How STILL Not to Debate Intelligent Design (Liars for Evolution)

Access Research Network ^ | 01/09/02 | William A. Dembski

[Junior]

You asked for proof that critters evolved legs and lungs before they ventured onto land (at least that's what I understood your request to be). That is what I supplied.

[VadeRetro]

Re, your dialogue with lasereye:

You're getting the old "bring me the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the SSW" runaround. You have to bring a fossil that's preserved exactly halfway out of the water, or forget it!

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[jennyp]

In this case, the compilation doesn't seem to be of that type, but rather a work by a single author who used previously published essays to put forth his thesis. If the copyright is held by another publisher, Pennock is under no obligation other than normal social protocol to contact Dembski.

I emailed Pennock for his comments, & hopefully a pointer to his news release that Dembski alludes to in his news release. Pennock finally replied today:

Jennifer,

Dembski's unfounded ad hominem attack in METANEXUS does not deserve a response. You will note that METANEXUS removed it from their site last week.

I hope you enjoy the book and find it useful.

Robert Pennock

This is Metanexus. Apparently it covers the relationship between science, religion, & ethics. And apparently Dembski's press release had been posted there (before it was pulled) as well as at ARN. BTW, here's the Table of Contents for Pennock's book:

New Book: Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical,

Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological & Scientific Perspectives Robert T. Pennock (editor)

The MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, England $45.00 paper 0-262-66124-1 December 2001. 825 pp.

Available now online at <http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?sid=459744DC-5D-4055-938 5-3120B191D4CE&ttype=2&tid=8606>

Table of Contents

- Preface - Contributors - Acknowledgments

I. Intelligent Design Creationism's "Wedge Strategy" 1. The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream Barbara Forrest

II. Johnson's Critique of Evolutionary Naturalism 2. Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism Phillip E. Johnson

3. Naturalism, Evidence and Creationism: The Case of Phillip Johnson Robert T. Pennock

4. Response to Pennock Phillip E. Johnson

5. Reply: Johnson's Reason in the Balance Robert T. Pennock

III. A Theological Conflict?: Evolution vs. the Bible 6. When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible Alvin Plantinga

7. When Faith and Reason Cooperate Howard J. Van Till

8. Plantinga's Defense of Special Creation Ernan McMullin

9. Evolution, Neutrality, and Antecedent Probability: A Reply to McMullin and Van Till Alvin Plantinga

IV. Intelligent Design's Scientific Claims 10. Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference Michael J. Behe

11. Born Again Creationism Philip Kitcher

12. Biology Remystified: The Scientific Claims of the New Creationists Matthew J. Brauer & Daniel R. Brumbaugh

V. Plantinga's Critique of Naturalism & Evolution 13. Methodological Naturalism? Alvin Plantinga

14. Methodological Naturalism Under Attack Michael Ruse

15. Plantinga's Case Against Naturalistic Epistemology Evan Fales

16. Plantinga's Probability Arguments Against Evolutionary Naturalism Branden Fitelson & Elliott Sober

VI. Intelligent Design Creationism vs. Theistic Evolutionism 17. Creator or Blind Watchmaker
Phillip E. Johnson

18. Phillip Johnson on Trial: A Critique of His Critique of Darwin Nancey Murphy

19. Welcoming the 'Disguised Friend' - Darwinism and Divinity Arthur Peacocke

20. The Creation: Intelligently Designed or Optimally Equipped? Howard J. Van Till

21. Is Theism Compatible with Evolution? Roy Clouser

VII. Intelligent Design and Information 22. Is Genetic Information Irreducible? Phillip E. Johnson

23. Reply to Phillip Johnson Richard Dawkins

24. Reply to Johnson George C. Williams

25. Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information William A. Dembski

26. Information and the Argument from Design Peter Godfrey-Smith

27. How Not to Detect Design Branden Fitelson, Christopher Stephens & Elliott Sober

28. The 'Information Challenge' Richard Dawkins

VIII. Intelligent Design Theorists Turn the Tables 29. Who's Got the Magic? William A. Dembski

30. The Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski Robert T. Pennock

31. The Panda's Peculiar Thumb Stephen Jay Gould

32. The Role of Theology in Current Evolutionary Reasoning Paul A. Nelson

33. Appealing to Ignorance Behind the Cloak of Ambiguity Kelly C. Smith

34. Nonoverlapping Magisteria Stephen Jay Gould

IX. Creationism and Education 35. Why Creationism Should Not Be Taught in the Public Schools Robert T. Pennock

36. Creation and Evolution: A Modest Proposal Alvin Plantinga

37. Reply to Plantinga's 'Modest Proposal' Robert T. Pennock

[lasereye]

FROM POST 155

YOU: For instance, paleontological evidence shows that legs developed among fully aquatic animals to facilitate movement in plant-filled shallow water. It is quite easy to postulate a gradual move by animals from sea to land and voila! The fossil record pretty much backs this up.

ME: Give me examples of how the fossil record backs this up. In other words, showing the progression from the species which could live only in water and had no legs or lungs, to the one which had the legs and lungs but was still primarily aquatic, to the one which lived out of water entirely.

I'm asking for three different species in the fossil records. All you're giving me is something which lived in the water and had some kind of legs and lungs. Actually, what I should have asked for is four different species, with the second one being the aquatic creature which had legs and lungs, which is what you gave me.

Also, I don't understand how getting lungs for an entirely aquatic species conferred a survival advantage, which is what drives evolution, but that's another issue.

[lasereye]

Actually, I could reasonably ask for a fifth one: the crucial one which lived underwater most of the time, but ventured completely out of the water occasionally.

[lasereye]

I don't get your point. Is it unreasonable to ask for the fossils of the transitional life forms, from a fish to something that lives on land? They should be there, shouldn't they?

Junior gave this species as an example of one of the life forms that proves, or at least indicates the likelihood, that aquatic life turned into land life. The site itself said that the species probably didn't evolve into anything. I'm supposed to accept that as evidence for evolution?

Just because you have something which had some kind of appendages like legs and lungs in itself proves nothing about eventual evolution into a land life form. Of course, you can just assume that since we know evolution occured, this species must have evolved into one which lived on land. But that's circular reasoning.

[VadeRetro]

Been through the amphibian thing with more than one creationist, the latter always kicking, screaming, and clutching onto anything rather than follow the extensive data where it goes. Something not mentioned so far: all the fish and amphibian species cited have highly parallel head bones. For instance, A Comparison of Eusthenopteron and Acanthostega Head Bones. If amphibians didn't arise from fish, what exactly is an amhibian doing with the same head as a particular line of fish that has already lost one of the usual fishy fin pairs and thus looks like an ancestor of quadrupeds? Coincidence?

[VadeRetro]

Just because you have something which had some kind of appendages like legs and lungs in itself proves nothing about eventual evolution into a land life form.

I don't know why I'm bothering with you. Legs and lungs on a fish mean nothing about evolving toward land? How about if it has hair, teats, and looks like a cow?

[Junior]

Of course, you can just assume that since we know evolution occured, this species must have evolved into one which lived on land.

Ah, but we do know speciation has occured; we see it in nature and the laboratory on a fairly regular basis, now:

Speciation

• Ensatina eschscholtzi: Speciation in Progress

• Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

• Macroevolution: Introduction to Speciation [Missing]

• Observed Instances of Speciation

• PATTERNS OF SPECIATION [ICR]

• Population and Evolutionary Genetics

• Process of Speciation, The

• Pupfish of the Western Deserts: A Case Study in Speciation [Missing]

• Some More Observed Speciation Events

• Speciation

• Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium

Now, as scientists are wont to do, we can say "we know that speciation occurs today and we can use that knowledge to predict that speciation has most probably occured in the past." Working from this premise, we discover that an aquatic life form a third of a billion years old had legs and lungs but evidently lived its entire life in the water (based upon the type of material in which the fossil is preserved). We find another fossil a tad bit younger than the first (I actually gave three species), and it bears some resemblance to the first and it has the added benefit of clearly being somewhat of a land dweller. Can we not draw some conclusions from these related facts, or are we forever to shrug our shoulders and say, "didn't see it happen, can't prove anything?"

[lasereye]

All evolutionists are doing is drawing conclusions that they think are implied by similarities between species. Evolution could account for them. But other theories could as well, and they don't have the problems that evolution does. When someone suggests a different theory, evolutionists attack it as being contrary to the massive evidence. They are NOT contrary to any evidence.

The massive evidence that you think you see is just inference, nothing more. It's kind of ridiculous that you attack the ID people for drawing inferences, when that's all you're doing. I doubt you're even familiar with the ID arguments.

In fact the evidence fits much better into intelligent design, because of problems with evolutionist theory created by irreducible complexity, as Michael Behe has shown, and the calculations that have been made of the astronomical probabilities of such random mutations having occured in the way evolutionists say they did, the lack of the transitional forms in the fossil record, etc.

As I say, evolutionism is basically circular logic. Someone proposes an alternate theory, and evolutionists won't take it seriously. Why? Because we "know" evolution occured, because of the massive "evidence" (which are all inferences). Therefore, the competing theories can't be right. Therefore, evolution is right.

Whenever evolutionists talk about ID, they attack it as having religious people behind it. Therefore, it doesn't have to be taken seriously. This is essentially another form of circular reasoning, which goes something like this:

Religious people are kooks/idiots/brainwashed etc. Why? Because there is no God, or at least not the God of the Bible. How do we know there is no Biblical God? Because evolution occured, which contradicts the Bible! Therefore, competing theories proposed by Bible believers are a priori BS.

[Junior]

The inferences evolutionists draw are based upon experience. We have seen speciation in both the laboratory and in nature. We know it happens. The only other theory appears to be that somebody pops in from time to time and zaps a new species into existence (call this ID, Creation, or the Universe According to Nate). We have not observed this latter phenomenon in the laboratory or in nature. All we have to go on is the word of a small minority of American fundamentalist Christians who claim that this is the way it must have happened.

Now, when we look at the fossil record armed with what we know (not what we "believe") and see that organisms appear to change over time, which "theory" do you think a rational scientist is going to choose? The one backed up by observation or the one supported by iffy mathematics and a particular interpretation of 3000-year-old writings?

Do you understand now?

[lasereye]

I don't know why I'm bothering with you. Legs and lungs on a fish mean nothing about evolving toward land? How about if it has hair, teats, and looks like a cow?

You can draw an inference. That's all. That's not the same as evidence that it actually did happen, or even could happen. The question of whether it COULD happen is hardly proven or even shown to be likely. Evolutionists generally skip this step, not feeling it necessary in view of the overwhelming evidence, etc. According to irreducible complexity theory, it can't happen.

I also can't figure out how, within the evolution theory, you account for a fish with lungs. What survival advantage did it confer? That's the only way a mutation can result in a new species under evolution theory, if it increases their survival, survival of the fittest, etc. There's a hell of a lot of fish that have no lungs, so this hardly seems plausible. Or did the fish in some sense "know" it was supposed to evolve into an amphibian?

[VadeRetro]

Or did the fish in some sense "know" it was supposed to evolve into an amphibian?

A feature of creationist arguments is the total unwillingness to imagine beforehand even the most obvious rebuttal. This amounts to playing dumb. Take your plaintive cry quoted above.

A fish whose fins are showing some adaptation to leg-like functions, and which has rudimentary lungs to go with its gills, is already adapted for a certain ecological niche. That niche is one that puts a premium on behaviors besides swimming. This fish lives in the shallows along shore and occasionally finds itself out of the water. It may not be very good out of the water, but an ability to cope with the problem and thrash its way back to the wet stuff comes in handy. The ones that can handle getting beached (maybe even beaching themselves on purpose chasing food) eat better and live longer than the ones that try to live along shore but can't handle not being wet all over all the time.

It's a strawman to assume that all changes from some A to some later B must have happened all at once, that one day an A suddenly gave gave birth to a B. (But how did it live, and what did it mate with?)

Whole populations drift along together, adapting to changing environments. Junior's given you most of the links already. Don't make us read them to you line by line.

[lasereye]

What's an example of speciation in the laboratory?

[lasereye]

I'm not even talking about whether A evolved into B. Was there or was there not at some point in time a fish which NEVER left the water but had lungs? Why did this happen, under evolutionary theory? What survival advantage did it confer? Or was there first something with legs but no lungs? Which came first?

[lasereye]

I know there's a lungfish, but that's lungs with no legs.

[Junior]

What's an example of speciation in the laboratory?

From Observed Instances of Speciation:

5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.

WH X WH - 75%
P1 X P1 - 95%
P2 X P2 - 80%
P1 X P2 - 77%
WH X P1 - 0%
WH X P2 - 0%

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.

From Some More Observed Speciation Events:

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.

(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

[Junior]

You can draw an inference. That's all. That's not the same as evidence that it actually did happen, or even could happen. The question of whether it COULD happen is hardly proven or even shown to be likely. Evolutionists generally skip this step, not feeling it necessary in view of the overwhelming evidence, etc. According to irreducible complexity theory, it can't happen.

Once more:

Speciation has been observed.  It is a known phenomenon.  Would it not be likely that speciation occurred in the past, too?  In other words, it COULD happen.  Evolutionists do not skip this step, generally or particularly.  As for irreducible complexity, have you not read the links?

Irreducible Complexity

• Evolution of the bacterial flagella

• How Can Evolution Cause Irreducibly Complex Systems?

• How Could An Eye Evolve?

• Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe

• Is the blood clotting cascade irreducibly complex?

• Of mousetraps and men

• The evolution of vertebrate blood clotting

• Why Evolutionary Algorithms Cannot Generate Specified Complexity, Dembski

[Junior]

I also can't figure out how, within the evolution theory, you account for a fish with lungs. What survival advantage did it confer?

Actually, according to several of my at-home library sources, primitive fish had both gills and primitive lungs (I've read somewhere the latter became the air bladder in modern fish). In other words, lungs were pretty much there from the start. As for the survival benefits, the lung/bladder allowed fish to regulate their depth without the energy-consuming method of constantly swimming (which sharks use -- no sharks do not drown if they stop swimming, they simply sink). The lung/bladder also allowed surface and shallow-dwelling fish to breathe air directly which comes in handy in low-oxygen water and should the fish need to leave the water for any length of time (to catch prey, or to escape a predator).