Replies

Jesse-- There are two different issues here.

The first issue is that origins must be separated from evolution. The second is that fact must be separated from theory.

Your question regarding "goo to you by way of the zoo" mixes all four of these together. I suspect it was designed to do so, a strawman with a catchy rhyme and meter as well.

Once you separate origins from evolution things become easier to study. I think that origins, as I suggested earlier, are covered in science by several hypotheses which account for the data. But that data is limited and none of these hypotheses has gathered either a lot of support or advanced to the level of a theory. The jury is still out.

As far as evolution, it is in fact both a theory and a fact. The fact of evolution can be seen in every generation -- it differs from the previous generation. Even creationists admit to evolution the fact as they accept "microevolution." Some even accept "macroevolution" as they posit all existing species being formed from the original kinds since emerging from the ark. That would be macroevolution at several hundred times the speed posited by scientists. One ("Woodmorappe") even posits that various species of fossil man developed after the flood, so he sees macroevolution as occurring much as scientists do but several hundred times faster and in reverse!

So it is clear that evolution the fact is almost universally accepted. Now comes evolution the theory. The theory seeks to explain the facts of evolution. Because scientists can see evolution occurring all around us, and can see quite a bit of complimentary evidence in the fossil and genetic records, and because virtually all of the data points in the same direction, they theorize common descent.

This is one of those theories that is probably 99.999% documented, and so it is often called a fact. Technically it is still a theory, just as the "fact" that the sun rises in the east is still a theory. But when something is so well supported it is often spoken of as a fact.

So to your question, it does look like the evidence supports common descent and humans descending from ape-like critters. While there are still details to be worked out, that is the direction things are headed based on a huge amount of data that we currently have. There are virtually no hypotheses or evidence suggesting the contrary.

There are other ideas floating around: humans are the result of space aliens tinkering with the genomes, or are the result of transplants from other planets. But there is so little evidence supporting these ideas that they can be ignored for the time being.

It is pretty much the same for "intelligent design." This is an idea that is inspired by religion and which has suggested some lines of investigation that science can address. Those lines of investigation, such as irreducible complexity, have not yet panned out. The primary examples of IC (flagella and the eye) have all been explained using existing theory and evidence, negating the claims of ID. Until ID can come up with some evidence that withstands scientific scrutiny, it will remain no more than just an idea.

Hope this helps.

[[The primary examples of IC (flagella and the eye) have all been explained using existing theory and evidence, negating the claims of ID]

Sorry- that is a false statement- The ‘explanations’ simply reduce NON vital components of the IC system and can NOT account for the vital IC components arising from stewpwise macroeovlution. Miller tried to explain it away dismantling NON vital elements and showing how they ‘could have’ arisen- however all Miller accomplished was showing how htese NON vital components of IC an MICROEvolve and he never addressed the actual IC components themselvews because quite frankly- He was unable to and had absolutelty ZERO empiracle evidences with which to exp[lain or show how hte vital components could have arisen

[[The first issue is that origins must be separated from evolution]]

Says who? Both abiogensis and later macroeovlution BOTH share hte same biolgoical impossibilites- Startign at a later date won’t make htis impossibility dissappear, nor does it cause hte arguements to gain any more factual evidences. Whether Macroeovlution attempts to expalin the begiunnings or later macroeovlution, the problem still persists- it’s impossible- biolgoically impossible, for species to gain NEW non species specific information unles a process of lateral gene transference can be described which overcomes yet more serious impossibilities.

[[As far as evolution, it is in fact both a theory and a fact. The fact of evolution can be seen in every generation — it differs from the previous generation.]

Really? Mind pointing out htose “Facts”?

[[ Even creationists admit to evolution the fact as they accept “microevolution.” ]]

We’;ve NEVER disputed scientific FACTS that can be shown- all we dispute are the assumptions, which MACROEvolution is based antriely on evidenceless assumptions.

[[Some even accept “macroevolution” as they posit all existing species being formed from the original kinds since emerging from the ark]

Ah- tryign the sneaky tactic of blurring the scientific lines eh? This hsows that you apprently don’t understand hte massive differences between MICRO and MACRO evolution. Every change in species from the ark was due totally to MICROEvolution- NOT MACROEvolution- someone hwo understands the differences would know better than to suggest anythign different.

[[One (”Woodmorappe”) even posits that various species of fossil man developed after the flood, so he sees macroevolution as occurring much as scientists do but several hundred times faster and in reverse!]]

Sigh- Again- Woodmorrappe isn’t describing MACROEvolution- He is describing MICROEvolution- or rather MICRO- De Evolution- the loss of information- which as we know is absolutely a bilogical fact in nature.

[[So it is clear that evolution the fact is almost universally accepted.]]

intentionally (and with apparent deceit in mind) blurring hte scientific definition lines again!

[[The theory seeks to explain the facts of evolution. Because scientists can see evolution occurring all around us,]]

Macro or Micro Coyote?

[[and because virtually all of the data points in the same direction, they theorize common descent.]]

Only with shuffling and reorganization and claims that can NOT be backed up by the evidnece-

[[This is one of those theories that is probably 99.999% documented,]]

Realllly? Wow- you are certainly an overoptimistic fact denying advocate for sure.

[[So to your question, it does look like the evidence supports common descent and humans descending from ape-like critters.]]

This claim lacks scientific integrity and is nothign more than an opinion which ignores the billions of biological differences in the genome- again,. appealing to homologies and similarities doesn’t cut hte mustard when so much evidence refutes your claims.

[[It is pretty much the same for “intelligent design.” This is an idea that is inspired by religion]]

1. “Intelligent Design Creationism” is a pejorative term coined by some Darwinists to attack intelligent design; it is not a neutral label of the intelligent design movement.

Scientists and scholars supportive of intelligent design do not describe themselves as “intelligent design creationists.” Indeed, intelligent design scholars do not regard intelligent design theory as a form of creationism. Therefore to employ the term “intelligent design creationism” is inaccurate, inappropriate, and tendentious, especially on the part of scholars and journalists who are striving to be fair. “Intelligent design creationism” is not a neutral description of intelligent design theory. It is a polemical label created for rhetorical purposes. “Intelligent design” is the proper neutral description of the theory.

2. Unlike creationism, intelligent design is based on science, not sacred texts.

Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities. Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. (3)

3. Creationists know that intelligent design theory is not creationism.

The two most prominent creationist groups, Answers in Genesis Ministries (AIG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have criticized the intelligent design movement (IDM) because design theory, unlike creationism, does not seek to defend the Biblical account of creation. AIG specifically complained about IDM’s “refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God” and noted that “philosophically and theologically the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group.” Indeed, according to AIG, “many prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of recent creation….” (4) Likewise, ICR has criticized ID for not employing “the Biblical method,” concluding that “Design is not enough!” (5) Creationist groups like AIG and ICR clearly understand that intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism.

4. Like Darwinism, design theory may have implications for religion, but these implications are distinct from its scientific program.

Intelligent design theory may hold implications for fields outside of science such as theology, ethics, and philosophy. But such implications are distinct from intelligent design as a scientific research program. In this matter intelligent design theory is no different than the theory of evolution. Leading Darwinists routinely try to draw out theological and cultural implications from the theory of evolution. Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, for example, claims that Darwin “made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (6) Harvard’s E.O. Wilson employs Darwinian biology to deconstruct religion and the arts. (7) Other Darwinists try to elicit positive implications for religion from Darwin’s theory. The pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has organized a “Faith Network” to promote the study of evolution in churches. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE, acknowledges that the purpose of the group’s “clergy outreach program” is “to try to encourage members of the practicing clergy to address the issue of Evolution in Sunday schools and adult Bible classes” and to get church members to talk about “the theological implications of evolution.” (8) The NCSE’s “Faith Network Director” even claims that “Darwin’s theory of evolution…has, for those open to the possibilities, expanded our notions of God.” (9) If Darwinists have the right to explore the cultural and theological implications of Darwin’s theory without disqualifying Darwinism as science, then ID-inspired discussions in the social sciences and the humanities clearly do not disqualify design as a scientific theory.

5. Fair-minded critics recognize the difference between intelligent design and creationism.

Scholars and science writers who are willing to explore the evidence for themselves are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is different from creationism. As mentioned earlier, historian of science Ronald Numbers has acknowledged the distinction between ID and creationism. So has science writer Robert Wright, writing in Time magazine: “Critics of ID, which has been billed in the press as new and sophisticated, say it’s just creationism in disguise. If so it’s a good disguise. Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us.”

Whatever problems the theory of intelligent design may have, it should be allowed to rise or fall on its own merits, not on the merits of some other theory”

http://www.discovery.org/a/1329

Hope this helps