Designed to deceive: Creation can't hold up to rigors of science

CONTRA COSTA TIMES ^ | 12 February 2006 | John Glennon

[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.

[editor-surveyor]

Reading comprehention problems?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" You can be forgiven for this grossly erroneous statement."

It's true, Science is incapable of examining whether there is or isn't a God. That's the work of theologians.

"due to the gaping hole in your education, but science has proven the existance of God by the soundest of principles:
The proponderance of the evidence."

Nonsense. There is no scientific evidence that points to a God over there not being a God.

"The numeric evidence alone is so overwhelming that any who doubt God's existance certify their own incognition. Those denying statistical evidence cannot lay claim to the title scientist."

Platitudes and weak insults. There simply IS NO way to test or observe the claim that God exists using the means of science. Your insults/claims notwithstanding.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

You are foaming at the mouth about abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. Sorry to disappoint you. The theory of evolution applies equally well if a deity created the first life. Many who call themselves Christians (I believe that you disagree with their right to that title) disagree with you, and accept the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution following initial life that they believe was created by God.

Not really good enough, Thatcherite.

If you are willing to admit that the Law of Biogenesis demands the Intelligent Design of the First Living Cell, then there's really no reason to prefer Random Evolution thereafter as opposed to the Intelligent Design of every successive living cell (whether singular, or in organizational combination -- i.e., multicellular organisms or "plants and animals").

Creationists are certainly willing to admit that all of these fossil-recorded species did exist, in antiquity. However, as I said -- the point is, once you're willing to admit the Intelligent Design of the First Living Cell, there remains no inherent reason to favor the notion of Random Evolution over the possibility of Intelligent Design for every Living Species thereafter.

I am reminded of an old exchange between my friend "the_doc" and the Evolutionist "VadeRetro", in which the Doc challenged Vade to present any fossil evidence whatsoever for the Evolution of the Bat (which appears fully-formed in the fossil record, wings and sonar and all, with no apparent precursors)... and Vade responded by triumphally posting some photographed fossils of an antediluvian Bird...

Great fun was had by all. Vade only managed to FUBAR the entire Phylogenetic Column by way of his response (but I don't think he'll soon again forget that Mammalia is an entirely different Class of Phylum Chordata than that of Avia!!)

These ancient, now-extinct species did exist? Yes. The Fossil Record proves as much.

They evolved, one-to-another? Ah, that's another question entirely.

If you are willing to admit the possibility that an Intelligent Designer directly-created the First Living Cell... then why not all of them?

[editor-surveyor]

A free associator like you is liable to be reminded of most anything, but the truth won't blush.

[Havoc]

Fantastic point. If one gives up the argument of abiogenisis, one has folded in the poker game over whether there is a viable argument against God. If one cannot argue against God, then what we're reduced to is determining whether God is truthful, something science isn't entirely in a position to do on the one hand; but, which it is capable of doing in some instances. One doesn't need to be God in order to determine whether God is levelling with us.

[editor-surveyor]

Earthworms will swear that it is impossible to fly until the day that the robin snaches them. Your ignorance fails to impress.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Earthworms will swear that it is impossible to fly until the day that the robin snaches them. Your ignorance fails to impress."

Your insults are not an argument. I didn't think you had one; you have just lived up to my expectations of you. :)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

You a Christian Reconstructionist ?

No. Calvinist Theonomic Libertarian.

Bonus Points awarded if you can understand the difference. (Hint: go directly to Romans 13 -- do not pass Leviticus, do not collect 200 Post-Millennial Talents.)

Best, OP

[editor-surveyor]

Your problem is that you assume that all are as limited as yourself. If you want a real educayshun to fill your empty basket,try reading Edwin Sherman's Bible Code Bombshell. Do real scientists frighten you or is it the truth that you fear?

[VadeRetro]

Your strange quote of no-one in particular looks like somebody's wish-dream. Possibly I misread somebody's demand for a particular broomstick. (One targeted at a known gap, as if one gap anywhere makes all the evidence we do have go away.) However, I don't recall the incident. I do happen to recall that the earliest (Eocene) bat does have a remarkably long tail. This is not a feature of modern bats, but it (along with the rest of the clues) does point to an arboreal insectivore heritage.

As this site notes, for a tiny, light-boned forest animal to have a spotty record of preservation is no shock.

If you are willing to admit the possibility that an Intelligent Designer directly-created the First Living Cell... then why not all of them?

Because of all the evidence for common descent. And, no "common design" does not cover all of it equally well. I call your attention especially to the sections on redundant pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses under Part 4. Of course, reading and absorbing that might interfere with the 20-second response latency preferred by Holy Warriors on these threads.

[Thatcherite]

If you are willing to admit that the Law of Biogenesis demands the Intelligent Design of the First Living Cell

That's your incomprehending contention. Not my admission at all. I was saying that even if one does accept it then it has no bearing on whether evolution is true or not. The evidence (absolutely overwhelmingly cross-confirming across numerous scientific disciplines) that evolution is true stands or falls completely separately from the creation of first life. It is also competely separate from your cluelessness about Pasteur's work.

[Thatcherite]

Bible Code Placemarker. Hurrah!

[Right Wing Professor]

Bonus Points awarded if you can understand the difference

You overestimate my interest in fine distinctions between extremist sects.

[Right Wing Professor]

Reading comprehention problems?

Thu spel cheker is yer frend.

[Thatcherite]

And, no "common design" does not cover all of it equally well.

What if the Designer is using a genetic algorithm and a great deal of time? :))

[editor-surveyor]

Your 'evidence' for common descent is startlingly similar to the 'evidence' for the hazards of second hand smoke; it consists entirely of opinion, and 'study' to gloss over the thousands of chasms that cannot be bridged by anything but assumption, such as Punctuated Equilibrium.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

You overestimate my interest in fine distinctions between extremist sects.

You asked, I answered.

Of course, without understanding the distinction I raised, you don't even understand the Terminology of your own Question.

Hey, I tried to help.

(shrug).

[RadioAstronomer]

Spel chek placmarcker.

[RadioAstronomer]

2000?

[RadioAstronomer]

again?