University of Kansas: Behe vs. 6 Darwinists (Dawkins, Miller, Scott, etc.)

Jack Krebbs: If species don’t evolve from other species, how do they come into existence? If life didn't arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/undirected (non-goal oriented) processes, how did it come into existence? That is what science is for- to help us answer your question Jack (as well as mine). Jack Krebbs: Even assuming an ID perspective, what options are there other than biological common descent or special creation? We have to go with the data. Now one can posit common descent-> IDE -> but we would then require a way to test that premise- objectively. Without that the premise does not belong in a science classroom. What we should do is to present the data and have OPEN discussions about it. Heck I wouldn't care if the data pointed to us being a colony from some other ancient and now dead planet. Just what are the options as to our existence? I know of 3: 1) Unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes 2) Intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes 3) a combination of 1 & 2 If we are here via special creation then so-be-it. That is IF science is really about finding the truth, ie the reality, to our existence. Joseph

Jack Krebbs: One could not even begin to present a small fraction of a percent of the evidence for the theory of evolution. When people start saying things like that you know the opposite is true. Has anyone (else) read "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr? Very disappointing if one was looking for anything testable or verifiable. Great book if you were a die-hard evolutionist though. Joseph

If species don't evolve from other species, how do they come into existence? Even assuming an ID perspective, what options are there other than biological common descent or special creation? Jack Krebs

Jack Krebbs: One could not even begin to present a small fraction of a percent of the evidence for the theory of evolution. Perhaps they could just tell us what makes an organism what it is. Or one could start by demonstrating how to test the premise that for example a bacterial flagellum evolved from a population of flagellum-less bacteria via some blind watchmaker-type process. Perhaps JK can tell us how to test evolutionism- evolutionism being evolution #6: (The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education: 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. Give it a shot Jack- we will see how quickly that cookie crumbles. Is common descent testable? Only in a very limited extent. Evolutionists basicalkly take small changes and add time thinking that is all that is required. Pure nonsense: Extrapolating From Small Changes JK: The issue behind this question is that the simple claim that species could not evolved without intelligence is not specific about what exactly has happen. The same goes for evolutionism Jack! Nothing specific at all. Nothing about what mutations caused what change. Nothing even about whether or not mutations can cause the range of change required if all of life's diversity owed its collective common ancestry to some unknown populations of single-celled organisms (that just happened to have the ability to asexually reproduce). No specifics at all just a buch of generalizations based on a philosophical world view. And you bought it wholesale and now you are trying to sell it. I smell snake oil... JK: ...while others deny even the evolution of species and seem to believe that species are specially created ... Who says that Jack? Not even AiG or the ICR holds that view. No educated Creationist since the 19th century holds that view. Joseph

For readers interested in some of my views which I felt would be best discussed outside of UD, there is a thread at KCFS which has my views on various theological and scientific issues: Parallel Thread: Keeping my promise.... The thread was the result of the arrangement Jack worked out for me to air my case on various issues. Salvador scordova

For the readers, Regarding Jack previous post, there were some developments indirectly related to Uncommon Descent that were occurring at the KCFS discussion board. I had earlier protested what was happening at KCFS here in one post in this thread at UD. I was protesting that links to my articles at UD were being moved around at KCFS. I did not feel I had recourse except to state my protest here at UD since I felt my issues with Jack could not be aired at KCFS given he is moderator and had been moving my posts to the equivalent of a garbage can. He has since granted me an opportunity to argue my case in his forum un-censored, for which I thank him, and thus I withdraw my original protest which no longer appears at UD. Though I disagree intensely with his reasoning for what happened, I accept his reasons as sincere. Though I deeply oppose what he and his organization represent, I will seek keep the dialogue open, and I hope his participation here will continue under a flag of diplomacy and civility. I wish to thank Jack for working out solution at KCFS where I can air my case and where I feel I have been allowed a fair hearing. I will seek to reciprocate the hospitality he has extended to me. Salvador scordova

I don't think we should mix issues from different forums, Salvador. Why don't you PM me at KCFS and we can discuss this. Thanks Jack Krebs

Question for idnet.com.au: does this simple claim accept common descent as well as accepting an old earth and a sequence of different species? The issue behind this question is that the simple claim that species could not evolved without intelligence is not specific about what exactly has happen. Some ID supporters accept common descent and seem to say that the intelligence guidance is at the genetic level (and even there possibly at the quantum level), while others deny even the evolution of species and seem to believe that species are specially created - materialized into existence. But there is no clear hypotheses about these issues, so it's hard to know what one is even arguing about. So, as an aide in understanding the issues at hand better, back to my question: does the main point that youm mention include an acceptance of common descent? Jack Krebs

Krebs wrote “Wouldn’t it be logical that if Darwinism is so obviously correct, then we should only need to hear one clear presentation from the Darwinian side?” No, for several reasons. One is that all one can do in a short presentation is summarize conclusions. One could not even begin to present a small fraction of a percent of the evidence for the theory of evolution. I agree. There is a debate, and BOTH sides should present their evidence in a timely fashion. Are they saying that ID takes only a short time, and Darwinism is complicated? One proID does not oppose many aspects of evolution that it is accused of opposing. I recently attended a talk by Darryl Falk where he spent most of the lecture convincing us that the history of life goes over many millions of years, and that the fossil record shows change over time. ID does not say the earth is young or that the present life forms have always existed. ID says that even given millions or even billions of years, specified complexity does not arise without intelligence. It is a relatively simple claim. If we could stick to the main point, we may make progress. idnet.com.au

Salvador, I don't think what you said relates to my point. I said that showing all the evidence and explaining how the evidence supported all the conclusions couldn't be done in a short presentation. I didn't say anything about "proof." None of the things I mentioned are "obviously correct": in fact, it has taken a great deal of scientific investigation to show that much of what is true (in the scientific sense) is *** not *** obvious. Jack Krebs

For example, some things that are not “obviously correct” are atomic structure....the electromagnetic nature of light, a great deal of physiology, and so on, not to mention things like the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics.... If someone actually doubted any of those things, asking a scientist to present the evidence and arguments that would convince the doubter in one short lecture would not be realistic.

Wrong Jack. Modern day appliances employ electromagnetic theory and quantum mechanics. Relativity is strongly related to nuclear power's ability to make energy from small amounts of matter and this process generates about 20% of the nation's electricity. The abudance of evidence supporting these theories is great and doesn't require an inordinate amount of proof as you suggest. scordova

Mats, that had better not be the case. They should get Meyers, Berlinski & Witt on the roster. Then the Darwinist spanking would be guaranteed. Scott

Scott@10

I’m confused. Why is Behe the only pro-ID speaker?

Because they really want people to believe in Darwinism. Mats

I'm confused. Why is Behe the only pro-ID speaker? Scott

Jack Krebbs: Why do you think Dr. Miller isn’t a Christian? (for straters) In order to be an evolutionist in Miller's mold the Bible is very wrong. For example the Bible tells us whales before land animals. Then we have Jesus (the focal point of Christianity) telling us that "The Flood" was a real event and Adam & Eve were real people. Is Jesus a liar? Of is Miller deceiving himself? Who would follow and worship a liar? Complete nonsense. One cannot pick and choose parts of (a) religion one wants. Also it should be noted that there isn't any difference between Miller's "God" and no "God" at all. It appears he thinks faith is blind but that is hardly the case:

Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.- Albert Einstein

I was brought up a Christian. Went to Christian (Catholic) schools and learned what it takes and what it means to be a Christian. That is why I can say that I am not a Christian. It is also why I know Miller isn't one. He may be a deist, but a Christian? Perhaps only in his mind- but in his mind evolutionism = reality, which to him probably means anything goes and therefore in his mind he can be a christian. But wishful thinking is all he really has. JK: what way do you think you can make him feel sorry for believing he is? Exposing his fraud will do nicely- especially in front of a crowd. IDNET: Wouldn’t it be logical that if Darwinism is so obviously correct, then we should only need to hear one clear presentation from the Darwinian side? IF Darwinism were correct then there wouldn't be a debate. ;) Joseph

"Wouldn’t it be logical that if Darwinism is so obviously correct, then we should only need to hear one clear presentation from the Darwinian side?" No, for several reasons. One is that all one can do in a short presentation is summarize conclusions. One could not even begin to present a small fraction of a percent of the evidence for the theory of evolution. Whole college courses are taken up in just presenting portions. Just to get an idea of what a short presentation might look like, you might want to look at the materials from a short two-evening talk I gave last April on "Evolution for the Layperson" last April: see http://www.kcfs.org/kcfsnews/?page_id=70 The other reason is that very little of modern science is "obviously" correct. Most scientific knowledge has been gathered by looking beyond the obvious - that which is presented to our immediate senses: gathering evidence, maked hypotheses, testing hypotheses, etc. For example, some things that are not "obviously correct" are atomic structure, plate tectonics, the electromagnetic nature of light, a great deal of physiology, and so on, not to mention things like the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. If someone actually doubted any of those things, asking a scientist to present the evidence and arguments that would convince the doubter in one short lecture would not be realistic. Jack Krebs

Wouldn't it be logical that if Darwinism is so obviously correct, then we should only need to hear one clear presentation from the Darwinian side? idnet.com.au

This confirms we are in the "then they fight you" era. It is fair to have seven Darwinists to fight one Designist. They need the advantage of saying it over and over again, it makes them feel it might really be true. idnet.com.au

This hardly seems fair. This reminds me of a good rerun of "Walker, Texas Ranger". 'Feel sorry for those poor darwinists. bFast

Hi Joseph. I'm curious what you mean by that last remark. Why do you think Dr. Miller isn't a Christian? and in what way do you think you can make him feel sorry for believing he is? Can you elaborate on your thoughts? Jack Krebs

I will speak in support of ID. And I will guarantee the anti-ID crowd will not like what I have to say. I will also guarantee I will not allow ID to be misrepresented and that Miller will be sorry for claiming to be a "christian". Joseph

Go Behe.... mmadigan

Breaking News! Jon Wells is wanted by the Thought Police. Go here for more details -> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/08/wanted_biologist_jonathan_well.html   Mats