Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implications?

[ARWallace]

Frank:

Well, it seems we have much to discuss. This post might be a tad on the long side, but I just want to clear the air a little. Don't feel obligated to reply to some, or any of my points.

I will give you the point about Darwinism being a law.

Again, I did not say it was a law. A said it was a theory, and even loosely defined what I meant by theory. It is not a law.

I want to make it perfectly clear that we are talking about an interpretation of data. I place Darwin's idea as a hypothesis and not a theory because it cannot be demonstrated.

Well, I think if you're talking about "interpretation of data" what you mean to say is that you don't believe it can be demonstrated in ways that are compelling to you. And even the word "demonstrated" seems to be a little loosey goosey. What do you mean by demonstrated?

In fact he predicted things that have not happened.

Such as? And by "he", do you mean Darwin, or the ToE he developed?

The fossil record being the biggest stumbling block. You may feel otherwise and I have no problem with that.

I am glad that you feel we can agree to disagree - I agree! But you haven't given me enough to go on here to which I could agree or disagree. What is it about the fossil record that you find objectionable? And to be clear, do you want to discuss evidences, fossils or radiometric dating methods if, in fact, we do disagree? Or are you simply happy to tell me that you find elements of geology and paleontology inconsistent or incomplete and leave it at that?

As for locking out a designer, it seems that it is you who won't allow a designer in until a name is attached to them.

Again, this is not what I said. I said - several times now - that if ID theory really does succeed in identifying IC structures - and further, if these structures can not be explained to have arisen through natural means and design is the only logical explanation, then it is my belief that ID will need to face some tougher questions regarding the identity, actions and possibly motives of the designer. I have further admitted that, to the best of my knowledge, IC structures have not been identified, but that this does not disqualify the notion that some might at some later date. Finally, I can see no a priori reason from either a scientific or a theological perspective to expect that IC should exist. I'm not "locking out a designer" pending their identity - I am simply saying that I have no reason, as yet, to believe that IC should exist in nature. And please understand that I am not ruling out the existence of god(s) with this statement.

The motives of the ID group should not be considered. If so we should look at the motives of Darwin:

Well, I have been rather mute on the motives of the architects of ID in developing their ideas. I have commented on the fact that they are not overtly candid about who they believe the designer to be, but do have an opinion on the matter. But if you would like to discuss the origins of the ID movement, I find this a particularly interesting topic and would be happy to explore it with you. For example, I think this idea has a genesis (pardon the pun) that is very different than most other scientific theories that exist. But that's just me.

Now, as for your quotes - I have several thoughts on these, but let me limit them to the following: (1) are you certain that these are representative of Darwin's thinking or his motives in developing the ToE? Because I am a little tentative to believe either is the case. (2) As you point out, what can be done with an idea once it is developed is often not an indictment of the validity of the idea itself. Now, scientific ideas may be applied to social and political agendas in ways that are malicious and outright evil, but this does not render the ideas scientifically invalid. This is a relevant source of conversation, and we can explore social-Darwinism if it is interesting to you and does not violate the forum discussion guidelines. (3) I am curious as to whether you have read these quotes in their full context? Because it may be rather difficult to get a sense of someone's ideas if you cherry pick a few sentences from a larger body of text. I am not accusing you of such - however, let us dissect one of the quotes you provide.

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies- between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae- between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

This quote is a partial quote from The Descent of Man. I have indicated the parts you have quoted in bold font. The first thing to note is that Darwin is a product of his era - biological race was often confused with cultural race. That is, European civilization was considered civilized and Africans uncivilized or savage - pretty much the prevailing sentiment in the mid-19th century. You might as well call everyone who lived in the 1850's a racist - Darwin was simply a product of his time. Second, Darwin was not hoping for the extinction of any race - human or otherwise. He was arguing that intermediate forms of apes to humans ought to exist, but that extinction seems to be occurring which - at some point in the future - will result in intermediate forms becoming rarer. Finally, far from being a racist, Darwin often argued passionately against slavery. Consider this passage from the Voyage of the Beagle:

It is argued that self-interest will prevent excessive cruelty; as if self-interest protected our domestic animals, which are far less likely than degraded slaves, to stir up the rage of their savage masters. It is an argument long since protested against with noble feeling, and strikingly exemplified, by the ever illustrious Humboldt. It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves with our poorer countrymen: if the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin; but how this bears on slavery, I cannot see; as well might the use of the thumb-screw be defended in one land, by showing that men in another land suffered from some dreadful disease. Those who look tenderly at the slave-owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter;—what a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope of change! picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little children—those objects which nature urges even the slave to call his own—being torn from you and sold like beasts to the first bidder! And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbours as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth! It makes one's blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty: but it is a consolation to reflect, that we at least have made a greater sacrifice, than ever made by any nation, to expiate our sin.

Hardly sounds like a racist to me. Sounds more like a disaffected emancipationist.

The supreme court has made law here with their interpretation of the establishment clause. This is not the original intent. That is the point I was making.

Why is this not the original intent? The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment seeks to insure religious freedom and prohibits government funded institutions from promoting one religion over another. I'm curious why you feel the rulings of the Supreme Court are inconsistent with the First Amendment and why this represents a miscarriage of justice. And I am still interested in knowing whether you think all creation theories should be taught in public schools?

There are way more practical things to teach than evolution.

Well a biology teacher might tell you that it is both practical and important. They might argue that it is the cornerstone theory of biology, and we should teach it just as we teach E&M in physics and quantum mechanics in chemistry. And I also disagree about the relevance of evolution in every day life - but this thread seems to be getting out of hand so I will leave it at that.

[frankbaginski]

ARWallace,

So Darwin's grand Idea is not a law. We both agree.

If you think you can demonstrate evolution to your satisfaction thats great. To demonstrate it to me requires us to observe a new species made from natural selection with added information in the new species. This is the grand idea and I would like to see it.

The fossil record was predicted by Darwin to contain mostly intermediates. Now I can't say how you look at the record but from my view it does not contain these intermediates Darwin predicted.

You say you do not believe there are any IC structures in nature. If that is so then take two IC structures as defined by the ID group and show the step by step, neucleotide by neucleotide, benefit by benefit sequence between the two. If you can not then I have to give the ID group this point.

The point I was making with Darwin's book's (yes, I did read them) was not to bring up a debate about his views on races but to point out his theory stands outside of his beliefs, what ever they were. The point being that ID should be given the same separation that Darwin enjoys. That separation being the theory of ID from the designer and the theory of ID from the people who promote it.

The establishment clause is a states rights issue. States were able if they wanted to in their own state constitutions to establish a state sanctioned religion. Todays mess of a legal system is far different from what was originally set up by the framers. I am not sure if I want a state to have this right but it does not change what was originally set up.

From 1912 to 1982 Piltdown man was taught as fact, a true missing link. It was a fraud. Recently a biologist in South Korea made a claim about embronic stem cells that turned out to be false. Luckily it did not take 70 years to find out this fraud. The list of frauds goes on and on. I think the whole subject should be tossed from the classroom until you get to college.

[Kurieuo]

One can still consider something designed without answering the question of who did the designing.

Well, I think in some limited sense this is true. But here's the catch - I think the identity of the designer is the question.

It is the question, but one perhaps left better at the door of science. Just like the identity of the intelligence being examined in say archaeological artifacts discovered or CSI is an important question, the implications of the people responsible is something the examiner seeks to answer from the scientific facts discovered and science conducted. This question itself is not a scientific one, but one of personal interest. Knowing scientific truths, however, I believe can help one to answer it.

Merely identifying IC structures is a fairly mundane and ultimately uninteresting task; you have an algorithm and you apply it to a bunch of systems and structures in nature and see which ones fit the bill. But at some point you have face the music - assume, for example, ID researchers identify thousands of IC in nature.

Mundane and uninteresting? Merely identifying IC structures is just the beginning. The benefits of conceding the intricate purposed design of something has large benefits to all of us. For example, consider the following scenarios (if only freedom of thought in science was always allowed these conclusions would have likely been reached much earlier):

The function of the human appendix has long been a matter of debate, with the structure often considered to be a vestige of evolutionary development despite evidence to the contrary based on comparative primate anatomy. The appendix is thought to have some immune function based on its association with substantial lymphatic tissue, although the specific nature of that putative function is unknown. Based (a) on a recently acquired understanding of immune-mediated biofilm formation by commensal bacteria in the mammalian gut, (b) on biofilm distribution in the large bowel, (c) the association of lymphoid tissue with the appendix, (d) the potential for biofilms to protect and support colonization by commensal bacteria, and (e) on the architecture of the human bowel, we propose that the human appendix is well suited as a "safe house" for commensal bacteria, providing support for bacterial growth and potentially facilitating re-inoculation of the colon in the event that the contents of the intestinal tract are purged following exposure to a pathogen.

Biofilms in the large bowel suggest an apparent function of the human vermiform appendix.

The science of life is undergoing changes so jolting that even its top researchers are feeling something akin to shell-shock. Just four years after scientists finished mapping the human genome - the full sequence of 3 billion DNA "letters" folded within every cell - they find themselves confronted by a biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.

"Science is just starting to probe the wilderness between genes," said John M. Greally, molecular biologist at New York's Albert Einstein School of Medicine. "Already we're surprised and confounded by a lot of what we're seeing."

A slew of recent but unrelated studies of everything from human disease to the workings of yeast suggest that mysterious swaths of molecules - long dismissed as "junk DNA" - may be more important to health and evolution than genes themselves.

A 'scientific revolution' is taking place, as researchers explore the genomic jungle

The technological benefits we can reap of exploring the way in which something we conclude exhibits true design, rather than believing it happened by a naturally guided random chance, are very enormous. So mundane and uninteresting? Identifying something IC is only the beginning.

This absolutely begs questions like "who is the designer?" "for what purposes did they intervene?" "are they still intervening?" "how did they do it" "why did they do it?" And while I think you'll agree that ID architects have been a little reluctant to be open about their personal beliefs on the matter, they do have their own opinions.

Actually, if they were so reluctant, then how did you so easily dig up those quotes from them earlier? If anything, I see them openly answer in interviews, books, and what have you, the question who they think the designer is. As many are Christian it does not take a genius to guess who they think the designer is. Yet, when dealing with the science, such personal questions are irrelevant. As Antony Flew adeptly said in an interview with Benjamin Wiker when asked about what lead him to a belief that God exists:

• It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence. Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence. (http://www.tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm)

So you are focusing on the philosophical questions. These are the wrong questions, and ones the core IDists do not wish to entertain. They are more interested in the science. Maybe your reaction to the philosophical implications in ID are not letting you see the forest for the trees when it comes to the science. The questions you pose are not scientific. They belong outside of science.

The core IDists would agree that your questions are not scientific ones and so they need no response if one is focusing on science. Many like Meyers constantly state this point over and over again when asked to be real about who they think the designer is. I have always seen him (and others) make a distinction between their personal beliefs as to the identity of the designer as being outside the realm of science and ID. Scientifically, they do not wish to focus on who the designer is like their critics and detractors want them to, for these questions are not ones for science. Instead, they want to focus on the systems identified as having been intelligently designed. However, to do so at large, a change in what is acceptable to philosophically conclude in regards to science needs to take place. For it is entirely gripped far beyond that of methodological naturalism. People are challenged if there is any hint of Theistic philosophical beliefs when doing their science: "Oh, what? I said the intricate design of... what I really meant was evolution and appearance of design." They are discredited and labeled "Creationists" if is they are seen as standing in a philosophical position which rivals that of metaphysical naturalism when conducting science. Even being seen as associated with such people, as Richard Sternberg naively found out, reaps discrediting titles and can mean loosing one's job and reputation.

Getting back to focusing on systems identified as designed rather than the designer... when we see something that seems odd or useless, but such appears to be designed, then maybe we are missing something like was missed with Junk DNA, the human appendix and many other "vesicle" organs. ID inspires investigation once something is identified as expressing irreducible complexity or specified complexity, that is, when something has been identified as exhibiting signs of intelligent design.

And consider what would happen if it we found out that it really was space aliens? Or Buddha? Would this test the faith of those who don't worship Buddha? This is hyperbole - a bit - my point is that I don't think ID can escape the big questions it ultimately (and perhaps unintentionally) asks.

Scientifically, who cares? Truth is not politically correct. Truth is divisive. Let the truth be known if something like what you say is the case, and then each to their own to deal with it in their own ways.

Surely you are not suggesting that science can only be practiced by those who do not believe in God or a creator of some sort?

Absolutely not. And if I have given you or anyone this impression I would like to state unequivocally that this is not what I believe.

If this is the case, then questions about the personal beliefs as to who the designer is of core ID advocates should not matter to the scientific investigation conducted or inspired by ID.

[zoegirl]

Nice post K.

Getting back to focusing on systems identified as designed rather than the designer... when we see something that seems odd or useless, but such appears to be designed, then maybe we are missing something like was missed with Junk DNA, the human appendix and many other "vesicle" organs.

It certainly shows that there have been assumptions made about the functions of organs based on their belief (theory, whatever) that these structures are simply mere remnants of evolutionary heritage without a purpose. To some degree, I think the discovery of a purpose of supposed junk DNA remained undiscovered and unexamined so long because this idea of "junk" DNA fit the preconceived notions of products of evolution. "Of course, evolution would produce junk DNA...." And this kind of bias can limit discovery just as much.

(I did a couple of graduate research papers on bacterial populations in the large intestine and intestinal biofilms[ an interest stemming from having ulcerative colitis].... rather amazing things, our large intestine!)


Btw, that laminin thing is really starting to bug me. When I did the google image search I had no idea that it had become such a tool being used, I must have found 5 blogs raving about how interesting this is, that a protein should look like a cross....I think it is a ridicuously simplistic argument that Canuckster blew right through with his swastika comment. Are we so blind of the thousands of beautiful examples of His handiwork that a mere similarity to the cross blows us away?

I know I've referenced this before, but for those who want to be blown away by His creation....

http://aimediaserver.com/studiodaily/vi ... height=520

[Jad]

For Jad:

Check out this audio link below Al if you get the chance. It is in regards to allopatric speciation. You need RealPlayer installed on your PC to hear it and it will take a while to load up but in any case it's worth a listen. If you can't hear it I'll see if I can get a mp3 version of it.

OK - I listened to it - or most of it. Enough to get the gist. Is there a specific question you have?

You mentioned earlier that allopatric speciation was a form of macro-evolution, the steps that transform one species to another. The audio link suggests it is just micro-evolution. While you may claim that it is not entirely true to state that such evidence for macro-evolution does not exist, I would instead claim it is not entirely true to state that such theories for macro-evolution do not exist. There is a difference between theory and evidence and there is still no testable evidence at all for species transforming into another. Even as the contrary evidence for macro-evolution accumulates many seem to cling to Darwinism in the hope that this particular part of evolution is true, rather than seeking the truth and following where it leads you. I hope you don't fall under this category Al?

There you go, some science and philosophy all in one.

[frankbaginski]

The Limits of ID

K touched on this point and I would like to discuss it some more. If science places a marker on some element of biology and says that we do not know how this was made this is nothing but a formal statement of the facts. How that identification is made should not be the argument in front of us. One group is saying IC and the other is saying unknown. It really is a "who cares". The point is we "do not know" and the ID people at least have tried to place numerical standards for this edge of understanding. If some scientist are so sure that IC does not exist then by all means they should allow the list to be made. Then when one of these markers turns out to be false then the house of cards that ID made will fall on its own. Moving the marker to a new location would destroy the concept of IC.

This debate is not about the marker or where it might be placed. The big elephant in the corner is the identity of the designer. This is why we argue. The activist scientist do not want the foot in the door to science of a designer who they know is God. Let me add that many in physics do not have this problem, but they don't call Him a designer, they call Him God. I think biology is heading in this same direction and it scares some in the field to death. If man does indeed reach the limits of understanding of this universe then there are two theoretical ends, one being that everything is an accident, the other being that everything has been designed by God. There is no middle ground.

I have stated many times on this site that my belief in God is independant of science. Yes, I was brought to God through science but I moved past that I am happy to say. My mind knows that God exist more than I know I exist in a physical state. So these arguments of men are fun and a curiosity and may serve to bring others to Christ. After all this is the reason we debate. The fight over the souls of man. Emotions run high and the stakes more valuable than the universe.

[Himantolophus]

If you think you can demonstrate evolution to your satisfaction thats great. To demonstrate it to me requires us to observe a new species made from natural selection with added information in the new species. This is the grand idea and I would like to see it.

How do you assume you NEED added information to create a new species? If we haven't been able to "see" a new species form, then you have no proof that there is a required addition to the genome.
You say you have no problem with microevolution and yet you are challenging ARWallace to find an example of a new species created by natural selection. And yet this is how YEC's believe "kinds" evolved into species (a cat into all cats) after the Flood. Mutation and natural selection. What do you believe then?
There are numerous examples of recent speciation, although "recent" in this case is tens of thousands to even millions of years. The serranids Parathias colonus and furcifer are clearly related (almost identical) and yet they are separated by the Panama Isthmus. Phylogenetic evidence puts their split at right around the time of the Panamanian Uplift event. Coincidence? There are many examples, land and sea, of vicariant speciation where the only existing explanation for the species "distinctiveness" is evolution. If natural selection and mutation don't cause these changes, do we have to assume God causes each and every genetic change?

The fossil record was predicted by Darwin to contain mostly intermediates. Now I can't say how you look at the record but from my view it does not contain these intermediates Darwin predicted.

you said in another post that fossils are exceedingly rare and most are of marine origin... yet now you blame the lack of intermediates on that same fossil record? Yet you support a global flood by showing a richness in marine fossils on current continental areas. Wouldn't land animals be just as common considering that you believe the entire planet became a global ocean (and so everything should have been and equal chance of sinking, being buried and fossilized)? Back on topic... we see many intermediate forms between kinds. Not the type where every step is "illustrated", but just enough where we can see that the changes occurred.
Transitional- organism is morphologically closer to the same common ancestor it shares with its more derived relative. It is more plesiomorphic.
Intermediate- forms that have a large number of uniquely derived traits not connected to its derived relative. It is more apomorphic.
There are many species that can be considered transitional, in nearly every group of organisms. Stromatolites are basically huge colonies of bacteria that show a transition from unicellular and multicellular existence (perhaps where cellular cooperation evolved).
There are examples of transitional forms between invertebrates and vertebrates: Pikaia (a segmented worm with a notochord), Cathaymyrus diadexus (the oldest known chordate), Myllokunmingia (chordate that lacks head, bones and teeth yet has vert-like muscles), and other "invertebrate-chordates" like urochordates (sessile, marine chordates yet are related to vertebrates) and lancelets (worm-fish with a notochord).
Once you have jawless vertebrates you have the jawless fishes which have several line (most are extinct). Then you go from jawless fish, to cartilaginous fishes, to sarcopterygians, to actinoterygians.

The evolution of fishes is highly supported by evidence and is helped by the fact that members of many of the steps are still alive today. We can trace the gradual evolution of a bony skeleton, rayed fins, fin spines, pectoral girdles, jaw kinesis, tooth pattern, mobility of the maxillary bones, development of the physostomous duct, fin position and structure, habitat, lifestyle. All of this follows a path that is well marked by fossils and modern evidence. It is helped by the fact that we have alot of fish fossils to look at.
Fish to Amhibians: there are numerous examples of amphibians that have fish characters and vice versa: sarcopterygian fishes had lobed fins and many were obligative air breathers (with early lungs), Osteolepis (lungfish like but with amphibian head and jaw structure), Eusthenopteron (amphibian bone structure and musculature but fish-like shape), Panderichthys (crossopterygian fish that looked like an amphibian with limbs and all), Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega (fin to limb transitional forms). These early amphibians were all amphibious and most likely had gills and primitive lungs. To this day, amphibians live this lifestyle.
We also have numerous transitional fossils between amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, and reptiles and mammals. If you want me to post these, I will, but I think you get the point.
If you believe all of these species existed, then how do you explain their "transitional" form as anything besides evidence of kind to kind evolution? Yes, the paths still have gaps and much is still to be learned, but the evidence doesn't lie!

You say you do not believe there are any IC structures in nature. If that is so then take two IC structures as defined by the ID group and show the step by step, neucleotide by neucleotide, benefit by benefit sequence between the two. If you can not then I have to give the ID group this point.

we can't. As I said above, with the evidence we have to date, the entire path cannot be traced from A to B. I don't think anyone can but it doesn't mean it didn't happen. How can we describe the molecular changes in something that lived in the distant past?

From 1912 to 1982 Piltdown man was taught as fact, a true missing link. It was a fraud. Recently a biologist in South Korea made a claim about embronic stem cells that turned out to be false. Luckily it did not take 70 years to find out this fraud. The list of frauds goes on and on. I think the whole subject should be tossed from the classroom until you get to college.

one fraud for every hundred facts. There is error in science, there is error in every field. Using that logic, dare I say there was error involved in the writing of the Bible?? God might be above error, but the people writing it all down were certainly prone to it. Like any "word of mouth" story, I'd be hesitant to accept it at face value. Luckily, science can see the problem, admit it, and correct it's errors, YEC's refuse to even admit they have a problem

[frankbaginski]

Himantolophus ,

You say:

"How do you assume you NEED added information to create a new species? If we haven't been able to "see" a new species form, then you have no proof that there is a required addition to the genome. "

Darwin's theory starts with a cell and all species come from it. Are you saying all information was in the first cell? That means all protein sequences, genes, etc. If so you agree with JAD. If you think that information is not required then you have not thought this out. And don't give me that natural selection makes information nonsense.

I think we should agree to disagree.

[ARWallace]

Jad -

Sorry - I had a reply typed in this morning, and literally as I finished the power went out.

The essence of my reply was this: what part of macroevolution/microevolution do you take issue with? Is it that a neatly defined species concept does not exist? That recently formed and closely related species can produce offspring through introgressive hybridization? I am further curious why the sitckleback example I provided was not a viable example of macroevolution? I provided an example in which many species formed from one ancestral form (still extant). I explained the selective forces driving these changes as well as the recent geologic events leading to allopatry. Finally, I explained the genetic bases responsible for the morphological change - and that modification of one developmental gene may even be responsible for morphological changes in the hind limbs of other tetrapods. I am just curious what other evidence would be needed for you to consider this an example of macroevolution?

Frank and Kurieuo - I'll get back to you eventually. Things get a little busy on the weekends.

[frankbaginski]

Himantolophus ,

one fraud for every hundred facts. There is error in science, there is error in every field. Using that logic, dare I say there was error involved in the writing of the Bible?? God might be above error, but the people writing it all down were certainly prone to it. Like any "word of mouth" story, I'd be hesitant to accept it at face value. Luckily, science can see the problem, admit it, and correct it's errors, YEC's refuse to even admit they have a problem

I hope you were refering to errors in science that science can correct. It reads like you were saying science can fix the Bible. I will assume that you were refering to science.

As to the fossil record, yes, I did say that fossils are hard to make and we would never find enough to have a complete picture. But that is Frank talking. I was refering to what Darwin wrote. Since he wrote his theory we have found millions of fossils and the picture has not changed as he predicted. One of the ways to check a theory is to see if it has the power to predict things. Darwin's theory predicted just the opposite of what we found. Now some people think that the discovery of DNA supports Darwin's theory. Myself and some others feel just the opposite. The complexity is so vast that simple steps can't make the end products we see around us today.

I wrote a story one time about evolution, let me see if I remember it:

Once upon a time there was a cow who lived by the sea. The cow would stand in the water and say "I wish I wish I could be a fish". The friend of the cow, a cricket, said to the cow "you have to ask the good fairy to make you a fish". So one day the good fairy came by and the cow asked the good fairy if he could become a fish. The good fairy said "sure I can make you a fish". So the good fairy waved her wand over the cow. The cow looked and saw that he was still a cow. The cow said "Good fairy why am I still a cow?" The good fairy said "Oh I can't make you into a fish all at once, it must happen over ten million generations, your decendants will swim someday" The cow looked around and said "What a crock" then went back and ate grass with the rest of the cows.

I wrote this story for someone who said that streching ones neck made your offspring taller. Something like jumping makes you grow feathers.

[zoegirl]

That person's argument about stretching one's neck is refelctive of Lamarkian ideas and in no way relfects the current model of evolution.

Lamarck proposed that gradual changes occured because
1) the organism NEEDED the structure
2) the organism used a structure OR stopped using it and thus it strengthened or weakened
3) those acquired characteristics were passed down to the offspring.

THe person to whom you were talking was mixing up the facts. They weren't even getting the model of evolution correct.

[Ashley]

Even though I haven't yet gone through the details about ID, I would think that the problem with ID is not its scientificity, but its logicality. ID presumes that all designed indicates the existence of a designer. If it worked, it must do with cause-and-effect logics.

Cause-and-effect logics is true only if all things go with unidirectional time frame. What happened can never be reversed. As we all know, God lives beyond the time frame. He overrides all restraintsthat human beings are confined to. It is as though ID puts God into a laboratory to testify His own existence. That isn't true, I doubt.

ID still hinges on certain degree of faith because it comes from [my personal opinion] the passages in Romans. [St. Paul said that the unbelievers should have no excuse to deny God because He was implied by what He had created]

.

[frankbaginski]

zoegirl,

My comments on Lamarkian evolution were given in jest. At this point it would silly to hold on to ideas like that with all of the data out there. Now I look at the data and come to different conclusions than main stream science. My model would start with JAD and then have it unfold in six days. I would like to hear your comments about my post on the limits of ID. This I believe is the real argument.

[ARWallace]

Frank:

So Darwin's grand Idea is not a law. We both agree.

Well, yes. Again, it is a scientific theory which is the highest status accorded to an explanatory model in the sciences. A law seeks to describe an observation in nature while a theory seeks to explain it. Conceding that the ToE is not a law is not an admission of failure on the part of the idea's explanatory power.

If you think you can demonstrate evolution to your satisfaction thats great. To demonstrate it to me requires us to observe a new species made from natural selection with added information in the new species. This is the grand idea and I would like to see it.

Well, given the conditions you require, I may not be able to demonstrate it to your satisfaction. And it is not my intent to try to force my ideas on you. I'd be happy to discuss them, but I think we need to agree on what new "information" is, and why you feel this is a necessary pre-condition for evolution to occur.

You say you do not believe there are any IC structures in nature. If that is so then take two IC structures as defined by the ID group and show the step by step, neucleotide by neucleotide, benefit by benefit sequence between the two. If you can not then I have to give the ID group this point.

Be careful, Frank. You have, on several occasions, misrepresented what I have said. I did not say I thought there aren't any IC structures in nature. I said there have, to date, been no IC structures described that do not have naturalistic mechanisms that explain their origins. You may not accept the explanations. But given that naturalistic explanations do exist that describe how these structures could have evolved through natural selection, it is my belief that this renders them non-IC by default. Furthermore, I was careful to say that the failure of ID to produce any IC structures thus far does not mean that they may not be able to do so at some point in time. Now, as for the complete cinematic explanation you require to satisfactorily accept a naturalistic explanation - in all likelihood you will never get it. In part because of the nature in which some of these structures may have evolved and in part because such detail will likely never be known for the evolution of any structure. For the former - consider the flagellum (I know, you're tired of this example!). One model explaining their origins suggests that they may have exogenous origins - that a spirochete bacterium may have become integrated into another prokaryote. Such exogenous origins are believed to explain the presence of mitochondria and chloroplasts in eukaryotes. In this case, the evolution of the structure did not come about by a nucleotide-by-nucleotide mutational process in the host's genome. In such cases, you will never get the evidence you wish because it does not and never has existed. In the latter case, it is simply impossible to reconstruct in perfect detail every event in the origin of a structure that may have evolved 3 billion years ago. This is not to say that evidence may not exist. For example, the theory of serial endosymbiosis is virtually universally accepted in the scientific community as the explanation for the evolution of eukaryotes. And while some of the details are still being sorted out, there is a large body of evidence supporting the theory. But this theory does not purport, nor is it expected to account for every single mutation, and every event that occurred in the past giving rise to eukaryotic cells. Such a demand would be impossible to meet. All science demands for widespread acceptance is that an idea be true beyond reasonable doubt. So if you are adamant in your requirements, don't bother asking me for explanations that I won't be able to provide to your satisfaction.

The point I was making with Darwin's book's (yes, I did read them) was not to bring up a debate about his views on races but to point out his theory stands outside of his beliefs, what ever they were. The point being that ID should be given the same separation that Darwin enjoys.

Well, the points I was trying to make were as follows: (1) that your quotes were partial quotes that appeared to be taken out of context and that extrapolating from them (as you did) could be misleading; and (2) that your conclusions were that Darwin was a racist and a sexist might not be valid. I provided a quote with a link to the appropriate text from Darwin's works that suggested otherwise - at least on the charge of racism. Now, as for your point that the personal beliefs of the architects of an idea should stand separate to the idea they promote - well, I agree to some extent. But we all have agendas, and in some cases it may be appropriate to examine them if it appears an idea has been generated for a purpose besides merely the provocation of thinking in the scientific community. And it is worth pointing out that anti-evolutionists can be as guilty as the evolutionists when it comes to this - how many times have you come across anti-evolution texts refering to Stephen J. Gould's Marxist leanings or references to "X, the atheist scientist"?

The establishment clause is a states rights issue. States were able if they wanted to in their own state constitutions to establish a state sanctioned religion.

Well, not being a constitutional scholar, I'm not willing to go to the mats on this one. My thoughts here are more along the lines of (1) this may be true, and I have come across references indicating some in the legal community (particularly recently) are making such a case in specific instances; (2) it seems a little inconsistent with my interpretation of the EC - that it is to gaurantee civil liberties and I am not certain states could write laws circumventing such freedoms; (3) I agree that a document drafted 250 years ago may be difficult to interpret in a political and social system radically different than the one that existed when the document was written (certainly the 3rd Amendment seems antiquated by today's standards in a literal sense, and some legal experts argue the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to assemble a militia and not to guarantee the right of every citizen to own AK-47 assault rifles) but that barring a 2/3 opinion in Congress to change them, they remain all that we have; and (4) it is what it is. That is to say that the US Supreme Court has ruled that teaching YEC in a public school violates the EC of the 1st Amendment, and that's where we are today. So I think we should steer clear of of a detailed discussion of constitutional law and stick to the question - "given what the Supreme Court has ruled as opposed to what we'd like them to rule, do you think all models of creation should be taught (or none at all) to avoid violating the EC?"

[ARWallace]

Kurieuo -

Thank you for a very thought provoking response. I sort of kicked things around yesterday after reading it. Here are a few responses I had: first, I agree that the identity of the designer is not one left to science. But it, and several related metaphysical questions will arise, and it is human nature to want to answer them. I applaud the open-mindedness with which you are willing to let the chips fall where they may vis-a-vis the identity if the designer. I am a little more concerned about the impact and potential deviseness such an identification might have. But fortunately I think that the answer to such a question is beyond human capacity to answer. Short of a microscopic image of a bacterial flagellum with "Made in China" stamped on it, I can't imagine what test could be applied to identifying the designer of such a structure.

Second, I am not certain that the studies you cited necessarily represent the relaxation of certain ideas that dominate science - that the authors of these studies reached these conclusions by invoking the notion of purposeful design. Finding a use for a structure that did not previously have a known use is - or at least may be - nothing more than the logical outcome of scientists studying a structure more closely. Regarding the appendix; research as early as 1980 confirmed that the appendix may have some as-yet unknown function as opposed to being a vestige. This study merely elucidates what that function is. As for junk DNA - well, because of a rather unfortunate case of poorly considered nomenclature, has been poorly understood by both scientists and laymen alike. I imagine the name arose from a rather narrowly focused group of biologists who study gene function or protein analysis. Because such DNA is not transcribed or translated, they could see no immediate function since DNA's only perceived role in their estimation is to carry instructions for making proteins. Geneticists who study chromosomes have long argued that this DNA may help space out genes increasing the chances of recombination. But the name junk DNA stuck. And the fact that all that allegedly useless DNA is there to begin with rather begs the question of whether a function(s) do/es exist. And it is this quest for knowledge that likely resulted in the study you cite as well as a host of others that describe possible functions for it. I don't purport to have any special knowledge of the motives of the authors of these studies, but I am not certain we can conclude that (a) the scientific community suppressed study of, nor was disinterested in the possible functions of these, or other structures; or (b) that a desire to see all of nature as the product of purposeful design motivated them. It may have, but scientists are a rather curious lot who continue to dig deeper rarely accepting the fact that the book is closed on anything in nature.

Now, the vestiges of hind leg bones in boas and the degenerative eyes of cave dwelling fish seem to be - in every sense of the word - vestigial structures. That they may have some, as yet unknown purpose that science does not understand does not detract from the fact that they are reducted structures that exist in operational form in closely related species.

And if the question of what junk DNA may do interests you, I recommend this review article from Scientific American.