Biology expert testifies. Professor: Intelligent design is creationism.

York Dispatch ^ | 9/27/05 | Christina Kauffman

[untrained skeptic]

"That wasn't a particularly difficult walk, was it?"

No it was actually too simple.

You're basing your proof on a false premise that there evolution can only take one path and cannot have multiple branches and that those multiple branches might result in what might appear as contradictions in the fossil record.

"As ID has so far NEVER defined the limits and nature of the designer or its/their powers, IDiots remain free to "move the goalposts" at whim. ID is thus not falsifiable on those grounds alone."

Some evolutionists seem to ignore that evolution sufferes from the same ability to just keep moving the goalposts.

You just need to keep going back in time an postulating that there were different evolutionary paths.

[untrained skeptic]

"The theory of evolution says that evolution happens, not that it must happen, or that when it happens it will do so in an "orderly" manner -- whatever that is -- or that creatures living under vastly different conditions and pressures must evolve at the same rate. It is only after the fact that we can see a progression, and it is usually in small steps. Which is exactly what we would expect to find."

That's what I was saying.

"The problem is that there's nothing that couldn't be construed as evidence of design."

Evolution suffers from the same problem. You can explain any fossil record by saying that things evolved along different paths at different rates from some common ancestor sometime in the past.

[Gumlegs]

You had to ignore a lot of words to get to "You can explain any fossil record by saying that things evolved along different paths at different rates from some common ancestor sometime in the past."

Here it is again: A Precambrian rabbit fossil would disprove evolution. There are many more examples. None has ever been found.

[King Prout]

you don't know what "falsification" means, when addressing a scientific theory, do you?

do me a favor: type out the exact definition here, preferably in your own words, so that I can be certain you do know what it means if we continue this conversation.

[whattajoke]

The adgenda of the people trying to influence the ciriculim in our public schools also has little to do with science.

Nor spelling, one can assume.

[Gumlegs]

KP: you don't know what "falsification" means, when addressing a scientific theory, do you?

do me a favor: type out the exact definition here, preferably in your own words, so that I can be certain you do know what it means if we continue this conversation.

Read untrained skeptic's post 679 in this thread and you'll have an idea of the scope of the problem.

[untrained skeptic]

"Here it is again: A Precambrian rabbit fossil would disprove evolution. There are many more examples. None has ever been found."

Let me say it again. A precambrian rabbit fossil would not disprove evolution.

It would likely get someone a Nobel Peace Prize, and cause a lot of scientists to rethink some things. It would spawn off millions of dollars in grants to do academic research. It would shake commonly held beliefs.

However, there is nothing in the theory of evolution that precludes that a rabbit couldn't have evolved from an earlier predecessor faster in geographic exclusion from the other animals we have in our fossil record.

That critter could have been killed of by a natural disaster or chance of evolution tossing it in an environment with a predator that was specifically good at killing it.

The fossil records might have not been discovered up until now due to that geographic region being pushed under another tectonic plate and it's now miles under the earth's surface in a remote area.

It sounds a bit implausible, but the truth is often strange and when we're dealing with a theory that says random chance combined with natural selection is the answer, you would expect some strange things to happen along the way.

If there were a precambian rabbit fossil discovered, a large portion of the scientific community would spend many sleepless nights finding ways to explain it within the theory of evolution. Countless millions would be spent on research to find evidence supporting the idea that it did not contradict evolution.

Why? Because it's human nature not to like having our understanding of the world shaken. Uncertainty scares us.

The real weakness of evolution in my opinion isn't the part of the theory that says that at least some animals evolved from other animals. It's the part of the theory that the evolution is only the result of random genetic mutations and natural selection without any intelligent design being involved. That's a huge jump of faith in the ability of randomness to create order.

The second law of entropy basically says that you don't get order from disorder without the application of an outside force. Could it be that there is some outside force directing evolution, or is the outside force the energy from the sun fueling our ecosystem and providing the energy that is needed so that random chance can do it's trick?

There's also the issue that significant genetic mutations are extremely rare, and you would have to expect that even if the mutation provide a positive benefit, they more likely to not show up in successive generations that they are likely to show up.

You'd also might expect a lot more variety of benign mutations and more bad mutations in the fossil record.

However, when it really comes down to it no evolutionist can tell me why random chance explains how we have evolved better than a intelligent design of a diverse and ever changing world.

Nor can a creationist (which is an extreme view of ID) prove to me that God created the universe.

Is defining scientific theories as only things that can be disproved help us understand things better, or is it a human defense mechanism being used to defend our understanding of things because we don't like having our beliefs shaken by things we don't understand?

So lets go look at why people want to exclude any theory of ID from our schools? Is it to give our youth a better education? Is it to help them learn to think critically? What is the benefit to the students? Is there any? Or are we simply back to some people trying to force their view of the world on others because they don't like having it questioned?

[RunningWolf]

To untrained skeptic

bravo! bravo! a tourdeforce

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

To untrained skeptic

bravo! bravo! a tourdeforce

Wolf

[bondserv]

That it has maintained viability for this many years without the programmer making purposeful corrections is a testament to His genius.

Lack of intelligent design is evidence for intelligent design. Now I've truly heard it all.

Theistic Evolutionists are the proponents of the tweaking God. They take the obviously unBiblical view that God is taking a long time to get man from the goo to you, tweaking things along the way. As opposed to the Biblical presentation of a "very good" creation of all living things which with the first man's choice of disobedience is put under the Curse. The Designer programmed the entire Creation during the six day Creation. This would include both the Laws of Nature and the DNA of living organisms.

The Universe is currently cursed and under the headship of the Master of Death and Destruction (readily evident by just looking around). The Curse is causing all things to wax old (2nd Law of thermodynamics). God has maintained sovereignty by setting limits on how far He will allow His enemies to inflict destruction. Often He raises up the righteous to thwart the wiles of the enemy ie. Iraq and Islam.

Rom 8:22
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Jhn 1:3
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

[whattajoke]

The Universe is currently cursed and under the headship of the Master of Death and Destruction

Do you put on a little Darth Maul outfit when you say stuff like this in your mirror?

Just wonderin.'

[bondserv]

Do you put on a little Darth Maul outfit when you say stuff like this in your mirror?

Just wonderin.'

Have you ever wonder what motivates people to follow the U.N., Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Osama, al-Zarqawi, Taliban, Islam...

I don't think you could convince me it is based on Reason. Denial of supernatural realities makes one naive.

If you think it wise to make a comparison to Judeo-Christian culture, be advised to remember the nation you live in.

[Gumlegs]

Let me say it again. A precambrian rabbit fossil would not disprove evolution.

Yes, it would. The theory of evolution would be destroyed by a Precambrian rabbit fossil. You really ought to read up a little on the theory you're struggling with. Things might be easier if you actually knew something about what it really says.

It would likely get someone a Nobel Peace Prize, and cause a lot of scientists to rethink some things. It would spawn off millions of dollars in grants to do academic research. It would shake commonly held beliefs.

Peace prize?

And if it did spawn millions of dollars in grants, wouldn't that be a reason to try and find it? You're making no sense.

However, there is nothing in the theory of evolution that precludes that a rabbit couldn't have evolved from an earlier predecessor faster in geographic exclusion from the other animals we have in our fossil record.

Precambrian. Look it up.

That critter could have been killed of by a natural disaster or chance of evolution tossing it in an environment with a predator that was specifically good at killing it.

Go back and learn the theory. Learn what "Precambrian" means. Then we'll discuss it.

The fossil records might have not been discovered up until now due to that geographic region being pushed under another tectonic plate and it's now miles under the earth's surface in a remote area.

It sounds a bit implausible, but the truth is often strange and when we're dealing with a theory that says random chance combined with natural selection is the answer, you would expect some strange things to happen along the way.

If there were a precambian rabbit fossil discovered, a large portion of the scientific community would spend many sleepless nights finding ways to explain it within the theory of evolution. Countless millions would be spent on research to find evidence supporting the idea that it did not contradict evolution.

Why? Because it's human nature not to like having our understanding of the world shaken. Uncertainty scares us.

Sounds like you're talking about creationists railing that the theory of evolution causes atheism. The theory of evolution is the only scientific theory covering all the known facts. Come up with another one, one that can be tested. ID cant' be tested and doesn't rise to the level of science.

The real weakness of evolution in my opinion isn't the part of the theory that says that at least some animals evolved from other animals. It's the part of the theory that the evolution is only the result of random genetic mutations and natural selection without any intelligent design being involved. That's a huge jump of faith in the ability of randomness to create order.

No faith, just evidence. But I repeat myself. Repeatedly.

No evidence for "intelligent intervention." Propose a test. Until then, it's not science.

The second law of entropy basically says that you don't get order from disorder without the application of an outside force. Could it be that there is some outside force directing evolution, or is the outside force the energy from the sun fueling our ecosystem and providing the energy that is needed so that random chance can do it's trick?

Do you mean the second law of thermodynamics? I can't believe this canard is back. It doesn't apply to evolution, or, in fact, to life on earth because there is an outside source of energy (not force). Perhaps you've heard of it. It's called "The Sun." An "outside force directing evolution" may or may not exist, but it is beyond the ability of science to test for it. THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT SCIENCE.

Sorry. I've been listening to Mr. Levin on the radio tonight. I'm calmer now.

There's also the issue that significant genetic mutations are extremely rare, and you would have to expect that even if the mutation provide a positive benefit, they more likely to not show up in successive generations that they are likely to show up.

Sorry. I can't figure out what this means.

You'd also might expect a lot more variety of benign mutations and more bad mutations in the fossil record.

Why might I expect that? Bad mutations would most likely mean quick death, perhaps even before birth (or hatching). These individuals are very unlikely to be fossilized. Most people arguing against the theory of evolution complain that there are too many variations to be accounted for. You're complaining that there should be more. Which is it?

However, when it really comes down to it no evolutionist can tell me why random chance explains how we have evolved better than a intelligent design of a diverse and ever changing world.

Lots of evolutionists can tell you. The problem, as has been prevent beyond any possible doubt on this thread, is your inability to hear it.

Nor can a creationist (which is an extreme view of ID) prove to me that God created the universe.

Which, really is neither surprising nor unexpected. Faith requires ... faith ... not proof.

Is defining scientific theories as only things that can be disproved help us understand things better, or is it a human defense mechanism being used to defend our understanding of things because we don't like having our beliefs shaken by things we don't understand?

It's the former. I'd even state that "a human defense mechanism being used to defend our understanding of things because we don't like having our beliefs shaken by things we don't understand" is a better description of religion than science. Science adjusts to the evidence. Religion remains unchanged. That's the nature of science, and that's the nature of religion.

So lets go look at why people want to exclude any theory of ID from our schools? Is it to give our youth a better education?

Yes. It's so they understand that science is composed of testable theories and not convenient assertions utterly without a scientific basis masquerading as science. (Please forgive the rhetoric, but I'm afraid it's warranted).

Is it to help them learn to think critically?

Yes. ID only makes sense if one uncritically accepts that "there's something out there" that we can't test for, so anything we don't know must have been done by that something out there. What kind of science is that?

What is the benefit to the students? Is there any?

See above two answers.

Or are we simply back to some people trying to force their view of the world on others because they don't like having it questioned?

Sounds like an argument against id to me.

[untrained skeptic]

"Yes, it would. The theory of evolution would be destroyed by a Precambrian rabbit fossil. You really ought to read up a little on the theory you're struggling with. Things might be easier if you actually knew something about what it really says."

You're right, I just took a quick glance an saw that is was a period of time.

"Precambrian Time is the time period in which the earth formed and the earliest life began."

That's all nice and find, but if you had this supposed rabbit fossil, how would you determine that it came from precambian time?

Precambian time and the Archean, the Proterzoic, and the Priscoan Eons contained within it are nice labels to describe theories of how the earth evolved at the beginning of time. Would a precambian rabbit fossil disprove evolution or the theories describing precambian time? Also considering that it's theroized to be a vast span of time billions of years ago, we simply have no way of determining if a fossil were from precambian time.

By definition if there were a rabbit fossil, it wouldn't be precambian, would it?

Why not just say that intelligent design could be disproven by showing that life was created by an unintelligent being? Why not say that intelligent design could be disproven by showing that life evolved though a bunch of random genetic anomolies?

For you to disprove evolution with a precambian rabbit, you would have to be able to prove that the rabbit was precambian.

"Peace prize?"

Oops, make that the prize for science, though considering Carter was given a peace prize for getting a terrorist to sit down and make a bunch of promises he clearly never considered to keep, it seems that finding a precambian rabbit fossil might be just as good of a justification for the peace prize. Maybe even a better justification if it helped cool down the war between rabid evolutionists and rabit creationists.

"Go back and learn the theory. Learn what "Precambrian" means. Then we'll discuss it."

Done. Waste of my time. You can't disprove a theory by finding something that based on another unproven theory.

You can pull out all the theories and definitions you like. It won't change the nature of the theory of evolution. It's based on an assumption that random chance over a long period of time is the driving force for change, and you can explain anything with random chance and enough time.

Looking for a precambian rabbit is looking for a complex explaination for something that isn't that complex.

"Sounds like you're talking about creationists railing that the theory of evolution causes atheism."

The theory of evolution causes nothing. It's a theory.

"The theory of evolution is the only scientific theory covering all the known facts."

That's because you defined scientific theory specifically in a way to exclude other explainations. That's a circular argument based on your definition of science. It's dogma, not fact.

You keep saying ID is not science. I ask why, and you tell me a defintion of science that excludes ID. You don't show why ID isn't plausable.

Your conclusions are based on definitions that are defined to produce the conclusions you reached. It's a circular argument. It means nothing.

" No faith, just evidence. But I repeat myself. Repeatedly."

There is no evidence that shows that it's random rather than by design. I see no way that it can be proven.

That means it's a leap of faith.

You keep repeating yourself, but you're not willing to question what you're saying, which means you're not open to learning.

"Do you mean the second law of thermodynamics?"

Yes I meant to say the second law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of entropy.

"Perhaps you've heard of it. It's called "The Sun.""

Yea, I said that right in the text you quoted.

The second law of thermodynamics does unquestionably apply to life on earth. The ecosystem of the earth, including the energy input by the sun still needs to follow that law.

It's beyond our current ability to quantitatively measure the amounts of energy we are talking about. That does not mean we aren't talking about science. It means we've got some thing we can learn more about through the scientific method.

"but it is beyond the ability of science to test for it. THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT SCIENCE."

You're falling into the trap of the Luddite. The whole purpose of the scientific process is to learn things we don't currently understand. It's to question what we believe, look for contradictions, and look for explanations for those contradictions.

Actually you might have your falsification criteria through the law of entropy that you were so quick to dismiss.

If we were ever able to prove that the energy of the sun was in itself not enough to supply the energy to support life and it's endless evolution, then it would appear to disprove evolution... Or maybe it would just disprove the theory that the sun is the only source for the needed energy. Or maybe it would disprove our concepts of how energy works, wouldn't be the first time.

If you can't tell, I'm making fun of this whole circular falsification based on other theories idea. I guess I'm probably only amusing myself, but it's late, I'm tired, and sometimes that just the best I can do.

"Sorry. I can't figure out what this means."

It means that not only does the theory of evolution assumes that the process of how living creatures have changed can be explained by random chance. It assumes that random chance produced some amazing results over a relatively short time with an amazingly small number of what might be considered wrong turns.

" Why might I expect that? Bad mutations would most likely mean quick death, perhaps even before birth (or hatching)."

There's a wide range between fatal flaws and undesirable features.

We do have flightless birds and some other good examples of such things. I'm not trying to prove or disprove evolution. I don't believe I am capable of doing either. What I'm trying to point out is that it's simply not settled fact. We have a lot to learn, and we need to keep questioning things in order to learn.

I'm more questioning it to get a reaction. Now you need to ask yourself, are you reflexively defending the theory as if it were an established fact, or are you considering that there energy from the sun might not be enough energy to not only support life, but to support the inefficient and random process of evolution and natural selection?

"Lots of evolutionists can tell you. The problem, as has been prevent beyond any possible doubt on this thread, is your inability to hear it."

I guess that's because all I've heard are circular definitions. Those don't tell me anything, other than that people are set in their ways and that "science" if falling prey to the problem of "group think".

" Which, really is neither surprising nor unexpected. Faith requires ... faith ... not proof."

Yes it does. And saying that the THEORY of evolution explains thing better than ID requires faith, because it's not proven.

"It's the former. I'd even state that "a human defense mechanism being used to defend our understanding of things because we don't like having our beliefs shaken by things we don't understand" is a better description of religion than science. Science adjusts to the evidence. Religion remains unchanged. That's the nature of science, and that's the nature of religion."

Has the Catholic church not changed since the days of the inquisition? Many discoveries that you may consider philosophy but have shaped the way we learn have been discovered by monks and theologians.

People have used the scientific process to try and understand their faith throughout time.

Science is agnostic.

It's not science or religion that cause some people to resist change or dislike having their beliefs questioned. To some extent we all resist change and dislike having out beliefs questioned. It's human nature.

"Yes. It's so they understand that science is composed of testable theories and not convenient assertions utterly without a scientific basis masquerading as science. (Please forgive the rhetoric, but I'm afraid it's warranted)."

We already covered this. Didn't we already agree that theories need not be provable?

"convenient assertions utterly without a scientific basis"

Such assertions are merely assertions to be considered based on if they are possible or not. You can try and qualify them based on which you believe to be more credible, however you cannot discount them if you cannot disprove them.

It's more a matter of trying to determine which ideas are most worth your time pursuing based on the evidence you have available, but you need to understand you're working with limited knowledge, so you're assumptions of what may be the most credible are based only on what you know.

" Is it to help them learn to think critically?

Yes. ID only makes sense if one uncritically accepts that "there's something out there" that we can't test for, so anything we don't know must have been done by that something out there. What kind of science is that?"

You're missing the point. ID is a theory. You're not supposed to uncritically accept theories. You're supposed to consider theories based on their merits. You look at their strengths and their weaknesses and you form an opinion about the theory based on what you know, then you try and learn more.

That's why you teach theories as theories, and you expose students to a variety of theories and you discuss those theories. That's how we learn to learn.

If all we do is provide the theory that we consider most likely true and say here it is, learn this, we're teaching students to get facts from someone else and not to think for themselves.

"Sounds like an argument against id to me."

You're caught up in the argument of either teaching evolution or teaching ID. Your missing the point. The point is that you should teach both and teach the students how to question the theories. Theories teach us something very important. They teach us that there are a lot of things we don't know.

[RunningWolf]

The point is that you should teach both and teach the students how to question the theories. Theories teach us something very important. They teach us that there are a lot of things we don't know.

NOW THAT IS A GOOD POINT..

I know it you know it.

I think the truth is.. and no matter how much it is cloaked, they 'believe evolution is fact' and as real as the force of gravity.

Wolf

[untrained skeptic]

Good morning. I thought a little more about our discussion.

It seems to me that you're feeling is that ID is a solution to everything, and therefore not as valid as the more narrow theory of evolution.

It is hard to make a viable comparison between a wide ranging and rather nebulous theory and a more narrow one.

So let's narrow the discussion.

Let's compare the theory of evolution which is a theory that species evolved through random chance with a theory that species evolved through an intelligent design.

Why is one of those two theories more valid than the other. Why is one more provable or disprovable than the other.

Please avoid jargon in the discussion. It's two easy to hide circular arguments in jargon.

I also want to throw out a theory of mine on the nature of religion for you to consider.

We all know that there are things we are unable to prove. Religion accepts that fact and compels us to have faith and believe the unproven.

Science does not compel faith. Science questions.

I'm not suggesting that we attempt to teach religion in public schools. I suggest we teach science.

I further theorize that the exclusion of teaching about the theory of ID is the exclusion of science, not the exclusion of religion.

If ID were taught as fact, not a theory, that would be religion.

Teaching the theory of evolution exclusively as the only credible theory is closer to a religious teaching than a scientific one.

[Diamond]

Drawing conclusions about our worldviews based on some simple theory about the change in allele frequencies over time is silly. I don't wake up thinking about the philosophical implications of evolution any more than I do the implications of electrodynamics.

This is typical of the kind of equivocation that occurs with the use of the word "evolution". Nobody quarrels about the philisophical implications of "changes in allele frequencies over time." Such meanings are completely uncontroversial in a philosophical sense. What sparks the controversy, both in a scientific sense and and a philosophical sense are those predominant historical and metaphysical claims of the grand scope of Evolution, such as "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned."

Stop trying to make it into something that it isn't

I am not the one who makes up descriptions of Evolution such as:

[If] the world and its creatures developed purely by material, physical forces, it could not have been designed and has no purpose or goal. The fundamentalist, in contrast, believes that everything in the world, every species and every characteristic of every species, was designed by an intelligent, purposeful artificer, and that it was made for a purpose. Nowhere does this contrast apply with more force than to the human species. Some shrink from the conclusion that the human species was not designed, has no purpose, and is the product of mere mechanical mechanisms—but this seems to be the message of evolution.
Futuyma, Douglas, Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, pp. 12-13.

When the AAAS, which controls a lot of science education defines evolution in this way, as it did some time ago in a long range project (2061) you can't say with a straight face that they are merely talking about changes in allelle freqencis over time.

But even after a year of introductory college biology (or perhaps because of such exposure!), the average student is still disbelieving that the human species is simply an incidental and fortuitous episode in the age-long history of life....Darwinian evolution does indeed offer a new way of looking at nature and a new way of looking at life. Yet, our college students have not appreciated the potentially profound implications of Darwinism for developing a comprehensive view of human nature.

It's projection on your part to assume that we draw moral implications from scientific theories.

I think it is not projection on my part to see that "developing a comprehensive view of human nature" has something to do with how we "draw moral implication", to use your words.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

You are simply wrong. I assumed we would all understand that I meant the "Theory of Evolution" as initally proposed by Darwin by "Evolution". Excuse me for assuming too much thinking on your part.

In post #638 you stated:

Evolution didn't come up as a theory until Darwin.

That, from any number of sources, is plainly false. See #664 for example.

The assumption that Darwinism didn't come up until Darwin, well I suppose that would be self-evident, but a rather odd thing to say, as it doesn't really say anything at all. My explicit point was that Darwinism is not exactly synonymous with evolution, and I am not wrong because of your unwarranted assumptions, either about the facts of history, or my thinking.

Cordially,

[Alter Kaker]

Devolution might be a better term for it.

"Devolution" is evolution. Evolution just means that allele frequencies change over time -- in other words, that genotypes change. It does not specify a "direction." Using your definition of what constitutes an evolutionist (as someone who believes simply in change, not someone who subscribes to evolutionary theory as the mechanism for explaining why and how that change manifests), creationists who believe in The Fall are themselves evolutionists. I think we can agree that your definition is therefore unsatisfactory.

Which of these is inconsistent with the view of Erasmus Darwin or Lamarck or the dialectical materialism of Stalin or Lysenko?

Actually, modern evolutionary theory posits four mechanisms:

1. Natural Selection
2. Mutation
3. Genetic Drift
4. Gene Flow

Lysenko and Lamarck accepted only pieces of #1, although their understanding was in each case limited and deeply flawed.

[PatrickHenry]

700