Cogent criticism of evolutionary theory

[Wise Young]

I just came across this article by Mark Cartmill in Discovery Magazine, written in April 1998 (Source (http://www.godlesshouston.com/library/darwin.htm)). While it is quite long, it has some valuable pearls in it and pointed criticisms of evolutionary biology that made me say "ouch!" because they were true and hurt.

Cartmill points out that we frequently dismiss opponents of evolutionary theory as religious nuts who believe in the Bible literally, who think that it is bad for humans to be related to monkeys, and that the earth began 4000 years ago. While these views may held by some anti-evolutionists, they are clearly not held by the 50% or more people in the United States who believe that evolution is an unproven theory.

More elegantly than I can, Cartmill suggests that the conflict is not the simplistic views of evangelical Christians but the unscientific views being promulgated by some evolutionary biologists, namely that God has no role in evolution, our creation, development, and being. In other words, what is being taught as science in schools is anti-religion. That is what is raising the ire of religious anti-evolutionists. They are not objecting to evolution per se but the denial of a role of God in evolution.

I said "ouch" because this criticism has a ring of truth to it. The mantra of evolutionists is that science does not address the issue of God, Creation, or even an Intelligent Designer because these are untestable hypotheses. If so, we should not teach evolution as if these hypotheses have been disproven.

For some time now, some of the more ardent evolutionists have been taking the science far beyond what it can and should be addressing. They have brought their atheism into science and that should not be. In earlier posts, I have expressed my discomfort with some evolutionists, such as Richard Dawkins (Source (http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showpost.php?p=544792&postcount=131)) who has used evolution theory to sell his brand of atheism. For example, Dawkin's latest book "The God Delusion" is, in my opinion, more of an attack on religion than about science.

Cartmill makes another interesting point in the article. He points out that many "academic left" thinkers (he also calls them "post-modernists) have joined forces with the "evangelical right" on the issue of evolution. As he puts it:


To those who see it through a postmodernist lens, science as currently practiced is pretty bad stuff. Science is oppressive: by demanding that everyone talk and argue in certain approved ways, it tries to control our minds and limit our freedom to question authority. Science is sexist: designed by males and driven by domineering male egos, it prefers facts to values, control to nurturance, and logic to feelings—all typical patriarchal male hang-ups. Science is imperialist: it brushes aside the truths and insights of other times and cultures. (“Claims about the universality of science,” insists historian Mario Biagioli, “should be understood as a form of cognitive colonialism.”) And of course, science is capitalist (and therefore wicked): it serves the interests of big corporations and the military-industrial complex.

The scholar Ania Grobicki summed it up this way: “Western science is only one way of describing reality, nature, and the way things work—a very effective way, certainly, for the production of goods and profits, but unsatisfactory in most other respects. It is an imperialist arrogance which ignores the sciences and insights of most other cultures and times. . . . It is important for the people most oppressed by Western science to make use of what resources there are, to acquire skills and confidence, and to keep challenging the orthodox pretensions of ‘scientific’ hierarchies of power.”

In this view, science is really aiming at a totalitarian control over our lives and thoughts. And though all fields of science are suspect, what most left-wing anxiety centers on is biology. You can get an idea of the fear that pervades this literature—and a taste of the convoluted prose some of these people write—by reading what the philosopher Jean Baudrillard has to say about biochemistry. “That which is hypostatized in biochemistry,” he writes, “is the ideal of a social order ruled by a sort of genetic code of macromolecular calculation . . . irradiating the social body with its operational circuits. . . . Schemes of control have become fantastically perfected . . . to a neocapitalist cybernetic order that aims now at total control. This is the mutation for which the biological theorization of the code prepares the ground. . . . It remains to be seen if this operationality is not itself a myth, if dna is not also a myth.”

Ouch, again. But, it again has a ring of truth. Geneticists and molecular biologists have long sparred with psychologists and humanists over these issues. There is an arrogance of science that cannot be justified. I have often encountered an interesting attitude amongst students and doctors, for example, who believe that if something is not statistically significant, it must not exist. They simply ignore things that don't fit in the straitjacket of known theory.

Likewise, the nasty debate that has erupted between Deepak Chopra and geneticists (see The Trouble with Genes (http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showpost.php?p=551671&postcount=1)) showcases the arrogance of geneticists. Admittedly, Dr. Chopra is ignorant and does not make his case well. However, he does have a case. Even though they know a lot, geneticists don't know everything about genes and how they work. Knowing and studying all the parts of a television does not necessarily give us insights into what shows up on the television screen.

A human is more than the sum of parts. The western mode of science, the so-called "Scientific Method" is not the only way of science. I was reminded starkly of this about a decade ago when a Russian scientist worked in my laboratory. He was a very bright young man but trained in a very different scientific tradition. Whereas we teach our students to think in terms of hypotheses, to generate expectations and test those expectations in an experiment, he was taught the exact opposite approach. He believed that an unbiased scientist should do an experiment without hypotheses, to have an open mind and observe.

I have long taught my students that the experiment did not fail when it failed to confirm their hypothesis. In fact, I tell them that they should be thankful when an experiment does not work the way they expect. If all that an experiment did was to confirm preconceived hypotheses, we have learned nothing. It is only when an experiment comes up with unexpected results and challenges us to generate new hypotheses that we have discovered something new and learned from the experience.

While the Western scientific method has its strengths and beauty, it is not the only way to do science. Arrogant science is bad science. We should be humble and be open to new ways of looking at things, of understanding the world. To ignore what does not fit with current established dogma of science is unscientific. We must be careful to keep an open mind and be receptive to new ideas.

Wise.

[Juke_spin]

I was reminded starkly of this about a decade ago when a Russian scientist worked in my laboratory. He was a very bright young man but trained in a very different scientific tradition. Whereas we teach our students to think in terms of hypotheses, to generate expectations and test those expectations in an experiment, he was taught the exact opposite approach. He believed that an unbiased scientist should do an experiment without hypotheses, to have an open mind and observe. Wise.
I don't know where it is you are trying to go with this and don't want to be batting at windmills. I hope I may be forgiven for going at your statements piecemeal.

The example above seems to present a logical inconsintency. We are being admonished to do "the experiment" w/o first generating a hypothesis. Then how do we arive at the choice of "the experiment"?

The arrogance of may who practice science is unhealthy but the rejection of the psuedoscientific approach to concept evaluation is logical and healthy.

[Rock]

The Russian vs. American research attitude is like an article I touched on today. The article was describing how they used a negative metal and then passed a laser past one side of the metal. What happened was that they reversed light and actually found it to be faster than the rate of light traveling forward. Of course faith in one's ability/research lends itself towards the anatomy/evolution we face daily.


Click - http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060623201434data_trunc_sys.shtml

[Juke_spin]

The Russian vs. American research attitude is like an article I touched on today. The article was describing how they made a negative metal and then passed a laser past one side of the metal. What happened was that for the first time they reversed light and actually found it to be faster than the rate of light traveling forward. Of course faith in one's ability/research lends itself towards the anatomy/evolution we face daily.
I'm not clear on what they did experimentally and what conclusions were drawn from it.

Can you provide a link?

[etexley]

God really doesn't not play a role in evolution as a science...does She? After all, envolutionary biology is based on a scientific method....observation..hypothesis...supporting evidence...to theory.

Science is science...Religion is religion. They are two different "animals" We need to stop trying to find a "common ancestor" and just treat them distinctly.

If people want to go to Catechism, is temple, or whatever, they can GO FOR IT. Have a ball....just be sure to bring in your evolution assignment the next morning...gee whiz.

It's not "rocket science." Religion is a private issue and should be kept that way. Values are also distinct from religion, as is a sense of community.

[Rock]

Originally Posted by etexley
God really doesn't not play a role in evolution as a science...

I don't think I have ever seen anyone contradict their own essay with their first sentence and their last also for that matter.

Name one religion or even a field of research that doesn't support a value of some sort.



Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall NOT "not" surely die:


You have one too many nots in your first sentence. The serpent told eve the truth if he had an extra NOT before the other not. It changes the meaning completely.

[artsyguy1954]

Interesting topic, Dr Young.

I for one have never had any problem reconciling the inexorable workings of evolutionary law with with God's purpose and vision. That does not mean that I believe, unlike some of my rural BC bible belt friends, that God created everything in one week about 6000 years ago. (They can't agree whether he started working at eight or nine o 'clock monday morning) If God is a Canadian he started no earlier than nine and is unionized. Lol ! You guys get the idea.

The whole debate about creationism versus evolution seems a bit ludicrous to me and a storm in a tea cup. What could be more divine than the beauty of creation itself and the fascinating complexity of natural law in all its inexorable purpose?

That the far left is making common cause with the religious right in the evolution debate does not surprise me. There is something fanatical if not to say fascist about the mindset of both groups that makes me very uncomfortable .

[eagle18]

I just came across this article by Mark Cartmill in Discovery Magazine, written in April 1998 (Source (http://www.godlesshouston.com/library/darwin.htm)). While it is quite long, it has some valuable pearls in it and pointed criticisms of evolutionary biology that made me say "ouch!" because they were true and hurt.

Cartmill points out that we frequently dismiss opponents of evolutionary theory as religious nuts who believe in the Bible literally, who think that it is bad for humans to be related to monkeys, and that the earth began 4000 years ago. While these views may held by some anti-evolutionists, they are clearly not held by the 50% or more people in the United States who believe that evolution is an unproven theory.

More elegantly than I can, Cartmill suggests that the conflict is not the simplistic views of evangelical Christians but the unscientific views being promulgated by some evolutionary biologists, namely that God has no role in evolution, our creation, development, and being. In other words, what is being taught as science in schools is anti-religion. That is what is raising the ire of religious anti-evolutionists. They are not objecting to evolution per se but the denial of a role of God in evolution.

I said "ouch" because this criticism has a ring of truth to it. The mantra of evolutionists is that science does not address the issue of God, Creation, or even an Intelligent Designer because these are untestable hypotheses. If so, we should not teach evolution as if these hypotheses have been disproven.

For some time now, some of the more ardent evolutionists have been taking the science far beyond what it can and should be addressing. They have brought their atheism into science and that should not be. In earlier posts, I have expressed my discomfort with some evolutionists, such as Richard Dawkins (Source (http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showpost.php?p=544792&postcount=131)) who has used evolution theory to sell his brand of atheism. For example, Dawkin's latest book "The God Delusion" is, in my opinion, more of an attack on religion than about science.

Cartmill makes another interesting point in the article. He points out that many "academic left" thinkers (he also calls them "post-modernists) have joined forces with the "evangelical right" on the issue of evolution. As he puts it:


Ouch, again. But, it again has a ring of truth. Geneticists and molecular biologists have long sparred with psychologists and humanists over these issues. There is an arrogance of science that cannot be justified. I have often encountered an interesting attitude amongst students and doctors, for example, who believe that if something is not statistically significant, it must not exist. They simply ignore things that don't fit in the straitjacket of known theory.

Likewise, the nasty debate that has erupted between Deepak Chopra and geneticists (see The Trouble with Genes (http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showpost.php?p=551671&postcount=1)) showcases the arrogance of geneticists. Admittedly, Dr. Chopra is ignorant and does not make his case well. However, he does have a case. Even though they know a lot, geneticists don't know everything about genes and how they work. Knowing and studying all the parts of a television does not necessarily give us insights into what shows up on the television screen.

A human is more than the sum of parts. The western mode of science, the so-called "Scientific Method" is not the only way of science. I was reminded starkly of this about a decade ago when a Russian scientist worked in my laboratory. He was a very bright young man but trained in a very different scientific tradition. Whereas we teach our students to think in terms of hypotheses, to generate expectations and test those expectations in an experiment, he was taught the exact opposite approach. He believed that an unbiased scientist should do an experiment without hypotheses, to have an open mind and observe.

I have long taught my students that the experiment did not fail when it failed to confirm their hypothesis. In fact, I tell them that they should be thankful when an experiment does not work the way they expect. If all that an experiment did was to confirm preconceived hypotheses, we have learned nothing. It is only when an experiment comes up with unexpected results and challenges us to generate new hypotheses that we have discovered something new and learned from the experience.

While the Western scientific method has its strengths and beauty, it is not the only way to do science. Arrogant science is bad science. We should be humble and be open to new ways of looking at things, of understanding the world. To ignore what does not fit with current established dogma of science is unscientific. We must be careful to keep an open mind and be receptive to new ideas.

Wise.

Your last sentence is of course correct and revealing. Nothing better could be said than arrogant science is bad science. The last paragraph is a beautiful assessment as well as a new ( I think for you ) way of viewing science. It is quite true that science has indeed become a sort of dictatorial power without checks and balances. It was science that declared that smoking was universally unhealthy, and therefore trampled upon the rights of those who chose to use a natuarally grown plant for their own amusement, pain/stress relief/dieting, etc. Does science think that God placed this plant upon this earth in such abundance so that man could abolish it? A recent study suggests that this generation will not live as long as the previous ones due to obesity. I don't see any overweight old people walking around, but I see plenty of 80 years old smokers. Without going in to a more detalied argument, I'll just say that the reduction in class of the smoker is due to the ex-smoker who cannot stand the sight nor smell of his former addiction, because it may lure him back to the habit. So he deals with it by banning any sight of it, and science is his license to do so. We have yielded the power of what is good and bad to the doctors and scientists. Commom sense no longer plays a part. If second hand smoke were dangerous than all smokers would be dead. Do you really think that the human being is so fragile that a little smoke mixed with carbon dioxide can kill him. Barbecues cause the attendee to inhale the equilavent of 11,000 cigerattes. No one bans barbecues, or fireplaces. Nicotine is a drug. Like all drugs it has it's uses, and if abused will become deadly. Drink 6 quarts of milk a day and it will kill you. Aristotle taught us 2,000 years ago that the mean was what we should aim for, or as we know it: moderation in all things. When scientists contributed to the ex-smokers discrimination of the smokers, they set in motion a way of depriving civil liberties. One cannot administer a wicked law. Like a disease it spreads, until it touches it's upholders as well as it's defiers. When we made it okay to take away the rights of smokers, we made it okay to remove the rights of others. If you can do one, you can do the other.

It is not important to believe in God so that one will go to heaven or win the latest war. It is important to admit to the possibility of a God so that one does not take on the identity of divinity for himself or someone else or group. Humans are not Gods. They can not ever know everything. That is why your last paragraph and especially your last sentence are of the utmost importance. We can never know everything, and keeping a totally open mind lets us learn more. Learning more is all we can ever hope for.

[Wise Young]

I don't know where it is you are trying to go with this and don't want to be batting at windmills. I hope I may be forgiven for going at your statements piecemeal.

The example above seems to present a logical inconsintency. We are being admonished to do "the experiment" w/o first generating a hypothesis. Then how do we arive at the choice of "the experiment"?

The arrogance of may who practice science is unhealthy but the rejection of the psuedoscientific approach to concept evaluation is logical and healthy.

Juke,

Let me try to explain where I am trying to go in my post.

Religion vs. science. We have often said that science cannot test the hypothesis that there is a creator, intelligent designer, or divine intervention. If so, science should take a neutral position on the subject rather than to say that there is no God. Evolutionary theory should not be turned into an argument for atheism in the same way it should not be used to argue for a particular religion. In short, we should leave religious matters to religion and scientific matters to science. Whether or not God had anything to do with evolution belongs in the realm of religion and not in the realm of science. Many who oppose evolution do so because they perceive that evolution theory denies the existence of God. Unfortunately, some scientists have reinforced this impression.

Reductionist vs. Empirical Science. Regarding the different modes of science, the standard "scientific method" of Western science involves making an a priori hypothesis, designing an experiment to test the hypothesis, and either confirming or refuting the hypothesis. However, there is a place for non-hypothesis driven empirical observation. In a sense, that is what Darwin did when he went to the Galapagos. He observed and formulated a hypothesis to fit his observations. The empirical observation method is often useful for formulating hypotheses. Hypothesis-drive scientific method is useful after hypotheses have been formulated and are ready to be tested. There is room for both kinds of science.

Common Mistakes. People often make three common mistakes in science. The first is to conclude causation from correlation. The second is to assume that if something is not statistically significant, it must not be real. The third is assume that if there is no evidence for something, it does not exist. It is useful to discuss these three mistakes in slightly greater detail:
• Mistake 1: Correlation implies causation. For example, it is well known that people who smoke seldom develop Parkinson's disease. This does not mean that smoking prevents Parkinson's disease. It just so happens that people who have early stage Parkinson's disease use cholinergic mechanisms (the same system that nicotine affects) to compensate for loss of dopaminergic cells. Therefore, they are often sensitive to nicotine and that is why people who smoke are less likely to develop Parkinson's disease.
• Mistake 2: Improbable events are not real. Occasionally, somebody with a "complete" spinal cord injury will recover substantial function. One should not dismiss this phenomenon. It may be rare but it is real and we should learn from what causes it to occur. Statistics is just a way of calculating the probability of events. Because something is not statistically significant does not mean that it is not real.
• Mistake 3: Lack of evidence means that something does not exist. I sometimes say that there is no evidence that something is true. Some people may interpret my statement to mean that something is not true. For example, I may say that there is no evidence that bone marrow stem cell transplants improve function. This does not mean that bone marrow stem cell transplants do not improve function. It simply means that we don't have evidence, yet.

These are common errors that even experienced scientists and doctors make. For example, doctors have long observed that people with heart disease have high cholesterol and have jumped to the conclusion that cholesterol causes heart disease. Billions of dollars have been spent on lowering cholesterol. As it turns out, lowering cholesterol does not always prevent heart disease. While very high levels of cholesterol may contribute to heart disease, it may be a manifestation of something else that is causing heart disease rather than itself causing heart disease. Likewise, recovery from "complete" spinal cord injury is rare and many doctors have jumped to the conclusion that spinal cord regeneration cannot occur in humans. Although something is rare, it may be real. Finally, because we have no evidence does not mean that God does not exist. It simply means that we don't know.

Wise.

[Juke_spin]

Juke,

Let me try to explain where I am trying to go in my post.

Religion vs. science. We have often said that science cannot test the hypothesis that there is a creator, intelligent designer, or divine intervention. If so, science should take a neutral position on the subject rather than to say that there is no God. Evolutionary theory should not be turned into an argument for atheism in the same way it should not be used to argue for a particular religion. In short, we should leave religious matters to religion and scientific matters to science. Whether or not God had anything to do with evolution belongs in the realm of religion and not in the realm of science. Many who oppose evolution do so because they perceive that evolution theory denies the existence of God. Unfortunately, some scientists have reinforced this impression.

Reductionist vs. Empirical Science. Regarding the different modes of science, the standard "scientific method" of Western science involves making an a priori hypothesis, designing an experiment to test the hypothesis, and either confirming or refuting the hypothesis. However, there is a place for non-hypothesis driven empirical observation. In a sense, that is what Darwin did when he went to the Galapagos. He observed and formulated a hypothesis to fit his observations. The empirical observation method is often useful for formulating hypotheses. Hypothesis-drive scientific method is useful after hypotheses have been formulated and are ready to be tested. There is room for both kinds of science.

Common Mistakes. People often make three common mistakes in science. The first is to conclude causation from correlation. The second is to assume that if something is not statistically significant, it must not be real. The third is assume that if there is no evidence for something, it does not exist. It is useful to discuss these three mistakes in slightly greater detail:
• Mistake 1: Correlation implies causation. For example, it is well known that people who smoke seldom develop Parkinson's disease. This does not mean that smoking prevents Parkinson's disease. It just so happens that people who have early stage Parkinson's disease use cholinergic mechanisms (the same system that nicotine affects) to compensate for loss of dopaminergic cells. Therefore, they are often sensitive to nicotine and that is why people who smoke are less likely to develop Parkinson's disease.
• Mistake 2: Improbable events are not real. Occasionally, somebody with a "complete" spinal cord injury will recover substantial function. One should not dismiss this phenomenon. It may be rare but it is real and we should learn from what causes it to occur. Statistics is just a way of calculating the probability of events. Because something is not statistically significant does not mean that it is not real.
• Mistake 3: Lack of evidence means that something does not exist. I sometimes say that there is no evidence that something is true. Some people may interpret my statement to mean that something is not true. For example, I may say that there is no evidence that bone marrow stem cell transplants improve function. This does not mean that bone marrow stem cell transplants do not improve function. It simply means that we don't have evidence, yet.

These are common errors that even experienced scientists and doctors make. For example, doctors have long observed that people with heart disease have high cholesterol and have jumped to the conclusion that cholesterol causes heart disease. Billions of dollars have been spent on lowering cholesterol. As it turns out, lowering cholesterol does not always prevent heart disease. While very high levels of cholesterol may contribute to heart disease, it may be a manifestation of something else that is causing heart disease rather than itself causing heart disease. Likewise, recovery from "complete" spinal cord injury is rare and many doctors have jumped to the conclusion that spinal cord regeneration cannot occur in humans. Although something is rare, it may be real. Finally, because we have no evidence does not mean that God does not exist. It simply means that we don't know.

Wise.
Well that was satisfying and I have to agree that scientist often use their positions wrongly in coming to the above three conclusions in a lot of cases and surely in using them to state that the realities of evolutionary theory preclude the existence of a god.

On the third error, believing that lack of evidence means that something does not exist; I adopted a little aphorism a while back, "Absence of proof isn't proof of absence." that could be modified: "absence of evidence isn't proof of absence". to fit.:D

On an individual, non scientist, level; as we are human it is in our natures to want to believe we know the answers to the deep and abiding questions that being alive and senitent generate. I have found that a good understanding of evolutionary theory (ever changing, as most good science must be) and its implications, answers the questions most religious people look to a god for.

[Rock]

I have found that a good understanding of evolutionary theory (ever changing, as most good science must be) and its implications, answers the questions most religious people look to a god for.




Juke,




Most religious people have a peaceful faith which is not seen and is evident by works. If evolution is seen, then how does this become a religious answer? It's just evidence of a work.

Unless you are suggesting that the earth is evidence of a Divine answer to something, then what has religious people have in common with the works of evoultion?

Furthermore, if there is only one earth, then does this mean that there is really only one paradise? If so, then what is paradise?

[adi chicago]

without solid proofs the science cannot beat the existence of a powerful intelligence creature on the universe.
i am just sad when a scientist thinks that ...he is god and others are stupids because they belive in god.amen:)

[Buck_Nastier]

without solid proofs the science cannot beat the existence of a powerful intelligence creature on the universe.
i am just sad when a scientist thinks that ...he is god and others are stupids because they belive in god.amen:)

Scientists aren't near as critical of people who don't believe in
evolution, as people are who believe in god.

What scientist thinks he is god?

[Rock]

Scientists aren't near as critical of people who don't believe in
evolution, as people are who believe in god.

What scientist thinks he is god?




I cannot speak for all believers in God but I would assume that religious people are more concerned with giving credit to God than they are in fighting a theory. It seems like the opposite is happening because some evolutionists may be failing to leave the possibilty a of God. Again, I cannot speak for evolutionists either. I am half blind and deaf on these spiritually and physically.

I am sure that it is probably easy to think one is a God. After all, the definition of God according to webster's is: a supreme being. Even the Bible says we (man) are created in God's image. If someone has a low knowledge of who God is, then the easier it may be to think and put yourself in the top ranks and files of evolution.

This fear from religious persons can stem from the neglect caused by others who don't believe in God. Religious people are therefore critical of unbelief in my opinion. Science builds on faith. Does evolution build on faith?

[Juke_spin]

Juke,
Most religious people have a peaceful faith which is not seen and is evident by works. If evolution is seen, then how does this become a religious answer? It's just evidence of a work.

Unless you are suggesting that the earth is evidence of a Divine answer to something, then what has religious people have in common with the works of evoultion?

Furthermore, if there is only one earth, then does this mean that there is really only one paradise? If so, then what is paradise?I cannot speak for all believers in God but I would assume that religious people are more concerned with giving credit to God than they are in fighting a theory. It seems like the opposite is happening because some evolutionists may be failing to leave the possibilty a of God. Again, I cannot speak for evolutionists either. I am half blind and deaf on these spiritually and physically.

I am sure that it is probably easy to think one is a God. After all, the definition of God according to webster's is: a supreme being. Even the Bible says we (man) are created in God's image. If someone has a low knowledge of who God is, then the easier it may be to think and put yourself in the top ranks and files of evolution.

This fear from religious persons can stem from the neglect caused by others who don't believe in God. Religious people are therefore critical of unbelief in my opinion. Science builds on faith. Does evolution build on faith?
You pose challanging questions from what would seem to be a virtual derth of information.

Before I invest the time, thought and effort required for an in-depth response, may I ask who you are? Your Public Profile is blank. Are you SCI? Have you read any of the well reviewed books on evolutionary theory?

Personally, without my having at least a rudimentary sense of who I'm in a discussion with, I'm not inclined to go on. Same goes for stating an opinion about evolution.

[Rock]

Evolution is proof in AND of itself. It is a vast and complex organism. I summed that it was a work much like what follows an act based on faith. Christians did not create evolution so the summary is that "what does evolution / geneology have to do with their answers of faith. Ye will know them by their works is the best profile to go by for myself. SCI is I and my, it makes one cry. Never read a book on ANY kind of evolution escept the Biblical version, which is lineages and spiritual anyways.

[Juke_spin]

Evolution is proof in AND of itself. It is a vast and complex organism. I summed that it was a work much like what follows an act based on faith. Christians did not create evolution so the summary is that "what does evolution / geneology have to do with their answers of faith. Ye will know them by their works is the best profile to go by for myself. SCI is I and my, it makes one cry. Never read a book on ANY kind of evolution escept the Biblical version, which is lineages and spiritual anyways.
Based on the above, I now expect to see your avatar start walking out of the screen, a la "The Ring".:agog::alien::cry::thinking:

[alan]

Evolution and a Supreme Being can co-exist, for those who believe we were created, just as medical science and a Supreme Being can.

[Rock]

Alan,


I agree, they co-exist.


"The Ring".



Juke,

What is "The Ring" suppose to mean. Does it have something to do with evolution?

[Juke_spin]

Juke,

What is "The Ring" suppose to mean. Does it have something to do with evolution?
No, superstition, the suspension of disbelief and solid horror cinema/film.

The Ring (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298130/)

[Rock]

Pro 1:6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.
Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge:

[Juke_spin]

Pro 1:6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.
Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge:
Is this your way of saying that all art is a reflection of the devine? Just horror? Just good horror.

That all experiencing of fear is fear of the devine? Just fear generated by horror. Etc.

Etc.;)

[Adrian]

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge

Surely fear negates an ability to look at evidence objectively without having evaluation of the evidence influenced by that fear. I am not saying that the evidence rules out the possibility of a theistic role in evoloution but I do believe that this statement flies in the face of logic and contradicts the evidence of psychology. Fear to a large degree can be an obstacle to knowledge.

[KTM236]

Just wondering do you have to have a degree to call yourself a scientist? If you have a Bachelor/Master of Science degree can you call yourself a scientist? Do you have to conduct experiments? I guess I could conduct experiments without a degree, so I guess I could call myself a scientist. Is there a test you take to become a board certified scientist? Just wondering...

[Wise Young]

Just wondering do you have to have a degree to call yourself a scientist? If you have a Bachelor/Master of Science degree can you call yourself a scientist? Do you have to conduct experiments? I guess I could conduct experiments without a degree, so I guess I could call myself a scientist. Is there a test you take to become a board certified scientist? Just wondering...

KTM236,

I don't think that there is any "board certification" of a scientist. Although a PhD in the scientific field is generally considered to be one of the ways that a person can join the "club", i.e. become a "card-carrying scientist", one does not have to be a PhD to be a scientist.

Julius Axelrod is widely regarded as a "scientist's scientist". In 1946, Axelrod worked as a technician at the Laboratory of Industrial Hygiene at the New York City's Department of Health. He and his mentor received a grant to find out why consumers who took Bromo Seltzer were developing methemoglobinemia. Brodie and Axelrod showed that a compound called acetanilide was the problem. They suggested that manufacturer replaced the compound with acetaminophen, which of course is now the mostly widely used analgesic in the world: Tylenol or paracetamol. In 1949, Axelrod went to the National Heart Institute at NIH and studied vitamin C effects on drug metabolism, including caffeine, amphetamine, mescaline, ephedrine, LSD, etc. From this work, he defined the metabolism of neurotransmitters (Source (http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/HH/Views/Exhibit/narrative/amines.html)) and eventually received the Nobel prize for his work in 1970. His work led to the development of the class of anti-depressants called serotonin uptake inhibitors. He also explained the nature of melatonin and the role of the pineal gland in mediating biological rhythms. At the time that he did most of this work, Julius Axelrod had only a BS (1933) and an MS (1941). He did not get his PhD until 1955 from George Washington University (Source (http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Axelrod,+Julius)).

Wise.

[Chicago]

Originally Posted by Adrian
Fear to a large degree can be an obstacle to knowledge.


eXPLain...if you was in a burning building that has rampant fire on the first five floors and you was on the 132th flooor, then fear might have prevented you from ascending so highly in a building without a way out.

Like the sayind, an ounce of prevention is worth a POUND of cure.


Originally Posted by Juke_Spin
Is this your way of saying that all art is a reflection of the devine? Just horror? Just good horror.

That all experiencing of fear is fear of the devine? Just fear generated by horror. Etc.

Etc.;)


Good question ... It's been awhile since my bible study inspirational reflections but David has this to say starting in Psalm 138

Psa 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
Psa 139:9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
Psa 139:10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
Psa 139:11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
Psa 139:12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
Psa 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
Psa 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
Psa 139:15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.



I would have to add that fear and appreciation go hand in hand Juke, you can't have one without experiencing the other; in other words.

[bcripeq]

KTM236,

I don't think that there is any "board certification" of a scientist. Although a PhD in the scientific field is generally considered to be one of the ways that a person can join the "club", i.e. become a "card-carrying scientist", one does not have to be a PhD to be a scientist.

Julius Axelrod is widely regarded as a "scientist's scientist". In 1946, Axelrod worked as a technician at the Laboratory of Industrial Hygiene at the New York City's Department of Health. He and his mentor received a grant to find out why consumers who took Bromo Seltzer were developing methemoglobinemia. Brodie and Axelrod showed that a compound called acetanilide was the problem. They suggested that manufacturer replaced the compound with acetaminophen, which of course is now the mostly widely used analgesic in the world: Tylenol or paracetamol. In 1949, Axelrod went to the National Heart Institute at NIH and studied vitamin C effects on drug metabolism, including caffeine, amphetamine, mescaline, ephedrine, LSD, etc. From this work, he defined the metabolism of neurotransmitters (Source (http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/HH/Views/Exhibit/narrative/amines.html)) and eventually received the Nobel prize for his work in 1970. His work led to the development of the class of anti-depressants called serotonin uptake inhibitors. He also explained the nature of melatonin and the role of the pineal gland in mediating biological rhythms. At the time that he did most of this work, Julius Axelrod had only a BS (1933) and an MS (1941). He did not get his PhD until 1955 from George Washington University (Source (http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Axelrod,+Julius)).

Wise.

A scientist definition is:

sci·en·tist (sn-tst)
n.
A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.

Science is defined as:

sci·ence (sns)
n.
1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.


A BS, MS or PHD is not required. Some of the best scientists in history had very little formal education.


The first post here is an interesting mix of contradictions. I still believe that a scientist could in fact preform studies to determine if ID was involved in our evolution.

[Wise Young]

A scientist definition is:

sci·en·tist (sn-tst)
n.
A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.

Science is defined as:

sci·ence (sns)
n.
1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.


A BS, MS or PHD is not required. Some of the best scientists in history had very little formal education.


The first post here is an interesting mix of contradictions. I still believe that a scientist could in fact preform studies to determine if ID was involved in our evolution.

Bcripeq, I must say that I would hate to be lumped into definition 5. I am puzzled by why all these religious groups like to use the word "science". What "Christian scientists" advocate is anti-science.

In my post, I was criticizing scientists (and myself) for being unscientific when it comes to evolution and intelligent design. If we are to be scientific and logically consistent, we need to stop saying that God does not have a role in evolution and tell the truth: We don't know.

If intelligent design is an untestable hypothesis, it also means that we cannot disprove it. That is why I am perturbed by Richard Dawkin's attempts to disprove intelligent design. It is relatively easy to disprove the claims of intelligent design theorists because they are, in the main, not very rigorous.

However, science cannot prove that God does not exist or has no influence on evolution. If God is all-powerful, the rules of science need not apply and therefore the existence of God cannot be disproven or proven. Just because we cannot see or find the evidence does not mean that God does not exist.

In the end, I believe that scientists should stick to science and stop pontificating on religion. Likewise, religists should stick to religion and stop messing around with science. Yes, the criticism can and should goes both ways. Scientific atheism is as bad as christian science. It is misusing science in the same way some christians are misusing science.

Wise.

[Chicago]

I think evolution has a set perimeter defined by the natural. Also, as Jesus and the Prophets declared, evolution can be manipulated.

[Wise Young]

There is a lot of junk out there attacking evolution and so on forth. However, there is also some pretty thoughtful and interesting criticism of Evolution or at least the way scientists are dealing with Intelligent Design. I am collecting these criticism here here.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030428051606/http://www.fsf.vu.lt/filk/mps/Being+Methodologically+Correct.htm

The Lynching of Bill Dembski

by Fred Heeren

Mathematician William Dembski stands accused of bringing shame upon a major university. Not only that, say his colleagues, he has managed to disgrace the entire scientific enterprise. Scientists from distant universities wrote letters to the editors of his university newspaper, and biologists spoke up through the surrounding city papers, telling the public why this man must be stopped. When Dembski organized an academic conference, one incensed professor from another state sent long e-mails to the scheduled speakers, seeking to discredit Dembski and convincing one famed philosopher to cancel. The faculty senate of his own Baylor University voted 26 to 2 to recommend that his research center be dismantled. Eight members of Baylor's science departments wrote Congress about the dangers of Dembski's project, and several briefings on the issues were made before a bipartisan group of congressional members and staff.



So you're wondering: What kind of new and evil science is William Dembski practicing? Is he cloning half-humans without souls to create cheap labor? Several Baylor students interviewed for this article couldn't pinpoint the exact deed, but knew it was immoral because they heard that it had something to do with an evil use of the human genome project. What Dembski has actually done hardly seems nefarious. As a scientist with twin Ph.D.'s in mathematics and philosophy, Dembski has set about developing mathematical methods for detecting intelligent design, should it be discernible, in nature. That's all. What's more, he has submitted his work to the scientific scrutiny of his peers. So why are all these professors so hysterical?



Disguised Creationism? Since the 1980's, critics have charged that the intelligent design concept is really just "a disguised form of creationism." According to Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education: "They're really saying God does it, but they're not as honest as the Biblical creationists. The intelligence is really spelled in three letters: G-O-D." Not at all, says Dembski. Intelligent design points not to a creator, but to a designer -- a crucial distinction. "If you examine a piece of furniture," he explains, "you can identify that it is designed, but you can't identify who or what is responsible for the wood in the first place. Intelligent design just gets you to an intelligent cause that works with pre-existing materials, but not the source of those materials."



Neuroscientist Lewis Barker, who left Baylor in protest over the administration's "religious" policies, buys none of this: "I see it as a form of stealth creationism, a very old argument wrapped in new clothes." Later, however, he adds: "The whole notion of using mathematics, that's something new."



Also novel is the respect many "intelligent design" proponents have earned in the academic community. "They're real academics, not cranks," admits Skeptic magazine publisher Michael Shermer, whose editorial board is overwhelmingly composed of intelligent design critics such as Stephen Jay Gould and Eugenie Scott herself. "They have real degrees and tenure," adds Shermer. Not only does William Dembski have doctorates in mathematics and philosophy, he has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, physics at the University of Chicago, and computer science at Princeton University. Even Lewis Barker says: "He seems to be a very bright guy."



Eugenie Scott argues that intelligent design proponents don't have a scholarly position because they never submit their work for peer review. But each time she brings up the kind of scholarly evaluation that's lacking -- the reviewed publications or academic conferences -- she stops short when she comes to the work of William Dembski. And when Scott ticks off a list of non-peer-reviewed design literature, she hesitates when she recalls that Dembski's book, The Design Inference, was written as part of a Cambridge University philosophy of science series. Published as Dembski's doctoral dissertation in philosophy, it became Cambridge's best-selling philosophical monograph in recent years. After surviving a review of 70 scholars, and then the standard dissertation defense at the University of Illinois, The Design Inference finally underwent corrections and refereed scrutiny for two years at Cambridge University Press.



Controversy. After Dembski brought on board Bruce Gordon (Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of physics) as associate director of the Polanyi Center, the duo made a good first impression on the faculty they met. Gordon led a colloquium reading group, using two books about interactions between science and faith. Discussion with participating faculty was cordial. "The controversy began after our Website debuted in mid-January," explains Gordon. "That's what drew more faculty attention to the center." While the Polanyi site itself was unexceptionable, other groups with evolutionist-bashing agendas began linking up their Websites to the center. Many on the biology faculty flashed back to old culture battles, when such groups had publicly questioned the professors' integrity. Gordon is understanding, but explains that the realities of the Web are such that the Polanyi Center has no control over who connects to their site. "We don't endorse a connection to those sites at all. They didn't ask our permission. But we can't spend our time policing the Internet." Reaction built quickly. One professor who had previously been friendly at the reading group wrote Gordon an insulting letter. An e-mail frenzy began between faculty in all departments, calling special attention to the creationist Websites that claimed the Polanyi Center as one of their own. News spread to other universities, and soon newspapers in Waco and Houston were filled with reactions from a handful of vocal Baylor professors who were appalled that such a monstrosity as the Polanyi Center should be found on their campus. By this time, plans were well under way for a large Polanyi conference called "The Nature of Nature." Most Baylor biologists decided to boycott the event. Even so, the April conference drew 350 scholars from around the world whose views varied wildly on the conference's central question: "Is the universe self-contained or does it require something beyond itself to explain its existence and internal function?" By all accounts, the conference itself was an outstanding success, drawing attention to Baylor as a place that could attract world-class scholars for dialogue on the big questions. In spite of one out-of-state professor's campaign to convince all speakers to cancel, the conference brought together such luminaries as Nobelist/physicist Steven Weinberg, Nobelist/biochemist Christian de Duve, big bang cosmologist Alan Guth, paleontologist Simon Conway Morris, and philosopher Alvin Plantinga.



But the conference only focused the Baylor faculty's anger more intensely on the Michael Polanyi Center. A few days after it ended, the faculty senate met and voted to recommend that the administration dissolve the center immediately. The faculty claimed that President Sloan had no right to set up such a center and choose its head without their involvement. "It's rather ironic that people in the scientific community, whose rights had to be protected in the face of ideological pressure [from creationists], now appear to be suppressing others," says President Sloan.



Lingering anger in the biology department is perhaps an understandable reaction after years of ideological assault by creationism activists. But the personal outrage against the very idea of Dembski's work runs even deeper than that. The resentment becomes obvious to any outsider who dares to roam the halls of the Baylor biology department and ask professors for their take on the dispute.



What exactly is intelligent design (ID), and why do the very words incite such fury among some biologists? ID depends upon a concept known as specified complexity. Say you're out raking leaves in the backyard. If you were to find little piles of leaves, equally spaced apart in a long line, the arrangement would be an example of specificity, but it could be explained by what fell out of a rolling barrel. Each time the barrel made a revolution, another clump fell out, each spaced apart by about the same distance. The pattern is specified, but not complex.



When you come across thousands of piles of leaves in no particular pattern, that's complex, and it may take billions of overturned barrels to produce another pattern just like it. But it's not specified. No intelligent design is required to explain it.



But let's say you come across a thousand leaves arranged as letters spelling meaningful words, sentences, paragraphs, even a whole story--that's specified complexity. Specified complexity creates information and meaning, and that requires intelligent design.



Many scientific disciplines already use such logic to distinguish between phenomena produced by an intelligence from those that are not. The cryptologist, when breaking a code, looks for patterns that create meaning and are not due to chance. SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) does the same in its search for signals of intelligence from space (think Jodie Foster in Contact). Even Quincy's forensic science was all about trying to determine whether a death was due to an accident, natural causes, or the design of an intelligence.



William Dembski puts it this way: "Specified complexity powerfully extends the usual mathematical theory of information, known as Shannon information. Shannon's theory dealt only with complexity, which can be due to random processes as well as to intelligent design. The addition of specification to complexity, however, is like a vise that grabs only things due to intelligence. Indeed, all the empirical evidence confirms that the only known cause of specified complexity is intelligence."



Thus when Dembski observes this specified complexity in DNA messages and protein coding, he infers intelligent design. These patterns give real information in the form of meaningful instructions, precisely analogous to language with words, sentences, punctuation marks, and grammatical rules.



The old "scientific creationism" based itself upon two tenets: a supernatural agent created all things, and the Bible gives us an accurate account of what happened. In contrast, according to Dembski, intelligent design is built upon three very different tenets:



1. Specified complexity is well defined and empirically detectable.

2. Undirected natural causes are incapable of explaining specified complexity.

3. Intelligent causation best explains specified complexity.



The anti-ID school might argue that in the case of biological evolution, natural causes do eventually produce the specified complexity we see in living things. Natural selection culls through countless mutations over time, eventually producing specified complexity. As the need for survival helps organisms evolve, new information is created and they ratchet their way up into new forms.



The problem with this scenario, according to ID theorists, is that mutations do not produce new information. Natural selection has slim pickin's to choose from, even when it picks the fittest. Without an intelligence to produce new information, no amount of re-shuffling of genes will result in a new organism.



Biologist Peter Medawar called this principle the law of conservation of information. Michael Polanyi himself believed that natural selection and mutation, the two mechanisms of neo-Darwinism, are inadequate for the task of producing new anatomies or functions in evolving animals. The focus on information theory is one reason mathematicians have often been more skeptical of rigid Darwinist explanations than their colleagues in biology.



If the creation of new information is such a problem, you ask, then why isn't this common knowledge in our institutions of higher learning? And if intelligent design is such an obvious answer, why haven't we heard more about this before? For one thing, no one's ever gotten far enough along to test it before. But William Dembski is getting close.



Bruce Gordon says that design theory, as a scientific strategy, involves two goals: 1. to mathematically characterize designed structures (using stochastic processes theory, probability theory, complexity theory, etc.) to detect intelligent design, and 2. to go into nature and see whether the mathematical structures map onto the physical structures in a way indicative of design.



This, of course, is precisely what Dembski has been preparing to do with his research center. He is laying the groundwork to hire molecular biologists to do research on protein structure and protein folding to test ID. "What has to happen," says Dembski, "is that ID has to generate research that's more fruitful for biology than neo-Darwinism."



Philosophizing Science. There is a method used in science today that goes beyond the scientific method. It's based on a philosophy called naturalism, defined by Funk & Wagnalls as "the doctrine that all phenomena are derived from natural causes and can be explained by scientific laws without reference to a plan or purpose." It's the "without plan or purpose" part that nixes intelligent design.



When this philosophy is applied to science, it's called methodological naturalism, and for many scientists today it is an unquestioned assumption. Methodological naturalism proposes that scientists be provisional atheists in their work, no matter what contrary evidence they find. Intelligent design proponents are asking simply that science be purified of all philosophical biases. At least, no philosophical bias should be promoted as scientific. Scientists are welcome to hold to personal philosophies and even have them running in the background, as guiding principles, if they think that helps them do their work. But those personal philosophies should not be confused with science. Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson stated the issue succinctly at the congressional briefing: Americans, he said, must choose between two definitions of science in our culture: 1. science is unbiased, empirical testing that follows the evidence wherever it leads, or 2. science is applied materialist philosophy which, like Marxism or Freudianism, is willing to impose its authority.



Being Methodologically Correct. "The twentieth century was the high point of methodological correctness," says President Sloan. "We all know that life is more than sociology or history or anthropology. Unfortunately, people have forgotten that the methodological brackets we apply are purely artificial, intended to be temporary."



ID keeps an open mind, and is entirely agnostic on the subject of religion. The intelligent design that Dembski hopes to detect could belong either to a Biblical God or to an earlier race of Martians who planted us here (like in the movie Mission to Mars).



The idea that life here was seeded from another place may seem pretty far out. But Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of DNA's structure, is one of a number of scientists who have seriously promoted the "panspermia" hypothesis, the idea that life was sent here in the form of seeds from a faraway civilization. The reason for such an idea? Crick wrote that "the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd."



Writing with his colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe, Crick stated: "The theory that life was assembled by an intelligence...is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific." Asked about the Mission to Mars possibility, Michael Shermer replies, "That's a legitimate hypothesis. That's testable, that's explainable. But 'a miracle happened' -- that's different." In other words, design is detectable and testable--but only as long as you can be sure ahead of time that the designer isn't God.



Top 10 Accusations. Bill Dembski is guilty of: (a) Politically incorrect thought-crimes. (b) True crimes against science and religion. You decide. Here are the leading accusations--and how the Polanyi Center folks reply:



1. It's all a front for the creationists. Lewis Barker: "These people are creationists. They define that as someone who takes a literal interpretation of Genesis."



Reply: ID is a research project to find out if design is detectable. Unlike creationism, it's not concerned with the identity of the designer. It proposes scientific tests that can be falsified, not presuppositions that must be believed. Bruce Gordon says, "The Polanyi Center has no interest at all in the Biblical literalist approach. I have considerable problems with it. It doesn't do justice to science nor to Biblical hermeneutics."



2. It's all politics. Michael Shermer: "Their agenda is a re-introduction of Judeo-Christian thought into the public schools. They're carrying out a bottom-up strategy, by starting in the academy."



Reply: The Polanyi Center's purpose is research, not getting involved in politics or textbook wars. If ID proves correct, say its adherents, its research results should of course be included in textbooks. But no one at Polanyi is proposing that Genesis be taught in public schools.



3. ID is a science stopper. Complaining Baylor faculty members, says one journalist, "see the intelligent design crowd as seeking to put a tourniquet on inquiry."



Reply: Dembski says that naturalism often stops inquiry, "such as in its expectation for the uselessness of vestigial organs and junk DNA, whereas intelligent design profitably continues looking for their function." The call for the dissolution of the Polanyi Center is a better example of "putting a tourniquet on inquiry." Even ID proponent Phillip Johnson, the Berkeley law professor most abhorred by ID critics, does not advocate the removal of Darwinism from the curriculum, but that schools should "teach the controversy."



4. ID doesn't want peer review or criticism. Included in the Baylor biologists' letter to Congress was the claim: "The supporters of intelligent design have never openly presented their data."



Reply: Anyone looking at the list of scientists invited to the "Nature of Nature" conference should be cured of that notion. The majority were critics of ID.



5. All they say is that God did it. And where did He come from? Saying that God did it, writes Darwinist Richard Dawkins, only leaves us with an unobservable cause that itself needs to be explained.



Reply: ID, says Dembski, studies the results, the design, not the agent that produced it. Dembski further points out that most new theoretical entities would forever remain off limits if their source had to be fully understood before they could be proposed. Example: Boltzmann's kinetic theory of heat, which invoked the motion of unobservable particles (now called atoms and molecules), which Boltzmann could not explain.



6. ID can't be quantified. Lewis Barker: "There is absolutely no prediction Dembski can make. His arguments do not produce a new research agenda."



Reply: Lewis Barker should read Dembski's monograph, in which he lays out rigorous, mathematical tests to identify complex specified information and to show how CSI always implies intelligent design.



7. All ID can do is criticize evolution. Eugenie Scott: "It is certainly fair to describe them as anti-evolutionists."



Reply: In fact, says Bruce Gordon, "intelligent design is compatible with evolution. Many biologists are theistic evolutionists. Design can be understood as built into the initial conditions, so that the subsequent development was continuous and not interrupted by any transcendent intervention. Yet the teleology could still be quantified through the methods of the mathematical techniques of design theory."



8. It's bad theology. Eugenie Scott: "Theologians don't like it because it creates a mammoth 'God-of-the-gaps' problem."



Reply: If intelligent causes exist (as forensic science and SETI already assume), then it is wrong to assume that all gaps in present knowledge must eventually be filled by non-intelligent causes.



9. It's bad science, or not science at all.



Reply: Dembski points out that if you say ID is not science because it can't be observed, then we must also toss out theoretical entities like quarks, super-strings, and cold dark matter. If you say it's not science because the design is not repeatable, then out goes the big bang, the origin of life, and the origin of humans. If you say science must deal exclusively with what is governed by law, then out goes the special sciences that deal with intelligent agents, like forensics and SETI. ID advocates aren't asking to be cut any more slack than these.



10. ID invokes supernatural causes. According to Eugenie Scott and biologist/philosopher Michael Ruse, science studies natural causes, and to introduce design is to invoke supernatural causes.



Reply: Dembski says that this contrast is wrong: "The proper contrast is between undirected natural causes on the one hand and intelligent causes on the other. Whether an intelligent cause is located within or outside nature is a separate question from whether an intelligent cause has acted within nature. Design has no prior commitment to supernaturalism."



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

Fred Heeren is a science journalist who writes about modern cosmology, paleontology, and biology. He lives in Wheeling, Illinois. This article also appears in the November 2000 issue of The American Spectator. (Posted 11/15/00)

[Lindox]

"Man has been here 32,000 years. That it took a hundred million or so years to prepare the world for him is proof that is what it was done for.

I suppose it is, I dunno.

If the Eiffel tower were now representing the world's age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for.

I reckon it would. I dunno."

"I believe the Heavenly Father invented man because he was disappointed in the monkey."

"It now seems plain to me that the theory ought to be vacated in favor of a new and truer one...the Descent of Man from the Higher Animals."

~Mark Twain~

[Acarson]

I cannot let you go on with out knowing the truth of creation. I hope you are ready to accept it.

Open Letter to the Kansas ... (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/&sa=X&oi=smap&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&usg=__QR7gxGVk1UQUX9C_UBPg6wz3D0w=) - www.venganza.org/about/open-letter

[Lindox]

I cannot let you go on with out knowing the truth of creation. I hope you are ready to accept it.

Open Letter to the Kansas ... (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/&sa=X&oi=smap&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&usg=__QR7gxGVk1UQUX9C_UBPg6wz3D0w=) - www.venganza.org/about/open-letter

Thanks Acarson. I was wondering what that thing was that I couldn't see.

[Wise Young]

Thanks Acarson. I was wondering what that thing was that I couldn't see.

Why of course, the Flying Speghetti Monster. Have you been "touched" yet?
For more information on the Church of FSM, see http://www.venganza.org/ and play the FSM Game http://www.venganza.org/games/index_large.htm and there is even a Wikipedia description of this religion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster, which describes the origins of the name Pastafarians that followers call themselves (pasta + Rastafarian).

The FSM is not the first. In 1952, Bertrand Russell created "the Celestial Teapot" to refute the notion that the burden of proof rests on the skeptic to falsify religious claims. He posited that a china teapot is revolving around the sun in an elliptical orbit and that the teapot is too small to be seen by our most powerful telescope. Russell pointed out that because the assertion cannot be disproved does not mean that it should not be doubted (Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot)).

More recently, in the early 1990's, the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) has emerged. IPU is the goddess of of a satiric parody religion, which aims to satirize the contradictory properties of a theistic God. IPU is used by athiests to remind theists that their religious beliefs are no more valid than the IPU. Many web sites are now devoted to IPU (Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn)).

Russell's celestial teapot (RCT), the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU), and the Flying Speghetti Monster (FSM) are all intended to point out the fallacies of religions. RCT, IPU, and FSM are all invisible. Presumably, God is invisible. That is why you can't see them. Being invisible does not mean that they don't exist.

A legitimate question is whether science and religion are contradictory. Let us break this question down into biteable chunks. The difficulty of religious beliefs for science is that the God introduces an unknown factor in every equations describing nature. Let me call this influence of God, the G-factor.

Is it possible to do science with a G-factor in every equation, representing the unknown influence of God? I would like to suggest that it is possible and that many scientists work all the time with unknowns in their equation. In fact, one of the characteristics of good scientists is the humility of knowing that you do not know or control all the variables.

Can the G-factor be abused? Yes, of course. For example, a student once responded to my questions about genes and evolution with the suggestion that "God made up genes to fool scientists into believing that organisms evolved". Some of the intelligent designer assumptions, i.e. the eye is too complex and therefore must have been designed, belongs in this category of abuse.

Can the G-factor be defined. Why not? If God is real, the G-factor should be definable. In fact, if we assume that the G-factor is unknowable, that would not be appropriate and would be an obstacle to good science. We may not be able to define the value of the G-factor exactly but it should be estimated. If the G-factor has a big influence on the equation, we need to know that.

Wise.

[adi chicago]

why humans are unique?[brain size ,intelligence and the way to be the masters of the world]?can other species do what we humans can do?i cannot smell blood like a shark or to have the vision of an eagle ,but as a human i am the master of the world.why?every animal is diffr.
the bible or darwin?is still an enigma ,like a sci 100% cure.

[Kendell]

I remember when I was a kid, looking up at the stars one night and wondering where they came from. I imagined that there was no Earth, no planets, no stars , etc. until I was left with space. When I tried to erase space from my mind in search of a complete void, I failed. My mind could not - and still cannot - grasp the concept of absolute nothingness.

The simple answer espoused by many religions is that there never was nothing because there was always God, who made all things. Not so simple for me. Just where did God come from? Where did his powers to create all things derive from? Was there something before God and .. if so... what... or was I back to absolutely nothing and God simply sprang into being from nothing?

Or is God a fallacy and , at one point, there was a total void which somehow resulted in a Big Bang from which sprung all creation that has evolved over time into the universe as we know it?

Questions.. questions... and I , like most everyone, have sought answers that make sense to me. Intelligent design makes sense to me since most of my beliefs are based on my feeling that the design of the universe is so complex that there must be intelligence behind it. I welcome intelligent design if it may be able to find answers and is able to do so in a scientific way.

[Hellonwheels]

I have come to the conclusion, after having some of the same questions as you, that the mistake in the "Bang" theory (at least in the way that it is usually talked about) is that there ever was a true beginning or there will ever be a true end to the universe. Since energy can not be created or destroyed, then the Big Bang, or whatever occurred at the "beginning" of our current phase, was a transition instead. The energy which all things are made of always existed, and always will. Perhaps the universe cycles through certain phases, and if so has no doubt done it and will do it an infinite number of times. Perhaps in many trillions of "years" some other beings in another iteration of the cycle will again ponder this question. If my hypothesis is true, then there really is such a thing as infinity. And if a god can be forever, why not the universe?

[Chicago]

I feel like science (evolution) and religion (faith) is being treated much like the Iraq and Iran war back in the 1980's. One where politics trys to choose the lesser of 2 evils in a pit bull fight. When in reality, they don't contradict each other, except ye believe in miracles. And even in the case of miracles, does science really object to manipulations.

For example, In a republic, where do you hold a select few heads accountable compared to a king. A king has more to fear in my opinion. And what does this has to do with evolution, well a lot if your a knight in the wrong court. But yeah, take away the politics and evolution has more elbow room.

On the lighter side of things: I don't see how energy has a status of being pertetual. Also, trillions of years is an awful long time and every thing will probably be expended eventually.

On the weightier matter: The evidence of God hinges on faith because faith is measurable. It not only moves poeple religiously but also scientifically and politically.

Unwavering faith is not so easily dismissed if it's rooted in truth. Does the answer of a GOOD conscious sanctify truth. In part, yes - a GOOD conscious can be sufficient. But only because the law of the supernatural is designed to supercede the natural. Otherwise, how will you face that which is unknown.

Is evolution as moving. No because it's seen and hope that is seen is not hope, else what do you hope for. The potential of learning from nature is good and doesn't eclipse one's faith unless politics creates a law that wars faith and nature against each other.

[Janus]

This is a great conversation. I've always been interested in the debates about God, evolution, and science in general, but a lot of it strikes me as sort of strange. I guess what I mean is that one thing seems to have nothing to do with the other. I know God exists, but for me there is no "why" about it. I just do and there is nothing that could possibly happen in the world that could disprove it in my mind, because what constitutes proof in science is not proof in religion. In religion there IS no proof. Reason has nothing to do with Faith. God made the world and he made us and he gave us a way to understand the world- that's science. But we apprehend His divine nature though Faith. It cannot even be expressed in words; it's ineffable. Yes the world is a hard place sometimes, and bad things happen and upset us, but as it has been said "Earth hath no sorrow Heaven cannot heal." I just don't think that evolution is something to "believe in" in the same way one has Faith and believes in God. Evolution is just how God created us, and how he made all the beautiful things in the world! If people don't believe in God, their ideas about the universe and existence are usually constrained by the bounds of time, space, reason, and such. Faith is a higher revelation, and those who don't have it perhaps see life the way they do in order that the epiphany of Faith will be all the more beautiful once they experience it. I can't claim to know. I just have a hard time understanding how people cannot believe in God, because I experience Him so fundamentally and immediately as a part of my nature and being. It seems so essential to me that I feel like someone who doesn't have Faith must different than me in a way that is hard for me to grasp. What do you all think about this?

[Wise Young]

This is a great conversation. I've always been interested in the debates about God, evolution, and science in general, but a lot of it strikes me as sort of strange. I guess what I mean is that one thing seems to have nothing to do with the other. I know God exists, but for me there is no "why" about it. I just do and there is nothing that could possibly happen in the world that could disprove it in my mind, because what constitutes proof in science is not proof in religion. In religion there IS no proof. Reason has nothing to do with Faith. God made the world and he made us and he gave us a way to understand the world- that's science. But we apprehend His divine nature though Faith. It cannot even be expressed in words; it's ineffable. Yes the world is a hard place sometimes, and bad things happen and upset us, but as it has been said "Earth hath no sorrow Heaven cannot heal." I just don't think that evolution is something to "believe in" in the same way one has Faith and believes in God. Evolution is just how God created us, and how he made all the beautiful things in the world! If people don't believe in God, their ideas about the universe and existence are usually constrained by the bounds of time, space, reason, and such. Faith is a higher revelation, and those who don't have it perhaps see life the way they do in order that the epiphany of Faith will be all the more beautiful once they experience it. I can't claim to know. I just have a hard time understanding how people cannot believe in God, because I experience Him so fundamentally and immediately as a part of my nature and being. It seems so essential to me that I feel like someone who doesn't have Faith must different than me in a way that is hard for me to grasp. What do you all think about this?

Janus,

One assertion that has been made or implied is that religion is not compatible with evolution and vice versa. On the side of people who favor evolution, there is the claim that one cannot believe in an "Intelligent Designer" and do meaningful biological research. On the side of religious people who believe that evolution contradicts the Biblical version of creation, there is the claim that evolutionary theory is incompatible with faith.

I certainly don't want to get into that argument right now but would like to ask a more mundane question. Is evolutionary theory crucial or even important for biological research? For example, I asked my students whether they could think of ten examples of how the theory of evolution contributes to the research that they do. To my chagrin, they could not. This is of course shameful for me because it means that I have not been a good teacher.

So, let me talk about some of the reasons why evolutionary theory is absolutely crucial for the science that we do, and particularly spinal cord injury research, since that is the field that we know best and can understand the relevance of. Let me just give three examples:

1. Animal models of spinal cord injury. Clearly, if species are not connected to each other through evolution and were independently created by a Creator or Intelligent Designer, there is no reason why models of spinal cord injury in a rat (for example) would produce results that would necessarily be relevant to human. The fact that we can find mechanisms axonal growth and myelination in animals that are as primitive as the roundworm (C. elegans) to the African clawed toad (Xenopus laevis) to mouse and rats, and ultimately to monkeys and humans not only supports the presence of evolution but is a general assumption that underlies all animal research.

2. Genetic similarity across species. What the human genome project has shown us is the degree of similarity between us and other species. We share a truly remarkable proportion of our genes with the lowly E. coli bacteria, for example. What most people don't realize, however, is how much our science depends on this similarity. For example, probably 90% of the metabolic pathways that are being taught in medical schools were first investigated and modelled in bacteria and yeast. Some have not even been validated in human. When you open a human biochemistry textbook, you realize that a majority of the chemical and metabolic pathways were determined not in human and often not even in mammals but from yeast and bacteria.

3. Phylogenetic similarities of DNA sequences are not restricted to the genes but are there are remarkably coincidental gene sequences even in portions of the DNA that do not encode genes. For example, several years ago, we were interested in finding DNA sequences in rat Y-chromosome that would allow us to identify cells that are male. This turned out to be more challenging than we thought. The sequences of human Y-chromosome genes are known but those in the rat were not known as well at the time. It turned out that the "nonsense" sequences in the Y-chromosomes that don't code for genes are well preserved across phylogeny.

As a working scientist, I must say that it is difficult to me to understand how biological research can be carried out without an acceptance of evolution. It seems everything that I do involves the assumption of evolution, that species are related through evolution, and that all of life on earth is related to each other. Of course, there is the view that was expressed by a student... perhaps God created evolution to fool you scientists into thinking that there is evolution.

Wise.

[Acarson]

Doctor Young-you mentioned one time that we might have a faith gene. I spent many years trying to find God. As a Catholic, as a Baptist, and even as a Jew. What I found was that religion put constraints on what maybe a power that we will never understand. As a result, I have no idea what God is or might be-maybe matter and energy is all there is. But to my first sentence, I think some of us are hardwired to believe in a God-and I used that word because I don't know of any other word to use. I think we agreed on the point that there is no thought after death. I certainly don't remember the first 13 billion years of the universe, and I am sure I will not be aware of anything during the next 13 billion years. I guess that's why I cannot bring myself to commit suicide. This is all there is-I think-so I guess I'll drive it to the end.

Back to evolution: it is what it is. Sometimes we cannot see things that are right in front of us.

[Adrian]

Wise: Phylogenetic similarities of DNA sequences are not restricted to the genes but are there are remarkably coincidental gene sequences even in portions of the DNA that do not encode genes.

Some of the non-coding sections of our DNA, according to some books I have read, actually tell a remarkable story about our history. There is evidence that some of the non coding sections are the remnants of retroviruses that are now no longer active.


Due to long statistical odds, retroviruses (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=rv.TOC) usually infect the DNA of somatic cells and are dubbed exogenous. In the event that a virus integrates itself into a portion of germline DNA, it becomes endogenous and is subject to normal Mendelian inheritance. The co-evolution of the virus and its host entails that the host’s progeny will inherit the virus.


The host organism has become immune to the retrovirus so that that section of DNA is no longer transcribed and and the virus, in the form in which it infected the original host, is no longer in existence. The non-coding DNA is a sort of inert hangover from an era in which it was capable of being transcribed and translated to produce a retrovirus. We are left with what appears to be a section of DNA without a function, however when we share similar functionless sections of DNA with other species it hints at a shared origin in which that section of DNA was acquired as a retroviral infection in a shared ancestor:
http://darwinsbeagles.wordpress.com/


This image (courtesy Lavie et al. 2004) confirms the presence of HERV-K(HML-5) homologous sequences in various primate species:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=479102&blobname=zjv0160449960005.jpg

Here, we see that HERV-K is present in numerous primate species, indicating that HERV-K was fixed in an ancestral genome whose descendents include all the above species, including Homo sapiens.
The shared ERVs between humans and chimpanzees (as well as other primates) represent one of the most convincing and intriguing arguments for the descent of man. Fossils and comparative anatomy can take us far, but retroviral evidence chronicles the evolutionary history of our species in unprecedented detail.


I first came accross this idea in work that had been done on species of whale. The similartiy between the base sequence on some sections of the whale DNA and the sequence on some modern whale retroviruses told a story about whale evolution and the evolution of modern retrovirus species.

I find it fascinating and unsurprising that the genes we share with other species provide strong evidence of evolution but I was more surprised to dicover that the non coding sections of DNA also provide very strong evidence of shared origins.

[Ozymandias]

Professor-
Would you please answer a few questions? How would you respond to the question the interviewer asks in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&mode=related&search=

Dawkins had to think for a moment, and this makes sense because the question does not seem quite clear. What he's trying to get across with his answer, however, is not immediately evident to me.

For example, if one had two random strings of 1,000,000 digits, one could say that in a sense both strings contained an equal amount of information. If I am right in my understanding, however, two organisms might have equal amounts of genetic material, but one organism could be far more complex than the other.

But also, if it makes sense to put it this way, my impression is that there are also "lower" organisms that carry more genetic information than we do. Is this correct, and if so, what is the proper way to express it? Gene density multiplied by number of base pairs?

I guess what I'm asking has two parts- what sense would you make of the question itself (if any), and what would your response be? Clayton

[Adrian]

For example, if one had two random strings of 1,000,000 digits, one could say that in a sense both strings contained an equal amount of information. If I am right in my understanding, however, two organisms might have equal amounts of genetic material, but one organism could be far more complex than the other.

But also, if it makes sense to put it this way, my impression is that there are also "lower" organisms that carry more genetic information than we do. Is this correct, and if so, what is the proper way to express it? Gene density multiplied by number of base pairs?

I guess what I'm asking has two parts- what sense would you make of the question itself (if any), and what would your response be? Clayton

It would be surprising if the absolute amount of genetic material was the sole contolling factor in an organisms complexity. Surely the way that different genes interact is an important factor. 100 genes, each acting independently would produce a less complex equation than fifty genes that can interact with each other in groups of variable size and varying combinations in addition to acting independently.
Just because books have equal numbers of words it does not mean that they are equally complex - one book could tell a child's story and the other could have characters that interact in a variety of complimentary and antagonistic relationships in an intricate and subtle plot. In the same way, the number of base pairs is not the only factor in determining complexity.
In addition, in eukaryotic organisms there are many base pairs that are not coding for amino acids as parts of genes, hence I speculate that it is theoretically possible that an organiism with more DNA may actually have less genes than an organism with less DNA but also with a lower proportion of non-coding base pairs.
It is a complicated equation with many variables besides the absolute quantity of DNA in an organism's genome.

[Wise Young]

Professor-
Would you please answer a few questions? How would you respond to the question the interviewer asks in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&mode=related&search=

Dawkins had to think for a moment, and this makes sense because the question does not seem quite clear. What he's trying to get across with his answer, however, is not immediately evident to me.

For example, if one had two random strings of 1,000,000 digits, one could say that in a sense both strings contained an equal amount of information. If I am right in my understanding, however, two organisms might have equal amounts of genetic material, but one organism could be far more complex than the other.

But also, if it makes sense to put it this way, my impression is that there are also "lower" organisms that carry more genetic information than we do. Is this correct, and if so, what is the proper way to express it? Gene density multiplied by number of base pairs?

I guess what I'm asking has two parts- what sense would you make of the question itself (if any), and what would your response be? Clayton

The lowly rice plant has about 60,000 genes, more than twice the number of genes as the human. Evolution simply superimposed genes upon genes. It doesn't undo genes. So, the longer the evolution and the more changes have occurred, the more complex the genetic code will be.

Regarding the question of the complexity of the organism and the complexity of the code, it is clear that the one does not necessarily predict the other. Also, the length of the code does not necessarily indicate the information content of the code. For example, a Shakespearean sonnect is a short piece of code that may contain far more information than the voluminous printout of seismographic data of the earth for one day.

Finally, complexity of control does not correlate with the complexity of the task. Think about what a fruitfly must do in for motor control. Their neurons have to control six legs and two wings while our neurons just have to control two legs. They have several thousand neurons compared to billions for us. So, complex control systems are not necessarily better.

Wise.