Darwin under fire (again): Intelligent design vs. evolution

First Amendment Center ^ | 12/5/04 | Charles C. Haynes

[WildTurkey]

ID has not been disproven.

Neither has it been proven.

[crail]

tell me how it started, with proof, not conjecture
Well no one can do that because science doesn't have all the answers yet, or probably ever. Science is the quest for the answers and that quest is unfinished. However if you want an interesting conjecture without proof, check out Stuart Kauffman, "At home in the universe." Basically he shows that a in a large number of chemicals there is a very large number of possible reactants which produce a very large number of complex molecules, many very similar to organic molecules that form living organisms. He shows it theoretically and backs it up with experimental results using elements likely to be found on the early earth. Plus he's a pretty good popular science writer.

[ironmike4242]

Is it unreasonable that there are different mechanisms that may contribute to a complicated process?

Not at all! In fact it's more unreasonable to say that "Evolution occurs because of natural selection.End of story" Which is what many Darwinian advocates think. I feel that teaching evolution as a highly complex process occuring by a number of methods is far preferable to just teaching what Darwin says in his book. Science has evolved so much since then, yet it seems like people still only believe in "Evolution=Natural Selection. End of story." And a little dose of "By the way, this is just a theory, we're not exactly sure how this all takes place" would be good too.

[Fatalis]

Even scientists who are atheists should speak out against it, just as believing scientists ought to point out that I.D. belongs in a philosophy of science or metaphysics class.

At the same time, science can't operate in such a vacuum that it is only subject to the scrutiny of scientists. There are aspects of science that abut other fields, and it's not always clear where the borders are. Why should members of one field have sole discretion over the delineation of territory?

[narby]

I don't know the answer. In some ways your argument is the only one that makes sense. But it feels... dangerous... if that makes sense.

This is the delema of the Bible litteralists. Which is why I think at least a bit of open mindedness is required where the Bible doesn't exactly state things, such as in Genesis. Those few hundred words in the beginning of the Bible obviously leave a great many details left out. Evolution really isn't contradicted in Genesis, and believers are really stepping in it to claim that it does.

[WildTurkey]

Explain to me how life started from nothing. Leave evolution out of it and tell me how it started, with proof, not conjecture or telling me that "suddenly there was life" as many evolutionists state.

Explain to me how gravity works ...

[JeffAtlanta]

The main reason there is so much argument on this subject is because everyone is arguing about something different! Can we get a unified theory of speciation? Is that too much to ask?

It may seem that everyone is arguing something different, but that's mainly due to the wide range of attacks by anti-evolutionists. As stremba posted before, evolution can be driven by many mechanisms such as genetic drift or catastrophic events.

As far as speciation, it is pretty well understood. Evolution predicts that speciation will be muddy and difficult to observe. The misunderstanding of this point is why anti-evolutionist insist upon observing an ape giving birth to a human.

[Fatalis]

Sure, there seems to be a whole lot of scientific evidence that would point to evolution over a literal interpretation of Genesis.

The problem is that what's held forth as the literal interpretation of Genesis conflicts with what is actually said in Genesis. If "day" (the Hebrew "yom") must always be translated as a single 24 hour period, you've got a big conflict between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

Genesis 2:4 refers to the day that God made the Heavens and the Earth, but in Genesis 1:8 God creates Heaven on the second day, and in Genesis 1:10, God creates Earth on the third day -- that is, on two separate days. The Hebrew "yom" in Genesis 2:4 is singular, so by a literal 24 hour interpretation, that would contradict Genesis 1:8 and 1:10.

For Genesis not to contradict itself, "day" can't exclusively mean a literal 24 hour day.

[MEGoody]

The current contender is “intelligent design"

CURRENT contender? Makes it sound like this issue just came up in the last couple of months.

[Oztrich Boy]

ID has not been disproven

So, how could it be disproven?

[GreenFreeper]

DNA mutations are basically "random". ---You can't tell me that's random chance. That's an environmental pressure that's being applied, and the result is a change in phenotype. It's anything but random.

That's not mutation, thats phenotypic plasticity!!!

[TigerTale]

The God of the Bible would not use senseless violence to breed human beings.

It's almost as though those who make this argument have never read Job:

"Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?...Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be in the right?"

--Job 38:2; 40:8

God will do as he pleases. He doesn't have to answer to you for his behavior.

God is not honored when you deny or misconstrue evidence of the processes at work in his world. All truth is God's truth.

[bigLusr]

Bah. I hardly concern myself with whether in certain instances the term "day" meant a general period of time or twenty-four hours exactly... just like I don't believe that the "Lamb of God" could have been sheared for wool.

But consider...

1:11 Grasses and herbs are created - day 3

1:16 The sun is created - day 4

1:21 Sea creatures and birds created - day 5

1:24 Land animals and man created - day 6

Plants before the possibility of photosynthesis? There's no way that evolution would allow that ordering. Flying animals before land animals? We're supposed to believe that land-roming reptiles came between fish and birds.

It would be hard to argue that even the order of creation wasn't meant to be taken literally. There was no moral to that part of the story...

[Dataman]

For Genesis not to contradict itself, "day" can't exclusively mean a literal 24 hour day.

I get a charge out of you Genesis critics. On one hand, you condemn the "literalists." On the other, you are incapable of recognizing figurative language when it bites you. You can't have it both ways unless you reject the law of noncontradiction and the logic that goes with it. So which would you rather be, wrong or illogical?

[Heartlander]

...The culture evolved into a fully resistant population.

Prof,

If the resistance to antibiotics was not already present the entire culture would die. By introducing antibiotics you are creating a catastrophic event. Even viruses such as HIV have had drug resistant strains before drug therapy even began. This is not to say that bacterial mutations cannot happen but they are ‘usually’ a degenerative change as in the loss of a control gene that may cause resistance to penicillin by producing excessive amounts of penicillinase. Even beneficial plasmid transfer must be existent.

Anyway, this is not a “selectively adapted response” to man-made drugs and I hope this is not what you’re implying…

[bigLusr]

Let's just pretend that said "roaming".

[Dataman]

Fatalis is misleading with his original accusation:

If "day" (the Hebrew "yom") must always be translated as a single 24 hour period,

No one claims that yom must always be translated as a literal 24 hour period. That's what I like about these evos: manufacture evidence for evolution; manufacture evidence against creation. Getting at the truth is not the objective.

[atlaw]

"No one claims that yom must always be translated as a literal 24 hour period."

No one?

[Dataman]

No one?

No one.

[bigLusr]

Hmm.

You sure about that?