A test nobody wants to take [more ross exam, Dover Evolution trial, 20 October]

York Daily Record [Penna] ^ | 20 October 2005 | MICHELLE STARR

[PatrickHenry]

Neither side is interested in trying to prove intelligent design.

Intelligent design and evolution proponents agree that a test on bacterial flagellum could show if it was or wasn't able to evolve, which could provide evidence to support intelligent design.

But neither side wants to test it.

The test calls for a scientist to place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under selective pressure and let it grow for 10,000 generations — roughly two years — to see if a flagellum or an equally complex system would be produced, according to testimony on Wednesday. A flagellum is a whip-like structure that can propel the bacteria.

Michael Behe, biochemistry professor at Lehigh University, testified in U.S. Middle District Court that he didn't know of anyone who had tested bacterial flagellum that way, including himself.

During cross examination by plaintiffs' attorney Eric Rothschild, Behe said he hadn't completed the test because he has better ways to spend his time. He also said he already knows intelligent design is science.

"It's well-tested from the inductive arguments," Behe said. "When we have found a purposeful arrangement of parts, we have always found this as designed."

Outside court, Dover school board members Alan Bonsell and Sheila Harkins said if anyone should perform the test, it should be the evolutionists.

"Somebody could do that if they wanted to," Harkins said. "If somebody believes intelligent design is not science, certainly they have a means to prove it's not."

Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, said scientists — who widely accept evolution as the cornerstone of modern biology — aren't going to take two years on an expensive test to disprove something they don't consider science.

They wouldn't bother, she said.

"This is not the first time creationists have tried to get scientists to do their work for them," Scott said.

This time around, even if the flagellum grew, Scott speculated that intelligent design proponents would say the test refuted the design of bacterial flagellum, not intelligent design.

They could still point toward design of the immune system and blood-clotting cascade as evidence, Scott said.

Behe has testified that if evolutionists ran the test and it didn't work, they would provide a reason such as they didn't have the right bacteria, selective pressure or length of time.

Evolution is harder to falsify than intelligent design, Behe said. He describes intelligent design as a fully testable, falsifiable scientific theory.

The design, he testified, is inferred from the purposeful arrangement of parts. During his time on the stand, he also testified about the concept of irreducible complexity, which means organisms are too complex to have evolved by natural selection or genetic mutation, so multiple systems had to arise simultaneously.

Scott said scientists couldn't disprove the purposeful arrangement of parts because too much could qualify. Anything outside of purposely arranged partswould be in state of chaos, she said.

The purposeful arrangements of parts is quickly taking over as the essence of intelligent design from the idea of irreducible complexity, Scott said.

Bonsell and Harkins believe intelligent design qualifies as a testable and falsifiable scientific theory, and Bonsell said he was ready for it to be put to the test.

"I'm all for scientific discovery and doing scientific experiments," Bonsell said. "They're the ones that are not."

[GOPPachyderm]

"Totally and utterly incorrect" seems a little over the top. Hyperbole?

I thought there were several valid points made!

[bobdsmith]

None of the 10 points are valid. There are sentences of truth thrown in here and there. But the 10 flaws are flawed themselves.

4. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.

Is an example. There is some factual explainations of the 2nd law, but then it is totally misapplied just to make an argument against evolution

[GOPPachyderm]

So in your opinion entropy does not present a problem for evolutionary proponents? I would think that evolution would require greater organization rather than randomness.

[bobdsmith]

If the 2nd law was really a problem for evolution it would equally be a problem for life. Seeds would not grow into trees and eggs would not grow into embryos and finally adult organisms.

[Quark2005]

Read 10 Major Flaws in Evolution here.

Thanks, that was good for a laugh.

[highball]

"What that tells us is that, in all too many cases, it's not ignorance at all. At best, it's willful ignorance, and at worst it's knowingly spreading falsehoods."

Ala Piltdown man, Java man, Nebraska man you mean?

That's one fraud, and two errors, one of which was never taken seriously by the scientific community. All of which were uncovered by... wait for it... scientists.

And all of which are routinely misused by creationists as examples of some sort of bizarre conspiracy.

The fact that errors were made only means that scientists are human. What the examples should show you is that the scientific method works. Sometimes it works more slowly than it should (Piltdown Man), sometimes it works right away (Nebraska Man). But it works.

Science corrects its errors, creationists keep spreading theirs around. That's what I mean by "knowingly spreading falsehoods."

[GOPPachyderm]

Haeckel's embryionic drawings were used for many years after they were found to be flawed.

Or the moths that were glued to the trees?

I object to the notion that noble scientists haven't spread falsehoods.

Can you provide a few piltdown/java/nebraska/haeckle type examples that Christians keep "spreading around" falsely creating "proof" of a creator?

[connectthedots]

Bad day? Considering that 90% of all species are now extinct, it's fair to conclude that the designer had a bad billion years.

Your source for that claim that 90% of all species are now extinct. Even if true, how did it happen? Maybe some sort of flood?

[highball]

Haeckel's embryionic drawings were used for many years after they were found to be flawed.

Or the moths that were glued to the trees?

I object to the notion that noble scientists haven't spread falsehoods.

Can you provide a few piltdown/java/nebraska/haeckle type examples that Christians keep "spreading around" falsely creating "proof" of a creator?

Both of your examples are misleading at best.

If I offer you the corrections, do you promise to stop spreading those? Because those are two great examples of the falsehoods being spread by Creationists in order to attempt to discredit science.

[GOPPachyderm]

Surely you can't argue that because the frauds were uncovered that they didn't happen? And that it doesn't reveal the desire by some individuals to use less than honest means to support their theory?

[PatrickHenry]

We're here to help. This is probably the whole catalog of "frauds" that creationists constantly harp on, after hundreds of thousands of scientists have been working in this area for 150 years. The whole collection doesn't amount to anything:

Piltdown Man. Science (not creationism) uncovered the fraud.
Nebraska Man. NEW Also: Nebraska Man in Textbooks? It wasn't much of a fraud.
Peppered Moths. Another non-issue.
Haeckel's Embryos. Yet another.
Ichneumon's Discussion of Haeckel's embryo drawings. A FreeRepublic post (#62).
Archaeopteryx. Despite howls from creationists, it's not a fake.
Archaeoraptor. A crude fake, publicised by Nat'l Geographic, then quickly exposed.
Lucy. The "fraud" claim is actually a creationist fraud.

[highball]

Of course *some* have. And I have never argued that some didn't happen (although at least one of your examples didn't happen the way you said it did).

But the fact that they were uncovered *proves* that the scientific method works. Most were never taken seriously by the scientific community in the first place. Others were uncovered by scientists.

And the few falsehoods that were spread were no longer perpetuated once exposed. The same cannot be said about most creationists, who continue to pass around the fictions you posted. Those are the falsehoods that continue to be spread by creationists.

If I offer you the corrections, do you promise to stop spreading those?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Or the moths that were glued to the trees?"

As in 99% of nature photography with insects, that one picture was staged. It didn't matter though, because the researcher was only trying to show the difference in coloration between the light and the dark variety. The rest of his pictures were of single moths that were found as is on tree trunks. The peppered moth example is a valid demonstration of natural selection at work. The fraud is the way creationists have distorted the studies.

"Can you provide a few piltdown/java/nebraska/haeckle type examples that Christians keep "spreading around" falsely creating "proof" of a creator?"

Piltdown Man was a hoax that was never accepted by most scientists. It was uncovered by scientists too, not creationists. Java Man is not a hoax in any way. Nebraska Man was NEVER accepted by science as a legitimate find; one paleontologist jumped to conclusions based on a tooth and it was summarily rejected. It was not a part of science education. Haeckel's embryo drawings were never really accepted by most scientists either; his theory about recapitulation was also not universally accepted. Textbooks today DO however contain photographs of embryo's to show the similarities that exist between vertebrate embryo's. This does support common descent.

The way that creationists have distorted/lied about the above is an answer to your question about the scruples or lack thereof of many creationists.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

See post 131 for a detailed account of what I was talking about.

[highball]

Ah, shoot.

Darn it, PatrickHenry, I wanted to get GOPPachyderm's promise to stop spreading the falsehoods before I gave him the proof! ;-)

Now that the cat's out of the bag and you know the actual facts, GOPPachyderm, I expect that you'll stop spreading those lies. It's okay to have been taken in, but you have to admit that whoever told you them lied to you.

[PatrickHenry]

Darn it, PatrickHenry, I wanted to get GOPPachyderm's promise to stop spreading the falsehoods before I gave him the proof!

I guess I posted too soon. But then, I've never yet seen a creationist who would make such an agreement. However, perhaps this would have been a first. I blew it.

[highball]

Hey, color me hopeful. ;-)

[GOPPachyderm]

I am amazed that you are so willing to overlook the obvious attempts of those who have twisted facts to support ToE. Wouldn't it be more honest to acknowledge that some dishonest representations have been made in support of evolution?

In particular, I found this statement particulary interesting in the previous FR post you directed me to: "Like many popularizers of science (or any field), he sometimes simplified his material, skipped over details, or prettied up illustrations for public presentation, striving for clarity over complete accuracy. ... 4. Through laziness, sloppiness, presumption ...."

Interesting way to rationalize these frauds, but it doesn't doesn't support the earlier claim that these claims are "totally and utterly" untrue.

[highball]

Well Patrick, you were right. Silly me and my foolish optimism.

I am amazed that you are so willing to overlook the obvious attempts of those who have twisted facts to support ToE. Wouldn't it be more honest to acknowledge that some dishonest representations have been made in support of evolution?

Have you read my posts? I already admitted that was the case - that there have been misstatements and frauds. No field of human endeavor is immune to them, least of all science.

I also reminded you that is was other scientists who exposed the frauds.

Scientists correct their errors and expose frauds. Creationists perpetuate theirs, as you are helping to demonstate right now.

[webstersII]

"Such at test would simply be selective breeding, which has been practiced by humans for thousands of years."

No, it's not. Selective breeding is where you control the population and its option to breed with other species. The desire is to get an offspring with known genetic qualities.

I'm talking about a test where changes are observed and recorded in two different populations due to environmental differences, such that the two populations become divergent to the point that two species can't breed anymore after some time. A test like this would be repeatable.