Challenged by Creationists, Museums Answer Back

The New York Times ^ | 9/20/2005 | CORNELIA DEAN

[From many - one.]

Ah! I misunderstood.

[TAdams8591]

"It is no wonder that many biologists will simply refuse to debate creationists or I.D.ers," she said, using the abbreviation for intelligent design, a cousin of creationism. "It is as if they aren't listening."

There is truth to both theories in my humble opinion, and I do listen.

But it is shocking to me that people believe the earth is only six thousand or so years old.

[From many - one.]

All the world is not a slippery slope and I have neither need nor desire to give in to the dishonest and disruptive behvior of a few extremists.

[Question_Assumptions]

Evolution has nothing to do with how life came to exist on Earth.

For those who take evolution all the way back to pre-animate chains of amino acids replicating themselves in a primordial sea as the starting point, I think it does. If you want to argue that that's technically a different theory, feel free. But it all sort of runs together quite often.

ID is not a scientific theory. Hypothesis maybe, theory, no.

It's a theory because it does make some predictions, even if they haven't fully panned out to the satisfaction of evolutionists. Their prediction is that they might be able to find some biological systems that clearly cannot be explained through natural selection.

And you don't make up a theory or a hypothesis and look for evidence to bqack itup. You look at the dataand formulate the best theory you can to cover it all.

Actually, that's what at least some of them did. They looked at various biological systems from blood clotting and flagellum to things like the structure of the human eye and felt that evolution alone seemed to be an unlikely explanation for them all, thus they formulated a different or additional explanation. That some of their claims (e.g., the flagellum) may have natural explanations does not preclude the possibility that they'll find a different system that doesn't have a natural exlanation. Maybe they are wrong and science, along with a better understanding of the genes of various creatures, will provide a natural explanation for everything. But you won't know until you look and try to explain it.

Why does their theory propose intelligent design by some form of divinity? Because the alternative for random mutations and natural selection is a process that's not natural, the most obvious alternative being planning, which suggests intelligence.

[Thatcherite]

The real action is where you'd never think to look. That's how it is with truly secret conspiracies.

Oh No! And I thought I was on the inside. Turns out that Darwin Central is like a Russian Doll. Conspiracies within conspiracies within conspiracies.

[js1138]

Like I said, I don't really see what ID changes other than the type of evidence being looked for and the assumptions made about the unknown.

And what kind of evidence would that be? Specifically. And what assumptions? Can you name anything in the history of science where the assumption of supernatural or extranatural causes has been required? Can you name any problem currently under investigation that has reached a dead end in terms of assumptions or methodology?

I'm going to grant what I think is one benefit of ID. It has required mainstream science to tighten up its terminology, and is currently forcing popular publications to be more careful in their pronouncements. It might, in the long run, result in the demise of some of the crap known as deconstructionism. All these things are good.

[furball4paws]

And I bet you look every bit the part.

[Question_Assumptions]

FYI, please note that the "natural" or "intelligent design" evaluation is not just something that people do when they look at life. Archaeology is filled with situations where a researcher has to decide if their findings in a dig were natural or man-made (e.g., fire pits, stone tools, broken bones, etc.). The idea that something can exhibit characteristics that can be categorized as natural or manufactured is hardly controversial in that context. This is why the watch, Mount Rushmore, and turtle on a fencepost examples seem to be such no brainer analogies to me because I see that stuff when reading about archaeology all the time. I'm not sure why it should be an off limits topic for biology unless you already assume that there will always be a natural explanation.

[furball4paws]

If you want everyone to laugh, then you will need to make some "everyman" statement. I'd prefer them to scratch their heads and "get" it when it's too late.

[Right Wing Professor]

For those who take evolution all the way back to pre-animate chains of amino acids replicating themselves in a primordial sea as the starting point, I think it does. If you want to argue that that's technically a different theory, feel free. But it all sort of runs together quite often.

Uh, that would be almost nobody. Since we discovered some time ago that proteins are translated from RNA, and not vice versa, people haven't tended to worry about chains of amino acids replicating themselves.

It's a theory because it does make some predictions, even if they haven't fully panned out to the satisfaction of evolutionists. Their prediction is that they might be able to find some biological systems that clearly cannot be explained through natural selection.

That's simply a re-statement of ID, not a prediction.

They looked at various biological systems from blood clotting and flagellum to things like the structure of the human eye and felt that evolution alone seemed to be an unlikely explanation for them all, thus they formulated a different or additional explanation.

Alas, science isn't about 'feelings'.

[Question_Assumptions]

All the world is not a slippery slope and I have neither need nor desire to give in to the dishonest and disruptive behvior of a few extremists.

Thus everything jumps to the excluded middle argument, the third most popular logical fallacy of the Internet (behind that ad hominem attack and the straw man). And the danger of refusing to deal with moderation is that you can wind up looking like and extremist, yourself, and in a battle between extremists, there is no guarantee that your side will win.

[Thatcherite]

The entire fossil record supports the theory of evolution. Long before Darwin proposed his theory paleontologists had realised that the fossil record shows gradual change over a very long time. They just couldn't understand why until Darwin, that's all. He explained the data, which is the way round that science works.

Religion prefers to start with the answer (eg a particular interpretation of a holy book) and work backwards to a hypothesis, and then go looking for data to support the hypothesis. That is why creation science has zero predictive power while real science such as the theory of evolution has numerous successful predictions under its belt.

For numerous articles explaining this (including if memory serves a beautiful sequence of reptile-mammal transitionals, fossil hominid sequences, and a textual sequence of 50 species from fish to humans where each progression if presented individually would be dismissed as "just micro-evolution") try reading PatrickHenry's home page. If you haven't seen the real evidence be prepared for a shock.

[js1138]

For those who take evolution all the way back to pre-animate chains of amino acids replicating themselves in a primordial sea as the starting point, I think it does.

I would agree that most biologists believe this, but it is not a theory or even a hypothesis. It is more of a conjecture, since there are no real details.

Are you asserting it is immoral to assume natural causes and work to find them?

[Thatcherite]

This seems a good time to post the lyrics of a They Might Be Giants song. In fact it is always a good time to do that. Probably only the evos here will understand the significance...

Standing in between extinction in the cold
and explosive radiating growth
So the warm blood flows
Through the large four-chambered heart
Maintaining the very high metabolism rate they have

Mammal, mammal
Their names are called
They raise a paw
The bat, the cat
Dolphin and dog
Koala bear and hog

One of us might lose his hair
But you're reminded that it once was there
From the embryonic whale to the monkey with no tail
So the warm blood flows
with the red blood cells lacking nuclei
Through the large four-chambered heart
Maintaining the very high metabolism rate they have

Mammal, mammal
Their names are called
They raise a paw
The bat, the cat
Dolphin and dog
Koala bear and hog

Placental the sister of her brother Marsupial
Their cousin called Monotreme
Dead uncle Allotheria

Mammal, mammal
Their names are called
They raise a paw
The bat, the cat
Dolphin and dog
Koala bear and hog
The fox, the ox
Giraffe and shrew
Echidna, caribou

[From many - one.]

What Right Wing Professor said.

No need to repeat.

[js1138]

...is not just something that people do when they look at life. Archaeology is filled with situations where a researcher has to decide if their findings in a dig were natural or man-made...

And biologists have to determine if a feature is the result of simple chemistry or chemistry plus natural selection. The part you don't understand is that selection shapes populations. It is the designer.

You say nothing by postulating a designer. If you want to be taken seriously you need to say something about your designer that would make his products different from those of natural selection.

[From many - one.]

In the appropriate circumstances I am quite moderate. As a matter fact in most.

Extremists are dangerous and that's what I see here. Have you seen the Wedge Document?

[Leatherneck_MT]

"The entire fossil record supports the theory of evolution."

No it doesn't, if it did there would be the quoted Missing Link, and that doesn't exist.

Nice try, but the facts remain unchanged.

There is no link anywhere in the fossil record, now, or in the past that links man with apes or vice versa.

Until there is Evolution is a Theory and nothing more.

Once Evolution can be proven beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt then I will concede your point. Until then it's just noise.

[js1138]

Regarding my post #833. I seem to have stepped into a bog. I was reading the statement loosely to be synonomous with abiogenes. I think most biologists believe abiogenesis happened.

[Thatcherite]

You sure read those links quickly. Best not read them actually, you don't want to confuse yourself with genuine understanding of the issues.

There will always be missing links. It works this way, there are 2 fossils A and B. When we find a link between them (C) we now have two missing links where we had one before; between A and C, and C and B. If you want to have a sample of every generation for the last 3 billion years before you'll accept evolution then you are just setting the bar at an impossible level.