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.

[tallhappy]

How do species arise? Spontaneous generation?

[tallhappy]

I'd believe it went against the foundations of what the TOE says (and modern genetics as well).

But would you believe it was magic?

[tallhappy]

Any fertile offspring is always the same species as the parents.

So how do new species arise?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" But would you believe it was magic?"

No. Unlike creationists/id'ers I don't throw up my hands and quit when something confounds me. I would acknowledge that my previous theories were wrong, and try to figure out what was going on. An ID'er/creationist would not know how it happened either but would say, *God did it*, and be done with any further inquiry. They are the ones who believe in *magic*.

[Right Wing Professor]

I'll let your hysterically funny, and hysterical, reply speak for itself.

[Thatcherite]

How do species arise? Spontaneous generation?

No. I shouldn't have to explain the basics of evolutionary theory to you unless you are a liar. You've already made it quite plain that you've investigated it carefully and rejected it, so obviously you already know the absolute basics; evolution 101.

[Thatcherite]

So how do new species arise?

Why are you asking this? You must already know, because you claim to understand evolution well enough to reject it. Why are you asking absolutely basic questions about evolution?

[Ichneumon]

The fact is that evolution is designed to deceive.

Wrong. It is designed to be an explanation which best matches 150 years of accumulated real-world evidence.

It has deceived many.

Oh? How does the best explanation which has been validated by careful applications of the scientific method "deceive" anyone?

It has you believing that something was created out of nothing

Wow, are *you* confused. Hey, I have a novel idea -- why don't you anti-evolution folks try to *learn* something about evolutionary biology before you attempt to hysterically attack it?

Evolution in no way involves "something created out of nothing". It involves new species arising from older species via genetic change. Period. Nowhere in evolutionary theory is there anything at all about anything coming from "nothing". Just how ignorant are you?

- sheer impossible by any objective science standards - it's makes a mockery of science

You make a mockery of human intelligence.

- the very thing evolutionists worship - evolution

Wrong *again*.

turns the laws of science on its head for an predetermined outcome - godless, illogical, insulating to God (calling Him an ape), death before sin (dinosaurs here before man because they were busy "evolving from apes" etc..

"This is your brain on creationism".

Nothing about evolution makes any sense

Well not to people who are really, *really* confused about it, like yourself...

and the evidence certainly doesn't support it.

ROFL! Do even you believe this stuff that comes out of your brain? The evidence supporting evolution is vast and overwhelming, along multiple cross-confirming lines. Evolution has been validated by the evidence and research findings countless times over, and survived endless falsification tests. But then you've already been informed of this over and over again and shown large amounts of the evidence, and lacking any actual ability to refute the material, you just keep stamping your feet and repeating, "no evidence, no evidence, no evidence" like a child having a tantrum. Do you anti-evolutionists realize how pathetic you look? Thanks for so clearly confirming the article which started this thread...

[Ichneumon]

[How do species arise? Spontaneous generation?]

No. I shouldn't have to explain the basics of evolutionary theory to you unless you are a liar.

I've seen it coming for a long time, but he has finally completely lost it.

[Ichneumon]

Nothing to do with epistomology Mr left Wing Professor who doesn't know the difference between ribosomal based mechanisms of anti-biotics vs lactam inhibition based, Mr never Ping me cry baby whining victim (who doesn't know what the term ping even means). Call it Epissedoffology all you want, it's Hardly Coherent. Look, we have established you are dull and dimwitted. Now we have established you cannot even hold to your own convictions. I'd quote the Bibble, but you might be too scared and Sue Bee, orsomething about how a dog always returns to his own vomit comes to mind. Some gibberish is fun for all -- some is gibberish.

Gibberish saved for future amusement...

[Ichneumon]

Is it just me, or would that have looked even more at home in a blue font?

[Thatcherite]

I missed this first time round...

"insulating to God (calling Him an ape)" placemarker

ROFL

[RightWingNilla]

I thought the Universe fell out of the cargo hatch of a C-47

Now thats the best creation story Ive ever heard.

Can I join your church?

[tallhappy]

OK. Not magic. It would be an aspect of evolution we didn't understand or foresee.

The theory would be modified.

[Thatcherite]

There are many candidates on this thread for "This is your brain on creationism", but I think the creationists have realised what an honour it is to get into that link-set, and they are now trying too hard at it. The series of rants by the Kent Hovind impersonator (or KH himself?) is too manic to be funny, and that's the case with too many of the posts in this thread. Pity.

[RadioAstronomer]

A very sweet young lady friend of mine (colleague as well) passed on today. Sigh.

What a suck email to come into work to.

[Right Wing Professor]

The hysteria is similar, certainly, but given the sign-up date, I doubt it.

[tallhappy]

You've already made it quite plain that you've investigated it carefully and rejected it

I do not. I never said that. I have not made that clear nor have I ever said anything that indicates that.

Come on, how do species arise?

[tallhappy]

Exzygotically!!

Humor is something I have, yes.

You should look in to it.

[Thatcherite]

I'm not quite clear. Do you reject evolution or not? If you reject it did you examine it carefully first or not?

Why do you want anyone to teach you evolution 101? Somehow from your posting history I'm not suspecting "honest enquiry" is the answer.