Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Designed to deceive: Creation can't hold up to rigors of science
CONTRA COSTA TIMES ^ | 12 February 2006 | John Glennon

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.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: biology; crevolist; cultofyoungearthers; evolution; idiocy; ignoranceisstrength; lyingtoinfidelsisok; science; theocraticwhackjobs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 2,401-2,439 next last
This pretty well sums it all up.
1 posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:28 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
Evolution Ping

The List-O-Links
A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 350 names.
See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped.
To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit,
and How to argue against a scientific theory.

2 posted on 02/12/2006 10:33:51 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

A good summary of the issue. Thanks for posting it!


3 posted on 02/12/2006 10:34:57 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
You couldn't have written it better yerself! ===> Placemarker <===
4 posted on 02/12/2006 10:37:11 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Are these the same scientists that accept the "scientific" studies relating to secondhand smoke? I'm afraid the scientific community has succumbed to politics.
5 posted on 02/12/2006 10:41:22 AM PST by Camel Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Great article--thanks.


6 posted on 02/12/2006 10:42:13 AM PST by Buck W. (John Kerry: The Emir of Absurdistan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Camel Joe

"Are these the same scientists that accept the "scientific" studies relating to secondhand smoke?"

No, they aren't the same scientists.


7 posted on 02/12/2006 10:45:09 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Camel Joe

"Are these the same scientists that accept the "scientific" studies relating to secondhand smoke?"

Do you see anything here about smoking? If not, what does your post have to do with this topic? Do you actually have anything to add to the debate over ID?


8 posted on 02/12/2006 10:46:54 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
This pretty well sums it all up.

LOL

9 posted on 02/12/2006 10:46:55 AM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

Intelligent Design is just as viable as ANY other theory regarding the origins of the universe. When matter and mass and gravity become infinite like the conditions at the time of the Big Bang mathematics breaks down and many variables become undefined, including time.

Who is to say that some giant alien creature named GOD didn't pick his nose and flick a booger which exploded into our timeline and universe?

My hypothesis can not be disproven so therefore it also stands as a theory. A theory is only good until it is disproven by counterexample or mathematical counter-proof.


10 posted on 02/12/2006 10:49:12 AM PST by manglor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I just finished reading the article in the paper a few minutes ago. I thought it was well-done. John Glennon usually does a good job, and I like it when the CoCo times publishes one of his articles. He does a nice job here of addressing the issues.


11 posted on 02/12/2006 10:51:40 AM PST by FixedandDilated
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

In before 1000!


12 posted on 02/12/2006 10:51:55 AM PST by sully777 (What would Brian Boitano do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manglor

"Who is to say that some giant alien creature named GOD didn't pick his nose"

Yeah, I'm sure the Flying Spaghetti Monster making man with his noodly appendage stands up to the rigors of science.


13 posted on 02/12/2006 10:52:50 AM PST by JHBowden (Go White Sox -- World Champs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: manglor
I think your post falls under this part of the article:

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.

14 posted on 02/12/2006 10:53:46 AM PST by skip_intro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

ID claims since evolution can not explain everything, it must be false and therefore ID must be true.

That is an absurd argument to make.

I will concede that it is possible ID has taken place.

But ID in its current form is hogwash and even if ID has occurred, there is nothing to be gained by studying it since ID is completely out of human control, and completely arbitrary to the whims of the supernatural being.


15 posted on 02/12/2006 10:53:47 AM PST by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

That's sort of goofy title.


16 posted on 02/12/2006 10:54:07 AM PST by Psycho_Bunny (Women were put on Earth to look hot. Men are here to be stupid about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manglor
"My hypothesis can not be disproven so therefore it also stands as a theory. A theory is only good until it is disproven by counterexample or mathematical counter-proof."

You are not describing a scientific theory. A scientific theory is never proved/disproved in a mathematical sense. There is only evidence for or against. ID is not a scientific theory because there is no way to test it; there is no way to get weighted evidence for or against it. It's simply a gutless choice for people who don't wish to actually do the hard work of real science. It's ignorance standing athwart knowledge and yelling *Stop!*.
17 posted on 02/12/2006 10:55:12 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sully777

"In before 1000!"

Just barely. :)


18 posted on 02/12/2006 10:56:10 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Personally, I don't think the Almighty cares one way or another what a person thinks on this score. But Creationism or ID, or whatever you want to euphemize it with, has no place in science classes.


19 posted on 02/12/2006 10:56:45 AM PST by Mr Ramsbotham (Bend over and think of England.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manglor
Who is to say that some giant alien creature named GOD didn't pick his nose and flick a booger which exploded into our timeline and universe?

I agree! Your "booger theory" definitely has the same scientific standing as ID.

20 posted on 02/12/2006 10:58:28 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: manglor
Intelligent Design is just as viable as ANY other theory

ID has no useful feature that would be of any benefit to study. Now witchcraft if true might be of benefit because you can alledgedly manipulate the current environment.

ID is ok to be taught, but not in science class. Science is about understanding natural processes and using that understanding to forecast, predict and manipulate the current state of affairs. ID, even if true, does none of that and is totally useless for manipulating today's world.

21 posted on 02/12/2006 10:59:44 AM PST by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: manglor

22 posted on 02/12/2006 11:00:14 AM PST by orionblamblam (A furore Normannorum libra nos, Domine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Help for new visitors to the evolution debate
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.

If you're interested in learning about evolution, visit The List-O-Links.
If you'd like to understand the concept of speciation, visit Micro-evolution, Macro-evolution, and Speciation.
If you're serious about debating this issue, see How to argue against a scientific theory.
If you're permanently stuck on stupid, but determined to post anyway, use the Evolution Troll's Toolkit.

23 posted on 02/12/2006 11:01:10 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
It amazes me that a university proffessor (Butz) can utilize a university website to promote his belief (as fact) that the holocaust did not happen. He's protected because of tenure and freedom of speech. But, had he done the same to promote a theory of creation, he'd be run out of town on a rail.
24 posted on 02/12/2006 11:04:20 AM PST by umgud (uncompassionate conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop; curiosity; hosepipe

Anti-ID article ping...


25 posted on 02/12/2006 11:04:49 AM PST by TXnMA (TROP: Satan's most successful earthly venture...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Camel Joe
You confuse Science and Scientists. Scientists are human being and thus suceptible to authority, prestige, pressure and greed.
Only by constant cross-checking can Scientists strive for the ideals of Science.
Real-life science is not perfect (whatever is?) but Science a constantly growing
and most importantly self-correcting system, very much unlike most religious
or political dogmatic systems.
26 posted on 02/12/2006 11:06:00 AM PST by BitWielder1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

"a nonscientific philosophical conjecture"

Hmm.. Is that euphemistic for "a wild-ass guess"?


27 posted on 02/12/2006 11:06:05 AM PST by AntiGuv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
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.

Exactamundo!

28 posted on 02/12/2006 11:06:12 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

...I think he was kidding.


29 posted on 02/12/2006 11:08:31 AM PST by hail to the chief (Use your conservatism liberally)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Camel Joe

Although scientific theories are necessary to explain the universe, they are not always sufficient, if the boundary conditions of the problem are not defined well. Second hand smoke is a good example, it could be dangerous but the system has be closed and well defined, no fresh air intervening to dilute for the conclusions to mean anything

Likewise, the universe would have to be a closed universe for evolution to hold true, no outside intervention, which really cannot be proven or disproved by science.

Therefore the rigors of science are only as good as the assumptions, which in turn means that it takes faith that the assumptions are correct, yet the reliance of faith itself is the only argument used by scientists to disprove that outside intervention to the creation our existence cannot exist.


30 posted on 02/12/2006 11:09:58 AM PST by seastay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: umgud

Sure he would. The Darwinist Atheist Conspirators eliminate creationists all the time.


31 posted on 02/12/2006 11:10:18 AM PST by hail to the chief (Use your conservatism liberally)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Good sumamry. How do you get the creationoids to understand it?


32 posted on 02/12/2006 11:11:54 AM PST by balrog666 (Irrational beliefs inspire irrational acts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Sunday Funnies Placemarker
33 posted on 02/12/2006 11:12:30 AM PST by forsnax5 (The greatest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seastay

Quite the opposite. There is no way to establish that outside intereference occurs, therefore science does not attempt to use outside power sources for its theories. Science does not deny the existence of God; rather, it simply does not try to decide whether he's there or not.


34 posted on 02/12/2006 11:12:58 AM PST by hail to the chief (Use your conservatism liberally)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
As we unravel the genome, and begin to get data back from that research, many of the results are not going to make anti -creationists happy.

It seems that human beings are surprisingly un diverse for supposedly evolved creatures. In fact, we are only a small fraction as genetically diverse as chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos. One would think that since we have covered the entire earth that we would be much more diverse than apes who are, and always have been very geographically limited.

It is also becoming evident that human beings, homo sapiens sapiens, (not to be confused with hominid animals) originated in a single location (Africa, Mesopotamia region) from a very small population. The "out of Africa" model appears to be the more accurate. Some suggest that instead of out of Africa, the model should be called out of Eden.

Another startling result coming from molecular anthropology is data that strongly suggests that the human female genetic genealogy is at least several thousand years older than the male genealogy. It is an interesting riddle for those who don't believe in God, but for those who do, it is very clear.

Noah and his sons would be as far back as the male genealogy could be traced as they were effectively, our genetic Adams. Noah's wife and his son's genetic genealogy however, would continue right on back through time to the first homo sapiens sapiens.

Today, in labs across the globe, scientists are trying to create life. Assume that someday they do, and assume a few billion years for it to evolve. My bet is that whatever liberals those experiments eventually spawn will howl to the heavens that the idea of intelligent design is nothing but bunk.
35 posted on 02/12/2006 11:13:25 AM PST by N2Gems
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hail to the chief

They could declare it a mental disorder. They're trying to do that with "homophobia"

36 posted on 02/12/2006 11:15:52 AM PST by StACase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

While I both agree with the concept of evolution and hold that God created the universe, the arguments put forth in this article against irreduceable complexity are a steaming load of hog crap. Or perhaps more properly, bringing a peashooter to a gun match. The author speaks of the lack of evidence put forth by intelligent design proponents and then gives precious little himself (indeed, I've seen far bettter arguments made by intelligent design proponents).

They simply do not address what I think are some interesting proposals put forth by evolutionary biologists and creationists alike.


37 posted on 02/12/2006 11:15:57 AM PST by CheyennePress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Dawkin's blind watchmaker program -- the one he uses to produce a simple genetic algorithm that prodces line segment drawings -- creates a simple space of line-morphs. On my walk in the woods yesterday I got to thinking of that example of Dawkins, and of the genetic space in the real world. And also of star and galaxy clusters, and of brownian motion, and of dinosaur skeltons.

It seems to me that the genetic space is extremely clustered, or spotty, and that the same spottiness -- the same spots, that is, not just the fractality -- occurs in the various fossil epochs, and in our current one.

I could say more, but my speculations then turned to metaphysicalities.

FWIW.

38 posted on 02/12/2006 11:16:59 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manglor
Who is to say that some giant alien creature named GOD didn't pick his nose and flick a booger which exploded into our timeline and universe?

Heretic!

All pious and good creatures know that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure! This is all that is needed to explain all the great complexity of the universe, for it is simple in comparison to the Great Complexity of the Great Green One!

Woe unto you, you unbeliever! Repent, or you will suffer greatly on the day of the coming of the Great White Handkerchief!

39 posted on 02/12/2006 11:17:01 AM PST by dread78645 (Intelligent Design. It causes people to misspeak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BitWielder1
Science is nothing more than the discovery, study and application of what exists.

For instance, because something is not 'seen' doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means it hasn't been brought into form.

One can get into many examples. The planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies all roatate around and with each other in precise mathematical, therefor predictable formation.

Is that 'science'----or is that 'intelligent design'.

You decide!

40 posted on 02/12/2006 11:17:28 AM PST by Parmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Except that it misses the issue completely.

Intelligent design isn't science and shouldn't be taught as such. On the other hand evolution isn't religion and shouldn't be taught as such, but it is.

Evolution teaches that all life is the product of random chance and natural selection sans divine intervention.

I believe that leaving the creation of life, setting up the laws of physics and science and imparting us with consciousness to blind chance may be a bit much. Even the author admits there is uncertainty here "biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution"

Is evolution fact? Just because an unknown author says that most scientists believe it to be true isn't going to work for me. The msm says most scientists believe in human caused global warming and most Americans don't support thee war. On the other hand it may, as the Pope said, be God's way of creating man.

41 posted on 02/12/2006 11:17:53 AM PST by Eagles6 (Dig deeper, more ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Why is it science to believe in the magic of spontaneous life when that belief is just a matter of faith. There is not proof of spontaneous life and there is no proof that animals spontaneously turn into other species. Interestingly with few exceptions you can't take the DNA from one species and put it into the cell of a different species and have a viable cell.
42 posted on 02/12/2006 11:18:33 AM PST by webboy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks. The article you posted is a good find. And there is nothing complex in ID'ers, although their bibling might be irreducible.


43 posted on 02/12/2006 11:19:42 AM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BitWielder1

I suggest you read the studies I mentioned and then take a close look at the "science" behind them. Percent error had some value at one time, politics has changed that.


44 posted on 02/12/2006 11:25:36 AM PST by Camel Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: hail to the chief

"There is no way to establish that outside intereference occurs"

that was my point


45 posted on 02/12/2006 11:35:28 AM PST by seastay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Camel Joe
These are the same rigors of science which turned from treating a recognized mental illness (homosexuality) to saying that those who condemn homosexuality are mentally ill (homophobic).
46 posted on 02/12/2006 11:35:45 AM PST by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: hail to the chief; manglor

"...I think he was kidding."

You may be right. Friendly fire alert! (oops)

<< sees the irony.


47 posted on 02/12/2006 11:36:00 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
These polemics don't add up to much. They sound like diatribes and appeals to authority.

Gould (the Marxist elitist Professor) states it is fact.

What a convincing argument.

And what is he arguing and who is he arguing with?

It's platitudinous polemic, pretty much bereft of any intellectual substance or rational thought (or rather, more likely, disingenuousness)..

If you think this sums it up it is indicative of saying, yes, this upholds well my world view presented in a manner well within my comfort zone of thought and belief.

48 posted on 02/12/2006 11:37:46 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I'm confused on the "rigors" of science. My science book is written in Korean.


49 posted on 02/12/2006 11:38:50 AM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webboy45
"Why is it science to believe in the magic of spontaneous life when that belief is just a matter of faith."

Abiogenesis is not *spontaneous life*, unless by spontaneous you mean a few hundred million years.

"There is not proof of spontaneous life and there is no proof that animals spontaneously turn into other species."

Nobody says that animals spontaneously turn into other species. That isn't even close to an accurate description of evolution.

"Interestingly with few exceptions you can't take the DNA from one species and put it into the cell of a different species and have a viable cell."

Scientists have made trans-species organisms already. The DNA in a bacteria is the same(for the most part) as ours.
50 posted on 02/12/2006 11:39:57 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 2,401-2,439 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson