NationMaster - Encyclopedia: Argument from evolution

The argument from evolution states that intelligent design, (ID), is not a verifiable scientific theory and is, in fact, pseudoscience^[1], with evolutionists noting that "IDers" have theological rather than scientific objectives. This argument is based upon the premises that: A speculative phylogenetic tree of all living things, based on rRNA gene data, showing the separation of the three domains, bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes. ... Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ... Phrenology is regarded today as being a classic example of pseudoscience. ...

A common misconception is that evolution is an argument against the existence of God, but evolution does not conflict with a belief in God; in fact, evolution does not deal in any way with the existence or non-existence of a god or gods.^[5] Two examples that illustrate this follow. Many people believe that evolution occurred as scientists theorize, while maintaining a belief in a deity. Evolutionary creationists accept the scientific theories of evolution, but see it as having been guided by a deity.^[6] The scope of this article is limited to the empirical sciences. ... Pre-Cambrian stromatolites in the Siyeh Formation, Glacier National Park. ... Biodiversity or biological diversity is a neologism and a portmanteau word, from bio and diversity. ... The deepest visible-light image of the cosmos, the Hubble Ultra Deep Field. ... For the philosophical/theological concept of a prime mover (that is, a self-existent being that is the ultimate cause or mover of all things), see cosmological argument. ... William of Ockham Occams razor (also spelled Ockhams razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. ...

Overview

The theory of evolution states that due to natural selection and genetic variation, populations and species undergo genetic change over time. According to intelligent design, life is too complex to have been a result of evolution, and must have been designed by an intelligent agent, who most supporters believe to be the God of Abrahamic religions. In other words, intelligent design claims to be a scientific theory,that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life^[7], that can be used to explain the origins of life on Earth. Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. ... map showing the prevalence of Abrahamic (purple) and Dharmic (yellow) religions in each country. ... In mathematics, theory is used informally to refer to a body of knowledge about mathematics. ... Pre-Cambrian stromatolites in the Siyeh Formation, Glacier National Park. ...

The validity of the scientific claims regarding ID have been dismissed by an overwhelming majority of scientists^[8], as the theory was proposed by people with religious rather than scientific objectives. This opinion was clearly articulated in Judge John E. Jones III's decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005).^[9] John E. Jones III John Edward Jones III (born June 13, 1955) is an American lawyer, political figure, and jurist from the U.S. state of Pennsylvania. ... Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. ...

Evolutionary arguments against intelligent design

Intelligent design is not science

The term ‘science’ refers to the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical world, especially by observing, measuring and experimenting. Being that intelligent design relies on supernatural phenomena, it does not fit under this category. A scientific theory must undergo what is known as the “scientific method” to be scientifically acceptable. The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate representation of the world. It involves a number of important steps. These are, in proper order: The scope of this article is limited to the empirical sciences. ... The supernatural (Latin: super- exceeding + nature) refers to forces and phenomena which are beyond ordinary scientific understanding. ... Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for the investigation of phenomena and the acquisition of new knowledge of the natural world, as well as the correction and integration of previous knowledge, based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to laws of reasoning. ...

Rather than following these steps, intelligent design has instead reversed them. Supporters of intelligent design began with a conclusion and are currently working to prove it. This presents a number of problems:

Apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of a position. ... Phrenology is regarded today as being a classic example of pseudoscience. ...

Definition of "theory" and "evolution"

Intelligent design proponents, argue that evolution should not be the only "theory" taught in public schools. They propose an argument based on semantics, claiming that evolution is “only a theory,” and it should not be favored over other theories. In addition, the Wedge strategy of the Discovery Institute, has begun calling evolution a "theory in crisis" as part of its Teach the controversy campaign.^[13] The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, an organization that works to promote a Neo-Creationist religious agenda centering on Intelligent design, and is the hub of the Intelligent design movement. ... The Discovery Institute is a conservative Christian think tank, structured as a non-profit educational foundation, founded in 1990 and based in Seattle, Washington, USA. Its areas of interest, social and political action include intelligent design, public school education, and transportation and bi-national cooperation in the international Cascadia region. ... Teach the Controversy is a slogan the Discovery Institute uses to promote intelligent design[1] and advance an education policy for US public schools which introduces creationist explanations for the origin of life to public-school science curricula. ...

While it is correct to say that evolution is a theory and not indisputable fact (no scientific theory makes any claim to be fact), scientists take exception to DI's assertion that it is a theory in crisis, noting that with additional fossil finds, and DNA and genome-mapping, evolution is far better supported today than it was even twenty years ago. The general structure of a section of DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid â€”usually in the form of a double helixâ€” that contains the genetic instructions specifying the biological development of all cellular forms of life, and most viruses. ... In biology the genome of an organism is the whole hereditary information of an organism that is encoded in the DNA (or, for some viruses, RNA). ...

The second problem is that of the common definition of "theory", rather than the scientific, is often used to imply that evolution is just an idea. While "theory" in this sense refers to abstract reasoning and conjecture, the scientific definition is much more rigorous.

According to the scientific definition, a scientific theory must be repeatedly tested through the scientific method and accepted by the scientific community.^[14] While evolution has passed repeated testing thus rendering it a true scientific theory, intelligent design has not. In fact it has not, and cannot, be scientifically tested because its central argument--that life forms on Earth were created by an unknown intelligent agent--introduces supernatural phenomena that can be neither proven nor disproven.^[15]

However, the problem lies not just with the definition of theory, but also with that of evolution, which, like so many other words has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.^[16] An allele is any one of a number of viable DNA codings of the same gene (sometimes the term refers to a non-gene sequence) occupying a given locus (position) on a chromosome. ... A group of organisms is said to have common descent if they have a common ancestor. ...

Common ID arguments disproved

The following are some common arguments against evolution and why they are wrong.

Evolution has never been observed

Biologists observe evolution occurring all the time, as they define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.^[17]

Another example is the evolution of Ensatina Salamanders in the Western United States. One ancestral species in Oregon spread southward and populated the San Joaquin Valley. Once the salamanders had spread south and converged into one area, two non-interbreeding species had emerged. In other words, adaptations to a changing environment as they spread south resulted in enough variation to prevent interbreeding and therefore creating, by definition, two separate species.^[18] Suborders Cryptobranchoidea Salamandroidea Sirenoidea Salamander is the common name applied to approximately 500 amphibian vertebrates with slender bodies, short legs, and long tails (order Caudata or Urodela). ... Official language(s) None Capital Largest city Salem Portland Area Ranked 9th - Total 98,466 sq. ... The eight-county San Joaquin Valley is the part of the Central Valley of California that lies south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in Stockton. ... In biology, a species is the basic unit of biodiversity. ...

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution has not been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What has not been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.^[19]

Evolution has been observed at a microscopic level as many bacteria species have become immune to certain antibiotics that have worked on them in the past. At the same time bacteria of the same species with no immunity are killed by the antibiotics but the immune ones remain to reproduce. This is an example of both evolution and natural selection.

Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics

This statement of an alleged violation shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body."^[20] In and of itself, this statement does not appear to have aught to do with evolution. However, the confusion arises when the second law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder. Thermodynamics (from the Greek thermos meaning heat and dynamis meaning power) is a branch of physics that studies the effects of changes in temperature, pressure, and volume on physical systems at the macroscopic scale by analyzing the collective motion of their particles using statistics. ...

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the second law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too.

Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.^[21]

There are no transitional fossils

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it is from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendant lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendants, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendants evolves. A transitional fossil is the fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with the more derived life-forms it is related to. ... Taxonomy (from Greek verb tassein = to classify and nomos = law, science, cf economy) may refer to: the science of classifying living things (see alpha taxonomy) a system of classification in some other field Taxonomy was once only the science of classifying living organisms, but later the word was applied in... Scientific classification or biological classification refers to how biologists group and categorize extinct and living species of organisms. ...

To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since The Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. A paleontologist carefully chips rock from a column of dinosaur vertebrae. ... The 1859 edition of On the Origin of Species First published in 1859, The Origin of Species (full title On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life) by British naturalist Charles Darwin is one of the pivotal...

The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't. Platonic realism is a metaphysical theory of universals, maintaining that universals exist in a realm that is separate from space and time. ...

Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould to explain gaps in the fossil record.^[22] Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist.^[23] In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism, with Gould having stated, "But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy."^[24] Punctuated equilibrium (or punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which states that most sexually reproducing species will show little to no evolutionary change throughout their history. ... Dr. Niles Eldredge (born August 25, 1943) is an American paleontologist, who, along with Stephen Jay Gould, proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972. ... To meet Wikipedias quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup. ...

Random chance

"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer does not comprehend evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating. Chance can be used in any of the following contexts: Probability Luck Randomness Chance is also a 2002 film starring Amber Benson. ... Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. ...

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go). It has been suggested that Biopoesis be merged into this article or section. ... General Name, Symbol, Number carbon, C, 6 Chemical series nonmetals Group, Period, Block 14, 2, p Appearance black (graphite) colorless (diamond) Atomic mass 12. ... In chemistry, a molecule is an aggregate of at least two atoms in a definite arrangement held together by special forces. ...

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

Finally, one should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.^[25]

Many scientists view intelligent design as a viable scientific theory

While the above argument has been offered as a means to establish intelligent design as science, it is clearly untrue.

An overwhelming majority^[26] of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscience or junk science^[27]. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions and propose no new hypotheses of their own.^[28] Junk or bunk science is a term used to derogate purportedly scientific data, research, analyses or claims which are perceived to be driven by political, financial or other questionable motives. ...

In fact the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) stated the following in its Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory: The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is an organization that promotes cooperation between scientists, defends scientific freedom, encourages scientific responsibility and supports scientific education for the betterment of all humanity. ...

Recognizing that the "intelligent design theory" represents a challenge to the quality of science education, the Board of Directors of the AAAS unanimously adopts the following resolution:

Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms;

Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;

Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;

Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education;

Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public schools;

Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of "intelligent design theory" as subject matter for science education;

Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS encourages its affiliated societies to endorse this resolution and to communicate their support to appropriate parties at the federal, state and local levels of the government.^[29]

Additionally, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers called on all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory. In fact, the opening sentence of their resolution was, "Intelligent design is not science".^[30]

Finally, a parody by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) of creationist lists of scientists who "doubt evolution", Project Steve, was created and named in honor of the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. The NCSE's list only contains scientists named Stephen or variations thereof (Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.), thus representing about 1% of the total population. Despite this restriction, it is longer and contains more eminent scientists than any creationist list, including Stephen Hawking as well as both Nobel Prize winning Steves in science, Steven Chu and Steven Weinberg. There are 696 Steves as of 30 January 2006, while the DI poll has 481 signatures. Named in honor of the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, Project Steve is a parody by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). ... Stephen Hawking Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, (born 8 January 1942) is considered one of the worlds leading theoretical physicists. ... Sir Edward Appletons medal Photographs of Nobel Prize Medals. ... Steven Chu (Traditional Chinese: æœ±æ££æ–‡; Pinyin: ) (born February 28, 1948 in St. ... Steven Weinberg at Harvard University Steven Weinberg (born May 3, 1933) is an American physicist. ... The Discovery Institute is a conservative Christian think tank, structured as a non-profit educational foundation, founded in 1990 and based in Seattle, Washington, USA. Its areas of interest, social and political action include intelligent design, public school education, and transportation and bi-national cooperation in the international Cascadia region. ...

Conclusion from evolutionary arguments

The primary difficulty with intelligent design is that its goals are to oppose evolution by taking the guise of offering a new scientific theory, and to clearly replace what IDists refer to as "materialism" with theology.^[31]

However, ID and evolution are not truly comparable as they exist as two distinct views on the explanation of nature. Evolution deals with science, and ID with supernaturalism. They are not compatible, and are, in fact, polar opposites, thus ID's attempt to supplant evolution is not likely to deceive an average "objective" observer.^[32]

Notes

Categories: Evolutionary biology | Intelligent design | Creationism | Scientific method Robert T. Pennock is a philosopher now working on the Avida digital organism project at Michigan State University where he is an associate professor. ... Barbara Forrest, PhD. is a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond, Louisiana. ... Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. ... Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ... The Cover of Darwins Black Box Darwins Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution is a 1996 book by Michael J. Behe in which he argues that many biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, and thus the result of intelligent design rather than evolutionary processes. ... The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, an organization that works to promote a Neo-Creationist religious agenda centering on Intelligent design, and is the hub of the Intelligent design movement. ... August 15 is the 227th day of the year in the Gregorian Calendar (228th in leap years), with 138 days remaining. ... 2005 (MMV) was a common year starting on Saturday of the Gregorian calendar. ... Robert T. Pennock is a philosopher now working on the Avida digital organism project at Michigan State University where he is an associate professor. ... The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, an organization that works to promote a Neo-Creationist religious agenda centering on Intelligent design, and is the hub of the Intelligent design movement. ... Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. ...

Encyclopedia > Argument from evolution

Contents