Psalm 139:13-14

13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

I myself believe in God's Machine. The universe being a system that can unfold on its own and in the process creates life.

But this sort of reminds me of a reverse Hitchhiker's Guide's babelfish dilemma.

Nothing is science can prove or disprove God's existence. It is a question of faith. However, man is not a perfect being. Therefore man should misinterpret what science teaches and be biased one way or the other. The fact that man has a choice to believe or not can only exist by design. Therefore God exists.

The point for many parents it to get the big picture across and make them understand what is going on . Problem.. how to do it without lying to them.. Answer.. Badly

It's true that Republicans have a problem with their base that doesn't think evolution is good science.

BUT... it's better than democrats, whose base doesn't think economics is good science.

Give the devil his due; this question was as diabolical as it was exploratory.

Make no mistake - there are compromises that must be made to accommodate evolution and the Old Testament. Those who are not so willing are the same ones who find one School Board a year to advocate teaching "Creationism" alongside evolution. Dangerous ground that, Intelligent Design notwithstanding.

The allure of teaching "Creationism" is a mantrap into which many conservatives might easily fall, including President Bush. Any wavering in support for evolution would be as injurious to the quest for centrist and independent voters as it would be red meat to some fundamentalists. Tactically speaking, this would be unwise and candidates word your answers with care.

For Rosie is salivating with the inevitable Taliban comparisons and to note that under Sharia law, belief in evolution cannot be other than a jailable offense.

For at least the last 100 years evolution has been about as well accepted in the scientific community as, say, Newton's Laws of motion, although I'm certain this comment will find the usual doubters. It is fair to say however, that there are no dispositive arguments against evolution and an election fought on these grounds would be a sure loss, however much I respect the strength of your belief.

Just the same, this is a landmine better sidestepped.

"...is there anything heretical in believing in evolution? No."

I've got to disagree. I used to think that, but I've grown since then. Evolution does not seek to "explain how God did it" - it replaces God. And that is what it is "designed" to do. As Dawkins said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." That is exactly the point. One starts with the philosophical premise that God does not exist and the Bible is a lie. Something must explain life and that something is evolution. Evolution replaces God. Evolution (or the Cosmos, if you like) becomes God. It is either/or, not both. Two contradictory and competing philosophies.

My feelings run pretty much parallel to yours, Jay. I really don't see that religion has to be incompatible with science. It's entirely possible that someday science will prove the existence of God. Although He might not be anything like most think He is.

I think of God as a source. Something big of which we are all a smaller part of. Not a separate entity passing down edicts, punishing the unbelievers and "moving in mysterious ways".

Why should God have to punish the unbeliever anyway? We have people that do that.

Count on the creationists to find the area where evolutionists require faith; that the development of so-called 'irreducible complexities' was by natural means, because the scientists cannot yet explain them so.
=================================

IMHO, the Bible was written in a manner which could be understood by the vast, uneducated masses. We were taught that the earth was created in 6 days, because we would not be able to comprehend the idea of a billion years. Things were in effect 'dumbed down' so that we would get the 'big picture', rather than let the actual details obscure God's message.

But I'm appalled at the people who won't let the arguments of the ID people into public classrooms. Where, but science class, should we be discussing the theory of knowledge? Why do scientists and educators think that evolution can't hold its own in a debate about science? Are they afraid children are going to have to think?
==============================

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Jeff is correct, it is all about faith. No science can ever determine the mind of GOD. Just not possible. As far as evolution goes, I have no problem with it as long as it is taught as a theory, and have the teachers explain to the child what a theory is.

I have been around a while and I have seen scientists, many times, make incorrect assertions. Another ice age, eggs are bad for you, etc. For me, I will rely on my faith for eternity, not science. I do respect the dicipline and education of scientists though. This latest global warming sham is again showing how inaccureate scientists can be. ww

Jeff, your comment came in while I was typing. Are you saying that evolution, that for which we have a tangible fossil record of, was explained with the purpose of disproving God? I don't believe so. It was seized upon by some as a relacement, yes, but I don't believe that was the original intention.

Even so, many religionists, while unable to disprove the fossil record right in front of their faces, have adapted and come up with "intelligent design" theories. So not all are as unbending as you may think. They are indeed adapting.

How the hell did my comment post again so much later? Can you delete it please?

Nevermind. I'm tripping :-)

Oyster,

Obviously, I have no problem with the fossil record. How can one? It is what it is. It hardly proves (macro) evolution. The "fossil record" and the "geologic table" are not the same thing. One actually exits. The actual fossil record does not jibe with Darwin's theory. The Cambrian Explosion, the lack of transitional forms, the "appearance" of design, etc. are problems that are largely ignored or given unsatisfying explanations. The theory of evolution can never be disproved however, because it is the "incredible morphing theory." No matter what contradictory evidence is found it will always be absorbed and casually explained away. It is philosophy, not science.

Instead of taking Christians to task for this, why not take Matthews to task for demanding a one-word answer to a complex question? It was ~he~ that presumed that religion and science don't mix.

To me, the Creation/Evolution "debate" is a red herring. Coming at it from the extremes of either side, people are demonized as heretics or unthinking boobs who don't believe in science. While some on the Creation side are fearful of science, mainly out of ignorance, some on the Evolution side use it to "prove" the nonexistence of God.

Science can only carry us so far. The best criminal investigators can figure out a whole bunch from the evidence they find, but can never know conclusively the "why" of a crime unless the perpetrator gives an accurate first-hand account.

On the other hand, I cannot "prove" the existence of God through empirical means. Should that be surprising? I think not. It is certainly possible that "someone" created all that we see (whatever the mechanisms involved), but we are unable to see the Creator.

Dang! Gotta go! Conitnued later...

John not Kerry

"Coming at it from the extremes of either side, people are demonized as heretics or unthinking boobs who don't believe in science."

Not quite. The label of "heretic" is only applied to those who claim to be within the Christian faith. If you are not in the faith, you are simply an "unbeliever". May I suggest that this is the real political football? Politicians who say they believe in evolution do not have the courage of their convictions to go all the way and say that they do not believe in God. This would be true political suicide. As is usually the case with politicians, they try to have it both ways and placate the broadest number of people possible.

At least the ones who say they do not believe evolution have the courage to take a stand - and deserve respect for it.

The self described "liberal Democrat" editor of my local newspaper liked the evolution question so much he called our two Republican Senators to ask them to answer it. I mean it's so utterly pertinent to the problems of the world today, isn't it?

If a creator did fabricate the world, it certainly would have been by means found in nature; hence, the world is naturally created, by God.

Heh, heh. Dispute that.
==========================================

Jeff, the purpose of my comment was not to say there is proof of evolution or that evolution disproves creation. It was merely to demonstrate that more and more people are actively trying to find some middle ground with the "intelligent design" theory, though there is still a hard core group at both ends of the spectrum. On one end we have the, let's call them, "athiest evolutionists" who castigate those who are trying to reconcile their beliefs with scientific discoveries and the, let's call them, "unbending creationists" who also castigate the same group.

I am willing to entertain a lot of ideas myself. That more and more others are willing to do the same is encouraging to me. It does seem though that more Christians have been far more accomodating than the athiests.

But you're absolutely right about the politicians. I'd guess there are a lot of them who do not have the courage to admit to being agnostic and that neither science nor religion can give us all the answers.

Actually it does not require one to be of any religion what so ever to question the theory of evolution, after all it will always remain an artificial construct.

Jay, in some religions, let's say Evangelic, the word of the bible is absolute. Therefore, science must fit the text. In other religions, let's say Catholicism, the church's hierarchy can 'evolve' with scientific advances since they are not burdened by the mostly myths of the old testament.

Your line of science not disbelieving or replacing God, but a means to explain what and how He did it etc., was the best I heard of explaing science and God. It is what my father, a devout Catholic ,taught me. Beautiful and simple.

"The fact that man has a choice to believe or not can only exist by design. Therefore God exists." jpm100

Nice try jpm, but that line of thought is no different from the Cartesean attempt to prove "god."

Your definition is no more than man's self-wondering about what he believes amounts to having "choice" in a vain attempt to prove "design."

You can't break the chain. If we and our humble circumstance in the universe is proof of a "designer," then who designed the "designer?" Super-designer...ad infinitum?

This line of thought falls on our limited perspective of what we deem to be "cause and effect."

"That is exactly the point [evolution]. One starts with the philosophical premise that God does not exist and the Bible is a lie. " Jeff Blogworthy

Actiually, Jeff, that is just a bit simplistic.

Darwin began as a believer and signed on to the Beagle in oder to observe world-wide the proof of god's existence. By the time he reached the Galapagos, his observations had solidified the theory of evolution whicht he proposed.

The theory of evolution was born out of observation and not from a starting point of disproving god.

My father is an Engineer, a conservative, and a Catholic. I respect his religion, and have never known it to interfere with him properly executing his duties as a man of science. I don't care if people want to go to church or pray at home. I DO have a problem with people advocating for the teaching of Intelligent Design in the science classroom, as does my father--it has no empirical basis, and seeks to fill an imaginary explanatory gap with the preconceived notion of a Judao-Christian-Islamic deity. Why does the universe have to have a purpose? Why one "God"? Why not a hundred? And why assume He/She/It/They are benevolent, or omnipotent? I'm not as hostile towards religion as Dawkins, but I share his belief that when two theories are in competition, one of which is based largely on empirical evidence (albeit with explanatory gaps) and the other is predicated upon a supernatural phenomenon of which no credible empirical basis can be established with which to assert its existence... well, is there even a choice to be made for people who understand what science is and ought to be?

I don't understand why evolution only being a "theory" means it ought to be relegated to the "maybe" pile with ID. It is very likely true. The difference between a theory and a fact isn't as stark as the difference between fact and opinion, for instance. Our contemporary understanding of electricity is "merely" theoretical, after all, but I bet you're comfortable with the supposition that when you plug an electrical device into an AC outlet, it will be energized.

Kim:

"If a creator did fabricate the world, it certainly would have been by means found in nature; hence, the world is naturally created, by God.

Heh, heh. Dispute that."

Okay. Here's your argument, logically diagrammed:

A ---> B
B
ergo, A

or:

If A occurs, B occurs by necessity
B occurs
ergo, A also occurs

That's an elementary logical fallacy called asserting the consequent. Here's a simpler argument that commits the same fallacy:

"If I watch Hot Fuzz, I will laugh.
I'm laughing.
Therefore, I must have watched Hot Fuzz."

Alright, Wieder, my congratulations; you do metaphysics better than most. What a crazy mix of metaphysics and excrement you are, you poor piece of clay.
================================

No, no, SSN, it's much simpler than that; I'm simply negating the possibility of supernaturality. What ain't nature?

But, I appreciate the attempt at disputation. At heart, it was just a linguistic trick.
==================

You did spot the tautological element, which is the metaphysical metaphor for creation. It is all turtles all the way down, fool.
==============================

SSN, I believe the ID people massively underestimate the effect of time and the evolutionary value of some of the 'irreducible complexities'. There is immense survival value in mobility, which required the development of cilia, and there is untold survival value in the ability to maintain an 'internal milieu' which required a clotting mechanism among other things like membranes. This were so necessary that they were inevitable given the advantages and the time span. The IDers just don't have the right numbers plugged into the equations. They are right, though, that the evolutionists invoke faith to proclaim, nay insist, that the development of these complex systems was by natural means. They cannot prove that, yet.
========================

Why would God, have a creator?

The Universe has a Beginning and an End, God doesn't.

If God has no beginning then there is no need for God to be created?

And you suffer a common misconception, SSN, that ID advocates are all creationists in the biblical sense.

There is no better place than the science classroom for the ideas of the intelligent design advocates and those of the evolutionists to be debated. This is just explication of the theories of knowledge in a situation where most student are aware of the distinction and interested. If we do not bring this issue into the science classroom, we miss an opportunity to develop the philosophical richness of our culture, and we may well retard the elucidation of the actual natural mechanisms of the development of 'irreducible complexities'. I'm sorry you can't see it that way. Present this argument to your father and see what he says.
================================

The story of creation allows no room for "evolution" in Genesis. Each phase is completed with the phrase "and the evening and the morning were...", signifying the course of a day.

That's why Jews and Arabs still count the start of a new day at sundown.

Even on the eigth day and the creation of Adam's woman, where the English translation: bone/rib is used, the Hebrew word means "curve". So a curve is taken from Adam's body. The helix of DNA?
And the word "curve" happens to jibe with the sexes' interlocking parts :o) Cool!

So: dinosaurs(Behemoth) and deep space (Plieides and Orion) (Job), spacecraft (Ezekial), micro-organisms (Revelation), the spherical nature and rotation of Earth (Isaiah), the intended lifespan of man (120 years; Genesis), it's all in there.

Most of the confusion comes in translating the concise Hebrew or Koine Greek into (say) the more fluid English. And because of the political imperatives of royal translators. The most obvious example is substituting "servant" for the original "slave", because being slaves of God will overide being "subjects" to a man, even if the man is a king.

Ah, I took you too literally. Apologies.

The thing about creationists/ID proponents that really bothers me is their dogged insistence that the complexity of certain aspects of the universe (the human eye, the very low probability of a planet such as Earth being properly "built" and positioned such that it will sustain human life) points necessarily (or very probably) to a designer. This is false for several reasons, but the easiest to explain is that the universe, as large as it is, must contain planets nearly identical to Earth because of the "laws" of probability. If the chance of another planet such as ours existing is 1/1,000,000,000,000,000, then the fact that universe is as vast as it is, and expanding all the time, means that there are by mathematical necessity countless life-sustaining planets. Do the math: (probability of a planet like Earth existing) x (volume of space in the universe, let's say infinity minus 1) = number of planets that, along with Earth, were not designed but simply came to be.

As a former Catholic, it was a pretty harsh jolt to my psyche to realize that our planet doesn't mean anything, that the only meaning in our lives is what we create... but you get used to it. I've come to accept that consciousness is most likely an accident of evolution, and that morality is little more than an evolved precursor for our transition to social beings. Life feels more precious to me now than it did before, knowing that death is a genuine terminus of consciousness.

I didn't see your last post before posting my own at 10:56. I agree that the merits of ID need to be discussed as an alternative metaphysic, and thus that debate ought to occur in the context of a philosophy lecture. If only all high school students had the opportunity to take such a course; alas, only the minority of undergraduates who take intro level philosophy of religion/epistemology/metaphysics courses will be exposed to the debate in its proper environment. Theories of knowledge are not the jurisdiction of scientists, but of philosophers of science and epistemologists.

As for all ID proponents not being monotheists (Christians, Jews, Muslims), I'm open to the possibility that a significant number of them are simply persuaded by the argument and are not looking for a way to sneak their religious convictions into scientific discourse through the back door; I'd also like to meet some of them, as I haven't yet.

You had to go and write it, didn't you Jay? Fine.

Jeff,

The actual fossil record does not jibe with Darwin's theory.

Yes, it does. Of course Darwin was not 100% correct, and the theory has been fine-tuned since then. But all life has evolved through natural selection. The fossil record jibes perfectly with that.

The Cambrian Explosion

What about it?

the lack of transitional forms

what lack of transitional forms?

the "appearance" of design

Don't make me laugh.

are problems that are largely ignored or given unsatisfying explanations.

Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it's ignored.

The theory of evolution can never be disproved however

Sure it can. God can create another man out of clay. Instantly disproved (well, it would at least call things into doubt. One would wonder why God stopped doing that and fooled us all with evolution at the very least). Really, evidence of any supernatural tinkering or creation would suffice. Thus far, none is forthcoming. Settle in; it'll probably be a long wait.

because it is the "incredible morphing theory." No matter what contradictory evidence is found it will always be absorbed and casually explained away. It is philosophy, not science.

It is one of the most robust and well-supported scientific theories that exists. The fact that it has changed to explain new data does not harm it at all. That is how science works. Newton's laws of mechanics work quite well if you're bouncing a ball or driving a car, but they don't explain how atomic particles work or electromagenetism. Thus we have Maxwell and quantum theory. Do those explanations make Newton "wrong?" No, they do not. Further, neither Newton, Maxwell, or quantum theory explain the behavior of particles approaching the speed of light where gravity is not a factor, thus we have the theory of special relativity. Does that disprove, or in any way harm, Newton's theories? It does not. Theories in physics have developed and adapted to new information and greater understanding of the physical world the same way biology has developed and adapted to new information and greater understanding of the biological world. Finding this to be a flaw reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

But I'm appalled at the people who won't let the arguments of the ID people into public classrooms.

Because it's not science, and doesn't belong in a science classroom.

Where, but science class, should we be discussing the theory of knowledge?

Epistemology? That belongs in philosophy class.

Why do scientists and educators think that evolution can't hold its own in a debate about science?

They don't, and it can. They just have standards. Since intelligent design is not a scientific theory, is not supported by any evidence, and is really just, as they say, "creationism in a cheap tuxedo," it would be absurd to introduce it as science. Do you want astrology taught when students are learning about the solar system? Reflexology? Hollow-Earth theory? Why not?

Are they afraid children are going to have to think?

They don't want to teach students that every half-baked refashioning of religion is science. It demeans and dilutes science and does not educate. However, I, for one, welcome the introduction of intelligent design into biology class if only to show how it is not science, and to teach students to stay away from such snake oil (this is in fact done in many university biology classrooms. High school science classes have too much ground to cover and tend to move past evolution too quickly).

Belief that God created the world demands faith. I have no desire to "prove" that God created the world as accounted in Genesis (yes, I'm one of those crazy Creationists).

I do have a question for all the eggheads here, though. What would a world-wide flood punctuated by volcanic eruptions and other geological phenomena do to the earth and the creatures on it?

One thing that hasn't been brought up (surprisingly) is the concept of the earth's age. Most Christians hold that the earth is about 6,000 years old, give or take, which does not jive with the evolutionist account. However, since the 6,000 figure is based on the genealogy of Christ, one must take a very careful look at that. Jews did not record every generation, only the ones that mattered to the lineage, so it's quite possible that generations were left out - maybe more than are included. That would push the age of the earth back quite a bit - certainly not billions of years, but maybe back to 12,000 or so? I'm not sure if that happened in this particular case, but it's worth thinking about.

You seek to make a belief in evolution an extreme position but it isn't. In fact, the theory of evolution is commonly accepted as being the current best explanation for the history of life on the Earth.

Well, Abigail, since we don't know how many generations were left out, it could be more than 12,000 years. Considerably more, I'm sure you'll agree.
==============

Most Christians hold that the earth is about 6,000 years old, give or take, which does not jive with the evolutionist account.

The 1 billion + Catholics in the world don't believe that.

What I don't understand is that if Evolution is such good science then why do its' supporters fear any questioning of it. It seems that whenever any element of Evolution is questioned then the person asking the questions is immediately attacked and called called an ignorant Christian that does not believe in science. If Evolutionists are truly the supporters of the scientific method that they claim to be, without any emotional investment (aka religious belief), then they would welcome any and all criticism and know that their position can stand up under scrutiny and that this process of being so open and accepting and answering critics would win them converts.

I had a lovely conversation with a woman once whose son was amazed that the metaphysics behind creationism has a solid philosophical basis; she had to admit that, but said it was all just to make slaves of women again, and I had no good answer for that.
=================================

Correct, Greg, and a healthy discussion of the theory of knowledge is more likely to lead to the curiosity that will explicate the natural development of the 'irreducible complexities', and think of the power that knowledge could give us.

Why do those opposed to the introduction of this topic into public schools want to restrict the debate, when it so clearly is harmful to do so?
==========================

"Yes, it does. Of course Darwin was not 100% correct, and the theory has been fine-tuned since then. But all life has evolved through natural selection. The fossil record jibes perfectly with that."

Just the kind of "just-so" story and glossing of the facts I was talking about.

"It is one of the most robust and well-supported scientific theories that exists."

Indeed. It is a robustness enforced with the zeal of a Spanish inquisitor. Woe to them who dare dissent. Their careers are over. This is science?

If we do not bring this issue into the science classroom, we miss an opportunity to develop the philosophical richness of our culture, ...
kim

You disprove your own point, namely ID should be debated in philosophy class, not science class. I could teach the scientific basis for ID in one sentence:

"All this evolutionary evidence I just showed you, some people think God guided it, but I have little to no empirical proof of it. Now move along to your next class, philosophy, where you can debate the merit of believing God played a guiding role in evolution."

I've come to accept that consciousness is most likely an accident of evolution,
Song-Sae-Nim

I'd have to disagree about consciousness being an accident of evolution. Evolution doesn't really have accidents - it tries various permutations of useful appendages, organs, mental states, etc. and keep those that work. So I guess you could consider it an accident if you consider all evolution an accident.

and that morality is little more than an evolved precursor for our transition to social beings.
Song-Sae-Nim

This is where I believe the boundary between evolution and religion begin to blur, as there are no fossil records to prove or disprove an evolutionary advantage to morality. And in humans, holding these moral standards has contributed to our own evolution and acquisition of knowledge for the progress of mankind and technology which has benifitted our existence. So, there is a purpose for morality and consciousness which can be viewed in the context of evolution, and it also raises the point that God may have a role in guiding our development.

This avenue of discussion also evokes a larger question, at least for me, simply: what do you consider God? There is one aspect, which set the laws of the universe in motion and resulted in the formation of the planets, life and evolution, and eventually humans.

Then there is also the aspect of a shared consciousness and morality that humans, and some advanced animals share (for instance, a dog knows if it bites the hand of its owner, it has done something bad, but it does not have the ability to pass this knowledge onto its ancestors as humans, and possibly primates, whales, and elephants in other contexts, can).

Humans have the rare ability to recognize both and generally consider them to be part of some larger, single entity (specifically that part of the laws of the universe is the ability for consciousness to exist, so they are essentially one and the same).

Life feels more precious to me now than it did before, knowing that death is a genuine terminus of consciousness.
Song-Sae-Nim

I can't say I truly disagree, but I interpret death differently. I don't believe in heaven or hell, at least not strictly as a place w/ clouds and angels or fire and demons. I think it may be possible that, using string theory as a building block, that there may be extra dimensions we cannot experience during our life, and that upon death the 3-dimensional world we exist in becomes useless and we enter these other dimensions, with the time dimension possibly continuing, or not, who knows.

There is also the possibility that our afterlife/immortality continues on earth by the memories of one's life and work held by their children, friends, and society in general if they were famous. So, Jesus may truly have reached immortality because his existence will likely be remembered for the rest of human existence, or at least the vast majority of it. However, this of course means that not all humans will reach immortality as not everyone will be remembered. But that is where faith and religion play a role - by devoting yourself to that larger purpose and believing that every person, at least in small part, is remembered as long as that religion is worshipped.

Why do those opposed to the introduction of this topic into public schools want to restrict the debate, when it so clearly is harmful to do so?

Mainly because it is not science. If you want to have a scientific debate then you need to have more than one scientific theory or idea to discuss. Creationism or its marketing slogan, intelligent design, isn't a scientific theory.

Also, who or what is harmed by keeping creationism out of science class?

Wiedner,

Indeed. Darwin had just completed his education as a man of the cloth prior to his voyage on the Beagle. As a strong believer, his intention was to serve the church upon his return to England. His work was based on observation, not agenda.

Observation such as that occuring in fast generation species like insects and viruses that evolve before our eyes. The discovery of drug resistant viruses is one such example of evolution.

Observation such as the genome decoding, in part a revelation of historical information, yielding long, very complex tree-like structures, which associate with those of chimps at 96%.

I am a conservative and a Republican, but I would not find it reasonable to have my child taught the Navaho theory of creation in science class.

The mountain of evidence for evolution is large and growing, and peer reviewed and published in scientific journals. Most of the "evidence" cited here by the ID folks does not comport with the scientific method.

Many too thought the "Shroud of Turin" was legit until it was subjected to the rigours of real science.

Just the kind of "just-so" story and glossing of the facts I was talking about.

You want to talk about facts instead of generalities, then introduce some.

Indeed. It is a robustness enforced with the zeal of a Spanish inquisitor.

Right, you'll get put on the rack if you don't believe in evolution.

Woe to them who dare dissent. Their careers are over. This is science?

It is science. If an astronomer spends his time trying to explain how the stars determine our fates, without introducing any supporting theory, presenting any evidence supporting said theory, and instead spends most of his time insisting that his ideas be given equal time in classrooms, should he continue to have a career as an astronomer?

Of course you're right, SSN, but how many kids take science class, and how many philosophy? I maintain that the philosophy of science is properly taught in science class, and what better subject to explicate an interesting problem to interested students. What do you have to lose by discussing intelligent design in science class? I insist, contemplation of the problem is more likely to lead to earlier explication of the as yet unknown pathways of development. Why would you oppose that?

In other words, your objection is dilatory.
===============================

I just now read your 11:12 post, and I'm pleased to meet you. I thought I was an atheist until I was 15, when it occurred to me that I have no more proof of the existence as of the non-existence of God, so I've fluttered since agnostically. Recently someone exposed me to Chesterton and I'm trying to digest his criticism of skepticism.

I re-iterate that ID ideas ought to be allowed in public classrooms. We otherwise miss a chance for culture enriching discussion. I'm amazed you don't see this point.
============================

Personally, I'd be happy if schools just put a little more emphasis on the word "Theory" when discussing evolution. Too often it is taught as established fact, but it is far from proven. It does a good job of explaining what we see, but not the how or why. Rather like pre-Copernicus diagrams of the Earth/Sun relationship, it may turn out to be wrong.
Debate is healthy, but I know from experience that if you question darwinian evolution you are often tossed in with the creationists, flat earthers and raliens by virtue of your dissent. To some, like global warming, evolution is matter of near religious faith, and they will not hear infidels speak heresy about it.

What do you have to lose by discussing intelligent design in science class?

Intelligent Design, such as it is, is not an invitation to further inquiry, but rather an impediment to it. When you give an explanation that cannot be tested, cannot be falsified, is not supported by a scientific theory, and relies upon supernaturalism, you leave no avenue for further thought. You simply must accept the hand of the designer: "That looks designed." "Then it is. Moving on." Not science. It is not welcome in science classrooms because it is not worthy of the mantle of science. It is pseudoscience.

And now I've reread it and I see your elitist attempt to place thinking about knowledge into the specialized province of 'philosophers of science and epistemology'. That's your rationale for keeping it from the public young?

You, kind gentleman, are a wise fool.
===================

mantis, that objection is unbecoming. You've repeated the standard talking points without satisfactorily answering my point that ID, particularly contemporaneously, is marvelously exemplar for discussion about knowledge, which is always relevant.

Are you even still reading my stuff?
=======

Philosophy of science is properly taught in science classes? That's a nice thought, Kim, but we're a tectonic shift in pedagogy away from that coming to fruition. The philosophy of X ought to be taught in X class in all cases, in my opinion. You don't have a real understanding of whatever it is you're doing without fully appreciating the foundation upon which the given discipline is structured. However, most teachers are incapable of going about making such things clear, and anyway it's not part of any curriculum that I'm aware of. Did you ever come across names such as Thomas Kuhn or Karl Popper when building bridges out of Popsicle sticks or cross-fertilizing beans?

There's no reason to suppose that a scientist, or science teacher, would be better able to discuss the philosophy of science than there would be to suppose that your GP could coherently discuss the difference in Hippocrates' and Galen's ontologies. In a perfect world, sure, everybody would know the how and why of their profession. I don't live in such a world. And if I did, I ca assure you that completing at least one course in philosophy would be a prerequisite to graduating from high school.

You've repeated the standard talking points without satisfactorily answering my point that ID, particularly contemporaneously, is marvelously exemplar for discussion about knowledge, which is always relevant.

There are far better examples to be used for the discussion of epistemology. In any case, high school science classes being what they are and covering the breadth of material that they do, do not have time to introduce whatever crackpot theory happens to be in vogue in order to facilitate a discussion of knowledge. A teacher can introduce such discussions much more usefully by discussion the history of the study of biology (or any other science): ancient and medieval to Vesalius to Linnaeus to Buffon to Lamarck to Darwin to Wallace to Mendel. A much more satisfying discussion by virtue of the fact that it is based in actual science.

Well, folks, how about allowing them to be exposed to one contemporaneous example of epistemology, one in which they can have an active and unholy debate? Isn't that preferable to testing for knowledge of the cathedral in which Linnaeus is buried?
=============================

That is the problem, isn't it, SSN. You agree it is preferable, but impossible without a tectonic shift. How about little baby steps, then. You are fossilized, I say. Rigid.
=============================

Musn't let them think. They might make slaves of women, again.
=================================

Well, folks, how about allowing them to be exposed to one contemporaneous example of epistemology, one in which they can have an active and unholy debate?

That's fine, for philosophy class. Science classrooms are places for science.

Y'all are arguing the virtually untenable position of opposing the introduction of an idea into the education of the public young. Why would you do so, except for prejudice?
========================================

His point is that we've superceded Linnaeus, but can still appreciate his work within its appropriate context. It is my (perhaps naively optimistic) hope that Intelligent Design will receive no such treatment in the annals of the history and philosophy of science; that it will be a comical footnote alongside the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You want to foster a healthy epistemological debate? Make kids watch Blade Runner, Total Recall, The Matrix, or any other popular film that addresses an actual epistemological point of disagreement and discuss it as it relates to Descartes' scepticism. It's a genuinely debatable subject that will surely foster the same calibre of discussion on the topic of knowledge, no?

Why Intelligent Design?

I have built things you people wouldn't believe.
==============================

Y'all are arguing the virtually untenable position of opposing the introduction of an idea into the education of the public young.

No, we are arguing that it matters how you introduce ideas. If you introduce unscientific concepts as science, it does harm to the students' education. Do you really believe every pseudoscience is a legitimate topic for discussion in science class?

Why would you do so, except for prejudice?

Commitment to quality science education.

Ok, I am late to this thread. Why not discussing openly the open problems in Darwinian evolution: the information content (eg. the "genetic code") in DNA for example? Currently there are no verifiable natural mechanism to generate these codes. Let the students see whether they can see any natural mechanisms that they can experimentally verify to generate such complexity.

mantis, come on. I'm not proposing introducing this idea as science; I'm proposing introducing it as exemplar of the philosophy of science, in a science classroom, to interested and disputative students. Sure, Blade Runner might get a good discussion going, and I'm sure the Professor wouldn't feel as clownish as usual, but for heartfelt and deep thought argument, name a better contemporary issue, one about which high school students already bring some information?

Don't disappoint me. So far, this thread, I'm unimpressed.
=============

I mean, there you are stroking away with the standard objections and not paying attention to me. Want some privacy?
===============================

"It's not science". What, science is the disallowing of the consideration of an idea?

Bah, humbug.
========================

LAI,

Yawn.

mantis,
That 's a cheap talk from a known prop website. Show me the experiments that demonstrate it. Urey-Millere was an honest attempt to show that. But what happened since then.

Show me the scientific experiments. Otherwise, you are simply spouting cheap talking points. If you cannot admit that this is a huge open problem, then you either don't know what you are talking about or you are not honest enough to admit it.

sean, keep trying to understand; you've a good start.
===============================

mantis, come on. I'm not proposing introducing this idea as science; I'm proposing introducing it as exemplar of the philosophy of science, in a science classroom, to interested and disputative students.

Well, that would be fine, but it shouldn't be part of required curriculum and should not be introduced as science. Otherwise, discussion is fine. Although, as has been pointed out, science teachers often do not have much time to devote to such topics, NCLB and all. Gotta get those test scores up!

Sure, Blade Runner might get a good discussion going, and I'm sure the Professor wouldn't feel as clownish as usual, but for heartfelt and deep thought argument, name a better contemporary issue, one about which high school students already bring some information?

I'll bet more high school students are familiar with Blade Runner and The Matrix than ID.

"It's not science". What, science is the disallowing of the consideration of an idea?

No, read Kuhn and Popper to find out what science is. Consideration of ideas is fine, but defining any old crank's ideas as science is wrong. ID starts with a conclusion, and then dishonestly distorts evidence and legitimate scientific study to support that conclusion. That is not science.

mantis:
Intelligent Design, such as it is, is not an invitation to further inquiry, but rather an impediment to it. When you give an explanation that cannot be tested, cannot be falsified, is not supported by a scientific theory, and relies upon supernaturalism, you leave no avenue for further thought.

Well said.

The only thing I'll add to the discussion is that the problem of what should/ should not be taught in the classroom, as a matter of government policy, is created by having a system of government run schools.

If the private sector provided the schools with any tax based funding channeled through the parents, the decision of what should be taught in the classroom would be decided in the most democratic of forms - through the market, by the parents... and not left for politicians and bureaucrats to decide.

That 's a cheap talk from a known prop website.

Actually, it's a collection very well-referenced refutations of standard creationist arguments. The fact that you dismiss it tells me all I need to know about your position. Weak.

Show me the experiments that demonstrate it. Urey-Millere was an honest attempt to show that. But what happened since then.

So you are only talking about origins? Ok, read

Kral, T. A., Brink, K. M., Miller, S. L. and McKay, C. P. (1998). "Hydrogen consumption by methanogens on the early Earth." Orig Life Evol Biosph, 28(3): 311-319.

and get back to me. And stop reading Wells; it rots the brain.

Show me the scientific experiments. Otherwise, you are simply spouting cheap talking points. If you cannot admit that this is a huge open problem, then you either don't know what you are talking about or you are not honest enough to admit it.

I don't claim anyone has come up with an undeniable answer for the origin of life on this planet. They're working on it, though, with, you know, science. I let you know when something comes up.

By the way, pointing out that we haven't come up with the answer to every question proves absolutely nothing. Newton didn't have all the answers, but that doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist.

Mantis,
Show me the experiments. IT has been 50 yeas since Urey-Miller first experiment. So by now they should be able to perform similar if not better experiments. Given the global warming hoax, I won't be bluffed by the hiding behind the scientific authority anymore. Kids can learn computer language in high school now. So they can learn the basics of genetic in schools also. It is a huge open scientific problem currently. So intellectual honesty would require open discussion it in school. Admit that this is a huge problem that you don't have a solution now and haven't had a one since the first experiment 50 years ago. It may take another 50 or 100 years, but let 's be honest about it.

So we can we teach this openly in school now?

"If you introduce unscientific concepts as science, it does harm to the students' education."

Actually, no. You can introduce any concept into a science course. It's not the concept that makes science, but the method of investigation, the matter the data is evaluated, an so forth. I am an environmental engineer and have taken several courses involving evolution. I am also a Christian that believes the Old Testament literally. The fact of my faith has not hampered my science aptitude in the slightest. I do think it pretty amusing when devout evolutionists claim that harm will be done to students from teaching ID when just about every trace of evolutionary science could be wiped from the Earth tomorrow with little to no noticable affect. (Excepting of course the glut of former professors looking for new careers.)

that doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist.
------------------------------------------
That 's an example of cheap talk. You can show experiment to demonstrate the existence of gravity. Please show me the scientific experiments to demonstrate the creation of genetic information by random natural processes. Urey-Miller was a first attempt at that. It has been 50 years now. So you don't need to bluff any more, right?

LAI, the fact that you think there have been no subsequent experiments on origins shows how little you know about the subject. I'll give you a few, but since I have no reason to believe you'll actually try to find out about them, this is more for other readers than for you. You do not have the intellectual curiosity required.

- Joan Oró synthesized nucleotide adenine from hydrogen cyanide in the early '60s.

- Jeffrey Bada refined and reproduced the Miller experiments (see here)

- Manfred Eigen proposed the theory of the chemical hypercycle as an explanation of the self-organization of prebiotic systems in the late '70s.

- Gunter Wachtershauser introduced the iron-sulfur world theory, proposing a mechanism for near oceanic hydrothermal vents in the '80s, since refined by Martin and Russell.

There's more, but let's see if you can be honest about those first.

Gary, the word "devout" doesn't apply to scientists who apply the scientific method when discussing the origins of life on Earth. Scientists don't fetishize their methods; they evolve, as it were. Read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions to gain some understanding of the subject matter.

Unscientific alternatives to evolution have no place in a science class. Discuss them to your heart's content in a church, living room, or philosophy class. Who cares if ID isn't an impediment to properly doing scientific work? Neither is talking about unicorns. The harm is when teachers are forced to spend an hour introducing and then debunking pseudo-science when students should be studying science.

Instead of attacking evolution as a "mere" theory, why not defend ID as something more than wishful conjecture? Oh, right--you can't. I stated earlier that our current understanding of electricity is theoretical--aren't you comfortable operating on the assumption that the theory is, at least functionally speaking, a pretty good approximation of how electricity actually works?

"but let's see if you can be honest about those first."

Hope this discussion isn't too private, but here is an honest comment: The level of experimentation is impressive, but basically proves nothing one way or the other. What the scientist in the linked article did was hypothesize an atmospheric condition that could have caused DNA type chemicals to form under precise conditions. In short, the experiment was "an intelligent design." To start from the present and extrapolate all the way back to a time when such conditions may have been present has far too many inherent assumptions to be verifiable or falsifiable. And even if that were the correct atmospheric mixture and the compounds produced, you require another huge assumption to show that the compounds would form life as we know or understand it.

That's the major, unacknowledged weakness in evolutionary theory: The best that it can possibly do is show what might have happened. It can provide no assurance as to what did happen.

Song-Sae-Nim,

I had a discussion once with a young college student about evolution. She was thoroughly convinced. She was also pretty much a straight A student. I asked her why she was so convinced. She said that they had brought up large amounts of evidence, such as carbon dating, that proved it. I asked her how carbon dating was done and what it showed us. She got a blank look and confessed she wasn't really sure. Her knee-jerk reaction was to point to methods that she didn't understand and mention "large amounts of evidence," none of which she could really justify. When she and a lot of people like her are taking that much on faith, I think "devout" is a fair word to use.

"Instead of attacking evolution as a "mere" theory, why not defend ID as something more than wishful conjecture?"

That's a little difficult when no one will grant any class time to do so, wouldn't you say?

"aren't you comfortable operating on the assumption that the theory is, at least functionally speaking, a pretty good approximation of how electricity actually works?"

Yes, because unlike the most controversial claims of evolution, electrical phenomena is subject to in-lab testing of properties and verification. There is no test that can be performed to indicate positively whether one ancient fossil is in the family tree of another. You can point to physical or genetic similarities. That is all. I'm not saying that there isn't some good evidence for that point of view. I am saying that the propenents attach a certainty that is neither reasonable nor scientific.

Mantis,
No need to bluff anymore. You can definitely show scientific experiments to demonstrate gravity now. If you have scientific experiments to demonstrate how natural processes can create the genetic information, then feel free to show tehm.
If you are so confident of your theory, and Wells is such a dumb guy. Then have an open scientific discussion about the huge problem of genetic information in the DNA. You can laugh at Wells in such a debate, right? So what is the fear of openly discussing that problem in a science class room? You seem so confident that your theory is correct and it will bear out, so what is the fear?

And what's the evolutionists' explanation for fossils. I say fossils are souvenirs from the antediluvian world. This (2nd) Age has "forgot" how to make them.

LAI, agree with you re: mantis' link. Circular. Like phone tag to customer service.

Precisely, what is the fear? The justification for keeping this from young minds has been an elitist argument, so far.

Bear in mind, mantis and SSN, that I believe in evolution. And nature is an intelligent design in so far as it follows laws. Do you like this circularity which creates reality?
======================

Well, here's a coupla right brains yinyanging. Was it good for you, too?
======================================

Another comment in the realm of full disclosure: I have looked into ID enough to develop an opinion on the scientific merits of the concept one way or the other. (My opinion is that neither have most of the people criticizing it, but that would be hard to verify.) My big bone about this debate is the tactic of one side basically using the argument "your idea is stupid" to close down debate. It's been happening with evolution for a while, and now it's spread to the global warming realm. Science that is that close minded is no science at all.

The best that it can possibly do is show what might have happened. It can provide no assurance as to what did happen.
Gary Baker

And how does ID meet this criteria? It requires you take an even bigger leap of faith and say:
"All this evidence leads us to the general conclusion that life gradually evolved over millions of years. Now, just trust me that God 'designed' certain genetic information here and there and, presto, you have humans."

"Instead of attacking evolution as a "mere" theory, why not defend ID as something more than wishful conjecture?"

That's a little difficult when no one will grant any class time to do so, wouldn't you say?
Gary Baker

Why not do it here in the venue of this blog discussion? Granted, few people ever change their minds on blogs, but why not try and we'll critique or support it depending on the strength of the argument.

Gary Baker and LAI:

What is this argument about not testing evolution? Granted, we cannot test the origins of DNA or whether one fossil is in another's family tree, but there is good reason for this: we cannot time travel. You're putting an excessive burden on what you expect science to be able to achieve. It would be like expecting us to construct an entire new solar system to prove the earth revolves around the sun - it is simply not practical or reasonable. However, in other contexts we are able to test evolution on timescales we can see, namely insects and mice.

Part of science is realizing there will uncertainty in any experiment you conduct, but taking all available information to reduce this uncertainty as much as possible. Right now, all evidence points to evolution. Yes there gaps, but taking it on faith that God fills these gaps is not scientifically rigorous and it diminishes God's value because if/when these gaps are filled, you're conceding that God has less and less influence.

Imagine years from now that the entire fossil record is complete, we've explained how to do everything from the creation of DNA to the development of consciousness, does this mean God doesn't exist? I would hope not because there are reasons for belief in God other than satisfying a need to instill doubt in science.

"And nature is an intelligent design in so far as it follows laws."

Unless that's a tongue-in-cheek jab at ID, I have to disagree with you, Kim. I believe that nature would exist and follow the same "laws" whether or not we were here to describe said laws--we didn't design gravity, nor is it a social construct. Design implies intention, which nature lacks.

To repeat: the "fear" of evolutionists/scientists is that allowing ID to be taught in a science class will necessarily supplant something scientific in the curriculum. American students are already leagues behind Scandinavian, Indian, and East Asian students in maths and sciences; best not to clutter their brains with groundless conjecture.

My big bone about this debate is the tactic of one side basically using the argument "your idea is stupid" to close down debate.
Gary Baker

I could see why this could be offensive; it could be seen as an insult to your religion. But it must be done in the context of science, as there is no point debating an unverifiable conclusion (ID is a conclusion, not even a hypothesis). For instance, when cold fusion theories first came out in the mid-80's, people analyzed them and thoroughly mocked them once they were disproven. Does this mean cold fusion is not possible? Not necessarily, but certainly not without definitive proof.

This type of debate is occuring in the field of physics, as well, where some scientists say it's not worth studying string theory because there are currently no ways to test these hypothetical strings since they are so small. But at least in string theory there are mathematical means for expressing the strings, branes, and dimensions in which they theoretically exist. There is no scientific or mathematical support for ID, other than gaps and doubt in evolution, which is far from actual evidence of your position.

If you have scientific experiments to demonstrate how natural processes can create the genetic information, then feel free to show tehm.

Not the sort of work I do. But others do, and I gave you several examples, which you chose to ignore, as I predicted you would. Creationists are very predictable.

If you are so confident of your theory, and Wells is such a dumb guy.

I didn't say Wells is dumb. He's very smart, and good at what he does. Too bad he's a trickster, a specialist in bait and switch.

Then have an open scientific discussion about the huge problem of genetic information in the DNA. You can laugh at Wells in such a debate, right?

You want me to debate Wells? Ok, set it up. In the meantime, read or listen to his debate with Massimo Pigliucci.

So what is the fear of openly discussing that problem in a science class room? You seem so confident that your theory is correct and it will bear out, so what is the fear?

There's no fear, and it is discussed. And if you think people aren't trying to figure out origins, you aren't paying attention (and you've already shown that you aren't). We just aren't willing to discard the search for an explanation, throw our hands up in the air, and proclaim that god did it.

And nature is an intelligent design in so far as it follows laws.

No, nature is an ordered system in so far as it follows laws. To presume that there is a sole "intelligent designer" is foolhardy.

I have looked into ID enough to develop an opinion on the scientific merits of the concept one way or the other. (My opinion is that neither have most of the people criticizing it, but that would be hard to verify.)

Well, I for one know a great deal about ID, from the Wedge Strategy on. Can't speak for anyone else.

My big bone about this debate is the tactic of one side basically using the argument "your idea is stupid" to close down debate.

Bullshit, this is debated endlessly. The frustrating part is that every point you disprove, every distortion you bring to light, every misunderstanding you attempt to clear up, the creationists and ID proponents just bring them all up again as if they haven't already been covered. But your contention that anyone closes down debate is absurd. It is constantly debated. We just don't want pseudoscience injected into school curriculum. It's that simple.

Oh, good lord, then, 'intelligent construction'. As if you could understand.
====================

It's not even an elitist argument that epistomology is 'useless conjecture'. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. And does construction imply intention? If not, why does design?
=========================

Sean,

As I did mention above, I am not a proponent of ID, nor am I well versed in the methods nor assertions. My major point of impatience is when the evolution proponents try to shut down the debate by saying basically that there is no debate. If that does not characterize your stance, then no criticism is intended. Commenting on one of your statements:

"It requires you take an even bigger leap of faith and say"

ID may require a bigger leap of faith. I don't know. My point is that evolutionists are already making huge leaps of faith and still insisting that it's science. I understand the reasons and the limitations (no time travel, etc.). That's fine. Any subject matter involving historical data has those limitations, and that's part of my point.

"You're putting an excessive burden on what you expect science to be able to achieve."

The data only supports so much probability whereas the "devout" evolutionists (there's that word again) seem to be passing onto the students that are coming out of the high schools and colleges that this is a done deal, we know what happened, and we're just clearing up the fine points. If the burden seems excessive, consider the level of insistence is being made by the proponents.

"However, in other contexts we are able to test evolution on timescales we can see, namely insects and mice."

I understand genetic variability at least reasonably well for a non-biologist. Can you point me to some articles or references where there have been clear species shifts beyond expected variability for insects and mice?

"Right now, all evidence points to evolution."

Is it true that "all evidence" points to evolution? Don't things occasionally pop up that don't fit?

"Bullshit, this is debated endlessly."

Except that one side, when they lose in public opinion goes to court to shut down debate. It's not the ID side. One side tries to refuse to authorize course credit for material that teaches both sides, even if the evolution side is taught to accepted standards. It's not the ID side. And one side has a monopoly on who can get projects approved for projects, research grants, etc. It's not the ID side. Pardon me, but I think I see a pattern here...

Can you point me to some articles or references where there have been clear species shifts beyond expected variability for insects and mice?

Yes.

Is it true that "all evidence" points to evolution? Don't things occasionally pop up that don't fit?

Do you mean organisms that couldn't possibly have come about as a result of evolution or mutation? No, none have come up yet.

Except that one side, when they lose in public opinion goes to court to shut down debate. It's not the ID side.

That's not debate, it's teaching something other than science in science class. Tell me that religious folks would not sue if their children had to learn about the Flying Spaghetti Monster in science class.

One side tries to refuse to authorize course credit for material that teaches both sides, even if the evolution side is taught to accepted standards. It's not the ID side.

Wow, they won't give science credit for learning pseudoscience? The nerve! And I was really hoping my reflexology degree would become legit.

And one side has a monopoly on who can get projects approved for projects, research grants, etc. It's not the ID side. Pardon me, but I think I see a pattern here...

The Discovery Institute has massive funding. Yet, curiously, they produce no research. Hmmm.

mantis, the mechanism of evolution of these so-called 'irreducible complexities' such as cilia and clotting mechanisms has not been elucidated. That they have evolved naturally is asserted, necessarily, on faith.

The creationists just point that faith out. Until that is understood, the understanding of those mechanisms will be delayed. Why do you support such delay?
===============================

There's no fear, and it is discussed. And if you think people aren't trying to figure out origins, you aren't paying attention (and you've already shown that you aren't). We just aren't willing to discard the search for an explanation, throw our hands up in the air, and proclaim that god did it.
-------------------------------------------------
Another example of cheap talk to bluff. If you are confident of your theory and position, there is no need for you to create these straw men (in bold). This tells me that you are not defending science but a dogmatic religion. If this is science, there should not be any problem with an open/honest discussion about the most important open problem in modern biolody in the science class rooms.

Let 's discuss this problem and stimulate the students. We will not talk about God or anything else but the problem and all the scienfitic experiments to show how complex the genetic information in the DNA is. Why do you still have objection and try to create straw men to defend your position? This is not science but dogmatic religion. You are simply not honest enough to admit it.

T minus, ok here we go. If you get a generation of biologists honed in bitter battles to justify their faith in evolution, you will find many of them desiring research into the particular points at which there arguments are most vulnerable. These are the mechanisms of development of the so-called 'irreducible complexities'. That will bring understanding of these mechanisms and the power that that knowledge will bring, possibly just in time to save the human race from itself.

It's not funny if you have to explain it.
==============

The creationists just point that faith out.

No, they grasp on to anything that has yet to be completely explained as evidence against evolution (while at the same time providing no scientific theories of their own). They are not honest critics.

A few words on eukaryotic cilia, clotting, and irreducible complexity.

LAI,

Until you make an honest attempt to respond to every other point I made and link I supplied in response to your assertions, I will not respond to your simple-minded and dishonest attempts to declare everything I've written as strawmen by grasping onto three words you don't happen to like. Get working.

Mantis,

"Do you mean organisms that couldn't possibly have come about as a result of evolution or mutation"

This doesn't really say much. If evolution can explain it, it is evolution. If not, it is mutation. Kind of hard to fight that logic.

BTW - I looked at the website linked. Again, some impressive evidence as far as it goes, but it still doesn't get over the basic limitations of long periods of little to no data. Saying that it is reasonable to have little to no data is fine, but again it does not mitigate the fact that many times the proponents claim a certainty that is unsupportable. What is fallen back on many times is the "So, do you have a better idea?" No, but I'm not pushing a personal view as scientific fact or theory.

Here's a question about something I have a hard time fitting into evolutionary theory: I've heard that homosexual behavior has a genetic component. How is that possible considering that homosexuality leads to behavior in direct conflict to long term reproduction?

Mantis,
I simply see more cheap talk. In principle, a computer are made up of the same basic chemicals in nature as a junk car. So the computer can be created by random processes over billions of years, right? You can claim that organic materials have the creating power that inorganic materials don't have. Science does have counter-intuitive explanations, but those have to be verified experimentally. If you offer a counter-intuitive theory, the burden of proof is upon you.

The first test of honest science is an open/honest acknowledgement of the problem and the overwhelming scientific evidences of the informational complexity of the DNA. And honest science won't try bluff people with straw men and hiding behind "authority".

What i have seen so far from your argument is not honest science, but a dogmatic religion.

Science is founded on two fundamental tenets. One - the universe is unreasoning. Two - the universe is governed only by laws that humans can understand. Neither of these can be proven and that's why they are tenets of faith.

Even if God raised an embalmed man from the dead science could not accept the existence of God because His very existence violates the fundamental tenets of science. Something can be true and yet not science. Sure, a person who observed such a resurrection might believe in God, even if they were a scientist, but they could not write a paper about their experience and have it accepted by other scientists. Nor could that paper be legally studied in a science class at a public school in the U.S.

Many past events are not subject to scientific enquiry. For example, take a coin out of your pocket in which you have many such coins. In an area away from any recording device, flip the coin and determine if it comes up heads or tails. Do this a number of times and on the fifth toss have the results witnessed by two adults of sound mind, then flip the coin a few more times and put it back in your pocket. You can establish what the results of the fifth toss were in a court of law based on the testimony of two witnesses, but there's know known means of determination that fact using scientific methods. It's important because it turns out you bet your life on the outcome of that fifth flip.

Science is based on tenets of faith that cannot accept the existence of God. Many historical facts are not subject to scientific enquiry. However, we have the written eye-witness accounts of men who have see God raise an embalmed man from the dead and much more. That written account can be scientifically proven to have existed in the lifetimes of some of the eye-witnesses. That written account contains many dates, places, distances, and historical facts and all of them that can be verified independently have shown that written account is accurate. Yet some think it foolish to believe the eye-witness accounts.

This doesn't really say much. If evolution can explain it, it is evolution. If not, it is mutation. Kind of hard to fight that logic.

All evolution is mutation, but not all mutation is evolution. Most mutations are negative, and the resulting organism does not live to reproduce, and thus that evolutionary branch is cut before it grows.

Again, some impressive evidence as far as it goes, but it still doesn't get over the basic limitations of long periods of little to no data. Saying that it is reasonable to have little to no data is fine, but again it does not mitigate the fact that many times the proponents claim a certainty that is unsupportable.

Yes, how unfair of the Earth to not give us fossils of every single organism that ever lived. Life would be so much easier for evolutionary biologists if it did.

Ok, that was a bit snarky. The fact is we're very fortunate to have as complete a fossil record as we do, incomplete as it is. But since you have no alternative theory to explain things, all you have is a criticism of other people's certainty. Skepticism is great; I have no objection. If anyone comes up with a better theory, I'm open to it.

Here's a question about something I have a hard time fitting into evolutionary theory: I've heard that homosexual behavior has a genetic component. How is that possible considering that homosexuality leads to behavior in direct conflict to long term reproduction?

No one has conclusively resolved the genetic homosexuality theory/debate. I for one doubt that there is one "gay gene."

Yes, how unfair of the Earth to not give us fossils of every single organism that ever lived. Life would be so much easier for evolutionary biologists if it did.

Ok, that was a bit snarky. The fact is we're very fortunate to have as complete a fossil record as we do, incomplete as it is. But since you have no alternative theory to explain things, all you have is a criticism of other people's certainty. Skepticism is great; I have no objection. If anyone comes up with a better theory, I'm open to it.
-------------------------------------------------
And an honest theory is "punctuated equilibrium" or "hopeful monster". This theory fits the data much better than the gradual evolution theory.

Oh, easy, homosexuality is a reflection of the necessary profligacy of sexuality.
=========================

Mantis,

"But since you have no alternative theory to explain things, all you have is a criticism of other people's certainty."

Thank you for proving my point. Such certainty goes beyond what science allows.

"The fact is we're very fortunate to have as complete a fossil record as we do, incomplete as it is."

The fact is that the fossil record is neither fortunate nor unfortunate. It simply is. The fossil record is under no obligation to justify your certainty. If it doesn't support the level you have, the reasonable thing to do is adjust your view.

Thank you for proving my point. Such certainty goes beyond what science allows.

Certainty based on a preponderance, if not totality, of evidence is far more defensible that certainty based on no evidence at all.

The fact is that the fossil record is neither fortunate nor unfortunate.

It is fortunate for us as we wish to understand the world around us.

The fossil record is under no obligation to justify your certainty.

Who said it was?

If it doesn't support the level you have, the reasonable thing to do is adjust your view.

Agreed.

"The fact is we're very fortunate to have as complete a fossil record as we do, incomplete as it is."

The fact is that the fossil record is neither fortunate nor unfortunate. It simply is. The fossil record is under no obligation to justify your certainty. If it doesn't support the level you have, the reasonable thing to do is adjust your view.
------------------------------------------------
Yup and some well known paleontologists offer the other theory like "punctuated equilibrium" or "hopeful monster" to explain the data as is.

And the honest thing to do is to tell students about this theory and the reasons why they chose it. This is another good thing to openly discuss in a science classroom as well.

Gary Baker

My major point of impatience is when the evolution proponents try to shut down the debate by saying basically that there is no debate.

There is no debate in the context of scientific and empirical rigor. ID's entire argument is: "Evolution doesn't explain everything, therefore God did it." There is no way around mocking ID in this context. We can debate if God "intelligently constructed" (as kim put it above) the laws of the universe and how consciousness and morality shaped our own evolution. But these are philosophical questions as there are few if any scientific means for measuring them.

There are theories that if we are but one universe among many in a multiverse, it is possible that those other universes have different elemental laws of nature and physics and life might take on completely different forms. What does this mean God - that has multiple personalities? That God was just playing a game of craps and each universe is a different roll of the dice?

Again, science is analyzing the hard data you have, not inferring what role God may play for lack of hard evidence. There is a region where science, religion, philosophy all blur, but the evolutionary record is not at the forefront in that regard. I would say the main field of debate where science and religion potentially overlap is physics, generally "the laws of the universe", specifically dark matter and energy, inflation theory, string theory, quantum theory, etc. because to test these are pushing the physical limits of our technology. The lack of evidence in evolution is because we haven't scoured the globe for or nature did not leave evidence of definitive proof of every evolutionary stage.

My point is that evolutionists are already making huge leaps of faith and still insisting that it's science.

I see your point, but I don't think those leaps of faith are anywhere near the same degree as needed for ID. Evolution's leaps of faith are: we see evolution from W to X and from Y to Z, so it's likely evolution occurred from X to Y. How it exactly occurred is difficult to say, as any hypothesis w/o evidence is hard to support, but it does not require relying supernatural forces for the explanation.

that this is a done deal, we know what happened, and we're just clearing up the fine points.

As unfortunate as it may seem, this is probably correct. Now, there will always be unanswered questions, but the big picture is there. Just as with the solar system we know the sun is at the center and the planets are held in orbit by gravity, but there are finer points about the sun's magnetic field (hat tip to the global warming doubters), the behavior/origins of planets' rings/satellites, etc. Just as with the cell we know there is a nucleus, mitochondria, etc., but how they chemically react with and transport molecules is harder to specify. That is science, you (generally) attempt to explain the big picture first and methodically gain better explanations for everything else. Evolution is the big picture and filling in what major developments yielded significant change are the finer points. ID is the big picture and the finer points, it's all-encompassing and self-explanatory and requires no scientific methodology or validation. Therefore, it does not belong in science class.

I understand genetic variability at least reasonably well for a non-biologist. Can you point me to some articles or references where there have been clear species shifts beyond expected variability for insects and mice?

I'm a non-biologist as well, so I'm more familiar with the anecdotal examples: the recent find of a half-alligator, half-fish us in the artic; the transition from reptilian dinosaurs to birds; the various stages of human development; the differentiation of dog sub-species into multiple breeds; the development of early, single celled to multi-celled organisms; plus probably hundreds of other examples I'm not as familiar with. mantis seemed relatively familiar with some specific examples, maybe he could help here.

Is it true that "all evidence" points to evolution? Don't things occasionally pop up that don't fit?

I exaggerate sometimes - the vast majority of evidence points to evolution. But even those rare cases lead to new hypotheses which generally try to use evolutionary theory as the framework to guide their explanation. One example of this is a fish that live in pitch black caves which develop eyes but then shut off further growth of them during the early stages of development (this was in a recent article in Seed magazine). One might think that evolutionary theory would dictate that development of the eye should gradually be phased out completely. But the reason this was not the case (and excuse me, I can't remember the exact explanation) was something like the early development of the eye was embedded in the DNA along with the development with other vital functions. So to completely remove any development of the eye would result in loss of other advantageous characteristics, namely a better sense of smell and touch. This means that nature may have tried to remove the process of eye development to save energy for more useful purposes, but in doing so the species that maintained some early eye development was still the preferred version. But who knows, as time goes on, nature may try again and find a way to delete eye development but still retain the current level of smell and touch, and this species will eventually be the dominant variation. So long story short, even in those cases that don't fit the current understanding of evolutionary theory, the general principles of it are applied to try and determine what unique circumstances have led to this anomaly.

Kim,

the mechanism of evolution of these so-called 'irreducible complexities' such as cilia and clotting mechanisms has not been elucidated. That they have evolved naturally is asserted, necessarily, on faith.

The problem with irreducible complexity from a scientific standpoint is that it leads to a conclusion that science cannot accept. That conclusion violates the fundamental tenets of science, and thus, science responds by assertions based on faith in its fundamental tenets. In this regard science is like other religions.

I exaggerate sometimes - the vast majority of evidence points to evolution.
---------------------------------------------
Not sure what you mean by evolution here. In paleontology, it means "punctuated equilibrium" or "hopeful monster" to explain the fossil record.

I assume that the vast amount of scientific evidences of the informational complexity of the DNA also points to "evolution" in your terminology. I guess you mean "hopeful monster" as a synonymn for evolution in this case as well.

From a Christian perspective John 2:1-11 explains the fossil record with no need to invoke the religion of science.

"At its core, I don't think there is anything fundamentally incompatible with Christianity and science, between the Bible and natural history. All it takes is a little application of common sense and logic."

Genius. 900 year old men, the earth was created in 7 days, seas parting, burning bushes, zombie saviours...

Yeah, just dabble a little common sense and chuckle at some Cosby and you'll see, science and religion fit.

By definition common sense applies to the natural world. By it's application you can know nothing about the supernatural. For that you have to rely on what has been revealed.

Yeah, just dabble a little common sense and chuckle at some Cosby and you'll see, science and religion fit
jp2

I think science and religion can fit, but as long as one is not substituted for the other. To put it most generally, science provides the how while religion provides the why.

On a side note, the Bible and science have a very hard time meeting literal agreement, although the creation story is a suprisingly decent attempt at explaining the origins of the universe and earth considering they didn't have any sort of physical data. I'm talking about the progression from 'Let there be light' to the existence of man, of course, the six days is complete bunk.

Looks like we made some progess today. Seems like we have a consensus that an honest science would openly discuss/teach the following in the science class rooms:

(1) The theory of "punctuated equilibrium" or hopeful monster and the fossil record.

(2) The vast amount of scientific evidence of the informational complexity of the genetic code etc... This is a huge open problem in modern science and the students should be made aware of it.

LAI,

Nothing can be taught in a science class in a U.S. public school that leads to a conclusion that calls into question the tenets of faith that underpin science. By definition, such teachings are not scientific even if true. Teaching variations of evolution is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Teaching philosophy is a better way to enlighten young minds to the full scope of truth.

Mac,
I don't have any problem with teaching a class in philosophy of science in addition to the science class. My point is that an honest science would explain openly/honestly why some well-known paleontologists chose the theory of "hopeful monster" theory to explain the fossil record. The informational complexity of the DNA is another area where we may need sth similar to the "hopeful monster" theory to explain it.

LAI,

There's an endless number of evolution theory nuances, but the limits of what can be taught in any depth in a high school class require the curriculum it stick to the mainstream ideas. Science is all about entertaining new ideas as long as those ideas don't threaten it's underpinnings. If the "hopeful monster" theory gains mainstream acceptance it will be taught, but if it somehow threatens the underpinnings of science it won't be allowed in class.

If science accepts a jump from a series of small changes to a much more evolved "hopeful monster", then the next question is how big of a jump is possible. You then start running into the same problem as irreducible complexity. If the jump is too large then the odds against it become staggering and the hand of the creator is reviled. Science cannot accept a creator even if there's a scientific theory to explain the creator. That would mean the universe is not unreasoning, and thus, it has purpose. Even a scientifically explainable creator might be able to suspend natural laws as we know them. Science simply can't exist in that environment, so it must reject the possibility.

Sean,

I would like to thank you for a well constructed and polite reply. While we still disagree on a great deal, this gives us the basis for a reasonable exchange of ideas.

"I see your point, but I don't think those leaps of faith are anywhere near the same degree as needed for ID."

Perhaps we view probabilities differently. I've seen rough statistical analysis run on the types of things that would have to occur in tandem for life on Earth to evolve as it has (or even for life to occur given that scientists are correct in the assumption that it could happen by chance). The number is staggeringly low. As far as I know, nothing can truly be said to have "zero" probability, but this comes pretty darn close. The ID person says it came about because it was designed that way. The evolutionist says it came about by chance. I do not find that argument persuasive.

"Evolution's leaps of faith are: we see evolution from W to X and from Y to Z, so it's likely evolution occurred from X to Y."

A reasonable approach given the limitations. But it leaves out a lot of what I believe to be valid inquiry. For example, suppose that an in-depth analysis of the situation you describe above (environment, variability, etc.) is done and it indicates that instead of going from "W to X", the system should have gone from "W to X1." Evolutionary theory would reject the analysis, since the system obviously did go to X. Intelligent design proposes that it might be possible to trace what external stimuli could have been applied so that things turned out the way they did. I see potential value in that line of questioning.

"but it does not require relying supernatural forces for the explanation."

To the best of my knowledge, everything requires supernatural forces for the explanation at some point. There is an entire universe out there. We can track how some of it is going and where some of it has been. But something began it all. To the best of my knowledge, no one has come up with a good answer for that one excluding supernatural forces. If you accept the fact that something supernatural, or at least beyond our understanding, affected the system at least once in the past, it seems very arbitrary to insist that it stopped after that one time.

"ID is the big picture and the finer points, it's all-encompassing and self-explanatory and requires no scientific methodology or validation. Therefore, it does not belong in science class."

Again, I am not familiar enough with the particulars of the theory (pick your favorite term). I do seem to recall that there were a number of serious missteps in evolutionary theory as it was being developed. I am convinced that a lot of people think that it is at least worth a look, and many are quite intelligent. I will be very interested in what is developed over the next generation of study. As for what belongs in science class - When I went through ninth grade biology, we got a considerable background of prior theories (e.g., spontaneous generation). Would you say that review did not belong in science class because it was history? Or is there value in learning about past and competing view points?

"One might think that evolutionary theory would dictate that development of the eye should gradually be phased out completely. But the reason this was not the case (and excuse me, I can't remember the exact explanation) was something like the early development of the eye was embedded in the DNA along with the development with other vital functions."

Here is a case in point. The explanation that you pointed out - is it what we know, or is it what is adopted because it fits the theory? Where did that fish come from? If it had eyes, why would it go into a lightless area to begin with? Does it make sense that some fish that deep have sightless eyes, while others have bio-lights (which make them great targets for predators)? You can learn a lot by examining what is. You can also learn a lot by asking why is that and does it make sense.

"the general principles of it are applied to try and determine what unique circumstances have led to this anomaly."

And this leads back to my major criticism. Anything that does not seem to support the principles is considered an anomaly. The principles are now sacrosanct, beyond question. The simple truth is that evolutionary theory doesn't care. It has no stake in itself or any disagreement among scientists or the public. Yet people constantly seem to think that science will suffer from the discussion. To hear some of the hype, when the infamous textbook stickers first came out in Kansas you would have thought that the Puritans were burning heretics every day (except Sunday, of course). I've challenged people before and do so again to demonstrate any harm that would come if both sides went away. I've never gotten a reasonable answer. Science is rigor and method. The subject to which it is applied in discussion is irrelevant. As I've said before, I've aced the evolution classes while being very judicious about what I accept. Science will survive the disagreement just fine.

"I'm talking about the progression from 'Let there be light' to the existence of man,"

Something fascinating about that account - "Let there be light" came several days earlier than the sun, moon, and stars; all of the things that primitives would have associated with creating light. That such a beginning is listed thousands of years before anyone considered a "big bang" I find nothing short of inspired.

Robert the Original, Wieder;

This thread is out of control. i don't have time to wade though it, but I would like to address your (false) assertions regarding Darwin. Namely, that Darwin set out on a religious pilgrimage, notebook in hand, observing nature in all it's glory only to be lead by empirical observation to the inexorable conclusion that nature could not have possibly originated from God. An epiphany! Complete with dramatic music playing in the background.

As emotionally satisfying as the above scenario may be to the evolutionist - it is utterly false.

Darwin's grandfather Erasmus, held the same views as Charles did. He was a pantheist and a unitarian. Erasmus was also a medical doctor and author. He published his own work in which he propounded the "spontaneous origin of life."

Heresy first, evolution later. His father Robert was an atheist who told his son Charles, that he knew "scarcely any intelligent men who were orthodox Christian believers."

Darwin's wife had the following words edited out of his autobiography, "I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine."

Sounds like a devout Christian family there.

As a young man, Charles' closest friend was Robert Edmund Grant, an atheistic evolutionist and a leading authority in invertebrate zoology.

Darwin refused to accept the literal truth of the book of Genesis.

On board the Beagle Darwin chose Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology vol. 1 as his reading material. Lyell insisted that the geological features of the earth can, and indeed must, be explained by "slow gradual processes" of erosion, sedimentation, earthquakes, volcanism, etc., operating at essentially the same average rate and power as observed today. Lyell's work had far more influence on Darwin's ideas than the observation of nature. Darwin took Lyell's principles and applied them to biology.

Lyell was in turn influenced by others. They all had one thing in common - the rejection of God.

Darwin seems to have compromised his intellectual principles somewhat in order to gain entry into Cambridge University, an embrace of religious doctrine being a requirement for entry. However, it is clear that Darwin had far more interest in secular education than theology. He necessarily kept his anti-religious views close to the vest until he was beyond the reach of school and church discipline.

Darwin did make some statements that sound somewhat convincing regarding religious faith, but taken in the larger context of his life I believe they were but lip service to satisfy the mores of the day. Peer pressure and all that.

LAI:

I'd agree that your two points are fair to discuss in a science class as they point out the weaknesses of evolutionary theory and where further inquiry should be directed, BUT do not substitute an "intelligent designer" as the explanation for such weaknesses. All scientific progress had various steps and missteps, but if someone along the way simply said, "That can never be explained because God stepped in and just made it that way," we would have lost out on a lot of scientific discovery. For instance, at the end of the 19th century, some scientists believed there was little else to learn in the field of physics: elements were identified, gravitational theory and the laws of motion were defined, etc., and all that could be done was further specifity in natural constants. But then along came Einstein who developed a whole new field of physics. Then Bohr came along with atomic theory. Both would have been much slower in coming about if people did not have an inquisitive nature and simply excepted the status quo. That is the main argument against ID that it essentially takes the easy way out with regard to rigorous scientific analysis.

sean,

Any preconceived notion can stymie the search for knowledge. You said "That is the main argument against ID that it essentially takes the easy way out with regard to rigorous scientific analysis." The opposite is also true, the main argument against evolution is that it takes the easy way out with regard to a rigorous logical analysis. I alluded to a scientific theory that offers a natural explanation of a creator, but it's really a logical theory because no explanation of a creator can be scientific by definition. Science is simply blind to the possibility. It's that understanding of the limitations of scientific inquiry that's missing from our public education. I contend that knowing the limitations of science makes better scientists.

"What do you have to lose by discussing intelligent design in science class?"

Simple: rationality and reason

ID belongs in the ash heap of flat earths, earth centric universes and moons of green cheese, if not man in.

Gary Baker:

To the best of my knowledge, everything requires supernatural forces for the explanation at some point. There is an entire universe out there. We can track how some of it is going and where some of it has been. But something began it all. To the best of my knowledge, no one has come up with a good answer for that one excluding supernatural forces. If you accept the fact that something supernatural, or at least beyond our understanding, affected the system at least once in the past, it seems very arbitrary to insist that it stopped after that one time.

I'll address this point first since it lays the groundwork for the basis of this discussion. I accept the general knowledge that the Big Bang is what appears to have happened based on the data we have, but what exactly the Big Bang was has never been, and may never be, defined. Was it the action of some divine entity? Was it the explosion of some enormous black hole? Have the laws of the universe themselves evolved over time as physical conditions have changed and what we see now gives us an altered view of what actually happened? There are several hypotheses for explaining the Big Bang and even if it were a divine entity, maybe God did move on after the creation of our universe, create more universes ad infinitum, and doesn't bother with us anymore, like Gateway making computers with certain programs to let their customers do whatever they want with them. We cannot guess at what God's intentions may be, like when Einstein said when refuting quantum mechanics, "God does not play dice with the universe." and Neils Bohr replied, "Stop telling God what to do with his dice."

As far as I know, nothing can truly be said to have "zero" probability, but this comes pretty darn close. The ID person says it came about because it was designed that way. The evolutionist says it came about by chance. I do not find that argument persuasive.

I think both are hard to believe, but saying that chance is near zero probability is of little consequence in a near infinite universe. I find it amazing and miraculous that whatever the explanation is we're here at all. Again, the "why are we here" question is one of religion, but the "how did we get here" is one that science can attempt to explain through the evidence presented to us.

Evolutionary theory would reject the analysis, since the system obviously did go to X. Intelligent design proposes that it might be possible to trace what external stimuli could have been applied so that things turned out the way they did. I see potential value in that line of questioning.

I don't see how ID has any value here because ID could be applied to have W go to F, or W to L, or W to Q depending on God's mood. He could potentially alter all conditions, variables, and stimuli at his discretion to create any outcome he desired. Evolution is much more strict in this regard that you would expect to see certain outcomes, but it is possible you don't get the anticipated answer and have to consider what factors were overlooked or were not immediately apparent. That is the scientific method while ID is essentially a black box, ie A in, B out, with no explanation as to how the transition was carried out (other than God did it of course).

Would you say that review did not belong in science class because it was history? Or is there value in learning about past and competing view points?

Competing scientifically based viewpoints should be taught, but 1) thoroughly debunked theories should not, unless for the purpose of showing bad science and then they'd probably fit better in history class, eg flat-earth theory, and 2) theories that do not have their basis in the scientific method should not be taught in science class. Again, there are valid reasons for believing in ID, but not in the arena of advancing our knowledge of evolutionary history and not in the context as presenting it as alternative science.

The explanation that you pointed out - is it what we know, or is it what is adopted because it fits the theory? Where did that fish come from? If it had eyes, why would it go into a lightless area to begin with? Does it make sense that some fish that deep have sightless eyes, while others have bio-lights (which make them great targets for predators)? You can learn a lot by examining what is. You can also learn a lot by asking why is that and does it make sense.

You're pretty mixed up in this response. These fish from my example are found in caves, not in the deep ocean, although similar things may happen there as well, but not as likely since they can transition to shallower depths where light does reach and sight would have a purpose. They probably went there because there may not have been competition with other species for food, or they may have saught refuge from a predator, or it was a safe place to lay eggs, etc. I'm not sure, that wasn't the lesson to be drawn from the example. Also, the fish which utilize bioluminesence (sp?) are generally predators and use the light to attract prey, so clearly there is an evolutionary advantage.

The explanation that you pointed out - is it what we know, or is it what is adopted because it fits the theory?

This is the sentiment that causes the problem with ID, ie that any doubt disproves everything and we should just admit it's a worthless theory. I'll provide a parallel example which shows why we cannot rely on this mentality. For a while, the behavior of galaxies indicated there was dark matter and energy. We could not see it or detect it, but our theory of gravity indicated that these extra forces were causing the behavior we saw. Did we say God must be this mysterious force causing this behavior? Did we throw out the theory of gravity as we had it? No, we did just the opposite and found evidence that dark matter does exist. Now, dark matter is still very mysterious and what it is has not been clearly defined. But we're refining our methods for finding it, measuring it, etc. and one day we may find out a few more of its secrets, which could lead to scientific breakthroughs like extra dimensions, wormholes, or maybe even time travel (highly unlikely, but still possible in a near infinite universe). So simply put, I outright reject this line of reasoning. If a theory is to be discarded, there must be sufficient credible evidence to refute it, not simply be thrown away for convenience.

Anything that does not seem to support the principles is considered an anomaly. The principles are now sacrosanct, beyond question.

You're completely wrong here. The principles are very much up for questioning, but they have a legimate and well-documented history that requires a lot more creationism with lipstick to rightly justify that they have been disproven.

Science will survive the disagreement just fine.

Yes, science will survive, but that's not the point. Conservatives constantly rail against the shoddy state of our public education system, but promoting ID as science does nothing to improve our lagging performance in science and elsewhere. It only encourages students to be intellectually lazy and except certain complexities as "irreducible" rather than experiment with unique and ingenious ways to explain how they could have occurred in our observable world.

Thanks Jay, your post produced a very civil debate.

Personally, I am thankful and I praise the random mutations that caused women to evolve side by side with man.

Mac Lorry:

I generally agree that knowing the limitations of any scientific theory or model is important. As with any thorough analysis, the level of uncertainty is important to determine if the conclusions reached are valid.

But I disagree with the basis for your position that God and science are incompatible. The study of science is essentially trying to figure the laws of the universe which God wrote. After all, we (humans) were kicked out of the Garden of Eden for eating from the Tree of Knowledge, ie trying to be God-like. So in my opinion, the study of science is one of the various ways for proving the existence of God.

Now, there are certain things that we may never know, like what happened before the Big Bang, what happens inside black holes, are we part of a multiverse rather than universe, is our sense of morality and justice merely a product of evolution or is there some divinity to it, etc. But this does not mean there may not be "scientific" expanation to these things, just that our physical state, technological limitations, level of consciousness, etc. do not allow us to measure or comprehend these things and draw logical conclusions from whatever data may exist.

On the other hand, ID proponents seeks to interject it into a field of study which already has a pretty accurate means of describing the behavior we've seen. So, I do not believe ID is a logical conclusion to be drawn from the gaps that exist in evolutionary theory and there is no scientific method involved with its conception to justify it being taught as science.

Jeff Blogworthy

You'll have to do far better than quote BS from that "Parent Company" screed from which you quote so much of what you pretend to know about Darwin.

That piece is pure distortion about Darwin from an ID religious clack of loonies.

You ought to have more intellectual honesty than to rely on that sort of garbage and then regurgitate like a good Pavlovian puppy.

But then, an ID believer with intellectual honesty is an oxymoron.

You ought to have more intellectual honesty than to rely on that sort of garbage and then regurgitate like a good Pavlovian puppy.

But then, an ID believer with intellectual honesty is an oxymoron.
-------------------------------------------------
And Wieder, you are a perfect example of intellectual dishonesty. Honest science doesn't resort to ad-hominen attack to bluff. You are not confident of your position, so that 's why you have to resort to this tactic. It is not a sign of honest science. It is a sign of a dogmatic pseudo-scientific religion.

Again, I repeat: an honest teaching of evolution will openly discuss these well known problems

(1) The theory of "punctuated equilibrium" or hopeful monster and the fossil record.

(2) The vast amount of scientific evidence of the informational complexity of the genetic code etc... This is a huge open problem in modern science and the students should be made aware of it.

So far I have seen you guys defending a dogmatic religion (hiding behind science) using ad-hominen, straw-men, and appealing to authority. It is cheap and dishonest.

Wieder,

If you have some dispute with the facts, spit it out. Gratuitous assertions and ad hominem attacks don't cut it.

Darwin's motives are irrelevant. Debate what his findings have wrought upon contemporary science; I don't care about the psychological underpinnings of Origin of the Species. If it just so happens to make literal belief in Genesis ridiculous... then stop reading Genesis literally. In fact, stop reading it all together. The bit about "original sin" is awful--I feel no compunction to feel guilty about my human imperfections.

Anyway, yes, LAI, conclusions have been drawn in this thread: evolution is not "complete"; ID is not science; things that are irreducibly complex are useful for fostering meta-scientific discussions in science classrooms; and any supernatural explanation as to the origin of said complexities ought to be raised in philosophy classes.

Fun thread to read, though.

SSN
Anyway, yes, LAI, conclusions have been drawn in this thread: evolution is not "complete";
------------------------------------------------
This is quite an understatement indeed. Evolution is a synonym for "hopeful monster" in paleontology. The informational complexity of the DNA make this "hopeful monster" theory even more applicable. In other words, evolution so far has been less than an honest science but more a terminology play so far. Also the teaching of "evolution" has also been less than honest.

ID can be a scientific depending how it is defined. Can you have a rigirous definition of determining how a system is designed or can be generated by a random process? Does information require intelligence etc.? The fact that people defending evolution are afraid of confronting that question tells me that what they are defending is not real science, but pseudo-scientific belief.

Jeff,

I wrote that Darwin studied to become a man of the cloth. This is true to the best of my ability to know it and is in agreement with the view of the preponderance of historians. Nothing you have said in any way refutes it much less provides evidence of falsehood. Next time - BEFORE YOU CALL ME A LIAR - check your facts. Please give me sources - generally accepted historians please - you seem to be using fundamentalist agenda-driven nutjobs.

Further, your (and others') general contention that Darwin was a secret atheist set out to disprove the existence of God fails on several counts:

1) If, as you say, Darwin were a closet atheist, why would he enroll in the Theology program at Cambridge? Darwin himself stated that he believed, attended church regularly until 1851, and only became agnostic late in life. That transition had more to do with the death of his daughter than anything else.

2) You acknowledge statements of faith by Darwin but discount them only based on your own supposition. Please, this is not even an argument much less proof that anything I wrote is false.

3) If Darwin set out on a mission to validate his relatives' supposed disbelief, why would he choose this method to do it? He went on long voyages for five years, collected lots of stuff - and then spent twenty (20) years studying it before publishing.

4) I find it quite normal for a scientist to be influenced by the work of others (gasp) including professors of biology and geology. What is your point?

Logic Jeff, suggests that one who works so long to publish is not on a mission to discredit anything. Almost all historical accounts identify Darwin as a believer during most of his life through his actions and writing and those of his wife and children. Indeed, there are accounts of his running about the HMS Beagle quoting scripture to the hands.

Desperately you seek to twist and discredit Darwin's relatives and through that, his theory. This is similar to the desperation of creationists to disprove evolution through gaps. Sad and feeble, Jeff, and it puts one in mind of the intolerance of past times.

But you could discover that Darwin was Jack the Ripper and it would do nothing to slow the mounting evidence for evolution. The results are in, and have been, for quite a time.

Finally to your use of the term "heretic" I hold you in contempt. This is not a term in general use these days, Jeff, and your twisted and distorted portrayal of Darwin does a disservice to your integrity, the requirements of history, or the furtherance of honest debate.

All you did was figuratively burn a witch.

SSN, look upon 'original sin' as the development of a moral sense. Then you won't have to refuse to feel guilty.
=========================

"but promoting ID as science does nothing to improve our lagging performance in science and elsewhere. It only encourages students to be intellectually lazy and except certain complexities as "irreducible" rather than experiment with unique and ingenious ways to explain how they could have occurred in our observable world."

I can think of little more intellectually lazy than simply dismissing competing theories via labeling. And again, the really controversial claims of evolution have no underpinning or confirmation via experimentation. The whole theory could disappear tomorrow. No harm to anyone. No loss to science. My point remains the same: Science has no viewpoint. Science is method and evaluation.

Sean,

More notes:

"We cannot guess at what God's intentions may be"

No, but that doesn't mean that it is improper to look for evidence of influence.

"but saying that chance is near zero probability is of little consequence in a near infinite universe"

And likewise, pointing out how large the universe is does nothing to mitigate the near zero probability.

"They probably went there because there may not have been competition with other species for food, or they may have saught refuge from a predator, or it was a safe place to lay eggs, etc."

Again, you take a reality and guess a reason in view of the theory. It could be all of those reasons. It could be none. Maybe it just happened. You don't know. Can you set up an experiment that will show you? Can you demonstrate it? If not, why are you coming up with guesses and calling it "science"?

"Anything that does not seem to support the principles is considered an anomaly. The principles are now sacrosanct, beyond question.

You're completely wrong here. The principles are very much up for questioning"

No, they are not. They are defended with a religious zeal that would do any Knight Templar proud. If not, the science crowd would welcome the challenge of ID. They would include it, happily debunk it, and move on. The fact that they resist any mention of it in the public arena demonstrates this nicely.

"Did we say God must be this mysterious force causing this behavior? Did we throw out the theory of gravity as we had it? No, we did just the opposite and found evidence that dark matter does exist."

In short, scientist went looking for answers and encouraged new areas of study. That's great. It's a pity the evolution scientists are determined to discourage new ways of looking at things. They are so fearful, there are some questions they won't even ask.

Robert the original,

"I wrote that Darwin studied to become a man of the cloth."

You also wrote that Darwin was "a strong believer". Technically, you are right on the first count and certainly wrong on the second.

"Please give me sources - generally accepted historians please - you seem to be using fundamentalist agenda-driven nutjobs."

Cambridge University generally accepted enough for you?

The Darwins' world was one of wealth and privilege,... The wealth came from both sides of the family, as did the intellectual ambience in which Darwin grew up. From his father, a physician trained at both Leiden and Edinburgh, Charles absorbed something of the ethos of the Scottish medical tradition, in particular its philosophical materialism about life and matter. Equally unorthodox religious and scientific doctrines, including the transmutation of species, had been publicly manifest in the writings of his famous-even notorious-grandfather, the natural philosopher and minor poet Erasmus Darwin. Counterbalancing these tendencies were Charles' mother and his three older sisters Marianne, Caroline and Susan. From them Darwin acquired a Unitarian sensibility that acknowledged a Creator, though not the divinity of Jesus Christ. [ED. NOTE: Despite these feelings, Darwin took the oath of the church because it was a condition on entry to Cambridge and the price of a quality education. Thus he misrepresented himself.] These different influences from the male and female sides of his family helped define the complex relation he had to conventional religion to the end of his life. At the age of eight, Charles was enrolled in the school of the local Unitarian minister, the Reverend George Case. 1

Phillip R. Sloan, "1 The Making of a Philosophical Naturalist," The Cambridge Companion to Darwin, ed. Jonathan Hodge and Gregory Radick (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2003)

All emphases mine. Here is a newsflash for you Robert: Unitarianism and rejection of the divinity of Christ are church heresies, not tenets of orthodox Christian belief. It's a good think he had his mother and sisters as a "counterbalance." Whoo boy. Darwin was a heretic with an agenda, not an orthodox Christian dissuaded by his own keen observations.

Check your own sources. I can back up everything I said and then some.

Robert:

"3) If Darwin set out on a mission to validate his relatives' supposed disbelief, why would he choose this method to do it? He went on long voyages for five years, collected lots of stuff - and then spent twenty (20) years studying it before publishing."

Could it be that he wanted to make a name for himself as a naturalist and emulate those he admired most? Nothing wrong with that - just don't turn it into a religious pilgrimage from which he was delivered by a naturalistic conversion experience like Paul on the road to Damascus.

Sean,

I'm not defending ID. What I'm pointing out is that regardless of the truth, science cannot accept any theory that leads to conclusions that falsify the tenets of faith that underpin science. By definition then, science can never prove God's existence for in doing so science ceases to exist. Furthermore, the logic of philosophy demonstrates that science can never disprove God's existence. From an understanding of John 2:1-11 it can be shown that the lateral reading of Geneses and the scientific understanding of the universe and life on Earth can both be true. 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 explains why God would create the universe in this way.

Christians know they accept the Bible on faith. What many skeptics don't know or won't acknowledges is that they also accept evolution on faith.