Seattle think tank raises questions about evolution

Charlotte Observer & The Seattle Times ^ | 04/05/2005 | LINDA SHAW

[thomaswest]

1. How does ID account for mass extinctions and species extinction? If the saber-toothed tiger was intelligently designed to survive in the designed environment, why did this kind become extinct?

2. What exactly is a "kind"? The cat family as described by zoologists has a distinguishing characteristic, namely retractable claws, as a modification of the finger bones found in other animals having bilateral symmetry. Are the "cats" a kind? Or are domestic cats, lions, cheetahs, etc., different kinds?

3. What is a "kind" in the plant kingdom? Botanists have recorded similarities in roses, apples, pears, and other fuits placed in the rose family. Are these a "kind"? What about the lily family with bulbs, or the ferns? Are gymnosperms a different kind? Are monocotyledons and dicotyleldons among the angiosperms different kinds?

4. Why do human fetuses have tails? Every fetal sonogram shows that tails are developed at some stage of development, and sometimes are still present at birth. What is the Intelligent Design explanation for this?

5. It is well-known that the heme molecule in animal blood is similar to the chlorophyll molecule in green plants. Both are based on the porphyrin structure. The heme porphyrin has an iron atom (Fe) at the center, whereas the chlorophyll porphyrin has a magnesium atom (Mg). There is great consistency amongst all animal groups and plant groups. Is this observed fact an example of irreducible complexity and intelligent design?

6.Sometimes there are caves with blind cavefish. In the area surrounding the cave, there almost identical fish that are not blind. How does ID account for the species being virtually identical except for blindness?

[Leatherneck_MT]

Intelligent design is not science nor should it be treated as such.

Thank God for that.

[r9etb]

The survival of the fittest notion is on of the most misunderstood points of evolution. It should be survival of the most adapatable.

Your statement is quite imprecise, actually. Survival applies to individuals, whereas adaptation is a multi-generation genetic sort of thing -- they're not the same concepts.

Probably the most accurate statements are also the most unsatisfactory: "survival of the ones that didn't die before they mated;" or, "survival of the ones who produced the most offspring."

The point being that "lack of fitness" is not the only reason that things die or fail to reproduce; and "fitness" is not the only reason things survive and reproduce.

The Theory of Evolution can be restated along the lines that certain characteristics provide a statistical advantage, not for survival per se, but rather for successful reproduction. (The idea is supported by the existence of many species for which one or both parents die immediately after reproduction....)

[RadioAstronomer]

Large canyons were formed in a matter of minutes through solid rock. Many layers of sedimentary rock were formed in a matter of days. Each layer having unique characteristics unlike laying down a pile of mud. A whole "forest" of "trees" has formed at the bottom of the nearby lake from logs sinking in a vertical manner soon to be covered with sediment possibly forming a future petrified forest.

These observations are now being used to modify/question current theories about the formation geological features, many of which had been assumed to take eons to form.

Not by geologists.

Here is a better reply than I could whip up in a few secs:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/963744/posts?page=436#436

[Aquinasfan]

Just require teachers to discuss evidence that refutes Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as well as what supports it.

We can't have that because... uh, why not?

[wallcrawlr]

ok, now I at least have a better idea of your worldview and what you meant by "bad idea".

[r9etb]

Nope. There are predictions that can be tested for evolution. This puts it squarely within the realm of science. ID cannot make such a claim.

Wrong. The validity of ID as an explanation for biological phenomena is easily testable, and I'll give you proof: you can buy stock today in a biotech firm of your choice (and there are many, many choices available). From this, we must conclude that ID is an experimentally proven concept. Moreover, you'd be hard-pressed to claim that that particular form of intelligent design was not science.

The bottom line is that, regardless of whether or not ID is the actual explanation for phenomenon X, it must be acknowledged as at least a viable explanation. We can say exactly the same thing about the theory of evolution. For example, evolution may be a viable explanation for, say, certain strains of corn, even though the real explanation is something else (i.e., human intervention).

Your basic position boils down to what I indicated previously: that there's no way to tell the difference between designed and non-designed. It's beyond strange that you seem to be saying that this is not a valid field of scientific inquiry.

[r9etb]

Your questions are basically of the "all or nothing" variety. I am not making that argument.

[thomaswest]

I understand your answer is: ID and creationists believe that "kinds" were created, but that they cannot define what a kind is. This would seem to disqualify ID as "scientific".

What is the relation between ID and belief in Noah's Flood? That is, many scientists conclude that Noah's Flood was impossible without violating almost all of physical science (physics, astronomy, geology, thermodynamics,...). If ID is accepted as "correct", does make Noah's Flood "true"? How does ID counter the arguments that such a flood could never happened without an uncountable series of miracles?

[DesertSapper]

What? Just links? Come on, I'm all for doing my research but don't you think you could at least pull some pertinate info OUT of this site for us? Assume I'm lazy or maybe it's just that I don't have time - at the moment - to read yet another pro-evolution website. This one is new to me though and I have begun to read it (and put it on my "favorites" for now).

While I read yours, you read some of mine: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html

http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/physicalscientists.html

Creation-Science Research Center

The Current State of Creationist Astronomy

Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design

[LauraleeBraswell]

Actually, the discussion of God very much belongs in Sciences.

I'm a Deist by the way.

Yesterday, I was looking up at the sky at dusk. As the sun melted behind the horizon it shone it's last daylight breaths on the clouds that bursted with bright yellow and oranges. Pink and Purples hazed the sky, as it slowly turned to night.


Let's say you were out for a walk and you happened upon a cave. Upon venturing in that cave, you see pictures of human forms and what appears to be bison very primitively drawn. Would you infer that a higher intelligence, say a man drew those pictures? Or would you just assume that some red and brown paint was blowing with the wind and just happened to make those pictures?

The sheer complexity of universe is beyond our human understanding. Everything comes from something. But at some point something came from nothing. The Mathematical complexity, the Golden RATIO of PHI, the symmetry, the magnitude of it all. What created this, who created this?

There are ten trillion cells in your brain, as many stars as there are in the universe. What is a thought? How do you scientifically define a thought? You can define it a very small particle of a chemical that goes through the neuron synapse as jumps from neuron to the other. But can you hold a thought in your hand?

Think of the most beautiful artwork you've ever seen. The painter had to be talented to create such a thing. Well, the universe is much more complicated than the Mona Lisa or the Sistine Chapel.

We as men, we know the formula to procreate. But can we create. Can you create a child from thin air? Can you create a single celled molecule from thin air. No you cannot. But at one point, something did.

There is a force greater than ourselves.

[RadioAstronomer]

It just so happens I have read those links., I have been debating this a long time. I thought my link summed it up pretty well. Better than I could in a few short sentences.

[r9etb]

Perhaps I'm being dense, but I honestly do not understand the point of your discussion of "kinds." The best I can come up with is that you're constructing a strawman of how ID would treat the topic.

[r9etb]

Yesterday, I was looking up at the sky at dusk. As the sun melted behind the horizon it shone it's last daylight breaths on the clouds that bursted with bright yellow and oranges. Pink and Purples hazed the sky, as it slowly turned to night.

Oddly, last night as I was driving home I saw something similar -- it was a fireworks display, and quite spectacular against the mountains.... Same colors and such, just smaller.... (There's no point to the story beyond the fact that your dsescription strongly reminded me of it.)

[Quark2005]

Large canyons were formed in a matter of minutes through solid rock. Many layers of sedimentary rock were formed in a matter of days.

The sheer lack of scientific knowledge in the general public is often mind-boggling. Anyone with even rudimentary scientific knowledge can give several reasons why statements like this are ridiculous. Cosmology, biology and geology have come a long way in 3000 years; believers need to bring their interpretation of Scripture out of the Dark Ages (as many have) if they wish their beliefs to have any legitimacy in the light of modern knowledge. (If the facts don't fit your beliefs, just change the facts.)

[LauraleeBraswell]

Fireworks are cool. yeah.

[thomaswest]

OK, let's try these two questions:
1. How does ID account for mass extinctions and species extinction? If the saber-toothed tiger was intelligently designed to survive in the designed environment, why did this species become extinct?

4. Why do human fetuses have tails? Every fetal sonogram shows that tails are developed at some stage of development, and sometimes are still present at birth. What is the Intelligent Design explanation for this?

[r9etb]

1. Why should ID have to account for them?

2. Do fetuses really have "tails," or are you simply reading "tail" into something that happens to look like a tail to you?

[DesertSapper]

Nice try Radio. I don't buy it. You cannot have done much research and not known that a dog and a wolf are of the same species.

I'll read your site (already am) and you spend some time looking at the other side too. That's all I ask of any evolutionist - especially if they are teaching our kids!

I'll thank God for creation (for the both of us) - then we can debate how everything got to this point. I'm not all that sure that this debate means much to Him as long as His handiwork is acknowledged.

I do love this argument and will readily admit that I know very little in the scheme of things. However, I have been reading on both sides of this issue for a few years now and will continue to do so.

I will let pass your comments about my homeschooling as I answer to the God on how I raise my kids - not you. But that is not the point here is it? The point is; should we continue to allow our kids to receive only one flawed origins theory and intentionally ignore others? Even if you agree with evolution, do you ignore alternate theories?

I do teach my boys about macro-evolution but do not promote it as I don't believe it. Why can I not expect at least as much from public schools I am funding?

[dominic7]

Probably the most accurate statements are also the most unsatisfactory: "survival of the ones that didn't die before they mated;" or, "survival of the ones who produced the most offspring."

Hmmm I don't know, just because a species reproduces it does not follow that it will survive in the long term. The most unhealthy of a species may flourish and reproduce because it has an immunity to a disease that all but wipes out its bretheren.

My point is that fittest and survival do not go hand in hand. Fittest is relative to what one means by fit.