The Problem With Evolution

ChronWatch ^ | 09/25/05 | Edward L. Daley

[DARCPRYNCE]

Charles Darwin, the 19th century geologist who wrote the treatise 'The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection' defined evolution as "descent with modification". Darwin hypothesized that all forms of life descended from a common ancestor, branching out over time into various unique life forms, due primarily to a process called natural selection.

However, the fossil record shows that all of the major animal groups (phyla) appeared fully formed about 540 million years ago, and virtually no transitional life forms have been discovered which suggest that they evolved from earlier forms. This sudden eruption of multiple, complex organisms is often referred to as the Cambrian Explosion, and even Darwin knew about the lack of evidence in the fossil record to support his theory a century and a half ago.

[voteconstitutionparty]

If anything, since so many different Species came from so few Phyla, the factoid misrepresented in this article actually supports the idea that evolution happened.

[moog]

AAARRRRGH!!!! I have got to put those tags in there so that people will stop referencing things I'm replying to. :)

Some of those "other" theories are fascinating. It will be interesting to see what comes out over the next few years.

[elbucko]

What a waste of bandwidth.

[NJ_gent]

"ID does not disregard the fossil evidence. In fact, it explains it better than Evolution does."

The Raelians, Scientologists, Moonies, and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster all have lovely explanations for fossil evidence based on "Intelligent Design". Are we to give them equal time as well? They're all perfectly valid under base ID, which declines to name the supposed designer(s).

"Which are no different, fundamentally, than the evolution story"

Evolution isn't a story; it's observable and observed fact. The Theory of Evolution tells the story of how that fact brought us to where we are today from the first lifeforms on Earth.

"Yet, the physical evidence does not support the theory that life came about completely by random chance, out of lifeless chemicals"

Your beef here is with the theory of Abiogenesis; not the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution deals not with how life began, but with how it has changed over time.

"then evolved into many different organisms."

Speciation has been observed many times in nature.

"Furthermore, just because science cannot prove the existence of a creator doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. It simply means that human beings have limited abilities to discover the nature of life."

Science does not seek to prove or disprove that which cannot be observed, measured, and studied. As we have not yet reached the boundaries of scientific understanding of the origins of life on this planet, it's rather silly to begin discussions of what science will or will not be able to prove in the future.

[moog]

God is not religion. A religion is a belief system requiring a certain amount of blind faith, and while most are based upon a belief in a supreme being, some are not. It takes just as much faith to believe in one unproved theory as it does to believe in another, regardless of whether or not God is included in the equation

Good comment though I would say (with regards to the Wiccans), what many people seem to regard as religion IS based upon a belief in a supreme being.

[NJ_gent]

"In order for science to categorically state that God does not exist"

I think virtually anyone with any scientific background would say that such a thing is completely impossible. Science does not deal with metaphysics, philosophy, or the supernatural.

[NJ_gent]

"The moment you claim that the TOE attempts to explain life's origin, then you identify yourself as another of the long line of folks who are arguing against something they don't even understand at the definitionary level."

Very well said. Bravo.

[NJ_gent]

"The complexity of life is evidence enough for some people to believe in creation." ... "Why do evolutionists not consider that to be a valid evidence for creation"

Because 'Wow... cool!' isn't a part of scientific investigation.

[Liberal Classic]

Good post. I, too, have no problem with creationism being taught in school so long as it is not taught in science class. I have no issue for the topic to be assigned for papers in English class, or the subject of debate in UIL forensics club. I have no problem with the topic being discussed in philosophy class. For that matter, I have no problem with prayer by students in school or at school functions such as commencement. (Though I believe praying at sporting events to be a bit hokey) Nor do I have a problem with use of school facilities by religious organizations after school hours.

However, science class should teach the prevailing scientific theory. Actual class time devoted to science education is limited enough as it is. Students spend far too few hours being taught science to have them diluted with digressions about controversial or minority theories. There are simply too many minority theories in science to treat the subject this way. Science class must teach the prevailing scientific theory. There's not enough time for anything else. You are absolutely right that if you let the camel's nose under the tent with creationism that other religions are going to want their "equal time" as well. Wait until CAIR gets wind of it.

Furthermore, most schools are geared towards college prep. If the purpose of public school is to prepare students for university, then the curriculum needs to take this into account. Students who enter science and engineering disciplines need to be taught the same science that they will be exposed to when they reach the university level. The time for the student to delve into debates within science is after that student has a solid foundation in science and mathematics. Students will not get a solid foundation in science if they are constantly being pulled one way and another by competing political pressures. Science education is already weak enough without letting it be diluted by special interest groups.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

However, the fossil record shows that all of the major animal groups (phyla) appeared fully formed about 540 million years ago, and virtually no transitional life forms have been discovered which suggest that they evolved from earlier forms.

This isn't true, but it's not really the issue, is it?

[moog]

Science does not deal with metaphysics, philosophy, or the supernatural.

I do think the divide will blur a little with some of the stuff that will probably come out later this century (e.g. string theory).

[malakhi]

I wanted to be a spaghetti acolyte, but I can't stand the sight of sauce.

To a pastafarian, is Atkins "he who must not be named?

And those with celiac disease are just plain out of luck.

[js1138]

Science does not seek to prove or disprove that which cannot be observed, measured, and studied. As we have not yet reached the boundaries of scientific understanding of the origins of life on this planet, it's rather silly to begin discussions of what science will or will not be able to prove in the future.

But that is not the point. The point is to stop research. A couple monts ago Harvard announced a million dollar seed grant to study biogenesis, and the creationists were beside themselves that science would commit itself to solving the problem.

[moog]

To a pastafarian, is Atkins "he who must not be named?

Is a vegetarian an anti-pastafarian???

[js1138]

only if he's anti-pasta.

[muleskinner]

And Barbara Streisand and her ilk... goign to be like 20,000 years from now, even though no one can tell me if it is goign to rain next weekend when I got to Disney World. Didn't Jimmy Carter tell us we were undergoing Global cooling? The Bible has neevr let me down yet,...

Except in spelling, grammar, sentence structure and critical thinking.

[NJ_gent]

"The point is to stop research."

Precisely, because a very small but vocal group of people have somehow convinced a much larger group of people that science is out to kill their God. Those secure in their faith ought to welcome anything science has to offer, as it could never possibly do any such thing. Those involved in science would agree that science has no such aims, nor any such ability.

Science seeks the discovery of natural truth - nothing more, nothing less. It is as relentless as the innate human thirst for knowledge, and it will never stop. Those who fear science fear truth.

[js1138]

Actually, the chaos prior to the great noodle extrusion is referred to as antepasta.

[trisham]

Thanks for the ping!

[Liberal Classic]

This discussion is baking my noodle.