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.

[Dimensio]

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.

Bear in mind that events termed "random" are often labelled as such because it is impossible to know all variables that produce the ultimate output. Such variables may well be known to a diety, thus it is possible for a deity to set up a series of processes whose outcomes seem "random" but actually are predetermined to arrive at a specific goal.

[Coyoteman]

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.

From my list of definitions (see post #79, above, for the full list):

Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.

Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.

[ahayes]

It is socially self serving. It provides government funding and career paths for educators.

That's rather lame. Religious organizations are socially self-serving by promoting the ideas of a few and providing funding and career paths for these men.

[Old_Mil]

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.

I never said anyone said this is possible. Which is why evolutionist wave the magic wand labeled "time" and solve the problem without regard to the science.

[ml1954]

Do any of those links or books describe a falsifiable test or prediction that ID makes?

[Deadshot Drifter]

Anyway, the I.D. movement doesn't want to suppress evolution. It merely wants it presented as a theory, alongside the I.D. theory.

This is the third or fourth article I've read in recent weeks where pro-Iders describe the push for ID as a movement.
That kind of language is associated with religion (or cults) and political ideology. We've all heard of the communism movement, conservative movement Vs. the "progressive" movement, the charismatic movement, the scientology movement sweeping Hollywood...

Interesting that IDers see themselves as part of a movement.In the back of their minds, even they realize that this ID crappola doesn't even begin to meet the criteria for being a theory.

[js1138]

So if paint doesn't dry in thirty seconds it isn't going to dry, and any reference to time in invoking magic?

Darwin used observed rates of variation in domestic plants and animals to calculate the minimum age of the earth. His estimate was not surpassed in accuracy for many decades. That is the power of an explanatory model. The need for time is not going to argue in your favor.

[balrog666]

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!

[Lucky Dog]

Why don't you just point out an instance where CG's logic is faulty? You know, provide some evidence for your claim?

Evolution is premised upon the basic propositions of mutation of organisms and environmental natural selection of those mutated organisms for enhanced survival and/or propagation.

Mutations can only be one of three possibilities in terms of natural selection: beneficial, detrimental, or benign.

There is a possibility that a benign mutation could become beneficial at a later time. However, it is an equal probability that it could become detrimental, as well. Consequently, a benign mutation must also ultimately be classed as either beneficial or detrimental.

The premise of natural selection must also be classed as a non-static, probabilistic mechanism, e.g., ice ages come and go, earthquakes disrupt local micro-environments, volcanoes erupt, etc. Consequently, there is a finite probability that a potentially beneficial mutation in one set of environmental natural selection conditions might occur when environmental natural selection pressures dictate that it is detrimental, or a best, benign. Since the geological record indicates the occurrence of environmental disruptions on frequent basis (in relative terms), the probabilities of a change in natural selection pressures must be rated as high. As a result the probability of a favorable mutation remaining favorable becomes even smaller.

The rate of mutation in organisms is "one mutation per locus per 10^5 to 10^6 gametes"(Campbell, 1990, p. 445). This rate must be multiplied by the probability that the mutation is beneficial (vice detrimental or benign) in terms of the natural selection environment at the time of its occurrence. This number, in turn, must be multiplied by the probability that the natural selection environment remains favorable for a long enough period of time for the “favorable” mutation to become established in a large enough population segment to ensure its adequate propagation to enough succeeding generations. Additionally, that probability must be multiplied by the probability that natural selection environment remained favorable even after a species-wide mutation is established.

Of course, the above probabilities are for a single favorable mutation to occur and become species-wide. One must now address the probability that a favorably mutated species undergoes a second favorable mutation and that the second mutation becomes species-wide and so forth until enough favorable mutations have accumulated to result in a completely new species.

Even, given the number of genes and number of alleles per gene in a typical organism, the number of zeroes after the decimal required for probabilities to combine to produce a new species is a number staggeringly small (astronomically small is not an adequate description). Even using the argument of “geological time,” i.e., millions of years for an event to occur, does not drive the probability to a point where more than a few (at best) new species could appear even under the most generous of assumptions.

In summary, evolution driven solely by mutation and natural selection appears to be an extremely implausible (mathematically speaking) explanation of the number different species observable. If mutation and natural selection are insufficient to explain the probability of observing the current number of known species, then the theory of evolution must be judged as an inadequate explanation.

[Old_Mil]

So if paint doesn't dry in thirty seconds it isn't going to dry, and any reference to time in invoking magic?

The obvious flaw in your argument is that if we wait an observable period of time, we know empirically that paint dries. While minor adaptations to environmental change have been observed - and are essentially useless pieces of data in terms of calculating planetary age - trans-phylum evolution has never been observed.

Once again for emphasis: the sort of evolutionary change required to explain a common origin for all life has never been observed - not in vitro, not in the fossil record, nowhere.

[Junior]

D'oh!

[js1138]

The point is they often are and by evolutionists. Why?

For the same reason that biology blends into chemistry and chemistry blends into astronomy and cosmology, and why elements of all of these figure into geology and why many of them are important in anthropology.

Science is a seamless discipline. No one person can master all of science, so there is specialization. But everyone in science expects that all observable phenomena can ultimately be attributed to a small set of universal laws and uniform principles.

So anyone in the science of biology expects the definition of life to be pushed back in time and in simplicity, until it becomes impossible to define a precise transition between living and nonliving.

That is a expectation and a conjecture. It is not different in principle from the expectations of any other science. All observable phenomena will eventually be natural phenomena.

This does not change the fact that the study of evolution is a sepatrate discipline from the study of biogenesis. Just as planetary astronomy is a differnt discipline from that of cosmology.

[js1138]

I give you credit for attempting a reasonable line of argument, but no credit for responding to the correct post or poster. I am not the source of your quote, and I am not the best person to respond.

I have seen you line of argument many times, an I believe it to be faulty. Everyone carries several point mutations. They are seldom fatal or severely detrimental, and they do not need to be specifically selected in order to become widespread in a population.

[bobdsmith]

It is observed in the fossil record. It is strongly indicated by genetic features. It is strongly indicated by distribution of species - ie island species being similar to nearby mainland species.

Common descent is not compatible with any possible set of observations. It is only compatible with a very small subset of possible observations. It just so happens that the set of observations that is our reality happen to be compatible with common descent. Coincidence huh?

[js1138]

Nor would ibe expected. What's your point?

[js1138]

Nor would ibe expected. What's your point?

[Gumlegs]

It just so happens that the set of observations that is our reality happen to be compatible with common descent. Coincidence huh?

Or ... CONSPIRACY???

[bobdsmith]

Of course, the above probabilities are for a single favorable mutation to occur and become species-wide. One must now address the probability that a favorably mutated species undergoes a second favorable mutation and that the second mutation becomes species-wide and so forth until enough favorable mutations have accumulated to result in a completely new species.

Differnet mutations can be fixing throughout the population simultaneously. There is no genetic constraint that one must fix throughout the entire population before the next one can begin doing so.

Even, given the number of genes and number of alleles per gene in a typical organism, the number of zeroes after the decimal required for probabilities to combine to produce a new species is a number staggeringly small (astronomically small is not an adequate description)

Factor in what I mentioned above and redo your calculation. And I recommend you show the values you use and the workings if you want anyone to accept your conclusion. Otherwise it looks like you have just plucked the conclusion of "staggeringly small" out of thin air to support what you already believed.

[js1138]

the sort of evolutionary change required to explain a common origin for all life has never been observed - not in vitro, not in the fossil record, nowhere.

Before I let you get away with this, let me ask you to back it up. What specific process or mechanism required for evolution has not been observed? Exactly where in the fossil record is a miracle required? Where else in the presumed tree of life is a miracle required? Which branch or fork requires a miracle. Be specific.

[Lucky Dog]

I give you credit for attempting a reasonable line of argument, but no credit for responding to the correct post or poster

Sorry, nontheless, thanks for the compliment especially in relation to some of the insults and name calling that has permeated this thread in other posts. It is refreshing to debate issues with decorum rather than bile.

Everyone carries several point mutations.

I noted the possibilities as "beneficial, detrimental or benign." It appears your observation falls into the "benign" cagtegory. Ultimately, in terms of natural selection pressure, these mutations must become either beneficial or detrimental. Without such a "driver" there is no evolutionary reason for the mutations not to be discarded or replaced.

I have seen you line of argument many times, an I believe it to be faulty.

I am willing to be convinced with enough evidence. Have you enough?