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]

To borrow a stupidity from creationist Ken Ham: "Excuse me, were you there?" You're just stating your ignorant presumption as if you had actually established its truth.

No, I'm just invoking common sense. Dogs come from Dogs. We witness that and expect that to be so. Until someone can prove otherwise, the bottom line assumption that does stand as reasonable is that the ancestor was a dog. If you wish to offer something as otherwise reasonable, you need to establish that - which is the subject of our current discussion. I've seen a dog give birth to pups that grew up into "dogs" (gasp). I've never seen a cat give birth to a dog though I have witnessed the birth of many many kittens. So have a great cross-section of our population. They haven't seen cats or dogs produce other than cats or dogs either. Guess they're all just blind, dumb and misinformed.. your argument as it were.

[Ichneumon]

They're all dogs.

Yes, but they're not all the same species, just as tigers and pumas are "all cats", but they're not the same species either. And there are 400,000+ species of beetles which are "all beetles" despite the fact that they come in a vast variety of forms and lifestyles.

Caught on yet, or do you need a picture?

No need for a picture, we've already caught on to the fact that you cluelessly think that all kinds of canids are exactly the same thing, no matter how stupid that claim is and how obviously false it should be to anyone with a double-digit IQ or higher...

[Havoc]

Dog is a type of animal. If you want to define Great dane and
bulldog as differing species, that's your problem, not mine.
I understand how the textbooks and scientists have made their deliniations, that's part of the argument. It's a dog. Until you establish something other than a dog, you don't have a change in species - you have a variation within it. You want to say Dog is a family level label - fine. All you're really saying is that there is a disconnect between science and common sense. I've already made that point. Next.

[Thatcherite]

It's a Not a loss for the numbers of variation, it would be a fulfillment of the available genetic pool of diversity. The animal wouldn't exist if the genetics did not allow for it. But when the genetics are expressed to a degree that leaves the animal incapable of interbreeding with some other breeds, it's a loss on the dna front for that breed. You're problem is that it is still a dog. If it then grew wings or something like that, you would have a speciation event when an obvious dog became an obvious non-dog.

Maybe you could re-post that, but in english next time.

[RightWingNilla]

they're unable to recognize their own incompetence on the subject, and in fact mistake it for superiority.

Its really an amazing feat of self-delusion. I find it fascinating in a way. Probably one of the reasons I like these threads.

[Havoc]

And the reason that species is such a loose term is that men classified them. Now men are wanting to use those classifications which they imposed as a ground for saying a dog isn't a dog because a species label applies to one dog but not another.

As I said, species is a "loose" term. You'd argue the same about "kind". I would agree with you. That doesn't mean I give you a pass. Sorry. Try again.

[Right Wing Professor]

Now run along and go bother someone your own mental age.

Easy now, Ich. Don't want to encourage anyone, even accidentally, to pick on five year olds.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Reminds me of someone once brought into the British Government as Minister Without Portfolio, to present The Government's Case. The fact that The Government had no case explains the lack of a portfolio.

[Californiajones]

"Most Christian geologists had already discarded a literal reading of Genesis decades before Darwin published."

What "Christian Geologists"? Anyway Darwin published before the treasure trove of artifacts in Palestine proving the historicity of the Bible were discovered. Kenyon sr. et all.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Dog is a type of animal. If you want to define Great dane and
bulldog as differing species, that's your problem, not mine."

Where did I say they were?

"It's a dog. Until you establish something other than a dog, you don't have a change in species - you have a variation within it."

Dog means more than the domestic dog. *Dog* isn't specific enough for science. The link I gave you was of the family canidae; you said they are all dogs. Foxes are members of this family; they are clearly different species than chihuahuas.

" All you're really saying is that there is a disconnect between science and common sense."

And common sense is wrong. On the other hand, most of the species level designations that scientists have discovered have also been accepted by cultures that have had extremely limited contact with science. Species describes a real biological population; *kind* doesn't.

[Californiajones]

So?

So that's why this thread is so painfully long --

--the antiChristian spirit stirs up people on both side of the belief scale where Evolution and Evolutionists are concerned.

[Thatcherite]

All you're really saying is that there is a disconnect between science and common sense.

There are many disconnects between science and common sense. For example most people would say that it is common sense that if you are in a room with 190 other people then there is a greater than 50% chance that one of those people has the same birthday as you. However, that is false, no matter how strong the common sense argument that (190/365)>50% seems. Given the choice to determine what is true between common sense and science I'll go with science every time.

[Mamzelle]

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

What if there's no "they"--just a "he"? They sound so much alike! "Go back to biology class" is so common that they must have a macro-key going. And look at the pacing of the high-fives--before one is over, another one has already replied. Scripted, maybe? IM?

[atlaw]

Right. No personal attacks. Only wholesale demonization of scientists is allowed. I got it.

Now, how about this. Assume that I'm the "liberal eco-terrorist who desires the destruction of human kind" that you say I am (who, oddly enough, has been posting on this forum for more than four years without detection), and assume that I just don't have your (self-professed) level of scientific expertise.

Reconcile for me the surface, atmospheric, and satellite data on temperature variations in the lower troposphere.

Is the surface data just wrong? If so, why is it wrong? Have sneaky liberal meteorologists just been making up the data to get grant money? Is there a conspiracy of eco-terrorist meteorologists bent on destroying human kind with deadly thermometers? Or is there some other reason?

And while you're at it, maybe you could explain precisely why arctic sea ice is retreating in measurably significant quantities in historically stable areas (as shown by DMSP satellite data), and accumulating in marginal, non-offset quantities in other areas.

The scientific community awaits your definitive resolution of these issues.

[Right Wing Professor]

You want to say Dog is a family level label - fine.

Is this a dog?

How about this?

[Ichneumon]

You're just stating your ignorant presumption as if you had actually established its truth.

No, I'm just invoking common sense.

Yeah, that's what the Church claimed when it imprisoned Galileo for stating that the Earth went around the Sun, instead of the "common sense" view that the Sun went around the Earth. Things are not always as "common sense" would indicate.

Dogs come from Dogs. We witness that and expect that to be so.

And yet, over vast numbers of generations, that naive presumption turns out not to hold.

Until someone can prove otherwise, the bottom line assumption that does stand as reasonable is that the ancestor was a dog.

The vast evidence, which you keep refusing to learn anything about, has established beyond any reasonable doubt that your *assumption* is incorrect.

If you wish to offer something as otherwise reasonable, you need to establish that

I have, and so has 100+ years of biolical science. Deal with it, or not. You apparently enjoy your ignorance so much that you refuse to learn anything to the contrary of what you wish to believe, so go for it.

- which is the subject of our current discussion.

It's not a "discussion" when you just keep stamping your feet and making multiple claims which are contrary to established fact. It's just you being ignorantly stubborn.

I've seen a dog give birth to pups that grew up into "dogs" (gasp). I've never seen a cat give birth to a dog though

Nor is that kind of thing necessary for macroevolution to occur, as you would already know if a) you had bothered to learn anything about biology before spouting off about it, or b) if you had bothered to read any of the many informative posts on that very subject.

They haven't seen cats or dogs produce other than cats or dogs either.

Nor is that what evolutionary biology requires.

Guess they're all just blind, dumb and misinformed..

They are if they're stupid enough to think that this *is* what evolutionary biology is about. I don't think *they're* that stupid, although *you* clearly are, as you demonstrate at nearly every opportunity. You argue against a bizarre, distorted, cartoon-version of evolution instead of the real thing, because you haven't the first clue what the real thing actually entails.

[Ken H]

You can always hope. If you wish to delude yourselves, don't let me stand in the way.

The Dover election results are not imaginary, nor are the two high level GOP defections from ID (Santorum and Taft).

Here is an interesting take from Jeb Bush on science standards and teaching ID:

He wants those standards to become more rigorous -- and raising the standards should take priority over discussing whether intelligent design has a place in the public schools' curriculum, he said.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1547174/posts

[Californiajones]

The origin of the species, as in Mankind, is what the Bible is all about.

So again, I'll repeat myself.

The INHERENT (please look up that word, Evos) argument of Darwin's hypothesis is that the species evolved from lower life forms.

As this negates the idea of the Soul, of the conscience, of the moral comport of Mankind as well as dishes entirely the Biblical descriptions of how and why Man was created, Darwin's hypothesis of Evolution in the early 19th century negates the Biblical model.

Don't know how to say it any clearer except if it didn't nail the Bible, this thread would not be this long. Our spiritual nature is something that did not "evolve" out of physical processes. Sorry.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" What "Christian Geologists"?"

Sedgwick, Lyell, Hutton.

"Anyway Darwin published before the treasure trove of artifacts in Palestine proving the historicity of the Bible were discovered. Kenyon sr. et all."

What *treasure trove*?

[Dimensio]

The INHERENT (please look up that word, Evos) argument of Darwin's hypothesis is that the species evolved from lower life forms.

Actually, that's the explicit claim, not the inherent one.

As this negates the idea of the Soul, of the conscience, of the moral comport of Mankind

Please explain how common descent negates the above. Be specific.

as well as dishes entirely the Biblical descriptions of how and why Man was created, Darwin's hypothesis of Evolution in the early 19th century negates the Biblical model.

Darwin's theory of evolution negates a specific interpretation of the book of Genesis. Oddly, however, there are a number of Christians who dispute that Darwin's theory disputes the existence of the Biblical God or the need for Christ's salvation. Since there are clearly Christians who accept evolution and who accept the divinity of Christ and the necessity of salvation through Him, you are clearly wrong in your universal pronouncement.

Also note that even if you are correct (and you are not) in your claim that Darwin's theory negates the Biblical account, you have not demonstrated that Darwin's theory negates the existence of a "Designer" of the universe. Christianity is not the only religion in existence.