Posted on 04/15/2006 11:44:16 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
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.
I understand it doesnt count against you if you pretend to believe your lie is true.
Every new gene has a relative fitness (see my prior post for the distribution). Relative fitness for an individual is the product of the fitnesses of its genes. Prospective parents for individuals in the next generation are selected in proportion to relative fitness.
Did you allow for any change in the natrual selection pressure?
No. It is unclear what model to use.
What factor did you use for the negative impact of a combination of a detrimental mutation with a beneficial mutation in a previous mutation?
I don't understand that question.
I knew that global warming was a crock after reading many, many books on natural history and geology and learning that the earth's polar icecaps have melted and frozen lots of times in the past.
I knew that natural selection with regard to humans proceeding from earlier homanid forms (what you call Darwinism) was logical and reasonable after reading many, many books on paleontology and fossil science.
Your comment is a classic case of projection.
You are unlikely to find any such number. Populations are observed to be separate species because they don't interbreed. The cause of not interbreeding could be something as trivial as one group thinking the other smells bad (or different) or doesn't have just the right shade of mauve in its tail feathers.
Your pride and arrogance are breathtaking.
1. Intelligent design is based on the creation account in the biblical book of Genesis.
2. Scientists have created new varieties or species of organisms in laboratory settings.
3. Scientists know factually and can demonstrate scientifically that all new species arise by natural selection.
4. All the fossil evidence of the evolution of homo sapiens can be fitted into a footlocker.
5. Some hominid fossils consist of a single tooth or other bone fragment that is used to describe the gross physical structure of an entire genus or species.
6. Scientists have proven that homo hibilis and homo erectus are ancestral or intermediate species in a lineage of primates leading directly to homo sapiens (that is, scientists can show that these are not separate and distinct species that died out without leaving descendents).
7. The theory that intelligence inheres in, or is an emergent property of, matter of sufficiently complex order or design is not a scientifically respectable theory.
8. Scientists have, through carefully designed and controlled laboratory experiments, shown that it is possible to create conditions under which simple amino acids (complex molecules associated with life) can form.
9. Scientists have shown that it is possible to generate meaningful prose from random letters by using carefully designed computer software that preserves only those letters in each iteration of the program cycle that satisfy predetermined criteria of syntax and sentence structure.
10. Evolution is a practical, well-grounded and factual theory whose proponents are very careful to keep from the errors of conjecture and speculation.
The answers to 1 through 9 are: False, True, False, True, True, False, False, True, True.
Careful readers will discern conclusions and insights that are much deeper and broader than the surface appearances.
The answer to question 10 I will leave open for debate.
You folks are great (I'm sure there are others I've left off). THANKS SO MUCH for being here at FR. Wonderful discussion, a real winner with eloquent folks like you contributing. Bless you and thanks for the education!
Not the word I would have used.
But then again, maybe that's for the best.
I have seen here that they are now trying to pretend communists weren't atheist evolutionists. And they also, as in this comment, try to make it seem the communists were against Darwinism as well -- just like a lot of people here.
These threads have lost any sense of actual reality.
- The IDer may or may not be a God of some kind (maybe there are multiple IDer Gods).
- If the IDer is not a god or gods it/they may be space aliens or time traveling humans.
- The IDer(s) may or may not be dead, according to Behe, one of the founders and promoters of modern ID 'thought'.
- ID cannot be considered science unless the definition of science is changed, also according to Behe.
- ID addresses the origins of life: that is, the IDer(s) didit.
- ID addresses the origin of species: that is, the IDer(s) didit.
- ID explains everything it claims the Theory Of Evolution cannot explain today. Next year, when the TOE has explained more, ID will explain less. Get it?
- ID explains everything science cannot today. Next year when science can explain more, ID will explain less. Get it?
- ID cannot be tested.
- ID makes no falsifiable assertions about anything.
- ID makes no predictions about future discoveries. It cannot predict anything.
- ID is useless other than as philosophy. And it really doesn't do much philosophizing either. The IDer didit doesn't open things up for a lot of discussion.
1. Intelligent design is based on the creation account in the biblical book of Genesis.
There is strong evidence on these threads that when intelligent design is criticized, the critic is called an atheist or God-hater. There is also evidence that the only textbook catering to intelligent design was originally written to support creationism.
2. Scientists have created new varieties or species of organisms in laboratory settings.
There are many things scientists have not created in laboratory settings --stars, for example. Anyone who breeds animals or plants has demonstrated the power of variation and selection. Varieties? Absolutely. All the time.
3. Scientists know factually and can demonstrate scientifically that all new species arise by natural selection.
This is the only hypothesis on the table that can be tested.
4. All the fossil evidence of the evolution of homo sapiens can be fitted into a footlocker.
Don't know and don't care. All the physical evidence at many murder trials could fit in a thimble.
5. Some hominid fossils consist of a single tooth or other bone fragment that is used to describe the gross physical structure of an entire genus or species.
Are you suggesting this can't be done?
7. The theory that intelligence inheres in, or is an emergent property of, matter of sufficiently complex order or design is not a scientifically respectable theory.
How does this affect the conduct or methodology of science?
9. Scientists have shown that it is possible to generate meaningful prose from random letters by using carefully designed computer software that preserves only those letters in each iteration of the program cycle that satisfy predetermined criteria of syntax and sentence structure.
Computer programs using genetic algorithms are currently in use, regulating the power grid in North America. The best usage of generators all over the continent is found in real time using random trials and selection.
tallhappy doesn't do fact. That's what makes him a troll.
I am not a creationst.
That communists were against evolution is a revisionist lie of a huge scale.
I cannot believe you are stooping to this. Amazing you think you can get away with it.
Thanks for being a wonderfull example of liberal insanity in action. A live one.
The Soviets outlawed the teaching of random variation an selection as the primary process of evolution. They substituted a twisted version of Lamarkianism. They believed that environmental stress could induce heritable and adaptive changes in the germ line.
I'm trying to put my finger on what modern theory this sounds like, but I can't quite name it. Perhaps you can help.
Landmarks is quoted:
At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist.
G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin's, relates:
"I began to speak of God, Joseph heard me out, and after a moment's silence, said:
"'You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .'
"I was astonished at these words, I had never heard anything like it before.
"'How can you say such things, Soso?' I exclaimed.
"'I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,' Joseph said.
"'What book is that?' I enquired.
"'Darwin. You must read it,' Joseph impressed on me" 1
I haven't read the book, but it is real. If the above is accurate would you all agree that Darwin had a foundational impact on Stalin?
"On many website including WorldNetDaily is the claim that Stalin became an atheist after reading Darwin as described in "Landmarks in the Life of Stalin" by E. Yaroslavsky published in Moscow in 1940-- the height of Stalin's rule for those who don't know history, so obviously with his endorsement."
And yet... there is no connection between anything Darwin wrote and communist ideology or practice. Another WND junk article.
"I haven't read the book, but it is real. If the above is accurate would you all agree that Darwin had a foundational impact on Stalin?"
Big if.
Lunatics say all kind of things. How about looking into the history of Baden Powell, founder of the Boy Scouts?
If I were trying to determine the influence of an idea, I would look to the influence on sane people, not the mentally ill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.