Rebutting Darwinists: (Survey shows 2/3 of Scientists Believe in God)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 04/15/2006 | Ted Byfield

[SirLinksalot]

Rebutting Darwinists

Posted: April 15, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

I suggested here last week that the established authorities of every age act consistently. They become vigilantly militant against non-conforming dissidents who challenge their assumptions.

Thus when the dissident Galileo challenged the assumptions of the 17th century papacy, it shut him up. Now when the advocates of "intelligent design" challenge the scientific establishment's assumptions about "natural selection," it moves aggressively to shut them up. So the I.D. people have this in common with Galileo.

I received a dozen letters on this, three in mild agreement, the rest in scorn and outrage. This calls for a response.

Where, one reader demanded, did I get the information that 10 percent of scientists accept intelligent design? I got it from a National Post (newspaper) article published two years ago, which said that 90 percent of the members of the National Academy of Science "consider themselves atheists." Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp.

I could have gone further. A survey last year by Rice University, financed by the Templeton Foundation, found that about two-thirds of scientists believed in God. A poll published by Gallup in 1997 asked: Do you believe that "man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation?" – essentially the I.D. position. Just under 40 percent of scientists said yes. So perhaps my 10 percent was far too low.

Two readers called my attention to a discovery last week on an Arctic island of something which may be the fossil remains of the mysteriously missing "transitional species." Or then maybe it isn't transitional. Maybe it's a hitherto undetected species on its own.

But the very exuberance with which such a discovery is announced argues the I.D. case. If Darwin was right, and the change from one species to another through natural selection occurred constantly in millions of instances over millions of years, then the fossil record should be teaming with transitional species. It isn't. That's why even one possibility, after many years of searching, becomes front-page news.

Another letter complains that I.D. cannot be advanced as even a theory unless evidence of the nature of this "Divine" element is presented. But the evidence is in nature itself. The single cell shows such extraordinary complexity that to suggest it came about by sheer accident taxes credulity. If you see a footprint in the sand, that surely evidences human activity. The demand – "Yes, but whose footprint is it?"– does not disqualify the contention that somebody was there. "Nope," says the establishment, "not until you can tell us who it was will we let you raise this question in schools."

Another reader argues that Galileo stood for freedom of inquiry, whereas I.D. advocates want to suppress inquiry. This writer apparently did not notice what caused me to write the column. It was the rejection by a government agency for a $40,000 grant to a McGill University anti-I.D. lobby to suppress the presentation and discussion of I.D. theory in the Canadian schools. Suppressing discussion is an odd way of encouraging "freedom of inquiry." Anyway, the I.D. movement doesn't want to suppress evolution. It merely wants it presented as a theory, alongside the I.D. theory.

Why, asked another reader, did I not identify the gutsy woman who stated the reason for the rejection, bringing upon herself the scorn of scientific authority. That's fair. Her name is Janet Halliwell, a chemist and executive vice president of the Social Science and Humanities Research Council. She said that evolution is a theory, not a fact, and the McGill application offered no evidence to support it.

The McGill applicant was furious. Evolution, he said, needs no evidence. It's fact. Apparently Harvard University doesn't quite agree with him. The Boston Globe reports that Harvard has begun an expensive project to discover how life emerged from the chemical soup of early earth. In the 150 years since Darwin, says the Globe, "scientists cannot explain how the process began."

The most sensible letter came from a research scientist. "I think that the current paradigm of evolution by natural selection acting on random variation will change," he writes. "I think that evidence will accumulate to suggest that much of the genetic variation leading to the evolution of life on earth was not random, but was generated by biochemical processes that exhibit intelligent behavior."

Then he urges me not to disclose his identity. Saying this publicly would threaten his getting tenure, he fears. Galileo would understand.

[balrog666]

ID is to science as... um, no wait, there is no connection. :)

Something about fish and bicycles comes to mind.

[stands2reason]

I believe God exists and gave me an immortal soul. I don't want that taught in any school, either.

[stands2reason]

How does any theory of the creation of the first lifeforms challenge the mechanisms of ToE?

[TUAN_JIM]

I get the point, but it isn't true :) Newton's laws of Gravity are in fact, incorrect. They only work on Earth essentially. Well, only with objects and speeds similar to Earth's environment. If you ask a physicist if he believes in Newton's law of Gravitation he'll most likely tell you "no, because in most cases Newton's laws do not make an accurate prediction." General Relativity is where it's at. Einstein proved Newton's Laws inaccurate using measurements of Mercury's orbit i believe.

You are correct. Newton believed that gravity was the attraction between objects. Einstein's updated theory shows that mass curves space-time and that curvature is what determines how objects will move.

[stands2reason]

I'll ask you as well. How does any theory of the creation of the first lifeforms challenge the validity of the mechanisms that make up ToE? If God created the first lifeforms, how does that prove ToE wrong?

[Gumlegs]

... although something leads me to believe the image was, um, "intelligently designed."

[connectthedots]

that site is assopciated with the U of California-Berkley. Are you trying to say that those in the Palenthology department are wrong about the origins of life being part of the Theory of Evolution?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Of course, it is evidence that wins arguments and the lack thereof that loses them."

Then my academic credentials are not relevant. Nor are yours.

"I'm just curious if you actually have personal understanding of the subject through individual study or if you (like many of the evolutionists on these threads) are merely cutting and pasting information from internet websites that you don't fully understand."

No doubt you are.

"Given your propensity to engage in name calling and avoid the logical merits of the debate, I'd have to guess that it is the latter."

As you have yet to tackle any of the logical merits of evolution, I'll take that statement as a joke.

" A perfect example is the complete lack of empirical evidence for abiogenesis or endosymbiosis."

Yes, your imagining there is no evidence for these things is quite amusing.

"You see, evolutionary theory apart from ID hinges fully on endosymbiotic behavior in the primordial soup. Take that away, and we're still dealing with lightning induced amnio acid formation."

After the origin of eukaryotes, that is not a problem. Most evolutionary theory deals with eukaryotes.

"Textbooks and credentialed evolutionists admit this..."

I doubt that.

".however when IDers and strict creationists point out the utter lack of empirical evidence for this."

Says you.

"that evolutionists either retreat and say "well, it doesn't matter" or "mitochondrial DNA resemble bacterial DNA so it had to happen"

That's not even close to the actual argument made.

"(just like humans resemble chimps so it had to happen, and so on).)

Again, you demonstrate an ignorance of even basic evolutionary ideas. No how many degrees you say you have.

[ahayes]

God has always existed, but the turtles aren't allowed to go all the way down.

[stands2reason]

Why don't you just point out an instance where CG's logic is faulty? You know, provide some evidence for your claim?

[Tribune7]

How does any theory of the creation of the first lifeforms challenge the validity of the mechanisms that make up ToE?

Look back through this thread and tell me where I made a claim that it did?

[Old_Mil]

How does any theory of the creation of the first lifeforms challenge the mechanisms of ToE?

That depends on the specifics of what you believe ID to believe - just like the flavor of evolution one promotes depends on what version you choose to believe (punt eq, gradualism, etc). Someone who sets for the hypothesis, "in the beginning, God created amino acids," would likely have no trouble with 99% of what evolutionists say (which makes one wonder exactly why evolutionists are as allergic to all IDers as they are...).

On the other hand, the empirical evidence leads me to the conclusion that life on earth came to exist in well defined phyla and that the history of life on earth is one of de-volution/extinction (not evolution). Knowing what I know about biology and science, much of what people say in support of evolution is science fiction based on wishful thinking based on the presupposition that evolution without the intervention of an intelligent designer is already true.

[ml1954]

Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp.

I thought ID was not about religion. And I haven't heard that the Discovery Institute has changed their position on this. So the author must be from a religion based ID group rather than a non-religious ID group. When will these IDers get their act together and come to some agreement on what ID is?

And while they're at it, they need to come up with some falsifiable tests and some predictions about future discoveries/phenomena, just like real scientific theories do...that is, if they want their theory to be taken seriously and want it to actually be useful for something other than philosophizing and IDer worship.

[stands2reason]

Then I don't understand why you think it's so important to group the two theories together. What is the point?

[ahayes]

Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp.

I could have gone further. A survey last year by Rice University, financed by the Templeton Foundation, found that about two-thirds of scientists believed in God. A poll published by Gallup in 1997 asked: Do you believe that "man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation?" – essentially the I.D. position. Just under 40 percent of scientists said yes.

This is really sloppy categorizing. It's important to differetiate between theistic evolution and ID. Theistic evolution says that God created the universe and all life through natural means. He is involved but acts in most cases along with natural laws. This is not a particularly bizarre idea since most Christians will say that God controls storms such as hurricanes without imagining that he does so via miracles. The ID position is different in saying that God made the universe by natural means, but the creation of the first organism was miraculous, and that at certain points in evolution God gives organisms miraculous kicks to provide them with new genes.

So the three nonatheist categories are creationism (miraculous intervention, no or limited evolution), ID (evolution through miraculous intervention), and theistic evolution (evolution without miraculous intervention).

[jec41]

I believe God exists and gave me an immortal soul. I don't want that taught in any school, either.

I would also object if it were the only theological view of philosophy taught. However if most religions and branches of religion were examined and argued as Theological Philosophy in a structured manner that required the philosophical method I would not mind.

[balrog666]

On the other hand, the empirical evidence leads me to the conclusion that life on earth came to exist in well defined phyla and that the history of life on earth is one of de-volution/extinction (not evolution). Knowing what I know about biology and science, much of what people say in support of evolution is science fiction based on wishful thinking based on the presupposition that evolution without the intervention of an intelligent designer is already true.

In other words, you're a Creationist without evidence or arguments.

But we already knew that.

[Tribune7]

Then I don't understand why you think it's so important to group the two theories together.

I don't really care if the theories are grouped together. Actually, it's better if they aren't.

The point is they often are and by evolutionists. Why?

[Dimensio]

So, you're saying that random mutation is not an accident ?

No one suggests that random mutation created the first cell.

[fr_freak]

I also happen to be a scientist who believes in God and accepts evolution.

I've wondered for a while whether it is possible to believe in evolution as a theory and still believe in God (and vice-versa), and the answer that I have come to, so far, has always been no, at least in terms of logically consistent thinking. Here is my reasoning:

Evolution is a process. The theory of it depends upon defining the process of how one organism can, through selection and/or mutation, become another distinct organism over time. The theory, put in very simple terms, is something like: randomly occurring mutations in a species (most of which are unfavorable, and the host dies or fails to reproduce)->environmental change which favors one of the mutations->mutation host survives/reproduces better than the peers->species as a whole adopts the new characteristic. Presumably, this process has been repeated over and over since life first began on Earth, and so we have merely to follow the chain. Though the process is extremely complex, the theory requires that it be consistent.

Now, if one believes in God, a belief which presumably accepts that God has unlimited power, then one must accept that God is quite capable of altering the evolutionary process at will, or bypassing it altogether. This does not necessarily mean that He did do so, but merely that He has the power to do so if He sees fit. However, once accepting that premise, one must accept that there may be breaks in the evolutionary chain where God simply altered the process as it suited Him. For example, He may have taken a horse and made it into a giraffe simply because He felt like it. However, acceptance of such a possibility would necessarily invalidate the entire theory of Evolution, because it would mean that the process of evolution could not be depended on to be consistent; one would have to be prepared for gaps in the chain that have no purely scientific explanation (within the theory), because the influence of God would be a random, outside force which could not be predicted, nor accounted for, when trying to trace the chain backwards from a present species to its origins.

A believer in God who also believes in evolution may argue that evolution is consistent, that it is merely the mechanism by which God created all of the current species, but that position demands that the proponent believe that God limited himself to the set of rules contained within evolutionary theory, and did not violate them, ever. This seems like an unreasonable assumption, given that a believer in God believes Him to be all-powerful. If God had a more efficient method of creating a species that He wanted, such as merely bringing it into existence immediately, then why would He limit himself to an arbitrary set of rules that He created that would inhibit His ultimate goal? No, from a logical standpoint, if one believes in an all-powerful God, one must accept that, even if evolutionary processes did exist, they were capable of being bypassed by God at any time He pleased, and therefore could not be counted on either to predict future species, or to trace back predecessor species.

A proponent of evolution who also believes in God could argue that the evolutionary process is intact, and that when God wants a new species he merely influences one of the determining factors, such as the mutation rate and type, environmental change, etc. in order to produce the species that He wants, and could do so within a single generation or two, but then what the proponent is talking about is really intelligent design.

Of course, the same argument could be used to discredit the Law of Gravity and other such accepted, reproducible rules of the universe, but the difference is that things like gravity are rules that we must live by, whereas the proponents of evolution who believe in God are necessarily suggesting that the evolutionary process is a rule that God had to live by, in order for the process to be consistent enough to be worth studying.

So, the end result is that I cannot so a person believing both in God and evolution without engaging in a logical disconnect.