquiry I also expect its thrash to continue for a while yet.
Scientific theories are more than just an explanation of existing results. They are certainly much more than just a conjecture or hypothesis. They make predictions and there are observations that would falsify them. They imply research programs and observations. Thus far no such program has been proposed for ID by its proponents.
Anyhow we may not be arguing about much. Behe, Denton, Dembski, and Meyer are all on record as accepting the following:
Really the only point of dispute I have with those people is whether their investigations of a hypothesis that they call ID have matured to the point where they should be taught to High School children along with established and accepted (even by the ID scientists) sciences like evolution.
will you explain to us now how corn turning into corn is speciation. Still waiting.
You are a liar and you are insane. I never said or implied 'corn turning into corn is speciation'.
Now one more time....move along troll.
Physics changelings?
While research has indicated that the constants are constants, there are some recent suggestions otherwise cosmicly, and the fact that a even a physicist of the first rank such as Dirac could consider the possibility very seriously should indicate that idea should not so scornfully be dismissed, that such scorn better reflects upon the misfiring of neurons or such in the scorner rather than scornee.
So because Dirac speculatively threw out the idea G might change, we can propose any physical law might change any constant in a completely free, and like, uninhibited way.
And, of course, we're not doing this to understand the universe, as Dirac was, we're doing it to argue against all the evidence that a 4.7 billion year old earth is actually 6000 years old, to fit the cosmology of some 3000 year old near-eastern sheep-herders.
I hope you are in the mood for dealing with a truly dishonest, obnoxious, and insane troll.
Well, when you crawl under your bridge or into your stall with your marker and snicker so hard you've convinced the world is now safe from evolutionists because of your efforts, those who are not Creationists will be looking in their medical dictionaries for the appropriate syndrome name for your malady.
Shouldn't be too hard to find.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1577107/posts?page=699#699
You're either lying or exhibiting gross reading comprehension in regard to his testimony. Which is it?
Behe's meaning is entirely clear, except to those who wish to dishonestly deny or rationalize away his admission about "ID".
Astrology is not now, and has never in the past been, a scientific theory. To qualify as a *theory*, far higher and specific standards have to be met, which astrology has never achieved, and which "ID" does not meet either. When Behe wants "ID" taught *as* a theory, he does so by *HIS* REdefinition of the word "theory", in a dishonest attempt at bait-and-switch -- teaching it "as a theory" in *his* meaning, in order to give it the kind of respect that *real* scientific theories (i.e., ones which have actually met the high *scientific* standard of "theory") have rightly earned which "ID" has not.
Behe's admission that by *his* standards, astrology also qualifies as a theory (or even "had" qualified as a theory, since Behe backpedaled after his initial admission and tried to squirm out by saying that, well, astrology had been a theory in the past, mumble mumble) reveals quite starkly that Behe's personal definition of theory (and that of the IDers in general) has been stretched out of all sensible meaning.
Now do you want to deal with the facts of what he said, or do you want to twist and spin some more?
But balance and perspective is sorely lacking in this debate, mostly on the evolution side.
Yeah. Uh huh. Sure.
This is not surprising; entrenched paradigms always thrash about when threatened.
This is why the creationists are in such a froth when they fear that science is contradicting their cherished beliefs, and possibly leading people away from fundamentalist creationism. Their fear and desperation is obvious on every one of these threads.
I expect much more to come in the future.
Yes, I expect the anti-evolution creationists to become even more hysterical than they have already, and they're already major whackjobs.
Beat you to it for once. :))
"Every cock must crow on his own dung heap" - Lord Peter Wimsey
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.