Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.
Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed so that they can make other robots just like themselves from raw materials.
Now, imagine an alien scientist visitor coming to the planet and, after many years of studying these robots, the alien scientist visitor comes to the conclusion that since science can explain how these robots work, operate, function, and reproduce there's no reason to believe that there was an ultimate intelligent designer behind them.
The analogy above certainly is not perfect but it is sufficient to reveal the fallacious thinking of those who attack intelligent design behind life and the universe.
Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic progam and highly complex biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells. The question is how could life or the cell come into existence naturally when there was no directing mechanism in Nature.
Chance physical processes can produce some level of order but it is not rational to believe that the highest levels of order in life and the universe are by chance. For example, amino acids have been shown to be able to come into existence by chance but not more complex molecules or structures such as proteins, which require that the various amino acids be in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence. If they're not in the right sequence the protein molecules will not function. A single cell alone has millions of protein molecules!
There is no innate chemical tendency for the various amino acids to bond with one another in a sequence. Any one amino acid can just as easily bond with any other. The only reason at all for why the various amino acids bond with one another in a precise sequence in the cells of our bodies is because they're directed to do so by an already existing sequence of molecules in our genetic code. Without being in a proper sequence, protein molecules will not function.
The sequence of molecules in DNA (the genetic code) determines the sequence of molecules in proteins. Furthermore, without DNA there cannot be RNA, and without RNA there cannot be DNA. And without either DNA or RNA there cannot be proteins, and without proteins there cannot be DNA or RNA. They're all mutually dependent upon each other for existence!
If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.
The best little article ever written refuting the origin of life by chance is "A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible" by scientist and biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish. Dr. Gish presents "simple" but profound scientific barriers to evolution of life which aren't mentioned or covered in Johnny's high school biology textbook or in college textbooks for that matter.
Trust me, Dawkins and all the evolutionists put together can't hold a candle to the scientific genius of Dr. Gish. Just read one of Dr. Gish's books and you'll see why. Dr. Gish has successfully debated hundreds of evolution scientists in secular colleges and universities across the nation over the past two decades, and students have consistently voted him the winner in all of those debates. Don't try looking for this news in the mainstream media. You won't find it there anymore than you'll find a half-evolved chipmunk running around in your backyard!
Think about it! If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say about the origin of the genetic code itself!
Contrary to popular belief, scientists have never created life in the laboratory. What scientists have done is genetically alter or engineer already existing forms of life, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life. However, they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it won't be by chance, so it still wouldn't help support any argument for evolution.
Even in the recent case, as reported in the news, involving the creation of what is called synthetic (or artificial) life, scientists don't actually create or produce life itself from non-living matter. What scientists do in this case is create (by intelligent design) artificial DNA (genetic instructions and code) which is then implanted into an already existing living cell, thereby, changing that cell into a new form of life. And, again, even if scientists ever do create a whole living cell from scratch (and not just its DNA) it still would not be by chance but by intelligent design. Synthetic life is another form of genetic engineering. But God was there first. Remember that!
The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!
Considering the enormous complexity of life, it is much more logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between all species is due to a common Designer rather than common evolutionary ancestry. It is only logical that the great Designer would design similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes in all of the various forms of life.
What about natural selection? Natural selection only comes into operation once there is life. Also, natural selection is not a creative force. It is a passive force in Nature. Natural selection has no ability to design or generate new genes or new biological traits.
Natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are produced and which have survival value. The real issue is what biological variations can be naturally produced. What biological variations are naturally possible? When a biological change or variation occurs within a species and this new variation (such as a change in skin color, etc.) helps that species to survive in its environment then that variation will be preserved ("selected") and be passed on to offspring. That is called "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest." But, neither "natural selection" nor "survival of the fittest" has anything to do with producing biological traits and variations.
The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech. Nature, of course, does not do any active or conscious selecting. It is an entirely passive process. Darwin did not realize what produced biological variations. Darwin simply assumed that any kind of biological change or variation was possible in life. However, we now know that biological traits and variations are determined by the genetic code.
Natural selection works with evolution but it is not evolution itself. Again, since natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible, the real question to be asking is what kind of biological variations are naturally possible. How much biological variation (or how much evolution) is naturally possible in Nature?
The evidence from science shows that only microevolution (variations within a biological "kind" such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) is possible but not macroevolution (variations across biological "kinds," especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones). The only evolution that occurs in Nature and which can be studied in Nature is microevolution (or horizontal evolution) but not macroevolution (or vertical evolution).
Another reason for why macroevolution is not possible in Nature is because a half-evolved and useless organ waiting millions of years to be completed by random mutations would be a liability and hindrance to a species – not exactly a prime candidate for natural selection. In fact, how could species have survived over, supposedly, millions of years while their vital (or necessary) organs were still in the process of evolving!
How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn't fully evolved yet?
What if we should find evidence of life on Mars? Wouldn't that prove evolution? No. It wouldn't be proof that such life had evolved from non-living matter by chance natural processes. And even if we did find evidence of life on Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet – Earth! In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have easily spewed dirt containing microbes into outer space which eventually could have reached Mars. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.
We know from the law of entropy in science that the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity. It requires a beginning. But, we also know from science that natural laws could not have brought the universe into being from nothing. The beginning of the universe, therefore, points to a supernatural origin!
Even the scientific followers of Prigogine, the father of Chaos theory, have admitted that only a very minimal level of order will ever be possible as a result of spontaneous or chance processes.
Those advocating the teaching of intelligent design are not demanding that Darwinian theory no longer be taught. Rather, the advocates of intelligent design want the merits of both theories taught side by side when the issue of origins is covered in science classes and textbooks. This is only fair.
Science cannot prove how life originated since no human observed the origin of life by either chance or design. Observation and detection by the human senses, either directly or indirectly through scientific instruments, is the basis of science and for establishing proof. The issue is which position has better scientific support. Both sides should have the opportunity to present their case.
What we believe about life's origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!
Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?
Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.
If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.
All of this simply means that real science supports faith in God. Science cannot prove that we are here by chance (evolution) or by design (creation). However, the scientific evidence can be used to support one or the other.
It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools which receive funding from taxpayers who are on both sides of the issue. Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of separation of church and state.
There is, of course, much more to be said on this subject. Scientist, creationist, debater, writer, and lecturer Dr. Walt Brown covers various scientific issues (i.e. fossils, biological variation and diversity, the origin of life, comparative anatomy and embryology, the issue of vestigial organs, the age of the earth, etc.) at greater depth on his website at http://www.creationscience.com. Another excellent source of information from highly qualified scientists who are creationists is the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org) in San Diego, California.
Shame on “Intellectual Conservative” for re-printing this ignorant drivel from Babu, who had the same scientifically illiterate article published at “The Conservative Voice” on January 19, 2008 (see http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/30317.html ).
Babu is a Bob Jones University graduate, “with concentrations in theology and biology” – i.e., as a Bible College graduate he is utterly ignorant of the most basic concepts of biology. For those of you unfamiliar with Babu, he regurgitates the same paragraphs over and over and over, sometimes the entire article, with a different name.
More later.
“Code of the Lifemaker”, by James P. Hogan. You can read it free here: http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200203/0743435265___0.htm
The prologue is a brief but interesting thought-experiment which illustrates the distinction between the origin of life and its subsequent evolution – and it uses exactly the same notion Mr. Ranganathan attempts to use here: “Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed so that they can make other robots just like themselves from raw materials.”
The question “How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving?” shows that the author doesn’t understand what evolutionary theory actually proposes. I recommend reading some actual books about evolution.
“he regurgitates the same paragraphs over and over and over”
Anyone actually look at Burnette’s website? Irony is often lost on the ironic.
Babu used to have a “B.A. in Bible and Biology.” Somehow it is now “B.A. with concentrations in theology and biology.” Either way, as Paul Burnett notes, he knows nothing much about current biology.
I used to have long email exchanges with him a while ago, in which I once told him about gene duplications. He admitted not knowing anything about it at all, but nonetheless went on to explain that a duplicated gene only leaves more for the biologists to explain. It apparently didn’t change his old and oft reiterated argument that since there are many more deleterious mutations than beneficial, mutation simply is not a source of genetic variation which selection can act on.
I invite anyone with questions about evolution to email me directly (bostman@kgi.edu).
I claimed Babu “regurgitates the same paragraphs over and over and over” and Phillip Ellis Jackson commented “Anyone actually look at Burnette’s website? Irony is often lost on the ironic.”
Hey, Phil, I don’t plagiarize myself nearly as much as Babu does. He’s the champion! Google “creationism Babu” and you get 2,480 hits; Google “creationism “Paul Burnett” ” and you only get 887 hits. Babu’s out-producing me.
Burnett:
You’re as hyperbolic, empty-suited demagogue who deliberately conflates Creationism with Intelligent Design to confuse the discussion, who routinely rails against anyone who holds religious beliefs, who selectively cites from marginal, politically-doctrinaire sources, and who unlike others who object to Intelligent Design, always begin your so-called analysis with a personal attack (like you did with the reference to Bob Jones University). Other than that, you appear to be a thoughtful, stand-up guy.
Dr. Jackson – If I may, I’d like to point out that the actual article above “deliberately conflates Creationism with Intelligent Design”. And as for “marginal, politically-doctrinaire sources,” well, we’ve got Dr. Gish, Dr. Brown, etc.
Raymond:
Citing Brown as an additional source of information on the general topic is not the same thing as saying “No matter how much the Dishonesty Institute, the world’s preeminent ID apologist and drum-beater denies it, ID (which actually stands for “Intellectual Dishonesty”) is nothing more than a heretical form of creationism with all references to the Creator removed.” Comment by PaulBurnett December 19, 2007. Mr. Ranganathan defines ID by contrasting it with “the fallacious thinking of those who attack intelligent design behind life and the universe.” He has not asserted that the literal, Biblical story of creation is the definition of “Intelligent Design”, as Burkett has.
This is the problem with debates on this topic. You and bjornostman, for example, have raised legitimate points that can and should be addressed as part of a broader discussion on this issue. I’ve stated my own positions clearly in “The Politics of Science and Religion”. Burnett has no interest in debating the issue. His only purpose is to slander those who don’t support his anti-religious views. And he does this by deliberately misrepresenting what people say, which was the point of my comment.
mong creation scientists are those with PhDs in the biological sciences or MDs from such institutions of higher learning as the University of California at Berkeley, Harvard University, Case Western Reserve University, the University of Virginia, Indiana University, UCLA, the University of Texas, Texas A&M, Purdue University, Ohio State University, Rice University and Notre Dame.
I wonder if they know “nothing much about current biology”? I am confident that even the likes of Mr. Burnett will concede that these institutions are regarded considerably higher than the likes of Bob Jones University. The claim that there are no reputable scientists who support either Intelligent Design or Creationism (not the same, the lies of evolutionists notwithstanding) is a brazen fabrication by those who are seeing their edifice crumble under the onslaught of science.
Excuse me, “Among creation….”
Phillip Ellis Jackson writes: “You’re as hyperbolic, empty-suited demagogue who deliberately conflates Creationism with Intelligent Design to confuse the discussion…”
Google “cdesign proponentsists” and read where the term came from. The intermediate drafts of the intelligent design creationism bogus “biology textbook” had the words “creationism” and “creationists” find-and-replaced with “intelligent design” and “design proponents.” Do you similarly accuse the authors of this book with “deliberately conflat(ing) Creationism with Intelligent Design”?
Do you seriously not understand why this change occurred after the US Supreme Court said intelligent design creationism’s predecessor, “creation science,” could not be taught in the public schools? This story, as revealed with great detail in the 2005 Dover trial, is historical fact, not demagogery.
For anybody who doubts any of this, please read Barbara Forrest’s paper, “Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals,” available at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf to see where this pseudoscientific hoax came from and where it wants to go.
Trekker, just a little note for you.
“Creation scientist” can sound like two different things:
First, it could mean any scientist who is also a creationist. If this scientist understands evolutionary biology, geology, physics, and astrophysics, then s/he would have to be performing some very dubious mental tricks to convince himself that creationism has any scientific validity as well. However, there are those who do honest science in one field, while ignoring how these 4 others contradict the creationism they believe in. In other words, some scientists actually delude themselves, so a bunch of Ph.D.’s signed a document stating that they see problems in evolutionary theory really doesn’t have much to say about the validity of that claim.
Second, it could mean people actively working in the field of “creation science”. That term is a genuine oxymoron. Creationism has been scientifically invalidated, and what remains is blind faith, and faith is antithetical to science.
I’d be happy to reply to individual claims about this issue (and I keep posting my primary email address also to test whether people dare discuss these issues in a serious manner): bostman@kgi.edu
Bjørn Østman
Actually, all one must do to see powerful evidence of design is to open one’s eyes and use one’s brains. “There is none so blind as he who refuses to see.”
“Google “cdesign proponentsists” and read where the term came from.”
*** So this is the level of scholarship of the anti-IDers? Just Google a phrase and see what pops up. In 2004 there was a concerted campaign to link the term “miserable failure” to any reference to Bush 43. Therefore, his administration was a failure; no other independent validation noted. Prior to 2002 if you Googled “Saddam” and “WMD” you’d get stories about the undeniable existence of WMD in Iraq. Google reflects popular sentiment. It isn’t a source authority. If enough idiots say something is true, and Google reflects enough hits, then Burnett wants us all to believe that is proof-positive it’s true.
It’s a bogus claim, offered by an agenda-driven proponent, to insist that “ID (which actually stands for “Intellectual Dishonesty”) is nothing more than a heretical form of creationism with all references to the Creator removed.” It’s equally bogus to believe the two are the same because “the US Supreme Court said intelligent design creationism’s predecessor, ‘creation science,’ could not be taught in the public schools” The Supreme Court was not commenting on the link between ID and CS. It was referring to the loosely-named separation of church and state provisions of the Constitution. These same provisions don’t allow prayer in public schools either, or the use of tax money to support parochial schools. Which, I guess, according to this logic, is all now the same as ID. Praying to Buddha means that you literally believe in the Christian Bible story of Genesis, which means you want a voucher to attend Catholic school, which means that you believe in the concept of Intelligent Design. It’s all the same thing.
This is why discussions on this subject go nowhere when people like Burnett enter the conversation. All he has to offer is hyperbolic fluff.
By the way, for anybody who wants to see that ID isn’t the cartoon version that Burnett offers, read “The Wonder of the World” by Roy Abraham Varghese.
“In other words, some scientists actually delude themselves, so a bunch of Ph.D.’s signed a document stating that they see problems in evolutionary theory really doesn’t have much to say about the validity of that claim.”
*** As a general proposition, I completely agree. Which is why I have so many doubts about the “scientific” basis of global warming theories. The same dynamics are in play here, only thanks to the pseudo-scientific organizations that pop up (Union of Concerned Scientists, NRDC, etc.), you don’t even need a Ph.D. to offer a comment. Just join as a “concerned” citizen and validate GW through your own personal beliefs. Bjorn: if you’re as critical of the Global Warming scientific-validation process as you are of ID, then I’ll accept your comments in good faith. If not, it would seem that there’s a selective outrage about standards of scientific scholarship.
“Creationism has been scientifically invalidated, and what remains is blind faith, and faith is antithetical to science.”
*** I completely agree. Creationism isn’t science. As I wrote in “The Politics of Science and Religion”, those who want to evaluate the Bible via science are going to fail.
I am not a Creationist, and I don’t believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. Yet, I can see value in ID as an explanation of aspects of the universe. Science cannot explain everything. And everything is not explained simply through scriptural references.
There is no requirement that science be divorced from the notion that God exists and acts purposefully. Einstein, among others, believed this. What’s happened today is that both sides of this debate have carved out ideological, not scientific or faith-based positions. Certain scientists want to ignore God all together. Certain people of faith want to treat science and faith as if they are the same thing.
As long as these parallel conversations continue, nothing of any value will arise from the discussions.
For Mr. Ingles and Mr. Burnett, I would be interested to know if you have ruled out the possibility of ID. It would appear so, though since there is nothing “unscientific” about the idea of intelligence being involved in some sort of life/development project/experiment on Earth it is hard to imagine that anyone with common sense would rule out an area of study for personal political or religious reasons, even if some pursue that area of study for political or religious reasons.
Exactly how does one, with respect to science and study, arrive at a “case closed” position, if that is your position on ID? The very foundation of scientific theory is that the theory must be disprovable, which means it is nonsensical to rule out efforts to disprove it.
If your position is that you are open to where the evidence takes you and that you have seen nothing to warrant serious consideration, then you have to allow that science has to be given the freedom to pursue evidence of ID.
I guess what I am asking is just how would you go about the exploration of the idea that life on Earth could be a product of design?
Dr. Jackson – a few things. Dr. Brown isn’t just talking about “intelligent design” – he’s a full-fledged “creationist”, as the article itself states explicitly, having issues with “the age of the Earth” and so forth. I don’t see how it’s Mr. Burnett tying “Creationism with Intelligent Design” when the article itself does so pretty explicitly. (Not to mention the fact that Mr. Ranganathan actually is a young-Earth creationist, as a casual perusal of his rather voluminous, if repetitive, material can confirm.) I’m not defending Mr. Burnett’s tone, but the specific items I pointed out don’t seem to be problems Mr. Ranganathan avoids, either.
I’m not clear on exactly what your objection to the “cdesign proponentists” pointer is. This phrase turned up in evidence in the Dover trial, and showed a clear effort to avoid the term “creationist” and substitute the notion of a “design proponent” instead – and this in a draft of the textbook that dates from immediately after the court decision ruling creationism a religious doctrine and therefore not public-school-science-class material. Perhaps Intelligent Design types aren’t working to conflate their views with Creationists (though I’ve seen scant evidence of that) but certainly the Creationist types are deliberately pushing ID as a wedge. Why should this connection be ignored?
ID has had a number of problems. It’s own central notions, like “irreducible complexity” and “specified information”, haven’t fared well in the scientific world – they make few predictions and so far, the ones that they have made haven’t panned out. As a challenge to biological evolution, they’re not ready for prime time. When ID retreats to the ‘fine-tuning of the cosmos’ level of argument, it’s hard to disprove, of course. But that’s because it makes few predictions there, either, and acts in areas we know little about. The ‘tuned constants’ idea sounds reasonable, but it’s not clear how many are actually independent. The strength of magnetism is intimately tied to the speed of light, for example – change one and the other must change. It’s not even clear that the constants themselves could be different; as Einstein put it, “Did God have any choice in creating the universe?”
Skimming the website of the book you cite, I’m not sanguine about its potential. Looking at the “top ten wonders of the world”, the phrasing is loaded, even in that short list some of the wonders are duplicated (4 and 6, 8 and 9), and so far as I can tell, the point is something like, “Gee whiz, we don’t know how this works yet!”. The discussion of the “laws of nature” confuses, as so many seem to, the notion of a description of how things do behave with a prescription for how they should behave. Moreover, he seems to want things both ways – the origin of mass/energy from nothing is supposed to be a problem being solved, but there he asks, “How can mass-energy be made to conform to the law of its conservation?” This is incoherent – if the law of conservation is something that needs to be imposed on unruly mass/energy, then the origin of mass/energy from nothing isn’t a problem at all, right? And the question “What tells the molecules of a gas that the product of their volume and pressure should be proportional to their absolute temperature?” is a prime example of the confusion that I noted before. The gas laws are direct consequences of the properties of the molecules themselves – they are what result when you average the behavior of large numbers of randomly-colliding molecules. It’s ironic, too, because it’s a great example of rigid laws spontaneously arising from low-level randomness.
If that’s the best the book has to offer – if that’s what’s supposed to entice further reading – I’m reluctant to invest more time into it.
“I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.” – Philip Johnson In the matter of Berkeley v. Berkeley by Michelangelo D’Agostino 10, 2006; page 31, Berkeley Science Review
(In case anybody reading this doesn’t already know, Philip Johnson is widely acknowledged to be the father of intelligent design creationism.)
Until their “scientists” come up with something that is actually scientific instead of pseudoscientific, intelligent design remains nothing more than creationism coupled with wishful thinking.
(And Babu’s invoking of Duane Gish is certainly not helping the non-conflation of intelligent design and creationism, as has been pointed out above.)
Mr. Adams – I haven’t “ruled out” ID, but I’ve studied evolution in a fairly detailed fashion and I try to keep abreast of general cosmological and physical developments. So far, I haven’t seen any good positive evidence for ID, despite quite a few people looking rather hard and trying to build a case for it. (That’s distinct from creationism, particularly young-Earth creationism, which is clearly about as disproven as astrology and phlogiston.)
I don’t have objections to people studying it if they choose. I’m not thrilled with the idea of tax money going to such studies, but that doesn’t mean I oppose it in all circumstances. For example, if we could reliably detect if a disease organism had simply naturally arisen, or was instead consciously designed by a bioweapons program, that would be highly useful. So far, ID hasn’t done so, and doesn’t look like it could, but hey, a certain amount of blue-sky research is worth undertaking.
My main objection is trying to teach it in science classes when it’s not even one-quarter baked yet. If and when it becomes a scientific theory (as the term ‘theory’ is used in science), then fine, teach it. Until then, I don’t want (public) schools wasting time on it any more than on astrology or phlogiston.
Mr. Ingles suggests that ID hasn’t “fared well in the scientific world,” as if that is evidence of its inferiority. I really don’t need to guess how a pro-life demonstrator would be welcomed in an abortion clinic, or a black at a KKK convention.
Clearly the “scientific” community has no interest in entertaining anything that would disturb the status quo as it pertains to Darwinism. The reason is political, not scientific. The motive is funding and power, not scientific inquiry.
Witness how every scientist who has departed from the darwinian orthodoxy has become a pariah. Witness how every time an article appears here that questions any part of evolutionary dogma, out trots the usual suspects to defend the faith.
Paulburnett in particular seems to love to point out the supposedly inferior minds associated ID, yet one has to wonder, given how widespread the acceptance of ID is, how much more traction ID might gain with some truly brillant minds working on it.
At present, ID is simply dismissed apriori, and its proponents are ostracized, denied tenure, refused publication in journals, or denied advanced degrees for having the termerity to suggest that there might be a god worth considering as being involved somewhere in creation.
Throughout history, it has been the courageous ones, the creative thinkers, the ones who refuse to accept the dogma of the power brokers, it is they who buck the trends and challenge the status quo in order to achieve the scientific breakthroughs.
But today, unless you toe the line and give obeisance to entrenched, inflexible heirarchy, you will never achieve status or position in the “scientific” community. And that means the future of science is bleak.
Mountain Man repeats the latest party line: “Witness how every scientist who has departed from the darwinian orthodoxy has become a pariah.” and “But today, unless you toe the line and give obeisance to entrenched, inflexible heirarchy, you will never achieve status or position in the “scientific” community.”
So, you’ve already seen “Expelled”? So you actually think all of science – every science, from physics to mathematics and everything else (not just biology) – is “darwinian”?
Mountain Man continued: “…given how widespread the acceptance of ID is…” Do you have a literature citation for the use of the term “widespread”? Or are you relying on the Discovery Institute’s pitiful list of 704 scientists who dissent from Darwinism? (That’s 704 out of approximately 500,000 actual scientists in the United States, or about 0.1% – which is hardly “widespread.” Except their list is worldwide, so the actual percentage is much lower.)
paulburnett continues his “hyperbolic fluff.” Thank you, Phil Jackson, you’re right on.
He asks me if I’ve seen Expelled, which is, what, a movie or something? That is his sole point, that I might have seen Expelled. And that is what passes for rejoinder from him?
Let me put it this way, paulburnett. Name 10 scientists who believe in ID, creationism, or just generically in god that you respect, admire, or admit have made good research. Can’t think of any? What a surprise!
So, now let’s quibble over words like “widespread,” so once again paulburnett can obfuscate and avoid answering the point. After all, a good rabbit trail is always worth the time for him if it serves to relieve him of making a thoughtful, considered response.
Especially since my premise is that the “scientific” community shuts out those who deviate from the current orthodoxy. I guess if paulburnett is going to prove my point for me, why do I even need to post?
Okay, let’s put it a different way: Mountain Man said: “…given how widespread the acceptance of ID is…”
I will propose a hypothesis that your use of the word “widespread” is a lie.
Prove I’m wrong.
23. “Let me put it this way, paulburnett. Name 10 scientists who believe in ID, creationism, or just generically in god that you respect, admire, or admit have made good research. Can’t think of any? What a surprise!…”
Every single person I know that earns their living in science goes to church or synagogue, or in some way lives a G-d centered life. Or as Mountainman said with such erudition, believes “generically in god.”
Again, paulburnett ignores the entire substance of my posts and wants to quibble over minutae.
Ok, if I answer his one irrelevancy, will he give a detailed response to my posts? I doubt it, but here it goes: “According to a 2001 Gallup poll, about 45% of Americans believe that ‘God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.’ Another 37% believe that ‘Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.’ Only 14% believe that ‘human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.’”
This is quoted from Wikipedia, which in turn cited the results of the Gallup survey found here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/14107/Third-Americans-Say-Evidence-Has-Supported-Darwins-Evolution-Theory.aspx
Your proposal that I lied is incorrect. You lied.
Mountain Man challenged me to “Name 10 scientists who believe in ID, creationism, or just generically in god that you respect, admire, or admit have made good research.”
I don’t know 10 scientists, and the few I know, I don’t know well enough to know or ask about their religious beliefs (because it’s none of my business). Therefore, you’re right – I can’t think of any.
Mountain Man evaded the question by providing the wrong answer: “Ok, if I answer his one irrelevancy, will he give a detailed response to my posts? I doubt it, but here it goes: “According to a 2001 Gallup poll, about 45% of Americans believe that ‘God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.’ Another 37% believe that ‘Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.’ Only 14% believe that ‘human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.’””
Intelligent design creationism “officially” (wink wink – nudge nudge) does not include or mention God in its self-description.
Therefore, demonstrating an admittedly widespread acceptance of God in the creative or developmental process in no way demonstrates the widespread acceptance of ID, because ID officially denies God is the designer. Or do you now want to conflate intelligent design and creationism?
You can’t have it both ways. Make up your mind.
Dodge and weave, don’t answer anything. Good, good, paulburnett, but your journey to the Dark Side is not yet complete.
You said, “That’s 704 out of approximately 500,000 actual scientists in the United States..” You don’t know about any scientists’ religious beliefs (which wasn’t the question, by the way), so you can’t tell us any you might admire. But you apparently really like the ones on your side of the issue, even though you don’t know any.
So you’re happy to denigrate the religious ones you know nothing about, but the others, who you also know nothing about, are better scientists?
And this is what passes for reason and logic amongst you enlightened ones?
100% of Creationists believe in ID. Therefore, Belief in ID is widespread.
Do you even think before you post, paulburnett?
Mountain Man said: “100% of Creationists believe in ID.”
No, 100% of Creationists believe in IDC – intelligent design creationism. As it is officially stated, ID is Godless.
You are conflating ID with creationism. See message #7 – Phillip Ellis Jackson will no doubt also accuse you of being a “hyperbolic, empty-suited demagogue.”
“Dr. Jackson – a few things. Dr. Brown isn’t just talking about “intelligent design” – he’s a full-ledged “creationist”, as the article itself states explicitly, having issues with “the age of the Earth” and so forth.”
*** Brown is not the subject of the article. He mentioned in the last paragraph as someone to look to for “much more to be said on this subject.” If citing Brown as someone also to look at disqualifies this as an article on the notion that there is purpose to the laws and functioning of the universe, then I invoke the same rationale to disqualify anything you say. Even though you pose questions of science, you are an admitted atheist. Therefore, by this logic, the questions you pose can only be understood when associated with the atheist originator of those questions. If atheism is rejected, then your questions are invalid.
This is why a real discussion is not possible. If we are to disqualify anything Mr. Ranganathan says because a “casual perusal” of his work shows that he is “a young-Earth creationist,” then you are disqualified because you are an admitted atheist. It doesn’t matter, by your logic, whether you or Mr. R raise any legitimate points worthy of debate. According to you, your companion beliefs (or the beliefs of anyone either of you cite) renders your questions invalid.
“I’m not clear on exactly what your objection to the “cdesign proponentists” pointer is. This phrase turned up in evidence in the Dover trial,”
*** Just because someone, somewhere, at some time tried to link two different subjects — and the Supreme Court ruled that whatever they did was a violation of the separation of Church and state — doesn’t mean that all ID is just a bogus form of creationism. By this reasoning I again reject anything you say. Because Burnett’s website is filled with partial, misleading, highly-selective and distorted citations about ID and creationism, then EVERYTHING anyone says that is anti-ID must equally wrong. This is a childish, simplistic way of looking at the world. The Supreme Court decides matters of Constitutional law. It doesn’t define the content of ID based on how the litigants in one court case did or didn’t behave.
“Skimming the website of the book you cite, I’m not sanguine about its potential.”
*** Again, I’m never surprised at what passes for scholarship by those who profess to be tied to the science-is-everything world view. Look at a website about a book, or read the index to a book, and you’re ready to form an opinion. I happen to know Roy and actually read his book. But I guess that’s just an irrelevant side-detail in this debate. I’ll go back and re-read his index and limit any future conclusions I make to what I find there, so as to follow the proper procedure for continuing this discussion. In the meantime, everything that is “true” about science will now be judged on the basis of the way Burnett has structured his website. [Not the actual links, just speculation about what they might say if one was to actually look at them].
“If that’s the best the book has to offer – if that’s what’s supposed to entice further reading – I’m reluctant to invest more time into it.”
*** When you already have all the answers you want, I guess there’s no need to consider any contrary position. Burnett is just a clown, so there’s no real disappointment when he fits his self-imposed stereotype. I had really hoped for a better reaction from you.
By the way, here’s a sample of the lack of substance Raymond found in “The Wonder of the World” as seen through the eyes of three people who actually read the book: Charles H. Townes Nobel Prize winner and inventor of the laser, Arno Penzias Nobel Prize winner; discovered Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
establishing the Big Bang theory, and Antony Flew The world’s best-known atheist and a critic of theism for more than 50 years.
“Varghese explores the basic and critical questions we face concerning this remarkable and wonderful universe. Why are we here? Where are we going? This is no doctrinaire treatise, but a sensitive, profound and clear discussion of the important issues of our universe and our existence, including questions, answers, and uncertainties. It is written with a deep understanding of philosophy, spirituality, and the complex science involved, yet expressed in a way which is interesting and very understandable to the non-specialist.”
— Charles H. Townes Nobel Prize winner and inventor of the laser
“Though I found myself arguing with both protagonists, the issues raised and Guru’s lucid outline of modern science’s framework of understanding, helped me to challenge and refi ne my own answers to the ultimate questions that each one of us must ask.”
—Arno Penzias Nobel Prize winner; discovered Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
establishing the Big Bang theory
“You have in your book deployed abundant evidence indicating that it is likely to be a very long time before such naturalistic [atheistic] explanations [for the origin of life and reproduction] are developed, if indeed there ever could be. . .I intend to reread The Wonder of the World at leisure. I was hugely impressed and substantially challenged by it [ expanded commentary by Antony Flew ]”
—Antony Flew The world’s best-known atheist and a critic of theism for more than 50 years
Mr. Adams – the second part of your question, “how would you go about the exploration of the idea that life on Earth could be a product of design”, is kind of tough without a bit of narrowing-down.
For example, are we looking for design at the origin of life? Or are we looking for ongoing design work as life has developed? If the latter, at what frequency – only at the origins of major clades, or is each and every mutation hand-(or-other-appendage)-picked?
If we were looking at the origin of all life on Earth, that’d be hard – after ~3.5 billion years, getting data’s difficult. We’re not sure what’s involved in originating life, so it’s kind of hard to make predictions on what we might see.
If we’re looking for ongoing design, the job’s a bit easier. We might look for features with no clear predecessors, but that’s problematic – many such examples have been filled in with later finds, a la Tiktalik, or the cetaceans going the other way. Features that couldn’t have evolved in gradual steps would be an indication, but none have turned up despite people looking for ‘em. We have very detailed statistical tests we can apply to genes, and we don’t see patterns indicating non-random mutations indicating design.
This is why Mountain Man’s claim that ‘ID hasn’t gotten a fair shake in the scientific world’ rings hollow. To quote at length, “Throughout history, it has been the courageous ones, the creative thinkers, the ones who refuse to accept the dogma of the power brokers, it is they who buck the trends and challenge the status quo in order to achieve the scientific breakthroughs.” This is true – but for every such individual, there have been a thousand cranks, too.
And the ones who actually succeeded in causing a ‘paradigm shift’ did it by doing science – by making predictions and testing them and proposing broad explanatory theories that can be tested by others. I didn’t say ID was ‘unpopular’ – I stated that “[ID] make[s] few predictions and so far, the ones that [it has] made haven’t panned out.” Any hypothesis will be ‘unpopular’ if it fails those tests.
Even now, people are still looking into cold fusion – and if they could actually produce reproducible results, and demonstrate them, and show others how to get those results, they’d get published more often. For now, none of those conditions have obtained.
There’s prejudice now against both cold fusion and ID, but that’s because they both jumped the gun and tried to get credibility without doing the hard initial work to underlay and justify it. If there’s anything to those hypotheses, they’ll have to work extra hard to be accepted now – but if there’s anything to those hypotheses, they’ll actually be able to do that work and show something for it.
paulburnett,
You’re an atheist. Please refrain from telling me what I or others believe. You just continue to reinforce the manifest notion that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
A creationist has simply named the designer God. All creationists are IDers. According to the Gallup poll, there are a lot of people who believe in God as the creator, and not many who are like you.
ID is widespread. You’re wrong, and you’re not enough of a man to admit it.
Mr. Ingles,
You sound like a politician when asked what can be done about problem X: “kind of tough,” “that’d be hard,” “getting data’s difficult,” “so it’s kind of hard to make predictions,” and even when “the job’s a bit easier” it’s “problematic.”
What really is “problematic” are the mathmatical odds against much of what science has come to accept with respect to the origin of life. I don’t expect someone who sees so many difficulties with studying the idea of ID to see this, at least not easily, but perhaps the following example of research by Dr. Robert Shapiro, a New York University chemist will help:
“In the very beginning, you couldn’t have genetic material that could copy itself unless you had chemists back then doing it for you,” Shapiro told LiveScience.
Instead of complex molecules, life started with small molecules interacting through a closed cycle of reactions, Shapiro argues in the June (2006) issue of the Quarterly Review of Biology. These reactions would produce compounds that would feed back into the cycle, creating an ever-growing reaction network.
All the interrelated chemistry might be contained in simple membranes, or what physicist Freeman Dyson calls “garbage bags.” These might divide just like cells do, with each new bag carrying the chemicals to restart—or replicate—the original cycle. In this way, “genetic” information could be passed down.
Moreover, the system could evolve by creating more complicated molecules that would perform the reactions better than the small molecules. “The system would learn to make slightly larger molecules,” Shapiro says.
This origin of life based on small molecules is sometimes called “metabolism first” (to contrast it with the “genes first” RNA world). To answer critics who say that small-molecule chemistry is not organized enough to produce life, Shapiro introduces the concept of an energetically favorable “driver reaction” that would act as a constant engine to run the various cycles.
Well, let’s see now, we have life evolving from small molecules interacting through closed cycles. And compounds that would feed the cycle. And every-growing reaction networks. And interrelated chemistry in simple membranes. And division like cells. And each membrane carrying the chemicals to restart the cycle, passing on genetic information. And evolution to more complicated molecules superior to the small molecules. And “energetically favorable driver reaction” to neatly answer the critics.
Well now, there you have it. And I don’t mean all the scientific soft-shoe, I mean his opening statement with regard to the mystery:
“In the very beginning, you couldn’t have genetic material that could copy itself unless you had chemists back then doing it for you,”
Can anyone say parsimony?
It is interesting that the scientist’s first and most intuitive observation is the simplest and most logical – that intelligence was at work. But as Mr. Ingles points out, ID is just too hard, difficult and problematic. Besides, who needs parsimonious answers when we have complete and beautifully complex theories featuring “favorable driver reactions” and the miracle of the simplest molecules reproducing and even evolving, (who needs that darned ol’ DNA or proteins)?
Dr. Jackson – I didn’t dismiss Mr. Ranganathan’s article because he’s a young-Earth creationist. I dismissed it because it’s attacking strawmen and betrays a deep misunderstanding of what evolution actually entails, and I pointed out a rather glaring example. Beyond that, the only sources he cites – Gish and Brown – are indeed young-Earth creationists, and I don’t see why this is a terrible thing to point out.
And I didn’t say that “all ID is just a bogus form of creationism”. This particular article appears to be, and I’ve discussed why. I’ve also noted that many creationists have leaped onto the ID bandwagon, and this is a real issue – even the Discovery Institute types take great pains to distance themselves from creationists, at least when they are inconvenient.
And as to Roy’s book – since you know him, feel free to pass on my comments re: the website to him. If his book actually is more coherent and better-argued than that, the website’s doing him a disservice. And just because I don’t leap out and devour a copy of the book the instant you suggest it doesn’t mean that I won’t get around to it. As I said, I’m not particularly enthused, based on what I can glean – and you, too, would be reluctant to dive into a book when you’d found misconceptions and errors on the back-cover blurb – but I might give it a shot. Don’t expect it to be soon – my wife is currently recovering from surgery (she’s fine, thankfully) but that means I’m taking care of all four of our kids and that kind of time is at a premium.
If you do pass those comments on to him, I’d be curious to see his reply. I actually do think that I examined and considered what was presented, and yes, I honestly do have those problems with what I read. I’d be far more impressed with the case being made if you – or, indeed, anyone – would actually address the “legitimate points that can and should be addressed as part of a broader discussion on this issue” that I’ve tried to raise here. Instead, I get called closed-minded and accused of ignoring points when so far as I can see I’m the only one actually trying to discuss them.
Mr Adams – Maybe the problem actually is hard. I asked what, exactly, was the hypothesis we’re supposed to be testing here. You never directly answered, but I’m going to assume from your reply that you’re worried about the initial origin of life, and not so much about its subsequent development. Please correct me – explicitly, please – if I’ve misunderstood you.
Dealing with the origin of life is, indeed, a difficult problem. There are plenty of unknowns – and I’ve said over and over here that we don’t have a solid testable theory about it yet. We have several hypotheses – and Shapiro’s is only one. Miller kept working on amino acids after his famous early experiment, and found some interesting results that took a long time to come to fruition – see here: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C= And the other model listed in the article you’re apparently quoting from is interesting, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-sulfur_world_theory
Some of these hypotheses have testable aspects, and people are actually working to check them out. Look at the Discover article in particular to see the kind of long-range work that’s being done. The ‘mathematical odds’ are one of the unknowns I mentioned; no calculation I’ve seen has taken into account possible variations of function and form, even when many of those variations are known from their examples in many different forms of life. We don’t know what the odds actually are, of course – all we can be sure of at this point is that they are better to an unknown degree than the naive calculations suggest. The kind of work above tries, among other things, to try to get some numbers to help pin down those odds.
There are a few problems with your idea of parsimony. It leaves the origin of the ‘intelligence’ unexplained, for one. It also doesn’t help much with what purpose the ‘intelligence’ may have had. Indeed, I’ve not seen any really testable propositions come out of the notion. Can you point me to some?
We’ve seen a lot of different things that have been confidently asserted to require intelligent intervention turn out not to. (A good essay here: http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/PerimeterOfIgnorance.php ) Abiogenesis, like Intelligent Design, is not ready for prime time yet, but at least people are trying to make predictions and test them in the abiogenesis area. I really haven’t seen that on the ID side. Indeed, it was one of the points made in the Dover trial that the ‘leading scientists’ weren’t actually interested in doing experiments to test predictions.
Raymond — best wishes for your wife. Phil
Phil;
In regard to comment #16, I think it’s futile to recommend an objective debate of evolution as nothing that would or could be said will change minds on either side. The intrinsic nature of evolution as a scientific theory precludes agreement among both layman and scientists alike. I see intelligent design as just another attempt to patch up one feeble scientific theory of historic biological development with an even feebler theory. In fact, punctuated equilibrium, symbiogenetics, evolutionary macro-mutation (“hopeful monster theory”), complexity theory, intelligent design, etc. are all attempts to prop up or further rationalize the synthetic theory (neo-Darwinism in England). As you’ve written previously, punctuated equilibrium was originally proposed to explain the “gaps in the fossil record” and the overwhelming absence of transitional intermediates required by the synthetic theory. A fine patch job that actually recognizes empirical evidence but also carefully toes the party line.
I believe it was Mountain Man (my apologies if I’m citing the wrong author) who observed in a comment to a previous Intellectual Conservative essay: “Evolution theory attempts to use observed results as undisputed proof of the historic process”. Those academics who study science itself in a discipline referred to as “philosophy of science” have analyzed evolution’s core concept of common descent and described it as: “Common descent explains historic biological development by postulating a hypothetical pattern of historical events which, if actual, would account for a variety of presently observed data”. Basically, just a fancy way of saying what Mountain Man put more succinctly.
However, this description of one core concept of the theory also carries a number of additional philosophical considerations regarding the “science” of evolution. “Hypothetical pattern of historical events” refers to a pre-determined and unproven pattern or template that is unilaterally applied to ALL previous biological development. There is no overt claim by science that all historic biological change has been examined in detail and found to conform to this hypothetical pattern – there is simply the assertion that if it could be examined, it would conform. And such an attempt at direct examination would be logically futile in any case since many of the events are historically (and conveniently) unique in space and time and can’t be repeated, either in nature or in the lab – the reptile to mammal/bird transition or the ape to man transition for example.
Turning to the qualifier in the above description “if actual”, there is no assertion the historic change followed the hypothetical pattern, only the conclusion that if the pattern actually occurred it would explain the observed data. This isn’t just semantic hair-splitting by philosophers of science and can be easily illustrated with practical examples.
For instance, take an example near and dear to our hearts, the ape to man transition via common descent – although the following argument would work equally well with other transitions not involving man – but it does inject some emotion into an otherwise dry analysis. Many rational people, both religious and non-religious, accept common descent as a universal pattern of historic biological development – there is no perceived or logical basis for excluding mankind from the rest of the plant and animal kingdoms in that regard. But how much explanatory power does this hypothetical pattern possess or, as some have claimed, does it provide merely descriptive rather than explanatory knowledge?
And, if evolution is based on natural law, then what natural laws were at work in this common descent process and how would we formulate the natural law in scientific terms? Taking a specific example, if all ape species, except one, are completely covered with hair, then what natural law working under the general description “natural selection” explains this exception? Hair serves a survival purpose: it provides warmth, protection from trauma, protection from sunburn, protection from disease, cushions friction – in short, it supposedly developed through natural selection but then, in the case of man, was abandoned or, at the least, radically curtailed. How to explain this perversion of natural selection in terms of natural law?
Isn’t this where the qualifier “if actual” comes into play? We can’t explain it because we can’t define the natural law or laws that govern natural selection – or even empirically determine that natural selection is governed by natural laws. A natural selection mechanism could very well be “actual” in this transitional pattern of morphological change but try and prove it. And, does failing to “prove it” mean evolution through common descent isn’t based on natural law? Then what would it be based on?
Questions of this type continually vex philosophers of science and are referred to as “demarcation arguments” – or in simpler language, the epistemological or methodological factors that make a scientific theory scientific. Or, viewed from a different perspective, what makes a theory “scientific” as opposed to non-scientific? And, defining undisputed demarcation factors differentiating science from myth aren’t just a problem for evolution, many other scientific theories have demarcation problems as well.
You’ve argued in past essays that “consensus” doesn’t make a scientific theory true (and I agree), but, in fact, that is exactly what the philosophers of science are arguing does make it true, or more specifically, scientific. There is a “consensus” of scientists that the hypothetical pattern called evolution, if actual, best explains the observed data. For many non-scientists, the objection to this statement is “that can’t possibly be true because science is based on objective truth, not mere consensus”. But, the truth is philosophers of science can’t agree on what demarcation factors differentiate a scientific theory from a non-scientific one such as astrology. They can’t agree except in one important particular and that particular provides the current bone of contention among the general public.
A scientific theory can’t be based on supernatural explanations. And why not? Because supernatural explanations are outside the domain of science by definition and general agreement. Even the intelligent design proponents don’t claim that “God did it”, they merely refer to some vague “designer”.
I’m positive someone will point out that scientists do so agree on what is science and what isn’t and google a bunch of quotes or references to prove it. That’s widespread, common wisdom and, of course, the internet can’t be wrong, but for real wisdom refer to the published works of Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper, Michael Ruse, Larry Laudan and essays on evolution as science by Mark Ridley. These scientists along with other academics have studied the history of science and scientific discoveries and reviewed the contributions of logical positivism toward defining what is and isn’t science – and, as a result, produced the usual barrage of claims and counterclaims. Sort of a polite academic version of “oh yeah” and “sez who?”.
Demarcation factors like “testability”, “falsification”, “defined through natural law”, “usefulness in making predictions”, “no references to unobservables”, “provides clearly defined mechanisms”, “lack of tenativeness” and “usefulness in problem solving” have all failed to distinguish various widely accepted scientific theories from those theories deemed non-scientific. For each theory that meets one or more of the demarcation criteria there are others that clearly fail – like evolution and intelligent design.
If philosophers of science are unable to provide a clear definition of what is and isn’t valid science, then it may be asking too much to expect non-scientists to debate using objective criteria as opposed to emotion. Science with its immense social and economic prestige can no longer simply say: “Insufficient data to form a conclusion.” Where’s the fun or the money in admitting to something like that?
Mountain Man said: “You’re an atheist. Please refrain from telling me what I or others believe.”
You are incredible! You tell me what you (mistakenly) think I believe and then turn right around and deny me the same right.
Mountain Man then mistakenly said: “All creationists are IDers. According to the Gallup poll, there are a lot of people who believe in God as the creator…”
Please try to understand those two statements do not go together. Very few creationists honestly believe in the official statement of ID, which officially claims not to know if the creator is the Creator God of Genesis or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or space aliens – because creationists, by definition, believe in the Creator God of Genesis, and do not believe in the officially Godless blasphemy of ID.
Pat: These discussions always end up being a series of parallel conversations, which is why I stopped “answering” onjections a long time ago. I posted the link to Roy’s book just to let others know that the cartoon version of ID being offered by Burnett was misleading. Other than that, my expectation of any worthwhile debate was near zero.
Take care, Phil
27…”I don’t know 10 scientists, and the few I know, I don’t know well enough to know or ask about their religious beliefs (because it’s none of my business)”…
Well said Burnett. And if the Libertarians on this List practiced what they preached, they would put their ideas about others into 1 sentence and then move their focus back to their own tasks.
Phil,
my expections have now arrived at zero as well. I don’t know why I wasted my time.
Mr. Skurka – regarding the transition from apelike ancestors to the current species of primates, it’s a lot more than theoretical. For example, if humans were created separately from chimpanzees, how come we share at least six endogenous retroviruses in the same places in our genomes, and no other primates have those retroviruses there? http://vwxynot.blogspot.com/2007/06/endogenous-retroviruses-and-evidence.html
Common descent explains this, and many other similar things, handily. I’m still waiting on an ID explanation. Can you point me to one?
And of the criteria you listed – which ones does evolution ‘fail’, and in what way? I’ve just pointed out an example of how it’s testable, falsifiable, and useful in making predictions…
Phil;
You’re right, of course. Those emotionally wedded to a certain point of view aren’t interested in reasoned debate. Amusingly, some folks like Burnett and freelunch have no sense of proportion either. It’s never enough that a majority of people agree with their beliefs, although the majority doesn’t always agree with their rhetoric or advocacy tactics – everyone must agree with them or the tantrums start.
Intelligent design theory and the Discovery Institute are a tribute to our country’s tolerance of free speech and open debate. The Discovery Institute occupies a single office in a Seattle office building and depends on private funding to carry out its research. While I don’t agree that intelligent design theory has much explanatory power, I have to admire the scholars engaged in a David vs. Goliath battle of concepts and beliefs. Arrayed against them is the combined might of the practical and academic scientific community able to draw on massive taxpayer funding of evolution research provided by the government courtesy of the National Institutes of Health, the Smithsonian – even NASA. Seems like a one sided battle with David doomed to go down to ignominious defeat. But, intelligent design continually gains converts among scientists and non-scientists alike.
The reason, in part, for their limited success has been their rebuttal of evolution’s myths and “just-so” stories, carried out within a dispassionate and objective debate. The lunkheads defending evolution within the scientific establishment have responded with smear tactics, ad hominem attacks, threats against an individual’s livelihood and future career, active and often successful actions in taking away a dissenter’s current job and so forth. Americans have no tolerance for Muslim fanatics who kill or attempt to kill authors or cartoonists who, they claim, defamed the tenets of Islam. Yet, evolution’s supporters fail to see the similarity between their own actions and the actions of these few terrorists. There may be a difference in the degree of physical reprisal between the Muslim terrorists and evolution’s true believers, but there is no difference in the emotional fanaticism that fosters it.
I don’t like either group and wish them anything but well. Your efforts to initiate reasoned debate demonstrate, by way of contrast, the difference between intellect and emotionalism. Keep it up please. I also think the collective efforts of present and future scientists will eventually result in a much more explanatory theory of historic biological development than the pseudo-science of evolution, but definitely not in our lifetimes.
As science continues to delve into the incredible complexity of life, it simply is a matter of time until the theory of
evolution is tossed where it belongs, on the ash heap of history. Evolutionists know this, which is why they are
increasingly hysterical in its defense, and tolerate absolutely no dissent or inquiry into alternative theories. They are
intellectual cowards and bullies.
Mr. Ranganathan’s logical stand back perspective is a refreshing contrast to the tunnel vision nostrums obstinately clung onto by the Darwinists. Most revealing is the comment by Mr. Burnett who instead of challenging the arguments for ID childishly resorts to ad hominem attacks and invokes the propaganda tool of guilt by association. Mr. Ranganathan’s theological interests and his ties with Bob Jones University are irrelevant and the fact that similar articles have been published previously is equally so. The global warming apostles pull this kind of stunt all the time, demonizing skeptics as shills for big oil, dismissing their views on that basis as unworthy of consideration. Alas I had professors like Burnett in college who would frenetically ram down my throat their own wacky theology masqueraded as science and then dress you down for your ignorance if you dared not drink the cool aid. Years later you’d find out what kind of nonsense and mendacity they had been preaching. It is only by jettisoning the scientific method right out the window that Burnett and his ilk can irrationally embrace evolution as fact and denounce other explanations of man’s origins as heresy. Kudos to Mr. Ranganathan for challenging the nauseating sanctimony of the evolution camp. More voices like his need to be heard especially in the public schools.
Rcollins re-played another variation of the creationist theme: “Mr. Ranganathan’s logical stand back perspective is a refreshing contrast to the tunnel vision nostrums obstinately clung onto by the Darwinists.”
Sorry, rcollins, but you’re revealing your position as an advocate of ignorance. Babu claims a bachelor’s degree in theology and biology, and writes with a certain perspective. And I’ll stop right there pointing Babu’s many deficiencies.
Would you rather believe Babu’s article, or the latest book by Dr. Neil Shubin, “Your Inner Fish” – see http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/book.html – which goes into a fascinatingly detailed explanation of how evolution actually works? (Dr. Shubin is a Professor of Anatomy at the University of Chicago. He is an actual scientist, unlike Babu, and has about a million times more understanding about biology than Babu ever will.)
Would you rather believe Babu’s article, or a recent publication by Dr. Kevin Padian, who was one of the star expert witnesses in the 2005 Dover trial that proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that intelligent design creationism is religion, not science? Dr. Padian, an actual scientist who is a museum curator, testified about transitional fossils, of which there are many. A transcript of his sworn testimony (which was not rebutted), with the slideshow he used, is available at http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/ZZ/47_meet_padian39s_critters_5_3_2007.asp
The Dover trial judge included this statement in his decision: “…Dr. Padian’s demonstrative slides, prepared on the basis of peer-reviewing scientific literature, illustrate how Pandas (a bogus creationist “biology textbook”) systematically distorts and misrepresents established, important evolutionary principles.”
Would you rather believe Babu’s article, or Dr. Barbara Forrest’s paper, “Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals,” available at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf ? As a Professor of Philosophy, Dr. Forrest is a nationally-recognized expert and public speaker on intelligent design creationism, and understands it far better than Babu.
Rcollins wrote: “More voices like his need to be heard especially in the public schools.” They were, recently, in Florida. The state is adding the word “evolution” to the educational standards, and some county’s School Boards passed “Voluntary Ignorance Resolutions” condemning evolution. Unfortunately, it was pointed out in the subsequent hearings that these were the very counties with the lowest test scores in the state. They had, indeed, drunk too deep of their own Kool-Aid.
But, as you wish, their voices, echoing Babu’s and your ignorance of evolution and biology and science were indeed fairly heard…and rejected. Luckily for the innocent school children, their educational needs for the 21st century were addressed.
Pat: I appreciate the kind words. I always enjoy reading your thoughtful commentary.
Phil
(1) ID is not a scientific theory. Evolution is.
(2) Even if we provisonally (and irrationally) accept ID as a scientific theory, together ID and evolution do not comprise the totality of all possible theories re origins. Thus, any negation of evolution does not affirm ID.
(3) Even if we provisionally accept that ID negates aspects of evolution, said negation rests upon the irrationality that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
(4) Any organized body of beliefs like ID that posits the existence of a supernatural entity is a religion.
Babu,
All of this simply means that real science supports faith in God.
No. Science is not about faith in God. Faith in God is religion. Logically simplifying: Science is not religion.
Now, let’s do the reverse: Religion is faith in God. Believing in God (ie, having faith in a God) is not within the purview of science. Again logically simplifying: Religion is not science.
(5) Science is not religion, and religion is not science.
[...] Babu Ranganathan… Chance physical processes can produce some level of order but it is not rational to believe that the highest levels of order in life and the universe are by chance. For example, amino acids have been shown to be able to come into existence by chance but not more complex molecules or structures such as proteins, which require that the various amino acids be in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence. If they’re not in the right sequence the protein molecules will not function. A single cell alone has millions of protein molecules! [...]