Intelligent Design ruling

[krabapple]

I think a little clarification might be in order.

First, it is thought that lizards turned into birds, not vice versa.

But not all of them, obviously. Some evolved into...modern lizards. Others into snakes.

There is some fossil evidence, found in China in the last decade, that indicates an evolutionary relationship...using microbiology.

Doubtful, since microbiology is the study of microorganisms (usually bacteria). Paleontology would be the more likely field. And fossil birds and bird ancestors have been known for much more than ten years. Archaeopteryx being the most famous example.

Second, use of electrophoresis and other techniques to analyze molecular structure has for many years found statistical relationships amongst living diverse organisms, both floral and faunal. Evolutionary (including use of micro-) biology is nothing more than proving that two species are more closely related to each other than to some third thing.

Well, it's rather more than *just* that.

Third, there is general scientific agreement that 'evolution' is not a gradual changing of 'things'. The evolution of a species, or any organized system is eventually caused by punctuated, dramatic, sometimes cataclysmic events, both genetic and environmental. (And multiple events can and do occur simultaneously to mark genetic shifts.) I offer the K Boundary layed down during the Cretaceous Period, a period that doomed poor T-Rex and his cousins. Successful (!) genetic shifts were cause for survival in worldwide populations (macro) as a result of a cometary impact.

No, this NOT the general scientific agreement. Obviously a cataclysmic die-off opens up vast niches for adaptation. But the same thing takes place in non-cataclysmic times, albeit at a different apparent rate.

Lastly, there certainly is not more science behind the 'intelligent design' principle than there is evolution. Of course, the definition of "science" can be whatever you make it...but you may not get consensus.[/QUOTE[

There is *no* science behind 'intellligent design', more than ten years after the term was adopted by what used to be called the 'scientific creationism' movement. The money poured into ID by religious millionaires so far has resulting only in endless repetition of the 'god in the gaps' argument, not a positive research program.

So, even with all that said....I agree. Evolution is a theory. The theory of evolution is just that.

No, it isn't 'just that'. Unlike a common 'theory', a scientific theory is not a guess or a hunch. It is a model well-supported by data, explaining a large body of observations, which has stood up to challenges. Only a relatively few scientific ideas reach the exalted level of *theory*, .e.g, relativity, gravitation, cell theory. No scientists would ever say 'it's just a theory'.

 

[krabapple]

I don't see why both viewpoints aren't presented to students--along with some of the strengths and weaknesses of each position. IMO, neither the evolution nor the intelligent design stance has been proven.

Wrong, but even if correct -- why limit this to just biology class? Let's offer the idea that God (or maybe a bunch of gods) is 'designing' history as well, in history class. And surely the beauty of mathematics requires that we mention the possibility that god (or maybe several) designed that too, in math class. And in history class, we'd also best teach the controversy over whether Jesus Christ existed at all.

And having done that, maybe we can take some time out from learning about the periodic table or the Battle of Trafalgar or irrational numbers, to discuss just which of the hundreds of 'intelligent designers' populating religious beliefs, is the one or ones resonsible for them.

 

[krabapple]

You must have gone to public school.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

The entire intent of that letter being to keep government out of religion - not the other way around as it has been so twisted.

Actually, the freethinkers who founded our country were also very concerned that one religious faith not come to dictate government policy. How would you propose to mix state and church, without seeming to favor one church over others?

Nor is there a case that religion belongs in *science class*.

Btw, I went to Catholic school for twelve years -- they managed to keep the science and the religion separate. It's not that hard.

I agree there should be open discussion. Unfortunately this is not typically the case as almost no criticism of evolutional theory or its difficulties are taught in schools - hence the desire of many to include a discussion of intelligent design. Including Intelligent Design is seemingly the only way to get any sort of criticism of evolution and alternative theory - it simply isn't taught or discussed otherwise. And it more closely matches the latest evidence at hand, as revealed by microbiology and paleontology. I have met hundreds of people in my time that believe evolution is simply fact - and that's what they learned in school.

That's because as far as science is concerned...and science's standards for what is a 'fact' is quite high -- it *is*. You are utterly wrong about the latest revelations of microbiology and paleontology, btw. Shame on you for continuing to promulgate these canards.

If you step back, what you will see is a very deliberate attempt to silence any criticism of evolution - since evolutionists will not self-critique themselves - at least not in public school texts (I have spoken with several evolutionists who admit to the incredible amount of missing information and dubious assumptions, but this is usually not taught in schools as no one wants to admit that the theory has such significant flaws - especially if they have no "designer-free" options to put in its place).

Nonsense. We don't teach every facet of every subject in *any* field, in every grade level. We teach more in-depth in high school, and yet more in college and grad school. There's nothing sinister about this. It's simply a matter of sound pedagogy -- given limited time, and intellectual levels, getting *concepts* down is important first, moving from general to particulars. Happens in every subject area.

And if you think scientists don't critique themselves -- you've NEVER hung out with scientists, or been to a meeting, or read the journals.

rjbudz: I appreciate your discussion here - thanks for jumping in (and correcting my flip on lizards). What you are talking about is Punctuatued Equilibrium - essentially the theory of "hopeful monsters". The problem with Punctuated Equilibrium is that there is very little evidence for it (to the contrary there is a wealth of information on how mutations - dramatic or not - are almost always detrimental, not beneficial to a species or organism.

Punctuated Equilibrium takes much more faith than does religion as you have to believe in millions and millions of spontaneous, dramatic mutations to achieve the ends needed by evolutionists to maintain the current theory.

And just for everyone's clarity - just as there are different flavors of Christianity and beliefs, there are also differeing views and flavors of evolution.

But no debate over whether it *happens*. Is that because scientists are denying 'the truth' or protecting some vast scheme of deception? Even though someone who proposed and demonstrated a more experimentally successful process than evoltion would *surely* achieve the Nobel Prize? Or is it just ebcause, well...it happens to be the explanation that best fits the data,, over and over and over?

You look like you've read a lot of the creationists tracts...I recognize the usual tropes...but precious little in the way of authoritative work on evolution.

 

[krabapple]

There certainly are a lot of thoughts about archaeopteryx, however I would not, as an evolutionist, cling to tightly to that transitional form. Was it cold-blooded, warm-blooded - there's a lot of debate on exactly what it was as I understand it. From what I've read I think it was a bird.

I just look at the duck-billed platypus and wonder what people may have thought of that if it was dug up as a very old fossil.

We'd likely have 350+ peer-reviewed books written by very well respected scientists about a new path of evolution involving birds and mammals.

Doubtful, unless it was vastly different from what it is, and was found in a stratum consistent with that date.

'You' looking at a duck-billed platypus, and a trained paleontologist looking at one, would of course have vastly different stores of knowledge to draw on.

As far as microevolution - nobody (sane) disputes that - but microevolution and macroevolution are not at all the same thing. Microevolution typically describes things that are already predisposed in the genetic code. Microevolution is how you can breed small and large horses in a very short aount of time, or how you can see changes in fruit flies in a short amount of time, or Darwin's finches... It does not explain or have anything to do with how a lizard grew wings and became a bird. Again, is it punctuated or gradual? Or both, perhaps?

Why not both? It's still evolution. And why don't regulatory genes -- genes controlling the expression of banks of other genes -- 'explain' how a lizard grew wings? After all, the ancient homeobox genes appear to have proved malleable enough to generate body plans for both insects and vertebrates , despite how different *those* look. There is , of course, a large literature on bird evolution, evolution of flight, evolution of limbs....care to actually delve into it, or are you content to merely pose questions as if that proved science had no answers?

Some things are not easily explained by gradual change over time.

Primarly, the 'sudden' appearence in strata of numerous new species. But as the granularity of the fossil record increased, the meaning of 'sudden' changes. We tend to find more 'ancestors' the more we look...so those 'sudden' appearances aren't so. And of course, in geologic terms 'sudden' is still a vast amount of time...beyond what most people can grasp.

That's why punctuated equilibrium is so popular - it bypasses this problem (though for some reason, depending upon the discussion angle, gradual change and natural selection are still brought up when it is convenient). But then you have to deal with the math again - how many beneficial mutations ("hopeful monsters" as I've heard them called) do you need to happen to get where we are in about 1-2 billion years' time?

Evolution rests on four facts of life: variation, inheritability, selection, and adaptation. It's not just about mutations (variation). And there aren't just 'beneficial' and 'deleterious' mutations: there is also a large class of 'neutral' mutations which affect gene frequencies as well.

You seem to have quaffed the ID/creaiotnist kool-aid -- have you at least *sipped* the scientific rebuttal to their tediously repeated 'problems' with evolution? It's not like these issues haven't ever been addressed.

Most mutations (and I do mean most) are not beneficial (several examples have already been given in this thread of diseases, harmful bacterium, cancer... none of which are beneficial.) And if one beneficial mutation manages to make it through and gets eaten by a predator? Well, we need to start over and wait another 10,000 years... or 1 million years for a big comet, I dunno.

Then again, some mutations are beneficial in some contexts, harmful in others....sickle cell mutation being an example. A simple understanding of biology will only get you simple answers.

 

[krabapple]

I was telling my wife about this thread this morning over breakfast. She made one comment and it cracked me up. She said, "Concerning Intelligent Design...If it's true, why was the fossil record put there? Was it just to mess with our minds. What's the point?"

The idea that God made things *look* ancient and evolved , even though it's only *really* a few thousand years old, was promoted by Gosse a couple of years before Origin of Species was published, in a book called 'Omphalos'. It also explains why Adam and Eve had navels ;>

 

[krabapple]

Just a short post to answer a couple questions. Furry...God has always been, is now and forever shall be. Hard to swallow for us linear thinking humans, but hey; even the number line has no end! I have posted before that I am a "big God" believer. Why would anyone want to believe in a god that is not? I would not want to believe in any god that is not all powerfull.

Your all-powerful Big God, then, also created evil. He's also responsible for babies dying in earthquakes, which we would not call 'evil' unless ...someone could have stopped it.

Why would anyone worship such an entity?

To me, putting ANY limit on God would be to say that He is not God, but just perhaps a superbeing with limitations just like us. We look at things from a human perspective while God looks at things from a God persective. We can really not even begin to fathom all that God is. We are created in His image, so we can know God to a degree, but only fully when we meet Him in Glory. Many of you will disagree, but, well, I understand. I posted elsewhere before that to an unbeliever, the ways of God are foolish and a complete mystery. Only AFTER accepting Christ as your Saviour will you begin to understand. I say begin because, as I just mentioned, we will never fully understand it all as long as we are on this earth.

A god that can be imagined and known in such detail by a human, seems not a likely creator of the universe to me.

As far as the comment on how a loving God will let bad things happen to us, well here is my take on that. God DOES love us supremely. He loved us so much He sent His son to die for us that upon repenting of our sins and accepting Him as our Saviour, we can live eternaly in Heaven. He also loves us enough to let us decide whether or not we want to make Him our LORD and Saviour. He will not force us to follow Him. BUT!!! God is also HOLY. Sin cannot be left unpunished.

Why not? BIG God can make anything happen. And what kind of god sets up a system like this, anyway? Was he *that* bored that the near-constant failure of humanity to live up to his HOLINESS is amusing?

Ever since the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden, where all was perfect, we have to live in a sinfull world that is separated from Him. Disease, sickness, disasters and the like are all a result of living in a sinful world.

Strange, then, that even animals and plants suffer sickness and disease. What the heck did they ever do? Other than that mean old snake, I mean. And why on heaven and earth do babies have to suffer for what two grown people did?

None of this existed in the garden. None will exist in Heaven. Hell awaits those who choose not to accept Christ in this world as a punishment for sin.

I'm totally going to Hell, then. It sounds more interesting anyway.

In case you have not guessed, yup; I am a pretty conservitve good ol' Southern Baptist Christian. I can also agree with science, however. Only a fool would deny science. I do not beleve that Evoulution has fully explained how the earth was created.

Evolution is not an attempt to explain how the earth was created. It explains the apparent interrelatedness of all life.

I do believe that God can use it to create the world, if He so chooses. What I believe that matters most is that one puts his or her faith in Christ and gives Him the glory for creating the world and all in it, no matter how He chose to create it. Too many people get hung up on trying to figure out how and/or worshiping the creation instead of the Creator. Even the religious elect (the Pharasees) of Jesus' day got hung up on the whys and hows and missed the point of the Law. They were so caught up in following the law to the letter they missed the point of the law. Heck, He even called them a "brood of vipers".

The political and ideological struggles between the Pharisees and other Hebrew sects --of which the Christians were one -- is interesting, and makes for an illuminating perspective on the usual story. Karen Armstrong covers them in relatively brief fashion in her great book 'A History of God'.

 

[Tomorrow]

But not all of them, obviously. Some evolved into...modern lizards. Others into snakes.
.

So obvious, it didn't require stating.

Doubtful, since microbiology is the study of microorganisms (usually bacteria). Paleontology would be the more likely field. And fossil birds and bird ancestors have been known for much more than ten years. Archaeopteryx being the most famous example.
.

I mispoke/typo'd this. I of course meant 'molecular' biology. And you are correct about the time-line. The more famous fossil samples, though, have come within the last decade. Your and my biases aside, proof of the link is still assumed, not proven.

No, this NOT the general scientific agreement. Obviously a cataclysmic die-off opens up vast niches for adaptation. But the same thing takes place in non-cataclysmic times, albeit at a different apparent rate.
.

It was used as an example of a generally agreed upon (by 'science') means by which exceedingly large changes to a system may develop.

As I mentioned in an earlier post. This format is a very difficult platform to debate these issues, as they are so complex. Much is left out and blanks tend to be filled by the biases and personal approaches.

For the most part I like what you say, Krabapple. But please lose the attitude and personal insults. You lose credibility when you start flying around with off-the-cuff generalities and personal attacks. Very NON-scientific, not to mention irritating. Examplia gratia...not trusting Clint's audio reviews. That relates to nothing provable or productive, here, and I for one would like you to stick with the thread, upon which you can offer much.

 

[Sheep]

Wow, Go Krabapple!

SheepStar

 

[The Dukester]

Wow, Go Krabapple!

SheepStar

Unfortunately, by his own admission, he is going...to Hell. Sad Burning for all eternity does not sound too intresting to me. I will pray for you, Krabapple.

PS SheepStar...with all the double and multi-posting your record is in serious jeopardy. I told you Buckeye was gunning for you with this thread!

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Duke,

This thread still has a ways to go to beat Sheepsters record.

Other than the terrible officiating during the Michigan/Nebraska game, did anyone catch National Geographic tonight? Some excellent stuff.

One program disproved "chi" - the ancient wisdom of internal power and ability to move objects without touching them. A few skeptic scientists from Europe were disproving many so called "self healers" and those claiming supernatural abilities such as chi. The blackbelts excuse when he couldn't topple over the skeptic scientist with chi? He said the scientist must have either had his tounge in the wrong position , or one of his toes was lifted up.

The next program was about "Hogzilla" - a supposed 1000lb 12' wild hog shot and buried near a fisherie in 2004. There was a popular photo on the web many may have seen. What the scientists found out was the hog was actually wild, but was only 7.5' long and weighed an estimated 800lbs. This was still astonishing since typical boars only get 3-4' and weigh under 200lbs., while domestic pigs can go well over 1000lbs. This boar had huge tusks.

The most intersting part of the Hogzilla program was that the scientists learned that domestic pigs (which had taken thousands of years to domesticate) can evolve into wild pigs/boars within a matter of years should they escape their pens.

So evolution was present in both directions, but it reverted to ferile pigs much quicker than the 1000+ year time needed to domesticate the breed.
Domestic breeds lack tusks, coarse hair, extended snouts, and longer legs. Both breeds can multiply in as little as 6 months time, which in part could explain the quick transformation back to wild boar, but may answer a bigger question about evolutionary time needed for domestic vs wild breeds.

 

[krabapple]

So obvious, it didn't require stating.

I mispoke/typo'd this. I of course meant 'molecular' biology. And you are correct about the time-line. The more famous fossil samples, though, have come within the last decade. Your and my biases aside, proof of the link is still assumed, not proven.

What more famous fossil samples are you referring to? And what constitutes scientific proof of events that no one could have witnessed firsthand? These 'assumptions' as you call them, must have some logic behind them.

It was used as an example of a generally agreed upon (by 'science') means by which exceedingly large changes to a system may develop.

Actually , it is an an explanation for seemingly rapid biological evolution evidenced in some strata of the fossil record. But closer examination of that record,a nd accumulation of more fossil examples since Gould & Eldridge made PE famous in the 70's, does not bear out a need to contrast 'punctuated equilibrium' with neodarwinist gradualism. Nor was it ever proposed as a novel evolutionary mechanism. PE is usually misunderstood, and has been egregiously mis-used by creationists as if it somehow cast doubt on the factuality of macroevolution. It never did, and it doesn't now.

As I mentioned in an earlier post. This format is a very difficult platform to debate these issues, as they are so complex. Much is left out and blanks tend to be filled by the biases and personal approaches.

For the most part I like what you say, Krabapple. But please lose the attitude and personal insults. You lose credibility when you start flying around with off-the-cuff generalities and personal attacks. Very NON-scientific, not to mention irritating. Examplia gratia...not trusting Clint's audio reviews. That relates to nothing provable or productive, here, and I for one would like you to stick with the thread, upon which you can offer much.

I find that pseudoscientific reasoning is rife within audio-land, as it is among evolution naysayers. I draw the obvious parallel,a nd I believe I have tilted with Clint in the past about lack of rigor in audio evaluation and claims. What do you think?

My credibility as a biologist would indeed be questionable if I allowed utter nonsense about evolution to go uncriticized, given that evolution is foundational to all modern biological science. Your irritation is unlikely to be greater than mine when I see such claims as Clint's asserted as fact. That he is on the Audioholics 'masthead' makes it all the worse, since on this forum that imparts authority-by-association to him in a field he apparently knows little about -- except what he's read in 'intelligent design' tracts. Which themselves are simply the lineal descendents of creationist tracts, when they aren't simply rebranded outright (as was the case with 'Of Pandas and People').

 

[BMXTRIX]

Or, if creationism is believed, how can snake oil be denied?



A fair question, but one doesn't force the other either way. A lot of people have FAITH that Bose is good and Monster is the best stuff... So, it's either poorly informed, faith, or just poor judgement.

Let's at least go with faith on this one.

 

[krabapple]

Unfortunately, by his own admission, he is going...to Hell. Sad Burning for all eternity does not sound too intresting to me. I will pray for you, Krabapple.

Burning for all eternity doesn't sound interesting; like 'heaven', it sounds like an infantile fantasy, and not a particularly creative one at that. But given the choice I'm always going to pick the place where beer, sex, satire and CDs seem more likely to exist...and that would be H-E-double hockey sticks, Neddie.

 

[Sheep]

Unfortunately, by his own admission, he is going...to Hell. Sad Burning for all eternity does not sound too intresting to me. I will pray for you, Krabapple.

PS SheepStar...with all the double and multi-posting your record is in serious jeopardy. I told you Buckeye was gunning for you with this thread!

I know. My thread didn't stay clean, so people stopped posting. If this stays clean, I am dethrowned.

SheepStar

 

[mtrycrafts]

Duke,

This thread still has a ways to go to beat Sheepsters record.

Other than the terrible officiating during the Michigan/Nebraska game, did anyone catch National Geographic tonight? Some excellent stuff.
.

And tonight's Larry King had 3 psychics but only two skeptics, although that is 2 more than usual for Larry

 

[mtrycrafts]

My credibility as a biologist would indeed be questionable if I allowed utter nonsense about evolution to go uncriticized, given that evolution is foundational to all modern biological science.

Try to take gravity out of physics and see where it would be.
Same with the evolution being the foundation of biology. But, evolution threatens many peoples beliefs in the supernatural, hence the inevitable fight to the last man standing

 

[mtrycrafts]

No, it isn't 'just that'. Unlike a common 'theory', a scientific theory is not a guess or a hunch. It is a model well-supported by data, explaining a large body of observations, which has stood up to challenges. Only a relatively few scientific ideas reach the exalted level of *theory*, .e.g, relativity, gravitation, cell theory. No scientists would ever say 'it's just a theory'.

Plate tectonic theory, heliocentric theory, atomic theory, germ theory? chaos theory, information theory to name a few more. Where would we be without theories? Back in the dark ages of civilization but then, at times it feels like that today

 

[mtrycrafts]

Utter, complete nonsense. I'm a biologist. As such I do try keep up with these things. Of course, I see evidence of evolution every day in the course of my work. I can say that the patterns of relatedness of genomes and protein sequences I observe every day make *no sense* except in the framework of evolution. And saying that there's no evidence for macroevolution because we haven't observed it directly -- even though it's a process not measured in human time scales -- is like saying there's no evidence for mountain formation through plate tectonic action, because we've never observed a mountain range forming before our very eyes in our lifetimes. Oddly enough, though, we do see 'microformation' whenever an earthquake pushes up some ground. As for 'evolution is impossible' I assure you, the latest science says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF THE SORT. The latest science, again and again, *supports* the idea of common ancestry of life. If you doubt this, peruse Nature and Science magazines for the last year or so, and tell me what evidence you find that evolution is 'impossible'.

You need to become more well-studied on the *science*...not the dire crap put out by the Discovery Institute. Start with the talkorigins.org site. Or read Futuyma's textbook on evolution. And then read Judge Jones's decision, where he excellently lays out the indisputably (Christian) *religious* ancestry of the Intelligent Design movement.

Their sort of propaganda makes me angry as a scientist. Evolution is a *slam dunk* scientifically at this late date. The evidence is in. It's overwhelming. Yet, almost a century and a half after 'On the Origin of Species', ignorant Americans are still having a hard time coming to terms with it because they imagine it somehow means they can't believe in God (funny, that doesn't stop Francis Collins, who runs the Human Genome Project; he's a devout Christian). It's a disgraceful state of affairs -- akin to the fact that huge numbers of Americans also believe in astrology and ghosts, but much more pernicious, since it has political overtones now. And I really have to suspect the audio reviews of someone so susceptible to such pseudoscientific propaganda.

Thanks for this post, this rebuttal of the outrageous nonsense some try to pass on as facts.
It amazes me that a few oddballs such as Behe, Demski and that Discovery institute can hoodwink the public so well. But why should I be amazed? It is no different from some of the voodoo, bs, hype, mythology in audio?

 

[furrycute]

Sometimes I do feel like we are again living in the dark ages, since over half of the adult U.S. population to this very day still believe the Earth was created in 7 days (and the majority of the U.S. adult population still believe that there were WMDs in Iraq, but that's another gripe).

 

[jeffsg4mac]

(and the majority of the U.S. adult population still believe that there were WMDs in Iraq, but that's another gripe).

Furry, http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

Really that was a ignorant thing to say I work with a guy who lost his family in those very WMD attacks.