"If Darwin was right, for example, then scientists should be able to perform a neat trick. Using a mathematical formula that emerges from evolutionary theory, they should be able to predict the number of harmful mutations in chimpanzee DNA by knowing the number of mutations in a different species' DNA and the two animals' population sizes.
"'That's a very specific prediction,' said Eric Lander, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., and a leader in the chimp project.
"Sure enough, when Lander and his colleagues tallied the harmful mutations in the chimp genome, the number fit perfectly into the range that evolutionary theory had predicted.
"Their analysis was just the latest of many in such disparate fields as genetics, biochemistry, geology and paleontology that in recent years have added new credence to the central tenet of evolutionary theory: That a smidgeon of cells 3.5 billion years ago could — through mechanisms no more extraordinary than random mutation and natural selection — give rise to the astonishing tapestry of biological diversity that today thrives on Earth.
I know there are serious, well-meaning people who believe that evolution represents a threat to religion. I know they're afraid of our becoming a secular society rejecting Christianity to bow before the icon of Charles Darwin. I know they want the U.S. to be a Christian nation (in complete violation of the wishes of the founding fathers.)
Evolution is only a threat to religion if you're still holding on to Bishop Ussher's bizarre declaration that the world was created about 4,000 years ago (I forget the exact day and time, but he figured it out.)
Actually, it's the I.D. fanatics that are the greatest threat to religion. Come to think of it, the I.D. fanatics are the best evidence that Intelligent Design couldn't possibly be true.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Baronius
The ID crowd doesn't seek to explain God, nor use ID to support the Bible. Testable predictions based on evolutionary theory don't always work out - for example, the fossil gap - so ID presents an alternate theory. Or, as I've argued on these boards, it declares the absence of a sufficent theory of evolution.
More importantly, you're sitting too close to your computer screen.
2 - The Searcher
What testable predictions does ID offer?
3 - D-Nice
Everything that you just mouth off about was not congregated by God. He did not make Oreos and Hamburgers and Onion rings etc. Those are just products that man put together from resources that God made available.
4 - JR
The Fossil Gap is a desperate problem - recent finds in the Liaoning Province have given the Chinese a huge lead on us. Drastic action must be taken if we are to compete.
5 - nulldevice
You know, whether or not ID is true (I don't beleive it is, but that's beside the point for the moment) it's not particularly useful.
So. Life was designed. Great. That helps us further scientific knowledge how? Does this mean we stop inquiring as to why new disease virus strains form, and instead wait for a designer to come along and take care of it for us? Does it explain what the appendix is for ("well, it's designed there" doesn't tell you much)?
No. It doesn't. I know the ID camp likes to differentiate between "macro" and "micro" evolution to answer these sorts of questions but that's just arguing semantics. If you have to separate evolution into different "kinds" then your understanding of evolutionary theory isn't accurate, and it's still at the core a non-predictive, non-testable assertion. Even if it's right.
Behe likes to make the mount rushmore analogy a lot - if we saw mount rushmore, we'd know it had to be designed. Well, we'd know that intuitively. But we couldn't prove it without data. Just saying "well, it looks like a face" isn't sufficient proof. I've found a potato that looks kinda like Ben Affleck, but that's not sufficient evidence for me to say "well, Ben Affleck obviously designed this potato." Unless I can show that Ben Affleck was sneaking into my garden, maybe by finding his footprints, some lost stubble or developing a workable mathematical model for Ben's DNA to quantum tunnel into my potato patch, it's conjecture, not scientific theory. Similarly, I can conjecture that Mount Rushmore was designed by very skilled stonecutters, but without evidnece, it's again just conjecture regardless of how self-evident it seems.
Basically, ID could be entirely right - God or Aliens or Ra or Leprechauns orwhatever may very well have designed all life on earth, and they may also have done things like creating male-pattern-baldness or Kenny Loggins just to mess with us. But we can't know, short of said deisgner appearing and telling us so, and as a theory it doesn't lead to the advance of any knowledge other than itself.
6 - The Searcher
Nulldevice: well written! Ultimately, doesn't it just make us feel good to know that we're not pointless?
7 - Mark Schannon
Baronius, once more into the breach, dear foe.
Of course some predictions don't work out. That's what theories are all about and how they "evolve" over time. There are some predictions from super-string theory that are about to be tested & if they fail, the entire theory has to be rethought. That's science.
What's important about evolution is that many predictions have been proven.
(I'm sitting too close to the computer screen?....I tried backing up & fell off my chair.)
D-Nice, God didn't make Oreos? Hah. Nothing that perfect could be made by man. But an omniscient God would have seen that man would create all the other things I listed and not do such a lousy job with our digestive system and metabolism.
JR, I'm not sure what you mean by "desperate." A gap, sure. The same kind of hole that Einstein plugged with his "cosmological constant," which he later called the worst mistake of his career. Of course, today, many physicists believe he might have been right. That's science.
Also echo, good post Null Device.
I have to keep repeating. People use the word "theory" in two ways. Scientists mean a testable series of propositions that explain a phenomenon. In ordinary language, we use it to mean, an idea or suggestion.
I echo The Searcher--what testable propositions has ID proposed? (Hmmm...deafening silence out there.)
In Jamesons Veritas
8 - troll
I don't understand why proponents of ID see neo-darwinian failures as any sort of evidence for their notion - seems to me the inconsistencies and unanswered questions simply point to some as yet undiscovered physical/biological law(s)
but don't knock all ID thinkers - some of them might come up with interesting mathematical formulations...'left field' can be a creative place
troll
9 - Moses
You have a good arguement point.
However, do you not agree that altghough the design can be great, it may not withstand misuse. e.g. using the brain to conclude there is no God.
I wish to add also that the human language can never give a name for something that does not exist. How come then there is a word for "God" in all human languages throughout history.
Why ancient civilization recognized the existence of upper powers and we can not see this in the 21st century?
Thanx!
10 - The Searcher
Moses: "the human language can never give a name for something that does not exist"
Are you a cunning linguist?
11 - Frankie
Just read about Gerald Schroeder, PHDx2, Earth and Planetary Sciences from MIT and professor at MIT.
http://www.2001principle.net/gscv.htm
And don't forget...
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf
Dr. Anthony Flew. After 65 years of professed athiesm and being a champion debater opposed to theism, Anthony Flew now finds that Intelligent Design best explains the creation of life.
Regards,
Frankie
12 - The Searcher
Appeal to authority?
Ted Kaczinski is a brilliant and well-educated man with a PhD. May I mail you a package outlining his beliefs?
13 - Mark Schannon
Moses, sorry, but we give names to lots of things that don't exist.
(By the way, if you're really Moses, I have a question. I have it on good authority that God gave you 20 commandments on 4 tablets, but they were too heavy & you dropped 2. Truth or Fiction? Inquiring minds want to know. I'm working on reconstructing the lost 10 Commandments.)
Consider Pink elephants, unicorns, dragons, a three-sided square, delusions, the 19th century concept of ether (not the gas, the stuff that filled in empty space in the universe.) Of course we can give names to things that can't exist as long as we can imagine them.
We can't give names to things we can't imagine, but that's tautological. You ain't gonna get to God that way.
Frankie, I will check out those sites at some point but you make a critical point we always seem to gloss over in these discussions.
ID may try to explain the creation of life, which is fine. As Gonzo would say (and where the hell are you Gonzo???), that's metaphysics and perfectly legitimate for study.
Evolution doesn't seek to explain the creation of life but the process by which life evolves.
In that sense, ID & evolution are in completely different realms--there's no contradiction. In fact, there's no point to the discussion...but I'm sure we'll keep at it.
In Jamesons Veritas
(When the heck are the Jamesons' people going to see my posts and send me a free case for all this publicity???)
14 - Mark Schannon
Searcher--now now, one needs to examine the authority before one labels him or her a lunatic.
Well, one should examine the authority.
Ah, the hell with it. Go for it.
In Jamesons Veritas
15 - JR
Those of you who want to promote Intelligent Design have to do more than argue complexity--you have to explain why God (let's call a rock a stone, shall we?) was such a lousy designer.
That assumes we were meant to be the end product of God's design.
However, genetically modern humans appeared ca. 50,000 years ago, yet the world did not end; therefore humans must not have been the goal.
Civilization was established ca. 4000 years ago, yet the world did not end; therefore civilization was not the goal.
Modern democracy appeared ca. 200 years ago, yet the world did not end; therefore democracy was not the goal.
Socialism appeared ca. 100 years ago, yet the world did not end; therefore socialism not the goal (although you could be forgiven for thinking so after reading the words of one J. Christ.)
My guess?
Reasonably priced, mass-produced flat-screen TV's - that was what the designer was trying to achieve. By my reckoning, in about 18 months when flat-screen TV's drop below $500, the world will end.
16 - Mark Schannon
By George, JR, I think you've got it.
Hmmm. 18 months left. The hell with this posting shit. Where's my Jamesons?
(Thanks for the tip.)
In Jamesons Veritas.
17 - Mary
Wow...I must say you are pretty clever. You used humor in your article to make people think that the idea of Intellegent design is crap. First of all baldness is your problem buddy. Oh, and there is something called 'Just For Men' Maybe you should try it out sometime? Oh and it's pretty obvious that God, or the "intellegent Designer," didn't make chocolate or whipped cream.." But I guess that was just another one of you tactics in trying to making intellegent design sound stupid. Wow. I'm fifteen and I can see straight through your article!! That's pretty sad! Also you should take into consideration the idea that those who believe in Intellegent Design don't necessarily believe in God or the Bible. Considering the complexity of the human body,(and the fact that evolution doesn't even make sense), is usually the exact reason why scientists and people don't believe in evolution. Those who have responded to your article have heard you out and your ideas on evolution. I hope you do the same with intellegent design even though you obviously disagree. Also in this article you discuss all of your physical flaws. Well, if you're thinking that God designed you and you have flaws, so be it. In Genisis God didn't say that the human body was perfect! He said it was good. There are even those who were lame and blind in the Bible. Also, I don't think you could make a human being from the dust of the ground. Based off of that idea I would call anyone that could an Intellegent Designer.
P.S. I have this book and I'm no idiot.
18 - Mark Schannon
Mary, it doesn't take a genius to see through my post--all of mine rely on humor & satire to make a point. (Actually I was too lazy to go back and find the list of fairly serious design flaws in the human body that scientists have described to question ID.)
More important, self-deprecating humor is my way of trying to create an environment in which people can share ideas without being attacked.
You sound pretty intelligent for a 15 year old, but you need to be careful about broad statements such as "evolution doesn't even make sense." Evolution--as a scientific theory--makes enormous sense. That it still can't explain everything shouldn't be a surprise.
Would you say that quantum physics makes no sense? (Actually, Nels Bohr, one of the founders said, "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't"--but that's besides the point.)
The point is that "scientific" theories, such as evolution and quantum mechanics offer testable hypotheses, they describe how the world works in ways we can affirm or dispute. That's how theories change and grow and more accurately describe our world.
This is my third post on evolution and ID. We evolutionists have been begging the ID folks for some testable hypotheses offered by ID--to no avail.
I'm beginning to think that we're talking about two different things, as I noted above. ID talks about "creation," which evolutionary theory doesn't touch. Evolution examines how change occurs once creation occurs.
The former is metaphysics, and as a former grad student in philsophy, I love metaphysical discussions. The latter is science. And never the twain shall meet.
However, I am curious. If God isn't the designer, then who do you think is?
You're too young...but remember when you hit the right age...
In Jamesons Veritas
19 - Will Clark
Bottom line is this. Intelligent Design is not a theory and is not science. For those of you who think it is either or both, you need to go back to high school and pay attention this time ! That is the final, bottom line.
20 - nugget
What most people posting in these threads don't realize is a very simple philosophical truth about the absence of the supposed dichotomy that is evolution and ID.
Thinking people of faith will agree that creationism is entirely compatible with evolution. ID doesn't describe this truth. Niether does evolution.
People: They are compatible. There is no argument. You're ALL wasting your time.
21 - nugget
In other words, just because something is TRUE physically and can be proven by science doesn't make it suddenly unable to have been created.
SIMPLE. Whatever scientists prove, I can accept as physical truth.
22 - nugget
furthermore, and this is for those who BELIEVE in the afterlife of eternal oblivion, will you elucidate the physical rules and parameters that govern unconsciousness?
23 - Shaun Johnston
I support intelligent design in evolution, that does not involve a god.
I think evolutionists are misguided to claim natural selection is the source of all variation and speciation. That is an unproveable claim until you have full knowledge and can rule out other possible mechanisms. That is not yet so. I think evolutionists should stick to defending the process of evolution, but leave the matter of mechanism open.
1. Take Broca's and Wernicke's areas. They have evolved to support speech since speech appeared (50,000 years ago?)in a species population of average 5 million in around 3000 generations. That seems too few of everything to me for natural selection to accomplish such a major rearrangement of brain structure.
2. Our intelligence is so extensive yet appears so swiftly, I assume that intelligence has all along been incorporated in animals, though not as brain function. The genome has been evolving for at least 10 times as long as brains, and I believe it has in the course of its evolution developed huge intelligence. In late mammals I suppose it began investing some of that intelligence in brain function, particularly generously in us. The intelligence of the genome has been involved all along in its own evolution, I believe. Thus intelligent design is the primary mechanisms of evolution. Natural selection is no more than a subsidiary mechanism that is detectable with current technology.
If my idea were to be accepted as possible, would it be even theoretically possible to prove that natural selection was the only mechanism? I don't think that can be scientifically proved. I think evolutionists are unwisely narrowing down the range of possibilities in their field out of a misguided fear of theocracy.
24 - nugget
yes shaun, but you're missing the point. the philosophy of ID does not exist without a creator.
What you're talking about is some bigger, more complicated, specialized version of evolution. Simply, another physical argument.
25 - cr33py
nugget - maybe evolution is "some bigger, more complicated, specialized version of evolution"
we have started to genetically engineer everything....
in a million years they my call us the "designer" or "god", and they may not be "human"...