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.
Anyway Darwin published before the treasure trove of artifacts in Palestine proving the historicity of the Bible were discovered. Kenyon sr. et all.
The theory of evolution rests on rather more than "OoS". It is supported by 150 years of confirming observations since then. A veritable avalanche of confirming data, beyond anything Darwin could have dreamed of. How can artifacts "prove" the historicity of the bible? Even if the historicity of certain biblical books were proven how would this disprove evolution?
Is this different from the one he published in 1859?
In any case, if evolution contradicts the Bible, the Bible is wrong.
Our spiritual nature is something that did not "evolve" out of physical processes. Sorry.
Oh well, that settles it, then.
I don't know anyone who'd call that common sense. I know people who would say the odds would favor it; but, wouldn't call it common sense. You're reaching. But we do agree there is a disconnect. It is in part responsible for the leaps you make over what "speciation" is compared to what it has been in the past claimed to be - which has undergone some revision.. just as people are now trying to cut loose of origins, macro, etc.. redefining it continually.
Corn is corn. When it becomes something else, or something more, you'll have speciation. Until it does, you'll have corn. Plain, simple, understandable. May make you unhappy
but I don't care and don't apologize for it. I'm not going to let you guys get by with intellectual dishonesty no matter how much you whine, simper, complain or insult. That is the bottom line. And the reason you guys view Ham and Hovind as "Dangerous" and as bad as the Taliban as someone offered last night is for that very reason. They hold you to account for the nonsense and the public that comes into contact with them largely agrees with THEM not you as the numbers show. You've made your case and failed endlessly to prove it. In absence of proof, everyone got bored and laughed you off. The numbers are growing. Too bad so sad.
""This is a blatant lie.""
Please. friend, check the dictionary definition of "lie" again before you open the door.
Demonstrate the power of the "scientific" process of which you call "Evolution" and then we will all be impressed.
Until Evolutionists can create something out of nothing, their "science" means nothing.
But so far, the only human being who demonstrated the power of creation -- i.e. the power over life and death -- was Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
And He was God.
And THAT is what this thread is really all about. It's the inherent, unspoken argument that stirs people up over Evolution. Sorry.
The one on the lower right looks a lot like a terrier.
You'll have to get in line if you're going to complain about Galileo. It wasn't "the church". It was "the Roman Catholic" church. It's a religion.. heard of it? I'm non-protestant, non-Catholic. If you wish to complain about Galileo, you'll have to do it to the Roman Catholic Church/Government since it was a political entity trying to use politics to enforce it's ideology - the which isn't the case in the US. Sorry, did your point just go somewhere...
As for vast evidence, if the evidence shows corn becomes corn, then you got nothing but spin. Which happens to be the case on all fronts because you have yet to present a single concrete thing anyone can point to and say "macro".
Not one. The only thing you can do is tell us fairytales about how if you look at it the right way, in the right light, from the right angle through the piece of red rock candy...
All your technobabble - every last bit of it boils down to precisely that - stories - fables and fiction. My advice, if you want to make money on fiction and be fullfilled by it, go compete with Stephen King. Fiction has no place in Science.
Dover again? Are you just fond of dover or is there some point you wish to make that you haven't made so far. Dover is irrelevant to your case. Dover is irrelevant to your situation. The ID guys didn't fold up and go home because you guys stuck your tongues out, they spread and are attacking elsewhere and will continue to. They're able to spread because people don't believe you. That's an earned loss of faith. Live with it. You have nothing but stories and people aren't buying them anymore.
That's what comes from watching the Westminster dog show. They have breeds of dogs I won't believe are dogs until they show me the DNA.
Spoken bravely for a man who believes in a hypothetical guy with a beard flying around above the clouds.
First, that should be "it isn't speciation."
Second, it is speciation. Biologists don't tell you how much soda goes into a Big Gulp cup, and convenience store clerks don't get to define what speciation means.
Did you read your own article by chance? The part that talks about only four possible instances being on file and why.
The number of observed speciation events is greater than zero, therefore your argument that speciation does not occur is incorrect.
Back-to-work placemarker.
So the Steelers won the Superbowl in 2005, because Ben Roethlishburger was thinking about it.
No logic is too bizarre for a creationist.
What "Christian Geologists"?
For example, in 1857 (before Darwin published anything, you'll note) Hugh Miller -- a creationist geologist -- wrote of his conclusions that at most, the Biblical flood was the embellished record of a local flood in the Mideast, since geology showed no signs of a global flood. On page 327 of his book, "The Testimony of the Rocks", he wrote:
"No man acquainted with the general outlines of Palaeontology, or the true succession of the sedimentary formations, has been able to believe, during the last half century, that any proof of a general deluge can be derived from the older geologic systems, -- Palaeozoic, Secondary [Mesozoic], or Tertiary."
Anyway Darwin published before the treasure trove of artifacts in Palestine proving the historicity of the Bible were discovered. Kenyon sr. et all.
This is irrelevant to the question of what the geologic record says about whether a global flood ever occurred or not. It's also irrelevant to the question of whether Genesis in particular or the Bible on the whole is inerrant, because it's no surprise that many portions of the Bible deal with earthly events, places, and people. Finding archaeological traces of those events, places, and people doesn't, however, indicate that *everything* is necessarily true, however, just as the fact that Greek mythology discussing the involvement of the Greek gods in actual wars and events, in the reigns of actual rulers, etc., proves that Zeus must actually exist and actually flung lightning bolts etc. Nor does the reality of the burning of Atlanta, General Grant, and the Civil War, help to prove that all people mentioned in "Gone With the Wind" actually existed too.
Pity that modern science is in such state of PC..
Could be because of the huge Marxist bent of American academics..
Dielectic Agnosticism in a state of autistic obsession..
Basically; one thing they know for sure.. its NOT God..
Anything else, is possible..
Don't you mean dyslexic?
(Rimshot)
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.