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.
Alright, fine, C-G -- since you declare that "The policy you want (abolition of government schools) isn't going to happen any time soon", and therefore as a Government-Subsidized, Publik-Skool-Dependent, Tax-Suckling Evolutionist Leech you are determined to a-go-on feasting upon the Stolen Tax-Dollars of hard-working Creationists, I shall engage you in a few of the "arguments" which you seek.
I will preface my arguments in advance by saying that ALL of this is beside the point entirely -- the Point is, Parents should have Financial Control over the Education of their Children, NOT THE STATE. Of course, given the overwhelming Parental support in America for the teaching of Creationism, true Parental Control over Educational Financing would result in the educational starvation of Evolutionism -- a wholly desirable result (but you evolutionists can't have that, now, can you?).
Well, then, let's have at it; evolution, geology, cosmology, radiometric dating -- since you are determined to fall back on the Argument "Educational Communism isn't going away, so why should we Evolutionist Educational-Communists give up our advantage?", what say we start with two -- JUST TWO -- little arguments, and go from there.
Evolutionism, an entirely unproven theory, begins from the fantastical Presumption that Life CAN arise from Non-Life (a primordial chemical muck -- i.e., "Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and cauldron bubble", etc)... despite the fact that such a fantastical Presumption is against the Law of Science, and against 100% of the evidence from all probative laboratory experiments in history on the subject (all of which demonstrate that Life arises from Life, and never from Non-Life).
Given, then, that Pasteur's Scientific Law of Biogenesis has never been Disproved (or for that matter, even dented a little), and the fantastical Evolutionist Presumption of Random Chemical Abiogenesis has never been Proved (or for that matter, even Evidenced at all) -- why should the 13% Minority of the Population who blindly persist in believing in the INSANITY of Evolutionist Chemical Abiogenesis, against the evidence of hundreds of years of Scientific Law, have the right to use Public Tax-Dollars to IMPOSE their EVOLUTIONIST-SPECULATIONS upon the Majority of Parents and Children who (quite understandably), prefer to stick with Proven Creationists like Pasteur, rather than the unproven Speculations of the Darwinists?
We have already found fully-preserved soft organic tissue in the bones of dinosaurs, which are alleged to be "70 million years" old -- despite the fact that it is BIOCHEMICALLY-IMPOSSIBLE for soft organic tissues to last more than 100,000 years (let alone being still perfectly-preserved and elastic).
At this point, the Open-Minded Man (a term which, admittedly, automatically disqualifies the Evolutionist) would be compelled to admit the possibility -- if Dinosaur Bones CAN'T be more than 100,000 years old, then maybe they AREN'T 100,000 years old. I admit that the Close-Minded Evolutionist is unwilling to admit this possibility, but I must appeal to Arthur Conan Doyle: "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, MUST be the Truth." ~~ Sherlock Holmes.
Alright, then, let's try TWO LITTLE ARGUMENTS, from the top:
Given that Life CANNOT arise from Non-Life (according to Scientific Law), and given that Dinosaur Bones CANNOT be more than 100,000 years old (according to Organic Biochemistry)... then why should the 13% Minority of the Population who blindly persist in believing in the INSANITY of Evolutionism, be permitted to deny the hard-working American Creationist Majority their Right to include competing Scientific Theories of Origins within their Schools?
It's our money, too, y'know... you Evolutionists just Steal it from us.
Best, OP
I'm still here as well. :-)
Where does evolution say that? How is the way in which you claim evolution says this any different from, for example, atomic theory? Or any other scientific theory?
Huh???? You making absolutely no sense here in any way shape or form. (Other than you are agreeing with WildHorseCrash that adding nickel does not make gold more pure)
:>)
You could really stop right there, and you'd have a perfectly appropriate response to every post ever made by Havoc in a Crevo thread.
A-little-bit-of-knowledge-is-a-dangerous-thing placemarker
The OP has a way to go before he acquires "a little bit of knowledge" of science.
LOL... Perhaps I was being too generous.
Flapdoodle!
That is like saying an alloy process is either atheistic or theistic. It is neither. It is an engineering process. No Gods needed.
If you admit that Atheism is Religionist, that only buttresses my point.
My point is, Evolutionism is the preferred "Creation Myth" of Atheistic-Religionism.
Atheistic-Religionism therefore enjoys a $500-Billion-per-year Government Establishment and Subsidy over and against all other Religions, via the "Evolutionist-Only" Publik-Skools.
You Evolutionists don't want to give that up.
That's not surprising. State-Established Religions DON'T want to give up their Government-Subsidized Advantages.
"(even though Christianity is a subject you know little or nothing about)" ~~ ASSume much? I went to Catholic school K-12.
So.... you're the lapsed Prodigal Son of a Denomination which hasn't gotten hardly a single thing right about Christianity since Thomas Aquinas, who died 800 years ago.
And you still presume to lecture others on whether or not they are "Un-Christian"?
Um... Okay.
Don't have time to answer this post the way I would like to. Sigh. However, thought this would be a good place to inject a post on theories and laws:
Let me post my own example of gravity:
A little history here:
Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation
“Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects.”
F=Gm1m2/r2
Where:
F equals the gravitational force between two objects
m1 equals the mass of the first object
m2 equals the mass of the second object
R equals the distance between the objects
G equals the universal constant of gravitation = (6.6726 )* 10-11 N*m2/kg2 (which is still being refined and tested today)
(BTW this is a simple form of the equation and is only applied to point sources. Usually it is expressed as a vector equation)
Even though it works well for most practical purposes, this formulation has problems.
A few of the problems are:
It shows the change is gravitational force is transmitted instantaneously (Violates C), assumes an absolute space and time (this contradicts Special Relativity), etc.
Enter Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity
In 1915 Einstein developed a new theory of gravity called General Relativity.
A number of experiments showed this theory explained some of the problems with the classical Newtonian model. However, this theory like all others is still being explored and tested.
From an NSF abstract:
“As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.
In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.
Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
[Oh God! I've just drowned in my own bile and spittle]
Actually, you are wrong. Another religion's perspective might claim Christianity's to be wrong, but it still allows for a supernatural claim to be made.
You are trying to move the goalposts. To get back to the point...
You are concerned that science and the TOE relegate the 'Christian creation story' to myth. My point is that other religions that do not accept your 'Christian creation story' (which is most and maybe all of them) relegate it to myth, explicitly, because they deny it is true.
You are concerned that science and the TOE do this. Are you equally concerned that other religions do this?
ROTFLMAO!
I do love you, Xzins.... I just think your Soteriology needs work (okay, much work -- that being one Ortho-Presby's humble opinion).
On the other hand, there's a time for arguing about the interpretation of Paul... and a time for defending Genesis. Last I checked, Genesis came first in the Bible. Your Bible too?
:-)
God bless, OP
This is just total b.s. While it's unusual for organic material to persist in older fossil samples, it's not unknown. Flies in amber last millions of years. Heck, amber itself is organic material. For decades, we have been dating biological samples by measuring the isomerization of isoleucine, an amino acid, over hundreds of thousands of years.
By the way, no one claims the Tyrannosaur material is 'perfectly preserved'. That's just you making stuff up, like the RANTING LIAR you are.
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.