PBS’s Judgment Day – Don’t believe Darwin’s kludge? You just don’t understand it! Or else …

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 7, 2007

Intelligent Design, The Design of Life}

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

Or else … You haven’t read The Design of Life.

But first …

A friend draws my attention to “Judgment Day,” an upcoming American Public Broadcasting Service special on the Dover Trial.

In this press release, we learn that Vulcan Productions – which produced the program for PBS –

has long been committed to the subject of evolution and its teaching,” remarked Vulcan Productions Executive Producer, Richard Hutton. “When we co-produced the Evolution series with the WGBH Science Unit in 2001, we set out to bring the richness of Darwin’s theory to life.”

Well, sure, believers have been recruited to front Darwin.

The part that intrigued me was NOVA Senior Executive Producer Paula S. Apsell’s comment: “Evolution is one of the most essential and least understood of all scientific theories, the foundation of biological science.”

What on earth does she mean?

Darwin’s theory (the one she fronts) says that life goes from goo to zoo to you in a zillion easy steps.

Mind? Nada. Purpose? Nada. Direction? Nada.

Your ancestors won the war against lesser apes. Period.

Why is Darwin’s theory supposed to be “least understood”? Is it really less understood than relativity? Than quantum mechanics ? Than Maxwell’s equations ?

I submit that Darwin’s theory is quite well understood. By billions of people. It just isn’t believed.

And that’s for good reasons. Many of the reasons will be set out in a book about to be released – The Design of Life by Bill Dembski and Jonathan Wells.

About that, ID theorist and biochemist Michael Behe has said,

When future intellectual historians list the books that toppled Darwin’s theory, Design of Life will be at the top.

Briefly, for now: The universe does show detectible evidence of meaning, purpose, and design. Lots of it.

But most people who are reading this post are forced to pay taxes to jurisdictions where it would be illegal to discuss that fact in a public school system. And money is given to public broadcasting systems that promote the opposite view.

I guess PBS is hoping that, if it fronts Darwinism energetically enough, the universe will come around to its view.

Also:
Finnish school shooter was convinced social Darwinist

Scientists terrified that people don’t trust them?

Update!: O’Leary responds to those who claim to be “offended” by mention of social Darwinism’s role in Finnish school shootings.

Comments

Intelligent Design- No Metaphysics required:
The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself-not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science. It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the past forty years, combined with consideration of the way in which we reach conclusions of design every day.- Dr Behe
and
Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause. In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed” Pg. 72 of "Darwinism, Design and Public Education"
Design is empirically detectable.Joseph_{November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

Carl Sachs, You said "the point I wish to make is simply that neo-Darwinism is theologically neutral" This might be true if Diogenes could find an honest biologist. There is only one part of neo Darwinism that is under dispute. Namely, the source of variation that then drives the rest of the theory. Without any real variation, natural selection, environmental pressures etc are meaningless and only produce trivial changes. If you can find me any biologist that accepts neo Darwinism that is honest about the source of variation that is necessary to drive the changes in life forms over the past 3.5 billion years you will have produced a miracle. Allen MacNeill and his 47 sources of variation have not produced one bit of evidence other than conjecture that any/all these source of variation can produce anything other than trivial changes in genomes. So until they stop lying or distorting, then I will have to say that those who are supporting neo Darwinism are doing so for non scientific reasons, most likely philosophical reasons. Whether they are theological reasons we can debate but they are definitely philosophical based or the open distortion of results. I was to say it would not be allowed in any other area of science except then I thought of global warming where the same tactics are practiced but there the numbers are not so uniform.jerry_{November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)." - Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12
Joseph_{November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

Jack, The blind watchmaker thesis is what is being taught in public school biology classrooms. what is chance to us is not chance to God. That is word-play nonsense. Also no one is saying anything about "God". I, for one, am quite comfortable with a designer who is not "God". And who are you to tell us that we cannot see and understand the world for what it is- a place designed for scientific discovery? One does not have to understand "God" to understand "God's" Creation- and one does not have to understand the designer in order to understand the design. Heck it's almost a given that we don't see Stonehenge how it's designers saw it, yet we determined it was desiged and set about trying to understand it. That is, when the scientist says that something is unguided, he means that there are no empirically observable proximate causes that can be shown to be guiding that thing. IOW he says so out of ignorance. It's like my 5 year old saying the computer isn't guided because she can't see the programs. There isn't any empirically observable anything that demonstrates unguided processes can account for what we observe in biology. In "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr he makes it very clear that teleology is NOT allowed. Also, as reality demonstrates, it matters a great deal to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated was the result of agency involvemnet or nature, operating freely. If the blind watchmaker argument confuses science with metaphysics then I am sure you will be doing your best to remove it from all biology classrooms in Kansas. Thank you. And if you don't think it is being taught in those classrooms you are only fooling yourself.Joseph_{November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

to Carl: Well said. I agree Joseph lists six definitions of evolution from Darwinism, Design and Public Education, the six of which is
“Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes...
These authors make the same mistake that I am saying that Joseph is making - they confuse and conflate scientific notions with metaphysical ones. I have pointed out several times (and Joseph or no one else has responded): what is chance to us is not chance to God. Why do we think that we humans, limited by being embedded in time and space, can see the world as God sees the world? That is, when the scientist says that something is unguided, he means that there are no empirically observable proximate causes that can be shown to be guiding that thing. This is quite different than making the metaphysical statement that there is no divine guidance. A simple example. I flip a coin, which is the epitome of a random, unguided event, and it comes up heads. Did God know it was going to come up heads? Is it not true that God's foreknowledge (his omniscience) is part and parcel of his omnipotence - it could have come up tails is that had been his Will and design for the world? So, lack of guidance as seen from the empirical and scientific standpoint does notmean that there is no divine guidance. Now, I know full well that there are well-known and forceful scientists who are also materialists, and who deny that there is anything such as divine guidance. For these people, the statement that something is unguided is both a scientific and a metaphysical belief. But, as Carl Sachs was implying, these people do not speak for science, or for all scientists! They may be spokepersons for materialism, but they don't get to self-appoint themselves as spokespersons for all scientists. This is the distinction I am trying to highlight, and this is why I believe the "blindwatcher" argument confuses science with metaphysics.Jack Krebs_{November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

#38 Carl: "I’m quite happy to concede that the scientific core of design theory is theologically neutral, if design theorists are willing to concede that the scientific core of neo-Darwinism is also theologically neutral, as the examples of Ken Miller and Richard Dawkins amply attest." I will grant that equivalency the day ID theorists declare the "explanatory filter" as the only legitimate scientific methodology even as they negate methodological naturalism as pseudo-science and attempt to expel all its practitioners from the academy.StephenB_{November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

If I’m not mistaken, what you refer to as the “blind watchmaker thesis” is a metaphysical position, not a scientific one.
I think you are mistaken as many scientists take that position based on their science. The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education pages 136-37: 1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature 2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population 3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor. 4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations. 5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor. 6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. 38 Nobel proze winners sent the following to Kansas: Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. U Berkley site on evolution states: Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it’s not striving to produce “progress” or a balanced ecosystem. BTW we can and do detect design via empirical investigation. Also ID doiesn't say anything about universal common descent. It doesn't say anything about mutations being directed by an outside intelligence. Is my computer directed by an outside intelligence? No.Joseph_{November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

If design theorists and ID advocates wish to distinguish between ID as a scientific theory proper, on the one hand, and its metaphysical (including theological) implications on the other, then they should grant the same distinction with respect to evolutionary theory. Doing so would require distinguishing between the scientific core of evolutionary theory (variation, selection, physical constraints, other empirically detectable mechanisms) and the metaphysical implications (which may be theistic or atheistic). I'm quite happy to concede that the scientific core of design theory is theologically neutral, if design theorists are willing to concede that the scientific core of neo-Darwinism is also theologically neutral, as the examples of Ken Miller and Richard Dawkins amply attest. Now, one might have theological objections to Miller's version of theistic evolution, and he has been roundly criticized here. But that's irrelevant; the point I wish to make is simply that neo-Darwinism is theologically neutral, even if one finds theistic evolution to be theologically unsatisfying. Theology, even if it is bad theology (Miller, Collins) is not anti-theology (Dawkins), after all!Carl Sachs_{November 9, 2007
November
11
Nov
9
09
2007
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Joseph writes,
Jack, what is evolutionary science? Evolution can mean several different things from mere change all the way to the blind watchmaker thesis. And it appears evolutionists capitalize on that employing equivocation as a means to “win” any debate. BTW,ID only argues against the blind watchmaker thesis.
If I'm not mistaken, what you refer to as the "blind watchmaker thesis" is a metaphysical position, not a scientific one. The question of whether the contingency that we see in the world is in fact subject to causes beyond those which we can detect through empirical investigation is a philosophical question to which there are many answers: theism of various sorts, materialism, various non-theistic and non-materialistic positions, etc. If "ID only argues against the blind watchmaker," then that would mean that ID basically supports Behe's position, or perhaps even a theistic evolutionist position: common descent, including that of humans, is true, evolutionary changes takes place through genetic changes which are reflected in the phenotypes of living organisms, and the differential survival and reproduction leads to changed population adapted to the environment -the point of difference being that at times those genetic changes are directed by an outside intelligence. Is this what you mean?Jack Krebs_{November 8, 2007
November
11
Nov
8
08
2007
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

I have read the language of the transcript at Dover and compared it to Judge Jones's final decision. There is absolutely no doubt about what went on. Among other things, the judge took the words of witnesses and twisted them to harmonize with a decision he already had in mind. Here’s one quick example: Behe had pointed out that the science of intelligent design is "consistent with" religion, a point no one either denies or would want to deny. Jones WANTED intelligent design to be faith based, so he simply changed the words “consistent with” into “dependent upon,” and, lo, Behe was thus said to have admitted that ID is faith based. Does it get any more craven than that?StephenB_{November 8, 2007
November
11
Nov
8
08
2007
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

Jack, What is evolutionary science? Evolution can mean several different things from mere change all the way to the blind watchmaker thesis. And it appears evolutionists capitalize on that employing equivocation as a means to "win" any debate. BTW,ID only argues against the blind watchmaker thesis. As for philosophical issues it also appears that is all there is in this debate.Joseph_{November 8, 2007
November
11
Nov
8
08
2007
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

Wow, bornagain77. You can really write. The administrators here really ought to give you posting priveleges.Nochange_{November 8, 2007
November
11
Nov
8
08
2007
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

BA77 writes,
Jack Krebs: I’ve posted the following before, but I want you to read it so you can see where your personal philosophy actually stands in the grand scheme of things scientifically speaking: Theistic Philosophy Compared to the Materialistic Philosophy of Science
Yes, I've seen that post many times. However, let me point out that you don't know what my personal philosophy is. Obviously I accept evolutionary science, but there are many different religious and philosophical perspectives that accept evolution, ranging from certain forms of Christianity (theistic evolutionists) to materialists, with all sorts of other possible positions in between. It is these religious and philosophical issues that I am interested in - not in the sense of convincing people to accept my position, but rather with the hope that people will better understand the range of genuine and defensible positions, and with the hope that people will properly understand what science can and cannot tell us about the world.Jack Krebs_{November 8, 2007
November
11
Nov
8
08
2007
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Religious beliefs can’t be proven true, at least not in the same way scientific theories can be confirmed.
And just how can one confirm the premise that all of the living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of singlew-celled organisms via culled genetic accidents? Or how about the bacterial flagellum- how can we confirm the premise that it "evolved" via culled genetic accidents, genetic drift or lateral gene transfer? The only thing science has confirmed in biology is wobbling stability. IOW it appears that science has confirmed the Creation premise of variations within a Kind. Go figure...Joseph_{November 8, 2007
November
11
Nov
8
08
2007
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

Jack Krebs: I've posted the following before, but I want you to read it so you can see where your personal philosophy actually stands in the grand scheme of things scientifically speaking: Theistic Philosophy Compared to the Materialistic Philosophy of Science There are two prevailing philosophies vying for the right to be called the truth in man's perception of reality. These two prevailing philosophies are Theism and Materialism. Materialism is sometimes called philosophical naturalism and, to a lesser degree, is often even conflated with methodological naturalism. Materialism is the current hypothesis entrenched over science as the nt hypothesis guiding scientists. Materialism asserts that everything that exists arose from chance acting on an material basis which has always existed. Whereas, Theism asserts everything that exists arose from the purposeful will of the spirit of Almighty God who has always existed in a timeless eternity. A hypothesis in science is suppose to give proper guidance to scientists and make, somewhat, accurate predictions. In this primary endeavor, for a hypothesis, Materialism has failed miserably. It will be my goal in this paper to briefly show where Materialism has led scientists down blind alleys in the past and then it will be my goal to show where Materialism may currently be tying science up in an unnecessary problem. First, lets take a look at a few of the predictions where Materialism has missed the mark and Theism has been accurate. 1. Materialism did not predict the big bang. Yet Theism always said the universe was created. 2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space. 3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein's special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity. 4. Materialism did not predict the stunning precision for the underlying universal constants for the universe, found in the Anthropic Principle, which allows life as we know it to be possible. Yet Theism always said God laid the foundation of the universe, so the stunning, unchanging, clockwork precision found for the various universal constants is not at all unexpected for Theism. 5. Materialism predicted that complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Yet statistical analysis of the many required parameters that enable complex life to be possible on earth reveals that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support complex life in this universe. Theism would have expected the earth to be extremely unique in this universe in its ability to support complex life. 6. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code. 7. Materialism presumed a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA, which is not the case at all. Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what most likely is, complete negative mutation rate to an organism’s DNA. 8. Materialism presumed a very simple first life form. Yet the simplest life ever found on Earth is, according to Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity for the “simplest” life on earth. 9. Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Yet we find evidence for “complex” photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth (Minik T. Rosing and Robert Frei, “U-Rich Archaean Sea-Floor Sediments from Greenland—Indications of >3700 Ma Oxygenic Photosynthesis", Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6907 (2003): 1-8) Theism would have naturally expected this sudden appearance of life on earth. 10. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. The Cambrian Explosion, by itself, destroys this myth. Yet Theism would have naturally expected such sudden appearance of the many different and completely unique fossils in the Cambrian explosion. 11. Materialism predicted that there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record. Yet fossils are characterized by sudden appearance in the fossil record and overall stability as long as they stay in the fossil record. There is not one clear example of unambiguous transition between major species out of millions of collected fossils. Theism would have naturally expected fossils to suddenly appear in the fossil record with stability afterwards as well as no evidence of transmutation into radically new forms. 12. Materialism predicts animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Yet man himself is the last scientifically accepted fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record. Theism would have predicted that man himself was the last fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record. I could probably go a lot further for the evidence is extensive and crushing against the Materialistic philosophy. As stated before, an overriding hypothesis in science, such as Materialism currently is, is suppose to give correct guidance to scientists. Materialism has failed miserably in its predictive power for science and can even be persuasively argued to have hindered breakthroughs in understanding. The hypothesis with the strongest predictive power in science is "suppose" to be the prevailing philosophy of science. That philosophy should be Theism. Why this shift in science has not yet occurred is a mystery that needs to be remedied to enable new, and potentially wonderful, breakthroughs in science and to prevent future hindrance. As well Jack Krebs, God did not leave himself without witness in His supernatural relationship to us: Many people would argue that the Bible is proof of God’s supernatural and personal involvement with man since it is the only sacred book in the world, besides the Torah, to have the supernatural watermark of hundreds of precisely fulfilled prophecies in it that can be verified by a variety of sources. This is a compelling hard fact in and of itself; yet, there is one more piece of solid physical evidence that bears powerful witness to the Bible’s validity and also sheds an undeniable light on God's deep personal commitment to man; The Shroud of Turin. The Shroud of Turin is one of the most scientifically scrutinized artifacts in recorded history. Through a rigid process of elimination for all naturalistic possibilities, it becomes crystal clear that the way in which the image of the man, on the Shroud of Turin, had to be imprinted was "supernatural" in its process. Many solid lines of evidence pointed to the Shroud’s authenticity back in the 1980’s, yet the carbon dating of the Shroud indicated a medieval age. In spite of the many other solid lines of evidence establishing the authenticity of the Shroud, many people unquestionably accepted the carbon dating as valid and presumed the Shroud to be a medieval fake. Yet now the carbon dating question has been thoroughly addressed and refuted in the year 2000 by Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford. Their research, with textile experts showing the carbon testing was done with a piece of the Shroud that was subject to expert medieval reweaving in the 1500’s, has been published in many peer reviewed science journals. Thus, the fact that a false age was shown by the 1988 carbon testing has been accepted across the board scientifically. Now all major lines of solid evidence converge and establish the Shroud as authentic. This rigidly tested and scrutinized artifact establishes the uniqueness of the Shroud among all the ancient artifacts of man found on earth. I know of no other ancient artifact from any other culture which has withstood such intense scrutiny and still remained standing in its claim of supernatural origin. It is apparent God thought this event was so important for us to remember that He took a “photograph” of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, using the Shroud itself as a medium. After years of painstaking research searching through every naturalistic possibility, scientists still cannot tell us exactly how the image of the man on the Shroud was imprinted. Even with the advantage of all our advanced space-age technology at their fingertips, all scientists can guess is that it was some type of electro-magnetic radiation (light) that is not natural to this world. For the “light”, that had to be used to make such a precise (photographic negative) image, left no detectable “heat damage” when it imprinted the image. All electro-magnetic radiation that scientists are familiar with, with enough intensity to make an image of a man on that type of medium, would have left detectable “heat damage” on the Shroud. I have a suggestion, if scientists want to find the source for the supernatural light that made the image I suggest they look to the thousands of documented Judeo-Christian after-life experiences of people who have been deceased for a short while. It is in their testimonies that you find mention of an indescribably bright “Light” or “Being of Light” who is always described as being of a much brighter light than the people had ever seen before. All people who have been in the presence of “The Being of Light” while deceased have no doubt whatsoever that the “The Being of Light” they were in the presence of is none other than “The Lord” of heaven and earth. Another very interesting point is, since the Shroud had to be extremely close to the body when the image was made, and also considering the lack of any distinctive shadow pattern on the image, it is made apparent the only place this supernatural light that produced the image could have possibly come from is from the body itself ! In other words, THE SOURCE OF LIGHT WAS THE BODY ITSELF !!! God's crowning achievement for this universe was not when He created this universe. God’s crowning achievement for this universe was when He Himself inhabited the human body He had purposely created the whole universe for, to sanctify human beings unto Himself through the and resurrection of his “Son” Jesus Christ. This is truly something that should fill anyone who reads this with awe. The wonder of it all is something that I can scarcely begin to understand much less write about. Thus, I will finish my paper with a scripture. Hebrews 2:14-15 "Since we, God's children, are human beings - made of flesh and - He became flesh and too by being born in human form; for only as a human being could He die and in dying break the power of the devil who had the power of . Only in that way could He deliver those who through fear of have been living all their lives as slaves to constant dread."bornagain77_{November 8, 2007
November
11
Nov
8
08
2007
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

I agree. Religious beliefs can't be proven true, at least not in the same way scientific theories can be confirmed. Notice that I say confirmed, not "proven true", as scientific theories are not "proven true" in the absolute sense. Math theorems are proven true, but science is not like math in this regard.Jack Krebs_{November 8, 2007
November
11
Nov
8
08
2007
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

Do Bill and Jonathan know that there is already a book called The Design of Life by Renato Dulbecco?Collin_{November 8, 2007
November
11
Nov
8
08
2007
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Why can you not point me towards one paper that proves the Darwinist religion is true? Hah!
A religion can't be proven true.Daniel King_{November 8, 2007
November
11
Nov
8
08
2007
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

I believe I said evidence, not proof, spread out over tens of thousands of papers. Bah, and if Darwinism were true, it would only take one paper to prove it. But you people rely on bits and pieces that no one can possibly read all of it, and you all assume that the other scientists holds the smoking gun. But you know what we say about people who assume? Why isn't there a smoking gun, sir? Why can you not point me towards one paper that proves the Darwinist religion is true? Hah!Nochange_{November 8, 2007
November
11
Nov
8
08
2007
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

My point - one of the ones I was making in the other thread, is that at this time the vast majority of people working in the biological sciences finds the evidence for the theory of evolution convincing, and a much smaller number accept the ideas you are presenting.- Jack Krebs
Not one of that alleged majority can demonstrate anything beyond minor variations. IOW if they accept the theory they do so for reasons outside of science.
Given that the ToE is the dominant paradigm, to use the phrase from the other thread, it is incumbent for the challenging paradigm to produce convincing evidence for the new perspective.
First how did the ToE become the dominant paradigm? Definitely not via data, evidence and observation. The only way for ID to become entyrenched is to have all or most of the powerful anti-IDists die-off. This has never been about data, evidence nor observbation. This has always been about one side trying to reduce all data, evidence and observation to matter and energy (and their interactions) and rejecting any and all arguments that do not attempt to do so. As far as the Dover fiasco is concerned it is obvious that JJ found the school board to be liars and then punished ID for that crime.Joseph_{November 8, 2007
November
11
Nov
8
08
2007
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Jack Krebs, Why not just admit you have no evidence for what you believe other than most everyone else believes it. Your are not alone. No other person who adheres to neo Darwinism has been able to do anything different. They come here, they go, a few stay but all act the same. You have left your beliefs up to the high priests to dictate to you and you follow their lead wherever it goes. Sounds like a faith based situation to me. Nothing wrong with that if you would just admit it. You are/were also one of the leaders of the organization to keep the Kansas biology curriculum pure from ID thought and in the neo Darwinism camp. On top of that you can not defend the position you take other than to say everyone believes it. And yet you fight against any criticism of the thing you can not defend.jerry_{November 8, 2007
November
11
Nov
8
08
2007
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

Given that the ToE is the dominant paradigm, to use the phrase from the other thread, it is incumbent for the challenging paradigm to produce convincing evidence for the new perspective. Speaking of evidence... I suggest you prove your statement that Darwinism is the dominant paradigm. Intelligent design claims more supporters than Darwinism. And those scholars who work with the majority are afraid of the power wielded by the small Darwinist cabal.Nochange_{November 8, 2007
November
11
Nov
8
08
2007
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

Carl Sachs said (comment #17) --
If it is true that Jones showed prejudice against the defendants by claiming that true religion is based on free and rational inquiry, then one must thereby concede that the defendants were motivated by religious concerns.
Not necessarily. The court record clearly shows that some of the defendants were motivated by religious concerns, but Judge Jones' "true religion" statement showed that he would have been prejudiced against the defendants even if he merely imagined that they were motivated by religious concerns. Furthermore, his "true religion" statement shows that he was prejudiced not just against the defendants but also against intelligent design and irreducible complexity. He thinks that his decision was a triumph of reason over superstition. Judge Jones' "true religion" statement crossed the line from neutrality towards organized religion -- the establishment clause's position -- into hostility towards organized religion.
Of course I’m a philosophy teacher and not a lawyer, and I know that there are lawyers here and others more knowledgeable in the law than I am, so I’m willing to be corrected on this point.
The Lemon test now consists of two parts: a "purpose prong" and an "effect prong." The "purpose" prong concerns the defendants' motivations. Since the defendants' ID policy failed to pass the purpose prong, Jones could have based his decision solely on the purpose prong and avoided the scientific questions.Larry Fafarman_{November 8, 2007
November
11
Nov
8
08
2007
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

The ToE is the dominant paradigm simply because something like it must be true if you are philosophically committed to a natural explanation. The beautiful joke, of course, is that Neo-Darwinism simply didn't happen, and the people working in the biological sciences are starting to recognize that fact. But since they think that ID is too far outside the testable world of naturalism, not to mention its religious implications, the race is on to find another natural explanation. Heck, even panspermia is starting to look like a strong contender these days. I don't think its a wise tactic to be lauding the "overwhelming" evidence for ND, as it will soon be tossed on the trash heap of history. That fortress is crumbling. But something like Neo-Darwinism MUST be true. What other natural explanation will next take the throne?vrf_{November 7, 2007
November
11
Nov
7
07
2007
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT}

Hi Bornagain. I believe I said evidence, not proof, spread out over tens of thousands of papers. My point - one of the ones I was making in the other thread, is that at this time the vast majority of people working in the biological sciences finds the evidence for the theory of evolution convincing, and a much smaller number accept the ideas you are presenting. Given that the ToE is the dominant paradigm, to use the phrase from the other thread, it is incumbent for the challenging paradigm to produce convincing evidence for the new perspective.Jack Krebs_{November 7, 2007
November
11
Nov
7
07
2007
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

Jack Krebs, I remember you stating in another thread that evolution has proof spread out over 1tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers, that is beyond the ability of anyone to bring forth to bear the overwhelming evidence on a single thread... Now that is an appeal to authority if I've ever seen one! I have no doubt you sincerely believe this...BUT... How about just one clear example out of those tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers? Can you cite one bacteria that has been evolved into any other new strain of bacteria???...Can you cite a new species to appear since man suddenly appeared in the fossil record that doesn't include trivial reproductive isolation that conforms to genetic entropy when looked at closely? Is that To hard??? How about just plain ole simple "observed" protein/protein binding site generation that would refute Dr. Behe's estimate of 2 in "Edge of Evolution" Or to quote Gpuccio on another thread; for the lack of evolution "observed" in malaria; (evolutions failed chance to strut its almighty stuff in malaria) So, we have a where a very strong environmental challenge has emerged, which is exactly what is supposed to be a very strong motivation to evolution in a darwinian scenario. So, the point is not if the parasite in those years has started to evolve some occult difference, but rather why it has not evolved any complex and non trivial adaptation to chloroquine, in the presence of such a strong selective force, and with so many reproductive cycles available. Why not a “cloroquinase”, or some equivalent mechanism, for instance? Why not a complex new pathway, let’s say 3 or 4 proteins in cascade whose purpose could be to metabolize the , or to couple it to some molecule to make it ineffective. Why not new cellular functions which may allow the parasite’s survival in the presence of choroquine? Why not a deeply renovated parasite, much more dangerous and resistant than its ancestor? You see Jack Krebs, this is where the rubber meets the road!! ....Evolution claims the almighty power to create stunning complexity! ....So dig through those tens of Thousands of peer reviewed papers find some really good ones and show us some "observed" complexity being generated that would violate Dr. Behe's estimate, prove evolution true and make us heretics be quiet forevermore! Until then all you have is similarities of some sort parading as hard scientific proof that you believe by faith to be true! Without hard concrete proof you are merely stating an opinion.bornagain77_{November 7, 2007
November
11
Nov
7
07
2007
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

Jack Krebs, I just answered your question on the swan thread. No you didn't write anything. I didn't say you wrote anything. I said you didn't say anyting and this illustrated the inability to provide any evidence. That is the issue. You are incapable of providing any information. So by showing that you are incapable of providing any support for neo Darwinism you are illustrating my point. Thank you for making my point. Don't feel singled out. Every other supporter of neo Darwinism is in the same boat, namely not having the ability to support what they believe.jerry_{November 7, 2007
November
11
Nov
7
07
2007
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

getawitness, Who is (or was) temmenicki2? Someone who had the audacity to tell Ms. O'Leary that she just didn't understand evolution,,,LOL,,,He lasted all of 1/2 an hour before he hit an evolutionary de ^ ad end...LOLbornagain77_{November 7, 2007
November
11
Nov
7
07
2007
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

If it is true that Jones showed prejudice against the defendants by claiming that true religion is based on free and rational inquiry, then one must thereby concede that the defendants were motivated by religious concerns. Put otherwise, if the defendants weren't so motivated, then Jones' views on organized religion wouldn't indicate prejudice against them. But then, if that was among their motives, then Jones was right to rule against them. In other words, you can't have it both ways. Either (1) religious concerns were irrelevant to the case, and the ruling was incorrect because the policy did not fail the Lemon test, or (2) religious concerns were relevant, and the policy did fail the Lemon test, in which case the judgment was correct, regardless of Jones' prejudices against organized religion. Of course I'm a philosophy teacher and not a lawyer, and I know that there are lawyers here and others more knowledgeable in the law than I am, so I'm willing to be corrected on this point.Carl Sachs_{November 7, 2007
November
11
Nov
7
07
2007
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

Unfortunately, many of the biggest criticisms of the Kitzmiller decision probably won't be in the TV program. Here are some big criticisms: (1) Judge Jones copied the opinion's ID-as-science section virtually entirely from the plaintiffs' opening post-trial brief while ignoring the defendants' opening post-trial brief and the plaintiffs' and defendants' answering post-trial briefs. (2) Regardless of whether or not intelligent design is religion, Judge Jones showed extreme prejudice against the defendants by saying in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his decision was based on his notion that the Founders believed that organized religions are not "true" religions. (3) Jones rejected the intervention motion of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the publisher of the book "Of Pandas and People," then thoroughly trashed the book in his written opinion. FTE was prompt in moving to intervene as soon as subpoenas that it received made it clear that the plaintiffs would seek to make the book a major issue in the case. (4) Several articles in scholarly law journals are critical of the Dover opinion, particularly Judge Jones' decision to rule on the scientific merits of intelligent design and irreducible complexity. (5) The opinion has little or no precedential value because it is just an unreviewed opinion of a single federal district court judge.Larry Fafarman_{November 7, 2007
November
11
Nov
7
07
2007
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply