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
Scott, "Makes one wonder if perhaps the event was prescribed. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…" Maybe the event was prescribed (perhaps 13.5 Billion years ago?), but I can tell you when the prescription must have been filled in the Big Pharmacy of Evolution: sometime between 3.4 and 7 million years ago.ofro
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Joseph, I think that you have a basic misunderstanding of "prediction" and testing in science. You are restricting the concept hypothesis testing to an experiment that is done in the laboratory. Testing is subjecting an existing object or process to a test that has never been done before. In our specific case, there are specific predictions/hypotheses about human Chromosome 2 that can be set up and tested for their validity. With the general precaution that a scientific test in general can only disprove but not prove a hypothesis, the observations I pointed towards in my previous post answer these hypotheses. That is not just alleged evidence.ofro
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
Chromosome 2 could be the result of fusion, however just saying “it looks like two chromosomes fused” is not a scientific explanation. Or if it is saying organisms look designed should be scientific enough for ID to enter the science classroom. You didn't answer the question. Please account for the multiple centromeres and the telomeric repeat region in between. The apparent fusion could be an intentional design- a design we do not curreently comprehend. Just like we do not yet comprehend what makes an organism what it is… Of course the fusion was an intentional design, as it was necessary for the rise of humanity. Further major chromosomal modifications are unlikely, as His Plan has largely been achieved with the creation of humanity.HodorH
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
Joseph, I think you are mistaken. It is known that in humans chromosomes can sometimes fuse together without causing too many problems. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertsonian_translocationolegt
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
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?
Makes one wonder if perhaps the event was prescribed. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... ;)Scott
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
Ofro: Perhaps he original word choice of “predicted” should have been “hypothesized”, although in the vernacular of this blog these two are nearly synonymous. Chromosome 2 fusion was neither predicted nor hypothesized. The hypothesis of how Chromosome 2 came to be occurred AFTER it was discovered. Ofro: With this minor semantic correction, the basic statement that the hypothesis/prediction was proven experimentally, is correct. Really? Someone went into a lab and actually fused the two chromosomes?> Or is it more of what has been presented? 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?Joseph
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
I think the problem stems form the fact that ID appears to sepereate things out into systems that were caused by intelligence and those that weren't, or to put it another way systems that natural processes could produce and those that it couldn't. Theistic evolutionists (or at least the ones I've spoken to about it) would say that there is no distinction as God created all things, and they would not be detectable as the actions of an 'agency' unless it was some kind of miracle, because under normal circumstances God creates using the natural processes that he created. So the only ID claim that the idea of a tinkerer God comes form is that the systems he created can be distinguished from those that he didn't. If you are making no assumptions about the designer though then the design may or may not be detectable depending and the process and nature of the design.Chris Hyland
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
Chris Hyland: I think you did a nice job of interpreting theistic evolutionist's views. Your restatement made clear two of the basic flaws in their reasoning. One, they falsely assume a "tinkerer"-god as being the intelligent agent in ID. No such luck. In fact, ID has no quarrel with a whole field of options in this regard, and only concerns itself with detecting design, not describing the designer. Two, theistic evolutionists also think that ID necessarily implies God violating his own laws of nature in order to create life forms. For them, it is law or nothing (unless it is a Biblical miracle) This is a false choice: agency can act within the bounds of law to build up complexity, and this action in no way violates the laws themselves.tinabrewer
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
There is no question that our chromosome 2 represents either a fusion of the two chromosomes or that the two chomosomes resulted from a dissociation of chromosome 2. No other interpretations are even conceivable. The former is the most probable. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
#27 Joseph said: “That was not predicted.” [that one of the Human Chromosomes (#2) is two Chimp chromosomes fused together]. “Do you have ANY way to test your claim? I say you do not.” Perhaps he original word choice of “predicted” should have been “hypothesized”, although in the vernacular of this blog these two are nearly synonymous. With this minor semantic correction, the basic statement that the hypothesis/prediction was proven experimentally, is correct. The hypothesis was that two precursor chromosomes, which have their nearly identical counterparts in chimpanzee, orang utan and gorilla genomes, fused into one new chromosome (modern human chromosome 2). One of the supporting observations is that telomeric elements, which are normally the endcaps of the chromosomes, are found not too far from the proposed fusion site in Chr2. For the original work and still more experimental demonstrations see www.fhcrc.org/science/labs/trask/subtelomeres/ and http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pp.pres.htmlofro
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
On Human chromosome 2: HodorH: Do you have an alternative explanation for the existance of two centromeres and a telomeric region between the two? Why, in all these generations of chimps and other primates, hasn't that fusion event repeated? Have we gone into a lab and tried to manually fuse the two? Chromosome 2 could be the result of fusion, however just saying "it looks like two chromosomes fused" is not a scientific explanation. Or if it is saying organisms look designed should be scientific enough for ID to enter the science classroom. The apparent fusion could be an intentional design- a design we do not curreently comprehend. Just like we do not yet comprehend what makes an organism what it is...Joseph
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
#22 bFast said: "The enigma of first life is so far only explained by divine intervention." Didn't you mean to say "intelligent intervention"?ofro
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
There is no evidence for a living God so why should one be assumed? Nevertheless, one or more Gods must have existed to account for the origin and subsequent evolution of life. The scientist is not supposed to make any more assumptions than are absoloutely necessary to account for a phenomenon. That is exactly all that I have done with the PEH. What we must find is a mechanism which seeks an internally contained goal by internal preformed devices. Avida, has proven to be useless. I would like to see a model in which the ultimate goal is contained in the program because that is precisely what I am convinced is required. No computer program can be creative through chance. The program utilized by ontogeny must be very similar to the one which was used by phylogeny and the answers will be found there. That internally contained goal has been realized with the formation of the most recent mammalian species to appear - Homo sapiens. That is just one of my several unanswered challenges to the Darwinian myth. Creative evolution is a phenomenon of the past, just as Grasse suggested in a message I posted elsewhere here. To continue blindly to assume that evolution is still in progress is without either merit or demonstration. Extinction is all that can be documented. "Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of per-existing rudiments," Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 406 If only he had used the past tense! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
"how can God use a process if the process is undirected, has no goal, and serves no ultimate purpose? I quoted earlier the scientists who said NDE means just that. Others have said the same thing." I am not an expert on these matters so I can only go on what people have told me, which is that God isn't some external entity who occasionally shows up and tinkers with things but is infact omnipresent, and all natural processes are the result of his will. "So then, you’re saying that theistic evolutionists base their worldviews on a hunch or what?" I'm sure theistic base their worldviews on the same things as most religious people, but their religious beliefs are seperate from science. I'm sure if large scale phylum level macroevolution could be demonstrated somehow for example, the religious people on this board wouldn't become atheists. "Does Collins have no evidence for this worldview of his? If it contradicts the facts as even himself sees them- doesn’t that make him a fool?" Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers think so, I dont. I suspect that to a religous person science is an uplifting and affirming experience of discovering the wonder of God's creation and I think this is what Collins says. But that's different from saying you can scientifically prove God. "But, the canned answer is always the same- ‘well, it’s evidence (to them), but the evidence isn’t “scientific,” so it’s nothing like ID.’" Im sure science is a wonderful affirmation of your faith if you believe in God but I don't think they are claiming they can scientifically prove he exists.Chris Hyland
August 7, 2006
August
08
Aug
7
07
2006
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT
ORGANIC LIFE beneath the shoreless waves Was born and nurs'd in ocean's pearly caves; First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass, Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass; These, as successive generations bloom, New powers acquire and larger limbs assume; Whence countless groups of vegetation spring, And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing. ~ Erasmus Darwin It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. ~ Charles Darwin If it is ever found that life can originate on this world, the vital phenomena will come under some general law of nature. ~ Charles Darwin The principle of continuity renders it probable that the principle of life will hereafter be shown to be a part, or consequence of some general law. ~ Charles Darwinbevets
August 6, 2006
August
08
Aug
6
06
2006
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT
So then, you're saying that theistic evolutionists base their worldviews on a hunch or what? This is what often confuses me when a TE rejects ID. Take Francis Collins, for example- he says that God created life and used NDE as the process by which his final creation (man) came about. Now, this makes no sense to me- how can God use a process if the process is undirected, has no goal, and serves no ultimate purpose? I quoted earlier the scientists who said NDE means just that. Others have said the same thing. Does Collins have no evidence for this worldview of his? If it contradicts the facts as even himself sees them- doesn't that make him a fool? Doesn't it make guys like Miller fools? Maybe they and others say God guided evolution to get to man (the pinnacle), but how do they get to this idea? If there's no scientific evidence, in their view, to get there- what sort of evidence is it? I can't see any evidence, in this regard, outside of scientific evidence that would make sense, especially to a scientist. In the end, wouldn't this all mean that guys like Miller and Collins and many others accept undirected, purposeless Darwinism, then suddenly (somehow) throw in "God guided it" into it all? Doesn't that make them guilty of the God of the Gaps fallacy? I don't think that one would be a fool to say that God guided various processes. But, the canned answer is always the same- 'well, it's evidence (to them), but the evidence isn't "scientific," so it's nothing like ID.' Well, if we're talking about a prominent scientist who accepts whatever evidence he sees existing, but files it under "evidence that doesn't fall under the category of 'science'"- I find that a bit perplexing to say the least.JasonTheGreek
August 6, 2006
August
08
Aug
6
06
2006
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
“Why do I waste my time?” Because a past evolution is unsupported by the evidence, and a present evolution indemonstrable.Emkay
August 6, 2006
August
08
Aug
6
06
2006
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
"Why do I waste my time?" Because you love it so?HodorH
August 6, 2006
August
08
Aug
6
06
2006
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
Why do I waste my time?John A. Davison
August 6, 2006
August
08
Aug
6
06
2006
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
"Unfortunately, this means that even guys like Miller, who think that God used the process of NDE to bring us about as part of his plan, isn’t a true scientist himself." Miller can belive that God guided evolution if he likes. What makes him a theistic evolutionist and not an ID supporter is that he says that this cannot be scientifically proven. The evangelicals I know belive that God causes the grass to grow, but that doesn't mean we can scientifically attribute an intelligence to the process.Chris Hyland
August 6, 2006
August
08
Aug
6
06
2006
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
Here are some firm predictions fully justified by our present knowledge. 1. Creative evolution is no longer in progress. 2. Allelic mutation had nothing to do with it. 3. Natural selection had nothing to do with it. 4. Sexual reproduction had nothing to do with it. 5. Mendelian genetics had nothing to do with it 6. Population genetics had nothing to do with it. Creative evolution (phylogeny) resulted, exactly as ontogeny does today, through the controlled release of preformed information, a release in which the only conceivable role for the environment was that of acting as a simple stimulus for that release. Ontogeny and phylogeny are elements of the same reproductive continuum. Only the former persists. The death of the individual corresponds precisely with the death of the species (extinction) which is all that can presently be documented. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 6, 2006
August
08
Aug
6
06
2006
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
"That was not predicted. Also just because “it looks like” the two fused does not mean they did. That is like saying because organisms look designed they were." Joseph, Do you have an alternative explanation for the existance of two centromeres and a telomeric region between the two?HodorH
August 6, 2006
August
08
Aug
6
06
2006
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
MikeFNQ: For example with the conclusion of the Human and Chimp Genome Projects we have confirmed that one of the Human Chromosomes (#2) is two Chimp chromosomes fused together, as predicted. That was not predicted. Also just because "it looks like" the two fused does not mean they did. That is like saying because organisms look designed they were. NOTE: "Predictions from common descant should NOT be confused with "predictions" from evolutionism. Do you have ANY way to test your claim? I say you do not. MikeFNQ: You and Bobo the chimp are distant cousins. Just saying it does NOT make it so. There are many differences in which evolutionists cannot explain: Account for the DIFFERENCES chimps v. humanJoseph
August 6, 2006
August
08
Aug
6
06
2006
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
By the way: one can obviously use this quote and others from the paper itself to ask other Darwinists why they claim that random doesn't mean undirected, when these scientists say that UNDIRECTED is the CORE BASIS for the theory of evolution. Theistic evolutionists beware- you are violating the CORE BASIS of evolution!JasonTheGreek
August 6, 2006
August
08
Aug
6
06
2006
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT
Offtopic, but, this paper and press release linked from idthefuture says a lot about the mindset of so many. from the paper that claims pseudogenes are INDEED relics of mutations:
There are approximately 20,000 pseudogenes in the human and other mammalian genomes. In recent years, there has been growing discussion about the nature of these pseudogenes. The issue centers on whether pseudogenes are functional or merely evolutionary relics with no function. It was long believed by geneticists that they were relics, until basic science research published in 2003 found a mouse pseudogene located within the Makorin family of genes that did have a function, namely to cause polycystic kidney disease and a bone disease known as osteogenesis imperfecta. This finding, discovered in a mouse model, was hailed by proponents of “Intelligent Design” (ID). According to the Intelligent Design Network, the premise of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a disagreement with the core scientific basis of evolutionary theory.
Acording to these scientists- the theory of evolution is DEFINED as a process that is wholly undirected. Unfortunately, this means that even guys like Miller, who think that God used the process of NDE to bring us about as part of his plan, isn't a true scientist himself. Why can't Darwinists make up their minds? One day, I hear that evolution is random, but that random doesn't mean the same in science as is does in regular everyday use. That evolution isn't necessarily undirected or purposeless outside of death and survival of those rising above the others to merely spread purposeless genes. Then the next day, I hear that this is PRECISELY what NDE means. That NDE DOES equal a pointless and undirected process. And, of course, undirected processes, by their nature, have no goal or purpose. I wonder when everyone on the other side of this debate can get their stories straight? I guess they can't create websites with priests holding bibles, shaking the hands of Darwinists [as the tax payer funded Berkeley website did] if they come out and fully admit that NDE means a pointless, purposeless, and wholly undirected process.JasonTheGreek
August 6, 2006
August
08
Aug
6
06
2006
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
Ah yes, I now recall this post by Bill Dembski last May: Sorry, kids but you're just too stupid
Andre Gumbel writes: Another manifestation of the misdirection of the ID movement is the ludicrous notion that high schools are the appropriate venue for intricate debate about the finer points of evolutionary science. Any public school science teacher will tell you it’s already a minor miracle if a 16-year-old can accurately summarize The Origin of Species....The only reason for raising such questions before state education authorities is not to deepen the scientific understanding of teenagers but rather to sow deliberate confusion.
So it appears that some anti-IDists would recoil at the thought of students reading any poart of Origin of Species.scordova
August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT
"the second point is that scordova’s quote still stands. The puzzle of abiogeneis has not been solved to any scientist’s standard that I know of. The enigma of first life is so far only explained by divine intervention." And as we've pointed out before, there is a lot in evolutionary theory that rests on abiogenesis.johnnyb
August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT
Comrade:
This is why you ought not to call people who believe in evolution “Darwinists.” I doubt anyone considers him- or herself a “follower of Darwin” the way Christians are supposed to be followers of Christ.
A number 1, there are people who follow Darwin with a religious ferver -- Dawkins, Dennett etc. They do no consider Darwin's words to be sacrosanct, which I believe is your point, but they follow their leader with unwaivering love. 2 B, the second point is that scordova's quote still stands. The puzzle of abiogeneis has not been solved to any scientist's standard that I know of. The enigma of first life is so far only explained by divine intervention. Thirdly, the big bang, with all of its precision, is also a riddle that seems best answered with a three letter word that starts with G, a word that best not be mentioned in an American science class.bFast
August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT
idnet.com.au, Are you perhaps from the humanities? In that world, people are often Kantians,Thomists,Marxists,etc. In the sciences, we generally detach the research program from the people that orginated them. Successful research programs/paradigms frequently grow and develop considerably, both in their sophistication and the accumulation of associated data, after they are first introduced. I am not a Watson-Crickian because I accept the double-helix structure of DNA. You asked, then who do they follow? We strive to find and adhere to those models of the world that are most fruitful in generating comprehensive understanding resulting in accurate predictions about hitherto unobserved things. We will mix and match theories from all sorts of folks--if that's what it takes. When trying to grasp what happened in the past, when analyzing genomic sequences, bones, etc, evolutionary theory is the only framework with a track record that we have to work with. Certainly there are holes, there are inconsistencies, but a lot of things have also been dead on accurate. For example, during my graduate work, I came across a solid piece of data concerning human genetics that appeared completely inconsistent with evolutionary theory. I wrestled with this for some time not knowing what to think. Everything else made sense. Having witnessed the power and success of ET regarding other predictions, I was reluctant to abandon the theory even in the face of conflicting data. Instead, I racked my brain until I finally came up with a *specific* scenario that would make the observed data possible via evolutionary processes. It required there be a rare genetic feature immediately adjacent to the genomic region that I was analyzing. So I went back and looked at the data for the flanking region, and there it was. That's the power of the reseach paradigm. While I understand there remain many open questions about the generation of biological complexity, etc, such experiences as a biologist are why my allegiance is to evolutionary theory. Not to Darwin, Haldane, Wright, Fisher, etc..great_ape
August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT
The biology teacher around the corner can't elucidate ID in the class, though the philosophy or humanities teacher can. Anything's open to debate in philosophy. Going over textbooks is not teaching, veering off course is.idadvisors
August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply