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.

[mlc9852]

Aaahhh, you enjoy oxymorons!

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Chapter Summaries: Branches of Science

Design Hypothesis

|

Cosmology

|

Physics

|

Astronomy

|

Biochemistry

|

Biology

|

Consiousness

Chapter 8: The Evidence of Biochemistry

Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Biochemist Michael Behe has demonstrated exactly that through his description of "irreducibly complex" molecular machines.

These complicated, microscopic contraptions, such as cilia and bacterial flagella, are extremely unlikely to have been built piece-by-piece through Darwinian processes, because they had to be fully present in order to function. Other examples include the incredible system of transporting proteins within cells and the intricate process of blood-clotting.

More than just a devastating challenge to Darwinism, these amazing biological systems -- which far exceed the capacity of human technology -- point toward a transcendent Creator. "My conclusion," said Behe, "can be summed up in a single word: design. I say that based on science. I believe that irreducibly complex systems are strong evidence of a purposeful, intentional design by an intelligent agent."

Behe's argument has proven impervious to challenges by skeptics. While obviously there will be future discoveries in biochemistry, Behe pointed out that they will not be able to negate the complexity that has already been discovered -- and which is best explained by a Creator.

[Long Cut]

Yoo - Hoo! Check out THIS howler...

"Behe's argument has proven impervious to challenges by skeptics..."

It never stops, it never stops...

[dartuser]

It goes both ways.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I'll stop with this one because I'm pretty sure you don't really care. I just wanted to show that the ideas have developed over the years with the science.

Chapter Summaries: Branches of Science

Design Hypothesis

|

Cosmology

|

Physics

|

Astronomy

|

Biochemistry

|

Biology

|

Consiousness

Chapter 6: The Evidence of Physics

One of the most striking discoveries of modern science has been that the laws and constants of physics unexpectedly conspire in an extraordinary way to make the universe habitable for life. For instance, said physicist-philosopher Robin Collins, gravity is fine-tuned to one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion.

The cosmological constant, which represents the energy density of space, is as precise as throwing a dart from space and hitting a bulls-eye just a trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter on Earth. One expert said there are more than thirty physical or cosmological parameters that require precise calibration in order to produce a universe that can sustain life.

Collins demonstrated that chance cannot reasonably account for this "anthropic principle" and that the most-discussed alternative -- that there are multiple universes -- lacks any evidential support and ultimately collapses upon the realization that these other worlds would owe their existence to a highly designed process.

This evidence was so powerful that it was instrumental in Patrick Glynn abandoning his atheism. "Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis," he said. "It is the simplest and most obvious solution to the anthropic puzzle."

[WindOracle]

Technically, what is supposed to determine if a creature is a seperate species is it's ability to breed with the other or not.
While some, such as horses and donkeys can breed successfully, their offspring.. mules, are unable to bear offspring, thus the donkey and horse are seperate species.
Canines able to interbreed among breeds, poodles to beagles, rotts to pits, and their offspring are fertile too, thus are same species.
This may be a new BREED of fox, but I am uncertain about species. Can these breed fertile offspring with a wild fox or not? If so, they are not a new species.

[dartuser]

lol ... you misunderstood me. .. lol ... I agree with you completely ... but didnt express that clear enough ... my apologies.

[dartuser]

lol ...

[dartuser]

Please expound

[dartuser]

I didnt gather that from the article, it was posted on FR this morning ...

cute little things ... wish I could get one btw ...

[mlc9852]

No, I understood - I was just joking back with you.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Then what is the evolutionary explanation for those molecular machines. If it is so easy to challenge, then explain it.

That's what irreducible complexity means today. It is not your 200 year old theory. That was my point in all of this. It is just as unfair to disregard this theories based on science as it was to disregard Darwin's theory.

[WindOracle]

Yeah, I can see the relevance to this discussion, and for a second I got confused trying to figure out where in this thread I saw that article. LOL

I do not think they made a new species even though I think they claimed it, but a new breed. Will have to go back and check it closer.

[Long Cut]

Not really. On almost EVERY thread regarding evolutionary biology, it is almost guaranteed that someone supporting ID/creationism or who doubts evolution will post one of these statements, NONE of which has anything to do with the TOE as it actually IS or reveal a complete lack of familiarity with the evidence...

- "If we descended from monkeys, why do they still exist?"

- "Evolution doesn't explain where life came from!"

- "There is no evidence for evolution"

- "There are no transitional fossils!"

- "Evolution can't be observed!"

- "Evolutionists are communist, fascist, homosexuals"

- "Evolution is wrong because no one observed the Big Bang!"

- "It's only a THEORY!"

- "It's on shaky ground, more and more scientists arew discarding it!"

- "My grandparents weren't monkeys!" There are far more than this, but they suffice. They are ALSO often posted by people who have been informed of their incorrectness or ignorance before.

The fact is, all of these statements reveal a fundamental lack of understanding of what the TOE actually says, as well as an ignorance of the evidence.

They DO, however, show that the poster subscribes to a "comic-book", almost satirical version of the TOE which is puit out by creationists instead of the real thing.

[WindOracle]

yep.. they just made a breed, I see nothing claiming a new species.. my bad, heheh.

Wish they were red, they are cute.

[crail]

You guy's are really pathetic....

It's because it's hard to tell the difference between a real creationist argument and your brilliant rendition of one! :P

[WindOracle]

Do not forget "Evolution and Creation are contradictory"
a falsehood believed by many on both sides.

[Long Cut]

"Please expound"

With pleasure...this link does a better job than I could with the science. For more, simply look up "Behe" on FR itself to read some serious debunking of his contentions by REAL scientists. He's been dissected here repeatedly, and by better science geeks than I.

Believe me, not much that creationists post is anything new to us.

[RobRoy]

>>"Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory."

Excellent.<<

I agree.

I also think intelligent design is how it happened.

[Long Cut]

See #269, or simply look up "Behe" on FR. He's been dissected numerous times here.