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 couldn't help it.
How true..I really have enjoyed that 'Brain on Creationism' feature...I have read it several times over...reading the actual quotes, and then linking them back to the thread where they originated has been invaluable for me...I have been able to go back and read threads I have not seen before...and I also take note of the screennames of the posters who have made such remarks, so that I know who is who...so your 'brain on Creationism' feature, is quite handy and quite informative...
Wrong book. The one I was asked to read was "The Bible Code Bombshell", by Edwin Sherman. This one doesn't try to make the kind of connections with historical events like WWII and so on.
Hardly.
"We always know there is a maker to say, an automobile. It just couldn't gather itself together and yet our bodies are alot more complex.
To come to this conclusion you need to make the assumption that the complexity of DNA can be calculated and reliably quantified and that only intelligences can produce complexity. So far neither assumption has been verified.
We know there is a maker for an auto because we recognize the auto as 'unnatural' in appearance and further know of only one way for an auto to be created. The recognition of the auto as an unnatural object is based on its features, not its complexity. We notice the virtually perfect symmetry, the lack of blemish, the tell tale polish, the very materials used in its form. No one ever goes up to an auto and says to himself:
'boy that looks complex, it must have been made by humans',
what he does say is:
' that looks liked formed painted metal on the outside with a nice thick clear-coat and hand rubbed polish. The inside looks like treated and colored leather surrounded by formed plastic. Gee, nothing in nature looks like that so it must be made by an intelligence. The only intelligence that I am familiar with is human and this really looks like something humans would do so it must be created by humans.
If you take a good look at DNA you will find that it does not have unnatural symmetry or near perfection but is instead full of errors, duplications, abandoned 'code', inefficiencies and unnecessary redundancies. Even the worst human code has some self documentation, DNA has none.
DNA is made up of nothing but chemicals, chemicals which combine unaided in nature all the time. The only difficulty with the natural production of DNA is the low likelihood of a specific DNA sequence combining spontaneously. However this spontaneous generation of a DNA sequence is not suggested by any scientist. What is suggested is the gradual buildup of chemicals, ultimately resulting in a short DNA that was subsequently built up in size by innumerable replication errors.
I couldn't find a review of this book. Oh well, I won't look for it; too busy looking for Salgan's tango tome.
Sounds like the lead in for a joke:
Whaddaya get if you mix botox, silicon, and AI?
(there's a punchline out there just waiting to happen..)
:>)
"Adding nickel is obviously NOT part of any purification process. Purifying Gold removes what is not gold - it does not include adding things to the gold, that is counter to the concept. IE, you don't seem to be paying attention, are misguided in your response or are being misleading.
As shown in the post by RadioAstronomer, elemental gold, that gold within which no other element is present, reflects light within the yellow portion of the spectrum. It is not clear.
For the last 8 years, Canada has used gold that is 99.999% pure in a $350.00 coin. It is yellow in colour.
White gold is not pure gold but gold with other elements added. Those added elements give it its white colour. Adding elements is the only way to make it white.
Guilty as charged, myself.
I find the psychology of the CRIDers fascinating.
Cites! Cites!
A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Proverbs 15:1
In this case only those atheists residing in the US can be considered as belonging to a religion.
I don't live in the States but in Canada. I am an atheist, which in Canada is not a religion.
Perhaps the Grand Master will deign to lift a pinkie finger in your favor.
Not so.
Only the overly inclusive definition of evolution put forward by creationists which includes abiogenesis and the 'big bang' cosmology can be considered in any way 'atheistic'. Darwin said nothing about abiogenesis or the beginnings of the universe in his initial ToE offering. As far as I know, we are arguing the Theory of Evolution as put forward by the neo-darwinian synthesis on these threads. This is not about 'origins' or atheism.
It may be that many of us (pro-evos) do believe that abiogenesis took place and the universe is the result of an unaided 'big bang' but the discussion of those concepts is initiated by the anti-evolutionists not by the proponents of evolution. It may be true that many of us are indeed atheists but nowhere in the Synthesis will you find the origin of the universe or the origin of life mentioned.
Only if you consider a terrestrial old age to be atheistic can you consider the ToE to be atheistic. In that case you would also have to consider the geological and astronomical sciences to be atheistic as well.
And just what part of evolution's reality is inherently atheistic?
Are you a theist who also believes in evolution?
If so, can you describe that particular God? Thanks.
You just claimed all sciences to be atheistic. Is that what you meant to do?
You are conflating the lack of belief in a god with a lack of observation of the influence of a god. Atheists state that there is no God. Science says that God may or may not exist but in both cases does not influence investigation. If anything, science, including the study of evolution, can be said to be agnostic.
Nope nothing like that; Just the Christmas tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, and Mel Gibson (wtf?)...
Bo Derrick with a bad dye job ...
Thank yew, thank yew. I'll be here all week. Try the veal!
It's hardly a fundamental law. It also only applies to fully formed complex organisms, not the gradual development of life from pre-life.
"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).
First - It was not fully preserved. Second - the preservation of tissue relies on the conditions it is found in. Degradation requires microorganisms and mineralization requires water. If neither are present the limits of preservation are unknown. The stratum the fossil was found in was dated to be older than 100,000 years. Third - evolution says nothing about how long an organism can survive. Sharks, turtles, nautaloids and some lobe-finned fish predate most dinosaurs, yet there are extant species.
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.