When Ignorance and Arrogance Collide

[...] Darrell wrote: “Even among textbooks, most of them don’t bother to list the five evolution facts (as Mayr tallies them)” https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/index.php/archives/233 [...] Teleological » Calling Darwin’s Bluff

By the way, Dan. I'm an agnostic. Atheism is just another religion as far as I'm concerned. I want the "Church of Origin by Chance" the hell out of non-elective public school science classes. That's the bottom line. There's more than enough really good expermental biology to teach in HS biology without needing to waste time on theoretical biology. Teach the facts first and keep the theoretical science apart for university level courses. DaveScot

"But you don’t understand why, do you : (" Yes, in fact I do. Not even unnatural selection and induced mutation has ever created a novel cell type, tissue type, organ, or body plan in the lab. Are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that what nature can do by accident is denied the bench scientist by any means at his disposal? Preposterous. You simply refuse to accept the obvious. All laboratory attempts to show that RM+NS has the ability to create novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans has failed time after time because it CAN'T DO IT. Got it? Probably not. You are convinced that RM+NS has this ability although it's never been observed. That's called faith. I suggest you start a church for your faith and stop polluting science and young minds with it. DaveScot

">“a novel structure or organ is not necessarily expected as the result of a lab experiment' ROFL! And a damn good thing it isn’t expected because it ain’t gonna happen" But you don't understand why, do you : ( "a huge atheist fantasy peddled to naive young minds" The Huge Atheist Conspiracy would like to thank you for your help in providing more evidence that ID is really about fear of atheism and irreligiousity. Except they can't, because they're imaginary. Dan S.

"a novel structure or organ is not necessarily expected as the result of a lab experiment" ROFL! And a damn good thing it isn't expected because it ain't gonna happen. That's because RM+NS ability to create novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans is a huge atheist fantasy peddled to naive young minds as something that's as true and tested as gravity. To paraphrase Simon from "American Idol" - that's possibly the biggest scientific hoax in recorded history. DaveScot

"Sterility. What is false is not practical or fruitful. " Exactly. (Well, at least it is not practical or fruitful for its claimed goals, although it may serve other purposes). Most likely, evolutionary theory will continue to provide us information about the world. " And I DO think that scientists have been hoping to produce new organs or structures in the lab. That’s why they have been inducing genetic mutations in thousands upon thousands of generations of fruit flies" Umm - understanding how genes work has been, I think, somewhat of a reason . . . "The example of linguistic evolution, for example, has as its subject *intelligent* human beings who understand language itself and use it self-consciously for a purpose," Very good - you caught that (although some kinds of linguistic change do not appear to be fully conscious at all). But it's like the plate tectonics argument - that's not the point of the analogy. Even if people carefully plan to shift vowels because . . . well, I'm not sure we know why . . . or knowingly adapt tones to distinguish words rendered nearly indentical by linguistic erosion, it doesn't matter. The point is that small subtle changes add up to whole new languages - something never observed or ever recreated in the laboratory.*) " whose very point is to dispense with intelligence as a causal agent." Or to explain the natural world by reference to natural causes. " If evolution is the true story of our history, it will eventually triumph even if the wacky creationists have their way on public education." Quite possibly. Look to the long view - for most things - and one can find comfort. I worry about the here and now; what happens to the kids who go off to college and are behind because they came from a state that downgraded science education? What happens if the attitudes encouraged by ID rhetoric - science is just a matter of faith, this stuff isn't important, confusion about how science functions - begin to have a effect on American progress and competitiveness? And frankly, I do suspect that unimaginable eons from now, as our final bizarre descendants drag themselves towards the last few remaining puddles of water evaporating under a grossly swollen sun, the conversation, carried out by some strange combination of tentacle-waving and color-patch-flushing, will involve whether or not evolution was right . . . "If evolution is the truth and the evidence clearly points to its truth, reasonable IDers like Dembski and Behe will not forever sacrifice their intellects to deny it." I don't think it's about intellects for them. I'm sure they believe that this is what the evidence says, but if it came to it, I don't doubt they would sacrifice their intellects, and perhaps more beside, for a higher (should we say highest? or perhaps First?) Cause. The problem is, if that surely completely discarded and wholely irrelevent wedge strategy ever actually manages to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions," we'll all be sacrificing. A lot. "In any case, I have enjoyed the discussion, and if anyone ever does establish that natural selection has the power Darwinism claims for it, I’ll be sure to come back to this blog and eat crow…" I'm glad you enjoyed it; has been quite interesting. No need for crow-eating, just appreciate how cool the world is, whether as a result of just material forces, or of something else science can't touch. (And don't forget modern evolutionary theory has gone beyond Darwin's almost 15-decade old discovery.) If you really want to hone your debating skills on this issue, I recommend reading as much mainstream science-writing about evolution as time, money, and life allows (ulterior motive? who, me? darn, you caught me - I'm hoping you'll see how weak the case for ID is so far, and how strong it is for evolution . . . but if not, you'll be prepared for anything, right?) And now for your reading pleasure, let me leave you with "Ten Questions to Ask Your History Teacher", courtesy of Some are Boojums: So — kids, the next time your history teacher starts trying to force-feed you Revolutionary “theory” as if it were “fact”, you know what to do! Ten Questions to Ask Your History Teacher Q: ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENTS: Why do history textbooks claim that the modern British monarchy originated with the “Norman conquest”, in “1066″, when nobody has ever seen a calendar for that year, and there hasnever been an English king named “Norman”? Q: WASHINGTON’S BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT: Why don’t textbooks discuss the “Civil War,” or the fact that all US governmental bodies appear together at that time, instead of branching from a Constitution — thus contradicting revolutionary theory? Q: THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE: Why do history textbooks claim that the “Revolutionary War” started with a “Declaration of Independence” and quote its words, then claim that a suspiciously old-looking document in Washington D.C is the same document because it contains the same words, — a circular argument masquerading as historical evidence? Q: GEORGE WASHINGTON. It is well known that the infamous “cherry tree” story was faked, and that “George Washington” never said “I cannot tell a lie” — that is, if he ever existed. Why do textbooks use drawings or “artist’s conceptions” of “George Washington” as evidence that he existed? Why does no single history textbook anywhere point out that there are nophotographs - zero! - of “George Washington” in existence? Q: ALEXANDER HAMILTON. Why do some history textbooks give Alexander Hamilton’s year of birth as 1755, and others as 1757? Why do historians refuse to discuss, or even acknowledge, the controversy? Why do many textbooks even claim that this (probably imaginary) figure was killed in a duel with “Aaron Burr”? Take out a $10 bill and see whose picture is on it. Do you think this duel actually occurred, and that the US then decided to put the loser’s picture on its currency? Q: WASHINGTON CROSSING THE DELAWARE. Why do history textbooks all use the same picture of “Washington Crossing the Delaware” — when historians have been aware for years that the picture was staged? Any idiot knows that you can’t get ten guys in a canoe without capsizing, and “Washington” is standing up? Get real. Q: SILLY HATS. Why do textbooks claim that Revolutionary Fashion can explain the use of Tricorner Hats by the colonists — even though these hats were not used in the French Revolution, and there are no such silly hats anywhere else in history? Q: REVOLUTIONARY WAR. Why do textbooks represent the Revolutionary War as having been won through a series of “small victories” when, every time you look at an actual battle the colonists fought against the British, as likely as not they got their asses handed to them? Do you think a nation as magnificently complex as the United States could come about through a random, undirected sequence of military engagements? Q: GOVERNMENTAL ORIGINS. Why are artists’ drawings of a bunch of middle-aged guys in poofy wigs used to justify Revolutionary claims that we are all descended from a parcel of ninnies who didn’t have the sense to be at the beach in July — when historians cannot even agree on who they were or what their actual hair looked like? Q: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that the American Revolution is an historical fact — even though many Revolutionary claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts? And remember — when some liberal revolutionist starts spouting off about imaginary events supposed to have taken place in 1776, all you have to do is look him in the eye and ask “Were you there?” Dan S.

Dan, I'm actually not all that worried about this debate. The truth will out. It is what it is, and will eventually come to the surface one way or the other. If evolution is the true story of our history, it will eventually triumph even if the wacky creationists have their way on public education. Galileo truimphed without ever getting the official support of the Church (until recently, that is). Einstein was initially mocked but later vindicated, not because he got official protection, but because his theories were dramatically confirmed by experiment. My comment about "sacrificing intellects" was a comment about people in general including IDers. If evolution is the truth and the evidence clearly points to its truth, reasonable IDers like Dembski and Behe will not forever sacrifice their intellects to deny it. The truth will triumph in the end no matter what it is. Obviously I believe Darwinism is false and will eventually be recognized as bankrupt. The penalty for believing Darwinism is not atheism and immorality, but the penalty for believing anything that is false: Sterility. What is false is not practical or fruitful. And I DO think that scientists have been hoping to produce new organs or structures in the lab. That's why they have been inducing genetic mutations in thousands upon thousands of generations of fruit flies, hoping that one of them will eventually result in a new structure or significant variation. But they never do. They either get variations that never get beyond the trivial or hopeless monsters that quickly expire. And even if they do change (trivially), they go back to being the old fruit flies in a couple of generations. I know, I know, it is always possible to say that evolution goes so slowly that no can ever really observe it. As one scientific wag put it, evolution is always happening somewhere else. The only thing we can observe is trivial results and speculate that the same process can produce novel structures and organisms. But this is really an excuse rather than evidence, isn't it? How long will Darwinism be supported by excuses? My own view, which I can't prove, is that trying to get natural selection to produce a novel structure is like trying to produce a perpetual motion machine. It's an exercise in futility that wastes resources that might better be spent elsewhere. People will keep proposing things that look like perpetual motion machines, but examination of the details always proves that it isn't what it is cracked up to be. Darwinists are forever inventing new arguments and experiments to demonstrate the power of natural selection, but they never prove what they seem to prove. The example of linguistic evolution, for example, has as its subject *intelligent* human beings who understand language itself and use it self-consciously for a purpose, so it can hardly serve as proof for a theory whose very point is to dispense with intelligence as a causal agent. In any case, I have enjoyed the discussion, and if anyone ever does establish that natural selection has the power Darwinism claims for it, I'll be sure to come back to this blog and eat crow... taciturnus

a novel structure or organ is not necessarily expected as the result of a lab experiment. You guys seem to have the wrong idea about what predictions the theory of evolution makes - not a cat turning into a dog (I know my cat wouldn't stand for it - and yes, no one here suggested that, it's from a whole 'nother discussion elsewhere a while back) but quite possibly slow gradual change. You're gone and read all that stuff over at www.talkorigins.org, right, and at least a couple of popular-ish works, right? I keep hearing good things about "Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo" . . . Sorry about raised hackles, though. The issue's pretty important to me, both in terms of education and ultimately how our country will deal with the 21st century; of course, it's also pretty important to a lot of folks in the other side, who see it as an issue of stemming atheism and immorality. I wish they'd realize that they're two different things here that don't need to overlap . . . Interesting speculation. There's the plate tectonics model - where after enough evidence shows up the entire field just goes - oh wow, that's so right - and the more gradual kind you're discussing. Margulis isn't destroying evolution, she's adding to it - and very niftily too (whether or not *everything* she proposes turns out right - she's made a major contribution to our understanding of life). Right now we have an Old-New Synthesis - eventually we'll probably getting a new one. " Or at least so far she hasn’t been fired for her heresies." You misunderstand how it works. She's in the textbooks - I think at least AP, dunno general - for the light she shed on where mitochondia, etc. come from. "I'd say you’re comparing apples to oranges but that’s not right. You’re comparing apples to rocks." : ) That's pretty good. That's not what I meant though - I'm not comparing process, I'm comparing methodology. We find out about plate tectonics the same way we find out about evolution. Pennock has a much, much better example in "Tower of Babel" - we've never seen one language "turn into" another, never seen linguistic change produce a new language, but it's not seriously doubted that more or less, many fine details missing, more study needed, that's how it happened. (Although some people regard the Babel account as literally accurate . . .) What would Darwin think? Who knows? I like to think he'd be happy we solved his problem about the inheritence issue, although he'd probably be annoyed to learn that the answer had been found in his own day, even if the few people who heard about it failed to appreciate its importance . . . I think he would be happy to see that a lot of the big fossil gaps he worried about had been closed - one or two major finds in my own state, yay - although there are many remaining, unsurprisingly. He'd probably be very interested in all we've learned about . . . ah, just go read "Darwin's Ghost . . ." Dan S.

Taciturnus Keynote speaker Lynn Margulis at the 2005 World Conference on Evolution declared neoDarwinian theory dead. Earlier, Dembski likened the death of the neoDarwinian narrative to badger baiting. It looks like your hypothesis is more or less described by Dembski's badger and Margulis is one of the first scientists to get a good bite in without being harmed in the process. Or at least so far she hasn't been fired for her heresies. Dan S. You are still trying to peddle a slippery slope argument to say nothing of false analogy. The movement of continental plates does not result in self-replication of complex molecular machinery. I'd say you're comparing apples to oranges but that's not right. You're comparing apples to rocks. DaveScot

My own brain is swiss cheese.... 2005 - 1859 = 146, not 90. Good thing I'm not balancing my checkbook. taciturnus

Dan, My statement about the obvious need for intelligent causes was not intended to raise any hackles. I know it isn't obvious to you. It was just part of my speculation about the future of evolutionary theory, based on its history and the history of other theories. Scientists are still working on how to explain complex structures. I wish them luck. If you could go back in time and tell Darwin that, 90 years on from 1859, scientists would still be struggling to explain how natural selection can produce anything more than minor modifications of existing structures, and have no empirical evidence that it can actually do such a thing, I am sure he would be disappointed. The question is, how long will scientists go on beating their heads against the wall, running the same experiments over and over showing that natural selection operates only within definite limits? Perhaps you are right and, one day, one of these experiments will somehow produce a novel structure or organism. If so, bully for the scientist who makes the breakthrough. Other scientists, I suspect, will tire of this repetition and will start exploring the question suggested by the data: Why does natural selection only operate within definite limits? These scientists, I expect, will be able to write papers that do more than simply reiterate what prior papers have stated (natural selection made some minor changes, and nothing else.) They will start to explain WHY natural selection is limited, not in terms that openly challenge evolution or endorse ID, but that undermine the Darwinian account nonetheless. Eventually everyone will have forgotten about Darwin, except historically. But, then, this is all speculation... taciturnus

"The underlying assumptions are methods are the same..." that should be "*and* methods . . ." Also wrote too for to elsewhere. Brain turning to swiss cheese. Dan S.

"Making comparisons to plate tectonics is a red herring." No, it isn't. The underlying assumptions are methods are the same. It doesn't matter if no-one's pushing for an alternative theory - science is doing the same thing in both cases. And note that the prevailing opinion when continental drift was first proposed (without a plausible mechanism, and at a time when a lot of the evidence wasn't in) - people thought it was completely absurd. It took decades of work, advances in technology, discoveries and theoretical advances in half a dozen different fields before it became widely and wildly accepted. Take this how you wish, but note: it didn't get where it is today by insisting that it be taught in high school before it had made any sort of case . . . Putting aside the bit about how modern evolutionary theory is bigger than random mutation and natural selection, and that there's no reason that new mechanisms won't be discovered, and probably added to the theory (unless they knock it all over) - why do you think that those two aren't defintely sufficient? Or to put it another way, you've never *seen* two continentss collide and make a mountain range, right? The Mt. Rushmore/Venus de Milo analogies seem fundamentally flawed to me. In this whole wide world we've never seen anything like them that wasn't made by people.* At the same time, we haven't seen any living things that were made by people (yes, yes, babies, ha, ha). It assumes what it is trying to show. Additionally, the processes are different. Erosion stands in a different relationship to carving than small changes do to large changes - especially now that we're understanding a little bit more about development, and how small changes can have big effects. Also, rocks don't reproduce (although this was not immediately obvious to generations of New England farmers . .. actually, there was a folk theory about how seed rocks grew bigger and bigger . . .) * The Old Man of the Mountains in New Hampshire can be excluded, since it collapsed (and also since it clearly isn't relevant. Was cool, though . . . "The need for some kind of intelligence to explain complex structures is so obvious " That hasn't been established yet. Scientists are working on how to explain complex structures. Current fruitful lines of inquiry do not involve intelligence (ha - maybe I should rephrase that?). We're not talking about sacrificing intellects, we're talking about doing science. Indeed, the complete failure of all of evolutionary theory to ever explain that would not establish that there was a need for some kind of intelligence - all it would mean was that evolutionary theory couldn't do it, and that something else was needed. False dichotomy. Evidence that intelligence was involved in the formation of complex structures . . . . then we would be talking. Dan S.

Dave, You're clearly deeper into this debate than I am. I was just wondering if I was missing something in the rockpile analogy. I have no advice on soundbites... but I wish you success in finding some that get the key notions of ID over quickly. What do you think of this guess as to how Darwinism will finally crumble? The late medieval dominance of classical philosophy coupled with religious faith was not undermined by open doubters of either. What everyone did was pay formal respect to the dominant philosophy while proposing as mere hypotheses theories that undermined it. We're just "saving the appearances" don't you know. By the time of Hume and Kant, both were paying the merest of lip service to the old philosophy while ripping it to shreds in their works. I suspect the same thing will happen with Darwinism. It isn't the open doubters like Dembski and Behe that will bring it down. It will be scientists of undoubted evolutionary faith, who expressly pledge their fealty to Darwinism, who will bring it down by proposing theories that effectively undermine it. The need for some kind of intelligence to explain complex structures is so obvious that scientists will not forever sacrifice their intellects to deny it. But they won't openly doubt evolution. They will bring intelligence in by the back door, under other names, and gradually, to "save the appearances". We don't doubt evolution, they'll say, but we find intelligent causes to be useful fictions. Eventually the stalwart Darwinists will all retire, everyone will forget that the intelligent causes are supposed to be fictitious, and Darwinism will be in its grave without anyone remembering the funeral. taciturnus

Taciturnus The rock stack is an analogy I'm working on. I think it illustrates the case making absurd extrapolations. It's not perfectly illustrative of the entire problem with the Darwinian narrative of course. On the river canyon I'd agree it's a reasonable extrapolation to presume a river cut a canyon a mile deep and a mile wide. Is it reasonable to extrapolate further and conclude that a river carved the atlantic basin? I don't think so. But I see where you're going. We know that erosion can carve rock. Can a river carve the walls of a canyon into the faces of dead presidents? Theoretically it can but practically speaking it's impossible without intelligent direction. The work RM+NS needs to accomplish is more than "the same thing but more of it". It's more than just stacking small mutations into big mutations. The stack has to be ordered in a complex way aside from simply growing larger. A good analogy would be a glacier stacking rocks. It can stack them in piles the size of a pyramid but it won't stack them in the ordered manner of ;a pyramid. How's that sound for a second draft on the rock stacking - compare a natural pile of rocks to a manmade pile of rocks? I'm interested in sound-bites that put across major evolutionary/ID concepts in analogous terms that just about anyone can grasp quickly. But I get your point and it's a good one. DaveScot

DaveScot, I've been eavesdropping on your posts because you write clearly and get straight to the logical heart of the issue. Pretty funny sometimes too. I wonder if you might be missing the boat on the rock-stacking analogy you've used in your last several entries. Why can't rocks be stacked to the moon? I know there are obvious issues with a rock stack being able to sustain its own weight and being sufficiently stable, but these are practical considerations. As an imaginative matter, it doesn't seem out of the question, and if evolution is analogous to stacking rocks, I don't see why, in principle, it might not have happened. I don't have a problem believing that erosion created the Grand Canyon because all I'm asked to believe is that the Colorado River has been doing the same thing for millions of years that it is doing now. Isn't the problem with Darwinism that it doesn't ask us to believe that NS can merely stack rocks or erode canyons, but create complex structures? It's like supposing that, because a tornado might occasionaly pile two or three rocks on top of each other, a tornado might occasionally blow a Chartes Cathedral into being. Or because the Colorado can erode the Grand Canyon, we should conclude that it can erode rock into the Venus de Milo. That's not even imaginatively possible. taciturnus

Yes Dan, I am. At the end of the day RM+NS is theoretical. It's never been observed in the lab or wild creating any novel cell types, tissue types, organs, or body plans. And not for lack of trying. RM+NS actually has observed limits in its capabilities. Postulating that it has no limits and is capable of producing everything we see from a single celled ancestor is extrapolation most extreme. It's like watching rocks being stacked into ever higher piles and concluding that there is no limit to the height they may be stacked. There indeed may be no limit but I'm going to want to see a stack that goes to the moon before believing it can be done. Making comparisons to plate tectonics is a red herring. When the unwashed masses try to impose an alternative theory to plate tectonics into HS geology then we'll have a conversation but until then it's just another weak slippery slope fallacy. DaveScot

"I’m being asked to take as a matter of faith with RM+NS." You're not, though. Hey, you know where TalkOrigins is. Dan S.

Dan S. Many IDists, myself included, acknowledge common descent and RM+NS having some role in it. The problem is what level role? RM+NS of the gaps, which I like to call "Darwin of the gaps" is no more satisfactory explanation than anything else. ALL the evidence from modern biology (the study of living tissues) demonstrates a fundamental limit to what RM+NS can accomplish. Positing that RM+NS, which has never been actually observed creating some fundamentally new structure like a novel cell type, tissue type, organ, or body plan, can do all these things is a huge, unjustified extrapolation. Look at it like building a pyramid. You can pile rocks really high. Can you pile them all the way to the moon? It's a similar feat I'm being asked to take as a matter of faith with RM+NS. I ain't buyin' it. It's an argument from ignorance and it's no more valid than saying God did it. DaveScot

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/my_response_to.html#more Trouble in paradise? The atheists are increasingly annoying the scientists who keep their religion and their science separate. That's funny. It had to happen. Belief or disbelief in supernatural entities has no place in science. Science has nothing to say about the supernatural except that it can be neithe proven nor disproven. DaveScot

"According to ID, all Texans are crazy...." I always thought that was an element of ID theory. Well, good to know. mynym

"Ed is SO ignorant of his subject that after probably 1000 words and links..." I was censored off his blog for trying to correct some of his ignorance. I think his last argument was that words I was using like "agendized" and "complementary" did not exist, which demonstrated his ignorance again. It is all so clear now though...if ID is taught in schools, not only will people begin to believe that the sun revolves around the earth, but the Argentine fire ant will run wild and probably eat all the grapefruits or somethin'! Hmmm, not to mention the fact that wheat will stop growing or somethin' thanks to the "ID influence" that separates and alienates us from Nature. It'll be harmful to the nation and our organic good! I guess an argument about grapefruit is a little more interesting than the associative arguments typical to propaganda, "Disagreein' about Darwinism is just like disagreeing with gravity or something...you don't believe me? Well...that's only because you can't grasp the gravity of the situation just like I was sayin'! Besides, I'm being scientific by saying gravity." On a serious note, it may be possible to change ID to the "Jewish influence" and compare these ravings to the arguments of some people in history that took Darwinism very seriously for the good of the State. (It has always been the material of satire.) mynym

Salvador Cordova responds to Ed Darrel http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/one_reason_evol.html#c42441 Awesome, Salvador. I really enjoyed reading your response. DaveScot

"They have no idea how to fight the idea of a Heavenly Engineer (HE) who designs life without violating any natural laws." Who wants to fight such an idea? It just can't be part of science class. "At this point and increasingly so as more evidence is discovered, the evidence indicates that life is designed and there’s no sign so far that the designer needed to violate any laws of physics to do it." Well, we'll see. My side might be wrong - that's science - although I've yet to see anything that would make me think that's at all probable. Time will tell, hopefully. It just makes me sad - if said evidence fails to materialize (now *that* would be something! - poof!) - to the extent that ID is concerned with meaning and morality, think of all the misdirected effort. Well, we all do what we think we must. I just hope you guys don't end up undermining U.S. confidence in science as an objective way of knowing (that just another faith meme is everywhere, like summer flies), sparking a drop in vaccination and then a resulting epidemic of some half-forgotten disease, or something . . . Dan S.

By the way, the natives sure are restless. They have no idea how to fight the idea of a Heavenly Engineer (HE) who designs life without violating any natural laws. Now they're complaining that we're belittling God by saying He doesn't have to be supernatural. ROFLMAO! This is like shooting fish in a barrel. All ya gots ta do is follow the evidence. At this point and increasingly so as more evidence is discovered, the evidence indicates that life is designed and there's no sign so far that the designer needed to violate any laws of physics to do it. All perfectly scientific. Damn I love science. DaveScot

Joseph O'Donnel at Panda's Thumb says here http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/one_reason_evol.html#c42338 that we're cowards for not confronting Ed Darrel at the Panda's Thumb. Well Joe, I'd be happy to do just that. Unfortunately the coward Wesley Elsberry has banned me from Panda's Thumb. DaveScot

"and refers to simple micro examples." Well, I don't think evolutionary change much above the species level is something that people generally encounter in their day to day lives . . . . "- So even most of the people who write the books don’t even know the “FACTS”, let alone 5 to mention huh ?" Textbooks have really bad coverage of education - I would think that's something both sides of this thing could agree on, at least in principle? Some of it's just textbooks being textbooks - some of it is the result of creationist pressure (or at least, publisher self-censorship). "What’s really frightening is he somehow managed to get a teaching certificate" He's teaching social studies, though, you say, not life science . . . "Again, he just ignores intelligent agency–this time scientists at Texas A&M who bred Rio Reds." See, here's the thing: Darwin used plant and animal breeding - which people were familiar with, especially at that point in time - to explain how "descent with modification," as he put it, would work: indeed, as a special case of it! People were *using* this process; but *they* weren't the process (or a necessary part of it) Ooh, ooh, I just thought of this, so please humor me: Take pebbles on a beach or riverbed. They're all smooth and round and pretty. Indeed, they seem to just *be* that way - beach or riverbed stones are round and smooth. Now, people who want smooth rounded stones can *also* get a rock tumbler and use it. The underlying mechanism or process is the same. With a rock tumbler, people can quite intelligently *use* this mechanism for their own purposes, but you shouldn't conclude that intelligence is a *part* of the mechanism (although one can't rule it out, in a metaphysical sense). Or something. Fire away! I'm a little slow. Dembski, you're saying that Ed's remarks are an extreme example of informed, coherent thought? That's quite nice of you! (I would agree; I do dislike talking point and ad campaigns, but then again, since my side's not the ones who declared "in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source," I would agree that they're probably a fair and necessary response . . . And I am quite favorably impressed at the Coynes article being posted without remarks, even! Cool. Dan S.

I came here via a link from the Panda's Thumb comments section. Regardless of the bigger issues, let me suggest that on order to actually communicate we must try to listen and understand what the other is saying. For example, over at the Thumb someone pointed out Ed's chronological mistakes, to which he replied "We are all ignorant of some things, and in my case my ignorance is vast. I wish I could have found that site you got in my earliest searches." Some of the comments here show some confusion about what evolution is, how it is defined, etc. Talking about pimples who "know" that you clean your face, and so become resistant, a bug mutating as a defense mechanism to continue its life as a bug - I know language is tricky when it comes to this kind of thing, but you guys aren't raising objections against evolution at all (although you're doing a good job beating a dead Lamarck!) It's like someone started arguing - of course grapefruits weren't brought down from heaven by St. Darwin himeself in 1987!! - which isn't what Ed said. Ed has posted the five whatevers of evolution out of various sources: Observation 1: Species have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood. Observation 2: Populations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations. Observation 3. Food resources are limited, and are constant most of the time. Inference A: In such an environment there will be a struggle for survival among individuals. Observation 4: No two individuals are identical. Variation is rampant. Observation 5: Much of this variation is heritable. Now of course, modern evolutionary theory goes far, far beyond this, but this is a good statement of natural selection. Take the weevils. Instead of individuals mutating to keep alive, what happens is that there is variation [random, *as far as science can tell*] among the weevil population, as a result of copying errors. As a result of this variation, some of the weevils might deal with a specific pesticide better than others- but this specific variation need not exist before the introduction of the pesticide, as long as it shows up before the weevil population drops below any chance of recovery.* Any weevils who have it, either pre-existing or not, will be more successful than their poor less-resistant comrades in producing offspring, who will to some degree inherit that trait - it's being selected for by the environment. Depending on the genetics, you could quite quickly end up with a whole state of resistant weevils - and then you switch to a new insecticide, and it starts all over again. (This is an gross simplification from someone with a limited formal science education - nothing past college intro.) We're not talking about individual bugs changing in order to keep alive (and the bug's needs or wishes don't seem to effect what variation occurs* - it can't provide itself or its children with pesticide-resistance genes by hard work )- this is a population-wide, multi-generational thing " are we talking about mutation here or evolution?" Well, mutation is one part of evolution. Variation in itself would not effect anything, unless it interacts with the environment - bad phrasing, sorry, rushed -and is therefore subject to natural selection. This is an important distinction, actually. Simply knowing that change is occuring won't help you - you need some way to understand and predict the nature of that change to be all proactive and stuff. Re:no agriculture before Darwin - for centuries people had an understanding of breeding, and farmers who might have never heard of evolution thanks to post-Scopes legislation and textbook self-censoring could see that after a few years the latest miracle spray didn't seem that miraculous. It took Darwin and Mendel and a whole lot of other people to bring us modern breeding methods and so on. "Do you need to know a bloody single thing about “evolution” to understand how citrus is . . . grown commercially" Quite possibly not - I know only perhaps one or two things about commercial citrus growing, and that's thanks to DaveScot comments, so I'll take his word for it. Citrus *breeding*? Yes. I mean, you could just sort of follow directions, and do stuff without fully understanding why. We get that in education sometimes, people who pick up on various ideas without understanding the ideas behind them. The results often end up in the newspaper, and not in a good way, in a dropping scores way. I didn't know citrus was primarily grafted clones (makes sense) - like apples and bananas (well, they're not grafted, I think they plant slips or something?) and potatoes. And here evolution is vital to understanding why older apple varieties need tons of pesticide, bananas are in trouble, and potatoes - well, think Ireland. The clones stand (mostly) still, while everything else is getting better and better at eating/attacking/etc. them. Yes, micro/macro. And I'm trapped in this room because, although I can take little steps, it will *never* be enough to get me out the door. C'mon guys, this is like criticizing ID on the grounds that the earth clearly isn't 6000 years old. Dan S.

I have the answer to MWC question to ed. If you know that something like cow pox can innoculate millions against small pox could you not use the genetic information of a retro virus to isolate potentially useful non-nocif viruses. These alternatives would have to be along the same evolutionnary lines as the virus, or even pre-mutation varieties. Another example would be avian flu if we can find a form that is not nocif before it mutates to easy human transfer, tehn we would have successfully used the theory of evolution to solve a real problem... It seems to me that ID is not really a practical theory but rather a missguided attempt to salvage Christendom from the barrages of post industrial empiricism... Thistleking

Ed is a middle school social studies teacher in Dallas. I once exchanged a half dozen emails with him about one of his favorite talking points for why evolution should be taught in Texas; the Ruby Red grapefruit. Ed is SO ignorant of his subject that after probably 1000 words and links I couldn't convince him that grapefruit growers in Texas populate their orchards with cloned cultivars. Ed thinks each individual tree in the orchard comes from a seed. In fact each individual tree is a clone (cutting) of a Ruby Red cultivar grafted onto hardier citrus rootstock. Ruby Red isn't a species. Grapefruit itself isn't even a species. It's a hybrid of two of the four wild citrus species C.grandis and C.reticulata. If you try growing grapefruit seeds you get a wide variety of results that are some mix of the wild species. Orchard growers need their trees to produce consistent fruits. Thus what happens is that nurseries grow citrus trees from seed to maturity and then select adult trees that yield fruit with desireable commercial quality for cloning via cuttings. The cloned cuttings are then grafted onto wild citrus rootstock as the hybrids have weak roots susceptable to disease and insects (which is why there's only four citrus species that survived the natural selection process in the wild). Commerical growers then populate their orchards with these grafted clones and every tree in the orchard thus yields exactly the fruit expected. Do you need to know a bloody single thing about "evolution" to understand how citrus is bred and grown commercially? Absolutely not. Plant breeding, propogation via cuttings, and grafting is way older than Darwin. Is Ed Darrel bright enough to grasp any of the above? Absolutely not. What's really frightening is he somehow managed to get a teaching certificate and passes on his gross ignorance to younger minds. DaveScot

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt evolutionary thinking to blame for bringing the study of "junk DNA" to a screeching halt until recently? Why study something that is obviously a useless product of evolution, right? Wrong. We're learning that this so-called junk serves a real purpose. Today, all you hear is how ID will stifle scientific thinking. Seems the Darwinists are doing a pretty good job of that by themselves. Lurker

My most humourous complain against ID would be that if humans annihilate themselves with nuclear, or other, weapons then that too was part of the design, in which case God is less an engineer and more a beligerent child. But seriously, Srjdan is correct you could do that and it is in fact the only way to hold ID as a respectable theory, but that does not help you prove it! Thistleking

The problem is, when your ad hoc theory explains everything you end up thinking that everything depends upon your theory. Since evolution equals 'change over time' you have to be a Darwinists to understand anything that might change. I guess agriculture was still-born until Darwin got home from the Beagle. Charlie

His examples are ridiculous. He does not understand the debate and refers to simple micro examples. This post is almost too confused to parse out into errors, but I'll give it a shot. I won't go into his authoritarian suggested toward public mind control. Most prominent--Mayr actually refers to Ed Darrell's five facts as Darwin's five theories: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/305/5680/46/DC1/1. If they are just theories, then shouldn't we be open to considering other theories as well--thus, teach the controversy? PaV, you're right about mutation. Ed confuses it again in his second example and goes on to challenge intelligent design to come up with an answer quickly. How's this--intelligent agents acting on designed corrective plans based on knowledge of mutation? Regarding grapefruits, is Ed serious? Accoring to Wikipedia (I know--not the best, but arguably reliable within 80-90 percent), the grapefruit was discovered in the 1750s--at least 240 years ago. And then, he confuses cross-pollination with evolution. Again, he just ignores intelligent agency--this time scientists at Texas A&M who bred Rio Reds. It seems as though Ed keeps invoking the concept of evolution as though it were a type of catch-all savior for him. Question for Ed--how does one use evolution theory to fight disease? "When was the last time you saw someone argue that?" Answer--I never have, because it cannot be argued. MWC

I think we need to be a bit merciful with this character here. His English is a bit distorted, but from what I could gather from his message, he is concerned that Intelligent Design advocates are ignorant and disbelieving of a very real thing that happens all the time! This would paint a very strange picture in the mind of anyone, to think such a thing about ID. But obviously, this man has not thought very many things through and does not have even the slightest understanding about what this debate is about. Obviously, intelligent design has no problem whatsoever with Natural Selection in the present, Speciation and Variation. These are all sortings of existing information which can be observed, tested and repeated in the present, unlike the theory of evolution postulates. As we all should know, the theory of evolution claims that this mechanism that we see in action today is also the same mechanism that generated all of the information that is being sorted in the first place. This is where ID advocates, Creationists and others part company with Evolutionists. We do not see natural selection, or this "sorting of existing information" as being a possible generator of information in the first place, much less capable of overcoming that impossible leap from non-living matter to a living cell. This does not mean that we do not believe in selective breeding, mutations, or variation leading to speciation and adaptation. These are all very real things, but this principle alone does not turn particles into people, or mice into men or anything else of the sort. On another note, I've always found it incredibly amusing to consider that the evoultionist actually has to believe that the eye is an accidental mutation and that the heart is an accidental mutation and that our nervous system was a fluke, an accidental mutation, the same for ever arm, leg, finger and toe, the brain and conciousness itself: all accidental mutations. OOPS! zonetripper

"That eradication process, led the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is based on poisoning boll weevils to eradicate them from specific regions, in doses and ways carefully calculated to avoid forcing the bugs to mutate resistance — it takes a solid understanding of evolution to make the program work." Maybe I'm wrong, but are we talking about mutation here or evolution? In other words, we "see" mutation (the actually observed), and the evolutionists "infer" evolution from that. Now if we "know" that bugs "mutate", that's all we need to know to eradicate the bug's defenses, and the "inference" (not the "design inference", the "evolution inference") that this constitutes evolution is neither here nor there. And all of what I'm saying seems to be contained in the expression "the bug's defenses." If "mutation" is part of a bug's defense mechanism, then why would you call that "evolution"? It seems the bug is trying to continue his life as a bug----and is not trying to become a singing butterfly! PaV

"According to ID, all Texans are crazy." I agree. ID proponents have been saying this for years. joncrowell

We have eddarrel on our site too, bravely sallying forth against us with his patriotic American flag icon by his side. We keep him around for laughs. Deuce

Eureka! I just realised what the problem is. Lets just incorporate Intelligent Design in the deffinition of evolution and than we can claim evolution is a fact. Srdjan

Just for the sake of clarity, please note that Charliecrs and Charlie are not the same person. Charlie

"I recommend we pass out talking points with the five facts of evolution. " - still waiting for the " 5 " FACTS you mentioned, where is it ?. im sure you know it but [somehow][oops] forgot to mention it because the facts mysteriously de-volved from your highly evolved brain - im right ? right ? "we’ll need to specify what those facts are that need to be taught, but we can do it." - YEAH still waiting for these facts... "Even among textbooks, most of them don’t bother to list the five evolution facts " - So even most of the people who write the books don't even know the "FACTS", let alone 5 to mention huh ? that is soooo sad. " Evolution theory is left to the individual scientist to explain, and to the individual reader/citizen to figure out. Contrast this with Newton’s “Laws of Motion,” or the “Laws of Thermodynamics.” " now this guys is comparing fact & fiction - FACTS FIRST 1) - Newtons laws & the laws of thermodynamics can be observed and or tested. FICTION 2) - Evolution - leaves us with ???? that can be tested by only " Sike, Sike and SUPER SIKE " oh and of course it can be tested by the next great evolutionary genius or should i say novelist? [sike, sike]? YEAP so true, gosh im seeing Richard Dawkins imaginary pet dog that somehow with the help of natural selection ; jumped out of his mind and became the new and great spokesman for the great institute. [ ah yes, Science ] load of c--p you say ?. well im sure if you give it or given a chance [ it could happen right ] and millions of years and random mutation [in this case brain ] combined with the natural selection and in a million years or so it would happen. then i would be begging for your forgiveness for i didn't realize that the "all mighty Darwin " had said so and i did not belive. oh man and finally... " I have a list of publications on how modern wheat farming is dependent on evolution, too. Minnesota has its own crops. California has grapes, artichokes and dairy. Every state has an agricultural, livestock and medical stake in evolution. Every state is, therefore, threatened by intelligent design." know what, i have a couple pimples of my face - so what ? maybe the pimples know that i clean my face and take a bath so the have become resistant ?. so what ? - where is the evo - in the evolution ? i mean really, unless the little pimple became or came with little green or gray men and started talking to me i wouldn't call it a proof of anything. maybe, just maybe an intelligent designer could cure it one day -sighs- Charlie p.s - know what else ?... i think im probably guilty of quote mining ? [oh man, how lame is that ] ?:( oh great Darwin --- please forgive me. i have blasphemed against your holy Darwinian's and or cult [ in my opinion ]. im sorry. Charliecrs

When will you creationists learn? The refusal to accept evolutionary naturalism is all that is keeping us from ushering in a new era of economic prosperity and material equality. Want to end world hunger? End ID. … (sarcasm) mechanicalbirds

"...it takes a solid understanding of evolution to make the program work". Yes... no, no... yes, yes, no... but maybe... yes, no. Daniel512