Expelled: The Movie
Newbaum Turk
Issue date: 5/8/08 Section: News
|
There are two main reasons why it is irresponsible for scientists to blindly pledge themselves in support of Darwin: first, while very interesting as a theory, evolution does have its problems- problems that most scientists (and school teachers) either haven't learned about or consciously ignore. Concepts of "irreducible complexity" and the lack of a fossil record for transitional species come to mind but there are many more.
Evolution is a meta-theory in the sense that it cannot be tested. If you cannot empirically test or experiment in order to probe the validity of the theory, it cannot be proven or disproved. Scientists rely all-too-heavily on questionable data that either supports the theory or doesn't fit neatly into it. In other words, everything that is evolutionary in nature is explained by evolution… which is practically a tautology.
Second, and more importantly, it is entirely possible to discuss intelligent design without EVER mentioning God. Let me write that a second time so that it sinks in: intelligent design (ID) theory, unlike creationism, uses science and mathematics and does NOT require the use of the word "God."
How? The greatest challenge Darwinists face is explaining the origin of life. How inorganic matter becomes living, and how reproducing life is enormously complicated and enormously improbable.
Just how improbable is the scientific question. Before rising to the level of complexity of an entire cell, let us just consider the probability of constructing a short functional protein at random using the known amino acids. That number is one chance in 10^125. To get an idea of how large that number is, ask yourself, 'how many atoms are there in the entire universe?' Not much more than 10^80.
So, intelligent design theory becomes an analysis of probability and presumably begs the question at what point, in terms of probability, do you start to infer design? In other words, at what point does something become so improbable that it simply cannot happen by chance or randomness? It is a fascinating question and I encourage anyone interested to read anything by William A. Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer, or Michael Behe.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 31
izzie
posted 5/09/08 @ 7:21 AM NA
I was really relieved to discover (by clicking on "About Us") that this is a politically conservative paper, rather than the mainstream Ohio State daily. (Continued…)
Kevin O'Rourke
posted 5/09/08 @ 2:36 PM NA
izzie,
I don't believe that Newbaum is actually arguing that creationism is what should be taught in schools or is what actually happened. If you had read it more closely, Newbaum is arguing for more simply, a debate. (Continued…)
Jonathan Baptist
posted 5/09/08 @ 6:39 PM NA
If the writer had displayed meaningful grievances with the Theroy of Evolution, then maybe I would have read the rest of the article. However, whenever anyone says,"Concepts of "irreducible complexity" and the lack of a fossil record for transitional species come to mind but there are many more. (Continued…)
David
posted 5/09/08 @ 6:45 PM NA
The only "debate" is the one happening in the public eye and the media. Scientists are NOT debating the issue regarding ID vs Evolution. ID is pseudoscience and has been proven to be so during the Dover case. (Continued…)
Matt Provance
posted 5/09/08 @ 7:05 PM NA
I think somebody needs to fix the layout of this article because the numbers make no sense. Is "10150" supposed to be 10^150?
abb3w
posted 5/09/08 @ 7:56 PM NA
There's about a dozen problems here.
First, the "lack of a fossil record for transitional species" is misleading. Evolution indicates all fossils are either transitional or dead ends, and science is fundamentally a process for making extrapolations from an limited set of evidence. (Continued…)
Tarbo
posted 5/09/08 @ 9:36 PM NA
What do you mean you can discuss Intelligent Design without mentioning God? It's in your own title! Intelligent Designer, THAT'S GOD!
Dave
posted 5/09/08 @ 10:30 PM NA
It's a pity that it only takes people one sentence to make an ignorant and unsupported claim that educated and rational people like myself may have to rebut with a paragraph or more. (Continued…)
scott
posted 5/09/08 @ 11:25 PM NA
"Based on my complete lack of understanding in regards to the evolutionary process, I have determined that evolution is statistically impossible, and therefore my preferred magical explanation of choice wins by default. (Continued…)
Jello Biafra
posted 5/09/08 @ 11:37 PM NA
"The mission of The Sentinel shall be to serve as a campus voice of reason, to enhance the intellectual environment on campus and locally, and to serve as a forum of ideas among those who embrace life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Continued…)
Post a Comment