‘Why?’ versus ‘How?’ [evolution trial in Dover, PA, end of week one]

York Daily Record ^ | 01 October 2005 | LAURI LEBO

[PatrickHenry]

Professor focused on intelligent design as theology, not science, at Dover trial Friday.

HARRISBURG — If there is a God, then he could have made the monkey and the human with similar genetic material.

In the fifth day of Dover Area School District’s trial over intelligent design, John Haught, a Georgetown University theology professor, agreed that was true.

So, the idea that “we came from some monkey or ape is conjecture at this point?” Dover’s lead attorney Richard Thompson asked Haught under cross-examination.

Haught disagreed.

In a First Amendment battle in U.S. Middle District Court in Harrisburg, the Dover district is defending its decision last year to include intelligent design in its biology curriculum. Eleven parents filed suit against the district arguing the concept is a veiled attempt to force religion into science class.

On Friday, Thompson, in trying to cast doubt over the theory of evolution — referred to as the unifying concept of modern biology — raised the issue of common descent.

But Haught said that in the world of science, there is little debate that humans share a common ancestor.

The professor, who spoke deliberately and extensively on the philosophical differences between religion and science, was the day’s sole witness.

Questioned by plaintiffs’ attorney Alfred Wilcox, he said intelligent design’s basic premise — that the complexity of life defies all explanation but the existence of a designer — is essentially an old religious argument based on the 13th-century writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and the “watchmaker” analogy put forth in 1802 by British philosopher William Paley.

A person walking through a field stumbles upon a watch. It is carefully assembled and wouldn’t function without all its parts working together. The person’s inevitable conclusion? The watch must have a maker.

Under cross-examination, Thompson asked if there was a controversy in the scientific community over the idea of irreducible complexity — essentially, the watchmaker’s observation that if a single working part of an organism were to be removed, the entire system would cease to function.

Haught told him that there exists a controversy between Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael Behe, who coined the term, and most of the scientific community.

“So, you agree there is a controversy?” Thompson asked.

While most of plaintiffs’ expert testimony this week focused on establishing that intelligent design is not science, Haught’s focused on why it’s theology.

Science asks, “How?” he said. Religion asks, “Why?”

As an example, Haught compared the differences to water boiling on the stove.

What causes it to boil?

Well, one could answer it’s because of rapidly vibrating water molecules.

Another answer could be because “I want a cup of tea,” Haught suggested.

Both are correct answers, but one doesn’t discount the other.

One doesn’t bring the subject of desiring tea into the study of molecular movement.

It’s also a mistake to say, Haught said, “It’s the molecular movement rather than I want tea.”

[SmartCitizen]

I don't have time to argue with 25 people. I can't type 500 words a minute. If you view that as cowardly, I really don't care.

I suggest you all stay and commiserate on the reasons why atheists, who believe man is a machine, cannot live like machines. Atheists go home and hug their kids (love is just a meaningless chemical process remember?), grieve at funerals of loved ones (wait! - isn't grief a mere chemical process in the brain? - just ignore those tears!), and live AS IF life has meaning. They live not as if they were the machines they say they are, but live as if life had meaning. They pretend. To say man is a machine is one thing, but to live consistently like this is true is quite another. This is a hopeless dichotomy and a dilemma that the atheist cannot solve. Atheists refuse to live the ultimate logic of their beliefs.

I will leave you all to ponder that problem. Good luck.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Most evolutionists are not atheists so your entire post is moot.

"If you view that as cowardly, I really don't care."

I wasn't really that interested in whether you cared, to be honest. I was just stating a fact. :)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"PatrickHenry stayed aloof!"

You're a better man than I, Gunga Din!

[bobdsmith]

Nice assertion - are you a mathematician, or are you engaging in wishful thinking? A protein is so staggeringly complex that what you say is impossible.

The flaw was in the premise. The premise was that amino acids randomly falling into place to form a specific protein is how abiogenesis must work. It is not.

So, the biologists who agree are the ones who are right and the ones who don't agree are the ones who are wrong? That's a good method - it's called BIAS.

No it is not bias, and by the way bias is not a good method. One indicator of bias is when someone ignores the consensus of experts in a field when they are not an expert themselves.

You mean it leaves so much room for the imagination ... evolution cannot explain the beginning of life

Just as gravity cannot explain the beginning of matter, and germ theory cannot explain the beginning of germs. It is quite normal in science to have theories that explain how something changes or works without explaining how they originated. The two are generally seperate questions for seperate theories. I cannot actually think of one scientific theory that explains both how something works and how it originated.

natural selection/mutation can only act on life that already exists. You are stepping outside the bounds of evolutionary theory.

I can talk about two things at once.

Yes, we all know it has the power of the US Govt behind it! Yes, we all know that atheism is the de facto state religion of the United States ( a violation of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution).

Right time for an analogy. Meterology. Lets imagine some people's religion said that God creates the weather. Well wouldn't they be just mad to find out that an atheistic theory like meteorology was taught in schools? Meteorology is an explaination for the weather using only natural and materialistic causes with no mention of God.

We all know that the high priests of your religion will not allow any OPEN DISCUSSION.

And the anti-meteorologists would be saying the same thing. "How come Meterology isn't allowed to be critised in schools?" they would demand. "Why are the high priests of meteorology not allowing open discussion? Is it because they are scared?"

Any theory that does not allow itself to be tested and retested and questioned is not science

"Meteorology is a religion because they won't allow it to be tested, retested and questioned in schools". Well of course both meteorology and evolution are tested, retested and questioned, but this happens within the scientific community, not in schools.

and you have the best of both worlds since your religion is FORCED upon everyone who attends a public school.

We should stop teaching the religion of meteorology straight away then. BTW I find it interesting how you are using the word religion as some kind of slur.

Then we have people who believe spirits cause disease, not germs. "It's not fair to teach atheistic germ theory to our children in public school!", they cry, "either teach spirit theory alongside germ theory, or teach neither".

Well once you allow post-modernism and "all ideas are equal" that's science education dead. Not all ideas are equal, and the people who determine which ideas are the best are the experts in that field, for obvious reasons. That's the way it currently is, and there is no reason whatsoever to change it.

[alconservative]

Just because many biologists think it is "compelling" (meaning that I'm "supposed" to believe it) evidence doesn't show that all organisms share a single common ancestor.

"organism that shares no genetic history with any other organism on Earth"

That's not what we are discussing.

There's a problem with the single common ancestor idea. Life is found all over the earth, from the ocean floors to very deep underground. How did life spread from a single location to all these locations? Isn't that just a bit iffy?
And what precludes life forming multiple times in a similar way?

So there's similarities in DNA. On what basis then is the 'conclusion' that there was a single common ancestor? What is the logical reasoning leading up to this conclusion? And don't say, go research it, no, you answer the question.

[ml1954]

I deny Q ever existed. There is no evidence.

I know what you believe and we've nothing left to discuss. This X,Y,Z and Q nonsense has become tiresome anyway.

Believe whatever you like, but you haven't demonstrated, disproved, or proved anything.

[jennyp]

I suggest you all stay and commiserate on the reasons why atheists, who believe man is a machine, cannot live like machines. Atheists go home and hug their kids (love is just a meaningless chemical process remember?), grieve at funerals of loved ones (wait! - isn't grief a mere chemical process in the brain? - just ignore those tears!), and live AS IF life has meaning. They live not as if they were the machines they say they are, but live as if life had meaning. They pretend. To say man is a machine is one thing, but to live consistently like this is true is quite another. This is a hopeless dichotomy and a dilemma that the atheist cannot solve. Atheists refuse to live the ultimate logic of their beliefs.

Once again I suggest you read post 111 and learn why the fallacy of composition is something you should try to avoid in your thinking. Consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning human brain. It exists on a higher order of abstraction than the neurons & molecules that it's made up of. The two worlds are totally compatible, just like water's wetness & fire-retardance are totally compatible with the fact that its components have neither.

[Antonello]

Just because many biologists think it is "compelling" (meaning that I'm "supposed" to believe it) evidence doesn't show that all organisms share a single common ancestor.

You have a good point there. The fact that biologists believe the evidence is not evidence in itself. However, if you choose to doubt them, it is on you to learn enough about the subject to understand the evidence to judge for yourself.

Personally, I am so ignorant on the subject that I'm not qualified to scrub beakers for some of these guys, let alone second guess them. But I've done enough research to learn that even though I don't fully understand the details, I can see that this view is widely peer reviewed and accepted.

"organism that shares no genetic history with any other organism on Earth"

That's not what we are discussing.

Forgive me, but I beg to differ. As I just admitted, my knowledge of genetic biology is limited, to be generous. However, I would still contend that two organisms without a common ancestor would be apparent by their lack of genetically determined history. In fact, it would be a very significant disproof of common descent.

There's a problem with the single common ancestor idea. Life is found all over the earth, from the ocean floors to very deep underground. How did life spread from a single location to all these locations? Isn't that just a bit iffy? And what precludes life forming multiple times in a similar way?

So there's similarities in DNA. On what basis then is the 'conclusion' that there was a single common ancestor? What is the logical reasoning leading up to this conclusion? And don't say, go research it, no, you answer the question.

I don't have the training or the technical expertise to give you more than the very basic answer I already have. So, for more in-depth information, I'll let these guys answer.

[anguish]

I cannot believe such a smart person would make such an obviously false assertion.

I think he saw that himself, but choose the quick, vain retreat so to avoid having to acknowledge it.

[SmartCitizen]

It exists on a higher order of abstraction than the neurons & molecules that it's made up of. The two worlds are totally compatible, just like water's wetness & fire-retardance are totally compatible with the fact that its components have neither.

You can't have it both ways. If there is a "higher order of abstraction" (whatever the blue blazes tht means) - another "world" which CANNNOT BE EXPLAINED BY MATERIAL FORCES or processes (such as the mind), then there necessarily is existence that is not material in nature? I put it to you simply: Are emotions and feelings and other processes of the mind, material in nature or not? Yes or no.

[From many - one.]

There are a number of posts you have not replied to.

Can I take it that you acknowledge they are correct?

[SmartCitizen]

I don't have time to argue with 25 evo-bots (who never admit they are ever wrong) so I picked and chose the ones I would reply to. I do it for the benefit of the lurker, not in order to try to convince any of the evo-bots.

[highball]

I believe in change over time, but new "kinds" have never evolved. All of the phyla appeared at one time as the Cambrian explosion clearly demonstrates.

"At one time?" You are aware, of course, that the Cambrian Explosion took place over the course of 40 million years? Don't let nomenclatural shorthand fool you.

Evolutionists invent or interpret evidence in order to fit their preconceived presuppositions.

Provide some proof of this assertion, or withdraw it. It's easy to lob phony charges, but you must back up such a stong statement.

[highball]

Your cowardly retreat is noted. I wouldn't want to have answer for the ridiculous statements you made either.

I wouldn't either, had I said some of those silly things.

[SmartCitizen]

Provide some proof of this assertion, or withdraw it. It's easy to lob phony charges, but you must back up such a stong statement.

Gladly! Here's a few instances of mis-interpreted or manufactured evidence by evolutionists: Haekl's drawings, peppered moth, Piltdown man, Peking Man, Nebraska Man. Need more?

[From many - one.]

Every one of which has been cleared up by...guess who?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Gladly! Here's a few instances of mis-interpreted or manufactured evidence by evolutionists: Haekl's drawings, peppered moth, Piltdown man, Peking Man, Nebraska Man. Need more?"

1) Haeckel's drawing are not in text books anymore, and his biogenic law has not been believed by scientists for over 100 years. Darwin didn't agree with it. There IS evidence in vertebrate embryology for common descent though.

2) The peppered moth IS a valid example of natural selection working. It was not a fraud nor was it wrong, despite creationist lies to the contrary.

3) Piltdown Man was disproved by scientists many decades ago and has not been taught nor accepted as an ancestor in for many decades. In fact, there was never a consensus that it was real. Another creationist lie.

4) Peking Man is a real fossil. There is no hoax; there are a number of specimens from this species,

5) Nebraska Man was NEVER accepted as a hominid. It was NEVER accepted by science. It was NEVER taught as such. This is one of the most egregious lies made by creationists. It was a mistake that was corrected before it ever made it to the scientific journals.

You will need to do a lot better than these pathetic creationist lies.

[Quark2005]

Every hear of the 1987 ruling by the US Supreme Court - Edwards vs. Aguillard? I suggest you review it.

I'm familiar with the case.

It struck down a Louisiana law that required teaching of both evolution and creationist viewpoint side by side in public schools (sounds fair to me - let the kids decide).

So the kids should get to decide the curriculum? I think it's a better idea to let scientific professionals decide science curricula.

The court held that it failed the "Lemon test" which requires that a public religious activity is constitional only if (1)it has a predominately secular purpose (secular humanism is certainly secular but it promotes atheism!)

A secular purpose does not necessarily mean secular humanism. You are overextending the language here. The study of science has nothing to with God. Neither does auto mechanics, by the way. Does fixing your car promote secular humanism?

Only problem is that the Lemon test has nothing to do with the Constitution - it is pure arbitrary law created by judges (who are not consitutionally allowed to make law). Once again, judges decide for the people regardless of what the people want.

In this case, it was the judges enforcing the First Amendment, regardless of what the people want. Personally, I don't want to live in a society where scientific research and education are inhibited by sectarian prejudice. We left the Dark Ages behind for a reason.

Also, I am watching the cases in Kansas and PA - the evolutionists are apoloplectic that the boards in some communities are starting to question evolution.

Academic standards should not be lowered just because the people in many communities are predominantly scientifically illiterate.

They also have the mainstream media on their side.

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

Even stating that evolution is just a theory and not fact cannot be allowed!

Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

The sacred theory must be protected and enforced at all costs - and we see the atheists circling the wagons in these communities.

There is nothing "sacred" about evolution. Its consequences are and have been tested all the time. Evolutionary theory is not sacrosanct. The fact that the science isn't on your side doesn't make the opposing viewpoint a "religion".

However, the PEOPLE will ultimately decide what is taught in their schools (not a federal judge), that is, if there is anything remaining of this dying republic.

And if people want good science education, they will continue to let science teaching professionals do their job, which includes a thorough teaching of the theory of evolution. Personally, I think it would be great if creationism could be mentioned in the classroom. Then well-trained biology and earth science teachers could (and would) rightfully tear the flimsy "science" behind creationism to shreds on a regular basis.

[From many - one.]

SmartCitizen Posted:

"I don't have time to argue with 25 evo-bots (who never admit they are ever wrong) so I picked and chose the ones I would reply to. I do it for the benefit of the lurker, not in order to try to convince any of the evo-bots."

Hi, Lurkers

SmartCitizen did not reply to my posts #149, 151, 171, 172. I think they documented errors, misinformation or lack of information in his prior posts. What do you think?

educated citizen

[SmartCitizen]

You asked for examples - I gave them. The people who perpetrated the lies were EVOLUTIONISTS. Period. Haekl's photos were in my science book when I was a kid, even though they were discredited 100 years ago. Explain that. The peppered moth was mischaracterized - moths were glued to the trees. If you like, I can give you the entire low-down on the peppered moth that shows the deceit involved.

Obviously they are not lies. More information is chronicled in "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells. I know...he's an idiot right! Anyone who speaks out against evolution is an idiot or a moron or a liar! (spit on the floor)