Thursday, August 25, 2005
Intelligent Design Ain't Nuthin' But Religion!
And now we come to the “controversy” over evolution versus “intelligent design” (in this case, an oxymoron if ever I heard one). “Controversy” is in quotes because no matter how much the religious right/neo-conservatives want their religious viewpoint on science to be taken seriously in public debate, there just is no way their ravings can be called “science.”
One of the chief objections to evolution as an explanation for the multitude of animals occupying various ecological niches is the quaint assertion that it is a “theory.” They’re using the dictionary definition of “a conjecture, an assumption based on limited information or knowledge, speculation.” However, that is not the definition of scientific theory: “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” There is also challenge of the fossil record, a chief source of evidence for evolution. There’s a geological period of time where very few or no fossils have been found, as if life was wiped out cataclysmically. To creationists, this connotes divine intervention. Also, they have asserted that the fossil record does not show a link between species. If they’re looking for complete skeletons of every stage of evolution for every species on Earth, good luck! Conditions have to be just right for fossils to form at all! And that’s not even taking into account the various upheavals, floodings, ice ages, comet collisions and other natural phenomena that would cause destruction of bones and fossils.
The complexity of biological parts is also cited as a refutation. The human eye is usually given as an example of intelligent design; how could a complex mechanism such as an eye “happen by chance?” These nitwits forget that these are incremental changes over millennia. There is evidence all over the animal kingdom, from cave-dwelling animals to ocean vent creatures, of sensing organs that are simple, “pre-eye” mechanisms.
And the proof that creationism is true? Why, The Bible, of course. Where there’s no physical evidence for intelligent design, the gap is filled with “conjecture”, assumptions, and faulty logic. They start with the Truth from the Bible, then work backward and hobble together reasonable-sounding “scientific evidence.” Like the bullshit that sedimentary layers were created in “hours or days,” not millions of years. “Findings show...” I can find someone working in the sciences that has proof we’re really living on the Moon, but I wouldn’t call him a scientist! From Adam as the first man, to Noah’s Flood and beyond, these can all be “proven” by ramblings that sound logical to the regular Joe in the street, if Joe happens to be ignorant of detailed scientific discoveries. And most people want easy answers, which is what these “magical” creations provide for people.
It all comes down to what someone said to me back in 1969. A women of 23 years asserted, and I quote, “I didn’t come from no monkeys!” That’s the beginning and end of it, isn’t it? No one wants to identify with feces-throwing, masturbating primates. Even though, every day, something happens on this planet to prove we’re nothing but.
It obliges me to renounce my allegiance to the Darwinian theory of the Ascent of Man from the Lower Animals; since it now seems plain to me that that theory ought to be vacated in favor of a new and truer one…the Descent of Man from the Higher Animals." -- Mark Twain
One of the chief objections to evolution as an explanation for the multitude of animals occupying various ecological niches is the quaint assertion that it is a “theory.” They’re using the dictionary definition of “a conjecture, an assumption based on limited information or knowledge, speculation.” However, that is not the definition of scientific theory: “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” There is also challenge of the fossil record, a chief source of evidence for evolution. There’s a geological period of time where very few or no fossils have been found, as if life was wiped out cataclysmically. To creationists, this connotes divine intervention. Also, they have asserted that the fossil record does not show a link between species. If they’re looking for complete skeletons of every stage of evolution for every species on Earth, good luck! Conditions have to be just right for fossils to form at all! And that’s not even taking into account the various upheavals, floodings, ice ages, comet collisions and other natural phenomena that would cause destruction of bones and fossils.
The complexity of biological parts is also cited as a refutation. The human eye is usually given as an example of intelligent design; how could a complex mechanism such as an eye “happen by chance?” These nitwits forget that these are incremental changes over millennia. There is evidence all over the animal kingdom, from cave-dwelling animals to ocean vent creatures, of sensing organs that are simple, “pre-eye” mechanisms.
And the proof that creationism is true? Why, The Bible, of course. Where there’s no physical evidence for intelligent design, the gap is filled with “conjecture”, assumptions, and faulty logic. They start with the Truth from the Bible, then work backward and hobble together reasonable-sounding “scientific evidence.” Like the bullshit that sedimentary layers were created in “hours or days,” not millions of years. “Findings show...” I can find someone working in the sciences that has proof we’re really living on the Moon, but I wouldn’t call him a scientist! From Adam as the first man, to Noah’s Flood and beyond, these can all be “proven” by ramblings that sound logical to the regular Joe in the street, if Joe happens to be ignorant of detailed scientific discoveries. And most people want easy answers, which is what these “magical” creations provide for people.
It all comes down to what someone said to me back in 1969. A women of 23 years asserted, and I quote, “I didn’t come from no monkeys!” That’s the beginning and end of it, isn’t it? No one wants to identify with feces-throwing, masturbating primates. Even though, every day, something happens on this planet to prove we’re nothing but.
It obliges me to renounce my allegiance to the Darwinian theory of the Ascent of Man from the Lower Animals; since it now seems plain to me that that theory ought to be vacated in favor of a new and truer one…the Descent of Man from the Higher Animals." -- Mark Twain
# posted by Wildpig @ 9:12 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Dear Debunker,
True, one can debunk Darwin without being religious. And I must admit I don't have a ready command of facts on evolution, biology or any other sciences.
But you must admit that the overwhelming hordes of Darwin detractors recently in the media have come from religious folks trying to get equal time for a non-scientific notion.
It's easy to point to many theories of science and point out the lack of empirical evidence. (And if you have a raft of scientific data revealing its absence-- and other substantiating facts-- drift it my way. I'd love to read it.) In the case of evolution, which has taken place over millions of years, I'd bet that scientists would love to get a fossil snapshot of creatures evolving into other creatures, with a direct correlation between physical features. But it probably ain't gonna happen. Meanwhile, evolution is the best theory to explain the evidence we do have.
As for no earlier life forms, I understood that periodically on this planet mass extinctions were caused (allegedly) by comet or asteroid collisions, such as the one that deep-sixed the dinosaurs. That could certainly account for a lack of a continuous fossil record.
Debunk Darwin's Theory all you want. I haven't heard any scientific replacements for it, though. My main point was, and still is, that intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It's a nice mythology, though.
Thanx for your feedback.
Post a Comment
True, one can debunk Darwin without being religious. And I must admit I don't have a ready command of facts on evolution, biology or any other sciences.
But you must admit that the overwhelming hordes of Darwin detractors recently in the media have come from religious folks trying to get equal time for a non-scientific notion.
It's easy to point to many theories of science and point out the lack of empirical evidence. (And if you have a raft of scientific data revealing its absence-- and other substantiating facts-- drift it my way. I'd love to read it.) In the case of evolution, which has taken place over millions of years, I'd bet that scientists would love to get a fossil snapshot of creatures evolving into other creatures, with a direct correlation between physical features. But it probably ain't gonna happen. Meanwhile, evolution is the best theory to explain the evidence we do have.
As for no earlier life forms, I understood that periodically on this planet mass extinctions were caused (allegedly) by comet or asteroid collisions, such as the one that deep-sixed the dinosaurs. That could certainly account for a lack of a continuous fossil record.
Debunk Darwin's Theory all you want. I haven't heard any scientific replacements for it, though. My main point was, and still is, that intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It's a nice mythology, though.
Thanx for your feedback.
<< Home
