“Teach No Controversy” (the alternative to “Teach The Controversy”)

One more thingy- If we don't know the genome of the pre-flagellum bacteria then we cannot say the flagellum evolved from that bacteria via ANY mechanism. However we can look at the flagellum today and determine what mechanisms we can rule out. And that is why sheer dumb luck has been found wanting. It just doesn't fit with what we do know. Joseph

“I guess we don’t scientifically exist as there isn’t any data that would demonstrate that life could arise from non-living matter and evolve via some blind watvh-maker-type process.” CH: don’t think there is very much data on the origin of life at all whatever you believe. I know that and THAT is why it is very difficult to believe that ID is ruled out a priori and sheer dumb luck is ruled in "just because". “How did they rule sheer dumb luck in?” CH: We can rule in mechanisms that we are aware of. Or just say, without justification, that any genetic change is due to sheer dumb luck: Dr. Spetner discussing transposons:

The motion of these genetic elements to produce the above mutations has been found to a complex process and we probably haven’t yet discovered all the complexity. But because no one knows why they occur, many geneticists have assumed they occur only by chance. I find it hard to believe that a process as precise and well controlled as the transposition of genetic elements happens only by chance. Some scientists tend to call a mechanism [I]random[/I] before we learn what it really does. If the source of the variation for evolution were point mutations, we could say the variation is random. But if the source of the variation is the complex process of transposition, then there is no justification for saying that evolution is based on random events.

CH: However you want to spin modern evolutionary theory what is important is something we can use in doing science. But it is useless! It can't be used for future predictions. It doesn't allow us to test the premise and it cannot be verified. “Again what Orgel states is NOT a definition of SC” CH: Looks very much like Dembski’s definiton to me, to be fair I will read the relevent passages from the book. Page 141 of "No Free Lunch": Complex Specified Information: The coincidence of conceptual and physical information where the conceptual information is both identifiable independently of the physical information and also complex. And again Orgel did NOT define specified complexity. He just states that living organisms are distinguished by it. You do know what a definition is, don't you? “As for evolving a bac flag- You don’t know how long it will take. That you say it cannot be done just demonstrates the vacuuity of the premise.” CH: You missed my last point I think, we don’t know what the pre-flagellum genome was. We could select for mobility, and might see the bacteria evolve somthing, but I fail to see how we could ‘evolve’ a fagellum. I understand completely- the premise is NOT testable. It cannot be verified or falsified. How could one falsify the premise that the bac flag evolved via some blind watchmaker-type process? The only way I can think of is if we prove the structure was designed by some agency. Which would mean that ID is scientific if it can be used to falsify a reigning scientific premise. Or it could be that the reigning premise isn't scientific because it cannot be objectively tested nor can it be falsified. Joseph

"You’re aware of genetic engineering, right?"
That's a start. Now you have to start making predictions about biological systems and doing experiments using the assumption that organisms are the result of genetic engineering.

"We know what prior genomes were when it is convenient and we don’t know when it’s not convenient."
Do you have an example of where we know what prior genomes were?

I predict that no one has nor ever will observe any living organism become a new genus unless it is genetically engineered. My laboratory is the entire earth and there are uncounted trillions of organisms mutating every hour. Thank you, thank you. May I have my Nobel prize now?

So what's your prediction in this regard, ebola boy? Surely the vaunted theory of evolution can make a prediction as to how long it will be until RM+NS produces a new genus somewhere on the planet. And if it can't then what the hell good is it? If your beloved theory can't predict that how about a minimal prediction. When will ebola mutate so as to be airborne? It'll still be ebola so I'm only asking for a prediction of when a new strain will come along. My theory says it is possible for new strains to emerge but it's an unpredictable process. -ds

Chris Hyland

...we don’t know what the pre-flagellum genome was.

A cop-out. We know what prior genomes were when it is convenient and we don't know when it's not convenient. Without such knowledge most of evolutionary biology turns out to be untestable pseudo-science. Mung

"I guess we don’t scientifically exist as there isn’t any data that would demonstrate that life could arise from non-living matter and evolve via some blind watvh-maker-type process."
I don't think there is very much data on the origin of life at all whatever you believe.

"How did they rule sheer dumb luck in?"
We can rule in mechanisms that we are aware of. However you want to spin modern evolutionary theory what is important is something we can use in doing science. I really would like to know how we can use ID in science, if you want to know how we use current mechanisms then search pubmed for evolution. Evolutionary biologists know that we don't have all the mechanisms, just give us something.

"Again what Orgel states is NOT a definition of SC"
Looks very much like Dembski's definiton to me, to be fair I will read the relevent passages from the book.

"As for evolving a bac flag- You don’t know how long it will take. That you say it cannot be done just demonstrates the vacuuity of the premise."
You missed my last point I think, we don't know what the pre-flagellum genome was. We could select for mobility, and might see the bacteria evolve somthing, but I fail to see how we could 'evolve' a fagellum.

We can rule in mechanisms we're aware of and can observe today and then because they're at work today we can make a reasonable assumption they were working in the past? Great! This should end our disagreement! We can see mutation & selection doing things today. Not the big things but at least some little things. So we'll presume it could have been working in the past to do big things. Now my turn. You're aware of genetic engineering, right? ;-) -ds s Chris Hyland

Chris Hyland: I should just state my position again, my position is that we currently can not prove, and there is no positive scientific evidence, that intelligence was involved in evolution. I guess we don't scientifically exist as there isn't any data that would demonstrate that life could arise from non-living matter and evolve via some blind watvh-maker-type process. If you can tell me a way that biologists can rule in ID into there current research I would be happy to hear it. How did they rule sheer dumb luck in? Again what Orgel states is NOT a definition of SC or CSI. He just makes a statemnet. No definitions are found in that statement. As for evolving a bac flag- You don't know how long it will take. That you say it cannot be done just demonstrates the vacuuity of the premise. Joseph

"How did you “rule in” your current position? What are the alternatives? Special Creation and sheer dumb luck. Are you a Creationist?" I should just state my position again, my position is that we currently can not prove, and there is no positive scientific evidence, that intelligence was involved in evolution. What I rule in is anything that allow me to do better science. If you can tell me a way that biologists can rule in ID into there current research I would be happy to hear it. I fully accept that my view of evolution may change in the future and I am sure that we have not discovered all the mechanisms yet. But I see no evidence that makes me conclude that intelligence was involved, and I am prepared to be proved wrong. "And Orgel just says “living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity”, he doesn’t define SC." He does: "In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity." He defines it as exactly what evolution is supposed to create. "As a further example, the test for ID proposed by both Professors Behe and Minnich is to grow the bacterial flagellum in the laboratory" The main problem with this is we don't have the genome of the pre-flagellum organism. Plus as I said it would take a very long time even if it happens at all. Chris Hyland

“Then you cannot rule out ID just because you don’t like it.” Chris Hyland: I never said I’d ruled it out, I just don’t know how I can rule it in. How did you "rule in" your current position? What are the alternatives? Special Creation and sheer dumb luck. Are you a Creationist? ;) “Referencing “No Free Lunch” it is easy to see that Wm Dembski defines CSI outside of biology and then applies that to biology- chapters 3-5. Take what we know and apply it to the unknown. Pretty basic actually.” Chris Hyland: Except the concept was created with basically the same definition over thirty years ago, based on the properties of living organisms. It isn't "basically the same definition" as Dembski defines CSI outside of biology. And Orgel just says "living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity", he doesn't define SC. “But thank you for admitting evolutionism cannot be tested or repeated. IOW it ain’t science.” Chris Hyland: Hmm, I cant remember saying that, When you say that experimentation on whether or not a bac flag can evolve is daft, that demonstrates evolutionism cannot be objectively tested or repeated. (13) As a further example, the test for ID proposed by both Professors Behe and Minnich is to grow the bacterial flagellum in the laboratory; however, no-one inside or outside of the IDM, including those who propose the test, has conducted it. (P-718; 18:125-27 (Behe); 22:102-06 (Behe)). Dr Behe

If I conducted such an experiment and no flagellum were evolved, what Darwinist would believe me? What Darwinist would take that as evidence for my claims that Darwinism is wrong and ID is right? As I testified to the Court, Kenneth Miller claimed there was experimental evidence showing that complex biochemical systems could evolve by random mutation and natural selection, and he pointed to the work of Barry Hall on the lac operon. I explained in great detail to the Court why Miller was exaggerating, was incorrect, and made claims that Barry Hall himself never did. However, no Darwinist I am aware of subsequently took Hall’s experiments as evidence against Darwinism. Neither did the Court mention it in its opinion. The flagellum experiment the Court described above is one that, if successful, would strongly affirm Darwinian claims, and so should have been attempted long ago by one or more of the many, many adherents of Darwinism in the scientific community. That none of them has tried such an experiment, and that similar experiments that were tried on other molecular systems have failed, should count heavily against their theory.

You can use the reference above to look up the transcripts to see what the experiment was really about. Joseph

"Then you cannot rule out ID just because you don’t like it." I never said I'd ruled it out, I just don't know how I can rule it in. "OK- if you say so. Do you know of any evolutionists who use the assumption..." Thats not the same thing, again I am not claiming to be able to prove that the whole of life arose via unintelligent processes. I never said what you claim, but apparently Dr Minnich uses ID in his research. I was just wondering if there was an example available. "Referencing “No Free Lunch” it is easy to see that Wm Dembski defines CSI outside of biology and then applies that to biology- chapters 3-5. Take what we know and apply it to the unknown. Pretty basic actually." Except the concept was created with basically the same definition over thirty years ago, based on the properties of living organisms. "Nice misrep." Apologies, could someone explain it to me then. "But thank you for admitting evolutionism cannot be tested or repeated. IOW it ain’t science." Hmm, I cant remember saying that, maybe in the same way that continental drift can't be repeated. "Genetic recombinations could be part of the preprogrammed algorithm. However we won’t be able to figure that out until we look at it as an intentional program." I sincerely hope all the people that apparently believe in ID do. I am looking forward to see what they come up with. Chris Hyland

Chris Hyland: Just to clarify. I am not claiming that I can prove that all of evolution occurred due to entirely non-intelligent processes. Dr Behe responds:

] Intelligent design is a good explanation for a number of biochemical systems, but I should insert a word of caution. Intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism. Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of "neutral," nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important. That is pretty much why the origins of life are so important to its evolution. If life did not arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oiented) processes, ie blind watchmaker-type processes, there woould be no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those type of processes. CH: Evolutionary biologists work to discover the mechanisms of evolution and we learn more all the time, but no one claims to know them all. Every genetic movement made is ALWAYS deemed to be via the blind watchmaker. However: Dr. Spetner discussing transposons:

The motion of these genetic elements to produce the above mutations has been found to a complex process and we probably haven’t yet discovered all the complexity. But because no one knows why they occur, many geneticists have assumed they occur only by chance. I find it hard to believe that a process as precise and well controlled as the transposition of genetic elements happens only by chance. Some scientists tend to call a mechanism [I]random[/I] before we learn what it really does. If the source of the variation for evolution were point mutations, we could say the variation is random. But if the source of the variation is the complex process of transposition, then there is no justification for saying that evolution is based on random events.

Genetic recombinations could be part of the preprogrammed algorithm. However we won't be able to figure that out until we look at it as an intentional program. CH: So you can ask me to prove that reproduction evolved through blind material processes or whatever but I have never claimed to. Then you cannot rule out ID just because you don't like it. We exist and I can only see 3 options to that existence: 1) Unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes- A blind watchmaker 2) Intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes- an intelligent designer 3) a combination of 1 & 2- blind watchmaker processes acting in an intelligently designed universe. CH: It is true there are many things that we can’t explain, and so we try and find mechanisms to explain them. Design IS a mechanism. It is a mechanism we can determine from most artifacts we have observed- that is how we determined they were artifacts in the first place. First you observe something. Then you determine if it is an artifact or not (and it does matter to the investigation), AND THEN ONLY BY studying that object can we determine the mechanism. IOW the mechanism is a separate question from the detection and understanding part that ID was formulated to answer. CH: If ID can provide a way we can add intelligent mechanisms to research then I would love to hear them. Science and other venues already have & use design detection methodolgy- tried & true processes. What prevents those from being used on biological organisms? When Drs Behe & Minnich proposed an experiment that would demonstrate the bac flg could evolve via some blind watchmaker-type process and the evos ran away crying” CH: Was that the ‘leave a bacteria for ever and it would never grow a flagellum?’ experiment? Nice misrep. CH: I did find that a bit daft, it could take millions of years, assuming it happens at all. No one knows how long it would take. Generations is more of the key. And it would, if successful, confirm evolutionism and refute a major ID icon. And scientists ARE working on the origins-of-life issue TODAY! Are you saying that (OoL) took a shorter time to occur than evolving a flagellum? But thank you for admitting evolutionism cannot be tested or repeated. IOW it ain't science. That's a start. CH: As I said before we cannot really predict what will happen in the future of evolution. I already knew that. That is why it is a useless concept. Once we understand life from a design perspective we will be able to predict what could happen in the future of populations. “As for Dr. Minnich- drop him a line.” CH: Come on there must be a website somewhere that explains how he has used ID assumptions to perform research. OK- if you say so. Do you know of any evolutionists who use the assumption that all of life's diversity owe's its collective common ancestry to some unknown population of single-celled organisms, that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate AND provide the chemical reactions required for survival, via some blind watchmaker-type process? A process in which we know nada about the mutations that occurred, how they were caused, what changes were caused, how those changes provided an advantage, and the sequence of accumulation... Referencing "No Free Lunch" it is easy to see that Wm Dembski defines CSI outside of biology and then applies that to biology- chapters 3-5. Take what we know and apply it to the unknown. Pretty basic actually.

Joseph

Just to clarify. I am not claiming that I can prove that all of evolution occurred due to entirely non-intelligent processes. Evolutionary biologists work to discover the mechanisms of evolution and we learn more all the time, but no one claims to know them all. On the other hand, ID is claiming that we can prove intelligence was involved. So you can ask me to prove that reproduction evolved through blind material processes or whatever but I have never claimed to. It is true there are many things that we can't explain, and so we try and find mechanisms to explain them. If ID can provide a way we can add intelligent mechanisms to research then I would love to hear them. "When Drs Behe & Minnich proposed an experiment that would demonstrate the bac flg could evolve via some blind watchmaker-type process and the evos ran away crying" Was that the 'leave a bacteria for ever and it would never grow a flagellum?' experiment? I did find that a bit daft, it could take millions of years, assuming it happens at all. As I said before we cannot really predict what will happen in the future of evolution. "As for Dr. Minnich- drop him a line." Come on there must be a website somewhere that explains how he has used ID assumptions to perform research. Chris Hyland

Chris Hyland: A Postdoc in my lab is very fond of saying “Give me the coding sequences of a cow, and the promoter sequences of a chicken, and I will make you a chicken”. I would love to see him/ her do that. What egg would he/ she use? Chris Hyland: Its only partly to do with genes, its gene expression that is important in development. Again genes (including gene expression) may influence development but they do not determine it. Again since every time we observe CSI and IC they are due to an intelligent agency. EVERY TIME. Therefore we can predict that an intelligent agency will be found responsible for the CSI and IC we observe that we do not have direct evidence for.” Chris Hyland: Firstly I would like to see a detailed large scale study that confirms this, Where is evolutionisms' confirmation on anything? Chris Hyland: secondly becuase we only have human intelligence to go by, That is false. Ever see a beaver's dam or lodge? We have observed many designing intelligences on this planet. Chris Hyland: its not really a warrented inference, It is a very warranted inference. More so than the "sheer dumb luck" that is evolutionism. Chris Hyland: unless you are claiming that humans designed nature. Nope. We just really need to know what nature, acting alone, is capable of and what intelligent agencies are capable of. However that brings to the point that nature requires something outside of it to account for its origins. The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components." He goes on to say: ” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.” IOW IC is based on what we know about non-living entities- just as the 3 premises of ID indicates. We just take that knowledge and apply it to living organisms. CH: And only a good example I guess if you have billions of mousetraps and all the parts are bouncing into each other etc etc… Why is that? You're not going to say because of reproduction? Because that is lame. If you want to use reproduction you have to explain how that arose in the first place- via some blind watchmaker-type process. And one more time- ID is not anti-evolution. IC does NOT mean the structure in question could not have evolved. It is the MECHANISM that is being debated. IOW why is that evolutionists have NEVER substantiated ANY of their grand claims with actual real teastable data. When Drs Behe & Minnich proposed an experiment that would demonstrate the bac flg could evolve via some blind watchmaker-type process and the evos ran away crying "The IDists should do the exoeriment!" Now why should an IDists conduct an experiment that would confirm evolutionism and refute an ID icon, when the outcome would not be welcome by anyone if the experiment did not produce a bac flag? And if that experiment is not practical for evos to conduct then one must wonder why anyone would consider that nonsense as being scientific. As for Dr. Minnich- drop him a line. Poking holes in evolutionism is easy. Once people start to realize that it is no more than a "sheer dumb luck" hypothesis it will be history. However the dishonest propaganda by anti-IDists isn't going to make that an easy task. Joseph

"But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”" A Postdoc in my lab is very fond of saying "Give me the coding sequences of a cow, and the promoter sequences of a chicken, and I will make you a chicken". Its only partly to do with genes, its gene expression that is important in development. "Again since every time we observe CSI and IC they are due to an intelligent agency. EVERY TIME. Therefore we can predict that an intelligent agency will be found responsible for the CSI and IC we observe that we do not have direct evidence for." Firstly I would like to see a detailed large scale study that confirms this, secondly becuase we only have human intelligence to go by, its not really a warrented inference, unless you are claiming that humans designed nature. "IC was defined based on properties of a mouse-trap. CSI was defined based on properties functional information." CSI was origionally defined in the early seventies by Leslie Orgel, as what seperates life from non-life: "In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity." That seems pretty similar to Dembski's definition if you ask me. It still seems that IC was defined based on biochemical systems, the mousetrap is just used as an example. And only a good example I guess if you have billions of mousetraps and all the parts are bouncing into each other etc etc... "ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows " For 1) and 2) I dont think its actually currently possible to calculate the specified complexity in complex biological systems, and I dont think 3) is a done deal at all. That just seems like an unwarrented negative argument to me, you can poke holes evolution all you like but that doesnt prove design. "Minnich takes the argument to the next level crediting the design paradigm to leading to new insights in his lab research at the University of Idaho." Do you have any more information? That doesn't really say anything. Chris Hyland

“Data that shows we know what makes an organism what it is, would be a start” Chris Hyland: I think the developmental biologists like to think were doing reasonably well on this one. Yeah, I understand the "hopeful monster" fiasco is back under the guise of "evo-devo". To me it looks like more promissory notes: What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following : Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)

”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”

Then we have Mike Denton, a genetic researcher, that even though genes may influence development, they do not determine it (what will be developed). And there is a huge difference between influence and determination. “What, to you, would count as data for intelligent design?” Chris Hyland: Some kind of predictive power that would distinguish it from materialistic processes, Again since every time we observe CSI and IC they are due to an intelligent agency. EVERY TIME. Therefore we can predict that an intelligent agency will be found responsible for the CSI and IC we observe that we do not have direct evidence for. ...and maybe some mechanisms. There is Dr. Spetner's "built-in responses to environmental cues"- they lead to specification, ie variations within the "Kinds". Then there is the mechanism like (Koza, Keane, Streeter) "Evolving Inventions", Scientific American 2003- a goal-oriented mechanism that utilizes the resources provided- all from a designed starting point. However, as we all should understand by now, the ONLY way to reasonably determine in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design: ID & Mechanisms IC and CSI do not count because they were originally defined based on properties of living systems. IC was defined based on properties of a mouse-trap. CSI was defined based on properties functional information. ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92): 1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. As you can see, first and foremost, IC and CSI are properties found in items we know to be of intelligent causation. THEN we applied what we know to that which we do not:

“Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause. In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed” Pg. 72 of "Darwinism, Design and Public Education"

I dont mean predictions of what may happen in evolution in the future I mean predicitons of the outcomes of experiments or currently unknown properties of systems. Ya mean like this: Scott Minnich

Biochemist Michael Behe used the flagella to illustrate the concept of irreducible complexity and Minnich takes the argument to the next level crediting the design paradigm to leading to new insights in his lab research at the University of Idaho.

Joseph

Chris wrote : Firstly apologies for getting too OT, but parapsychology has nothing to do with Darwinism. Whether or not the supernatural or the paranormal exist has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. Regarding that challenge, I can not prove whether there is an afterlife, neither can any skeptic, nor do they claim to. There is no scientific evidence one way or the other, and I do not have an opinion on whether there is or there isnt. Just because it can’t be proven that there isn’t doesn’t mean that there is. scientific studies in parapsychology which point to the existance of the phenomena does contradict with postulates of the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. If that form of evolution is true, then conciousness can't exist independant of the human body but if studies, proof & data point to such a direction, then its most likely that the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is false or incomplete or erroneous. These are contradictory truths & truth doesn't contradict & only one can exist. That is how I stumbled on to the ID movement as I began to study the overwhelming evidence/arguments in support of evolutionary theory. Jus for the record there is a quite a bit of scientific evidence ( or if you wish "overwhelming evidence") for parapsychology. In addition to the data the other big factor is the probablities involved which is illustrated here http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/tucson.html Contrast that with the blind luck pillars on which evolution stands on... So I can only insist again & for the last time that IMO neo-darwinian assumptions greatly hinder research in the fringes of science. History has shown us that its the fringes which throws up revolutions in science which are opposed by the high priests of main stream science as they go about protecting their ideas but eventually truth wins out... so anyone with an open mind & who is willing to follow the data can see the harm wrought by neo-darwinian assumptions... You are free to disagree.. SatyaMevaJayate

"Data that shows we know what makes an organism what it is, would be a start" I think the developmental biologists like to think were doing reasonably well on this one. "What, to you, would count as data for intelligent design?" Some kind of predictive power that would distinguish it from materialistic processes, and maybe some mechanisms. I dont mean predictions of what may happen in evolution in the future I mean predicitons of the outcomes of experiments or currently unknown properties of systems. IC and CSI do not count because they were originally defined based on properties of living systems. Chris Hyland

To Chris Hyland, What, to you, would count as data for intelligent design? Joseph

Chris Hyland: What would count as data that demonstrates that cetaceans evolved from land animals then? Data that shows we know what makes an organism what it is, would be a start. That way we could actually test to see if one pop could "evolve" into another via any mechanism. If you start with the assumption cetaceans did evolve from land animals, then find what you think is confirming data, you still need to demonstrate the assumption is valid. It would also help if that assumption wasn't a "big tent"- meaning common descent assumptions are indicative of more than evolutionism. Joseph

Joseph- I was quoting from the link listed in comment #3. Take a look at it and tell me if you think that it offers an honest representation of the actual post. BTW, KCFS does not have a "Media and Public Relations" officer. That appears to have been completely fabricated by the authors of the FAQ. Jasper

"There isn’t ANY data- genetic or biological- that demonstrates the gradual change from land animal to cetacean" What would count as data that demonstrates that cetaceans evolved from land animals then? Chris Hyland

Sal, You are very welcome! I have been a victim of outright slander & vilification. I just shrug it off because I know the people doing such things do so behind the cover of the internet. IOW they are intellectual and moral cowards. Which seems to be the standard of anti-IDists. Jasper, I took the quote from the link in comment #2. I do not understand your point(?)- please explain. Joseph

Chris Hyland: A mechanism will come probably from a detailed analysis of the development of the animals, and their genetic basis. And what if it doesn't? Science is not conducted on what the future may or may not bring. I, for one, have had enough of evolutionism's promissory notes. There isn't ANY data- genetic or biological- that demonstrates the gradual change from land animal to cetacean. The fossils we do have show great leaps. Embryology is of no help. And the whole concept is lacking the scientific rigor of objective testing, repeating and verification. Joseph

"Neither of which can say anything about a mechanism." "First we should know if such a transformation is even possible." Ok sorry I didnt get what you meant before. A mechanism will come probably from a detailed analysis of the development of the animals, and their genetic basis. We can then generate hypothesise about the genetic changes that led to the changes in form, most probably changes in gene expression, and see if it fits in with the fossil record (of which there is more than most creationists seem to realise). The other data on TalkOrigins that is not just genetic analysis is various data that supports the gradual change from land to sea dwelling, including geographic, dating, embryologic and environmental, its pretty interesting. Obviously as I have said this doesn't suggest a mechanism, but it isnt exactly the hardest thing that evolution has had to do. Chris Hyland

Joseph, Thank for pulling for me bro. I placed an example of vilification I was referring at the KCFS website. That's all the time I should willing to waste for today over there. I did not cite Jack Krebs specifically. I promises in as much as he affirms that pro-IDers (all other things being equal in terms of talent and education) can have an equal place with anti-IDers in the scientific enterprise (with the understandable exception of course of being an evolutionary biologist or the like), I will stand by his side. In as much as he will affirm that pro-IDers and not automatically anti-science, I will stand by his side. I sincerely hope he and his organization will defend the rights and well deserved privilege of pro-IDers in the universities and work places. I certainly don't lump him in with the typical PT nasties. And in regards to Jack Krebs posting, he's tried to be civil, though I disagree intensely with much of what he is doing in Kansas, I hope he will visit from time to time. I can at least boast many of us here at Uncommon Descent havve treated him with far more respect than PandasThumb co-found Gary Hurd. Salvador scordova

Joseph- Did you notice how the www.kansasscience2005.com PDF quoted that post? See www.KansasScience2005.com for an explanation of the strategy of the media and public relations officer of Kansas Citizens for Science: our “strategy is to portray” those who seek an objective discussion of evolution “in the harshest possible light, as ignoramuses, religious activists, unprincipled bullies, etc.” Do you think that is an honest representation of the actual post? Jasper

Score one for Sal: Q: Why do we get conflicting reports about the changes to the standards? A: The organizations that oppose the changes are unwilling to publicly debate evolution because they falsely claim it is not scientifically controversial. To avoid a discussion of the real controversy they unfairly demean those who seek it. This strategy is explained by the media and public relations officer of the Kansas Citizens for Science, the organization that is leading the opposition. The boycott of the May hearings is an example of an implementation of the strategy. Wow even the Kansas science standards PDF demonstrates that Sal is correct. And it singles out KCFS. Go figure. But wait, there is more: Q: Where can I find the “strategy” you speak about? A: Go towww.kansasscience2005.com). The February 10, 2005 post by the Media and Public Officer of Kansas Citizens for Science states: “My strategy at this point is the same as it was in 1999: notify the national and local media about what's going on and portray them in the harshest light possible, as political opportunists, evangelical activists, ignoramuses, breakers of rules, unprincipled bullies, etc. There may [be] (sic) no way to head off another science standards debacle, but we can sure make them look like asses as they do what they do. Our target is the moderates who are not that well educated about the issues, most of whom probably are theistic evolutionists. There is no way to convert the creationists.” Little does he know that he/ she is the ignoramus and unprincipled bully. I would also say that he/ she is uneducated about the issues. KCFS= Kansas Comics for Stupity... Joseph

Jack: The reason I took what sal said personally is because I know for a fact that the statements in the opening post were about KCFS, and Sal’s remark seemed to follow from that. Sal's remarks, if you had read that paragraph correctly, refers to the caller's message. Jack: KCFS is the main “anti-ID force in Kansas,” so it is doubtful that Sal was referring to anyone else. Why is KCFS "the main anti-ID firce in Kansas"? Do they not understand science? Do they not understand that science is our quest for the truth, ie the reality to our existence, via our never-ending quest for knowledge? Do they not understand that the alternatives to ID are special creation and sheer dumb luck? I wonder if anyone at KCFS understands ID or the alternatives. Sheer dumb luck isn't science so why would an org that supposedly stands for science stand for that? Jack: The opening post said “memos,” so am thinking that perhaps Sal is basing his comments on some private correspondence that he has seen. Ummm Wm. Dembski is responsible for the OP, not Sal. Jack: And last, Paul Mirecki does not have and never has had anything to do with KCFS. I never said nor implied that he did. He is however a prof at a Kansas Univerisity. He is also a person from Kansas who fits Sal's words. And what do you want Sal to do? Find the slanerous people and have them confess? Slander is verbal (according to Josh as posted on your site). From what I have heard and read I would say that Sal is correct. I have yet to encounter an anti-IDist who doesn't personally attack the IDist or IDists he is debating with or attack IDists in general. It is a shame that these cretins have to hide behind their computer. Also he said "bodering on...", so please get a grip. Joseph

Chris Hyland: I am still curious as to how you group organisms, would you say it was approximately the genus level. I am just wondering how many ‘kinds’ there are. That is what science is for- to help us answer those questions. Chris Hyland: Actually a large part of the modern drug discovery process involves searching genomes of organisms for drug targets, which relies very much on evolutionary assumptions. I take it that is why we are afraid of birds and mosquitos- because we cannot predict what will be selected for at any point in time and therefore we are helpless. Chris Hyland: What I have said is that there is no proof that ID and theistic evolution are true and currently no model with which to test them. There is no proof that unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non=goal oriented) processes can do anything except for perhaps slightly altering that which already exists. And there certainly isn't any way to test that premise. Chris Hyland: As I understand it these concepts were based on observations of living things, so its hardly a prediction that you will observe them in living things. It's like this- if every time we observe IC and CSI AND know the cause it is due to an intelligent agency. Therefore we can predict that when we observe CSI and/ or IC an intelligent agency is the cause. “Present the data- biological or genetic that demonstrates a cetacean can “evolve” from a land animal. I know TO is FoS.” Chris Hyland: Well Im afraid TalkOrigins contains a great deal of the data we have at the moment. They do not have any of the data I am asking for. They have a handful of possible intermediate fossils (out of the 50,000 that should exist) and genetic comparisons to land animals. Neither of which can say anything about a mechanism. The fossils could be from totally unrelated organisms. Genetic similarities could be from a common design. The ONLY way either are evidence for evolutionism is to assume evolutionism and reject any other possibilities. Chris Hyland: I’m not sure what you mean by ‘can evolve from’ either. Do you mean ‘has evolved from’? First we should know if such a transformation is even possible. We do not. Therefore we cannot say "has evolved from". Joseph

Firstly apologies for getting too OT, but parapsychology has nothing to do with Darwinism. Whether or not the supernatural or the paranormal exist has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. Regarding that challenge, I can not prove whether there is an afterlife, neither can any skeptic, nor do they claim to. There is no scientific evidence one way or the other, and I do not have an opinion on whether there is or there isnt. Just because it can't be proven that there isn't doesn't mean that there is. Joseph, thanks for the baraminology link. I am still curious as to how you group organisms, would you say it was approximately the genus level. I am just wondering how many 'kinds' there are. "We know that is incorrect. “Drug discovery” does not rely on the “sheer dumb luck” hypothesis that is evolutionism." Actually a large part of the modern drug discovery process involves searching genomes of organisms for drug targets, which relies very much on evolutionary assumptions. "The link you provided doesn’t say anything about a mechanism. IOW those alleged “predictions” would fit ID evolution and theistic evolution." I don't claim to be able to disprove any of those things outright. As I have said before it is unlikely that we know every mechanism of evolution, as has been shown by discoveries in the last decade, but we can only work with what we have. What I have said is that there is no proof that ID and theistic evolution are true and currently no model with which to test them. "We predict we will observe these if an intelligent agency is involved." As I understand it these concepts were based on observations of living things, so its hardly a prediction that you will observe them in living things. "Present the data- biological or genetic that demonstrates a cetacean can “evolve” from a land animal. I know TO is FoS." Well Im afraid TalkOrigins contains a great deal of the data we have at the moment. I'm not sure what you mean by 'can evolve from' either. Do you mean 'has evolved from'? Chris Hyland

Chris wrote: "I don’t know much about parapsychology. Considering what have seen magicians do as imitations of mind-reading, mediums etc Im not very impressed. I do know that they are free to try out for James Randi’s million dollar prize." James who?? You mean that self confessed fraudster??? You expect him to pay out 1 million dollars when he can pull out one of his numerous fraud tricks to sabotage any experiment that he has control on... from what I hear people don't bother... Now he or even you can make a dash to this million dollar challenge.. http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/challenge.html Its 4 yrs since the challenge was made & no skeptic has succeeded.. obviously they are comfortable only when the scales are tilted in their favour.. similar to Dawkins phobia in engaging in a evolutionary debate ever since he got the shock of his life debating Wilder-Smith at the leftist oxford University in the 80's... Have magicians gone through scientific testing of their cold reading skills & compared with the results the tested psychics gave??? Have they done double blind tests??? check www.openmindsciences.com ( offline at present, check his "The Afterlife experiments" on Amazon) for Gary Schwatz's experiments conducted using rigorous controls( partly due to input from magicians). I think there is some 200 hrs of video footage & numerous documentation.. you may trawl through it & give a valid explanation for difference in the psychic results vs the control group results... This scientist was willing to follow wherever the data takes him while the skeptics aren't... Infact this experiment is part of the Million dollar challenge... Good luck... My main point is neo-darwinian assumptions greatly hinder scientific research in fringes of science while assumptions from a ID postion will not... SatyaMevaJayate

The reason I took what sal said personally is because I know for a fact that the statements in the opening post were about KCFS, and Sal's remark seemed to follow from that. KCFS is the main "anti-ID force in Kansas," so it is doubtful that Sal was referring to anyone else. Secondly there has been another incident lately, only partially publicized, in which the words "vilification," "slander", and "character assassination" have been used in reference to a member of KCFS. The opening post said "memos," so am thinking that perhaps Sal is basing his comments on some private correspondence that he has seen. And last, Paul Mirecki does not have and never has had anything to do with KCFS. And to Sal, who has pointed to the thread at our forum on his subject, I'll point out that he has provided no evidence whatsoever of this slander, etc. It is a fairly serious thing to make such charges, so I would hope that he would provide some substance for his remarks, or perhaps retract them. Jack Krebs

Sal, Why do you even bother with KCFS? Jack took what you said personally even though you didn't mention his name nor KCFS. It looks like you have to round up that slanerous bunch and have them confess- but I am sure even that won't be good enough. Start with Mireki(sp?)= you know the Kansas prof intent on "slapping the big fat fundy faces". The lights may be on but surely no one is home (@KCFS)... Joseph

I point the readers to some developments at KCFS where my acount of things is disputed. In the spirit fair minded exchange I point you to the KCFS website and a post A falsehood from Salvador I'll let the readers monitor Jack's comments. Salvador scordova

CH: Just as an example most of the field of genomics is based on evolutionary assumptions, which underpins the modern drug discovery process. We know that is incorrect. "Drug discovery" does not rely on the "sheer dumb luck" hypothesis that is evolutionism. The link you provided doesn't say anything about a mechanism. IOW those alleged "predictions" would fit ID evolution and theistic evolution. “And why aren’t CSI and IC predictions of ID?” CH: I dont understand what these things predict, We predict we will observe these if an intelligent agency is involved. CH: other than certain things could not have evolved. That is also incorrect. It isn't that they couldn't have evolved. It is all about the mechanism of evolution. “For example there isn’t any data- biological or genetic that would demonstrate that a land animal could “evolve” into a fully aquatic animal. No data- just a belief.” CH: Theres quite a bit of data on this, TalkOrigins has a summary of some of it. Present the data- biological or genetic that demonstrates a cetacean can "evolve" from a land animal. I know TO is FoS. “Meaning that all extant species were NOT Created separately. Rather they “evolved” from those Kinds.” CH: I would be very grateful for a link where someone makes an attempt to define “kinds”, especialy with respect to how many there were and which groups of animals were originally one kind. THAT is what Linne was trying to do! However the following would be a start (or you could search on "baraminology") Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms Joseph

Just as an example most of the field of genomics is based on evolutionary assumptions, which underpins the modern drug discovery process. For some more predictions see here: http://www.attrinity.com/app-sjs-web/index?op=/predictions "And why aren’t CSI and IC predictions of ID?" I dont understand what these things predict, other than certain things could not have evolved. "Gee Chris we still do not know what makes a species what it is." Well substitute 'kind' if you prefer. "For example there isn’t any data- biological or genetic that would demonstrate that a land animal could “evolve” into a fully aquatic animal. No data- just a belief." Theres quite a bit of data on this, TalkOrigins has a summary of some of it. I expect in the future evodevo will explain the 'how', although from what we know already we have a good idea. Comapred to things like the evolution the ribosome for example, the evolution of form is something we have a lot of data on. One of the posters at AtBC is planning to do a write up of Sean Carrolls book if you want more information. "Meaning that all extant species were NOT Created separately. Rather they “evolved” from those Kinds." I would be very grateful for a link where someone makes an attempt to define "kinds", especialy with respect to how many there were and which groups of animals were originally one kind. Chris Hyland

“Dan Dennett tells us (and the PBS series “Evolution” parroted): “There is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time.” So much for the “predictions” nonsense.” CH: That isn’t what I meant by predictions. What did you mean? It is obvious that evolutionism cannot offer any useful predictions. Can it make any predictions at all? And why aren't CSI and IC predictions of ID? CH: The fact that most people used to believe that all species were created seperately is becuase they didn’t have any evidece to the contrary at the time. Gee Chris we still do not know what makes a species what it is. Therefore we do not know whether or not one can "evolve" into another on the scale evolutionism requires. What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following : Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)

”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”

IOW evolutionism is putting the cart before the horse (or fly). Ya see until we know what makes an organism what it is we shouldn't be telling kids about common descent. That is just plain dishonesty. For example there isn't any data- biological or genetic that would demonstrate that a land animal could "evolve" into a fully aquatic animal. No data- just a belief. Also, if you understood Linne, he placed the originally Created Kinds at the Genus level. Meaning that all extant species were NOT Created separately. Rather they "evolved" from those Kinds. I also notice that Chris has not answered the following: I will tell you what. If you provide an example of useful science that has been produced using anti-ID assumptions- ie unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes- sheer dumb luck- we would have a reference from which to provide you with another answer. Very typical. Joseph

"Dan Dennett tells us (and the PBS series “Evolution” parroted): “There is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time.” So much for the “predictions” nonsense." That isn't what I meant by predictions. "Is there a time limit? Is A^2 +B^2 = C^2 still valid? How about the inverse square?" That isn't the same thing. The fact that most people used to believe that all species were created seperately is becuase they didn't have any evidece to the contrary at the time. "Various polls (many conducted by Darwinists) indicate around 1/3 of freshman biology majors in colleges in the USA are sympathetic to ID." I'm never sure what "sympathetic to ID" means, consudering that many people in this blog think Ken Miller is sympathetic to ID.. The BBC did a poll where a great deal of people in the UK said they supported ID but the vast majority of them don't even know what it is. "the field of parapsycology also uses observable evidence.. hence there has been indepth study of Near Death experiences, OBE, telepathy, clairvoyance, mediumship etc etc.." I don't know much about parapsychology. Considering what have seen magicians do as imitations of mind-reading, mediums etc Im not very impressed. I do know that they are free to try out for James Randi's million dollar prize. "Any campaign to change their minds based on dogma will alienate and potentially destroy promising careers." Thats assuming its untrue of course. In a degree what you get is the evidence and understand why science has reached a particular conclusion, you don't have to accept it. If I had a student who based his view of biology on the idea that he could currently prove that evolution required intelligence I would be quite concerned. On the other hand if I had a student who said he believed life was designed and he was going to try and prove it, I would say good look to him. Chris Hyland

"3-4) There’s no reason why creationists can’t do science, although I am curious to see an example of useful science that has been produced using creationist assumptions." No assumption comes out of thin air.. most assumptions are borne out of a logical resoning of observable facts/events( that a person is aware of) without an indepth study ( via scientific method or other wise) But I can point to major hindrances caused to scientific study of anomalous phenomena due to Neo-Darwinian assumptions.. people with creationist assumptions( primarirly the existance of God, intelligence etc etc) don't have trouble in such fields... many form creationist assumptions after they encounter such anomalous phenomena... Just as biological sciences work with observable evidence, the field of parapsycology also uses observable evidence.. hence there has been indepth study of Near Death experiences, OBE, telepathy, clairvoyance, mediumship etc etc.. Neo-Darwinian assumptions have been seen to hinder research in these areas cause the Neo-Darwinian scientists are entrenched in their Dogma... Logicaly the above anomalous phenomena are impossible( even by blind chance :) ) as conciousness is inside the brain for every person.. so the only explanation Neo-Darwinian assumptions can accept is fraud/hoax & no further study is done by mainstream scientists... Similarly Neo-Darwinian assumptions predicts/expects archaelogical evidence to fit the evolutionary timeline.. But as the book "Forbidden Archaelogy" documents from primary sources, anomalous archaelogical evidence have been thrown up throughout history but they have been filtered out of popular/mainstream literature... Neo-Darwinian assumptions expects to find ID tools/objects, like even flints/axeheads/beads let alone more complex stuff, that can date to around a few 100 thousand years & the path should originate in Africa with places like Americas being populated by hominids only in the last tens of thousand years... Any evidence which doesn't fit this has been discarded... talk about shoehorning data to a theory instead of theory always following the data... These are a few examples of the barriers Neo-Darwinian assumptions cause to the popular understanding of the world around us... I am sure creationists assumptions( not the YEC variety for Archaelogy) are most helpful in furthering research in such areas... I would predict the success of ID will break the ostracization of such areas of research... SatyaMevaJayate

Apparently Jack Krebs has taken exception to my comments in my last post. I did not cite him by name specifically nor his organization. But, being the fair minded person I am, I would like to give Jack the chance to permanently clear his name from suspicion. He's behaving awfully paranoid as if I had him and his organization in mind when I made my last post. So here are some questions which Jack can set me straight on: 1. Does Jack view someone who rejects the major claims of Darwinian evolution as someone who is anti-science? 2. Regarding the vilification of pro-ID students, does Jack consider being a pro-ID student the same as being an anti-science student? 3. For that matter does Jack consider a student who professes belief that God made man through a special act of creation (irrespective of their views on the age of the Earth) the same as necessarily being an anti-science student? 4. Does Jack believe that large numbers of pro-ID students will be a hindrance to the progress of science? Hopefully he will respond, "no" to all 4. And it will be nice for all to see that Jack Krebs affirms that large numbers of pro-ID students are no hindrance to science, that pro-ID and even creationist students are not necessarily anti-science students. scordova

What has happenned to my comment..

Its been a around 4 hrs since I posted it??

On rare occasions the moderator needs to get some sleep. Thanks in advance for having more patience in the future. -ds SatyaMevaJayate

Dr. Dembski's "colleague in Kansas" wrote: "Hence, they are promoting the claim of “NO CONTROVERSY” via systematic misinformation and character assassination of anyone who would challenge the denial. We are distributing the memos that acknowledge the existence and implementation of that very strategy." What are these "memos?" John Calvert, IDNet's managing director, has consistently referred to a post on the KCFS discussion forum as a "memo" that was "accidentally published" when it was in fact neither. You can read all about it here: http://www.kcfs.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000915#000000 Could this be the source of the "memos" that are referred to by Dr. Dembski's colleague? If it is, then I must say that it is extremely difficult to take someone seriously when they complain about their opponents' so-called "systematic misrepresentation" while they are engaging in such egregious misrepresention themselves. Jasper

Sal writes, "The campaign being waged by some of the anti-ID forces in Kansas is bordering on outright slander and vilification of innocent individuals." This is false. I invite Sal over to http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001808 to provide evidence of this charge. Jack Krebs

The colleague in Kansas writes, "We are distributing the memos that acknowledge the existence and implementation of that very strategy." Again for the record, I'd like to point out that the Intelligent Design network has taken one post on a discussion forum from a person speaking as an individual and turned it into "memos" (plural, no less." I discussed this once at http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000915. There are no "memos" stating any KCFS policy of "systematic misinformation and character assassination." We think the IDnet is wrong about many things, but arguing against points and saying people are wrong (especially if you back up your claims, as we do) are not the same as systematically misinforming or assassinating anyone's character. Jack Krebs

I thank DarwinCatholic and Chris Hyland for responding to my querry about pro-ID students.

The caller in the orginal post said:

you are setting us back scientifically, philosophically, morally, and ethically — and pretty much every thing I can think of you are ruining.

Let me say, this is a serious issue. Various polls (many conducted by Darwinists) indicate around 1/3 of freshman biology majors in colleges in the USA are sympathetic to ID. Any campaign to change their minds based on dogma will alienate and potentially destroy promising careers. I also point out AT LEAST 1/3 of physicians are pro-ID if not more, and many are were biology majors in school.

I'm am deeply distressed such a large and measurable segment of the student population is being victimized by an agenda. I can respect a professor for his pro-Darwin opoinions, but if it comes to the point pro-ID science students are slandered and their future in science threatened, that's where I think things have gone way too far.

I see these students covertly making it through these programs in the colleges, becoming honors students, become PhD's, becoming post-docs. It's heartbreaking to witness the amount of vilification they are exposed to in the press and by their educational institution. Added to that, they have to take the persecution quitely, lest they be canned. This is not right.

And in response to the caller's statement, I've seen several pro-ID students, many of the prodigies (starting college at age 14), and triple-majors in science courses. Many of them go on to be upstanding doctors, scientists, and engineers: The very thing the USA needs. The campaign being waged by some of the anti-ID forces in Kansas is bordering on outright slander and vilification of innocent individuals. It is wrong and it is unethical.

In the case of public universities the public ought to go through and do some major housecleaning of the faculty and administration. I think they've forgotten who employs them. Private universities can do whatever they want but when it comes right down to it most private universities can't afford to risk federal and state funded programs which can be shut down for any reason the public deems appropriate. Taking a page from PZ Myers - “Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some professors, many university adminstrators, and vast numbers of sleazy far-left politicians.” -ds scordova

"3-4) There’s no reason why creationists can’t do science, although I am curious to see an example of useful science that has been produced using creationist assumptions." That holds true for Neo-Darwinian assumptions too... No assumption comes out of thin air.. most assumptions are borne out of a logical resoning of observable facts/events( that a person is aware of) without an indepth study ( via scientific method or other wise) But I can point to major hindrances caused to scientific study of anomalous phenomena due to Neo-Darwinian assumptions.. people with creationist assumptions( primarirly the existance of God, intelligence etc etc) don't have trouble in such fields... many form creationist assumptions after they encounter such anomalous phenomena... Just as biological sciences work with observable evidence, the field of parapsycology also uses observable evidence.. hence there has been indepth study of Near Death experiences, OBE, telepathy, clairvoyance, mediumship etc etc.. Neo-Darwinian assumptions have been seen to hinder research in these areas cause the Neo-Darwinian scientists are entrenched in their Dogma... Logicaly the above anomalous phenomena are impossible( even by blind chance :) ) as conciousness is inside the brain for every person.. so the only explanation Neo-Darwinian assumptions can accept is fraud/hoax & no further study is done by mainstream scientists... Similarly Neo-Darwinian assumptions predicts/expects archaelogical evidence to it the evolutionary timeline.. But as the book "Forbidden Archaelogy" documents from primary sources, anomalous archaelogical evidence have been thrown up throughout history but they have been filtered out of popular/mainstream literature... Neo-Darwinian assumptions expects to find ID tools/objects, like even flints/axeheads/beads let alone more complex stuff, that can date to around a few 100 thousand years & the path should originate in Africa with places like Americas being populated by hominids only in the last tens of thousand years... Any evidence which doesn't fit this has been discarded... talk about shoehorning data to a theory instead of theory always following the data... These are a few examples of the barriers Neo-Darwinian assumptions cause to the popular understanding of the world around us... I am sure creationists assumptions( not the YEC variety for Archaelogy) are most helpful in furthering research in such areas... I would predict the success of ID will break the ostracization of such areas of research... SatyaMevaJayate

CH: I have read papers from the eighties describing several functions of non-coding DNA. Is there a viable explanation for non-coding DNA to have a function under the purpose-less, genetic accident, ie anti-ID, scenario? Joseph

Regarding the orthodoxy of junk-DNA, The Unseen Genome: Gems that aren't Junk

Yet the introns within genes and the long stretches of intergenic DNA between genes, Mattick says, “were immediately assumed to be evolutionary junk.” .... "I think this will come to be a classic story of orthodoxy derailing objective analysis of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century,” Mattick says. “The failure to recognize the full implications of this—particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information in the form of RNA molecules—may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.”

I suppose we can all debate how much Darwinism had to play in all of this. I do not argue any sort of conspiracy, but I'd say this attitude biology is "bad design" and mosly "junk" seems to be a common theme. A VERY prominent evolutionist wrote me and argued how I could accept ID since the human genome is an example of pathetic design. Salvador scordova

To Chris Hyland, Dan Dennett tells us (and the PBS series "Evolution" parroted): "There is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time." So much for the "predictions" nonsense. 1) When Karl von Linne gave us binomial nomenclature when he was trying to figure out what were the originally Created Kinds. Was he conducting science? 1) Yes, in the 18th century. Is there a time limit? Is A^2 +B^2 = C^2 still valid? How about the inverse square? 3-4) There’s no reason why creationists can’t do science, although I am curious to see an example of useful science that has been produced using creationist assumptions. I will tell you what. If you provide an example of useful science that has been produced using anti-ID assumptions- ie unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes- sheer dumb luck- we would have a reference from which to provide you with another answer. However I would say we are where we are today, scientifically, because of the scientific giants who did operate under Creation assumptions. Therefore I can infer that if we were to allow ID and Creation into scientific discussions we would only be as scientifically limited as those scientific geniuses. I can live with that. AND if, as you say about origins, we don't know enough, then we shouldn't be rejecting one very possible cause "just because". To Mung, Dr. Humphreys' cosmolgy provides an answer to the old universe/ young earth issue... How can we see distant stars in a young universe? Also it doesn't matter what YECs accept or do not accept. The point is TPP demonstrates the design inference extends well beyond biology. IDists should point out that fact everytime people say we are "picking on evolution(ism)". Joseph

"Molecular biology, working primarily from a Darwinian perspective, has designated 98.5% of the human genome as “junk”." I have read papers from the eighties describing several functions of non-coding DNA. I have never met a single biologist who thinks all 'junk DNA' is actual junk. "Darwinism predicts development, you say?" Did I say that? If you want to know about the relationship between evolution and development read Sean Carrolls book, plently of fulfilled predictions in there. Chris Hyland

Chris Hyland wrote:

Assuming the system has been intelligently designed the outcome of our experiment will be ...

Molecular biology, working primarily from a Darwinian perspective, has designated 98.5% of the human genome as "junk". If no function has yet been identified, the default position is to blame the design rather than our own lack of understanding. ID would predict that the more we learn about the genome, the more function we will find in the portions of the genome previously termed "junk". My impression of recent discoveries is that the more we learn about the fabric of life, the more life appears to have been designed. sagebrush gardener

Chris@9

There’s no reason why creationists can’t do science, although I am curious to see an example of useful science that has been produced using creationist assumptions

Chris, you can read the whole article in here. I will just quote you one thing:

"Even more importantly, in 1984, Dr Humphreys [A Creationist scientist] made some predictions of the field strengths of Uranus and Neptune, two giant gas planets beyond Saturn. His predictions were about 100,000 times the evolutionary dynamo predictions. The two rival models were inadvertently put to the test when the Voyager 2 spacecraft flew past these planets in 1986 and 1989. The fields for Uranus and Neptune were just as Humphreys had predicted. Yet many anti-creationists call creation ‘unscientific’ because it supposedly makes no predictions!"

You can also check www.halos.com. Mats

Of course there's a controversy - we're knee deep in it! EJ Klone

Chris Hyland: ‘Assuming the system has been intelligently designed the outcome of our experiment will be ...’ — yes, just as in forensic science and code breaking, etc. At the very least ID predicts that biological organisms will have the appearance of design. We keep hearing that ID needs a lot of fruitful predictions under its belt before it can be classed as a science. OK, but don’t tell us that ID needs as many predictions as Darwinism because that would mean zero. Darwinism predicts development, you say? No, it attempts to explain development. No one has shown that sheer dumb luck and natural selection can produce evolutionary development. Function for Darwinists is evidence for natural selection because epistemological materialism lets teleology in the door only as the result of natural selection. So we make up silly stories and call it science. Rude

"There is no excuse for you to still be unaware that ID has no problem with “evolution”, but only with the mechanisms responsible according to the modern synthesis. Naughty boy." Apologies, I was just pointing out that Pasteur wasn't a creationist in the strictest sense. "Despite the carefully worded disclaimers of proponents who try to cover the subject with an evolutionary gloss, isn’t this in effect what “biologically inspired design” research is doing?" No it isnt. What I mean is something along the lines of 'Assuming the system has been intelligently designed the outcome of our experiment will be ...'. "To be fair, I would hope you will comment on whether being pro-ID is a hindrance to science as that is the topic here. Is a pro-ID student significantly less capable of doing science? If he is not less capable, then will you agree that the phone caller’s claim that “ID is setting us back scientifically, philosophically, morally, and ethically” is bordering on slander?" Philosophically, morally, and ethically seems to be more an attack on fundementalism than ID. Scientifically is an interesting question, I guess it depends on how it influences them. As I may have mentioned before I knew someone who didn't belive in evolution and did good research in phylogenetics, so she is living proof that what you belive doesn't make you a bad scientist. On the other hand she did admit that her beliefs did not affect her science, and she accepted the conclusions of mainstream science so far as it fitted the evidence better and allowed her to do her research. processes. Then again the assumption that design was involved in the process may well turn out to be true, in which case these students will definately make fine scientists. I have yet to see enough research by ID proponents to make an informed decision. However if these students used arguments similar to 'if scientists use words such as `reverse engineer` the systems must have been designed' in other areas of science I would not be impressed. Chris Hyland

Is a pro-ID student significantly less capable of doing science?

I would think it's very much a function of where a pro-ID student's beliefs pointed him/her. Say I figure that the development of species was all pre-determined by a 'front loaded' set of code which has now all been executed, and there will never be any new species. In that case, I'm clearly not going to do any research involving speciation. So in certain areas of biology, that would keep me from bothering to do certain kinds of research that might be quite valuable if I was wrong. If, on the other hand, I was a nuclear physicist, my ID theories would in no way hinder my professional inquisitiveness.

What's important about speciation? It hasn't happened in recorded history and probably won't. See, the thing about macro-evolution working too slowly to observe is a double edged sword. If macro-evolution is too slow to observe, it's too slow to care about. It's like worrying about continental drift causing California and Asia to collide, wiping out all the Pacific Islands in the process. It's not a concern. Even if it was going to happen it's so far in the future who cares? Humanity has far more immediate things to worry about. The second way you're wrong is what happens if NDE is all wrong? Then we have scientists wasting time and money on a big snipe hunt. A snipe hunt that won't yield anything valuable even if successful! This is what's called a lose-lose situation and it's the worst possible outcome - to be avoided at all costs. -ds DarwinCatholic

Chris Hyland: i got nervous that perhaps the chiding in my post (#11) sounded rather harsher than I had intended it to...sorry. tinabrewer

Perhaps IDists should make it clear that ID extends beyond biology (ie “evolutionism”) as evidenced by “The Privileged Planet”. That does seem to be an anti-ID sticking point- “Why does ID only pick on evolution(ism)?”

Because the Young Earth Creationists are forced to reject The Privileged Planet due to it's acceptance of a universe and earth that are far older than 6,000 years. Mung

Chris Hyland wrote:

... most scientists accept that ID could one day be a science but you have to prove that it is more useful than other theories for making predicitons.

Despite the carefully worded disclaimers of proponents who try to cover the subject with an evolutionary gloss, isn't this in effect what "biologically inspired design" research is doing? They may claim that the complex systems that they are attempting to reverse-engineer have been designed by evolution. But if I were an ID scientist this is exactly the same research I would want to be doing, while believing that systems that appear to be designed to solve a particular problem actually are designed. sagebrush gardener

Chris, I thank you for your participation. I am aware of that quote by Pasteur as it is in one the biographies in my personal book collection.... Thoughtful skepticism and providing gentle correction is to be valued here at Uncommon Descent, I view your objections as something to value and help us strengthen our pro-ID arguments. To be fair, I would hope you will comment on whether being pro-ID is a hindrance to science as that is the topic here. Is a pro-ID student significantly less capable of doing science? If he is not less capable, then will you agree that the phone caller's claim that "ID is setting us back scientifically, philosophically, morally, and ethically" is bordering on slander? Salvador scordova

Chris Hyland: You have been here long enough that you should bloody well know better than to respond to point #2 by using a quotation from Pasteur supporting "evolution". There is no excuse for you to still be unaware that ID has no problem with "evolution", but only with the mechanisms responsible according to the modern synthesis. Naughty boy. tinabrewer

( Just a note: regarding Pasteur, his work was devastining to Darwin and Haeckel. But technically he was not a creationist, but neither was he a materialist or advocate of natural selection. It appears he was sympathetic to some form of evolution. The perception he was a creationist in the traditional sense was a piece of mis-scholarship by the (gasp) Institute of Creation Research (ICR). I only point that out so our critics don't get on our case for improperly referencing Pasteur. ) scordova

"The questions I would like to ask anti-IDists and anti-Creationists:" 1) Yes, in the 18th century. 2) To quote Pasteur himself: "Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely. " 3-4) There's no reason why creationists can't do science, although I am curious to see an example of useful science that has been produced using creationist assumptions. "It seems to me that the “controversy” is all about what is and isn’t science and who has the right to decide." Science is what it is because it works, most scientists accept that ID could one day be a science but you have to prove that it is more useful than other theories for making predicitons. "It should also be stressed that even the anti-ID side requires something outside of nature as natural processes only exist in nature and therefore cannot be used to account for nature’s origins." My view about the origin of nature is similar to my view on the origin of life which is that we don't have enough information to reach an informed conclusion. Chris Hyland

For the record, Kansas Citizens for Science has a brochure entitled Some Facts about the Standards that explains things from a different viewpoint that the IDnet's brochure. See http://www.kcfs.org/kcfsnews/?p=120 Jack Krebs

Off topic, but an interesting read - Darwinian Art: http://www.theage.com.au/news/arts/peacocks-tail-fans-our-flames/2006/06/21/1150845231655.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 antg

The questions I would like to ask anti-IDists and anti-Creationists: 1) When Karl von Linne gave us binomial nomenclature when he was trying to figure out what were the originally Created Kinds. Was he conducting science? 2) Pasteur was a Creationist and anti-Darwinist. Was he conducting science when he developed the germ theory of disease? 3) Newton, perhaps the greatest scientist to grace this planet, was also a Creationist. Did he help us to better understand what we observed? 4) Copernicus & Galileo- two more Creationists- perhaps the Sun isn't the center of our solar system. 5) Then we have Max Planck. He gave us the following, based on years of scientific research, during his Nobel acceptance speech:

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."

It seems to me that the "controversy" is all about what is and isn't science and who has the right to decide. The other "controversy" is if the US Courts can decide what is and isn't science based on the interpretation of the US Constitution. If that isn't the stupidest thing I have heard of it surely ranks right up there. On another note: Perhaps IDists should make it clear that ID extends beyond biology (ie "evolutionism") as evidenced by "The Privileged Planet". That does seem to be an anti-ID sticking point- "Why does ID only pick on evolution(ism)?" I say it doesn't but that we had to start somewhere and life seems like as good of a starting point as any. We should also make it clearer that the debate has nothing to do with "supernatural" vs "natural" as both intelligence and design are natural processes. It should also be stressed that even the anti-ID side requires something outside of nature as natural processes only exist in nature and therefore cannot be used to account for nature's origins. And THAT is why the debate is about unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non=goal oriented) processes vs. intelligent, guided (goal oriented) processes. And if the establishment clause is brought upjust tell them as Justice Lewis Powell wrote in his concurrence to Edwards v. Aguillard, “(A) decision respecting the subject matter to be taught in public schools does not violate the Establishment Clause simply because the material to be taught ‘happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions’.” As for science and religion, perhaps our Courts should heed Albert Einstein:"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." I should also note that the anti-IDists could shut us down just by substantiating their claims. The fact that they shy away from the proposed bacterial flagellum experiment just further exposes their intellectual cowardice. That Judge Jones tried to tell IDists that it is their experiment to do just further exposes the sheer stupidity of those condemning ID. Joseph

The below line is perfect proof of the brain washing... " Its that you are setting us back scientifically, philosophically, morally, and ethically" So they have now added "philosophically, morally, and ethically" to the mix of fields that Neo-darwinism had/has elevated to dizzy heights.. & seems like they truly wish to be given the chance to exceed the Fuhrer's saintly role in the world with the efforts of Prof.Pianka's Ebola virus... SatyaMevaJayate

I've blogged about this brochure before. It looks really good and seems very reasonable to me. All this "there is no controversy" nonsense is just a facade to cover up a religious ideology--one that is trivially easy to demolish with just a few well-placed questions. I think that's why they're so defensive. crandaddy

Here's the illustrated version: http://www.kansasscience2005.com/FAQ_Kansas_Science_Standards.pdf russ

I assume this is the FAQ sheet in question? http://www.kansasscience2005.com/Kansas_Science_Standards%20FAQ.pdf russ

For something that doesn't exist, they sure have a lot to say about it. Gods iPod