Creationism and Intelligent Design Should Be Kept Out of the Classroom

scheme york

research sea ars countries read controls allowing adaptation

Intelligent Design vs Evolution in Schools

Mr. Farrel,

As other commentators have pointed out, though there is much scientific support for micro evolution and natural selection, macro evolution is a theory, not a proven fact. Scientific fact is based on proof, not consensus.

What is wrong with the way I was taught in the late 70's? I was taught that evolution is a theory, to which many scientists subscribe. We were asked to study evolution as a theory, not to replace any beliefs we might have in the Divine, but to understand the scientific theory itself and Charles Darwin's place in history. We were not allowed to debate it's validity. The goal was to simply understand it.

Is it really necessary to engage in such a heated debate? For many of us, the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Evolution could be a mechanism of intelligent design. As my son explained to me when he was nine, "I think when God created man, he created man to be what he wanted him to be today, and evolution and time have been God's tools."

We come back around

Once again, no matter what you provide as proof, it's not enough for the opposition.

I admit my analogy isn't perfect, but it's illustrating a point - there is a certain level of proof you simply cannot provide, ever. You may have plenty of historical and photographic evidence that your GGgrandparents existed. But, strictly speaking, you have never firsthand observed them, so you could conceivably be accused of not having a sufficient level of proof.

Similarly, you cannot directly observe evolution as a long-term process becasue we just flat-out don't live long enough, so no one can provide that exact level of proof. But as a theory, it best explains the evidence that we've pulled across disciplines. Yes, there are morphological holes in some transitional species - not everything fossilized, after all - but that, combined with what we know of genetics, and biochemistry, and so forth, suggest that evolution by natural selection is the best naturalistic explanation for the observations.

That's what theories do - they take the evidence we have, and figure out how to explain it. Contrary to popular opinion, science doesn't try and make the evidence fit the theory.

Evolution falsification and Biology 101

Lisa A. Shiel claims that "Evolution cannot be falsified..."

A rabbit fossil from the Precambrian would falsify evolution nicely. Scientific evidence of the Earth being only a few thousand years old would also do.

"...observed, tested, or repeated."

Evolution is occurring right now, so I think that qualifies as observing it, because otherwise how would we know it's going on? It is constantly being studied, and the results of that research are constantly being tested and reviewed; and as for repeating, I'm not sure what you think should be "repeated", or by whom. If it's being observed, it's repeating.

"If any change—however small—represents evolution, then the term becomes meaningless. Even among scientists the term evolution remains a nebulous one, which is precisely the problem. If you can't define the terms, then you can't "prove" anything."

Evolution is descent with modification, which just means if Mom and/or Dad had it and passed it to me, now I've got it, and if I and my siblings who also have it are busy enough and successfully pass it around, eventually a good chunk or all of the population will have it. Then the population will have evolved.

So, you know what? Any inherited change that spreads through THE POPULATION, however small, is in fact evolution, and while the change may be neutral rather than beneficial or harmful, the concept is far from meaningless. In fact, it is fundamental. I don't believe there is a lot of confusion among evolutionary biologists about this. On the other hand, perhaps it is you who are confused...

Like people NOT coming from monkeys, this is Biology 101, and I gotta ask: if you, like Chad, don't know even the definition of evolution, what makes you think you're competent to criticize evolutionary theory?

The Christian bible is not "A" myth

David C. says, "To call it a myth is to be illiterate."

Technically true, I suppose; it is actually a mythology, a collection of myths about the Jewish and Christian beliefs.

And even if there is actual history in there, and I assume there must be, so what? There are historical facts in comic books, but that doesn't mean that Superman and Spider-Man are real people.

Chad observes, "Science has changed for centuries as "new" theories arise through new technology and human thinking. Point is both require faith or a belief."

Yep; this is called "learning." How is learning new facts and applying them the same thing as "faith or belief"?

Chad then asks, "Are you going to believe something as abstract as you come from monkey's [sic] or written accounts for four thousand years that have historical support."

What makes you think anyone other than creationists believe that the theory of evolution says anyone came from monkeys? If you don't understand it, how can you criticize it?

As for historical support, see my second sentence above. There is no historical support for your supernatural claims.

And by the way, what "faith or a belief" does science "require?" I've seen that claim before, and I don't understand it. Who has to have faith in what or in whom?

Comparing Apples and Oranges

Eric says, "You've never observed the existence of your great-great-great grandparents, but the evidence is strongly in favor of them having existed." This is comparing apples (evolution) to oranges (family lineage). With my family lineage, I can trace back through documentary and photographic evidence a direct line of ancestry with no gaps, leading to my great-great-great-grandparents. With evolution, the species pointed to as transitional are often separated by tens—if not hundreds—of millions of years with no evidence linking them other than morphology (their anatomy). This one looks a bit like that one, therefore they are related. If I used this logic to construct a family tree, I could claim to be related to George Washington—which I am not—simply because I look slightly like him.

Eric also says, "There've been a number of experiemnts in the lab that have forced remarkably quick changes on populations of fast-breeding animals (bacteria, fruit flies) to the point where you could classify them as separate species." Since nobody can define a species, no one can know whether these experiments have created new species. Besides, these experiments demonstrate adaptations created by scientists who control every aspect of, for instance, E. coli bacteria's lives. This is a good example of how a godlike being could influence life-forms, but not an example of natural evolution.

If any change—however small—represents evolution, then the term becomes meaningless. Even among scientists the term evolution remains a nebulous one, which is precisely the problem. If you can't define the terms, then you can't "prove" anything.

Lisa A. Shiel

author, The Evolution Conspiracy

Both require faith

I ask you Mr. Farrell, what facts do you hold true that tell you creationism should not be taught in schools, but evolution should. The Bible has more consistant truths than science. Science has changed for centuries as "new" theories arise through new technology and human thinking. Point is both require faith or a belief. Are you going to believe something as abstract as you come from monkey's or written accounts for four thousand years that have historical support. Its been 2000 years since Jesus died for your sins and no one man has changed the course of history more than He. Should our children know His name and why some many people follow his teaching?

Thank you,

History or Opinion

The Bible is explicit in its presentation of creation as history, not as a myth. In fact the majority of the Bible is a history. To call it a myth is to be illiterate. To reject it in effigy is disrespectful.

Let's take Mr. Farrell to the temple mount in Jerusalem and get out the history book and read about how the Israelites got there. If we can believe the history, the exodus and the entry into the land and defeats and captures and remnants and rebuilding, then we ought to take seriously the attribution those histories give to an active God in the process. If we refuse to believe, then we are left without history, without information, or at most with a self-guided opinion.

If we have gotten serious, then perhaps we can wrestle with the possibility of an active God even earlier than our histories, and then his activity in the history telling, in the area of revelation.

creationism

It astounds me that creationism is somehow more "miraculous" and satisfying than scientifically sound evidence that suggests if not proves that our existence is but a strand of a process that has been underway for endless billions of years, if not, perhaps, virtually forever - no alpha no omega. Indeed, some astronomers are now suggesting that our universe, likely an endless number of universes, has always existed - always!

What could be more "miraculous" than that?

If the Bible, Koran, or Torah are anything of importance to human experience, it is as guides to how we should live, guidance that very few people actually pay any attention to. They are books written by humans who sought desperately to understand the world they lived in. Were these same people alive today, their books would have been quite different.

What if "God" is everything rather than just a white-robed,bearded man, a third of the Trinity, living in the clouds? What if you and I are but parts of the whole, of God? I'm much more comfortable with this thinking than anything that comes from the mouths of our so-called "spiritual leaders."

Observable and testable

Lisa does bring up a good point, though, one that's often misinterpreted. How is evolution observable and testable?

Well, it's observable in terms of existing evidence. The analogy I'm fond of using is "you've never observed the existence of your great-great-great grandparents, but the evidence is strongly in favor of them having existed." No, you can't *prove* they were there in the mathematical sense, but there's sufficient historical record, as well as the existence of your great grandparents, grandparents, and parents backing it up. The paleontological record for evolution is the same way - we didn't actually see dinosaurs become birds, but there's sufficient evidence to suggest they did.

As for actually observing speciation...well, speciation is a fairly nebulous term. There've been a number of experiemnts in the lab that have forced remarkably quick changes on populations of fast-breeding animals (bacteria, fruit flies) to the point where you could classify them as separate species, even though genetically they're still very similar to their ancestors. It's complicated, but fascinating research.

And Mary, I think I understand where you're coming from, and I think I understand the confusion. You know, you could be entirely right - there may very well be a grand plan for the cosmos, architected by a Christian God. The thing is, that's outside the realm of natural explanation, and science looks for natural explanations for things. The ugliness in this debate stems from the fact that science and faith generally don't overlap, and some unfortunate individuals are trying to shoehorn non-naturalistic study into science in the form of Intelligent Design. ID is all very well and good as a thought experiment or a philosophical position (although honestly I think there are better versions of that argument out there) but it's essentially nonscientific, and just as we wouldn't try to wedge scientific explanations for the miracle of the resurrection into a sunday sermon, scientists get twitchy when something underlyingly religious is being politically wedged into science cirriculum.

ID also doesn't help the argument by taking the things around time-tested scientific processes. The research into ID has in many cases been disproven or superceded, but places like the Discovery Institute instead push their agenda through press releases and legal battles, rather than seeking to refine their science. That's what REALLY chafes the scientific community. It's like the guy who claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine, and when shown that he forgot to carry the one, claims it's a conspiracy against him. Except with a much bigger budget and a sociopolitical agenda.

(I appreciate that this discussion has been largely civil here. These things often degenerate into name-calling quickly.)