Evolution Critics Are Under Fire For Flaws in 'Intelligent Design'

Wall Street Journal ^ | Feb 13, 2004 | SHARON BEGLEY

[The Raven]

Even before Darwin, critics attacked the idea of biological evolution with one or another version of, "Evolve this!"

Whether they invoked a human, an eye, or the whip-like flagella that propel bacteria and sperm, the contention that natural processes of mutation and natural selection cannot explain the complexity of living things has been alive and well for 200 years.

[js1138]

All of these have either met their complete demise...

I suggest you go back and read your original question, to which I responded. I would say that any civilization or culture that lasted at least five times the current age of the United States qualifies as successful.

[PhilipFreneau]

>> None of the above presuppose divine intervention.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

[PhilipFreneau]

Baloney. You clearly don't know your history. Evolution was first included in secondary school textbooks in the late 1800's. Specifically in a very popular and widely used botany text written by Asa Gray (who, btw, was not only one of America's most important botanists, and an early advocate of evolutionary theory, but also an evangelical Christian) . . . Therefore in describing this (overturning of laws prohibiting evolution) as judicial "tyranny," you suggest that you do in fact approve using the power of the state to flat-out censor theories you don't like, and that Ophiucus was on point in comparing you with the mullahs in Iran.

I believe you misunderstood my statement. I am not opposed to the teaching of evolution, and I never have been. What I was referring to was the usurpation of the power to promote the establishment of religion from the states, a power clearly allowed the states in the 10th Amendment.

The statement about the "mullahs of Iran" is ridiculous. If you want to combat censorship, there is a lot of secular censorship these days.

[PhilipFreneau]

>> I suggest you go back and read your original question, to which I responded. I would say that any civilization or culture that lasted at least five times the current age of the United States qualifies as successful.

I originally asked for secular, and you requested a change to any religion. That's okay. I will go along with that. Now we will get to my primary reason for the statement. Tell me which of those nations you listed that you would have wanted to live in, and why.

[js1138]

...there is a lot of secular censorship these days.

Actually I tend to agree with you on this, except that there is no real censorship in this country. If you want to know what real censorship is, go to Saudi Arabia or Cuba. But censorship is not the issue here. We are discussing the teaching of science. There is currently no science-based challenge to evolution as the fundamental theory of bioliogy. There are quibbles over mechanisms, but there is no science-based challenge to common descent.

[Stultis]

Fine, then let schools teach intelligent design, or is that too much "freedom of thought" for you? If you are anything but a hypocrit you will be vehemently supporting the teaching of intelligent design.

You didn't write that to me, but I think I speak for many of the other "evolutionists" here in saying that there is no problem whatever in teaching "intelligent design," or even old fashioned "creation science," PROVIDED ONLY that it get into the curricula the same way evolutionary theory did: by first succeeding and prevailing in the marketplace of scientific ideas.

Most of "evolutionists" here are only "evolutionists" incidentally. At core we are advocates of good and comprehensive education in the sciences. Our defense of evolution is occasioned by its present importance in biological science, and by the fact that it has been and is under extraordinary and ideologically motivated cultural assault. Apart from these factors, however, evolution is just another scientific theory. The concern of most "evolutionists" is with the pursuit and elucidation of science as such; not with particular theories.

If "intelligent design" (or some other creationistic theory) is ever taken up by working scientists -- in the sense of being actually employed or implicated in the pursuit of ongoing research, as will be objectively determinable by consulting the professional literature of science -- then I will advocate the teaching of that theory in the public schools (entirely without respect to whether or not I personally accept the theory).

By the same token, if evolutionary theory is ever generally abandoned by the working scientific community as a useful theory -- and this will also be objectively determinable in the professional literature -- then I will advocate that evolution be EXCLUDED from public school science curricula (even if I personally continue to "believe" in evolution).

It's about academic integrity and high academic standards. Both require honesty and objectivity in informing students about the theories and ideas that are currently operative in science and their objective status. Many creationists, OTOH, are essentially advocating "intellectual affirmative action" (not to mention lying to students) in demanding that their favored views be presented as on a par with established theories even though they have not succeeded in the marketplace of scientific ideas.

[js1138]

The original challenge was to:

...Give us an example of a successful, self-sustaining secular nation with reasonable longevity.

I asked for the modification of "secular" to "non-Christian" because I assumed you were not in favor of American schools promoting the worship of sun-gods and such. If you would like American schools to allow teachers to promote religions other than Christianity, then I will discuss that. I was not trying to weasel out of anything by changing secular to non-Christian.

My point is that there have been dozens of large, "successful, self-sustaining secular[non-Christian] nation[s] with reasonable longevity". I consider a thousand years to be a reasonable definition of longevity.

So what's your point. There is no one particular belief system required to sustain a nation or culture.

And this is not a particularly troubled or devisive time in America's history. We have been through much worse.

[Stultis]

Where did you get that idea. I think everyone should learn about the THEORY of evolution, intelligent design, and God's word. Freedom of thought should always reign supreme.

Strange then that you have hailed the recent past, when teaching "the THEORY of evolution" was often prohibited by law, as an ideal age of beneficent Christian cultural hegemony.

[Stultis]

I am not suggesting any particular ism. I am suggesting that God is conscious through us. I am not suggesting that God is limited to our level or kind of consciousness.

Understood. I tend to agree. I suspect that part of the reason behind the creation is to allow God to experience and explore the potentials of material Being (including the consciousness and emotional life of material organisms). For this reason I'm also inclined toward accepting the hypothesis of multiple Universes with differing physical laws and characteristics, since I don't see why God would limit his exploration of materiality to one instance thereof.

[Stultis]

I believe you misunderstood my statement. I am not opposed to the teaching of evolution, and I never have been. What I was referring to was the usurpation of the power to promote the establishment of religion from the states, a power clearly allowed the states in the 10th Amendment.

Very well. Understood now. I was thrown by your refering to this happening in the mid-1900's. Since you were lecturing everone else here about their ignorance of, and your knowledge of, history, I would naturally assume that you knew that the bill of rights was federalized following the Civil War. I still don't know what event or events you're referring to wrt to the "mid-1900s".

[MEGoody]

Whoopdeedoo - there are holes in the theory of evolution too. If the fact that 'holes' exist makes the theory not worth taking seriously, then I guess someone had better come up with another new theory to try.

[whattajoke]

I guess someone had better come up with another new theory to try.

By all means, go for it! Your name will be right up there with Edison, Einstein, Bohr, and Darwin.

I like how you toss about "new theories" as if they were a dime a dozen. It cracks me up.

[balrog666]

Cracking up placemarker.

[PhilipFreneau]

Our defense of evolution is occasioned by its present importance in biological science, and by the fact that it has been and is under extraordinary and ideologically motivated cultural assault. Apart from these factors, however, evolution is just another scientific theory...

I thought the general consensus amongst evolutionists was that it was a fact! In any case, explain briefly how evolution is important to biological science, for other than historical purposes?

Many creationists, OTOH, are essentially advocating "intellectual affirmative action".

I don't agree with affirmative action of any nature. I do not agree with creationism for reasons both scientific and biblical. The same for evolution. But I must admit it would be easy for me to believe in evolution if I was an atheist or (still) an agnostic.

[whattajoke]

Evolution is a fact. The mechanisms driving it are mostly facts. How it all works and comes together is the theory. Scientific theories are based on facts and are rigorously tested. Over years. Lots of years.

Your 2nd question regarding "what good is it" is one of those far reaching vague creationist type questions. Parts of the theory are used in everything from pharmaceuticals (too many to count) surgery, genetic studies (too many to count), agriculture, forestry, botany, on and on and on.

[PhilipFreneau]

>> So what's your point.

My point was, and still is, that nations that forget God do not last.

>> And this is not a particularly troubled or devisive time in America's history.

Huh? This nation is gravely threatened, from without by an evil Islamic cult that has no moral restraint against using WMD's against innocent citizens; and from within by the forces of immorality: those who would be happy to see our nation destroyed. Although it is written that God will destroy those who destroy the earth, and that the nations will be healed after the judgement, there are some very trying times ahead.

[js1138]

My point was, and still is, that nations that forget God do not last.

Unless you accept any old definition of God, You're mistaken, as demonstrated by my list.

As for this being a troubled time, we've seen worse. The Revolution, 1812, Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam. If you weren't of military age during any of these, you have nothing to say about times of trouble.

[PhilipFreneau]

>> Strange then that you have hailed the recent past, when teaching "the THEORY of evolution" was often prohibited by law, as an ideal age of beneficent Christian cultural hegemony.

Maybe there were some local restrictions (that is their right according to the Constitution). But I was taught evolution in my South Carolina public high school. No problem. At the same time we were taught that God created the universe. I was an agnostic so the God part did not matter at the time (well, I didn't think it did). But even then I felt there was an awful lot of guess work in the theory of evolution. That also did not matter because evolution was taught as a theory. Ohm's Law was taught as a fact. And Bugs Bunny was a cartoon character.

Now every thing has been turned upside down. Our children are taught that evolution is a fact and God is superstition. To the pure in heart the second part is the work of fools, so it is natural for them to assume the first part to be foolish.

This debate reminds me of Isaiah 29:16, which reads, "Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?"

[PhilipFreneau]

>> Since you were lecturing everone else here about their ignorance of, and your knowledge of, history, I would naturally assume that you knew that the bill of rights was federalized following the Civil War. I still don't know what event or events you're referring to wrt to the "mid-1900s".

I assume you are referring to "incorporation", which was usurpation of power by the Supreme Court. Once we allowed the courts to get their foot in the door, it was only a matter of time before they exhalted themselves to become the unelected rulers of our nation. Jefferson warned the courts were given too much power. He had no idea how much.

[PhilipFreneau]

>> Evolution is a fact. The mechanisms driving it are mostly facts. How it all works and comes together is the theory. Scientific theories are based on facts and are rigorously tested. Over years. Lots of years.

You think it is a fact.

>> Your 2nd question regarding "what good is it" is one of those far reaching vague creationist type questions. Parts of the theory are used in everything from pharmaceuticals (too many to count) surgery, genetic studies (too many to count), agriculture, forestry, botany, on and on and on.

I had no idea. How is it used in surgery?

BTW, I am not a creationist, but I am a realist. If I was a creationist I would have to believe the earth was created on the first day; followed by light on the same day; followed by grasses and trees on the third day; followed by the Sun and Moon (for the years, days and seasons) on the fourth day. That is as unreasonable as life spontaneously beginning within some sort of "primordal soup" (or, whatever). Both defy logic.