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.

[PhilipFreneau]

>> Biologist and Anglican priest Arthur Peacocke, for instance, argues that evolution is God's way of creating.

One must believe in intelligent design to believe in prophecy. Peacocke is a phony priest.

[AndrewC]

My hair stands on end when folks (on either side) talk about genes benefiting, or genes being selfish, or whether.

Didn't mean to do that! I attribute no consciousness to genes. Perhaps I should have stated "My passing them on, keeps them around longer."

[Dimensio]

One must believe in intelligent design to believe in prophecy. Peacocke is a phony priest.

Translation: "If they don't believe exactly as I believe, then they're lying."

[AndrewC]

But, getting back to the original point, the human penis certainly has two functions. I don't see why we're wasting our time with this obvious point.

I didn't argue against that. I merely stated that one function, the excretion function, was essential for survival, and I threw in the sphincter reference as an illustration.

[Right Wing Professor]

You countered "Why does "fitness" imply one and only one specific function?" with "How do you drive a single car down two different roads at the same time?"

It appears this was a foolish analogy, since clearly fitness does imply more than one specific function.

[newgeezer]

lying.

Hey, thanks for the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it's you who, for whatever reason, can't figure out what I meant when I said "you quoted all the evidence I need." Funny how that possibility seemingly didn't enter your mind before you accused me of lying.

But, really, it was there. It was the second sentence you quoted. In other words, the Bible says so, and that's enough for me. I'm surprised the question contained in my reply didn't make that crystal clear.

With all due respect, I don't lie. However, I wouldn't be surprised if those who are prone to lying when the situation "justifies it" would simply assume "of course, everyone else does it, too."

[newgeezer]

You look around and flatly deny the existence of the One who created you and everything you see, instead believing -- or trying very hard to believe -- it's all a cosmic accident. All the while, eternity awaits you.

Likewise, give that some thought and "have a lovely weekend."

Oh, and lest you wish to conclude otherwise, I'm not "judging" or condemning anyone above, only stating what I believe to be the simple facts of life.

[AndrewC]

It appears this was a foolish analogy, since clearly fitness does imply more than one specific function.

Well, you didn't read the rest of the discussion, because I answered that. post 53--- Only if the car is not required at the original destination.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>> One must believe in intelligent design to believe in prophecy. Peacocke is a phony priest.

>> Translation: "If they don't believe exactly as I believe, then they're lying."

That is the translation of the evolutionists, I agree. My statement, however, has nothing to do with belief, but with logic. It is illogical to believe in evolution, where nothing can be predicted, and at the same time believe in prophecy, which can only come true by design.

[marron]

So I agree with you: "God controls the future, and that men are free agents." Yet from the purely human standpoint, it seems to me that for God to be immanently engaged in the here and now in a sense other than as the eternal paradigm set in heaven and breathed forth in the Word (which is ineradicably imprinted on this world and the next) requires human souls freely willing to become a habitation for the Holy Spirit, and to follow Christ.

I didn't address directly the "how" of it, but you have. God has a design, which is flexible enough to include us and our shenanigans, and he is engaged in the here and now keeping things moving generally in the right direction. That would be on several levels, our innate design, the operation of reason which is a part of our nature, but further by the various means by which he broadcasts his principles into the culture. The Church, with all its flaws is a key part of that.

And then there is the more direct means, by which his spirit moves in the hearts of men, to which some respond and some do not in the immediate term, but which over time brings his weight to bear on events whether or not people recognize his movements. Some are as you say more willing vessels than others, and some are more readily moved to action than others.

There even is a division of labor in this area; you have the people who transmit the word into the culture who may or may not fully understand the significance of what they are saying, and who may or may not fully reflect what they say in their own lives. As disappointing as this can be, it is important nonetheless that they are engaged in this part of the work.

Then you have the people who actually act on it, who may or may not be recognizably religious in nature, and often are not. But they are the ones who act, and actually make the word real in flesh and blood terms.

[whattajoke]

You look around and flatly deny the existence of the One who created you and everything you see, instead believing -- or trying very hard to believe -- it's all a cosmic accident.

We were discussing the specific morphology of woodpeckers, which is an interesting subject to be sure. I'm unclear as to how or why your particular take on the Christian God has anything to do with that line of discussion. I am under the impression that no matter what biological (and perhaps, physical, mathematic, geological, etc) question comes up, the answer will always be the same for you. So be it.

I, OTOH, won't be swayed by that "answer," just as you wont by mine. And btw, evolutionary theory simply does not, did not, and will not ever address "cosmic accidents" or how "it all started." It merely explains what happened once "it all began." This certainly does not eliminate the possibility of a Deity... or space aliens, or time travel, or anything really.

[Ichneumon]

["As an icon of antievolution, the flagellum has fallen," says Prof. Miller, a practicing Catholic. "If bits and pieces of a machine are useful for different functions, it means that natural selection could indeed produce elements of a biochemical machine for different purposes."]

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

You're entirely missing the point.

Behe and his followers try to "disprove" evolution by claiming to have found structures that "could NOT" have formed by stepwise changes, and they assert that they have "proven" that it could not have happened in any manner whatsoever.

Unfortunately for Behe and his followers, they have overlooked many possibilities. In order to conclusively disprove an overblown claim of impossibility, it is only necessary to point out some way in which the event *could* have occurred which the claimant has overlooked. It is *not* neccessary to prove that it *did* happen that way.

Example:

Detective: "It is provably impossible for the deceased to have died by slipping on wet grass, because it did not rain that day."

Me: "It's hardly impossible, since for example the neighbor may have turned on his lawn sprinker."

Detective: "Oops."

[Ichneumon]

But, getting back to the original point, the human penis certainly has two functions. I don't see why we're wasting our time with this obvious point.

Because some people resort to red herrings when they sense that their points are being successfully deflated.

[Ichneumon]

It appears this was a foolish analogy, since clearly fitness does imply more than one specific function.

As I've pointed out before, "If you're going to make an analogy, make sure it's a valid comparison". Oddly enough, that seems to enrage at least one of the participants of this thread, which perhaps is why he doesn't take the advice and continues to repeat this mistake.

[Sofa King]

Kind of like nipples on men?

[Sofa King]

So... how would your genes have been passed down BEFORE cloning?

[nmh]

Evolution has and always will be fatally flawed. It's premise is ALWAYS that there is NO God and order arbitrarily came out of chaos. A sheer impossibility from the standpoint of anyone with a working brain who choses to use it objectively.

It's actually humorous ... evolution defies the very laws they worship.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[Revolting cat!]

Nobody's gonna make a monkey out of this cat!

[jennyp]

Evolution has and always will be fatally flawed. It's premise is ALWAYS that there is NO God and order arbitrarily came out of chaos. A sheer impossibility from the standpoint of anyone with a working brain who choses to use it objectively.

So, objectively speaking, is there one angel in charge of constructing each snowflake, or one angel who constructs all snowflakes, or something in between? And do/does this/these angel(s) also work on the mineral crystals, or is that a different department?