Being Stalked by Intelligent Design

American Scientist ^ | Nov-Dec Issue 2005 | Pat Shipman

[Rudder]

I ignored the threat for a long time. I groaned at the letters to the editor in our local paper that dismissed evolution as "just a theory" and proclaimed the superiority of "Intelligent Design" (ID) to explain the world around us. When a particular emeritus professor pestered me with e-mails asking how I explained this or that aspect of the fossil record (How could a flying bird evolve from a non-flying species? Did I think feathered dinosaurs were real?), I answered him time and again—until I realized that he was reading neither my answers nor the references I suggested. When this same man stood up, yet again, after a lecture to read a "question" that was actually a prepared statement about ID, I rolled my eyes.

[freebilly]

The following is from Ichneumon to me :

what you don't know about petroleum geology would obviously fill volumes.

Hint: The vast majority of petroleum is from *plant* matter.

My ignorance of petroleum geology is only matched by the above poster's arrogance. He advances theory as truth without regard to new theories of abiotic oil formation which might upend his beliefs about petroleum creation.

I mention this for 2 reasons. The first reason is to show how belief in scientific theories is dangerous to learning anything new. Once we accept a theory of evolution (or of oil production, or of global warming) we generally hang on to that theory without really examining it or our belief in it.

Our schools are not into teaching critical thinking as a path towards learning how to observe the world around us and come up with theories about that which we see. Our schools give the students theory and ask them to make any observation fit the theory. Critical thinking is a nuisance when you have general agreement that "global warming" or "evolution" or "petroleum is a non-renewable resource". This is my objection to the original article and to what I perceived as the author's arrogance.

The 2nd reason I mention this is solely to piss off Ichneumon.

[willyd]

Apparently nobody told Mother Earth either.lol

[PatrickHenry]

I wish I had received your ping earlier in the thread. Good article. But the thread is totally wucked up. When more than 100 early posts by creationists are present, it's not worth it to ping the evolution list. Get me earlier next time.

[Junior]

When you, or anyone else for that matter, posts a thread that might be of interest to the CrevoSci crowd, ping PH right off the bat, but also ping me to include in the Archive. It'll be visible for a week that way.

[RogueIsland]

How could scientists be wrong. After all, they've convinced all us non-scientists that, contrary to logic, oil is the leftover residue of hundreds of billions of dinosaurs who all conveniently died in just a few locations on earth, one on top of the next, so we could easily siphon off their remains in lots of 100+ million barrels per graveyard....

Really. Scientists say this? Interesting. I'd love to see the geology text that has that passage in it.

[RogueIsland]

He advances theory as truth without regard to new theories of abiotic oil formation which might upend his beliefs about petroleum creation.

It's rather odd that you use a debate among geologists (okay, geologists and at least one astronomer) as an avenue to slam scientists. Abiotic oil formation is an interesting topic (if not yet a particularly highly regarded theory in geological circles), but it is a debate among the scientists you seem to enjoy mocking. None of the people involved in the science of that debate, to my knowledge, are simply throwing up there hands and saying "oil was obviously intelligently designed because I don't understand how it was formed". No, they are actually looking at things like C-12/C-13 isotope ratios and correlation of known deposits to periods of high biological sedimentation rates and doing real, scientific research -- it's what scientists do. It's how they learn things.

Somehow, when science procedes as science should, to Creationists this is some sort of proof that science is invalid. It would seem that to them, the fact that we are not still blindly following Aristotle's theories is proof that science as a whole is some sort of sham.

[Ichneumon]

[The vast majority of petroleum is from *plant* matter]

Tell that to the Russians who are finding petroleum reserves at a depth of 6-7 miles.

And you fantasize that deep reservoirs contradict my statement *how*, exactly? Oh, right, it doesn't.

What you know about petroleum geology you were taught back in the 70's and 80's by people who wanted to alarm you that "fossil fuels" were running out.

Wow, posting your wild presumptions as fact. What a mistake. That's not where I learned what I know about petroleum geology, kid. And the only people more irrational and impervious to facts than the "we're going to run out of oil tomorrow" freaks are the "there's an infinitely renewable supply of oil, use all you want" Pollyanna freaks.

Go research the latest findings on petroleum geology then get back to me.

Son, I'm in the oil industry *today*, and unlike you and your fringe ideas, I get my information first-hand. Get a clue.

[Ichneumon]

[Hint: The vast majority of petroleum is from *plant* matter.]

Hint: Oil is being discovered at 30,000 feet, far below the 18,000 feet where organic matter is no longer found.

If you think that there's no organic matter found below 18,000 feet anywhere, you're a complete idiot. In the Tarim basin, for example, fossil-bearing strata extend to a depth of 25,000 feet.

Nor is finding oil down in "basement rock" any actual problem for biogenic petroleum, which you would know if you actually had as much background in petroleum geology as you falsely pretend to. There are many known ways in which biogenic petroleum can end up in basement rock, including:

1) Overlying organic rock from which the oil was expelled downward during compaction.

2) Lateral, off-the-basement but topographically lower, organic rock from which oil was squeezed into an underlying carrier bed through which it migrated updip into the basement rock.

3) Lower, lateral reservoirs from which earlier trapped oil was spilled due to tilting or overfilling.

And that's just for pure unadulterated basement rock. Since all you're giving is raw depth, you also have the possibility of deep oil due to subduction from originally higher strata. Etc., etc.

Try suggesting something that is *actually* a challenge for petroleum of a biogenic origin, instead of just stuff that only *appears* that way to someone who is actually ignorant of the field (such as yourself).

Hint: Oil wells pumped dry have been found to be replenished.

Yes, and I know *why* they have in the rare cases in which they have, unlike you. I also know that the amounts are small and quickly taper off, hardly the "unending supply" you wild-eyed contrarians would like to fantasize they are. "Refilling" is due to additional migration from the source rock due to relieved pressure gradients caused by the initial pumping. No big mystery, and no "infinite" supply either.

There have also been cases of "refilling" waved by the wild-eyed "infinite oil" folks which have turned out to be simply upward reassessments from originally pessimestic estimates. No "new" oil, just a revision "on paper".

Hint: The volume of oil pumped thus far is not accountable from organic material alone according to models of organic material growth from Cambrian period to present.

ROFL!!!!! MAN, you're funny. Please present your alleged math on this, this should be a real knee-slapper.

Wait, I'll do some math myself, to show how stupid your claims are. Here's a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, using carbon mass as an indicator.

The annual biomass net production of carbon is 0.57x10¹¹ tons (a href="http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e54/54d.htm">source). The annual carbon emission from burnt "fossil fuels" was 25,162 million tons in 1993 (source). This is *all* fossil fuels, including coal, not just the "oil" you mention, I included all forms of fossil fuels in order to show that even under the worst possible scenario, your claim is *still* utter bollocks.

Now let's do the math: Let's use only 400 million years "since the Cambrian" -- too small, but I'm *really* trying to give your claim the benefit of the doubt. That makes for a produced carbon biomass of 2.28x10¹⁹ tons.

Meanwhile, if mankind had been producing/using fossil fuels at the prodigious 1993 rates for *every* year for the past 145 years (the first oil well was drilled in 1859), then the total fossil fuel carbon budget would be 3.52x10¹² tons.

So contrary to your goofy claim that, "The volume of oil pumped thus far is not accountable from organic material alone according to models of organic material growth from Cambrian period to present", the ACTUAL truth is that the Earth has produced so much biomass during that time, that it could have resulted in over SIX MILLION TIMES as much fossil fuels as mankind has actually produced/used.

So would you care to revise your b***s*** claim?

Hint: There might be plant matter between your ears.

Fact: You really don't have any clue what you're talking about, but you're awfully belligerent in your ignorance.

Furthermore, your wild-eyed pie-in-the-sky wishes and beliefs about "infinite oil" don't stand up well in the face of the actual science employed by the real-world petroleum geologists, who routinely research the actual source layers of the oil reservoirs they locate, sleuth out the exact nature of its biogenic origins using such techniques as Oil Biomarkers, test biogenic versus abiogenic oil production via such techniques as the following, and so on:

Abiogenic formation of alkanes in the Earth's crust as a minor source for global hydrocarbon reservoirs.

Abstract: Natural hydrocarbons are largely formed by the thermal decomposition of organic matter (thermogenesis) or by microbial processes (bacteriogenesis). But the discovery of methane at an East Pacific Rise hydrothermal vent and in other crustal fluids supports the occurrence of an abiogenic source of hydrocarbons. These abiogenic hydrocarbons are generally formed by the reduction of carbon dioxide, a process which is thought to occur during magma cooling and-more commonly-in hydrothermal systems during water-rock interactions, for example involving Fischer-Tropsch reactions and the serpentinization of ultramafic rocks. Suggestions that abiogenic hydrocarbons make a significant contribution to economic hydrocarbon reservoirs have been difficult to resolve, in part owing to uncertainty in the carbon isotopic signatures for abiogenic versus thermogenic hydrocarbons. Here, using carbon and hydrogen isotope analyses of abiogenic methane and higher hydrocarbons in crystalline rocks of the Canadian shield, we show a clear distinction between abiogenic and thermogenic hydrocarbons. The progressive isotopic trends for the series of C1-C4 alkanes indicate that hydrocarbon formation occurs by way of polymerization of methane precursors. Given that these trends are not observed in the isotopic signatures of economic gas reservoirs, we can now rule out the presence of a globally significant abiogenic source of hydrocarbons.

If you want to discuss the science, fine, but if you just want to be snotty and attack well-established science and industry practices which have been carefully vetted because there's a lot of money at stake and people want to use only the methods that actually *work* -- and apparently you *do* just want to be snotty and attack with bumper-sticker slogans -- then go find someone else to pester.

[carumba]

My guess is the evolution crowd has the wrong paradigm. Start with a false premise and end with an absurd conclusion.

[Oztrich Boy]

I answered him time and again—until I realized that he was reading neither my answers nor the references I suggested

Your Creationiat talking point on the fossil record has been refuted many times - Originally by Chas. Darwin in On the Origin of Species

[Aracelis]

But the theory of evolution has in every piece I've read about it treats it as if it was law. Therefore, it is a belief system just like matters of faith/believing.

I think perhaps there is a misconception about working definitions. For instance, the Theory of Gravity, although a good working theory, has not been "proven" and therefore is not a Law. Somewhere in the Universe, under the right conditions, gravity may not function as we know it.

Nevertheless, as scientists, we proceed as if the Theory of Gravity is in fact a Law...until demonstrated otherwise.

The same is true of Natural Selection. The Theory of Evolution is subject to the same conditional approval as the Theory of Gravity. As new data become available, both theories are modified.

At least that is what an honest scientist will tell you. Of course there are charlatans in every profession - would you not agree?

[gondramB]

"So, in other words, most scientists are opposed to intelligent design because they fear for their careers."


Actually ID, if taught, would lessen the supply of new qualified scientists and make real scientists more valuable. For strictly selfish reason we should support it.

[willyd]

I was referencing an article that I read and referenced earlier in the post since we are being so testy about who read what reference. Are you saying that this article is incorrect? If so, are you basing that on fact or is this another theory like Darwin's?

Standard Evolutionary Theory Has Shortcomings

By: Henry Schaefer
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
September 28, 2002

---

See at: Atlanta Journal-Constitution

As a theorist who uses quantum mechanics to solve problems ranging from biochemistry to astrophysics, the subject of this essay is of great interest to me. It is a question that is discussed in depth in my University of Georgia freshman seminar entitled “Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?”

This autumn 18 gifted UGA students and I are spending six weeks examining Stephen Hawking’s best-selling book “A Brief History of Time.” Therein Hawking states, “A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements. And it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.”

I consider Hawking’s statement to be an excellent definition of a good theory. How does evolution stack up to the two demands of a good theory? By the term “evolution,” I mean the claim that random mutations and natural selection can fully account for the complexity of life, and particularly macroscopic living things.

I think that the standard evolutionary model does a good job of categorizing and systematizing the fossil record. It serves as an effective umbrella or big tent under which to collect a large number of observations. If evolution has a weakness in this regard, it is that the tent is too big. Thus the 20th century witnessed a series of hoaxes, beginning in 1908 with Piltdown Man and continuing to recent fabricated fossil “discoveries” in China, that have been embraced as missing links by distinguished paleontologists.

Nevertheless, I give evolution a B grade with respect to Hawking’s first category.

The second requirement for a good theory is far more problematical for the standard evolutionary model, sometimes called the modern synthesis. Over the past 150 years evolutionary theorists have made countless predictions about fossil specimens to be observed in the future.

Unfortunately for these seers, many new fossils have been discovered, and the interesting ones almost always seem to be contrary to the “best” predictions. This is sometimes true even when the predictions are rather vague, as seen by the continuing controversies associated with the purported relationships between dinosaurs and birds.

Is the expectation that a good theory be predictive unrealistic? Let us consider two theories to which evolution is often favorably compared. The theory of gravity precisely predicted the appearances of Halley’s comet in 1910 and 1986. On the latter occasion I was on sabbatical from Berkeley at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. The newspaper (informed by classical mechanics and the law of gravity) told me exactly when I had to wake up in the middle of the night to enjoy the wonder of Halley’s Comet. And in fact, the theory of gravity never fails for the macroscopic objects to which it is applicable.

A second successful theory, the atomic theory, is grounded in Schroedinger’s Equation and the Dirac Equation. Atomic theory is able to make many predictions of the spectra of the hydrogen molecule and the helium atom to more significant figures that may be currently measured in the laboratory. We are utterly confident that these predictions will be confirmed by future experiments.

By any reasonable standard the theory of gravity and the atomic theory are good theories, well deserving of A grades. In comparison with these quantitative theories of the physical sciences, when it comes to Hawking’s second requirement for a good theory, the standard evolutionary model fails, and should be given a D grade at best.

Might I be more detailed in stating my reservations concerning the standard evolutionary model? Sure. Let me preface these brief remarks by noting that I think the scientific evidence that God created the universe 13-15 billion years ago is good.

My first concern is that, with the collapse of the Miller-Urey model, there is no plausible scientific mechanism for the origin of life, i.e., the appearance of the first self-replicating biochemical system. The staggeringly high information content of the simplest living thing is not readily explained by evolutionists.

Second, the time frame for speciation events seems all wrong to me. The major feature of the fossil record is stasis, long periods in which new species do not appear. When new developments occur, they come rapidly, not gradually.

My third area of reservation is that I find no satisfactory mechanism for macroevolutionary changes. Analogies between a few inches of change in the beaks of a Galapagos finch species and a purported transition from dinosaur to bird (or vice versa) appear to me inappropriate.

[Rudder]

When you, or anyone else for that matter, posts a thread that might be of interest to the CrevoSci crowd, ping PH right off the bat, but also ping me to include in the Archive.

Got it...will do.

My apologies for not pinging earlier. At the time, my initial objective was to drain the swamp but I was up to my ass in alligators.

[PatrickHenry]

Oh, you cruel man! Do you get satisfaction out of posting actual facts and rational analyses thereof, and thus creating an embarrassing contrast between the real world and the fantasies of internet blowheads?

(I certainly find it satisfying.)

[Doc Savage]

Evo-wackos: According to you geniuses evo is such a slam dunk, so well documented, so perfect in terms of scientific verification, why are you so fearful that someone else might have a different perspective??? After years of slamming false theories (Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny, One Gene-One Enzyme) in to young skulls full of mush, I assume you're fearful that your ivy-covered towers are crumbling, your power fading.

You boys really need to get on with your lives rather than ranting and raving against ID. If you're right, time will tell. If not, your massive egos will have to get used to being bruised.

[hawkaw]

Good post!

[VadeRetro]

I could only read a couple pages of comments. A festival of characters from central casting. DU doesn't have to plant provocateur bozos among us. That would be gilding the lily.

[Oztrich Boy]

I was referencing an article that I read and referenced earlier in the post since we are being so testy about who read what reference

All available evidence indicates that "referenced earlier" occurred almost an hour after the post.

Are you saying that this article is incorrect?

The brief reference Schaefer makes to the fossil record does not provide a substantiation for the claim you made. And only his flimsy treatment only indicates he may be using similar Creationist source material as you.

[jonathanmo]

Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark.