Ayatollahs in the classroom [Evolution and Creationism]

Berkshire Eagle (Mass.) ^ | 22 January 2005 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

A movement to drag the teaching of science in the United States back into the Dark Ages continues to gain momentum. So far, it's a handful of judges -- "activist judges" in the view of their critics -- who are preventing the spread of Saudi-style religious dogma into more and more of America's public-school classrooms.

The ruling this month in Georgia by Federal District Judge Clarence Cooper ordering the Cobb County School Board to remove stickers it had inserted in biology textbooks questioning Darwin's theory of evolution is being appealed by the suburban Atlanta district. Similar legal battles pitting evolution against biblical creationism are erupting across the country. Judges are conscientiously observing the constitutionally required separation of church and state, and specifically a 1987 Supreme Court ruling forbidding the teaching of creationism, a religious belief, in public schools. But seekers of scientific truth have to be unnerved by a November 2004 CBS News poll in which nearly two-thirds of Americans favored teaching creationism, the notion that God created heaven and earth in six days, alongside evolution in schools.

If this style of "science" ever took hold in U.S. schools, it is safe to say that as a nation we could well be headed for Third World status, along with everything that dire label implies. Much of the Arab world is stuck in a miasma of imam-enforced repression and non-thought. Could it happen here? Our Constitution protects creativity and dissent, but no civilization has lasted forever, and our current national leaders seem happy with the present trends.

It is the creationists, of course, who forecast doom if U.S. schools follow a secularist path. Science, however, by its nature, relies on evidence, and all the fossil and other evidence points toward an evolved human species over millions of years on a planet tens of millions of years old [ooops!] in a universe over two billion years in existence [ooops again!].

Some creationists are promoting an idea they call "intelligent design" as an alternative to Darwinism, eliminating the randomness and survival-of-the-fittest of Darwinian thought. But, again, no evidence exists to support any theory of evolution except Charles Darwin's. Science classes can only teach the scientific method or they become meaningless.

Many creationists say that teaching Darwin is tantamount to teaching atheism, but most science teachers, believers as well as non-believers, scoff at that. The Rev. Warren Eschbach, a professor at Lutheran Theological Seminary in Gettysburg, Pa., believes that "science is figuring out what God has already done" and the book of Genesis was never "meant to be a science textbook for the 21st century." Rev. Eschbach is the father of Robert Eschbach, one of the science teachers in Dover, Pa., who refused to teach a school-board-mandated statement to biology students criticizing the theory of evolution and promoting intelligent design. Last week, the school district gathered students together and the statement was read to them by an assistant superintendent.

Similar pro-creationist initiatives are underway in Texas, Wisconsin and South Carolina. And a newly elected creationist majority on the state board of education in Kansas plans to rewrite the entire state's science curriculum this spring. This means the state's public-school science teachers will have to choose between being scientists or ayatollahs -- or perhaps abandoning their students and fleeing Kansas, like academic truth-seekers in China in the 1980s or Tehran today.

[Doctor Stochastic]

One would think so. Evolutionary theory is based on two observations: offspring differ from their parents and some parente have more offspring than others.

[unlearner]

"It IS misquoted because it was NOT complete. The rest of the sentence defined the context of the first part FALSELY. But of course you already knew that ..."

No. The way I quoted it was how it was told to me. I had to look it up, especially since this article, which goes on and on about how evil this sticker is, fails to mention exactly what it said. So, no, I did not intentionally leave anything out.

But there you go again, jumping to conclusions. I guess I should not be surprised coming from an evolutionist.

"And you have never agreed that the second part is false."

I agreed that it is false to you. I have no problem with changing the word "life" to "species" if that makes evolutionists happier. I don't think this makes it clearer to children who do not know the difference.

"No, I remember! It was in a previous life ..."

You're a reincarnated evolutionist? Perhaps the Inquisition made this issue so personal to you. :>)

"since not all spiritual people agree with it."

That's not relevant. What is relevant is that teachers are teaching this theory as fact, when it is not.

[js1138]

That's not relevant. What is relevant is that teachers are teaching this theory as fact, when it is not.

Would it make you happy if they just taught the fact of evolution without the theory?

[unlearner]

Yes. Only the facts.

The fact is that there are many people who BELIEVE all animals / people came from a common ancestor.

Also, there are some people who believe in many gods. Many also are monotheistic. Some are atheistic.

These are all facts about what people BELIEVE.

I think children should learn that many people believe in evolution.

The problem is that it has become dogma. It has become sacrosanct. That approach is unscientific.

The idea that animals / humans have a single common ancestor is purely speculative. Even if all of the many axioms of evolution held true - e.g. age of earth, the lack of life-ending cataclysms during this time, and even speciation itself - there still is no proof of common ancestry. That is merely someone's creative idea. It is no more scientific to make this speculation as it is to assert that common traits between living things indicates a common Designer.

[VadeRetro]

That's a start. How about this. "I think, therefore I am." I KNOW that I exist.

Just begs the question, actually, but assuming the opposite is useless.

Evolutionary theory is not simple. Compare physics. Physics is very simple (not always easy, but simple).

I stated it for you in one sentence earlier. It's a simple idea. The ramifications get complicated, but it's that way with everything.

In physics we use mathematical models of what we perceive to be reality. Within the reality we define, the conclusions are factual, real, and true. As long as the axioms are true, everything else will be.

Yes and no. Reading along in a physics book like Feynman's lectures, you notice he starts with a simple model of something, takes some simple equation which springs from the model, and pushes and pulls it about. He solves for this and that, substitutes known equivalents for terms used within, and generally explores the ramifications.

But he often pauses to say something like, "This doesn't really agree well with experiment. Real molecules often fail to rebound with perfect elasticity because they can absorb energy internally so we will eventually need some refinements in the model. That, however, is for a later chapter..."

I merely paraphrase. It's been a while since I was poking around in that book. There is theoretical physics and experimental physics and the theory men never know when the experimental guys are going to come running in saying, "Hold it, folks! We have a major disconnect!"

In the late 19th century, all the axioms seemed to be true and physics was thought to be nearly a wrapped-up deal. Two blows fell from two different directions.

The Michelson-Morely experiment was to be the crowning achievement of Maxwellian theory, a measurement of the influence of the Earth's motion on propagation of light ripples through the ether. Ether was the stuff light waves were waving in at the time. If light waves were indeed ripples in some static substance which fills all space, that experiment should have detected the actual speed of Earth relative to the ether.

It didn't do that. That was when we learned that everyone, no matter how he is moving relative to anyone else, who measures the speed of light in a vacuum observes the same result. All the axioms had been true. Wave theory had "defeated" particle theory on the evidence to that point, such that Maxwell, when asked what happened to the particle theory, said that everyone who believed in it was dead.

Nobody knew what was right after the M-M experiment, but everyone could realize that the model which had been right up to then was somehow wrong. It took Einstein to come up with the best new model. While he was at it, he figured out that light in fact does act like a particle sometimes.

The blow from the other direction was a nonsensical theoretical result called the "ultraviolet catastrophe." A decent explanation of the details is in a section of the same name down the page on this site. In this case, the theory guy runs into the room and says, "The model is making a nonsense prediction. The model has always made sense before. We thought the axioms were true. We've been over and over the math! The output is utter nonsense!"

That needed some work by Planck to straighten out, a first step to quantum mechanics. Again, the model was wrong.

Evolution is not like this.

It's not physics, but it's in the same boat.

We must make many, many assumptions which are highly subjective.

It's got a simple theory and makes testable predictions. It probably would have been falsified by now if it were false. Instead, there's tons of evidence for it.

You cannot test it in a controlled environment.

Funny you would say that on a thread where we've been hammering the results of lab experiments into a particularly thick skull. It is routinely demonstrated in controlled environments. Read the thread and don't embarrass yourself.

Wishing does not make things so. Things are not anything you want them to be.

[balrog666]

Wishing does not make things so. Things are not anything you want them to be.

You big meanie! You've just destroyed the Creationidiot's worldview!

[unlearner]

Well, your post was quite excellent until nearing the conclusion.

In reply to my "You cannot test it in a controlled environment."

You said, "Funny you would say that on a thread where we've been hammering the results of lab experiments into a particularly thick skull. It is routinely demonstrated in controlled environments. Read the thread and don't embarrass yourself."

Pray tell, how do you test the effect of millions of years on living things in a laboratory? I concede my ignorance on this matter, but with over 1000 posts, I will ask you to point out the answer.

I do not feel the need to spend years studying biology to to make an observation that is obvious. If we cannot predict the weather accurately two months in advance, how do you propose we can ascertain the environmental conditions that occurred not just hundreds or even thousands but millions of years ago?

Further, name one single characteristic of any living thing that can only be explained by universal common ancestry that cannot also be explained by life having a common designer (I use lower case to include design that does not necessarily represent supernatural). If you cannot answer this, then why do evolutionist insist on ONLY their theory?

[js1138]

A common designer makes sense if you assume a few things: the designer was drunk, incompetent, and malign.

[unlearner]

"A common designer makes sense if you assume a few things: the designer was drunk, incompetent, and malign."

Even if your accusations had a basis in reality, it would not undermine the fact that design is just as valid of a hypothesis as universal common ancestry.

The character and competence of a designer is an issue for religious and theological debate, not science. We can debate that as well.

When you impugn the benevolence of the Creator you judge yourself. You think you could have done a better job?

What occurs in nature to justify these attacks (especially one upon moral character)?

[VadeRetro]

Pray tell, how do you test the effect of millions of years on living things in a laboratory?

I was of course only claiming that we can and do routinely demonstrate the adaptive (at the population level) effects of mutation and natural selection in the laboratory. This is particularly easy with bacteria as already noted, although it's often done with fruit flies. But, then, mutation and natural selection are the parts you left out in describing what evolution even is so perhaps you don't think such experiments demonstrate evolution.

However, the evidence for common descent, the part of evolution you have heard of, is overwhelming. The frequently cited "just as good" hypothesis of "common designer," among its weaknesses, is far less tight. In fact, it excludes nothing at all. Anything anyone will ever show you, you can point at it and say, "The Designer left it looking like that." Furthermore, as has been pointed out, what the designer could have been thinking--or drinking--can hardly be imagined.

[unlearner]

"I was of course only claiming that we can and do routinely demonstrate the adaptive (at the population level) effects of mutation and natural selection in the laboratory. This is particularly easy with bacteria as already noted, although it's often done with fruit flies. But, then, mutation and natural selection are the parts you left out in describing what evolution even is so perhaps you don't think such experiments demonstrate evolution."

OK. I understand these are PART of evolutionary theory, but they are not unique to it. Adaptive mutation and natural selection are simple observations of biology. Hopefully everyone debating this issue agrees to that.

What we disagree about is the assumption that universal common ancestry is the only explanation for a variety of species with similar characteristics. Having a common designer explains these facts just as well. And, as far as I know, that is the real issue where evolutionists and creationists (or ID proponents) disagree.

(Notwithstanding, Biblical creationists commonly, though not universally, do not believe in an ancient earth. While I do not consider this position essential to the Biblical creationist view, I remain unpersuaded by arguments in favor of an earth billions of years old. An ancient earth, at least more than a few thousand years, is essential to the common descent premise of current evolutionary theory. So I view this as a weakness of the common descent premise even if others do not.)

The link you provided made this statement: "Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one original species or communal gene pool." If we are only talking about a communal gene pool (not residing within a single organism) then we do not NECESSARILY have a conflict with creationism. The problem is assuming all species descended from a single organism (which even the statement above does not say, it only says one original species). In a sense, modern living organisms share a communal gene pool, though genetic information does not easily pass from one species to another because that does not happen in the ordinary mechanism of reproductive processes.

"Furthermore, as has been pointed out, what the designer could have been thinking--or drinking--can hardly be imagined."

So you have more of a problem with "intelligent" than "design"?

What examples can you provide of a possible designer being unintelligent?

[VadeRetro]

OK. I understand these are PART of evolutionary theory, but they are not unique to it.

A very unchristian revisionism and goal-post moving on the part of evolution-deniers. Darwin said it. It was long, long denied. It has become undeniable.

The same lying nay-sayers have in the last decade or so simply shifted defense lines while pointedly not crediting the author of the theory which predicted variation and selection as mechanisms of adaptation.

Creationism is a very disreputable branch of christianity because of dishonest and, well, unchristian behavior like this.

What we disagree about is the assumption that universal common ancestry is the only explanation for a variety of species with similar characteristics.

In my last post I gave you 29+ Lines of Evidence for common descent. Science accepted common descent a long time ago. That story is over. Attempts to paint a certain Luddite resistance from certain fanatical cults as arising from within science are not only false but ludicrous.

So you have more of a problem with "intelligent" than "design"?

I have a problem with the design hypothesis being considered scientific at all. From the Quixotic Message:

Afterall, we can't tell that it's bad design because we have no way of knowing what the Designer really intends. But we do know that ID will revolutionize culture, society, and law, according to what the Designer intends.

And a related note:

The argument from design is not a theological argument, because we aren't necessarily talking about God. But any rebuttal of the design argument is theological, because it requires us to say "God wouldn't do it this way", and this is not legitimate.

What examples can you provide of a possible designer being unintelligent?

Jury-rigged design.

Why is the above not a strike against evolution "... as well as Design?" Because "survival of the fittest" isn't "survival of the perfect." You could even call it "survival of the OK."

One might throw in almost any endocrine cascade ever identified in humans, or the visual pathway Behe touts as irreducibly complex in Darwin's Black Box. Maybe it's IC (or not), but what are all those Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance intermediate dominoes knocking into each other?

Before you even bother to tell me I dare not question His purposes, ask yourself if you can base a science on not daring to question His purposes.

[unlearner]

" A very unchristian revisionism and goal-post moving on the part of evolution-deniers."

I just got here. You are painting with a very broad brush. I never said that Darwin had nothing useful to contribute. Biology has been greatly enriched by his observations. I don't think I have ever challenged mutation and natural selection in my life. It is unfair for you to attack my character based on the actions of others that you lump in the same group.

Biology is not evolution. Evolution is a theory within the science of biology. I do not deny all of evolutionary theory nor the usefulness of related nomenclature as a learning tool. The discovery of the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection is a tremendous achievement for biology. But the proposition that all life came from a single common ancestor is not essential to scientific progress and the application of biology in practical areas like medicine or agriculture.

"In my last post I gave you 29+ Lines of Evidence for common descent."

Thanks again for this link. I have been reading it. The information presented does support very well the idea that all life is related. That is not equivalent, in my mind, to universal ancestry. Perhaps I am biased from the lack of understanding of how fossils are dated. My lack of confidence in this aspect of archeology undermines the persuasiveness of the detailed, and well presented I might add, evidence presented on this site.

My faith relies on, among other things, firsthand experience which includes supernatural intervention in response to prayer to the God of the Bible. If experience contradicts my understanding of Biblical doctrine then I will be forced to reconcile my interpretation of the Bible's meaning with these new experiences. I can no more abandon my faith than I can abandon science. But, so far, I am skeptical about the scientific propositions I have seen.

"What examples can you provide of a possible designer being unintelligent? Jury-rigged design."

The arguments at the link you posted (in this answer) all come down to two basic ideas. Some features of living things serve no apparent purpose (for that particular living thing). And certain characteristics of living things appear inefficient in the way they work. While your link provides several good examples and cleverly shows how evolutionary theory answers the supplied "problems", they do not even begin to build a case against intelligent design, to my satisfaction. You really do not need the latest discoveries to find examples like this in nature either. Why an ostrich can't fly comes to mind. (I think that example may have been used on the site actually.)

But these things are explained by the part of evolutionary theory we agree on. It is a matter of fact that living things adapt and mutate, and that natural selection occurs. It is factual that current life forms are different in many characteristics from their ancestors. (The degree of DNA change is subjective because we can only speculate the amount of genetic information that has been added, subtracted or otherwise transferred from or to various creatures. That is, we do not have physical samples of ancient DNA, but we can make some reasonable assumptions.)

The brick wall of evolutionary theory is the organizing principle of the basic building blocks of life - genetics. For example, quantum mechanics may explain or nearly explain why matter is organized the way it is. In the sun it is plasma due to the environment there. On the earth and, we assume, many other places in the universe, it is the periodic table. The underlying harmonic patterns have a reason or cause. But there is no experimental data that shows any environmental condition that results in matter self-organizing into even the simplest living thing. I understand that evolutionary theory does not claim to explain this, nor does it need to in order to stand as a theory. Yet, statistical odds, even superficially, support the idea that organizing matter into living forms requires an outside force or environment that organizes the matter with conscious intent; it is not random. Since intelligence appears to be involved, it is not unscientific to propose that intelligence was involved in origin of species.

There is no aberration or inefficiency in nature that cannot be explained by three factors. One, neither the environment nor life today is the same as it was long ago. (Evolution agrees.) Two, intelligent design does not negate possible intelligent intervention that may have resulted in less than optimum conditions in the environment and less than optimum performance of living things. (This is indeed what Biblical creationism has ALWAYS held. This is not an attempt to adapt creationism to fit modern science.) Three, by way of simple analogy, computer programs are simpler but similar to living things. All computer programs exist as a direct or indirect result of "intelligent design" (of the programmer). Most programs by the same programmer use code libraries to make the process of design more efficient. This results in unnecessary, redundant and inefficient (technically) code in subsequent programs. This concept of programming design is called "re-usability". This analogy fits perfectly within the scientific findings of biology.

" the Quixotic Message ...Behe touts as irreducibly complex in Darwin's Black Box. Maybe it's IC...."

Very funny. I can appreciate the humor of the Quixotic Message.

I have not really considered the issue of irreducible complexity. It seems to me that it would be more of an issue of the location of information than its complex organization. For example, at the beginning of life, where did all of the genetic information reside? Perhaps, living things naturally self-organize due to the very nature of matter, but this has not been demonstrated if it has been proposed at all. It seems that this information (various DNA patterns) must have come from one of four sources. One, self-organization, i.e. it is built into matter. Two, common descent from a single living organism that was HIGHLY COMPLEX (because it contained ALL of the genetic information of all living things for all history). Three, the information existed in a "primordial soup" which was available for living things to absorb and which we do not know or need to know the origins of for the purpose of evolutionary theory. (And we do not know why this soup has vanished.) Four, the information was designed intelligently.

Please forgive my ignorance if this is a simply answered question, because I just have never studied evolutionary theory enough to know if there is a satisfactory answer. Please tell me why common ancestry makes sense in light of the genetic information issue. In other words, as I postulated in items two and three above, genetic inheritance leads me naturally to assume that IF life had a single common ancestor, it would need to be incredibly complex, containing all of the information of all currently living and now extinct living things. This does not fit the idea of a simple life form being the original ancestor. However, if this genetic information existed outside of this single ancestor, would it not logically reside in other living things? Therefore, I would expect either a single, complex ancestor or many simple ancestors that collectively contain all genetic information. But this diversity contradicts the proposed common ancestry unless this form of life could simultaneously be one species yet vary GREATLY in its genetic structure from one instance to another. So I find a paradox in following the logic of universal ancestry. Either ancestry should become simpler and MORE diverse as we look backward through history, or it should be MORE complex. Does that make sense?

"Before you even bother to tell me I dare not question His purposes, ask yourself if you can base a science on not daring to question His purposes."

It is neither unscientific or irreverent to ask "Why". Jesus taught, "I no longer call you 'servants', I call you 'friends'; because a servant does not know what his Master is doing."

The desire to know why is itself an evidence of a spiritual dimension to this issue. Our innate desire to understand where we came from and why we are here has been described by some as the God-shaped void within our hearts.

Faith does not contradict science, it complements it.

[VadeRetro]

Please tell me why common ancestry makes sense in light of the genetic information issue.

Plagiarized errors and stuff like that there. Yes, a designer could have done that on purpose, but why?

[VadeRetro]

Faith does not contradict science, it complements it.

That's the right way to think about it. Let me call your attention to a post by someone else on another thread which documents how science is pushing ahead in exploring the implications of and evidence for evolution and not stopping to wait for any "you can't make me see" element of society to catch up. Most of the mantras frequently chanted on these threads--for example, "Evolution can't create new information"--are demonstrated as false in that post.

It will sink without a ripple and the same people will be back tomorrow chanting the same mantras.

[unlearner]

"Evolution can't create new information--are demonstrated as false in that post."

Most of the information presented there is over my head. I read it, but I did not understand a lot of what I read.

Please clarify one thing about common ancestry. Is the proposition of evolution that all life evolved from ONE SINGLE ORGANISM, or is the proposition that all life evolved from ONE single TYPE of organism?

In other words, is the post claiming that the environment that gave rise to the first living thing, only produce ONE instance of that living thing, OR MANY instances of that ONE FORM?

I will answer your other post separately.

[VadeRetro]

Is the proposition of evolution that all life evolved from ONE SINGLE ORGANISM, or is the proposition that all life evolved from ONE single TYPE of organism?

It's not that clear. One well known and rather popular idea put forward by the discoverer of archaebacteria, a man named Woese, is a version of the RNA World hypothesis. Woese says that the whole RNA world soup acted like one big organism with one energy exchange. There would have been one class of reactions at the bottom of the pond and another class at the surface, etc. Cellular life more or less evolved as parasites in the soup. Viruses, rather than being degenerate forms of cellular life, are in fact bits of the old RNA world that learned to parasitize the parasites. According to this idea, at least two different kinds of cellular life (archaebacteria and eubacteria) arose independently of each other from the soup. Nucleated cells arose later from a synthesis of the other two types.

Thus, there might be no one common cellular-life ancestor. Nevertheless, the common ancestor of both remains: the primitive soup mega-organism. Furthermore, not everyone likes Woese's idea.

Minor footnote in clarification: The origin of nucleated cells from a later synthesis of archaebacteria and eubacteria isn't Woese's idea but belongs to one Lynn Margulies. That's relatively well accepted now, although only about 20 years old. Google on "endosymbiosis" for more.

[unlearner]

From the link you provided: "One way to distinguish between copying and independent creation is suggested by analogy to the following two cases from the legal literature. In 1941 the author of a chemistry textbook brought suit charging that portions of his textbook had been plagiarized by the author of a competing textbook... In 1946 the publisher of a trade directory for the construction industry made similar charges against a competing directory publisher ... In both cases, mere similarity between the contents of the alleged copies and the originals was not considered compelling evidence of copying. After all, both chemistry textbooks were describing the same body of chemical knowledge (the books were designed to 'function similarly') and both directories listed members of the same industry, so substantial resemblance would be expected even if no copying had occurred. However, in both cases errors present in the 'originals' appeared in the alleged copies. The courts judged that it was inconceivable that the same errors could have been made independently by each plaintiff and defendant, and ruled in both cases that copying had occurred. The principle that duplicated errors imply copying is now well established in copyright law. (In recognition of this fact, directory publishers routinely include false entries in their directories to trap potential plagiarizers.) Can 'errors' in modern species be used as evidence of 'copying' from ancient ancestors? In fact, the answer to this question appears to be 'yes,' since recent molecular genetics investigations have uncovered some examples of the same 'errors' present in the genetic material of humans and apes."

The analogy of plagiarism fails to illustrate what is intended. Rather, it provides an illustration of the opposite of what the author intended. Let's look at where the analogy fails. One, books are intelligently designed, even if plagiarism occurs. Two, books are not self-replicating, so plagiarism requires direct intervention by an intelligent designer. Three, plagiarism in the example cited was proved by duplicated errors of an EXISTING original, something evolution does not have. Four, duplicated errors exist even when plagiarism does not occur. That is, future editions continue to reproduce previous errors until they are corrected. Five, the article admits that some publishers intentionally insert "errors" in order to provide a layer of protection against plagiarism. And so the "errors" would not be errors, technically speaking. In this final case, the "errors" serve as a kind of hidden autograph that proves their ownership. (Surely you can see my point on this one. The copyright owner leaves a mark to prove ownership.)

On point number three, consider the same legal case where the original does not exist. If two publishers went to court where the claim of plagiarism was made, what would happen without the original? The claimant might assert that the errors in their book came from an earlier edition, and the defendant must have copied this earlier edition. Without the original the case would be thrown out.

Now, please revisit the BETTER analogy I used in my previous post. Computer programs are simpler but similar to living things. All computer programs exist as a direct or indirect result of "intelligent design" (of the programmer). Most programs by the same programmer use code libraries to make the process of design more efficient. This results in unnecessary, redundant and inefficient (technically) code in subsequent programs. This concept of programming design is called "re-usability". This analogy fits perfectly within the scientific findings of biology.

I can tell you firsthand that this is a fact. In many different types of computer software there are many lines of code which serve NO PRACTICAL purpose. They are there because the designer or design team was able to perform their task more effectively by reusing existing functions rather than creating them from scratch.

There are other reasons why apparent errors may exist in software. I do not think it is necessary to explore all of them just to make my point.

In a way, programs "evolve". In another sense, they are "intelligently designed". But, by way of this analogy to nature, errors do not automatically support the idea of universal common ancestry any more than they support a universal common Designer.

[VadeRetro]

The analogy of plagiarism fails to illustrate what is intended.

This gets a little stupid, doesn't it? Evolution predicts the indefinite continuation of neutral, irrlevant, vestigial features in the absence of pressures (such as exist in some bacteria) for efficiency and clean code. "Common design" has to shrug and say "You don't know the designer's ultimate purpose."

Rather, it provides an illustration of the opposite of what the author intended.

This is you distracting yourself, grasping at straws, simply refusing in your religious horror to go where the evidence points. Design is not a tight hypothesis and refuses to explain what we see. It merely reserves that a Designer could have left the mess we see for reasons of His own.

Let's look at where the analogy fails.

This is really time-wasting, irrelevant BS. If you don't want your nose rubbed in the inadequacies of design as supposed science, spare yourself.

One, books are intelligently designed, even if plagiarism occurs.

The analogy offered was not "Books just grow. Books have information. Therefore, since organisms have information, organisms must just grow." This is the strawman argument you are rebutting. This is cretin science.

Two, books are not self-replicating, so plagiarism requires direct intervention by an intelligent designer.

Same argument as their being "intelligently designed." You are missing a demonstration that the property of being self-replicating in itself implies design.

Three, plagiarism in the example cited was proved by duplicated errors of an EXISTING original, something evolution does not have.

Irrelevant except where wrong. We don't always have the original text of a literary work, either. We routinely make deductions and attempted reconstructions of originals by comparing later editions, rejecting outliers but making allowance when some are obvious copies directly from others, etc.

Four, duplicated errors exist even when plagiarism does not occur.

Common descent is not really plagiarism, but it duplicates "errors," inefficiencies, irrelevancies, vestigies, etc.

That is, future editions continue to reproduce previous errors until they are corrected.

You got it. Unless and until there are selection pressures for efficiency, the code can get junky.

Five, the article admits that some publishers intentionally insert "errors" in order to provide a layer of protection against plagiarism. And so the "errors" would not be errors, technically speaking.

Now there's a theory. Please explain who God was afraid of and how filling our genomes with viral DNA scars protects him.

In this final case, the "errors" serve as a kind of hidden autograph that proves their ownership. (Surely you can see my point on this one. The copyright owner leaves a mark to prove ownership.)

So God is a virus?

Sorry, I don't mean to play Twist and Shout. That's a very creationist style of argument. You didn't start out doing that, but you're in denial now, looking for ways not to face things, and the door marked "JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND" beckons, doesn't it?

[unlearner]

"Thus, there might be no one common cellular-life ancestor. Nevertheless, the common ancestor of both remains: the primitive soup mega-organism."

It is in these murky waters (metaphorically) that the two sides of this issue (evolutionists and Biblical literalists) appear to diverge. Perhaps the issue of time plays a separate role, but I think universal ancestry is the primary motivation for most Biblical literalists (including myself) to question evolutionary theory.

Biblical literalists in general do not see their (our) position as contradicting science. I think evolutionists do not see their position as contradicting the existence of a God.

Last year I read several technical scientific books and for the first time ever started to read a little about evolution. I was surprised at what I found. First, I did not find most of what I read to contradict what I believed Biblically. Second, and I suppose this reveals my predisposition against evolutionary theory, I found what I read to be truly scientific. It was not the work of people hellbent on disproving the existence of God.

I am still a Biblical literalist and not an evolutionist, but I do see things a lot differently than I did a year ago.

This is a hot-button issue as indicated by more than a thousand posts to just one article. And this comes from people who mostly agree on conservatism.

Anyway, it has been an interesting chat, but I will need to avoid jumping into the discussion mix for a while because it is just too time-consuming.

Thanks for the interesting thoughts. (Feel free to continue if you wish. I am just going to begin spending more time on some other things for a while. So I may be a little slower to respond.)