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

CONTRA COSTA TIMES ^ | 12 February 2006 | John Glennon

[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.

[Havoc]

Don't worry, there's plenty more fight where that came from.. which is what seems to have so many of you worried beyond merely the poll numbers. Only 6 percent of Bush supporters (those in power) actually believe an undiluted form of evolution story. 6 percent. 55 percent of Americans in general don't believe it at all. And only 13 percent believe it unadultered. The only way you get anywhere is among those who dilute it and may largely be saying variation counts for something - which doesn't really help evolution except disengenuously so. That is 27 percent of Americans.. The wishy washy "undecideds" as it were. If after 150 years your best numbers are in the undecided column, you're screwed.

[WildHorseCrash]

You guys think your credentials insulate you and you spit your credentials at those without them as though it were an epithet.

The education and experience of someone like Right Wing Professor means, in the real world, that he knows what he's talking about and that his opinions on the subject are worth paying attention to.

If someone has expertise in a specific area, it is useful to pay attention to that person when discussing that area. For example:

• If we want to know about biology and evolution, we ask someone like Right Wing Professor.

• If we want to know how to turn a motorcycle into a sci-fi dork-shrine, we'll ask someone like you.

[ml1954]

Some things never change.

[RunningWolf]

Havoc

What is this?

That towering intellengstsia of the evo ping list arrayed against you, and you with 2/3 your brain tied behind your back (damn uncomfortable isn’t?) and all they can do is have their little sidebar conversations about you, toss 'troll' out your way and try to provoke/troll you with their little demands like they own the place.

Wolf

[Havoc]

Hey, you guys are doing it to yourselves. I'm only emphasizing what you say and feeding it back to you largely.
You're so embarrassed in the end you shut up and leave or try to change the subject.

Go ahead, do what's embarrassing the others into silence and explain how Corn turning into Corn is speciation. I dare you.
I should beg you to do so. Or perhaps we should advertise for other quacks in the evo crowd outside of this thread to come in and splain it unawares so we can get the full comedic value...

[Lurking Libertarian]

And the validity of scientific theories is established by poll numbers?

[Havoc]

You forgot the part about the motorcycle man turning the evolutionists into mumbling, sputtering, step-and-fetchit morons by embarassing them with their own drivol. They even got one of their own to come onto the thread and tell us corn isn't a "species" after one of them tried to use Corn as an example of speciation. Perhaps If you didn't comport yourselves in a manner so easy to destroy on the merits, a motorcycle man couldn't do it. But, there it is...

[Right Wing Professor]

drivol

Is that a brand of motor-oil?

[ml1954]

If we want to know how to turn a motorcycle into a sci-fi dork-shrine, we'll ask someone like you.

ROFLOL.

[Havoc]

No, the validity of theories is established by proof - the which you have not established, thus leading to the poll numbers.

Hint: People largely believe in flight. It's been proven. They can go see an airplane. If they want to see evolution, by and large the best you can produce is excuses and sematics games - redefining terms, etc.

I wasn't shocked to see someone the other night cut free of macro-evolution completely claiming that it is a misnomer and that everything now happens through micro-evolution. Nor are we surprised that these guys offer Corn speciates into Corn arguments. If they had better, they'd present better. They have nothing, so they present what they have with all the fervor of glass is empty yet full charlatans.
It's a magic show and there's paper around the glass. It's full, trust us. BTW: full now means empty with the possibility of becoming not empty one day.

*snickering*

[Havoc]

Shhh. They think they're coy and getting away with it.

bahhhhhhh (fell out)

[Ichneumon]

Since I've run circles around these guys and made them all look like puds for the last day and a half or so

ROFL!!!!

I am reminded of the study which was published a few years ago which discovered that when people are incompetent at a task, they are also highly likely to be incompetent at recognizing the level of the their own incompetence.

This makes a lot of sense -- if they *could* recognize their shortcomings, they'd take steps to improve their performance and would not *remain* incompetent for long. It's only the clueless ones who think they're doing a fine job and thus never take steps to improve, who are left to continue to exhibit incompetence at the task.

I have noticed this same syndrome among countless anti-evolutionists, who are not only blissfully unaware of how poorly they're doing at logical arguments and scientific analysis, but they're also downright *proud* of their lack of knowledge and education on the topic, which they see as some sort of bizarre "strength" relative to those "experts" they disdain and ridicule.

As a result, trying to get an anti-evolutionist to read an educational link on the topic of biology, or crack open a textbook or journal on the subject, so as to come up to speed on the topic and/or become familiar with the actual research and evidence, is like trying to push a dead elephant uphill. It also explains why they haven't bothered to learn the first thing about the subject in all their years of life before arriving here to "lecture" the rest of us on it.

So yeah, Havoc, you're just doing a *great* job of "running rings around us", LOL!

[Right Wing Professor]

If we want to know how to turn a motorcycle into a sci-fi dork-shrine, we'll ask someone like you.

I wouldn't even take his advice on how to get a dog to pee on a lamppost.

[Thatcherite]

Once again, no creationist can be so mind-numbingly dullwitted a drunken troll that he doesn't qualify for the support of the cringing poodle.

[furball4paws]

Well - one more time before the "Don't feed the troll" sign goes on.

"Corn" is not a species.

Nobel Prize Laureate George Beadle convincingly showed that teosinte was the ancestor of Zea mays. i.e. speciation, by all scientific criteria. (Sorry, George, where ever you are in the Great Beyond to have sullied your name with Havoc. Please don't haunt me).

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"They even got one of their own to come onto the thread and tell us corn isn't a "species" after one of them tried to use Corn as an example of speciation."

*Corn* ISN'T a species. There ARE, though, a number of species of corn. Hint: learn some taxonomy.

[RunningWolf]

I don't know about that except I have given you Thatcherite as my favorite mind-numbingly dullwitted drunken troll plenty of support.

I laugh at all of your jokes and I really cant ever get angry with you. I know you are giving it your all 150% worth my dear.

Wolf

[Havoc]

A brand of motor oil, am I supposed to be suddenly circumspect and set aback - even challenged by your failing attempt at an insult. I presume that's what it was intended to be.

I am not impressed or challenged and attempts at ridicule from you will fail. I'm staying on point till you guys defend your nonsensical suppositions. Go ahead

Explain how Corn producing Corn is speciation. It's well established at this point that you can't defend it, thus your derision of me in place of it. If you had anything, you'd have long since produced it. You aren't coy, you aren't above it, and you aren't getting away with it.. no matter what manner of fits and attacks you pull.

heheheheh transparent as clear glass. Oh, do that John Belushi thing for us from Animal House.. please.. You know, the sneaking across the lawn thing.. Would be so appropriate..

[Ken H]

Don't worry, there's plenty more fight where that came from..

The GOP governor of Ohio and a GOP senator from PA apparently don't think so, as evidenced by their tossing ID overboard:

Santorum: Don't put intelligent design in classroom

which is what seems to have so many of you worried beyond merely the poll numbers.

If ID is such a force to be reckoned with, how do you explain the complete thrashing that the incumbent pro-ID school board members received from pro-evolution challengers, in a county that went 64% for President Bush?

[Ichneumon]

Hey, you guys are doing it to yourselves. I'm only emphasizing what you say and feeding it back to you largely. You're so embarrassed in the end you shut up and leave or try to change the subject.

No, we just give up on trying to explain things to you simply enough that you finally stop misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting it.

Eventually we realize that this is a futile task and we leave you to your ignorance.

Don't mistake that for your having "won" the discussion by actual refutation. You can't "win" by being so persistently dense and/or dishonest that we decide you're a lost cause.