Posted on 11/09/2004 12:17:34 PM PST by truthfinder9
The Plot to Kill Evolution
[Article Review: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design]
Wired Magazine has joined the crusade against reasonable science. Their October 2004 issue emblazoned “The Plot to Kill Evolution” across the cover. The article, “The Crusade Against Evolution” was largely a one-sided look at the so-called “evolution vs. creation” debate. The author seemed to try, but largely failed, to contain his pro-evolution bias. At least they talked to some intelligent design (ID) supporters and allowed one proponent to write his own piece, providing some balance.
The article quotes physicist, and ardent atheist, Lawrence Krauss as saying “By no definition of any modern scientist is intelligent design science.” This really is only Krauss’ personal opinion based on anti-God bias. Because, by definition, ID is science, in fact more so than the brand of evolution Krauss promotes.
As I have repeated over and over, the core of ID is the practicing of good science. In other words, don’t bring philosophical presuppositions to the table (such as Krauss’ naturalism or the young-earthism of some creationists). Instead, study the theories side-by-side and don’t hide problems, flaws and unproven (or disproven) claims (which naturalistic evolution is infamous for doing).
The writer’s claim that “scientists aren’t buying it” in reference to ID is nothing more than a talking-point from the naturalism evangelists. The leaders and most promoters of ID are well-credentialed scientists of different religious and philosophical backgrounds. It is no longer easy to dismiss them as backwoods fundamentalists.
The writer claims ID “provides no testable explanations,” has been “thoroughly dismissed,” and has “flimsy probability calculations?” Has he read any of the literature? Apparently not, because ID scientists are the only ones not afraid to have their theory tested and are putting forth solid empirical arguments. And that’s one of the cases against evolution: Scientists ignore all of its failures, gaps in logic and empirical phantoms.
The appealing to “appearance of design” is perhaps the most unscientific concept in the naturalist’s arsenal of arguments. Are you saying we cannot tell what has been designed? Really? So, I cannot tell this computer was designed or that my car could not have been possibly put together by random chance? It's utterly absurd to claim that we cannot detect design.
Carl Woese’s claims that ID “makes no predictions” or offers no “explanations whatsoever” are also grossly uninformed. ID does make predictions and explanations, however people like Woese don’t like them because they are contrary to what they have invested so much time and money in. These naturalists are in the same position as those who initially opposed the big bang, plate tectonics and impact events. They are in the middle of what will become the next big paradigm shift in science.
As naturalists are obviously worried about ID and its sophisticated ideas - rooted in practicing reasonable, logical science – which expose their own adherence to philosophical arguments and disproven scientific models. Just because a theory survives “centuries” doesn’t make it right (such as the theories that the big bang, plate tectonics and impact events replaced). What makes a theory right is its ability to withstand testing, its logical consistency, its capability to make successful predictions and its ability to adapt to new finds – in other words its over all quality if scholarship. Evolution has become so infected with naturalistic presuppositions and unreasonable science, it has failed to meet any of these goals.
I discuss these issues in more detail in my book, Is the Truth Out There?. Other relevant articles and resources are on my main website.
Some recent books on the subject:
Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off
The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery
The Case for a Creator
Dismantling Evolution: Building the Case for Intelligent Design
[links at website]
this is a misnomer, isn't it? you can't "kill" evolution; wouldn't it evolve?
This article, and the edition a few months back proclaiming moveon.org "the wave of the future in politics" are two of the two reasons why My subscription to Wired magazine will last one year, and one year only.
Hope that read this post realize that for many years, expecially in the later fiftees there has been a battle between the two camps. What many folks probably do not know that there have been many scientist with the same credentials on both sides, that hold apposing views. If one where to wade through the many books and articles published over the years by the creationist end, they would find deans of science in universities etc, are out there.
So do understand the creationist are not a bunch of pumpkins from some applachian fundelmentalist church etc..
There have been quite extensive well thought out and backed with many proofs on many issues, geochemical, early earth models, chemical evolution, genetics, geology, radiological dating systems, etc.. And do be aware that often aethists and marginal religious scientist are known to believe chemical evolution as suggested in it's various forms, simply are not possible based on what we know about living systems etc..
Suggestion: In stead of buying a pile of junk food, go to a bible book store, for instance, and purchase some primer books on what the issues really are, and how often bad science replaces honesty and solid research etc..
There are always to sides to an argument. To make many of the blatant often ridiculous insertions that extremely complicated living systems came into being from raw materials with no design in mind, goes totally against all our understanding in the fields of physics and chemistry.
And this type of forum really is no way of discussing quite complicated things, get some books and starting to get a small idea as to what is involved.
"ID is junk"
So do you support or believe extremely complex systems such as protein synthesis, various RNA/DNA transfer mechenisms,
all the precuror required enzyme reactions on and on and on.....in short things that already must be 100 operational within a living cell, could have somehow just came into being during up to now no known states, have somehow ended up becoming a functional element within the bio-chemical systems required to both define and support living processes?
If so, would you also support the view that a microprocessor which in no way approaches the complex things that define living systems, can just sprout out of the ground fully functional? All firmware in place withing the cmos roms, all the ram blocks in place fully functional, all the supporting lets say ten million transitors comprising the support logic within the microprocessor, on and on. Or take something less involved. Lets say would you support the concept that a freesbie composed of specific type polyethane chains could just have come into being from the raw materials in the earth? Whether it required lets say fifty million years or twenty milliseconds (ha ha....punctuated equilibrium mechanisms...........where evolutionary changes must have taken place within seconds..........
Let me ask you this. Are you aware the original proponents within the evolutionary folks declared that large ages where required for a slow process of evolution are now thought of as being simple folklore? Once they became aware (started to actually begin to learn how extremely complex living systems are) that things must evolve almost simultaneously. But the problem is with what we understand in recent times, is you just don't change something in such a system, without the system lossing it abilities to operate correctly. Put another way, system breaks down or simply does not work as originally designed. This is what happens when a biological entity becomes diseased. The system no longer works correctly, it dies.
The place where all the various theories break down is in their efforts to determine the past based upon the present. Unfortunately, such techniques totally break down because even if a chain of events is discovered by which the present state could have been reached, that in no way implies that anything even resembling that chain of events actually happened.
As a simple example, imagine that an archaeologist were trying to ascertain the history of electronics. If the person didn't know about the history of germanium transistors, it is likely that some other 'link' would be proposed between vacuum tubes and transistors. Depending upon the evidence the historian discovers, it would even be possible that the chronology of tubes and transistors might be reversed (vacuum tubes are still used in specialized applications today--even not counting CRT's--but transistors and IC's are used in the equipment that produces them. No vacuum tubes are likely to be found in the equipment to make modern semiconductors).
It would not be overly difficult for someone to examine modern electronics and produce a consistent theory of how they developed. One could probably formulate a sequence of inventions which would be quite neat and elegant and have only one minor little problem: a lack of similarity to what actually occurred.
The biggest problem with the evolutionism-vs-creationism-vs-"theory-du-jour" argument is that it is fundamentally impossible in many cases to determine the past based upon examination of the present. In some cases, it's possible to determine the past with great accuracy and certainty. As one reaches beyond the reach of evidence, however, accuracy and certainty quickly devolve to the point of meaninglessness.
I find it very doubtful that the evidence that would be necessary to show, with any degree of confidence whatsoever, that life on this planet originated in any particular fashion, exists or will ever be discovered. Further, I would suggest that if such evidence does exist, it probably does so for a reason contrary to the existing 'origination theories' [e.g. humanoids and a variety of animals were sent off into space because Altair VI was going to be hit by an oversized meteor. Some animals could withstand higher accellerations and were thus sent first; all of the spacecraft arrived at and remain on what is now the bottom of the Pacific Ocean; the data logs of the ships, if recovered, would explain the arrival of life on the planet].
What amazes me in all these debates is the extent to which neither side seems willing to simply say that there are many plausible theories for the origin of life, including many that have not yet been discovered, and that there is no particular reason for believing any particular one of them to be correct.
This why evolution is called a "theory" and not fact. It's in a constant state of change. It can't be proven as a hard scientific fact and while all the "ingredients" for life can be added together, the "spark" that makes it life can't be recreated. Intelligent deign has its problems but comes closer to explaining the origins of life than evolution does.
"What amazes me in all these debates is the extent to which neither side seems willing to simply say that there are many plausible theories for the origin of life, including many that have not yet been discovered, and that there is no particular reason for believing any particular one of them to be correct."
Fair enough. And I am not for one minute trying to insult those that believe in evolution, it has been a long time slow brainwash, like many other things, we often seem to take for granted are correct.
But let me just pose the following: If, and I sense you are suggesting that live could have originated elsewhere.
The since we are dealing with a carbon based system, would not similiar or identical conditions (earth models and all the other things that go into supporting live) have to be the same in order for live as we know it to have somehow come into existence? Think about it a minute. A identical earth somewhere else. The window of conditions on a planet to support living forms as we understand them to be are quite restricted.
So gentle reader, the problem is still the same. Give it some thought.
"it probably does so for a reason contrary to the existing 'origination theories' [e.g. humanoids and a variety of animals were sent off into space because Altair VI was going to be hit by an oversized meteor."
And do remember the issue is could basic living forms and all the enourmouse amounts of complex protein groups, various enzymes, thousands of very closely regulated bio-chemical paths etc., live is complicated folks beyond most of your wildest dreams, in short some form of chemical evolution ever had taken place. Regardless of what planet it might have come from.
"This why evolution is called a "theory" and not fact."
And that is precisely why many people feel it is only fair to present both sides of this particular argument.
Unfortunatly, to go into any detail requires a bit more knowledge base then especially younger folks and those that have not studied a large degree of various fields of science are up to. I realize this. But to call creation a stupid idea is OK in many peoples eyes because they simply believe it is false. But to call evolution good science and a fact is OK. I would urge all that are willing to take a year or so to by a number of books, one at a time on creation concepts and creation verse evolution.
And just give it a chance to settle in your minds.
You just might be surprised at how much you take for granted as being concrete fact.
As for belittleing one another on either side of the fence,
I think that is a bunch of bad. Notice gentle reader I suggest "books". Why? Because it is so easy to go to various web sites and only get a smathering of what really should be learned. Once you are a little on board, then some of the sites, on either side can provide a little bit more meaning.
And in another posts relating to evolution, I made a comment that this type forum is really not the place to discuss these type issues, because one could write for quite a few hours a huge primer and hardly get anywhere, and how many folks would be willing to read some fifty thousand lines of stuff most have never even heard of before. It would have very little or no meaning to them.
Whatever.
take care all.
The real scientific theory is Natural Selection, not Evolution. We can witness NS in a petri dish, and find evidence all over the world of extreme environmental change favored certain members of a species with the most adaptable genes. We see NS on a micro level, and speculate that we humans have been well equipped with the genes that have made us masters of Earth. Evolution is a reasonable conclusion reached when considering this evidence. But it is only a theory.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory:
When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated 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 mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
Also:
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:
Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
Also:
Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:
A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.
- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15
There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.
There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.
We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."
In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives.
Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.
The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....
So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.
- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.
In any meaningful sense evolution is a fact, but there are various theories concerning the mechanism of evolution.
All theories are in a state of flux to some extent. That is the nature of science. However, evolution is both a fact and a theory.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
The above link is a good explanation of why evolution is considered a fact and it has a Theory that explains its mechanisms.
I can tell you may be committed to your belief that evolution is not a fact, but it is.
There is no objective science that refutes the fact of evolution or that has falsified the Theory of Evolution. Should you be able to do that, you would win the Nobel Prize.
If you think intelligent design is science, you have another think coming. ID is Bible misinterpretation.
"only a theory"
A scientific theory is the highest status of a collection of data that explains an observed phenomenon. Saying that something is only a theory in science shows a distinct lack of understanding of the fundamentals of science.
LOL!
If it were a "fact" it would be repeatable - by definition, in science.
Your passion is misdirected and defies the very laws you worship.
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.