Geology and Earth ScienceWhen Something and Nothing Means Everything
Over the past year there have been countless articles circulating in newspapers and web forums debating the accuracy of our modern theory of evolution. More specifically these articles are attacking evolution and are in favor of what has come to be known as ID or Intelligent Design. As a strong believer in evolution and a scientist by profession I must say reading these articles has been, at times, excruciatingly painful. Not because the proponents of ID are speaking against evolution or even because ID relies on an Intelligent Designer, but because ID relies on the lack of information and/or in some recent articles by its proponents, both online and in print, bad science or flat-out fallacies.
In a recent article posted to Renew America, author Fred Hutchison does just that in his article “Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: which model has more integrity?” Through a couple leaps of logic he no doubtedly comes to the conclusion that proponents of ID are operating at a higher level of integrity than evolutionist. For the most part many of the ideas stated in the article are simply differences in opinion, not scientific fact, but what really got my attention was the misinformation cleverly titled, “Do evolutionists suppress facts?”
Am I part of a conspiracy? Do I finally belong to something : )
In this section of the article the author claims that evolutionist have covered up the fact that no complex animals appear in Precambrian rock. He also claims that evolutionists have suppressed information so much that many American scientists and students of science have never even heard of the Cambrian Explosion. Mr. Hutchison continues his deception by stating that, “Scientist in Communist China have significant freedom of thought and publication. Biologic science in democratic America is under the dictatorship of the evolution establishment. However, if President Bush has his way, high school children will be allowed to hear about the “Cambrian Explosion”
As a professor I don’t know a better way to rebut a statement like this than to offer the following government funded links:
PBS: Evolution Library; the Cambrian Explosion
USGS Info Bank
(I think maybe everyone but Fred Hutchison knows about this)
Before I get too annoyed, what is my point? The author lists a series of examples of “our” cover-up, most of which are inaccurate portrayals of evolutionary theory and or logical fallacies. This is the problem with the current discussion of ID. Proponents of ID have strategically taken the discussion out of the scientific realm and placed it in the layman’s lap. Now instead of experts the general public and school board officials (who are elected community members) are being asked to review scientific theories. I wonder if we will do the same for new theories in medicine.
Is evolution a perfect theory? No, but so far it is the best scientific theory we have. Proponents of I.D. consistently point to the so called holes or gaps in evolution theory and claim that because science has yet to answer some questions the whole theory must be flawed. This is simply not true, and the whole idea behind science is wrapped tightly within that very statement. Science is yet to answer some questions, not because we can't ever answer them but because we are still learning and our technology is still improving. Our answers are only as good/current as our technology.
Natural History Magazine: Intelligent Design is a wonderful article that presents the views of three proponents of ID followed by a rebuttal from a proponent of evolution.
Intelligent Design Network
The National Center for Science Education
In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for Creation
In a recent article posted to Renew America, author Fred Hutchison does just that in his article “Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: which model has more integrity?” Through a couple leaps of logic he no doubtedly comes to the conclusion that proponents of ID are operating at a higher level of integrity than evolutionist. For the most part many of the ideas stated in the article are simply differences in opinion, not scientific fact, but what really got my attention was the misinformation cleverly titled, “Do evolutionists suppress facts?”
Am I part of a conspiracy? Do I finally belong to something : )
In this section of the article the author claims that evolutionist have covered up the fact that no complex animals appear in Precambrian rock. He also claims that evolutionists have suppressed information so much that many American scientists and students of science have never even heard of the Cambrian Explosion. Mr. Hutchison continues his deception by stating that, “Scientist in Communist China have significant freedom of thought and publication. Biologic science in democratic America is under the dictatorship of the evolution establishment. However, if President Bush has his way, high school children will be allowed to hear about the “Cambrian Explosion”
As a professor I don’t know a better way to rebut a statement like this than to offer the following government funded links:
PBS: Evolution Library; the Cambrian Explosion
USGS Info Bank
(I think maybe everyone but Fred Hutchison knows about this)
Before I get too annoyed, what is my point? The author lists a series of examples of “our” cover-up, most of which are inaccurate portrayals of evolutionary theory and or logical fallacies. This is the problem with the current discussion of ID. Proponents of ID have strategically taken the discussion out of the scientific realm and placed it in the layman’s lap. Now instead of experts the general public and school board officials (who are elected community members) are being asked to review scientific theories. I wonder if we will do the same for new theories in medicine.
Is evolution a perfect theory? No, but so far it is the best scientific theory we have. Proponents of I.D. consistently point to the so called holes or gaps in evolution theory and claim that because science has yet to answer some questions the whole theory must be flawed. This is simply not true, and the whole idea behind science is wrapped tightly within that very statement. Science is yet to answer some questions, not because we can't ever answer them but because we are still learning and our technology is still improving. Our answers are only as good/current as our technology.
Natural History Magazine: Intelligent Design is a wonderful article that presents the views of three proponents of ID followed by a rebuttal from a proponent of evolution.
Intelligent Design Network
The National Center for Science Education
In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for Creation
15 Comments:
I like your news clips. Visit anytime, And Im always looking for new reads.
tramadol cod
In my opinion, Intelligent Design is a great mass of excuses and false conclusions cobled together by a group of people too faith-blinded to realize that nature is more than capable of producing the spectacular. We can only hope that their foolishness does not win out over common sense and accepted fact.
The idea that there is an intelligent designer is something that can not be explained. It is a cop out. Scientists are working with new technology to be able to explain evolution. Because we weren’t always studying this and because we weren’t always around it is difficult to know what happened millions and even thousands of years ago. Skeptics of the evolutionary process are contradicting themselves. They are asking for evidence to support evolution. What evidence are they putting forth about the theory of an intelligent designer? People know just as much about evolution as we know there is a “higher power” or “intelligent designer” crafting organisms. At least scientists have some pieces of the puzzle.
I think that supporters of ID should start backing up their thoughts. It is not a sound concept when all the information they have is, “well this is too difficult for us to have done, so this must have happened instead.” That is like saying a student did really well on a difficult test so he must have cheated. Where is the evidence in that? If the evidence was there to prove that thought it would be accepted. I understand it is a religious belief that a “higher power” created all organisms, but to try and take the teaching of evolution out of schools or even to give a disclaimer on the text book is absurd. Not everyone in the world has the same religious views as each other. Not only do most people have different religious views, but with new technology people do not have to blame the “gods” for natural disasters or the formations of certain organisms. Scientists have evidence of evolution, even though it may not be the complete step by step evolution from one organism to the next; it shows the changes and similarities.
I agree with the article that these believers of ID are out of control. It is one thing to believe in something and it another thing to try and cancel out all the relative information scientists have been accumulating for decades. Not only is it absurd in my opinion but it is a blow at the intelligence of human beings. Why give the “credit” to an intelligent designer when nature and the organisms themselves are the ones who decide how to survive. Identifying the idea that we evolved from something else to fit out environment places all forms of life at an amazing level. By figuring out evolution we could possible figure out what will happen to us or what will need to be done to protect us if environmental changes occur. We shouldn’t leave it up to the intelligent designer to allow us to just die, when we could possibly figure out how to survive. This will only happen if the idea of evolution is explored more and taught. By taking evolution out of text books it is inhibiting the future generations to produce intelligent scientists. Finally, if supporters of ID want to teach that idea in religious school that is fine. I believe that all public schools and colleges should be allowed to continue to produce great scientists so that eventually we can say, “this is what happened and we have all of the evidence to support it.”
Evolution and Intelligent Design have become such heated philosophical debates. There doesn't seem to be enough proof on either side, if you think about it. The supporters for Intelligent Design clamor behind the belief of a higher being, with only ‘miracles’ and fictional books to back them up. Evolution doesn’t have much either, but I’d rather trust science over faith in such a matter as this. You can’t argue with historical data. Facts are facts, no matter which way you chop them.
Evolution, like the article said, can’t answer everything, but again - that doesn’t take away from its credibility. I suppose the same thing can be said for those who belief in Intelligent Design, but there’s even less proof of higher beings than there are fossils, and that, in my opinion, makes for a poorer stepping stone of truth and fact.
At least Evolutionists have fossils, carbon dating, and rock layers to study to better understand the earth we live on. We may never know everything there is know about its history, or our origin, but science has come a long way. We know what kinds of animals and live forms existed thousands of years ago, and we even know when oxygen became part of the atmosphere. We can trace back to common ancestors, and we can discover when “snow ball earth” existed. For people to claim that Evolution is a load of crock is ludicrous. We really aren’t hiding anything from the world, it isn’t a government conspiracy!
I doubt that one day we will be able to explain everything. I don’t think the arguments between evolution and intelligent design will ever die down, because it’s a philosophical debate, and philosophy is all based in logic and belief of one individual. Just as there are religious debates and abortion debates (although these are more circulated with morality), there will forever be debates on creation, because that is the way of mankind.
We can’t force feed non-scientific believers. We can’t poke out research data under their noses and demand they accept it, or else. We can prod them a bit, beg and pardon them, but we can’t force them to belief what they don’t want to belief, which is sad, considering how much information we have to show for our troubles. We have skeletons and fossils and many, many layers of rock to prove our so-called ‘theories.’
What the non-scientific believers have are books of creation myths, which were probably written thousands of years afterwards and are based on so little truth that probably ninety percent of it is fiction. But yet, those who believe in intelligent design would rather follow this form of logic. They’d rather bash scientific evidence and claim it is shrouded in falsehoods. With so much history actually in the earth, why would you denounce it? Science is the only thing we have to explain nearly everything.
The debate over how evolution is taught in classrooms across America will prove to be one of the most pivotal ones in our nation’s history in regards to education. We have heard all kinds of accusations be thrown all over the place in recent months in the media over this issue and finally there is an article that gets to the bare bones of it.
The author’s main focus is over the fact that many proponents of I.D. (intelligent design), have covered up, misconstrued facts and evidence in order to push there agenda on schools in our nation. As far as I see, these facts are concrete and do not hold any place for debate. I agree with the author that this should not be allowed or be able to go on in a legitimate public forum. Any kind of cover up should be dealt with accordingly with no exceptions.
The article on the other hand doesn’t really pay to much attention on focusing or discovering the real motives or rationale of people on the right or religious spectrum. The author hints at some kind of conspiracy that they, the religious right and/or the Bush Administration is single handily fueling this debate to alter education on evolution in the class room. This I think is not a fair portrait of the group(s) and only leads to further polarization in our nation. People who make these arguments must be open-minded and fair in their interpretation of what’s going on if they want real answers and solutions.
I am behind the other one hundred percent when he makes his interpretation of what evolution should cover in the class room. He understands the religion and science are two different subjects and should not intertwine. Intelligent design proposes that “god” let evolution occur and guided along human development, playing into the story of creation according to the Old Testament in the Bible.
Creating a theory based on religion has no room in the scientific realm and should be left out when students learn about science. That being said there should be a mention of the theory of I.D. since evolution is also a theory with flaws of it’s own. Any mention of I.D. thought should be saved for another lesson in the classroom.
In the government right now exists a biased view and legislation that leans toward and favors the Right. As time moves on there will be other administrations that lean toward or away from our bias, that’s why this debate should be left up to the state and local governments to decide what’s best to be learned in the classroom. The majority will decide what will be taught and the decision based on democratic votes will be a fair one, even if it’s the wrong decision.
As I said earlier though the I.D. ultimately should be left out of the teaching of evolution in the classroom. The students can learn about it in another lesson so that the religion and science and remain separate entities. The author and I have roughly the same views on the situation and he has listed a great website for readers to make up there own minds on what should be done. Intriguing article.
What has always galled me is that proponents of ID have tried to pass
it off as a 'viable' alternative to evolution, yet in reality it
utterly fails as a testable hypothesis. Evolution and other scientific
theories have to pass through an exhaustive battery of peer review,
data collection, scrutiny, and experimentation before they have a hope
of being accepted into mainstream scientific canon. But when it comes
to issues of faith - there are apparently none other than having belief. Hence,
archaic scriptures, word of mouth traditions and the arcane visions of
a desert prophet is accepted as the 'truth' without question.
It's clever, I must admit, how the intelligent design crowd are making it sound like
they want all viewpoints heard in the classroom. What would they say
if a teacher suddenly decided to teach art in a science classroom? Or what if
a teacher presented his firm beliefs on human origins through Scientology?
Science classrooms are for science, right? Not art, not literature, not history,
and certainly not religion.
Of course, if the earth was proved by science to be geologically young and
is there weren’t fossil evidence of the evolution of animals ID *might* be a
valid teachable theory. Then, not only would evolution be scientific heresy, but
radioactive decay the work of the devil, fossils were placed in
rocks to test the faithful, geologic principles are total rubbish and
thus the labors of thousands of scientists with uncounted tetra-bytes
of data a big waste of time. But that's what our esteemed President
and the fundamentalists want you to believe.
They start with an assumption and
devise some theory that explains both the assumption and the
entire universe, meanwhile ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit
into the assumption and it's constructed theory. Real science works
the other way around, starting with objective observation, then
devising a theory to explain all the evidence.
The evidence for evolution by natural selection is, of course, overwhelming.
No scientist worthy of the name would suggest that just because we don’t yet
know all the details of how life came about on this planet, we need to postulate
some sort of “Intelligent Designer” that miraculously created life. The philosophical
discussions may be interesting, but they do not change the fact that modern
evolutionary theory is solid science. It is a foregone conclusion in the fields of
biology, paleontology, and genetics, and it is consistent with our current
understanding of chemistry, geology, and physics.
Of course, the fact of the matter is, no matter how much a person wants
to believe something isn't true, when the evidence overwhelmingly
piles up in favor of a conclusion, those who have intellectual
integrity have to face the facts. It's just a shame most fundies and
intelligent design advocates don't have that sort of integrity.
I think the real hang-up with evolution for a lot of religious people,
aside from the fact that to them it's contrary to creationism, is
the link of so-called lower species to humankind. They
believe wholeheartedly that god created man in his own image, and
somehow to imagine humans as first cousins to an ape is an
effrontery to their beliefs.
In my opinion, I feel Science and Religion (though being ultimately two different spectrums) both require a certain amount of faith in the unseen. Sure there are gaps in scientific data of Evolution but you can surely say the same about religious historical documents. It is evident, from my own experience, the lack of Evolution being taught in school. Much of my knowledge of the Evolution theory came from my experience in College, which I don’t think is correct on behalf of the schools. Putting aside the fact of which is more credible from the other, I believe future students should not be neglected from learning the theory. The theory is even very critical to our History and it even seems to be diminishing from history books. Students should have the right to learn about all things. But how can schools possibly introduce I.D into evolution? Our current political party seems to be pushing their agenda in our schools and science is taking the back seat, for the time being. Why criticize science which “supposedly goes against religion”, when in schools we also teach subjects like Mythology? It could be just as threatening in denying God as is Science. I wonder do some right wingers know that “I.D” is taught simply as a creation/salvation myth? Why is this not threatening to them?
However science does not seem intent on “winning” people to believe what they believe. It is rather hard for someone who believes in “I.D” to except the ideas of evolution. Although scientists can validate they don’t have all the answers. What the author points out is that Evolution is not a perfect theory and answers are only as good/current as technology is. I think that it is important for those who are religious to understand that even scientists conclude there are a lot of holes in the theory. Science has discovered many remarkable facts and believers of I.D should acknowledge it. Facts that can’t be ignored. I wonder how people can dismiss findings like the 60 A.ramidus primitive human findings in Ethiopia (located in other blog post). These primitive humans are the evidence that defines the evolution theory. How can we just turn are eyes away and not seriously question what is going on? And the fact that science keeps getting closer and closer to unveiling the greatest mysteries and fears for some.
What it comes down to is Religion and Science just cannot mix. The idea of “I.D” and its followers strongly oppose the idea of evolution and Evolutionists main argument is the evolvement of earth without I.D. I.D should defiantly be taught in another classroom because you can not clash the two.
Comment #1-(Intelligent Design vs. Evolutionism) by Rose Ehlers
After researching the current controversy over whether Intelligent Design or evolution should be taught in America’s classrooms, I am amazed at the fact that it remains a question at all. As an independent, young American citizen currently considering a career in education, I have been under the impression that providing a variety of theories to students (no matter what the subject of controversy is) would be a significant part of my job description. Another major responsibility of my position, as an educator, would (or should) be to respect the intelligence level of the individual student and allow him/her to use that information to make up his/her own mind based on personal needs and belief systems.
Reviewing a variety of reports and commentaries on National Public Radio website has caused me to question how the decision of whether to teach intelligent design and/or evolutionism is any different than asking students to read a variety of book reviews that demonstrate opposing points of view, then asking them to read the book and write their own critique. Along those same lines, isn’t the job of my developmental psychology professors to educate and inform me about the various theories of learning so that I may then choose which one(s) are to be reflected in my lesson plans? And aren’t those lesson plans supposed to be based on my best judgment about how to most effectively meet the needs of my students? And when the New York State Education Department grants me a license to teach, aren’t they, in effect, trusting that I will do my job to educate students fairly and equally?
I fail to see how the issue of whether to inform students that the theory of evolution exists as does that of Intelligent Design is any different. After reviewing information about how some state education officials in America were reacting to the issue, I am in agreement with Board of Education members in Maryland and lawmakers from Kentucky when they say that care must be taken to objectively inform students of the evidence that exists to support each theory. In addition, reminding them that it is an area of current controversy and then requiring them to submit evidence of analysis related to their own research of the debate is a way to ensure that objectivity. In my opinion, approaching this issue in such a way seems more truly reflect a democratic approach to education.
Comment #2- Do scientists go to church?
Another question that burns in my mind as I investigate the current controversy involving intelligent design and evolutionism is stated above. I live in an area close to Stony Brook University, a college that employs and educates large numbers of scientists. I am forced to wonder if I have sat next to or shaken hands with any one of them over the years while I attended Sunday services at my church. Is it a fact that not one scientist in this entire nation attends religious services in their community? Or do they attend incognito in hopes that their colleagues will not see them as they climb the steps and enter a religious institution?
As I ponder those questions, I recall vaguely what I’ve learned about the famous twelve step program used in a large number of rehabilitation facilities. One of the requirements is that members believe in a higher power, God or other being, who is present at all times to support the healing process. As a matter of fact, one of the earlier steps requires the patient to reflect and confess all deeds that have caused harm to self or others before moving on. Many times, the confession is to a member of clergy. My question-has any scientist ever been through a twelve step recovery program and professed faith in the higher being?
After watching a recent CNN special report about a professor in Pennsylvania, Dr. Behe who was shunned by his colleagues because he questioned the (lack of) evidence behind evolutionary theory, I am forced to believe that incognito is the only way for scientists to practice religious faith or recover from addiction. Not only did his colleagues cause him tremendous grief, but parents actually refused to send their children to the university because they disagreed with his views. Of course, college administrators and financial planners were unhappy about this. As a result, they published comments against Behe. Luckily, he was already tenured and could not be dismissed for stating his views.
In a similar case, Dr. Sternberg, an editor of a scientific journal connected with Smithsonian Institute published an article that gave some credence to the theory of intelligent design. He, too, was shunned by his colleagues who went so far as to accuse him of fraud. Luckily for him, he was not an actual employee of the Smithsonian so the charges were unfounded. Sternberg was surprised by this negative reaction because he even had the article reviewed by a peer beforehand.
I am amazed by the close-mindedness and childish reactions of those who are supposedly our most intelligent, educated members in society who seek to create trouble for others who attempt to challenge current theories. I begin to wonder if it is a true democracy we live in where each member is encouraged to make their own free choices…
Comment #1-(Intelligent Design vs. Evolutionism) by Rose Ehlers
After researching the current controversy over whether Intelligent Design or evolution should be taught in America’s classrooms, I am amazed at the fact that it remains a question at all. As an independent, young American citizen currently considering a career in education, I have been under the impression that providing a variety of theories to students (no matter what the subject of controversy is) would be a significant part of my job description. Another major responsibility of my position, as an educator, would (or should) be to respect the intelligence level of the individual student and allow him/her to use that information to make up his/her own mind based on personal needs and belief systems.
Reviewing a variety of reports and commentaries on National Public Radio website has caused me to question how the decision of whether to teach intelligent design and/or evolutionism is any different than asking students to read a variety of book reviews that demonstrate opposing points of view, then asking them to read the book and write their own critique. Along those same lines, isn’t the job of my developmental psychology professors to educate and inform me about the various theories of learning so that I may then choose which one(s) are to be reflected in my lesson plans? And aren’t those lesson plans supposed to be based on my best judgment about how to most effectively meet the needs of my students? And when the New York State Education Department grants me a license to teach, aren’t they, in effect, trusting that I will do my job to educate students fairly and equally?
I fail to see how the issue of whether to inform students that the theory of evolution exists as does that of Intelligent Design is any different. After reviewing information about how some state education officials in America were reacting to the issue, I am in agreement with Board of Education members in Maryland and lawmakers from Kentucky when they say that care must be taken to objectively inform students of the evidence that exists to support each theory. In addition, reminding them that it is an area of current controversy and then requiring them to submit evidence of analysis related to their own research of the debate is a way to ensure that objectivity. In my opinion, approaching this issue in such a way seems more truly reflect a democratic approach to education.
Comment #2- Do scientists go to church?
Another question that burns in my mind as I investigate the current controversy involving intelligent design and evolutionism is stated above. I live in an area close to Stony Brook University, a college that employs and educates large numbers of scientists. I am forced to wonder if I have sat next to or shaken hands with any one of them over the years while I attended Sunday services at my church. Is it a fact that not one scientist in this entire nation attends religious services in their community? Or do they attend incognito in hopes that their colleagues will not see them as they climb the steps and enter a religious institution?
As I ponder those questions, I recall vaguely what I’ve learned about the famous twelve step program used in a large number of rehabilitation facilities. One of the requirements is that members believe in a higher power, God or other being, who is present at all times to support the healing process. As a matter of fact, one of the earlier steps requires the patient to reflect and confess all deeds that have caused harm to self or others before moving on. Many times, the confession is to a member of clergy. My question-has any scientist ever been through a twelve step recovery program and professed faith in the higher being?
After watching a recent CNN special report about a professor in Pennsylvania, Dr. Behe who was shunned by his colleagues because he questioned the (lack of) evidence behind evolutionary theory, I am forced to believe that incognito is the only way for scientists to practice religious faith or recover from addiction. Not only did his colleagues cause him tremendous grief, but parents actually refused to send their children to the university because they disagreed with his views. Of course, college administrators and financial planners were unhappy about this. As a result, they published comments against Behe. Luckily, he was already tenured and could not be dismissed for stating his views.
In a similar case, Dr. Sternberg, an editor of a scientific journal connected with Smithsonian Institute published an article that gave some credence to the theory of intelligent design. He, too, was shunned by his colleagues who went so far as to accuse him of fraud. Luckily for him, he was not an actual employee of the Smithsonian so the charges were unfounded. Sternberg was surprised by this negative reaction because he even had the article reviewed by a peer beforehand.
I am amazed by the close-mindedness and childish reactions of those who are supposedly our most intelligent, educated members in society who seek to create trouble for others who attempt to challenge current theories. I begin to wonder if it is a true democracy we live in where each member is encouraged to make their own free choices…
Rose Ehlers
Comments on the Debate on Intelligent Design vs. Evolution
Recently, I caught the tail end of a debate on National Public Radio. The speaker, who despite my efforts to locate the story online, I have not yet been able to identify, made a comment related to the debate over creationism vs. evolution. His main concern was the negative effect that accepting the theory of intelligent design would have on jobs in the field of science and technology. He claimed that both intelligent design and evolution should continue to be treated as theories because that is exactly what they are. Moreover, as long as that was the case, research to uncover evidence of these theories and more importantly, funding for research, would continue.
My first reaction to this comment was, “Okay, that makes sense.” After giving it some thought, however, I found myself wondering about the ethics that govern the field of science. Is the main reason for research related to evolutionism to keep scientists employed? I thought about the professor from a Pennsylvania college whose colleagues turned against him because he discussed intelligent design with his students. The main argument from the other staff members was that parents were angered and for that reason, they may have chosen to pull their kids out. One major consequence is the college would lose money and maybe even jobs.
All of this made me wonder about scientific research related to disease. Does a cure for cancer, AIDS, Multiple Sclerosis, Diabetes… really exist? Are they kept secret for fear of losing funding designated for research in those areas? Do scientists reveal or discoveries or do they keep some secret?
I thought about the tremendous profit earned by drug companies all over the world as they sell drugs to help control some of these major diseases. Sick people are kept alive but they are forced to pay for their survival. The cost of health insurance has skyrocketed and there is no doubt that costly medications are part of the reason for this.
As I listen more closely to the comments and concerns the debate over creationism is causing, I find that I learn new things. At the same time, I question topics I used to accept as common truth and I wonder if I have been gullible. It is like puzzle pieces being put together but I’m not really sure I like the whole picture. From this point on, I will continue to listen carefully to updates on the debate but I will work harder to read between the lines.
macro vs. micro
I have a fundamentally religious friend with, since telling him about my last comment, I got into a debate with regarding evolution.
He believes that (of course!) "God" created everything. Ok, that's his religion, whatever. But when we get right down to it, he'll admit that he believes in evolution, but not macro evolution. He believes in micro evolution. He concedes that, yes, organisms DO adapt to the changes in its environment, BUT that they do not become more complex. He asserts that in order for an organism to become more complex, it needs to have acquired or developed extra genetic material and that this usually ends up being fatal to the species or the result of a mutation. So basically, his belief is that things adapt, but only by getting simpler over time and losing genetic material as opposed to getting more complex.
It makes sense, if only to accommodate his current beliefs, but I'm having a hard time proving to him that both kinds of evolution occur.
This is the standard Creationist party line, one of those things they parrot constantly without understanding what they are talking about. Macro-evolution is evolution above the species level, that includes speciation (the origin of new species), this has been observed and is not in any doubt. Macro-evolution is also evident from the fossil record, there are many fossil sequences that show the evolution of whales from land animals, birds from dinosaurs, humans from apes, amphibians from fish, etc. There is also no known mechanism that could prevent a lot of "micro-evolutionary" changes from adding up to "macro-evolution" over the millions of years that evolution has been going on. That that doesn’t help me because he believes in a “young” earth. He believes that the earth is only tens of thousands of years old and so evolution couldn’t have been going on for very long.
It’s very frustrating having an otherwise very intelligent friend who thinks this. I don’t know how he can believe that animals are getting simpler. Complex organisms can live in a wider variety of climates and eat a wider variety of foods than simpler ones. Simple organisms are limited to where they live and have few food sources. Complex animals are more adaptable and have the high potential to adapt more with there surroundings. Complex animals grow from less complex, immature animals. Why would they grow backwards? There is no reason to think that some small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can.
Even though there are so called holes in evolution i still think were on the right track , and the theory is correct . We do not have all the technology yet to fill in these holes , and im sure there are many missing links . Even though there might be gaps to the fact of evolution in humans , there are other species that we have trackd down and have had there full geologic history . Scientists dont keep secrets . If they the did or were hiding things from the public it wouldnt be called science . Scientists have always tryed to prove the unexplainable . Just because we dont have all the answers to evolution doesnt mean were on the wrong track . Every day we are making advances to better society . These scientisit them selfs are doing this for the public and im sure there own personal curiosoty .
They want to solve the problem , not cover it up . But what if we do take the stand point of these other people that are saying that modern science covers up what it cant solve ? Then what about diases . Lets talk about aids . There is as of right now now cure for this virus , but scientisit are trying to cure it , not cover up the fact that they cant solve it . In fact there were two vaccines that did come out for it but were not put into public use . This was because if i didnt work scientists would have injected aids into patcients that didnt have it in the first place . Theres the truth right there . To me science isnt here to shrowd the public with lies , and false statments . It here to uncover right and wrong . This is why we " realists" have had so many problems with church and science .
Logic is the answer . Thats what science revolves around . And has revolved around since it started . Yea so we don't have all the answers to evolution , But were not covering up and part of it i think . Evolution and the threory is going to be constintly changing , Because of the fact that we as a people are changing and evolving .
In science there will always be things that we can't find or explain , but if we could answer every question , or correct every theory , would we even have science?????
There is something that I see as very funny and kind of ironic when I read this post and its comments. Pretty much every word said shows a lack of tolerance to the differences of what people believe or think. Sure, to any scientist, or most anyone believing in evolution, ID sounds like an absurd reason for why we’re here; but don’t you think that the people who believe in ID feel the same way about evolution. Each side thinks the other is crazy and ignorant, which greater builds the walls of intolerance.
This intolerance of other peoples ideas and beliefs will only harbor hatred and cause more unnecessary arguments. This reminds me of two newspaper articles that I had read quite a while ago. Both show an intolerance of an others views.
The first article that came to mind pertains to how parents were picketing against evolution being taught in a science class. They felt that by teaching their children this theory, that their children were being forced to believe in something that the parents felt was false and blasphemous. That instead of evolution, ID should be taught in the science classes. The parents felt that ID was more of a truth and that only their truth should be taught. I wonder, if this persisted on a wider scale, would have eventually needed permission slips to learn evolution, just like they needed one to learn about puberty?
The next article that I remembered was of an elementary school project. The children were to create a piece of artwork centered on world peace and harmony. One boy created a colored drawing of many people, each of a different color, holding hands on the earth, along with clasped hands, several smiling faces, and an image of Jesus and God. The drawing was cute, and the boy was proud of what he drew and the expression of what he believed in. The pieces of work were to be hung in the school hallway for everybody to see. When it was being hung, the teachers noticed the image of Jesus and God and they folded the picture to hide these religious icons. The boy was confused at how something he was taught as good was being shunned and thought of as bad. His parents confronted the school, and the reasoning behind their censorship was that Jesus and God is not supported by science and goes against the evolutionary teachings of the school.
Really, who cares what other people think. Let’s stop waisting our time complaining about why others are wrong and start spending this time working on creating advances in science and society.
Some people who hold a strong opinion of defense, and choose to argue about this topic, know very little information about the opposing side. Even if both opponents know a great deal of information about the opposing side, an agreement will never surface until one proves the other completely wrong.
With the previous amount of knowledge I know, Intelligent Design appears to be more of a philosophy than a science. The government should place Intelligent Design in the same subject as philosophy rather than science because of its lack of scientific evidence. Under the subject of philosophy, Intelligent Design should then be optional to all interested individuals because of its religious origin of a supreme being. It boggles my mind that people actually categorize Intelligent Design as a science because it is more than obvious that the interference of religion has a great influence in its teachings. Those who choose to deny Intelligent Design as religion in disguise to persuade the public disappoint me due to their insular mind frame.
Although I do not agree that Intelligent Design should be taught in a science environment, I believe it to be an extremely interesting philosophy. Intelligent Design is a philosophy because it is stimulates the mind to question what is right. Despite the fact that it may be religion in disguise, the theory of Intelligent Design is a healthy and clever way to evoke the minds of high school students who are hungry for knowledge. It is necessary to expose everybody, not just students, to new thought provoking ideas. Knowledge is power. Evaluating and understanding mind stimulating ideas makes one more knowledgeable and aware to the world that surrounds him or her.
Prior to my Evolution of Earth and Life Class, I knew absolutely nothing about evolution. Taking this course has opened up my eyes, clarifying the unclear. Ignorant people who assume evolution is impossible because they think it teaches the human species originated from monkeys should definitely invest in taking this course. Learning that evolution actually means survival of the fittest and adaptation, my views regarding evolution have switched from negative to positive. In the past, my religious beliefs have kept me from informing myself about evolution because I am exceptionally gullible and easily persuaded. The interference of unknown concepts, evolution, might have changed my opinion about the human origin and purpose of existence, but the more I study evolution, I find that the belief of a supreme being is more obvious than one would like to admit.
The author of this article believes that society is in denial and will not admit that science is capable of creating complex species. I disagree with the author a hundred percent. Believing that the human origin was completely created scientifically is absurd. I believe there has to be something or someone out there that sparked our existence. For example, the nebular hypothesis is a convincing theory of how our earth formed, but there had to have been someone to ignite its creation. I believe it happened, with a purpose. Nothing on this earth is by chance. It has a meaning and a reason.
If scientists can tell us how our brain works, scientifically, can they tell us why we even have a brain? Why do we feel, or bother to think? Understanding its operation still does not answer the question of, why does it even exist? Feeding off emotion, our emotions give us a more than an obvious answer to our origin. If the human brain is intelligent enough to ponder a supreme being, than there has to be one. Why would we consider it if it didn’t exist? Why would people dedicate their whole life to a higher power if it wasn’t real? People do what they’ve been taught, but who was the first to enforce these religious beliefs? That person had to have been inspired from something, or someone out of this world.
Scientifically, humans have discovered, or theorized, how the planet and gift of life have developed, but just because they have found out how they formed, doesn’t change my opinion about why they formed. It is a satisfying feeling to understand how and why something has come to be, but I feel there are some things on this earth that are meant to be a mystery, like the origin of human life.
My problem with this whole debate is it makes this country look stupid. Why the United States insists on pandering to the religious right at the expense of common sense is a mystery to me. I feel that somehow proponents of ID intelligent design feel that evolution is an attack on God; it has been my observation that many scientists believe in God. Einstein remained a believer his whole life. Scientist are not out to disprove a creator, there interests are in figuring how the universe works. The problem with the ID group is they are creating fake science and that hurts us all. This country has a great reputation around the world when it comes to its universities, to start teaching intelligent design would greatly affect their credibility. After reading this blog I went online and googled evolution vs. intelligent design and found this web site it gives a pros and cons approach to the argument.http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html The website discusses Darwin’s publication Origin of the species and how it swiftly convinced scientist of evolution. I have just started reading The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist by Desmond and More. It is a biography of Charles Darwin. From what I’ve read about him it is apparent he was not out to disprove God Being a naturalist at a time when advances in technology and industry offered people more free time and better instruments (such as better lenses for microscopes) he soon realized that things were a lot different then he was being taught. This was not easy for him and he did not publish his findings right away in fact he waited years to publish his theories on evolution. Getting back to ID proponents they can chose to ignore the obvious and try and force there religious believes on everyone or they can keep church and state separate and teach ID where it belongs in Sunday school. Let the church enrich the soul and science the mind. This argument is nonsense and the more we let it distract us the worse of we will be.
Post a Comment
<< Home