Intelligent Design under attack

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Eric B, Aug 29, 2005.

  1. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    I was getting ready to write a post and perhaps make it into an article, seeing all the controversy concerning "Intelligent Design" these days, but then; I get the followign e-mail from my brother (an agnostic), which pushed the project up to today:

    The "Intelligent Design" Hoax
    William J. Bennetta
    Editor's Introduction -- Among the various frauds that creationists have used in their attacks on science education, the newest is a body of woo-woo known as "intelligent design." The creationists depict "intelligent design" as a scientific construct and as an alternative to the theory of organic evolution, though it is neither. They insist that it must be included in biology curricula and biology textbooks, though its essential assertions revolve around supernaturalism, not biology. Sometimes they even call it "intelligent design theory" or "the theory of intelligent design" to imply that it is intellectually comparable to the theory of organic evolution, though it isn't comparable at all. Nor is it a theory. It is a hoax.

    "Intelligent design" is a derivative of "creation-science," the religious pseudoscience by which creationists, during the 1970s and the early 1980s, purported to show that the concept of organic evolution was false and that there was no genealogical connection between man and any other species. After "creation-science" was thoroughly discredited by scientists and was barred from public schools by federal judges, the creationists modified it, disguised it by wrapping it in some new pseudoscientific double-talk, and presented it under the name "intelligent design." Since then, "intelligent design" has figured prominently in many of the creationists' campaigns to undermine science education -- indeed, it has become the creationists' favorite device for deceiving state education agencies, for tricking local school boards, for gulling classroom teachers, and for inducing schoolbook-publishers to pervert and falsify the treatment of organic evolution in biology books.

    State boards of education, officers of local school districts, science educators, and the public at large need information about the origin and features of the "intelligent design" hoax, but such information isn't easy to find. It surely can't be found in newspaper or newsmagazine articles about the creationists' campaigns, because such articles fail to provide any substantive information at all: They display the phrase "intelligent design" a few times, in throwaway lines, but they don't tell what it signifies, they don't describe the fantasies that the devotees of "intelligent design" try to peddle, and they don't explain that "intelligent design" has already been discredited by scientists, just as "creation-science" was. Many of the newspaper articles are worse than worthless because they parrot the creationists' rhetoric and mislead the public by falsely referring to "intelligent design" as a "theory."

    With these points in mind, we present here a historical and scientific exposition of the "intelligent design" hoax. This material was published originally in The Textbook Letter as a part of William J. Bennetta's review of Taking Religion Seriously Across the Curriculum, a book written by Warren A. Nord and Charles C. Haynes. In their book, Nord and Haynes proposed a scheme for converting America's public schools into agencies for propagating biblical religion -- and as a part of their proposal, they endorsed two books that promoted "intelligent design." In his review, "A Pair of Common Tricksters," Bennetta responded with the detailed commentary that appears below.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [Warren A. Nord and Charles C. Haynes] conclude chapter 7 of Taking Religion Seriously by offering a list of "Suggested Readings and Resources." I'm familiar with several of the items that they recommend, including the two books that they describe thus:

    In Darwin's Black Box (1997), the biochemist Michael Behe provides a sophisticated argument for intelligent design in dealing with evolution. Pandas and People (1989) is a short, low-key, but controversial textbook supplement designed to inform students about intelligent design theory as an alternative to conventional evolutionary theory. [page 162]

    Nord and Haynes have made some small mistakes here. The first book, Darwin's Black Box, was issued in 1996 (not 1997), and the title of the second book is Of Pandas and People (not Pandas and People).

    Nord and Haynes have also undertaken some big deceptions. They haven't disclosed that Darwin's Black Box and Of Pandas and People are pseudoscientific screeds promoted by creationists, and they haven't cited any of the publications in which Darwin's Black Box and Of Pandas and People have been exposed and demolished.

    Now, what do they mean when they announce that Darwin's Black Box and Of Pandas and People deal with "intelligent design" or "intelligent design theory"? What is "intelligent design"?

    "Intelligent design" (or ID, for short) is the political successor to "creation-science." Among today's creationists, ID has replaced "creation-science" as the hoax of choice for bamboozling ignorant politicians and bureaucrats and educators. If we compare ID with "creation-science," we discover some central similarities and some radical differences -- and to appreciate those similarities and differences we must recall some history.

    "Creation-science" was an elaborate body of hokum by which fundamentalists purported to show "scientifically" that the stories in the Book of Genesis were accounts of real events, that Earth and Earth's organisms had been fashioned directly by Yahweh (only a few thousand years ago), that the concept of organic evolution was false, and that humans were not connected genealogically to any other species. Much of "creation-science" consisted of lies, and many of the lies were so crude and transparent that they seemed risible to people who understood science -- but "creation-science" hadn't been contrived to impress people who understood science. It was intended to impress members of state legislatures, state education agencies, and local school boards. It was intended to persuade them that they should exclude modern astronomy, geology, paleontology and biology from science curricula, or (as an alternative) that they should inject biblical myths into science curricula as explanations of astronomical, geological, paleontological and biological observations.

    In their writings and their public appearances, the "creation-scientists" demonstrated that biblical narratives explained a great array of natural phenomena; they also demonstrated that the prevailing scientific explanations for those phenomena were wrong. They were able to perform these mighty feats, easily, because they didn't have to deal with real phenomena or with real science. Their chosen audiences were predictably ignorant of nature and science alike, so the "creation-scientists" could simply make things up -- which is what they did. They showed, for example, that the great Flood described in Genesis accounted for the stratigraphic distribution of fossils and thus explained the fossil record -- not the real fossil record but a fake fossil record that they themselves had invented. They showed that organic evolution couldn't occur because it was precluded by a law of thermodynamics -- not a real law of thermodynamics but a law that they themselves had cooked up. To bolster their claim that Earth was only a few thousand years old, they showed that the established scientific techniques for measuring the ages of ancient rocks were incompatible with some rules of nuclear physics -- not the nuclear physics that scientists studied but a kind of nuclear physics that was known only to creationists. And so on, ad nauseam [note 31].

    In the 1970s and the early 1980s, the purveyors of "creation-science" achieved numerous political victories. They succeeded in stifling the teaching of science in many local schools; they induced many school districts to stick biblical creation myths into science classes; they persuaded crooked schoolbook-publishers to print "science" books larded with creationistic double-talk; and in Arkansas and Louisiana they secured the enactment of state laws which fostered the teaching of "creation-science" in public schools.

    Eventually, however, their fortunes deteriorated. Scientific organizations, individual scientists, and competent educators exposed "creation-science" for the trash that it was, civil-liberties organizations undertook lawsuits to reverse some of the creationists' most conspicuous political successes, and the "creation-science" hoax started to fall apart. The Arkansas "creation-science" law and the Louisiana "creation-science" law were declared unconstitutional by federal judges who found that the concept of creation was supernaturalistic and religious, not scientific [note 32] -- and by 1987, when the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the voiding of the Louisiana statute, shrewd creationists were busily overhauling and sanitizing their enterprise and their vocabulary. They stopped their overt promotion of biblical miracle-stories as explanations of nature, they dumped the term creation-science, and they even dumped the word creation. Instead of saying that organisms had been fashioned by Yahweh, they now claimed that organisms were products of "intelligent design," conceived by a nameless "intelligent agent" -- and instead of saying that organisms had been divinely created, they said that organisms had "appeared abruptly" or had "suddenly appeared."

    The first major exhibition of the creationists' new lexicon of double-talk was Of Pandas and People. That book had been developed by a fundamentalist organization called the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), but it was printed and sold by Haughton Publishing Company, an outfit whose principal business seemed to be the printing of agricultural labels and catalogues. In 1989, Haughton began promoting Pandas as "a supplemental high school text."

    Pandas was rather narrow in scope. The FTE writers [note 33] dwelt on biology, the science that creationists hate most intensely, and they purported to examine "two different concepts of the origins of living things." One of these concepts, they said, was held by "evolutionists," the other by "proponents of intelligent design."

    Pandas was meant to convince dupes that the "evolutionists" were wrong and that the "proponents of intelligent design" had the right explanation for the existence and diversity of living things.

    Though the writers referred to Yahweh by such code-names as "intelligent agent" and "intelligent cause" and "primeval intellect," the material in Pandas was readily recognizable. It was a collection of old "creation-science" stuff, replete with the usual devices -- false claims, false analogies, false dichotomies, and ringing refutations of scientific constructs that were unknown to science. (I especially liked the passage, on page 144, in which the writers cited eight organisms -- a plant, a pig, a duck, a turtle, a bullfrog, a carp, a moth and a yeast -- and announced that "None of [these] species is ancestral to any other." Right, but no scientist had ever claimed otherwise. No biologist had ever claimed that a duck was the ancestor of a pig, or that a pig was the ancestor of a yeast, or that a yeast was the ancestor of a duck.)

    Those displays of deceit were complemented by many items that seemed to bespeak plain, ordinary ignorance -- for instance, the FTE writers imagined that the terms species and variety were synonyms, that pterosaurs were "flying dinosaurs," that all marsupials had pouches, and that there were honeycreepers "on the North American mainland" [note 34]. Then, to top things off, the writers offered claims that had no meaning whatever -- claims that were merely displays of pseudoscientific gibberish, devised to dazzle the dunces. (Example: "Evolution requires the expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genetic information, whereas speciation represents the loss of genetic information." Go ahead and laugh.)

    When they were not lying or slaying straw men or inventing "flying dinosaurs" or dispensing gibberish, the writers of Pandas told of marvelous organic adaptations, and they produced almost-English passages like these:

    [P]roponents of intelligent design maintain that only a consummate engineer could anticipate so effectively to meet the total engineering requirements of an organism like the giraffe. . . . [Certain plants] are so sophisticated in their design that the same set of traits is used to accomplish two completely different purposes. The existence of such a sophisticated adaptational package is taken as evidence by the proponents of intelligent design of their theory. In our experience only an intelligent designer has the ability to coordinate the design requirements of multifunctional adaptational packages. [page 71]

    "In our experience"? The FTE writers didn't say where they had gained their experience in meeting "the design requirements of multifunctional adaptational packages" (whatever that was supposed to mean), and they entirely ignored a question that is well known to anyone who has had real experience in studying the living world. The question is: Why are organisms so clunky?

    Living things certainly exhibit countless adaptations that are marvelous, even stupendous, to behold -- but living things also exhibit countless structural, physiological, developmental and behavioral features that are clumsy, maladaptive, wasteful, or plainly useless. Think of the cave-dwelling fishes that bear puny, useless eyes, incapable of responding to light. Think of the island-dwelling insects that sport wretched little wings, incapable of lifting the insects into the air. Think of the ground-nesting marine birds that pack themselves so tightly into their rookeries that they trample their own eggs and young. Consider how a halibut acquires its lopsided anatomy, with both of its eyes on the same side of its head: First the halibut develops a head that is quite symmetrical, with an eye on each side, but then it resorbs and rebuilds some of its bones in a way that allows one eye to migrate through its skull. Recall that a baleen whale builds and then resorbs a useless set of teeth. Recall that a woman produces and stores hundreds of thousands of oocytes, though only a few hundred will ever become eggs and enter her fallopian tubes. Recall that a man develops nipples! Recall that the channel which carries air to your lungs intersects the channel which carries food to your stomach -- an arrangement so awkward that it literally can make you choke.

    Why? Why do organisms so often seem absurd, and why do they do things that, by rational technological standards, seem foolish and wasteful?

    Biologists offer cogent answers: Nature isn't rational, organisms aren't technological devices, and organisms needn't be ideal or even efficient. They merely need to be workable -- workable enough to survive and leave some descendants. They make do with mediocre mechanisms that they have inherited from their ancestors, and they still carry the relics of structures, systems, developmental programs, and behavioral scripts that once enabled their ancestors to achieve workability.

    The writers of Pandas offered no answer at all. They didn't even try. They prattled (as creationists always had prattled) about the wonderful traits that some living things display, but they ignored (as creationists always had ignored) the innumerable features that make living things look like bungled contraptions. The FTE writers declined to tell why their "consummate engineer" had done so much third-rate work, or why their "intelligent designer" had designed so many kludges, or why their "intelligent agent" had not invented a more intelligent way to get both of a halibut's eyes onto the same side of its head. They even declined to reveal why the "primeval intellect" had decided that frigate-birds, which never swim, should have webbed feet.

    There was something else that the FTE bunch didn't explain: How had the designs conceived by the "intelligent designer" been turned into organisms? How had the imaginings of the "primeval intellect" been turned into material creatures? How had the plans developed by the "consummate engineer" been turned into finished goods? In short, how had organisms come into existence?

    The old "creation-scientists" had had a ready answer to that question: Yahweh was both a designer and a manufacturer -- a figure who not only designed organisms but also used his supernatural powers to bring them into being and to send them scurrying, loping, flying or swimming into the Garden of Eden. The writers of Pandas, on the other hand, gave no answer whatever. They refused to consider the question of how designs had become living organisms, and the reason for their refusal was obvious: Any answer that the writers might have given would have been supernaturalistic and would have shown that ID was just fundamentalist woo-woo in disguise.

    Pandas was a sitting duck (or pig or yeast) for reviewers who knew something about science, and several such reviewers soon shot it to bits. For example: The paleontologist Kevin Padian, of the University of California at Berkeley, called Pandas a "wholesale distortion of modern biology," and he demonstrated that the FTE writers had mauled and misrepresented such topics as the Cambrian explosion, the history of birds, and the concept of homology. The treatment of homology in Pandas was "shameful," Padian said, and he described one of the FTE writers' tricks:

    [The writers] pretend that the Tasmanian wolf, a marsupial, would be [classified] with the placental wolf if evolutionists weren't so hung up on the single character of their reproductive mode . . . . This is a complete falsehood, as anyone with access to the evidence knows. It is not a matter of a single reproductive character, but dozens of characters in the skull, teeth, post-cranial bones (including the marsupial pelvic bones), soft anatomy, and biochemistry, to say nothing of their respective fossil records, that separate the two mammals.

    Padian ended his review by remarking that it was hard to say what was worst in Pandas -- its religious sub-text, its intolerance for honest science, or the FTE writers' incompetence [note 35].

    So much for Pandas -- the hoax that Nord and Haynes now are recommending as a book "designed to inform students about intelligent design theory." Pandas wasn't meant to inform anyone about anything, and it surely didn't present any "theory." A scientific theory is a structure of ideas, supported by preponderant evidence, that explains a body of observations and thus explains some aspect of nature. The ID rubbish in Pandas was evidence-free, and it explained exactly nothing [note 36 and note 37].

    The other ID book promoted by Nord and Haynes, Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, was another travesty and shared some essential features with Pandas. Like Pandas, it was full of disinformation about biological topics. Like Pandas, it was rigged to look like a scientific book. Like Pandas, it was a book of pseudoscience, aimed at naive readers. And like Pandas, it explained nothing.

    Even so, Darwin's Black Box differed markedly from Pandas because Behe didn't vilify and flatly reject the concept of organic evolution. He accepted it, and he accepted some central principles of evolutionary biology, e.g., the inference that living things have been shaped by natural selection, and the inference that modern species, now quite distinct, are descendants of a common ancestor. But, Behe wrote, the principles of evolutionary biology couldn't account for certain phenomena that have been observed in the living world: Certain biochemical systems -- such as those involved in the movement of a bacterium's flagellum or in the clotting of a vertebrate's blood -- couldn't have arisen by evolution, Behe said, because they were "irreducibly complex."

    Behe employed the phrase "irreducibly complex" to describe a system which couldn't function at all, and couldn't produce any effect, unless all of its components were present and properly integrated. Such a system couldn't have evolved in discrete stages by the successive addition of new components, Behe asserted, because the preliminary stages would have been useless: The preliminary stages wouldn't have been able to function, wouldn't have had any adaptive value, and wouldn't have been preserved and propagated by natural selection. If a system was "irreducibly complex," Behe said, it must have originated all at once, with all its components in place and ready to perform -- and this implied that the system must have been designed.

    Like the writers of Pandas, Behe was unwilling to identify any putative designer -- but creationists immediately discerned that Behe's "irreducibly complex" systems had been designed by old Yahweh, and they soon began to use Darwin's Black Box in their attacks on science education. They saw Behe's book as a new "scientific" endorsement of biblical myths, as a new "scientific" demonstration that evolutionary biology was fallacious at best, and as a new "scientific" justification for injecting miracles and woo-woo into public-school science classes.

    Scientists, on the other hand, recognized that Darwin's Black Box was a hoax, and commentators who understood biology soon began to demolish Behe's pseudoscience. Knowledgeable refutations of Behe's claims and pretenses appeared in print or on the Web during the second half of 1996 and throughout 1997, and Behe's book lay in shreds by the time when Nord and Haynes undertook to glorify it.

    Many more responses to Darwin's Black Box have been issued since then, and we now have a weighty body of literature devoted to showing that Behe's ID stuff is just another effort to gull the ignorant and to make magic seem plausible. For a survey of that literature, go to http://dlindsay.best.vwh.net/creation/behe.html -- a Web site maintained by Donald Lindsay. Please be sure to read Lindsay's section headlined "Rebuttal: [Behe's] Ignorance of His Own Subject Area," and please use the links Lindsay offers in that section and in his "Further Reading" list. You should also give attention to the sections titled "Rebuttal of Example: Cilia and Flagella" and "Rebuttal of Example: Clotting." You will learn that, contrary to Behe's claims, neither a bacterial flagellum nor a vertebrate's blood-clotting system is "irreducibly complex."

    So much for Darwin's Black Box, and so much for the woo-woo that Nord and Haynes have described as a "sophisticated argument for intelligent design." Behe's argument was about as sophisticated as a pratfall.

    Notes

    For some detailed information about the structure and content of "creation-science," see the essays in Crusade of the Credulous, issued in 1986 by the California Academy of Sciences Press. [return to text]
    For short accounts of both the Arkansas case and the Louisiana case, see "Alabama Will Use Schoolbooks to Spread Lies and Foster Creationism" in TTL for November-December 1995. For a detailed explication of the Louisiana case, see my two-part article "The Rise and Fall of the Louisiana Creationism Law" in Terra for July-August and September-October 1988. (Terra is published by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.) [return to text]
    The FTE writers were mystery-men. The opening pages of Pandas listed two authors (Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon) as well as an "academic editor" (Charles B. Thaxton), eight "editors and contributors" and thirty-five "critical reviewers," but none of these luminaries was identified in any way. They were just naked names, with nothing to suggest their professions or their affiliations: See "Fundamentalists Launch Bogus 'Supplemental Text' " in TTL for March-April 1990 (or go to http://www.textbookleague.org/53panda.htm on The Textbook League's Web site). For information about Davis, Kenyon and Thaxton, see my article "Creationists issue a phony schoolbook" in the April 1990 issue of BASIS, the bulletin of the Bay Area Skeptics. [return to text]
    The honeycreepers, or drepanidids, are small birds that constitute a family by themselves. The entire family (Drepanididae) is endemic to the Hawaiian Islands. It includes more than 50 species, all descended from some sparrow-like ancestors that evidently reached one of the islands about 5 million years ago. Passages about the drepanidids appear in many introductory books about evolutionary biology because the diversification of these birds provides a spectacular example of adaptive radiation. The FTE writers apparently encountered such a passage but failed to grasp the fundamental point that all the drepanidids are endemics and occur only in the Hawaiian Archipelago. [return to text]
    Padian's review appeared (with two other analyses of Pandas) in Volume 2, Number 11 of Bookwatch Reviews, published in 1989 by the National Center for Science Education. [return to text]
    For a detailed discussion of what the word theory means in the vocabulary of science, see "The Treatment of Theory in Textbooks," by Lawrence S. Lerner and William J. Bennetta, in the April 1988 issue of The Science Teacher. [return to text]
    A second version of Pandas was issued in 1993, but Nord and Haynes evidently don't know this. Haughton Publishing's advertisements for the 1993 version described it as "new" and "even more helpful," but it differed little from the 1989 book. See "Panda Poop" in TTL for July-August 1994 (or at http://www.textbookleague.org/53panda.htm on The Textbook League's Web site).
     
  2. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    My response:

    This stuff does not sound objective at all. In fact; they sound an awful lot like the "old-school" creationists they so despise (Henry Morris/CRI, etc), with all the triumphalistic derogatory belittling language!

    I think it's quite remarkable how the "new-school" creationists, as I call them, have changed the views. But apparently it STILL isn't enough for these "Scientists". What more do they want? For us to assume that the only acceptable "theory' is that everything just popped out of nowhere randomly and developed itself into the world we see today? What "proof" has been offered for that? We're just supposed to accept that by default as the only possibility until the creationists can come up with some magical solid "proof" that everyone knows is not to be found. (Perhaps a film of God creating the uniiverse would be proof enough for them? No, but then those lying creationists would have somehow forged that too). Scientists admit they don't know when they're still trying to figure what happened that first nanosecond after the big bang! So some creationists in the past bent some things to try to force the world into a few thousand years. (Like non-Christian scientists, who do not even believe it is a "sin" to lie would never do such a thing!) That still doesn't mean that atheism is proven by default.

    All intelligent design is is an argument that while nature itself may not prove all the details we read in the Bible; it does point to a Creator, for all of this stuff could not just create itself, and science has no kind of "proof" (if any such thing could exist) that it did! People claim now that this is still trying to "favor one religion", and throw up "separation of church and state". But what "church"? As this article even admits, the language is so vague. You would think this was exacly what the pluralists have always wanted. But it seem they are the ones biased against the possibility or even thought of an intelligent Creator. The "God" of the Bible, has specific definitions based on the Bible. It is the God who supposedly created Adam, guided Noah through the Flood, and raised up Abraham and the nation of Israel. Stop there, and you have Judaism. Add Jesus and His apostles, and you have Christianity. Add Muhammad, and you have Islam. But while the old Creationism did argue to prove most of those details, the new intelligent design argument has deliberately left them out. So this leaves it open for the gods of Eastern religion, or African, Amerindian, or any other "intelligent beings" to have created. Or some other "life force", or something no one has ever thought of. So no religion is being favored; it's only complete atheism that is being challenged. You can't even say an objective "agnosticism", because of that was true, they would not have a problem with an alternate theory being taught alongside. But they must claim it is one religion. Christians have yielded so much ground (which is only turned around into a "proof" thjat everything we've said all along was 100% false), yet people will not be satisfied until any idea of an intelligent creator is eradicated.

    And have they proven this was "cooked up". It looked to me like the scientists bent this law (which says that nature left by itself decays rather than develops) to exclude biology as it was convenient to their theory.

    I've seen this admitted in science itself. Once, in the Museum of Natural History, they had a big mural, and the links between man and ape was in orange, meaning "no proof, just speculation", or something like that. And it was not some creationist who put that up. They know they don't know for sure, but they can't admit then that it is not much better than intelligent design. So they have to try to shoot it down and ignore their own admissions, and accuse Christians of making things up.
    This ignores the whole question of how such "workable" systems could come to be without design in the first place! They use the argument of "malfunction" to try to prove "well it' can't be God then", and of course, the idea of spome kind of a Fall (which apparently this "Panda" book omitted) would be sneered at as just more "fundamentalist woo-woo". Admitting we don;t know exactly why all these things are would be triumphally seen as conceding defeat.
    But where do we even get our concept of "workability" and "efficiency" from? Why are these organism (random conglomeration of amino acids, etc) trying to "survive and leave descendants" in the first place?
    So once again, nature could have only created itself; and there is nothing ABOVE (hence, "super-") nature. We KNOW this for a FACT (why even call "it theory", then?) Once again, this stuff is so nonobjective, it is an insult that they pass it off as some genuine refutation of ID, and think we're foolish enough to fall for it because of their fervent language--just liek the old Creationists! I hated it when CRI and others resorted to these tactics, but these scientists, who look down on "religious fundamentalists" and their "biblical myths" so much should observe how they are acting the same way.

    [ August 29, 2005, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]
     
  3. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Science does not set out to prove atheism. Science sets out to find out what can be found out by evidence alone, without regard to any supernatural concepts.

    But the scientific method is to ignore the supernatural, and partly because of the failures of the past trying to rely on the supernatural, as when the clerics all opposed the teachings of Copernicus and Gallileo.

    Or until it is admitted that when you are talking about the Creator, you have left the arena of science and have gone off into philosophy and theology, which is not a bad thing to do, it just isn't science.

    And have they proven this was "cooked up". It looked to me like the scientists bent this law (which says that nature left by itself decays rather than develops) to exclude biology as it was convenient to their theory.</font>[/QUOTE]Well, that's because you accept arguments based on what the outcome of the argument is, rather than the merits of the arguments. The thermodynamic arguement against evolution is simply wrong. I'll take a little time to show how it is wrong.
    The theory of evolution postulates that animals experience competition in life, some doing better than others. What's against thermodynamics in that? We see it all around us!

    The theory of evolution postulates that sometimes there are mutations in the genome, admittedly mostly bad, but occasionally, by accident, turning out to actually help the reproductive process.

    What's against thermodynamics in that? Its like saying somebody who guesses at the spelling of the words can never guess right. Of course they can . . . sometimes.

    The theory of evolution postulates that those blessed with helpful genes will reproduce better than those stuck with less helpful genes. What's against thermodynamics in that? Its like saying the faster deer don't win out over the slower deer when the wolf chases them after all. That would be crazy.

    The theory of evolution postulates that these changes, over time, accumulate one after another and can add up to major changes given enough time.

    What's against the theory of thermodynamics in that? Saying that's not true is like saying you can never get to be a millionare by saving just a penny a day, no, not in a million years.

    You see, when the theory of evolution is examined in its seperate parts, not one single part is against thermodynamic theory. Is it to much to hope that, now that you see the argument is wrong, you will abandon it? I don't know if wisdom will come to you on this; but I do know that creationists will continue to post this nonsense until our Lord comes. Well, they will have to endure others pointing out that argument is still wrong.

    When scientist say they are making a tentative link you hold it up and say look, they just make things up, and fail to notice how honest they are to say that, given our level of confidence that there must be a link somewhere, this link looks like a real good possibility.

    Vestiges, for example, including your tailbone and its completely useless muscle, indicate that physically there was a past tailed ancestor.

    Your hair on your arms and legs indicate that physically there was a past furred ancestor.

    Your eye teeth and the enormous, outsized root associated with them - which you can feel for yourself by running your fingertip around the gums - indicate that physically there was a past fanged ancestor.

    Your ear wiggling muscles, useless but still able to work for some of us, indicate that physically there was a past ear moving ancestor.

    Given these indications, it is not mere speculation to suggest a plausible link. The fact that continuing discoveries bring more and more intermediates to light makes the suggestions even more plausible.

    Perhaps your questions here are beyond what mere science can answer. Personally, I think that anybody who intends to use just science in making all their life choices is deliberately blinding himself to whole realms of truth.

    Science depends on theory making predictions and accounting for observations. We have the theory of evolution to explain why Baleen Whales, in embryonic form, make teeth that are then re-absorbed before birth. Until "intelligent design" or "creationism" comes up with an equally compelling scenario to explain this and myriad other observations about the patterns of life and the development of life including the immense fossil record dating back millions of years, it will be ignored by science.

    Once again you fail to notice science by the rules of science ignores the supernatural, not that science can even say the supernatural exists or not, but in order to find out what evidence alone, without reference to the supernatural, can tell us. It is not the fault of science that what it turns out we can find out happens to be contrary to the deeply held beliefs of some, but it does, unfortunately, provoke resistance to the increase in knowledge foretold by Daniel in the Bible. It is ironic to see people claiming to accept the Bible while they strive to hold that particular prophecy back from its destined fulfillment. It won't work, of course.
     
  4. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    You're still jumping the gun! You're talking about ALREADY DEVELOPED compex organism reproducing and mutating, with some doing "better" than others. But how did they get that developed in the first place? Where does any idea of "helpful", "better" or "getting it right" even come from? Where does the drive to "survive' come from to begin with? I notice evolutionists shift between "natural selection" and "mutations" as it is convenient, to get over many of the holes int he theory. If they want to think that, fine, but then don't be so quick to shoot down another theory as "nonsense". Once again, from a completely observational viewpoint, it is all speculation. None of us were around back then to see it; nor can we reproduce it. Just like in forensics, people have been locked away for decades, then they reexamine the DNA with more advanced systems, and find the guy didn't do it after all. We just cannot perfectly recreate the past to know things with absolute certainty! This is a failure to acknowelege our limitations. Some thing will end up being by faith, in one way or another. But we want absolute certainty, so both sides pretend to have all the answer, and resort to fervent shouting "WE KNOW" [COUGH]itsatheory/faith[COUGH].
    They're honest enough to admit it in one place, but then when it comes to what we teach in school, that is hush-hushed, and the "theory" is not put out as undeniable fact based on speculation on fossil data. I'm sorry, but that is not enough to rule out an ID concept from being taught at all. "We don't really know; but it MUST have occurred, [and this does not take into consideration whether we are even reading these things right] so this is the only possible theory". That is just not right.
    Some Jewish scholars teach that Adam was created with a tail. Who says we couldn't once have moved our ears? (These are speculations, but then so is a theory that these things came from ancestral species). Remember, there was a Fall that changed things, and a lot of things do not work as they should. (of course this is not acceptable. But it explains a lot of what we see, once again; especially given, once again, we have these inborn standards of what is "right" and "works" to start with).
    And the hair and teeth examples? Who said that those had to be connected to anything else? It COULD have been; but all of this is quite a stretch for them to be casting ID out as nonsensical "woo-woo", when their theories are made from quite a few leaps of speculation of what "must have" been!
    Remember, none of us were there to see man (or any of the other animals) as originally created, so we should not be so quick to attribute everything we do not seem to use to some other ancestral species.
    But what you fail to see is that this is no longer JUST a debate over the use of the word "science". I know that in the past, the old-school creationists tried to pass Gen.1 and flood geology off as "science", and it was understandably rejected as favoring a particular religion. But now, we've given all of that up, and are only arguing for an intelligent designer, and they still don't want that. This is not simply "ignoring" the supernatural; it is altogether RULING IT OUT! They ARE in practice trying to prove atheism! That is the only thing they will allow taught in schools, and if people don't believe that, they should not have it forced on them, especially when these scientists were no more around back then, then we were when God created the world. It is ALL faith; whether int he Bible, or in material observations--BOTH of which can be read wrong; and it is easier to read the material things (fossils, body parts, etc) wrong, since there is no textual context we can read that explains things. (so we have to compeltely speculate).
    (I never thought I would be defending creationism like this. I used to sympathize with evolution; especially with all the vicious mudslinging done by the old school creationists and SDA's ["evilutionism", etc] and others. But this is getting ridiculous! Concede an inch and they push a mile; all using the old examples of Copernicus and Gallileo. Is the Church 100% wrong about everything it ever taught then? Let's just throw away the entire Bible then, and forget about Jesus then! Just try to struggle to survive and get as much out of life as you can-- like everyone else is doing, hence crime, lust, political corruption, etc. Anything better than those narrow old religious ignoramuses! You seem to belive in "our Lord". Yet you defend everything these people say, not realizing thow they look down with scorn at even your belief. They would cast you in the same "woo-woo" bin as the creationists, because you add this "creator", who is really totally unecessary and a copout from observable "science")

    Also, I should add, that where I do question the motive of the old-school creationists (after all, they were protecting their "godly Christian America" from all these external forces that were "destroying" it; as if there was no sin and wrong bliefs here before), still these new criticisms are challenging the motives (integrity) of the ID'ers as just the same old Creationists trying to sneak in their "religious Bible myths", basically in a dishonest fashion, and I think that is very wrong!
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem with Intelligent Design is that it's not a qualifiable science, it's a philosophy. Teaching it as part of a pholosophical cirriculum is fine, but teaching it does not belong in a science cirriculum.
     
  6. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    it's a philosophy...

    For me, it's faith.
     
  7. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't adhere to any theory or philosophy as faith. I adhere to God's promise as faith. God is creator. God created. I don't need any theory or philosophy to tell me that.
     
  8. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    Creation ain't a theory. It also ain't a philosophy. Creation isn't man's invention. Evolution is. My kid will learn creation, no matter how poor it makes me.
     
  9. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    More likely to cause your kids to have a lower income.
     
  10. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    So I should lie to her, and tell her her great-great grandparents were monkeys ?

    Mark 8:36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
     
  11. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    BTW, I believe in creation, and I make enough to send my daughter to private school.
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, everyone, beathe in, breathe out.

    The issue of ID has nothing to do with the creation/evolution debate. ID does nto belong in the science cirriculum, be it in a secular classroom or religious classroom.
     
  13. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    100% vehement disagreement.
     
  14. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Imperfect reproduction.

    Natural history, mostly. "Helpful", "better" & "getting it right" are all relative to survival and reproduction.

    You left out "genetic drift", which, along with "selection" and "mutation" are the components of the theory.

    What is the theory of Intelligent Design and what does it explain?

    ID, you mean....

    Evolution, on the other hand, has been observed. (linkie)
     
  15. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    I'm not an intellegent design fan -- because it is open to other things than creation. Carl Sagan believed in intellegent design -- aliens. I do believe in a 6-day creation.

    Evolution has not been observed. Bits and pieces have been taken and put together in a way that someone thought made sense. We have seen modern day evidences that fossils are formed quickly (Mt. St. Helens). Evolution is as much a theory as is Creation. Evolution is presented as fact and it is not. Scientists have tried to recreate the primordal mix and it has not been successful. Some proteins do spontaneously form, but they do not combine to form anything.
     
  16. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    I don't care about niceties of what to call a belief in divine creation.

    The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth and all living things on or in the earth. He created man out of clay and breathed life into his nostrils.

    I'll accept that and believe it. I don't need the confirmation of scientists for an event that is beyond human understanding.

    Since they don't understand it and can't accept it on faith, they have to try to tear it down. It won't work on simple believers like me.
     
  17. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    That's actually untrue. Microevolution has been observed copiously. Macroevolution has been predicted, and observations matching those predictions have been documented, though macroevolution as a whole has, as far as I know, not been observed as a whole.

    Now, that is a different issue than the darwinian model of origins. The uneducated fail to separate origins theories from the theory that life evolves. You mention the "e" word, and everyone gets their britches in a bunch.

    That's actually not true. Some YEC'ers have attempted to claim the rock at Mt St Helens dates as millions of years old. But in actuality, potassium argon dating, which is highly accurate, shows the laywers to be only about 25 years old, which is what one would expect.

    Yes and no. Creation views generally fail peer evidentiary reiew, one of the requisites of the scientific process. If we were to dismiss peer review, schools would be required to teach other theories with evidence, such as geocentricity and a flat earth.

    That's completelly untrue. I took an evolutionary biology course in college. It was taught as theory. Two of my kids are in high school, and they were likewise taught it as a theory. I think that this objection often comes from parents who don't feel that the word "theory" isn't used enough.
    Here lies the double-standard. Creationists have likewise failed to instantaneously create something out of nothing. So instantaneous creation must therefore be false by your standard.
     
  18. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    I didn't say that creation was a science. I will (if I did not) clearly state that creation is a belief and not a science. I only contend that evolution is nothing more than a belief either.Science is observable and recreatable.

    At Mt. St. Helen's I was referring to the fact that fossils were formed quickly. I said nothing about dating techniques. Dating techniques are yet another issue.

    And it's exciting that you had the opportunity to take an evolution course that was presented as theory. But to use the words "completely untrue" is an overgeneralization. It may not be true in every instance. I am a science teacher and didn't have that privilege. I also have worked with many, many science educators over the years who present evolution as fact. I may have misspoken (typed) and should have said it is very often presented as fact and not theory.

    [ August 30, 2005, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: mcdirector ]
     
  19. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    I misjudged your words, and I apologize. But theories that explain evidences are indeed part of the scientific process, and that includes theories about species origins and changes. We may not like them or their conclusions, but they're science nonetheless.
     
  20. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    :D You are right about theories and the scientific process. I just think there are enough holes in evolutionary theory that it doesn't hang together. I'm all for exploration and explanation and then more exploration for more explanation.
     

Share This Page

Loading...