Rebutting Darwinists: (Survey shows 2/3 of Scientists Believe in God)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 04/15/2006 | Ted Byfield

[SirLinksalot]

Rebutting Darwinists

Posted: April 15, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

I suggested here last week that the established authorities of every age act consistently. They become vigilantly militant against non-conforming dissidents who challenge their assumptions.

Thus when the dissident Galileo challenged the assumptions of the 17th century papacy, it shut him up. Now when the advocates of "intelligent design" challenge the scientific establishment's assumptions about "natural selection," it moves aggressively to shut them up. So the I.D. people have this in common with Galileo.

I received a dozen letters on this, three in mild agreement, the rest in scorn and outrage. This calls for a response.

Where, one reader demanded, did I get the information that 10 percent of scientists accept intelligent design? I got it from a National Post (newspaper) article published two years ago, which said that 90 percent of the members of the National Academy of Science "consider themselves atheists." Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp.

I could have gone further. A survey last year by Rice University, financed by the Templeton Foundation, found that about two-thirds of scientists believed in God. A poll published by Gallup in 1997 asked: Do you believe that "man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation?" – essentially the I.D. position. Just under 40 percent of scientists said yes. So perhaps my 10 percent was far too low.

Two readers called my attention to a discovery last week on an Arctic island of something which may be the fossil remains of the mysteriously missing "transitional species." Or then maybe it isn't transitional. Maybe it's a hitherto undetected species on its own.

But the very exuberance with which such a discovery is announced argues the I.D. case. If Darwin was right, and the change from one species to another through natural selection occurred constantly in millions of instances over millions of years, then the fossil record should be teaming with transitional species. It isn't. That's why even one possibility, after many years of searching, becomes front-page news.

Another letter complains that I.D. cannot be advanced as even a theory unless evidence of the nature of this "Divine" element is presented. But the evidence is in nature itself. The single cell shows such extraordinary complexity that to suggest it came about by sheer accident taxes credulity. If you see a footprint in the sand, that surely evidences human activity. The demand – "Yes, but whose footprint is it?"– does not disqualify the contention that somebody was there. "Nope," says the establishment, "not until you can tell us who it was will we let you raise this question in schools."

Another reader argues that Galileo stood for freedom of inquiry, whereas I.D. advocates want to suppress inquiry. This writer apparently did not notice what caused me to write the column. It was the rejection by a government agency for a $40,000 grant to a McGill University anti-I.D. lobby to suppress the presentation and discussion of I.D. theory in the Canadian schools. Suppressing discussion is an odd way of encouraging "freedom of inquiry." Anyway, the I.D. movement doesn't want to suppress evolution. It merely wants it presented as a theory, alongside the I.D. theory.

Why, asked another reader, did I not identify the gutsy woman who stated the reason for the rejection, bringing upon herself the scorn of scientific authority. That's fair. Her name is Janet Halliwell, a chemist and executive vice president of the Social Science and Humanities Research Council. She said that evolution is a theory, not a fact, and the McGill application offered no evidence to support it.

The McGill applicant was furious. Evolution, he said, needs no evidence. It's fact. Apparently Harvard University doesn't quite agree with him. The Boston Globe reports that Harvard has begun an expensive project to discover how life emerged from the chemical soup of early earth. In the 150 years since Darwin, says the Globe, "scientists cannot explain how the process began."

The most sensible letter came from a research scientist. "I think that the current paradigm of evolution by natural selection acting on random variation will change," he writes. "I think that evidence will accumulate to suggest that much of the genetic variation leading to the evolution of life on earth was not random, but was generated by biochemical processes that exhibit intelligent behavior."

Then he urges me not to disclose his identity. Saying this publicly would threaten his getting tenure, he fears. Galileo would understand.

[Enduring Freedom]

ID'ers can believe in evolution as the process by which life forms expanded over the earth over time.

Evolution does not explain how life began.

So ID can encompass evolution.

Evolution, however, cannot encompass ID.

In any case, never has life been demonstrated to arise from non-life.

Many evolutionists believe in Panspermia, that life arose from other planets - a cheap trick to shift the problem and hope it goes away.

ID'ers don't need such cheap tricks.

Until such time as life is replicated, be open-minded sufficiently to acknowledge that fundamental, and not insignificant fact.

[stands2reason]

A believer in God who also believes in evolution may argue that evolution is consistent, that it is merely the mechanism by which God created all of the current species, but that position demands that the proponent believe that God limited himself to the set of rules contained within evolutionary theory, and did not violate them, ever. This seems like an unreasonable assumption, given that a believer in God believes Him to be all-powerful.

Why would it be an unreasonable assumption that God likes to play by the rules he invented? I see nothing illogical in the consideration that God invented evolution of species and considered it GOOD as-is. Your implication is that God would develop evolution, only to realise it needed fine-tuning, that is, it developed in a way that God didn't foresee. Therefore in your view, God is not omniscient, and he isn't all-powerful enough to develop a system that doesn't need adjustment.

[bobdsmith]

I have a problem denouncing a theory when science has no proof whatsoever to the contrary.

Therein lies the problem. Scientific theories must be potentially disprovable. ID cannot be potentially disproved. Try and think of just one thing that if found would disprove ID. You will discover that no such thing can possibly exist. An Intelligent Designer be used to explain anything we find. That makes it far to vague an expaination for what we do find.

[ahayes]

Moving those goal posts? You said we had never made a synthetic enzyme. We have. Here are some more (just the first I happened to run across), the first is especially interesting:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/304/5679/1967
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/69/8/2155
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/68/2/263
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/17/8282

[ml1954]

ID'ers don't need such cheap tricks.

That's because ID is a cheap trick itself. It's useless.

[stands2reason]

How is it a religion? I don't understand.

[Dimensio]

Evolution is not comprehensive enough to incorporate the Origin of Life. Intelligent Design is.

Intelligent Design can account for any observation because it is not scientific.

[Dimensio]

The Origin of Life remains a theory.

This is incorrect. There is no explanation regarding the origin of the first life forms that rises to the level of "theory".

ID does as good a job as Panspermia, the notion that life on earth came from outer space. That just outsources the Origin of Life question - a cheap stunt.

So you are admitting that ID is a "cheap stunt"?

I have a problem denouncing a theory when science has no proof whatsoever to the contrary.

This is a good position, however it is not applicable to ID. ID fails to meet the qualifications to be labelled "theory".

[stands2reason]

Evolution does not explain how life began.

No one said it did.

How is ID falsifiable? Please answer.

[fr_freak]

Your problem is not in assuming the abilities of God, but in assuming the motives. As you are not a God, you have no means by which to assume that a God would have a specific motive to create a system wherein evolution would or would not occur.

Actually, that is pretty much my point - that no one of us could know the motives of God, and therefore, since we accept His ability to make things happen at will, we cannot predict that He would do so according to a set of rules that we believe we can discover and understand. Establishing a theory of evolution is exactly that: an attempt by us to determine the rules by which God abides in His creation of species.

[bobdsmith]

Intelligent Design can account for any observation because it is not scientific.

Or it is not scientific because it can account for any possible observation. Like The Matrix theory

[js1138]

How do you get from "of special interest" to required for an understanding of variation and selection?

[fr_freak]

Why would it be an unreasonable assumption that God likes to play by the rules he invented? I see nothing illogical in the consideration that God invented evolution of species and considered it GOOD as-is. Your implication is that God would develop evolution, only to realise it needed fine-tuning, that is, it developed in a way that God didn't foresee.

I don't have a problem thinking that God would have created a process that produce end results He could foresee from the beginning, but my argument here is not against evolution per se, but against the compatibilty of evolutionary theory with belief in God. Evolutionary theory depends on a certain amount of randomness (mutation, environmental change, etc.) which would not exist of God had created a process which had a fixed outcome. If you believe that God created this process to behave in a specific way, and that nothing occurred within that process that he did not pre-determine, then what you are advocating is intelligent design, not evolutionary theory.

[js1138]

No...I actually got it in college and medical school at the hands of PhDs who firmly believed in it.

I will donate a hundred dollars to FR in your name if you can find me a PhD biologist who is on record as expecting a boxwood to evolve into something that is not a boxwood in one person's lifetime. You are making this up.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Evolution is not comprehensive enough to incorporate the Origin of Life. Intelligent Design is."

ID doesn't explain anything. It says an unknown designer did unknown things at an unknown time in an untestable way. ID'ers make claims, none of which they can back up.

"In fact, Intelligent Design is broad enough to include Evolution as the process by which life expanded on earth."

ID attempts to explain everything but falls flat every time.

"Stop getting wasted, and start thinking. "

What a pompous, presumptuous ass you are. And you accuse US of arrogance?

Your links are meaningless; abiogenesis is not a part of the theory of evolution.

[Fielding]

Darwinism is a religion in its current incarnation. It is socially self serving. It provides government funding and career paths for educators. It is important to differentiate between those who teach science, and those who understand it.

[Dog Gone]

God, if playing by your rules, would not be content to let worlds form. He would snap His fingers and a solar system would be born.

Yet, we see them, thanks to our improved technology, in all stages of formation.

If God has been here forever, what's a few billion years to Him?

The same would apply to the evolution of creatures. Does he have any reason to hurry?

[Dimensio]

Perhaps you could actually support your claims, rather than just expanding upon them with more unsubstantiated claims.

[Kenny Bunkport]

Intelligent Design Links

The Vise Strategy: Squeezing the Truth Out of Darwinists

Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference

Peer-Reviewed, Peer-Edited, and other Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design

Whether Intelligent Design is Science

Michael Behe On The Theory of Irreducible Complexity

Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories (Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington)

The Origin of Intelligent Design: A brief history of the scientific theory of intelligent design

The Problem With Darwinian Solutions

In Defense of Intelligent Design

Design Inference

Uncommon Descent (William Dembski’s blog)

”Intelligent Design: The Future” blog

”Evolution News & Views: News Analysis of Media Coverage of the Debate Over Evolution” blog

Recommended Reading

Uncommon Dissent. If you’ve never heard the term "post-Darwinian," welcome to the world of thinkers who reject evolutionary theory and its reliance on the notion of chance (i.e. "random mutation"). In this provocative volume, biologists, mathematicians and physicists as well as theologians and other intellectuals argue, as editor Dembski writes, that "the preponderance of evidence goes against Darwinism." The contributors invoke mathematics and statistics to support their theory that an "intelligent cause is necessary to explain at least some of the diversity of life." In other words, the degree of diversity and complexity in life forms implies the need for an intelligent designer. The nature and identity of this designer is not discussed by all the writers; others call this intelligence God. Supporters of intelligent design differentiate themselves from creationists, but they, too, argue that their theory should be taught in high school biology courses. Anyone interested in these debates and their implications for education will find this collection to be important reading.

Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design. Woodward's account shows that the problem with the template of "religion versus Darwin" is that it simply doesn't fit the ID movement, although many detractors try to insist otherwise. The founder of the movement, Phillip Johnson, was, until his recent retirement, a Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley. While on sabbatical in the late 1980s, he studied the scientific case for and against Darwinism and concluded that the empirical case for Darwinism was surprisingly weak. He then presented his findings at a symposium held through his law school and was further encouraged to pursue his criticism of Darwinism. As Woodward documents, the proponents of ID argue that Darwinism lacks crucial evidence, begs important questions, and often caricatures alternatives unfairly. They make their case against Darwinian evolution by pointing out flaws in the arguments and gaps in the evidence, not by citing religious texts.

There are a growing number of books defending and criticizing ID, but Woodward's book is unique in that it assesses the history of this movement of the past decade from the perspective of the classical discipline of rhetoric. Given the book's rhetorical angle, the reader is treated to both the straight arguments for and against Darwinism, as well as an inside look at the personalities and persuasive strategies used on both sides of the debate. (For example, when noted Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould first met Phillip Johnson, he dispensed with pleasantries and said, "You're a creationist and I've got to stop you.") In Woodward's account, Johnson emerges as the rhetorical mastermind of ID, who, though an outsider to the scientific guild, nevertheless mastered the scientific case against Darwinism and helped develop a consistent strategy for the ID movement. His simple charge is that Darwinism is driven more by a commitment to a materialistic worldview than by the actual evidence of biology. This book details the rise of the intellectual, scientific, and philosophical challenge to Darwinism.

Darwinian Fairytales. Philosopher David Stove concludes in his hilarious and razor-sharp inquiry that Darwin's theory of evolution is a ridiculous slander on human beings. But wait! Stove is no creationist nor a proponent of so-called intelligent design. He is a theological skeptic who admits Darwin's great genius and acknowledges that the theory of natural selection is the most successful biological theory in history. But Stove also thinks that it is also one of the most overblown theories of science and gives a penetrating inventory of what he regards as the unbelievable claims of Darwinism. Darwinian Fairytales is a must-read book for people who want to really understand the issues behind the most hotly debated scientific controversy of our time.

Darwin’s Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement. This book honors Phillip Johnson, the Berkeley law professor whose 1991 publication Darwin on Trial and later books helped intelligent design emerge as a highly visible, and highly controversial, alternative to Darwinism. While it may be premature to hail Johnson as "Darwin's Nemesis," these essays reveal him as an influential strategist and mentor within the ID movement. Contributors to the 2004 symposium that spawned this collection include leading ID advocates Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells and Scott Minnich, as well as Darwin defender Michael Ruse, who has engaged Johnson in debate. Other contributors address cultural and political questions beyond evolution itself, such as Francis Beckwith's timely review of legal controversies over ID in the classroom, J. Budziszewski's discussion of naturalism and the Natural Law tradition and editor William Dembski's commentary on the professional—and often personal—"backlash" against ID advocates. Readers who are familiar with the basics of ID and curious about the movement's development and inner workings will find much of interest, although for an account of the most recent and current controversies over ID, they will need to consult other sources. Forward written by Sen. Rick Santorum.

Privileged Planet. Is Earth merely an insignificant speck in a vast and meaningless universe? On the contrary. The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery shows that this cherished assumption of materialism is dead wrong. Earth is more significant than virtually anyone has realized. Contrary to the scientific orthodoxy, it is not an average planet around an ordinary star in an unremarkable part of the Milky Way.

In this original book, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards present an array of evidence that exposes the hollowness of this modern dogma. They demonstrate that our planet is exquisitely fit not only to support life, but also gives us the best view of the universe, as if Earth-and the universe itself-were designed both for life and for scientific discovery. Readers are taken on a scientific odyssey from a history of tectonic plates, the wonders of water, and solar eclipses, to our location in the Milky Way, the laws that govern the universe, and the beginning of cosmic time.

Review of The Privileged Planet (The Royal Astronomical Society)

What Darwin Didn’t Know. This book has to do with medical facts and how they conflict with the theory of evolution. Darwin may have made a sincere effort to explain the life around him in the nineteenth century, but he knew little, if anything, about the human cell, heredity (why a child resembles his parents), immunity, hormones, blood pressure and scores of feedback loops that tell the body when it's too hot or too cold, hungry or full, sick or well, and tired or refreshed. These examples and many more are discussed. They all speak clearly for Intelligent Design, a discussion that needs to re-enter mainstream American dialogue. "There is a tide of data mounting against the Darwinian concept that randomness can explain the wonder of life. In What Darwin Didn't Know, Geoffrey Simmons converts the tide into a tidal wave of evidence." Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D.

[stands2reason]

It is socially self serving.

How so?

It provides government funding and career paths for educators.

Doesn't make it religion. How many religions get gov't funding and provide career path for educators?