Posted on 11/29/2004 6:52:41 AM PST by 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.
There are 4 possible nucleotides, A, T, C, G. Given a gene there are 1000 nucleotides. Not all mutations lead to functional organisms, so we will use 3 instead of 4.
Probability of added function = w/m;
w = number leading to added function
m = all possible mutations
Just looking at m, we see
m = 3^1000 ~ 1.32E477
Even if w is very large (on the order of 1e6), m is so large that the probability goes to zero.
Given that the functional systems of life are highly coupled many mutations would be required to see the added function enabling the advancement of life.
You are simply wrong. We have seen changes to virus and bacteria where the function change is significant. That is why you need a different kind of flu shot each year, for instance.
Also, you fail to understand, depending on how long a time you think the Earth has been around, how millions of years can accumulate functional change. In addition, you are discounting whole genes forming in the "junk" DNA or by duplication that then gets switched on or by different associations of combinations of genes that are switched on by an activation of a new gene etc. An understanding of genetic mechanisms would go a long way to helping you understand that microevolution and macroevolution is the same process.
"There are 4 possible nucleotides, A, T, C, G. Given a gene there are 1000 nucleotides. Not all mutations lead to functional organisms, so we will use 3 instead of 4. "
LOL You have to have functional organisms to have any mutations. Really, try to get some real understanding of genetics before you try the math.
Its just an argument from personal incredulity with off the top of the head calculations.
It does give some insight into the thinking behind the cult, though.
But you are assuming that the changes are associated with natural selection and mutation. I think the evidence suggests that bacteria are "machines" that have the ability to adapt programmed into the genome. What you think is evidence for Neo-Darwinian evolution is actually evidence of design!
And why do you think I used 3^1000 versus 4^1000?
Yes, it sheds some light on the cult of Neo-Darwinian evolution and the quacks behind it.
Sorry, there are over 100 observed speciations. But keep clinging to your beliefs if you must.
And why do you think I used 3^1000 versus 4^1000?
Why don't you use 2?
Although your response shows that you can read the words, it also shows that you have little perception. It does use "infinitesimally" but there are other modifiers. You may stumble upon them someday if you keep reading that "difficult" to understand sentence over and over again.
WhatEVer
Any design engineer will tell you that the most difficult designs are the ones which must survive a number of different environments. Life has been designed to withstand changes in the environment -- otherwise it would just die out. The designs of life are programmed into the DNA and are selected between generations depending on the environment. What you describe as speciation is actually just different designs that are activated as the environment necesitates the change. Life is robust and dynamic because it was designed that way! Natural mutations play no part designing things. The probability is too small. Even if you use 2^1000 the number is too large. It is 1.07E301! The first mutation may be easy, but the following ones that are required so that the added function is achieved are just too improbable.
Your assumption is there must be design, so you have a circular argument going. The rest of your case is built on personal incredulity.
The fact is the Theory of Evolution explains how life changes on Earth, and while to a certain extent we might say DNA is designed, we are not sure who designed it and biology just doesn't care. Biology is perfectly happy observing allele change in populations over time.
My personal belief is God created everything, but no one will ever get smart enough to figure out exactly how. Why would God ever reveal that? It would make us all God. Maybe thats what Genesis is talking about.
Please scrap the rude word in your tagline.
I hope this is good enough. Let me know if it isn't.
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.