Intelligent Denials: Bush's science adviser defends evolution!

The American Prospect, ^ | 22 February 2005 | Chris Mooney

[PatrickHenry]

When it's your job to serve as the president's in-house expert on science and technology, being constantly in the media spotlight isn't necessarily a mark of distinction. But for President Bush's stoically inclined science adviser John Marburger, immense controversy followed his blanket dismissal last year of allegations (now endorsed by 48 Nobel laureates) that the administration has systematically abused science. So it was more than a little refreshing last Wednesday to hear Marburger take a strong stance against science politicization and abuse on one issue where it really matters: evolution.

Speaking at the annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers, Marburger fielded an audience question about "Intelligent Design" (ID), the latest supposedly scientific alternative to Charles Darwin's theory of descent with modification. The White House's chief scientist stated point blank, "Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory." And that's not all -- as if to ram the point home, Marburger soon continued, "I don't regard Intelligent Design as a scientific topi."

[PH here:]
I'm not sure the whole article can be copied here, so please go to the link to read it all:
Chris Mooney, "Intelligent Denials", The American Prospect Online, Feb 22, 2005.

[crail]

I think I read about Avida on Slashdot... then forgot about it. Now that you've reminded me, I'll have to check it out.

[WindOracle]

The reason some continue to evolve, while some get left behind is quite simple. The ones who evolved are subjected to some change that not all of their species is. Evolutionary change can be started with just ONE member of a particular species having a few pieces of seminal DNA altered if it comes into contact with radiation or something which causes genetic mutation. Genetic mutation is a fact, indisputable, and it has been seen as a result of radiation many times in various species. This radiation does not even have to be on the level of nuclear fallout, solar radiation can be enough, as it takes only one radioactive particle, passing thru and egg or sperm cell, striking the DNA chain, to cause a mutation. Many mutations result in serious defects incapable of supporting life, but some do not and cause new genetic variants to come into being.

Evolution can also work in the slower, more subtle method, by the law of survival of the fittest. To give an example, one might wonder why primitive deer species changed into different species, some hardly changing at all, some having striking changes over eons. This is a result of the fact that they do not all stay together.. they spread out, ending up living in many environments, and when an environmental change occurs in one region, but not in another, deer in that area are subjected to a need to change to survive, while deer in another area are not.

[mlc9852]

So radiation caused apes to turn into humans?

[AntiGuv]

It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

Well, I guess it would be better to say that if it weren't an outright lie transparently exploiting people's ignorance. At least calling it a theory would be accurate - notwithstanding the insidious calculation that not few will misinterpret the term.

[js1138]

Something not discussed here very often is the fact that evolution, including all of its variations and implications was argued in the arena of mainstream science from about 1750 to 1940. Natural selection did not go mainstream until the 1940s.

You could make an analogy with plate tectonics. Continental drift was widely discussed from 1900 on, and had oodles of evidence backing it up, but was rejected because no one could see how continents could move. When the sea floors were finally examined and we could see it happening, everyone said, of course, that explains all this data we've been accumulating.

I remember this well because I took college geology in the fall of 1963, and the professors were visibly excited about the prospects, but the mechanism still wasn't settled, so it was still a hypothesis.

"Darwinism" didn't take hold until we had enough knowledge of genetics to say for certain that there was a mechanism that produced small variations, and a theory of inheritance that precluded acquired traits.

[WindOracle]

Among many other environmental factors... all controlled by God in my belief.

I view it all sort of like the lightning bolt thing, which people used to think was purely a sign of God's wrath. As far as wrath goes I have no idea, but just because I can now understand the PROCESS by which lightning comes into being, the positive and negative charged particles etc... does not mean God did not create it.

[crail]

Agreed, but sometimes you can't get everything you want when searching creationist sites for arguments that refute creationists. You can get some good stuff though!

"We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." Duane Gish, Evolution? The Fossils Say No!

If so, then how is creationism science again Duane?

[mlc9852]

I only view the lightning bolt as God's wrath when it hits someone.

[WindOracle]

How I reconcile Evolution and Creation.

Many people do not understand how I can believe in both, so I will TRY to explain.
I believe that God uses subtle actions in order to create great changes. Chaos Theory may be know to many of you here, but for those who it is not, it is a theory that predictability in highly complex systems is impossible. Weather prediction is a good example... we can see trends, but the predictions get very inaccurate over a very short time.
Why can we predict weather no better? Because EVERYTHING effects the weather, even if only minutely. A leaf falls off a tree, causes a puff of air at just the right direction and velocity to evaporate a few more or less molecules of water, tipping a balance causing a droplet of water to form... oh man.. the chain can go on and on and get incredibly complex, culminating in a tornado on the opposite side of the planet.
The only way of plotting the weather absolutely perfectly would be if we could monitor and calculate EVERY SINGLE THING which effects the weather.. every time a person spits, or a bird passes gas. It ALL has a cumulative effect.

I believe the Devil has issued a cunning lie to mankind "If evolution is correct, it means Creation is a lie"... and THAT is the lie. They are NOT mutually exclusive. Science cannot disprove God, it can only give us a clearer understanding of his nature, which is reflected in his creation.. "Nature", just as the nature of any artist is reflected somewhat in his paintings, sculptures, music, etc. This lie of Satan's is cunning in that when faced with proof, as all will have to face eventually, those who believe in the lie will have lost faith in God. An old saying goes "The Devil is in the details"... but I contend GOD is in the details. HE has the knowledge and ability to know that when a leaf falls from this tree, it will produce the huge outcome elsewhere... and he causes the tiny things like the leaf, to drop. Thus he performs his miracles before our very eyes, yet it is so subtle we do not recognize it.

[Oztrich Boy]

I read a great analogy of "intelligent design" br Dr. Wayne Dyer recently....

A self-eateem guru. The preferred science advisor for "progressives"

[WindOracle]

If you find anything useful in that last post, great, if not... well sorry, I am merely explaining how I maintain my faith in the face of overwhelming scientific evidences.

On a slightly different vein, here is how science has actually INCREASED my faith in god, when viewed in the proper light. There IS what I believe to be logical proof that God has to have a hand in guiding Evolution.

Evolutionary theory contends that DNA evolved, which I do not disagree with. Where I and science part ways is I do not believe it is mathematically possible for it to have evolved by pure accident and chance, in the time span they tell us the universe existed. Ya may find this amusing, as when I use the following example, it generally gives atheists something to ponder...

I ask them "If I were to tell you that today I walked out my front door, and a bird on a posts, chirping out random notes, just happened to chirp out a concert perfect rendition of Beethovens 5th Symphony, a mathematical POSSABILITY no matter how improbable, which would you believe is most likely? That since it is POSSIBLE that it did happen? Or that I am a nut?"
Most at this point will say it is most likely I am a nut, and rightly so. So I then ask them "Since a DNA molecule, the blueprint of all animal life, simple in that it is composed of 4 chemicals, yet complex in containing the entire blueprint of a living thing, is unbelievably more complex than any symphony by whole orders of magnitude... how much of a nut would one have to be to believe THAT happened by pure chance and accident?"

[Oztrich Boy]

What about primates isolated in a deep forest somewhere - what would cause them to evolve into humans? Step 1. Getting out of the deep forest.

[WindOracle]

and those which did not, remained in the deep forests, and remained monkeys. He answered his own question about evolution.

[mlc9852]

Wow! Why didn't I think of that?

[stremba]

I think it's safe to say that nobody who really understands evolution will have a problem with understanding how you can believe that God created the universe and used evolution to create all the different species of life. It's only the creationists who have a problem with this idea. (I'm not saying that all evolutionists will agree with you, but rather that all will agree that it's a position that's not ruled out by evolution.)

[Oztrich Boy]

Can an ape and human reproduce?

If he/she meets another individual. also ape and human, but of the other gender, it's a possiblity. (You know that stork thing is total misinformation, right?)

[ValenB4]

What do kooks do when they find out they're kooks? Let's watch and find out.

[Twinkie]

Well, the monkeys we see today are in the process of devolving back into whatever it was that they were before they evolved into monkeys. They are just little humans going backwards who are further along down the devolutionary scale. We haven't regressed as quickly as they have, you see. Our ancestors were from another region of the rainforest.

[WindOracle]

Well, technically I am a creationist too. The ones who have a problem with it are militant atheists who wish to use evolution as a way to undermine God. Or (here come the flames) Biblical LITERALISTS who believe in the literal 7 days thing, which I believe to be symbolic. I believe God put a clue into the story of Creation with the express intent being that we would know it was not to be taken literally. That clue being a paradox, that since the Earth did not even exist in the first day... how was that day measured? What was it based upon? I think the insertion of the paradox was intentional and was God's way of telling us something.

[elfman2]

You're right.