'Intelligent design' supporters gather (700 Scientists agree ID is "step beyond Darwin")

Seattle PI ^ | 24 Oct 2005 | ONDREJ HEJMA (AP)

[gobucks]

PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Hundreds of supporters of "intelligent design" theory gathered in Prague in the first such conference in eastern Europe, but Czech scholars boycotted the event insisting it had no scientific credence.

About 700 scientists from Africa, Europe and the United States attended Saturday's "Darwin and Design" conference to press their contention that evolution cannot fully explain the origins of life or the emergence of highly complex species.

"It is a step beyond Darwin," said Carole Thaxton of Atlanta, a biologist who lived with her husband, Charles, in Prague in the 1990s and was one of the organizers of the event.

"The point is to show that there in fact is intelligence in the universe," she said. The participants, who included experts in mathematics, molecular biology and biochemistry, "are all people who independently came to the same conclusion," she said.

Among the panelists was Stephen C. Meyer, a fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that represents many scholars who support intelligent design.

He said intelligent design was "based upon scientific evidence and discoveries in fields such as biochemistry, molecular biology, paleontology and astrophysics."

Many leading Czech thinkers, however, boycotted the conference, insisting the theory - which is being debated in the United States - is scientifically groundless.

Intelligent design holds that life is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying a higher power must have had a hand. Critics contend it is repackaged creationism and improper to include in modern scientific education.

Vaclav Paces, chairman of the Czech Academy of Sciences, called the conference "useless."

"The fact that we cannot yet explain the origin of life on Earth does not mean that there is (a) God who created it," Paces was quoted as telling the Czech news agency CTK.

[Dimensio]

It was sarcasm - a reflection of the usual postings on FR critical of ID.

Ah, so you were inventing a strawman because you'd rather not address the actual objections to ID. Okay then.

[RunningWolf]

ampu,

Everyone gets it, 'cept perhaps the demented sorts, cultists of the cosmo-evo evo-cosmo cult of the flying spaghetti monster :-)

Wolf

[furball4paws]

OK, I've seen enough in your posts 71-77. Your Chemistry is bad. Your Biology is worse and your knowledge of Evolution is really pitiful. It's a shame.

I tell my sons to look under rocks because one never knows what's there. But you can't pick up the rock if you're standing on it.

[chrisg2001]

>> If you want an example of a being born from a being less intelligent than they are, it happens at least 1/2 the time on average, for some definition of "intelligent". Or is there actually some meaningful pont you are trying to make?

>Well yes, that is an example of evolution, i.e., change over time. What I wanted was an example of an inorganic forming into an organic. The distinction is not irrelevant unless you've preconceived that such is religious talk.

So, intelligent=organic, and I'm supposed to have figured that out from your question?

There are multiple natural ways for organic compounds to form for inorganic, and these scenarios can be replicated in a well equipped high school science lab. And if you don't beleive that any of these methods correspond to the early
earth, organic compounds have been found in multiple space-based sources, so they could have come from meteors or comets if not formed here.

[chrisg2001]

>All attempts to create an origin of life experiment start with an intelligent carefully controlled environment............and have failed.

The initial origin of life is not really a component of evolutionary biology, its more in the realm of bio-chemistry.

I'm not sure there have been any serious experiments attempting to replicate the origin of life on earth in any of the ways it has been believed to have happened. Many experiments have tested components of it. The reason for not replicating the whole shebang is pretty simple - you'd need a lab the size of the earth in which you recreated the primordial atmosphere. If you could do this, I suspect you'd get your replication in a fairly "short" time, like maybe a hundred million years.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

.. you're really humorless this morning, friend! You must
be in the cold and rain like we are in PA.
best,
ampu

[Dimensio]

. you're really humorless this morning, friend!

You say that as if there's ever a good time to be cheerful in the morning.

The only good mornings are mornings I sleep through.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

WOW! Me too. Especially this morning... :-)

[jennyp]

To anser your question on the same plane: The ability of science to explain any and everything is what a materialist believes. That has no ability to be proven from science either. It is a pact among equals to say it is so, not science.

Philosophical materialism isn't an assumption of science - methodological naturalism is. It's axiomatic that the scientific method cannot distinguish between a miracle and a natural occurrence that is yet to be explained. Personally, I think the track record of philosophical supernaturalism has been rather poor. But I don't consider that a scientific conclusion. (Would that be falsifiable? I don't know.)

From where I sit, the honest observation from nature can only lead one to one conclusion: that all intelligence comes from intelligence,

Except when someone is born with an IQ that's higher than that of their parents'.

inorganic never births organic,

As chrisg2001 has pointed out, organic molecules are formed from inorganic all the time. This was first demonstrated in the early 1800's, IIRC. Then of course there was Miller's simple experiment which produced a very impressive variety of organics.

But if you're referring to the first self-replicating thing that we'd call "alive", then yes, it's still in the speculative phase. Abiogenesis researchers are trying to figure out what scenarios were most plausible, given what we know about chemistry and what we think we know about the particular conditions on the early Earth. We're always clear that the origin of life is on the bleeding edge of biological science.

The speculation that it happened once upon a time was called spontaneous generation and mocked. Now it is believed as a scientific explanation? I personally don't think so.

You have it wrong. Spontaneous generation was the theory that multicellular organisms - flies - spontaneously emerged from rotting meat. This is clearly impossible, as multicelled organisms are way too complex to spontaneously come together from random arrangements of organic chemicals.

The real question before actual biologists is: How complex was the first self-replicator? If the first self-replicating entity was something like the Ghadiri peptide, at a mere 32 amino acids long, then it's quite plausible that the process got going early on. If it takes several proteins and/or RNA strands of 200 units or more to get the ball rolling, then it's clearly implausible. Nobody knows yet just how simple such a system can be. To say that it's been proven impossible because nobody has created life in the lab yet is ridiculous. Give it another 20 years, and if they haven't made great strides by then, then you can gloat.

Every experiment to prove spontaneous generation is initiated by a scientist yielding the very model of intelligent design.

Now this I consider an evil argument. (But it's subtle, so I don't blame you for using it.) If the very fact that an experiment is intelligently designed invalidates any finding of non-design in nature, then that automatically invalidates every experiment that has ever been made about anything. It's the very nature of an experiment to have some aspects of the phenomenon under test to be controlled. The purpose of an experiment is to limit the chaos & variability of wild nature so that we can isolate causes. You can't do that without intelligently designing the experiment. Any experiment, about anything.

[js1138]

Now this I consider an evil argument. (But it's subtle, so I don't blame you for using it.)

It's subtle maybe to a moron, but as you say it attempts to invalidate science itself.

Not too surprising, considering the goals of the Discovery Institute.

[boatbums]

I am speaking of the totally atheistic view that there is no God, Creator, or Designer. Because most thinking people question the how and why do we exist, Evolution becomes their answer.

As a Christian, I believe in the Creator God. That "all things were made by him and for him and without him was not anything made that was made."

Does evolution fit into my belief system? That depends. If we're talking about mutations within species, then of course. I have a Ragdoll breed of cat. She has characteristics that were developed over years of selective breeding that distinguish her from other breeds. Do I believe in transmutation of species, the central tenet of Darwinian Evolution that tries to explain a common lifeform that all life evolved from over millions of years? Then, no, I don't. The fossil record that, if true, should have shown millions or billions of transmutated species (i.e., 90% ape 10% human, 50% ape 50% human, etc.) is non-existent and is, in truth, and embarrassment.

[Coyoteman]

The fossil record that, if true, should have shown millions or billions of transmutated species (i.e., 90% ape 10% human, 50% ape 50% human, etc.) is non-existent and is, in truth, and embarrassment.

This is a very tiny fraction of the fossil hominid data, and is generally restricted to the more photogenic specimens. There is no "non-existent" there, as you claim. As for the different percentages of ape vs. human, take your pick!

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[Right Wing Professor]

So we have a one-day 'scientific conference' (which is pretty pathetic in itself)with exactly five speakers, only two of whom have real jobs. I wonder who these 700 'scinetists' are. My guess is you have 10 IDers and 690 miscellaneous Czechs who are there for the free hors d'oeuvres.

By comparison, here's the web page for the FEBS-IUBMB conference in Budapest . This is what a real scientific conference looks like.

[Doctor Stochastic]

What I wanted was an example of an inorganic forming into an organic. The distinction is not irrelevant unless you've preconceived that such is religious talk.

Since you ask. Friedrich Wöhler did exactly this in 1828.

[From the article]: " Until 1828, it was believed that organic substances could only be formed under the influence of the vital force in the bodies of animals and plants. Wöhler proved by the artificial preparation of urea from inorganic materials that this view was false."

[Wormwood]

I don't know how many times I heard the "Steve" argument. Is that all they got?

What argument? This is mockery.

Well deserved mockery.

[chrisg2001]

So, I'd have to say that the odds of a hurricane assembling a 747 in a junkyward are probably higher than the odds that the creationists in this thread are going to reply to your post with a listing of which of the 14 hominid skulls in your list are 100% ape and which are 100% human :-) and can justify their answer.

[Coyoteman]

So, I'd have to say that the odds of a hurricane assembling a 747 in a junkyward are probably higher than the odds that the creationists in this thread are going to reply to your post with a listing of which of the 14 hominid skulls in your list are 100% ape and which are 100% human :-) and can justify their answer.

Actually, below the picture are the answers. Kind of like an open-book quiz?

I have noticed that many on the other side who are against the notion of "ape-like" ancestors are often not very familiar with the actual fossils. I doubt if more than a very few have ever sat in a bone lab and laid out all the relevant crania and pondered them.

It is fascinating after learning the bones of the human cranium, and the variations among living populations, to examine a monkey cranium. Smaller, with differences, but all the bones are the same! Most have the same general placement and general shape. None will be hard to recognize at all!

[Sun]

OK then, "mockery." Is THAT all they got?

[Sun]

Anybody find that missing link, yet?

[WildTurkey]

Item	Evolution	ID
Earth is billions of years old	Yes	Yes
Man evolved from simple organisms	Yes	Yes
God had no influence in evolution	Unknown	Yes
Teach children God may be dead	No	Yes