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.
fundamental placemarker
A billion and half Hindus would think you were simply deluded. And a billion and a half Muslims might decide to behead you for that lie misstatement.
?
??
Those who have been flamed should turn the other cheek rather than respond in kind since both sides are on notice to stop the personal attacks.
LOL, there's a tagline in there somewhere!
With evolutionary theologian Michael Dowd’s ‘Darwin Day Sermons’
Or explore the roots of ‘Darwin Day’ with (and by) the Secular Student Alliance.
Or merely see what Darwin Day represents in ‘Their Wedge Document’:
*Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations
*Darwinism refutes typology; i.e., that the world is stable and invariant
*Darwin's theory of natural selection made any invocation of teleology unnecessary
*Darwin accepted the universality of randomness and chance throughout the process of natural selection
*Darwin developed a new view of humanity and in turn, a new anthropocentrism
*Darwin provided a scientific foundation for ethics
‘Darwin Day’
Or do you believe this scientist is correct with his assertion?
If it weren't all about political feasibility and huge democratic pressures, I'd say, "make my day!" Let's bring intelligent design into biology, and take the vague theory and refine it into mutually exclusive families of clearer hypotheses. Each of which we analyze for explanatory power, corroborating and disconfirming evidence, and so on.You refer to the bible and chastise Christians, but unless you are willing to plainly state your beliefs - this quite simply comes off as BS…And in the process, we will show that the Christian concept of God is scientifically false---we can say with a fair degree of scientific confidence that there is no god much like the God they want.
But of course, that will never happen. They'd accuse us of violating their boundary between "science" and "religion," and taking a "religious" stance. (Well, anti-religious, and in a sense they'd be right on that.) If we said the truth, which is that scientists know orthodox Christianity to be scientifically false, we'd be lynched.
a scientist…
The liar is inescapably concerned with truth-values. In order to invent a lie at all, he must think he knows what is the truth. And in order to invent an effective lie, he must design his falsehood under the guidance of truth…The word sh*t does, to be sure, suggest this. Excrement is not designed or crafted at all; it is merely emitted or dumped. It may have a more or less coherent shape, or it may not, but it is in any case not wrought.
-On Bullshit by Harry G. Frankfurt
IMHO, these two simple quotes sum up this whole debate. Sh*t is not designed – and I do not think anyone would look for truth from sh*t. But for anyone to demand that no ‘design’ was required for intelligence, they must rely on something to form their truth to counter accusations that contradict their philosophy from… basically sh*t.
So come on JS1138, let us all hear what ‘you’ base your worldview upon… Or you can simply criticize me for not being ‘Christian’ enough for your ‘belief’. As a Christian; I do not claim to know all truth, I love science, and keep an open mind - but I do believe I know where truth ’ultimately’ comes from… Where do you ‘believe’ your philosophical worldview ‘ultimately’ comes from?
I qualify as a Christian by attempting to lead my life according to the criterion Jesus set out in Matthew 19:16- and Luke 10:25-. I interpret this as requiring proactive steps to improve the world and not just avoiding bad behavior. If I am required to believe Genesis is literal history, I fail.
I think all images of the afterlife are BS. I don't worry about it. Existence is beyond my comprehension. I find it unlikely that God is the malicious trickster portrayed in creationist ramblings.
What does this mean to you?
Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
-1 Corinthians 12:3
Don't know. I tend to ignore things that sound like preachers trying to rally the congregation. I admit I am deficient in caring about legalisms.
Fine… Than actually answer the questions in my previous post. If you want to criticize others for not responding to your questions you might consider answering questions.
Imagine a pair of Brontosaurus on board.
“I do think its true that cosmologists are slightly more likely to be theists than biologists. In earlier times biology was the thing that provided the most powerful apparent evidence for the existence of a Creator – Darwin solved all that. I think, in a way, cosmology is waiting for its Darwin. However, I would add this, that biology is supremely complicated. Complexity is the really difficult thing that you might think you need a designer for – Darwin solved that. The universe actually, is not very complicated.”
-Dawkins
--->Placemarker<---
Actually Noah and his family must have been scared sh*tless with a bunch of T Rex running around the boat for 40 days. They must have kept those guys well fed.
Reminds me of an old joke. To file off the serial numbers:
What's worse than getting a pregnant Brontosaurus into an ark?
Getting a Brontosaurus pregnant in an ark!
[Hey, quit rocking the ark, Noah's trying to sleep up here.]
DAWKINS: (snip)"…But yet we have this gathering together of genes into individual organisms. And that reminds me of the illusion of one mind, when actually there are lots of little mindlets in there, and the illusion of the soul of the white ant in the termite mound, where you have lots of little entities all pulling together to create an illusion of one. Am I right to think that the feeling that I have that I'm a single entity, who makes decisions, and loves and hates and has political views and things, that this is a kind of illusion that has come about because Darwinian selection found it expedient to create that illusion of unitariness rather than let us be a kind of society of mind?"PINKER: "It's a very interesting question. Yes, there is a sense in which the whole brain has interests in common in the way that say a whole body composed of genes with their own selfish motives has a single agenda. In the case of the genes the fact that their fates all depend on the survival of the body forces them to cooperate. In the case of the different parts of the brain, the fact that the brain ultimately controls a body that has to be in one place at one time may impose the need for some kind of circuit, presumably in the frontal lobes, that coordinates the different agendas of the different parts of the brain to ensure that the whole body goes in one direction. In How the Mind Works I alluded to a scene in the comedy movie All of Me in which Lily Tomlin's soul inhabits the left half of Steve Martin's body and he takes a few steps in one direction under his own control and then lurches in another direction with his pinkie extended while under the control of Lily Tomlin's spirit. That is what would happen if you had nothing but completely autonomous modules of the brain, each with its own goal. Since the body has to be in one place at one time, there might be a circuit that suppresses the conflicting motives…"(end snip)
Materialist Evolutionist-a non-teleological position that affirms that only apparent, not real design, exists in the abiotic and biotic realms. Causes for the creation and subsequent development of these realms are attributed only to natural processes."Weak" Deistic Evolution-a teleological position that affirms recognition, but not empirical detectability of real design in the abiotic realm by a transcendent, Deistic Being who has causally acted only during its initial formation. Natural processes are the only factors that have brought about and shaped biological complexity during the past 4.5 billion years.
"Weak" Theistic Evolution-a teleological position that affirms the recognition, but not empirical detectability of real design in the abiotic and biotic realms by a transcendent, Theistic Being who has causally acted both during and after its initial formation, having designed biological complexity via universal common ancestry during the past 4.5 billion years.
Corporeal Design-a teleological position that affirms recognition and detectability of real design in the biotic realm by a being(s) with physical bodies, having designed biological complexity at some point during the past 4.5 billion years, with or without using universal common ancestry (e.g., panspermia and Raelianism, respectively).
Intrinsic Design-a teleological position that affirms recognition and detectability of real design in the abiotic and/or biotic realm by a Being who is wedded to/one with the universe, and who has causally acted since its initial formation, having designed biological complexity via universal common ancestry during the past 4.5 billion years.
"Strong" Deistic Evolution-a teleological position that affirms recognition and detectability of real design in the abiotic realm by a transcendent, Deistic Being who has causally acted only during its initial formation. Natural processes are the only factors that have brought about and shaped biological complexity during the past 4.5 billion years.
"Strong" Theistic Evolution-a teleological position that affirms recognition and detectability of real design in the abiotic and biotic realms by a transcendent, Theistic Being who has causally acted both during and after its initial formation, having designed biological complexity via universal common ancestry during the past 4.5 billion years.
Old-Earth Creationism-a teleological position that affirms recognition and detectability of real design in the abiotic and biotic realms by a transcendent, Theistic Being who has causally acted both during and after its initial formation, having designed discontinuous biological complexity during the past 4.5 billion years.
Young-Earth Creationism-a teleological position that affirms recognition and detectability of real design in the abiotic and biotic realms by a transcendent, Theistic Being who has causally acted both during and after its initial formation, having designed discontinuous biological complexity approximately 6,000 years ago. As mentioned above, ID is not included among the teleological positions in Table 1 or Figure 2. Its definition is given here, followed by a rationale for its location on the Nested Hierarchy of Design
Intelligent Design-a teleological position that affirms recognition and empirical detectability of real design in the abiotic and/or biotic realms.
I've given you the answers that come from my heart. I don't understand theology, and I don't understand your question. Some brain cells missing I assume.
I can understand trying to be a kind, honest and useful person, but I cannot understand the necessity of saying I believe something that I believe to be untrue.
Where do you ‘believe’ your philosophical worldview ‘ultimately’ comes from?
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.