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]

The Cassini division is real.

Correct. Read #440 for an explanation.

the THEORY of evolution, you do know what the word "theory" means in science don't you?

Yes. It means an educated guess, but not necessarily a fact.

And lose the "sonny" stuff. It is rude.

No. That is a valuable tool for correction of those who are acting childish, for example those who deny the existence of God.

[PhilipFreneau]

I am amazed and entranced by the "true" christian love that you have displayed numerous times on this thread! Your repeated use of the insulting term, "sonny," has led me to see the bright shining light of Christ. Your smarmy attitude, your anger, and your dishonesty has been a true witness to the power of your Lord and Savior.

You have been tricked into believing a politically correct version of Christ. Leftists quote "turn the other cheek" and other words of Christ out of context in attempts to turn Christians into wimps. But they will never mention that Christ ran the moneychangers out of the Temple with a band of cords, scattered their money, and wrecked their tables. Certainly he baptized with the Holy Ghost those that needed comforting; but he baptized with fire those that needed rebuke and correction.

And by the way, your, "it's only a THEORY," statement speaks volumes as to the clear fact that you are anything but a, "Scientist," as you claim.

Theory, as opposed to, say, a Law?

[PatrickHenry]

Festival of absolute cluelessness placemarker.

[PhilipFreneau]

Any evidence or sources of that, daddy-boy? The Voyager mission is well documented and there is that entire Cassini mission due this year - you should have a source somewhere. . . .

You are correct. Read my post #440 for an explanation.

Where do you get this stuff? No public school had a Christian Morality class. They didn't teach Christianity - having golden rule plaque or saying 'under God' in the pledge isn't teaching religion.

I went to public school in the 1950's and 1960's, and every Wednesday morning in elementary school we had a Christian service. In High School there was Christian prayer at most major gatherings, and every Christmas there was the time-honored Messiah by the school choir. Of course, there was that pesky Golden Rule and Ten Commandments posted in the hallways. BTW, the "Golden Rule" is Christian morality, in a nutshell. The Law of the Lord (referred to in Psalms 1:1) is this: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law . . ." (Matthew 7:12). Moses taught us to "love thy neighbour as thyself" (Lev 19:18), and Jesus the same many times (Matt 19:19, 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27, some using different wording. Paul and James repeated those words.

The desire to return to a fantasy olden age dominated by religion is another facet that fundamentalists have in common.

I'm not a fundamentalist, so I wouldn't know. But I will take your word for it. Sounds like a good idea to me. It couldn't be worse than this Sodom and Gomorrah, where lies are so commonplace that telling the truth is labeled extremism.

Oh yes, MY perversion and all the other Christian perversions of not mixing up faith with science - of not wanting to make everyone believe exactly the same thing. Such a ruinous thing.

Oh, I like science. I dislike arrogance labeled as science.

Intelligent design is on par with spontaneous generation and is often included along with Lamarck's ideas in the beginning of evolution units.

Speaking of arrogance...

And I thought you were making it up or quoting some propaganda line. I guess I was right.

Give us an example of a successful, self-sustaining secular nation with reasonable longevity.

The Scientific American article quoted earlier even held that in discussion, theory and fact can be used interchangeably. There is no uncertainty implied in 'theory'.

I guess "Laws" need not apply, huh?

"Yet, you have called those who aren't against evolution, atheists and heretics, that evolution is a false science, junk science, has nothing to do with reality, perverse, unGodly, and promoted the suppression of evolution to foster the nation's moral and spiritual growth - saying that fools that support evolution are killing the nation.

Yea, maybe that was a bit harsh, if taken out of context. What I was implying was that those who teach evolution, and at the same time deny the existence of, and the teaching of, a creator, are junk scientists as well as dangerous, arrogant fools who are assisting in the destruction of the social fabric of our nation.

In psychology, this is called transference - a transfer of one's own conscious and unconscious motivations to the opponent.

Agree. And that is exactly what leftists do.

It has been the fundamentalist fringe in Arkansas, Kansas, and now Georgia, demanding that evolution be struck from the textbooks. When have you seen scientists demand a law that evolution be taught in all churches whenever Genesis is discussed?

I don't agree with the fundamentalists. I believe evolution should be taught in schools; but as a theory rather than the "Gospel according to Science".

[js1138]

No. That is a valuable tool for correction of those who are acting childish, for example those who deny the existence of God.

It's good to see you going on record with this. Otherwise we'd feel bad about what's coming.

[whattajoke]

Thank you for supplying me more support for my non christian ways.

Your continued use of "it's only a theory" is odd, especially coming from a self proclaimed scietist. FYI, gravity, architecture, your computer, electicity... all based on theories, genius. A scientific theory stands up to incredibly rigorous tests, despite what your pastor told you.

[PhilipFreneau]

>> A scientific theory stands up to incredibly rigorous tests.

And sometimes they fail. You have missed my point from the beginning. I have no problem with science. I encourage it and the industries that turn it into useful products. I believe it has been extremely beneficial to mankind. What I discourage is what has been obvious to me from early in life: that something created all of this, and to discount it is neither scientific or logical. Those were my beliefs (an agnostic) until I was 27, when, you might say, I was born again. LOL. Now I know what created the heaven, the earth, and all its hosts, and it certainly was not by pure chance.

>> A scientific theory stands up to incredibly rigorous tests, despite what your pastor told you.

That was not very scientific of you: assuming I have a pastor.

[whattajoke]

The theory of evolution says nothing at all of the original creation of the heavens and earth. it is not imcompatible at all with the belief that a deity created the conditions for the theory to proliferate.

[PatrickHenry]

PatrickHenry remains aloof!

[PhilipFreneau]

The theory of evolution says nothing at all of the original creation of the heavens and earth. it is not imcompatible at all with the belief that a deity created the conditions for the theory to proliferate.

I agree. My problem with the theory, in general, is that is presupposes no divine intervention. For God to predict the future he must have 'guided' the creation to those points where the prophesy is fulfilled. I believe this was my point in my initial post on this thread. I was blasted for it.

[js1138]

Give us an example of a successful, self-sustaining secular nation with reasonable longevity.

Would you accept a non-Christian nation, or are all religions equivalent in their ability to sustain a state?

[PhilipFreneau]

>> Would you accept a non-Christian nation, or are all religions equivalent in their ability to sustain a state?

I asked for secular. But I'll accept a non-Christian nation.

[js1138]

I'm no historian, but I'll toss out China, India, Rome, Persia, the Aztecs, the Incas, Egypt, the Ottomans, the Huns.

[whattajoke]

My problem with the theory, in general, is that is presupposes no divine intervention.

If I told you, "No it doesn't" will that satisfy you? As for original creation, the theory does not touch it. Any God may have started it all. Or Aliens. Or future human time travellers. Or VadeRetro's cat.

As for what we know of evolution and it's mechanisms, no one can say that God is not directing it. God is supernatural by definition and therefore does not and should not enter into the discussion about the natural processes of evolution. The problem is, some people who believe in a God, do too good of a job making sure said God DOES (enter into the discussion).

[donh]

Half-baked metaphysical theory? To what do you refer?

The notion that you prove things in science. Either in the formal sense of providing a proof, or in the informal sense of providing an unquestionably true fact. As we have been discussing.

[donh]

and it's still adequate for everyday purposes.

...and, of course, painfully inadequate for people who have instruments or metaphysical concerns that let them peek out beyond everyday purposes.

[donh]

It would not and you know it. A silly example that uses the counter examples of fallicies in the logic you were earlier promoting. Grue - you're deliberately ignoring important factors like a mechanism, agent, or system. Try a better one.

Excuse me? Please specify the name of the fallacy on which I rely to prove the Grue theory? There is no difference, as it relates to proof, between my projecting into the future, and paleontologists projecting into the fossil gaps. Paleontologists have no better claim then I have concerning induction over periods of no-available-evidence. Kindly specify how mechanism, agent, or system, whatever those are, are a requirement of proof.

[tang-soo]

... For example, Harold J. Morowitz, Professor of Biophysics at Yale University, has taken into account the covalent bond energies required to actually form a DNA molecule. He arrives at a probability figure for the spontaneous formation of one complete bacterium of Escherichia coli in the history of the universe, of less than one chance in 10 to the power 100 billion.

That's not one in 100 Billion, but one in 10 raised to 100 billion power i.e. 1 followed by 100 billion zeros.

[donh]

Does it not occur to you that you are defending a dead horse here? Is it your contention that "proof" means "Something we absolutely believe, but is subject to question?" Or do you wish to take the stand that scientific facts are not subject to question? This will come as quite good news to the proponents of the fixed continent theory, the phrenology theory, and the curative bleeding theory.

[BMCDA]

My problem with the theory, in general, is that is presupposes no divine intervention.

The theory of evolution no more presupposes no divine intervention than any other scientific theory.

However, for many people it seems to be less of a problem that a scientific theory that doesn't deal with human origins presupposes no divine intervention than one which does.

So it's quite OK to say je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse if you want to explain the stability of the solar system but not if you want to explain why all life on earth (including humans) fits in a nested hierarchy due to common descent.