Intelligent Design: An Ambiguous Assault on Evolution

LiveScience.com ^ | 22 September 2005 | Ker Than

[SeaLion]

Appears to be a good overview of the current debate; above is only opening extract, many useful links and sidebars on the website

[SeaLion]

Mini-ping. Not breaking news, but a reasonable overview methinks -- with Part 2 published tomorrow

[newsgatherer]

Intelligent Design: An Ambiguous Assault on Evolution

A better title would be: Intelligent Design: fact takes on the fiction of Evolution.

Jake

[newsgatherer]

What say we get God's two cents out in the beginning of this:

Genesis Chapter One

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth. 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:1-31 ACP/KJV

Day one: God made the earth, no form, but earth and then He created light. Verses 1-5

Day two: God made a separation, a space, between the waters that were on the earth and the waters above the earth. Verses 6,7&8.

Day three: God spoke and the dry ground appeared and the waters were gathered into separate places separated by the dry ground, and then God created the grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind.

Day four: God made the sun, the moon, and all the stars and heavenly bodies.

Day five: God created great whales, and every living creature that is in the air and in the waters. He then blessed them and said, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Day six: God created first the animals that would populate the dry ground and then last of all after everything was done, God created Man.

Now read this carefully, read it just as God said it:

26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Genesis 1:26-31 ACP/KJV)

Before we go any further, I want you to see the verses that confirm that God created all things in six normal, everyday, 24 hour days, not days comprised of millions and millions of years. "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exodus 20:19 ACP/KJV

Now, before we go any further I want to show you something: something from God's Holy Word. "...and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." That is part of a description of all those who will be tossed into the lake fo fire for all eternity in Revelation 21:8. Now ask yourself this, who do you think is more likely to be called a liar by God and tossed into that eternal suffering in the lake of fire?

A. Your wife for lying about her age?

B. Your 10 year old son for lying about stealing a few cookies out of the cookie jar?

C. Your teen age daughter for lying to you about sneaking out of her room in the dead of night, getting pregnant, and having an abortion?

D. Those religious leaders, those men and women with fancy degrees and words who call God Himself a liar. Telling us that God doesn't know what He is talking about when He tells us that He made the earth and all things in and on it, and in the heavens above in six literal 24 hour days?

I know "C" looks tempting, but the answer is D!

I don't care that many of these men and women who call God a liar, who make themselves to be smarter than God, have done great and wonderful deeds and works. I don't care that they have healed the sick, and collected clothing for the victims of storms. If they call God a liar by saying that we evolved instead of that God made us, then they are calling God a liar and He addresses them in Matthew seven: Not every one that saith unto Me, "Lord, Lord", shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works?" And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.

[SeaLion]

read it just as God said it

God spoke in English?

[WildHorseCrash]

Interesting points. (Theologically, that is.) Let me ask you a few things:

First, what non-documentary evidence do you have that there is such a thing as a God?

Second, what non-documentary evidence do you have that, if there is a God, that it is Yahweh/Jehovah and not, for example, Vishnu or Oden?

Third, what evidence do you have that the Muslim interpretation of things, in which the Koran was given to the Jews and Christians who then perverted it into the current forms of those religions?

Fourth, on your believe in the Bible; if the Bible said something that you knew, from non-biblical sources, for an absolute fact was not true, would you believe the Bible? For example, if the Bible said "all cats reproduce by laying eggs out of which kittens hatch," would you believe cats lay eggs or would you conclude that the text is wrong and believe what you know to be the truth?

I am genuinely interested in this religious mind-set that you seem to have, so my questions are sincere. I hope you will respond in a likewise manner.

[WildHorseCrash]

[correction]

Sorry, my third question should have read:

Third, what evidence do you have that the Muslim interpretation of things, in which the Koran was given to the Jews and Christians who then perverted it into the current forms of those religions, is false (assuming that you do, in fact, believe it to be false)?

[Tribune7]

Science can sometimes be a devil's bargain: a discovery is made, some new aspect of nature is revealed, but the knowledge gained can cause mental anguish if it contradicts a deeply cherished belief or value.

The fellow writes this as if it applies to only one side. :-)

[SeaLion]

The fellow writes this as if it applies to only one side.

No, actually he doesn't--but the snip I had to make to fit the extract into 300 words meant sacrificing the short paragraph in which he gives other examples for context; sorry if my truncation here caused confusion on this point.

The history of science is full of unedifying tantrums and bouts of "mental anguish" by scientists who found out they were barking up the wrong tree (cf. cold fusion)--but those are cases where science invalidated their faulty findings. The current issue--ID--isn't about a scientific challenge, it's about an ill-intentioned attempt to either require science to confirm one narrow set of religious doctrines, or else to dispense with science altother.

[NonLinear]

Not picking sides in the debate with this comment, but the article showed a pretty big skew in favor of Dawinism.

One illustration of bias in this article, is not in the text of the article, but in the web page. Embedded in the article (which is adressing ID vs Darwin) is a link to "Top 10 Creation Myths". One would naturally infer upon first glance that the link would take them to the top 10 ID myths, with the refutations, since that is the subject of the encapsulating article. Instead, one is taken to various creation stories from cultures around the world.

Another example:
The CSC is using a campaign called "Teach the Controversy" to carry out the first part of the strategy. The campaign is aimed at public schools and teachers are urged to expose students to the "scientific arguments for and against Darwinian theory." It exploits disagreements among biologists, pointing out gaps in their understanding of evolution in order to portray evolution as a "theory in crisis."
Can anyone find a teeny slant to that stucture?

But the ID people could just as easily say:
"It examines disagreements among biologists, pointing out gaps in their understanding of evolution in order to expose evolution as a "theory in crisis."

There are many more examples mostly relating to the stucture of his arguments, and the deflections from the stated topic to superflurous issues, but this post has grown WAY longer than I intended...

Rather than address the arguments for and against Darwinism in juxtaposition with those for and against ID, the article proceeds to simply bash ID as unscientific. Darwinsim slips from the scientific realm and into the myth realm when it is argued not as a mechanism of natural selection and adaption, and diversification of species but as a starting point for those species.

Examples of stuff that would have been relevant:
Darwin explains nicely how DNA allows creatures to adapt. Darwin fails miserably in explaining how DNA comes into being from seawater, miscellaneous inorganic molecules, and very simple carbon compounds, namely CO2 and methane. Given the concentrations of the various compounds in the ocean, and given the temperatures involved, kenetics suggests much difficulty in building up relatively simple molecules even over geologic time spans. Very complex organic molecules forming naturally are quite a leap of faith, even given billions of years. The need for faith is the argument against ID, so why is Darwin given a pass?

Agreed that creationism has big problems with matching up with scientific evidence - fossil records, geologic strata, etc. But Darwin has problems with fossil records too. Where are all these intermediate transition species that failed? Scientific method does not allow the false dichotomy "Not A therefore B". Honest scientific method says "If Not A AND Not B, then something else".

I guess my point is that I would much rather see an honest debate than this type of coverage. And, yes, if the article were supporting ID using the same slanted coverage, I would have to bash it too. At some point both sides need to actually examine the weaknesses of their own arguments as well as the strengths of the opposing argument, and somewhere below the tornado of hyperbole, will be the truth.

Opinion in the Evolution vs ID argument for schools:
Should ID be taught in school? If evolution is taught as the "BRANCHING of the species" then no. If evolution is taught as "The ORIGIN of the species" then yes. Darwin showed plausible evidence of the former, but the latter has not been shown to be any less speculative than ID.

[PatrickHenry]

Mini-ping. Not breaking news, but a reasonable overview ...

Yeah. I'm always in doubt about whether to ping the list for articles like this, or to hold off for some actual news (either scientific or political). So I'm asking for input. To ping, or not to ping.

[RetroFit]

I think it is worthwhile to consider one's epistemology when approaching things such as this before having a dialogue. When people come together on this subject it is important to understand how each person "knows" anything. If the only way we can truly know things comes from a naturalist perspective (those things can be tested with the 5 senses) then that will ultimately determine the value we place on the "evidence" that a non-naturalist offers.

I think that if a person can demonstrate that there are such things (not necessarily God) that exist apart from being placed under a "microscope" of sorts, then it can set the stage for a more productive discussion on the questions you have asked.

Something the naturalist should consider is the following:

What kind of physical test can they do to prove that only the things that can be observed with the 5 senses truly exist? Is that even possible? If it isn't possible to show this epistemology from a naturalist perspective wouldn't that render naturalism self-refuting?

You offered 2 types of questions. The first question was from a naturalist perspective. The others were from a cultural/Biblical validity standpoint.

Anyway, that was just a few thoughts I had.... for what it's worth. (probably not worth much :) ) Often times people don't take the time to first understand the other person's epistemology. When they don't do that they end up just spinning their wheels talking past each other on the "proof" that the other person discounts out of hand.

By the way, I am not assuming you to be a naturalist. Only your first question would I argue was from a naturalists perspective.

- RetroFit

[RadioAstronomer]

but the knowledge gained can cause mental anguish if it contradicts a deeply cherished belief or value.

What I have stated many times here on FR. No different than the furvor caused by the idea of a heliocentric solar system so many moons ago.

[RadioAstronomer]

Thanks for posting this.

[newcthem]

An Assault on Evolution? I find it ironic that proponents of "science" speak far and wide about free thinking and open research, yet when a view is proposed that doesn't fit their template, it is termed an assault. Why is another idea considered an assault? Perhaps the free thinkers of the scientific community are not as open with their views as they would like us to believe............Kind of like the PC crowd.

[SeaLion]

To ping, or not to ping

Is that a quote from Mahler?

Let's see what Part 2 of the article looks like when it's published tomorrow, and see if it is pingable then? As I said, nothing new here -- but it's a good intro to the political dimension of the debate.

And given that there isn't any science to debate, the whole matter is a worrying bit of religious/political activism, and that is what really needs to be understood. It just isn't a "let's be fair and teach the controversary" issue at all

[RadioAstronomer]

Perhaps the free thinkers of the scientific community are not as open with their views as they would like us to believe............

Hmmm... How "fee thinking" should we get? Want to add astrology to astronomy? Shall we add magic potions to our chemistry curriculum?

[Right Wing Professor]

Joy. The re-re-reposting of something anyone could have looked up themselves.

You guys must be really, really dubtful about this stuff, because you keep repeating it. I repreat things when I'm afraid I'll forget them.

[general_re]

I bet if there was a fee for thinking, people would take it a lot more seriously.

:^)