Why evolution is a political question

Morse Code ^ | May 8,2007 | Chuck Morse

[Chuckmorse]

During the May 3 Republican presidential debate, moderator Chris Matthews asked the candidates “How many of you don’t believe in evolution?” Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo all raised their hands indicating that they did not believe in it. Rep. Barney Frank raised the same question in 2004 when he accused me, his opponent that year, of questioning the theory of evolution. Liberals are confident that those who question the theory of evolution will be held up for public ridicule and scorn. Many liberals pride themselves on questioning everything in life except when it comes to the theory of evolution, which they accept as bedrock science. But is it?

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. There is not a shred of evidence to indicate that mankind evolved from the amoeba, which evolved into the fish, which evolved into the bird, which evolved into the mouse, which evolved into the monkey, which evolved into man. While there is evidence of inter-species evolution, there is no proof of the basic thesis presented by Charles Darwin which is that one species evolves into another. In fact, science seems to favor creationism, also just a theory, as recent DNA evidence indicates that mankind is descended from one mother.

It could be therefore argued that the theory of evolution, since it is not science in the sense that there is no documented or empirical evidence to back it up, is based as much on religious belief as is creationism. Both theories are based on faith as opposed to scientific certainty and, I would argue, creationism contains better science. Yet the liberal establishment demands that the federal government mandate by law that only evolution is to be taught in the public school science class.

I would argue that Intelligent design, which is the theory that mankind was created by divine intervention, could be introduced into education in tandem with the theory of evolution without getting into any particular religious scenario, such as the Genesis story in the Bible, and without endorsing any particular religious denomination. If intelligent design were to be given equal time with evolution, the faith of the atheist would be no more compromised than that of the theist. In fact, such a presentation would be more honest and balanced since scientific inquiry is supposed to be open to all plausible theories.

The theory of evolution is a political question in American politics because liberal supporters demand that the federal government mandate it’s teaching and insist on a gag order when it comes to any discussion of intelligent design in the classroom. This is contrary to American traditions of free speech and the free and open expression of ideas. This also violates the right of the taxpaying citizen to have a say in the education of their own children and supplants the ability of local educators and elected local school board officials to determine curriculum.

Teaching intelligent design alongside evolution would open doors to important thought and inquiry. When the young student contemplates the possibility that mankind is more than just an evolving animal, amoral and bound to nature like other animals, than perhaps the student becomes aware of the uniqueness and value of every single human life. Implied in the theory of a divine creator is that there is a larger purpose to life and that there is a moral code. Intelligent design sets the stage for the individual to look to a higher power than the government, which is perhaps why liberals so adamantly oppose it. In these times of rampant school violence and moral relativism, the teaching of intelligent design, in a non sectarian way and alongside the teaching of the theory of evolution, would serve many positive purposes besides a simple striving for truth.

[CottShop]

let’s break down your argument into it’s most basic elements:

You: “I don’t have time to check anything out, I’m very busy and shouldn’t be expected to do so... I do however have time to endlessly argue that the evidence doesn’t exist that scientists have problems with the model of common descent, and have unlimmitted time denying that any evidence presented is valid despite the fact that I’m too lazy to check it out.”

Lol-

[CottShop]

woopsie- you posted the same lame argument before I could post- so this is the revised version:

You: “I don’t have time to check anything out, I’m very busy and shouldn’t be expected to do so... I do however have time to endlessly argue that the evidence doesn’t exist that scientists have problems with the model of common descent, and have unlimmitted time denying that any evidence presented is valid despite the fact that I’m too lazy to check it out. You presented a quote from one symposium, and because it was only one quote that you personally posted for me,. it must mean that other quotes don’t exist because you didn’t help my lazy butt out by personally posting every quote by every evolutionist who has problems with hte model, and I’m content insinuating that you are a liar because you failed to do so.”

Ambition is the innevitable result of not having the common sense to be lazy lol

[tacticalogic]

Seems I’m damned if I do, and damned if I don’t. I believe that was going to be a foregone conclusion when I didn’t simply agree with you at the outset without bothering to check on any of it.

[Stultis]

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. There is not a shred of evidence to indicate that mankind evolved from the amoeba, which evolved into the fish, which evolved into the bird, which evolved into the mouse, which evolved into the monkey, which evolved into man. While there is evidence of inter-species evolution, there is no proof of the basic thesis presented by Charles Darwin which is that one species evolves into another.

You seem to have little understanding of the nature and role of a scientific "theory". In science a theory is a well developed explanatory model for which there is evidence. If there isn't evidence then it is at best a failed theory, i.e. a "theory" only in the historical sense; or it is a yet-to-be-tested theory, i.e. a "theory" only in future prospect or potential.

IOW your second and third sentences contradict your first sentence. If there is, as you declare, "not a shred of evidence" for evolution then it cannot be a (current, active) scientific theory. Which, however, it obviously is.

[gondramB]

Gould did important work in refining evolutionary theory and there are clearly areas of disagreement. And it a good idea to discuss those issues. That’s different than ordering teachers to teach ID before ID is shown to be a viable scientific theory.

[bert]

He could have been more specific.

Was Chris speaking of bio evolution or Christian evolution?

It seems strange to me that there is almost never discussion of the evolution of Christianity. The constant change is remarkably similar to that of the survival of the fittist changes in Darwinian bio evolution.

[Stultis]

Teacher: “You shut your filthy piehole you rabble rouser!!! One more word and I’ll personally see to it that you’re expelled!”

Have you considered writing for Jack Chick?

[gondramB]

Chuck never actually responds in any of the threads he starts - they seem to be designed only to drive traffic to his web sites.

[CottShop]

lol- good find- what’s the teacher yelling at the student about htough?

[CottShop]

I agree that it’s important to discuss tyhe hypothesis and scientists personal opinions about what the evidence might point to, knowledge is never a bad thing, however, I also think that the whole story needs be told, not the one sided bias being foisted with threats of suppression and suits to coutner science and evidences that expose the problems with common descent. As the quote I posted suggested,

entomologist W.R. Thompson:

“This situation where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to defend scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credibility with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.”

[CottShop]

[That’s different than ordering teachers to teach ID before ID is shown to be a viable scientific theory.]

A little confused here, if it’s a good idea to teach different lines of evolution hypothesis in an attempt to close some serious gaps in the old model, then what makes the old model more ‘viable’ than the idea that there is design in nature? Or in showing that things are irreducibly complex and don’t really support the idea of NEW information through gradual accumulation of small mutatiions? It would seem to me that exploring all angles in an unproven hypothesis would only serve to either strengthen the old model, or suggest that other lines should be investigated? Validity comes from including all evidences, not suppressing some ideas that don’t jive with an old model. If ID simply said’ God done it, and that’s all anyone need know’ then you’d of course have a valid point, however, that’s not what ID is about. ID presents scientific evidence that, based on educated opinion, points to design. Evolution presents scientific evidence, that based on educated opinion, seems to point to common descent. Both are valid opinions based on scientific evidences..

[Stultis]

Yo. Chick blocked the pic.

[gondramB]

>>A little confused here, if it’s a good idea to teach different lines of evolution hypothesis in an attempt to close some serious gaps in the old model, then what makes the old model more ‘viable’ than the idea that there is design in nature?<<

Any scientific theory taught needs to meet the standards for what a scientific theory is - i.e. accurately making predictions and/or being testable. The current theory of evolution has made many accurate predictions about nature while the ID model has not.

That’s not a specific knock on ID but rather a general standard that crosses borders of all the sciences.

(and BTW its one reason physicists are discussing giving up on string theory - no valid predictions).

[CottShop]

that dirty dog- it was perfect

[CottShop]

the prediction of design can and has been tested and has resulted in the same conclusions based on opinion that evolution has. Irreducible hypothesis predicts design will break down when degredation happens, and scientifically shows how that design breaks down- and scientifically shows the connections of organisms and organs and microbiological dependencies. They present the evidences, and then give opinions about what those evidences suggest- same as evolution. The only real difference is that the evolutionist presents their evidences with the assumption that everythign can be explained naturally, while design opines that not everythign can be shown to have occured naturally, and they present the evidences that they think backs this position up. Evolutionistscan’t and haven’t been able to prove everythign coems from natural process, they only surmise that they do- ID can’t obviously prove everything was created, they only surmise- It seems to me that one groups summeries are allowed as ‘science’ while the other’s is not.

[gondramB]

>>the prediction of design can and has been tested<<

Could you lay out some the biological predictions that have been made by ID?

I’d like to find evidence of God. From my experience with Him, however, he seems to require faith.

[gondramB]

BTW, from another thread here is the kind of biological predictions I am told evolution makes that have been confirmed.

>>
Some predictions (I’m just repeating what I have read elsewhere - I claim no great knowledge of biology). And I’m only gonna cite simple ones I can understand - there are apparently very complex predictions.

1. There are two types of whales baleen and teeth. Prediction: there must be a whale with both teeth and baleen.

2. Darwin found no Precambrian fossils. He said evolutionary theory required there to be such fossils.

3. Fossils should be found in series that reflect evolution. So should DNA.

4. Evolution predicts that fossils from different eras will never be found together - the example I was given was that you would “never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs”

Apparently there are all kinds of complex DNA predictions and evolutionary applications to bacteria and viruses but we’d need somebody who knows much, much more than I to have that discussion.<<

[tacticalogic]

You presented a quote from one symposium, and because it was only one quote that you personally posted for me,. it must mean that other quotes don’t exist because you didn’t help my lazy butt out by personally posting every quote by every evolutionist who has problems with hte model, and I’m content insinuating that you are a liar because you failed to do so.”

IOW, it's my fault your evidence sucks.

[CottShop]

Well ID predicted that what was commonly thought to be junk DNA would turn out to be useful- it has upon more careful study.

They predicted that ‘vestigial organs’ would turn out to have functional importances- they did upon furhter careful annalysis.

They predicted that species could not evolve beyond their species specific limits- They also predicted that accumulations of mutations would not move a species beyond it’s own KIND- exhaustive testing mimicking supposedly millions of years throguh massive manipulation of causes that bring about mutations has proven this to be true.

They predicted that the fossil records would show sudden emergence of many completed life forms- it did

Here’s more from a site that talks about htese predictions and many others:

http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Predictions_of_Intelligent_Design

And you’re right, it does take faith, however, one doesn’t have to go on complete blindness of scientific facts- there is much in both creation science and ID to suggest that there is indeed design in nature- and if so, then it’s a very high probability that a designer was behind the process.

[CottShop]

Here’s more:

“Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?

The Short Answer: Yes. Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an “irreducible core.” Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record, 3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms, and 4) function for biological structures. Each of these predictions may be tested—and have been confirmed through testing”

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156