ACLU Monkey Business
Posted on September 27, 2005
Hat tip to Hidden Nook
A Pennsylvania federal court Monday was set to consider whether school districts may teach a concept known as “intelligent design” prior to teaching biology lessons on evolution. Eight families in Dover, Pennsylvania, claim that teaching the theory in schools is a violation of the separation of church and state.
The “intelligent design” concept, developed by scholars over the last 15 years, sets forth the belief that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution cannot completely explain the origin of life, contending that an unidentified intelligent force played a role.
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) - Eighty years after the Scopes Monkey Trial, the latest legal chapter in the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools is to unfold in federal court.
The Dover Area School District on Monday was to start defending its policy of requiring ninth-grade students hear about “intelligent design” before biology lessons on evolution.
Dover is believed to be the first school system in the nation to require students be exposed to the concept under a policy adopted by a 6-3 vote in October 2004.Source
This is always a hot topic of debate, so I’m gonna keep my analyses short and sweet. Intelligent design is not particularly religious. Just because Christians support its teachings does not mean its Christian, or religious. Intelligent design simply teaches that common sense observation, reveals the chance that we were created by chance is at greater odds than the possiblity there was design behind it. The complexities of the human body, and all the variations of life on this one planet are more likely the result of intentional design than random chance. Be it aliens, gods, an intelligent universe…whatever you want to call it..its more likely their was intelligence behind our development than not.
Its just a theory, and I don’t understand why all the secularists like the ACLU find it so threatening, when Darwins theory has been found to be full of hoaxes and flaws. One question evolution fans have never been able to answer to my satisfaction is how dead matter ever gained concioussness? How did an arrangement of chemicals and energy ever attain self awareness? Intelligent design raises these kinds of questions. I think it is a healthy addition to the debate of our origins. To see a good explanation on the mathmatical probabilities of chance creating us, take a look at Orge’s excellent analysis. Why the ACLU thinks this is a civil rights issue is beyond me.
Linked at Mudville Gazette, Basil’s and The Political Teen
Other Bloggers on this topic:
Espresso Roast
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL
Comments
101 Responses to “ACLU Monkey Business”
Wow. You, like many chiming in blindly on the subject of evolution and ID creationism, pack a remarkable number of misunderstandings and general gibberish into few words.
“Intelligent design is not particularly religious. Just because Christians support its teachings does not mean its Christian, or religious.”
Since you haven’t done your homework, I could point you toward any one of hundreds of pieces of evidence to the contrary, but I’ll submit for your thorough consideration the “Wedge document”: http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html. This was published by an arm of the Discovery Institute, the chief American locus of fomenting ID creationism. You can stop after the first sentence if you’re short on time.
“Intelligent design simply teaches that common sense observation, reveals the chance that we were created by chance is at greater odds than the possiblity their was design behind it. The complexities of the human body, and all the variations of life on this one planet are more likely the result of intentional design than random chance. Be it aliens, gods, an intelligent universe…whatever you want to call it..its more likely their was intelligence behind our development than not.”
Here you’ve stated in a number of ways that you find the complexity of the human body so marvelous that it could not possibly have arisen over millions of years through natural selection acting on the genetic by-products of beneficial mutation. Arguments from incredulity may be instinctive in the scientifically avoidant, but they aren’t satisfactory. You’ve also wrongly used the term “random chance,” but this is so endemic among creationists that it’s not worth harping on here.
“Its just a theory…”
ID creationism is not a theory. It’s ad hoc nonsense. Scientific theories are by definition testable and hence potentially falsifiable. ID creationism merely says “It’s amazing, so [God] did it.” Of course, there’s no evidence of this [God], so what’s to test? Can you offer one testable element of this “theory”?
“…and I don’t understand why all the secularists like the ACLU find it so threatening, when Darwins theory has been found to be full of hoaxes and flaws.”
Ouch! “Secularists”! Well, maybe it’s because ID creationism — be it religious nonsense or something culled from the ashes of an evil secularist’s burned Bible — has no place in science classes. Evolution is firmly established across every biological discipline and has no legitimate challenger in the garbage shouted from the lips of ID folk.
Also, please list one hoax that has been integrated into the theory of evolution, and a single flaw in same. You’ve obviously read your advanced biology books, so this should be an easy one.
“One question evolution fans have never been able to answer to my satisfaction is how dead matter ever gained concioussness? How did an arrangement of chemicals and energy ever attain self awareness?”
Ah, there’s the key phrase: “to your satisfaction.” Well, since you steadfastly refuse to enlighten yourself on the theories pertaining to abiogenesis, molecular agglomeration in a vastly different atmospheric milieu billions of years ago, and the aggregability of nucleotide precursors in the presence of a likely catalyst such as clay, I don’t think that anyone could explain this to within a hemisphere of your satisfaction. But take heart - while a nation of pursed-lipped bumpkins whacks and smacks their holy books while staunchly declaring that “Darwinism” can’t be right, biologists are hard at work in an effort to elucidate more clearly what might have happened in primordial times.
“Intelligent design raises these kinds of questions.”
That it doesn’t. It merely serves up a pat answer: “[God] did it.”
“I think it is a healthy addition to the debate of our origins.”
Kind of like arsenic is a healthy addition to beef stew.
“To see a good explanation on the mathmatical probabilities of chance creating us, take a look at Orge’s excellent analysis.”
Ogre’s analysis is misguided and trite. He’d be laughed out of any physics or mathematics department if he let fly with that stuff. I won’t bore you with the fundamental flaws in his reasoning.
“Why the ACLU thinks this is a civil rights issue is beyond me.”
See above. You know, it’s okay to hate on the often overbearing ACLU, but don’t drag scientists into the debate when it’s clear you’re completely lost on every epistemological aspect of this so-called debate.
BV wrote;
“ID creationism is not a theory. It’s ad hoc nonsense. Scientific theories are by definition testable and hence potentially falsifiable.”
And I ask, is evolution testable? Can we create a self aware intelligent being through evolution testing?
If so, do it.
And I ask, is evolution testable? Can we create a self aware intelligent being through evolution testing?
If so, do it.
Don’t have to… like ya said earlier, God already did.
Beaming Visionary, you know what I think is ignorant? Closed minds. I never said evolution was false, only that random chance was unlikely. A higher intelligence using evolution as a tool of creation…possible. I’m open minded to the possiblities of evolution and intelligent design, what I don’t understand is someone who could deny the possibilities, of intelligent design.
Beaming visionary, you’re blinded by your own beliefs.
Intelligent design and evolution are equally religious — a simple set of beliefs. Just because you don’t agree with one set of beliefs and agree with another doesn’t make you non-religious and someone else religious.
If intelligent design is not a theory because it cannot be tested, then evolution is not a theory, because it cannot be tested, at all, either.
Evolution is no more science than ID. The simple evidence of this is that most of those who support evolution will not consider any other evidence. Those who came up with the theories of naturalism and evolution started with the supposition that there is no God. Good science examines all the data to come up with a conclusion — they started with a conclusion and then found evidence for it — and continue to reject out of hand ANY evidence that conflicts with their pre-conceived conclusion — that’s BAD science.
You continue your blanket insults of people and see how well that supports your arguments and THEORIES to explain how rock became elephants. I theorize that my cat was birthed by the mating of the moon and a cockroach. I’m right simply because I declare I am and no one can prove me wrong because no one saw the birth. Gee, I sound like a real scientist, don’t I?
ID does raise questions, you just absolutely, blindly, refuse to accept any possible evidence that refutes your personal theory that you have faith in. Your faith is in naturalism and anything that questions your faith is wrong by definition. So you can have your naturalistic religion if you like — just like others who claim theirs is the only “true” religion.
And no, the ACLU is not concerned with rights in this case. They are opposed to anything that shows that man is not God. The ACLU wants to be God, and they don’t want anyone else to tell them they’re wrong. Evolution lets them be God.
This first rambling is so much Liberal bullcrap. This so called Beaming Visionary has a burned out bulb and has gall telling other people they need to do their homework.
First and foremost, the writer thinks he is writing to other gullible Liberal idiots, and assumes using big words and flashy references will convince us he is right, far from it however, and that we’ll just foldem and follow along like yet another gullible putz. I don’t think so. The first reference they attempt to use is the first sentence in the Wedge Document, which is a crock of crap. Why? Its basically Wedge restating a proposition, not making a factual statement. Lets move on as it obviously proves nothing and is a waste of time.
Secondly, the writer conveniently avoids really addressing and explaining natural evolution while using big scary words in an attempt to discount what was said about intelligent design. We’re still waiting for a detailed explanation with facts to back up your big mouth. We doubt you can supply either, but rather will respond with more unsubstantiated Liberal jibberish. We’ll not harp on that then….
Third this dolt makes a statement that on its surface appears to define Theory. Wrong again. A Theory as described can be statements and/or principles that can be tested, but it can also be based on widely accepted principles. That part was so conveniently left out so as to confuse and mislead. Didn’t work. Also, we’d like to see your test on evolution. Tell us where the lab is that we can visit and see where over millions of years through natural selection acting on the genetic by-products of beneficial mutation, evolution took place. We at least have evidence that Christ did in fact exist, and performed miracles. We’re waiting….
Fourth, there is the completely asinine statement that intelligent design has no place in science class. WHY?? You’re obviously anti-religion, by the way you speak, so the answer is because YOU and other control freak Liberals have a personal problem with it. Your type cannot understand the theory of religious freedoms. That would be where you believe what you want to believe and others will believe what they want to believe, but you don’t stick your nose into my beliefs and attempt to eradicate them because you don’t like them or believe in them. Further, evolution is NOT firmly established across all biological disciplines simply because if you knew what the hell you were talking about you would know that not all biological disciplines in fact support the theory or the idea, and that evolution has too many unexplained areas to be totally embraced by all sciences. This is fact, so spare me.
Fifth. Wow, how long did it take you to look all of those big words up in the dictionary? Molecular Agglomeration, Abiogenesis, Atmospheric Milieu, Nucleotide Precursors, and Aggregability. Those are pretty big scary sounding words, did your mommy help you with them? I’m quite sure all of us with working brains, especially Jay and other bloggers who post informative articles here fully understand the evolution theory and don’t necessarily disagree that it is a possibility that millions of years ago there may have taken place the development of a living organism from non-living matter allowed by the gathering of matters consisting of various compounds, phosphates and other materials to form basic DNA which is the building block of life. The problem is in that Liberal jackasses like you refuse to accept that this is not the only possibility, and much to your chagrin and torment, that there may be other ideas and theories out there that also quite satisfactorily explain how we got here. By the way, Aggregability and Milieu are not real words. So its not really a matter of Jay or myself or anyone else writing here wanting to understand a theory and be satisfied that it could work everything considered, but rather you having a problem with a theory that may possibly suggest a God or other superior intelligence may be involved. You’re just going to have to get over it little boy.
Sixth. Why do Liberals like you insist that everything intelligent design is about God? You’re as shallow as a 1/2″ deep puddle with your intolerance of anything religion. Intelligent design could just as easily mean that there are more intelligent beings out there in the universe, and they may or may not have had a hand in things. Given the stupidity of Liberals, I’m convinced that there may well be a more intelligent being out there, there has to be. So your “Pat Answer” theory is unfounded and as usual unsubstantiated. Just another way of avoiding the question, how typically pathetically, sickeningly, shallow minded, Liberal.
Seventh. I agree and most intelligent thinking people will agree that a variety of teachings are healthy. But we see again, you have no intelligent answer except to say that arsenic in beef stew would be healthy. Please, by all means make up a big batch and eat hearty, the sooner the better.
Eighth. It’s amazing how you Liberal big mouths come in with your big words and baseless statements, and proceed to discount statements by saying such idiotic statements like “Ogre’s analysis is misguided and trite.” Actually, it’s your writings here that are quite trite. You cannot answer in an intelligent manner an argument explaining Ogre’s position and showing proof where he may be wrong. You just poopoo his works without substantiating your position at all. This is because you cannot. You’re not smart enough to do that mainly because you know he is right and your argument is weak. We could simply do the same for your so called proof in citing Wedge. At least we gave an intelligent answer in that Wedge was simply restating a proposition, not forwarding a factual theory. So please, spare me.
Ninth. Wow, another big scary word. Epistemological. Did your mommy help you pick that one out too? Laughable you are. Jay and other writers here have done countless hours of research on subject matters. To insinuate that they have no idea what they are talking about is ignorant, not to mention rude and condescending. However, from dealing for many years with Liberals, this is to be expected from persons like yourself. Liberals like you should not use big words when you are unsure of their true and complete meaning, and especially if they apply to yourself more than those you’re vainly attempting to apply them to. Your depth of knowledge on either theories is pathetic at best and guided by the shallowness of your vision. Validity is all but non-existant in your ramblings further serving to prove your attempted points as invalid and not worthy of consideration.
We’re done with you. You and your ramblings have been discounted. Goodbye.
Now there’s a shocker. All sorts of angry rhetoric about liberal closed-mindedness, but nothing at all either supporting ID creationism or refuting evolution. And how you do love reveling in your awe and uncomprehension!
Let’s get one thing out of the way: Evolution is NOT “random.” It’s NOT “chance.” It’s blind, but that’s not the same thing. Mutations in the genome occasionally occur, and these provide the raw material on which natural selection can act, resulting in differential reproductive fitness within a species. This is not speculative — no more so than gravity, which, by the way, can’t be “proven” or quantified either.
You folks lack the background for me to explain further, and that’s not condescension — it’s fact. It’s also not a personality flaw, but rambling on with grand self-assurance in the face of one’s own lack of background is unmitigated arrogance, worthy of utmost scorn.
“I ask, is evolution testable? Can we create a self aware intelligent being through evolution testing? If so, do it.”
Nice try. Not. Scientists don’t need to create an entire sentient organism from scratch in order to establish the facts about evolution. Do you people know that predictions made in the 1800’s about the mechanisms of natural selection — predictions made long before concepts such as alleles and DNA arose — have been borne out by genomic sequencing in the past two decades? Heck, we don’t really need fossils these days to advance our knowledge of evolution. Thanks to advances in molecular biology, we’re literally able to watch evolution occur. Details are beyond the scope of this little chat, but those truly interested should visit the talk.origins.org site.
“…what I don’t understand is someone who could deny the possibilities, of intelligent design.”
Again, your lack of understanding doesn’t strengthen your position, it merely attests to your lack of credentials in even barking about this topic. Scientists would be happy to consider alternate ideas to evolution if evidence compelled them to do so — there’s no agenda here. Evolution and raw theism are not incompatible. If you can kindly list the evidence suggesting ID creationism might be valid that scientists are ignoring, please do so.
“If intelligent design is not a theory because it cannot be tested, then evolution is not a theory, because it cannot be tested, at all, either. Evolution is no more science than ID. Those who came up with the theories of naturalism and evolution started with the supposition that there is no God…”
This entire passage is such embarrassing, thoroughgoing nonsense that I almost feel dirty looking at it. The part about rocks to elephants made me grin, though.
Evolution has withstood every rigorous challenge thrown its way and has been directly observed in nature. One needn’t linger on Earth for two million years to confirm its central tenets and observe their output. The theory is eminently falsifiable, yet has only grown more powerful and explicatory over time.
Charles Darwin was a Christian who believed in God. This is well-established, yet you’d rather wax rebellious about “naturalism” and the supposed roots of evolutionary theory than operate from an informed stance, I guess.
If you’re not going to equip yourself with evidence, consider keeping quiet so as to not render yourself a blithering fool.
The entry from “Mr. Wonderful” is nothing but a tired screed from a backwater buhleever about the evils of liberals and their big words, and was even more noncontributory than Ogre’s. You guys are entitled to your venom, but I do chuckle at Mr. Wonderful’s claim that Jay has done “hours of research.”
There is nothing “closed-minded” about refusing to kowtow to others’ religious myths. And if you don’t understand that ID creationism is a strictly religious idea, you probably never will. Do you know what “Of Pandas and People” is? It’s one of the flagships book touting ID. Have a look.
A passage from an early edition:
“Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.”
Next, the revised and final version:
“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.”
There’s more where that came from, but you should be satisfied at this point that the “minds” behind ID use the terms creationism and “intelligent design” interchangeably. If you don’t see that as problematic as regards America’s classrooms, then you’re beyond reach and beyond reason.
I could say much, much more, all of it illuminating, but I only have so much time to waste on semiliterate bloggers and their screeching choruses of misguided support. But I will say that if any of you had any idea what you MIGHT even be talking about — any grasp of the subject at all — you’d understand why it is that biologists strike you as “arrogant” for rejecting such spurious malarkey as ID creationism.
Let me restate that I never denied evolution. Darwin’s theory of it however has been proven to be full of hoaxes. Personaly I believe in a lot of possiblities. The fact is that no one KNOWS for sure exactly how we got here. People who belive in God, do so by faith. I think evolution is a possiblity, however I also belive, by faith, that if it was…it was directed by a higher power.
Jay, you are free to believe whatever you choose about the origins of life. If anyone, Beaming Visionary or anyone else, told you differently, then they are wrong, pure and simple.
However, an unprovable belief system is not an educational tool. If it were, we’d have to let every possible theory on earth into the schoolroom to ensure that all theories were being presented, not just the ones we want to be right.
How pathetic, but as I said before, all so typical. Again comes the rhetoric in waves, and the vain attempt at turning the tables and attempting to call the kettle black. Yet they still say NOTHING of importance or substance what so ever. They do however, make it abundantly clear that they are in fact one sided in their thought process and their so called ideals. Unfortunately, both are wrong, even though they refuse to see this and accept it as the fact that it is. One only needs to read between the lines to see their [edited] for what it is:
“There’s more where that came from, but you should be satisfied at this point that the “minds” behind ID use the terms creationism and “intelligent design” interchangeably. If you don’t see that as problematic as regards America’s classrooms, then you’re beyond reach and beyond reason.”
We don’t see it as problematic because it is NOT problematic. Only you and your ilk see the teachings of various ideas as a “problem”. Hence YOUR closed mindedness, and obvious personal problem with anything regarding a higher power call it what you may, God, aliens or what ever. Either reply with facts listed clearly instead of rhetoric or please, make that arsnic Stew tonight and eat a plenty so we are rid of you and your [edited].
“Let me restate that I never denied evolution. Darwin’s theory of it however has been proven to be full of hoaxes.”
If you’re talking about hoaxes such as Lucy and Piltdown Man, realize that real scientists scrutinized these and vigorously rejected them as soon as their frivolity was evident. Don’t you see this as a strength? Scientists aren’t interested in manufactured evidence, even if it superficially supports their earlier findings. They just want the truth. Hence their extreme difficulty with another eminently manufactured concept — ID.
“People who belive in God, do so by faith. I think evolution is a possiblity, however I also belive, by faith, that if it was…it was directed by a higher power.”
I respect your individual right to believe as you choose, as well as your distaste for the ACLU’s overzealous involvement in matters spanning the sociopolitical spectrum. But I hope you will agree that because credible scientists are united in their endorsement of the theory of evolution — not a static body of knowledge, by the way, but a source of lively internal LEGITIMATE debate — there is no logical reason to include an unsupported idea, ID creationism, in American classrooms.
If you want to cast aspersions on anyone, blame the Dover parents who brought the suit, not the ACLU. But those parents are right in trying to preserve the integrity of science curricula. Simply put, there is no scientific controversy here, only a religious one, and science classrooms are not an appropriate battleground for such conflicts to unfold.
“Its just a theory”
Its not a theory. It doesn’t even supply a testable hypothesis. So it can’t rise to the level of a theory.
“We don’t see it as problematic because it is NOT problematic.”
So you believe that creationism should be taught in public schools? Guess you’re not familiar with, oh, the U.S. Supreme Court. And you think that anyone opposed to teaching religious dogma in science classes is “close-minded” and that scientific facts are tantamount to “rhetoric”? You believe that America’s schoolchildren should be taught that it’s just as likely that aliens created life on Earth as that life arose and evolved from natural processes conforming to known dicta of nature? Looks like someone has a problem, and it’s not me, the courts, the ACLU or the schools.
I’m sorry if my vocabulary and knowledge frighten you, but I won’t apologize for being informed. You can rant and rave all you like and wave your hands at facts in an effort to make them disappear, but until you produce a credible refutation of any aspect of evolution or offer sound support for teaching ID creationism, you’re nothing but jabber and static, like Iago, the bird on Jifar’s shoulder in “Aladdin.” SQUAAAWK! SQUUUAAAAAWWWWWK!!
Guess what. I’ve read the Bible and studied my biology, and like most sane people have arrived at the most likely explanation for how humanity as we know it came to be. Crack a textbook and make an effort to learn the basics of evolution, and then maybe you’ll begin to make a third as much sense as I do.
I just now noticed that the asinine cartoon at the top of the page has Kent Hovind’s name on it. I’m sure Jay is blithely unaware of what a laughingstock Hovind is, and that nothing being attacked in the captions is remotely related to evolution as it’s actually understood. Creationists have no legitimate answer to evolution, so instead they attack straw-man versions of it. What a sad life. Jay, your post is a wreck but FYI you’d gain a smidgeon of credibility by simply nixing the ‘toon.
“We don’t see it as problematic because it is NOT problematic.”
So you believe that creationism should be taught in public schools? Guess you’re not familiar with, oh, the U.S. Supreme Court. And you think that anyone opposed to teaching religious dogma in science classes is “close-minded” and that scientific facts are tantamount to “rhetoric”? You believe that America’s schoolchildren should be taught that it’s just as likely that aliens created life on Earth as that life arose and evolved from natural processes conforming to known dicta of nature? Looks like someone has a problem, and it’s not me, the courts, the ACLU or the schools.
I’m sorry if my vocabulary and knowledge frighten you, but I won’t apologize for being informed. You can rant and rave all you like and wave your hands at facts in an effort to make them disappear, but until you produce a credible refutation of any aspect of evolution or offer sound support for teaching ID creationism, you’re nothing but jabber and static, like Iago, the squawking, irrelevant bird perched on Jifar’s shoulder in “Aladdin.”
Guess what. I’ve read the Bible and studied my biology, and like most sane people have arrived at the most likely explanation for how humanity as we know it came to be. Crack a textbook and make an effort to learn the basics of evolution, and then maybe you’ll begin to make a third as much sense as I do.
“So you believe that creationism should be taught in public schools? Guess you’re not familiar with, oh, the U.S. Supreme Court”
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is above your lowly courts:
http://www.venganza.org
What I believe should be taught in schools is objectivity. Intelligent design relies on observing patterns that seem to indicate design rather than random mutation. Design detection is used in many sciences, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).
Evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation.
the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 10 to the 40,000 power to one. The law of physics, gravity, electromagnetism to assemble the molecules together, all come into play.
There is absolutely no overwhelmingly convincing evidence of macro-evolution, however there is evidence of micro-evolution. No evidence that suggests one organism ever evolving into something different. However, I still won’t deny its possiblity over thousands of years to happen. Its possible, but there is no evidence.
The cosmological argument: the effect of the universe’s existence must have a suitable cause.
The teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a purpose or direction behind it.
The rational argument: the operation of the universe according to order and natural law implies a mind behind it.
The ontological argument: man’s ideas of God (his God- consciousness, if you like) implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness.
The moral argument: man’s built-in sense of right and wrong can be accounted for only by an innate awareness of a code of law - an awareness implanted by a higher being.
Einstein ultimately gave in, arguing against his own theory of relativity, that the universe was infinite and having no beggining to what he called “the necessity for a beginning” and eventually to “the presence of a superior reasoning power.”
Here is the common sense breakdown.
Everything that begins to exist must have a cause;
If the universe began to exist, then
The universe must have a cause.
By definition, time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. If time’s beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos.
And my question of how concioussness came about, was never answered.
It is interesting how often the liberal argument is always the same — start out by accusing your opponent of doing what you yourself are doing. It’s always the same. I wonder if it works when they talk to each other. BV, you’re not providing evidence, either. And I’m not providing evidence of creation or intelligent design — I’m providing questions that refute the idea of evolution and you’re rejecting them only because you absolutely, with a religious fervor, can only see evolution and anything that conflicts with your personal belief system you can only reject.
You made a nice logically fallacious leap there — from individual gene mutation to species differentials. Just because a person can be born without bones due to a genetic error (almost ALL of which are DAMAGING, not beneficial), doesn’t mean that a person can give birth to a tree.
There is an agenda here, you just won’t admit it. The agenda is very clear and has been designed from the very beginning of all thought towards evolution, naturalism, and materialism, all the way back to Rousseu. The agenda, and the science associated with it goes like this: “There is no God and EVERYTHING can only be explained by the scientific process. Anything that conflicts with this can only be ignored completely and totally.”
The theory of evolution is NOT “eminently falsifiable,” no matter how much you want it to be. Evolution has only been able to withstand challenges when you work with the above assumption — anything that conflicts with evolution is, by definition, false.
A simpler example could be shown this way:
A. Two is NOT a number.
B. 1+1=3.
According to my rules (since I’m the scientist and can make the rules), 1 plus 1 is 3, and no one can prove me wrong, ever. You can only prove me wrong if you can come up with a better answer. And no, you can’t use 2 because I decided that’s not a number.
That’s how evolution scientists defend themselves. They define the rules, then declare themselves the winner — with a very defined, primary purpose, whether you believe it or see it.
I see you also set the rules, BV, by claiming that only “real scientists” and “credible scientists” are the ones who are those that agree with you. I’m quite sure that any who disagree with your belief system are not “credible” nor “real” to you, either. Oh, nice one towards the end there — only “insane” people can believe anything but your personal, superior religion of evolution and naturalism.
And critical thinking, if I agree completely with this statement: “an unprovable belief system is not an educational tool,” then you’ve got to remove evolution from schools, too, because it’s completely unprovable.
Thank you for confirming that you know better than everyone else on the planet, CV. We’re sorry to have bothered you with facts since we are so low and beneath your comprehension. Since you know all, why in the world did you bother commenting here? Yes, you are the supreme being in the world and we are all maggots. Will you go away now and play with your other supreme beings since we are such ignorant scum to you?
“And my question of how concioussness came about, was never answered.”
In much the same spirit as the earlier “science has never built a conscious being from scratch, ergo evolution is unproven” crap, the origins of consciousness are irrelevant to the question of the veracity of evolution. Take it to the neurobiologists and the philosophers.
If you’re going to regard this as some sort of argument-ender, I’ll just ask for evidence of the designer or for God, for which, of course, none exists. (Actually, this would be a legitimate move on my part, but it’s not necessary to establish the truth about evolution and the inanity of ID creationism.)
“What I believe should be taught in schools is objectivity. Intelligent design relies on observing patterns that seem to indicate design rather than random mutation.”
The patterns seeingly indicative of “design” to the unscholarly have been thoroughly explained in terms of evolutionary theory. Comprehending same requires forsaking intellectual laziness and gaining a cursory understanding of math and biology and little else — certainly not “faith.” If you don’t believe me, please visit the talk.origins site rather than the creationist sites you’ve been plumbing. Talk.origins, however, offers direct refutations to virtually every creationist assertion posted here and elsewhere, so you may find it unpalatable.
“Design detection is used in many sciences, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).”
No kidding, and relativistic equations are used in wave-particle discussions, but not in botany. Claiming that a designer is responsible for processes already explained in more sensible, testable terms doesn’t wash. The fact that “design detection” has applications in some disciplines doesn’t make it relevant to biology, where a mammoth body of evidence favoring another process already exists.
“Evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation.”
Now I know you’re cutting and pasting. Amusing. Another “argument from incredulity” is still an argument from incredulity.
“…the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 10 to the 40,000 power to one. The law of physics, gravity, electromagnetism to assemble the molecules together, all come into play.”
There’s no way to calculate such odds, although creationists enjoy extrapolating theirs ad absurdum in order to buttress their other foolishness. If you’re interested in a more thorough examination of cumulative probabilities and the origins of life on Earth, pick up “The Blind Watchmaker.” Excellent reading that will clear up a lot of your misconceptions.
“There is absolutely no overwhelmingly convincing evidence of macro-evolution, however there is evidence of micro-evolution. No evidence that suggests one organism ever evolving into something different. However, I still won’t deny its possiblity over thousands of years to happen. Its possible, but there is no evidence.”
Another oh-so-common canard. Were this familiar territory to you, you would know to avoid this one because its use marks the proponent as hopelesssly parochial. You can’t use the cut-and-paste method to argue with a learned opponent, my friend.
Yes, there is ample evidence for macroevolution (although anyone agreeing that microevolution is legitimate virtually cannot argue against macroevolution, although that’s for another day). Much of it is here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4
If you disregard this on the basis of lacking the background to interpret it, the problem lies with you, not with the relevant science. Please have some trust in those who have studied this stuff for a long time.
“The cosmological argument: the effect of the universe’s existence must have a suitable cause.
The teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a purpose or direction behind it.
The rational argument: the operation of the universe according to order and natural law implies a mind behind it.
The ontological argument: man’s ideas of God (his God- consciousness, if you like) implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness.
The moral argument: man’s built-in sense of right and wrong can be accounted for only by an innate awareness of a code of law - an awareness implanted by a higher being.”
Again, this, along with your “common-sense” argument, is all irrelevant to evolution. Creationsist love straying from the basic topic of evolutionary theory, which they don’t grok and don’t care to, and flinging out cosmological what-ifs in order to muddy things. No one’s fooled, though. But regardless, within the ID framework, something as complex and “information-rich” as God certainly requires a cause, one even more complex than God itself. And so on, back through an infinite number of Gods. There is no useful argument here, which makes the basic presumption of matter, cause unknown, not only simpler but more logical.
“Einstein ultimately gave in, arguing against his own theory of relativity, that the universe was infinite and having no beggining to what he called “the necessity for a beginning” and eventually to “the presence of a superior reasoning power.””
I know ol’ Al a lot better than you know him from those who choose to misrepresent his words, and I assure you that he didn’t believe in the sort of Christian god the ID gang are certain underlies creation.
ID proponents are dishonest, nefarious, deluded and generally stupid. I don’t know how the ACLU could possibly be a target of your scorn if you give these drooling nutbags a free pass.
“Just because a person can be born without bones due to a genetic error (almost ALL of which are DAMAGING, not beneficial), doesn’t mean that a person can give birth to a tree.”
Why does it matter whether a person can give birth to trees?
“And critical thinking, if I agree completely with this statement: “an unprovable belief system is not an educational tool,” then you’ve got to remove evolution from schools, too, because it’s completely unprovable.”
That’s not the case. We can look at the fossil record, as well as the world, and see if it as what evolution predicts we would see. And in fact it is so.
“It is interesting how often the liberal argument is always the same — start out by accusing your opponent of doing what you yourself are doing.”
It’s interesting that I’m not even a liberal, of reflex hammer of amusingly shallow mind.
“BV, you’re not providing evidence, either.”
Yes I am. Read it or don’t, I don’t care.
“I’m providing questions that refute the idea of evolution and you’re rejecting them only because you absolutely, with a religious fervor, can only see evolution and anything that conflicts with your personal belief system you can only reject.”
I’m rejecting them because they’ve been thoroughly rejected already, repeatedly and soundly, by biologists the world over. I’m sorry if the implications cause you such grief.
“You made a nice logically fallacious leap there — from individual gene mutation to species differentials.”
If you don’t understand the intermediate steps, this, too, is your deficiency, not mine or evolutions. As much as you may dislike what sounds like a mantra, there’s no point in my ignoring the fact that you know nothing about evolution — its tenets, its implications, its history. I already pointed out that Darwin was a Christian, yet you persist with your conspiratorial gibberish about science being an inherently anti-God construct. Just because many of its findings happen to rule against the notion of a triune God doesn’t mean this is its purpose. God is an inherently dumb idea, so it’s only natural science would tend to rule it out.
“Just because a person can be born without bones due to a genetic error (almost ALL of which are DAMAGING, not beneficial), doesn’t mean that a person can give birth to a tree.”
Ah yes, osteogenesis imperfecta. So much for intelligent design, or are horrible diseases this a we’re-all-sinners thing?
You are ignorant of genetics. Most mutations are not damaging, they’re silent. But a steady stream of beneficial mutations is not required in order to provide fodder for natural selection. You need to realize that at least 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct, because traits that were adaptive for a time ceased to be adaptive and the organisms in question couldn’t hang. What we see today are, by definition, organisms whose ancestors have all reproduced successfully — every one of them. Lights going on yet?
“There is an agenda here, you just won’t admit it. The agenda is very clear and has been designed from the very beginning of all thought towards evolution, naturalism, and materialism, all the way back to Rousseu. The agenda, and the science associated with it goes like this: “There is no God and EVERYTHING can only be explained by the scientific process. Anything that conflicts with this can only be ignored completely and totally.””
The fact that you embrace this whackjob hokum goes a long way toward explaining how and why you remain blind to basic principles. Your de facto motto: God first, and all that conflicts with God goes out the wondow. What a sure route to anti-enlightenment. Who has the agenda here?
“The theory of evolution is NOT “eminently falsifiable,” no matter how much you want it to be.”
If a hominid skeleton were to be found in the same strata as an archaeopteryx, evolution would collapse. There are countless other ways in which it could be turned on its ear. And if you think scientists are united in an unyielding thirst to deny anything contradicting evolution out of hand, consider how rich and famous a scientist would become if he could provide genuine evidence that evolution as we understand it now is completely wrong. We’re talking Nobel Prizes here. So if anything, scientists motivated by avarice have all the motivation in the world to deny evolution. The obvious (not to you) problem is that it cannot be done — the evidence is simply too overhwlming.
“Evolution has only been able to withstand challenges when you work with the above assumption — anything that conflicts with evolution is, by definition, false.”
Molecular biology has allowed scientists to confirm much of what evolutionary theory predicted a century ago. I’d say that’s pretty impressive. The more “Neo-Darwinism” comes under attack from the sightless and the slack-jawed, the stronger it becomes. And boy, does it make creationists gnash their teeth.
“A simpler example could be shown this way:
A. Two is NOT a number.
B. 1+1=3.
According to my rules (since I’m the scientist and can make the rules), 1 plus 1 is 3, and no one can prove me wrong, ever. You can only prove me wrong if you can come up with a better answer. And no, you can’t use 2 because I decided that’s not a number.”
Actually, two IS a number. So much for your “example.”
“That’s how evolution scientists defend themselves. They define the rules, then declare themselves the winner — with a very defined, primary purpose, whether you believe it or see it.”
Actually, the evidence stands on its own merits, but if it consoles you to think this way, I won’t argue.
“I see you also set the rules, BV, by claiming that only “real scientists” and “credible scientists” are the ones who are those that agree with you.”
All credible scientists believe in evolution. I didn’t “set” this condition; it merely exists. There are nutcases in every discipline, some of them with PhD’s, but they eventually fall by the wayside in their colleagues’ view (as with Michael “irreducible complexity” Behe, all but ostracized at Lehigh and rightly so). Consider this another form of selection.
“I’m quite sure that any who disagree with your belief system are not “credible” nor “real” to you, either.”
It’s not about me, it’s about truth, in this case evolution. Keep up the ad hominems, though, they’re doing your arguments (so to speak) a world of good.
“And critical thinking, if I agree completely with this statement: “an unprovable belief system is not an educational tool,” then you’ve got to remove evolution from schools, too, because it’s completely unprovable.”
Already dealt with. Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time, and only a thumb-sucking idiot would pretend this doesn’t happen. Evidence for evolution abounds, from bacterial resistance to countless other examples. See, we can now OBSERVE changes at the DNA level. We KNOW more about the mechanisms of evolution than ever before. Meanwhile, Bible-beaters everywhere are in a tizzy.
“Thank you for confirming that you know better than everyone else on the planet, CV. We’re sorry to have bothered you with facts since we are so low and beneath your comprehension. Since you know all, why in the world did you bother commenting here? Yes, you are the supreme being in the world and we are all maggots. Will you go away now and play with your other supreme beings since we are such ignorant scum to you?”
Look, I offended it. My condolences, ogre, no one’s going to keep you from your blinders and your foolish, ramshackle ideas about science. See, this is a great country, and you should thank organizations like the ACLU for fighting tooth and nail for your right to remain uneducated.
Fark, don’t get me started on fossil records. There is absolutely no proof of evolution in fossil records. As a matter of fact looking at fossil records will only lead to blowing more holes in the evolution theory, thats where you’ll find all kinds of gaps that “haven’t been found yet”. The fact they haven’t been found just expounds on the fact that evolution is based on faith in a theory, and not completely on fact.
That’s circular logic, Fark — the fossils were discovered, so people proposed evolution to explain them. Then the support for evolution is given to be fossils. So evolution is true because fossils exist and fossils exist because evolution is true.
Look, the primary point of this lawsuit can be broken down very simply into one question:
“Do you believe that any evidence that conflicts with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution should be allowed in schools?”
That’s all the school district wanted to do. They STILL WANTED to teach evolution! They just wanted to add one sentence at the beginning of the course that said it might not be the gospel truth.
If YOU answered “no” to that question, you are a closed-minded person with total religious faith in YOUR theory of evolution and you refuse to allow your religion to be challenged. If it’s such a perfect theory, why won’t they allow challenges?
“That’s circular logic, Fark — the fossils were discovered, so people proposed evolution to explain them. ”
I don’t think that evolution was proposed because of fossils. Darwin at least proposed it due to livign animals. Its just that the fossil records conforms to what we would expect from evolution.
What does ID say the fossil record should look like? Anything at all?
“The fact they haven’t been found just expounds on the fact that evolution is based on faith in a theory, and not completely on fact.”
Its based on acceptance of a theory, given the fact that the evidence we have matches the theory. As we get more evidence, we get more matches.
“They STILL WANTED to teach evolution! They just wanted to add one sentence at the beginning of the course that said it might not be the gospel truth.”
They better not be bringing in any gospel truth.
“Do you believe that any evidence that conflicts with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution should be allowed in schools?”
Always have to add “Darwin’s,” right? Can’t just say “evolution” because that’s harder to demonize. The fundagelicals love to hate on the word “Darwin,” though, so even though invoking his name is superfluous here in the 21st century, it makes for good demogoguery.
That aside, you insist on being 100% full of faeces. There is no “evidence” that conflicts with evolution. None. Not in the IDiot camp, not in the world’s holy books, not in a ketchup stain in Peoria. If you believe there is, present it. If not, accept the facts.
If that in your view really is the central question, then by your own incidental admission ID creationism is dead in the water. This question, rooted as it is in false premises, isn’t useful. It’s specious.
And for the last time, like as not, evolution doesn’t require “faith.” For YOU it would. For the clear-headed it doesn’t. Faith is a word used by religious people to attempt to plug evidential gaps. If it did require faith, I’d reject it because matters of faith are loads of bunk for the weak-minded and the squint-eyed.
Ah, but the ACLU wants to bring in their OWN gospel truth and accept no others. That’s the point of the lawsuit.
What a bunch of malicious tripe.
Here is a great website called the Institution of Creation Research, or ICR–that contains articles and abstracts written by creationist scientists. But creationism and ID are not exactly the same. If you read the published articles by the creationists, you will see that they refer to scripture and incorporate their scientific findings into what can be found in scripture, which I think is really cool.
To get a grasp of what the debate over intelligent design is really all about, you really have to understand just two things. First, scientific materialists will try to dictate what evidence may be considered by playing definitional games. Secondly, there is now a wide range of scientific evidence that contradicts materialism and re-opens the question of purpose and design in the universe. Get those two points, and you’ll have a better understanding about the current debate than nearly all of its critics.
First, let’s discussion ID’s definition. What is, ID, really? What is ID as design theorists themselves understand it, not as the hostile media portrays it?
Despite what you may have heard, ID is not a deduction from religious dogma or scripture. It’s simply the argument or the contention that certain features of the natural world–from miniature machines and digital information found in living cells, –to the fine-tuning of physical constants–are best explained as a result of an intelligent cause. ID theorists argue, the universe provides evidence of purpose and design. ID is thus a tacit rebuke of an idea inherited from the 19th century, called scientific materialism.
Picking up the story in the 19th century, natural science in the Victorian age, or rather its materialist gloss, offered a simple view of the universe. 1) The universe has always existed, so we need not address where it came from 2) everything in the universe, large and small, submits to a few well-understood deterministic laws 3) life is the love child of luck and chemistry 4) cells, basic units of life, are little more than blobs of jell-O -different flavors, but all alike.
Onto this dubious edifice Charles Darwin added a fifth conjecture; all the sophisticated organisms around us grew from a starkly simple process called “natural selection”. This almost miraculously creative process seizes and passes along those minor, random variations in a population that provide a survival advantage. With this, Darwin explained away the apparent design in the biological world as just that–apparent, not real.
That’s it. The materialist worldview was now essentially complete. Halfway through the 20th century, Darwin’s random variations were more specifically defined as random genetic mutations, but the theory–because it failed to grapple with the deeper implications of the information revolution in biology-remained at its heart a Victorian theory of origin. Much like the world is flat…when you get the bigger picture, you must adapt your hypothesis to include the new information.
Each of those four assumptions has been either discredited or badly shaken by 20th Century science, but the gloss remains, an outlook called scientific materialism; There is no god, matter, and science is its prophet. It hides behind its more modest cousin, methodological naturalism. According to this tidy dictum, scientists can believe whatever they want in their personal lives, but must appeal only to material causes when explaining nature. According to this rule, anyone who dares speak of purpose or design within science ceases to be a scientist. (Such a rule would exclude most of the founders of modern science, though, including Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton, but let that pass for now.)
There was one problem with this tidy little rule; nature didn’t get the word that it was supposed to conform to someone’s definition of science. Consequently, it spent much of the 20th century making trouble for materialism and its question-begging rule about what did and didn’t count as a scientific explanation. The startling revelations of the quantum realm suggested that the world was not quite as submissive as many had expected.
Then, in the ’20’s, Edwin Hubble discovered, to his surprise, that the light from distant galaxies was “red-shifted”. It had stretched during the course of its travels. This suggested that the universe is expanding in every direction. Reversing the process in their minds, scientists were suddenly confronted with the prospect of a universe that had come into existence in the finite past. Hubble’s discovery, and later confirming evidence, flatly contradicted the earlier picture of an eternal and self-existing cosmos. The universe itself had reintroduced the question of its origin to a community bent on avoiding the question altogether.
This was the beginning. In the 60’s and 70’s, physicists began to notice that the universal constants of physics, such as the forces of gravity and electromagnetism, seemed to be “finely tuned” for the existence of complex life. If these constants were much different, or we were to try to pick their values at random, we would almost always get a universe incompatible with life. To astrophysicist and atheist Fred Hoyse, this suggested the activity of a “superintellect”.
Still more recently, growing evidence in astronomy has revealed that even in a finely tuned universe, many local things have to go just right to build a single habitable planet. You need just the right kind of rocky planet with just the right atmosphere. You need lots of liquid water, and for that, you need to be at the right distance around the right kind of star, with the right moon to stabilize the tilt of the axis. You need the right planetary neighbors. You need to be in the right galaxy, and in the right neighborhood in that galaxy. And so on.
The universe is an enormous place, perhaps all this could have happened just once, by chance. So is there any reason to think this evidence might suggest design? Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, PhD. (among others) think it is. As it happens, this growing list of requirements is only half the story. Gonzalez and Richards argued in “The Privileged Planet” that all those conditions to build a habitable planet also provide the best overall conditions for doing science. In other words, the places where complex observers like them can exist are the very same places that provide the best overall conditions for observing.
For instance. The most life-friendly region of the galaxy and also the best place to be an astronomer and cosmologist and the atmosphere most conducive to life is also transparent in the part of the electromagnetic spectrum most useful for doing astronomy. You might expect such coincidences if the universe were designed for discovery, but you wouldn’t if you were a card-carrying materialist.
Even if you have an environment suitable for life and discovery, you don’t automatically get either. Here is where the discussion gets tough. It’s a strange feature of our intellectual climate that talking about purpose of cosmology and physics is less controversial than raising critical questions about Darwinism and biology, or even worse, suggesting there is evidence for design in biology. Such talk is the surest way for a scientist to ruin his career or a cocktail party. Part of the reason, perhaps, is that Darwinism is widely seen as making design in biology superfluous, as prominent evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala has put it.
The most excellent point, therefore, is that our views about government are dramatically affected by our belief systems; whether we are “designs” or “occurrences”. As explained by the Declaration of Independence, our government was founded on the proposition that we were created by a “Creator” with certain “unalienable rights” of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Concepts of life and liberty include the freedom to believe, to speak, to assemble, and to own property. If our rights are NOT alienable, then they cannot be taken by government. Instead, the role of government is to protect them. Our country was founded because of an alleged taking of these unalienable rights by government.
If we are “occurrences”, we have no “unalienable rights”. We are just happenings. We are like boulders in a field with no relation to a creator. This idea justified the formation of a communist regime in Russia where individual rights were subordinated to the rights of the state.
That is why the idea of Intelligent Design is being attacked by organizations like the ACLU. They’re trying to force the majority of people into believing that we’re “occurrences” instead of “designs”.
Think about it.
Although the starting point for any system of ethics and morality has been much debated, it is difficult to imagine anything more foundational than our view as to whether we are “designs” or “occurrences”. If we are just “occurrences”, then, as the secular humanist Dr. Kirk claims, we have no reason to subscribe to traditional religion as a gbasis for our social systems. The alternative necessarily becomes human reason and science. Evolution then becomes the foundation for ethics.
According to Michael Ruse, that is now happening; “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion–a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality.” Ernst Mayr, “one of the towering figures in the history of evolutionary biology,” notes with price that “Darwin provided a scientific foundation for ethics…To borrow Darwin’s phrase, there is grandeur to this view of life. New modes of thinking have been, and are being evolved. Almost every component in modern man’s belief system is somehow affected by Darwin’s principles.”
And I’m not certain if anyone here realizes it, but Darwin’s theory of Evolution was something that Hitler believed in very much, and opened the door to the holocaust and other atrocities documented here.
Darwin’s theory of evolution was the “scientific justification” for the crazed, blood-thirsty ideas of the Nazis.
“The Nazi leaders certainly used evolutionary theory to provide scientific justification for their barbaric actions . . Adolf Hitler was not alone among the Nazi leaders in his idolatrous worship of evolution. Heinrich Himmler, head of the Gestapo, stated that ‘the law of nature must take its course in the survival of the fittest.’ In fact, all of the Nazi leaders were committed both to evolution and Germanic racism, as were most German scientists and industrialists during those dark days.” -H.M. Morris, Long War Against God (1989), p. 78.
An avowed evolutionist explains that *Hitler systematically murdered millions because it agreed with Darwinian objectives:
“Hitler [was] devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy . . The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood.. Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it. It is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution.” -*Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (1947), p. 28.
Azar makes these two comments:
“This doctrine of racial supremacy Hitler took at face value.. He accepted evolution much as we today accept Einsteinian relativity.” -Larry Azar, Twentieth Century in Crisis (1990), p. 180.
“Sixty-three million people would be slaughtered in order to obey the evolutionary doctrine that perishing is a law of nature.” -Op. cit., p. x
A Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, writing for the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, said this:
“I don’t claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible.” -*Edward Simon, “Another Side to the Evolution Problem,” Jewish Press, January 7, 1983, p. 248.
*Hitler’s fascination with Darwinian thinking went back to his childhood.
“Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary thinking-probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas-quite undisguisedly at the basis of all that is worst in Mien Kampf and in his public speeches. A few quotations, taken at random, will show how Hitler reasoned . . ‘He who would live must fight, he who does not wish to fight in this world where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.” -Robert E.D. Clark Darwin: Before and After (1948), p. 115.
Even in defeat, *Hitler held to his unwavering faith in Darwin’s ideas.
“Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle of human life that forced every people to try to dominate all others; without struggle they would rot and perish . . Even in his own defeat in April 1945, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the stronger and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger.” -*P. Hoffmann, Hitler’s Personal Security (1979), p. 264.
*Benito Mussolini gained strength and courage from Darwin’s books to carry out his blood-thirsty deeds.
“Mussolini’s attitude was completely dominated by evolution. In public utterances, he repeatedly used the Darwinian catchwords while he mocked at perpetual peace, lest it hinder the evolutionary process.” -R.E.D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After (1948), p. 115.
As with *Hitler, *Mussolini was captivated both by *Darwin and *Nietzsche, who, in turn, founded his beliefs on Darwin.
“Benito Mussolini who brought fascism to Italy, was strengthened in his belief that violence is basic to social transformation by the philosophy of *Nietzsche.” -*Encyclopedia Britannica (1982), Vol. 16, p. 27.
Shocked by what evolutionary theory has done to society in the 20th century, Wilder-Smith makes this comment:
“Social Darwinism belongs to the most dangerous elements within the thoughts of [received from] the last century. It aids the propagation of ruthless national and racial egoism by establishing it as a moral norm. If Hitler believed in anything at all, then it was in the laws of evolution which justified and sanctified his actions and especially his cruelties.” -A.E. Wilder-Smith, Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (1981), p. 148.
“Ah, but the ACLU wants to bring in their OWN gospel truth and accept no others. That’s the point of the lawsuit.”
Science is not ‘gospel truth.’ Its simply the scientific method.
Cao’s description of the scientific process: adapting its explanations to new natural phenomena is wonderful.
Too bad he’s stuck on the supernatural.
Fark’s arguments are really without scientific fact; only vague references to bones. Time and again scientific evidence refutes the Theory of Evolution, only scientists discount it–much like the 9/11 Commission discounted any facts that didn’t fit into their preconceived notions about what the outcome should be.
Science doesn’t grow and operate that way. If new science refutes a theory, the theory should be changed to admit the new data.
With the Theory of Evolution, that doesn’t happen.
Great stuff Cao! Now will one of you polite evolutionist please answer my original question which has been ignored totally, because you don’t have an answer for it.
Explain concioussness and how it came to be. How did we become self aware? At what point in evolution did this occur, and how?
“And my question of how concioussness came about, was never answered.”
In much the same spirit as the earlier “science has never built a conscious being from scratch, ergo evolution is unproven” crap, the origins of consciousness are irrelevant to the question of the veracity of evolution. Take it to the neurobiologists and the philosophers.
If you’re going to regard this as some sort of argument-ender, I’ll just ask for evidence of the designer or for God, for which, of course, none exists. (Actually, this would be a legitimate move on my part, but it’s not necessary to establish the truth about evolution and the inanity of ID creationism.)
“What I believe should be taught in schools is objectivity. Intelligent design relies on observing patterns that seem to indicate design rather than random mutation.”
The patterns seeingly indicative of “design” to the unscholarly have been thoroughly explained in terms of evolutionary theory. Comprehending same requires forsaking intellectual laziness and gaining a cursory understanding of math and biology and little else — certainly not “faith.” If you don’t believe me, please visit the talk.origins site rather than the creationist sites you’ve been plumbing. Talk.origins, however, offers direct refutations to virtually every creationist assertion posted here and elsewhere, so you may find it unpalatable.
“Design detection is used in many sciences, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).”
No kidding, and relativistic equations are used in wave-particle discussions, but not in botany. Claiming that a designer is responsible for processes already explained in more sensible, testable terms doesn’t wash. The fact that “design detection” has applications in some disciplines doesn’t make it relevant to biology, where a mammoth body of evidence favoring another process already exists.
“Evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation.”
Now I know you’re cutting and pasting. Amusing. Another “argument from incredulity” is still an argument from incredulity.
“…the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 10 to the 40,000 power to one. The law of physics, gravity, electromagnetism to assemble the molecules together, all come into play.”
There’s no way to calculate such odds, although creationists enjoy extrapolating theirs ad absurdum in order to buttress their other foolishness. If you’re interested in a more thorough examination of cumulative probabilities and the origins of life on Earth, pick up “The Blind Watchmaker.” Excellent reading that will clear up a lot of your misconceptions.
“There is absolutely no overwhelmingly convincing evidence of macro-evolution, however there is evidence of micro-evolution. No evidence that suggests one organism ever evolving into something different. However, I still won’t deny its possiblity over thousands of years to happen. Its possible, but there is no evidence.”
Another oh-so-common canard. Were this familiar territory to you, you would know to avoid this one because its use marks the proponent as hopelesssly parochial. You can’t use the cut-and-paste method to argue with a learned opponent, my friend.
Yes, there is ample evidence for macroevolution (although anyone agreeing that microevolution is legitimate virtually cannot argue against macroevolution, although that’s for another day). Much of it is here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4
If you disregard this on the basis of lacking the background to interpret it, the problem lies with you, not with the relevant science. Please have some trust in those who have studied this stuff for a long time.
“The cosmological argument: the effect of the universe’s existence must have a suitable cause.
The teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a purpose or direction behind it.
The rational argument: the operation of the universe according to order and natural law implies a mind behind it.
The ontological argument: man’s ideas of God (his God- consciousness, if you like) implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness.
The moral argument: man’s built-in sense of right and wrong can be accounted for only by an innate awareness of a code of law - an awareness implanted by a higher being.”
Again, this, along with your “common-sense” argument, is all irrelevant to evolution. Creationsist love straying from the basic topic of evolutionary theory, which they don’t grok and don’t care to, and flinging out cosmological what-ifs in order to muddy things. No one’s fooled, though. But regardless, within the ID framework, something as complex and “information-rich” as God certainly requires a cause, one even more complex than God itself. And so on, back through an infinite number of Gods. There is no useful argument here, which makes the basic presumption of matter, cause unknown, not only simpler but more logical.
“Einstein ultimately gave in, arguing against his own theory of relativity, that the universe was infinite and having no beggining to what he called “the necessity for a beginning” and eventually to “the presence of a superior reasoning power.””
I know ol’ Al a lot better than you know him from those who choose to misrepresent his words, and I assure you that he didn’t believe in the sort of Christian god the ID gang are certain underlies creation.
ID proponents are dishonest, nefarious, deluded and generally stupid. I don’t know how the ACLU could possibly be a target of your scorn if you give these drooling nutbags a free pass.
“Great stuff Cao! Now will one of you polite evolutionist please answer my original question which has been ignored totally, because you don’t have an answer for it.”
Yeah, great stuff Cao! Invoke Nazism in order to try to discredit evolution rather than list what you feel are deficiencies in the theory itself. I’m sure Hitler’s version of “artificial selection” is precisely what Darwin hoped for when he happened across a huge piece of the puzzle of life on Earth. (Hitler had a poor understanding of “Darwinism” anyway.) Should I list all of the ghastliness and horrors of the Inquisition and the Crusades in order to “prove” that all Christians are murderous zealots?
There peripheral indictments of evilution and evilutionists are interesting, but the original topic dealt with 1) the validity of ID and 2) the alleged uncertainty of evolution. Not with Nazism, atheism, the origins of consciousness (or of life on Earth, period), morality, or various untoeard agendas. And yet not one of you has risen up and addressed either of these, coherently or otherwise.
But since you’re all enamored of moral principles, perhaps you should read this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html
“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.
“The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”
“Fark’s arguments are really without scientific fact; only vague references to bones. Time and again scientific evidence refutes the Theory of Evolution, only scientists discount it–much like the 9/11 Commission discounted any facts that didn’t fit into their preconceived notions about what the outcome should be.”
Facts are facts. I don’t know what the difference is between a scientific or a non-scientific one. I do know the difference between scientific and non-scientific explanations and predictions for how facts should look.
But sadly, here, you’re wrong.
I hope you know that you come across very rude, elitist and condescending. Anyway…
You presume too much in generalization of me. I will conclude you are very close minded or have a great lack of oversight. You pick and choose to ignore points that confront your beliefs, and brag about how much knowledge you have, and how much better you are than us dumb Christians…another presumption…I never said I was Christian.
I believe in possibilites, and one of those possibilities I happen to believe in is evolution…so I’m not refuting any of your long winded soapbox comments defending it. I picked on Darwinism because it does have flaws. I admit that modern evolution has taken its place. I won’t deny the evidence that points to evolution.
I also will not deny its lack of evidence, and its holes of undiscovered as of yet gaps. Sure we could argue that if there is a God, then where did he come from…and yes, its the same dead end that evolution comes to.
I am open minded. I believe in evolution, and God. I believe in possibility. You, as far as I can see so far, have closed your mind to your own elitist views.
And your answer to my question of where concioussness came from was the same cop out answer I always get. It is a relevant question.
As far as the ACLU being involved in this…I really can’t see why they view it as a civil liberties issue. I think they are just afraid it is religious. However, my friend that thinks we were put here by aliens doesn’t think its religious at all.
“I hope you know that you come across very rude, elitist and condescending.”
Unfortunately, science is a meritocracy.
If you can explain how the development quantity we call “consciousness” is relevent to the relative merits of evolutionary theory as a whole, then I’d be happy to take you up on it. Certainly it’s a relevant question in general, and is addressed in a book by Daniel Dennett called “Consciousness Explained” (were only it so simple!). But to proclaim that an incomplete understanding of consciousness implies an absence of evidence for evolution — well, that’s more than a small stretch. But maybe that’s not where you’re coming from.
If I come across as condescending and rude, it’s because I get testy when people like Ogre spout falsehood after falsehood about things they know nothing about, all in the name of denigrating it for superstitious reasons. Those of us who have studied science for many years naturally have little tolerance for this, which EPITOMIZES closed-mindedness. If he won’t check out the schematic and easily digested refutations of creatonists’ usual horn-blats on talk.origins, hardly an “evil atheist” science site, then he deserves to be called on it.
The ACLU does get involved at the drop of a religious hat, often overzealously, as with the seal on the L.A. County flag a while back. This, however, is a strongly religious issue in that were it not for fervent fundamentalist Christianity, no one would have issues with “Darwinism” and ID would not exist. Its main proponents have in the past all admitted to being creationists, and for every ID adherent who thinks aliens or some non-Godly force might have been the designer, there are probably 100 Bible literalists. The idea here is not to advance an honest theory, it’s to overturn evolution. Christian groups have been trying to do this in various ways since time immemorial and it’s beyond tiresome that so many cling to a GEnesis-style account of life’s origins in the 21st century.
Sorry for the multiple and duplicate comments (I’m sure one of each from me is more than plenty), but I have trouble with this interface.
(1) The Bible says the Bible is true.
(2) Therefore the Bible is true.
(3) The Bible says God exists.
(4) Therefore, God exist.
What more can I say?
“And my question of how concioussness came about, was never answered.”
In much the same spirit as the earlier “science has never built a conscious being from scratch, ergo evolution is unproven” crap, the origins of consciousness are irrelevant to the question of the veracity of evolution. Take it to the neurobiologists and the philosophers.
If you’re going to regard this as some sort of argument-ender, I’ll just ask for evidence of the designer or for God, for which, of course, none exists. (Actually, this would be a legitimate move on my part, but it’s not necessary to establish the truth about evolution and the inanity of ID creationism.)
“What I believe should be taught in schools is objectivity. Intelligent design relies on observing patterns that seem to indicate design rather than random mutation.”
The patterns seeingly indicative of “design” to the unscholarly have been thoroughly explained in terms of evolutionary theory. Comprehending same requires forsaking intellectual laziness and gaining a cursory understanding of math and biology and little else — certainly not “faith.” If you don’t believe me, please visit the talk.origins site rather than the creationist sites you’ve been plumbing. Talk.origins, however, offers direct refutations to virtually every creationist assertion posted here and elsewhere, so you may find it unpalatable.
“Design detection is used in many sciences, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).”
No kidding, and relativistic equations are used in wave-particle discussions, but not in botany. Claiming that a designer is responsible for processes already explained in more sensible, testable terms doesn’t wash. The fact that “design detection” has applications in some disciplines doesn’t make it relevant to biology, where a mammoth body of evidence favoring another process already exists.
“Evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation.”
Now I know you’re cutting and pasting. Amusing. Another “argument from incredulity” is still an argument from incredulity.
“…the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 10 to the 40,000 power to one. The law of physics, gravity, electromagnetism to assemble the molecules together, all come into play.”
There’s no way to calculate such odds, although creationists enjoy extrapolating theirs ad absurdum in order to buttress their other foolishness. If you’re interested in a more thorough examination of cumulative probabilities and the origins of life on Earth, pick up “The Blind Watchmaker.” Excellent reading that will clear up a lot of your misconceptions.
“There is absolutely no overwhelmingly convincing evidence of macro-evolution, however there is evidence of micro-evolution. No evidence that suggests one organism ever evolving into something different. However, I still won’t deny its possiblity over thousands of years to happen. Its possible, but there is no evidence.”
Another oh-so-common canard. Were this familiar territory to you, you would know to avoid this one because its use marks the proponent as hopelesssly parochial. You can’t use the cut-and-paste method to argue with a learned opponent, my friend.
Yes, there is ample evidence for macroevolution (although anyone agreeing that microevolution is legitimate virtually cannot argue against macroevolution, although that’s for another day). Much of it is here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4
If you disregard this on the basis of lacking the background to interpret it, the problem lies with you, not with the relevant science. Please have some trust in those who have studied this stuff for a long time.
“The cosmological argument: the effect of the universe’s existence must have a suitable cause.
The teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a purpose or direction behind it.
The rational argument: the operation of the universe according to order and natural law implies a mind behind it.
The ontological argument: man’s ideas of God (his God- consciousness, if you like) implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness.
The moral argument: man’s built-in sense of right and wrong can be accounted for only by an innate awareness of a code of law - an awareness implanted by a higher being.”
Again, this, along with your “common-sense” argument, is all irrelevant to evolution. Creationsist love straying from the basic topic of evolutionary theory, which they don’t grok and don’t care to, and flinging out cosmological what-ifs in order to muddy things. No one’s fooled, though. But regardless, within the ID framework, something as complex and “information-rich” as God certainly requires a cause, one even more complex than God itself. And so on, back through an infinite number of Gods. There is no useful argument here, which makes the basic presumption of matter, cause unknown, not only simpler but more logical.
“Einstein ultimately gave in, arguing against his own theory of relativity, that the universe was infinite and having no beggining to what he called “the necessity for a beginning” and eventually to “the presence of a superior reasoning power.””
I know a little more about Einstein and his real beliefs (not that these prove or disprove anything) than those who love to misrepresent his words, and I assure you that he didn’t believe in the sort of Christian god the ID gang are certain underlies creation.
ID proponents are dishonest, nefarious, deluded and generally stupid. I don’t know how the ACLU could possibly be a target of your scorn if you give these drooling nutbags a free pass.
Here’s a brief explanation of why calculations like Ogre’s don’t hold water:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
“It is interesting how often the liberal argument is always the same — start out by accusing your opponent of doing what you yourself are doing.”
It’s interesting that I’m not even a liberal, oh reflex hammer of amusingly shallow mind.
“BV, you’re not providing evidence, either.”
Yes I am. Read it or don’t, I don’t care.
“I’m providing questions that refute the idea of evolution and you’re rejecting them only because you absolutely, with a religious fervor, can only see evolution and anything that conflicts with your personal belief system you can only reject.”
I’m rejecting them because they’ve been thoroughly rejected already, repeatedly and soundly, by biologists the world over. I’m sorry if the implications cause you such grief.
“You made a nice logically fallacious leap there — from individual gene mutation to species differentials.”
If you don’t understand the intermediate steps, this, too, is your deficiency, not mine or evolution’s. As much as you may dislike what sounds like a mantra, there’s no point in my ignoring the fact that you know nothing about evolution — its tenets, its implications, its history. I already pointed out that Darwin was a Christian, yet you persist with your conspiratorial gibberish about science being an inherently anti-God construct. Just because many of its findings happen to rule against the notion of a triune God doesn’t mean this is its purpose. God is an inherently dumb idea, so it’s only natural science would tend to rule it out.
“Just because a person can be born without bones due to a genetic error (almost ALL of which are DAMAGING, not beneficial), doesn’t mean that a person can give birth to a tree.”
Ah yes, osteogenesis imperfecta. So much for intelligent design, or are horrible diseases a we’re-all-sinners thing?
You are ignorant of genetics. Most mutations are not damaging, they’re silent. But a steady stream of beneficial mutations is not required in order to provide fodder for natural selection. You need to realize that at least 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct, because traits that were adaptive for a time ceased to be adaptive and the organisms in question couldn’t hang. What we see today are, by definition, organisms whose ancestors have all reproduced successfully — every one of them. Lights going on yet?
“There is an agenda here, you just won’t admit it. The agenda is very clear and has been designed from the very beginning of all thought towards evolution, naturalism, and materialism, all the way back to Rousseu. The agenda, and the science associated with it goes like this: “There is no God and EVERYTHING can only be explained by the scientific process. Anything that conflicts with this can only be ignored completely and totally.””
The fact that you embrace this whackjob hokum goes a long way toward explaining how and why you remain blind to basic principles. Your de facto motto: God first, and all that conflicts with God goes out the window. What a sure route to anti-enlightenment. Who has the agenda here?
“The theory of evolution is NOT “eminently falsifiable,” no matter how much you want it to be.”
If a hominid skeleton were to be found in the same strata as an archaeopteryx, evolution would collapse. There are countless other ways in which it could be turned on its ear. And if you think scientists are united in an unyielding thirst to deny anything contradicting evolution out of hand, consider how rich and famous a scientist would become if he could provide genuine evidence that evolution as we understand it now is completely wrong. We’re talking Nobel Prizes here. So if anything, scientists motivated by avarice have all the motivation in the world to deny evolution. The obvious (not to you) problem is that it cannot be done — the evidence is simply too overwhelming.
“Evolution has only been able to withstand challenges when you work with the above assumption — anything that conflicts with evolution is, by definition, false.”
Molecular biology has allowed scientists to confirm much of what evolutionary theory predicted a century ago. I’d say that’s pretty impressive. The more “Neo-Darwinism” comes under attack from the sightless and the slack-jawed, the stronger it becomes. And boy, does it make creationists gnash their teeth.
“A simpler example could be shown this way:
A. Two is NOT a number.
B. 1+1=3.
According to my rules (since I’m the scientist and can make the rules), 1 plus 1 is 3, and no one can prove me wrong, ever. You can only prove me wrong if you can come up with a better answer. And no, you can’t use 2 because I decided that’s not a number.”
Actually, two IS a number. So much for your “example.”
“That’s how evolution scientists defend themselves. They define the rules, then declare themselves the winner — with a very defined, primary purpose, whether you believe it or see it.”
Actually, the evidence stands on its own merits, but if it consoles you to think this way, I won’t argue.
“I see you also set the rules, BV, by claiming that only “real scientists” and “credible scientists” are the ones who are those that agree with you.”
All credible scientists believe in evolution. I didn’t “set” this condition; it merely exists. There are nutcases in every discipline, some of them with Ph.Ds, but they eventually fall by the wayside in their colleagues’ view (as with Michael “irreducible complexity” Behe, all but ostracized at Lehigh and rightly so). Consider this another form of selection.
“I’m quite sure that any who disagree with your belief system are not “credible” nor “real” to you, either.”
It’s not about me, it’s about truth, in this case evolution. Keep up the ad hominems, though, they’re doing your arguments (so to speak) a world of good.
“And critical thinking, if I agree completely with this statement: “an unprovable belief system is not an educational tool,” then you’ve got to remove evolution from schools, too, because it’s completely unprovable.”
Already dealt with. Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time, and only a thumb-sucking idiot would pretend this doesn’t happen. Evidence for evolution abounds, from bacterial resistance to countless other examples. See, we can now OBSERVE changes at the DNA level. We KNOW more about the mechanisms of evolution than ever before. Meanwhile, Bible-beaters everywhere are in a tizzy.
“Thank you for confirming that you know better than everyone else on the planet, CV. We’re sorry to have bothered you with facts since we are so low and beneath your comprehension. Since you know all, why in the world did you bother commenting here? Yes, you are the supreme being in the world and we are all maggots. Will you go away now and play with your other supreme beings since we are such ignorant scum to you?”
Look, I offended it. My condolences, ogre, no one’s going to keep you from your blinders and your foolish, ramshackle ideas about science. See, this is a great country, and you should thank organizations like the ACLU for fighting tooth and nail for your right to remain uneducated.
“Do you believe that any evidence that conflicts with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution should be allowed in schools?”
Always have to add “Darwin’s,” right? Can’t just say “evolution” because that’s harder to demonize. The fundagelicals love to hate on the word “Darwin,” though, so even though invoking his name is superfluous here in the 21st century, it makes for good demogoguery.
That aside, you insist on being 100% full of faeces. There is no “evidence” that conflicts with evolution. None. Not in the IDiot camp, not in the world’s holy books, not in a ketchup stain in Peoria. If you believe there is, present it. If not, accept the facts.
If that in your view really is the central question, then by your own incidental admission ID creationism is dead in the water. This question, rooted as it is in false premises, isn’t useful. It’s specious.
And for the last time, like as not, evolution doesn’t require “faith.” For YOU it would. For the clear-headed it doesn’t. Faith is a word used by religious people to attempt to plug evidential gaps. If it did require faith, I’d reject it because matters of faith are loads of bunk for the weak-minded and the squint-eyed.
Darwin’s not right, that’s a laughable concept. Who died an appointed you God? Or the Ruler of the Universe? C’mon, man, get with the times, Darwin is old hat. Darwin is extinct.
Before the Darwinian mechanism can even get started, there remains the nagging problem of the origin of biological information itself. Most of us have heard of the information encoded along the DNA molecule. It’s often described as an extraordinarily sophisticated computer code for producing proteins, the three dimensional building blocks of all life. And with the right cellular hardware, the code does exactly that.
As early as 1968, chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi saw that the information in that code stubbornly transcends its chemical medium, just as the letters and sentences of a book transcend the chemistry of ink and paper. That means that the attempt to reduce life to the laws of physics and chemistry was doomed.
In 1984, Walter Braldye, Charles Thaxton and Roger Olsen dared to suggest in “The Mystery of Life’s Origins” that this was best explained by Intelligent design. And in recent years, philosopher of science Stephen Meyer has turned this evidence into a formidable argument for intelligent design.
Meyer argues that the usual aimless processes of chance and chemistry can’t explain this information and moreover, that everyday experience shows us quite clearly where information of this sort comes from: intelligent agents.
Moving up a level, we find complex and functionally integrated machines that are out of reach to the Darwinian mechanism. Biochemist Michael Behe immortalized some of this in his 1996 book, “Darwin’s black box”.
Behe offers evidence that strongly suggests that Ayala’s judgment was premature. Behe argues that these tiny molecular machines, such as the bacterial flagellum, are “irreducibly complex”. They’re like a mousetrap. Without all of their parts, they don’t work. Natural selection can only build systems one small step at a time, by traversing a path where each step provides an immediate survival advantage for the organism. It can’t select for a future function. To do that requires foresight–the exclusive jurisdiction of intelligent agents. That’s the positive evidence: Such structures ar4e the sort produced by intelligent agents, who can foresee a future function and actualize it. They have just the features we normally attribute to intelligent agency. If you get this point, you’re already comprehended more than most journalists writing on the subject.
Moving to the macroscopic world, there is the three-dimensional complexity of many diverse animal body plans. In the fossil record, these show up at more or less this same time, geologically speaking. The problem for Darwinism is not that there are “gaps in the fossil record”. Of course there are. Rather, it’s the geologically sudden appearance of numerous highly distinct body plans or phyla. This is not the gradually branching tree of life the Darwinian story leads us to expect.
This is not just an argument from ignorance, as critics assert quite often. In our experience, sudden innovations and massive infusions of information come from intelligent agents. And as with Cambrian Explosion, the primary innovations come first (e.g., car, airplane, a particular animal phylum) followed by numerous design variations on the original form. If the history of life follows a purpose, this is what you would expect.
Then there are human agents themselves, which are so unexpected in materialist terms that many materialists actually deny their existence. You see, the materialist rule about what science may consider, if followed consistently, leads to a denial of the existence of agents in general. That means you and I don’t exist. As a rule of thumb, any idea that entails that you don’t exist is not an idea that you should take seriously.
All this evidence for design has become clear just as interest in intelligent design has exploded among philosophers. In fact, the debate over design is probably livelier now than it has ever been in Western history. The philosopher who has done the most recently to increase the rigor of design arguments is William Dembski, whose 1998 technical monograph with Cambridge University Press, called “The Design Inference”, has helped create a widespread if sometimes acrimonious debate among philosophers, mathematicians and biologists. Dembski has helped make this reasoning about design far more rigorous and objective than it has been in the past.
Despite this, the crowning achievement of scientific materialism, Darwin’s theory of evolution, lingers on. But even if you take design off the table as an alternative, Darwin’s theory still suffers acute problems. For all its supposed splendor and nuanced innovations (genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium) the Darwinian toolkit–natural selection and random genetic mutations-is quite limited. It’s great for explaining the trivial things that aren’t in dispute. If you ask why finch beaks adapt to change climate in the Galapagos Island, natural selection is quite the charmer. But these are mere fluctuations among a population that is more or less the same before as after. There’s no obvious increase in complexity.
If you ask, however, for the Darwinian explanation of the bacterial flagellum or the light sensitive spot that supposedly leads to an eye, be prepared for a speculative yarn strung around precious little data, along with a doctrinal statement that something like this must be true because the alternative is unacceptable.
More telling than a mere lack of evidence is that the theory has consistently relied on a small stable of half-truths and misrepresentations. Think of anything you can remember about evolution from your tenth grade biology class. Go ahead, think. Much of what you can remember will wither like a vampire when exposed to sunlight, that is, to the relevant scientific literature.
Biologist Jonathan Wells made many of these “icons of evolution” famous in his 2000 book by the same name. Anyone who has bothered to read “Icons of Evolution” now knows that much of what we believed was evidence for Darwinian evolution was either misleading or false. Remember those diagrams of vertebrate embryos; showing those similar they are early in their development? The image is supposed to provide evidence for the common ancestry of vertebrates. We are told that various classes –humans, fish, and chickens–express their common ancestry early in development, and then diverge as they develop.
Darwin called this “by far the strongest single class of facts” in favor of his theory. Too bad for Darwin. The original drawings by his 19th century disciple Ernst Haeckel were fudged. Haeckel cherry-picked the examples that looked the most alike. Then he made the least similar embryos look more alike than they really were. And then he started his drawings mid-way through development, where the animals happened to look the most alike. The earliest stages in his diagram are not the earliest stages of development. The earliest stages, when many