Discovery Institute honoring Darwin via vidcast

_{Salvador Cordova

February 12, 2007

Intelligent Design}

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

John West and Jonathan Wells
Checkout the links to the vidcast of Darwin Day and the Deification of Charles Darwin

Darwin Day is upon us at long last.

Now for a full week humanists the world over will celebrate the birth of their saint, Charles Darwin. Celebrations come complete with Darwin carols celebrating atheism and sung to Christmas carol tunes; edible trees of life; Darwin look-a-like contests; and lots more revelry. Discovery Institute is honoring Darwin with a short vidcast of their popular ID The Future podcast titled “Darwin Day and the Deification of Charles Darwin.” It features CSC senior fellows Dr. John West and Dr. Jonathan Wells discussing the historical importance of Darwinism and its impact on modern science and society.

Click here to watch the video at ID The Future.

Click here to download and view a high-resolution version of the video. (150MB)

Comments

Fross: I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think I.D. should explain other areas of science. My point is that data for ID can and is found in other areas of science (besides biology). Fross: The reason YECism is such an easy target to discredit is because the evidence for an old earth and old universe is so overwhelming that no matter what you say beyond that subject, you are not going to be taken seriously. But YEC has a valid exoplanation for the age of the universe. As for the age of the Earth well that depends directly on HOW it was formed. For example man can now make diamonds. Diamonds were once thought to require eons of time to form. We now know that intelligent agencies can do things to speed up processes. Fross: In the same manner, many in the ID movement and a lot of their press make it seem like common descent is still being questioned. Once again this is a very easy target to discredit. Not until someone can tells us about those differences. IOW I am of the cloth that Copmmon Descent can be easily discredited. And I mean easily.Joseph_{February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

Fross, read the article on Darwin's Tree of Life on the right. A paper is presented in PNAS pretty much blowing away the "quixotic pursuit" of Darwin's tree. If Darwin's TOL is exploding, how much of common descent are we now talking about? The hypothesis put forth is one of Pattern Pluralism. Why would anyone want to agree with Common Descent at this time when pieces are falling off the tree?Michaels7_{February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT}

edit, "However, it took on only 3 point mutations between the chimp and the human." should read "However, it took on only 3 point mutations between the chimp and the chicken."bFast_{February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

Joseph, "ANY scenerio requires a way to test it- objectively." Wasn't there some scientist who was recently quoted as declaring that we never would figure out how RM+NS did it? Oh yea, Schwartz, "The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis." https://uncommondescent.com/archives/2057#more-2057 That said, the front-loading hypothesis (of which Davison's PEH is a variant) should hold findable data. If the the phylogenic tree branches due to front-loading, then both the left and right branch should contain the data necessary for both branches. The 'no longer needed' data may deteriorate once it is no longer necessary, but it should still be there. Testing the twiddling method may be more of a process of elimination. However, I think it is testable. Consider the lowly HAR1F gene. It took on 18 point mutations between the common ancestor to the chimp and man. However, it took on only 3 point mutations between the chimp and the human. There aren't very many mutation events to consider, if every pathway of single or pair mutations between the chimp and human produces a defective HAR1F, then the entire 18 mutation set must have occurred in one whack. This would be clear evidence of twiddling. The best proof I can think of for the common design argument is to show that random drift does not occur -- that all genetic variation that survives between species is planned by the designer. A case in point would be the cytochrome C gene. This gene represents the phylogenic tree with a mapmaker's precision. Attempts to find a naturalistic explanation for the perfection in the map have been weak at best. Such would be the evidence that discounts the "falsification" of genetic drift. Lets not get lost in the "its not teatable" argument. That argument is so much hooey. It will remain hooey until the day that neo-Darwinian evolution becomes testable.bFast_{February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

I don't think I.D. should explain other areas of science. I meant that I.D. applied to biology should meld with other branches of science. My main point is that the ID scientist should not just talk about the science they don't accept, but be more clear about what science they do accept in regards to the history of biological life. (examples are geology and the distribution of fossils, the dating of fossils, the patterns of descent, extinction events etc.) The reason YECism is such an easy target to discredit is because the evidence for an old earth and old universe is so overwhelming that no matter what you say beyond that subject, you are not going to be taken seriously. In the same manner, many in the ID movement and a lot of their press make it seem like common descent is still being questioned. Once again this is a very easy target to discredit. For instance, in the Dover Trial, the book "Of Pandas and People" an excerpt read: Intelligent design means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intactÃ¢â‚¬â€fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."Fross_{February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Fross: IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m just saying that it would add legitamacy to the ID movement if they started to show how their hypothesis melds with the other fields of science. Read "The Privileged Planet". It makes it perfectly clear that ID extends well beyond biology. Without that Common Descent is Ã¢â‚¬Å“acceptedÃ¢â‚¬Â as a matter of faith (at least between those two populations). DaveScot: Gravity is accepted as a matter of faith too. And here I was led to believe we could observe gravity and directly test it. So faith is keeping me on this planet. Thanks- that's a good thing to know. That way when I start floating away I know I have lost my faith. ;) To BFast, ANY scenario requires a way to test it- objectively. Even the scenarios you posted in comment 19. But I agree in that the ONLY Common Descent scenarios that (at least) appear likely are those you mentioned (plus JD's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis).Joseph_{February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

Dave, In those billions of observations of life coming from life, no one has ever observed a new species coming from a different species, not gradually, not suddenly. Evolution is an historical science with no written record so here we all are conjecturing about what happened.jerry_{February 12, 2007
February
02
Feb
12
12
2007
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT}

joseph Without that Common Descent is Ã¢â‚¬Å“acceptedÃ¢â‚¬Â as a matter of faith (at least between those two populations). Gravity is accepted as a matter of faith too. We don't know how it works but we have observed it working the same way without exception so many times we just call it a law of nature and accept that as a matter of faith. Similarly we have the law of biogenesis. Omne vivo ex ovum. Every living thing we see where its origin can be determined came from another living thing. There have been no exceptions and billions of observations of life coming from life. It is a law of nature just as gravity is a law of nature for the exact same reasons. In every observation it has never failed to be true.DaveScot_{February 12, 2007
February
02
Feb
12
12
2007
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT}

Fross From this standpoint, ID isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t just distancing itself from the accepted science of biology, but of paleontology, cosmology and geology as well. What does evolutionary biology have to say about whether black holes really exist or not? Or what does it say about gravitons? Or what is its position on cosmic rays and cloud formation? ID doesn't speak to the age of the earth. There's nothing wrong with that. The age of the earth isn't related to ID. Is there some part of that you don't understand?DaveScot_{February 12, 2007
February
02
Feb
12
12
2007
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT}

Joseph:
I would accept Common Descent (again) if someone, anyone, can explain how any mechanism can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between two populations which allegedly shared a common ancestor- humans and chimps.
I observe phenomena such as Haldane's dilemma or the HAR1F gene, and I conclude that some greater cause is at play than random mutation and natural selection. There appear to be three candidates: 1. Front-loading -- life itself is a grand organism that is unfolding according to the plan injected into it at the beginning. As an acorn becomes an oak, so a single cell has followed its programming to become, well, man. This is clearly a "common descent" model. 2. Twiddling -- the idea that an agent has manipulated the genes of a common ancestor to produce man and chimp. This model would suppose that the agent was acting with strategy, but modifying the genetic code bit by bit. This model supports common descent. It is my preferred model at the moment. 3. Common design -- the idea that an agent holds the master plan of organisms. One day the agent made a modified version of an ape (or whatever) and fashioned it into man -- Adam and Eve. The evidence that I see which seriously challenges the common design model, favoring the twiddling model, is the apparent drifting of some genes in the genome. Either all "drifting" is very tightly controlled by the agent, placed into the code as some sort of signature or copyright notice, or drifting really happens. If drifting really happens, then why would the drifting show up in the fact that in the vast majority of cases (HAR1F notwithstanding) the chimp is more like man than it is like a dog. I must admit, I have been startled at Denton's evidence re the cytochrome C gene. Its drift seems perfect -- too perfect. I believe that the only logical explanation for the cytochrome C is that it is the equivelant of the designer's copyright notice. All that to say, just because one buys into common descent, doesn't mean that one buys into a naturalistic explanation. I do not by any means believe that RM+NS can get past Haldane's dilemma.bFast_{February 12, 2007
February
02
Feb
12
12
2007
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT}

"what do they make of extinction events, where 95% of designs disappear, and the 5% " For the record, creationists were the first to claim mass extinctions in history. As for the "modified" 5%, those began 5% express latent designed traits after the environmental change.Jehu_{February 12, 2007
February
02
Feb
12
12
2007
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT}

i guess I'm coming from the scientific front and not the religious. Right now the ID movement says it makes no statement on the age of the universe, and common descent. From this standpoint, ID isn't just distancing itself from the accepted science of biology, but of paleontology, cosmology and geology as well. I'm not saying that the IDists deny this science, (most accept it) but unlike theories of evolution, they've yet to integrate their ID hypothesis into the "overall larger picture" produced by the different branches of science. In contrast, the typical anthropologist ties their theory of human origins into a geological time scale, a location, and a pattern of descent. I'm just saying that it would add legitamacy to the ID movement if they started to show how their hypothesis melds with the other fields of science. (for example, what do they make of extinction events, where 95% of designs disappear, and the 5% remaining designs get modified to fill the niches) This is what makes the theories of evolution so appealing to many. (including myself) CheersFross_{February 12, 2007
February
02
Feb
12
12
2007
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT}

I would accept Common Descent (again) if someone, anyone, can explain how any mechanism can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between two populations which allegedly shared a common ancestor- humans and chimps. Without that Common Descent is "accepted" as a matter of faith (at least between those two populations). And that doesn't necessarily leave only Special Creation. And if it did, so what? That is if science is really interested in the reality behind our existence. But anyway, science deals with what we can observe (and/ or envision). In that regard populations could have arrived here via some dying solar system. One that was formed well before ours. How did those populations arise? One thing at a time and first things first. And even Dr Humphreys YEC model of "Starlight and Time" allows for that scenario. And sorry Jehu ID could be true without there being a "God". Gonzalez is quite clear that "ID does not require the belief in God". To me anyway, ID is an a-religious approach to the question: "Is there a purpose in the universe?"Joseph_{February 12, 2007
February
02
Feb
12
12
2007
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

The issue is not whether there is a God. It's whether the universe, and nature, are intelligent and creative, or not. People define "God" in different ways, and you give ammunition to people like Dawkins by using the word.realpc_{February 12, 2007
February
02
Feb
12
12
2007
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

Common descent is not the issue and it never was. Common descent is merely a proxy battle for the real isssue. The real issue is whether or not there is a God. I think you are mistaken if you think getting everybody on board the common descent band wagon and focusing energy on a God-of-the-gaps argument will move debate in ID's direction.Jehu_{February 12, 2007
February
02
Feb
12
12
2007
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

Fross, "i think the ID movement would be smart to overwhelmingly accept common descent and go public with it." The simple reality is that though many, myself included, do fully accept common descent, there are some who clearly don't, or are at least unconvinced re common descent.bFast_{February 12, 2007
February
02
Feb
12
12
2007
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

[Off topic] The wonderful, neutral, balanced, unbiased, fair Wikipedia article, "Intelligent design," has been nominated as a featured article candidate! (I.e., it will appear on the main page, if approved.) Whoo-eee! ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidatesj_{February 12, 2007
February
02
Feb
12
12
2007
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

I just watched this. Don't waste your time. It repeats everything we know in a boring fashion and the audience there was about 10 people. It's not that West and Wells were doing any harm to the ID movement, they were just not doing anything to move the ball along. This will get to a few of the faithful but will have no effect on those sitting on the fence or those who do not know anything. If this was taken to an audience of several hundred people, most of them would have fallen asleep. The ID movement needs a dynamic spokesperson but not a religious one. It also needs a focused message. The interesting thing was the list of the organizers of Darwin Day as mostly atheistic and humanist orgnanizations which is another code word for atheist. I wonder if all those pastors know they are being organized by atheists.jerry_{February 12, 2007
February
02
Feb
12
12
2007
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

Robo, At the beginning of the video they said it would be on YourTubejerry_{February 12, 2007
February
02
Feb
12
12
2007
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

i think the ID movement would be smart to overwhelmingly accept common descent and go public with it. (instead of small whisperings that ID doesn't conflict with it, but then release a ton of press that suggest otherwise.) That is definitely the largest factor linking them to old school creationism since they both propose special creation events.Fross_{February 12, 2007
February
02
Feb
12
12
2007
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Jerry, I have used it in my opening Intelligent Design- Is It Scientific?, The debate I then used it on my blog- January Archives, Intelligent Reasoning January 9, 2006 entry. ARN liked it enough to include my blog on their list. (campaign speech finale): And if I were running the ID PR machine I would make sure the Behe quote was in everybody's kitchen.
What is Intelligent Design? It is the premise that life and the universe are the direct result of an intelligent agency. That inference is drawn from the coinciding of three determining factors- complexity, specification and information. ID is all about the detection AND understanding of the design. ID is NOT anti-evolution. IF anything ID could be considered anti-evolution #6 with Dr. BeheÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s caveat: The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education: 1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature 2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population 3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor. 4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations. 5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor. 6. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Blind watchmakerÃ¢â‚¬Â thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. Dr. BeheÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s caveat: (the quote in comment 2)
I would make sure that people understood is all IDists are saying is the blind watchmaker does NOT have sole dominion over evolutionary processes. That is my promise to you, the IDists of the world. Now who should I contact at the DI?Joseph_{February 12, 2007
February
02
Feb
12
12
2007
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

"Tell people that we agree with Darwin and NDE and many of the other findings of evolutionary biology but always with the caveat that it is only actual findings that we agree with and not the extrapolations to unproven hypotheses. " Yes, absolutely. Arguing against NDE is so frustrating, because everyone assumes I'm arguing against evolution theory.realpc_{February 12, 2007
February
02
Feb
12
12
2007
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Joseph, The Behe quote is right on but that is not what I hear in any debate. ID is always defending itself as a science and that there are no research studies or findings, or that it implies God and we cannot have that or that it is really creationism. We quote IC or the complexity of the cell or the Cambrian Explosion and all that is well and good but ID is mostly on the defensive. It shouldn't be. Tell people that we agree with Darwin and NDE and many of the other findings of evolutionary biology but always with the caveat that it is only actual findings that we agree with and not the extrapolations to unproven hypotheses. The imagination is needed for hypothesis generation but we should never equate hypothesis with findings. Each debate should spend a lot of time on the limitations of NDE and what it has actually shown and that is why ID is looking for a more far-reaching approach. I am not sure we all know this here and I do not see it executed in any debate format anywhere. I bet few here are aware of Behe's quote and that it is an official position of ID. If it is not an official position then why not?jerry_{February 12, 2007
February
02
Feb
12
12
2007
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

Jerry: I think the whole ID movement should use it and any criticism of NDE or Darwin should be on its limited applicability only. I agree but I am also confused. Here I thought the "IDM" did use it (the Behe quote or similar philosphy) as well as harped on the limited applicability of the NDE (see "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" as well as anything from Berlinski, for example). The Behe quote would make a great opening in a debate about the issues, as well as an opening statement in any future Court case. What the "IDM" needs a is a "vanguard" who does this- makes sure the focus stays on what is really being debated. And if the DI needs a really good ID PR man that can accomplish just that, all they have to do is ask. ;)Joseph_{February 12, 2007
February
02
Feb
12
12
2007
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Guys, put the video up on YouTube. Or I could do it 4 u if preferred.Robo_{February 12, 2007
February
02
Feb
12
12
2007
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

Joseph, I think the whole ID movement should use it and any criticism of NDE or Darwin should be on its limited applicability only. I have watched courses in evolution and the only thing I disagree with is the range of its validity which to me is very limited but it does have value. The ID movement is certainly not winning the PR war despite the occasional self congratulations that are expressed here as we talk with each other. ID is constantly being put in a box so I am suggesting this is one way out of the box and it would have the effect of turning the microscope on the other side as opposed to ID which has no problem with NDE.jerry_{February 12, 2007
February
02
Feb
12
12
2007
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Darwin's "dangerous idea" (not the one Dennett had in mind): "Imagination is a good substitute for hard data." Darwin's greatest achievement: Finally wresting science from dogmatic grasp of "the Church". To Jerry:
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.--Dr. Behe
I am sure he won't mind if you use it as freely as I do. ;)Joseph_{February 12, 2007
February
02
Feb
12
12
2007
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

I will make my point here as I have done several times on other threads. It is time for the ID people to embrace Darwin and NDE and in the process say it is doing so because there is truth in what they say. However, this truth only applies to trivial and small things in the whole scheme of evolutionary science. In other words ID subsumes NDE and has no major objections with it except for it limited applicability. In other words NDE is a true in the sense that is has explanatory power but in very limited sense. If we reflexively deny it we look silly but can turn the argument around to force the discussions on the limitations not that it has no application at all.jerry_{February 12, 2007
February
02
Feb
12
12
2007
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply