In Explaining Life's Complexity, Darwinists and Doubters Clash

NY Times ^ | August 22, 2005 | KENNETH CHANG

[Pharmboy]

At the heart of the debate over intelligent design is this question: Can a scientific explanation of the history of life include the actions of an unseen higher being?

The proponents of intelligent design, a school of thought that some have argued should be taught alongside evolution in the nation's schools, say that the complexity and diversity of life go beyond what evolution can explain.

Biological marvels like the optical precision of an eye, the little spinning motors that propel bacteria and the cascade of proteins that cause blood to clot, they say, point to the hand of a higher being at work in the world.

In one often-cited argument, Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and a leading design theorist, compares complex biological phenomena like blood clotting to a mousetrap: Take away any one piece - the spring, the baseboard, the metal piece that snags the mouse - and the mousetrap stops being able to catch mice.

Similarly, Dr. Behe argues, if any one of the more than 20 proteins involved in blood clotting is missing or deficient, as happens in hemophilia, for instance, clots will not form properly.

Such all-or-none systems, Dr. Behe and other design proponents say, could not have arisen through the incremental changes that evolution says allowed life to progress to the big brains and the sophisticated abilities of humans from primitive bacteria.

[PatrickHenry]

I want to know why you accept the evidence in astronomy but not biology.

Because astronomy is reproducable in the lab!
</flaming creationist mode>

[b_sharp]

"Back to getting my goat expample...are you saying that the Arctic goat and the Nubian (it's the Nubian with the long ears and the rich cream) have their own latinized names of genus and species? Goatus Earless, and Goatus Earful?"

Nubian - Capra hircus

Artic goat I could not find. Does it go by a different name?

[atlaw]

The two of you have a rather odd viewpoint. I am, in your terminology, "pro-evo" (that is, I accept that the theory of evolution provides the best current explanation for diversification of biological organisms). But I am not in the least interested in "proving that God does not exist."

Indeed, of the thousands of biologists working on a daily basis within the framework of the theory of evolution, you might (and I emphasize "might") be able to come up with one, two, or maybe three who have such a peculiar goal.

One reason is that the theory says nothing one way or the other about God. Another reason is that, like me, a large number of "pro-evos" are devout and practicing Christians.

So I guess the question is, what are your motivations when you globally attribute to "pro-evos" an antagonism to Christianity?

[Gumlegs]

According to BedRock, evolutionists are anti-American as well.

[RobRoy]

>>Amen. Raw diamonds are not designed, but they have great intrinsic value.<<

Two points. First, yes they were designed. Second, to who or what would they have any value. And if the thing they have value to has no value itself, then it cannot impart value on them.

A snowman does not give a snowflake value, unless something higher than the snowman gave HIM value.

[RobRoy]

Most of what I "accept" in astronimy is verifiable, like the relationships of planets and stars.

The big bang theory, on the other hand... But at least it isn't religiously defended as so many of the subcategories of evolution studies are.

Astronomy is primarily science. Biology is primarily science. Evolution is primarily religion.

[Junior]

My dogs and cats place great value in me, if just because I feed them.

[Vive ut Vivas]

Most of what I "accept" in astronimy [sic] is verifiable, like the relationships of planets and stars.

Wait. What?

Have you directly observed the relationships of the planets and stars? What relationships do you mean, anyway? Have you ever seen a star? I mean, sure, you see those lights in the sky, but isn't it a bit of an assumption to say that those are actually flaming balls of gas? Have you ever been to a star? We've seen photographs, but they were proven fake a century ago!

You say "most" of what you accept is verifiable. So what part do you accept that isn't verifiable?

[From many - one.]

I checked under domesticated goats and got this:

Multiple maternal origins and weak phylogeographic structure in domestic goats -- Luikart et al. 98 (10): 5927 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/10/5927

There is also a Siberian goat (Ibex), Capra siberiensis, but it seems to have adequate ears.

[Junior]

Goats

• Capra aegagrus - wild goat (Bezoar Goat, Pasang)
  • Capra aegagrus hircus - domestic goat
  • Capra aegagrus creticus - kri-kri (Cretan goat, Agrimi, Cretan ibex)
• Capra caucasia - West Caucasian tur
• Capra cylindricornis - East Caucasian tur
• Capra hircus - Cashmere goat
• Capra falconeri - markhor
  • Capra falconeri heptneri - Bukharan markhor
  • Capra falconeri chialtanensis - Chialtan markhor
  • Capra falconeri megaceros - straight-horned markhor
  • Capra falconeri jerdoni - Suleman markhor
• Capra ibex - alpine ibex
  • Capra ibex ibex
  • Capra ibex nubiana - Nubian ibex¹
  • Capra ibex sibirica - Asiatic ibex²
• Capra pyrenaica - Spanish ibex
  • Capra pyrenaica pyrenaica - Pyrenean Ibex†
  • Capra pyrenaica lusitanica - Portuguese Ibex†
• Capra walie - Walia ibex

¹ also Capra nubiana
² also Capra sibirica
 

Take your pick

[RobRoy]

But if neither you nor they were designed, neither has value. If you have no value, you cannot impart value to something else. You cannot give what you do not have.

[RobRoy]

You're parsing words. This is not a court of law. I believe you understand the spirit of what I was saying.

[Vive ut Vivas]

No, I really don't. You can't pick and choose what science you accept because the method is the same in all branches.

[From many - one.]

Here's the skinny on goat ears:

The la Mancha breed has short ears and was developed in the United States. The Nubian, with the long ears was developed in Great Britain.

source: Goat Breeds

http://home.earthlink.net/~lureynolds/breeds.html

[Junior]

I just don't buy your premise. You are making statements, but not backing them up. My dogs value me, and I value them for companionship (the cats can just bite me for all I care). I don't need some cosmic version of a self-esteem program to feel valued. And, simply because you do, does not give you carte blanche to project your motivations onto others. Millions of people go through their daily lives lacking any faith in the Almighty, but they evidently don't murder or commit suicide in any greater percentages than those who profess such faith.

[atlaw]

Was the cloudburst I experienced while sailing last saturday designed?

[Zhangliqun]

I reject your premise. In fact, I think that ascribing our rights to a creator weakens them...

Not if there actually is a creator. Your premise assumes a priori that there is no God and then tries to speciously inject this assumption into the internal logic of God-based belief systems. If there is a God who gave us these rights, then by definition our rights are not weakened by acknowledging what is then a fact; they are instead infinitely strengthened. On the other hand, if there is no God, then no-one has any rights outside his own ever-fickle mind or that of others because we are then nothing more than atoms and dust just doing what atoms and dust do.

...as not everyone will agree on the nature and preferences of the creator.

The proverbial five blind men feeling different parts of the elephant may have disagreed on the nature of the elephant, but it does not follow from their disagreement that there was no elephant.

Moreover, our courtrooms count as evidence that not everyone will agree on the nature and preferences of any contract. By your logic, we should no longer believe in the existence of contracts or agreements of any kind.

Moreover, people are more fickle with their beliefs than with their contracts.

Not in situations where their beliefs are enforced with the same degree of authority as their contracts -- which was the case for the vast majority of human history.

But rights are not a matter of contract. They follow ineluctably from taking human life as the standard of value.

True in the sense that sunny days follow ineluctably from the weather deciding not to rain that day.

That's all there is to it! Now, you may say that not everyone has to take human life as their standard of value, and you'd be right.

In terms of world history, you are living in the highly aberrational dream world of Western Civilization. 99.999999% of all humans who ever lived did not live in societies where human life was the standard of value.

But the overwhelming majority of people take human life as their standard of value, whether they acknowledge it or not, so this is a much firmer foudation for the Rights of Man than any book or sect.

False: See above -- the overwhelming majority of people do no such thing (SEE: WORLD HISTORY). They take their OWN human life as their standard of value but they have to be taught to apply this to others. The moment it appears advantageous to stop believing all human life is sacred and just do whatever you want, then this "firmer foundation" slips out from under us faster than a Malibu hillside in a downpour. As Doestoevsky said, "If there is no God, then everything is permissible."

An eternal omnipotent God who metes out eternal punishment in the next life creates a major and permanent disadvantage to abandoning the belief that all human life is sacred. There is no alternative to the Judeo-Christian value system that can be anywhere near as effective in this regard.

No God means there is no such thing as "rights"; there is only rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

[RobRoy]

The system which produced it was. Was the particular cloudbirst? Maybe.

[RobRoy]

See post 137, he said it better than I have the time or inclination to at this point. It sums up my position precicely, but uses anothers words to do it.

No sens in repeating it since he did such a good job.

[From many - one.]

Further bit of clarification: the Nubian Ibex is notthe same as the Nubian Goat.