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.

[Fielding]

When the bulk of the proponents of a scientific theory are not likely to fully understand what they are promoting, it sounds like a fad religion to me.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"When the bulk of the proponents of a scientific theory are not likely to fully understand what they are promoting, it sounds like a fad religion to me."

That works out well for evolution, because it's proponents understand what they are saying.

ID/creationism... not so much.

[freedumb2003]

It's par for the course that "established" scientists hate it when new theories are proposed.

Propose an alternative theory and we'll entertain it.

[ahayes]

Most people, whether they think evolution is correct or not, are not sufficiently educated to judge its validity. That doesn't mean it's not accurate. Probably more people have a decent grip on the theory of evolution than the theory of relativity. Do you think that's a religion as well?

You would eliminate practically any line of inquiry from the realm of science just based on the fact it takes several years to get a good basis in it. That's unwarranted.

[Coyoteman]

Mutations can only be one of three possibilities in terms of natural selection: beneficial, detrimental, or benign.

Based on my studies of human races (many years ago), I distrust your "three possibilities in terms of natural selection: beneficial, detrimental, or benign."

I think there is a much larger range than that.

Look at skin color; it appears to be controlled by several genes.Within a (prehistoric) population there is usually a range of variation within that population. The same is true of most other traits as well.

With different populations in different environments the bell curve shifts to one direction or the other, usually keeping a considerable range. Going from Africa to northern Europe there is a cline of skin color.

These are all adaptations to the environment, particularly to ultraviolet radiation; too much and you get skin cancer, to little and you get vitamin D deficiencies.

Many of the mutations are probably benign or only slightly beneficial or detrimental. The extremes would probably be more rare, and detrimental extremes most likely fatal (albinos in desert climes would not fare well).

[Gumlegs]

When the bulk of the proponents of a scientific theory are not likely to fully understand what they are promoting, it sounds like a fad religion to me.

And what does it sound like to you when the bulk of the proponents of a religion don't fully understand what they're promoting? For evidence that this happens, just visit any religion thread here at FR.

[stands2reason]

If you believe that God created this process to behave in a specific way, and that nothing occurred within that process that he did not pre-determine, then what you are advocating is intelligent design, not evolutionary theory.

Actually, no, IDers believe God went in to "tweak" and "perfect" his creation by supernatural means and left "fingerprints" somewhere along the line. I don't believe that happened. Evolutionary theory does not preclude God starting the whole ball rolling.

[stands2reason]

I think if God were really all-powerful, he would design systems that don't need "tweaking". Which I believe he did.

[Coyoteman]

When the bulk of the proponents of a scientific theory are not likely to fully understand what they are promoting, it sounds like a fad religion to me.

Are you suggesting I do not understand evolution?

(You must be smarter than my Doctoral committee; I fooled them somehow.)

[js1138]

I am willing to be convinced with enough evidence. Have you enough?

I alread said I am not the best person to argue this. There are lots of books on population genetics. I would take a graduate course or two before going down this road. It's well traveled.

You won't find qualified critics of evolution like Behe making this argment. That should be a clue.

[Lucky Dog]

Of course, the above probabilities are for a single favorable mutation to occur and become species-wide. One must now address the probability that a favorably mutated species undergoes a second favorable mutation and that the second mutation becomes species-wide and so forth until enough favorable mutations have accumulated to result in a completely new species.

Differnet mutations can be fixing throughout the population simultaneously. There is no genetic constraint that one must fix throughout the entire population before the next one can begin doing so.

You are correct in that multiple mutations can occur simultaneously. However, you must assume that the environmental natural selection pressures are simultaneously favorable to every mutation so produced and remain so long enough for propagation. Additionally, assuming that such does occur, you must then include the probability that organisms, each possessing different favorable mutations, can combine to produce offspring having both favorable mutations and no detrimental mutations. Following such a combination, that offspring must find and combine with yet another mutated organism have a different one of your postulated, simultaneously favorable mutations, again, with no detrimental mutations and the environment, again, obligingly provides the natural selection pressure for the combination to have a survival advantage, etc. At each step, there is a probability multiplied by a another probability which, as fractions, produces an even smaller number for multiplication at the next step.

Even, given the number of genes and number of alleles per gene in a typical organism, the number of zeroes after the decimal required for probabilities to combine to produce a new species is a number staggeringly small (astronomically small is not an adequate description)

Factor in what I mentioned above and redo your calculation. And I recommend you show the values you use and the workings if you want anyone to accept your conclusion. Otherwise it looks like you have just plucked the conclusion of "staggeringly small" out of thin air to support what you already believed.

I beg you not to require my typing all of the probability calculations as it would require a huge amount of time. Rather, allow me just to pose one calculation, if you please.

Even given your earlier postulation of multiple, simultaneous mutations, I think you will agree that at least some mutations must occur sequentially for the appearance of a new species. Given Campbell’s mutation rate cited in my earlier post of "one mutation per locus per 10^5 to 10^6 gametes," one sequential mutation would 10^6 times 10^6 or 10^12. Add only one more sequential mutation and you have 10^18. I think you would agree that it would take many more than three sequential mutations for the emergence of a new species. From this, I think my assertion that the number quickly becomes staggering small is justified, especially given that each mutation has the probability of being detrimental or benign rather than beneficial or that even if the combination is beneficial that no additional detrimental mutation occurs and that the probability that the environmental selection environmental pressures must remain unchanged.

[Lucky Dog]

I distrust your "three possibilities in terms of natural selection: beneficial, detrimental, or benign."

I remain open to convincing argument otherwise. However, your post did not provide another category. Even assuming a range, as you postulated, a mutation must fit into one of my posited categories for the environmental natural selection pressure to select it for propagation to succeeding generations as a component of evolution.

Please see post 231

[Dog Gone]

I think if God were really all-powerful, he would design systems that don't need "tweaking". Which I believe he did.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. One has only to visit the natural history museum in any major city to see the fossil record in person.

The fossil record for horses is particularly good. Lots of specimens available to show the transition to today's modern horse.

It's impressive how it worked out. Whether or not one believes in a God who put the systems in place for evolution to achieve these outcomes, you have to have your head in the sand to deny that the systems are in place.

It's way past time to abandon the idea that all the fossils were the result of Noah's Flood and that all the extinct animals somehow didn't get a ticket on the Ark.

[fr_freak]

Bear in mind that events termed "random" are often labelled as such because it is impossible to know all variables that produce the ultimate output.

Fair enough. But all that tells us is that we do not have the ability to detect the design. The design, however, is still there. That is the key. One who believes in God would be logically prohibited from believing in the randomness required of evolution.

[balrog666]

Even given your earlier postulation of multiple, simultaneous mutations, I think you will agree that at least some mutations must occur sequentially for the appearance of a new species.

Buzzzzz, utterly wrong. That's the entire point of a large population - multiple, if not a maximum, of loci of diversion/mutation and intermixing for positive reinforcement and selection.

[Coyoteman]

I remain open to convincing argument otherwise. However, your post did not provide another category.

I don't see where a three-part limit is justified.

In just one trait, skin color, I discussed a cline (range of variation) from extremely dark to extremely light, to albino. This reflects a real-world condition.

There are many other traits involved in evolution.

These traits can be expected to vary, co-vary, and counter-vary in all sorts of ways. Some mutations will have both beneficial and detrimental results (sickle-cell anemia being one example).

I simply do not see a need to restrict the possibilities to only beneficial, detrimental, or benign. There will be "little bit beneficial-somewhat detrimental"; "mostly benign here, detrimental 2000 miles farther north"; "mostly benign here, advantageous 2000 miles farther south"; and so on and on and on.

That is why, when the climate changes, the range of variation within a population allows some to adapt better than others--they are already carrying the mutation from hundreds, thousands, or millions of years ago; it was benign but now (look at those darn glaciers!) its beneficial.

That's the way evolution works, and why simplistic mathematical models often come up with screwy results.

[Lucky Dog]

Buzzzzz, utterly wrong. That's the entire point of a large population - multiple, if not a maximum, of loci of diversion/mutation and intermixing for positive reinforcement and selection.

By the logic you have posited above, all species should appeared simultaneously. It that your contention?

[fr_freak]

Actually, no, IDers believe God went in to "tweak" and "perfect" his creation by supernatural means and left "fingerprints" somewhere along the line.

Well, I can't vouch for whatever structured points the IDers have put together as a curriculum, but accepting that God began the process which we have been calling evolution, having already pre-determined the outcome, necessarily indicates an acceptance of intelligent design (little "i", little "d"). Evolution then becomes not a process by which things "evolve", but a step-by-step construction. One of the tenets of evolutionary theory is that environmental pressures dictate the path of evolution, as an independent force. However, if one accepts that God predetermined the outcome, then neither the environment nor the mutations are independent, and therefore there is no discernible process, but merely pre-determined steps. Consequently, if one accepts that, then one cannot predict that, in a universe which does not have God, evolution is possible, and would occur the way we think we have observed here.

[js1138]

If you were truely interested you would be asking for books and resourses to study. Your line of argument has been studied since before the 20th century. You really have to ask yourself why folks like Behe have abandoned it.

I am not the expert on this, but I can tell from your questions that you have only examined the tip of the problem. I wish you luck if you choose to examine it in detail.

[Lucky Dog]

That is why, when the climate changes, the range of variation within a population allows some to adapt better than others--they are already carrying the mutation from hundreds, thousands, or millions of years ago; it was benign but now (look at those darn glaciers!) its beneficial.

In my original post I cited the need for environmental natural selection pressures to remain favorable to the mutation (or at least benign) for “evolution” to “pressure” the mutation to be passed on to the next generation(s). Logically, if there is no natural selection pressure, the theory of evolution fails miserably because then the entire inheritance of “beneficial” characteristics to survival becomes purely random. If the arising of a trait is purely random, then the appearance of different species is likewise purely random and there is no explanation beyond chance.