Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How to sneak ID and creationism into the public schools

Salvador Cordova
August 5, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Teach Origin of Species Chapter 14!

…the first creature, the progenitor of innumerable extinct and living descendants, was created.
…
To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes…

Charles Darwin,
Origin of Species, Chapter 14


Then cite peer-reviewed articles at least partially supportive of Darwin’s thesis.

Then discuss that Darwin was considering the issue of multiple versus single special creations.

They admit that a multitude of forms, which till lately they themselves thought were special creations, and which are still thus looked at by the majority of naturalists…

Then discuss peer-reviewed literature supportive or disconfirming of universal common ancestry.

Instead of “teach the controversy” how about “teach Origin of Species“.

Or how about this sticker as a textbook disclaimer:

I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.

Charles Darwin

(Note: this post was not a serious strategy suggestion, but to highlight the irony of what can and can’t be taught in the USA’s public schools given the current political climate.)

Comments
Ofro: You’ll need to define “common design” in this context. “Common design” is a nice catchy phrase, but if one thinks about it, it could mean many things. Perhaps it means that all mammals have a head, four limbs (well, maybe) and some sort of stomach, etc. The way I understand the design concept, there is a designer who has some sort of plan. Extrapolating from that I would expect that, if the plan is somehow implemented, the resulting product should be just what the plan said. How the plan started and how it is now are separate issues. With common design I would expect to see symbiotic relationships throughout. Where genomes are concerned I would expect commonality also. What would we eat if genomes where vastly different without anything in common? I would expect organisms that look and reproduce alike to have similar genomes. ID doesn't care about how many designs or designers. That is also separate from detection and understanding. In your response you also said in the context of genetic testing of polymorphisms: “What works for individuals in one population should not be extrapolated to be used on organisms from different populations (all humans being one population).” You are wrong. For what reason should I not extrapolate? As I mentioned above, scientists monitor individuals in populations of several if not many species by their genetic fingerprints. What does that have to do with what I said? Read the link I provided and you will see the obstacles in the way. And no one, I repeat NO ONE knows whether or not mutations can even allow such differences.Joseph
August 12, 2006
August
08
Aug
12
12
2006
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PST
Joseph: “But sequence comparison can also point to common design.” You’ll need to define “common design” in this context. “Common design” is a nice catchy phrase, but if one thinks about it, it could mean many things. Perhaps it means that all mammals have a head, four limbs (well, maybe) and some sort of stomach, etc. The way I understand the design concept, there is a designer who has some sort of plan. Extrapolating from that I would expect that, if the plan is somehow implemented, the resulting product should be just what the plan said. Now we know from the Human Genome Project that we can easily distinguish between individuals by their genomic fingerprint. The same is found with every other vertebrate species (and probably just about any species) that has been tested for polymorphisms. The further we go back in time, the greater are the differences. So how is it possible to have so many different implementations of a “common design” even within a species? Is there a design for each individual? It seems to me that if two individuals have different DNA sequences, each must have had its own individual design. Alternatively, the designer may have somehow permitted (designed?) some variations in the execution. If so, how different do two different individuals have to be that we can say they came from two different designs? Since I am not permitted to speculate what a designer might have had in mind, how does ID design analysis decide this question? In your response you also said in the context of genetic testing of polymorphisms: “What works for individuals in one population should not be extrapolated to be used on organisms from different populations (all humans being one population).” You are wrong. For what reason should I not extrapolate? As I mentioned above, scientists monitor individuals in populations of several if not many species by their genetic fingerprints. “We also know there are only 4 possibilities for any nucleotide.” What does that have to do with “apples vs. oranges”? “We also know that orangutans and humans share some mutations that humans and chimps do not” Of course, if you compare nucleotide sequences, it is possible that after the split from a CA a nucleotide position is mutated in the same way in the human and orang utan and different in the chimp genome. However, this is expected on simple statistical grounds and is found less often (as expected/predicted) than the commonalities between human and chimp vs. orang utan.ofro
August 12, 2006
August
08
Aug
12
12
2006
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PST
Ofro: Your question was: how we can objectively test the premise that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor. I would like to think that we can do that, but I don’t know what you define as “objective.” The short version is that it boils down to sequence comparison, but I need to explain why and how. But sequence comparison can also point to common design. IOW it is NOT exclusive to common descent and it certainly says nada about a mechansim. Ofro: Genetic testing is possible because of the variation (polymorphism) in many places on the genome that we find among different individuals. What works for individuals in one population should not be extrapolated to be used on organisms from different populations (all humans being one population). Ofro: So I can see no rationale not to apply the same methodology to compare the genomes of human and chimpanzee. I can. It is the ole "apples v. oranges" scenario. We know there are mutational "hot spots". We also know there are only 4 possibilities for any nucleotide. We also know that orangutans and humans share some mutations that humans and chimps do not- yet the human and orangutan alleged common ancestor is well before the alleged human and chimp CA. IOW your test is very subjective and it isn't even exclusive to one hypothesis.Joseph
August 12, 2006
August
08
Aug
12
12
2006
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PST
To the moderator: I apologize if this post gets into the grey zone of diverging too much off the original topic. I’ll be happy to continue the argument in a different context once it comes up. And sorry about the length. Joseph: Your question was: how we can objectively test the premise that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor. I would like to think that we can do that, but I don’t know what you define as “objective.” The short version is that it boils down to sequence comparison, but I need to explain why and how. I am sure you will accept the following: In today’s technical arsenal there is a commonly used test for common ancestry, and it is widely accepted. It is commonly referred to as DNA testing, genomic fingerprinting, etc. and serves to establish genetic relationships by determining how similar two DNA samples are to each other. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fingerprinting for details on the different methodologies. Genetic testing is possible because of the variation (polymorphism) in many places on the genome that we find among different individuals. For example, differences can occur, among several others, in a single nucleotide position (single nucleotide polymorphism) or in the number of short, repeated pieces of DNA inserted all over the place in the genome. The best explanation is that these are mutations of one type or another that accumulated over time since we descended from our earliest human ancestor (or a small band of ancestors). What has also been found is that, if we compare different populations (modern-time indigenous people from different continents), each population has its own characteristic sets of “mutations” that can be used to distinguish it from the other populations, in addition to individual differences. Along with these genotypic differences one can find phenotypic differences, such as racial differences in appearance, although only very few of the genotypic differences manifest themselves phenotypically. The reason for this diversity is that at some time in the past, groups of humans separated away as they migrated to different geographic regions, upon which each experienced its own genetic drift. Archeological and other evidence points towards this kind of divergence started anywhere around several thousand generations ago, depending on which evidence you want to follow. If we took the genomes of the different populations (we don’t have them yet) and compared them, we would be able to establish with a good certainty what the genome of the “first” human looked like, by determining where most of the populations agreed with each other in their DNA sequence. I am sure we already have that information with the (maternally-only inherited and much shorter) mitochondrial DNA although I didn’t check the literature to verify this. So I can see no rationale not to apply the same methodology to compare the genomes of human and chimpanzee. And of course, we find that there are many more differences, in terms of single nucleotide differences, repeats, and even a few chromosome rearrangements. Obviously, this means that humans did not descend from their last common ancestor with chimps just a few generations ago. And we wouldn’t objectively expect anything else. If one accepts fossil evidence that monitors the morphological changes found in hominid precursors, one has an independent timeline of several million years, about 2 orders of magnitude longer than the divergence of modern man among the continents (if you accept the out-of-Africa hypothesis). So far everything (except perhaps the assumption about the fossils) has been logically derived. A genomic comparison among similar species comes closest to closing the perceived gap between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. The good news is that we have here a universally accepted case of two different species, the bad news is that it involves humans, which we hold to have a special status. So let us take one step back, forget about human/chimp, and assume that we have the complete genomes of two species that are as closely related (by the criterion of genome similarity) as chimp and human. I have a hard time seeing any argument that would prohibit us from proposing, based on the available data, that these two species had a common ancestor.ofro
August 11, 2006
August
08
Aug
11
11
2006
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PST
Perhaps Ofro can tell us how we can objectively test the premise that humans and chimps shared a common ancester. Then perhaps Ofro can discuss how to test the mechanism(s) responsible.Joseph
August 11, 2006
August
08
Aug
11
11
2006
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PST
Ofro: I already gave you examples for why I think that we are beyond your equivalent of a 2-year-old looking at a C++ program: researchers are already comparing the genes and made exciting findings about the genes involved in the regulation of nerve growth and speech (look up the FoxP2 gene). What genes do and what makes an organism what it is are entirely different subjects. Ofro: How much more detail do you expect people to work in before you will admit that research is making progress in analyzing the human genome? I never said nor implied we weren't making progress analyzing genomes. However we still don't know what makes an organism what it is. We do know it is more than a sum of its genes. Ofro: You are making reference to Michael Denton. I looked up his research, and he is working on the rules that govern the folding of domains in proteins. Whatever. He also is a genetics researcher. Ofro: Also don’t just rely on Denton’s outdated 1985 book. I don't. What I posted about what he said came from "Uncommon Dissent"- 2004. Ofro: Genes influence development by determining it. That is false and I know you cannot substantiate that claim: Page 172 of "Uncommon Dissent":
It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it.
To substantiate that claim no need to look any further than the experiments with flies. We get an eyeless fly and then incorporate a mouse PAX6 gene into that line. The subsequent flies develop FLY eyes, not mouse eyes. That is all we know. We do NOT know what cause fly eyes to develop in flies. Just what cuases eyes to develop or not develop. Ofro: In other words: forget Denton; here we are discussing what makes the two present-day species different. You can forget Denton. I see where you would want to. Heck with the data and reality. Your view is the only view regardless. We don't even know what makes the two prsent day species. Ofro: FYI, I do not consider the argument that homology points towards a common designer adequate to bring us closer to an understanding of what makes humans different from the other primates. It wasn't supposed to. Common designer explains the similarities. That is all evolutionism does. It doesn't even attempt to explain the differences. And if the link below works you will see why. Chimps & HumansJoseph
August 11, 2006
August
08
Aug
11
11
2006
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PST
Joseph, I already gave you examples for why I think that we are beyond your equivalent of a 2-year-old looking at a C++ program: researchers are already comparing the genes and made exciting findings about the genes involved in the regulation of nerve growth and speech (look up the FoxP2 gene). How much more detail do you expect people to work in before you will admit that research is making progress in analyzing the human genome? You are making reference to Michael Denton. I looked up his research, and he is working on the rules that govern the folding of domains in proteins. This work and the conclusions he is drawing have no relevance whatsoever for our discussion. He is extrapolating from his work to speculate about possible laws that determine the organization of macromolecules inside the cell and thus make Darwinian evolution mechanisms difficult. Here we are not talking about possible or impossible mechanisms of evolution or about how human or chimpanzee may have diverged from an ancestor primate. We are dealing with how present-day differences in the genome can explain present-day differences in phenotype. Also don’t just rely on Denton's outdated 1985 book. Genes influence development by determining it. There could, in addition, be epigenetic effects due to methylation or so, but that is secondary. In other words: forget Denton; here we are discussing what makes the two present-day species different. Comparative gene analysis is the best way to make progress, and there has been progress already. FYI, I do not consider the argument that homology points towards a common designer adequate to bring us closer to an understanding of what makes humans different from the other primates. (As to the reference you gave to a site about “Chimps and Humans”, I am sorry but I think the URL is missing, so I can’t comment on it).ofro
August 10, 2006
August
08
Aug
10
10
2006
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PST
“I know we aren’t beyond that stage.” Ofro: Tell me at what point you will accept that we are beyond that stage. Look YOU said we are beyond that stage now either support the claim or retract it. It is that simple. WE will be beyond that stage when we know what makes an organism what it is besides the following: 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.”
“We STILL don’t know what makes an organsim what it is.” Ofro: (there’s another distraction from our argument about human vs. chimp!) In reality that point is very relevant. How can one say that one population can "evolve" into another when we don't even know what makes an organism what it is? IOW that premise is untestable and therefore unscientific. Ofro: And I have the impression you are wishing that our present level of ignorance about the details be kept this way. Actually I have the opposite feeling. That is because I know that data will settle the debate once and for all. Ofro: Because if we continue to explore the human genome, we may actually find out what makes the human brain more complex than the chimpanzee or nonprimate brain. I doubt we will find that by looking at the genomes. As Denton said genes may influence development but they do NOT determine it. You may find the following site very interesting: Chimps and HumansJoseph
August 10, 2006
August
08
Aug
10
10
2006
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PST
I have decided I am a masochist. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."John A. Davison
August 10, 2006
August
08
Aug
10
10
2006
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PST
Joseph, "I know we aren’t beyond that stage." Tell me at what point you will accept that we are beyond that stage. And don't come with your argument about creating new tissues etc in a laboratory experiment. We are talking here specifically about the comparison of human versus chimpanzee. "We STILL don’t know what makes an organsim what it is." (there's another distraction from our argument about human vs. chimp!) And I have the impression you are wishing that our present level of ignorance about the details be kept this way. Because if we continue to explore the human genome, we may actually find out what makes the human brain more complex than the chimpanzee or nonprimate brain.ofro
August 9, 2006
August
08
Aug
9
09
2006
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PST
Ofro: This just in: the human and chimpanzee genomes are nearly completed, at least sufficiently complete so people can try to find out what could be the basis for the difference between humans and chimps. That is only if genomes are all that make an organism what it is. However we already know that isn't true. As Denton tells us genes may influence development but they do not determine it. Ofro: For example, there is much more similarity between human and chimp in the “housekeeping” genes than in the genes involved in the growth and organization of the nervous system. There are many similarities in the following two sentences yet they have opposite meanings: It is raining. It is not raining. “The way we are looking at genomes reminds me of my when my then 2 year old was trying to “read” a C++ program I had just written.” Ofro: I think we are beyond that stage now. What you think is irrelevant. What can you demonstrate? I know we aren't beyond that stage. We STILL don't know what makes an organsim what it is. Similarities are also an example of common design. What evolutionists cannot do is tell us what makes the differences in the two populations seeing there is so much similarity in genomes.Joseph
August 9, 2006
August
08
Aug
9
09
2006
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PST
Joseph, This just in: the human and chimpanzee genomes are nearly completed, at least sufficiently complete so people can try to find out what could be the basis for the difference between humans and chimps. And even though research is only at the very beginning, there are already very interesting findings. "Sequencing doesn’t tell us squat except for the sequence of nucleotides. From that we may be able to extract the number of genes but not of the coding sequences from alternative gene splicing." For example, there is much more similarity between human and chimp in the "housekeeping" genes than in the genes involved in the growth and organization of the nervous system. Researcher also have focussed on a regulatory gene called FoxP2 that plays a role in human speech. "The way we are looking at genomes reminds me of my when my then 2 year old was trying to “read” a C++ program I had just written." I think we are beyond that stage now. We now have hard data with the genomic sequences. Now it is time to interpret these first observations. I like how they fit into the evolutionary framework. How and where does design fit in? Tell me. Sarcasm won't convince me.ofro
August 9, 2006
August
08
Aug
9
09
2006
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PST
HodorH: You’re right, we should probably wait until both the human and chimp genomes have been sequenced. Sequencing doesn't tell us squat except for the sequence of nucleotides. From that we may be able to extract the number of genes but not of the coding sequences from alternative gene splicing. The way we are looking at genomes reminds me of my when my then 2 year old was trying to "read" a C++ program I had just written.Joseph
August 8, 2006
August
08
Aug
8
08
2006
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PST
ID supporters claim that the design is detectable whereas theistic evolutionists do not.
This is what always gets me. So, a theistic evolutionist would say that he just thinks that God guided evolution, though he has zero evidence to back up the belief? Isn't a belief without a shred of evidence to back it up just idiotic to begin with? Does a TE say- 'I think God exits (for whatever reasons)' and 'I believe that NDE is how we came to be.' Thus- 'God must have done it somehow, though I have no evidence to come to the conclusion.' It seems rather silly to me that one could say that they think God guided evolution but have no evidence that he did so. If they have no evidence, how on earth did they come to this conclusion at all? When someone asks why they believe God guided the process, how on earth would they answer the question? If they're TE who are Christians- do they think the Bible is wrong in that it says the heavens show the glory of God? Do they think ALL natural laws come from God, and thus his glory is everywhere? Do they have any evidence in their minds to conclude that all of nature comes from God? Skeptics often times attack "faith," claiming it's believing something based on no evidence, but that's not what Biblical faith is (as an example). Would most TE's agree that their beliefs that God guided the process IS without evidence or not? Why do TE's think God guided evolution? Just because that's the only way they can fit their view with the Bible? Did they come to their TE conclusion based on external evidence outside the Bible? Are the big names in Darwinism right when they say NDE is without a goal, purpose, meaning, etc. That it's the result of trillions of accidents. ?? I don't see how a TE could agree with that definition of NDE and THEN ALSO say that God guided a process they think is without purpose or meaning or a plan or a goal. Too confusing for me.JasonTheGreek
August 8, 2006
August
08
Aug
8
08
2006
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PST
Hi Chris, I think your last sentence starting
And so accepting God guided evolution does not make them ID supporters because
sums up perfectly the difference between a theist who supports Darwinian evolution and a theist who supports ID. For all their concerns about process, method and intervention, it really is just as you said:
ID supporters claim that the design is detectable whereas theistic evolutionists do not.
It really is about a presupposition about how the world is. This, however, is not really a theological difference but rather a philosophical one.Charlie
August 8, 2006
August
08
Aug
8
08
2006
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PST
To Chris Hyland, The issue I have with theistic evolution is there isn't any difference between their "God" and no "God" at all. IOW their faith is blind. Some theistic evolutionists have told me that humans were the "intention" of the evolutionary process, and then try to tell me about RM culled by NS- which is BS in THEIR scenario. They also disagree with what 38 Nobel Laureates said about NDE being purposeless and without a goal in a letter denouncing the Kansas science standards. Yet they won't stand up and be counted on that. Perhaps if Ken Miller takes the stand again we can ask him about that. "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." AE I take what Albert is saying is that the reason educated people are religious is because the data points to at least a starting intelligence- as it should if there were one. Newton understood it- that "God's" work was not only detectable but also understandable. Actually to him the design was most likely so obvious from the start that he just set out to understand it. With the technology (& limitations) he had I would say he did a pretty good job.Joseph
August 8, 2006
August
08
Aug
8
08
2006
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PST
Charlie thanks for the link. I realised I had inadvertantly changed the subject from 'why theistic evolutionists can accept evolution' to why theistic evolutionists don't like ID. It seems that it comes down to a theological difference more than anything else, where a theistic evolutionist would not expect and act of creation by God to be distuinguishable form natural processes because they amount to the same thing. And so accepting God guided evolution does not make them ID supporters because ID supporters claim that the design is detectable whereas theistic evolutionists do not.Chris Hyland
August 8, 2006
August
08
Aug
8
08
2006
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PST
"Now, perhaps you can answer my questions..."
I know what the (alleged) evidence is. And again, why, in ALL the generations of primates, hasn’t this event repeated itself? Or why hasn’t this type of event happened to other chromosomes in the human lineage?
(1) It almost certainly has, but didn't become fixed in the population. (2) See number 1.
Perhaps they just “look like” centromeres and telomeres. Myself I would wait until we understood the genome a little better before I jump to any conclusion.
You're right, we should probably wait until both the human and chimp genomes have been sequenced.HodorH
August 8, 2006
August
08
Aug
8
08
2006
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PST
Ofro: I think that you have a basic misunderstanding of “prediction” and testing in science. Could be but I doubt it. Ofro: You are restricting the concept hypothesis testing to an experiment that is done in the laboratory. Not at all. That thought never crossed my mind. All I said is that we should be able to go into the lab and reproduce this event. If we cannot then all we have is speculation. Or is this another 1 TIME ONLY EVENT? What did the alleged fusion of 2 chromosomes to make the human chromosome 2 alter? IOW what change did that fusion afford the organism? We need to know that to understand why/ how that particular event was conserved over illions of generations. To Olget, Thank you for the Robertsonian translocation. It pretty much tells me there is zero chance of this type of event becoming fixed in a population- that is unless the population is 1 or 2 individuals. HodorH: You didn’t answer the question. Please account for the multiple centromeres and the telomeric repeat region in between. Perhaps they just "look like" centromeres and telomeres. Myself I would wait until we understood the genome a little better before I jump to any conclusion. Now perhaps you can answer my questions...Joseph
August 8, 2006
August
08
Aug
8
08
2006
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PST
I do not believe that the origin and subsequent evolution of life will ever be explained as fundamental properties of organic matter. One or more intelligences far beyond our comprehension had to be involved. They are apparently no longer with us nor do they need to be. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonsstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PST
Scott, I agree completely. DaveScot has a little warning on the sidebar called "Put A Sock In It" which attempted to head off many of those questions. I'd like to see that section expanded to cover such things as this question about interventionism or the appeal to miracles.Charlie
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PST
Hi Chris, I understand that the theistic evolutionists' argument is not your own. Hopefully, using the quotes I provided, or reading the literature, they would realize that this:
they belive that God created all things and the methods he uses are inseperable from natural processes. The consequence of this is that we would not be able to scientifically prove that biological systems are designed.
is a non sequitur. The alleged consequence does not follow from the belief. For whether or not the acting out of intelligence entails an "extra-natural assembly" (already refuted with the Big Bang and front-loading scenarios offered above) or an alternative methodology you could point them to the source of the Van Till rebuttal http://www.meta-library.net/id-wd/natur-body.html.Charlie
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PST
I'm not trying to refute ID I'm just trying to explain why several evangelicals I have spoken to don't like it. Perhaps I could put it another way: they belive that God created all things and the methods he uses are inseperable from natural processes. The consequence of this is that we would not be able to scientifically prove that biological systems are designed. Another designer of course could have intervened in which case you might be able to.Chris Hyland
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PST
And Charlie alludes to another observation that has been on my mind... namely, that 98% of the issues raised on this blog which are presented as solid rebuttals to ID, have already been addressed by Dembski at http://www.designinference.com and in my opinion, effectively dispelled. I think that many critics of ID need to spend some quality time reading ID literature. It would save them a lot of time, I think.Scott
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PST
Charlie did a long and better job than I was going to in responding to Chris Hyland's post: basically the theistic evolutionist mistakenly believes/assumes that ID separates biology into systems which WERE designed and ones which were not. This is simply untrue. It distinguishes, as a necessary limitation of our capacities, between systems in which the design inference can clearly be made, and those in which it cannot clearly be made. A weakness of the capacity to infer, not an implication about what is designed.tinabrewer
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PST
Sorry, I didn't realize that was so spamaliciously large. Apologies as well for the first broken blockquote.Charlie
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PST
Chris Hyland re:#43 If you get a chance you might recommend those theistic evolutionists read Dembski's or Behe's work to disabuse them of the notion that ID requires a "tinkerer". Until they actually confront the work they may not realize they are tilting at windmills. Dembski: For a designing intelligence to make a discernible difference in the emergence of some organism, however, seems to Miller (theistic evolutionist) to require that an intelligence intervened at specific times and places to bring about that organism and thus again seems to require some form of special creation. This in turn raises the question: How often and at what places did a designing intelligence intervene in the course of natural history to produce those biological structures that are beyond the power of material mechanisms? Thus, according to Miller, intelligent design draws an unreasonable distinction between material mechanisms and designing intelligences, claiming that material mechanisms are fine most of the time but then on rare (or perhaps not so rare) occasions a designing intelligence is required to get over some hump that material mechanisms can't quite manage. Hence Miller's reference to "an outside designer violat[ing] the very laws of nature he had fashioned." As I've pointed out to Miller on more than one occasion, this criticism is misconceived. The proper question is not how often or at what places a designing intelligence intervenes but rather at what points do signs of intelligence first become evident. Intelligent design therefore makes an epistemological rather than ontological point. To understand the difference, imagine a computer program that outputs alphanumeric characters on a computer screen. The program runs for a long time and throughout that time outputs what look like random characters. Then abruptly the output changes and the program outputs the most sublime poetry. Now, at what point did a designing intelligence intervene in the output of the program? Clearly, this question misses the mark because the program is deterministic and simply outputs whatever the program dictates. Intelligent design is not a theory about the frequency or locality at which a designing intelligence intervenes in the material world. It is not an interventionist theory at all. Indeed, intelligent design is perfectly compatible with all the design in the world being front-loaded in the sense that all design was introduced at the beginning (say at the Big Bang) and then came to expression subsequently over the course of natural history much as a computer program's output becomes evident only when the program is run. This actually is an old idea, and one that Charles Babbage, the inventor of the digital computer, explored in the 1830s in his Ninth Bridgewater Treatise (thus predating Darwin's Origin of Species by twenty years).  http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm "Indeed, intelligent design is perfectly compatible with all the design in the world coming to expression by the ordinary means of secondary causes over the course of natural history, much as a computer program's output comes to expression by running the program (and thus without monkeying with the program's operation). ... Physical necessity can also be the carrier of teleology through laws of form that channel evolution along preset paths. ... Even a non-Darwinian form of selection and variation can accommodate teleology, provided variations are under intelligent control or the environment is carefully fine-tuned by an intelligence to select for appropriate variations. ... Intelligent design's only concern is that secondary causes leave room for teleology and that this teleology be empirically detectable. ... Indeed there are forms of telelogical evolution that are entirely compatible with intelligent design and that involve no break in secondary causes." (from The Design Inference). TO VAN TILL (once a theistic evolutionist) Dembski:
Likewise, should a designer, who for both Van Till and me is God, act to bring about a bacterial flagellum, there is no reason prima facie to suppose that this designer did not act consistently with natural laws. It is, for instance, a logical possibility that the design in the bacterial flagellum was front-loaded into the universe at the Big Bang and subsequently expressed itself in the course of natural history as a miniature outboard motor on the back of E. Coli.
Behe says
“it is entirely possible, based simply upon an examination of the systems themselves, that they were designed billions of years ago and that they have been passed down to the present by the normal processes of cellular reproduction. ... Suppose that nearly 4 BYA the designer made the first cell, already containing the IC biomechanical systems discussed here and many others.” “But how could biochemical systems have been designed? Did they have to be created from scratch in a puff of smoke? No. The design process may have been much more subtle. It may have involved no contravening of natural laws....Well, then, as Ken Miller points out in his book, Finding Darwin’s God, a subtle God could cause mutations by influencing quantum events such as radioactive decay, something that I would call guided evolution. That seems perfectly possible to me. I would only add, however, that that process would amount to intelligent design, not Darwinian evolution.“ “subscribing to a theory of intelligent design does not necessarily commit one to “miracles.” At least no more than thinking that the laws of nature were designed by God--a view, as we’ve seen, condoned by the National Academy of Sciences (National Academy of Sciences 1999). In either case one could hold that the information for the subsequent unfolding of life was present at the very start of the universe, with no subsequent “intervention” required from outside of nature. In one case, the information is present just in general laws.“
Charlie
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PST
Suits me perfectly, ofro. I have no problem with that timeframe. Our understanding of time is a limited linear perception anyways.Scott
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PST
Chris Hyland Einstein suffered from no ambiguity about the cause of EVERYTHING which is what permitted him to say: "Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control." I will stick with Einstein myself. How anyone can still support the most failed hypothesis in the history of science can only be explained by another of his remarkable insights. "Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting are not free but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion." How else can we explain the debate that continues to plague this as so many other forums now as in the past. Our political convictions which include the Darwinian model, like our convictions about a Creator, are just as determined as our eye color. Just as William Wright has so carefully documented in his book with the self-explanatory title "Born That Way," so every other aspect of our world view is highly biased from the moment of conception. To what extent these hereditary biases can be reversed remains problematical. That they profoundly influence our biopolitics does not. "Every boy and every girl, That is born into the world alive, Is either a little liberal, Or else a little conservative" Gilbert and Sullivan, Iolanthe, 1882. Einstein was three at the time. That which IS determined most certainly WAS determined which, in a nutshell, is the essence of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. If only others could join with Robert Broom, Julian Huxley, Pierre Grasse and myself in realizing that evolution is finished, everything would fall in place and Darwinism would instantly become but a footnote, right next to the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics. Ether (E), Selection (S), Phlogiston (P), ESP, extrasensory perception indeed, all nothing but figments of an overactive human imagination. The same can be said for Darwinian mysticism. It is hard to believe isn't it? "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PST
Correction: sometime between 7 million years ago and now.ofro
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PST
1 2 3

Leave a Reply