AAAS Board Resolution Urges Opposition to "Intelligent Design" Theory in U.S. Science Classes

AAAS ^ | November 6, 2002 | Ginger Pinholster

[Nebullis]

International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design

Okay. Being up front about what you present can be helpful.

Interestingly, nothing regarding that society is listed on Chiu's online biography. He keeps it quite separate from his science.

[jennyp]

I suspect the AAAS would like to update the Declaration of Independence to better reflect their view of what should be the foundation of American liberty to:

We hold these outlooks to be best, that all men are evolved, that they are endowed by accident with certain conditional allowances to be determined by us.

America is based on the assumption of God's existence. Throw that out we become just as much of a Hell on earth as was the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.

Nonsense. This version would be perfectly acceptable to me:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their intrinsic human nature with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ...

It's not the nature of the creator that's important. It's the fact that we have inalienable rights. If you want to argue over how we came to have those rights, then fine. But the important thing is that we both agree we have these inalienable rights.

[gore3000]

The AAAS Board resolved to oppose claims that intelligent design theory is scientifically based, in response to a number of recent ID-related threats to public science education. -article-

This awful threat of course is teaching students to think instead of indoctrinating them. They want to use the public schools to indoctrinate children in atheism and oppose the religious teaching they get at home and in Church. Their whole agenda is shown in the first sentence "to keep it separate, in the same way that creationism and other religious teachings are currently handled." Of course creationism is just the evolutionist euphemism for religious. Philosophically and scientifically there is no way to disprove the existence of God, however by fiat, by law, by definition, they are trying to ban any explanation which may support a religious view. They are also trying to do what real scientists would not do - destroy discussion, destroy dissent, destroy alternate theories. They can call themselves whatever they like, but they are no scientists, they are atheist ideologues trying to take over the minds of our children.

[gore3000]

While asking policymakers to oppose the teaching of ID theory within science classes, the AAAS also called on its 272 affiliated societies, its members, and the public to promote fact-based, standards-based science education for American schoolchildren.

On that I can agree with. Let's get rid of the fairy tales in science classes such as the following:

He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades. His reason ought to conquer his imagination; though I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to such startling lengths.
From: Origin of the Species, Chapter 6

And let's replace it with real science such as the following:

What is needed to make a light sensitive spot? What happens when a photon of light impinges on the retina?

When a photon first hits the retina, it interacts with a small organic molecule called II-cis-retinal. The shape of retinal is rather bent, but when retinal interacts with the photon, it straightens out, isomerizing into trans-retinal. This is the signal that sets in motion a whole cascade of events resulting in vision. When retinal changes shape, it forces a change in the shape of the protein rhodopsin, which is bound to it. Now part of the transducin complex dissociates and interacts with a protein called phosphodiesterase, When that happens, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability chemically to cut a small organic molecule called cyclic-GMP, turning it into 5'-GMP. There is a lot of cyclic-GMP in the cell, and some of it sticks to another protein called an ion channel. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions into the cell. When the concentration of cyclic-GMP decreases because of the action of the phosphodiesterase, however, the cyclic-GMP bound to the ion channel eventually falls off, causing a change in shape that shuts the channel. As a result, sodium ions can no longer enter the cell, the concentration of sodium in the cell decreases, and the voltage accross the cell membrane changes. That in turn causes a wave of electrical polarization to be sent down the optic nerve to the brain. And when interpreted by the brain, that is vision. So this is what modern science has discovered about how Darwin's 'simple' light sensitive spot functions.
From: Michael Behe, 'Design at the Foundation of Life".

[Dimensio]

They want to use the public schools to indoctrinate children in atheism

Despite the fact that you refuse to accept otherwise, there are theists who accept evolution. That you pretend that they don't exist and claim that they are really atheists to their face is indicative of a state of denial on your part, not theirs.

[AndrewC]

Interestingly, nothing regarding that society is listed on Chiu's online biography. He keeps it quite separate from his science.

Well, I don't consider the society non-science

A little from this

Click image for full discussion

Transcript of chat with Jed Macosko on August 5th, 2002

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:10:00 PM)
Since it is time to get started let me tell you what I've been thinking.

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:10:35 PM)
The two papers I assigned are about mutations in proteins. Is everyone familiar with how that works? Just say "yes" if you do.

micah (ID=4) (Aug 5, 2002 1:11:14 PM)
I'm only familiar with a binary understanding of mutations: either a mutation happened or it didnt'

micah (ID=4) (Aug 5, 2002 1:11:25 PM)
that's what we use in computer science.

Tristan Abbey (ID=5) (Aug 5, 2002 1:11:59 PM)
The protein mutation papers were a bit over my head.

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:12:40 PM)
So, the basic idea is to change a protein's amino acid sequence. Since the sequence is what determines how a protein folds up into a three-dimensional shape, then a change in the sequence means a change in the shape. This in turn means a change in the function of the protein. So the take home message is: Mutation means functional change.

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:12:57 PM)
Does that make sense?

Bart Dunlap (ID=8) (Aug 5, 2002 1:13:01 PM)
Yes.

BaylorU02 (ID=7) (Aug 5, 2002 1:13:03 PM)
yes

Tristan Abbey (ID=5) (Aug 5, 2002 1:13:04 PM)
Perfect.

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:13:07 PM)
Great.

micah (ID=4) (Aug 5, 2002 1:13:07 PM)
great.

BaylorU02 (ID=7) (Aug 5, 2002 1:13:14 PM)
great

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:13:24 PM)
Now, the paper by Doug Axe did something interesting...

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:13:41 PM)
He took mutations that weren't supposed to change the function a lot.

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:14:11 PM)
Then he combined groups of those non-changing mutations and found that when grouped together, they changed a protein a lot.

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:14:33 PM)
The way this goes against current evolutionary thinking is as follows...

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:15:14 PM)
People say that neutral mutations (non-changing) are responsible for big changes down the road..

Tristan Abbey (ID=5) (Aug 5, 2002 1:15:46 PM)
(This user has left DigiChat) (IP = 66.27.72.119)

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:16:15 PM)
And the key to allowing the neutral mutations to affect function down the road is for the changes along the way to NOT to hurt the original function...

Tristan Abbey (ID=9) (Aug 5, 2002 1:16:16 PM)
(This user has entered Workshops) (IP = 66.27.72.119)

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:17:16 PM)
So, when Doug Axe showed that groups of neutral mutations shut down the original function, he effectively refuted the evolutionary claim that neutral mutations can build up and eventually give a new function.

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:17:24 PM)
Does that make sense everyone?

micah (ID=4) (Aug 5, 2002 1:17:41 PM)
yes.

Bart Dunlap (ID=8) (Aug 5, 2002 1:17:47 PM)
Yes, mostly.

micah (ID=4) (Aug 5, 2002 1:17:59 PM)
did he try every type of combination possible...or only select groups?

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:18:17 PM)
Good question, Micah...

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:18:45 PM)
He took the groups that had been previously identified as "neutral"

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:19:49 PM)
Then he grouped those "neutral" mutations into clusters that he chose because of their proximity. In one protein the clusters were made up of 10 mutations, in the other protein, there were 5 in each cluster.

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:20:00 PM)
Any other questions?

micah (ID=4) (Aug 5, 2002 1:20:54 PM)
and these were all mutations which, when happening on their own, don't appear to affect protein function?

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:21:08 PM)
Exactly

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:21:35 PM)
So, the idea is, when evolution goes forward, it can only go so far before the protein is dead

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:21:54 PM)
Bart, what do you think about this?

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:22:40 PM)
Well, if other people have thoughts, I'd love to hear them

Bart Dunlap (ID=8) (Aug 5, 2002 1:22:55 PM)
About the functional changes that are supposed to occur down the road once these neutral mutations built up...how many mutations did they hypothesize would need to occur before that happened?

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:23:07 PM)
Great question Bart!

Bart Dunlap (ID=2) (Aug 5, 2002 1:47:21 PM)
Apparently, DigiChat is also experiencing random mutations that impede functionality.

test (ID=5) (Aug 5, 2002 1:47:22 PM)
(This user has entered Workshops) (IP = 216.155.126.9)

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:47:34 PM)
That's a good one, Bart!

TristanAbbey (ID=0) (Aug 5, 2002 1:47:47 PM)
*shakes head*

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:47:51 PM)
I think you had asked a question about how many mutations it would take to get a new function

test (ID=5) (Aug 5, 2002 1:47:52 PM)
(This user has left DigiChat) (IP = 216.155.126.9)

Bart Dunlap (ID=2) (Aug 5, 2002 1:48:01 PM)
Yes.

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:48:06 PM)
So, to answer Bart's original question...

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:48:30 PM)
The number of mutations should be greater than about 80% of the sequence.

BaylorU02 (ID=6) (Aug 5, 2002 1:48:40 PM)
(This user has entered Workshops) (IP = 24.162.127.203)

micah (ID=3) (Aug 5, 2002 1:48:46 PM)
just so everyone knows, I'll piece together a coherent transcript when this is all done so we can read back through in case we've missed anything.

Bart Dunlap (ID=2) (Aug 5, 2002 1:48:54 PM)
And that's far more than in the Axe experiment?

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:49:14 PM)
The reason for 80% is... wait I'll answer Bart....

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:49:33 PM)
80% is far more than Axe's 15%

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:49:55 PM)
So, you have a protein that has to plunge into the ocean of non-functionality...

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:50:07 PM)
and emerge on the other side as a new protein...

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:50:16 PM)
with no natural selection to help out...

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:50:30 PM)
since there would be no function to select on.

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:50:36 PM)
Does that make sense?

Bart Dunlap (ID=2) (Aug 5, 2002 1:50:49 PM)
yes

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:51:00 PM)
Ok, back to the reason for 80%

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:51:33 PM)
Protein engineers found that if two proteins share 20% of their sequence, the generally have the same architecture...

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:51:49 PM)
That means their 3D shape is roughly the same and they can do the same function.

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:52:21 PM)
The engineers use this to predict the function of a newly discovered protein or a new gene that codes a protein...

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:52:53 PM)
they would look for a gene that shares 20% of sequence with the new gene and then guess that they have similar functions.

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:53:28 PM)
Beyond 20% sequence identity or similarity, the proteins are different and have different functions.

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:53:41 PM)
Does anyone have any questions about this or other things?

micah (ID=3) (Aug 5, 2002 1:54:23 PM)
could you just tell me what "Axe's 15%" is?

micah (ID=3) (Aug 5, 2002 1:54:32 PM)
I think I missed it.

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:54:40 PM)
No problem

Jed Macosko (Aug 5, 2002 1:55:00 PM)
Axe showed that if you mutate more than 15% of the sequence, the protein is dead.

[gore3000]

The design paradigm is both powerful and compelling to the point that leading evolutionists have felt it necessary to assert that the "appearance" of design does not necessarily imply design. Yet it is hard to ignore the incredible design element of many living organisms, even down to the gene level.

The design paradigm is so strong that evolutionists are (AGAIN) redefining evolution to account for the strong evidence of design in biological systems. They are starting to use such design words as 'algorithms', 'biological pathways', and even going so far as to mention 'directed evolution'. Of course this is ludicrous since evolution has always been claimed to be random and undirected. Further, it is totally ludicrous to claim that matter is intelligent.

What they are doing is they are trying to adopt intelligent design on the sly and calling it evolution. They know there is no other way for their theory to survive in the face of the scientific discoveries of the last 150 years.

[Tribune7]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their intrinsic human nature with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ...

Firstly, that's not what the paper says. :-)

Secondly, "created equal?"

More seriously I don't have a high opinion of intrinsic human nature. I believe strongly that man without God will find himself opressing someone whom he finds an advantage over whether temporary or inherent. And justifying it to himself and others on moral grounds.

But the important thing is that we both agree we have these inalienable rights.

We agree. But, there are those who don't and they truely want you to be their slave. And you have to be able to answer them when they come up with justifications to prevent you from expressing an opinion or having a gun in the house.

"Intrinsic human nature" will not work because it is not true. They will answer that "intrinsic human nature" is unreliable hence humans must be controlled forgetting all the while they are not a bit better than you.

[gore3000]

Evolution is defined as change in allele frequency over time. That's quantified and measurable.

That's the TalkOrigins dishonest definition of evolution. The real definition of evolution is that species descend from less complex species. That all organisms eventually have a bacteria or some other single celled organism as their ancestor. Now if you want to say that all that evolution means is that the children share the genes of one of the parents, which is all that your sentence above means, then that is fine, but that is not what we are talking about here, that is not what the article is speaking about and that is not what Darwin was talking about when he said:

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse;. a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows evolution."
From: Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

[Nebullis]

This view is relatively modern. It occurs as a popular view after the Rennaissance

We would have ended up with a considerably different kind of science if this modern view had not prevailed since the Rennaissance. It's inconceivable to turn back the clock and watch what would have happened if our current methodologies and theories had not evolved into science as we know it. A nice thought experiment for those so inclined.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I do not care to waste my time hunting down the article.

You brought up an article that you haven't read? Haven't read the abstract? Don't care to look up?

[Dimensio]

That's the TalkOrigins dishonest definition of evolution.

As I have pointed out various sources where that definition is given that do not reference Talk Origins, your statement can be construed as nothing more than an outright lie.

[AndrewC]

You brought up an article that you haven't read? Haven't read the abstract? Don't care to look up?

Are you interested in it?

[Doctor Stochastic]

And from the point of ID, the cladistic relationships between species are just randomly generated junk.

[gore3000]

There is more fascinating stuff (it was a long evening), but I have to admit that I was certainly swayed by the evidence. I would stress that this is not just making claims about design, but actually using an ID approach to making research discoveries.

Quite true, ID does help in making scientific discoveries. For a long time we were unable to even guess what was the source of cancer. We were misled by the stupid evolutionist inspired theory of 'one gene, one protein, one function'. This theory came to a screeching halt when we definitely proved that a single gene can make dozens of proteins which serve a multitude of functions. With this came the discovery that the genes are nothing more than factories which take orders from the complex DNA which makes 95% of our genome. From this we found that cancer is most often caused by some DNA becoming corrupt and ordering some gene to produce too much protein which in turn indicates to the cell that it needs to reproduce itself when it should not. This both shows the interrelatedness of different parts of an organism and the very close parameters within which it works - a single bad piece of DNA - one in 3 billion, in one single cell - one in 100 trillion, can kill the organism.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Quoting Bierce, I see.

[gore3000]

Where's an algorithm I can apply to a sequence of numbers, say, and determine whether it was designed or not?

Where's an algorithm I can apply to a sequence of numbers, say, and determine whether it evolved or not?

You demand of opponents what you yourself cannot provide.

[Nebullis]

I take it that you see Intelligent Design as a comprehensive replacement theory for evolution --- rather than a targeted, rebuttal explanation for the anomalous observation of design in nature.

I didn't mean to give that impression. The search for rules of design in nature is not new to science. But it is a mistake to confuse the research of patterns, designs, common motives, etc. with the design terms used by the ID movement. As politicians, the IDers have coopted terms and smudged the boundaries of various issues. Intelligent Design offers no more an explanation for design rules in biology (think of power laws, for instance) than it offers for any other law of nature. It has no predictive or explanatory power.

[gore3000]

First, children must learn their ABCs. Then they can think for themselves.

And when would that be????

Biology is not taught till High School. If they have not learned to read by then they should not be in school. In addition, who says that children do not know how to think? Children, and that includes babies are much smarter than adults. They have to learn to speak to walk, and yes even to see and hear. This takes a lot of mental effort. They know how to think from the day they are born and it is very ridiculous of you to say they cannot. In addition to which, thinking, like any other faculty grows sharper and stronger the more it is exercised. To say that children should not be taught to think AT ANY TIME shows quite well that what you wish for is not for a free intelligent populace, but mind-numbed robots who accept anything they are told without question.

[Doctor Stochastic]

And who may be this AAAS?

Sorta shows what too little education does to people.