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.

[Woahhs]

OK, if you want to split hairs, I will modify my statement to "If you find an organism ON EARTH that does not have nucleic acids as its genetic material, then evolution is false." Better?

No, it's not. Your test of falsifiability is not credible.

[NJ_gent]

"Organisms are all related genetically according to the theory of evolution"

There's a problem right there - the earliest life forms didn't have DNA. The rest of the argument falls apart right there.

"Since all organisms are descended from a common ancestor, they must share the same basic genetic material."

That precludes several possibilities. One, it discounts genetic mutation, which could change significant parts of that original bit of code. Two, it precludes the possibility of multiple lifeforms forming independently from the basic compounds and amino acids we've seen form spontaneously in labs using early-Earth simulated conditions. Thirdly, it ignores the fact that, the other two things aside, the snippet of genetic material would likely be so small and insignificant that it could very well exist among all current living things yet remain virtually undetectable. The problem is that, as the complexity of the genetic makeup of organisms has increased, this common bit of genetic code could become spread out in such a way that it's nearly impossible to distinguish it from code added later. There may be a sequence of ABCDEFG in the original ancestor, but if ABC is in the middle of chromosome 6, DE is at the end of chromosome 19, and FG is at the beginning of chromosome 21, then it becomes pretty tough to look for that commonality.

"I also agree with you that it is possible that some intelligence did in fact direct this process. Where I believe we disagree is in whether this is a scientific theory or not."

Unless the 'intelligence' is an alien being, any speculation on that subject would delve into metaphysics, and would be beyond the realms of good science.

"(Such as my example of an organism with something other than nucleic acids as its genetic material which has never been observed.)"

Prions, though not classified as 'alive' by our ridiculous current standards (which also leave out viruses, calling them non-living), certainly fit this profile. 'Mad cow disease' is caused by a prion. Prions are merely proteins and contain no nucleic acids (so far as I know). I would also point out that, at some point in Earth's history, a gradual shift began toward what we have today - eukaryotes. Prior to that shift, life (or all we've seen of it) existed as prokaryotes. If you continue to take this trend backward in time, the only question is, do you reach a point where no nucleic acids were necessary, and could those types of life forms give rise to offspring which eventually would require nucleric acids? It's an interesting question, and one which I think the science is still too young to answer very well. Give it some time and I think a lot of these blanks will be filled in as the science and the methods improve.

[VadeRetro]

Don't be on the wrong side of scientific history, narby.

The fallacy here is called "Inevitable Victory," Dr. Goebbels.

[orionblamblam]

> For now, I need to learn more about the truth.

Then pull your head out. If you don't know even the basics, why do you bother debating?

> Oh, so there are no truly intelligent "creationists."

Oh, sure there are. Intelligence is not proof against being deluded, especially when it comes to easy answers that promise eternal bliss.

> You would rather believe anything than consider there is a Creator you must and will answer to someday.

Ah, breathe it in, folks. That's the scent of pure, unadulterated Christian PRIDE. The sort of pride that leads people to honestly believe that other peopel don't believe as they do because those other people are immoral.

[orionblamblam]

> He will help them believe a lie. That's not Him doing the lying.

That's a fine distinction. Same one used by Dean, as a matter of fact, when he'd trot out some psychotic conspiracy theory against Bush.

> Those who refuse to believe the truth and have pleasure in unrighteousness will someday lose the ability to discern the truth.

Once again explaining the zealotry of the Creationists. Hmmm.... maybe Creationists are themselves evidence of Biblical prophecy. They are the people who refuse to see the truth, and take pleasure in spreading ignorance. And it's for damsure that they have lost the ability to discern truth...

[r9etb]

Organisms are all related genetically according to the theory of evolution (common descent). Since all organisms are descended from a common ancestor, they must share the same basic genetic material. This is predicted by evolution.

It says nothing about the presence of designers in the process, however: and we know from human experience that designers can and do influence how species change. Note, however, that you're simply assuming that common descent is an absolute fact. It may in fact be true (or not) -- but unless you want to theorize that there's only one possible way for life to come about, common descent is not a biological requirement.

ID would certainly not have such a requirement.

Neither does evolution require such a thing -- it could have just turned out that way. Anyway, common descent is still not an argument against design. Perhaps it's a poor analogy, but pretty much all of my very numerous C++ programs originated from the first "hello world" program I wrote 15+ years ago. Why? Because it's easier to modify what I've already done, than to start from scratch every time.

Where I believe we disagree is in whether this is a scientific theory or not.

Well, given that we both agree that intelligent designers not only can, but quite often do intervene in the development of species, I fail to see why it is "scientific" to simply exclude the possibility when the topic turns to evolution.

It doesn't have to be something that has actually been observed. (Such as my example of an organism with something other than nucleic acids as its genetic material which has never been observed.) If there's no way to show that an idea is false, it is not science.

The only "false" idea in your previous example would have been that DNA is the only way to pass genetic information. However, it is pointless to provide "falsifiable tests" for things we already know to be true -- such as the fact that intelligent designers have influenced the development on species on Earth.

[newgeezer]

Hindus have looked at the facts and determined that their religion is the correct one. What makes them wrong?

I can only guess each of them has either refused the call or hasn't received it yet. That's what made me wrong for the first thirty-some years of my life.

Osama Bin Laden would certainly agree with you.

Ooooooh, first I was compared to "Leftists" in this thread; now, I've got something in common with OBL! Must be my lucky day.

[metacognative]

I believe in evolution under Intelligent Design

[NJ_gent]

" I'm still waiting for observable evidence of a beneficial mutational step toward a new species"

Evolution isn't a walk from one town to the next, it's a slow and random meandering that sometimes leads to extinction, sometimes leads nowhere, and occassionally leads you to a whole new place. That's like asking a chaos theorist for concrete evidence of an actual instance of chaos. You want someone to point out the butterfly. No complex theory works like that, unfortunately. If we had millions of years to sit back and watch, we could get a better idea of whether evolution accurately explains what happens when genetic mutation, genetic variation, and natural selection interact over time.

Unfortunately, the closest thing we have to that is the fossil record, which lends credence to the theory of Evolution in most cases while raising some interesting questions in others. What you asked for before was a 'beneficial mutation'. I provided a page listing several observed beneficial mutations. Now you want one that's a "step toward a new species". If I delve into that, you'll simply raise the bar once more and continue to do so until you can say "ah ha! gotcha!" and declare victory. If you want to attack evolution, the best way I can see is to attack the things that drive it. The theory of Evolution depends on the driving forces of genetic variation, genetic mutation, and natural selection interacting in specific ways over time. Without any one of those, the theory crumbles.

[metacognative]

How about half a wing, maybe fossiled. Or an intemediate between cats and dogs..any link!

[Modernman]

I can only guess each of them has either refused the call or hasn't received it yet

Or maybe you're the one that got it wrong. Your rejection of Hinduism will lead to some very unhappy times for you in your next life.

Personally, I consider Jesus to be a knockoff of Mithras.

Ooooooh, first I was compared to "Leftists" in this thread; now, I've got something in common with OBL! Must be my lucky day.

Just pointing out that ignorance and lack of respect for other religions is not a virtue.

[Blzbba]

" take it you missed that whole resurrection from the dead thing "


Yes I did - so did you, as far as beign a witness to it.

The burden of proving that this event (Resurrection) took place is on you, not me. The fact that you can not (nor could anyone, save Jesus himself, since noone witnessed the event when it happened) makes the Resurrection part of 'Faith', and not part of a provable theory of science, which relies on more than word of mouth and passed-down stories.

Apologies for the multiple clauses in that last sentence. Ugh.

[stremba]

Your example of chromosome change makes no sense since you can change the DNA sequence all you want and it's still DNA. Prions may be an example of a stage of the process by which abiogenesis occurred, but they are not postulated to be a common ancestor to all living organisms. As far as we know, the ability to reproduce is a signature of life. We have never seen any self-replicating organisms that do not use some form of nucleic acid. (I would consider DNA and RNA to be basically the same genetic material since their structures are so similar and mechanisms exist for the incorporation of ribose rather than deoxyribose into the sugar backbone of the chain.) It may be possible to preserve the theory of evolution by severely modifying it. I was trying to provide a relatively simple example of an observation that would falsify evolution as it currently is understood. I would agree that ID is not a scientific theory. It is indeed unfalsifiable. The point was to contrast the falsifiability of evolution with the lack of falsifiability of ID.

[Concerned]

PATRICKHENRY SAID TO PHOENIX0468: "...we'll show that your sources are all frauds...."

I RESPONDED: "What you are actually saying is that GOD, Himself, is a liar."

PARTICKHENRY RESPONDED TO ME: "No, I never said that. Nor have I ever hinted at it."

I have only read a small portion of the thread and I have to walk out the door right now, so I will not be able to read and respond to your response to this post.

That said, however, is not GOD and His Word one of phoenix0468's sources (if not the only one)? If so, then, yes, you DID in effect, claim that GOD is a liar.

[VadeRetro]

What you are actually saying is that GOD, Himself, is a liar.

No he isn't.

But I am right and you are wrong, I would hate to be in your position.

"What's right is right, an' you ain't been right yet!"

[r9etb]

But you still can't provide a hypothetical observation that would conclusively show that no intelligent designer ever interfered with the historical development of life on earth.

Why would I waste time inventing such a test, when I know that human intelligent designers not only have, but continue, to interfere with the development of life on Earth? The influence of intelligent design, as a general principle, is an established fact.

Nobody is arguing that intelligent design is impossible.

Some are....

People are arguing that either life evolved without any intervention from an intelligent designer

Which we know for a fact to be untrue, at least for as long as humans have been around.... Further, it is nothing more than unsupported assumption to claim that intelligent intervention only began when humans came on the scene.

or in my case that the idea of intelligent intervention in life is not scientific.

Which is also a false claim, since we both know that intelligent intervention can and does occur.

[frgoff]

We're still waiting for the experimental verification part. Hint: an archeological dig is not an experiment. Assembling a complete skeleton from bone fragments is not an experiment.

Setting up a bacterial colony to produce speciation through random mutation under selection pressure would be an experiment.

A simple mathematical extrapolation of the number of current species on the planet since the last mass extinction will give you a good baseline for generations required for speciation when selection pressures are present.

Since bacteria can breed a thousand or more generations in a year, and we can grow many thousands of colonies relatively easy (giving us the statistical equivalent of a billion generations a year), it is relatively straightforward to design an experiment to see if speciation rates in the laboratory are as predicted by evolution and the current interpretation of the fossil record.

THAT would be applying the scientific method to evolution.

I'm not aware of any such experiment ever having been performed.

In fact, I am unaware of ANY experiment performed to measure speciation rates due to random mutation and selection pressures.

[Right Wing Professor]

Again: you're not providing arguments against design, you're simply saying that you would have designed things differently.

If the argument is that design can be detected scientifically, then you have to circumscribe design to some extent. If any design could be chosen, then design could be chosen to be random and capricious. If the argument is that design needs to be intelligent, you need further to show that the design is in fact intelligent.

The problem with that point of view is that, at root, it validates the idea that a designer is a viable explanation for what we see, even if it's only to claim for yourself the mantle of "better engineer."

It's viable only if you throw out Occam's razor and empiricism. Sure, we might all have been created by a substandard engineer; we might have been breathed into life by the Thunder Bird; we might have come about in an infinity of ways. They're all viable, in the sense that we can come up with ad hoc stories of how they could have come about. The problem with 'designer' based origins is that, as best we can tell, one needs an incredibly powerful and intelligent designer who made many many idiotic choices. Is that likely?

Can you describe for us the means by which scientists could detect human fingerprints on the splicing of jellyfish genes onto monkey DNA?

By reading the journals?

If we had no prior knowledge of the gene splicing experiment, and found a monkey with a jellyfish gene in the wild - it would indeed pose a problem for evolution. It's indeed telling that we haven't found anything of the sort. We know how this gene got there, and we also know of no other example where a similarly discordant gene is present in a primate. At least, I know of none. Do you?

It is not valid to use one's own ignorance as an argument against design.

I'm not using my own ignorance. On the contrary, I'm saying, I know quite a bit about design, and what I look at in nature doesn't fulfill many of the criteria of intelligent design; efficiency, parsimony, etc.. If you're claiming that is because I'm in some way ignorant, then you had better show how.

Your opinion ignores, however, the undeniable fact that humans are even now engaged in Intelligent Design. And, given that Intelligent Design is quite obviously possible, how can you possibly state that there is no way it played any role in life on Earth?

So you're claiming that I need to show that this creature we created in our own image - we design, therefore we posit something else did - does not exist? Sorry, that's not how science works. Before you create a new entity, show that entity is necessary. The burden of proof is not on me to disprove the existence of a designer, it is on you to show one must have existed, or at least provides a more useful and predictive explanation of the world than evolution. The problem is it doesn't - in fact, you've drawn attention to the very uselessness of ID by claiming that my criticism of the design hypothesis is the fruit of ignorance. If we can't deduce anything from the nature of the design, what good is it? Once you start introducing an unfathomable higher being, you've relegated the explanatory power of your theory to zero.

I know of no evidence that requires or even favors design playing a role in a theory of origins. The arguments of the proponents of said design I have found singularly unconvincing.

[Dataman]

Like you, I have a dry sense of humor. The spelling was deliberate.

[DouglasKC]

Given the absurd number of times bacteria have reproduced in the last 100+ years that we've been observing them (millions given the rapid rate of reproduction), how many new bacterial species have been seen? Any?

Same thing with fruitflies. You would think by now somebody would have observed fruit flies evolving into something other than a fly like creature.

In a lab you could even alter the environement and make it favorable to fruitflies who evolve fins and swim underwater. When a fruit fly turns into a new fish species...viola! I won't hold my breath though...