Let’s open minds, textbooks to intelligent design theories

_{David L. Hagen

December 20, 2007

Darwinism, Education, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A thoughtful article by a perceptive engineer. A good example of priming the Origins Debate pump.

——————————

Let’s open minds, textbooks to intelligent design theories

Intricacies of Earth life-forms, microscopes challenge evolution ideas

Gordon Rose, Letter, Indianapolis Star Dec. 15, 2007

“In our school systems today, science, with its dramatic and continual advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most interesting as well as important subjects being taught.

Strangely enough, it is here that we are teaching unchallenged, the biggest lie in education — the theory of evolution. Not that the theory shouldn’t be taught — it should, simply because it is believed to be true by so many scientists. But the latest research with modern tools such as the electron microscope, have ruled out any possibility of life on our planet occurring by accident. Modern, competent scientists can show that the unbelievable complexity of design of the human cell, for example, demands the acknowledgement of a designer, or an intelligence far higher than anything we can imagine. . . .” See full article

Comments

ari-freedom (#26), the point is that natural selection is uncontroversial, whether or not the peppered moth story itself is an example of it or not. This new research may show that the peppered moth phenomenon is indeed an example of differential selection of modified versions of alleles. The evidence is overwhelming that this happens in nature. Double blind experimental testing is impossible for organisms in nature observed by biologists, but this is irrelevant. Wells in your linked Discovery Institute paper points this out clearly: "For one thing, we don’t need peppered moths to prove that natural selection happens; we have much better examples. One of them (as I pointed out in Icons of Evolution) is the oscillating change in average beak size in Galápagos finches documented by Peter and Rosemary Grant in the 1970s (and later described in Jonathan Weiner’s book The Beak of the Finch).17 Another much-cited example is the spread of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.18 The question is not whether natural selection happens (it obviously does), but how much it can accomplish."magnan_{December 23, 2007
December
12
Dec
23
23
2007
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

BarryA (in #18), said "When I drop a hammer I can watch it fall. A falling hammer is a “fact” we can observe directly" Maybe for you, but not for everybody. Hammers dropped in the International Space Station do not drop. That has been witnessed. Hammers dropped on the moon drop, but differently than you would have observed - being that they drop as slow as a feather. That has been observed and filmed.Q_{December 23, 2007
December
12
Dec
23
23
2007
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

magnan (16) wrote: A good example of the obfuscation carried out by Darwinists in the media is a recent article in New Scientist (8 Dec.) entitled The Moths of War. - but even in that case we are not exactly talking about controlled double blind experiments. also see http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=4198&program=CSC%20Responsesari-freedom_{December 22, 2007
December
12
Dec
22
22
2007
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

while ID is certainly compatible with the idea of common descent, once you infer ID, the data used to infer common descent may just be the result of something else. And even if you believe that everything was the result of natural causes, you can't make a real case for common descent unless you had a theory of evolution that can make testable predictions. It's the same as anything else in science. For example, a company claims they have studies proving that their diet drug "works." (and trot out quite a few before and after pictures) The FDA will laugh at them if they don't know how the drug is supposed to work. And that's just the first step.ari-freedom_{December 22, 2007
December
12
Dec
22
22
2007
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

The observed "facts" (as opposed to theories and hypotheses and pure imaginings about these facts) are the fossil record, comparative physiology, and genetics. These facts would seem to be best explained by a combination of gradualism and design, where each level of organization in the process seems to be used as the baseline for the next innovative step. Very many examples in developmental and comparative physiology, genetics and the fossil record overwhelmingly indicate some form of evolutionary process. This seems to show a contingent process dependent on each previous stage of development. Not considering information, probability and time constraints and ideological biases this data could be considered as having at least possibly resulted from any of several processes: (1) natural (reproductive) fitness-based selection fed by random variation, (2) natural selection continuously fed by intelligently influenced or created variation, (3) periodic direct redesign from outside the "system" followed by gradual change from RV + NS, (4) periodic expression of prerecorded planned genetic templates followed by gradual change from RV + NS ("frontloading"), or (5) some permutation or combination. This excludes certain other possibilities which are not logically prevented, such as periodic total redesign from scratch, recent creation of the entire system ex nihilo, etc. All the models 1-5 result automatically in common descent, and almost all the available evidence clearly points to it though not proving it, including the fossil record, comparative genetics and comparative physiology of living organisms. Models 2-5 appear to fit all the data in a general sense, plus informational, probability and time constraints. Model 1 doesn't fit the fossil data, or informational, probability and time constraints. The third and to some extent the second models are in some ways analogous to human technological development. My personal preference is the third model.magnan_{December 22, 2007
December
12
Dec
22
22
2007
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

PlaytosPlaything, The fact that you bring up common descent is an indication you are reading what some say supports a naturalistic mechanism of evolution. It is the main argument of the theistic evolutionists. But in reality common descent says nothing about fossil A and fossil B or species A and Species B and how they may have arrived on the scene. So to use common descent as an argument for gradualism is really an admission that there isn't anything else to support it. And since common descent is consistent with the 4 main models most often proposed for the origin of species it says nothing about any of them. Gradualism has been the model taught as fact in textbooks and the classroom but has nothing going for it. Believe me I would have seen it when examining what is taught. The famous moths, the famous finch beaks are all examples of what is taught as support of gradualism and each is so trivial as to be an embarrassment to those who resort to these example as empirical evidence for gradualism. So please don't bring up common descent. It is consistent with nearly every mechanism brought up as the cause of the origin of species. So as an explanation it has zero value. It is also an indication that you are stuck for any explanation in support of gradualism. My guess is that like many who come here you would like to show us the error of our ways. But each has failed. We always ask the question, why. If you want to know the true reason why gradualism is accepted and taught you have to look elsewhere. There are two reasons, one scientific and one philosophical.jerry_{December 22, 2007
December
12
Dec
22
22
2007
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

bFast and others: Just to be clear: 1) Facts are "observable" events. They are facts if they are observed. They can be observed repeatedely and easily (the fall of objects), or only rarely and ib special circumstances (some subatomic events), but still they are facts. Facts are, in hemselves, true, in the sense that they have happened. Unless one has a very weird general view of the world, one can never deny a fact. Obviously, there may ne errors in the "observation" of facts, that is we can believe that we have observed a fact, but we can be wrong because of some methodological error in our empiric way of gathering observations. Such errors are usually discovered, in time. 2) Theories are models, usually mathematical, but at least logical, which try to "explain" facts, and if possible to make previsions of new facts (this is, usually, the standard conception of a scientific theory, although it's probably not that simple). Theories are never ultimately true, although they can be sometimes proved ultimately false. Any theory can be proved false, or at least partially false, by new facts. Theories are of various "weight". Penrose, if I remember well, hase classified scientific theories in 3 groups: the occasional ones (which are many), the important ones (not many, not few), and the really fundamental ones (very few). To be clear: the fall of a hammer is a fact, gravity is a theory (many different theories indeed: classical newtonian gravity, general relativity gravity, quantum gravity, and so on). Newton's theoty is a theory. Relativity is a theoty. Quantum theory is a theory. They will never be facts. Lets' go to evolution. Here, we must be very careful, and separate the observable from the explanations. Let's take the example of cmmon descent (which, by the way, I usually accept, although not with total faith): there are some observable facts, say the omologies between genes in different species, the morphological similarities between species, organs, parts of the body, some fossil evidences, HERVs, and so on. Common descent is a theory which tries to explain those facts with a model. Other theories can try to do the same in different ways (for instance, common design). Any of these theories is subject to discussion and challenge, and each can be supported or unsupported by new facts. That's the status, the privilege and the weakness of all theories in the world. So, common descent is not a fact, and never will be. That's not a defect. From that point of view, it is in the same company as gravitation, relativity and quantum mechanics, not a bad group at all. Obviously, I am not saying that it is equally important or supported by facts... Let's go to evolution, which is, like "love", definitely an unlucky word, because it may mean a lot of different things. But, even if you take the minimal meanings (there has been some change from one species to another, up to the present), and make no assumption about the causal mechanism of the change, still it is a theory, and not a fact. Other theories exist (for instance, de novo veration of each new species) which can expalin the facts. I am not saying that I don't believe in CD or evolution (in the minimal sense cited). In a very general sense, I do believe in both. But I do believe that ID is a much stronger theory than CD or evolution. In other words, I am much more certain of the inference of a designer, than I am of CD or evolution. In my opinion, the design inference is much stronger, elegant, supported and powerful than any other general biological theory about the fundamental problems of he existence of biological beings (Obviously, I am not saying that the design inference is in any way incompatible with CD and evolution: they are all independent theories, about different aspects of reality. ID is a theory about the causal mechanism of biological information generation; CD and evolution are theories about the historical modalities of such generation). Therefore, all the attempts of darwinists to affirm darwinian evolution, or even CD and minimal evolution (but they usually don't make any distinction) as a fact, are only epistemological dementia. Finally, let's remember a phrase (I don't remember who said it), which says, more or less: "I have seen many theories fall in front of a fact, but never one fact fall in front of a theory".gpuccio_{December 22, 2007
December
12
Dec
22
22
2007
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT}

bfast, barrya's point was about this idea that CD is a "fact"- barry uses the example of gravity becasue like evlution- we dont know who or what is guiding it- the hamer dropping is obviously dropping- its moving in a direction from A to B and we can see it move from A to B- we know what condition it was in position A as well as B where it finishes. This is a "fact" by simplisic empirical observation- you argumnet about all hamers falling is not an argunet it is a fact as well called the probem of induction- we never know anyhting or everyhting perfectly beyond infallibility. You cannot say that CD is anything like the hammer example- the hamer example while we know not what guided it- we know its "whole story" from postion A to postion B. We dont know the "whole story" from position A (say an extinct primate) to its contingent position B 1)its death or 2) its tranformation into a human.Frost122585_{December 22, 2007
December
12
Dec
22
22
2007
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT}

bfast -- there is really a rather strong case for common descent. Assuming the existence of a designer there is probably a stronger case for uncommon descent i.e. all life not having a single common ancestor.tribune7_{December 21, 2007
December
12
Dec
21
21
2007
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT}

BarryA, I believe that there are two fundimental errors in your "hammer" logic. The first, of course, is that we have not observed all hammers that ever have or will fall. The second, though, the greater error is that we have never observed gravity "cause" a hammer to fall. Gravity, after all is an invisible force that can only be inferred from evidence. Interestingly, the cause of gravity remains to be of great scientific debate, as the cause of common descent should be of great scientific debate. Many of us IDers are quite comfortable with common descent, there is really a rather strong case for common descent. However, common descent and ID are by no means mutually exclusive. That said, I would agree with you that there is significantly more evidence of the invisible force we have labeled gravity than there is of common descent, especially when there is an alternative explanation, common design, which can produce very similar patterns.bFast_{December 21, 2007
December
12
Dec
21
21
2007
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT}

PlaytosPlaything [re 17] When I drop a hammer I can watch it fall. A falling hammer is a "fact" we can observe directly. Now you say common descent is also a "fact." So the question is: Did you observe common descent directly the way I observed that hammer fall, or did you infer common descent from other data? Unless you are 3 billion years old, you did not observe common descent directly. That leaves the other option. You inferred it from other data. The next question: Is a fact we infer of the same epistimic status as a fact we infer but have not actualy observed? Clearly not. Why? Because when we observe a fact directly it is highly unlikely that other data will be found that will change our conclusion about the fact. On the other hand, it may well be that other data will be found that could lead us to other inferences. Conclusion: We can never be as certain that common descent is a fact as we are that hammers drop to the ground is a fact. Therefore, it is fatuous to say the theory of evolution accounts for the "fact" of common descent in the same way the theory of gravity accounts for the "fact" of dropping hammers.BarryA_{December 21, 2007
December
12
Dec
21
21
2007
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT}

Another lie: the theory of evolution has been repeatedly defined “a fact” and not a theory, even on important peer reviewed journals. That’s not only a lie, but also a violation of all the fundamental concepts of scientific method. A theory can “never” be a fact. A fact can “never” be a theory. Some important scientist, I don’t remember his name, has even written that the theory of relativity is still considered a theory, because somebody sometimes disagrees with it, while evolution is a fact, because no scientist has ever doubted of it! These are lies, hallucinations, farce. Whate a shame!
Hmmm. Wouldn't it be fair to say that evolution (in the fact that phenotypes have changed over time, common descent etc.) is a fact, as verifiable as the fact that things fall when you drop them. The Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, is a connected body of arguments, intended to explain the fact(s) of evolution? Just as Newton's theory of universal gravitation, or General Relativity, are theories that explain the facts of falling bodies? i.e., we are talking about things at different epistemic levels?PlatosPlaything_{December 21, 2007
December
12
Dec
21
21
2007
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

A good example of the obfuscation carried out by Darwinists in the media is a recent article in New Scientist (8 Dec.) entitled The Moths of War. It is about the famous peppered moth story so beloved by Darwinists. The author cites some recent research that corrected errors in Kettlewell's original research, confirming that the rise of the melanic moth was the result of changes in gene frequencies caused by natural selection. Duh. ID certainly encorporates such trivial examples of microevolution which undoubtedly do happen. But the author seems to wishfully think this new study somehow defeats the critics of Darwinism who have actually discredited the contention that this industrial melanism somehow shows that differential selection of alleles can result in macroevolution.magnan_{December 21, 2007
December
12
Dec
21
21
2007
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

Somewhat off topic but very interesting. Science magazine put out their Breakthrough of the year and it is Human Genetic Variation. Apparently they are sequencing several human beings and comparing genomes to determine what makes each individual different. The link is http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/318/5858/1842jerry_{December 21, 2007
December
12
Dec
21
21
2007
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

PlatosPlaything: About the lies. You are partially right. The darwinian theory of evolution is not in itself a lie. It is only a wrong theory, but it is perfectly acceptable that many scientists still believe in it, in good faith, especially if they are not really aware of the arguments of ID. Anyway, it's perfectly possible that antagonistic theories can exist together in science for some time, until one definitely prevails. That "could" be the status of ID and darwinian evolution today: pacific, although antagonistic, existence in the world of modern science. But that's not the situation we are in, and that's where the lies begin. Let's make it clear: not all scientists are lying, but a few very powerful ones are. The others are only conformist, or just not interested. The lies are not in the theory of darwinian evolution. Those are only errors of thought. The lies are in the constant denial of all the ID arguments. Darwinists are constantly repeating that all ID arguments are lies, or are stupid (see the reviews of Dembski's book on Amazon). Well, that's a true lie. An undeniable lie. You can think that ID arguments are wrong, but not that they are stupid or insincere. ID arguments are very, very smart. And they are perfectly sincere. They may be wrong (but they are not). So, darwinists are lying on that. Constantly lying. I don't know if that's a conspiracy, but it's certainly a squalid intellectual persecution. Another lie: the theory of evolution has been repeatedly defined "a fact" and not a theory, even on important peer reviewed journals. That's not only a lie, but also a violation of all the fundamental concepts of scientific method. A theory can "never" be a fact. A fact can "never" be a theory. Some important scientist, I don't remember his name, has even written that the theory of relativity is still considered a theory, because somebody sometimes disagrees with it, while evolution is a fact, because no scientist has ever doubted of it! These are lies, hallucinations, farce. Whate a shame! That darwinian theory cannot be challenged is a lie. That ID is creationism is a lie. That the IC of the flagellum has been explained away is a lie. The "hand of cards argument", recently repeated by Larry Moran on his blog, is a lie. That science has to be restricted to so called "naturalistic" explanations is a lie. You say: "We have two opposing scientific viewpoints - evolutionism and Intelligent Design. Eventually, if the weight of evidence is on our side, ID will win. But it does us no good to describe ordinary, “normal” science as a lie." Ordinary science is not a lie. It looks for facts, and that's right and valuable. It interpretates facts, and that's correct. But interpretations must not be falsely presented as facts, or as absolute truths. That's a lie. Interpretations must be open to counter-interpretations. As you say, two or more opposing scientific viewpoints must confront trìhemselves on a purely intellectual plane. That's not what happens. And if you ask a darwinist why he doesn't want to address ID arguments, "his" answer will be: because ID is not science, or is a lie, or is religion. Well, those are the lies which make darwinism no more a wrong theory, but an intolerable misrepresentation of reality.gpuccio_{December 21, 2007
December
12
Dec
21
21
2007
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

Duncan, I just re-read the Rose letter. I do not find too much wrong with it except he should have clarified what the theory of evolution is. There is no such theory. If he said the teaching of evolution using completely naturalistic means for the origin of species then the article is better framed. They are teaching lies in the classroom and in the textbooks. It is fairly easy to point that out. Not everything they teach is a lie but how they manipulate the information is definitely a form of lying. By the way I have no religious objections to any theory that could explain the origin of species. you said "re: Existence (or otherwise) of empirical evidence for Darwinism – if you think the evidence is unconvincing, fine, but many don’t. How might they be challenged, though? Saying ‘ID is obvious’ is just so inadequate it hardly warrants a response." I never said ID is obvious. I find it logical. I find gradualism one of the most illogical theories I have ever seen. I spent most of my life believing Darwin and then about 8 years ago started to read and found out it was nonsense. I have not seen any direct evidence for a naturalistic mechanism for the origin of species. If you can find any, let me know. Those who find the evidence convincing have never survived the cross examination here. They usually leave or get banned after hurling some ad hominems. They are a consistent bunch. They use circumstantial evidence such as common descent, and geographical dispersion but never anything direct. Neither of these is evidence for a naturalistic method. I have read textbooks, watched a course on biology I have from the Teaching Company, watched the evolution section of the UC Berkeley biology course by three separate professors and none present any evidence for a naturalistic origin of species. It is all circumstantial and negative arguments against a designer. They fail to address the facts that would have to accompany a naturalistic mechanism especially gradualism. If you can find someone who disagrees with this and can present something, go ahead. We have challenged all sorts of people who come here and all have punted including biologists and evolutionary biologists. It gets embarrassing for them when they cannot come up with anything. But maybe you could try.jerry_{December 21, 2007
December
12
Dec
21
21
2007
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Jerry, Russ – thanks for the responses. A question – what did you think of Gordon Rose’s letter? Do you not think the Darwinists would make mincemeat of it? re: Existence (or otherwise) of empirical evidence for Darwinism – if you think the evidence is unconvincing, fine, but many don’t. How might they be challenged, though? Saying ‘ID is obvious’ is just so inadequate it hardly warrants a response. re: Gonzalez – I’m not qualified to comment. There’s been a lot on UD saying he’s been treated very badly, and some on Panda’s Thumb saying he hasn’t (yes, I read the opposition – don’t necessarily believe it, just as I don’t necessarily believe UD). Phillip Johnson (the ‘father’ of ID, as I understand it) is recently reported to have said: - “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.” Addressing this is where the future lies for ID, and what I come to UD hoping to find.duncan_{December 21, 2007
December
12
Dec
21
21
2007
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

PlatosPlaything - Zoe Good point to challenge the message where its overhyped. I posted this to encourage others to write and post articles, whatever their background, and to promote discussion - which you have done. On "lies", encourage you to read Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, which shows textbooks reproducing known hoaxes and experiments that have been refuted or shown to be irrelevant. e.g., Haeckels embryos and the Miller Urey experiment. On Origin of Life, see Sir Fred Hoyle, Mathematics of Evolution, where the probability of life originating on earth is so astronomically small that he advocated "panspermia". However that only displaces the problem elsewhere, it does not solve it.DLH_{December 21, 2007
December
12
Dec
21
21
2007
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

Duncan, You might like "The Cosmic Blueprint" by Paul Davies. He's not pro-ID, but he does reject Neo-Darwinism. According to him (if I remember correctly), the Darwinian/materialist explanation is accepted by most scientists because it has worked well at some levels, and its assumed that it will continue working at all levels. Davies says that the extrapolation to higher levels is not substantiated. The common acceptance of Neo-Darwinism is due to human nature, not a conspiracy or anything malevolent. Another somewhat relevant book is "The Intelligent Universe" by James Gardner. He's definitely not pro-ID either, but he also (at least implicitly) rejects the idea that the commonly accepted materialistic mechanisms could account for the organization of the universe. I think its encouraging that in spite of their disagreements with ID claims, they acknowledge the that the commonly accepted mechanisms are insufficient to explain the organization of the universe (in particular in biology).dl_{December 21, 2007
December
12
Dec
21
21
2007
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Platosplaything-- But it seems to me completely out-of-line to describe evolution as a “lie.” That's a fair point in that there are many intelligent, decent people who think it's true and have a rational foundation for their views, and when they espouse it they are not lying. Further, there are aspects of evolution that are accepted by just about everybody posting on this blog. OTOH, there are things included in the teaching of evolution that were long known to be untrue and yet were still included as evidence for it (i.e. Haeckel's drawings). Further, the claim that evolution is an established, undeniable truth is not true, yet there are those who insist on teaching it to the young so it is fair to call them liars. Further, there are those who resort to lies and politics to defend NDE (see the responses to Dembski's book on Amazon). If they claim their position as science yet can't defend or describe their position rationally and objectively then one could fairly think they were lying about their position.tribune7_{December 21, 2007
December
12
Dec
21
21
2007
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

The strategic objectives should be scientific, not political and / or social.
Guillermo Gonzalez wasn't being political. He wasn't even doing ID at work. They crushed him. Why would anyone want to pursue "sound, objective, scientific enquiry" into ID, if the end result is that you are made an example of by mainstream science, and you can't complain or demand a place in the public square?russ_{December 21, 2007
December
12
Dec
21
21
2007
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

Duncan, you said "Am I missing something?" Yes, the fact that those teaching and espousing the theory presented in classrooms and textbooks have no empirical evidence for their theories other than the trivial which ID agrees with. One way of promoting ID is to point out that the alternatives lack empirical evidence and as such the truth most likely lies in an alternative to these alternatives. So one of ID's key approaches is to undermine the current paradigm which exists not because of the overwhelming evidence for it but for philosophical reasons. That is why Behe's Edge of Evolution was so important. It exposed the emperor clothes-less situation. There are tons of studies that refute the current paradigm and none that support it. Apparently you are missing the science involved.jerry_{December 21, 2007
December
12
Dec
21
21
2007
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

duncan, What you say makes a great deal of sense. In particular, the worldwide conspiracy idea ought to be dropped entirely. The plain and simple fact is that scientists bat around ideas, theories and evidence continually, and in many different fora (peer-reviewed journals, conferences etc.).So there's plenty off opportunities for different points of view to be raised, argued about (quite heatedly at times) and in the end it's probably the best way to get at what's really happening in nature. Scientists don't actually tend to disregard facts, even if they could overturn established theories. Just today I have been looking at the Pioneer anomaly, something which could (possibly) lead to old ideas having to be set aside in favour of a new theory. Yet scientists aren't just disregarding the anomaly - they're looking at it, talking about it and even holding conferences on it. Many, and maybe all, realise it could lead to great new insight.Clarence_{December 21, 2007
December
12
Dec
21
21
2007
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

This comment is not complimentary. I don’t know if it’ll get through the moderator, but it is intended as constructive criticism. I have been visiting UD almost every day for more than 18 months. I would describe myself as sceptical about Darwinism AND about ID. I am honestly looking for answers! I’m sorry, but in my opinion this post is doing you absolutely no favours whatsoever. Anyone who has any knowledge of the history of the ID / Darwinism battle can see instantly that it plays straight into the hands of the anti-IDers (for example, I’m sure their lawyers at the Dover trial would be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of cross-examining Mr Rose). There are false claims: - life on earth occurring by accident HASN’T been ruled out (it most certainly hasn’t been proved to have happened, either, but that’s not the same as being ruled out). Dr Behe himself has agreed that it HASN’T been established that the flagellum couldn’t have evolved (he thinks it unlikely to the point it’s not worth considering but, again, that’s not what Mr Rose reports). Apparently there’s a worldwide conspiracy whereby thousands of scientists have all decided to discard the standards that have informed their whole working lives and have, en masse, dispensed entirely with their professional and personal integrity in order knowingly to perpetuate a grand deception! Worst of all, we should all accept ID because …… hey, it’s obvious!! The whole purpose of the ID movement (I thought!) is to make the challenge to Darwinism better than this. Criticisms of the established wisdom must be accurate. ID must be supported with the results of sound, objective, scientific enquiry (not, ‘golly, everyone, isn’t it obvious?!’). The strategic objectives should be scientific, not political and / or social. Am I missing something?duncan_{December 21, 2007
December
12
Dec
21
21
2007
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT}

PlatosPlaything, I personally consider Darwin a minor player in science, mainly because the only valid stuff he did was minor. He was a good naturalist and classified a lot of nature and for that he should be recognized. His work on barnacles and soil was good and he classified the various life forms he saw on his trip on the Beagle. But on evolution he was a bust. He took someone else's concept, natural selection (Blythe), and appropriated it wrongly for his conjectures about evolution. Most of his conjectures were wrong but not all. So I would not equate him to Newton. In fact he introduced a lot of nonsense into science that has been taken as gospel ever since. So I do not hold Darwin up as anything special and look on him as a major disruptive force in history just as Marx, his contemporary, was.jerry_{December 21, 2007
December
12
Dec
21
21
2007
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

PlatosPlaything, There are some lies being taught and knowingly taught. The word evolution is used in many different ways and to use it without qualification of what you mean is not productive. That there has been changes in life's organisms over time is a fact. ID does not deny this. But facts are not theories. Theories try to make sense of the facts. First, you make hypotheses about the facts and then seek empirical support for the hypotheses and if there is enough empirical support then the hypotheses graduate into a theory. So we have the facts of evolution, a progression over 3.5 billion years of various life forms. What caused the changes and progressions? The explanation put forward by modern biology has no empirical support but yet the hypotheses are treated as theory. So that is the lie. The current explanation has no empirical support and any counter information is not admissible. When challenged no biologist or evolutionary biologist has ever been able to contradict the claim that the explanation taught in schools has no empirical support. Always what is offered is conjectures, so called plausible stories. It is all speculation, but never admitted. We have Darwinist here who comment but they never refute what has just been said. Just as a challenge, anyone reading this who disagrees please come forward or forever hold your peace. In no other scientific area does such a phenomena occur. You have to ask yourself why.jerry_{December 21, 2007
December
12
Dec
21
21
2007
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT}

Maybe I'm a little confused; I'm still new to all of this ID business! But it seems to me completely out-of-line to describe evolution as a "lie." Sure, Behe and Dembski have shown that evolution has its limitations. But that doesn't make the theory a "lie," just limited. Other scientists have disagreed with their critiques - but their disagreement, again, isn't a "lie," but a different interpretation of the evidence. If evolution were a lie, then most scientists would be liars - and we would have to imagine there was a global conspiracy of scientists teaching something they know to be untrue!! That is very unlikely, it seems to me. We have two opposing scientific viewpoints - evolutionism and Intelligent Design. Eventually, if the weight of evidence is on our side, ID will win. But it does us no good to describe ordinary, "normal" science as a lie. (I know this is quoted from an outside source, but I've come across similarly intemperate language on UD recently). Did Einstein call Newton a liar? No, he venerated him as a great genius, who had seen so far with what information he had. That should be our attitude to Darwin too, I think. Peace - Zoe.PlatosPlaything_{December 20, 2007
December
12
Dec
20
20
2007
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

if it makes sense then it doesn't belong in our public schools. Same goes for math and reading http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/28/fuzzy-math-a-nationwide-epidemic/ari-freedom_{December 20, 2007
December
12
Dec
20
20
2007
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply