Guilt by Association

_{William Dembski

October 30, 2009

Creationism, Intelligent Design}

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

Nick Matzke and other critics of ID like nothing better than to conflate ID with young-earth creationism (go here for the latest in this vein by Matzke). But as University of Wisconsin science historian Ron Numbers has noted, even though it’s inaccurate to conflate the two, this is “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design” (go here). Matzke, as a loyal Darwinist, is thus simply being true to form.

For the record, just because various non-ID conferences and events are reported here at UD (e.g., creationist, atheist, or theistic evolutionist) does not constitute an endorsement of those events. Nor does the appearance of an ID proponent at such events constitute complicity with the positions of the organizers. I myself have appeared at atheist (World Skeptics Congress), theistic evolutionist (Templeton conferences), and young-earth creationist (local gatherings here in Texas) events. I believe in getting the word out about ID and, frankly, am happy to have the opportunity to address people on the other side of these issues.

ID, per definitionem, is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence. It rests on two pillars: (1) that the activity of intelligent agents is sometimes detectible and (2) that nature may exhibit evidence of intelligent activity. How anyone gets young-earth creationism from this is a mystery.

Comments

tragic mishap: I appreciate your comments. I was thinking more about court cases and the situation in the US classrooms than the science itself when I referred to Young Earth Creationists. StephenB, "Thus, ID’s methodology must be rigorously based on observation, data, and it must produce conclusions that are arrived at without prejudice—it must follow where the evidence leads, EVEN IF THAT EVIDENCE DISCONFIRMES HIS FAITH, which happily, it does not.” I sincerely hope you find some quiet time for yourself and reflect on what you just told me. Scientific knowledge changes. If Paul tried and failed to figure out the composition of rocks, would he conclude there must not be a God? He looked at nature and saw that it is OBVIOUS there is a God, and in Romans 1:19, that is because "God has made it plain…" (NIV). The things of God are "clearly seen being understood from what has been made" (v20). Religion and faith are a mystery, but they are deeper than science. Yes, we can reason about God, but some people are making God-given human reason dangerously close to its own god.womanatwell_{November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

StevenB:
othing like this ever existed before the 1980’s. You will not find the term methodological naturalism in any philosophy of science textbook prior to that time, nor will you find it in any history of the philosophy of science.
I think you've been corrected on this before. While the term "methodological naturalism" is indeed a recent construct, the idea embodied by it is centuries old. See here.hummus man_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

---"Mustela Nivalis: "Really? Could you please provide a cite to when exactly in the 1908s that this was decided and by whom?" [Methodological naturalism is a recently imposed rule]" Yes, really. Examples are all over the place. It wasn't initiated by any one person. Like minded Darwinists just started doing it to counter the evidence from ID scientists. Here is one from about 13 years ago from Scott, Eugenie C., 1996, "Creationism, Ideology, and Science," in Gross, Levitt, and Lewis, p. 505-522. Defining methodological naturalism: “Science is a limited way of knowing, in which practitioners attempt to explain the natural world using natural explanations. By definition, science cannot consider supernatural explanations...So by definition, if an individual is attempting to explain some aspect of the natural world using science, he or she must act as if there were no supernatural forces operating on it. I think this methodological materialism is well understood by evolutionists.” Lewinton, Rule, Miller, and many others have made the same point. I trust that you don't want all the quotes and dates. It was on the basis of this and other non-scientific intrusions that a partisan Judge ruled that ID is not science. Nothing like this ever existed before the 1980’s. You will not find the term methodological naturalism in any philosophy of science textbook prior to that time, nor will you find it in any history of the philosophy of science. If you think otherwise, go ahead and try to find a book [or article] prior to that time that defines science that way. I can save you the trouble, though, because I have already gone down that road.StephenB_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

Mustela Nivalis, you are wrong and the overwhelming majority of evidence proves it. Since this is perfectly self-evident to any intelligent person, I feel no need to cite any evidence. I will allow you to carry on in your delusions. So...carry on, just remember how wrong you are.tragic mishap_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

You cite your proof for materialism and I shall "reproduce" what is already cited.bornagain77_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

Mustela, could you please cite the reference that materialism is the "absolute truth" for reality. Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism - By Bruce L Gordon: Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world. http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2904125/k.E94E/Why_Quantum_Theory_Does_Not_Support_Materialism.htm Further excerpt: The ground has now been laid to summarize an argument showing not only that quantum theory does not support materialism but also that it is incompatible with materialism. The argument can be formulated in terms of the following premises and conclusion: P1. Materialism is the view that the sum and substance of everything that exists is exhausted by physical objects and processes and whatever supervenes causally upon them. P2. The explanatory resources of materialism are therefore restricted to material objects, causes, events and processes. P3. Neither nonlocal quantum correlations nor (in light of nonlocalizability) the identity of the fundamental constituents of material reality can be explained or characterized if the explanatory constraints of materialism are preserved. P4. These quantum phenomena require an explanation. ____________________________________________________________ C Therefore, materialism/naturalism/physicalism is irremediably deficient as a worldview, and consequently should be rejected as false and inadequate. Thus Mustela, since Materialism is shown to be false why should it even be given the time of day in these questions of origins? Of course you will probably ignore all this but the cold hard fact is that you have no basis in reality to make your case in the first place!bornagain77_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 at 66, "It is funny I quote leading paleontologists and geneticists in the world show peer-review sources..." Please reproduce cites to any peer reviewed papers you have referenced that support your claim that: "14. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth. Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record."Mustela Nivalis_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

StephenB at 50, —-Mustela Nivalis: “Methodological naturalism is not an “artificial imposition.” It has been empirically demonstrated to allow science to make significant progress, in large part by virtue of being self-correcting." "Incorrect. Methodological naturalism is a presumed line of demarcation between science and non-science— a rule which declares that true science must study nature “as if nature is all there is.” Prior to the 1980’s, no such rule existed. That is simply a fact." Really? Could you please provide a cite to when exactly in the 1908s that this was decided and by whom?Mustela Nivalis_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Mustela, It is funny I quote leading paleontologists and geneticists in the world show peer-review sources that show the "genetic evidence is anything but "Darwinian, and then you in all your smugness come with no peer-review whatsoever , based soley on you unimpecable authority I guess, and declare the matter settled,,,well maybe in you self-assured condescending manner you have made your case but in my eyes you are just trying to sooth your own doubts by mindlessly parroting what all other Darwinbots do on this site without ever truly addressing the empirical evidence that is presented head on,,,Myself I really don't care what you believe ,,,you can believe you are the Emperor of the world for all I care, but I do care for you to come on this site and in such condescending manner without one shred of science backing you up pretending you have made a case, THAT SIR is disrespectful to all the contributers here on UD and you would do well to take your fantasies elsewhere if you are not going to "play fair"!!!bornagain77_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 at 51, "Mustela, so you have bought, hook line and sinker, that whales and horses, and all other animals, are all settled matters as far as empirical science is concerned?" The richness of the fossil record with respect to those two lineages, the overwhelming genetic evidence, and the massive amount of supporting empirical evidence for modern evolutionary theory from many scientific disciplines make it clear that these issues are settled. Recognizing this requires only a desire to learn and a modicum of intellectual honesty; there is no need to take any of it on faith. "Well I tend to require at least some modicum of evidential respectability before I accept such swill as you seem more than eager to belly up in the mud for...." When you follow this statement up with more YouTube videos rather than references to the peer reviewed literature, one can be forgiven for questioning your respect for empirical science. The fact remains that your claim in 32 is unsupported and unsupportable.Mustela Nivalis_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

----womanatwell: "In your first response to me, ID had nothing to do with religion, but in your second response, IDists are defenders of the faith (at least as I understood you)." observation and with a firm faith that the universe is rational I am well aware of the tactics of atheists, but just because they slip and slide does not mean that you must also. You need the right foundation on which to stand firm" Let me try to come at this from another angle. Religion and science are, as you suggest, perfectly compatible; both are, as you indicate, based on a rational foundation, which can be characterized as the following: [a] We have rational minds, [b] we live in a rational universe, and [c] there is a correspondence between the two. Indeed, as Bornagain 77 has pointed out, the scientific revolution began with the Christian idea that God set up the universe for discovery---that God left clues---that Galileo, Newton and company were "thinking God's thoughts after him." In other words, their religious faith provided the impetus for the whole scientific enterprise in the first place. That is about as firm as foundations get, and I do stand on it. On the other hand, science has its methods and procedures, all of which help to show that some truths can be arrived at by simply observing the universe, recording and interpreting data, and following wherever the evidence [NOT NECESSARILY FAITH] leads. That is what a rational universe is like. It contains clues that, if interpreted correctly, lead to the creator who left the clues. As is says in Romans 1:20. God’s existence is made evident by his handiwork. That is a philosophical statement based on reason and observation, not a statement of faith. The Bible is here telling us that we can come to know the existence of God through the effects of his creation without first believing in God. That is why the passage is so important. In that same spirit, science studies that handiwork, and, if its methodology is sound, it will reveal in nature truths that are consistent with the truths God revealed in his word. That is what we mean by the “unity of truth.” God did, after all, reveal himself in Scripture and in nature so that we could come to know of his existence in TWO ways, not just one. Thus, if the evidence confirms the faith, it is all the more impressive. Newton was inspired to study the universe because he believed in God’s rational creation, but he discovered nature’s laws based solely on the observed data. Similarly, ID’s observations, such as the biological patterns in a DNA molecule, or the cosmologically fined-tuned constants, allow us to draw inferences about what nature is like without falling back on our belief that God created it. If we had to fall back on that faith as part of the methodology, [not the foundation for the methodology] it would no longer be an inference, it would be a presupposition, and, as a result, the science would be fatally compromised---and unpersuasive. People who call us "creaionists" are saying just that--that we are stacking the deck by injecting our faith into our methods. On the contrary, The ID scientist must be able to tell the world that, although he may believe in a designer as an article of faith, the data, which is based on observation, CONFIRMS HIS FAITH. If it was based on what he believes, it could not confirm what he believes. Thus, ID’s methodology must be rigorously based on observation, data, and it must produce conclusions that are arrived at without prejudice---it must follow where the evidence leads, EVEN IF THAT EVIDENCE DISCONFIRMES HIS FAITH, which happily, it does not. That is the only way that the results can mean anything. Otherwise, the critic can rightly object that the conclusions were imbedded in hypothesis all along, and therefore reflect a faith commitment, not a reasoned result.StephenB_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

Science and religion should not be in conflict and in fact I believe they are not since there is one truth. I have not found any science that interferes with my own personal religious beliefs. However, some on both sides of the argument seem to be driven by religious beliefs that presuppose the science they must believe in. These are atheists, YEC's and TE's. Each group is ideological driven in what can be good science. ID does not suffer this impediment.jerry_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

Economics does not have anything to do with religion but many who are religious will defend vigorously certain economic approaches. Obviously economics impinges on religion and religion impinges on economics. Sloppy thinking is when one tries to equate the two when they are both discussed in the same context.jerry_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

StephenB, In your first response to me, ID had nothing to do with religion, but in your second response, IDists are defenders of the faith (at least as I understood you). I am well aware of the tactics of atheists, but just because they slip and slide does not mean that you must also. You need the right foundation on which to stand firm.womanatwell_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

----womanatwell: “You have changed the definition of creationist in your answer. I’ll repeat as Ostling defined it:” When Darwinists [and the elitist press] call ID scientists "creationists," they are using my definition [casting ID scientists as those whose methodology depends on religious faith] That is the way Judge “copycat” Jones ruled at Dover, and that is the definition that Darwinists cling to as a means of discrediting the design inference, which in no way depends on religion. ----“Most Americans are creationists in the sense of belief in God as the Creator taught by Christianity, Islam and Judaism.” Darwinists use fluid and changing definitions to create confusion. Thus, if correct them on their false characterizations the follow from the narrow definition above, and the one they use as a weapon to discredit ID, they simply switch back to the broad definition while holding fast the charges leveled with the narrow decision. It doesn’t get any more dishonest than that. ----“I have read the related FAQ’s (although it was a while ago). I understand the delineation of specified complexity and irreducible complexity as science, as ID advocates have defined them. However, I think the IDists who are believers need to refocus on religion in relation to science.” I’ll pass the word along to them that they need to adjust their goals to fit your agenda. In any case, ID has already indicated that science and religion are related, so there is no need to emphasize the point further, especially in an environment that tries to make more out of it than is there and falsely accuses them of allowing their religion to leak into their scientific methodology. Still, Dembski, for example, has pointed out that ID science can be expressed as the “Logos Theory” of the Gospel, which is precisely the kind of points that you would like to see made. Everything depends on context. However, Darwinsits do not understand context. Thus, when Dembski made his statement, they ignored the context, and dishonestly claimed that his religion leaks into his scientific methodology. Yet, when I ask these same Darwinists how and where such a thing ever happened, or even how it could happen, they withdraw from the discussion. Barbara Forrest wrote a whole book doing that very thing---that is, equating ID science with religion and testifying to that effect at the Dover trial---or haven’t you heard? It is on the strength of that lie that the academy has taken the official position that ID is religion and not science. ----Remember that believers do not have to have design in biological life proven to them. They know already that it is designed. So science is different to believers—it is the study of designed entities. If IDists are trying to prove design, it is only to non-believers they need prove it. However, there is still a question in how it was designed, which can occupy IDists in their wrangling with theistic evolutionists.” The issue is not which paradigms future ID scientists might be able to come up with in the future. The issue is the paradigms they are using right now that are being misrepresented. ID methodology does not address the process that explains “how” design occurs any more than it can address the process that explains how Mozart conceived his compositions. Science can explain how the piano hammer hits the string and creates a musical sound; it cannot explain how the artist conceived the sequence of the notes to be played. What it can do is illuminate Darwinists to the fact that, against their materialist sensibilities, the sequence was designed. Darwinists think interactive matter can explain it, which is, of course, ridiculous. You, on the other hand, would have ID scientists explain Mozart’s process of conceiving music, [or the Creator’s process of designing a universe] something that likely cannot be explained. ----“The scientific materialists have had creationists on the run this past century and it is time to unite. The young-earth creationists have been left high and dry by other Christians and that is not right. When believers see science as more important than faith, they do not stand in the right place. The IDists have been doing good work on how to present science in the classroom, but we first need the right perspective to best see what we need.” I think that are operating under a false assumption when you suggest that ID advocates think science is more important than faith. No ID scientist ever subordinated the latter to the former. Quite the contrary, Behe, Dembski, Myers, as well as many like myself, refuse to compromise even one portion of their faith in the name of science. That is because we all realize that there is only one truth with many aspects. It is the theistic evolutionists, who believe that truth is divided---who hold that there is one truth for theology and another for science---who jettison Christian doctrines such as “the fall,” original sin, and singularity of our first parents in order to maintain their precious Darwinist paradigm. Perhaps you would be happier with someone like Hugh Ross, who approaches things in exactly the way you prefer. On the other hand, if you want ID to unite, why not come to us rather than ask us to come to you.StephenB_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

lol, that came out all wrong. I think Christians have left YECs "high and dry" for reasons that seem good to them. I don't believe the reason is primarily to distance themselves from a viewpoint that is ridiculed in polite society. I prefer to believe that they have an honest opinion that the evidence points to an old earth and some form of common descent. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.tragic mishap_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

womanatwell:
The young-earth creationists have been left high and dry by other Christians and that is not right.
I'm a YEC, but I will actually defend anyone's right to follow the evidence where it leads. For me, a historical event should refer to historical evidence, but I understand those who believe science can be trusted to make giant extrapolations from observed data.tragic mishap_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

StephenB, You have changed the definition of creationist in your answer. I'll repeat as Ostling defined it:
Most Americans are creationists in the sense of belief in God as the Creator taught by Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
I have read the related FAQ's (although it was a while ago). I understand the delineation of specified complexity and irreducible complexity as science, as ID advocates have defined them. However, I think the IDists who are believers need to refocus on religion in relation to science. Remember that believers do not have to have design in biological life proven to them. They know already that it is designed. So science is different to believers—it is the study of designed entities. If IDists are trying to prove design, it is only to non-believers they need prove it. However, there is still a question in how it was designed, which can occupy IDists in their wrangling with theistic evolutionists. The scientific materialists have had creationists on the run this past century and it is time to unite. The young-earth creationists have been left high and dry by other Christians and that is not right. When believers see science as more important than faith, they do not stand in the right place. The IDists have been doing good work on how to present science in the classroom, but we first need the right perspective to best see what we need.womanatwell_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

That is right FG. Creation is about where things ultimately come from. That is creation has to do with the origin of matter. While modern science really cannot investigate this, that does not stop materialists from speculating that matter originated from "another universe" parlaying into ours somehow. But Intelligent Design is only interested in how we can establish is some structure was designed or the result of natural laws and chance. We design cars by building them from other materials. In a sense design is an evolutionary process- just a "teleological" one. So ID is concerned with detecting teleology. If on the other hand I was a God or had magic and was able to simply "create a car" with the wave of a wand and a "poof"- that would be more like creation. IDists do not argue that life was "poofed" into existence in that sense of creation- but that an intelligence played a role in the design of their body plans.Frost122585_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT}

StephenB, is there a difference between saying 'this was designed' and saying 'this was created'? fGfaded_Glory_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

----womanatwell: "Though not all ID advocates are believers, there is a real difference in perspective among these advocates between the individuals who believe in God and the ones who don’t. It is that difference that should be acknowledged, not in discord, but in honest recognition that the approach to science must be different for each group." The distinction that needs to be made is the one between ID methdology, which has nothing at all to do with religion, and ID sensibilities or the ID movement, both of which should, and often do, allude to religious theism as a counterpoise to the religion of atheistic Darwinism. As long as the subject matter is ID science, religion is not a factor in any way. There is no way to extract religion from "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity." These are solely scientific concepts that indicate the presence of design. One is certainly justified to make a second order philosophical/theological inference that the designer is God, but that calculus transcends anything that can be measured, which is the subject matter for science. To not make these distinctions is to make the mistake of saying that the science of Intelligent Design, which begins with observations, draws inferences from the bottom up, and follow where the evidence leads, is equivalent to Creation Science or Young Earth Creationism, which begins with a faith commitment, confirms it from the top down, and harmonizes the evidence with its religious presuppositions. The differences are significant, dramatic, and historical. The history of both approaches have been described in the FAQ section, which is recommended reading for all those who visit here. Anyone who knows that history could not possibly conflate the two approaches, except of course, to purposely and dishonesty muddle the debage waters. There is one notable exception to be found in the work of Hugh Ross, a Christian astrophysicist who separates himself from both the ID and CS [YEC] camps. In essence, he works both from the top down and from the bottom up. Whether he is a "creationist" or not can be debated, but there should be no debate about whether ID is creationism [defined as religious presuppositions posing as science]: it isn't.StephenB_{November 3, 2009
November
11
Nov
3
03
2009
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Mustella states “We hold no special place in the fossil record.” – Mustela Nivalis. To my assertion that humans are the last major fossil for to appear abruptly in the fossil record,,, Yet Mustela provides no actual evidence that my assertion is false, just his supposedly authoritative opinion, and I can produce much that my assertion is true: This following site has a graph which was made by an evolutionist. The graph can be enlarged by clicking on the image. The graph, though made by an evolutionist with an extreme bias for "shoehorning evidence", shows just how stable each of the hominid species is over the long periods of time they are found in the fossil record, as well as each hominid's "abrupt appearance" in the fossil record. Man is, of course, the last hominid species to "abruptly appear" in the graph. As well the graph shows the only actual transition ever witnessed by anyone, between any of the stable hominid lineages on the graph, is in the imaginations of the evolutionists who draw the connecting lines between the stable hominid lineages on such graphs. I guess drawing connecting lines on such graphs represents hard physical evidence for them. Perhaps they can forgive me for being less than impressed with their imaginary "lines of evidence" for human evolution. Hominid Fossil Graph http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.gif Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr One hard fact in the fossil record which is not disputed by most materialists is the fact man has the youngest distinct fossil of all fossils to appear in the fossil record on earth. Materialists do not seem to notice their theory of evolution expects and even demands there should be undeniably clear evidence for a genetically, and morphologically, unique species on earth somewhere since man first suddenly appeared on earth. Indeed there should be many such unambiguous examples they could produce to silence their critics. "Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some 2 to 10 million species on earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between 3 and 5 million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations (new species) .. every decade." Keith Stewart Thomson, Professor of Biology and Dean of the Graduate School, Yale University (Nov. -Dec. American Scientist, 1997 pg. 516) For the "Genetic Entropy" balance to that fact: The current rate of extinction is from 100 to 10,000 species a year. This is between 100 and 1000 times faster than our best estimate of historical rates. (of note: it is thought that the "impact of man" is accelerating the extinction rate). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990804073106.htm A materialist will try to assert evolution of species is happening all the time, all over the place, with a lot of suggestive evidence which is far from being scientifically conclusive. Once again the hard evidence of extensive and exhaustive experimentation betrays the materialist in his attempts to validate his evolutionary scenario. “Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin's gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless." R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990) At one of her many public talks, she [Lynn Margulis] asks the molecular biologists in the audience to name a single unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge goes unmet. Michael Behe - Darwin's Black Box - Page 26 Natural Selection and Evolution's Smoking Gun, - American Scientist - 1997 “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,”... “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Keith Stewart Thomson - evolutionary biologist All examples of speciation put forth by materialists all turn out to be trivial examples of reproductive isolation: "The closest science has come to observing and recording actual speciation in animals is the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky in Drosophilia paulistorium fruit flies. But even here, only reproductive isolation, not a new species, appeared." from page 32 "Acquiring Genomes" Lynn Margulis. Selection and Speciation: Why Darwinism Is False - Jonathan Wells: Excerpt: there are observed instances of secondary speciation — which is not what Darwinism needs — but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria. British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton looked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in 2001: “None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/selection_and_speciation_why_d.html Many times a materialist will parade examples of reproductive isolation between close sub-species ( Horse & Donkey; Various Insects; etc.. etc..) as proof for evolution. Yet, the evidence of population genetics indicates the information for variation was already “programmed” into the parent species’s genetic code, and the sub-species, or what is known as pure breed in animal husbandry, becomes devoid of much of the variety that was present in the genetic code of the parent species. This fact is made especially clear in mans extensive breeding history of domesticated dogs, cattle, and pure bred horses, as well as food crops. In fact, the entire spectrum of dog sub-species have been found to have less genetic diversity than the parent wolf species: .. the mean sequence divergence in dogs, 2.06, was almost identical to the 2.10 (sequence divergence) found within wolves. (please note the sequence divergence is slightly smaller for the entire spectrum of dogs than for wolves) http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/90/1/71.pdf Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information - Dr. Georgia Purdom - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izPzEgRtPKI Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information - No Beneficial Mutations - Spetner - Denton - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdZYguRuzn0 Darwinism’s Last Stand? - Jonathan Wells Excerpt: Despite the hype from Darwin’s followers, the evidence for his theory is underwhelming, at best. Natural selection - like artificial selection - can produce minor changes within existing species. But in the 150 years since the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, no one has ever observed the origin of a new species by natural selection - much less the origin of new organs and body plans. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/junk_dna_darwinisms_last_stand.html#more EXPELLED - Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOWfmuJ-MdY "...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED "We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.- I wonder what Hitler would have thought of that study? This following study is interesting in that it shows the principle of Genetic Entropy being obeyed for the estimated 60,000 year old anatomically modern humans found in Australia: Ancient DNA and the origin of modern humans: John H. Relethford Excerpt: Adcock et al. clearly demonstrate the actual extinction of an ancient mtDNA lineage belonging to an anatomically modern human, because this lineage is not found in living Australians. Although the fossil evidence provides evidence of the continuity of modern humans over the past 60,000 years,,, The author of the preceding paper offered a evolutionary "just so story" for how this loss of genetic information occurred. Yet, the result clearly falls within what we would expect from a Genetic Entropy perspective. Mustela, thus from the best evidence we have my claim in post #32 stands untarnished by your atheistic ramblings.bornagain77_{November 3, 2009
November
11
Nov
3
03
2009
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

almost forgot: Whale Evolution? - Exposing The Deception - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyUqoTsmqbAbornagain77_{November 3, 2009
November
11
Nov
3
03
2009
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

Mustela, so you have bought, hook line and sinker, that whales and horses, and all other animals, are all settled matters as far as empirical science is concerned? Well I tend to require at least some modicum of evidential respectability before I accept such swill as you seem more than eager to belly up in the mud for: In spite of this crushing evidence found in the Cambrian explosion, and DNA analysis of different phyla, most scientists, and thus a large portion of the public, continues to imagine all life on earth descended from a common ancestor and continues to imagine missing links with every new fossil discovery making mainstream media headlines. Yet the true story of life since the Cambrian explosion, which is actually told by the fossil record itself, tells a very different story than the imaginative tales found in mainstream media accounts. Ancient Fossils That Evolutionists Don't Want You To See - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLzqDLZoufQ THE FOSSILS IN THE CREATION MUSEUM - 1000's of pictures of ancient "living" fossils that have not changed for millions of years: http://www.fossil-museum.com/fossils/?page=0&limit=30 "The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find' over and over again' not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another." Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager "A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." Professor of paleontology - Glasgow University, T. Neville George "The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists" – Stephen Jay Gould - Harvard "Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record." Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9 "The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be .... We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated". David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History The Fossil Record - Don Patton - in their own words - video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4679386266900194790 "In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." Fossils and Evolution, TS Kemp - Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999 " Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360. Comparing molecular sequences gives the same pattern of discontinuity as the fossil record does: 'The theory makes a prediction (for amino acid sequence similarity); we've tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely.' Dr. Colin Patterson Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the Paleontology Department at the British Museum Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 7 Excerpt: "There is not a trace of evidence on the molecular level for the traditional evolutionary series: simple sea life > fish> amphibians > reptiles> mammals. In general, each of the many categories of organisms appear to be equally isolated." http://evolution-facts.org/Appendix/a21.htm Flowering Plant Big Bang: “Flowering plants today comprise around 400,000 species,“To think that the burst that gave rise to almost all of these plants occurred in less than 5 million years is pretty amazing - especially when you consider that flowering plants as a group have been around for at least 130 million years.” Pam Soltis, curator at the Florida Museum of Natural History. "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." - Niles Eldredge , "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," 1996, p.95 The flash recovery of ammonoids after the most massive extinction of all time - August 2009: Excerpt: After the End-Permian extinction 252.6 million years ago, ammonoids diversified and recovered 10 to 30 times faster than previous estimates.,,, Furthermore, the duration for estimated recovery after other lesser extinctions all vary between 5 and 15 million years. The result obtained here suggests that these estimates should probably be revised downwards. Psalm 104: 29-30 You hide Your face, they are dismayed; You take away their spirit, they expire And return to their dust. You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; And You renew the face of the ground. Partial List Of Fossil Groups - (without the artificially imposed dotted lines) - Timeline Illustration: http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/wp-content/majorgroups.jpg "Enthusiastic paleontologists in several countries have claimed pieces of this missing record, but the claims have all been disputed and in any case do not provide real connections. That brings me to the second most surprising feature of the fossil record...the abruptness of some of the major changes in the history of life." Ager, D. - Author of "The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record"-1981 Tiktaalik- Out Of Order Excerpt: One of the problems with an evolutionary interpretation of the fishapods is that these creatures appear to be out of order. "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University Evolution Deception - First Life - Fossil Record - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1V7_TBM44Y "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties?" Charles Darwin - Origin Of Species Whale Evolution? - Exposing The Deception - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyUqoTsmqbA "The construction of the whole Cenozoic family tree of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be a continuous transformation series". Dr. Heribert Nilsson - Evolutionist - Former Director of the Swedish Botanical Institute. Psalm 50:10-11 For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird of the mountains, And everything that moves in the field is Mine. etc..etc.. You know it really is not my problem if you find the concept of a Creator distasteful Mustela, it is your problem (and I would say you have a pretty huge problem), I find that God would actually be Real, and to be semi-accessible through the scientific method, to be a wonderfully great surprise that gives me endless delight as I reflect upon its implications. Atheists such as yourself are always full of pseudo-intellectual manure in trying to deflect the findings of modern science, even on well established facts of science like the Big Bang as well, why mainstream science even gives atheists the time of day I have no idea, but it is certainly not fruitful and a source of endless distraction from finding truth I might add.bornagain77_{November 3, 2009
November
11
Nov
3
03
2009
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

----Mustela Nivalis: "Methodological naturalism is not an “artificial imposition.” It has been empirically demonstrated to allow science to make significant progress, in large part by virtue of being self-correcting. Incorrect. Methodological naturalism is a presumed line of demarcation between science and non-science--- a rule which declares that true science must study nature "as if nature is all there is." Prior to the 1980's, no such rule existed. That is simply a fact. ---"The quotes provided by Seversky make it clear that ID is an inherently religious concept, as defined by it’s major proponents." Creationism, as it is now used by ID proponents [given Darwinists proclivity to use multiple definitions to muddy the debate waters] refers to creation science [religious presupposition from the top down] as opposed to Intelligent Design [design inference from the bottom up]. Please read the FAQ as you are lagging behind in your use of the relevant terms.StephenB_{November 3, 2009
November
11
Nov
3
03
2009
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

Rude at 41, “We hold no special place in the fossil record.” – Mustela Nivalis. "But that’s just trendy, politically correct, fuzzy-wuzzy clap trap." No, it's a simple statement of fact. Bornagain77's assertion at 32 is simply incorrect. If you disagree, please demonstrate how the evolution of humans differs from the evolution of, say, horses.Mustela Nivalis_{November 3, 2009
November
11
Nov
3
03
2009
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 at 38, 39, 40, and 42, I started to address your posts point-by-point, but I can recognize a Gish Gallop when I see one. It's much easier for someone to spew forth a collection of cherry-picked excerpts from the popular press, bible verses, and YouTube links than it is to explain the well-established physics and biology that is being ignored. Suffice to say that you have completely failed to support your assertion at 32 that: “14. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record.” In fact, any objective and honest assessment of the fossil record shows that it supports the genetic evidence that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. Further, there are extensive fossils for other lineages such as whales and horses that clearly refute your assertion. All extant species are equally evolved (insofar as that has any meaning). You are, however, correct in one particular. There is no fossil record leading to modern chimpanzees. A scientist might look at that fact and try to come up with a testable hypothesis as to the reason. Do chimpanzees live in climates that reduce the odds of fossilization, for example. Based on your incorrect assertion regarding the human fossil record, though, your logic indicates that chimpanzees are specially created by god and humans are merely evolved animals. That's going to make for some interesting changes in worship services.Mustela Nivalis_{November 3, 2009
November
11
Nov
3
03
2009
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 at 38, "Law of Conservation of Information (i.e. information cannot be created or destroyed)." There is no such law.Mustela Nivalis_{November 3, 2009
November
11
Nov
3
03
2009
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

Though judges and advocacy groups may define "creationist" in various ways, the general definition, as given in Richard Ostling’s article (Dr. Dembski’s second link) , is one ID proponents need to take seriously:
Most Americans are creationists in the sense of belief in God as the Creator taught by Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
Catholics, for example, are bound to the Nicene Creed which, concerning Jesus Christ states: Through him all things were made. Therefore, apart from any arguments about science, schools or government, I think believers are on sound footing to say we are creationists. It is in God our foundation lies, not in human law or even modern science, however factual it may be. One needs this solid foundation to deal with today's challenges: scientific materialism becomes unmanageable at this unprecedented time of discovery which points to the beginnings of life; judges concerned with education make "Dred-full" decisions (see Dred Scott for reference). Though not all ID advocates are believers, there is a real difference in perspective among these advocates between the individuals who believe in God and the ones who don’t. It is that difference that should be acknowledged, not in discord, but in honest recognition that the approach to science must be different for each group. That this concept has not been recognized (that I have ever seen) is one problem the Discovery Institute and other ID advocates need to address, because concerning the very beginning of life, believers have no other answer but to say, "God did it."womanatwell_{November 3, 2009
November
11
Nov
3
03
2009
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

No I liked it. I just dont want to inspire some unnecessary regulation of post lengths. Overall they are good about freedom though here at UD- as far as I can tell at least.Frost122585_{November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply