Deny the Designer, Save "Science"

http://www.spectator.org ^ | 1/23/2006 12:06:59 AM | P. David Hornik

[Para-Ord.45]

People who celebrated Judge John Jones's recent ruling that Intelligent Design is a "religious view" and "not science," so that it is "unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution," are satisfied because religion and science have been kept strictly apart, which suits their worldview. It amounts, though, to begging the question that is at stake, and "winning" the argument by sheer force.

Before explaining why, it's worth noting that science is being defined flexibly. If someone says -- "The fossil record does not actually indicate that species evolved into other species, and evidence of the necessary transitional species has not been found, but we assume that those species did exist because our theory requires it" -- this, of course, is science. And if someone says -- "We have no idea how the single bacterium from which all other species allegedly evolved could have emerged from inanimate matter, but we assume that it must have" -- this too is science, to be taught to children as established fact. It is, after all, a "naturalistic" explanation, hence true, hence science.

Most people who believe in God, however, believe that God created nature. If that were so, then it should be at least theoretically possible that scientists, who investigate nature, could come upon evidence of God while doing so. When you delve deeply into something, the goal is usually to discover its source. Einstein, like many titans of science before him, acknowledged this in a general way in many statements, such as: "everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man," or his reference to "rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

Such statements, though, while interesting and important, are admittedly not science. ID scientists make a different claim -- that their rigorous investigation of natural phenomena like organisms and parts of organisms, or their rigorous application of mathematical laws of randomness and probability to the complexity of such organisms, yields specific evidence that they were designed, and that evolution does not adequately explain their existence.

ID scientists have presented their evidence in peer-reviewed books published by major, prestigious publishers and in peer-reviewed articles published by major, prestigious journals. A statement circulated by the Discovery Institute -- "We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged" -- has already been signed by over four hundred scientists. They come from fields like biochemistry, bacteriology, astrophysics, mathematics, and computer science and from institutions like Princeton, Cornell, Cambridge, Columbia, and MIT.

Twenty years ago, you didn't hear about this sort of thing. Now you do -- because, as often happens, a scientific theory, in this case evolution, is coming under challenge, and a different paradigm, in this case ID, is arising in its place. Of course, not all the scientists who doubt evolution accept ID. But many of them do, and they do so on the basis of scientific research.

Why, then, the claim that ID is "not science"? Part of the reason, to repeat, is sheer prejudice. People who espouse a naturalistic, materialist view of reality, which Darwinism supposedly corroborated and did much to promote, realize that the posited designer of nature is a deity. A deity, as they see it, belongs to "religion" -- at best soft, sentimental stuff that may have a place in the church or synagogue but not in a serious domain like science.

The other claim against ID is that it is "not falsifiable." First of all, the term is, once more, flexible. The statement that "Even if we don't currently understand how evolution via random mutation and natural selection could have produced the species existing in the world, we will eventually" -- is also not falsifiable but, rather, an expression of faith. Second, two Discovery Institute fellows, while acknowledging "that there's no way to falsify the bare assertion that a cosmic designer exists," demonstrate here that "the specific design arguments currently in play are empirically testable, even falsifiable, and involve testable predictions."

And as for that "bare assertion," if it were true that nature had been designed, and if science has now grown sophisticated enough to detect evidence of the designer, then it could, logically and conceivably, also be the case that the assertion is not falsifiable because it is not false.

Interesting questions, calling for further research and open minds. So interesting we might even let children know about them.

[RoadTest]

Evolution is not science. Science requires 1. Observation and 2. Repeatability, neither of which evolution is capable of. Evolution is religion, pure and simple.

[Junior]

No science type graces ID with the term "theory." ID isn't even a testable hypothesis.

[PatrickHenry]

This thread's hopeless, but I should toss this in. It may save one person from a life of ignorance:

Help for new visitors to the evolution debate
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.

If you're interested in learning about evolution, visit The List-O-Links.
If you're serious about debating this issue, see How to argue against a scientific theory.
If you're permanently stuck on stupid, but determined to post anyway, use the Evolution Troll's Toolkit.

[urroner]

I had an interesting conversation with an ID promoter the other day and it went something like this:

ID Promoter: Life is so complex on Earth that there needed to be somebody or something that stepped in everything now and then and arranged things so humans could become humans. Life is just way too complex and to intricate to have happened on its own. Evolution cannot explain this complexity and shouldn't be taught as a fact in school unless the alternative of ID is also taught.

Me: So this somebody or something, was it God?

ID Promoter: I believe it was God, but it might have been an advanced civilization.

Me: That is really begging the question. First, evolution is not a scientific fact, rather it's a scientific theory and a scientific theory isn't what you are positing it to be. If you don't know the difference between what you believe a theory is and what scientific theory is, then I suggest you find out the difference and that will clear up a lot of the misconceptions you have.

Secondly, suppose it was some advanced civilization that poked its finger into the advancement of life on Earth, how did this advanced civiliztion come to be? That is really begging the question. Do you know what "begging the question is?"

Thirdly, suppose it was God that poked his finger into the advancement of life, you are now asking me to go from believing something very complex to something that is even more complex and mysterious. Here is a being that doesn't have a beginning, who creates world, no, universes just by thinking and speaking the word, who died and came back to life, who knows everything, is all powerful, and who is totally self-perpetuating and needs nothing outside of Himself, yet in spite of this, He, for some unknown reason, decides one day to create our universe and in spite of being all knowing and all powerful and all loving, He creates a universe full of evil, pain, and suffering. Then this God, for some reason decides to hide Himself from His major creation, mankind, and send all those who don't believe in Him to an eternity of Hell where they will suffer unspeakable pain and suffering forever and ever, and all this for His pleasure. Talk about complex and illogical. This level of complexity makes evolution look like child's play. And it too begs the question of if life is so complex that it requires some intervening intelligence, then how could God become so complex and so intelligent?

At this point, ID Promoter saw where I was going and ended the conversation. He also called me a paganistic heathen. Oh well, maybe my belief in Christ and God just isn't up to his standards. I believe that God did poke His finger in the advancement of life here on Earth, but I also believe that it shouldn't be taught as science. It doesn't pass the science test. Why can't it be taught is a philosophy class or something like that?

[Coyoteman]

The "fossil record", for the most part was created at one specific period of time, which supports catastrophic event theory (real science with much more scientific support than evolution religion).

There never will be a fossil record showing transitional forms, because none existed at the time the fossil record was created, no did they ever.

Note the dates of each of these specimens (my means millions of years); there is no evidence for a catastrophic event, sorry. If you want to push YEC, don't try to pretend there is scientific evidence supporting it.

Some of these are transitional forms. Can you tell which ones they are?

---

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

[Para-Ord.45]

How did the first protein make itself?

Evos cannot answer that with certainty.

[b_sharp]

"How did the first protein make itself?

"Evos cannot answer that with certainty.

Quite true, we do not deny it. However, we can answer with high certainty what happened after that first life.

Why is it that anti-evos spend so much time trying to convince the world that Darwinian Evolution or the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis has anything to do with pre-life and pre-universe? Is it perhaps because if they stick with what they should, the Origin of Species, the evidence is so overwhelming that they have to resort to those areas that science has just started looking for answers, or lose face?

[caffe]

Your stuck on stupid!

[Junior]

The Conspiracy That Cares

Corrupting the World's Youth Since 1859

---

January 23, 2006

The CrevoSci Archive

Since June 25, 1999

---

Keyword Searches

• CREATION
• CREATIONISM
• CREVO
• CREVOLIST
• DARWIN
• DARWINISM
• EVOLUTION
• EVOLUTIONISM
• INTELLIGENT DESIGN
• SCIENCE

---

Links

• List-O-Links

---

Box Scores

2006 Threads to date:	126
2006 Daily Average:	5.45
Cataloged Threads	3130
Daily Average:	1.3
Participants:	1001
Percent Banned:	11%

---

Freepdays

1. [2000-01-18] 2banana
   
2. [2001-01-24] agenda_express
   
3. [2002-01-26] ALS
   
4. [1999-01-23] Antiwar Republican
   
5. [1998-01-19] BB2
   
6. [1999-01-26] Bernard Marx
   
7. [1998-01-21] Cameron
   
8. [1999-01-24] Cautor
   
9. [2000-01-03] Condorman
   
10. [2003-01-17] conservativecorner
    
11. [2006-01-03] Creationist
    
12. [2003-01-16] cyborg
    
13. [2002-01-12] Dajjal
    
14. [2000-01-26] DallasMike
    
15. [2000-01-08] Deadeye Division
    
16. [2003-01-31] Diddley
    
17. [2003-01-23] El Laton Caliente
    
18. [2000-01-11] exnavy
    
19. [2005-01-30] From many - one.
    
20. [2005-01-03] Fruit of the Spirit
    
21. [2003-01-23] ganeshpuri89
    
22. [1999-01-29] Gritty
    
23. [1999-01-31] Hacksaw
    
24. [1998-01-16] holly
    
25. [2005-01-17] isaiah55version11_0
    
26. [2005-01-21] JCRoberts
    
27. [2002-01-02] Jeff Gordon
    
28. [2001-01-31] JMFoard
    
29. [2001-01-24] Just another Joe
    
30. [2000-01-07] Keyes2000mt
    
31. [2002-01-14] Lost Highway
    
32. [2005-01-27] manny613
    
33. [1999-01-04] Map Kernow
    
34. [1999-01-31] Mark Felton
    
35. [1999-01-25] Matchett-PI
    
36. [2004-01-16] mc6809e
    
37. [2002-01-17] MEGoody
    
38. [2005-01-20] MHalblaub
    
39. [2002-01-22] mikegi
    
40. [2003-01-21] Mikey_1962
    
41. [1999-01-31] Mr.Clark
    
42. [2004-01-08] orionblamblam
    
43. [2002-01-02] Oxylus
    
44. [2003-01-25] Prolixus
    
45. [2005-01-05] Right Wing It
    
46. [2000-01-31] RoughDobermann
    
47. [1999-01-22] Rudder
    
48. [2000-01-21] SJackson
    
49. [2003-01-06] skinkinthegrass
    
50. [1999-01-31] Slings and Arrows
    
51. [2001-01-13] Still Thinking
    
52. [2004-01-03] SunkenCiv
    
53. [2002-01-12] Tomalak
    
54. [2002-01-30] truenospinzone
    
55. [2003-01-12] Voice in your head
    
56. [2004-01-29] wagglebee
    
57. [2002-01-30] wallcrawlr
    
58. [2001-01-10] Weatherman123
    
59. [1998-01-22] wotan
    
60. [2004-01-15] writer33
    
61. [1998-01-21] zerosix
    

CrevoSci Threads for the Past Week

1. 2006-01-23 Deny the Designer, Save 'Science'
2. 2006-01-23 The unholy lust of scientists: It may be time to curtail public financing of scientific research
3. 2006-01-22 Do You Know this Man?
4. 2006-01-22 Hopkins to Found First Center for Comprehensive Study of Epigenetics
5. 2006-01-22 It's Dogged as Does It [Darwin in the Galápagos]
6. 2006-01-22 Questions for Daniel C. Dennett: The Nonbeliever
7. 2006-01-22 Small changes separate man from ape
8. 2006-01-22 WHICH CREATION STORY?
9. 2006-01-21 Ancient lakes of the Sahara
10. 2006-01-21 God's Guide to Sex
11. 2006-01-21 Hardwired To Seek Beauty
12. 2006-01-21 In 'Design' vs. Darwinism, Darwin Wins Point in Rome
13. 2006-01-21 Ken Ham Continues Assault on Bible & Christians
14. 2006-01-21 Mutation found that cures heart disease
15. 2006-01-21 'Scientific fact takes a back seat in George Bush's White House' (Massachusetts liberal gag alert)
16. 2006-01-21 The Intelligent Design Revolution
17. 2006-01-21 Theistic Revolution
18. 2006-01-21 Vatican's Evolutionists
19. 2006-01-20 Fish Gill Evolves toward Tetrapod Ear? (Just-So-So)
20. 2006-01-20 Geometry may be hard-wired into brain, study shows
21. 2006-01-20 'Intelligent design' not science: Vatican paper
22. 2006-01-19 'Intelligent design' not science: Vatican paper
23. 2006-01-19 Lab fireball 'may be black hole'
24. 2006-01-19 New Study Reveals Neanderthals Were As Good At Hunting As Early Modern Humans
25. 2006-01-19 Why we [should] care about Darwin wars
26. 2006-01-19 WorldWatch - Creation and Evolution in the Schools
27. 2006-01-18 Our ears once breathed [evolution of ears]
28. 2006-01-18 Vatican Paper Hits 'Intelligent Design'
29. 2006-01-17 Calif. School Scraps 'Intelligent Design' [El Tejon litigation]
30. 2006-01-17 Cosmic Fingerprints: Evidence of Design Conference, South Carolina
31. 2006-01-17 Earth Doomed (according to renowned British scientist)
32. 2006-01-17 'Footprints' Debate To Run And Run (40K YO Human Footprints, Mexico)
33. 2006-01-17 'intelligent design class' -- halted at Frazier High School, CA
34. 2006-01-17 Plants revealed as methane source
35. 2006-01-17 Scientists discover most fertile Irish male
36. 2006-01-17 The Right Time to Fool Around?( Darwinism Rationalizes Adultery)

On this Date in CrevoSci History

1. 01/23/2005 An Invasion Of Cheats: The Evolution Of Worthless Nuptial Gifts
2. 01/23/2005 Different but (Probably) Equal (Men and Women)
3. 01/23/2005 Judge orders school to remove evolution disclaimer from textbooks
4. 01/23/2005 The Crafty Attacks on Evolution
5. 01/23/2005 The Left Inherits the Wind
6. 01/23/2004 HUMAN MIGRATION TRACKED IN STANFORD COMPUTER SIMULATION
7. 01/23/2004 Settling the dispute between Darwinism and Christianity
8. 01/23/2002 Silly Season in WA State Legislature (my title)
9. 01/23/2002 Western Scholars Play Key Role In Touting 'Science' of the Quran
10. 01/23/2001 Evolution vs Creation - 'The Living Word Of God' (Thread 8)
11. 01/23/2001 Other Earths: Are They Out There ???
12. 01/23/2000 Punctuate The Equilibrium Now!!! Creation, Evolution - a new thread

Deleted, Locked, or Pulled Threads

1. 2005-11-15 'Perception' gene tracked humanity's evolution, scientists say [Locked]
2. 2004-04-27 Stop Teaching Our Kids this Evolution Claptrap! [Pulled]
3. 2003-10-29 The Mystery of the Missing Links (Intelligent Design vs. Evolution) [Pulled]
4. 2003-10-27 Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution [Pulled]
5. 2003-10-23 Gene Found for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder [Pulled]
6. 2003-10-21 Artificial Proteins Assembled from Scratch [Pulled]
7. 2003-09-23 Solar System Formation Questions [Pulled]
8. 2003-09-17 Agreement of the Willing - Free Republic Science Threads [Pulled]
9. 2003-07-18 Unlikely Group May Revive Darwin Debate [Evolution v. Creationism] [Pulled]
10. 2003-07-02 Unlocking the Mystery of 'Unlocking the Mystery of Life' [Pulled]
11. 2003-06-26 Darwin Faces a New Rival [Pulled]
12. 2003-06-06 Amazing Creatures [Pulled]
13. 2002-09-14 Geological Theory Explains Origin of Ocean, Continents [Pulled]
14. 2002-09-13 Oldest Known Penis Is 100 Million Years Old [Pulled]
15. 2002-04-13 To Creationists: Is There a Global Conspiracy to Promote Evolution? [Pulled]
16. 2002-04-10 (Creationists) CRSC Correction [Pulled]
17. 2002-04-04 Evolution: What is it? (long article) [Locked]
18. 2002-03-22 Evolution is designed for science classes [Pulled]
19. 2002-03-05 Life found 'on margin of existence' [Pulled]
20. 2001-11-10 Alabama to continue biology textbook warning sticker [Pulled]
21. 2001-11-06 Warming makes mosquito evolve, University of Oregon scientists find [Pulled]
22. 2001-09-18 CHEERED BY BIGOTS, SCIENTIFIC INDIA TAKES 'GIANT LEAP BACKWARDS' [Pulled]
23. 2001-08-29 How Not to Defend Evolution [Deleted]
24. 2001-08-28 The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [6th Revision] [Deleted]
25. 2001-08-27 Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang [Deleted]
26. 2001-08-26 A Scientific Account of the Origin of Life on Earth [Thread I] [Deleted]
27. 2001-08-24 Satellites Search for Noah’s Ark [Deleted]
28. 2001-07-19 The Effect of Darwinism on Morality and Christianity [Deleted]
29. 2001-07-19 The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary Part I [Deleted]
30. 2001-07-19 The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary Part II [Deleted]
31. 2001-07-19 Evolution is Religion — Not Science [Deleted]
32. 2001-07-07 Evolution Fraud in Current Biology Textbooks [Deleted]
33. 2001-03-31 Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator [No Such File]
34. 2001-01-13 A Christian Understanding of Intelligent Design [Deleted]
35. 2000-11-15 Evolutionism Receives Another Hard Blow [Deleted]
36. 2000-10-10 Another Lost Generation? [Deleted]
37. 2000-10-02 God and the Academy [Deleted]
38. 2000-09-18 The World of Design [Deleted]
39. 2000-08-30 Evil-Ution [Deleted]
40. 1999-11-14 Creationism's Success Past 5 Years: (Gallup: 1 in 10 hold secular evolutionist perspective) [No Such File]

The Wall
"In death, all men are equal"

1. 1LongTimeLurker
2. 2Trievers
3. Ada Coddington
4. Ahab Brigade
5. Ahriman
6. akdonn
7. ALS
8. angelo
9. Area Freeper
10. Aric2000
11. Askel5
12. Asphalt
13. biblewonk
14. bluepistolero
15. Boot Hill
16. broberts
17. churchillbuff
18. claptrap
19. Clinton's a liar
20. codebreaker
21. Con X-Poser
22. D. Skippy
23. dbbeebs
24. Destro
25. DittoJed2
26. dob
27. Ed Current
28. Exnihilo
29. f.Christian
30. Far Gone
31. farmfriend
32. followerofchrist
33. freeparella
34. general_re
35. geros
36. Good Tidings Of Great Joy
37. goodseedhomeschool
38. gopwinsin04
39. gore3000
40. H.R. Gross
41. Happy2BMe
42. Helms
43. Ignatius J Reilly
44. IllumiNOTi
45. JediGirl
46. JesseShurun
47. JethroHathaway
48. JFK_Lib
49. jlogajan
50. JoeSchem
51. john_baldacci_is_a_commie
52. Justice Avenger
53. Kevin Curry
54. kharaku
55. knowquest
56. Land of the Irish
57. LarryLied
58. Le-Roy
59. malakhi
60. Marathon
61. masked face doom
62. medved
63. Merdoug
64. metacognative
65. mikeharris65
66. missyme
67. Modernman
68. Morris Hattrick
69. mrustow
70. n4sir
71. neoconsareright
72. newsperson999
73. NoKinToMonkeys
74. nuda_veritas
75. Ogmios
76. OnlyinAmerica
77. peg the prophet
78. Pern
79. Phaedrus
80. Phoroneus
81. pickemuphere
82. RCW2001
83. ReasonedThought
84. ret_medic
85. RickyJ
86. RJCogburn
87. Sabertooth
88. ScotchBible
89. SeaLion
90. Selkie
91. Shubi
92. spiker
93. SplashDog
94. Stingy Dog
95. StupidQuestions
96. That Subliminal Kid
97. The Loan Arranger
98. the lone rider
99. Tomax
100. tpaine
101. Truth666
102. Turan
103. twittle
104. Unalienable
105. USA2000
106. WaveThatFlag
107. What about Bob?
108. winner45
109. xm177e2

---

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[shuckmaster]

FYI - I just came across this interesting Eugenie Scott article that you may find postworthy.

[PatrickHenry]

The whole article isn't available unless you register, or subscribe, or something. Maybe another copy will be available from a more-accessable source. Until then, your link will have to suffice.

[hail to the chief]

Pope John Paul II was a Satanistic liar devoted to the spread of paganistic atheist heathenism and the destruction of all things sacred. If John Paul had his way, we would have seen the destruction of the entire Christian world as we know it, beginning with the obliteration of the Catholic church hierarchy.

Yes, I am being sarcastic.

[hail to the chief]

Are you suggesting that creationists are trying to ban evolutionism, or that evolutionists are trying to ban creationism?

[TN4Liberty]

The latter.

[hail to the chief]

How do you figure? Creationism is quite legal.

[webstersII]

"Evolution is the factual knowledge that all life forms on Earth have changed over time. That is an absolute fact and can not be denied.

If you are an exact copy of your Mother and Father, then please raise your hand. You will be the first biological organism in history to do so.

Anyone that dares to state that life forms on Earth have not changed over time, is using deception and lies for their own personal goals. "

You state the case incorrectly, perhaps on purpose, perhaps not.

The issue is not whether organisms change, it's obvious that, "life forms on Earth have changed over time". The issue is whether or not natural selection can explain all of the diversity of organisms that we see on this earth.

[VOA]

bump

[webstersII]

"ID isn't even a testable hypothesis."

Neither is evolution.

For example, many years ago it was much discussed that finding a "living fossil" would be a way to falsify evolution.

Then the coelacanth was found and they said it was a further proof of evolution, not a proof against evolution.