Darwinism Under Attack ( Intelligent Design Theory)

Chronicle of Higher Education ^ | 21December 2001 | BETH MCMURTRIE

[litany_of_lies]

Nice job, medved. If that's as good as the evolutionists can do, they're on shaky ground indeed.

jlogajan, I don't know if I can stand any more of your powerful, substative replies. (/sarcasm)

shrinkermd, nice post.

[sheltonmac]

"Most of the evidence creationists have is proving that evoluton is impossible and the evolutionist keeps adjusting their "religion" to explain away problems exposed by other scientists."

Evolutionists cannot make their case. They advocate teaching scientific "fact" in schools but never point out to students that evolution is a theory. No one can go back in time to confirm their ideas of how life came to be so they are relying on "faith" every bit as much as they accuse creationists of doing. It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetically sad. Any person with half a brain (evolved or not) can see that if evolution has indeed been occuring for billions of years, you couldn't dig a hole for an outhouse without unearthing thousands of fossils, transitionary or otherwise. Until they can tell us why the Missing Link is, well, missing, it's hard to take these debates seriously.

[Cu Roi]

Most of the evidence creationists have is proving that evoluton is impossible and the evolutionist keeps adjusting their "religion" to explain away problems exposed by other scientists.

Yes, the theory of evolution is constantly `evolving', so to speak. That is the nature a theory based on current scientific knowledge (which is imperfect), as opposed to ``revealed truth'' (aka blind faith).

If creationists can get a fair hearing, they always win the argument.

In the future I would reading something other than Charisma News and Jack Chick Comics if you want to get an indicator on the current state of scientific debate.

[oahu]

We know the universe exists...

You begin by pleading experience, so I will appeal to the same court: Is there anything of significant complexity in the universe that you "know exists" that, in your experience, came about by its own power or by the power of something less complex? (E.g., a pocketwatch or an eyeball or a Toyota or a loaf of bread.) By the very experience on which you rely, you must conclude that complexity is not spontaneous.

Asserting God as creator doesn't solve the question of how nothing created something (God.) If God can always exist, then the same logic applies to the much simpler dumb matter that makes up the universe.

You've missed the point entirely. The hypothesized "God" isn't just another natural layer of greater complexity (a turtle on top of a turtle). The point of the "God" hypothesis is that no series of natural causes suffices to explain nature as we perceive it. The point is, after however many layers of natural "creators" you want to assume exist, there will still be the unanswered ultimate question. The God hypothesis simply says because these things cannot be satisfactorily answered by the natural realm alone, we must conclude that there is also a supernatural realm. It's a whole different ballgame. Why do you assume that "nothing" must have preceded "God," when the very point of the supernatural hypothesis is that, in a way that is far beyond our natural experience, there must be an "unmoved mover" at the beginning of the chain of causes?

[Gargantua]

Jesus loves you, and I'll pray for you.

Merry Christmas.

[Colt .45]

"They aren't made up like biblical scripture was made up by goat herders 2000 years ago."

What your fossils fail to explain is why modern man was smart enough to take mastery over the earth. Your evolutionary theory will never work because there isn't a missing link that bridges the gap between ape and man! It will never be found, because it doesn't exist! But you can believe your distant cousins swung in the trees if you want. And they were preceeded in genetical heritage by the single celled amoeba. So they were first plant, then reptile, then mammal! First cold-blooded, then warm blooded.

Mine were created by an omnipresent God in his own image and likeness, He who breathed life into this earth.

[Junior]

Scientists worry that because intelligent-design advocates like to make their case in the popular press, on the campus lecture circuit, or through nonscientific disciplines, their ideas may gain credibility among academics who do not have a strong understanding of evolutionary theory.

"It's a non-starter in the scientific community," says Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, which tracks the creationist movement. "But people in history, or social studies, or philosophy of science, who don't know that the science is bad, could very well be propagating this in the academic community. So there may be a lot of university graduates coming out of school thinking evolution is, quote, a theory in crisis."

About sums it up.

[Axolotl]

Ping! Right on, see my post #32...

[dubyagee]

In the future I would reading something other than Charisma News and Jack Chick Comics if you want to get an indicator on the current state of scientific debate.

There it is. This is why I typically lurk rather than post on these threads. You guys have the "intellectual" upper hand on all of us peons. Only you guys know the "right" books and the "right" letters behind the names. Not once have I been on one of the threads that someone wasn't derided because they didn't have the "right" sources. Only problem there is the only "right" sources to you guys are the ones who support your theory. It looks really bad when the most you people can do is refer to a comic book when faced with a source.

[IpaqMan]

I have been scientifically oriented (degree in Chemistry and science education), but after doing some research on issues in the evolution debate, I shifted to the Intelligent design side.

Issues like the lack of transitional forms (there should be billions of them), and the "evolution" of the bombardier beetle (insect which mixes two toxic chemicals to produce steam to scald its enemies) raise more questions than does Intelligent design.

How could random chance produce a beetle with storage facilities for not one but two toxic chemicals and a mixing chamber that can handle steam heat. Where is the transitional beetle that stores only one of the toxic chemicals (hydrogen peroxide)? And there are so many other examples. In fact, according to Stephen Jay Gould (leading proponent of "evolution"), the lack of transitional forms has led him to promote the "punctuated equilibrium theory" of evolution. This theory states that new species just suddenly appeared with no transitional form. This does not fit into Darwinism.

In terms of the Bible, there is a clear description of the creation of man and woman (non-evolutionary) and their fall from grace. (BTW, I became a Christian during college).

[dubyagee]

their ideas may gain credibility among academics who do not have a strong understanding of evolutionary theory.

If the understanding has to be that "strong" I'd say that's a problem with the theory itself. If academics have to struggle to understand it, it must look like swiss cheese.

And you guys laugh at us because we believe in God.

[valhallasone]

Yes, of course they do. Of course, you are assuming that there is no difference between contingent entities and necessary, self-existent entitites. Check out A.R. Peacocke, Ian Barbour, and John Polkinghorne for discussions of science and religion. Polkinghorne and Barbour are physicists. Peacocke is a biochemist. Each discusses the issues pretty fully. You cannot reduce the existence of God discussion to one line of argument or another, you really have to look at a variety of issues, but I won't go into them here. Those three authors are a good place to start.

[IpaqMan]

Good explanation! You beat me to it.

[dubyagee]

Check out A.R. Peacocke, Ian Barbour, and John Polkinghorne for discussions of science and religion.

If they're not gung-ho for evolution then don't expect any respect from the scientific community. In the evolutionary camp, your degree only "counts" if you believe.....

[Junior]

If the understanding has to be that "strong" I'd say that's a problem with the theory itself. If academics have to struggle to understand it, it must look like swiss cheese.

This is a non sequitur. The theory of quantum mechanics is maybe completely understood by a handful of physicists on this planet, but that doesn't mean it is full of holes; it simply means it is more involved than the average joe understands.

[Psalm 73]

"God hates"

"Medved -- always on message."

Ah, logjam - now I understand your antipathy towards religion.
Medved was just being silly, of course.
We all know that God is Love, and loves even athiestic Libertarians - (not that that alone will get you into heaven...)

[valhallasone]

If they're not gung-ho for evolution then don't expect any respect from the scientific community. In the evolutionary camp, your degree only "counts" if you believe.....

Actually, AR Peacocke, John Polkinghorne, and Ian Barbour all have no reason to believe that neo-Darwinianism is not a suitable mechanism by which evolution may occur. The point of the matter is, whether neo-Darwinianism is correct says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God, nor of God's role as Creator. Going back to the Anglican church in the late 18o0s, many bishops and theologians heralded Darwinism as a friend of the Christian religion that speaks of an immanent God that is creating in the world now, as opposed to a deistic god that set the universe in motion and let it go.

One true myth propounded by anti-religious "scientists" is that the Christian church rejected Darwin's theory of evolution as anti-Christian understanding of the universe. For example, historical evidence is now irrevocably clear that Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog) and Wilberforce (an Anglican bishop), never had the battle royale of reason versus superstition that those who want to be anti-religious have manufactured. In fact, it was the scientific community that was more virulently anti-Darwinian.

Christian theologians and ministers have embraced the idea that evolution may well be part of God's creative process. Perhaps, all of it. If you are a theist, there is no reason not to believe that evolution may be part of God's creative work in the universe. Chance and necessity interplay in the postulated process of evolution. This does not necessarily mean that life and/or evolution is random and meaningless, it still may be purposeful, as any theist would argue that it is. Those who claim that evolution shows that 1) there is no God or 2) means life is random are taking one part of evolution -- chance mutation -- and elevating it to a metaphysical position that it does not deserve. Just because mutation may occur by chance does not mean that the ultimate becoming of evolutionary processes does not have a purpose.

[f.Christian]

Yes. Because it is the cataloging of vast fossil evidence. The layering is always consistent with increased complexity over time. This is well beyond "guessing." The number of fossils are in the billions -- I have several right here on my desk. They aren't made up like biblical scripture was made up by goat herders 2000 years ago.

13 posted on 12/18/01 8:26 AM Pacific by jlogajan

Dr.Fossil Thumper...the "Naked Goat"

A goat like you knows nothing...a goatherder could know a "20 billion year old" universe God could create in a day. And a tree that God created instantly would have rings...hundreds of them. The Bible does predict that Man's fantasy knowledge would increase and his spiritual---common sense would die.

Goats if they don't live on the mountains don't have enough brains to survive. Darwinism is living in the clouds--a few clouds--but the goats like you are well fed--NURSED---fattened in a goat pen---EVOLUTION!

You need to take a walk and exercise your brain...strain it a little!

If the world is limited by your brain---thought processes...well what do we have---talking goats thumping fossils---pathetic!

[valhallasone]

The theory of quantum mechanics is maybe completely understood by a handful of physicists on this planet, but that doesn't mean it is full of holes; it simply means it is more involved than the average joe understands.

Major correction -- quantum mechanics is not completely understood by anyone. First, there is still no reconciliation of quantum mechanics and gravity, which is necessary for Grand Unified Theory. Moreover, even assuming a GUT is found, our understanding of what we know about quantum mechanics as far as we know it is incomplete.

Physicists do not know which explanatory model of the observed data regarding quantum mechanics is true. This is an open question in particle physics of which there are several competing models. Two of the most prominent are the Copenhagen school and Bohm's rather contrived solution regarding what is going on in quantum physics. Fact of the matter is, reality is stranger, more varied and intricate than we often postulate. There are lots of places where our understanding is clearly limited. This does not mean that God is to be found in those gaps.

In Christian tradition, God is to be found in the everything -- the idea of immanence -- the rules and laws of nature are not self-explanatory, meaning that there is no logical reason why they have to be as they are and there is no logical reason why we, from an evolutionary standpoint, should be able to understand them. Thus, you have some pretty big brute facts that must be dealt with without explanation (apparent human rationality, apparent human freewill, the apparent comprehensibility of the cosmos to human rationality and the apparent fine-tuning of the laws of nature to allow beings like us to evolve-- the anthropic principle). These brute facts can only be assumed by science, can't be proven or explained, never will be able to either -- they are epistemic and ontological problems that are not soluble within the scientific method, they must simply be taken for granted. Theism creates a framework wherein these apparent facts are understandable. Remember, if the reductionists are right, there is no such thing as free will and there is concomitantly no basis for believing humans are rational.

[cogitator]

Mr. Behe responds that he prefers other venues. "I just don't think that large scientific meetings are effective forums for presenting these ideas," he says.

Makes sense, because these ideas aren't scientific.