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 ...
I just obtained a couple of fossil tortoises from China dating back about 130 million years. They certainly resemble modern turtles in most respects.
But evolutionary theory does not require that species continue to evolve into something else. If a species achieves a niche where it is able to continue its population in a specific form, mutations that vary from that may or may not be rewarded. But the current form of that species which reproduces without significant mutations will continue to thrive.
Evolution only rewards beneficial mutations. It doesn't necessarily punish the species that doesn't mutate. Only if the lack of mutation puts it a disadvantage will the "original" species start to be eliminated.
It's not just that fish that hasn't seen much change. Neither has the shark or the crocodile. And looking at my turtles, they haven't improved much on the design, either.
"Arnaz called Mark's attention to the creature. To most folks, the fish might have been little more than a curiosity, but Mark was a marine biologist with a recent PhD from the University of California at Berkeley, resulting from his study of mantis shrimps in Indonesia. He recognized it immediately as a coelacanth, a "living fossil" whose body plan hadn't changed appreciably in hundreds of millions of years." (emphasis mine)
First off let me apologize, the spelling of the fish's name is "coelacanth."
Secondly, your point (and the point of several others) appears to be valid. Some species appear to evolve and others not. This is really a generalization of my original argument. I have not seen a satisfactory explanation for this observation. Unless perhaps evolution is extremely rare. In which case it would seem unlikely to provide a satisfactory explanation for the great diversity of life we observe.
Got those dudes a blockbuster movie. Top that!
For further reference, here's a link to the NOVA episode on the "living fossil":
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fish/
That's because it's a competing faith.
Don't count on it. We average between one and six crevo threads per day.
"Useless" wings don't provide any benefit. Then again, how do you know it was useless?
Perhaps if the question were a bit less Perry Masonish, you'd get more takers.
"But I think penguins are birds who are able to live in an extreme environment by flying underwater."
We like to call it swimming.
"...We have a "theory of gravity" that predicts the speed at which two objects.."
Sorry, gravity is a law. It's proven to exist. Besides a proper statement would describe acceleration of two objects towards one another in a gravitational field. You need a time variant with a known acceleration to "predict speed".
If you're going to slam alternative theories, such as ID, get your facts straight, first.
Sorry, but you're absolutely wrong. The "law" of gravity show that objects attract one another. The "theory" of gravity (actually, "theories" as there is more than one) attempt to explain why the objects attract.
The law of gravity is simply wrong (Newton's). The theory of gravity (Einstein's) is closer to reality.
You might be thinking of the fact that things fall down. But facts are less reliable in science than theories. There are things that don't fall down. There are things, like the moon, that are getting further away.
Every scientific theory is "incomplete," in the sense that it doesn't explain everything. The theory of gravity tells us how matter behaves, but not where matter came from. The theory of evolution is a very good scientific theory for what it is-- an explanation of how different species diverged from a commaon ancestor. It does not expalin the origin of life, the universe and everything.
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?
Personally, I think those laws were created by God. But that is not a scientific theory. Studying how the laws of nature work helps us do the things that science is useful for-- building airplanes or computers, finding cures for diseases, predicting storms. Contemplating where those laws came from is important, but not for doing scientific things. It is important for telling us how to live. As Einstein said, "science without religion is blind; religion without science is lame."
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?
There is no such "fully vetted and accepted theory."
Again, I believe that, ultimately, God created us, and that evolution is how He did it. But there is, as yet, nothing scientific about that belief.
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?
Not many people are claiming to have documented miracles in recent times, except the Hindus, and I'm personally dubious of their claims.
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?
I do trust the Bible (at least the OT-- I'm a Jew) on a spiritual level. I'm not sure what this has to do with Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
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.
Again, I personally believe that God, using the laws of nature which He created, caused us to evolve to a point where we have a conscience and thus an ability to do (or reject) His will. But here, as in your other points, you seem to be arguing more against atheism than against the Theory of Evolution. They're not the same, you know.
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?
See #6 above.
8. I can blow huge holes in the theory of evolution in explanation on how humans got here.
I doubt it. You certainly haven't on this thread, and a Nobel prize awaits you if you really could.
For instance - evolution can not explain the "origin of life" from dead chemicals
Of course not, that's not part of the TOE and never was.
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?
Hardly. We have many fossil transitionals from australopithecus to homo sapiens sapiens.
Untrue. All you have to do is come up with a potentially falsifiable test for a theory of supernatural intervention that also produces testable predictions for future experiments and data collection. Evolutionary theories have done this. If someone can produce a theory of intelligent design that meets these criteria, the science community will be all over it. Till then, the supernatural is for the church, not the laboratory.
Depends how you define 'more capable'. If by 'more capable' you mean tree-climbing ability, chimps have us beaten, hands-down. Both intelligence and tree-climbing ability are adaptations for survival; both have worked.
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.