Faith-Based Evolution (a meteorologist looks at ID and "evolutionism")

Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.

In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college.

You might wonder how scientists who are taught to apply disciplined observation and experimentation and to search for natural explanations for what is observed in nature can come to such a conclusion? For those of you who consider themselves open-minded, I will try to explain.

True evolution, in the macro-sense, has never been observed, only inferred. A population of moths that changes from light to dark based upon environmental pressures is not evolution -- they are still moths. A population of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics does not illustrate evolution -- they are still bacteria. In the biological realm, natural selection (which is operating in these examples) is supposedly the mechanism by which evolution advances, and intelligent design theory certainly does not deny its existence. While natural selection can indeed preserve the stronger and more resilient members of a gene pool, intelligent design maintains that it cannot explain entirely new kinds of life -- and that is what evolution is.

Possibly the most critical distinction between the two theories (or better, "models") of origins is this: While similarities between different but "related" species have been attributed by evolutionism to common ancestry, intelligent design explains the similarities based upon common design. An Audi and a Ford each have four wheels, a transmission, an engine, a gas tank, fuel injection systems … but no one would claim that they both naturally evolved from a common ancestor.

Common ancestry requires transitional forms of life to have existed through the millions of years of supposed biological evolution. Yet the fossil record, our only source of the history of life on Earth, is almost (if not totally) devoid of transitional forms of life that would connect the supposed evolution of amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, etc. This is why Stephen Jay Gould, possibly the leading evolutionist of our time, advanced his "punctuated equilibria" theory. In this theory, evolution leading to new kinds of organisms occurs over such brief periods of time that it was not captured in the fossil record. Upon reflection, one cannot help but notice that this is not arguing based upon the evidence -- but instead from the lack of evidence.

One finally comes to the conclusion that, despite vigorous protests, belief in evolution and intelligent design are matters of faith. Even some evolutionists have admitted as much in their writings. Modern biology does not "fall apart" without evolution, as some will claim. Maybe the theories of the origins of forms of life fall apart, or theories of the origin of capabilities that those life forms exhibit, or the supposed ancestral relationships between them fall apart. But these are merely intellectual curiosities, serving only to stimulate discussion and teach the next generation of students the same beliefs. From a practical point of view, the intelligent design paradigm is just as useful to biology, and I believe, more satisfying from an intellectual point of view.

Intelligent design can be studied and taught without resorting to human creation traditions and beliefs, which in the West are usually traceable to the first book of the Bible, Genesis. Just as someone can recognize and study some machine of unknown purpose built by another company, country (or alien intelligence?), one can also examine the natural world and ask the question: did this machine arise by semi-random natural physical processes, or could it have been designed by a higher power? Indeed, I was convinced of the intelligent design arguments based upon the science alone.

Of course, ultimately, one must confront the origin of that higher power, which will logically lead to the possibility of an original, uncaused, First Cause. But then we would be firmly in the religious realm. All naturalistic cosmological theories of origins must invent physics that have never been observed by science -- because the "Big Bang" can't be explained based upon current physics. A naturalistic origin of the universe violates either the First or Second Laws of thermodynamics -- or both. So, is this science? Or faith?

It is already legal to teach intelligent design in public schools. What is not currently legal is to mandate its teaching. The Supreme Court has ruled that this would violate the First Amendment's establishment of religion clause.

But I have some questions relating to this: Does not classical evolutionism, based almost entirely upon faith, violate the same clause? More importantly, what about the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

If the public school system insists on teaching evolution as a theory of origins, in the view of many a religious activity, why is it discriminating against the only other theory of origins, intelligent design? (There is, by the way, no third theory of origins that anyone has ever been able to determine.) At the very least, school textbooks should acknowledge that evolution is a theory of origins, it has not been proved, and that many scientists do not accept it.

There are a variety of ideas that try to blend evolution and intelligent design, the most unified one being "pantheism" that sees God and nature as One. This view, which has been held by many peoples throughout recorded history, has also been advanced here at TCS. But more commonly, people subscribe to the notion that a Creator "got things started," and then evolution "took over."

The problem I have with this is that it grants far too much significance to macroevolution, since it has virtually no observational evidence to support it. One wonders: Why do so many people defend it so fervently?

Whether intelligent design is ever taught in school is probably not as important as the freedom that we have in a free society to discuss, and study, such issues. And for that, I am thankful.

We have lots of transitional fossils.

Sure you do. That's why Stevie Gould -- Dr. Harvard Paleontaologist himself and no wilting evo-drone himself -- resorted to "Punctualted equilibrium" as his explanation for the paucity of any evidence that could even remotely be construed as "transitional forms."

You're sipping the evo-Koolaid.

What predictions does ID make?

ID is a premise which gives rise to a world-view even as evolution is a premise which gives rise to a world view. The study of science and predictions one makes begins with establishment of the credibility of the dogma embodied within the central premise.

What valid predictions can evolutionary premise make about random chance? Answer that question and Vegas is yours to own.

Here's what evolution predicts: evolution predicts that random chance gives rise to living systems of structurally biological elegance dependent upon precision driven modulatory systems of mathematical complexities which defy man's current ability to fully comprehend. Nothing in natural laws, or any laws of science exist to support this premise, however. Natural and mathematically applied sciences have falsified the premise of evolution time and again. The more we learn and the more complex the world is discovered by man's-admissions-come-lately to be, the deeper are driven the nails into the coffin of evolutionary premise.

The evolutionary premise runs in stark oppositon to that which is scientifically testable and observed. It is therefore merely a dream, a wish and a hope to which its adherants vainly cling. Whatever they want to think, that's not science, that's faith based religion based on a lot of wishful thinking.

Self-promoting "scientists" attempt to elevate their religious "theories" above Laws of Nature and science, but it is fueled not by anything resembling cogent scientific thought (though they like to call it that). What one actually witnesses more often are merely expresions of bloated egos, together with the conceit and vanity that goes with it -- examples of which we regularly see even here on FR.

Some of these same evolutionists go further to say their evolution (including their own of course) is essentially self-directed. By such a statement, however, the inference is that evolutionists must now admit to some form of intelligent design -- even if it is their own. So, even as they promote their intellects, their self-contradictory materialistic argument collapses beneath them.

So, the evolutionist essentially believes that life comes from non-life, intelligence arises from non-intelligence, that purpose arises from purposelessness, that random chance happenstance self-creates intricate, precision controlled biological mechanisms without which the organism dies. Given the admitted finite amount of time he thinks he needs to make repeated, statistically impossibile events happen, he'll continue to evangelize the $ granting community for support to pursue the pipe dream. He's got no science to back up such premises but it is quite a faith he espouses, isn't it?

ID predicts that the reason we can even think of engineering customize-able therapeutics with predictable therapeutic outcomes is because the biological machinery we are trying to repair or influence evidences magnificent engineering, design, and therefore predictably efficient therapeutic moieties may be designed for it. Since the object is to ameliorate the effects of, if not entirely cure disease, the therapeutic researcher seeks out the truth of the matter and the mechanism in order to better understand the ailment. While many in the research community with intellectual laziness pay the obligatory fealty to the evolutionary mantra, everything the researcher does must be founded in valid experimental design in order to make valid the conclusions he hopes to draw from his study of marvelously complex biological mechanisms.

Many evolutionists -- even here on FR -- have openly declared that their pursuit of science is not a search for truth -- "truth" they say, is a relative topic suitable only for "religious" discussions. However, the study of science unhinged from the search for truth results in the fiat "science" that is used to promote much of what we have come to know as fashionable "junk science": today's global warming, the new ice age prophets of 30 years ago, the socially Darwinistic contorted notions of non-humaness -- whether it be humans as slaves, Jews as non-persons, or the expendible and exploitable unborn, executed in the name of what some term "scientific advancements".

Evolutionary dogma in its context gives rise to both its companion junk science, and junk social science, which gives rise to the liberalism which most of us -- with a few exceptions -- collectively eschew on FR.

The scientific method is a function of intellegent design. Intellegent design is not subordinate to the scientific method. Intelligent design defines the scientific method.

Scientific thought is not an end unto itself but must exist within limits which the natural universe imposes. Scientific thought and application of the scientific method is limited, and universal in its appllicability within its inadequacies. The scientific method cannot explain everything in existence, and only as fool would contend that it does -- or can. Some very real concepts are far outside the scope of the scientific method to address.

For instance the scientific method cannot be used to explain Origins. It is precisely this reason that the materialist is marooned on the shoals of his own intellect and premise when he contemplates Origins. The materialist has no answer, and typically flees the discussion since it reveals a very soft white underbelly. The ID adherent on the otherhand confidently refers to the same Intelligent Designer whose work through the tools of science, he studies. It's a big problem for the evolutionist who believes that through the ages he's desiged himself, particularly since he doesn't have a clue where he came from, has no reason for why he is here, and only thinks he knows where he is going.

The current debate between ID and evolutionary thought sharpens the contrasted differences in ways before unseen. The universe is either intellegently designed or it's not. There is no in-between. It's a zero-sum game.

Science furnishes no evidence whatsoever to support the the evolutionary premise. Random chance can't explain what science readilly observes. Axiomatically, only ID can.

ID is therefore axiomatic in that:

(1) It is so obvious both to the trained and untrained eye.

(2) No naturalistic or physical explanation utilizing any laws of science supports the materialistic evolutionary premise.

One forms scientific postulates around phenomena which may be observed or detected. ID is so obvious, and evolutionary premise is so obviously flawed.

Only the willingly blind refuse to acknowledge ID, but they do so still, because it stands in direct contrast to the faith its devotees place in evolutionary religion embodied as it is in evolutionary premise.

"Naturalistic" explanations, where confusion self assembles over time (evidence for which does not exist and is merely more postulate and premise), which by chance "evolves" into highly precise order is both counter-intuitive and unscientific in its premise.

As any scientist should know, any predictions one tries to make based upon a fundamentally weak premise only compounds the resulting error.

This is rather unintelligent nonsense. Evolution does not predict random chance gives rise to order. Evolution predicts that natural selection gives rise to order.

Do the following experiment. Toss ten coins. Keep the heads, and re-toss the tails. Do so ten times. Odds are very high you'll be left with all heads. Was the result produced by random chance?

Such pompousness from someone who understands neither mathematics nor biology is truly comical. The rest of the rant is deleted; clearly we have someone here who is delighted at his own words, to the unfortunate exclusion of any input from the real world. GIGO.

You're sipping the evo-Koolaid.

I'll keep sipping innocent Kool Aid. You can keep sipping creationist Flavor Aid (learn your history).

ID is a premise which gives rise to a world-view even as evolution is a premise which gives rise to a world view.

There is a fact: species have evolved over time. Using almost 150 years of science, natural selection has shown how this can occur naturally. In an effort to make creationism more palatable to the non-ignorant, ID has stated with no positive evidence that this occured under direction.

Here's what evolution predicts: evolution predicts that random chance gives rise to living systems of structurally biological elegance

Right there you're lost. You do not understand natural selection at all. You must have gone to one of those schools that taught creationism, and your education has suffered. Let's break it down for you:

IF there are organisms that reproduce, and
IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), and
IF there is variability of traits, and
IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population,
THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and
THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive

Mutations themselves may be random, but that is meaningless. It is whether that mutation helps survival in the current environment or attracts mates that decides which of the random mutations will most likely be passed on.

You think in terms of pushing. Something always has to be pushing to direct. This is a common Western attitude, and not always a good one. Natural selection is more like pulling, the conditions of the environment pull evolution in certain ways.

However, aside from people like you who try to take this scientific argument into philosophy, I do appreciate those who present ID in a scientific context. ID is not a theory in itself (and if you believe it is, you have no business discussing science), but simply the latest in a long series of attacks on natural selection.

In science, attacks are good. True attacks destroy false theories (and you'll notice this one's still standing). Other attacks cause the theory to be altered due to new evidence or thinking (as has happened with natural selection), and others fail, strengthening the theory.

I believe the religion aspect of ID will fail scientifically, strengthening NS, but that specific scientific arguments presented may cause NS to be altered to account for them, or for more research to be done to explain them. This will also result in a stronger theory.

BTW, how is ID falsifiable?

Man you don't know your coyotes thats for sure.

They woke me last night, killing something in the back field.

Well I have observed them myself at day and night at fairly close range, less than 200 feet away with plain eye sight and with 10X50 field glasses.

The coyote is a very opportunist feeder and he is very adaptable.

The genetic adaptation scientist thinks he sees evidence of a genetic change going on, but all that is going on is that the coyote is substituting garbage for carrion. This is a good example where in the belief or bias of a scientists is revealed and he sees evidence of a hypothesis.

Coyotes opportunists and will eat what is readily available. Mice, rats, ground squirrels, rabbits, carrion and a wide assortment of other mammals make up the bulk of their diet. Snakes and birds, as well as an occasional wild turkey or white-tailed deer fawn, also are preyed upon by coyotes.

Pups often eat a steady diet of grasshoppers in the late summer when they begin hunting their own food. Crickets, beetles and other insects are eaten by coyotes of all ages.

Coyotes like fruits and berries, such as mulberries, blackberries, wild strawberries and wild cherries. A thicket of ripening wild plums or a persimmon tree may be visited by coyotes regularly. Coyotes also like watermelons.

Coyotes are scavengers too. Coyotes eat table scraps, including vegetables, thrown out by farm families. In urban areas or around campgrounds, coyotes sometimes raid garbage cans for discarded scraps. Although coyotes do not cause a large problem to sweet corn growers, they sometimes pull down a stalk or two and nibble on the ears of corn.

Coyotes also feed on carrion. Following deer season, coyote droppings often are full of deer.

So much for the genetic coyote hypothesis.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.