Monday, January 23, 2006

Intelligent Design and the Vatican

They got it right at the Vatican, now if only the Darwin crazies would come clean...



The Vatican announced that Intelligent Design is not science and it should not be taught in science class. I agree. However, I disagree with the the statement made by Rev. George Coyne, who said "intelligent design" wasn't science and had no place in school classrooms. It should not be taught in science class but it should have a fair hearing in Social Studies class.

In today's modern classroom only Native American spirituality and Islamic fundamentalism are allowed. Judeo-Christian tenets are useful only for negative comparisons. This false premise of the "separation of Church and state" has led to history classes in our public schools that are forced to ignore the beneficial effects of Christianity on western culture. And how is it that for the Jews only the Holocaust is mentioned and not the fact that Einstein and a hundred other consequential scientists and inventors were Jews? Public schools are doing a grave disservice to our young people by enforcing this false wall.

Still, I have to agree with the Darwinists that Intelligent Design and/or Creationism should not be in the science classroom. Unfortunately the Darwin hordes cannot stand to have their own "faith" questioned. I think everyone from the Pope on down believes that many of Darwin's observations and theory's on micro-evolution and intra-species adaptation are demonstrably true. Just looking at the humble hummingbird shows that each variety is a specialist and has a beak adapted perfectly for extracting nectar from specific species of flowers. Yet, through this adaptation process the Darwinist sees nothing miraculous, just a logical progression until the "bill fits the bill". It is when Darwinists insist that this process is also responsible for entirely new species to "evolve" out of the old that science and faith converge.

The fossil record is incomplete, that much is agreed upon by Darwinists and their detractors, and it has not been demonstrated in an indisputable way using the fossils we have that one species has "changed" into another. In fact, the gaps in the fossil record might as well be canyons. The so-called missing links are still missing. This, of course, does not deter the Darwinists with their insistance that school children be indoctrinated into believing that a chimpanzee is their evolutionary cousin. There is a leap of faith that has to be taken to link modern humans to modern primates. To answer the question of human origin with any degree of satisfaction our scientists need to open their minds and suspend their egos enough to acknowledge that they do not actually know that much about how our own species fits into the natural world. Until that happens this conflict between religion and science will remain contentious.

That said, the onus for harmony on this topic is on the Darwinists. They have been using bullying tactics for decades anytime something threatens to rock their apple cart. The religious faithful will have to bow out of the science realm and keep their hands off the science classroom. These two gestures will go a long way toward ending this conflict and hopefully keep it out of the courts where absolutely nothing good will come of it.


CW

18 comments:

Timothy Birdnow said...

Great piece, Craig!

My only disagreement is that I.D. may be a decendent of Creationism, but there are numerous scientists working in this field, and they are using the scientific method. Also, as this theory was the accepted view until the late 18th Century (and really until Darwin) it DOES have a place in the classroom as part of the history of science. Teaching biology without a discussion of this is like teaching astronomy without discussing the old geocentric theory.

As you know, I am not a proponent of I.D., but have a great deal of sympathy for it, since it is an attempt to break out of the stranglehold Darwinism has on the field. I think that I.D. must be able to explain natural processes in order to be a successful theory, and I don`t believe that anything which endeavors to prove God will work until God is prepared to be proved.

Still, what I.D. does is illustrate the inherent weaknesses of Darwin, and Darwinists hate it as a result! Theirs is more a faith than a science.

You would think after 145 years they would have nailed it down; who seriously argues against Quantum physics, Relativity, etc. today? Why not? Because these sciences have been able to prove their cases.

Biology is handicapped in that we only have one object of study; all life on this Earth is DNA (or RNA) based, so we have nothing to compare it to. It is as if a science of geology were formed with only one mineral to study; it would be difficult to make any serious pronouncements about the way rocks form.

Which is what makes the arrogance of Darwin`s Tabernacle Choir so galling; they haughtily tell us rubes to shut our mouths and believe their pronouncements, when they cannot even prove their case. I`d be willing to cut them some slack if they`d admit that their theory has some serious holes.

I think Darwinism is finished. Advances in other fields will, I believe, soon begin pointing to a different form of Evolution, one which does not work the way the Orthodox believe. I further suspect that these lamps of reason will fight this tooth and nail, because Darwinism has always been a tool for Leftist social policy and experimentation, and THAT is why Darwinists fight. From the beginning, Darwin has been a club to beat religion.

Oops! Sorry I blabbered on so much! This topic gets me worked up!

Great post!

Joe said...

Actually your post was pretty lame. The fossil record is by definition incomplete. But in certain areas, there is quite a lot of information.

But the real problem is that IDers (latter day creationists) base their whole appeal on dishonesty. There is no scientific work for ID. There are tons of good work in the evolutionary biological sciences. If you can't handle the uncertainty of finding fossils, then try to explain the genetic data mapped upon the fossil record.

The scientific theory of biological evolution explains all of the known data surrounding the fact of biological evolution. The wish of ID does not change that.

Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com said...

I see that you are not willing to accept the theory of evolution until a museum can show you the fossils of every single living species that has ever lived on the Earth - since you complain about what's missing.

Logically, I have to name every casualty of the Second World War before you will believe that it took place.

The creation science guys and the don't-call-it-creationism guys are lying. That's all. Case closed, no further questions for the witness, so they should shut the heck up. There are differences of opinion within biology but the creationists aren't participating.

Don't you get it that they just read through science books looking for any uncertainty that they could talk up into a mysterious act of God? That they don't do science and don't ever wear scientist clothes, like white coats or geology shorts? That their qualifications are mostly as theologians? That they make this stuff up?

Timothy Birdnow said...

You perpetual motion people (if you insist on calling I.D. advocates as creationists, I`m going to call you perps) do a fine job of arguing against your own case, but here is some help.

No science being done? What is this? I suppose, since it doesn`t fit your preconcieved views, it isn`t science.

I suppose Francis Crick wasn`t a scientist, since he didn`t believe in perpetual motion, er, Darwinism either.

Hey Joe, maybe you can show me ONE complete fossil record which illustrates a smooth evolutionary transition? Didn`t think so. All you have a partials.

``The scientific theory of biological evolution explains all of the known data surrounding the fact of biological evolution. The wish of ID does not change that.``

Why then, after 145 years, are we still having this discussion? Because your side is more interested in proving your theory BECAUSE of its theological and philosophical implications. Who is the dishonest party here?

``The creation science guys and the don't-call-it-creationism guys are lying. That's all. Case closed, no further questions for the witness, so they should shut the heck up. There are differences of opinion within biology but the creationists aren't participating.``

My, what open minds we have here!

Wild, ad-hominem attacks such as that are proof positive that you are losing the argument. If truth were on your side you would simply point it out and let everyone see for themselves. Losers start the namecalling.

It WAS a great post, Craig!

Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com said...

I want to add to Mr. Birdnow that creationists do deny quantum physics and do deny relativity, when they declare that the evidence of radioactivity that indicates that the earth is much older than their 10,000 years is false, and that the evidence of stars in the sky whose light shows they were burning millions of years ago is false. These are specific claims that are made. I suppose the claimers have no expectation of being taken seriously by people who actually understand quantum physics and relativity, but they do worse - they call attention to the case against themselves, in the eyes of people who would never have thought about it.

Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com said...

Has my previous message been removed? Your link to design science points to a description of the one "intelligent design" paper that has ever been published in a respectable science journal, and no one knows how it happened except for the disgraced former unpaid editor, who claims that three independent referees agreed that although it has no scientific merit, it should be published anyway as long as their own names are kept out of it. The journal's board has decided that it should not have been printed. It is one of the more shameful episodes of misguided Christian false witness.

Intelligent design is not a scientific position; it is a disguise for the creationism view of some fundamentalist Christians who are ashamed to preach their religion as they have convinced themselves it is, and instead construct a pretence that it is science. Real Christians have died rather than deny their religion, you cowards, you liars. You embarrass me. You embarrass God. Here is what God has to say to you: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

StaticNoise said...

Yikes, what venom gets spewed everytime this subject is touched on. I think the premise of the post, lame or not, is that from the top of the Catholic Church there is a willingness to to keep hard science and fervent spirituality separate. Do you honestly think the Pope doesn't believe in the Creator of all things? Of course the Church believes in Creationism (not the literal telling of Genesis, but that God created Heaven and Earth)But the Church also sees great wisdom in scientific method and that there is truth in science.

However, you Darwin crazies (and yes, the term is deserved) can't and won't admit that your "religion" doesn't have all the answers either. My point is that our children are forced to sit through science class and have "humans and chimps share a common ancestry" blugeoned into them every bit as much as children sitting in a religion class hear that God created the world in six days and on the seventh day he rested. Neither has been proven nor are they even provable.

Birdnow makes a great point: let's see even one fossil record that is definative, just one. Just throwing out some condescending jab about having to see every casualty of a war before I believe the war happened is not an argument. Whatever. Gee, I thought I agreed with the Church that ID (as it is constituted today) doesn't belong in science class. I just so happen to believe Darwinism needs some disclaimers in science class.

Anonymous said...

I suppose Francis Crick wasn`t a scientist, since he didn`t believe in perpetual motion, er, Darwinism either.

Oh he didn't? Care to support that claim?

It is proper to call intelligent design 'creationism'. ID's creationist roots were quite well established during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial

Timothy Birdnow said...

Robert,

Creationists might deny the age of the Earth or quantum theory, but they are people out in left field; it is not necessary to disbelieve real science to oppose perpetual motion, er, Darwin.

Your side has created an either/or trap; you either buy Darwin hook, line, and sinker, or you are a Neanderthal (actually, Craig`s picture may prove your point). You have set up a straw man.

You have outed yourself with that hysterical rant at the end of your comment. Why do you hate Christians so badly? You prove my assertion that Darwinism is more about the religion of atheism then science.

anonymous,

Here you go:

Francis Crick (awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of DNA): "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to have been satisfied to get it going" (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Simon & Schuster, N.Y. 1981, p. 88).

Crick did not believe that life evolved on Earth; he was an advocate of panspermia, since he saw no way it could have happened here. (Panspermia, of course, merely pushes off the problem.) Crick thought life WAS intelligently designed by extra-terrestrials. (That falls under the guise of I.D., since I.D. doesn`t say WHO designed life.)

Here are a few more for you:

Dr. Harold C. Urey (Nobel Prize winning Chemist): "All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. But, we believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did" (interview in "Christian Science Monitor," January 4, 1962).

Here is a list of scientists who doubt Darwin.

You said;
``It is proper to call intelligent design 'creationism'. ID's creationist roots were quite well established during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial``

Oh, so now you Darwinists believe that the law should decide what is and isn`t science, and what you can or cannot call people. You didn`t like it when state laws against the teaching of Darwin were in place, but now the law is your best friend.

Therefore, we should repeal the discoveries of Galileo, the Heliocentric theory, etc. because the law at that time said they were wrong. Is that what you are saying?

Anonymous said...

The full Crick quote:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle. so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

Timothy Birdnow wrote:
Crick did not believe that life evolved on Earth; he was an advocate of panspermia, since he saw no way it could have happened here. (Panspermia, of course, merely pushes off the problem.) Crick thought life WAS intelligently designed by extra-terrestrials. (That falls under the guise of I.D., since I.D. doesn`t say WHO designed life.)

But that doesn't support your claim that Crick didn't believe in 'darwinism'. Crick believed in directed panspermia. (although a note included in the link above states "It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution.")

Panspermia isn't incompatible with Darwinian evolution. One can believe that life on Earth was supernaturally created, or created by aliens, or came about completely naturally; but evolved thereafter. Evolution works with any origin of life idea.

And if you are going to quote Urey at least provide some context for that quote.

Timothy Birdnow wrote:
Here is a list of scientists who doubt Darwin.

Yeah, but how many of them are named Steve?

Timothy Birdnow:
Oh, so now you Darwinists believe that the law should decide what is and isn`t science, and what you can or cannot call people. You didn`t like it when state laws against the teaching of Darwin were in place, but now the law is your best friend.

Scientists are capable of reaching a consensus on what is and isn't science. When school boards mandate the teaching of unscientific stuff like ID, and bring on a lawsuit, then judges/juries will hear expert witness testimony to help them determine whether ID is science and/or constitutional. This is what happened in the Dover trial. Fact is, the defence had a perfect opportunity to present the scientific case for ID. They failed. Their main scientific witness (Behe) flopped on the stand. The plaintiffs managed to show the creationist roots of the ID movement (everything from The Wedge Document to the creationist origins of the pro-ID textbook "Of Pandas & People"). Plus the fact that two of the Dover school board members, who supported the ID policy, were caught lying on the stand.

Joe said...

Yes, the venom does flow; remember to wipe your chin. One paper, even if the review process had worked, does not a scientific theory make. The literally tonnes of fossils and thousands of papers, meetings, and scientists whose total output gives support to evolution is a standard that creationism, by whatever name, must work hard to meet.

The development of the modern horse is a smooth evolutionary transition is commonly shown in museums. My favorite is the evolution of mammals from reptiles which has more than a dozen species distributed along that path in time. A new one was added in the beginning of that transition through discoveries announced just
this past week. Compare that with the work from creation science.

The difference is one (evolution) is science and the other (creationism ...) seems to say, "I wish I were science!" Why do you want your religion to be science or history? Where is your faith? Isn't there truth there even if we don't know the details of the origins of the story?

StaticNoise said...

Joe, the problem with this topic is that we can never have a meaningful discussion and disagreement because the name calling and condescending quips squash it from the git-go.

I am not foaming at the mouth as you asert. In fact, I ask that the Darwinists true believers acknowledge the short comings of the theory, and there are plenty.

Are you aware that it was devote Christian individuals throughout history that really jump started the modern scientific method.

Why is there an automatic knee jerk response from the Darwin faithful when a Christian says ANYTHING about doubting the theory of evolution as it is now infalibly percieved? It doesn't mean we are biblical literalists who shut off our minds to other possibilities, in fact we are searching for answers and so freaking what if we embark on this search through the filter of our faith.

Joe said...

OK, if you are the exception to the rule that I have observed, perhaps discourse would prove fruitful.

For starters, I notice that you mention science direct and indirectly and allude to shortcomings in the theory of biological evolution. Yet I fail to see any substantive information. Do you object to TOE on religious or scientific grounds? If scientific, what data do you have that falls outside of the theory?

My experience is that people object to the TOE because they are unconfortable with what they feel it means to their religion. I suggest that if this is true in your case, it is your problem and not a problem of mine or with the science. If that is the basis of your objection and you just do not have a scientific background, then there are
things that you can learn. What you will find is that evolution is a fact and the theory describes how it works.

Timothy Birdnow said...

Anonymous,

I stand corrected; I hadn`t seen the entire Crick quote, and was looking for some quick reference to give you. Still, this hardly invalidates my point. Crick did indeed express doubts, which is, of course, why he adopted the directed Panspermia theory in the first place.

Directed Panspermia is a belief that extraterrestrials purposely seeded the Earth. This is not the more conventional theory which says that life has drifted here by accident-this proposes intelligent purpose. Darwinism doesn`t apply to a planned breeding experiment, as I suspect you understand. If you are going to bother seeding a planet, wouldn`t you preplan the direction that life will go? Wouldn`t you genetically engineer your life-forms? Note I use the word Darwinism; I spoke with literal precision. Evolution and Darwinism are not the same thing. (I, for instance, am a non-Darwinian evolutionist.)

In fact, a planned panspermia suggests an almost neo-Lamarckianism, since these aliens probably designed the genes to mutate in certain directions. Intelligently Designed them, no? I.D. needn`t be about God, in case you weren`t aware.

That whole Project Steve was a really low attempt, by the way. YOU insist on being given names, and then you won`t even look at them when you are given them. Why, it`s almost as if you didn`t want to hear it. Here are the first 13 names:

1. Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" (1996).
2. Robert W. Faid, American Nuclear Society, Nuclear Scientist, author of A Scientific Approach to Christianity.
3. Michael Denton, medical doctor and molecular biologist, , "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" (1985).
4. Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong" (1982).
5. Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders, "Beyond Neo-Darwinism" (1984).
6. Soren Lovtrup, "Darwinism: Refutation of a Myth" (1987).
7. Milton R., "The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myth of Darwinism", Fourth Estate, London, 1992.
8. Rodney Stark, Professor of Social Sciences at Baylor University, see Fact, Fable, and Darwin.
9. Gordon Rattray Taylor, "The Great Evolution Mystery" (1983).
10. ANDREW BOCARSLY, Ph.D. Chemistry, Princeton University
11. HENRY F. SCHAEFER III, Ph. D. Quantum Computational Chemistry, University of Georgia
12. ROBERT TINNIN, Ph.D Biology, Portland State University
13. BENJAMIN VOWELS, M.D. Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania

Not a Steve in the lot. YOU are the one insisting on names. That is a very intellectually dishonest argument.

You said;

Scientists are capable of reaching a consensus on what is and isn't science. When school boards mandate the teaching of unscientific stuff like ID, and bring on a lawsuit, then judges/juries will hear expert witness testimony to help them determine whether ID is science and/or constitutional.

So, you advocate a democratic science, in which the majority is ruled correct by government fiat? Every advance in science would have been crushed, if your views had held sway.

Darwinists have held control of the argument for decades, and any biology student who disagrees either has to shut his mouth or face ridicule and bad grades. Who is going to go into biology if they disagree with your inflexible views? If somebody keeps their mouth shut about their anti-Darwinian views until they gain tenure, what will they face? Ridicule, hatred, scorn. Look at people like Michael Behe; what has he had to face from the torch and pitchfork crowd? Shoot, do a google search on my name and you will see it listed under idiot, fool, moron, liar, etc.

But we should allow lawyers to accept ``expert`` testimony to decide science!

Joe,

The modern horse shown in museums that I`ve seen does little more than grow in size; we do not see a transition from another life form.

We don`t have the transitional forms.

We don`t have new crossovers in body shape from species.

We don`t have any explanation of why birds are still around, and mammals, and reptiles, but not the smaller dynosaurs.

We don`t have any explanation of how the cell came into existence. Did DNA come first, or the cell? It had to be the cell, but how did DNA create the cell? PZ Myers tells me I`m a fool for saying DNA came first, but offers no explanation. His silence is deafening.

Why do I need to sleep 9 hours a day? Evolution should have reduced the need to sleep to a minimum, since sleeping is DANGEROUS and the creature which needs less sleep is more likely to survive.

Why hasn`t natural selection produced an explosion of microbes adapted to our industrial society? Why don`t we find them colonizing smokestacks, oil refineries, etc.?

Why haven`t we found any non-DNA based lifeforms? Volcanic vents at the bottom of the Ocean floor are said to be alternative evolutionary tracks, yet these are based on the same old same old. We should have found something new, by now.

I could go on, but you get the point; there are serious questions about Darwinian evolution. I do not advocate I.D., but I can`t ignore the problems which most biology teachers find easy to ignore.

Joe, you have to make a large leap of faith to accept Darwinism as Gospel. You are, of course, completely free to do that, and I won`t question your right. Let`s have a substantive debate, rather than a name-calling fest.

If you believe it and we don`t, it doesn`t mean we are evil, or that you are. It means we disagree; let`s keep it on that level.

Joe said...

Your view of the horse evolution seems based on propaganda and not the reality. How about the change from 4 toes to one on the front feet; changes in the size and shape of the skull and the body; changes in teeth morphology. The richness of the transition from Hyracotherium to Equus is not merely a
growing bigger.

Each form between the beginning and the end is a transitional form.

There are many ideas that and discussions on the end of dinosaurs (except of course for the birds). Gee, I wonder why the most mobile, temperature regulating form made it? I am betting on natural selection.

Simple cells are not good candidates for leaving us much history, but we do know that simpler forms of life do not use the extra layer of DNA->RNA->protein. When you are starting from scratch, the RNA->protein makes more sense. There are many open questions here, but none requiring a cook to stir the pot.

Your view of sleep seems conclusive rather than based on evidence. How do you account for the use of sleep to move short term experiences into long term knowledge? Aquiring skills, even motor skills happen in the brain during sleep.

I guess you haven't heard about the bacteria that can eat nylon. And you don't know about RNA based life? These are all common knowledge. You just have to be willing to look and learn. I could go on but most of your problem is based on a logical fallacy. Just because we don't know it all, doesn't mean that there isn't something in those gaps. Perhaps you have heard it this way, "The lack of knowledge is not knowledge of a lack!" All that we do know about life over time is explained by the theory of evolution.

Timothy Birdnow said...

Hi Joe!

1. First off, I have seen the horse progression in museums, not on I.D. websites; they do NOT have complete fossil records going back to previous creatures. They EXTRAPOLATE where they think the links go.

This is the reason for the developement of the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium; nobody could find smooth transitions. The idea is that evolution suddenly takes a sudden leap. Of course, they can`t really explain WHY it takes a sudden leap...

The fossil record just doesn`t support any standard version of Darwin.

2. Joe, you are begging the question on dynosaurs. MY POINT is that Darwinian theory can`t explain why they all died, while insects, mammals, and especially reptiles survived. There is no sensible reason, since there were many small, nimble dynosaurs. Yet they are gone except for the birds.

Now, a theory needn`t be perfect, but surely natural selection should offer some answers. This is a strange thing.

3. I am fully aware of the RNA basis of ancient life-forms. We see them today in the Filoviruses, for example. This doesn`t answer the question; DNA and RNA are enormous, complex, information coding molecules. The likelihood of their spontaneous generation is infinitesimal. I have heard it suggested that they generated in stages-which requires that each piece survive until the next piece could link up and modify them-and that is unlikely in the extreme. I have seen computations for the formation of principle amino acids which suggest a likelihood anywhere from 10exp23 up to 10exp100. This makes it beyond improbable.

Of course, these calculations are just for the formation of one amino acid. The formation of RNA is far more complex, and the formation of the cell...

I have never demanded that natural processes be eliminated from this-you ASSUMED that I think this. I say that Natural Selection could not possibly work, at least at the beginning of life.

4. I don`t think you get my point on sleep; I understand the neurological reasons for sleep. My point is that different species require differing amounts of sleep, and different individuals in a species require different amounts. I need about 9 hours a day. My wife only needs 6. My cats sleep between 18-20 hours. In fact, REM sleep is where memories are moved into storage, and the ``debugging`` process occurs.

Natural selection should have favored less sleep, since a guy can get KILLED while snoozing. Why does a cat need 20 hours?

5. I know about the nylon-eater. I notice that is the only example you can give. If Natural Selection is the fundamental engine of evolution, we should have witnessed an explosion of such organisms. We haven`t. Why not?

In fact, this gets worse from the Darwinian perspective. For decades we (and the French and British) tested nuclear weapons on islands in the south pacific. Bikini atoll, Johnston, Howland, etc. were used as test sites. These places are still too radioactive for human habitation. The military sends scientists to these islands to study the results of high-level radiation on the native life of the island.

If ever Darwinian theory had the opportunity to be proven or falsified, it was here. Environmental conditions changed enormously as a result of those tests. We should have seen an explosion of new microorganisms as a result of mutation and selection.

They aren`t there. There is an increased tolerance of radiation, but no really new organisms.

Joe, you have to be willing to look and learn.

Your side holds absolute faith in your theory, and you guys are the ones who cling to logical fallacies. Nobody ever said a theory has to be 100% air tight, but it would be nice if a venerable older theory like Darwinism didn`t leak quite so badly.

I once believed in Darwinism as you do. The more I learned, the more obvious it became that there were serious problems with the theory-and that the defenders fought so hard because of the religious and intellectual uses to which the theory has historically been put. It gives a justification for beliefs and behaviors which are pleasing to many of those who support it, so they look for anything to prove their case while ignoring the problems. Darwinists seem to be on a Crusade. Science should be about truth-good or bad. True science is willing to toss an unworkable theory in the trash, or at least admit problems where they present themselves. Darwinists refuse to do this.

My religious faith does not depend in the slightest on who wins this argument. A transcendent God is, by definition, outside of the corporal world and need not be bound by any physical limitations. God is bigger than the universe, and if He wants to use Darwinian principles to propogate life, that is His business. Ours is understanding those principles set down.

THAT, Joe, is precisely what people like myself and Static Noise are doing. You seem to not understand that. We genuinly disagree, based on evidence and reason.

You don`t have to agree with us-that is your right. But you should be willing to accept that others may have an informed opinion which differs from yours, and that this does not make them some type of green tooth, rednecked, barefooted hillbilly. It means we disagree.

Anonymous said...

Timothy Birdnow:
I stand corrected; I hadn`t seen the entire Crick quote, and was looking for some quick reference to give you. Still, this hardly invalidates my point. Crick did indeed express doubts, which is, of course, why he adopted the directed Panspermia theory in the first place.

Well you are supposed to support your claim that Crick didn't believe in 'Darwinism'. You haven't done that. All that quote shows is that, as far as the origins of life is concerned, Crick entertained the idea of some sort of directed panspermia. 'Darwinism' (evolution via random mutation & natural selection) doesn't deal with the origins of life, and can work with any origins of life idea, including directed panspermia.

It seems odd that Crick would deny darwinism when he supported establishing a public holiday in honour of Darwin, was one of 72 Nobel Laureates to sign the Amicus brief in Edwards v. Aguillard in defense of the teaching of evolution, and in The Astonishing Hypothesis Crick wrote:

"The age of the earth is now established beyond any reasonable doubt as very great, yet in the United States millions of Fundamentalists still stoutly defend the naive view that it is relatively short, an opinion deduced from reading the Christian Bible too literally. They also usually deny that animals and plants have evolved and changed radically over such long periods, although this is equally well established. This gives one little confidence that what they have to say about the process of natural selection is likely to be unbiased, since their views are predetermined by a slavish adherence to religious dogmas."

Timothy Birdnow:
Directed Panspermia is a belief that extraterrestrials purposely seeded the Earth. This is not the more conventional theory which says that life has drifted here by accident-this proposes intelligent purpose. Darwinism doesn`t apply to a planned breeding experiment, as I suspect you understand. If you are going to bother seeding a planet, wouldn`t you preplan the direction that life will go? Wouldn`t you genetically engineer your life-forms?

In fact, a planned panspermia suggests an almost neo-Lamarckianism, since these aliens probably designed the genes to mutate in certain directions. Intelligently Designed them, no? I.D. needn`t be about God, in case you weren`t aware.

One could seed the Earth with single celled life and let them evolve on their own, in a completely undirected way. The ID being pushed by the Discovery Institute, and others, does indicate that the designer would have to be supernatural. The DI defines ID as:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Not only do they talk about design in living things, but also design in the universe as a whole. That would rule out aliens as being the designers, since aliens are a product of the universe just like we are. Aliens could not have pre-existed the universe itself. Only something outside of the natural world could fit the role as designer, something supernatural.

Timothy Birdnow:
That whole Project Steve was a really low attempt, by the way. YOU insist on being given names, and then you won`t even look at them when you are given them. Why, it`s almost as if you didn`t want to hear it. Here are the first 13 names:

Project Steve was done as a tongue-in-cheek response to the Discovery Institute's, and other creationist groups, amassing lists of scientists who supposedly doubt evolution. Really the DI's list was nothing more than a public relations exercise. The NCSE decided to limit their list to only scientists named 'Steve' (or variations of that name) to make a point; that scientific theories stand or fall on evidence, not on lists of scientists who doubt a theory. So far they have 698 Steves on the list.

And it turns out that not everybody who signed the Discovery Institute's list doubts evolution, as the NCSE found out. And one signatory has since had his name removed.

Timothy Birdnow:
So, you advocate a democratic science, in which the majority is ruled correct by government fiat? Every advance in science would have been crushed, if your views had held sway.

No, I believe that public school science classes should teach well established, mainstream scientific ideas and concepts. ID isn't one of them, it isn't even science, it's a watered down form of creationism.

Some school board members in Dover, Penn. voted to insert a statement about ID which was read at the beginning of biology class. The plaintiffs claimed that the statement promoted creationism, and thus violated the Constitution. Previous US Supreme Court and lower court decisions have ruled that you can't teach creationism in public school science classes, as creationism is a religious doctrine. So the plaintiffs filed suit and set out to demonstrate the creationist origins of ID. Of course the Dover decision does nothing to stop ID advocates from actually coming up with a scientifically testable theory of ID. They are still free to write books, conduct research (if they've ever done that), hold conferences, etc. If they want ID to be considered science then they have to be willing to do the hard research necessary to convince their peers that it is science. They haven't done that. They skirt around doing the scientific work and instead lobby state legislatures and school boards for 'equal time' in the classroom. Scientific theories aren't established that way. If they can ever come up with a theory of ID, and defend it amongst their scientific peers, then they will have earned a place in science classes.

Timothy Birdnow:
Darwinists have held control of the argument for decades, and any biology student who disagrees either has to shut his mouth or face ridicule and bad grades. Who is going to go into biology if they disagree with your inflexible views? If somebody keeps their mouth shut about their anti-Darwinian views until they gain tenure, what will they face? Ridicule, hatred, scorn. Look at people like Michael Behe; what has he had to face from the torch and pitchfork crowd? Shoot, do a google search on my name and you will see it listed under idiot, fool, moron, liar, etc.

Nonsense. Behe is hardly persecuted for his ID views. He still has his job at Lehigh and is free to write all the books he wants and do all the speaking engagements he feels like doing. Students are free to believe whatever they want about life and the universe. Hell, they can believe in Last Thursdayism if they wish; but in order to graduate they are expected to know some of the basics of biology and demonstrate that knowledge on school exams. 'Darwinists' have "control of the argument" because their research gets results, it answers questions about nature. ID doesn't do that. Nobody is using ID to trace the evolution of the bird flu virus or to map and compare genomes, ID's only answer is "God did it".

But we should allow lawyers to accept ``expert`` testimony to decide science!

Happens all the time in medical malpractice suits, murder trials, etc. Scientists are regularly called to give expert testimony. And the Dover trial was no exception. Both the plaintiffs and defence called expert witnesses to testify (Behe being one of them). ID advocates had their best chance to convince a judge of the scientific validity of ID, and to show that it wasn't just tarted up creationism (as the plaintiffs had shown). They failed.

Padre said...

This text is only a 1991 creation!
Forgery!

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.
(Harold C. Urey, quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4)"

Appeared? in: W. R. Bird: The Origin of Species Revisited. Thomas Nelson Co., Nashwille, 1991.

And/or the 2nd MUTANT :-) variant:

"All of us who study the origins of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. But, we believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did 1.
1 Interview in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962."
Source: EVOLUTION
Evolution: A Critique and Evaluation
Prepared by Ner Le’Elef
Publication date 24 May 2001., (on pages 14-15.)

You can read this book:
http://www.nerleelef.com/books/Evolution.pdf

Because on the page 4 of the cited journal, i can read only this:

"Land and Water Inventoried
Regional Groups Urged Specifics Filled In Reserves Still Remain More Food Than Ever

The Christian Science Monitor (1908-Current file) - Boston, Mass.
Author: By Roscoe Fleming Special Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
Date: Jan 4, 1962
Start Page: 4
Pages: 1
Text Word Count: 784
Abstract (Document Summary)
"Enough land? Enough water? Wisest use?" These questions were posed and partly answered by natural scientists in the resource field, at the national convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science."

See:
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/csmonitor_historic/access/173048702.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&date=Jan+4%2C+1962&author=&pub=The+Christian+Science+Monitor+(1908-Current+file)&edition=&startpage=4&desc=Land+and+Water+Inventoried

And I did not get an answer to my question - from here: http://www.csmonitor.com/

Where is this "quote" or the full "interview"?
It is under creation?

You can proove it here:
http://www.birdlawfirm.com/attorneys/bird.php
and
http://www.nerleelef.com/index.htm

Real qoutes:
"Life is not a miracle. It is a natural phenomenon, and can be expected to appear whenever there is a planet whose conditions duplicate those of the earth."
Quoted in article, 'Life Begins,' Time (24 Nov 1952).
Source: http://www.todayinsci.com/U/Urey_Harold/UreyHarold-Quotations.htm
and: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,817403,00.html
and: http://time-demo.newscred.com/article/5e6eeb5e8bdccf6b25d781d342a0f149.html/edit

"[My study of the universe] leaves little doubt that life has occurred on other planets. I doubt if the human race is the most intelligent form of life."
Source: http://www.todayinsci.com/U/Urey_Harold/UreyHarold-Quotations.htm
and: http://time-demo.newscred.com/article/f8f9762879807ad000aa184889feedb3.html/edit
and the correct source: TIME Magazine Dec 18, 1950
People: Notions In Motion
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,859000,00.html
http://time-demo.newscred.com/article/3197a8dbfde733a301836325f5a272bd.html/edit