Intelligent Denials: Bush's science adviser defends evolution!

The American Prospect, ^ | 22 February 2005 | Chris Mooney

[PatrickHenry]

When it's your job to serve as the president's in-house expert on science and technology, being constantly in the media spotlight isn't necessarily a mark of distinction. But for President Bush's stoically inclined science adviser John Marburger, immense controversy followed his blanket dismissal last year of allegations (now endorsed by 48 Nobel laureates) that the administration has systematically abused science. So it was more than a little refreshing last Wednesday to hear Marburger take a strong stance against science politicization and abuse on one issue where it really matters: evolution.

Speaking at the annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers, Marburger fielded an audience question about "Intelligent Design" (ID), the latest supposedly scientific alternative to Charles Darwin's theory of descent with modification. The White House's chief scientist stated point blank, "Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory." And that's not all -- as if to ram the point home, Marburger soon continued, "I don't regard Intelligent Design as a scientific topi."

[PH here:]
I'm not sure the whole article can be copied here, so please go to the link to read it all:
Chris Mooney, "Intelligent Denials", The American Prospect Online, Feb 22, 2005.

[WindOracle]

One further tning, however, is I do think it should at least be given SERIOUS consideration in scientific circles for a couple reasons.

1st, IF it should happen to be true, it could aid in intuitive leaps in understanding across disciplines if a common relationship, a clearer understanding of God's purpose, can be discerned. If it is false, such consideration will cost nothing.

2nd, It may serve to help reinforce faith by giving a clearer understanding of his purposes, rather than making us become more dogmatic and destroying faith when we run headlong into a wall.

Seems to me to be a win/win all around.

[Aloysius88]

The American Prospect defends Kyoto on the same homepage it defends the Darwinian status quo.

In addition to that, the chief philosopher and popularizer of evolution, Richard Dawkins, is one of those English nuts who was trashed on this website for writing letters to those folks in Ohio to get them to vote against W.

[WindOracle]

Yes, and that 500 million years limitation begins to look like not such a problem if the mutations were not solely random, but were guided.

[Aloysius88]

2 problems.

1. The small pop. with the initial mutation is too small to have a sufficient number of mutations (per breeding individual) to get a second successful mutation to further differentiate the species.

2. The overwhelming percentage of mutations due to all causes are harmful or uselessly neutral.

[WindOracle]

Exactly why it cannot be by random chance.

[WindOracle]

BTW, you just hit on the very thing which restored my belief in God even with the knowledge that evolutionary processes take place. As I came to understand evolution more, I grew more certain it could not be by accident.

Evolutionary theory saved my faith.

[jennyp]

Humans are the greatest apes.. ;^)

LOL! Let's see...

Biologists will tell you that humans are a species of great ape. But I say we're the greatest ape.

[jennyp]

Nothing's more tiring on these Crevo threads than having to debunk the same tired, ignorant, wrong ideas and beliefs of evolution, like this whole "why are there still monkeys?" tired argument that creationists always try to make.

I've whittled that one down to, "for the same reason why there shall always be an England, even though America "came from" England." (But that analogy may require too much thought for some. :-)

[Dimensio]

Does Behe ever talk about the "missing scaffolding" rebuttal?

[jennyp]

It is a fact that humans in the Americas pre-Columbus were drifting down a different evolutionary path than the rest of humanity. There is a much higher rate of miscarriages when one parent is of American Indian descent and the other is not, for example.

Do you have a source for that? That's astounding (& disturbing), if true.

[js1138]

If it is false, such consideration will cost nothing.

The assumption of regular process is the only assumption that science can work from. It's the definition of science. Make no difference what you believe the ultimate cause is.

[WindOracle]

Could be true, hard to say, would be interested in any data supporting it.

I do believe in the idea that primitive humans probably originated about where claimed, in Africa. This comes in useful on occassion when arguing about slavery issues. I point out that slavery probably existed since the dawn of mankind, since one man could force another to do his bidding, as such, slavery originated in Africa too...

man.. liberals hate that.

[WindOracle]

Are you going to deny that scientific discoveries often came from intuitive leaps across disciplines? Intuitive leaps are of themselves, contrary to standard scientific process. If it is stupid but it works, it is not stupid.

[js1138]

Hypothesising is extremelyimportant in biology. But hypotheses with no experimantal or observational implications are not science.

What currently unknown fact does ID expect that evolution (natural selection) does not expect? What is the ID research program?

[PatrickHenry]

Re: "why are there still monkeys?"

I've whittled that one down to, "for the same reason why there shall always be an England, even though America "came from" England." (But that analogy may require too much thought for some.

There are other ways to deal with it; but none will succeed with the people who think the "monkeys" question is an evo-killer:

1. If you have tall kids, why are you still short?
2. If you have any kids, why are you still hanging around?
3. If we are created in God's image, why is there still God?

[ValenB4]

All ID scientists want is to say "when I look at that data, I see such and such..." They do not want to be told what there conclusions must be.

That would be a subjective experience and is therefore, unscientific. Someone else could look at the same thing and see something totally different. Unless you can turn a subjective experience into something concrete and measurable, ID can only be considered a philosophical viewpoint. While scientific data may indeed be incorrect, it is always objective.

[Long Cut]

1. Doesn't, and never, tried. (most knowledgeable people will quit reading your post here, as this indicates you have never read the TOE with any interest)

2. This HAS been discussed, at great length. Boils down to the fact that sexual reproduction increases the genetic variance and spread of genes. So, saying that "it can't be accounted for" is yet another indicator of ignorance on your part.

As for the last part, the Earth is about 4.5 billion (that's THOUSAND-million) years old. More than enough time.

[WindOracle]

Hypothesising is extremely important in biology. But hypotheses with no experimantal or observational implications are not science.
I do not say it need not be experimented on, it should. But such intuitive thinking leads to the creativity of men like Da Vinci, and Einstein, who look at things the rest of us do from a different perspective. This is the spark of true genius. Many scientific men are mere technicians, brilliant ones, but building only upon what has been firmly established... but the greatest advances come from the other sort.

What currently unknown fact does ID expect that evolution (natural selection) does not expect? What is the ID research program?
If anyone could tell you what unknown fact anyone hoped to find, it would not be unknown would it? I assume it could lead us into very unexpected directions, which are in fact, often the most profitable. Many of our advances have the most impact in ways we never imagined to begin with.

[js1138]

It may serve to help reinforce faith by giving a clearer understanding of his purposes, rather than making us become more dogmatic and destroying faith when we run headlong into a wall.

I would advise not basing one's faith in worldly knowledge. I think the Bible says this somewhere, but I could be misreading it.

[WindOracle]

read it carefully.. I said reinforce faith.. not form a basis for it.