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.
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.
Thanks. The article you posted is a good find. And there is nothing complex in ID'ers, although their bibling might be irreducible.
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.
"There is no way to establish that outside intereference occurs"
that was my point
"...I think he was kidding."
You may be right. Friendly fire alert! (oops)
<< sees the irony.
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.
I'm confused on the "rigors" of science. My science book is written in Korean.
That's a lie. We've never done anything of the kind.
Interestingly, though, Butz was a creationist as a young man, when he was on the verge of discovering a rock-solid disproof of evolution that has been kept a careful secret ever since it occurred to Darwin himself on his deathbed in 1882.
Darwin Central kidnapped Butz in 1963 and treated him with powerful psychoactive drugs and brainwashing until he became a discreditable holocaust revisionist loon. We also slept with his girlfriend.
I can only tell you this because you won't believe it. (If you do believe it, we'll know.)
Just because the Bible says "and then there was life" doesn't mean that suddenly it was so. Looking at the Big Bang we know that in the early stages of the universe light could not escape from the dense mass for quite some time, in fact one could say "and then there was light" just like the Bible and you'd be right. Some still question the merits of the Big Bang Theory but for now it is once again in vogue. Why is it then that the evolutionists are so determined to see creative design be dismissed out of hand? Many believe the the Chaos Theory makes the Big Bang impossible, yet no one is clamoring or "suing" anyone to remove it from curriculum's anywhere now are they?
"Many believe the the Chaos Theory makes the Big Bang impossible..."
What? Who are these *many* who believe that?
Yeah, what you said.
LOL. So you use an ad hominem argument (Marxist elitist) to counter an appeal to authority?
Too funny.
Evolutionists are like a blind person touching an elephant. They limit themselves to only life and use science at their viewer. Creationists view the whole aminal, vegetable and mineral universe and regard the evolutionist's views as incomplete.
Hope Richard Dawkins is listening.
Wow! Complete non-sequitor. Why couldn't it have been precisely the opposite? Indeed since the males were all direct relations, but the females weren't, i.e. were presumably only related by marriage, it should be the opposite, if anything. Or why, considering the extreme population bottleneck involved, shouldn't the genetic "genealogy" show to be equally as long for both sexes?
And why do you cite the fact (if it's so) that apes are more genetically diverse then humans as supporting your case? Weren't apes on the ark too, and even fewer of them (only two per species at most, or maybe only two period of the ape "kind") than of humans? Shouldn't they be either equally or even less genetically diverse than humans on the flood/ark scenario? Indeed shouldn't this be true of all species?
Finally, this evidence is not even able to resolve differences on the time scale between the creation and the flood (maybe 5 or 6 thousand years at most on the most "liberal" Biblical literalist scenario).
Awesome. So you understand why creationism/ID should not be taught in the science classroom. They are fundamentally different "aminals".
Creationists are like a palsied person touching a cactus.
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.