What is dishonest about correctly stating that some laboratory animals have been intelligently designed?
How else would you explain the laboratory origin of those transgenic life forms?
Posted on 08/18/2005 7:39:37 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
On August 1, 2005, a group of reporters from Texas met with President Bush in the Roosevelt room for a roundtable interview. The President’s remarks suggest that he believes that both intelligent design and evolution should be taught so that “people are exposed to different schools of thought.” There have been so many articles since his remarks that it’s useful to read the relevant portion of published interview:
“Q: I wanted to ask you about the -- what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?The reporter got it right: there is an ongoing debate over intelligent design vs. evolution, at least in the media and in politics. There is not a debate in the greater scientific community about the validity of evolution. Further, the vast majority of scientists do not consider intelligent design as a viable alternative to evolution.THE PRESIDENT: I think -- as I said, harking back to my days as my governor -- both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past. (Laughter.) Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.
Q: Both sides should be properly taught?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people -- so people can understand what the debate is about.
Q: So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting -- you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.”
(Transcript released by the White House and published on August 2, 2005 at WashingtonPost.com)
Dr. John Marburger III, Presidential Science Advisor, tried to dispel the impact of the President’s comments. On Aug. 2, The New York Times quoted a telephone interview with Marburger in which he said, “evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology” and “intelligent design is not a scientific concept.” Certainly, no one doubts where Marburger stands. One might question whether the President takes Marbuger’s scientific advice seriously, or is simply more concerned about pleasing a portion of the electorate.
Marburger also spoke with Dr. Marvin Cohen, President of the American Physical Society, and recipient of the National Medal of Science from President Bush in 2002. In an Aug. 4 release, Cohen explains that the APS is “…happy that the President’s recent comments on the theory of intelligent design have been clarified. As Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger has explained, President Bush does not regard intelligent design as science. If such things are to be taught in the public schools, they belong in a course on comparative religion, which is a particularly appropriate subject for our children given the present state of the world.” It would be better to hear this directly from the President. Likely, the intelligent design advocates will ignore Marburger’s explanation. Like the fabled little Dutch boy, Marburger, stuck his finger in the dike in hopes of saving the day.
Unlike the brave boy, Marburger did not prevent the flood of print and electronic coverage that ensued. From August 2 to the present, Google-News tracked more than 1,800 articles, commentaries, and letters to the editor on intelligent design. That’s about 120 per day since the President’s remarks.
In the days following the interview, major educational and scientific organizations issued statements that criticized the President for considering intelligent design as a viable alternative to evolution, for confusing religion with science, and for advocating that intelligent design be taught in schools.
“President Bush, in advocating that the concept of ‘intelligent design’ be taught alongside the theory of evolution, puts America’s schoolchildren at risk,” says Fred Spilhaus, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union. “Americans will need basic understanding of science in order to participate effectively in the 21 st century world. It is essential that students on every level learn what science is and how scientific knowledge progresses.” (AGU, Aug. 2, 2005) AGU is a scientific society comprising 43,000 Earth and space scientists.
Likewise, the American Institute of Biological Sciences criticized the President: “Intelligent design is not a scientific theory and must not be taught in science classes,” said AIBS president Dr. Marvalee Wake. “If we want our students to be able to compete in the global economy, if we want to attract the next generation into the sciences, we must make sure that we are teaching them science. We simply cannot begin to introduce non-scientific concepts into the science curriculum.” (AIBS, Aug. 5, 2005) The American Institute of Biological Sciences was established as a national umbrella organization for the biological sciences in 1947 by 11 scientific societies as part of the National Academy of Sciences. An independent non-profit organization since 1954, it has grown to represent more than 80 professional societies and organizations with a combined membership exceeding 240,000 scientists and educators. (AIBS website)
Science educators are equally dismayed. “The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the world’s largest organization of science educators, is stunned and disappointed that President Bush is endorsing the teaching of intelligent design – effectively opening the door for nonscientific ideas to be taught in the nation’s K-12 science classrooms. We stand with the nation’s leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president’s top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom, said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director.” (NSTA, Aug. 3, 2005) NSTA has 55,000 members who teach science in elementary, middle and high schools as well as college and universities.
The American Federation of Teachers, which represents 1.3 million pre-K through 12 th grade teachers, was even harsher. “President Bush’s misinformed comments on ‘intelligent design’ signal a huge step backward for science education in the United States. The president’s endorsement of such a discredited, nonscientific view is akin to suggesting that students be taught the ‘alternative theory’ that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. Intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom because it is not science.” (AFT, Aug. 4, 2005)
There is a problem here. Obviously, scientists and educators understand that intelligent design has no place in the classroom. Intelligent design is, simply, one of several varieties of creationism that offer religious explanations for the origin and current condition of the natural world. As such, it does not merit being taught alongside evolution as a “school of thought.” There’s significant legal precedent from US Supreme Court that creationism - in any clothing - does not belong in the American classrooms. Teaching creationism is in violation of the separation of church and state, and has been ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court in several cases. It’s unfortunate that the President apparently does not understand that science is not equivalent to a belief system but is description of how the natural world works. Creationism, including intelligent design, is a religious point of view, not science.
At a time when industrial, academic, and business leaders are calling for more American students to train in engineering, mathematics, science and technology, we need to teach science in science classrooms. Let’s teach the scientific ideas that are supported by overwhelming evidence such as gravitation, relativity, quantum mechanics, and evolution. Creationist ideas/beliefs, such as intelligent design, don’t belong in science classrooms. In our haste to leave no child behind, let’s not leave science behind either.
I would agree that these are significant, but from the point of view of considering the effect an organism has on the evolution of its species, an organism that never reproduces might as well have died before it was born; it has no effect on the evolution of its species in either case. I am passing no judgement on the significance of its life, just on its effect on the future genome of its species.
I never said genetic engineering wasn't "intelligent design". But in this discussion "intelligent design" is a hypothesis for where species came from in nature. To use the term for something else, in a transparent attempt to lend weight to the ID argument, I believe is dishonest.
No, not "by definition". In fact, this makes quite a few assumptions about the nature of possible transitions that you claim do not even exist. You are asserting omniscience of the phase space of all possible transition pathways. The scope of science is not defined by your lack of imagination.
Try again. We've already established mathematically that a plethora of viable transition pathways MUST exist. You are asserting that none exist on the basis of... nothing. As was also previously established, related parallel pathways required to achieve an endpoint will have an equivalent serial pathway to the same endpoint that maintains the same constraints (though not necessarily as simple).
Interbreeding within a population is necessary. Interbreeding between two populations is not required. In fact the ending of gene flow between populations is important to the working definition of speciation.
"But, then, there appear (apparently disparate) populations which do not interbreed - this is THE POINT OF LIMITATION. For whatever reason, these populations will not naturally interbreed, or to use the peculiar term "give rise to" another "variety". Perhaps this shows that a dumb animal is not inclined to breed with another animal that is too different from itself - this is THE LIMITATION.
That is hardly a limit. The independent species do not need to interbreed with each other for variation to continue, in fact the reduction of population size will increase the fixing of an allele within the population. Internal population variation increases due to genetic drift, as the population number goes down until you hit the bottleneck limit of the founder effect which can, as shown by Muller's Ratchet, decrease a population's survivability.
"Change (facilitated by interbreeding) WITHIN a strong variety/species/kind but no change BEYOND.
You are very much mistaken.
What is dishonest about correctly stating that some laboratory animals have been intelligently designed?
How else would you explain the laboratory origin of those transgenic life forms?
"No, not "by definition". In fact, this makes quite a few assumptions about the nature of possible transitions that you claim do not even exist." - tortoise
Yes, by definition. Some stages of some complex entities, be it for mechanical automation, biology, computer software et al, require multiple simultaneous changes (from their prior state) in order for the new stage to be functional (e.g. two wings and an engine to fly for some aircraft).
And what assumptions do you claim that I am making? Be specific.
Using the term "intelligent design" in this discussion to describe genetic engineering has the clear goal of transferring weight to the ID hypothesis of species that it does not deserve. I.E. it's blatant propaganda.
How else would you explain the laboratory origin of those transgenic life forms?
Their origin is called "genetic engineering".
And that evidence is what? Where has it been shown that abiogenesis suffers from IC?
Facts are **science**, not propaganda.
GM lab animals are intelligently designed. That's a fact. That's science. Genetic engineering is not propaganda.
Abiogeneis is a clear example of Irreducible Complexity because we know that the first life had to do at least three simultaneous (in terms of history) things in order to be viable: animate from inanimate matter, eat, and replicate.
"If half of a wing is insufficient in certain cases for flight, then both wings must be simultaneously added for the aircraft entity to work in said cases. For machines, software, biology, and other fields there are levels that are typically called "stages" that are irreducibly complex...meaning that more than one change must be made from the prior state for the new state to be functional.
You are assuming that the wing was originally used for flight and that the half wing had no use. Functions change as do features. This is evidenced by the number of fish which have had the function of their pectoral fin changed with a resulting change in morphology.
It is a mistake to too closely view biology and machines as analogs.
There is no need to have simultaneous expression of features since modification of existing features is more parsimonious and can precede or follow change in function. In cases where there has been simultaneous expression, it can be attributed to gene duplication with later modification.
...would you agree that they are significant "influences on natural selection?"
Thanks for the url - I probably won't read this today - but I intend to check it out this weekend.
How do we know this? Because the simplest forms of life currently need to do these three? What is is not necessarily what was. I suggest you take a look at the following link: Talk Origins
It should give you an idea of how these three could result from incremental changes. Be sure to follow the links given in the paper.
Stringing together terms from differnet fields doesn't make a point. The only possible similarity I can see between genes and subroutines is that subroutines are "part" of a program, and genes are "part" of a genome. But I can see far more differences. Are genes composed of sequential instructions? no. Can genes be called? no. Is there a data stack in DNA? no.
Base DNA codon words are translated into one of 20 amino acids and processed by a biological code-reading engine precisely as human computer Base-2 (aka Binary) bits are processed by a computer CPU.
It is remotely similar, but far from the same, let alone precisely the same. The amino acids in a gene represent a protein to be formed. A protein is not an instruction (neither is it a subroutine, hard disk, etc). A protein is a molecule, and the behaviour of the biological system is determined how all of the proteins produced interact as well as environmental pressures (ie physical growth can be obstructed). It is nothing like a computer in which instructions are sequentially read, executed and the results are stored. I don't see any jump instructions in DNA.
Likewise, the overall genome contains both programming commands as well as data.
What are the commands? What is the instruction set?
The independent species do not need to interbreed with each other for variation to continue...
You're getting hung up on the definition of species, thinking that the two ends of the ring (for example)are two independant species. I am saying that they represent two limits of variation within one strong variety/species/kind. They most assuredly are not the only lines of variation, there may be many others...but when the degree of variation in individuals strays beyond a certain point it appears (from the ring species example) that they stop interbreeding. Thus there is a definite limit to how much variation can occur.
They can still interbreed with their local population perfectly, they just cannot interbreed with the remote population. It's because the two populations have genetically drifted apart. There is nothing to say they won't continue to drift apart. Without interbreeding between the two populations there is nothing holding them together.
Still at this, I see.
Southack, I asked you twice last night to confirm or deny that you are trying to use the trivial case of human design as evidence for non-human intelligent design as an explanation for the origin of species. Care to respond yet?
If the gene flow is terminated, they will be classed as independent species.
My concern was not about the definition of a species.
I am saying that they represent two limits of variation within one strong variety/species/kind. They most assuredly are not the only lines of variation, there may be many others...but when the degree of variation in individuals strays beyond a certain point it appears (from the ring species example) that they stop interbreeding. Thus there is a definite limit to how much variation can occur.
Your assumption that interbreeding halts variation is wrong. In fact genetic isolation increases variation.
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.