Evolution of creationism: Pseudoscience doesn't stand up to natural selection

Daytona Beach News-Journal ^ | 29 November 2004 | Editorial (unsigned)

[PatrickHenry]

In a poll released last week, two-thirds of Americans said they wanted to see creationism taught to public-school science pupils alongside evolution. Thirty-seven percent said they wanted to see creationism taught instead of evolution.

So why shouldn't majority rule? That's democracy, right?

Wrong. Science isn't a matter of votes -- or beliefs. It's a system of verifiable facts, an approach that must be preserved and fought for if American pupils are going to get the kind of education they need to complete in an increasingly global techno-economy.

Unfortunately, the debate over evolution and creationism is back, with a spiffy new look and a mass of plausible-sounding talking points, traveling under the seemingly secular name of "intelligent design."

This "theory" doesn't spend much time pondering which intelligence did the designing. Instead, it backwards-engineers its way into a complicated rationale, capitalizing on a few biological oddities to "prove" life could not have evolved by natural selection.

On the strength of this redesigned premise -- what Wired Magazine dubbed "creationism in a lab coat" -- school districts across the country are being bombarded by activists seeking to have their version given equal footing with established evolutionary theory in biology textbooks. School boards in Ohio, Georgia and most recently Dover, Pa., have all succumbed.

There's no problem with letting pupils know that debate exists over the origin of man, along with other animal and plant life. But peddling junk science in the name of "furthering the discussion" won't help their search for knowledge. Instead, pupils should be given a framework for understanding the gaps in evidence and credibility between the two camps.

A lot of the confusion springs from use of the word "theory" itself. Used in science, it signifies a maxim that is believed to be true, but has not been directly observed. Since evolution takes place over millions of years, it would be inaccurate to say that man has directly observed it -- but it is reasonable to say that evolution is thoroughly supported by a vast weight of scientific evidence and research.

That's not to say it's irrefutable. Some day, scientists may find enough evidence to mount a credible challenge to evolutionary theory -- in fact, some of Charles Darwin's original suppositions have been successfully challenged.

But that day has not come. As a theory, intelligent design is not ready to steal, or even share, the spotlight, and it's unfair to burden children with pseudoscience to further an agenda that is more political than academic.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

keep posting short quotes, they get read

I have enjoyed every last one.(haven't seen any of them refuted either)

[GarySpFc]

Why are you putting all those bogus quotes up one post at a time. There are fraudulent websites with the whole silly list of them, like this one: The Theory Of Evolution: The Great Myth . Is that the one you're using?

No, I am not using the source you mentioned. Neither are the sources bogus. I have quoted the sources and everyone is free to examine the resources for themselves to asertain if they are bogus or not. It sounds as if you cannot stand the heat.

[Dimensio]

For example, the "Theory of Relativity" remains a theory despite the fact that it was developed in response to phenomena that have been directly observed.

Evolution has been directly observed. But, please, tell me what the difference is here.

By that standard, "Intelligent Design" is a valid theory.

What does it predict? How can it be tested? What hypothetical observation would falsify it?

[nmh]

People are sick and tired of the pseudo science of evolution because it doesn't even square with the laws of science. Evolution is a belief, based on faith. NONE of it has been proven and leaves more questions than answers. Only the terminally dumbed down buy choice, would believe it godless evolution where chaos creates order and something is generated from nothing. It is also NO coincidence that the evolutionary "leaders: are ALL atheists. Then again, maybe Hitler was right, if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it - that is egotistical people that refuse to recognize God and His infinite power. No, instead they want to use their FINITE knowledge that doesn't hold up to science to keep this charade going - it's all about pride.

[Dimensio]

He did. You said "teach both". It has been correctly pointed out that it's not a matter of teaching "both" because it's not just evolution vs. a single specific creation account, but you apparently don't like that so you want to duck the issue.

Of course, what no one has brought up is that none of the other accounts actually qualify as science.

[nmh]

"And a majority of Americans remain in favour of Roe v Wade."

False. Abortion numbers are also dramatically falling.

[Oztrich Boy]

Are you suggesting that all possible intelligent designers not be considered? Thats as bad as not considering all conceivable Creators.

[UseYourHead]

There is a greater the 90% chance your wrong.

[stremba]

See my post 121. BTW, the second law also works against the spontaneous formation of snowflakes from water vapor.

[metacognative]

Please give me a VERIFIABLE evolutionary fact.
Name one benefical mutation or evidence of a new species appearing in a hundred and fifty years of searching.
Note; DNA loss, as in bacterial immunity doesn't count nor do fruit flies with legs instead of antennae.

[ThinkPlease]

There's no such thing as Creationism. There is only the fact that God created the entire universe and then there's this Theory Thingy......

That's very scientific of you.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

[hosepipe]

[ 66% of Americans are in favor of using public tax dollars on teaching an unprovable, silly religious story? That there are that many ignorant people is pretty scary. ]

It takes faith to believe either story.. Creationism or various Evolutionary concepts.. Faith, a hop skip and jump over provable fact.. Fact, whatever "seems" logical to the faithful.. Many things seem logical but are not.. like the world is flat.. Socialism seems logical until its tested.. but even after a good testing proving its slavery by government many still want to believe is a good thing.. that takes faith too..

Humans love a good story.. and if that story pushs a few buttons in that story listener... FAITH will ensue.. Has nothing at all to do with logic.. it has to do with what do you have faith in.. Hell it takes faith to get into your car and go from point A to point B "hoping" you will actually get there, and back.. to point A.. many things could happen on that trip.. I have faith in many things, partial faith in others, and no faith in yet others.. Yet, I'm sometimes wrong about my choices..

Any that say they have "no" faith are lieing.. and are very probably blowing smoke up your keyster too..
Answer: Humans love a good story..

[newgeezer]

Codswallop[:] Evolution is an observable fact

There, that's better.

[Dimensio]

What background in biology does he have?

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Please give me a VERIFIABLE evolutionary fact. Name one benefical mutation or evidence of a new species appearing in a hundred and fifty years of searching. Note; DNA loss, as in bacterial immunity doesn't count nor do fruit flies with legs instead of antennae.

You forgot primroses. :)

[UseYourHead]

What about the Norse mythology creation story? How about Islamic creation? What about Vedic creation? What about Last Thursdayism? What about the theory that the Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed the universe out? Should we give "equal time" to all of these (and many other possibilities) or should we stick with the scientific theory in science class?

You might as well - it will fit in with the tolerance training that is so important in Gov't education these days!

[orionblamblam]

No. What you did was an intentional untruth. That's not better... that's doing the Liberals job for them.

Creationist (noun): Shock troops for the Leftists.

[Oztrich Boy]

I have enjoyed every last one.(haven't seen any of them refuted either

That's becsuse people aren't bothering to respond to a parrot. Time enough when we find out who taught him to ape those quotes.

[Dimensio]

Oops. Dr. Louis Bounoure never said that.

But, hey, far be it for creationists to stop citing a resource just because it is false.

To be fair, the quote -- which is actually "Transformism is a fairy tale for adults." was uttered by a French biologist, it just wasn't Dr. Louis Bounoure. Also, the scientist who made the statement also said "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses [questions - ED.] the fact of evolution."