Posted on 12/30/2005 9:12:43 AM PST by RightWingAtheist
When a federal judge in Pennsylvania struck down the efforts of a local school board to teach "intelligent design," he rightly criticized the wholly unscientific nature of that enterprise. Some people will disagree with his view, arguing that evolution is a "theory" and intelligent design is a "theory," so students should look at both theories.
But this view confuses the meaning of the word "theory." In science, a theory states a relationship between two or more things (scientists like to call them "variables") that can be tested by factual observations. We have a "theory of gravity" that predicts the speed at which two objects will fall toward one another, the path on which a satellite must travel if it is to maintain a constant distance from the earth, and the position that a moon will keep with respect to its associated planet.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Happy New Year; one last crevo article to ring it in!
PING
"Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense. It has been tested repeatedly by examining the remains of now-extinct creatures to see how one species has emerged to replace another." He calls that "testing"?
"But if an intelligent designer had created the human eye, He (or She) made some big mistakes."There's no arrogance like those who think they are smarter than God.
Very good article - IMHO the proper way for Christians to view the debate. Evolution cannot be successfully argued against - and in fact it does NOT need to be. It can coexist with the fundamental notion of God as creator as found in the Bible.
So here is something I have not seened discussed for the evolutionists to consider.
A few years ago some fisherman caught a fish called a Celocanth. The Celocanth was believed to be long extinct since examples of the creature had been found in the fossil record estimated to be a 100 million years old. Yet the fisherman caught a live one that was not materially different from the ones in the fossil record.
But if time and mutation are the inevitable drivers of evolution and if these processes are constantly at work changing the species, then how can you explain the lack of any significant change in the Celocanth over a period of 100 million years?
The thoughts of fellow freepers on both sides of this question are welcome.
There is nothing compelling or even new about this article. Well, he managed to refrain from name-calling. That's something.
Yeah, just the same old FACTS. Isn't that boring?
The Theory of Evolution is just that - A Theory.
The Theory of Intelligent Design is just that - A Theory.
Both theories have some facts that support them - and other facts that don't support them.
It used to be that places of higher learning taught students to think for themselves based on scientific facts and evidence.
But what "facts" support intelligent design?
1. Evolution doesn't explain anything on how it all began. As a theory, it is grossly incomplete. At least intelligent design has a theory on the "absolute beginning."
2. Where did the laws of nature and physics come from? They shape nature and effect evolution. Do we ignore the “architect” and just focus on the designs? Would this make any sense in any field of science or engineering?
3. Esteemed mathematicians and scientists have put forward fully vetted and accepted theories that the complex life we see on earth could have no way "accidentally" evolved in the “short” accepted age of the universe. The time period is too small and the complexity of life is too advanced or that there is no scientific way a cell could have evolved over any period of time in the life of the universe and in stages (as evolution demands). If these scientifically based theories can just be ignored, why not other theories?
4. The millions of miracles that have occurred and the hundred of thousands that have been documented since written history. Are they all fakes and hoaxes? Just because we can’t explain them should we just ignore them? Does this remind you of the 14th century “the world is flat” belief system or the universe revolves around the earth closed mindedness?
5. The historical accuracy of the Bible. Nearly a year doesn't go by where some archeologist finds a city/people/event/ruler exactly where the Bible said it was or medical/scientific breakthrough proves the validity of a Biblical historical point. So, if historically, the Bible can be trusted, why not on some spiritual level?
6. We have free will. We have morals and a conscience. We make ethical choices every day. Where did that come from? If we just "evolved" we should be just be following our natural DNA pre-programming as near robots (like flowers or wolves or fishes do - they do what they do because that is what they are - they can not choose to do different). Are we just blobs of DNA - and that is it? Then I/we are responsible for nothing - the DNA made me do it.
7. It is interesting that nearly all cultures and peoples in nearly every corner of the globe since the dawn of mankind have "invented" a God. Almost like we were preprogrammed to do so? If it was just a “random thing,” why is it so prevalent?
8. I can blow huge holes in the theory of evolution in explanation on how humans got here. For instance - evolution can not explain the "origin of life" from dead chemicals and the fossil evidence is unviable and dubious (at best) from animal to man. We know more on how the Brontosaurus evolved than man. Why is that? Is it because we have not looked hard enough or is it we are looking for something that doesn’t exist?
This is actually a very old argument: St Paul, the Apostle, once wrote of pagans: "Behold they have exchanged the Truth for a lie and worshipped the creation rather than the Creator."
It doesn't mean the theory of evolution is wrong - but it may mean that it needs to be updated and that it may only be a partial explanation (like micro-evolution of lizards on two separate islands over some time to adapt to their surroundings).
As I said - The Theory of Evolution is just that - a Theory. And when we let a Judge decide what theories are correct and what theories are incorrect we have truly lost something.
It seems like “progressives” or "secular humanists" or "naturalists" want it both ways - they believe in a "philosophy" that puts man at the center of the universe. That all can be explained by science, that humankind is good, that all bad things can be done away with if you have the right people in charge and the right laws. Their basic belief is that Man (or the state) is God.
They want what they "believe" to be taught in schools (at taxpayer expense, of course) and to the exclusion of any other philosophy.
For instance:
The Progressive agenda wants abortion on demand for any reason. If you believe in the opposite - that must be a "religious" belief and can/must banned from the schools, government or public grounds. Just look at the debates for the next Supreme Court justice.
The Progressive agenda wants only man at the center of morals and judgment. If you believe in the opposite - that must be a "religious" belief and can/must be banned from the schools, government or public grounds. Just look at the debates about gay marriage, drugs, pornography, divorce, adultery, cloning, prayer in school, vouchers, stem cell research, obscenity on the public airways, etc.
The Progressive agenda wants only "natural law and evolution" to explain how we got here. If you believe in the opposite - that must be a "religious" belief and can/must be banned from the schools, government or public grounds. Just look at the debate of evolution vs. creation.
And ETC. on nearly every issue.
See my point? One side gets all the benefits because they are only a "philosophy" and not a religion. The other side gets hammered because they are a "religion" and not a "philosophy." In reality, there is not a bit of difference between the two - it is all how a person personally views life (worldviews and ideologies). But somehow we have allowed one at the total exclusion of the other and called it "Constitutional," when it is about the furthest thing from the Constitution as the Founding Father wanted or desired.
Let's face it, "Darwinism has become Naturalism" and it is just as much religion as Christianity, Judaism, etc. Naturalists "worship" the idea that matter is all there is. What you see is what you get. Humanity is a product of time, chance, and natural selection. There can be nothing else outside of the natural system. Period. Any other claim is nonsense and nothing but superstition.
Actually, when you think of it - quite an intolerant religion at that.
Regards,
2banana
I will check out your link, but this argument is bogus on the face of it. The results might vary from species to species, but the principle of uniformity would demand that the process be the same for all species. And, given the time frame involved with the Celocanth, it seems that the Theory of Evolution would have to explain why some species are not seen to evolve.
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Model: a simplified framework designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)
Observation: any information collected with the senses
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Religion: (theistic): "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship." Non-Theistic: "The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life."
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
|
Sorry, I checked out your link and I don't see any serious refutation of the Celocanth observation. (But to be fair, your link points to a pretty elementary and cartoonish discussion of evolution).
The coelocanth that was found was indeed very different from the fossil ones. It was a different species and a different genus; it merely belonged to an order which had been thought extinct.
But if time and mutation are the inevitable drivers of evolution and if these processes are constantly at work changing the species, then how can you explain the lack of any significant change in the Celocanth over a period of 100 million years?
You are forgetting the other part of Dawin's theory-- natural selection. In the absence of any environmental pressure to change, time and random mutations will not produce dramatic changes. That is why cockroaches have not changed all that much in the fossil record. The coelocanth, living in deep oceans, had indeed changed, but not as much as creatures who lived in environments that had changed more.
Not true. The modern specimin is not the same as the fossil.
Secondly, evolution does not require change. If a creature inhabits a niche that does not change, it will not undergo much change. Change in populations is driven by changing environments.
I will check out your first point. But your second point explains nothing. There were presumably many species swimming in the same sea as the Celocanth. And yet only the Celocanth displays no significant change over a 100 million years? Nice try but it doesn't explain the data.
There's still lots of creatures around today that haven't changed much in multiple-millions of years - dragonflies, cockroaches, crabs .... they're commonly referred to as "living fossils".
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.