Designed to deceive: Creation can't hold up to rigors of science

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ooops. I was thinking backwards! This would make the females on the ark more genetically diverse, and indeed make their "genealogy" appear older. If they were tested at the time anyway. Still there were only 4 women, and I'm given to understand that the mathematics of population genetics suggest that a population even as large as some 10,000 individuals is apt to produce only one mitochondrial DNA lineage in the long run. Add to that the fact that the techniques you're appealing to can only resolve differences on the scale of tens of thousands of years, and even on the literalist ark scenario men and women (and all species preserved on the ark) should appear to be EQUALLY "old" on this evidence. This, however, is not the case.

Science does not deny the existence of God; rather, it simply does not try to decide whether he's there or not.

I disagree. One of Sciences' boundary conditions is that God does not exist - everything can be explained by orderly, defined processes. The TOE exists, only to be discovered by man. And to this end, Science will postulate and teach any imaginable "mechanism" or invisible force or particle, to accommodate observational data - including the Multiverse, dark matter, dark energy, 11 dimensional universe - without proof, and deny any metaphysical idea.

A sensible approach if the goal is to understand physical processes. Science assumes the existence of regular, orderly, ultimately describable process as a foundation of all that we experience. Were Science to stop at any point in the examination and say "That's God's work", Science would fail to bring the complete understanding of the world to us.

Yep agreed, not in a science course. But ignorance is no excuse to avoid discussing the origin of the universe elsewhere. The universe came to be and the blind man should examine the whole. Minds to be enlighted should not be constrained by proofs offered by limited techniques. The whole universe can't be examined/explained by looking through scientific instruments, that's self-limiting.

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.

Ah, I see. So evolution and creation represent entirely different modes, or at least levels, of understanding. Therefore they are not comparable alternatives, and it would be misleading to present them as such (say in science curricula). Likewise since evolution restricts itself to science it should be taught as science, but creationism is more inclusive and therefore extra scientific. Finally, being on different levels of understanding, evolution and creation are not (necessarily) contradictory, and it would be false then to claim that evolution is inherently atheistic.

I believed all this anyway, but thanks for the support!

Recent evidence is strongly suggesting that mitochondrial DNA is not a very good way to gauge molecular clocks.

(Evelyn Strauss, "Can Mitochondrial Clocks Keep Time?" Science 283 (1999) 1435 - 1438.

And the time scale has reduced considerably from 10's of thousands of years.

I have always maintained that if we last long enough as a species, eventually science is going to bring us face to face with God. The more we learn, the more sure I am of that.

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

That's actually not the argument of "Evolution," but rather the argument of "Natural Selection." Evolution does not make any assumptions about the mechanism of change. As you point out, the author admits that the evidence for Natural Selection is far from settled.

I disagree. One of Sciences' boundary conditions is that God does not exist

You don't have to assume God doesn't exist, you just have to assume God hasn't interfered in the phenomenon you are studying. That is just a practical assumption for the purpose of looking for a natural explaination. Afterall if God has interfered in what you are studying then there may be no such natural explaination. Entertaining the idea that there may be no natural explaination does not help find a natural explaination if one is there. That is all - there is no atheistic tendancy involved in science at all.

eventually science is going to bring us face to face with God.

Earth has been one big experiment for Him since inception.

I have always maintained that if we last long enough as a species, eventually science is going to bring us face to face with God. The more we learn, the more sure I am of that.

I'm not sure, but I wouldn't say that's impossible. However science is never going to get you a universal flood and Noah's ark. The great (real) creation scientists of the past -- e.g. Sedgewick, Buckland, Dana, Agassiz, et al -- recognized this two hundred years ago, and the evidence has only grown more solid since.

An alarming number of scientists also believe in the superiority of Marxism, despite historical facts to the contrary.

Assuming this is true, and you've provided no evidence to support your assertion, a personal belief in Marxism would not invalidate scientific theories.

Theology is not science. Science is not theology. They each describe unique attributes of existence. If one is thrologically grounded science is less valuable. If one is scientifically grounded theology is of less relevence.
For either side to dismiss the other as wrong is silly and childish.

If the molecular anthropologists are right, and human beings originated from a single location then a universal flood would not have been necessary to effectively wipe out humanity. A localized flood could have done the trick and there is evidence of just such a localized flood in the area of ancient mesopotania.

Afterall if God has interfered in what you are studying then there may be no such natural explaination.

I would expect God's interference to look like whatever God wanted it to look like. It is not reasonable to assume that God would only act in supernatural ways. God's interference might actually look just like the natural process.

A localized flood could have done the trick and there is evidence of just such a localized flood in the area of ancient mesopotania.

At which time there were humans all over the globe. You can't cherry pick one little itty bit of the archaeological evidence and ignore everything else.

Evolutionists are like a blind person touching an elephant. They limit themselves to only life and use science at their viewer.

This statement is more-or-less correct, although I'm not sure exactly what "they limit themselves to only life" means. Science recognizes its limitations and acknowledges them. This is generally considered to be a good thing.

Creationists view the whole aminal, vegetable and mineral universe and regard the evolutionist's views as incomplete.

Creationists can claim this, but can they demonstrate it?

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.