Witness: intelligent design has identified God as designer

York Daily Record ^ | 9/28/05

[Crackingham]

Supporters of intelligent design argue the concept is not religious because the designer is never identified. But this morning, in the third day of testimony in a federal court case challenging the Dover school district’s inclusion of intelligent design in biology class, an expert for the plaintiffs pointed to examples where its supporters have identified the designer, and the designer is God.

Robert Pennock, a Michigan State University professor of the philosophy of science, pointed to a reproduction shown in court of writing by Phillip Johnson, a law professor at the University of California-Berkeley and author of books including “Darwin on Trial” and “Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds.”

Johnson, known as the father of the intelligent design movement, wrote of “theistic realism.”

“This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that this reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology,” the writing stated.

Pennock was being questioned by plaintiffs’ attorneys. He will be cross-examined after a morning break.

[js1138]

But notions like that aren't even close to what's being advocated for school curricula.

But if you read the websites of the peoply pushing the school changes you will find this. You will also find that they expect more as soon as they get the first favorable court ruling.

[VadeRetro]

"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. .... Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on." (Behe 1996b)

[inquest]

You will also find that they expect more as soon as they get the first favorable court ruling.

Unless Engel vs Vitale is overturned, there will be a very sharp limit to what they're able to do. The only references that would be permitted in a science class are the actual scientific evidence. As soon as someone opens a Bible as a way of backing up ID, no court in the country would allow it. Certainly one of the least threatening bogeymen we're facing in modern times is the presence of too much religion in public schools. Not at a time when many schools are cracking down on Christmas caroling during that season, among other crazy things.

[inquest]

All he was doing in that passage is defining the term "irreducibly complex". Do you disagree with that definition?

[edsheppa]

Wouldn't the burden of proof be on Matzke to show the probabilities

No, he is refuting the claim that the flagellum cannot have evolved by offering a specific way it could have.

If the probability for that specific pathway is absurd, that would be a demerit against it

No, it is a misuse of the probability concept and Dembski knows it full well. Ed Jones wins the lottery. The probability he would is absurd. You flip a coin one hundred times and get H H T H H H T T T H T H T H H H H T H T H H H H H H H T H T H H T H H T H T H H H H T H H H T H T T H H H T H H H T H H T T T H H T T H T H H T H T H H H H H T T H T H H T T H T T H T T H T T T H H H. The probability of getting that sequence is absurd.

[js1138]

We would probably still have Christmas carols in schools if the creationists had not tried to promote flat earth science. This is what turns educated people against religion.

[edsheppa]

All he was doing in that passage is defining the term "irreducibly complex".

No, in that passage he is making an argument that irreducibly complex systems cannot have evolved. His definition is that a system is irreducibly complex if it has multiple interacting elements all of which are essential for the system to function.

[VadeRetro]

If that's a definition, the whole enterprise is in trouble. Read it. He's saying an IC system cannot be produced by slight successive modifications.

"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. .... Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on." (Behe 1996b)

If that's the definition, it's all circular. You cannot simply define IC as "that which cannot have evolved," claim that such exists, and claim evolution is refuted. You have to define IC in some other way, show that such exists, and make a case for how it cannot evolve.

Anyway, Behe in this passage refers to the definition when he says that by definition no part can be disabled or removed without loss of function.

That's not what the passage is about, though. He is discussing the implications of IC systems for evolution and specifically disallowing that such a system can evolve by slight successive modifications.

What I agree with is that I accept the Behe definition. I agree that some things in nature probably are IC, although it appears really good examples are hard to find and the flagellum may not be one. I, along with Don Lindsay, H. Allen Orr, and William Muller, disagree that such cannot evolve.

[inquest]

We would probably still have Christmas carols in schools if the creationists had not tried to promote flat earth science. This is what turns educated people against religion.

The ID movement is rather recent. The assault on religion in schools is part of a decades-old effort by the ACLU and like-minded groups to get religion out of everything that's ever even been touched by government. You think their successful campaigns to get rid of that unobtrusive cross on the Los Angeles seal, or to tank the Boy Scouts' arrangements with the military, are all the result of creationism?

[inquest]

If that's the definition, it's all circular. You cannot simply define IC as "that which cannot have evolved," claim that such exists, and claim evolution is refuted.

I think you're getting ahead of yourself there. In that passage, he did not draw any conclusions about whether evolution is refuted. Perhaps my recollection of that book is a bit hazy, but from what I remember he never flat-out stated, without reservation, that such-and-such a feature is irreducibly complex. What he said was that the features he was examining bore all the marks of being irreducibly complex, and that thus far no scientist had ever demonstrated otherwise. He seemed open to any scientists who would accept the challenge, but noted that it simply had not been met at that point.

[WildTurkey]

just show how nonintelligence did it, and ID is falsified.

Impossible. What ever exists, the ID'ers can just say that "God did it". That can never be falsified since no one can know God.

[edsheppa]

Perhaps my recollection of that book is a bit hazy, but from what I remember he never flat-out stated, without reservation, that such-and-such a feature is irreducibly complex.

Yes, your recollection is hazy. He does in fact say that several biological systems are IC including the flagellum and blood clotting. Being no expert I wouldn't gainsay him on that, but whether they are or not, his claim that IC systems cannot be evolved is wrong.

[NonLinear]

Just wondering, as you seem to be in favor of "teaching the controversy", do you also support disclaimers about religion being taught in Sunday School? I mean, what possible harm could it do to "mention" the problem with "faith" and discuss evolution and natural forces during those sessions?

Those are exacly the type of discussions in which my Sunday school class engages. Is there a problem with that? You seem to have some sort of "Leave it to Beaver" view of what Sunday school is about. It is explicitly for the examination of issues of faith, scipture, beliefs, evidence, contradictions, doubt, people, the universe, what if it is a multi-verse, etc., in short - learning.

[incredulous joe]

"He will be cross-examined after a morning break"

...and bunred at the stake by noon.

[VadeRetro]

You're spinning like mad. Just read the thing and forget your momentary tactical convenience. Words have meanings.

[js1138]

...and bunred at the stake by noon.

[billbears]

do you really want your kids to hear "God did it" in science class?

If I had kids, yes I would want them to hear the truth. Instead of some theory about one celled organisms and apes.

[inquest]

OK, I looked it over again, and I see your point. I still would say that the worst he could be accused of there is sloppy writing. He also stated in his book that "Darwinian theory has given no explanation for the cilium or flagellum. The overwhelming complexity of the swimming systems push us to think it may never give an explanation."

That's a bit different from saying that it definitely would never happen.

[NonLinear]

Nice arguments.

I haven't followed every one of the multitude of links that were pumped out as proof of both sides, but I did follow a few.

One that got my attention. First the "For Dummies" overview of what's wrong with creationist Cambrian Explosion arguments. You should pay close attention to it.

I did pay close attention to it.

1. The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life.....

The argument was not that it was the origin of complex life, it was that the explosion of species in parallel is not consistent with the stated mechanism of mutation and selection.

2. There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998).

There may be transitional fossils. For instance, if one did not know how frogs mature, then upon finding tadpole and young frog fossils, one might believe they found transitional fossils. Same for catepillar and butterfly. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but it may have happened. I admit that I am ignorant of Conway Morris 1998, and this whole paragrah may be void. In fact, I am not making the argument that there is no such thing as mutation or natural section. This argument only goes towards the strength of the proof offered.

On a side note, I'm not sure that a false dichotomy is not being used in saying that you must accept either ID or Darwin. There is no real conflict when accepting some tenets of both ID and Darwinism without accepting either whole cloth. An analogy: At one point in time computers were invented. They did not exist before then. After that time, incremental changes have been made to improve them. So there was an intellegent design followed by evolution (yes, all man-made, but it is only an analogy) Of course this is not a proof and is not intended to be, but does illustrate that an analogy of ID + mutation exists, and the ideas are not always mutually exclusive.

3. Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).

I didn't recall the argument being that all species of every life form appeared in the Cambrian explosion. Only that the parallelism is not indicative of the darwinian mechanism theorized.

4. The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.

A good point. 5-10 million years is a long time.

• There are some plausible explanations for why diversification may have been relatively sudden:
  
  
  • The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.
    
    
  • Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian (Chen et al. 2004). Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.
    
    
  • The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian (Hoffman 1998; Kerr 2000). A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into.
    
    
  • Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997).
    
    
  • Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian (Canfield and Teske 1996; Logan et al. 1995; Thomas 1997).
    
    
  • Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bottom of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially its oxygenation (Logan et al. 1995).
    
    
  • Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the start of the Cambrian (Cook and Shergold 1986; Lipps and Signor 1992).
  
  
• Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today. Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian (Valentine et al. 1994).
  
  
• Major radiations of life forms have occurred at other times, too. One of the most extensive diversifications of life occurred in the Ordovician, for example (Miller 1997).

The bold emphasis is mine. I keep reading that "ID is not scientific", and does not hold to rigorous testing. I think the evolution people who wish to hold ID to a rigid standard should hold themselves to the same standard.

It is fine to believe a model is valid, but another to say it is, not only proven, but proves another to be false.

I think that a many of the ID people are not saying that "nothing of evolution theory is true", but rather that it is being taught in schools as totally proven, and explaining all parts of all creatures.

From what I have seen, there are portions of evolutionary theory that simply fail - primarily at the origin of life - in much the same way as physics fails at the beginning of the universe. Darwin advocates argue that Darwinism does not claim to explain the origin of life, and have quoted Darwing saying the same.

Despite those claims, when I was in school we were told that the ocean contained numerous compounds produced from volcanic action and general diffusion from the chemical soup of an atmosphere that existed at the time, lightning struck and voila, life began.

There are no fewer arguments based on faith that the Darwinian model works in describing mechanisms for the evolution of a numerous complex systems from a few stray amino acids hit by a spark than there are in ID. The "it took millions of years" explanation requires faith. A chemically, kenetically and themodynamically sound pathway to these molecular systems would go a long way towards bolstering the argument.

I'm not saying "because I don't know the specific mechanism, it doesn't exist", but rather "because you have not shown the specific mechanism, it is not proven". There is a big difference. Kind of like the difference between a theory and a law.

"Let's rule out supernatural."
Sounds good, but let's define it first. And let's start here:
We generally know living things from dead ones. In most cases it is pretty obvious. So what is life, exactly? What then makes one person living and another dead? What has the living person got, that the dead one does not? If we knew, then we could just go dig up Thomas Jefferson, put it back in him, and ask him to clarify for our courts what they really meant in the first and second amendments.

The whole evolution vs ID thing is about life. So, before we contend that this or that concept is a flying spagetti monster, let's show that we know what is natural and what is supernatural.

Before I summarily dismiss someone's idea as stupid, I consider that within a very finite volume of space, in this tissue of which I am made, I carry a model of the universe that extends millions of light years, and a reality that defies us to understand it completely.

I have my models for things. Some work really well. Some have to be tweaked to work well. Some only give rough approximations. I'm not against science. I'm using it to type this rather lengthy post. I am happy to admit the shortcomings in my models. By identifying and understanding the flaws, I can try to make a better model. By claiming that there are no flaws, I delude myself.

[VadeRetro]

The argument was not that it was the origin of complex life, it was that the explosion of species in parallel is not consistent with the stated mechanism of mutation and selection.

The older creationist pamphlets and the less up-to-date FR posters still don't have the word on Precambrian life. The T.O. page has to respond to these people, too, even as I have.

There may be transitional fossils. For instance, if one did not know how frogs mature, then upon finding tadpole and young frog fossils, one might believe they found transitional fossils.

I think people are allowing for that. For the more common forms (like trilobites) we have them at all stages.

BTW, immature stages do tend to give strong clues to ancestral forms. Those baby frogs you cite look like fish. We think amphibians arose from fish. Hatchling lampreys look like primitive not-fully-vertebrate cephalochordates. We think agnathan fish like the lamprey were the earliest of the modern fish types to arise and came directly from such chordates. Hatchling horseshoe crabs look like trilobites. Hatchling insects look like lobopod worms. Human fetuses start with complex lower jaw bones like those of reptiles. Then all but one of the bones migrates to the ear to become ear bones. This change mirrors a transition seen in the fossil record in the mammal-like reptile line leading to mammals.

It is fine to believe a model is valid, but another to say it is, not only proven, but proves another to be false.

You know what you did there? That whole trick you did there of going through a long passage and underlining every "maybe" or "if" and screaming "Not proven!" like you're "Scotty" Specter? That doesn't make anything go away.

If you want a theory that's about nothing except another theory being wrong, there is one and only. It's called ID.

The passage you quote at length cites hard evidence (for instance, the Doushantuo formation with its early complex (but very tiny) bilaterans, and makes reasonable inferences therefrom. This is not countered by screaming, "YOU JUST MADE AN INFERENCE!" People who are paying attention already know that. Inferences from data are routing in science. It works that way. It's not your church.

But let's zoom in on another one. You quote the following, and bold the subjective case.

The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian (Hoffman 1998; Kerr 2000). A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today.

Again, emphasis is yours. You with to sneer at "may have."

Now, there's incontrovertible evidence that truly massive glaciation on a scale never seen again existed about 600 million years ago, sufficient that much of the ocean's surface had to have been ice-covered. This at a time when there was no life on land.

You wish to imply that the INFERENCE IS UNREASONABLE that the flourishing of life on Earth may just have been a little bit hindered at the time.

What you are attempting to do, without trying to seem too unreasonable, is to be dragged through however much evidence as may exist screaming that you see nothing, nothing, nothing. This is an argumentum ad "You-can't-MAKE-me-see"-um, in logical terms.

Despite those claims, when I was in school we were told that the ocean contained numerous compounds produced from volcanic action and general diffusion from the chemical soup of an atmosphere that existed at the time, lightning struck and voila, life began.

They were talking to you about a much earlier period than the snowball Earth. Unless you were in school within the last ten or so years, they could not have known about the evidence for Snowball Earth, which BTW was about 600 million years ago. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Here's a summary.

There are no fewer arguments based on faith that the Darwinian model works in describing mechanisms for the evolution of a numerous complex systems from a few stray amino acids hit by a spark than there are in ID.

Darwinian evolution is not about this. He never once mentioned the scenario you describe. Your ignorance is not proof that you are right.

I could go on with your post, but you don't have to eat a whole omelet to know it's got a bad egg.

Think of the arrogance if I, based on zero credit hours of Physics, decided string theory was wrong and the subatomic particles are really little elves. That's you announcing the last 150 years of science are wrong. Breathtaking, mind-numbing, laughable.

No. You just don't know what the heck you are talking about.