Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
MORE THAN A CENTURY and a half since Charles Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species," evolution remains a controversial concept among much of the population. The situation is quite different in the scientific community, where evolution is almost universally accepted. Still, attacks on the teaching of evolution continue.
The more recent criticism of evolution comes from proponents of intelligent design, a new label for creation "science." They claim ID is a valid scientific alternative to explaining life on Earth and demand it be taught in science classes in our schools along with evolution.
Although intelligent design is cloaked in the language of science and may appear at first glance to be a viable theory, it clearly is not. In fact, intelligent design is neither a theory nor even a testable hypothesis. It is a nonscientific philosophical conjecture that does not belong in any science curriculum in any school.
A theory in the scientific sense is quite different from how the word is often used in conversation.
Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. They are based on extensive data and their predictions are tested and verified time and again.
Biological evolution -- genetic change over time -- is both a theory and a fact, according to paleontologist Stephen Gould. Virtually all biologists consider the existence of evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated in the lab and in nature today, and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming.
However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanics of evolution, which are supported by data and are constantly being refined by researchers whose work is subject to peer review.
But there are many established facts concerning evolution, according to R.C. Lewontin, Alexander Agassiz Professor Emeritus of Zoology at Harvard University. He, as do virtually all biological scientists, agree that it is a fact that the Earth with liquid water has been around for more than 3.6 billion years and that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period.
We know for a fact that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old and that major life forms now on Earth did not exist in the past.
It is considered a fact by biologists that all living forms today come from previous living forms.
A fact is not the same as absolute certitude, which exists only in defined systems such as mathematics. Scientists consider a "fact" to be something that has been confirmed to such a degree of reliability and logic that it would be absurd to think otherwise.
Denying the facts of evolution is akin to denying that gravity exists. What is debatable, with both evolution and gravity, are the theories of the mechanics of how each operates.
Supporters of intelligent design vehemently disagree, but they do not offer alternative theories or verifiable data. Instead, intelligent design proponents attack evolution with misinformation, half-truths and outright falsehoods.
Intelligent design does not develop hypotheses nor does it test anything. As such, intelligent design is simply a conjecture that does not hold up to scrutiny.
False arguments
Unfortunately, intelligent design has considerable credibility outside the scientific community by making specious claims about evolution. Below are some of the leading charges made by intelligent design and creationist proponents in the past several years.
• Evolution has never been observed: But it has. Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population of living organisms over time.
For example, insects develop resistance to pesticides. Bacteria mutate and become resistant to antibiotics. The origin of new species by evolution (speciation) has been observed both in the laboratory and in the wild.
Some intelligent design supporters admit this is true, but falsely say that such changes are not enough to account for the diversity of all living things. Logic and observation show that these small incremental changes are enough to account for evolution.
Even without direct observation, there is a mountain of evidence that confirms the existence of evolution.
Biologists make predictions based on evolution about the fossil record, anatomy, genetic sequences and geographical distribution of species. Such predictions have been verified many times, and the number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming and growing, especially in the field of genetics.
Biologists have not observed one species of animal or plant changing quickly into a far different one. If they did, it would be evidence against evolution.
• Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics: It clearly does not. This law of physics states essentially that disorder increases in a closed system. Some intelligent design and creationist proponents say this means that the order required in the evolution of simple life forms to more complex ones cannot take place, at least not on a long-term basis.
What critics of evolution don't say is that the Earth's environment is not a closed system. It absorbs enormous heat energy from the sun, which is all that is required to supply fuel for the evolution of plants and animals.
Order arises from disorder in the physical world as well, in the formation of crystals and weather systems, for example. It is even more prevalent in dynamic living things.
• There are no transitional fossils: This argument is a flat-out falsehood. Transitional fossils are ones that lie between two lineages with characteristics of both a former and latter lineage. Even though transitional fossils are relatively rare, thousands of them have been found.
There are fossils showing transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to whale, the progression of animals leading to the modern horse, and from early apes to humans.
• Theory says that evolution proceeds by random chance: This is an example of a half-truth perpetuated by intelligent design and creation supporters.
Chance is an important element of evolution, but it is not the only thing involved.
This argument ignores other forces such as natural selection, which weeds out dysfunctional species, and is the opposite of chance.
Chance takes place in genetic mutations, which provide the raw material of evolutionary change, which is then modified and refined by natural selection. But even at the genetic level, mutations occur within the framework of the laws of physics and chemistry.
Opponents of evolution argue that chance, even enhanced by natural selection and the laws of physics, is not enough to account for the complexity of DNA, the basic building blocks of almost all life forms. (RNA is the foundation of some microbes). However, there literally were oceans of organic molecules that had hundreds of millions of years to interact to form the first self-replicating molecules that make life possible.
Irreducible complexity
The attack on evolution that intelligent design proponents use most often today is one based on "irreducible complexity." This has become the foundation of their attempts to cast doubt on evolution.
They argue that certain components of living organisms are so complex that they could not have evolved through natural processes without the direct intervention of an intelligent designer.
Michael Behe, a leading proponent of intelligent design, defined irreducibly complex as "a system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
In other words, irreducible complexity refers to an organism that does something (a function) in such a way that a portion of the organism that performs the function (a system) has no more parts than are absolutely necessary.
The argument made is that the entire system with all its parts, such as an enzyme used in digestion or a flagellum used to propel a bacterium (an example Behe favors in his defense of irreducible complexity), would have to come into being at one time -- a virtual impossibility.
If one of the parts were missing, Behe argues, the system would not be able to function, and thus a simpler, earlier evolving system could not exist.
It is not as easy as it may appear at first glance to define irreducible complexity because there is not a good definition of what a part is. Is it a particular type of tissue, a cell, or segment of DNA? Behe is not clear. But even if he were able to define a true IC system, his argument would fail.
There are several ways an irreducible complexity system could evolve. An early version could have more parts than necessary for a particular function. The individual parts could evolve. Most likely, an earlier version of the system could have had a different function.
This is observed in nature. For example, take the tail-like flagellum of a bacteria, which Behe says supports irreducible complexity. It is used for functions other than motion. A flagellum can be used to attach a bacteria to a cell or to detect a food source.
Thus, a precursor to a more complex flagellum could have had a useful, but different, function with fewer parts. Its function would have changed as the system evolved.
Simply put, the irreducibly complex system argument doesn't work. Most, if not all, of the irreducible complexity systems mentioned by intelligent design adherents are not truly IC. Even if they were, they clearly could have evolved. That is the consensus of almost all biological scientists.
Intelligent design is not science
The theory of evolution and common descent were once controversial in scientific circles. This is no longer the case.
Debates continue about how various aspects of evolution work. However, evolution and common descent are considered fact by the scientific community.
Scientific creationism, or intelligent design, is not science. Believers of intelligent design do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data.
Instead, it appears that their ideas are based on religious dogma. They create straw men like irreducible complexity or lack of transitional fossils, and shoot them down. They fabricate data, quote scientists out of context and appeal to emotions.
Intelligent design disciples do not conduct scientific experiments, nor do they seek publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Still, they have had an impact far beyond the merits of their arguments.
One of their most persuasive arguments is an appeal to fair play, pleading to present both sides of the argument. The answer is no. They do not present a valid scientific argument.
Within the scientific community, there is virtually no acceptance of intelligent design. It has no more place in a biology class than astrology in an astronomy class or alchemy in a chemistry class.
I think I gave you a clear answer. Do you have a comprehension problem.
yep, you guessed it - I have an inferiority complex. how perspicacious of you. Having to clean your guts off my boots so very frequently just makes me feel so *low*
*snort*
so how's that "common sense" defense working for you, Havoc? Still maintaining that the sun must orbit thge Earth, as it is just common sense?
No, I don't. You have a problem answering the question clearly. Do you reject or endorse the list of non-evolutionary scientific findings that I posted?
My answer forces you to think and puts you in suspense because it's a straight answer that could mean yes or no depending on whether the findings would hold up to serious scrutiny. If they could, you'd be satisfied. Evidently they can't so you're not; but, you can't say that. See why I like the answer. Just kills you that you can't get what you want and even if you do, your point that you wish to make from it doesn't follow logically. Anyway you cut it, you're holding a losing hand and beside yourself that you can't get me.
Since you're in suspense, I'm going to bed. Mumble on.
ooo... that was a gem. sorry I missed it earlier
Thought you were upset you were being bothered. Who pulled your chain? I didn't. Just kinda ocurred to me.. And when was it you had to clean your boots.. I seem to remember the thread substantially differently as do a number of others..
Perhaps, though, while I'm in bed resting comfortably, you guys could get your collective bs together and come up with something resembling a strategy because the one so far hasn't worked... *snort*
Typical Havoc idiocy, the issue isn't whether I accept those findings, and I certainly don't need your endorsement of them, I can assess them for myself. Why the coyness? You've made your position on young-earth matters clear in the past. Are you having doubts that maybe the world *is* old?
Evidently they can't so you're not; but, you can't say that. See why I like the answer. Just kills you that you can't get what you want and even if you do, your point that you wish to make from it doesn't follow logically. Anyway you cut it, you're holding a losing hand and beside yourself that you can't get me. Since you're in suspense, I'm going to bed. Mumble on.
I'm not in suspense. I've got you skewered on your own misspeaking. I'm amused that you can't give a straight answer to something that we both know you have a firm opinion on. Anyhow, when you reappear I'll continue to ask the question until you give it a straight answer.
At least we've already established that you reject science other than evolution, because you have clearly rejected the completely separate and pre-Darwinian paleontological findings that past species were not the same as modern ones. It is quite funny that you can't bring yourself to give a straight answer on the other non-evolutionary scientific findings in the list. Sleep well.
the strategy I have pursued has worked within acceptable tolerances.
I engaged you in the hopes of granting you opportunity to prove yourself an insufferable twerp, a disingenuous coward, and an argumentative buffoon.
this has worked very well.
"The only dinosaurs that survived the global flood were the aquatic ones -- i.e. the giant squids etc, that the Japanese found a few years ago."
Um, those are not dinosaurs.
Prime indeed.
There you go again with your picky classifications. The American Public uses its common sense, and knows a dinosaur when it sees one - you ain't got nothing. All you've got is dinosaurs turning into other dinosaurs and you have the nerve to call that speciation. You come back when a dinosaur with a third eye in the back of its head creates something from nothing, then I'll take a look at your claims.
Yup.
And EIGHTY YEARS after the "Scopes Monkey Trial", the parasitical Religion of Evolutionism continues to feed upon the hard-earned Tax-Dollars of Free American Citizens to subsidize its Government-Sponsored domination of Other People's Children.
The United States 7th Circuit Court of Appeals HAS RULED that, according to the Constitution of the United States, ATHEISM is a RELIGION; and yet, the Atheistic "Creation Myth" of Evolutionism is the ONLY Theory of Origins which is permitted within the Soviet Gulag of United States Government Schools.
The propagation of Evolutionism within the Government Schools is a SINFUL and TYRANNICAL Government Establishment of Religion -- a direct and massive (over $500 Billion a year, at least!) Government Subsidy for the Atheistic Theory of Origins over and against competing Theistic Theories of Origins.
We Christian Libertarians (stand with me here, Xzins) are ready and willing to face down the Evolutionists in the Free Marketplace of Ideas:
And may the most Demographically-Successful Population win -- Darwin uber alles, eh?
Except that wouldn't really be "fair", now, would it? Honestly, you Evolutionists know as well as anyone that without DIRECT, TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY of your Atheistic-Religious "Creation Myth", Evolutionism in America is DEAD.
You Evolutionists know full well that the current Stalinist Regime of "Evolutionism-Only" in the Government Skools is implacably hated by the good Workers and TaxPayers of these United States.
You will kindly note that I have chosen the most Liberal and Anti-Christian major News Source I could find, Slate.Com, for my figures.
AND STILL it is proven that only 13% of Americans support the current Stalinist Regime of "Evolution-Only" in the Classroom.
Howzabout this: Combined Federal, State, and Local Spending on Education amounts to well over $7,000 per-child, per-year.
Whaddyasay we abolish the Government Skools entirely, auction off all the Prime Acreage and Facilities to private Capitalist businessmen and entrepreneurs in order to thereby pay off frigging-enormous amounts of Government Debt, and instead deliver a $500-per-month Voucher or Tax Credit (Parent's Choice) to every American Parent in order to send their children to the School of Their Choice (...Hell's Bells, my Kid Brother went to a high-class Episcopalian Academy for only $350 a month; at $6,000 per-child per-year, the Republic would actually be SAVING money)... and in return, you Evolutionists stop whining about "separation of Church and State".
After all, given that the United States 7th Circuit Court of Appeals HAS RULED that, according to the Constitution of the United States, ATHEISM is a RELIGION, it's hardly fair that ONLY the Atheistic Religion enjoys a massive Government Subsidy for its Evolutionistic "Creation Myth".
**********
NOPE. I do not see that happening. You see, Evolutionism is a Parasitic Social Meme -- ultimately incapable of acheiving Free-Market Success amongst a Hard-Working and Tax-Paying Populace, Evolutionism depends upon Massive Government Subsidy for its Propagation and Continuation.
Evolutionism NEEDS the annual, $500-Billion-plus Government Subsidy provided by the Gubmint Skools simply in order to survive.
If the Education of Children in America is ever returned to the Authority of Parents and the Competition of the Free Market, Evolutionism in America is DEAD.
Best, OP
I may be misremembering this, and it may be bogus research, but I recall something about laboratory apes that had been taught the rudiments of language appearing to lie in order to gain rewards such as food.
"I may be misremembering this, and it may be bogus research, but I recall something about laboratory apes that had been taught the rudiments of language appearing to lie in order to gain rewards such as food."
Well, that would be one instance then. :)
"The United States 7th Circuit Court of Appeals HAS RULED that, according to the Constitution of the United States, ATHEISM is a RELIGION;"
No, it didn't.
"and yet, the Atheistic "Creation Myth" of Evolutionism is the ONLY Theory of Origins which is permitted within the Soviet Gulag of United States Government Schools."
Evolution, like every other theory in science, has nothing positive or negative to say about the existence of a God.
ID/Creationism simply isn't science, and has no place in a science classroom.
Just some advice: your prose makes you sound like you're on speed. Tone it down a little and maybe you could be taken seriously. :)
YES, IT DID -- you lying, Government-dependent, tax-dollar-suckling Evolutionist parasite.
The Courts of the Unites States of America HAVE RULED that ATHEISM IS A RELIGION -- which, of course, it is. Atheism is a Definitive Fact-Claim (to wit, "No") about the possible existence of a Supreme Being.
You Evolutionists can't stand it because you don't want to admit that your Atheistic-Religious "Creation Myth" is DEPENDENT upon the support of a $500-billion-dollar-per-year Government Subsidy for your "Evolutionism-Only" Stalinist Educational Regime.
If the Education of Children in America is ever returned to the Authority of Parents and the Competition of the Free Market, Evolutionism in America is DEAD.
Best, OP
"YES, IT DID -- you lying, Government-dependent, tax-dollar-suckling Evolutionist parasite."
Nice *Christian* attitude, by the way. :)
Of course, there is the fact that evolution isn't atheistic any way. You lose on both accounts.
Again: your font/prose style makes you look like you're on drugs.
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.