For awhile now we've been seeing an on-going war between scientific thinkers who view natural selection and evolution as the accepted theory of life on earth and the people who favor the ridiculous, yet strongly held belief in Creationism - which is basically the literal events of the book of Genesis.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Steve Brungard
Faith is the active substitution of belief for knowledge. Evil is that which contravenes individuation. I began my existence, in this universe, in a state of total dependence. If any at all, my first decisions were about what noise to make in order to get food or a diaper change. I made an ever increasing number of decisions and the proportion and sophistication of those decisions increased as I established independence. Then it was possible for me to individuate. Then it was possible to claim sovereignty. This entire enterprise of personal development has but one method: juxtapose known with unknown, formulate belief, test belief, store knowledge, base decisions upon that knowledge, claim responsiblity, correct errors, cover cost, store wisdom. Faith contravenes this method at the outset. It substitutes belief for knowledge. It presents the unknown as known without trial. Nothing is learned. Responsibility cannot be claimed. Correction cannot be made. Cost cannot be covered. Wisdom cannot be earned. Independence cannot be established. Individuation cannot be accomplished. Sovereignty becomes a reserve for a self selected few who take advantage. A preponderance of evidence, presented by this humble universe itself, indicts faith as evil to that which is created.
27 - apollos
There are those who are more educated in science and much smarter than you or that happen to discount evolution, or at least to the extent it has been pushed down our collective throats until it has become almost a religion unto itself. That might also explain the fervency in which some such as yourselves harass others (i.e. yours truly) that hold to a different view.
You like to make the claim your opinions are based in scientific merit, and yet there are creationist scientist that can debunk your belief systems scientifically. I will not pretend to know any better than they. Nor will cut and paste and pretend that they are mine. I will let the experts do the talking. Hence, why I have added the links.
Some of the comments here are just plain hostile and ignorant. Full of bile as well as bias. I will not come down to your level and have said what I wanted to say. The rest is up to you, and if you have any kind of an open mind you will read them.
We are fed evolution in our schools, and it is incumbent upon us all to at least look at an alternative view if we are truly seeking the truth.
The point is gentlemen you do not have all the answers and cannot afford to be so hostile or arrogant towards those who are creationists.
That is all.
Peace.
28 - JB
In response to all the writers that have recently discussed their “interpretation” of evolution in the guise of scientists. Intelligent Design (ID) is clearly a manner of reintroducing creationism into the schools. A theory that supposes since “we cannot understand it, God must have done it,” is not science. There is absolutely nothing in such a “theory” that even comes close to true science. It is not published in peer reviewed journals and there is no manner to test it. Such a theory would have left us content “knowing” that the Earth is at the center of the universe or that the world was flat and 10,000 years old.
Evolution theory (theory in science does not mean hunch, much like the Theory of Gravity is not a hunch) is one of the best supported ideas in science. Among scientists, there is no doubt. Check out the National Academy of Sciences website if you want to true scientific details. How would ID believers even go about dismantling the fossil record of previous humanoids? Or do they even deny that A. aferins even existed? Why would one design a species in a dead end?
If you want to learn about ID, you should learn about it in a comparative religion class or Sunday school. But please leave only science in the science class. Our country is already sadly and seriously lagging in science behind India and China. Please don’t interject such rhetorically non science into the curriculum. Otherwise, we as a nation are doomed to finish last among the world’s educated.
29 - Bob A. Booey
Oh HELL no.
You are writing defending "creationist science," an oxymoron if I ever heard one, and you dare to use my "That is all" too?
We got problems, hombre.
I will say what I've said on every "Intelligent Design" topic. Stop talking about this crap. It gives these ridiculous people credibility and makes it seem like there is a debate. There certainly isn't one in academia or science -- evolution is the best theory we have for how life works. Hundreds of thousands of years of fossil records, gene research, animal breeding, plant mixing, microbiology, biochemistry and now even genetic engineering and cloning experiments should prove to even the most nutty wackjob that your silly version of religious belief shouldn't affect your adult responsibility to allow your kids to at least learn SOMETHING true and valuable that they could get a job with in the real world.
That is all.
30 - Taloran
Apollos says in comment 27 "Some of the comments here are just plain hostile and ignorant. Full of bile as well as bias."
Perhaps. But this statement is not an answer to our collective replies that the commenter's arguments are not intelligent discourse, simply links and biblical threats, "rampant lunacy and hypocrisy represented as truth," and unprovable in a scientific environment.
Having been around Blogcritics on and off for a couple of years, I didn't even find the replies to Apollos' comments all that vitriolic or hostile. He/she has had his/her say, been refuted, and thinks we're being hostile, accusing us again of arrogance?
I find it gallingly arrogant for Apollos to state "it is incumbent upon us all to at least look at an alternative view." No, it's not. You superstitionists steadfastly refuse to believe the scientific facts in front of you, and will not see any alternate view other than what the man at the pulpit tells you. It is not "incumbent upon" the rest of us to believe, or even consider, your medieval claptrap. I don't need to invent imaginary friends to help explain the mysteries of the world around me - science does a great job with the explanations.
Apollos also states that those who believe in evolution "cannot afford to be so hostile or arrogant towards... creationists." We can't? The Christian Right is universally hostile and arrogant to those who oppose them or disbelieve what they preach - is it unfair to turn the tables and treat their hostility in kind? Or can we "not afford" to do so because we might burn in hell? Neither argument worries me at all.
31 - Steve S
I believe that the earth and all stars, solar systems and cosmic dust shot out of a great black hole during a cataclysmic event known as Ye Great Old Sneeze. I believe the force upon which we all were shot, was doubly strong, because a similiar nearby black hole was plugged up with a Mighty Digit. This helped to create life as we know it.
I have no proof of this, but it is what I believe. I submit that if we are going to change the rules about promoting possible ways the universe can be created, then we be fair and include ALL ways. Mine too.
32 - Taloran
Your beliefs sound as reasonable as those on the sites linked by Apollos, Steve. If we're going to include the Judeo-Christian mythos in science class, let's include the beliefs of the Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Rosicrucians, Romans, Greeks, Norse, Babylonians, Sumerians et al. They are all equally worthy of scientific respect and study. The peyote (and other hallucinogen) -inspired creation myths of the Native Americans could provide a good learning environment as well.
33 - Steve S
I burnt a bunch of grilled cheese sandwiches hoping that I could end up with one, with the scorch marks in the shape of the Grand Nostril, (hopefully to sell on eBay), but I gave it up, after 250 sandwiches, I was just ending up with the outline of some long haired guy over and over again.
34 - thepragmatist
There is relatively unknown equation by Pythagoras:
HALF TRUTHS + ARROGANCE + A FALSE SENSE OF SUPERIORITY = IGNORANCE
35 - Baronius
If Gonzo and Bob can repeat themselves, I guess I can too (although it is boring).
Michael Behe points out that no amount of gradual evolution can account for irreducible complexity. A structure that could serve no function with any portion missing could not develop over time.
No claw -> slight claw -> modern claw
The above example is fine. Slightly tougher skin on the end of the digit could help a creature. Even tougher skin would help more. The claw would be the most effective.
No t-cell -> slight t-cell -> modern t-cell
This example wouldn't work. There are no intermediary steps between "no t-cell" and "modern t-cell" that could do anything. A partially-developed t-cell would offer no advantage, so the creature with one would have no reason to be selected over its earlier version. This is a different class of problem than the time and probability arguments, because it requires a fully-intact structure to appear. Statistically possible, but nothing you could call evolution.
So while much of ID theory is argument about timelines and statistics, this question of irreducible complexity really puts the ball back in the evolutionists' court.
36 - albert
DOES EVIL EXIST?
The university professor challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?"
A student bravely replied "Yes, he did!"
"God created everything?" The professor asked.
"Yes sir," the student replied.
The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are - then God is evil."
The student became quiet before such an answer.
The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.
Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?"
"Of course," replied the professor.
The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"
"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.
The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (- 460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction a that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat.
The student continued. "Professor, does darkness exist?"
The professor responded, "Of course it does."
The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."
Finally the young man asked the professor. "Sir, does evil exist?"
Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."
To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
The professor sat down.
The young man's name --- Albert Einstein.
37 - Baronius
Taloran - As for the question of hostility, it's something that doesn't belong in well-reasoned science. Arrogance by creationists alienates people who are on the fence, as does arrogance by evolutionists. I personally don't know who is correct, but I wouldn't have given ID a second look if it weren't for the anger of its opponents.
38 - billy
"irreducible complexity"
this is no argument, because despite complexity, clearly nothing is irreducibly complex, so id falls flat again, by making a false claim to try to confuse people.
similarly that "t-cell" argument is absurd. cells clearly developed under evolutionary theory before mamalls, fish, etc, so the idea you are positing makes sense only if you are very confused about what evolution proves.
39 - andy
Baronius -
I'd recommend you check Snopes.com sometime.
Next you'll be posting urban legends about how rocket scientists once proved the Earth stood still for a day.
Hey, did you know the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?
40 - Hal Pawluk
I thought David Hume had covered this issue pretty well about 250 years ago:
"If we see a house, Cleanthes, we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder; because this is precisely that species of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm, that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect. The dissimilitude is so striking, that the utmost you can here pretend to is a guess, a conjecture, a presumption concerning a similar cause; and how that pretension will be received in the world, I leave you to consider."
There's more, worth reading if you're into this kind of time-wasting stuff.
41 - ven
To albert, Does anything called "evil" exist?
World War 2 war perpertrated by the greatest evil known to man - Adolf Hitler. Yet the consequneces of that were liberation of erstwhile colonies. End of Imperialism. It is we who classify an event good or evil, based on our unique history and viewpoints. One mans terroist is another mans freedom fighter.
Mutation of genes amongst many things causes cancer. It kills us absolutely. But some times it may bring about some good fortune.
Does Evil exist? It depends on viewpoints. If absence of God is Evil then existence of God is purely relative to our experience.
42 - Baronius
Billy, you don't seem to understand what I mean by "irreducible complexity" or by "t-cell". A complex structure, like a car, can be missing bumpers, a roof, et cetera, and still operate. An irreducibly complex structure, like a car engine, is something that won't function with a piece missing.
A t-cell is a specialized cell which is part of the immune system. If a single chemical reaction is absent, t-cells accomplish nothing (or worse). It is impossible to chart out the development of such a mechanism. Marrow that sits around and produces non-functioning cells doesn't seem like an advantage.
Andy - I posted, then Albert, then me again. I didn't post about Einstein, so I'm not spreading urban legends. And for your information, I checked seven online dictionaries for the word "gullible", and...
43 - ven
Evolution of an eye is supposed to be the flagship of ID proponents.
Something here might interest the ID proponents which they might not have thought about. (Lack of ideas doesnt mean we should ascribe it to some supernatural intelligence!)
Check this link out:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
"Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch. "
44 - andy
Baronius - apologies, as I forgot that Blogcritics has things a little backwards from most sites.
Albert, consider that comment for you.
45 - Hal Pawluk
Maybe for you, Baronius, "It is impossible to chart out the development of such a mechanism [a t-cell]."
But for early man it was impossible to understand thunder and various other phenomena.
Mankind's usual response to this kind of ignorance has been to "deduce" the existence of a god.
Today, thunder; tomorrow t-cells.
ID isn't.
46 - Baronius
Ven - Perfect argument, structurally. Weak argument, chemically. Questionable argument, genetically.
The light-sensitivity on the front of a less-advanced creature would have benefits. As you note, we find examples of such today. Nerve endings are concentrated on the front of animals, because it helps to be able to sense what you're moving toward. The structural precursers to vertebrates' eye are numerous.
What about the chemical precursers? The worm doesn't have any of the dozen or so chemical reactions which transfer information from the optic nerve to the brain. And it doesn't have any of the dozen or so chemicals which undo the reaction, to "reset" the nerve for new information.
And then there's genetic precursers. Structures (your argument) don't mutate, and chemicals (my argument) don't mutate. Genes do. It may be possible that the gene which created the chemical reactions in the eye could have developed from the genes that created a worm's sensors. It seems unlikely, because the genes produce the chemicals, but I'll admit that it's possible.
So that's the gist of my argument. The structural analogy is too simplistic. The chemical processes hint at the genes which manufacture them, but even this falls short. We won't be able to explain how an irreducibly complex structure develops until we crack its DNA sequence, and are able to trace it backwards. But the chemicals involved indicate an incompatibility with earlier forms.
47 - ven
Baronius,
I will slightly change the direction of this discussion but is very much related to this discussion.
How can you ever explain the existence of some irrelavent features in our bodies.
Take for example
1) Appendix - An organ that can be taken out with no harm done. This organ is pretty large is used by primates to digest raw leaves.
2) Tail bone - One vertebra in our backbone has no structural advantage. It is very similar to the tail bones of primates.
3) Less developed toes on our feet. Why is there a need for human toes when we dont need them. If we x-ray our feet we see a lot of similarities with Apes.
4) Hair on our bodies - Clearly there is no need for hair. We wear clothes that should protect us from the elements. Yet some people have hair very similar to apes.
Getting back to the discussion, Did you know the following fact: That when some of the dormant genes are activated some ancient features that suggest our evolutanary path get expressed. Follow this link : http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/04/teeth.birds/
Absence of Chemical precusors doesnt mean they didnt exist. Evolution acts in both ways. It removes unecassary features and introduces new features in a perfectly logical manner.
48 - ven
Baronius,
You also said:
"It may be possible that the gene which created the chemical reactions in the eye could have developed from the genes that created a worm's sensors. It seems unlikely, because the genes produce the chemicals, but I'll admit that it's possible."
Genes code for protiens, enzymes and maybe more. The physical features that genes are responsible are called phenotypes. Like having blue eyes etc. And the genes themselves are called genotype.
If a structural feature (a phenotype ) ensures enhanced survival I dont see any reason why the genes underlying it have a greater chance of being passed on to future generation. Remember all the way that only way that genes can change is through random mutations in them.
The Structural argument is deeply tied to the Chemical argument as well.
49 - rudicus
I want to make sure we aren't getting too far away from the point.
Regardless of the irreducible complexity of anything or the falsely assumed belief that natural selection must somehow answer every question in the universe adequately or else it is null and void, the simple and irrefutable fact is that there isn't a shred of proof to substantiate the claim that there is any form of supreme being or higher power or wookies or anything else supernatural or extraterrestrial or extradimensional or extraplanar, let alone that they have any powers or were in anyway involved in creating anything.
We do not know everything about the universe, nor the earth, nor life, nor the sea, nor the brain. We probably don't even know everything there is to know about bananas or pizza. But up to this point, natural slection is the best idea we have about life on earth.
Proponents of ID are welcome to their idea, just as proponents of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are welcome to theirs, but the bottom line is that to teach it in science class as an alternative to evolution, then it has to be scientifically based, and it ain't.
And for Bush and especially Frist to give it any kind of validity as a scientific theory is irresponsible and just plain stupid.
Now if you want to keep arguing, knock yourself out, but you cannot have a theory whose main premise cannot be proven(an intelligent designer). If you can find direct evidence of a creator or other designer then we can talk some more, but until then, all we have is some unanswered questions.
50 - Duane
Rudicus: ... you cannot have a theory whose main premise cannot be proven .....
That is not how science works. There are no "proofs" outside of mathematics and other logical systems. Scientists make models. Observational data is then deemed to be consistent or at odds with the model.
51 - Bennett
Yeah Duane, but you agree with Rudicus' expressed points, right?
52 - ven
I want to ask an unrelated question to the propents of ID to know their ulterior motives, Perhaps a mechanism to separate the sophisticates from idealogues:
It is known that there never was a flood that submerged the whole of land on earth, would you still argue about?
Even if all the polar ice caps melted there would still be substantial amount of dry land still left.
Remember in Bible it talks about Noahs ark.
53 - rudicus
Semantics, Duane.
Before we can assert that a higher intelligence is responsible for designing life on earth, we have to establish that a higher intelligence exists to ascribe it to.
Until that is established, then any discussion of intelligent design is moot.
54 - Duane
Bennett, yes I do. But I would make one small addition. I apologize if someone mentioned this already. I'll go reread all the posts. The addition is obvious to all but the ID crowd, and that is that science has progressed dramatically since the introduction of the scientific method. There is no reason to expect that progress will not continue. So, while we don't have all the answers yet, many of them will come. So, I'll ask the question to IDers that I usually ask on these posts:
If a science-based explanation for the evolution of the human eye is developed and is accepted by the consensus of the scientific community, will IDers change their minds about the viability of evolutionary biology?
55 - Baronius
Ven - I realize that there are many structural similarities, and chemical similarities, between humans and apes. The ability to stand erect (hee hee!) is a puzzle, and it relates to two of the things you mentioned, toes and tail. I don't know the answer.
- Evolutionary theory stumbles over posture because the opposable thumbs don't offer a four-legged creature any advantage, and standing doesn't offer any advantage to creatures without opposable thumbs. Either development slows down the animal.
- Irreducible complexity doesn't apply to macro structures such as the tailbone, but to the extent it applies to the chemical similarities between apes and men, it suggests that apes and men are related, but there's an impassible barrier between both of us and fish.
- Hardcore ID offers no explanation for any similarities between species.
Like I said, I don't know.
I'm familiar with the issue of dormant genes, and it could provide some amazing information. It doesn't solve the question of gradual evolution as far as I know.
As for the nonexistence of chemical precursors, this is a perfect example of what drives creationists nuts when arguing with evolutionists. It's a lack of evidence. You can't cite lack of evidence as support for a theory. It's like Gonzo's fairly juvenile "equals theory" statement. Anything is proven if you dismiss contrary evidence or lack of supporting evidence.
56 - Baronius
Rudicus, I think we're straying from the "Bush is stupid" topic, but staying on the "evidence of evolution vs. ID" topic.
"Before we can assert that a higher intelligence is responsible for designing life on earth, we have to establish that a higher intelligence exists to ascribe it to."
Hardly. We assert that quarks are the basis of matter because of the evidence that they exist. We could thus assert that God exists because of intelligent design. I wouldn't; but that argument is just too weak to ignore.
ID is really less of a theory than a critique of the theory of evolution. Probably a lot of evolutionists believe that ID is a way of getting God into the school, and I'm certain that many creationists think the same thing. But as a critique, ID simply says what it says: evolution by random mutation and natural selection is incomplete.
57 - ven
Baronius,
How ironic you accuse evolutionists/modern science of pleading lack of evidence for holes in our theories. Can IDers explain the lack of evidence of an intelligent designer, which I believe is the biggest hole in the ID theory.
What chemical precursors are you talking about that is needed for eyes?
Genes > proteins/enzymes > eyes(phenotype).
If a particular phenotype is best suitable for survival it is passed on. So whats wrong in this elegant argument. Practically every single consequence of this model/theory is explored and has been shown to exist in nature. Any alterate thoery/model is incapable of answering all the questions.
We could as well argue that Earth moves around the sun on a tortoise. Yet Newtons laws/(or more advanced General Relativity) of gravity explains it in the most elegant and simplest manner. Practically all the consequenes of it have been explored. Any other thoery falls short.
Certainly your understanding of evolution is far behind what mainstream scientists have agreed for a long time for some of things you mention.
Check the links out:
Evolution of human locomotion:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/text_pop/l_071_04.html
Evolution of human thumb:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/4/l_074_01.html
58 - ven
Baronius,
To anwer your last post. The problem with ID philosophy of introducing a Designer is that science as such could have never progressed if it included it.
Say for instance we could have always rationalized the motion of planets in the heavens by the acts of an intelligent designer. No need of Newtons laws which seem to be behind them.
Same thing can be said of evolution. Why investigate the possible existence of underlying laws behind human creation if ever they exist?
59 - Duane
I don't think that's quite right, Ven. Scientists can study and learn from now until the heat death of universe, regardless of one's belief of the existence of the Designer. This falls into line with the so-called eutaxiological argument that nature was set in motion by the Designer. That's their King's X. Science cannot prove that the Designer does not exist, so there will always be people who will believe It does.
60 - ven
Duane,
The very notion of introducing a Designer means ascribing something we cannot explain now to "never explainable".
If "never explainable" then why investigate?
If "explainable" why the need of a designer?
Science perhaps contradicts the existence of Designer.
61 - Duane
Never explainable? That's interesting. If that's the result from an ID argument, then you're right, of course. But it's not clear that "never explainable" can't be replaced with "not yet explainable." Newton believed in a Designer, but he spent much of his time trying to understand the workings of the machine, and did pretty well.
62 - RKC
"Here's how SOME scientists THINK some eyes MAY have evolved...
Is this SCIENCE?
63 - ven
Duane, think about it
"not yet explainable " doesnt mean existence of a designer and every one would agree with that. Therefore, only reason some people need a designer means they already assume "never explainable". (For things we havent yet found an explanation yet)
Lets look at the argument in another way
Conversely, our definition of a "Designer" always underwent a change
whenever we understood some thing.
Like before we used to believe that we were given the mercy of rain by "Designer" because he felt so. Now we know the reasons why rain happens. We no longer in our everyday language refer to the designer for rainfall. We rely on weather forecasts.
As science is progressing, we in each step of human understanding relegated the "designer" to a smaller and smaller domain.
So see whats happening, from the original concept of Biblical "Designer" we have reduced the "Designer" to a mathematical concept of perhaps the last thing that will not be explainable by mankind.
64 - Duane
Yes, it is. Is it any different than Einstein saying, "Hmmm. Maybe the speed of light is constant regardless of one's state of motion" ? You guys are so impatient.
65 - Duane
Yes, Ven. That's basically what I was saying. IDers will be pushed onto their King's X.
My comment 64 was to RKC, by the way.
66 - ven
Duane,
One more comment, If ever we reach a state when everything were explainable, will there be a need for a "Designer"
67 - RKC
“Someone who finds a rock can easily imagine how wind and rain shaped it.. But someone who finds a pocket watch lying on the ground instantly knows that it was not formed by natural processes.”
-- William Paley
68 - ven
RKC,
The problem is pocket watch is no different than a stone. It is we who ascribe a meaning to it. Remove us pocket watch is nothing but a bunch of chemicals
69 - billy
ven is my hero.
how about that id theory? there is just one small TINY HOLE in that there theory. nowhere is an "intelligent designer" to be found, he cant be tested, measured, or otherwise used in any way in a theory?
Geez, when the entire theory rests on this one small little piece of evidence for the cause of everything it claims, dont you think it is a problem when that piece of evidence isnt detectable?
70 - Baronius
Ven - Did you read the articles that you linked to? They portrayed theories of bipedalism as more confused than I realized:
'Now the challenge -- one of the ultimate questions in the study of human origins -- is to understand why the earliest hominids stood up. "Bipedalism is a fundamental human characteristic," said Dr. Bernard Wood, a paleontologist at the University of Liverpool in England, "yet virtually nothing is known about its origins."' (italics mine)
Four theories were offered for the development of walking erect (hee hee!):
1) environmental changes in Africa (Vrba, Coppens)
2) body cooling (Wheeler)
3) ease of feeding (Hunt)
4) freeing hands / behavioural (Lovejoy)
The article then goes on to show each theory being shot down:
'One problem with the environment hypothesis has arisen with the new fossil findings. Both the Leakey-Walker anamensis and the White ramidus bones were found in areas that were once densely wooded, not savanna…. Proponents of the hypothesis are not backing down. The soil measurements, they contend, may not be precise enough to reflect significant but short-term changes in vegetation. Nor do they think that the wooded setting in which the two sets of fossils were found necessarily represents the environment in which the species both lived and foraged.'
'Dr. Ian Tattersall, an evolutionary biologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City finds the cooling hypothesis "particularly attractive," if not the whole story. Dr. Wood of the University of Liverpool wonders if it really explains the origin of bipedalism, or merely explains why bipedalism was advantageous when hominids routinely foraged in more open habitats.'
'Many such ideas are too narrow to account for something as broadly transforming as bipedality, in the opinion of Dr. C. Owen Lovejoy, an anatomist at Kent State University in Ohio who is a specialist in research on the origins of human locomotion.'
'Of the Lovejoy hypothesis, Dr Tattersall said: "It makes a nice story. But I don't think many people are convinced. We know so little about the lifestyles of those early hominids."'
The article ends with a dab of hope amid the pessimism:
'"We will always be driven to speculate," he [Tattersall] said, "and, hopefully, our speculations will become more informed and insightful."'
---
As to the irony of accusing evolutionists of failing to have/examine evidence an instead relying on faith, the irony is precisely my point. Scientists should never defend a theory by saying that they haven't found the answer yet. That's not a defense.
71 - RKC
The Biologic Institute looked at a protein, called penicillinase, that gives bacteria the ability to survive treatment with the antibiotic penicillin.
This work shows that working proteins are so rare that evolution cannot by chance discover them.
The probability of a protein with this ability existing in the universe of all possible proteins is staggering. The protein is Penicillinase, which is made up of a strand of chemicals called amino acids folded into a shape that binds to penicillin and thus disables it. Whether the protein folds up in the right way determines whether it works or not.
The Institute calculated that of the plausible amino acid sequences, only one in 100,000 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion - (a number written as 1 followed by 77 zeroes) - would provide resistance to penicillin.
In other words, the probability was essentially zero.
The probability of no ID in THIS ONE INSTANCE ALONE should convince all but those who have a complete aversion to a Supreme Being.
72 - ven
First to RKC,
When you talk about probabilities consider that such probabilities may occur.
1) Earth has been in existence for the last 126144000000000000 seconds (or 4 billion years) In terms of time scale of electronic transitions (10 to power of -18, typical of simple chemical transitions) it is 126,144,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 electronic transitions
2) number of atoms in earth 8.87 x 10^49
2) Our solar system belongs to Milkyway that has 100000000000 (~100 billion star)
3) Our Milkyway belongs to one amongst 100000000000 (~100 billion) other galaxies
So even if we base our argument only on probabilties we had enough time and space where such an event would have occured.
73 - ven
Baronius,
Thats typical of how science progresses. Before we understood the mechanism of how electrons moved in an atom in the early 20th century there were many theories of how it does.
Yet, eventually science has settled with Quantum mechanics. Look there is no hint of a "Designer" anywhere to explain how the electron moves in an atom.
To prevent repetition read my post 63 to duane. And also 58 about the fundamental problem with introducing a designer to Science.
74 - alethinos59
This is why the Founding Fathers insisted that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
Look at the ugliness that's caused by those who INSIST that something like ID be "accepted" or "taught" along with biology and evolution as an alternative.
If there isn't enough "GOD" in society, or school, etc., my suggestion is that everyone who is frothing at the mouth in their rabid insistance of this try to live their DAILY life as if JESUS were standing right next to you... I wonder how impressed He'd be with your self-righteous insistance that everyone comform to YOUR concept of the Universe...
GET RID OF THE PRIESTS - GET PEACE.
75 - RKC
“So even if we base our argument only on probabilities we had enough time and space were such an event would have occurred.”
How so?
Most of what has occurred has occurred in the recent past, not since “Earth has been in existence.”
And stating that the “number of atoms in earth is 8.87 x 10^49” shows that you are simply throwing around numbers that have no meaning in this context.
If you can’t argue facts, try confusing the issue.