"This deficiency in evolution and the related field of abiogenesis has led some scientists to postulate that the building blocks for life on earth are the result of design—the handiwork of an unspecified intelligence."
Argument from incredulity.
"Such a statement is the essence of biological ID. And while it may not be science per se, until such time as evolution can answer questions, on firm scientific footing, about the development of early life forms, it is a perfectly reasonable topic of conversation in a biology class."
So, it is reasonable to say, "Goddidit" (in public schools no less with students who may or may not believe in the Judeo-Christian god?)until science has all the answers to life, the universe, and everything? We don't have all the answers to gravity, why are you not advocating we say that God is responsible for gravity?
"Never in my years of teaching physics, much more of a science than evolution, was I advised to teach it without skepticism or equivocation—the mere thought makes the mind reel."
So, you do teach gravity as if we are skeptical about whether it exists or is correct?
I taught all physics as if it was open to challenge and also as if it were not the final answer. I didn't look to the courts to proclaim that it was illegal for anyone to question its range of validity in my classroom.
Until such time as evolution posits something plausible about the development of early life and the development of complexity, then "maybe god did it" is perfectly fine in the classroom. It summarizes, if not truth, then our ignorance, an ignorance evolution (alone, as far I can tell, among the sciences) is loath to admit.
In countless physics classes I took, professors were not paranoid about invoking God to explain the unknown, even if only as a metaphor. "What existed before the big bang?" was a common question. "We don't know, ask God" was a common answer.
You must remember that Derbyshire, a mathematician, is the only writer on National Review with a degree (a doctorate )in something other than English, Economics, History,Psychology, etc. This is what makes him an intellectual giant amongst his fellow writers. No one else - Lowry, Goldberg, Brookheiser,Ponnuru, etc - can really challenge him effectively . A nice arrangement: A big fish in a small pond. He never has to worry about a Behe, Dembski, or Berlinski with their own space on NR's blog, magazine, or website.
So, David, when you taught gravity, you specifically pointed out the problems with it? You specifically said that we don't know for sure whether it exists or not, and that we could fly off of the Earth at any time? You specifically said that the whole thing might be wrong and that god is behind it all, and it is god's will that keeps us firmly on the ground? Somehow I doubt that.
If evolutionists are loath to admit ignorance, it is because every admission of ignorance is immediately pounced upon by Creationists who automatically use that expression of doubt against all of evolution. If I say that I doubt one specific instance of one specific evolutionary pathway, the quote mined version will be that I think evolution is a theory in crisis and about to come crashing down and that god did in fact do it.
By the way, evolution does explain complexity. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the genetic algorithms research programs?
Oh, and one last thing...
The argument from incredulity leading to saying "goddidit" is a god of the gaps argument. I'm glad that you admit ID is simply that, but the fact that you are advocating teaching that is sad to hear. Even you should be able to recognize the absurdity of teaching god of the gaps arguments, as well as the legal ramifications.
Andrew:
I think your assessment is spot-on. In the same manner he is treated as NR's "China" expert.
GCT:
You asked: "So, David, when you taught gravity, you specifically pointed out the problems with it?" Is that a quick question? Of course I pointed out the problems. Also, like my professors before me, I pointed out how fortunate we are that it is an inverse square law.
Evolutionists should not be loath to admit ignorance regardless of the consequences. It's called intellectual honesty.
I use genetic algorithms in my work. They are great at certain classes of optimization problems. They are nothing, however, like real life; they are not, at least at the moment, even realistic models for evolutionary adaptation. A GA for a circuit, for example, will find a nice solution, but it will be a Rube Goldberg with components that have no purpose. Biological systems, from anyone's perspective I would wager, are not Rube Goldbergs but elegant, um, designs.
I think biological ID is susceptible to a God in the gaps criticism. (Unlike cosmological ID, which is God in the Details.) However, evolution fills those same substantive gaps with pure speculation (which is forgivable) but won't admit it (which is not).
How "fortunate" we are that gravity is an inverse square law? I count myself fortunate to have never been in your class and subjected to your personal religious beliefs as authoritative.
Evolutionists still admit gaps in knowledge, which is why more quote mining is happening all the time, but it is NOT intellectually honest to allow a quote miner to get away with it. Nor is it intellectually honest to allow Creationists to imply that there are gaps where there aren't any.
Lifeforms are "elegant" designs? What makes something "elegant?" I think the fact that genetic algorithms have formed into circuits that perform better than patented circuits that do the same functions is quite "elegant." The fact of the matter is that letting the algorithm run on its own made for much more "elegant" circuitry than anything we have designed outright.
GCT:
Circuits, compared to the cell, are child's play. A GA can assemble components (the origin of which it knows nothing about, kind of like evolution and the origin of life) into circuits merely because computers are fast and circuits are, relatively speaking, trivial.
Better (meaning faster) solutions are not considered elegant just because they are faster. Ask any software engineer whether it is better to use algorithm A, which is 10% faster, but nobody understands how it works, the source code being uncommented and impenetrable, or algorithm B, slightly slower but completely understood, documented, and maintainable.
At any rate, as I said, what GA's produce is Rube Goldberg. You may claim that is elegant because it is fast, but you can't avoid the fact that it is nothing like the functional, minimalistic beauty of biological systems, regardless of their origin.
As for gravity and inverse square—you wrote: "I count myself fortunate to have never been in your class and subjected to your personal religious beliefs as authoritative." You have to broaden you lament considerably to encompass all physicists that I know. I have never been in a physics class where the instructor did not take a moment to wax philosophical on how disastrous it would be if gravity were, say, inverse cube. They (nor I) said "God made it that way." By the nuance was there, that here is a fact worth pondering that is beyond the sterile confines of pure science. Such though provoking was good for all students of all stripes. There was a wall between physics and philosophy that could be crossed in a generic way that benefited all. Not so in the modern evolution classroom. Stick to dogma and stray not a micron. The students lose.
When did I say that the GA circuits were faster or "better." Maybe they are faster, but it's subjective to say that they are "better" or more or less "elegant." To say they are more or less "elegant" than cells is to make a subjective judgement call. Further to conflate that subjective call to mean that humans and cells were designed because of some nebulous concept such as "elegance" is inane. How do you quantify "elegance"? How much "elegance" does something need to have in order to rise to the level of "designed"? When you can answer those questions, maybe you have something. Until then, all you have is your religious opinions, which, with all due respect, I don't care about. Your opinions are your opinions and nothing more. They are not better than mine in the greater scheme of things, or do you think they are? If you do think they are, then prove it.
"There was a wall between physics and philosophy that could be crossed in a generic way that benefited all."
You forgot to add, "...in my opinion." It is NOT acceptable to cross the line and proselytize in a school setting. Asking questions is one thing, and one is fine for doing that. Have you now retreated from your position that thrusting ID into that which we don't know is acceptable? That is tantamount to saying "God made it that way," which you see now to be rejecting.
GCT:
My position has always been: don't teach ID. That is, do not have n weeks of ID in the curriculum. That is far, far different than approving of a thought police that watches for any ID-like utterance from a teacher. I have always been in favor of giving teachers leeway to follow rabbit trails as opposed to zealous and Draconian enforcement of a tight, centralized, dogmatic curriculum. Do I think my sons will become raging communists if they get a left-leaning history teacher who sees, and occasionally posits, some benefit of Marxism? No. Do I think they will become atheists if they are taught evolution? No. Do evolutionists think students will become fundies if ID is even mentioned in the classroom? It would appear so. I would much rather have an engaging, thought-provoking teacher who addresses the curriculum only 95% of the time and 5% time goes hither and yon than one who painstakingly sticks to a PC curriculum from, for example, the yahoos at NCSE.
Mentioning ID is not proselytizing. Telling people they need to have a saving faith in Christ is proselytizing. Big difference.
You ask:
"When did I say that the GA circuits were faster or "better." "
in your previous comment you wrote:
"I think the fact that genetic algorithms have formed into circuits that perform better than patented circuits that do the same functions is quite "elegant.""
Did I misrepresent you?
What is all this business about "no more authoritative" and "in your opinion" (all of which is assumed.) I am saddened that you are adopting Lenny Frank's Krisha-like chants.
Hmmm, you are right, I did say "better" but I have the same problem as you, I have to define "better." I'll leave it as a nebulous term though, just to illustrate my point. You're argument relies on undefined concept of "elegance" that is not quantitative and really is found in the eye of the beholder. How do we tell when something is "elegant" enough that it was designed?
You always talk about your position of not teaching ID, yet you do teach ID. You also say it is all right to teach ID. Well, it's not. The reason is that it violates the first amendment, because it is a particular religious point of view.
"Do evolutionists think students will become fundies if ID is even mentioned in the classroom? It would appear so."
Actually, it's the Creationists who are pushing for ID and teaching falsehoods about evolution that are hoping that students will think evolution is bunk and become fundies. That's what is really at issue here. Would you teach a "theory" that says that gravity is atheistic and what really keeps us on the Earth is angels holding us down? That's what ID is. ID is NOT on par with evolution. It is NOT a scientific theory. It does NOT have any testable predictions. If you want to teach ID in a religion or philosphy class, go ahead, but it is wrong to try and pass it off as science and does a severe disservice to the students who are taught it.
"In your opinion" refers to the fact that you are pushing your religious opinions off as scientific fact when they are most certainly NOT. To do that in science class is wrong and to do that in a public school setting is criminal.
GCT,
You confuse, as your colleagues do, a teacher mentioning something ID-like with the actual teaching of ID. They are very different. It is only with ID where we find discussing a topic (as an aside) is equated with teaching it. And evolutionists are willing to make Faustian bargain with the government to keep even a whipser of ID out of the classroom.
You wrote: "Would you teach a "theory" that says that gravity is atheistic and what really keeps us on the Earth is angels holding us down? That's what ID is."
Give me a break. Are you making this stuff up? Do you really think if a teacher says, "some believe that evolution does a lousy job at explaining the flagellum and to them it looks designed, what do you think?" with teaching that angels bind us to the planet? Get a grip, they are not the same.
At any rate, as I said, what GA's produce is Rube Goldberg. You may claim that is elegant because it is fast, but you can't avoid the fact that it is nothing like the functional, minimalistic beauty of biological systems, regardless of their origin.
Like most biologists, I'd have to say that what I find most striking about living organisms is in fact their "Rube Goldberg" nature. "Minimalistic" is certainly not a word that I would apply. In some respects, they do resemble the products of design, but it is a particular type of design. Living organisms give the impression that they were designed by successive modification over many, many generations of ingenious tinkerers who nevertheless lacked any overall understanding of the whole, and were reduced to doing things largely by trial and error.
It seems to me that any viable theory of design would have to account for this "Rube Goldberg" aspect. In this respect, genetic algorithms have been quite successful. It is not clear to me that any ID advocates have attempted this challenge. Instead, they usually try to insist that this perception, which is virtually universal among working biologists, is mistaken.
As far as teaching alternative theories, I would certainly teach Lysenkoism ahead of ID. At least it is a real theory that makes testable predictions. There is still no real theory of ID--at best it is a critique of Darwinian theory that attempts to argue, via the fallacy of the excluded middle, that any failing of Darwinian theory constitutes evidence for ID.
tgibbs,
You too imply that teaching ID that is what I advocate, but we are speaking only of ID not being a taboo subject. Please avoid the red herring.
Most biologists share your view that oragnisms are Rube Goldberg-like? That is surprising, if true.
As for testable predictions, I can list some but then we would be in the game of "oh, but not those, those don't count." Been there, done that.
Speaking of testable predictions, what does evolution say about life on Mars? Anything? If microbes exist, will they have evolved into something multi-cellular? Or will any outcome whatsoever: life/no-life single-cell/multi-cellular be peachy; will the "highly predictive" theory of evolution be adaptable to any eventuality?
Here is my prediction: evolutionists will wait until we know the answer, and then will show how evolution explains all.
"some believe that evolution does a lousy job at explaining the flagellum and to them it looks designed, what do you think?"
You left out a very important component in your sentence there. It should read more like this, "Some, because of their religious hang-ups, believe that evolution does a lousy job at explaining the flagellum and to them they provide a completely unscientific, religious account that has no utility to science." Acting like ID proponents actually have valid criticisms instead of warmed over ICR arguments is fallacious David.
'As for testable predictions, I can list some but then we would be in the game of "oh, but not those, those don't count."'
That's because your "testable predictions" don't follow from the notion of "goddidit". The reason for that is that anyone can argue that "goddidit" in a different way. Therefore proving your predictions right or wrong makes no impact on the hypothesis of "goddidit" and therefore your "testable predictions" don't count for squat.
"Speaking of testable predictions, what does evolution say about life on Mars? Anything?"
As far as I know, evolution is about the diversity of life on this planet. We could hypothesize that if we were to find life on Mars that it probably also would undergo evolutionary change. Of course, if we were to find life on Mars, what would it do to ID? What would ID have to say about it? All they can say about life here is, "It is designed." Not one IDer has been able to say what the designer did, when the designer did it, nor can they tell us how or what specifically is designed, demonstrating the vacuity of the idea quite nicely. Do you think they could do any better with life on Mars?
Interesting. I'm with David Heddle on God creating living things. If we say a frog turned into a prince, it's a fairy tale. However, when a few million years is added to that fairy tale, some people call it evolution and sneak it in as science.
What does evolution say about how life began from non living elements? How can pasteurization be possible if life just springs up from non living things when the building blocks for life are present but sterilized? Now take that thought and go back to the so called early earth in evolutionary thought where there were no building blocks already assembled for life. How did that first life form get its parts together and live?
ID has a better answer than evolution for how life began.
Ah David, you are so much more patient than I.
GCT seems to be under a few mistaken notions. When he complains about an "argument from incredulity" he is really just begging the question on the origin of life. He wants to assume a naturalistic origin and discount any other explanation a priori. Quite ironically, he is proposing a 'chance/law of the gaps' argument that merely seeks to claim rational highground for his materialist bigotry.
The problem is that in many cases in science we can infer intelligent action, such as forensic science, archaeology and the SETI program. In these cases the researchers cannot explain it with known non-intelligent causes, but are more than happy to attribute the observation to an intelligent one. This is because they are making their judgement based on the most likely cause. Somehow though, GCT seems to think that abiogenesis on earth is sacrosanct.
Considering how much we know about life on earth, chirality and all that, it seems entirely reasonable to conclude an intelligent agency. This isn't on the basis of what we don't know, but what we do know.
I also find it quite astounding that people continue to try and compare evolution (common descent evolution) with gravity. To compare the two is absurd.
Evolution deals with past unobservable events in the somewhat fuzzy area of biology. Gravity deals with observable and repeatable phenomena in the much more solid area of physics. To pretend they are of the same category is a pathetic grab at prestige that is not deserved.
Keep up the great work David
Elvis, no one is sneaking in fairy tales about frogs turning into princes. If you want to argue straw men, don't waste my time.
Alan Grey, you seem to not know what an argument from incredulity is. It is not begging the question. The ID proponents have said that they can't fathom how evolution could have done it, so obviously ID is correct. That is argument from incredulity, not to mention drawing a false dichotomy. Proving evolution wrong does NOT prove ID is right.
Number 2, I do not assume anything a priori, and that's the beauty of science. One is free to hypothesize the existence of any or all gods as one sees fit, so long as one can do experiments following the scientific method. Can you do that? I'll bet you can't and your talk of my a priori materialistic bias is nothing but hot air and false.
Forensics and Archaeology are the search for intelligent causes THAT WE KNOW OF. We are looking for things that in which we already know the identity of the designer. SETI looks for things that are close enough to human design that we can infer that the signal in question was similarly designed. Now, enter ID. ID refuses to say anything about the designer. Since we can't know anything about the designer, how can we divine if anything was designed by this designer or not? The reason they can't say anything about the designer is that the designer is supernatural, and would therefore betray the fact that ID is religiously based and therefore not science and not allowed in schools.
Also, I should mention that there is no "chance" involved as you seem to suggest.
Third, abiogenesis is a separate issue to evolution. God could have come down and magically zapped the first reproducing cells into existence and it would do nothing to prove or disprove evolution. Try again.
Fourth, chirality? Are you serious? You really need to look up the latest abiogenetic studies.
Fifth, I was not comparing evolution to gravity. You might want to check your reading comprehension skills. I was comparing teaching methods. No one teaches that gravity is suspect, and no one teaches religious alternatives to gravity, but people try to do both with evolution.
Sixth, if evolution is sneaking in "materialistic bias" by which I assume you mean atheistic bias, perhaps you could tell me what makes evolution any more atheistic than any other scientific endeavor?
I went for a run last evening - just at dusk when the air has a quiet peacefulness to it, and few cars pass. I ran along the edge of the field as always and couldn't help but notice the composition of the trees and wildflowers and the field mowed from haying.
Have you noticed how many textures are in the trees? So many types of leaves all blending together, and even now while all green they make an exquisite pallet.
Have you glanced to the skies as they change with the passing moment? Have you flown above, in that layer between the clouds below with whisps of other clouds beside and above, the sun's rays shining through and reflecting all around?
Have you searched across the spance of the sea and wondered how far the stretch is? Even knowing the miles or kilometers to the next shore, I still wonder HOW FAR? The ocean creates soothing rhythms and winds - or terrifying, rampaging ferocity. But both are beauty in their way.
Have you ever watched strangers going about their ordinary day and wondered what their life is? What thoughts course their minds as they pick out a bunch of grapes at the grocery? Where are they going - to see whom? Who do they love or mourn or long for? Do you see beauty in the millions of faces and shapes and smiles?
Wouldn't we all agree that the artwork here on earth - in its many forms - is a precious gift!? As an atheist, I enjoyed it. I took solace in the peace of my woods here. I layed under the sky in awe of its dome and hugeness, and the depth of the stars. But I accepted the gift and thanked it for itself, forsaking the One Who gave it to me.
Far more dear and awesome this beauty is when treasured as the masterpiece of my Father in Heaven, given to me to take in and appreciate. I look to the azure sky with this moment's gentle whisps of white, and I see not only a sky, but I see my God saying, "Look, Amanda! I am here! I am loving you this instant and painting this picture for you!" and I can only worship Him with thanksgiving and a smile because I love Him, too.
Am I a "fundie?" Label me if you must - it won't define or change me, I suppose, except to the one labelling. This I know: I now have life! I wake up grateful for another day to seek to know God more deeply, to know the people around me more fully. I know I am rooted in Truth that has given me a freedom I never could have known or understood as an atheist. I know I am far more thankful for and inspired by God Himself than the things He gives, but that's only because I know Who He is now (the God of the Scriptures, not the god I thought he was).
Have you looked into who the God is that you're so opposed to? Because maybe the god you say doesn't exist, doesn't! But one truly amazing, intelligent, articulate God does exist, and you can find out so much about Him - and you can know Him. But it takes humility - it takes a willingness to be wrong, to not have all the answers, to ask for help and admit your weakness. Have you ever read the Bible with eyes honestly seeking truth? Opening your mind for a moment and reading to learn this ancient text with the possibility that it might hold a richness and newness of life for you?
It may well be foolishness to you - or it may be revelation. Only one way to find out.
Amanda Bristol, was that aimed at me? If so, I have neither confirmed nor denied any religious leanings. For all you know, I could be Atheist, Christian, Pagan, Jewish, Muslim, or any number of other things.
The simple fact of the matter is that I am talking about evolution which is religion-neutral. It is not atheistic. There are lots of people who hold both theistic views and accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. One can be a Christian and also accept evolution. Ken Miller is a great example. He is a devout Catholic and has also published many articles and books on evolution and is considered to be one of the leading scholars on the subject.
If you can not tell the difference between a religiously-neutral science and atheism, then I suggest it is you who has a closed mind.
The businsess about Catholics and evolution is overstated.
At least to be honest, when you say Catholics are free (as far as Rome is concerned) to accept evolution, you might want to add the caveat that JP II added:
"The theory of natural evolution [is acceptable for Catholics if] understood in a sense that does not exclude divine causality."
So Catholics are free to believe in theistic evolution (which, by the way, is a form of ID.)
So if Miller's view on evolution excludes divine causality, he is not, according to JP II's words, within the pale of Catholic orthodoxy.
How come when you guys trot out Miller you never give the full story?
Don't accuse me of deceit Mr. Heddle before you take the log from your own eye. And, I think you know what I'm talking about.
I was talking about the fact that theistic evolutionists exist. Ken Miller is an example. There are other non-Catholic examples, so my example stands. Erecting straw men of my arguments is pretty dishonest Mr. Heddle.
Let's examine JP II's statement anyway, since you brought it up. Evolution says nothing about divine causality. You may believe in it or not and still accept evolution. So, JP II's statement is really unnecessary.
Also, you are flat wrong that theistic evolution is a form of ID. Flat wrong. Trying to co-opt people to your side that do not want to included as supporters is deceitful.
So, to sum up, I didn't "give the full story" because there was no "full story" to give as it did not add anything to the discussion. Twist the facts Mr. Heddle, but it won't make what you say any more true. But, it does raise a question. Is deceitfulness in service of God allowed in your opinion Mr. Heddle?
Most biologists share your view that oragnisms are Rube Goldberg-like? That is surprising, if true.
If you do biology, you stumble over this kind of stuff all the time. Here's an amusing one. It turns out that there are a few enzymes that require an unusual amino acid, selenocysteine. The selenium atom plays a critical role in the active site of the enzyme. Selenocysteine is sometimes referred to as "the 21st amino acid."
Now from a design standpoint, this should be trivial. After all, there are only 20 amino acids, while the 3 letter genetic code offers 64 different combinations. Many amino acids are coded for by multiple codons, some of which are only rarely used. So there is clearly room for one more--a simple, economical design solution.
But this isn't how it works. Instead, the cell makes a transfer RNA with selenocysteine esterified that binds to UGA, which is normally a chain-termination codon. This introduces multiple problems, as a cell could easily end up with selenocysteine going in where proteins are supposed to terminate, and termination occurring where a selenocysteine is needed, and this clearly happens to some extent, resulting in bad proteins that have to be cleaned up. To minimize this, the selenocysteine charged t-RNA incorporates poorly unless other control mRNA sequences are present.
It is hard to see this sort of thing as anything other than Rube Goldberg. An elegant, efficient coding mechanism exists, but instead of using it to code for Se-Cysteine, it is patched in by a complicated, error-prone exception mechanism.
GCT,
Theistic evolution is most certainly a form of ID, unless it is reduced to simple deism. Put another way, theistic evolution affirms common descent, but also affirms (unlike naturalistic evolution) that our species, being part of God’s plan, was inevitable, with God playing, at least at times, the role of the genetic engineer. That is most definitely a form of ID.
tgibbs:
I agree it sounds Rube Goldberg, and I have no credentials to comment further. Do you see in biological systems the equivalent of transistors that don’t do anything (a feature of GA designed circuits)
No, Mr. Heddle, theistic evolution is not a form of ID. Stop lying, because you know they are not the same. ID says that evolution is NOT able to produce the diversity of life on this planet. To say that theistic evolutionists agree with that statement is a load. So, care to answer my question about whether it is OK to lie for God? Is that why you are telling falsehoods about evolution and ID?
ID says undirected evolution cannot produce (in toto) the diversity of life, either explicitly or by implication.
Theistic evolutionists would agree.
Your comments about "lying for God" show that you have left the realm of rational discussion and descended into the sophomoric, Panda's Thumb domain.
I eagerly await the accusation of {dissembler, quote-miner, ...}
ID also says that evolution is "undirected" by definition, so there is no distinction there. Try again.
If you aren't "lying for God" are you just lying for yourself then? I would think that that is worse. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
"Your comments about "lying for God" show that you have left the realm of rational discussion and descended into the sophomoric, Panda's Thumb domain."
You can accuse me of being sophomoric, but I call out dishonesty when I see it. Making an error is one thing. Not correcting that error once it has been pointed out and another. And, persisting in that error or using your brand of duplicity is deceitful.
David, it is wise to remember Proverbs 18:2 - "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion." The fact that GCT will not even acknowledge the problems of Darwinism simply means that he is not in a place to take the criticism. A wise man knows how to take the criticism (although being wise means that he hardly needs it I guess.)
If he wants to equate darwinism and gravity, and call them both "laws" of science, so be it. Einstein thought that Newtonian mechanics had a bit of an issue, and thank goodness - special and general theory of relativity was the result. According to GCT, we shouldn't try to explain the defects of a theory and try to get a better understanding of the world. Evolution is a sacred cow to atheists and they cannot permit any rational debate about it.
Fight the good fight Dave, I feel your pain! 
-Phil
Speaking of testable predictions, what does evolution say about life on Mars? Anything? If microbes exist, will they have evolved into something multi-cellular? Or will any outcome whatsoever: life/no-life single-cell/multi-cellular be peachy; will the "highly predictive" theory of evolution be adaptable to any eventuality?
Note that a testable theory does not necessarily make predictions for every conceivable eventuality. For example, because the environment on Mars is so different from earth, it is not at all clear whether there would be a selective advantage to multicellularity. Darwinian theory of course makes no prediction whatsoever as to whether life will exist on another planet, as the theory does not cover the origin of life at all. There are, of course, multiple hypotheses regarding the origin of life, but they are hardly on the same sort of firm ground as evolution, and so far people have not been clever enough to derive much in the way of strong predictions.
What evolutionary theory does predict is that if life does exist on Mars, it will have the required characteristics for evolution (i.e. something like genes, capable of mutation), and that analysis of whatever passes for its genes will receive the same sort of hierarchical relationship as creatures on earth--i.e. they will fall into a small number of lineages that share a virtually identical genetic code (probably the same genetic code for everything), and sequence analysis will reveal that that different species exhibit gene sequences consistent with a common ancestor.
An interesting question is whether their genetic code will be the same as ours or different. If the same, it would imply a common origin for life on Mars and Earth (i.e. life traveled from one to the other, e.g. in meteors, or was seeded from a third source), and evolutionary theory would require other similarities--i.e. there should be sequence similarities in proteins consistent with divergence from a common ancestor.
Phil, your argument is fallacious, especially since I said, "Evolutionists still admit gaps in knowledge" which is an explicit recognition that we don't know everything. It's impossible to have a rational, scientific debate when the IDers show up with fallacious arguments and no science. So, you were calling me the fool? Perhaps you should have actually looked at what I said first.
Second, once again I did not say evolution and gravity are "laws", nor did I say they are the same. I specifically noted that I was talking about teaching method.
Third, neither gravity nor evolution are "laws". Gravity is a theory as is evolution. We may never know all that there is to know about either of them.
Fourth, Einstein was not the only one who "thought" that there was a problem with Newtonian mechanics. In fact, the problem was known.
Fifth, I fully support bringing up scientific arguments against a theory, when there are some to bring up. Once you come up with some for evolution, then we can talk. Until then, don't substitute your religious opinions for scientific arguments.
It's really simple. Evolution is not some sacred cow as you say it is. It has been challenged for over 150 years by countless researchers, and is continually challenged every single day in labs all over the world. It holds up. ID presents no science, no hypotheses, and no testable experiments. It is simply not an alternative to evolution. If there is only one choice, then we should teach that. We should NOT teach a "theory" that is devoid of scientific content.
I urge you, Phil, and others here to actually look at what I've said. Evolution is NOT in opposition to religious thought. It is NOT atheistic. You do NOT have to throw it out in favor of religious apologetics that are based on deceit and false arguments.
GCT,
One might say evolution itself is a religion. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than the faith to believe in ID.
More science supports ID than does evolution.
Elvis, if you think that is true, then name some science that supports ID and tell me how it supports ID. Additionally, you claim that more science supports ID than evolution. Considering that 150 years of evolutionary studies have been done, through peer review and ID has 1 peer reviewed paper, which is actually an anti-evolution paper based on discredited, fallacious arguments instead of a pro-ID paper, I think you have your work cut for you to back up your assertion.
Oh, and Elvis, while you are at it, could you please tell me what the scientific theory of ID is? What did the designer do, how did the designer do it, when did the designer do it, and how do you know that, since ID refuses to speculate at all about the designer? Thanks in advance.
I agree it sounds Rube Goldberg, and I have no credentials to comment further. Do you see in biological systems the equivalent of transistors that don’t do anything (a feature of GA designed circuits)
Yes. The clearest examples are pseudogenes, which don't even produce a protein. There are also numerous examples of functional (i.e. they produce proteins that have function in vitro) genes that can be deleted with no evident effect on the organism, although here it is harder to be sure that the gene does not have an important role under some unusual circumstance.
GCT,
Let's see. What sciences are involved with ID? The fossil record itself would support ID. Where are the millions of transitional animals if evolution were true? What is involved with studying fossils? Biology? Archeology? Geology? Physics?
How does evolution explain life from nothing? I would say life started with the Designer who gave life to where there was none. As David pointed out, the complexity of life invokes the Designer who also provided life.
You want to know what the Designer did? Read Genesis.
And, GCT, 150 years of the wrong thought still does not make it right even if it is studied by some people.
Sorry David, this may be long...
GCT
"Alan Grey, you seem to not know what an argument from incredulity is. It is not begging the question. The ID proponents have said that they can't fathom how evolution could have done it, so obviously ID is correct. That is argument from incredulity, not to mention drawing a false dichotomy. Proving evolution wrong does NOT prove ID is right."
Sorry GCT, but perhaps you should take a step back and actually try to understand logic rather than just parroting what you have heard at talk origins, or panda's thumb. How about I spell it out a little slower for you so you can follow the logic.
When you talk about the argument from incredulity, you are actually referring to argumentum ad ignorantiam, the argument from ignorance.
Essentially this fallacy is saying that Statement p is unproved. Not-p is true, or
Statement not-p is unproved.p is true.
How this actually relates to the debate at hand is that you are attempting to claim that ID is merely such an argument, yet the issue that I have raised is that, logically speaking, you have not proven that abiogenesis or common descent evolution is true either. You have merely attempted to state that your position is the default position, and so as ID is not proven, then ID is false and evo/abiogenesis is true. By attempting to define your position as the default position and thereby proclaiming its correctness, you are indeed begging the question.
Which brings us to your claim of a false dichotomy. This is also incorrect. (Note a false dichotomy is often used between evolution and YEC). As ID Proponent William Dembski says, there are 3 categories of explanations for any event, chance, law, or design. ID proponents say that chance and law (of which evolution is the best example) are insufficient to account for what we say, and that design is a plausible cause.
"Number 2, I do not assume anything a priori, and that's the beauty of science. One is free to hypothesize the existence of any or all gods as one sees fit, so long as one can do experiments following the scientific method. Can you do that? I'll bet you can't and your talk of my a priori materialistic bias is nothing but hot air and false.
As I said, by assuming a default status for your beliefs you are a priori ruling out ID as an explanation. By continuing to associate a supernatural designer to the ID movement's claims (A straw man) you are merely showing your materialistic bigotry.
"Forensics and Archaeology are the search for intelligent causes THAT WE KNOW OF. We are looking for things that in which we already know the identity of the designer. SETI looks for things that are close enough to human design that we can infer that the signal in question was similarly designed.
You are missing the point. These sciences clearly indicate that scientists think we can detect design.
The SETI program clearly rests on the same logic as ID (And so you could try and claim it was also argumentum ad ignoramus).
"Now, enter ID. ID refuses to say anything about the designer. Since we can't know anything about the designer, how can we divine if anything was designed by this designer or not? The reason they can't say anything about the designer is that the designer is supernatural, and would therefore betray the fact that ID is religiously based and therefore not science and not allowed in schools."
Actually, the reason they cannot say anything about the designer is that they are looking for design, not a designer. Clearly science, and every thinking person, believes we can detect design.
Scientists have not identified dark energy and dark matter, yet believe it exists as they think they can see the effects of it, so to ID proponents believe we can detect the effects of a designer.
"Also, I should mention that there is no "chance" involved as you seem to suggest."
Then you are completely ignorant of evolutionary theory and abiogenesis and should not bother to write another word.
"Third, abiogenesis is a separate issue to evolution. God could have come down and magically zapped the first reproducing cells into existence and it would do nothing to prove or disprove evolution. Try again."
Abiogenesis was mentioned in your original post, so I am quite clearly the one bringing it into this discussion.
Once again you bring into the discussion a supernatural concept. This is a pitiful attempt at constructing a straw man and once again shows your materialistic bigotry.
Finally, the idea that all life originated as a single organism is a fundamental requirement of common descent evolution. This single origin is suggested because of the improbability of spontaneous generation. If life was created, then this single starting life assumption has no support.
"Fourth, chirality? Are you serious? You really need to look up the latest abiogenetic studies."
I assure you that I am quite up to date on the research. Perhaps you should provide an example of why chirality is no longer an issue before you act so incredulous.
"Fifth, I was not comparing evolution to gravity. You might want to check your reading comprehension skills. I was comparing teaching methods. No one teaches that gravity is suspect, and no one teaches religious alternatives to gravity, but people try to do both with evolution."
LOL.
If gravity and evolution are not on the same par in terms of science with each other then your comments about teaching methods are obviously useless.
Your call. If I have used bad reading comprehension skills, then your teaching method point is logically fallacious and so can be discounted.
"Sixth, if evolution is sneaking in "materialistic bias" by which I assume you mean atheistic bias, perhaps you could tell me what makes evolution any more atheistic than any other scientific endeavor?"
You try to lecture me on logic and you don't understand the philosophical term of 'materialistic'? Truly boggling.
To answer your question, because common descent evolution is dealing with the unobservable, unrepeatable past as opposed to operational science which deals with the observable, repeatable, experimental present.
As such, it relies heavily upon assumptions, specifically philosophical naturalism, AKA materialism.
My question for you is that if life was indeed designed (By whatever), could we detect it?
Err, point three response should read
'Abiogenesis was mentioned in your original post, so I am quite clearly NOT the one bringing it into this discussion.'
Hi,
I have a question regarding ID.
I just read through as much of the Intelligen Design literature that I could. Honestly, it took me three weeks.
So my question is how did humans arise? That is, what is the mechanism whereby humans came into existance?
I have seen some documents whereby some theologians assume fully formed humans came from mud or goo like substance.
Thanks.
G.
Elvis,
1. How does the fossil record support ID? What about the fossil record indicates that life is designed? Plus, how do you account for the fact that we have hundreds of different hominid fossils? (And by different, I mean transitional forms.)
2. Evolution does not explain the origin of life. Perhaps you mean to criticize abiogenesis? Like I said before, even if God zapped the first life forms onto the planet, it would not affect evolution since they are two different questions.
3. Do you regard the Bible as a science text? How literally should one take the Bible? Is Mr. Heddle erroneous because he believes that God did not literally create the world in 6 literal days?
4. 150 years of peer reviewed literature with tests that can be retried and verified without overturning evolution is actually a very strong statement in support.
You have not provided me with anything that I've asked for.
GCT,
Even in your evolutionary circles of their own set of top scientists, not one of them claim transitory life forms to rock the world with their findings. They are all still looking for that transitory life form. A clam is similar to an oyster is similar to a scallop, but they are not transitory to each other. These different monkeys (hominids) are just different animals that look alike, not transitory.
What is this "Origins of Life" that is cast around evolutionary circles? If you are going to separate the origin of life from evolution, then you must separate parts like selective breeding and adaptation.
If I lift weights and adapt to the exercise by getting stronger, I do not become a new human species and is not evolution. My descendents do not automatically have muscles because I exercised as they too will have to go to the gym to lift weights on their own to get stronger.
The selective breeding to bring out the different looks in dogs (collie, hound, etc) is not evolution. These different looks are still dogs.
Why don't you put up your proof for evolution?
Ugh. Alan Grey, I lost a long reply that I typed out for you and have tried to recreate...but it doesn't seem to want to post, so I'm breaking it into parts. Here's part I:
IDers are saying:
If not P (I don't see how P could be right), then Q (so ID must be right.)
Design or not design is a true dichotomy, evolution or design is not.
I do not rule out ID a priori. I rule ID out because it is scientifically vacuous (ie. makes no scientific, testable claims and has no hypotheses)
If ID does not rely on the supernatural, then perhaps you could explain how.
Once again, in forensics and archaeology, we are searching for design by designers that we know something about. We know characteristics of the designer(s) in question. In SETI, we are looking out to the heavens hoping that we will find a signal that will be close enough to something that has the characteristics of human design that we can infer alien design. ID, however, refuses to contemplate any characteristics about the designer or what kind of design this designer would make, therefore it is not the same as those other fields.
"Chance" is most often invoked in discussions of this type as in, "If evolution is true, then we are really lucky to be here because evolution relies on chance." If you meant it in that way, then I flatly disagree with you. If you want to discuss it further, we can, but I feel it is a side issue to the larger topic at hand.
Abiogenesis is only in my first post because it was part of the illogical quote that I cited. Once again, chirality and abiogenesis are separate issues to evolution and not really part of this discussion. In regards to chirality, if you want to argue over left-handedness vs. right-handedness and how lucky we are to be one and not the other, then once again I will flatly disagree with you, but I do think it's a separate issue.
Alan Grey, here's Part II:
When I was comparing teaching methods, it was in light of Mr. Heddle's assertion that he teaches everything as if it should be questioned. I asked if he teaches gravity that way, so yes, it was about teaching method and no, I did not compare evolution to gravity. That said, just because I did not compare the two doesn't mean that I won't. If you would like, I will compare the two, but it would also be a side issue.
Most people use philosophical naturalism as a placeholder for atheism. Are you? Science operates, however, not through philosophical naturalism, but through methodological naturalism, which comes from the scientific method. Evolution follows the scientific method. Every other science also follows the scientific method. If you have a problem with how evolution is done, then logically you should have a problem with all science. Is that the case, or is evolution somehow special?
Also, evolution deals with the past and the present. Cosmology does the same, as does geology. Paleontology also deals with the past. Are you willing to throw out all of those sciences?
Now, to answer your question, I don't know. Sorry if that seems like a cop out, but it's the best answer I have. I do know this much; no one has yet come up with a hypothesis or a way to test for design, and not for lack of trying. The current ideas are simply inadequate because they are incapable of following the scientific method. Is it possible to come up with a method of testing for design, probably not but I can't rule it out.
GCT,
The process by which one measures is not the part in dispute. However, you must account for the proper results. What is the difference between accuracy and precision?
You may claim the precision of evolution through similar looking animals or 150 years of theory, but it is not accurate.
For years, Miller's Experiment was claimed by evolutionists to be the experiment that showed the creation of amino acids from gases and an electric spark. If it weren't for people questioning evolution, then we would still be misled. That experiment was set up to provide the experimenter's desired results instead of being a proper experiment. Also, you have the flawed pepper moths picture and theory from evolutionary circles where the photographer/scientist set up the picture to provide his desired results.
Although there may be time differences between YEC and OEC, their commonality is God created.
Is anyone else having problems posting today?
Elvis, we have tons of transitional fossils. I suggest you look up talkorigins.org and check them out.
I certainly can separate abiogenesis from evolution. Let me ask you this:
If you take a trip from Chicago to Los Angeles and tell me about it, should I disregard what you say because I don't know how you got to Chicago to begin with?
Exercising your muscles is not evolution, and no one is suggesting it is. Another straw man.
Asking for my proof of evolution is bad form in debating since you are the one that made the affirmative, declarative statement and I asked you to back it up, which you have not. But, since I'm a good sport, I will point you to where you can find lots of evidence for evolution. Check any peer-reviewed refereed journal. Check talkorigins.org. Check the NCSE website. I offer the fossil record, which shows transition from single cell organisms to complex multi-celled organisms over the last 3.5 billion years (or so) as well as the supporting geological and paleontological dating and positioning that verifies the biology. I give you the genomic similarities in animals and the fact that as we get further and further from our cousins, the similarities decrease. That should get you started.
Seriously, is anyone else having trouble posting?
Elvis, the process of measurement is important. How do you measure "design"? How do you come up with a hypothesis to show "design"?
As for your question, accuracy is how close one gets to an answer, while precision deals with how close verification comes. I fail to see how this is germaine to the topic at hand though.
I'm not claiming that animals "look similar", because that is clearly in the eye of the beholder. I'm saying that animal genomes are similar in their make-up. For instance, I believe chimps have a 98% similar genetic make-up to us.
The Urey Miller experiment was claimed by scientists to show how life may have arisen in the pre-biotic soup. That they made assumptions about what the pre-biotic soup was composed of was never hidden, nor disputed. Current studies indicate that the pre-biotic soup may very well have been even more conducive to life than was originally assumed. Who figured that out however? It was scientists doing more experiments using the scientific method.
The pictures of the peppered moths were set up as an example to illustrate the findings of the studies done on peppered moths. Wells has twisted the history of those studies in order to suit his needs, which is deceptive.
YEC and OEC do indeed agree that God created. That's not what I asked. Please answer the questions. Also note that you can accept evolution and also accept that God created.
I use genetic algorithms in my work. They are great at certain classes of optimization problems. They are nothing, however, like real life; they are not, at least at the moment, even realistic models for evolutionary adaptation. A GA for a circuit, for example, will find a nice solution, but it will be a Rube Goldberg with components that have no purpose.
As opposed to biological organisms, which never have vestigial features, right?
How depressing that someone who says they actually work with GAs, and so presumably has a good grasp of the underlying theory, still must invoke some external intelligent entity to fill in the gaps.
I work with GAs as well, to evolve artificial neural networks. Evolution tends to find more parsimonious networks if there is selection pressure for efficiency (which there definitely is in real biological systems). If your GA is finding solutions that are not as efficient as biological solutions, could it possibly be that your genetic algorithm isn't implemented in a way that captures the salient features of biological evolution?
Nah, it must be that god made all the little critters.
GCT,
What you consider proof of evolution, many top notched scientists in the evolution field do not consider proof. As you disregard the examples I give you, I can disregard your examples as even those die hard evolutionists do not take those as proof else the whole scientific community would be rocked with such findings.
Because I may not be eloquent in citing others for ID proof, it doesn't mean it does not exist. Because I don't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have not been to Iraq, yet I know it exists.
Doesn't evolution use the adaptation to justify how things change into new species? What is adapatation? Adapting to the environment? This does not change you into a new species. I use weight lifting as an example because you adapt to the stresses put upon your muscles.
Anyway, you can check this site for a mathematical proof for ID. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/
...proofcreat.html
Elvis,
"As you disregard the examples I give you..."
Um, what examples? You didn't name any of your "top scientists" and you didn't give specific quotes. You didn't point me in the direction of any of these scientists or quotes. Am I supposed to read your mind? I asked you to back up your assertions, you have yet to do that.
"Because I don't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist."
Yet, how often do you use that same argument to say that evolution doesn't exist because you've never seen it?
The fact is, you made a declarative assertion and I asked you to back it up. You've just admitted that you can't.
Going to the gym is not evolution. You can make straw men all you like, but your straw men will not defeat evolution.
I will check your ID site out and get back to you on it.
Derek (and tgibbs)
A careful study of "extra components" in GAs reveals that in many cases they are not vistigial. They show up, are not harmful or helpful in any manner, and don't get garbage collected. And derek, the circuit GAs I am reffering to are not my GAs, but those reported in that religious-right mouthpiece, Scientific American.
GCT,
Evolution as you describe/infer does not exist because we have God who is our Designer.
Gabby,
Those who promote biological ID have a range of beliefs from literal Genesis/young earth to theistic evolution. Perhaps the next newer post (on Theistic Evolution) will be helpful.
A careful study of "extra components" in GAs reveals that in many cases they are not vistigial. They show up, are not harmful or helpful in any manner, and don't get garbage collected.
Right...and are you saying this doesn't happen in biological organisms?
Elvis,
"Evolution as you describe/infer does not exist because we have God who is our Designer."
Please look at what I have written. Evolution and God can co-exist. You can believe that God guides evolution, or set it up to run on its own, or any number of things. They are NOT mutually exclusive.
GCT,
He is stating that the Christian God of the Bible and evolution ARE mutually exclusive. This is the position that Christians must hold; if they are to believe in one portion of the Bible and not another is to slide down a slippery slope. I don't think anyone argued the point that Deist's or other type of religions can accept evolution and still be logically consistent. Christianity cannot, however. Hopefully this clarifies the viewpoint of the Christian response of whether God and evolution.
Thanks,
-Phil
GCT,
My opinion is on record:
1) I don't understand why anyone would support ID apart from its religious connection. Many IDers claim it can be divorced from religion, so I am in a minority position.
2) I have never said ID is science, I have always viewed it as science-related philosophy. Again, this may be a minority opinion among IDers.
I have also said that while evolution is science, it is nothing at all like physics. Physics makes grand, testable predictions. Evolution is more or less is like a valley girl, responding "whatever" to requests for bold predictions and (serious) paradigm-shifting falsibility tests.
Philip Wieland,
I know he's stating that, I just don't understand why. If he really thinks that they are mutually exclusive, then it is most likely because he believes in a 6 day literal creation. If that is the case, then he should also criticize Mr. Heddle's old Earth position in order to be consistent. He should also take everything the Bible says to be completely literal in every specific spot. I'm not aware that ANYONE does that, but of course I might be wrong.
I think this is a dangerous position to take, however, in that when a religion makes testable claims about the world, those claims are open to scientific testing. If the science doesn't agree, it puts the person in a stance where (s)he must reject the science. Well, then Elvis should be rejecting all science, not just evolution. If Elvis accepts other science, then Elvis is in an incoherent position.
Mr. Heddle,
We've already argued your position on teaching enough. I'll just let it go. I still have questions, but I will keep them to myself. But, your contention that physics and evolution are nothing alike is puzzling. Don't they both follow the same scientific method?
GCT,
God and science are not exclusive. Science and evolution may be exclusive.
In the Bible before there were professions called scientists who studied different things, there lists the earth as a sphere, ocean currents, meteorology, vastness of space, phsyiology, diet, etc. God gave us science to study. How we use the science determines whether we are doing good science or bad science.
I don't see you logic where if evolution by your view is deemed nonsensible than all science is nonsensible.
God gave us science.
Elvis,
Evolution uses the scientific method. It is not mutually exclusive with science? Where did you get that idea? That's my logic though. Evolution uses the exact same method as any other science, yet somehow you think it is atheistic? Then, in order to be logical, you must reject all science for the same failings.
Besides, you sound as though you are presenting a 6 day literal creation. Physics, geology, plate tectonics, biology, evolution, and other fields of science all reject that view. Why do you not rail against those other fields?
Also, I read your link. Besides the tangents on Behe, this paper deals exclusively on abiogenesis, not evolution. Behe's work has been refuted ad nauseum, and you can find those refutations on talkorigins, NCSE's website, and Panda's Thumb. As for the part about abiogenesis, I believe the author is in error. The first indication of this is that the author talks about the probability of forming a 2 letter word, but fails to recognize that there are more than 2 combinations of letters that make up a word. That mistake is recreated when the author adopts the argument to the formation of proteins. Usually, I find it useless to talk about probabilities for singular instances, as it is impossible to find a probability function, as it is in this case. Further, the author assumes that all the building blocks must come together all at once, much like Behe's arguments on IC, but that is not the case, which puts a serious kink in any probability argument since it is based on falses premises.
GCT,
Building blocks coming together does not create life. Chemical reactions do not produce life where there is no life.
Why do you act as a single minded human when you are made up of multiple cells? How do you act as one human instead of a conglomeration of cells? Why aren't you just a chemical reaction without thought? What is it that makes you alive?
Genesis does not have God giving life to one cell and leaving to just let this evolution thought happen. God was there at the beginning creating and providing life. Evolution as you have it just does not happen - cell into plant into worms into slugs into fish into amphibians into lizards into dinosaurs into birds into rats into monkeys into humans.
So, what did the first of any animal from this evolution process reproduce with? Why would this random chance of evolution just happen to produce a male and female for each of the animal types?
Because evolution as you have just does not happen. God must be there to create and provide life.
Elvis,
Genesis also denies physics, geology, chemistry, etc. Do you also deny those other scientific fields. If not, why not? And, why only evolution?
Why doesn't evolution happen? Do you have any contrary scientific evidence, or a competing scientific theory?
You also seem to be confused about what evolution is. Might I suggest that you pick up Ernst Mayr's book "What Evolution Is," and/or visit the websites I referred you to? An instance of your confusion is that humans did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys are our closest cousins, but we both came from a common ancestor. The tree of life is not a ladder, so one species does not lead to another in ever increasing steps up the evolutionary process.
Also, natural selection does not act of single species (referencing your comments on weight lifting and the first reproducing animal.) It is much more useful to think of NS as a mechanism that works on populations. Also, it is not random. Selection is not a random process. When you refer to random, what you are talking about is random mutations, which are only one mechanism of many in evolution. Additionally, random in this case does not mean separate from God, but that we can't predict where/when these mutations occur.
For that matter, what's the difference between ID and Lysenkoism? I mean, really?
God gave us science, Elvis -- which is another reason to eschew ID's claims we should abandon it.
David said:
taught all physics as if it was open to challenge and also as if it were not the final answer. I didn't look to the courts to proclaim that it was illegal for anyone to question its range of validity in my classroom.
You fail to note that all court challenges have been a result of creationists and IDists looking to legislative bodies to decree evolution incorrect or suspect, and to make it legally invalid to teach evolution as the science it is.
If you want to be consistent on freedom to teach, you'd oppose ID's efforts to skip the steps of proposing scientific hypotheses, performing scientific experiments, publishing scientific papers, and getting a consensus of scientists on the validity of the ideas, by seeking legal means to cut to the front of the line when it fails in the free market of science ideas.
Truth does not need government support to hold it up; all scientists ask is a fair fight. It is ID that seeks to censor.
Your assessment of Derb is sooo appropriate, it seems to me (and has for years).
The "don't ask any questions, we already know we're right about everything" attitude really gets old. Materialistic naturalism is the sketchiest of all theories, as it makes no predictions, uses the least mathematics, brooks no philosophical scrutiny, and is completely unfalsifiable. Every time a hole pops up, a Deus Ex Machina is brought in, and anyone who objects to the duct-tape-and-bubble-gum method of constructing a theory gets shouted down as a heretic.
It's sad. That's why I stick to fluid dynamics, where we do real experiments and get real results.
Josh S.
If you have a problem with philosophical materialism then that's your deal, but there is a difference between that and methodological naturalism and if you really deal in fluid dynamics, you should know that. Let me ask you, in your work, do you insert God, or do you go by natural laws that may or may not have come from God? In other words, do you say that this fluid moves from a higher pressure location to a lower pressure one because God is pushing it, or because of the way the natural laws of the universe work? If the latter, how is that any different from evolution?
On chirality: Look up the work of Dr. Andrew Ellington at the University of Texas. Astrobiologists have noted that handedness makes no difference if there is plenty of stuff of both hands -- but that there are several mechanisms that can skew chirality one way or the other.
Chirality is no blow against evolution.
David wrote:
"ID says undirected evolution cannot produce (in toto) the diversity of life, either explicitly or by implication."
This points to a major inconsistency in ID argumentation. ID argues (incredulously) that the diversity of life just couldn't have happened in an undirected process. But that leads to the question, what can happen in an undirected fashion. Let's start with what we know about sexual reproduction. Alleles segregate and assort independently without direction. One sperm, among thousands of others, eventually fuses with an egg without direction. What is the eventual result? A unique individual. All along produced material processes and layers of "chance". No where have I read IDists arguing that a designer is in there sorting alleles into piles like a divine solitaire player or holding a sperm by the hand in order to produce a unique individual. Why is it that when you add the element of time, it suddenly becomes necessary to insist that the Designer just must have been in there somewhere, mucking about in the extended iterations of reproduction that are the underlying mechanism of evolution? If undirected processes can produce unique individuals, why can't undirected processes lead to the diversity of species? I submit there is no logical reason to assume there is a discontinuity that requires design (divine) intervention.
So here's the theological question of the day for you, David. If by means of material processes and chance events, God can bring your unique life into existence and know you as God's child, why do you insist your God is incapable of doing the same thing on a grand scale, i.e. evolution, without needing to muck about? Or do you really believe that God sorted the alleles you were dished out and guided your father's sperm (by the tail, I suppose)?
Commenting by HaloScan
