WHAT DO YOU THINK? Evolution or Inteligent Design?

[Feslmogh]

SCIENCE
The War Between Evolution and God’s Intelligent Design


By Gailon Totheroh
CBN News Science & Medical Reporter

September 3, 2002


Biology textbooks everywhere routinely respond to the question of where life came from with a simple answer: evolution.



CBN.com – RIVERSIDE, California — Intelligent design is the hottest ticket in biology education these days. I.D., as it is also known, says the world's creatures have incredible complexity, and that this complexity provides evidence of being crafted, not randomly evolved.
While evolutionists protest loudly against I.D., the counterclaims of design advocates are at least being weighed in a few places. For example, in Ohio, the state school board will decide whether to allow discussion of I.D. and other challenges to Darwinism by the end of the year.

Biology textbooks everywhere routinely respond to the question of where life came from with a simple answer: evolution. But for molecular biologist Jed Macosko, the party line of evolution does not cut it.

"Intelligent design provides a great way to introduce students to the controversies around evolution and to provide a way of thinking through things," Macosko said.

Macosko teaches biology, including intelligent design, at La Sierra University in California. He says the molecules of living things form elaborate machines that are no more accidents than intelligently designed flying machines.

But evolutionists are hoping to exclude intelligent design from both science and the science classroom. They argue that I.D. hides behind a scientific veneer, but is actually philosophy or religion, and therefore, can not be in the public classroom.

Jim Miller of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science is one who objects to intelligent design. "It's a philosophical argument so it's not really a scientific argument and, in the context of science, it's an argument that's based on non-knowledge," he said.

But Macosko countered, "If you are arguing that any science that borders on religious claims should be kept out of the classroom then Darwinism should be kept out of the classroom, too, because it's saying there was no purpose, there was no intelligence behind this and that's a very religious statement."

Evolution, by and large, is actually a philosophy called naturalism or materialism — the de facto religion of many scientists. That belief says nature is everything.

Macosko explained, "Darwinism is the only theory really that says it all happened by natural processes. So the alternative is immediately ruled out and intelligent design in that way is kept out of the classroom."

But is I.D. really science? Law professor and evolution critic Philip Johnson says yes, I.D. is used all the time. "This is a common method of our thinking. It's part of rationality, is to know that intelligence can do things which non-intelligence can't do. And in a great many cases we can tell the difference," he said.

Everyday thinking as well as intellectual endeavors routinely look for design. Here are a few examples:


Law enforcement: Was a person poisoned accidentally or by design?

Anthropology: Was this interesting rock formed by erosion or human design?

Insurance companies: Was this fire a random event or intentionally designed, that is arson?

Parents: Did this vase just fall off the table or did little Johnny knock it off in a fit of anger, by design



Macosko says why not look for intelligent design in biology too, especially because evolution has so many gaps. But he also says intelligent design finds Darwin partly right, at least about variation in creatures over time. But it identifies a clear difference as well:

"What it refutes is that the same process that can make a finch's beak longer can make a bacteria into a butterfly over millions of years," Macosko said. And, he added that intelligent design has to teach evolution in order to show where it is right and wrong.

Johnson agreed, "We ought to teach the young people much more about evolution than the science educators want them to know. Because the science educators don't want them to know about the problems, they want them to think that all you need to have is variation and everything is perfect. You have a naturalistic creation story, God is out of the picture: 'You can forget about Him and that's what we want you to believe.'"

And apparently the public agrees, too.

A new Zogby International poll finds that 71 percent of people say biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution as well as evidence against the theory. But even more Americans, 78 percent to be exact, also agree that when Darwin is taught, students should also learn about scientific evidence pointing to an intelligent design of life.

But a question remains in Macosko's mind: Will Americans allow the evolutionists and educators to continue censoring out intelligent design against their wishes? "From the academic freedom standpoint, intelligent design allows for both sides of the controversy to be presented," he explained.

Another question is intriguing to Johnson: Why do many religious people find Darwinism better than an intelligent Designer?

The Presbyterian Church (USA), just put out a General Assembly resolution affirming evolution as the model for education. They encouraged state boards of education to do whatever most scientists say. In other words, they reject intelligent design.

"It's sort of like an aboriginal people that's been confined to a reservation. You see, the materialists will allow you to live on the reservation. So for the Christians now that's like the seminaries and the Christian colleges. But they have to obey the naturalist rules when they go off the reservation out in the public," Johnson said.

While private education institutions are already embracing intelligent design, public education is only beginning to face the question of whether they, too, will enhance academic freedom by teaching intelligent design right alongside evolution.

[Captain Yurika]

I think it's an excellent idea. Not so much because I don't believe in evolution but they should teach several ideas to let the students see all their options and make up their own minds. Teaching just one theory is rather stupid in my opinion, though it'll take awhile before this gets to all the schools.

[Clayface]

"Intelligent Design" is just the latest disguise the creationists use to try and get creationism taught in schools. The creationist movement was losing left and right in trying to get creationism taught in school along with evolution. So the movement has changed its name, gotten a few flashier arguments, and come back again. "Intelligent design" is a religious theory - I have no problem seeing in taught in religion classes along with other version of the creation story. But it has absolutely no scientific backing and thus should not be taught in science classes.

Here's an interesting and related column:



SKEPTIC COLUMN, FEBRUARY 2002

The Gradual Illumination of the Mind

The advance of science, not the demotion of religion, will best counter the influence of creationism.

Michael Shermer

In one of the most starkly honest and existentially penetrating statements ever made by a scientist, Richard Dawkins concluded that "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

Facing such a reality perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans agree with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so," 37 percent prefer a blended belief that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process," and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."

In a forced binary choice between the "theory of creationism" and the "theory of evolution," 57 percent chose creationism against only 33 percent for evolution (10 percent said they were "unsure"). One explanation for these findings can be seen in additional results showing that only 33 percent of Americans think that the theory of evolution is "well supported by evidence," while slightly more (39 percent) believe that it is not well supported, and that it is "just one of many theories." A quarter surveyed said they didn't know enough to say and, shedding some light on the problem, only 34 percent considered themselves to be "very informed" about evolution.

Although such findings are disturbing, truth in science is not determined democratically. It does not matter whether 99 percent or only one percent of the public believes a theory. It must stand or fall on the evidence, and there are few theories in science that are more robust than the theory of evolution. The preponderance of evidence from numerous converging lines of inquiry (geology, paleontology, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, genetics, biogeography, etc.) all independently point to the same conclusion--evolution happened. The nineteenth century philosopher of science, William Whewell, called this process of independent lines of inquiry converging together to a conclusion a "consilience of inductions." I call it a "convergence of evidence." Whatever you call it, it is how historical events are proven.

The reason we are experiencing this peculiarly American phenomenon of _evolution denial_ (the doppelganger of _Holocaust denial_, using the same techniques of rhetoric and debate--see my book _Why People Believe Weird Things_ for a comparison), is that a small but vocal minority of religious fundamentalists misread the theory of evolution as a challenge to their deeply held religious convictions. Given this misunderstanding, their response is to attack the theory. It is no coincidence that almost without exception all of the evolution deniers are Christians who believe that if God did not personally intervene in the development of life on earth then they have no basis for belief, morality, and the meaning of life. Clearly for some much is at stake in the findings of science.

Since the Constitution prohibits public schools from promoting any particular brand of religion, this has led to the oxymoronic movement known as "creation-science," or, in its more recent incarnation, "Intelligent Design" (ID), where ID (aka God) miraculously intervenes just in the places where science has yet to offer a comprehensive explanation for a particular phenomenon. (ID used to control the weather, but now that we understand it He has moved on to more difficult problems, such as the origins of DNA and cellular life. Once these problems are mastered then ID will no doubt find even more intractable conundrums.) Thus, IDers would have us teach children
nonthreatening theories of science, but when it comes to the origins of life and certain aspects of evolution, children are to learn that "ID did it." I fail to see how this is science, or what it is, exactly, that IDers hope will be taught in these public schools. "ID did it" makes for a rather short semester.

By contrast, a scientist would want to know _how_ ID did it. In eschewing all attempts to provide a naturalistic explanation for the phenomena under question, IDers have abandoned science altogether. Yet they want the respectability that science brings in our culture, so they do theology and call it science.

To counter the nefarious influence of the ID creationists we need to employ a proactive strategy of science education and evolution explanation. It is not enough to argue that creationism is wrong; we must also show that evolution is right. The theory's founder, Charles Darwin, knew this when he reflected:

"It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science."



Want to learn more about the new creaionist movement and why their arguments don't stand up? Check out Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creation by Robert T. Pennock (ISBN: 0262661659) - its a very interesting read.

[James]

I think Clayface has said everything I would have said (and then added an interesting article to boot). My only further point is how irritatingly biased the first article is. Look at the adjectives it uses. It clearly wants to push the ID view, whether it be for personal reasons or simply sensationalism.

[turbomog007]

I actually believe that both should be taught and that facts be displayed for the children to decide. Since both have to have a little faith to believe in. Evolution is far from a proven fact it is a theory and therefore those who believe it have to believe it with there faith as anyone who believes the world was created by God or another god-like. Actually since there both religions that have to be taken by faith either neither should be taught in Public Schools or Both Should be taught at public schools. As always this is just my humble opnion I mean no one any harm with I said and I hope I did not offend anyone with this rant like paragraph deally.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by turbomog007
I actually believe that both should be taught and that facts be displayed for the children to decide. Since both have to have a little faith to believe in. Evolution is far from a proven fact it is a theory and therefore those who believe it have to believe it with there faith as anyone who believes the world was created by God or another god-like. Actually since there both religions that have to be taken by faith either neither should be taught in Public Schools or Both Should be taught at public schools.

I disagree very strongly with the idea of calling evolution a religion, or creationism a science. The arguments for both are very different (one is a theory based on scientific facts, the other is a hypothesis based on religious beliefs), and I don't agree that both are a matter of faith. In fact, this is a common argument used by the creationists. If you check out that book I mentioned (Tower of Babel), you'll find an entire section of the book dedicated to just this topic. The section is called "Is It All Simply a Matter of Faith?" and discusses why evolution isn't a matter of faith at all. Maybe if I get some time later, I can post some quotes or at least the gist of the argument.

[JusticeLeagueLegion]

I beleive that we were all created...by an intelegent desighner...God. Evolution just seems so silly to me...apes to humans...just silly...but I know people do beleive that way.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by JusticeLeagueLegion
I beleive that we were all created...by an intelegent desighner...God. Evolution just seems so silly to me...apes to humans...just silly...but I know people do beleive that way.

Hmm, well, I'm not quite sure what's silly about it, but I do want to make one correction. The theory of evolution does not really state we evolved from apes. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

[Maxie Zeus]

I'll leave this topic to my malleable mod buddy. He knows more about this stuff than I do. :)

[ZorBrak]

I have never understood why most christians feel they have to disprove evolution. I simply believe God planned to evolve us from lower lifeforms, I mean whatpartof that belief is anti-Christian? I was recently called an atheist for this by some whako and he went on to say that I was going to hell...how lovely.

[Squall]

Why can't evolution be the work of God? I think that the Cosmos was intelligently designed, and it evolved. I believe in God, and I believe that God designed the Cosmos, and I also believe that the Cosmos has evolution built into it by God's design.

I never understood why both points of view can't be true at the same time.

[Jedigreedo]

Something really gets to me about the "Intelligent Design" name... if Humanity is such an intelligent design, then why are humans so fragile to where they can kill each other or even themselves with the littlest things?

[JusticeLeagueLegion]

Originally posted by Clayface
Hmm, well, I'm not quite sure what's silly about it, but I do want to make one correction. The theory of evolution does not really state we evolved from apes.
Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.



Maybe, but they never proved that...

[Clayface]

Originally posted by ZorBrak
I have never understood why most christians feel they have to disprove evolution. I simply believe God planned to evolve us from lower lifeforms, I mean whatpartof that belief is anti-Christian? I was recently called an atheist for this by some whako and he went on to say that I was going to hell...how lovely.

Originally posted by Squall

Why can't evolution be the work of God? I think that the Cosmos was intelligently designed, and it evolved. I believe in God, and I believe that God designed the Cosmos, and I also believe that the Cosmos has evolution built into it by God's design.

I never understood why both points of view can't be true at the same time.




I think the problem lies mostly with bible literalists - those that believe god instantaneously created mankind and all the animals on earth, and that they all existed at the same time. Evolution theory says this isn't so - that the animal kingdom instead evolved over the ages to what it is today. So many literalists feel this is an attack on the bible and on faith itself.

But, personally I agree that evolution doesn't exclude the idea of a god, it just conflicts with some of the literal interpretations of the bible.


Originally posted by Jedigreedo
Something really gets to me about the "Intelligent Design" name... if Humanity is such an intelligent design, then why are humans so fragile to where they can kill each other or even themselves with the littlest things?


We are far from a perfect species - we are inefficient, fragile, we have an incredible amount of flaws, and we even have organs that have absolutely no use. Not a very intelligent design, is it? Our bodies make a lot more sense biologically if they are the product of an evolution rather than the result of a preconceived design.

[James]

Originally posted by JusticeLeagueLegion
I beleive that we were all created...by an intelegent desighner...God. Evolution just seems so silly to me...apes to humans...just silly...but I know people do beleive that way.

The process of evoloution makes more sense that the confusion and splits over the religion - of all types. I don't declare it the definitive answer, but it seems to hold a fit this crazy world we live in that any benevolent god - in my humble opinion of course.

Not that I wouldn't want to have faith. I really, really, really wood. But regardless, evolution, the adaption of species to survive makes more sense, and has far more factual background that religion (well, that's not a fair argument I know as religion by definition can only be faith - devoid of fact :) ).

The fact that apes are similar to us - especially on a indesputable DNA level shows a link so close to us, that some kinship isn't surprising.

Whether one can argue that ID and evoloution can be linked I really doubt. I can't see how one could believe we were conceived in the creators image yet be the strongest offshoot of several possibilities.

You can only believe in one or the other I think! :)

[Chikorita]

I beleive in creation..I'm a christian. But evolution makes no sense to me. I am learning in school now about creation,and I guess evolution,and they said it takes faith to beleive eiether one. They also said that there really arent any proofs for creation or evolution. I remember in 7th grade when my science teacher was teachi9ng about evolution. Being the curious kid I was,I asked "Well if its true we all came from fish and monkeys,how come there are still fish and monkeys around? Were they not lucky enough to evolve into humans?" I kinda got into trouble..and she never did answer my question oO;

[Clayface]

Originally posted by Chikorita
I beleive in creation..I'm a christian. But evolution makes no sense to me. I am learning in school now about creation,and I guess evolution,and they said it takes faith to beleive eiether one.



I don't agree. What faith is needed to believe the theory of evolution? Evolution occurs - we've seen it - we have it documented. That's cold hard fact. Doesn't take any faith to believe facts.

The question is not: Did we evolve? We did.

The question is: How did we evolve? We don't know all the details yet - we don't know every step in the process. But we do know the process occurred.



They also said that there really arent any proofs for creation or evolution.



Sure there are - for evolution. Evoluton is a proven fact. Its seen on the microscopic level in simple organisms such as viruses and bacteria, and on the macroscopic level with complex organisms. There are many documented cases of macroscopic evolution - the one that pops into my head right now is the rock wallabies of one of the Hawaii islands.

In 1916 a collector imported 3 rock wallabies from Australia to Oahu, HI. Two escaped after an attack by dogs, and established a wild population that numbers about 250 individuals living in the steep dry cliffs of Kalihi Valley. Since then they have gotten smaller, lighter-colored, proteins have changed, they have evolved a new liver enzyme enabling them to feed on Hawaiian plants that are toxic to the Australian rock wallaby, and they do not and cannot interbreed with the original ancestral Australian species. By definition, this makes them a new species!

That's evolution in action.

The facts are out there, and its all documented - you just have to do the research and learn about it.



I remember in 7th grade when my science teacher was teachi9ng about evolution. Being the curious kid I was,I asked "Well if its true we all came from fish and monkeys,how come there are still fish and monkeys around? Were they not lucky enough to evolve into humans?"


Its a reasonable question, but it shows a lack of understanding of how evolution occurs and what the theory states. By saying "why didn't they evolve into humans", you're making the assumption that evolution is heading toward something - that's it a directed process with a specific goal in mind. It isn't - its a series of random genetic variations that occur that give an organism a benefit in a certain environment. Fish did evolve - in parallel with humans. They are the result of evolution that gives them the maximum benefits for thier environment - an underwater one that man couldn't exist in without some form of help.

Why didn't our primate ancestors evolve into only humans? Because the various groups of primates faced different adversities, different environments, and different genetic mutations that affected the outcome of their evolution.

[Calico]

Bravo Master Clayface! I commend your enlightened and intelligent comments.

I can't really add anything else, but I'll give a real life and very personal example of evolution: I have no wisdom teeth. As you may realize wisdom teeth eventally crowd the mouth and usually have to be pulled because the human mouth has shrunken over time. Therefore our bodies are adapting and the teeth are disappearing. In another ten generations, no one may have any wisdom teeth.

I actually just thought of another example: the common house cat.

Egypt's first permanent settlements, with their granaries and silos, appeared around 4000 BC. This unique development offered concentrations of rodents and edible waste, together with abundant shelters and safety from larger predators, to any cat willing and able to take advantage of them. Two small cats, the jungle cat Felis chaus and the African wildcat Felis silvestris lybica lived in this region. With a less fearful nature, the African wildcat was prepared to enter this new environment in search of its preferred rodent prey. A further minor genetic mutation, perhaps involving the hormonal control of emotions, created a population with a unique survival advantage - an ability to live and breed in human settlements.

Under these new environmental pressures, the wildcat evolved into the domesticated cat.

Quoted from The Encyclopedia of the Cat by Bruce Fogel, DVM