Intelligent Design

Pack your bags the “truth” is out!

Spread the love

“Creationist” Perspectives p37-45 selections from Science Evolution and Creationism NAP 2008 

“A creationist is someone who rejects natural scientific explanations of the known universe in favour of special creation by a supernatural entity. Many believers as well as many mainstream religious groups accept the findings of science, including evolution.

(Creationists) want to replace scientific explanations with their own religion’s supernatural accounts of physical phenomena.

Views of creationists typically have been promoted by small groups of politically active religious fundamentalists who believe that only a supernatural entity could account for the physical changes in the universe and for the biological diversity of life on Earth.

Old Earth creationists accept that the Earth may be very old but reject other scientific findings regarding the evolution of living things.

No scientific evidence supports these viewpoints.

The claim that the fossil record is “full of gaps” that undermine evolution is simply false.

The sequence of fossils across Earth’s sediments points unambiguously towards the occurrence of evolution.

Scientific conclusions are not limited to direct observation but often depend on inferences that are made by applying reason to observations.

The transitional forms that have been found in abundance since Darwin’s time reveal how species continually give rise to successor species that over time produce radically changed body forms and functions.

Science cannot test supernatural possibilities. To young earth creationists, no amount of empirical evidence that the Earth is billions of years old is likely to refute their claim that the world is actually young but that God simply made it appear to be old.

Intelligent design” creationism is not supported by scientific evidence. They argue that certain biological features are so complex that they could not have evolved through processes of undirected mutation and natural selection, a condition they call “irreducible complexity”, that the probability of all their components being produced and simultaneously available through random processes of mutation are infinitesimally small.

The claims of intelligent design creationists are disproven by the findings of modern biology. Biologists have examined each of the molecular systems claimed to be the products of design and have shown how they could have arisen through natural processes.

Even if their negative arguments against evolution were correct, that would not establish the creationists’ claims. There are many alternative explanations. Science requires testable evidence for a hypothesis, not just challenges against one’s opponents. Intelligent design is not a scientific concept because it cannot be empirically tested.

If there were serious problems in evolutionary science, many scientists would be eagre to win fame by being the first to provide a better testable alternative.

The arguments of creationists reverse the scientific process. They begin with an explanation that they are unwilling to alter – that supernatural forces have shaped biological or Earth systems – rejecting the basic requirements of science that hypotheses must be restricted to testable natural explanations.

If intelligent design creationism were to be discussed in public school, then Hindu, Islamic, Native American, and other non-Christian creationist views, as well as mainstream religious views that are compatible with science, also should be discussed.”

45 Replies to “Pack your bags the “truth” is out!

  1. 1
    Mats says:

    Wow! That sure puts those evil creationists in their place!

  2. 2
    idnet.com.au says:

    “Scientific conclusions are not limited to direct observation but often depend on inferences that are made by applying reason to observations.

    However the basic requirements of science is that hypotheses must be restricted to testable natural explanations.”

    Thus there may be intelligent design detectable in biological systems but it is excluded from science by definition. How convenient.

  3. 3

    “Science requires testable evidence for a hypothesis, not just challenges against one’s opponents.”

    And how exactly could we test/falsify Random Mutation + Natural Selection as a mechanism?

    These statements say more about their philosophical beliefs than science per se.

  4. 4
    Frost122585 says:

    geoffrobinson you are absolutely correect- that is the dirty little secret of DE- it is a religion.

  5. 5
    shaner74 says:

    “The transitional forms that have been found in abundance since Darwin’s time reveal how species continually give rise to successor species that over time produce radically changed body forms and functions.”

    Holy cr*p! What a load of propaganda. So is darwinisam “officially” a religion now? Sounds like they’ve just released the official creed of their church.

  6. 6
    Gerry Rzeppa says:

    One side says, “The transitional forms that have been found in abundance since Darwin’s time reveal how species continually give rise to successor species that over time produce radically changed body forms and functions.” – from quote above

    The other side says, “The fossil record doesn’t support the Darwinian claim that the major taxonomic groups are connected to one another by biological descent. There is, for instance, no gradual series of fossils leading from fish to amphibians, or from reptiles to birds.” – The Design of Life, page 64

    Looks to me like someone is just plain lying.

  7. 7

    I wouldn’t say either side is lying. But someone is wrong.

  8. 8
    Gerry Rzeppa says:

    “I wouldn’t say either side is lying. But someone is wrong.”

    A lie is an intentional deception. Either we’ve got the 50,000 or so transitional fossils between a hippo and a whale, or we don’t. Somebody needs to ‘fess us.

  9. 9

    Sometimes the person you lie to is yourself. But you may do something to show you don’t believe it deep down in your own heart. See an old blog entry of mine: http://geoffreyrobinson.blogsp.....lieve.html

  10. 10
    Bob O'H says:

    idnet.com.au – any chance of you using blockquotes for this? It’s less confusing to follow who wrote what – I was about to congratulate you on admitting “The claims of intelligent design creationists are disproven by the findings of modern biology”!

    Bob

  11. 11
    kairosfocus says:

    H’mm:

    A few “proper[ly] peer review[ed]” — and long since well known in fact — “facts” . . .

    The Cambrian explosion represents a remarkable jump in the specified complexity or “complex specified information” (CSI) of the biological world. For over three billions years, the biological realm included little more than bacteria and algae (Brocks et al. 1999). Then, beginning about 570-565 million years ago (mya), the first complex multicellular organisms appeared in the rock strata, including sponges, cnidarians, and the peculiar Ediacaran biota (Grotzinger et al. 1995). Forty million years later, the Cambrian explosion occurred (Bowring et al. 1993) . . . One way to estimate the amount of new CSI that appeared with the Cambrian animals is to count the number of new cell types that emerged with them (Valentine 1995:91-93) . . . the more complex animals that appeared in the Cambrian (e.g., arthropods) would have required fifty or more cell types . . . New cell types require many new and specialized proteins. New proteins, in turn, require new genetic information. Thus an increase in the number of cell types implies (at a minimum) a considerable increase in the amount of specified genetic information. Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex single-celled organism would require between 318 and 562 kilobase pairs of DNA to produce the proteins necessary to maintain life (Koonin 2000). More complex single cells might require upward of a million base pairs. Yet to build the proteins necessary to sustain a complex arthropod such as a trilobite would require orders of magnitude more coding instructions. The genome size of a modern arthropod, the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, is approximately 180 million base pairs (Gerhart & Kirschner 1997:121, Adams et al. 2000). Transitions from a single cell to colonies of cells to complex animals represent significant (and, in principle, measurable) increases in CSI . . . .

    In order to explain the origin of the Cambrian animals, one must account not only for new proteins and cell types, but also for the origin of new body plans . . . Mutations in genes that are expressed late in the development of an organism will not affect the body plan. Mutations expressed early in development, however, could conceivably produce significant morphological change (Arthur 1997:21) . . . [but] processes of development are tightly integrated spatially and temporally such that changes early in development will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes downstream. For this reason, mutations will be much more likely to be deadly if they disrupt a functionally deeply-embedded structure such as a spinal column than if they affect more isolated anatomical features such as fingers (Kauffman 1995:200) . . . McDonald notes that genes that are observed to vary within natural populations do not lead to major adaptive changes, while genes that could cause major changes–the very stuff of macroevolution–apparently do not vary. In other words, mutations of the kind that macroevolution doesn’t need (namely, viable genetic mutations in DNA expressed late in development) do occur, but those that it does need (namely, beneficial body plan mutations expressed early in development) apparently don’t occur.6

    And, some more:

    . . . we are literally surrounded by ‘living fossils’ in the present world of organisms when applying the term more inclusively as “an existing species whose similarity to ancient ancestral species indicates that very few morphological changes have occurred over a long period of geological time” [85] . . . . Now, since all these “old features”, morphologically as well as molecularly, are still with us, the basic genetical questions should be addressed in the face of all the dynamic features of ever reshuffling and rearranging, shifting genomes, (a) why are these characters stable at all and (b) how is it possible to derive stable features from any given plant or animal species by mutations in their genomes? . . . .

    A first hint for answering the questions . . . is perhaps also provided by Charles Darwin himself when he suggested the following sufficiency test for his theory [16]: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” [NB: BTW, he here actually privileges his theory beyond reasonable empir5ical test if his words are taken at face value!] . . . Biochemist Michael J. Behe [5] has refined Darwin’s statement by introducing and defining his concept of “irreducibly complex systems”, specifying: “By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning” . . . [for example] (1) the cilium, (2) the bacterial flagellum with filament, hook and motor embedded in the membranes and cell wall and (3) the biochemistry of blood clotting in humans . . . .

    One point is clear: granted that there are indeed many systems and/or correlated subsystems in biology, which have to be classified as irreducibly complex and that such systems are essentially involved in the formation of morphological characters of organisms, this would explain both, the regular abrupt appearance of new forms in the fossil record as well as their constancy over enormous periods of time. For, if “several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function” are necessary for biochemical and/or anatomical systems to exist as functioning systems at all (because “the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning”) such systems have to (1) originate in a non-gradual manner and (2) must remain constant as long as they are reproduced and exist. And this could mean no less than the enormous time periods mentioned for all the living fossils hinted at above. Moreover, an additional phenomenon would also be explained: (3) the equally abrupt disappearance of so many life forms in earth history . . . The reason why irreducibly complex systems would also behave in accord with point (3) is also nearly self-evident: if environmental conditions deteriorate so much for certain life forms (defined and specified by systems and/or subsystems of irreducible complexity), so that their very existence be in question, they could only adapt by integrating further correspondingly specified and useful parts into their overall organization, which prima facie could be an improbable process — or perish . . . .

    According to Behe and several other authors [5-7, 21-23, 53-60, 68, 86] the only adequate hypothesis so far known for the origin of irreducibly complex systems is intelligent design (ID) . . . in connection with Dembski’s criterion of specified complexity . . . . “For something to exhibit specified complexity therefore means that it matches a conditionally independent pattern (i.e., specification) of low specificational complexity, but where the event corresponding to that pattern has a probability less than the universal probability bound and therefore high probabilistic complexity” [23]. For instance, regarding the origin of the bacterial flagellum, Dembski calculated a probability of 10^-234[22].

    Geoff, i don’t think i t is just a question of merely being honestly ignorant. CD was hoping that the many transitional forms would show up as the state of he fossil record advanced.

    It is credible that with the many millions of fossils known and the hundreds of thousands of species so identified across all continents and a considerable cross-section of stratas, that we have a reasonably good cross and representative sample of the record. The net result is that there are probably fewer claimed transitinal forms today than there were in Darwin’s day. [For instance, this was part of he motivating context for punctuated equilibria as a theory of evolution.]

    And, let us never forget: CD was not happy with the state of the fossil record in his day, giving a promissory note on it.

    Time to call in the loan!

    GEM of TKI

  12. 12
    idnet.com.au says:

    Bob, none of it is mine. It is all from the book cited.

  13. 13
    Undesigned says:

    Gerry,
    There aren’t 50,000 fossils between hippos and whales, but there are 8 or 9 really telling ones between Indohyus and whales. Look it up. Hippos and whales are like humans and apes, evolved from similar, extinct species. Somehow… perhaps designed, perhaps not.

  14. 14
    DLH says:

    Polls on Origin Theories
    reveal only 26% accept evolution through natural selection. 63% believe an intelligent being was involved in origins (21% via guided evolution, 42% via other origin.)
    Religion and Science: Pew Research Center Aug. 24, 2006

    By contrast, in 1998, 7% NAS scientists believe in God while 72% disbelieve in God. 5.5% of NAS Biologists believe in God.
    National Academy of Science

    This 2008 NAS document clearly exhibits NAS biases of a priori excluding what they do not believe possible in their definition of a closed science.

    Now that the obviously minority report has been published, it is time to write the majority report. i.e., establish an “open science” that allows for intelligence rather than excluding it a priori.

  15. 15
    Joseph says:

    1-Can natural processes be responsible for the origin of nature seeing that natural processes only exist in nature? No.

    2- Intelligent Design is NOT Creation. Anyone who conflates the two is as ignorant as a rock.

    3- There isn’t any scientific data which demonstrates that transformations required (if all living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms) are even possible.

    4- Anti-IDists and anti-Creationists reverse the scientific process. They start with the premise there wasn’t a designing agency. IOW thet=y start and finish with matter and energy is all there is and all that is required.

    5- No IDist or Creationist argues that some biological features are so complex they could not have evolved through undirected processes.

    6- The age of the Earth depends directly on HOW it was formed.

    7- Bith IC and CSI are testable concepts. As a matter of fact several anti-IDists have claimed to not only have tested them but tested and refuted them. Go figure.

    8- Of the 50,000+ transitional forms that should have been between land mammals and cetaceans we only have a few.

    9- Marine inverts make up the bulk of the fossil record yet we do not see any evidence of universal common descent in that vast majority of fossils. The best anyone can muster is a barnicle “evolving” into a barnicle.

    10- Intelligent Design does not have any religious affiliation.

    This is great- anothr book which demonstrates why ID needs to be taught in schools. However it is obvious why people will oppose that- because if ID is taught then the lies about ID will be exposed.

  16. 16
    Gerry Rzeppa says:

    “There aren’t 50,000 fossils between hippos and whales, but there are 8 or 9 really telling ones between Indohyus and whales.” -undesigned

    If you’re expecting 50,000 of something and you only find 8 or 9, you’re looking at an anomaly, not a proof.

  17. 17
    Bob O'H says:

    5- No IDist or Creationist argues that some biological features are so complex they could not have evolved through undirected processes.

    Huh? I thought the principle claim of ID was that some biological features are so complex they could not have evolved through undirected processes.

    I’m now officially confused.

    Bob

  18. 18
    WinglesS says:

    “There aren’t 50,000 fossils between hippos and whales, but there are 8 or 9 really telling ones between Indohyus and whales. Look it up. Hippos and whales are like humans and apes, evolved from similar, extinct species. Somehow… perhaps designed, perhaps not.”

    I haven’t yet seen an alleged something to whale transitional fossil that actually looked somewhat like a whale at first glance. The “really telling ones between Indohyus and whales” are no exception. They aren’t really telling at all until someone decides to tell you that they are. It doesn’t even have a whale’s tail.

  19. 19
    CJYman says:

    BobO’H (17):

    No, it’s that “Only an evolutionary algorithm guided by problem specific information can account for highly improbable (beyond UPB — calculated by the max number of calculations performed by the system in question), algorithmically complex, and specified information.”

    You’ve been here long enough. You should know this by now. Or, were you merely being facetious?

  20. 20
    StephenB says:

    “A lie is an abomination in the sight of the Lord and an ever present help to Darwinists.”

  21. 21
    j says:

    Undesigned (13): “Hippos and whales are like humans and apes, evolved from similar, extinct species.

    Speaking of which:

    Ernst Mayr, late Professor Emeritus in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, in What Evolution Is (2001), pp. 238-9:

    One of the tasks of paleoanthropology is to reconstruct the sequence of changes from ape to man… Alas the reconstruction of the steps of hominization proved to be very difficult… It turned out to be quite impossible to establish the hoped for smooth continuity. This, of course, was largely due to the incompleteness of the fossil record, but not entirely so, and this is what was so disturbing. As we shall see, some fossil types were relatively common and widespread, such as Australopithecus africanus, A. afarensis, and Homo erectus, but they were seemingly separated by discontinuities from their nearest ancestors and descendants. This is particularly true for the break between Australopithecus and Homo.

    What is the Actual Fossil Evidence?

    Unfortunately, no hominid fossils — nor such of a fossil chimpanzee — are as yet known for the period between 6 and 13 mya [million years ago]. Thus there is no documentation of the branching event between the hominid and the chimpanzee lineages. To make matters worse, most hominid fossils are extremely incomplete. They may consist of part of a mandible, or only part of the extremities. Subjectivity is inevitable in the reconstruction of the missing parts…

  22. 22
    Matteo says:

    What can I rationally conclude about the falsifiability of a scientific proposition (NDE), if the very act of even beginning the attempt at a falsification results in slanderous vilification, ostracism, and career derailment?

  23. 23
    xcdesignproponentsists says:

    Matteo:

    What can I rationally conclude about the falsifiability of a scientific proposition (NDE), if the very act of even beginning the attempt at a falsification results in slanderous vilification, ostracism, and career derailment?

    Nothing. The falsifiability of any theory is not dependent on those things.

  24. 24
    Frost122585 says:

    Kairosfocus, your post at 11 was one of your best. Grate job!

  25. 25
    kairosfocus says:

    Frosty:

    I claim no originality on the stuff in 11.

    Most of it was direct excerpts from peer-reviewed articles by Meyer and Lonnig that for instance were placed before Judge “ACLU Copycat” Jones. He obviously never bothered to read them.

    The rest was a summary of the state of play on fossils that SHOULD be a commonplace . (That is why for instance ICR’s Duane Gish used to regularly trounce those who were unwise enough to debate him on the strength of the empirical evidence behind RV + NS, chance + necessity only macroevolution. Evo Mat, IMHCO can only “prevail” by stacking the deck/ begging worldview level questions/ censoring out alternatives on how the evidence is assessed, i.e so-called methodological naturalism.)

    GEM of TKI

  26. 26
    kairosfocus says:

    PS to XCD: You need to carefully read Plato’s Parable of the Cave.

  27. 27
    xcdesignproponentsists says:

    kairosfocus:

    PS to XCD: You need to carefully read Plato’s Parable of the Cave.

    Care to expand on what this has to do with falsifiability?

  28. 28
    ari-freedom says:

    Indohyus, hippos…I thought whales were supposed to come from mesonychids. Stop cherry picking the data before you start finding missing links in your grilled cheese sandwich.

  29. 29
    russ says:

    However the basic requirements of science is that hypotheses must be restricted to testable natural explanations.”

    Dave Scott once pointed out in so many words that the alternative to “natural” is not necessarily “supernatural” but “artificial”. I found this helpful.

  30. 30
    avocationist says:

    Hard to decide whether this person is more a liar or ignorant, if he thinks the below is a scary thought, or if he thinks that the dogmatic details of any creationist religion could conflict with intelligent design:

    “If intelligent design creationism were to be discussed in public school, then Hindu, Islamic, Native American, and other non-Christian creationist views, as well as mainstream religious views that are compatible with science, also should be discussed.”

  31. 31
    ari-freedom says:

    “Scientific conclusions are not limited to direct observation but often depend on inferences that are made by applying reason to observations.”

    reason that is the result of intelligent design or as an evolutionary survival strategy?

  32. 32
    Undesigned says:

    There are two camps regarding whale descent. One group suggests that artiodactyls and cetaceans are related taxa. Mesonychids are also candidates according to some. I’m not doing the cherry picking here… I’m just in the Indohyus’ camp. The skulls are too similar (Auditory Bulla and all that.) No grilled cheese involved… though that does sound yummy right now.

  33. 33
    Bob O'H says:

    CJYman @ 19 –

    No, it’s that “Only an evolutionary algorithm guided by problem specific information can account for highly improbable (beyond UPB — calculated by the max number of calculations performed by the system in question), algorithmically complex, and specified information.”

    But that would mean that some biological features are so complex they could not have evolved through undirected processes. But Joseph says that no IDer claims this.

    Can you see the problem? I suspect Joseph didn’t quite mean what he wrote.

    Bob

  34. 34
    CN says:

    #3 And how exactly could we test/falsify Random Mutation + Natural Selection as a mechanism?

    Isn’t this part of the Darwinist religion that CAN be tested?

    #13 Undesigned: So where are the photos of these fossils, nicely laid out for us to observe?

  35. 35
    ari-freedom says:

    #32

    I’m in the “this is just another mosaical critter” camp. There is no case for phylogeny here along with all of the other so-called transitional links that evolutionists like to put out.

    Common design, not common descent or lateral gene transfer.

  36. 36
    kairosfocus says:

    XCD, in 27:

    Have you ever considered that Science is an institution in a society and a culture — and in particular, a factionalised, often quarrelling, celebrity-oriented one?

    [E.g. It wasn’t so many years ago that a court finally settled a lawsuit between two C18 mathematicians, or more accurately, their families, after 200 years! Similarly, a more balanced reading of the tale of Galileo is that he over-claimed the promise of his inductive methods on capability to deliver big-T truth, and then unwisely and unjustifiably put a word of wisdom from a friend and defender into the mouth of Simplicio — so named for the obvious reason — in his Dialogue. The friend, by then the relevant pope, was not amused especially at a time when he had major geostrategic headaches to take on.]

    That science has paradigms and scientific revolutions — indeed, that is where this word entered our general vocabulary! — through paradigm shifts in which there is a massive conflict over not only the belt of theories but also the worldivews core assumptions and assertions of the relevant research programmes?

    So, the politics, power plays and worldview level assumptions, assertions and agendas of debate and power just may have something to do with how theories and schools of thought are rated or accepted or rejected or even persecuted at any given time.

    That means that falsifiable in the abstract principle may be subverted in the real world for a long time, with an associated track record of “abuses and usurpations” leaving in the wake of “progress” [to what?] a lot of unjustifiably shattered reputations and even careers.

    Hence, the telling relevance and force of Matteo’s remark in 22:

    What can I rationally conclude about the falsifiability of a scientific proposition (NDE), if the very act of even beginning the attempt at a falsification results in slanderous vilification, ostracism, and career derailment?

    Or do I need to say names stretching back decades — names like: Davidheiser, Kenyon, Bishop, Sternberg and Gonzalez . . . ? [Kindly spare us the “blame the victim” rhetorical games . . .]

    Thence, the relevance of the thinly veiled, cautionary story of Socrates’ demise at the time of a philosophical/ worldviews paradigm shift circa 400 BC that appears in Plato’s The Republic.

    [BTW In reading the story, take off the usual blinkers on the obvious manipulation of perceptions that is going on in the story — I am amazed at hoe often reviews of this story miss the deception and power agendas — doubtless, in the name of education and preserving good order and hope for enlightenment and progress — that are obviously involved!]

    Then, come back to the real world of addressing falsification as a criterion in science — which is BTW philosophically quite problematic, cf the Enc of Phil’s story on Popper on this as an intro! — and empirical testing in praxis.

    Indeed, you would probably also profit from reading here and (at a simpler level) here on issues on demarcation.

    GEM of TKI

  37. 37
    Patrick says:

    undesigned,

    Why can’t a thickened medial lip of the auditory bulla at the base of the skull be a case of convergent evolution or an instance of intelligently evolved modularity? Personally I’d give more weight to the other hypothesis (whose proponents say that the Indohyus was not a direct ancestor but instead part of a sister group that had a common ancestor with the direct ancestors of whales) for reasons already given here:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ology-not/

    It should also be noted that in a front-loaded scenario the whales need not acquire their mammalian features through land-based ancestry; they could have intelligently evolved entirely in the water and scientists are looking for common ancestry in the wrong place.
    ….
    If Darwin had not come up with his bear story I doubt today’s scientists would be attempting to cobble together such a disjointed explanation. The starting premises became cemented, even though these beginnings had no positive evidence. The oddest part about the Indohyus story is that it seems this new creature is even further removed from whale ancestry than the other major candidate, hippopotamids. It was very small, the size of a raccoon. Its bones show it was not an adept swimmer and most likely did not have a major aquatic lifestyle (unlike hippopotamids). It fed on land, eating plants (whales have a very different diet).

    BTW, everyone, here is a high resolution picture of the sample so you can compare it yourself:

    http://origin.www.nature.com/n.....43_F1.html

    In related news, another analysis published by Cladistics hypothesizes that an extinct group of carnivorous mammals, called mesonychids, were more closely related to cetaceans:

    http://www.blackwell-synergy.c.....alCode=cla

  38. 38
    Lord Timothy says:

    Wait… I thought Intelligent Design was dead or something.

    So why do they keep talking about us I wonder?

  39. 39
    Undesigned says:

    Patrick
    The simpler solution, when coupled with molecular data, is that Indohyus is related, on some level, to pakicetus and other extinct whale relatives.

    Whether intellegence is required is not detectable in a fossil like this. He didn’t sign the bones…again! I honestly crave a universe that reveals this Designer, but so far, all we have are silent, mysterious bones, begging across the ages to be puzzled out. Those empty hollows once held eyes that looked out on a world we can only guess at and we should stand in awe of the chasm of time that separates us.

    Instead, we trumpet the notion that there is a “Controvery” and that “evolution is religion” as if it made sense to say it. Scientists constantly question their own work. The hard fact is, that evolution science works on many levels. Time to face the facts.

  40. 40
    Patrick says:

    The simpler solution, when coupled with molecular data, is that Indohyus is related, on some level, to pakicetus and other extinct whale relatives.

    That’s not positive evidence. Just because the molecular data and sample timelines poses problems for still-living samples does not make Indohyus a better candidate. It’s a possible connection, yes, but not a very good one for the reasons given. Despite the one character, the rest clearly do not neatly fit the pattern of all the others, so the Indohyus should assumed to be an anomaly (convergent evolution) and overridden in the cladistic analysis. And as previously noted with Intelligent Evolution such shared modular components could appear in unrelated samples.

    We don’t need an embedded note saying “modified by Designer on this date”. The facts are that we do not have positive evidence for Darwinian processes being capable of such largescale constructive positive evolution. The positive evidence we do possess relegates Darwinian processes to a relatively minor role. Intelligent evolution would at least be capable. And, yes, scientists do question their own work but rarely question–or understand–the purported mechanism they support in an offhand manner; they just assume the mechanism works and leave the details for others. The Darwinian blinders also keep scientists from considering other pathways.

    Given this evidence, the simplest solution would involve intelligence in some manner (and there are a variety of ID-compatible hypotheses).

  41. 41
    Clarence says:

    Patrick (40), with regard to your comment:

    “Given this evidence, the simplest solution would involve intelligence in some manner (and there are a variety of ID-compatible hypotheses)”,

    the problem I have with that is that adding an intelligence complicates, rather than simplifies, the solution. It raises the questions of (1) where did this intelligence arise from and (2) what was the mechanism by which the intelligence intervened.

    Neither of these questions give rise to simplifying answers a la Occam’s Razor.

  42. 42
    Patrick says:

    Which is more simple, an answer including intelligence which is known to be capable or relying on processes that do not have positive evidence?

    The hypothesis of a designer for obviously designed things is extremely simple, natural, and based on factual observation (the constant causal link between intelligent designers and their products in reality). I am really surprised by the inconsistent use of the concept of simplicity in discussions like Occam’s razor and similar. Everyone seems to have his own unjustified ideas of what is simple and what is not. Darwinian theory of evolution is not simple. It is a very complex and artificial attempt to justify something which appears designed, and has appeared designed for centuries to most rational beings, without admitting the existence of a designer. In fact, it’s expanded way beyond Darwin’s original mechanism of natural selection to incorporate a whole slew of potential mechanisms. Some even point to a hypothetical infinite multiverse in order to solve the problems of Darwinism. That’s not simple at all…it keeps getting more and more complicated.

  43. 43
    Clarence says:

    I’ve now posted two comments here that haven’t appeared on the thread. Am I being censored or is there a technical hitch?

  44. 44
    bklinepope says:

    Some people who are commenting on this blog may be doing so without having had the opportunity to read our book, “Science, Evolution, and Creationism.” This conversation might be enhanced and clarified by reading the book online or downloading it in pdf for free at http://www.nap.edu/sec.

  45. 45
    Patrick says:

    Thank you for sharing the book for free. Although currently the file is apparently not in the correct directory or something, since clicking the link results in 404.

    EDIT:

    A response to this book:

    http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.....ion_part_1

Leave a Reply