A Response to an Angry Reader (Why ID isn’t Science)

I just got a response to an previous article and I thought my reply worthy of an article in and of itself. The original is here. https://ogremkv.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/texas-and-creation-science/

Mr. Lamar,

I had a long reply to you written, but I realized that it would be confrontational. So I scrapped it in favor of this. I am trying to be less argumentative and more helpful, even in disagreement. I think that this is a worthy goal. I will attempt to not be arrogant or condescending. In reply, I request that you make posts that are more ordered and less filled with shouting.

Please understand that I mean no disrespect in my reply, but there are things you are apparently not aware of. If you are willing to read, then I will try to explain.

Your biggest complaint is that both creationism and evolution (and the big bang) are just theories and therefore, both should be taught, since we really don’t know.

Here’s the problem. Scientists don’t use the phrase ‘Scientific Law’ anymore everything is pretty much a theory. But scientists use the word theory differently than most people (we use a lot of words differently!). To a scientist, a theory is something that has undergone so much testing, experimentation, prediction, and general use that it is accepted as how the universe actually works. Until something better comes along. That something better must incorporate everything that the previous theory did plus make it better. Let me give you an example.

Sir Isaac Newton discovered the Law of Gravity and his three Laws of Motion. These are the scientific laws that you want taught. However, these laws are… well, not quite correct. They are pretty good, but a man named Albert Einstein came along and showed that Newton’s laws just don’t work under certain conditions (very high speed and very large masses). Einstein’s theories (General and Special Relativity) have replaced Newton’s Laws.

Einstein’s Laws are just as good as Newton’s under regular conditions, but also work in extreme conditions. The only problem with them is that the math is very difficult, so most of the time, Newton’s Laws are OK to use. (i.e. we teach them to 10th grade because they can handle algebra, but not calculus)

Now, tomorrow or in a hundred years, someone may come along and show how Einstein was wrong and give us a set of equations that work even better. But they still must do everything that Newton’s and Einstein’s equations did, plus whatever new thing is taken into account.

As far as the Theory of Evolution vs. the Theory of Creation (or Intelligent Design) is concerned. Let me try to explain the difference and why ID isn’t science and doesn’t belong in the science classroom.

Falsifiable: Science must be able to be falsified. It must be able to be proven untrue as Newton was by Einstein. There are a great many things that could prove Evolution to be untrue (I’ve listed them previously or see the link at the bottom of this article). I have yet to see something given by any Creation scientist that would show them beyond the shadow of a doubt that ID is untrue. In fact, members of the Institute for Creation Research (mentioned in the previous article) are required to sign an oath stating that (paraphrase) ‘no matter what you find in your research, it must show that ID is true’.

Predictive: Science must be able to predict future events. Einstein predicted how light could be bent by strong gravity. Many years later, he was shown to be correct. Evolution is often used to predict everything from how viruses react to drugs to how crops will fair each year against insects. ID has yet to produce a prediction (that I have discovered), much less a prediction that is accurate.

Evidence: Scientists do not say things without a lot of evidence. If you are willing to do the research, you will find that evolution has hundreds of thousands of individual pieces of supporting evidence. If there was only one or two, then I would agree with you, but there are just so many. Unfortunately, many of them take some time and effort to understand (not to mention some serious college level coursework). ID has yet to provide an experiment, much less one that actually shows creation.

Finally, I would like to point out that any religious discussion is illegal in all public schools and the State of Texas requires the teaching of evolution in science classes.

Now, with that being said, I would be happy to discuss things with you further. However, we both know that you probably will never read this or respond.

I would very much suggest you visit www.talkorigins.com that has treatment of both sides of the issue.


~ by OgreMkV on April 26, 2008.

3 Responses to “A Response to an Angry Reader (Why ID isn’t Science)”

  1. Well, Today I was able to open your response. I was all together willing to ‘discuss things with you further’ until I read your follow-up comment:”However, we both know that you probably will never read this or respond.”, which completely destroyed your initial statement that: “I will attempt to not be arrogant or condescending…..Please understand that I mean no disrespect in my reply…”. Apparently you are disrespectful, arrogant and condescending, in which case, trying to further a discussion with you is senseless. What a shame. And may I state for the record, I am not shouting and I will visit the website you posted. Therefore,contrary to what you think you know: “However, we both know that you probably will never read this or respond.”, you obviously don’t know…. I read, I responded, and I will continue to search, because I know I don’t know, think or proclaim to know it all!
    Lastly, I am a Mrs., not that it matters; I just didn’t want you to be misled or add to your misconceptions : ))

  2. My apologies. I’m actually impressed. You are an exception. I have found that 99.9% of people who complain about such things are not interested in learning or comparing the relative merits of their position and mine.

    Please understand that it’s not to be disrespectful of you. It’s personal experience. (Another article that I wrote.) I’ve actually had people (more than one) tell me, “I don’t care what evidence you give or what you say, I refuse to even consider evolution.”

    I will be happy to help explain some things if you need help.

    BTW: Typing in capital letters is considered shouting on the internet.

  3. I know this is a bit late, but still relevant.

    Here is a nice article:

    What happened is that over the course of 20 years, Dr. Lenski was working with a single family of E. Coli bacteria, and around generation 31,500, they evolved. Actually, the aquired a new trait, the ability to metabolise citrate, which E. Coli can not do. He was able to bring generations out of a freezer (he stored some every 500 generations) and was able to recreate the mutation only with generations 20,000 and greater. Something happened just before that one, that laid the groundwork for the later generations.

    One trait can make all the difference, even thousands of generations later.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: