Heh!
So far, I think it's going better than most crevo threads at this stage... but it's still early.
Posted on 03/02/2002 5:10:54 PM PST by Karl_Lembke
Some members of the Ohio State Board of Education are maneuvering to have "intelligent design" (ID) taught to Ohio students as an alternative to teaching them about biological evolution.1 These board members were pursuing the inclusion of ID in the biology curriculum despite unambiguous opposition from the relevant science advisory committee. One board member apparently regards this development as a chance for Ohio "to be on the cutting edge." Unfortunately, this cutting edge will only serve to whittle away a bit more of the collective intellect of the citizenry of Ohio, and the implications reach much farther than the state's boundaries.
According to the enthusiasts for ID, metabolic systems, such as the clotting cascade, are too complex ("irreducibly complex" in their preferred wording) to have arisen through evolution.2 Problems with this view are readily apparent. First, complexity is problematic to define, and irreducible complexity more so.
At present, it is doubtful whether it is possible to measure, prospectively and precisely, the complexity of biological systems so as to distinguish systems that are irreducibly complex from those that are reducibly complex. The concept of irreducible complexity is simply asserted; it is not based on either evidence or compelling logic. Consequently, proponents of ID must decide, essentially arbitrarily, what is too complex to have evolved. They can claim that all of life is too complex to have evolved. Or, are we to believe that bacteria evolved but that humans (or mammals, or whatever groups of organisms) were designed? Would it make any more sense the other way around?
A truly fundamental problem with the notion of ID, as a scientific idea, is that, ultimately, it has effectively no explanatory or predictive power. Suggesting that an unknown Intelligent Designer of unspecified attributes designed the eye, the clotting cascade, or the immune system offers no scientific insights into these biologic marvels and suggests no incisive experiments. There is also the nagging issue of how the Intelligent Designer implements designs without being noticed. How do ID proponents explain the existence of defective genes, no longer capable of expression, in one species that are strikingly similar to still functional genes in a related species? What insights does ID provide in accounting for the origin and spread of bacterial resistance to antibiotics? These phenomena are consistent with the principles of evolution, which find application from the molecular level to the level of ecosystems.
Were the genes associated with conditions such as sickle cell disease or cystic fibrosis designed by The Intelligent Designer, or by her sister, The Not-So-Intelligent Designer? If the response is that we do not understand the motives or goals of the Designer, then of what use is it to posit this inscrutable being in explaining such realities as the relatively high frequencies of these genes in the human population.
On the other hand, evolutionary principles provide a compelling rationale for the high prevalence of the b-globin allele associated with sickle cell disease: in a single copy it provides protection from the deadliest effects of one type of malaria parasite. Consistent with this hypothesis, sickle cell disease is prevalent almost exclusively in populations that live in, or are descended from those who lived in, malaria-endemic regions of the globe. Whereas some ID advocates suggest that mutations are uniformly harmful, there are thoroughly documented human mutations, such as the mutation associated with sickle cell disease, that are alternately harmful or beneficial depending on the exact genotype and the environmental circumstances.
Enthusiasts for ID ignore the growing laboratory evidence for the selection of biological function from random collections of proteins and nucleic acids.3,4 Molecular biologists and biotechnologists have shown that selection acting on randomly generated libraries of billions or trillions of biological polymers, such as peptides or RNA molecules, can produce molecules with useful biological functions, such as specificities for small ligands or catalytic activities. Computer scientists, complexity theorists, and even physical chemists have also documented striking examples of order that develops spontaneously.5,6 It is simply no longer tenable to equate order, complex structure, or sophisticated function uniquely with conscious design.
The Design advocates also ignore the accumulating examples of the reducibility of biological systems. As Russell Doolittle has noted in commenting on the writings of one ID advocate, mice genetically altered so that they lack either thrombin or fibrinogen have the expected abnormal hemostatic phenotypes.7 However, when the separate knockout mice are bred, the double knockouts apparently have normal hemostasis (reducible complexity after all), at least in the laboratory.8 These results cast doubt on the claim by proponents of ID that they know which systems exhibit irreducible complexity and which do not.
Evolution is best regarded as a fact. What is more, it is a fact that is inescapable. The resistance of bacteria to overused antibiotics, viruses to inhibitors of viral replication, and insects to pesticides, are all examples of the evolutionary process in operation. If you do research with cells or microorganisms, genetic variation and selection are continuously in evidence, even when you would prefer them not to be. Thus, that evolution occurs, and has occurred, is not in doubt. It has been directly observed in operation not only in the laboratory but also in the field.9 Where there is still room for argument and discussion is in the precise contributions of different mechanisms to evolutionary change. In this vibrant debate, intelligent design offers no meaningful contribution.
The effort to insert nonscientific ideas into Ohio's science curriculum is being carried out under the banner of promoting critical thinking.10 Perhaps other scientists will be as surprised as I was to learn that the education bill, "No Child Left Behind," signed into law by President George W. Bush on Jan. 8, originally contained an amendment from US Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). This amendment, ultimately removed from the bill, comprises the following two statements: "It is the sense of the Senate that: (1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and (2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why the subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject."
It would appear that a new and clever strategy has been found to get religious ideas into biology class. Those in other states concerned that the science curriculum remains focused on science should be vigilant against similar campaigns in their own states. Otherwise, they could find that the officials crafting the science curriculum for their schools are engaged in a process that comes closer to deserving the label "subversive design" rather than "intelligent design."
Neil S. Greenspan, MD-PhD, is professor of pathology at the Institute of Pathology, Case Western Reserve University, Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106-4943.
References
1. J. Mangels, S. Stephens, "Evolution targeted in curriculum study," The Plain Dealer, Jan. 15, 2002, pp. A1, A9.
2. M.J. Behe, Darwin's black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution, New York: Free Press, 1997.
3. J.R. Lorsch, J.W. Szostak, "Chance and necessity in the selection of nucleic acid catalysts," Accounts of Chemical Research, 29[2]:103-10, 1996.
4. J.K. Scott, G.P. Smith, "Searching for peptide ligands with an epitope library," Science, 249:386-90, 1990.
5. S.A. Kauffman, The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution," New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
6. D. Kestenbaum, "Gentle force of entropy bridges disciplines," Science, 279,1849, 1998.
7. R. F. Doolittle, R.F. "A delicate balance," Boston Review, February/March 1997, or online at bostonreview.mit.edu/br22.1/doolittle.html.
8. T.H. Bugge, "Loss of fibrinogen rescues mice from the pleiotropic effects of plasminogen deficiency," Cell, 87:709-19, 1996.
9. J. Weiner, The beak of the finch: A story of evolution in our time, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994.
10. R. Lattimer, J. Calvert, "Intelligent design is a matter of academic freedom," The Plain Dealer, Jan. 18, 2002, p. B9.
The Scientist 16[5]:12, Mar. 4, 2002
Heh!
So far, I think it's going better than most crevo threads at this stage... but it's still early.
Uh, you're not one to talk. "Irreducible complexity" is Behe's thing. Dembski's routine is "specified complexity". (Why is it evolutionists generally know both evolution AND creationism better than creationists do?)
My #73 was a real question though, if you have the time.
Thanks,
-ksen
That's just simple statistics 101.
Is all knowledge scientific?
Maybe not in a strict sense but knowledge is gathered empirically, thus everything we know is permanently tested by reality. Further you have to determine what is true but how do you accomplish this if there is no compelling evidence that backs it up. Of course it may be true that a deity (maybe even the Christian God) was the cause for the big-bang but I've seen no evidence that confirms this and you even said in an earlier post that it is practically impossible to obtain such evidence. It may also be true that a teapot shaped asteroid circles Epsilon Eridani but there is no evidence that confirms this.
I'm aware of the meaning of stochastic.
Being human, I'm also aware of the meaning of presumption.
What we're discussing is first causes. Was there a cause to the Universe, or was it acausal?
If something or someone caused the Universe, then the order and structure we see in mathematics and the sciences would be interpreted as design.
If nothing caused the Universe, then we would see that order and structure otherwise.
Space-time doesn't inform us either way.
"Materialistic science" is fine in its domain. It become arrogance when it forgets that it is but a twig on the branch called "natural philosophy" and pretends that it is the trunk of the tree of universal knowledge.
Advanced in WHAT? It is possible to be technically wealthy and morally bankrupt.
Reality being defined as what... Space-time?
And tested how, by the limitations of our material senses and/or the instruments we use to extend them?
For that matter, how do we test any definition of reality?
Further you have to determine what is true but how do you accomplish this if there is no compelling evidence that backs it up?
I confess, it's a mystery.
Everything outside of space-time is a guess, from the standpoint of science.
This is like saying 'if things evolve, then intelligent design must be prohibitted'- like they are mutually exclusive...
What it says to me is that evolutionary changes (like bacteria growing resistant) is ONE HECK of an INTELLIGENT DESIGN mechanism... (how's that for slam-dunking it back into their faces...?)
Fine. Bring it on. That's the way science works, according to the principle of "put up or shut up." Should you genuinely succeed in toppling evolution as a scientific theory, or replacing it with some creationistic theory (which momentous shift in scientific thought will obviously be objectively demonstrable in the content of the professional scientific literature) I pledge to be right there by your side insisting that the victorious creationistic theory be taught and the vanquished evolutionary theory be excluded. I promise to do that even if I should personally happen to remain an evolutionist.
I don't think you guys really understand that, with possibly a few exceptions, we evolutionists are not committed primarily to evolutionary theory, or to any particular theory, but rather to science more generally, and/or to the maintenance of the highest possible academic and scholarly standards in education.
I expect most, if not all, of the evolutionists here would agree that if evolutionary theory was genuinely replaced or abandoned in science (as opposed to some antievolutionary view being forced into curricula by means of popular and political pressure tactics) that would be a good and most wonderful thing, as it could only mean that a major advance or correction in our understanding of nature had occurred.
Don't misunderstand. I don't believe for a minute that evolution will be replaced, unless by some view that substantially subsumes it (as Einstein's relativity subsumed Newtonian dynamics). I am completely convinced, after examining a great deal of creationist literature to the best of my ability as a scientific layperson, that the whole movement is based on delusion and wishful thinking, at best; but I would be most happy and excited to be proven wrong!
What I assuredly am NOT happy about is creationists (and ID'ers) trying to make an end run around the process of peer review and testing which any genuine and successful scientific theory must endure. This is bad because it sets precedence for a bar-lowering, wishy-washy intellectual relativism that makes it that much easier for liberals to get their nonsense and corrosive, PC, feel good fluff into the curricula.
The way it works is that your idea FIRST prevails in the market place of scientific ideas (that is, it is adopted and productively used or implicated by working scientists in their ongoing research) and THEN, as a CONSEQUENCE of the FACT of its being a part of science, it is included in science curricula.
You guys just got the process backwards is all. Although the truth is, IMHO, that creationists will never put their ideas forward for real scientific review. This is not just because the ideas are not up to snuff, but also because the possibility of success in science requires that your theory be subjected to the risk of failure. Creationists will simply never be willing to run that risk. This is why creationists and ID'ers are angling for their ideas to be included in curricula on the basis of a kind of intellectual affirmative action, as a "balance" to evolution. Putting creationism into the curricula due to a policy of "fairness," "balance," or whatever, gives creationists what they desire: Guaranteed success and immunity from failure. Unfortunately (for them) that's not the way real science works.
I don't even think it's that.
More like fear and confusion. Take the Christian Creationists... They seem to feel that if there were apes in the family tree, that Jesus' mother couldn't have been a virgin. It's a miracle either way, so what's the big deal with a literal six day Creation?
We were in a (very) tangential discussion about what better commandments God should've given the Jews. At least I think that's what it was about. As I say it was very off-topic!
The theory of evolution is an interesting issue. It's one of the great half-truths of all time. People who have some scientific knowledge believe the entire theory, while a growing group of people with advanced scientific knowledge now doubt a large part of this theory. I fall into this camp of doubters. The scientific arguments against the complete theory of evolution are extremely powerful and absolutely convincing to people who really understand the sciences of biology and chemistry. The scientific arguments are too lengthy to discuss here, although I may attempt a discussion at a later date. I have a chemistry degree from the Univ. of California and I studied biochemistry and biochemical evolution in great detail. Let me assure you that at the biochemical level the "Theory of Evolution" completely falls apart. How then do you explain the existence of life on earth in all its many forms?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.