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.
Woohoo!!
Whoopee!
Got it.
Got better things to do.
Lord bless you.
Isa 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
Mal 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD
Luke 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
Malachi says Elijah himself, Luke says John has the spirit of and power of Elijah.
John 1:21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
John denies that he's Elijah.
Matt 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
11:14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
John is prophet Elijah only if they accept the prophets and the law.
Matt 17:3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
The disciples do not see John the Baptist, they see Elijah.
Matt 17:10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
17:11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
17:13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
John was the wilderness voice of Isaiah 40:3 , yet he was rejected and killed. With the spirit of Elijah, John had come announcing the "Kingdom of Heaven", but they wouldn't accept the prophets and the law. The way had not been prepared. Jesus was doomed also to be rejected and killed. He was not the Jewish Messiah.
the virgin
Young maiden; but Isaiah wasn't talking abut Jesus anyhow.
Just out of curiosity, who was David speaking of in Psalm 110, verse 1?
John was not rejected and killed. Many Jews followed him and were baptized by him. John was murdered by Herod Antipas, that fox, as Jesus called him. Many Jews were followers of John and Jesus, and the people laid psalms before His feet as He rode into Jerusalem, signifying their acceptance of Him.. The High Priest and the Pharisees were the ones who would not accept Jesus, for then their sweet little corrupt system would come down. It came down anyway.
You are proud to be naive about science yet you claim to know what science is or is not. Isn't that a bit arrogant?
The chemical process of evolution is that of DNA. If you know the chemical process that go into the of formation DNA then you know the chemical process at the heart of evolution. At its simplest, evolution is a change in the DNA that makes up a population.
Precisely. So, if you believe evolution is a chemical process that affects change upon DNA, -- then what is the formula? There must be a formula to express your belief/theory.
Spoon feeding the opposition. Interesting.
What has my character to do with the discussion?
"Arrogance" is the way you're attempting to frame the discussion.
Keep reading:
4:25 But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land;
4:26 But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow.
4:27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.
The Jewish Messianic prophesy is not based on mercy or pity. They have to be righteous within the law.
The Jews were not clean and rejected the law.
Elijah will come when the Israelis are under the law of Moses. And until Elijah returns, they will not have the Messiah.
A prayer to his grand40thson to crush his enemies.
Either that, or the Sacred Number of the Count of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch ...
Did he restore the nation for the Messiah?
Was John (the so-called Elijah) beheaded?
The High Priest and the Pharisees were the ones who would not accept Jesus, for then their sweet little corrupt system would come down.
The priestly class were the Sadducees.
The Pharisees were skeptical, but reasonably tolerant of the nascent Jewish-Christians until a certain Saul of Tarsus denied the law of Moses.
No, its the way you are framing your replies. You insist that science have a 'formula' yet you agree that your understanding of science is naive. How is it that your opinion of what is necessary for a field of study to be called science should supersede the understanding and practice of science by scientists?
Science has no need for a 'formula' nor is it as simplistic as to strive for a single 'formula' before it can make decisions on the facts it has access to.
My point is, perhaps you should learn a little more about that which you attack before make pronouncements about it.
John was beheaded, fulfilling the prophecy found re him in the Joseph story
And who says today, "I am not a widow?
Psalm 110
1 A psalm of David. 2 The LORD says to you, my lord: "Take your throne at my righthand, while I make your enemies your footstool."
2 The scepter of your sovereign might the LORD will extend from Zion. The LORD says: "Rule over your enemies!
3 Yours is princely power from the day of your birth. In holy splendor before the daystar, like the dew I begot you."
4 The LORD has sworn and will not waver: "Like Melchizedek you are a priest forever."
Hebrews 1
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
1:2
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
1:3
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had * by himself purged * our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool *.
No fake sins here. Your unapolagetic peddling of easily demonstrated dishonesties that purport to support your religious agenda is a matter of record on this thread. What I don't understand is why when you're in a hole you just keep digging.
Anyway, there is no shame in discussing philosophy or "theories" such as evolution. By your logic, you should be "ashamed" of promulgating something that you cannot prove but is just a nice little theory.
Nothing in science is ever proven. There is an avalanche of evidence that supports evolution which makes it as well-established a theory as any in science, and scientific knowledge has no status higher than "theory". You've had the difference between the word "theory" as scientists use it and as lay people use it (the scientific word for the lay use of theory is hypothesis or conjecture) explained to you before. So given your religious strictures about honesty it is a mystery to me why you perpetuate the error there yet again.
It's a free country still and definitely it's still Free Republic.
True, you are free to make an ass of yourself.
Look up all the posts about the disciples going to their deaths for what they knew, firsthand, to be true, as they were eyewitnesses to Jesus's life, death and resurrection. I have no idea what sort of dichotomy bondage you are trying to tie me up in. I've stated what I've stated plainly for days now -- it's a famous prooftext and you have only managed to nail me for alleged syntactical errors in relating it. I'm asking you to use your common sense to reason it out but you are looking at the letter of the law. In Christian circles, you would be excused for acting under a spirit of Legalism.
All of this carries no weight at all for someone who doesn't see the Bible as a historical text, just a collection of stories written well after the events they purport to describe by people who weren't there.
Lord bless and I'll come back to our discussion, shame-free, when I've more time.
Your continued shamelessness at the errors and dishonesties that you've perpetrated on these threads is no longer any surprise. I've seen it too many times before.
So when are you going to produce that information about pure gold being transparent that you promised. Or maybe a primary source for scientists telling Columbus that the world was flat? Or is that another of those things that you've just not got time for? Funny, that.
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.