Intelligent Design proponents are cagey. Unlike real scientists, they limit possible criticism of their “theory” by limiting the theory. ID says that some things in the universe are best explained by intelligent creation instead of naturalistic processes. But they refuse to make any identification of the creator – even though it is transparent to everybody they mean God. They refuse to open the theory up to how exactly the intelligent designer made the things he is supposed to have designed. They refuse to take an official position on when he is supposed to have made what he designed.
Why? Because they want a “big tent”. They want to be able to present a platform that is vague enough that creationists of all stripes can support. Scientifically this is a disaster. The universe cannot be both simultaneously 13.7 billion years old and only 10,000 years old. Both old-earth creationists and young-earth creationists cannot both be correct with respect to the age of the universe. Someone has to be wrong.
Similarly, it cannot be both true that the creator created each species (or kind – whatever that really means) separately and all species share common ancestors. The hypotheses are mutually exclusive. While it is true that Michael Behe has publically stated that he believes in common descent (all species share a common ancestry), he is about the only ID supporter to come out publically in favor of it. The vast majority of ID proponents are supporters of Special Creation; the doctrine that God created all species or kinds de novo pretty much the way they are now.
An important chunk of the evidence against special creation in support of common descent concerns vestigial organs; reduced organs that appear to be evolutionary remnants of more developed structures found in other organisms. Evolutionary theory explains these as being due to the function these structures perform being no longer as important for the reproductive fitness of the organism. Their explanation under the theory of Special Creation is especially problematic.
The traditional way that proponents of Special Creation use to dismiss these problems is to point out that most vestigial structures have a function, and therefore to deny that they really are vestigial. Too often, the argument then degenerates into semantics of what is meant by the word “vestigial”.
While vestigial does NOT mean functionless, I want to avoid the misleading semantics altogether. It does not matter if an organ retains some function or not, what matters is whether or not the organ is actually an evolutionary remnant or not. So for the sake of this argument I will agree with the creationists. If a structure has a defined function then it is not vestigial.
Under this definition, the human vermiform appendix contains lymphatic tissue that functions as part of the immune system. Therefore it is not vestigial. But is it an evolutionary remnant or is it a product of Special Creation?
Let’s compare the two theories once again and see which one really fits the data. Evolutionary theory says the appendix is an evolutionary remnant of the cecum. Special Creation says it is an organ designed with a specific purpose in mind. As we compare the evidence I will argue that evolutionary theory explains all the data while there are severe holes in the special creation theory. I will even argue that the FUNCTION is better explained by evolutionary theory than by Special Creation.
Let’s look at evolutionary theory first. Evolutionary theory says that as the ancestors of humans developed a more fruit and meat eating diet the cecum became less important allowing it to become reduced into the appendix. The cecum is a part of the large intestine found in many small herbivores (plant-eating animals). One of the major components of all plants is cellulose. Cellulose is potentially very nutritious (it is composed of carbohydrates) but is impossible for multicellular animals to digest on their own. The cecum forms a blind sac sometimes as long as twelve inches in which small herbivores store bacteria capable of breaking down cellulose into its basic carbohydrate building blocks.
Here is the evidence that the appendix is an evolutionary remnant of the cecum:
POSITION: The appendix is located in an expanded region of the colon between a small area where the ileum (the distal part of the small intestine) connects and where the colon curves upward to form the ascending colon. This is EXACTLY the same position where ALL cecums in every animal having them are found. No other structure is located in this place in any other animals.
HISTOLOGY: The appendix has an outer fibrous tunic, a middle muscular layer that contains patches of lymphatic tissue, and an inner epithelial layer. Down its length is a closed tube, the lumen. This is EXACTLY the same general plan as the cecum (including the lymphatic tissue). In short, there is NOTHING in the appendix that is not also in the cecum.
SIZE: The appendix is much reduced from the cecum. This is adaptive. The PRIMARY function of the cecum is to act as a storehouse for cellulose-digesting bacteria. We get the vast majority of our nutritional needs from other sources so if the appendix were as big as the cecum, it would likely be inhabited by other more harmful bacteria. Having the lumen as small as it is decreases the likelihood that food will lodge in it becoming a food source for the bacteria allowing them to proliferate. However, if the lumen were any smaller then dietary fiber could not enter it and clean the appendix in a manner analogous to that of a test-tube brush cleaning a test tube.
FUNCTION: The appendix plays a role in immune surveillance. It has lymphatic tissue just like the cecum to perform this role. The role is important because the appendix is very susceptible to infection.
OBSERVATIONS THAT ARE A PROBLEM FOR THE THEORY: None!!
Now let’s look at the explanation for the appendix by the theory of Special creation. Evidence for the theory:
FUNCTION: The appendix plays a role in immune surveillance. But this is also explained by evolutionary theory. There are no other supporting observations.
OBSERVATIONS THAT ARE A PROBLEM FOR THE THEORY:
1 - Why is the structure of the appendix homologous to that of the cecum? The only answers that come to mind are ad hoc answers along the line that of - that is the way God chose to do it, or the structure of the cecum just happens to be optimal for that of the appendix as well.
2 - If the appendix was DESIGNED to have a role in immune surveillance then one might reasonably suspect it would be the part of the colon that is LEAST susceptible to infection. It is not. The exact opposite is true. It is the part of the colon that is MOST susceptible to infection. Thus, it appears that the evolutionary idea that the immune surveillance function of the appendix is there to lessen the infection potential of a very susceptible organ.
3 - Why does the appendix have a lumen? It is the lumen that traps food particles allowing bacteria to proliferate and cause infections. The obvious thing to do if an intelligent designer wanted immune surveillance in the lining of the large intestine is to put it into the colon proper instead of into a structure that hangs off the proximal end. In fact, the gut does this already. But there is plenty of room to incorporate the lymphatic tissue of the appendix if a designer wanted. Again the only apparent answers to this are ad hoc - God chose to do it that way; perhaps there is something we do not know about the function of the appendix that makes it reasonable to do it that way, etc.
Thus, the appendix is WELL explained by evolutionary theory. Special Creation relies solely on the fact that the appendix has a function, but even that function is BETTER explained by evolutionary theory than it is by Special Creation. In short, the appendix is excellent evidence for evolutionary theory and for common descent since it says that humans had ancestors with functional cecums.
Now let’s look at some more structures that evolutionary theory says are evolutionary remnants and see if they are indeed better explained by evolutionary theory or Special Creation.
Piloerector muscles:
Evolutionary theory says these are remnants of muscles from ancestors that were quite furry.
SUPPORTING OBSERVATIONS:
1 - The evolutionary remnant theory explains why we get goose bumps in the cold. It is an evolutionary left-over response from our furry ancestors. In the cold furry animals raise their hair. This traps a thicker layer of air and gives the animal more insulation. This response is non-functional in us, however.
2 - The evolutionary remnant theory explains why we get the feeling of the hair on the back of our neck raising up when we are scared or angry. Furry animals will try to make themselves look more imposing when faced with conflict. Expanding their fur is a common response and it makes the animal look bigger. The response is non-functional in us, however.
Special Creation theory says piloerector muscles are there to squeeze the oil glands at the base of the hair and may offer protection against bacterial infection.
SUPPORTING OBSERVATIONS:
None!
PROBLEMS FOR THE THEORY:
1 - Why do the piloerector muscles kick in during times of cold and possible physical conflict?
2 - Why are the oiliest parts of our skin those areas that do not have hair - the hands and forehead?
Embryonic Whale Teeth in Toothless Whales:
Evolutionary theory says these are remnants of functional teeth from toothed ancestors of whales.
SUPPORTING OBSEVATIONS;
1 - Fossils of early whales DID have teeth.
2 - The embryonic teeth LOOK just like teeth but are resorbed before birth.
Special Creation Theory might say that the embryonic teeth have a function in that they probably induce the structure of other important jaw structures. By that I mean if one were to go in and cut them out during development, structures that develop later may not come in at all or be grossly deformed.
SUPPORTING OBSERVATIONS:
None as of yet but I would be surprised if this is not the case.
PROBLEMS FOR THE THEORY:
1 - THEY ARE TEETH for crissakes!! Why make the sole function of TEETH be to induce the formation of other jaw structures? The teeth in toothed whales also probably induce jaw structures as well, but in these species they go on to develop into functional teeth.
The reason I include a brief discussion of these things is to emphasize that just because something has a function is no reason to exclude it from being an evolutionary remnant of a more developed structure in an ancestor species. Reduced structures can still have functions.
There are literally thousands of such structures known and the combined support for evolutionary theory AT THE EXPENSE OF SPECIAL CREATION is devastating. The only way around it as I see it is to deny the obvious.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
wolfengromper
i'm not talking about transitional fossils, which, as beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. i"m talking about living,breathing, present day crossovers from one species to another. For, say what you will about evolution being a process that takes millions or billions of years, there still has to be a point at which the differences between the original species, and that to which it transitions, begins to occur. Or are you saying that all of that evolving business is now done and over with, and we have reached the crown, the apex, the climax of the evolutionary movement? That would be convenient, if completely unscientific. Why would evolution just stop occurring? And how in the name of science do you cleave to a belief system that flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics? Which group of scientific priests is in error here? For there is surely abundant evidence that at least indicates the validity of the second law of thermodynamics. But evolution?
In actuality, I could care less if you believe in evolution as such or not. That is not my concern. My concern is your reasons for doing so. Did you embrace this belief system because it dovetailed so nicely with your personal philosophy? If so, I encourage you to read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis, where you will be surprised to note several pro-evolution statements. Since you didn't mention that earlier when scorning his writings, I can only assume that you didn't know that about him, because you haven't read his books-at least, not this one. In any event, his comments on the subject may interest you.
Happy Monday
(1) What exactly do you mean by "present day crossovers from one species to another"? If you mean an individual whose ancestors were of another species then all you have to do is look in the mirror, or look at any living thing. Everything alive today is derived from ancestors that were of a different species than they are now.
If you mean a member of a species that is in the process of diverging, then go birding. Bullock's Orioles and Baltimore Orioles are constantly being classified separate species one year and the same species the next year. Great-tailed Grackles and Boat-tailed Grackles weren't recognized as separate species until fairly recently. I'll bet you would have a very hard time distinguishing between Western Meadowlarks and Eastern Meadowlarks. There are at least 6 different species of Empidonax Flycatchers that are distinguished only by call. Careful observation shows that under natural conditions they do not interbreed. Not even experienced birders can tell a female Ruby-throated hummingbird from a female Black-chinned hummingbird.
Also, labs are doing more and more genome analyses of birds and finding distinct differences within certain populations that suggest in reality they are different species. Furthermore, you can find such things with all types of organisms. All you have to do is go to a good bookstore and browse Nature Field Guides and note the similar species that you will see.
(2) Nothing will ever be the pinnacle in evolution. There is no standard by which to judge. All an organism can be is better adapted to its local environment (aka niche) and the ecological principle of competetive exclusion ensures no two species can ever occupy the same local environment. Furthermore local environments are not constant. So a trait that may be selected FOR one year, may be selected AGAINST the next if the local environment changes.
(3) There is absolutely NOTHING about evolutionary theory that "flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics". Every single chemical reaction that ever taken place in any member of an evolving species leads to loss of useable energy within the universe just as the second law of thermodynamics says it should.
If you are like most creationists and THINK that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics because complex multicellular life evolved from more simple single-celled life, think about this ... YOU began life as a single-celled organism, a fertilized egg. If the second law of thermodynamics prevented evolution then it should prevent growth as well. It OBVIOUSLY doesn't prevent growth, so perhaps, you have been lied to about evolution yet another time.
By the way ... there are a LOT more scientific papers published showing support for evolutionary theory than there are for the second law of thermodynamics.
(5) I embrace evolutionary theory because it is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. I reject Christianity for the same reason.
(6) I am aware that C.S. Lewis believed in evolutionary theory, good for him. I am also aware of his apologetics. All theists seem to think he is the greatest thing since swiss cheese. The parts of it I have read are unimpressive. But then again ALL Christian apologetics I have read have been poor. That includes some otherwise outstanding thinkers such as Blaise Pascal mentioned above, evolutionist Kenneth R. Brown, geneticist Francis Collins, and claimed outstanding theologians like Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne.
My guess is that you lean more to Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell. They are HORRIBLE. At least Plantinga and Swinburne do not include intentional misrepresentations in their articles.
As an antidote to C.S. Lewis' MERE CHRISTIANITY, I would recommend Bertrand Russell's WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
wolfengromper
I look daily to see if I can find an intermediate species on the side of the road. You know, the ones that are supposed to be gradually transforming into a higher form of something? Since there are none pickled in formaldehyde in museums, and there are no National Geographic specials on them, and none in the zoos, I'm sure that they must be the victims of roadkill, and that is why the evolutionists cannot now, nor have they ever been able to produce. a single one. So that must be it, the roadkill thing. Right? Unless...they don't really exist? there really is no such thing? Because it never happened that way in the first place, perhaps?
You can point out the holes in intelligent design all you want, but as for me, I can't help but notice that you have several in Darwin's vagaries big enough to drive a Mack truck through. But wisdom is justified of her children.
Of course we can't tell you how God did everything. We weren't there, and we only have access to what He has been pleased to reveal to us. If you think that's a copout, take it up with Him. It's not the creationists or even the proponents of intelligent design that you are ultimately attacking, but God Himself. And he is more than a match for your arguments, my mortal friend. If you want truth about origins, I suggest you make friends with the Originator. Unless you're more comfortable with the hodgepodge of myths such as the Piltdown man and oh yes, those ever elusive intermediate species. And you look askance at having faith in an invisible being. Interesting.
Have a great week. Don't be scared of having an original thought that hasn't been carefully programmed into you. It may prove to be your salvation.
(1) Why would anyone suspect that an intermediate species would be found "by the side of the road"?
(2) It is a creationist myth that there are no transitional fossils. There is a HUGE amount of them. You have been lied to by creationists taking quotes out of context talking about technical aspects of punctuated equilibrium and cladistics from prominent evolutionary scientists and portraying them to give the impression there is a problem there.
Let's look directly at some of the evidence. Here is a link to a picture of just some of the ones we have showing the transition between an ape-like common ancestor and modern humans.
The picture in the upper right (labelled A) is a skull of a modern chimpanzee. The picture in the lower left (labelled N) is a skull of a modern human. The rest of the pictures (B thru M) are arranged in order of their radionuclide dating (oldest to youngest). Here are some simple questions for you:
(a) Where do apes end and humans begin?
(b) What criteria did you use to come up with your answer?
(c) If you were unable to come up with an answer then why is this not an excellent example of the fossil record showing transition.
By the way, these are all just skulls in the possession of the Smithsonian Institute. There are other intermediates out there. This picture leaves out at least 8 other transitional-like homonids that I know of.
(3) Piltdown man was a hoax. Do you know how the hoax was discovered? As new fossils were found and characteristics were compared a general line of phylogeny became apparent. Piltdown unlike others began sticking out like a sore thumb. It didn't make sense. Only the one specimen had been found ... no others. It's provenance was suspect because it was found by a for-profit fossil collector. Important parts of the fossils such as the condyles where the jaw and the skull articulate were missing so it could not be conclusively shown that they ever articulated in real life.
When things don't make sense, scientist take a closer look to find out what is wrong. This was done, and unmistakeable signs of forgery were found. Microscopic file markings were seen. Evidence that the bones were stained to make them appear older was found.
So, science made a mistake and corrected its mistake. No creationist discovered the mistake. Science did. That is what science does. That is how it is supposed to work. If what we think we know isn't right then problems appear. Those problems point the way to correcting what we think we know. So far despite what creationists claim, no problem concerning evolution has ever withstood scrutiny.
Religion on the other hand makes mistakes and then spends centuries worshipping them.
(4) While it is true that I am an atheist and do not believe in God, there are many evolutionary scientists who would disagree that pointing out the evidence as I have done (which you have not addressed, I wonder why?) is an attack on God. They are able to harmonize evolutionary theory with their personal religious beliefs.
When you deny the evidence right before your face it is not only evolutionary theory you deny, it is reason itself. The funny thing about that is that by denying reason it renders you unable to see that you are paying the price for it right now.
Have a great week. Don't be scared of having an original thought that hasn't been carefully programmed into you. It may prove to be your salvation.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
I have when there is a conflict between science and religion. Books have been banned in classrooms based on this types of clashes. There are so many sides and beliefs that I do not know what is the truth. There is so much research that goes into this, but I do not have so opinion on this clash. I try to stay out of this type of stuff.
I did a blog about science and religion in conflict. I believe there is a real conflict between the two. But that is not everyone's opinion.
Some people claim that since truth cannot possibly contradict truth there is no real conflict. If there is an apparent disagreement it is either because the science is wrong, or people's interpretation of religion is wrong. All that is needed is some creative harmonization to resolve the problem.
Others claim that science deals solely with the natural world and religion concerns the here-after. Therefore there is no overlap between the two in their areas of concern, so there can be no real conflict.
I think that all religions make claims that concern some aspects of the natural world that are legitimate subjects for scientific investigation. I also believe that the evidence from science shows many of these claims to be wrong.
Thanks for the reply.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
ookay...well did you know that there are thousands of holes and gaps in the WHOLE evolutionary theory?? and maybe creation can't explain the use of the appendix..but I'd say thats irrelevant in the big picture..because evolutionists can kinda make up whatever they want...since they're always remaking their theory to answer all questions brought against them..
and carbon dating is terribly unreliable...and well creation can almost be proved..ill tell you how..
There is a man named Dr. Baugh, a famous creationist scientist andi went to one of his museums where they found human footprints on the same layer of the earth as dinosaur footprints..(they're right next to eachother)...and he pulled out this giant rock with a fossi of a worm in it..now the worm is upsidedown..hes standing on his head..now if evolution is true..this worm had been standing on head for millions of years as each layer of the earth formed..if creation is true..and each part of the earth was created very rapidly...the hills and mountains were created in one day..then its quite easy to explain why there is a fossil of a worm in many different layers of the earth..and scientists agreee that the whole worm was fossilized at one time...
anyway..science points to creationism in sooo many ways..
Having devoted a significant amount of my time to studying various aspects of evolutionary theory, I can tell you that ... no, I am unaware of the thousands of holes in it.
I am, however, very familiar with "Dr" Carl Baugh and the Paluxy River dinosaur tracks you mention. I can also tell you that I am now aware you have been badly misinformed.
(1) Carbon dating is exquisitely accurate in dating organic material less than 50,000 years old. It is the gold standard and has been verified by using material of known age.
A variety of other radionuclides can be used to date material older than 50,000 years. These too are very accurate.
(2)"Dr" Carl Baugh holds only a fake doctorate degree.
(3) The dinosaur/human footprints are similarly faked. Even other creationist organizations warn against using any of Carl Baugh's claims as evidence against evolution.
(4) It is very easy for evolutionary theory to explain fossilized worms, since we have fossils of worm burrows going back to the pre-Cambrian.
(5) Paleosols sort of rule out a rapid creation of sedimentary layers and the global-flood geology of young-earth creationists.
(6) Interestingly, ALL data I am aware of, when scrutinized closely support modern evolutionry better than creationism.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle