The ‘Darwinist Inquisition’ Starts Another Round

http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=BreakPoint1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=169

[truthfinder9]

It's amazing that these Darwinian Fundamentalists claim they're for science only to turn around and try to destroy any contrary theories or evidence. They're really getting desperate, the ID movement really has them rattled.

****

September 30, 2005

It’s happening again: another scientist, another academic institution, another attempt to stifle freedom of thought. The “Darwinist inquisition,” as a Discovery Institute press release calls it, is as predictable as it is relentless.

This time the setting is Iowa State University. One hundred twenty professors there have signed a statement denouncing the study of intelligent design and calling on all faculty members to reject it. The statement reads, in part, “We, the undersigned faculty members at Iowa State University, reject all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor. . . . Whether one believes in a creator or not, views regarding a supernatural creator are, by their very nature, claims of religious faith, and so not within the scope or abilities of science.”

I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that this thing is getting out of control. To begin with, the reasoning of the Iowa State professors is, frankly, some of the weakest I’ve ever seen. They give three reasons for rejecting intelligent design. The first is what they call “the arbitrary selection of features claimed to be engineered by a designer”—which, even if that were true, would prove nothing. If certain features were chosen arbitrarily for study, how does that prove that no other features showed evidence of design? The number two reason given is “unverifiable conclusions about the wishes and desires of that designer.” That is a dubious claim; most serious intelligent design theorists have made very few conclusions about any such “wishes and desires.”

But the third reason is my favorite: They say it is “an abandonment by science of methodological naturalism.” Now this gets to the heart of the matter. The statement goes so far as to claim, “Methodological naturalism, the view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events, is the foundation of the sciences.” I’ll be the first to admit I’m not a scientist, but I thought that the heart of the sciences was the study of natural phenomena to gather knowledge of the universe. I thought we were supposed to start without any foregone conclusions about the supernatural at all, that is, if we wanted to be truly scientific.

It seems to me that the intelligent design theorists aren’t the ones trying to inject religion and philosophy into the debate—the Darwinists are, starting out with predetermined conclusions.

But it gets even better than that. The Iowa State fracas started because one astronomy professor there, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, has attracted attention with a book on intelligent design. It’s a little odd to accuse Gonzalez of being unscientific; he’s a widely published scientist whose work has made the cover of Scientific American. But that’s exactly what’s happening. And here’s the kicker: Gonzalez barely mentions intelligent design in the classroom. He wants to wait until the theory has more solid support among scientists. All he’s doing is researching and writing about it.

Now the lesson here for all of us is very clear: Don’t be intimidated when confronting school boards or biology teachers about teaching intelligent design. All we are asking is that science pursue all the evidence. That’s fair enough. But that’s what drives them into a frenzy, as we see in Iowa.

[inquest]

Can you explain to me the difference between macro- and microevolution. Is there a sharp border to define them?

Somebody may show up to correct me on this, but from what I've gathered, microevolution involves shifting around of existing genes and changes in gene expression, as is the case with animal breeding; whereas macroevolution involves actual genetic mutations.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Somebody may show up to correct me on this, but from what I've gathered, microevolution involves shifting around of existing genes and changes in gene expression, as is the case with animal breeding; whereas macroevolution involves actual genetic mutations."


Actual gene mutations occur all the time. Most are neutral; a few are helpful and a few are bad. Most of the bad ones result in an organism that never gets born. There is no difference in the process of *microevolution* and *macroevolution* at the gene level.

[inquest]

So when a new breeds of dog are bred, this is all the result of mutations, not changes in gene expression? How is it that domesticated dogs of nearly all breeds will revert back to a single form in a relatively short period of time when released into the wild?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"So when a new breeds of dog are bred, this is all the result of mutations, not changes in gene expression? How is it that domesticated dogs of nearly all breeds will revert back to a single form in a relatively short period of time when released into the wild?"

They don't all revert back to a single form. In the process of selective breeding, there were mutations that made some of the dogs more like what the breeder wanted. New alleles can and do form. Speaking from experience, there are known mutations in tropical angelfish that have led to new color and fin patterns. With a homozygous pair, they will breed true. Their descendants will not revert to *wild type* as those wild type alleles are not present any more in that pair. And I never said that all change in genotype or phenotype is a result of mutations. I just stated the fact that mutations, which are mostly neutral, can add information that wasn't there before.

[inquest]

And I never said that all change in genotype or phenotype is a result of mutations. I just stated the fact that mutations, which are mostly neutral, can add information that wasn't there before.

I wasn't denying that they could. My point is that it doesn't seem that they're the only thing that could.

[connectthedots]

Somebody may show up to correct me on this, but from what I've gathered, microevolution involves shifting around of existing genes and changes in gene expression, as is the case with animal breeding; whereas macroevolution involves actual genetic mutations.

Micro-evolution is the same thing as natural selection and relates to variances within a species. In the wild, those who have the most advantageous characteristics are more likely to survive and reproduce. for lack of a better phrase, it's survival of the fittest.

Macro-evolution would be the appearance of a new species out of older ones and the change would be so significant that the the 'new species' would not be able to reproduce with the 'old' one.

Evolutionists claim that this 'speciation' occurs over a long period of time. The physical reality is that this is a myth unsupported by the facts. The reality is that what they call 'speciation' must occur at some point between one set of 'parents' and their offspring. even they know this is a ridiculous suggestion, but they cannot explain how it could be otherwise other than to say it is a result of gradual changes. Of course, there is no evidence for it; but they believe it anyway.

[js1138]

Since idiocy among the high blown is a crime, I shall follow you to the gallows.p>Are you accusing RWP of being Bill Clinton?

And when you say "follow" do you intend to be next in line?

[porkchops 4 mahound]

You are just scared of the competition, now that your little racket is under attack.

I feel your pain.

[porkchops 4 mahound]

See post # 468.

Lots of words usually indicates lots of hot steaming male bovine excrement.

Not to mention righteous giggles and associated guffaws and chortles et. al. sic. etc.

[Louis Foxwell]

Since idiocy among the high blown is a crime, I shall follow you to the gallows.Are you accusing RWP of being Bill Clinton? And when you say "follow" do you intend to be next in line?

lol

This thread is full blown. As a priest I am used to following parishoners to the gallows.

[orionblamblam]

> You are just scared of the competition

Not when they trot out such idiocy as: "I don't care what the TRUTH is."

This does not inspire fear, but laughter.

> your little racket is under attack

"Science" is now a "racket." Well, I guess if you think donkeys can fly and the Earth has corners... sure. Why not.

[orionblamblam]

This thread is full blown.

[inquest]

Not when they trot out such idiocy as: "I don't care what the TRUTH is."

You took that statement way out of context, and you know it. If you're resorting to that tactic, then you are indeed being inspired by fear.

[js1138]

Strangely, my experience is the opposite. Despite the fact that I basically agree with the "scientists" I find that any attempt to treat ID or those who have ID views with respect result in ad-hominum attacks and insulting remarks.

What are you supposed to do with people who manufacture quotations, cite quotations out of context to imply the opposite of the author's intentions, repeatedly ignore evidence, argue that the validity of ideas depends on the morality of the proponent, and basically engage in the tactics used by postmodernist -- discrediting reality-based statements on the basis of their presumed evil implications?

Did I forget plagiarism?

[orionblamblam]

>> Not when they trot out such idiocy as: "I don't care what the TRUTH is."

>You took that statement way out of context

Did I? Huh. And in what context can that statement *ever* be seen as anything other than an appeal for ignorance?

[porkchops 4 mahound]

Darwinian fundamentalist dogma can NEVER be questioned because it is written large in stone.

Anyone who questions these fanatics should expect "evonazi jihad" against them.

BTW; to the lying evoidiots as it applies, I said I don't care what the TRUTH is, I said that what I care about is that "IT" IS the TRUTH.

How does that mean I don't believe that there IS a specific objective TRUTH?

Pitiful how absolutely terrified the evonazis are of people losing belief in the Darwinian dogma and then having to face the questions and doubts of life without the delusion of human "Science" being able to contain and explain the actual infinity of life.

It's just not fair, is it?

[orionblamblam]

As a priest I am used to following parishoners to the gallows.

[porkchops 4 mahound]

See post # 476.

Looks like it applies to you.

[js1138]

How is it that domesticated dogs of nearly all breeds will revert back to a single form in a relatively short period of time when released into the wild?

One of the first things that will happen to a truckload of domestic dogs released into the wild is that most of them will die, particularly the miniatures and toys. The ones closest to wild dogs will be the most likely to survive and breed.

There is nothing inconsistent with domestic animals being the result of both selective breeding and mutation.

[porkchops 4 mahound]

See post # 476.

It sure applies to you.

Can't we all get along?

Somebody needs a hug.