Evolution Critics Are Under Fire For Flaws in 'Intelligent Design'

Wall Street Journal ^ | Feb 13, 2004 | SHARON BEGLEY

[The Raven]

Even before Darwin, critics attacked the idea of biological evolution with one or another version of, "Evolve this!"

Whether they invoked a human, an eye, or the whip-like flagella that propel bacteria and sperm, the contention that natural processes of mutation and natural selection cannot explain the complexity of living things has been alive and well for 200 years.

[_Jim]

Note that he uses the word "could"...

Always look for the words "could", "perhaps"... Its a dead giveaway that means NOT PROVEN.

While I believe in God, it would appear, I think, to those who use only their senses to tangibly determine what is or is not, God is only a theory and therefore 'could' exist ...

For the strict creationsists, I think they have lost the battle before it is started on this basis; just as evolution cannot be strictly proven - neither can God be strictly proven, yet, whether he does exist or not is immaterial to fact ('facts' stand aside from and independent of what puny mortals may conceive in their limited minds at any given moment) ...

The 'creationsists' fail to address those common elements we find in DNA, those components that result in the formation of some rather 'common' elements that are shared with different so-called species. 'til they come to grips with this aspect they will be continually 'inventing' specious reasons for 'differences' they cannot explain and therfore reamain forever ignoring that rather large elephant (present for all to see) that occupies their front living rooms ...

[marron]

What I think we can say, however, is the way human beings symbolize God "evolves"....

I prefer to use the word "dynamic" but I recognize that the word could not be properly applied to a God who is outside space-time. But viewed from our side of the divide dynamic might best describe it, it would look like that to us.

To continue with a thought I have pursued in another context, the two notions, that God controls the future, and that men are free agents, can only be reconciled if God is engaged in the here and now. Some have written that if God is engaged in the world then human freedom is negated, but I see it as precisely the reverse. He can absorb all of the uncertainties introduced by his human and very fallible, very inventive, and very idiosyncratic crew by remaining engaged.

[Right Wing Professor]

Why does "fitness" imply one and only one specific function?

How do you drive a single car down two different roads at the same time?

Which of the two functions of your male genital organ do you exclusively use?

(And anyone who claims writing in snow is a third function will be ignored)

[RightWhale]

the Bible specifically states that man is the result of an evolutionary process.

You had a point, but it slipped away. Evolution may be implicit, but it is not explicit and certainly not specific.

[elephantlips]

There is no evidence in all of history that shows structure and order coming from chaos. The law of sowing and reaping has never been repudiated. "If you sow chaos you reap chaos..." and so on.

[Dimensio]

There is no evidence in all of history that shows structure and order coming from chaos. The law of sowing and reaping has never been repudiated. "If you sow chaos you reap chaos..." and so on.

Non-sequitur.

[whattajoke]

re: woodpeckers, back in the day, woodpeckers competed with other birds for the same bugs under bark. Loose bark which was more easily removed... something a mere robin can do today. Longer tongues improved their chances. Over time, woodpeckers evolved more traits that allowed them to seek out harder to reach bugs in harder to pry/poke through bark. Competition for food was reduced, woodpecker fitness was increased. Over time, their skulls became even more shock absorbing, their beaks tougher, and tongues more modified. Now, it appears, woodpekcer competition is reduced to fellow woodpeckers, which is more or less an ideal situation.

Next?

[whattajoke]

There is no life form smaller than the bacterium in question but they are extremely extrememly extremely... complex and if you try and simplify them, they are nothing, nadda zip.

Your level of biological knowledge is simply astounding. By your "logic," brontosauri were the pinnacle of evolution too, huh? What about certain fungi which spread out over miles and miles composing "one organism." They kinda skew your misconceptions a bit.

Your personal inability to grasp biology does not mean, for one second, the rest of the world needs to be remain content in it's ignorance.

[general_re]

And false to boot.

[whattajoke]

Why in the world are there different types of flagella?

I know the answer, but I want to hear the ID crowd's answer. If they were ID'd, why are there so many different kinds? you'd think the ID'er would design one perfectly good motor locomotor and that would be that, but any 12 year old who looks at pond water under an elementary scope will tell you they can see different looking and acting flagella. Why ID'ers?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

George Coyne -- astronomer, Jesuit and director of the Vatican Observatory --...

Ahhh. The Jesuits.

[whattajoke]

The "law of sowing and reaping?"

Please educate me. I see "order" from "chaos" all the time in nature... Arches national park, the old man on the mountain (before he fell), sand dunes... um, all of life on earth, etc.

[newgeezer]

Nice to see you've got it all figured out, just like it says in Romans 1:18-23.

[Dimensio]

Nice to see you've got it all figured out, just like it says in Romans 1:18-23.

Looks like you're admitting that your point has been defeated, since you're resorting to non-sequiturs rather than actually addressing the argument presented.

[whattajoke]

Nice to see you've got it all figured out, just like it says in Romans 1:18-23.

Now that you've insinuated I am wicked and foolish, I ask YOU, how did the woodpecker come to be?

So let me get your bible passage straight... when we try to figure something in the world out, we are being wicked and foolish? So we as a society should just sit around, learning nothing, praising god for giving us everything all day long? The pursuit of knowledge is bad? Gee, sounds great... but no thanks.

[Ophiucus]

Here's the basics -http://www.life.umd.edu/classroom/bsci370/lecture8.html

You're talking about a microevolution type of study. Each organism under each condition will be different. I don't have numbers off hand. Do a PubMed search on microevolution and bacteria, salmon, guppies, e coli or look for Genetics symposium or the Microevolution: rate, pattern, process by Hendry and Kinnison

Essentially sit and watch, count the number of changes, and how many live or die. Repeat.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Your post #42. Interesting interpretation.

[balrog666]

There is no evidence in all of history that shows structure and order coming from chaos.

Right, sure, whatever you say ...

I guess this is just a random collection of atoms.

[Ophiucus]

Not exactly. Theories are not proven.

I'm sorry but you are incorrect. In the world of science, it is the hypothesis that is not proven. This is contrary to what you probably learned in high school. Scientists use the word differently. This is why I posted the definition from the NSA.

The "fact" of evolution is not quite the same as the theory of evolution.

From the same source:

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'"

The fact of evolution, scientifically, is the same as the theory of evolution. The word "theory" does not imply uncertainty - it is a statement of certainty.

[AndrewC]

Which of the two functions of your male genital organ do you exclusively use?

There is only one function that is needed for my physical survival.(emotional survival is not considered).

(Also remember the argument among the body parts as to which was the most important-- the sphincter won.)