Showing posts with label Creationists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Creationists. Show all posts

Friday, 27 July 2007

The Idiocy of Intelligent Design

The 'new' Creationists, have changed the label but it is the same 'act'. Creationism has been clothed in the label of Intelligent Design. In reality there is no difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism. The Intelligent Design movement was started by the Discovery Institute, which was founded by ex-lawyer Phillip E. Johnson.

Phillip E.Johnson, in defending Intelligent Design, does not produce any evidence, that could hold it up as a serious alternative to evolution by Natural Selection. Rather, he uses clever and manipulative lawyer speak, that confuses and befuddles the minds of individuals, who have little scientific knowledge. This lawyer speak is very convincing to the general public. But even here most of Johnson's lawyer speak is not put forward as an attempt to prove Intelligent Design.. rather, most of his comments are in the negative, in denouncing science... In that the overwhelming body of scientific evidence in favor of Evolution by Natural Selection, is simply claimed to be falsely built up, in some kind of mass "Darwinian conspiracy" and it is Johnson and his institutes job to overthrow it.

In reality, the Discovery Institute have one goal... remove Evolution by Natural Selection from the science class and teach Intelligent Design as a scientific alternative. What this really means is: Replace a solid scientific theory with a pseudo scientific theory, that is fully grounded in religion and has no aspect in it's 'nature' that one could describe as scientific. Indeed, this is not just an attack on Evolution by Natural Selection, it is a direct attack on the scientific method.

Despite the claims of scientific integrity of the Discovery Institute, there is no science and Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. Indeed, it would be a stretch to even call it a hypothesis. Intelligent Design is just creationism with another name and in reality there is nothing intelligent about it. Intelligent Design is merely substituted for Creationism, because Creationism carries connotations, which are not conducive to getting it taken seriously. Indeed, because of the embarrassing media coverage and court cases over creationism, it has become rather embarrassing to mention or push Creationism with any serious fervor.

So, Intelligent Design has 'taken the place' of Creationism and is being pushed as an alternative to Evolution by Natural Selection. The Intelligent Design advocates, love the phrase "debating the controversy" and this is how they push Intelligent Design onto the public. They make the claim; that there is a controversy within Evolutionary Theory and that it needs to be debated. They then put Intelligent Design up as an alternative. But they do so, without presenting any scientific evidence, of why it should even be considered as an alternative.

But what is Intelligent Design? - All intelligent Design really claims, is that biological organisms are too complex to have come about by 'chance' and must of been designed. They give examples of inanimate objects to draw their analogies, so they will say something like... 'look how complex a computer is, such complexity demands a designer' and 'look, here we can see that computers are design by human beings'. They then apply the same 'logic' to biological organisms, by saying they are complex, thus, they must have a designer.

Of course in one respect biological organisms do have a designer. Evolution by Natural Selection, does design, in the sense that it evolves complexity through time. But it is a bottom up designer and not a tinkering 'watch maker'. As Professor Richard Dawkins has put it in the title of one of his books, Evolution by Natural Selection is a 'Blind Watchmaker'.

The fact is that there is no scientific proof for Intelligent Design, it is really just a substitute name for God, it just sounds more credible, when creationists try to make claim for it, being a scientific alternative to Evolution by Natural Selection... Intelligent Design just sounds more scientific than Creationism, which of course doesn't sound scientific at all, it immediately draws connotations with God. But in reality, Intelligent Design is identical to Creationism.

In there attempts to discredit Evolution by Natural Selection, the fact is that Intelligent Design advocates, are not doing any scientific work, that could overthrow it. They are not presenting any evidence. Rather, they are saying, we believe that Intelligent Design is a better alternative; but that is the best they can do.

As for their claims that evolution is just a theory of chance, this is absurd of course. It is a claim made by Intelligent Design advocates and not one being made by the scientific community. Of course Evolution by Natural Selection does involve an element of chance, in the random mutation of genetic information. But the Intelligent Design advocates of course fail to go on, to say, that Evolution is also a process of Natural Selection and natural selection is the exact opposite of chance - and this process guides the random process.

In reality, the Intelligent Design advocates are attempting a political ploy to overthrow science and replace it with religion. One of their tactics in doing this, is in calling Darwinism a religion. But the error here is that individuals involved in the many different scientific disciplines, that revolve around Evolution by Natural selection are not Darwinist's in the strict scientific sense... while most of them are not hostile to Darwin, the point is that science has moved on a long way since Darwin's day... We know a lot more about evolution today than Darwin did. So to call individuals who are pro science, in that they accept the science of evolution by Natural Selection... To call them Darwinists is naive and does suggest religious connotations. This is nonsense of course. Science unlike the dogma of religion, moves on and that includes the science of Evolution, which is drawn from many different scientific disciplines, such as Microbiology, Evo-Devo, Zoology, Anthropology, Palaeontology, Geology, Genetics... Indeed, all these scientific disciplines and many more still, converge in bringing more and more evidence, that supports Evolution by Natural Selection and this evidence is coming in thick and fast.




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Writer's Block CD
o Experience creativity on demand, and eliminate Writer's Block for good!

Wednesday, 4 July 2007

Micro or Macro Evolution?

Many Young Earth Creationists (not all) are happy to accept Micro-Evolution; but denounce Macro-Evolution. They make the claim that macro changes within species cannot happen, because as just one example: one never sees a "cat turn into a dog". Creationists often use the word 'kind' ...You don't see one "kind of animal" change into another.

Of course this claim that if Evolution by Natural Selection, was a real phenomena of nature, then macro changes should be directly observable, is not a claim made by scientists, it is a claim made by Young Earth Creationists and Intelligent design advocates.

If we did observe cats changing into dogs, right before our eyes, that would not be proof of Evolution by Natural Selection and more specifically it would not be proof of Macro-Evolution. If this were to ever happen, it would turn the theory of evolution on its head. One would be tempted to call such a physical phenomena, a miracle.

Biologists are not sat in labs waiting for cats to turn into dogs. This is a straw man argument dreamed up by religious quacks.

So, what is Macro-Evolution? - Macro-Evolution relates to time. It is simply multiples of Micro-Evolution over time. In other words, Macro-Evolution is Micro-Evolution writ large. There are not two different phenomena. There are just lots of multiplications of the same process over time. When you add these multiples together, it is convenient to use the word macro.

The fact that Macro-Evolution is just a concept to describe a sum or a totality of micro changes over time, is precisely why you will never see a cat change into a dog. It is also precisely why there is no contradiction between micro and macro evolution.

Though one will never see a cat change into a dog. We do know that given enough time and the right natural conditions within the environment, one species can gradually evolve into another species through the process of Evolution by Natural Selection. There is no contradiction whatsoever in calling that change Macro-Evolution... But a synonym for that same process is: Multiples of micro-changes through time, that lead to dramatic physiological changes.

We know that these Macro changes do take place through identifications within the fossil record... For example:

(Reference Talk Origins)

1) Birds to Reptiles: The finding of a complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba.

2) Reptiles to Mammals: complete series of fossils for the reptile-mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia.

3) Human-Apes: Collection of fossil hominids.

4) Legged Fossil Whales: land mammal-to-whale fossil intermediates.

5) Legged Sea Cows: (manatees and dugongs) are fully aquatic mammals with flippers for forelimbs and no hindlimbs.

The above are prime examples and all qualify as Macro-Evolutionary transitional fossils.






How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Messenger-Patch Software
o Protect your PC from unwanted popups!