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.
Speaking of which, while watching the same broadcast (I was rooting for the Dalmatian for Best of Show) it occurred to me that Havoc's stubborn insistence that "dogs only come from dogs, and thus were always dogs" can be turned around to demonstrate its absurdity and falseness...
The same argument could be used just as (il)logically to argue that "dachshunds only come from dachshunds, and thus were always dachshunds" -- and likewise for any other breed of dog or any other animal (or variety of plant, etc.).
Clearly, something's wrong with his line of "reasoning", because we *know* that dachshunds didn't always exist, and in fact did not exist until recently. Even though breeding dachshunds to dachshunds produce "only" more dachshunds, the same could be said (just as misleadingly) about the non-dachshund *ancestors* of the line of dogs which eventually became dachshunds. And yet, even so, it's not like the "pre-dachshund" breed one day *pop* gave birth to a dachshund, which in Havoc's limited imagination is the "only" alternative explanation.
Instead, the ancestral line picked up, over many generations, a trait here, a different trait there, which gradually made the lineage become more and more "dachshund-like", until eventually the modern dachshund as we know it today came to be.
(The smae case is true of countless other dog breeds. And most people would be surprised to learn that a great many modern dog breeds didn't even exist 200 years ago, they have arisen rather recently, relatively speaking.)
So contrary to Havoc's simplistic belief, that the only two conceivable possibilities are either a) "like" can only ever give birth to *exactly* the same "like" forever and ever, or b) an animal suddenly *pop* gives birth to an entirely different sort of animal... Instead there's a third option, which is actually far more in keeping with both "common sense" and ordinary day-to-day observations (at least to anyone who actually pays attention or lives on a farm) -- animals give birth to not to *exact* copies of themselves, but to *variations* of themselves, and so on for the next generation, and the next, etc., and over large numbers of generations, the end result can actually be quite different from the original animals N generations ago. In fact, it was *specifically* comparisons to what people were *very* familiar with via breeding of domestic animals and new varieties and so forth, which Darwin called upon in order to explain his new Theory in his 1859 book, as being the familiar (animal breeding and plant cultivation) carried out to its logical consequences over longer periods of time than just the few human lifespans which are within the scope of human observation.
What farmers and plant cultivators had long known in Darwin's own time 150 years ago, Havoc *still* hasn't managed to grasp even today -- his arguments about what "can" and "can't" happen when animals reproduce flies reveals a profound ignorance of things which the most illiterate farmer hundreds of years ago already knew full well.
You do know, don't you, that not everything found on line is correct; not even on GOOGLE.
The only dinosaurs that survived the global flood were the aquatic ones -- i.e. the giant squids etc, that the Japanese found a few years ago.
Makes sense to me every time I see the Grand Canyon.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
And I'm NOT a Darwinists. *giggle*
So now squids are "dinosaurs" to the anti-evolution creationists? Oooookay...
Makes sense to me every time I see the Grand Canyon.
I'll just bet it does. "Look at the Grand Canyon, George, when I see that the squidly dinosaurs just all start to make sense..."
You are really reaching.
If one is in conversation or debate with a liar, how is that irrelevant? How, if this is a point of fact, is it an ad hominem?
Read this.
Other common forms of the abusive ad hominem argument don't usually resort to clear personal insults: 3. John has been proven to be a liar numerous times, so I don't accept John's arguments about abortion. 4. Well, we shouldn't be surprised that Senator Smith supports this new tax - considering how long he has been living in Washington D.C. and working in politics, it would be a shock if he didn't support it! With example #3, may be true that the person has lied repeatedly in the past - so saying so is stating a matter of fact, not an insult. And the fact that a person has lied in the past is, for most people, a reason to be skeptical of other things they say. But it is not a logical reason to conclude that they never tell the truth again. ... Ad Hominem Ad hominem is not a fancy Latin phrase meaning "nasty insult", it's the name of a rhetorical flaw in which, rather than addressing a person's arguments, one criticizes the person making the argument. In other words, instead of saying that a member's argument is invalid, one says that he's an idiot or a liar (insert your favorite here). A rhetorically valid argument is valid, or not, NO MATTER WHO MAKES IT. Focusing on who's making the argument rather than on the argument itself is "argumentum ad hominem", i.e., arguing "to the person" ("ad hominem"). http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_abusive.htm and http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/adhominem.html |
Well, that wouldn't be my line of reasoning for starters. Dachshunds may or may not have been around for whatever length of time, but they're a dog and since we can reasonably see that breeding creates all sort of variety in dogs, we can make a "reasonable" assumption based on what we do witness that the immediate ancester was a dog. It's where you start assuming that perhaps a horse or something else might have spawned dogs that you have a problem because nobody's ever witnessed that. Therein the question of origins arises; but, you guys have begged out of that one largely, so, elementary...
As for the number of dog breeds, I don't think most people are surprised that dogs produce dogs - even with variety. Only evolutionists seem amazed at that. Some of us are just thankful for the variety.
Please do not feed the color-fonted troll.
Really?? I thought everything you stated was the absolute truth /sarc
No, actually he isn't.
Do you make that claim because he agrees with your point of view on this topic?
If so, THAT is not germane to whether he is a liar or not.
Flew *right* over your head, I see...
Have you ever lied?
Everything on line, is not.
Your silogism doesn't work; dear. Did you just learn about that?
No it isn't.
And how do you differentiate the two cases?
No, I just have invoked the farmer argument before and evolutionists begged off like they'd never heard of a farmer before or that farmers know there are limits to what breeding can deliver for them. IE, farmers breed for the largest pigs they can raise in order to up their dollar value per head; but, they can only get hogs so big before running into limits as to what breeding will do, the rest is done with diet and again within limits. Evolutionists don't like the limits part as I note you seem to have left that part out.
It's hurting your pride, your ego, and goodness knows what else.
You posted a disgusting example, an example which did NOT work. You were called on it, and now, now you are in a snit. Pity 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.