Evolution or Intelligent Design
The controversy between evolution and intelligent design continues to grow through the country. While most people are taking strict sides to the debate, I somehow find myself somewhere in the middle. I have researched both sides quite a bit and have found that it takes more faith to believe in complete evolution than in an intelligent designer. To preface my argument, I'd like to point out that I am not religious and am not talking in favor of intelligent design because of any religious group. My feelings against evolution and somewhat for intelligent design come from my own research into the topic. In this post I plan on pointing out the flaws in evolution as well as the flaws that I see in intelligent design as it is presented today.
Evolution, as it is taught today, is the idea that all living things on earth today evolved from a single cell organism that was created through the random chance of the right proteins falling together to create the cell. Text books in American schools are quick to point out evolution as a fact, without discussing the fallbacks of the THEORY. This is where our school systems are going wrong. In the following analysis, I'm paraphrasing the test of Lee Strobel. In the text, Strobel has interviews with a number of prominent figures in evolution's corresponding fields. What he finds is that evolution's four basic premises are flawed.
The first basis for Darwinian evolution is the Stanley Miller Experiment. The aim of this experiment, conducted in 1953, was to artificially produce the building blocks of life. The atmosphere of primitive earth was recreated and electric sparks were used to simulate lightning. The "lightning" produced a red goo containing amino acids. This experiment is now featured in almost all textbooks discussing evolution. In the 1950s, scientists believed the atmosphere was a hydrogen-rich mixture of methane, ammonia, and water vapor. What's accepted in the scientific world now is an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor. The newly accepted model for the atmosphere still creates "organic molecules" as text books vaguely put it, but they're far from being life supporting organic molecules. The experiment produces Formaldehyde and cyanide. This is not even close to the right ingredients needed to produce life. But even if you still think Miller had it right, the only thing created was amino acids and proteins...not whole cells. For them to fall together and create a cell would be like throwing all the parts to a bunch of different cars into a huge gyrating pile, then after awhile a fully put together, shiny new car would come out. The odds of the amino acids getting together to form a cell are astronomical. Like I said earlier...more faith required to believe in evolution than an intelligent designer.
The Stanley Miller experiment is only one of the four icons of evolution. The second is Darwin's Tree of Life. The tree of life is a sketch in which life is depicted as a tree, starting with an ancient ancestor at the bottom that grows into limbs, branches, and twigs. This view requires physical evidence, which the fossil record would have to support. Since this theory has been proposed, we've had over a century of fossil discoveries. Strobel asks Jonathan Wells, PHD, PHD (undergrad degrees in geology and physics, with a minor in biology, doctorate in religious studies, and author of the book, Charles Hodge's Critique of Darwinism) if the evolutionary tree held up. Wells answered, "Absolutely not. As an illustration of the fossil record, the Tree of Life is a dismal failure. But it is a good representation of Darwin's theory...In fact, Darwin knew the fossil record failed to support his tree. He acknowledged that major groups of animals--he calls them divisions, now they're called phyla--appear suddenly in the fossil record. That's not what his theory predicts." Since his time, the fossil record has shown that the "Cambrian explosion" (the rapid appearance of phylum-level differences) is even more sudden and abrupt that scientists once though. The fossil record uproots Darwin's tree and turns it upside down. There is very supporting evidence that I won't go into right now that shows that it's very very unlikely that many new fossils will be found to support the tree of life.
The third icon of evolution is Haeckel's Embryos. These are images that depict the embryos of a fish, salamander, tortoise, chicken, hog, calf, rabbit, and human side-by-side at 3 stages of development. The illustrations support Darwin in that they all have striking similarities, which goes to show that we all share a common ancestor. The first problem with Haeckel's embryos is that the drawings in the early stages were faked. He doctored the drawings to make them look more similar than they really are. The problem is that textbooks today still use the illustration to support evolution. The second problem with Haekel's ebmryos is that he cherry-picked his examples. He only shows a few of the seven vertebrate classes. "He stacked the deck by picking representatives that came closes to fitting his idea--and then went further by faking the similarities." Wells, being an embryologist, points out that the most dramatic problem is that what Haekel claimed to be the early stages of development is nothing of the sort. It's actually the midpoint of development, He tells us that if you go back to the earlier stages, the embryos look far more different from each other.
I could go on into the 4th icon, which is dubbed the missing link. It discusses the archaeopteryx. Like the other icons presented, this one too has many faults. My goal with this post, however, is just to throw some brief thoughts out there about evolution. Lee Strobel in his book The Case For a Creator investigates evolution's origins and its faults then proceeds into argument towards intelligent design. I have not finished the book yet, but it has opened my eyes to the American education system and how it presents very unfinished theories as facts to the children of the country. No wonder we rank so low on international education system comparisons.
As I said earlier, I want to discuss intelligent design. Many see it as a creationist theory in disguise. The fact of the matter is that it is as scientific as evolution. The problem that surrounds ID is the pressure from the churches. They see it as a way to open the school system up to creationism. Intelligent design is simply a theory that says life today is too complex to have happened by pure chance and must be the work of an intelligent designer. Saying this in a public school does not establish a religion or prohibit the free excercise thereof...which is the law that a lot of people try to call "separation of church and state." As long as our government doesn't endorse and make a national religion, we're not establishing a religion and as long as intelligent design doesn't prohibit free exercise, which it doesn't, it should be mentioned. It is just as viable of a theory as evolution. What has to be watched and regulated is the churches' influence. They distort the aim of intelligent design. Overall ID should be looked into and researched by the general public before it is dismissed.
I encourage everyone that reads this post to look into both evolution and intelligent design. I challenge you to do it with an open mind as well...something that most will have a hard time doing. You may be surprised as to what you may find out there. I know that I used to be a major opponent to intelligent design and a proponent of evolution. Allow change to happen...don't be stubborn.
The discovery institute is a good place to look to if you want information on intelligent design. They are a Seattle based think tank that is a prominent face in the on going debate. I would also highly recommend Lee Strobel's book. It'll open your eyes to a whole array of issues that everyone should know about.
Anyways, I just thought I'd post something on this since related topics have been all over the news lately. That's it for now...
I'll have a new update on wednesday to let you all know how the new MacBook Pro performs in the hands of me!
Evolution, as it is taught today, is the idea that all living things on earth today evolved from a single cell organism that was created through the random chance of the right proteins falling together to create the cell. Text books in American schools are quick to point out evolution as a fact, without discussing the fallbacks of the THEORY. This is where our school systems are going wrong. In the following analysis, I'm paraphrasing the test of Lee Strobel. In the text, Strobel has interviews with a number of prominent figures in evolution's corresponding fields. What he finds is that evolution's four basic premises are flawed.
The first basis for Darwinian evolution is the Stanley Miller Experiment. The aim of this experiment, conducted in 1953, was to artificially produce the building blocks of life. The atmosphere of primitive earth was recreated and electric sparks were used to simulate lightning. The "lightning" produced a red goo containing amino acids. This experiment is now featured in almost all textbooks discussing evolution. In the 1950s, scientists believed the atmosphere was a hydrogen-rich mixture of methane, ammonia, and water vapor. What's accepted in the scientific world now is an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor. The newly accepted model for the atmosphere still creates "organic molecules" as text books vaguely put it, but they're far from being life supporting organic molecules. The experiment produces Formaldehyde and cyanide. This is not even close to the right ingredients needed to produce life. But even if you still think Miller had it right, the only thing created was amino acids and proteins...not whole cells. For them to fall together and create a cell would be like throwing all the parts to a bunch of different cars into a huge gyrating pile, then after awhile a fully put together, shiny new car would come out. The odds of the amino acids getting together to form a cell are astronomical. Like I said earlier...more faith required to believe in evolution than an intelligent designer.
The Stanley Miller experiment is only one of the four icons of evolution. The second is Darwin's Tree of Life. The tree of life is a sketch in which life is depicted as a tree, starting with an ancient ancestor at the bottom that grows into limbs, branches, and twigs. This view requires physical evidence, which the fossil record would have to support. Since this theory has been proposed, we've had over a century of fossil discoveries. Strobel asks Jonathan Wells, PHD, PHD (undergrad degrees in geology and physics, with a minor in biology, doctorate in religious studies, and author of the book, Charles Hodge's Critique of Darwinism) if the evolutionary tree held up. Wells answered, "Absolutely not. As an illustration of the fossil record, the Tree of Life is a dismal failure. But it is a good representation of Darwin's theory...In fact, Darwin knew the fossil record failed to support his tree. He acknowledged that major groups of animals--he calls them divisions, now they're called phyla--appear suddenly in the fossil record. That's not what his theory predicts." Since his time, the fossil record has shown that the "Cambrian explosion" (the rapid appearance of phylum-level differences) is even more sudden and abrupt that scientists once though. The fossil record uproots Darwin's tree and turns it upside down. There is very supporting evidence that I won't go into right now that shows that it's very very unlikely that many new fossils will be found to support the tree of life.
The third icon of evolution is Haeckel's Embryos. These are images that depict the embryos of a fish, salamander, tortoise, chicken, hog, calf, rabbit, and human side-by-side at 3 stages of development. The illustrations support Darwin in that they all have striking similarities, which goes to show that we all share a common ancestor. The first problem with Haeckel's embryos is that the drawings in the early stages were faked. He doctored the drawings to make them look more similar than they really are. The problem is that textbooks today still use the illustration to support evolution. The second problem with Haekel's ebmryos is that he cherry-picked his examples. He only shows a few of the seven vertebrate classes. "He stacked the deck by picking representatives that came closes to fitting his idea--and then went further by faking the similarities." Wells, being an embryologist, points out that the most dramatic problem is that what Haekel claimed to be the early stages of development is nothing of the sort. It's actually the midpoint of development, He tells us that if you go back to the earlier stages, the embryos look far more different from each other.
I could go on into the 4th icon, which is dubbed the missing link. It discusses the archaeopteryx. Like the other icons presented, this one too has many faults. My goal with this post, however, is just to throw some brief thoughts out there about evolution. Lee Strobel in his book The Case For a Creator investigates evolution's origins and its faults then proceeds into argument towards intelligent design. I have not finished the book yet, but it has opened my eyes to the American education system and how it presents very unfinished theories as facts to the children of the country. No wonder we rank so low on international education system comparisons.
As I said earlier, I want to discuss intelligent design. Many see it as a creationist theory in disguise. The fact of the matter is that it is as scientific as evolution. The problem that surrounds ID is the pressure from the churches. They see it as a way to open the school system up to creationism. Intelligent design is simply a theory that says life today is too complex to have happened by pure chance and must be the work of an intelligent designer. Saying this in a public school does not establish a religion or prohibit the free excercise thereof...which is the law that a lot of people try to call "separation of church and state." As long as our government doesn't endorse and make a national religion, we're not establishing a religion and as long as intelligent design doesn't prohibit free exercise, which it doesn't, it should be mentioned. It is just as viable of a theory as evolution. What has to be watched and regulated is the churches' influence. They distort the aim of intelligent design. Overall ID should be looked into and researched by the general public before it is dismissed.
I encourage everyone that reads this post to look into both evolution and intelligent design. I challenge you to do it with an open mind as well...something that most will have a hard time doing. You may be surprised as to what you may find out there. I know that I used to be a major opponent to intelligent design and a proponent of evolution. Allow change to happen...don't be stubborn.
The discovery institute is a good place to look to if you want information on intelligent design. They are a Seattle based think tank that is a prominent face in the on going debate. I would also highly recommend Lee Strobel's book. It'll open your eyes to a whole array of issues that everyone should know about.
Anyways, I just thought I'd post something on this since related topics have been all over the news lately. That's it for now...
I'll have a new update on wednesday to let you all know how the new MacBook Pro performs in the hands of me!
posted by Clint at 8:42 PM
4 Comments:
"As long as our government doesn't endorse and make a national religion, we're not establishing a religion and as long as intelligent design doesn't prohibit free exercise, which it doesn't, it should be mentioned."
Exactly! People don't understand that teaching Christianity or ID, for that matter, is not a violation of church and state.
This world is far too complicated to have come about from blobs in outer space, in my opinion. I was taught Creationism in school and would have hated to hear BS about evolution, at least teach both. If anything, it's going to help the upcoming kids... it will teach them to think for themselves.
-Anonymous
Bravo Clint,
Great post.
I also believe whole heartedly in intelligent design. I believe nature clearly displays it in the unique intrinsic design of each tree, flower, bird, animal, fish, etc., including man. Look at the human body itself. It is made up of the same elements of the earth, yet it is designed to repair itself. Look how the earth, the rain, the sun, the air, are designed to work together to create an enviroment that will sustain life. I believe it is more reasonable to attribute the design of our world to an intelligent designer, that is clearly evidenced by nature itself, than to believe in something that men think might have happened, but haven't been able to prove. Blob from outerspace, big bang, evolution, come on lets be reasonable. ~ Aunt Kathy
PS: Send a copy of the statement
"As long as our government doesn't endorse and make a national religion, we're not establishing a religion and as long as intelligent design doesn't prohibit free exercise, which it doesn't, it should be mentioned."
to the US Supreme Court, State Supreme Courts, every elected official, etc., etc. That was the best and simplest way I have ever heard that put. How much more clear could it be.
I have been judging high school debate tournaments and the topic for LD right now is on ID. I agree with you totally on the fact that it should be taught as long as evolution is being taught. The only reason the churches have a problem with it, is that they are fearful of losing their congregations to this idea. As long as we are not cloned, diversity will always be found.
Good for you Clint!
mom
cHi Clint,
It's me again. I just thought I should clarify that my previous comment was not based on the study of the theory of intelligent design. It is based on my belief that God created the heavens and the earth and everything on it and in it. That of course makes me biased on whom I think the intelligent designer is. Even if I did not believe that, I would still believe that the design of this world is far to orderly and detailed to have been created by happenstance. I believe it was created by intelligent design.
I believe man is fallible, thereby making man's theories fallible. How many times has mankind had to eat their words, because after further study and new information, they realize their previous theory was inaccurate. The world is flat...oh, no, it's really round! Coffee is bad for you...no, it is good for you, no it's bad. We've evolved from the apes...hmmmm have you seen any apes evolve into a man lately? If it happened once, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect it to happen again?
If they teach one theory, they should teach them all. The government should not censor or exclude reasonable ideas just because a few people disagree with it and choose to interpret the law differently than what it's original intent and purpose was at the time the pen was put to paper and signed.
Whatever happened to democracy? Whatever happened to a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people"? I thought "we the people" was supposed to determine how our government is supposed to govern us. We tell it what to do, instead of it telling us what to do.
Okay, I am getting off my soap box, I can sure say that you got me thinking...Ha. I may not be able to put it as eloquently as you do, but I hope you understand what I was trying to say.
Post a Comment
<< Home