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.

[Doctor Stochastic]

You didn't read 672 closely.

And you failed to understand any of my comments.

[balrog666]

I called "troll" back in 620. NO reason to change.

Very perspicacious.

Allow me to quote from junior on the situation: Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period.

[Tribune7]

bump

[js1138]

I would define troll as someone who comes here with a list of questions that are not intended to be answered.

You ask some questions that have been difficult to answer, but which are now part of the history of biology. You ask them as if any failure on our part is grounds to justify not believing an answer is available.

You could be informing yourself in private. There are plenty of resourses, both online and offline. But you choose to ask them in a tone that telegraphs your disinclination to accept the answers.

You could, if you were genuinely interested in the answers, ask for references. If you have, as you claim, read outside material and still don't understand the material, you could enroll in some classes on the subject.

Frankly, your followup questions don't convince me that you have made much effort to understand.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping, Tribune7! And thank you for the summary, Lucky Dog!

[Lucky Dog]

Natural selection ("survival of the fittest") is one method of evolution (the change in frequency of alleles in a population). Genetic drift is another. Both genetic drift and natural selection act upon a population simultaneously. They may act upon different alleles, but there is no time when you can look at a species and say, "Now there is no natural selection, just genetic drift" or vice versa. The question is really which predominates in driving change.

Does it not seem a bit inconsistent that a theory would have multiple methods of explanation/prediction that are seemingly employed subjectively? One method is driven by “survival of the fittest” and another that is the result of “arbitrary” selection methods (dependent upon immeasurable and unpredictable issues such sexual preference), and yet another dependent upon purely random factors (such as genetic drift, etc.). When one explanation is insufficient to explain an observation, another is called upon, or if it is, likewise, insufficient, then another or, perhaps a combination. A change is subjectively judged to be the result of an arbitrary selection method or random variation if it is seemingly unimportant at the time, but, if at a later time, it seems to enhance survival, then its status is changed to critical for “survival of the fittest,” regardless of its previous status. Alternately, if a series of changes were to lead to a new species where there were no obvious “fitness” requirement criteria, then it’s back to the “genetic drift” or arbitrary selection explanation.

When you start talking about the evolution of a new phyla that's a different ball game. The genetic differences there are large enough that natural selection predominates.

Logically, why would crossing one boundary (phyla) require anything different that crossing another boundary (species)?

Your comparison to tornadoes is rather bizarre.

Quite the contrary... The appearance of a tornado can be analogous to the appearance of a new species. Without the presence of a thunderstorm (a driving requirement for “survival of the fittest”) there can be no tornado (new species). If a tornado (new species) appeared without a thunderstorm (requirement for “survival of the fittest”), then the theory is falsified.

[Tribune7]

And you failed to understand any of my comments.

Well, let's see:

What LD said in Post 672 was that 3. Evolution as a theory lacks comprehensiveness in that it fails to explain why the phenomena that first created life fails to continue to operate. Of course, this criticism is subject to the objection that initial conditions are impossible to recreate, most especially in the allowing the posited amount of time to pass for a successful observation. Nonetheless, this incompleteness subjects the theory of evolution to the objection that the originating phenomena (perhaps a deity or “intelligent designer”) may be continuing to operate and change living organisms outside of the postulated mechanism of evolution.

What you said in Post 673 was that The comments in #3 are wrong. Evolutionary theory makes no claim that "new" life has or has not occured. Genetic evidence does show strong relationships among all present day life. Fossil structures show strong evidences of relationships of past life (though not as strong as the genetic evidence, IMO.) There simply is no record of other "Trees Of Life." Current evolutionary theory (using data from geology) deduces that conditions are different now than in the pre-Cambrian.

So:

Genetic evidence does show strong relationships among all present day life. . .There is no record of other "Trees of Life" . . .and conditions were different.

So the TOE explains that the phenomena that first created life failed to continue to operate because "conditions are different?" You think that's "comprehensive"? Can you recognize that a change in conditions does not mean that the originating phenomena has ceased operation?

[js1138]

Does it not seem a bit inconsistent that a theory would have multiple methods of explanation/prediction that are seemingly employed subjectively?

There is only one "explanation" for evolution: variation in the germ line plus differential reproductive success. There are many ways of dying.

[Lucky Dog]

I would define troll as someone who comes here with a list of questions that are not intended to be answered.

Could it be that you interpret challenges to certain answers as not intending them to be answered rather than, perhaps, insufficiency or inadequacy of the answer? Could it be that there is even, a genuine misunderstanding of the answer? Alternately, could it be that there was, perhaps, the fact that the answer addressed a question different from that originally asked?

You ask some questions that have been difficult to answer, but which are now part of the history of biology. You ask them as if any failure on our part is grounds to justify not believing an answer is available.

(Please do not take my next statements to imply any similarity between biology any astrology, but the analogy is apt with respect to questions.) There are answers to questions that are now part of the history of astrology. However, could one possibly judge failure to answer such questions on astrology as justification for failing to believe that an answer was available?

You could be informing yourself in private. There are plenty of resourses, both online and offline. But you choose to ask them in a tone that telegraphs your disinclination to accept the answers.

Sorry if you interpret my questions as having a “tone.” I intend no “tone” other than the challenge of a healthy debate.

You could, if you were genuinely interested in the answers, ask for references. If you have, as you claim, read outside material and still don't understand the material, you could enroll in some classes on the subject.

Recall that many posts ago I did ask for references concerning my original inquiry: the existence of a statistical correlation among mutation rate, natural selection pressure and the emergence of new species. Only one poster (Virginia-American) provided such. I reviewed these references and found them informative but not exactly what I had asked for.

Frankly, your followup questions don't convince me that you have made much effort to understand.

Failure to agree does not imply failure to understand nor does failure to cease challenging.

[ahayes]

I'm beginning to agree with Patrick Henry.

Genetic drift is not only actively observed in populations, but through rational thought and a bit of math you can see it is predicted to occur. I'm afraid most creationists don't even know what genetic drift is, but if they do they would agree it is real.

Natural selection is also actively observed in populations and predicted to occur. Creationists likewise (sometimes only if pinned in a corner) will agree that it is real.

So what's your beef?

Logically, why would crossing one boundary (phyla) require anything different that crossing another boundary (species)?

Golly, why don't you go off for a few months and read some books?

Unless the population size is quite small genetic drift is sloooow. It dithers about here and there and takes forever to get anything done. Then when mutations occur the new alleles/genes/chromosome arrangements/etc. occur among a small number of the population. If natural selection is not present to give these novelties a boost genetic drift has the tendency to just wipe them out. In general genetic drift is the enemy of innovation.

Most major evolutionary innovations have taken place following mass extinctions. These events leave many niches wide open. Examples are the Permian-Triassic extinction, which allowed the evolution of dinosaurs; the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction, which allowed mammals to replace the dinosaurs; and the late Devonian extinction, which was followed by the development of all modern types of plants. Some people think that the Cambrian explosion followed a Vendian-Cambrian mass extinction. The rapidity of these developments indicates natural selection was the driving force. If we waited for genetic drift to modify dinosaurs into birds we'd be waiting forever.

Remember that it is impossible to consider evolution as solely based upon natural selection or solely based upon genetic drift. Leaving out either gives a picture that is inaccurate.

And no, your thunderstorm analogy has no resemblance to reality. Mine is a much more accurate analogy.

[Thatcherite]

I trust that this has restatement has removed the cause of your offense.

Not really, no. I have never contended that "fitter individuals don't more frequently survive and pass their genes to the next generation" and continuing to cite my words in support of this absurd contention is misrepresentation, pure and simple. Even genetic drift is controlled by natural selection, because of the immediate and final manner in which natural selection culls individuals harboring significantly deletrious alleles.

[js1138]

Could it be that you interpret challenges to certain answers as not intending them to be answered rather than, perhaps, insufficiency or inadequacy of the answer?

No, I don't. the people posting here do so as a hobby. The adequacy of our answers at any given moment changes nothing about the nature of the question or the nature of the best possible response. I find it very unlikely that you have followed all the available links. For one thing, if you had, you would be bring back followup questions based on the thousands of articles on the Internet, many of which are written by well known researchers. I don't see your followup questions as being informed by your reading. You still don't understand the underlying principal of selection, and without that understanding, fancy math is superfluous.

[ahayes]

Here is an article that discusses how scientists actually determine which variations are due to genetic drift and which are due to natural selection.

[js1138]

Note that there are many free links to the references for this article.

[Lucky Dog]

ahayes, Thank you for patience and willingness to address my points. Sincerely, I do appreciate your polite responses as well as that others that have been similarly patient and polite on this thread.

Please let me review the origin of the posts: I entered the forum with the simple question of whether or not a statistical correlation exists among mutation rates, natural selection pressure and the emergence of new species. The existence of strong to moderate correlation would considerably buttress the argument for evolution. The lack of even a weak correlation makes the supporting the theory somewhat problematic. Various posters (except two) went to great lengths to make arguments why such an examination was not possible, or if it was, not desirable. In so doing a number of posters offered rote, text book answers, some erudite expansion on such, and some few, purely dogmatic replies and even fewer, personal attacks.

In post 672, I made an honest effort to put the debate back to very briefly stated, basic premises so that my challenges could be addressed at the most basic level with logic and unambiguousness.

Perhaps, I missed it, but I still am under the impression that such has not been adequately addressed. And it seems that it will not be so.

Consequently, it seems best, rather than creating more acrimony among posters by continuing my queries to accept that such will not happen and withdraw.

[js1138]

I still don't see any evidence that you have followed what you have been given, such as the links in 713.

[ml1954]

Evolution as a theory appears to lack adequate predictive ability.

By what criteria of 'appearance' and 'adequacy'?

[longshadow]

"Festival of the Disruptor Troll" placemarker

[Doctor Stochastic]

Your comments have been adequately addressed. Whether or not you like an answer has no bearing on the adequacy of answer. VI

[PatrickHenry]

Sorry if you interpret my questions as having a “tone.” I intend no “tone” other than the challenge of a healthy debate.

There is the key to the problem. You came here to challenge. If I entered a freshman course in physics and began to "challenge" the contents of my text book, I think all would agree that I was being, well ... impudent. Even insubordinate. The function of a student, especially in the introductory courses, is to learn, not to challenge. It's only later, when the material has been mastered, that one is prepared to tackle the soft spots in a subject, and to do research -- perhaps with results that will indeed challenge previously held notions. But this is hardly the function of one at the moment he enters into the subject, having virtually no knowledge about it.

I'm not criticizing you because you are being disrespectful of anyone here. You haven't been, and even if you had been, we're just names on a message board. I'm talking about your attitude regarding the topic itself. It drips from your posts. You came here with the notion that evolution is a bogus construct, a house of cards, and that you -- with your oh-so-penetrating questions (which surely have never been thought of before) would somehow be able to topple a scientific edifice that has been 150 years in the building. Nice fantasy.

You might try reading this; it was written for people just like you: How to argue against a scientific theory.