Lines in italics are from the groups handout.  

    Lines in blue are my comments.  

Dear COMPASS Education Point,

                                                                           At your recent intelligent design presentation you gave out a sheet with some "interesting" assertions. This is a short reply showing that most, if not all, of the claims made in your handout are factually incorrect.

Ten Arguments against Evolution

#1 SPONTANEOUS GENERATION (emergence of life from non-living material) has never been observed. All observation has show that life comes only from life. It is consistent enough to bring about the Law of Biogenesis.

            First off, the "law of biogenesis" is not a scientific "law", it is a summery/ "headline" of research conducted by Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) and others in the 19^th century which showed that modern living organisms do not spontaneously grow from non living matter or "old life". A conclusion that agrees completely with evolution and modern abiogenic theories.

            It should also be noted that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the theory of abiogenesis. Evolution is only concerned with what happened (and is happening) after life arose, regardless of whatever method it came about by.

 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html

            The fact that we have not observed "life from non life" is not surprising given what we know of the process, but we have found that the generation of the building blocks of life is quite possible in an "early earth" environment and we have many well backed theories about how these primitive forms could become the life of today.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

#2 MACROEVOLUTION (a beneficial change producing increased and inheritable complexity) has never been observed. Microevolution (change of size, color, shape) does occur due to mutation. Everything degrades- it does not become more complex (2nd Law of Thermodynamics; Entropy).

"The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution."

                                                  -http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

            The number of examples of "increased complexity" and beneficial changes that have been observed is huge.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

            As to the 2^nd law of thermodynamics, it only applies to Overall level of entropy in a Closed System. The Earth (the only place we can reasonably talk about on this subject) is not a closed system. The sun, among other things, provides plenty of energy to allow increased complexity. The fact that intelligent design/ creationism proponents continually misuse a scientific principal so blatantly is an excellent example of the strength of their arguments.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

#3 INTERMEDIATE SPECIES have never been observed. If evolution happened, you would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. There is no direct evidence any major plant or animal group arose from another group. Species are observed only going out of existence (extinction), never coming into existence.

            Once again, transitions between species (As Predicated By Evolution) has been observed many times, in may ways. What hasn't been shown are the id/ creationists ideas of a fossil record of a dog giving birth to a cow (or whatever radical change they demand as proof). This is evidence For evolution as evolution states that such a thing will not occur.

 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB925.html

#4 MUTATIONS are not beneficial. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal. No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors.

            This is substantially similar to #2. This statement is also completely false. Most mutations are neutral.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

            Even the i.d./ creationism movement acknowledges "micro evolution", there is no doubt that many of these small changes produce "greater viability".

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html

            As to complexity, when even a small changes adds something that the unmutated organism did not have, it now has "greater complexity".

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

#5 ACQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS can not be inherited. For example, long necks of giraffe are not the result of their ancestors stretching to reach high leaves. Nor can large muscles of a weight lifter be inherited by his child.

            This is an excellent example of how the i.d./ creationism movement blatantly lies about real science, or is at best so ignorant of it that an elementary level text would show them wrong.

            While the statement is correct, It Has Nothing To Do With "Darwinian Evolution"! It describes a theory that Darwin's theory disproved. Congratulations on noticing that a theory was shown false 150 years ago, by the current evolutionary theory.

            Briefly stated, the theory of evolution states that changes (mutations) in organisms occur. A few of these changes make it more likely that the organism will pass on its genetic code. Using the example of the giraffe, some of them will have longer necks than others. Those with longer necks will have more food available to them. These better fed giraffe will be more likely to have offspring, who may inherit the longer neck. This is of course enormously simplified. There are many other factors involved, but nothing about "stretching" or "weight lifting".

            Making this statement on a document called "Ten Arguments Against Evolution" would seem to mean only two things, either those making the statement are so ignorant of the subject that they do not even know the premise of what they are arguing against, or they are purposely trying to mislead people into believing an easily disproved statement is representative of actual science so they can make the strawman case of how evolution is wrong. Either shows why id/ creationism is an utterly invalid argument and why it cannot be taught in schools. Would you trust a math book that got basic addition wrong?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

#6 ORGANIC MOLECULES (such as DNA, RNA and proteins) are extremely complex. Claims concerning their evolution are questionable and lack experimental support. There is no reason to believe a natural and random process could ever produce organs such as eyes, ears or a brain.

            First of all, Modern DNA, RNA, and most proteins are extremely complex. The ancestors that evolved into the modern versions were much less complex. And yes, we do have examples of this.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Intro

            A "mistake" repeated again and again (often enough that it is difficult to think that it's not done on purpose) by the i.d./ creationism movement is that evolution is a "random process". While chance events are one element of evolution, basic physics and chemistry are even more important.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#chance

            There are not only reasons to think that natural processes could develop organs like eyes, ears, and brains, there is a significant amount of physical evidence!

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB303.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html

#7 SEXUAL REPRODUCTION in animal and human kind is summary proof of intelligent design.. This theory predicts nature would select asexual (splitting of organisms into identical pairs) rather than sexual reproduction. If so, how did complex sexual diversity arise or survive?

            I don't know what "this theory" has to say, but the theory of evolution has no problem with sex. Sexual reproduction has a variety of survival benefits (greater variety, greater resistance to harmful mutations, ect). And once again, yes we know how sexual reproduction can come about.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB350.html

#8 ALTRUISM contradicts evolution. Animals and humans will endanger their lives to save another. Natural selection should rapidly eliminate altruistic "individuals". If evolution were correct, selfish behavior should have eliminated unselfish behavior. Cheating and aggressiveness should have "weeded our cooperation.

            Evolution is not just about the individual reproducing. Often something that benefits the group at the expense of an individual gives the individuals lineage a better chance at continuing. Cooperation often allows much more to be accomplished then an individual can, providing significant survival benefits.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB411.html

#9 LANGUAGE is learned only from other humans. Charles Darwin claims that language evolved. However, the more ancient the language the more complex it is with respect to syntax, case, gender, mood, tense. In fact, language has devolved.

            Again, this question demonstrates such a lack of understanding that it is difficult to think that it can be anything other than a deliberate attempt to mislead. The topic is biological evolution. On this topic a discussion can be had as to how the ability to communicate developed.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB402.html

            How the syntax and other details of language developed (and while evolved is an acceptable use of the word in this context, it is very different from the version used in the context of biological evolution. Confusing the two usages shows either a deliberate lie or a fundamental lack of understanding of the subjects.) Has Nothing To Do with the theory of evolution, which is why I won't bother explaining why the idea that language has "devolved" is utterly ludicrous.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG111.html

#10 IMPROBABILITY of evolution is breathtaking. To claim life evolved is to demand a miracle. The simplest single-celled life form requires at least 600 different protein molecules. The chance an amino acid sequence would randomly develop is one in 10 to the 450th power, virtually impossible.

            Ok, this is basically a restatement of #6 and #1, but fine. There are 2 primary problems with this statement. First, molecular activity is not completely random. There are intrinsic properties that cause predictable patterns (the growth of crystals for example.).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Globule

            Secondly, early life would not have the same form as modern life, it would be much simpler.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_1.html

            Finally, as to this 1 in 10 to the 450^th power claim, I am curious where you got this figure, but here are some explanations for why it's not remotely accurate or even relevant.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/probability-one.html

            There were a few other points on your handout that I'd like to address:

The concept of Intelligent Design was first discussed at Pajaro Dunes, California in 1993 by a group of contemporary scientists.

            This is obviously untrue. The concept that some super entity created life has been around for as long as we've had records. Many scientists and even more pseudo scientists have been trying to prove this idea since the dawn of science. They have yet to come up with a legitimate theory. Basically id is recycled superstition wrapped in scientific sounding words. A current example is id's direct ancestor, creationism, which is id with some details that the id people found embarrassing and thus omitted them from their version.

http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/differences.html

Because of what is now routinely observed in electron microscopes, this group of leading thinkers found Darwinian evolution an inadequate explanation for the origins of life.

            It would be indicative of the caliber of these "leading thinkers" if they were only then becoming aware that "Darwinian evolution [was] an inadequate explanation for the origins of life" since "Darwinian Evolution" Does Not Concern the origins of life! What else can such ignorance of the very basics of what they are arguing be other than an attempt at deliberate deception?

            "Leading thinkers" is a vague enough term that I won't waste time arguing about it. I will use an example of one of these "leaders", Dean Kenyon. He came up with a hypothesis, it was quickly found by scientists to be invalid, and so he apparently concludes "if I can't figured out how it works, only a god must have been able to do it".

"The most glaring omission deals with UML's (Unlocking the Mystery of Life) discussion of Origins of Life (OoL) science. The only non ID-based views on OoL discussed in the video are those proposed, in the late '60s, by one of the current ID proponents, Dr. Dean Kenyon. According to UML, those models have been later shown by Kenyon and colleagues to be insufficient to explain key aspects of early molecular and cellular evolution. In fact, most of Kenyon's original views have long been superseded by more thorough, and better empirically supported, scientific hypotheses -- indeed, it was those hypotheses and evidence that led to the demise of Kenyon's ideas in scientific circles long before ID Creationism appeared on the scene. Alas, what is arguably the current (and has been for more than a decade now) favored hypothesis about OoL, the so-called "RNA World" model, finds no mention whatsoever in UML. This is not surprising, perhaps, since the objections raised in UML by ID proponents to Kenyon's original theory would not stand against this new model. Thus, the viewer is given the false impression that the current scientific choice is between ID Creationism and its outright miraculous Origin of Life, or Dr. Kenyon's outdated 1960's theory. "

            - Andrea Bottaro, PhD, Assistant Professor, Medicine, Microbiology and Imunology, Oncology, University of Rochester Medical Center

Is life on earth the product of undirected natural processes: time, chance and natural selection? When presented with compelling evidence of molecular machines, rotary motors that spin at 100,000 rpm and biological data processing systems more powerful than any computer network, the default answer is not so simple.

            Scientific answers are rarely simple, but if you put forth some effort, they are usually there.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

Tonight you will see how vast amounts of information are stored within every cell in your body. Also, you will learn about a thread-like molecule that stores instructions to build the essential components of every living organism on earth. In the time of Charles Darwin it was believed primary forces in the universe were matter and energy. Einstein later determined that E=mc2. But a third element is coming into view- Information. What is the origin of that?

            The origin of "that" is similar to most of the claims made by id. That those promoting id are using cool sounding sound bites about scientific concepts, which they have no idea about how they work, to try and support their assertions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html

            Although this was long, I really would like a response. I would also like a response to the question I asked at the event, basically "What are the positive claims made by ID?" In other words what ideas does ID purport other than "we think X is wrong with the theory of evolution" and "X is too complex to be natural"?

                                                                                           Thank you for your time.