Let me get this straight. The purveyors of Intelligent Design argue that evolution can't account for the incredibly complexity of life--ergo (Latin for duh) there has to be some intelligence (religious twinkie code word for God) that designed life.…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Baronius
I hate to belabour the point, but has anyone, anywhere, ever seen a potato that doesn't look like Ben Affleck?
27 - michael s. class
Who wrote the following words describing the evolution of life on earth, and life's beginning with the breath of God?
"It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. ... There is grandeur in this view of life, HAVING BEEN ORIGINALLY BREATHED BY THE CREATOR INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Just imagine -- God creates life and places it on the earth in a few forms, and then that life evolves according to the physical and natural laws that God put into place in the universe.
So, who wrote those words?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The words are from:
------------------------
On the Origin of the Species
By Charles Darwin
(Chapter XV, Recapitulation and Conclusion)
Michael S. Class
Author / Photographer / Publisher
Magic Picture Frame Studio, LLC
Web Site: http://www.MagicPictureFrame.com
-----------------------
Anthony and the Magic Picture Frame
Written by Michael S. Class
Published by Magic Picture Frame Studio, LLC
The Story of the Boy Who Traveled into the Past
by Stepping through the Picture Frame on His Bedroom Wall
Go here to LOOK INSIDE the book: http://www.MagicPictureFrame.com
28 - nugget
excellent post, michael.
29 - nugget
cr33py:
perhaps. That was Aldous Huxley's idea. Eventually, man becomes God because man doesn't need God anymore. If an abolishment of established religion ever becomes an agenda of democracy and a consenting populace, it will be interesting to see which aspects of morality will be kept and which will be tossed.
30 - Baronius
Nulldevice raised an interesting point. There's an assumption that ID negates science, and would prevent future scientific research. I remember someone posting that he was happy his dad had been cured of cancer before ID came along.
Why?
ID isn't anti-science. It's pointing out that the current scientific theory is insufficient. It speculates that science may not be able to answer the question of species origins. It doesn't deny genetics, or similarities between species' DNA. Random development may be a working assumption that's good enough for basic genetics, much as Newtonian physics is sufficient for aerodynamics. But this idea that modern evolutionary theory is necessary for scientific development is myopic at best.
31 - cr33py
ID may have a place in scientific discussion-
evolution explains adaptation of life in nature, it does not prove that all life on earth originated ON earth, or from a single source. Although ID does not scientifically prove the existence of a "designer", Science has yet to disprove the existence of a(or many) "designer(s)".
Can we definitively say that no life on earth has ever been modified? (i hesitate to say "created").
As the scientific community searches for proof of life OFF earth, it would be naive to throw out the possibility of seeding, or past genetic engineering, as a possibility in "species origin" or manipulation, in whole or part.
I think if ID is introduced into science, the designers of ID may be even more horrified by the scientific discussion that will evolve.
32 - willcodfish
No wonder our educational system has been in so much decline over the past several decades. No wonder SAT's have been lightened up so that damm near anyone with a pulse can now get into college. Again, ID IS NOT Science - the sooner those of you who think it is become educated in the tenets of science you will be able to emerge from the mire of such staggering ignorance.
33 - Baronius
Cr33py - Sure. Given the gaps in the terran fossil record, and the similar genetic code of terran life, the Razor would suggest that Earth is periodically seeded from some other planet, one which has the age and conditions to promote evolution.
34 - troll
Must have been a misprint in some of Ockham's editions...he recommended that we choose the simpler of two competing otherwise equivalent explanations not that we choose the simple minded one - hope that clears things up
positing any Designer introduces(irreducible) complexity and moves away from explanatory simplicity
the idea of a Seeder is little better though at least it remains in the realm of the physical sciences
of course (as a troll) I disagree with Ockham...when confronted with two competing ideas choose the more mystical and mythical I say
troll
35 - Les Slater
The Intelligent design debate is healthy. It undercuts the literal belief in the Bible. The God that comes out of this will be easier to slay.
36 - The Searcher
Troll: Eloquently and humorously stated.
37 - Steve
I am a Christian who fully accepts the value and validity of the theory of evolution. But I find your sarcastic comments regarding design flaws to be juvenile and supercilious. Only if God had created the world by some divine fiat could you fault the designer for your failing eyesight. Hey, I'm 54, wait til your prostate starts ballooning and you gotta get up to pee twice a night! Intelligent Design does not teach that God created the world the way a model shipbuilder creates model ships. This is not Paley's external designer, but an argument that there are principles of order and design that are the condition of life and evolutionary development itself. Your main argument against ID is meaningless.
38 - Nancy
Sorry to go back this far, but - "The Chinese [have] a huge lead on us; drastic action must be taken if we are to compete."
Compete? With fossils? JR - this isn't the space race, we're talking FOSSILS here. FYI, paleontologists generally don't 'compete', they share. What someone discovers in China helps US paleos just as much. And anyway, what would you suggest we do, make some & salt the badlands? Get a grip.
39 - Mark Schannon
Steve, since I'm 57, I share your pain-- or at least late night trips to the bathroom.
However, my intentionally light tone and humor has distracted you from what underlies a serious problem with I.D.--that living things have major design flaws. As I said earlier, I was too lazy to go find all the examples of extraneous body parts, poorly working body parts, etc. I've read, but take one simple example, the appendix.
At one point in the development of the species, the appendix played a valuable role. Today, natural selection (evolution) has rendered it useless.
Or the fact that our ability to create technological marvels far outstrips our ethical or emotional ability to make decisions about how/when/if to use it.
If God is the designer, then who or what is? If it's not God, then what was God doing? But any intelligent designer, by definition, must have powers far beyond that of mortal men so why was the design so poorly done?
If my main arguments against ID are meaningless, it's because those promoting it have never been able to describe what exactly it is or how we test it.
I actually think I've been pretty respectful (hey, if I can make fun of myself, I can make fun of ID), calling it metaphysics rather than science, which is in no way an insult since I studied metaphysics in grad school.
In Jamesons Veritas
40 - nulldevice
> ID isn't anti-science. It's pointing out that the current scientific theory is insufficient.
Okay, so maybe it is. Most scientific theories are not complete because we don't have 100% of all the data possible, ever. Scientists won't argue that point. No scientist will say that the current theory of evolution is 100% concrete and explains absolutely everything. We don't need ID to point that out, we knew that already, which is why people still study evolution, and why the current theory bears little resemblace to Darwin's initial proposition 150 years ago.
(Evo does do a pretty danged good job of it - it's been predictive of new data, it sufficiently explains a lot of existing data, and the theory is testable whenever we find new data.)
But yes, there are a few holes. The mechanisms of abiogenesis are still debated, as are certain mechanisms. ID doesn't do anything to close these gaps, though, because it basically throws up our hands and says "well, we can't find a physical explanation right now, so we'll just say a wizard did it." It closes the book on futher inquiry by introducting a non-verifiable, preternatural force as a motivator for the process. This in and of itself is entirely antithetical to science.
Is there an intelligent designer? Maybe! Perhaps God constantly intervenes in a very physical way in biology, or perhaps extradimensional aliens built us like clockwork toys. It doesn't matter from a sceintific standpoint because we have no way of testing it, and no way of using that idea to build new questions and models.
In short - ID is anti-science cloaked in the language of science.
41 - Baronius
Troll - Thanks for the assist, but I think a truer reading of Occam's Razor is that one should choose the explanation requiring the fewest additional hypotheses. Gould's explanations for gaps in the fossil record seem to require different mechanisms than random mutation and natural selection. So I'm saying (not earnestly!) it's simpler to assume that gradual evolution takes place, just not here.
Nancy, I think JR was joking about the US falling behind, poking fun at the "fossil gap".
42 - Baronius
Null - Science historically has moved in lurches as often as it's subtly refined a theory. (Think of it as scientific punctuated equilibrium.) While I recognize the explanatory power of our current model of evolution, I also see areas of failure. I also detect the stink of orthodoxy among scientists. It may well be that the next step in learning requires a paradigm shift.
I think scientists do need ID to tell them where the errors are, because some of the problems in modern evolutionary theory are ignored by the orthodoxy. If I may use an analogy: after his relativity theory, Einstein tried to create a unified field theory but was unsuccessful. Many people consider his adult life a failure. But he contributed immensely by studying the tiny flaws in the theories of his youth. These maddening weaknesses in post-Einstein physics contain the seeds of the next big theory.
Ditto Evolution. If the orthodox tenured crowd won't acknowledge all the areas of weakness in the theory, someone else has to. And a theory isn't defended by saying it's mostly right. Confidence in future improvements isn't enough. The goal is truth.
43 - Oliver
I have proof for an intelligent designer. The Chinese designed the goldfish, and the Mexicans designed the chihuahua.
44 - island
Unfortunately for honesty in science, I agree with Baronius, but it may very well be that the next step in learning requires a paradigm shift... backwards to a day when purpose existed in nature without god.
45 - nulldevice
Okay, I'll grant you the slight aroma of orthodoxy, but I think that's more a lapse in education than the actual theory. Most of the biologists I know - and that's a fair number - will happily admit that there are unresolved issues with current evolutionary theory. And I personally take issue with the way most - not just evolutionary - scientific theory is taught in primary and secondary schools.
(Although, frankly, if you've spent the past 50 years having a very workable, useful and demonstrable theory bashed with the same tired arguments you'd probably get a little snippy about the whole thing too and just want to teach it as a given and move on)
This however does not mean that:
1) we pitch evolution right out. Just because we have some unanswered questions doesn't mean the theory is faulty. Our theory of gravity is full of holes, too, but that doesn't mean things stop falling.
2) ID is entirely a step in the wrong direction if we want a paradigm shift. Replacing an empirical system of naturalistic inquiry with a pseudo-metaphysical set of assertions will get you to an endpoint quickly - life is designed, case closed! - but the nature of science as a study is really to come up with more questions, not just answer existing ones.
I think part of the problem lies in wording - the press is fond of talking about "the scientific community" as though it were either a condo association outside Cleveland or some sort of sinister conspiratorial organization dedicated to forwarding an immoral agenda. Really, they're just like the rest of us, except they get to wear tshirts to work and use words like "polyploidy" and "gluon" more frequently. Some even vote Republican. They have differences of opinion on theory; I'd wager that none of them thinks any theory is orthodox or beyond question, and if you put 50 evo-devo guys in a room you'd get 50 different subtheories on mechanisms of chordation in zebrafish or something. To get them to agree that evolution is a good theory at its core and that ID is Bad Science isn't a testament to the close-mindedness of science, it's a triumph of a theory if that many incredibly skeptical people can be convinced of something. This sort of stuff isn't taken lightly - it takes a LOT of data and evidence for something to gain widespread acceptance in any scientific discipline. The reason so many peopl seem so passionate about it is becasue there *is* so much evidence for it, and chucking it in favor of some vague analogies and untestable assertions seems mind-bogglingly, jaw- droppingly *wrong* on so many levels.
46 - nulldevice
Oop, that should read "ID is a step in the *right* direction", as I forgot I was using negation in the thesis.
47 - cr33py
wiltcodfish - your attack also "is not science" and may be one reason for the growing chasm between science and religion. science rejects pretentious religion, and visa versa - and it IS education that suffers. It is true, my point is more appropriate at a cocktail party than in programmed school education....but your remark is more appropriate on the playground.
So tell me, what would it take to determine definitively that every living thing on earth came from one source? then do it. We havent even FOUND every living thing on earth.
48 - cr33py
"Intelligent Design" is just another wonderful political move from the people that brought you "climate change", however i think that one backfired on them.
What i propose is that science hijacks the term "ID" and uses it for genetic manipulation....
will we still call it evolution, when the mutation is forced by genetic scientists? will we say the "broccoflower" evolved? will we call it "designed"? ..........will we call it "intelligent"?
49 - island
'More of a natural balance, the apopolyptic predictions of proponents of... "Global Warming" are just another wonderful political move from the ideologically motivated "free-thinkers" that brought you "The Copenhagen Interpretation", however, I think that one backfired on them'... too.
What makes you think that you can fool nature?
What makes you so arrogant as to "believe" that we huaman actions can possibly be separted from those that motivate squirrils to bury nuts for the winter???... humans instinctively warm the climate in order to counterbalance the long-term global tendency toward glaciation that is predicted by Milankovitch models.
At best, extremists on both sides represent half of reality, since their point keeps the runaway effect in check... in every case.
I can't imagine living my whole life with half a clue, tho...
50 - island
Althoug, "apocalyptic" predictions may have been a better word... ;)
51 - island
I can't resist the next example, although I'm sorry for making example of anyone:
Yeah, if we "intend" to create broccoflower, then it is the intelligently designed result.
But why would you think that you can speparate humans from nature to say that the predisposition that humans have toward "design" can be any different than the "predisposition" that pre-inclines fungi to make fairy rings... is the only real question?
52 - Duane
Mark (#39): If it's not God, then what was God doing?
Ha. That's an excellent question. I never thought of that. Did God subcontract to the lowest bidder?
Baronius (#42): Yes, Einstein did search for a unified theory. He was a physicist who spotted shortcomings in physical theories, and, using physics, tried to develop a new physical theory. He did not give up and say, "Well, it must be God or some superalien because I don't understand this." That's where your analogy breaks down. Einstein and the rest of the physics community did not rely on the impatience of unitiated detractors to point out flaws in physical theories. How could they have pointed out anything to Einstein anyway? Physicists are the ones to find the flaws and deal with them. They do this with great enthusiasm. Simiarly, biologists are the ones to find flaws and deal with them. They don't need to have bloggers pointing this out to them. You claim that there is an "orthodoxy" and that this is a bad thing. The program that has seen the rise and fall of orthodoxies in physics seems to be working just fine. Why do you think biology and biologists are so different?
53 - island
Einstein "believed" until the day that he died that there is a higher-level methodical structuring to nature that falls out of the cosmological application of relativity.
He was goaded into relinquishing to science in Copenhagne because he could not prove that the universe is finite, even though he did not believe that the arguments for an infinite universe were anything more than "lame" rationale.
Evobiologists are equally "anti"-fantical, (typically), and they get it from fighting with fanatical creationists. It comes out as a knee-jerk reactionary response that comes from playing the devil's skeptical advocate to death, and they find ways of denying the significance of any real science that accidentally gets mixed-in with creationist's arguments.
Goal-oriented design in nature, would be one example of science that evobiologists typically refuse to recognize simply because Behe, Dembski, et. al. use evidence for design in nature as "proof" of intelligent design.
In other words, Creationists have them believing exactly what they want them to believe, so they'll even go as far as to deny the existence of "design in nature" at all, much less "goal oriented" design.
That's what makes ID necessary.
Purpose in nature.
54 - Pat
I think all of you are missing the real issue in question here. The ID movement isn't saying that Evolution shouldn't be taught. All it's saying is that the dogmatic approach to its teachings should be reviewed and modified. ID merely says, "Hey, there seem to be some problems we that evolution doesnt explain, such as irreducible complexity. Why don't we be candid and honest about that with our students instead of teaching evolution as the simple, undeniable truth." If proponents of evolution continue to oppose the teaching of views other than their own, they are being hypocritical, and just as narrow-minded as those creationists who opposed the teaching of evolution in the schools years ago.
Willcodfish- I'd be interested to know your SAT scores, and your definition of science. If it happens to be "the complete blind following of 1 person's ideas, while disallowing the spreading of another's," then I believe your prior post was on track.
55 - willcodfish
PAT- I had 1480 on my SAT's back when they meant something. I'm a MCL Electrical Engineering graduate of Penn State University and have a Masters and Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering from USC.
Your quote tells you and I everything we need to know. ". . . following of one person's ideas . . . ." Two things, one - it's not one person, two - they're not ideas. What you just said confirms my earlier posts. Thanks for living down to all my expectations.
56 - willcodfish
CR33SPY-
My comment wasn't an attack and has nothing to do with a chasm between religion and science. There is and always will be a chasm between the two. Reason ?? One is Science and the other is Religion.
Please spare me from infantile comments and questions. Your question posed at the end of your comment to me in no way responds to my aforementioned comment. You appear to be exactly the type of person I was referring to. Thank you for the confirmation.
57 - concerned
My whole reason for visiting this site was to gather some information about the argument of teaching ID in public schools. But as I read the comments I felt the urge to continue reading all of them because I was shocked and intrigued by your beliefs. I am a Christian, and for those of you who do not know what a Christian is... I believe that Jesus Christ (the Son of God) lived on this earth, died on this earth and came back to life on this earth and ascended into heaven (a place that God has prepared- for those of us who believe in Him- to live forever perfectly after our life here on earth is over). If you would like further explanation please refer to the Holy Bible, New King James Version. I recommend the Children's Ministry Resource Bible because it is very easy to understand.
I'm guessing that most of you commenting on this article are not Christians and do not believe that this universe was created by God. And you've probably all have read many books on science and have long titles on your names. I think science is wonderful. Many wonderful doctors have found cures for many terrilble diseases using science and medicine. My point being that Bible believers are not against science. Without God you would not have anything to study, what am I saying, we, nobody would be here if it were'nt for God. Please continue working, studying, theorizing, etc., but as you do all of this, please also read the Bible. I'm not trying to force you to read it or force my beliefs on you. But in order for you to make an educated decision you must familiarize yourself with ALL of the information given. (The book of Genesis is about creation)
Thanks for reading,
Dana
58 - island
Then you don't support ID, because there is no realistically plausible science to it, and ID is 100% totally motivated by creationists that want to force religion into the schools.
The stereotypical reply to this is that the book of genesis belongs in a humanities class then, not a science class.
59 - willcodfish
Making an educated decision on the topic above has NOTHING to do with the Bible. Again, read my earlier posts.
Whew !! This is really amazing and quite sad, frankly. But, I suppose that we've known that you're out there.
60 - willcodfish
Island !!
God Damm !!! What a breath of fresh air to see you here.
61 - island
As usual, I'm making few friends... ;)
Thanks!
62 - cr33py
island - sorry broccoflower was a wrong example since it is naturally occuring.
My serious question is:
when we(humans on earth now) do; clone, hybridize, genetically engineer plants or animals how will we discuss these in 10,000 years?
we now breed chickens for voluptous breast meat, suddenly we have an animal that has not adapted for survival advantage....in fact to their disadvantage at the moment, but could be an advantage in future survival.
"Yeah, if we "intend" to create xxx, then it is the intelligently designed result."
10 points if willcodfish or island can answer without an insult!
63 - willcodfish
Perhaps not on this particular page, but fortunately anyone with a sound education knows your (and my) pain !!
I sometimes question why I bother, why waste time on this ignorance. It is nice, however, someone finally "gets" it.
64 - willcodfish
I fail to see how your posit has anything to do with the nature of the discussion. THAT is why you fail ! The fact that you don't see that is SAD. That's not an insult(though you may CHOOSE to take it that way). It's a comment.
65 - island
cr33py, I allowed your example without challenging the error.
I see no insult in using proper terms in context. Generally, the only people that find insult in my statements are chock-full-o preconceived prjudice that slants their perception of evidence and everything else.
We intend to create something when we breed chickens etc... even if we blow it... nobody said we were perfect, nor that we know everything about what we're doing, but on the whole, given purpose in nature, we can't help but maintain nature's balance, even if the system does work "in spite of" both sides.
66 - cr33py
insland - sorry, i shouldnt have put you in the same catagory as 1480.
the question is, how we discuss things that change with "intelligent" input, evolution will need an addendum. im not talking specifics, im not talking about the past, and im not talking about "god"... only that, from this day forward, you will no longer be able to use strict evolution as an explanation of species traits.
67 - willcodfish
Clearly you don't recognize distinctions related to many areas. That's not something I or anyone who deals with "real" Science has time for.
I also recommend a basic logic class centered around the principles of argument and debate.
68 - island
You're absolutely correct, in the sense that there is a "heirarchy problem" in physics that defines some form of natural preference as it applies via "fine-tuning".
It's totally relevant given only the observed universe, while disallowing speculative "reasoning" like multiverses.
The problem with neo-Darwinism is that Random changes in DNA alone do not lead to speciation. It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist. I am definitely a Darwinist though. I think we are missing important information about the origins of variation. I differ from the neo-Darwinian bullies on this point.
-Lynn Margulis
69 - troll
Cod - feel free to stop wasting time on this ‘ignorance’ any time
snide plays poorly - if you feel the need to be insulting (a feeling with which I empathize) try to be a bit humorous in the process
take your academic arrogance off my bridge
troll
70 - troll
sorry about the meaningless 'empathise with a feeling' thing - crappy writing
troll
71 - troll
sorry about the 'empathise with a feeling' thing - crappy writing
troll
72 - willcodfish
Guess I'm also not in the business of taking orders from another person who also hasn't done their research. I'd like you to cut and paste the body of text where I was insulting BEFORE being insulted myself.
73 - troll
orders - ? A BLT and some iced tea please
troll
PS - you are too smart to engage in tit for tat
74 - willcodfish
teeeheehee.
Just as I thought.
75 - cr33py
(keep in mind i do not support the ID movement, i merely seek to subvert the intent)
=====
island-
So assuming we call current gene manipulation (by humans not by "god") "intelligent design"...."I believe there may be a place for "intelligent design" in science",
ID proponents define intelligent design as...
"..intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause..." and
"In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose."
from- this link
so, if i clone myself, will science know its a clone? if my clone kills someone, will i be arrested with matching DNA? If a zygote is manipulated to eliminate a cancer gene, could we tell that it was done? or would it appear as a naturally occuring mutation? or none at all? could we tell with dna evidence from the parents?
some of these are easy but could we tell in all situations if evolution has been tampered.
And now my point: The future may require the ability to detect genetic manipulation, you can call it whatever you like, but we can start with one clear example of an "Intelligent Designer"....that designer is a scientist.
If there actually was ONE "Intelligent Designer", we would prolly find the same answer.