The Trouble with Theory
The Kansas Board of Education voted yesterday to include a short commentary on "intelligent design" in their high school biology curriculum. "Intelligent design," or, as I like to punctuate it, "intelligent" design, posits that 4 billion years is not long enough to create life. Instead, they argue, our universe could only have been created by a "higher power." Since the Bill of Rights* specifically bans government establishment of religion, this "higher power" can't be God (right?). Jesus Christ, who are we kidding? Of course it's God. You don't see any atheists pushing "intelligent" design, do you?
The trouble, I think, is with the word "theory." Somehow the religious twats** in this country have decided that "theory" means "guess," along the lines of "Y'know, Pa, I have a theory them pigs got out 'cuz of that big durn hole in the fence." It's science, stupid. If we weren't sure, we'd call it a hypothesis. Unfortunately, that's too big a word for some folks.
Though the scientific literature does a damn good job of refuting the "intelligent" design proponents' objections to evolution, here's a summary.
Objection: There are "holes" in the fossil record that can't be explained.
Refutation: First of all, those "holes" are being filled all the time--scientists are constantly finding fossils that fill in the so-called gaps in the record. Second, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. (The religious right should be familiar with this one--where's the evidence of God's existence?) Third, let's explore the implications of the "holes in the record" idea. If there are holes, and God created each species separately, then God must have created and destroyed earlier species, replacing them with extant species. Thus, instead of cats and tigers evolving from one feline ancestor, we must assume that an early cat was created, then destroyed. Then, spontaneously, housecats and tigers were created--but they're not related. This is clearly bunk--anyone whose housecat has ever stalked an ant should be able to testify that domestic cats are nothing more than very small tigers.
Objection: There hasn't been sufficient time for scientific processes/evolution to create the complexity of our universe.
Refutation: This is true IF AND ONLY IF you believe that the world is only a few thousand years old. Astronomy tells us that the universe is about 13 BILLION YEARS OLD. Geology tells us that life on earth has existed for 3.5 billion years. And here's the kicker: you can actually observe evolution on the scale of the human lifetime. That's right, folks: entire species have undergone observable evolution since you were born. And we're not talking bacteria or viruses, either (which, incidentally, evolve MUCH faster). Species of mammal, bird, fish, reptile, and amphibian have all evolved while you went about your TV-watching, Bible-thumping lives. If a species can evolve while you're frittering away your existence, think about what can be done in a BILLION YEARS. Now imagine 3 billion.
Objection: The "building blocks of life" (amino acids, fats, etc.) couldn't have been created without the help of a "higher power."
Refutation: In 1953, Miller and Urey showed that mixing together the presumed contents of the early atmosphere (water, methane, hydrogen, and ammonia) and adding lightning could produce amino acids and other organic molecules. Know how long that took? A WEEK. And while Urey and Miller were certainly smart, I wouldn't exactly call them a "higher power."
Many intellectuals and atheists have scorned religious fervor, echoing Karl Marx's sentiment that "Religion is the opiate of the masses." I am not anti-religion, but then again, I'm not anti-opiate, either. Like heroin use, religion is not an activity in which I engage, but I don't mind if others do. I do, however, scorn those who use religion as an excuse to ferment their brains. There are many very intelligent scientists who subscribe to a religious faith and who realize that science and religion are not irreconcilable. If parents want to discuss their faith and its implications for evolutionary theory in a setting other than public schools, they may do so. If they want to send their kids to parochial schools, they have that right. But for the love of God, don't fuck with the First Amendment.
* Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
** See last paragraph. I am not calling all religious Americans twats; just the stupid ones.
The trouble, I think, is with the word "theory." Somehow the religious twats** in this country have decided that "theory" means "guess," along the lines of "Y'know, Pa, I have a theory them pigs got out 'cuz of that big durn hole in the fence." It's science, stupid. If we weren't sure, we'd call it a hypothesis. Unfortunately, that's too big a word for some folks.
Though the scientific literature does a damn good job of refuting the "intelligent" design proponents' objections to evolution, here's a summary.
Objection: There are "holes" in the fossil record that can't be explained.
Refutation: First of all, those "holes" are being filled all the time--scientists are constantly finding fossils that fill in the so-called gaps in the record. Second, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. (The religious right should be familiar with this one--where's the evidence of God's existence?) Third, let's explore the implications of the "holes in the record" idea. If there are holes, and God created each species separately, then God must have created and destroyed earlier species, replacing them with extant species. Thus, instead of cats and tigers evolving from one feline ancestor, we must assume that an early cat was created, then destroyed. Then, spontaneously, housecats and tigers were created--but they're not related. This is clearly bunk--anyone whose housecat has ever stalked an ant should be able to testify that domestic cats are nothing more than very small tigers.
Objection: There hasn't been sufficient time for scientific processes/evolution to create the complexity of our universe.
Refutation: This is true IF AND ONLY IF you believe that the world is only a few thousand years old. Astronomy tells us that the universe is about 13 BILLION YEARS OLD. Geology tells us that life on earth has existed for 3.5 billion years. And here's the kicker: you can actually observe evolution on the scale of the human lifetime. That's right, folks: entire species have undergone observable evolution since you were born. And we're not talking bacteria or viruses, either (which, incidentally, evolve MUCH faster). Species of mammal, bird, fish, reptile, and amphibian have all evolved while you went about your TV-watching, Bible-thumping lives. If a species can evolve while you're frittering away your existence, think about what can be done in a BILLION YEARS. Now imagine 3 billion.
Objection: The "building blocks of life" (amino acids, fats, etc.) couldn't have been created without the help of a "higher power."
Refutation: In 1953, Miller and Urey showed that mixing together the presumed contents of the early atmosphere (water, methane, hydrogen, and ammonia) and adding lightning could produce amino acids and other organic molecules. Know how long that took? A WEEK. And while Urey and Miller were certainly smart, I wouldn't exactly call them a "higher power."
Many intellectuals and atheists have scorned religious fervor, echoing Karl Marx's sentiment that "Religion is the opiate of the masses." I am not anti-religion, but then again, I'm not anti-opiate, either. Like heroin use, religion is not an activity in which I engage, but I don't mind if others do. I do, however, scorn those who use religion as an excuse to ferment their brains. There are many very intelligent scientists who subscribe to a religious faith and who realize that science and religion are not irreconcilable. If parents want to discuss their faith and its implications for evolutionary theory in a setting other than public schools, they may do so. If they want to send their kids to parochial schools, they have that right. But for the love of God, don't fuck with the First Amendment.
* Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
** See last paragraph. I am not calling all religious Americans twats; just the stupid ones.
posted by A at 12:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home