Darwinism Under Attack ( Intelligent Design Theory)

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

[Woahhs]

Do I have to keep the junker in my front yard till I get a new car?

[ThinkPlease]

A few more years go by and I hear about "Darwin's black box" by Behe. He says that not only is biogenesis a real loser for evolutionary theory, but he introduces a concept he calls "irreducable complexity" and procedes, step by step, to explain exactly what he means. And it makes alot of sense.

Finally, I hear of this guy Dembski. He uses the same math used in the building of computers, the actual guts part (if I understand correctly), to evaluate the kind of actual information resident in biological structures. I don't remember all the details, but I do remember when I read his papers, he explained step by step, exactly what he was talking about. And it made alot of sense.

So what really convinces me the ID theorists are right and Evolutionists are wrong, is the ID guys don't seem to have any problem explaining exactly what they mean. And the Evolutionists always act like it's my fault when they don't want to lay out their refutations, step by step, like the ID guys. The only reason I can think of that explains why none of them ever do this is because they can't.

Cool. I'm good you have found a place where you are happy with your philisophical choices. It takes cajones to post exactly what you think here, come to think of it, you are the first IDer to do so.

So let me tell you why I think the way I think, and you can go where you want to go with it.

I don't think that ID is a serious scientific field yet. There are a number of reasons behind it, and they all have to do with the way I have been taught as a scientist to filter out data to formulate scientific opinions on ideas that I read.

In 1993, as an junior in Astrophysics, I discovered a thin little book in our Astronomy library titled "Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies" by an author named Dr. Halton Arp. I discovered rather quickly that the book was a book on an alternative theory on quasar origins. I spent some time talking with professors, and some more time wading through papers by both Arp and Burbidge, as well as other authors that hold the prevailing view, that quasars are cosmological. Arp had a compelling argument that projection effects disprove the concept of cosmological redshifts, and that quasars were simply objects propelled out of normal and Seyfert galaxies in a symmetric manner. For someone who didn't have a highly detailed scientific background, that was an interesting argument. Then I read arguments by other scientists who did very detailed studies of quasar distribution over the sky as well as redshift distribution around clusters of normal galaxies. Through some pretty complex statistics that I didn't quite understand at the time (I do now), they showed that statistically there is no real clustering of quasars, that they are essentially isotropic and homogeneous in the universe, and that they don't tend to cluster at all, which is theoretically impossible using the Arp theory.

So here we have a theory that looks to be true in concept, but when you dig deeper and perform more tests on it, it doesn't seem to quite pan out right. The predictive model doesn't give the answers you see in the universe. Arp's idea is unique in that it actually saw print in a journal. There are a bunch more ideas that have seen print in non-referreed books by others that have never seen print, they never made it through the peer review process. There are a large subgroup of people that used to post to usenet that lived for posting their theories. Alexander Abian, Charles Cagle, Robert McElwaine, Archie Plutonium, Ted Holden, and quite a few others posted arguments that never made it through the process, so some of them published books, some made elaborate websites, some write letters to universities, and some just still post there today. But all of them have never published their newer ideas in a prominent peer-reviewed scientific journal. Most of them complained of grand conspiracies of scientists preventing them from publishing. I've seen some pretty wacked ideas out there in today's journals, I don't buy that argument one bit.

So lets dance onto ID. Here we have a theory that has a very appealing concept to some, that life was designed by some. It's a good idea in practice, but how does it work when presented in a scientific setting, when poked and prodded in different angles?

Scientifically, we don't know. Certainly, people have performed some tests, with results that are quite ambivelant, depending on your views. But there hasn't been a comprehensive look at ID in a setting conducive to intense scientific debate. I submit to you that ID still has to get past that basic concept stage yet.

Intense scientific debate only really happens in a few places. Scientific meetings and peer reviewed papers are the two most prevalent settings. In a scientific setting, terms have an exact definition. One has to define terms exactly...it saves time from virtually needless debate. Then you have the advantage of many minds working on a project, and people can help develop ideas. More minds working on a concept develops the concept faster, and opens it up to criticism. It's the way science gets done.

So why publish a book first? Most scientists have published in journals first, then written books later. Why the cart before the horse? Why not publish? It makes him look dreadfully crackpottish. If he has a valid idea, it should be tested.

So, through my experience in Astrophysics, good valid theories are ones that survive the scientific method. The best way to do this is to publish your ideas in a journal, or give talks at scientific meetings. It is at locations like this that give you the best "mind-space" to plant the seeds of your idea. In a journal, the responses one gets aren't going to be childish flames, they are likely going to be responses as reasoned as your original work. Those responses are going to be as peer reviewed as the original work. Books simply don't see that kind of review over things like terminology and logic.

it's getting late, and I'm beginning to ramble. I think this post should show why I feel the way I do about ID. ID could be for real, but we won't know until it submits itself to some real scrutiny. Until then, I'll give a lot more credibility in work that has been peer reviewed. I'll read other scientific works, but I don't let them meaningfully shape my scientific opinion.

[Glock22]

Think please, you have a point. ID, if it is to be taken seriously as an alternative to evolution,it must submit itself to standard scientific procedure: testing, experiment, critical discussion. HOWEVER, I think evolution hasn't really fulfilled those requirements either, in the sense that it has not been experimentally confirmed. That would mean it deserves no more respect than ID.........and no less. It really seems that evolution is just a theory which makes intuitive sense, one which can be invoked to explain what we see, but which cannot be proven so far. It's worth noting that although people take pains to avoid specifying God as the Designer when they advocate ID, the debate retains a persistently religious flavor because evolution has been consistently held up as evidence that God doesn't exist. I'm not saying that legitimate scientists loudly crow that God is dead; I'm referring to the way lay society has latched onto evolution as the fundamental basis for rejection of religious faith. That has been a gauntlet thrown down at the feet of beleivers, and given the many weaknesses in evolution theory, we should not be surprised to see them trumpeted as loudly as the weaknesses of faith have been trumpeted. I guess each of us has to puctuate his own equilibrium.

[Aquinasfan]

So numbers do not "actually" exist, but are only "theoretical" constructs?

The only "number" that inheres in a substance is unity. Like color and size, number or quantity is accidental to a substance. For example, a dog remains a dog whether its size or color changes, or whether it is counted among 2 or 3 other dogs. But it is impossible to understand the essence of "dog" without its oneness or unity.

So "number" or quantity is not a thing (a compound substance composed of form and matter) but a pure idea or form. It is not a thing in the same sense as most tangible things are things.

But not only that, it is even impossible to imagine a completed or actual infinite series of numbers since by definition the series cannot end. So while it is possible to imagine the idea of an infinite series stretching on forever, it is not possible to imagine a completed or actual infinite series.

That is certainly one way to look at it, but to assume it without proof would not, IMHO, make for a certain argument.

I think that the "proof" is certain since by definition an infinite series has no end. It's like saying "a square circle exists because I can imagine it." This is a false or, more accurately, a nonsensical statement because it is internally contradictory.

Something can come from absolutely nothing? Doesn't that require infinite power?

No. That particles emerge spontaneously and randomly from nothing is built into the fabric of nature. Virtual particles usually exist for less than the Planck Time (less than 10-43 seconds, during which causality makes no sense and anything can come from nothing) before they annihilate one another.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but what does "causality makes no sense" mean? And what about the conservation of energy?

[ThinkPlease]

HOWEVER, I think evolution hasn't really fulfilled those requirements either, in the sense that it has not been experimentally confirmed.

My field, Astrophysics, and evolutionary biology share on important aspect of the world in that one can never go back to the original environment to experimentally determine what happened there. We have to use diagnostics from physical properties of the present day to probe that other environment. However, that doesn't stop people from creating models and then using those models to generate what they think they will see in the data set they generate from a certain set of diagnostics. This is a valid use of the scientific method and can be used to help validate a theory. The theory of evolution itself is beginning to have depth. I suspect as time progresses, and we start gathering catalogs of DNA of various creatures that over time, we will be able to do the types of experiments that is needed to use the experimental aspects of it. But, until then, predictive models are the best we can do, and in some cases, one can learn quite a bit from them.

It really seems that evolution is just a theory which makes intuitive sense, one which can be invoked to explain what we see, but which cannot be proven so far.

It is important to remember that one can never prove a scientific theory, one is continually modifying some aspect of the theory for something unaccounted for.

It's worth noting that although people take pains to avoid specifying God as the Designer when they advocate ID, the debate retains a persistently religious flavor because evolution has been consistently held up as evidence that God doesn't exist.

True, I think some people use evolution erroneously in this manner, and that is unfortunate. They mistake an axiom of predictive science that says, "There can be no supernatural explanation for observed phoenomena." and rewrite it as "There is no God." Science doesn't say that.

I'm not saying that legitimate scientists loudly crow that God is dead; I'm referring to the way lay society has latched onto evolution as the fundamental basis for rejection of religious faith. That has been a gauntlet thrown down at the feet of beleivers, and given the many weaknesses in evolution theory, we should not be surprised to see them trumpeted as loudly as the weaknesses of faith have been trumpeted. I guess each of us has to puctuate his own equilibrium.

Agreed. Nice way of putting it. ;-)

[abandon]

Yes, if the law says you must have a car in your front lawn at all time.

What would you have scientists do? Not use the best tool at their disposal, even though it doesn't answer all their questions?

Scientists of a thousand years ago were justified in using the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, even though there were good arguments that it was inadequate to describe the solar system, since it did a good job in predicting where the planets were going to be. Once Galileo and Kepler gave the heliocentric model some teeth, it was able to do the job better that Ptolemy's older model and so the latter was ditched.

You shouldn't tell a mechanic that he shouldn't use his old, slightly stripped screwdriver because it doesn't work so well, unless you have another screwdriver that works at least as well.

[Aquinasfan]

The theory of evolution itself is beginning to have depth. I suspect as time progresses, and we start gathering catalogs of DNA of various creatures that over time, we will be able to do the types of experiments that is needed to use the experimental aspects of it. But, until then, predictive models are the best we can do, and in some cases, one can learn quite a bit from them.

In Darwin on Trial Johnson noted that when he first began to ask scientists difficult questions regarding the existence of evolutionary evidence, they would always point to sciences outside their area of expertise.

In fact, in this example, the evidence has been in for a while and the "genetic clock" does not match up with the "morphological clock."

Computer models, OTOH, always seem to offer evidence for evolution. But, as engineers and scientists, we know how that goes.

[Woahhs]

The conceptual angle is all well and good, but I ask you, what is the evolutionary paradigm providing that is required? Understanding? More conjecture to justify further investigation of evolution? From what I've seen so far, Doctor Bob does a study on the gene distribution of the south african water snipe to find correlation to the north african water snipe. If he finds more than x percent correlation he publishes "Water Snipes closer than expected." If less, he pubishes "Water Snipes more distant than expected." This accomplishes...what?

I'm not saying there isn't a good reason to posit the evolutionary paradigm, I just don't know what it is. Why did somebody write a law that requires a car in the front yard?

I have no problem with the mechanic keeping his trusty screwdriver, I just don't understand his insistence on keeping it if nothing in his shop requires a screw.

[Woahhs]

So, through my experience in Astrophysics, good valid theories are ones that survive the scientific method. The best way to do this is to publish your ideas in a journal, or give talks at scientific meetings. ... In a journal, the responses one gets aren't going to be childish flames, they are likely going to be responses as reasoned as your original work. Those responses are going to be as peer reviewed as the original work. Books simply don't see that kind of review over things like terminology and logic.

Thanks for your reasoned and temperate response Doc. I really do appreciate it.

I'd like to address your stance on the peer review process after I've gotten my ducks in a row. But in the mean time I'd like to point out that much of what you said about the process seems to be an extrapolation from your experience in physics: the queen of the sciences.

Also, you said "they all have to do with the way I have been taught as a scientist to filter out data to formulate scientific opinions on ideas that I read." I take that to mean your issue is procedural rather than substantive?

[Aquinasfan]

What would you have scientists do? Not use the best tool at their disposal, even though it doesn't answer all their questions?

Well, that's the thing. Intelligent Design better explains irreducibly complex systems. That is, unless one rejects ID a priori. A theory of gradual evolution cannot logically explain truly, irreducibly complex systems. In these cases, ID is the only current theory capable of explaining the phenomenon of the existence of such systems.

Additionally, other aspects of evolutionary theory can and should be rejected for lack of evidence. For example, Gould opted for "punk eek" after examining the lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record. Scientists should be honest enough to simply admit that the fossil record doesn't correspond to evolutionary theory. And geneticists should be honest enough to admit that the "genetic clock" doesn't correspond to the "morphological clock." Such honesty would be a welcome change from the usual hand-waving.

The problem is, scientists feel compelled to deny that the origins of life question (in a scientific or empirical sense) is wide open. Why?

[abandon]

I'm not saying there isn't a good reason to posit the evolutionary paradigm, I just don't know what it is.

I'm sure biologists could say it better (just as physicists could explain why quantum mechanics is so important), but I suppose it would be to explain the change of life over time. Why does all DNA, whether taken from yeasts, or oaks, or clams, or human beings, made of the same four chemical bases?

[ThinkPlease]

In fact, in this example, the evidence has been in for a while and the "genetic clock" does not match up with the "morphological clock."

Are you referring to this paper? (May be a on a subscription basis, I don't know, my University Sub got me in). Here's a summary:

28 September 2001 Science Now

Molecular Clocks Not Exactly Swiss

How to tell the age of the extinct ancestor common to two living species? Take the same gene from both and count the differences in the DNA. Then divide it by the rate at which DNA mutates, and presto! Biologists love this molecular clock and they've applied it for decades. But new research shows it may not be keeping good time.In 1965, biochemists stunned classical biologists by showing that mutations in genes accumulate at a constant rate. Hence, the number of mutations between two species could be used to tell when species diverged, even without fossil evidence. Since then, scientists have used molecular clocks in various genes to trace evolution in species from HIV to birds to whales. And although exceptions to the rule have surfaced, most biologists remain loyal to their favorite timepiece.But in the 25 September issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, geneticist Francisco Rodriguez-Trelles and his colleagues at the University of California, Irvine, show that the molecular clock could be ripe for the pawnshop. From the GenBank database, they downloaded the sequences of three well-known genes, called Gpdh, Sod, and Xdh, for 78 species, from pine trees to people. They used the data to make an evolutionary tree, which, for calibration purposes, included some key branches already dated by paleontologists.But when the scientists started counting the number of mutations in each tree branch, they found vastly different mutation rates, even for closely related species. For example, in Drosophila obscura fruit flies, the Sod clock ticks 10 times faster than in its cousin Drosophila willistoni, while the Xdh clock keeps perfect time. Conversely, the Gpdh clock in mammals runs about 10 times faster than the one in fruit flies. Molecular clocks in general are much more "erratic" than previously thought, and practically useless to keep accurate evolutionary time, the researchers conclude. They attribute this to the vagaries of natural selection, which may at times constrain specific genetic mutations in certain lineages.Evolutionary biologists are unhappy to hear that such a prized correlation may be flawed. David Mindell, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, says it's "bad news that estimates of dates must be viewed as highly error prone." But, he adds, ultimately it's good news that, by disproving the molecular clock theory, molecular evolution in a wide variety of organisms may become better understood. --MENNO SCHILTHUIZEN

-----

This is one of those papers that is science at work, and if you can read this, do so. It is pretty readable if you can grok basic scientific concepts. The summary above is pretty accurate. What Rodriquez-Telles et al are trying to do is test this concept that the molecular clock may vary versus five different hypothesis that might change it: 1)Varying generation time between organisms (time from birth to young bearing age), 2) Varying population size (larger populations may have a slower mutation fixation time because the number of generations for a mutation to spread through the population is larger, hence the mutation rate may slow) 3)Species dependant mutation rates (each species DNA is unique, and may mutate at differing rates) 4)Protein Functional Change (Proteins evolve as life evolves, and an amino acid may not have the same functions as originally thought), 5)Natural selection (Mutation rate is highly dependent on environmental pressures, if an organism doesn't need to change, it won't change much, a highly stochastic process).

Through examination of the data gathered by comparing several species DNA together, Rodriquez et al are able to discount the first three hypotheses, as their data does not show that they occur. However, they are unable to discount 4 or 5, as they are both stochastic processes(they change in differing manners according to the environment, and indeed could be a blend of the two. However, the two hypotheses amount to a denial of the existance of a molecular clock.

As a scientist, it makes a great deal of sense to me, and let me show why. My current evolutionary view is that evolution rate is a rapidly changing value from species to species. A population generally changes when it is forced to change by an outside pressure (note the lack of only there, it can change without any outside pressure if the change doesn't negatively impact on the survability of the organism). During times of extreme pressure over an extended period of time, a population can change quite drastically over a geologically (500-1,000 years) short timescale, especially if the generational time period is quite short. In the case of the genetic rate of change compared to the morphological rate of change, it doesn't surprise me that there isn't a consistent molecular clock. Imagine the concept of a molecular clock as being a line drawn between two points (one representing humans, and the other chordates) on a plot of genetic mutation rate and time. Essentially when evolutionary theory is saying is that the gap between the two points is not a smooth function, but is something that is variable. All you are doing is deriving an approximation of that function, which is not reality. In a way, I'd say it shows that natural selection may be a blend of the two extremes: Punctuated Equilibrium and Gradualism.

[ThinkPlease]

Also, you said "they all have to do with the way I have been taught as a scientist to filter out data to formulate scientific opinions on ideas that I read." I take that to mean your issue is procedural rather than substantive?

Until I find the time to read through Dembski's books, yes. I've read most of the work that Behe, Johnson, and Dembski has put on the web at one time or another, as well as the work done by several evolutionists criticizing their work. My experience with ID is as I wrote above: It needs work, and lots of it. Science demands articulation. Compare the above paper by Rodriguez-Trelles et al, with any recent ID work. Do you see anything resembling the detail in experimental methodology, results and consequent logic leading to a conclusion? Intelligent Design is still formulating itself. It doesn't have a coherent, logical model to replace evolution, and that is what it needs if it is to surpass evolution. I mean if you are going to invalidate evolution using the scientific method, the null hypothesis is that Evolution should describe it, and to invalidate it, you have to show that several aspects of ID theory explains reality better than evolution. Do you see ID at that stage?

[Woahhs]

It is pretty readable if you can grok basic scientific concepts.

Aw man. Did you have to go and say that? Now my mind is stuck with a picture of you as Jon Lovitz from "Saturday Night Live" wearing his "I Grok Spock" tee-shirt... William Shatner perpetually bawling "YOU! YOU THERE! HAVE YOU EVER KISSED A GIRL?!"

But on a more serious note:

While I will grant you the paper you posted is impressive, and the scientists involved "world class," I'm scratching my head here, trying to figure out just how it fundamentally differs from my "Doctor Bob" device in post #128. I will certainly grant you that most of the writings of the ID crowd don't fall into the same genre, I'm just not sure that's a bad thing.

And I'm not trying to be a smart-alec with you (really,I'm not), but isn't it a bit disingenuous to say the Amway guy should be giving a better sales pitch when you (metaphorically, of course) slam the door in his face as soon as he questions the cleaning power of your current soap?

As I read through the abstract, and then the paper itself, I couldn't help being reminded of an old Elvis movie.

"The King" is fighting in court to keep custody of his kids, and the lady who's doing his psych. evaluation for the court is a woman he resently spurned. Well, the lady administers a word association test, and when she explains to the court the meaning of each of his answers. It all comes out as a consistent string of validations of every anti-male stereotype in the book. Of course, the King wins the case, but it's because the judge pulled a fast one on the psychologist. The answers she was interpreting belonged to the Judge (who happened to be a woman), not Elvis'.

From where I stand, Rodriguez-Trelles' work, looks a whole lot like the infamous "Ketchup viscosity" studies Americans love to whine about paying for. I have no doubt that exacting methodologies were used in both, and the results painstakingly documented. My question is "Did what we learn have any value other than to those directly employed by each respective industry?"

I'm not about to take your time by engaging in a display of What-if-ery, but I have to wonder what we could do with the research Rodriguez-Trelles did if we were not satisfied with interpreting it as a wrinkle within the evolutionary framework. Sad to say, that "rival conjecture" is not even considered. I wouldn't expect it to be, but unless you share the researcher's presuppositions about evolution, and are satisfied that "discovery" of the more esoteric aspects of evolutionary mechanisms is a worthwhile endevour, the work is largely useless. Okay, evolutionary theory describes it, but other than providing these guys with a job, why isn't "because all these species were variations on a favored template" acceptable?

I just doesn't make sense to me that I should be impressed by some guy's car, no matter how big and fancy, when I know the only place he drives it is to work, and every dime he makes goes into maintaining the car.

Do I think ID theory is as mature as Evolutionary theory? Nope. But judging from what I've read here and elsewhere, Evolutionary theory is a good deal more mature than polite company should be expected to suffer through.

[Woahhs]

I wouldn't expect it to be, but unless you share the researcher's...

Sorry. That should be "if" you share...

[Woahhs]

Dang! No it shouldn't.

[Woahhs]

Sorry. I also think my bad grammar this a.m. is more than *you* should have to suffer through. It was awful early.

[nimdoc]

placemark

[Aquinasfan]

I first read about the "molecular clock" discrepancy in Darwin on Trial which was published in '92. Johnson may have gotten his information from the following which I found on the ARN website:

Histone deletion mutants challenge the molecular clock hypothesis

Michael J. Behe, "Histone deletion mutants challenge the molecular clock hypothesis,"
Trends in Biochemical Science 15: 374-376, October 1990

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Early in the development of the molecular clock hypothesis, it was discovered that not all proteins "ticked" at the same rate. When compared across a range of species, the fibrinopeptides, for instance, were much "faster clocks" (i.e., having a higher rate of amino acid substitution) than the very conservative, "slowly ticking" histones. These differences, writes Michael Behe (Chemistry, Lehigh University), required a modification to the clock hypothesis: the postulate of functional constraints. Thus, for example, histone H4 would diverge less rapidly than fibrinopeptides if a larger percentage of H4 amino acid residues were critical for the function of the molecule. (p. 374)

The problem with the notion of functional constraint, Behe argues, is an absence of experimental support:

Although plausible, it has long been realized that no direct experimental evidence has been obtained 'showing rigorously that histone function is especially senstive to amino acid substitution or that fibrinopeptide function is especially insensitive to amino acid substitution.' (p. 374) "Recent experiments," writes Behe, "now indicate that the key assumption of functional constraints may not be valid." Since the histones are so highly conserved -- "the H4 sequence of the green pea differs from that of mammals by only two conservative substitutions in 102 residues" -- one might expect that "few, if any, substitutions could be tolerated in the H4 sequence" (p. 374). However, experiments (reported in detail by Behe) have shown that large parts of the histone molecule may be deleted without significantly affecting the viability of the organism (in this instance, yeast) -- results which, Behe argues, should trouble defenders of the molecular clock hypothesis:

[The experimental] results pose a profound dilemma for the molecular clock hypothesis: although the theory needs the postulate of functional constraints to explain the different degrees of divergence in different protein classes, how can one speak of 'functional constraints' in histones when large portions of H2A, H2B and H4 are dispensable for yeast viability? And if functional constraints do not govern the accumulation of mutations in histones, how can they be invoked with any confi-dence for other proteins? (p. 375) The resolution of the dilemma, Behe contends, must "as far as possible be grounded in quantitative, reproducible experiments, rather than in simple correlations with time that are its current basis" (p. 375). Otherwise, he concludes:

[T]he time-sequence correlation may end up as a curiosity, like the tracking of stock market prices with hemline heights, where correlation does not imply a causal relationship.

The article you cited seems to me to show even greater trouble with the theory.

[DougDDD]

If you think Evolution has "Giant Holes" in it's methods, try looking at ID theory. The giant holes turn into craters the size of the moon. One thing science does is accept the 'best explanation', meaning that which has the least logical problems. ID, when subjected to scientific methods, fails more miserably than Evolution does. You all may not know this, but Macro evolution has been supported with new computer modeling programs. There is nothing obscure about them. I'm terrible leery about a new 'scientific theory' that institutes itself into the public domain by explaining that the mass of the worlds scientists and scientific foundations are "conspiring to keep them out" of the scientific realm. Really . . . . Last, evolution is up for scrutiny. All you need to do is use the scientific methods to show is lack of support for evolotion. And if your problem is with scienctific method itself, then the argument should be in the philosophy of science department, not a new theory, since you will be using the old scientific method yourself.

Most importantly, all that has to be done is a experiment, at this time computer modeling, that supports probabilities for macro evolution, and the case ID tosses at science is null and void.

Last, ask yourselves, "Is ID theory better at explaining Origins than evolution when subjected to mathematical scrutiny? Unless there really is a conspiracy, the overwhelming mass of evidence says NO!

Personally, ID theory does nothing for me. For as stated above, if there is a creator, big deal--that begs the question of origins, for how did the creator come into existence. This is the ID theory pushed to its logical conclusion--it's one big question begger.

Finally, science cannot go furhter than time and space. When we get back to zero hour, that is where science ends, and no one can say anything about ULTIMATE origins, lest they be dogmatic, simply because we cannot comment on that which is seemingly other than space and time oriented. And a good example of that is my last comment. I just said "on that which" and "that" is a noun and all nouns are in time. Trying to talk about any "thing" other than time oriented presents a contradiction because all "things" are in time. Thus, science can only go to that point and it's over.

Remember, the Catholic Church proclaimed that the earth was the center of the universe using the same sort of objections (although not modern science like)that ID assertions use, and up till the mid 1990s, the Catholic Church maintained that the earth was the center of the universe. I believe in the 1990s, they finally conceded that they were wrong.

There is much more coming out now in the statistical probability that ID uses and how it is flawed mathmatically--and this is corroborated by pure mathematics, so there can be no valid charge of "conspiracy."

It's funny that proponents of creation forward these argument thinking that they will forward their beliefs, when, in fact, they end up doing more damage to their cause by discrediting themselves. If ID is such a revolutionary scientific theory, it would be an easy task to outline it's evidence and proofs and submit them to be peer reviewed. And if the peer reviews were mathematically flawed, then that could be shown easily. Instead, ID supports take the case to school boards, not colleges. Interesting. Obscurantism is alive and well.