Godless Mom in the Bible Belt

That IS hilarious. The whole intelligent design thing just amazes me. Whoa.

Too funny! I have senior English students who might answer questions in the way Behe did, but they have the excuse of being young and uneducated. What's his excuse?

Does Intelligent Design mean that you can believe the world was created by Aliens? That's about as probable as the God idea.

That is absolutely funny.

I am still trying to figure out what intelligent design means. I wonder if the people of Kansas know, since they voted to have this theory taught along with other theories of evolution.

Well, as you know ... this is where we disagree. Because no matter how much someone pokes fun at something, it doesn't mean that that something is false. It just means that someone's trying awful hard to make it look ludicrous.

I don't know if you've read Behe's book, but he (at least at the time of writing) wasn't making any claims as to whom or what the designer was. It's simply that he proves that it's irrefutable that something was. And if you have a scientific background and read the book, it will at least leave you questioning a great deal. It's not for dummies.

So, as Polanco asks, sure it means it could've been created by aliens! In fact, that's what my assistant (Zen & Now) thinks.

ID and its proponents do a pretty good job of making it look ludicrous on their own.

Saur: One of the biggest problems with ID isn't only that it is an attack on Evolution rather than being a theory in its own right. The issue is that it is an attack on the Scientific Method itself. Your statement proves that. No one who "has a scientific background" would ever take the position that any of the thought on the larger scientific issues is irrefutable. Not the theory of relativity, certainly not the theory of evolution, not even the theory of gravtiy. Darwin himself published that if anyone was ever able to find an out-of-place fossil his theory would crumble. No one has done that yet.

To claim that a single book, written by a man with a clear (non-scientific) agenda, offers irrefutable proof of anything regarding the nature of the universe and life is way out of bounds. Especially coming from a "scientist".

Behe's book proves nothing. It offers vague, untested postulations for alternatives to some of the tenets of evolution that appear to be weak, especially to the layman who is more apt to read a popular book than a scientific journal. ID exposes itself as anti-sciecne by the very fact that it doesn't offer itself up for refutation and examination through peer-review before the very community it attempts to discredit.

To even have this debate on scientific footing is disappointing. It distracts the real scientists from solving all the true controversies that exist within the accepted theory of evolution.

ID is not science. Not because I say it isn't, but because it has never once been presented to the scientific community at large as a well formulated, tested and vulnerable hypothesis. The creation of an alternative theory to something that is already overwhelmingly accepted in the scientific community does not start with the publication of a popular book. It ends there. The ID peddlers have circumvented, almost entirely, the Scientific Method in a rush to get their flimsy talking points into the hands of scared Christian parents and school board members. That alone proves it is not science and that its proponents have no real interest in the time and effort it would take to make it so.

ID is creationism dressed in a lab coat, horned rimmed glasses and holding a clipboard in the hopes that it can sneak into a science class.

What your smart husband said. Can't improve on it.

Godless Dad, No one who "has a scientific background" would ever take the position that any of the thought on the larger scientific issues is irrefutable.

Sorry, but *I* am not trying to insult you, though apparently you feel the need to insult me and others that believe this. This is a sticky topic, so I will attempt to not take it in the spirit it may have been intended(?)

And here you are blatantly wrong. To make such a statement is...simplistic, to put it nicely.

The truth is, I know many famous scientists (yes, I do... and yes, they are famous... and yes, they are scientists... and yes, I know more than one) that say they feel that Behe is right, among other things.

I find it odd how many people are so willing to refute something like this without having the credentials that Behe has, for instance.

In analogy: I would never attempt to speak with authority about the law, though I may have opinions about it. I would have to defer to Barbara.

And sure, there are scientists who scoff at ID. But my point is, that there are many credible ones that don't.

a couple P.S.es:

Darwin himself published that if anyone was ever able to find an out-of-place fossil his theory would crumble.

There have been out-of-place fossils found, but the theory has simply been amended. Incidentally, there is no scientist today that believes in Darwinism, though they believe in an 'evolved' version.

Behe's book proves nothing. It offers vague, untested postulations for alternatives to some of the tenets of evolution that appear to be weak, especially to the layman

I don't know about laymen, but there are scientists who agree with him. And how do you test evolution? You can't test either evolution OR ID. But what he does show is that there are certain things that must have evolved simultaneously, and yet couldn't have. But you have to have some scientific background to understand that. So, I don't really know how a layman would really get it.

To claim that a single book, written by a man with a clear (non-scientific) agenda, offers irrefutable proof of anything regarding the nature of the universe and life is way out of bounds.

No one claims a single book offers irrefutable proof. That would be moronic. It is simply showing that evolution doesn't have all the answers. Neither does ID! But for someone who seems to pride himself on thinking, I would think you'd want to make sure that you weren't swallowing the party line (and I say this kindly). Also, Behe's book is one of many on ID - not just a single one. It's more written about that you might like.

It distracts the real scientists from solving all the true controversies that exist within the accepted theory of evolution.

And what would they be?

Yeesh. This is looking obsessive. But I want to answer everything and then get the hell outta Dodge. And remember, much of my space is taken up with quoting you, so hang in there, please... ;o)

Not because I say it isn't, but because it has never once been presented to the scientific community at large as a well formulated, tested and vulnerable hypothesis.

Did anyone claim it's science? It's theory. But a scientific one. And with all theories, it isn't proven yet one way or the other.

in a rush to get their flimsy talking points into the hands of scared Christian parents and school board members.

Ummm, no. No one's in a rush to get ID out to anyone. It's a theory that has been written about for decades, frankly. If you do some research, you'll find that's true.

Godless Dad, No one who "has a scientific background" would ever take the position that any of the thought on the larger scientific issues is irrefutable.

Sorry, but *I* am not trying to insult you, though apparently you feel the need to insult me and others that believe this. This is a sticky topic, so I will attempt to not take it in the spirit it may have been intended(?)

I can certainly see where it came off that way. My sincere apologies if you felt I was insulting you, that was not my intetion.

That said, my point remains. To claim that ID is irrefutable proof of the existence of a designer is to fly in the very face of established scientific procedure. It is un-scientific to do so, even Evolutionists who are in posesstion of a preponderence of evidence and careful study in support of their theories make no such claim.

And here you are blatantly wrong. To make such a statement is...simplistic, to put it nicely.

I can't say I feel insulted by this, exactly. But if you're going to claim I am blatantly wrong, you'll have to support it with some sort of example. I am not wrong in saying that true sciecne is extremely reticent to ever label even its most well documented theories as "irrefutable". If fact, it is the very act of making your theories availble to be assailed from every side of the scientific community that makes them strong should they survive. Behe has never done this so to take the position that his mere opinions are irrefutable is jumping the gun in the extreme.

The truth is, I know many famous scientists (yes, I do... and yes, they are famous... and yes, they are scientists... and yes, I know more than one) that say they feel that Behe is right, among other things.

Feeling that something is right doesn't replace the need for careful, reasoned study, documentation and verification. The smartest people in the world 3000 years ago felt that the sun was pulled across the sky by a god in a Chariot. It didn't turn out to be true. Behe offers no evidence for his claims, instead he uses gaps in our current knowledge to bolster his opinions just as the ancient Greeks explained the movement of the Sun. Gaps in our current knowledge only prove our ever diminishing ignorance of how things work, those gaps don't prove that things we don't understand were intelligently designed.

I find it odd how many people are so willing to refute something like this without having the credentials that Behe has, for instance.

I'm not refuting Behe. I don't feel the need to. He is welcome to his opinions, he is welcome to write books about them. But until he offers a true hypothesis and runs it through its paces as all good scientists are expected to do, his work cannot be labeled science and does not belong in a science debate. In a philosophy or comparative religion debate? Sure.

In analogy: I would never attempt to speak with authority about the law, though I may have opinions about it. I would have to defer to Barbara.

I'm certainly not representing myself as an authority on biology. But again, the really great thing about science is that it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to offer proofs and, I might add, to offer the shortcomings of their ideas. Behe doesn't do this, so it doesn't even merit discussion in a scientific arena. I don't need to be an authority to dismiss someone who isn't willing to follow precepts of their own field. His credentials should make it all the more troubling to his followers that he refuses to do so.

And sure, there are scientists who scoff at ID. But my point is, that there are many credible ones that don't.

I completely respect your opinion and the opinions of your associates. But the scientists who scoff at ID have 150 years of research and physical evidence backing them up. They also have the overwhelming agreement of the scientific community. Those on the other side have a couple of books written by people who have publically stated that it is their mission to destroy Darwinism. The IDers have a long way to go and they need to start by putting some science in their "science".

Last, another thing you said in your previous post intersted me:

I don't know if you've read Behe's book, but he (at least at the time of writing) wasn't making any claims as to whom or what the designer was. It's simply that he proves that it's irrefutable that something was.

Well, why not make a few claims as to who it was? Does this really sound like science to anyone? How many great scientists came up with one small theory and then stopped there? If you're going to propose a theory, you need some idea of who or what it was. Essentially he's saying "Look, I don't get how a bacterial flagellum works and no one can explain it to me, so someone must have designed it. I don't know who, what, how or when, but it makes more sense to me, I hope you'll agree. And by the way, this disproves Darwin."

Science?

As a postscript. This is a very heated topic and this would not be the first time that someone felt insulted by the way I worded something, so I put the blame for that squarely on myself. Hopefully you'll forgive me that transgression and now allow it to hinder the debate.

Saur:

I have to get out of dodge too until tomorrow, so more at that point, but in response to one of your PS's:

I don't know about laymen, but there are scientists who agree with him. And how do you test evolution? You can't test either evolution OR ID. But what he does show is that there are certain things that must have evolved simultaneously, and yet couldn't have. But you have to have some scientific background to understand that. So, I don't really know how a layman would really get it.

Wow. I thought you weren't trying to insult me.

My apologies if that sounded insulting. It wasn't meant to be. I'm poking my head in now, but unfortunately don't have a lot of time for a reply becuase I am STARVING and am on my way to LeeRoy Selmon's (yum, yum!!!) to pick up dinner. But my point was that laymen can't speak too knowlegably because it's simply not an easy subject.

I'll get more to you later. Or, if you'd like, we can try it in email form if it takes up too much space here.

I'm off to get 'sweet heat fried chicken' with herbed mushroom gravy. OMG, YUM!!!

Godlessdad:

I've read through your comment section and see that Saur has made a legitimate point, and courteously, I might add. And, I see that you have been courteous as well. This is the nuts and bolts of a possible dialogue.

I haven't read Behe's book, so I plead ignorance to the particulars in his book. Generally speaking, I'm certain that it's Aquinas Third Way repackaged scientifically, which isn't bad. Aquinas had some great arguments that are being resurrected; ID being the argument for God's existence by design.

Bottom line, this entire brew haha is a philosophical argument; evolution is a philosophical argument which holds that random forces and chance (with hyper-extreme probabilities against it ever happening, that from a statistical standpoint) produces symmetry and design in that which exists, living and non-living things. It also contains a materialistic presupposition that is implausible in terms of the existence of mind, soul, and intangibles, beauty, goodness, etc.

So, from what I have gleaned from the debate itself, and not Behe, is the ID lays bare evolution as a groundless philosophical position: "the emperor has no clothes." Those who are in favor of evolution see this as an afront on the scientific method. In addition, you responded in typical ad hominem fashion when you said, "ID and its proponents do a pretty good job of making it look ludicrous on their own." I'd like you to support that if you could.

I see this as a typical red herring fallacy asserted by evolutionists; IDers always attack the scientific method. Nothing could be further from the truth. What IDers do is attack the lack of the scientific method in evolution. They also want a legimate philosophical discussion with evolutionists that is open to science and available to all in our culture. There have been many "converts" who were once staunch evolutionists. And, for the most part, nothing terrible happens when you make the switch except losing grant money for research (which is what I think is the foundation for all this madness).

Since this is largely a philosophical argument, there are two questions that need to open the discussion. One,"Can design come from chance?" That is the question evolutionists fail to support, and who bear the burden of proof. I know that IDers push for proof from the evolutionists which makes it look like they're attack dogs. But, when you side with Darwin in his highly improbable position, it's rhetorically advantageious to allow others the burden of proof and then shoot it down. Evolutionists have failed to prove their position scientifically.

The second question is, "if everything RECEIVES existence from something other than itself (it seems apriori that one cannot will one's own existence prior to one's existence; certainly one can will one's own destruction AFTER one has existence) then, doesn't it follow that a GIVER of existence must be in place? I contend that it does follow.

ID cannot prove the existence of God scientifically. Those who hold to the fact that it cannot be done have no grounds to say that it proves the lack of God's existence either. If it is contended, it wouldn't take long to identify the "beliefs" scientist hold to be true to base their "science" on.

The evolutionists have championed randomness as a cause for order for a long time. Perhaps its time they step out and show their mettle philosophically, unless they know for sure that "the emperor REALLY has no clothes."

What do you think? Are you willing to engage philosophically, and allow your argument to be put to the test?

Wow. I stand in awe of a beautifully put, considered argument on the part of Underground Logician. I can do no better at this time.

(Plus, I'm resting with a tummy full of fried chicken)...

You can test evolution. In fact, here are some examples of evolution that happened while we were watching.

1. Bacteria that became resistant to anti-biotics.

2. Viruses that mutate every year, like the common flu.

3. Insects that become resistant to pesticides.

There have even been mice spotted in meat lockers that have longer fur than other mice.

And so on. Evolution is simply a theory of change over time. In the case of bacteria or insects, the time span can be rather short. For more complex forms of life the time spans can be hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of years.

ID at its best just says "this change is not random, it follows some sort of design". How is this science?

I respect that the guy who wrote the book has a PhD in biochemistry. Biology is a bear of a subject, and so is chemistry. Put them both together, and I think I would rahter seek a degree in accounting.

But - the fact remains. I can design an experiment to show that e. coli bacteria can become resistant to a drug. There is no experiment that can be designed to demonstrate that the bacteria become resistant because of some design by a higher, unmeasurable and undectable, power.

For the purposes of primary school, schools should stick to established and generally accepted theory - the kind of stuff that will give students a basic understanding of what science is, and how it works. Save the more advanced, or less accepted, theories for later - or include them in a seperate subject.

By the way Godless Mom - you need to add one more hurricane to your tally :)

Underground Logician:

evolution is a philosophical argument which holds that random forces and chance (with hyper-extreme probabilities against it ever happening, that from a statistical standpoint) produces symmetry and design in that which exists, living and non-living things. It also contains a materialistic presupposition that is implausible in terms of the existence of mind, soul, and intangibles, beauty, goodness, etc.

That all sounds pretty good, but it doesn't really say anything.

I've heard the hyper-extreme probability argument before and it holds no water. Take 1 million coins and randomly flip them all 1 million times. The resulting pattern will have an unmeasurably small probabalistic chance of occuring, even smaller than the bizarre number that anti-evolutionists usually throw out against life occuring by chance, and yet you saw it happen.

Next, evolution never pretends to address anything non-living. It also never pretends to address questions of the soul or the nature of beauty. Those questions are left to philosophers and theists to debate.

Lastly, you've totally mischaracterized what evolution is to begin with. Evolution seeks to explain the common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor, the methods by which characteristics of those organisms are passed on and the methods by which those characteristics can emerge, disappear or change, leading to new species. It's nothing more or less than that.

No debate point for the common tactic of misrepresenting my position and then claiming it fails to address things which concern you, but which it never attempts to address in the first place. If you must have an explaination for a soul, I guarantee you that evolutionary theorists will not get in your way.

So, from what I have gleaned from the debate itself, and not Behe, is the ID lays bare evolution as a groundless philosophical position: "the emperor has no clothes." Those who are in favor of evolution see this as an afront on the scientific method. In addition, you responded in typical ad hominem fashion when you said, "ID and its proponents do a pretty good job of making it look ludicrous on their own." I'd like you to support that if you could.

Well, I have yet to have anyone in this thread even come close to laying evolution bare as groundless in any way, I'm still waiting for someone to cite a paper, any paper, in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that does that.

As for my "ad hom" attack, calling something a science that has never been approached scientifically is ludicrous. Plain and simple.

And as a logician, I'd think you would see this as a ludicrous answer:

Q: I don't think I got a reply, so I'm asking you. You've made this claim here (reading): "Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose." And I want to know, what is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose?
A: Again, it does not propose a mechanism in the sense of a step-by-step description of how those structures arose. But it can infer that in the mechanism, in the process by which these structures arose, an intelligent cause was involved.

I see this as a typical red herring fallacy asserted by evolutionists; IDers always attack the scientific method. Nothing could be further from the truth. What IDers do is attack the lack of the scientific method in evolution.

News to me, cite an example please. I've never seen this particular argument used by any proponent of ID. And it would be pretty gutsy for them to do so since there is no Scientific Method within the current work that has been done on ID.

They also want a legimate philosophical discussion with evolutionists that is open to science and available to all in our culture.

No. They want their challenge to evolution taught to children as science. Behe is not interested in a philosophical debate and science doesn't owe him or anyone else one. Evolution is not a philosophy, no matter how much you want it to be one. It does not attempt to address metaphysical or supernatural concerns, even though you stated previously that it does. It merely attempts to describe the manner in which living organisms pass their traits to future generations and how changes in those traits may give rise to new species.

Since this is largely a philosophical argument, there are two questions that need to open the discussion.

Again, you've decided this is a question of philosophy and moved on. ID is a philosophy, Evolution is a scientific description of emperical evidence.

One,"Can design come from chance?" That is the question evolutionists fail to support, and who bear the burden of proof.

You haven't defined your terms. What do you mean by "design"? Design infers a designer. Evolution makes no claim that anything it describes was designed in the first place, that's your construct, not mine. Scientists bear no burden to proove anything, they merely bear the burden of honest application of the scientific method. Very little can be proven about anything.

I know that IDers push for proof from the evolutionists which makes it look like they're attack dogs. But, when you side with Darwin in his highly improbable position, it's rhetorically advantageious to allow others the burden of proof and then shoot it down.

I'm not interested in rhetoric or in what positions are most strategic in terms of debate. Science has its own ways of sorting this stuff out and evolution has been through it more times than any other large, complicated, descriptive theory. Once a theory is generally accepted within the scientific community, it is the challenger that bears the burden of proving itself a worthy adversary as a description of the natural world. ID has never even attempted to do so.

Evolutionists have failed to prove their position scientifically.

So have "gravitationalists".

The second question is, "if everything RECEIVES existence from something other than itself (it seems apriori that one cannot will one's own existence prior to one's existence; certainly one can will one's own destruction AFTER one has existence) then, doesn't it follow that a GIVER of existence must be in place? I contend that it does follow.

It doesn't seem "apriori" (sic) to me at all that everything receives an exisitence from something else. If this is true, where did our creator get his/her existence, and who gave that thing/person/god/force existence, and before that? At some point it's anything but a priori knowledge of how the whole thing got started.

ID cannot prove the existence of God scientifically. Those who hold to the fact that it cannot be done have no grounds to say that it proves the lack of God's existence either.

I never said that evolution, or any other scientific theory, disproved God's existence. What does this have to do with the question at hand?

The evolutionists have championed randomness as a cause for order for a long time.

What do you mean? Where does it say in any evolution text that randomness casues order? If we are going to have a debate, you really need to stop defining evolution as something it is not and does not pretend to be.

Perhaps its time they step out and show their mettle philosophically, unless they know for sure that "the emperor REALLY has no clothes."

I see no compelling reason for a science to step onto philosophical ground, just as I don't see any reason that a philosophy like ID should by debated as a science.

What do you think? Are you willing to engage philosophically, and allow your argument to be put to the test?

I'm willing to engage in a scientific discussion on evolution and a philosophical discussion on ID. No one yet has given me any reason to see them as competing thoeries. IDers want to play in the science playground, but they refuse to play by the rules. I don't see evolution as a philosophy and you've started us off by misrepresenting what evolution is anyway. I'm very interested in the discussion if we can keep it honest.

Saur:

Wow. I stand in awe of a beautifully put, considered argument on the part of Underground Logician. I can do no better at this time.

You've conceded that ID is not science, but is, in fact philosophy? I agree wholeheartedly.

Thanks for responding.

You said: "The resulting pattern will have an unmeasurably small probabalistic chance of occuring, even smaller than the bizarre number that anti-evolutionists usually throw out against life occuring by chance, and yet you saw it happen."

Assist me please, since I'm not a very bright here. What was it above that I did see happen? Life? I hope you wouldn't say that, for you'd be begging the question. And, I'm assuming that you're smart enough not to do that. So what did you mean?

Secondly, as a scientist, I assume you are quite observant. Are you at all amazed as to how the human eyeball evolved? Consider the biophysical and biochemical activities that must act in concert and simultaneously with each other in such a way for the eye to function. It has been science which has been a huge help to determine how the eye operates, wouldn't you say? It's even more amazing that the intricate functions of an eyeball did not have any intelligent intervention whatsoever. That is was a product of...chance? It just happened.

Tell me, what other causation does evolution subscribe too other than chance? I'm sure you subscribe to natural selection, which by the way, is an odd name for a theory that has no selector. So what does the selection? If there is no intervention of an intelligence, then would there be any causation other than chance?

I do agree with you that evolution is not a philosophy and Id is. You cannot avoid the involvement of philosophy, primarily the metaphysics, in your "science." The IDers know this, and will continue to remind of this.

You said: "The resulting pattern will have an immeasurably small probabilistic chance of occurring, even smaller than the bizarre number that anti-evolutionists usually throw out against life occurring by chance, and yet you saw it happen."

Assist me please, since I'm not a very bright here. What was it above that I did see happen? Life? I hope you wouldn't say that, for you'd be begging the question. And, I'm assuming that you're smart enough not to do that. So what did you mean?

What you would see happen is something equally if not more improbable than the chance that anti-evolutionists have prescribed to life occurring on its own. I'm merely making the point that things that are that improbable occur all the time, they just aren't as interesting.

At any rate, the extreme improbability argument is completely out of context unless you can describe the probability of life not occurring on its own or the probability of some other sort of thing arising that we don't even understand.

It might be that, however improbable it may be, the occurrence of life on its own is the most probable of several unlikely possibilities.

Secondly, as a scientist, I assume you are quite observant. Are you at all amazed as to how the human eyeball evolved? Consider the biophysical and biochemical activities that must act in concert and simultaneously with each other in such a way for the eye to function. It has been science which has been a huge help to determine how the eye operates, wouldn't you say? It's even more amazing that the intricate functions of an eyeball did not have any intelligent intervention whatsoever. That is was a product of...chance? It just happened.

The eye is an amazing organ and one that is brought up frequently in this debate as "irreducibly complex" or at least as evidence of some design because of its intricacy. However, I see little evidence of design in something that, while incredible in its function, is actually quite haphazard in its construction. In simple terms, why would a designer create an organ that basically sends visual signals to the brain upside down? I'm sure you know that this is the case and that the brain then has to just flip the image on its own.

Complex mammalian eyes are made up of several parts. ID proponents argue that if you take one of them away, the entire system will stop functioning, that it couldn't have assembled itself without intelligent direction. But many components of the eye exist in simpler forms in lower organisms.

Take an organism with a single photosensitive cell for instance. In this population, the organism can detect light and thus is more likely to happen to run into a food source in the lighted area. Mutations in this population occur all the time, some organisms have stronger photosensitivity, some have weaker. Some are born with no photosensitive cells, and one day, one is born with two. The two cells give some dimension or shadow to the detection of light, allowing the organism to better find food. As a result it is more likely to succeed and reproduce. Soon most of the population has two such cells. This is why it is unfair to characterize natural selection and evolution as based on chance. A specific mutation may be based on chance, but the success of that change is wholly dictated by the environment and its resulting utility to the organism. Over millions of years, all those tiny changes add up because each time a positive one occurs, it would be overwhelmingly advantageous, and thus selected for.

Still, the eye we have now is far from perfect. It functions in a bizarre way, and, as you know, eyes are one of the most likely organs to fail or become compromised. Few people who reach old age do so with their vision fully intact and many people begin to lose their vision before they even reach their teens. If a designer was starting with a blank slate, why not produce something that functioned in a more reasonable way and was less prone to break down? In the eye we can both agree that there is much complexity, but where you see order and design, I see disarray, chance and convenience.

As a side note: I do appreciate you giving me some credit for being a scientist instead of assuming, as others have done, that I don't understand science.

Tell me, what other causation does evolution subscribe too other than chance? I'm sure you subscribe to natural selection, which by the way, is an odd name for a theory that has no selector. So what does the selection? If there is no intervention of an intelligence, then would there be any causation other than chance?

As I just noted, natural selection is far from based on chance. It is a process that is based on chance mutation, but the selection process is driven by environment and utility. A bad mutation is expelled from the population almost immediately, one that improves the organism's chance for survival continues. Also note that there are several instances where an organism has painted itself into a corner by adopting changes that made an immediate improvement but which overspecialized the organism, ultimately resulting in its extinction. It is not a process with any vision for the future, you'd think design would give it one. A change that gives an organism an immediate advantage is more likely to be passed down through future generations within the population. That's it. But if it were based solely on chance, every mutation or change that occurred would be adopted and a species would splinter into several different directions, many of them disadvantageous, and the population would quickly die off.

Also, it seems to me that picking on natural selection because there isn't an intelligent "selector" is a semantics argument. It's just a name, and in this case, the selector is nature itself.

I do agree with you that evolution is not a philosophy and Id is. You cannot avoid the involvement of philosophy, primarily the metaphysics, in your "science." The IDers know this, and will continue to remind of this.

I'm glad we can agree on something. I think that scientists need to use their philosophical capabilities and their imagination in order to formulate new theories, there may be some metaphysics there. But once you’ve moved to the strict application of the Scientific Method in testing and verification, you’ve left metaphysics behind. Evolution is not a faith in the way a "God of the gaps" philosophy like ID is. Evolution does not seek to explain life's purpose, the nature of its inherent beauty, the possibility of an afterlife or whether life itself is imbued with something like a soul. It only seeks to observe how life has reached its current state and how it will continue.

As Lazy Iguana noted, within that understanding has come our ability to fight diseases, discover new medicines, ward off extinctions and even create new species of plants for food. The theories of evolution IDers want to rid the world of have given us germ theory, vaccinations, cancer fighting methods and are approaching cures for even larger afflictions. Yet, for some reason, proponents of ID theory want to put the breaks on and talk about the shortcomings, real or otherwise, of a science that has given us so much. Why is that? I respect your philosophy a great deal, and I’m happy to keep my science out of it. But IDers have to give science the same respect and stop trying to sneak their philosophy into it in disguise.

I'm glad we can have a civil discussion. This is rare indeed.

I must begin by saying that I'm not opposed to science and its abilities to help us understand the world around us. I am aware of the mutations of species, whether they be rodents, mammals, cockroaches, or bacteria as they adapt to their environs. Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't think IDers rejected this. I'm a Catholic and I know that the Vatican doesn't reject this! The truth that is discovered by science is to be embraced like any other truth, because truth is one. Aquinas was very firm on that. It's obvious I can't speak on behalf of the ID crowd so I won't. Also, I don't want to be verbose, so I will tackle my curiosities one at a time.

To state that the improbable occur all the time assumes the causation of these improbable events are not by design. You are saying that your science prevents you from identifying causation of the events, am I right?

Here's what you said: "As I just noted, natural selection is far from based on chance. It is a process that is based on chance mutation, but the selection process is driven by environment and utility."

I know you need language to discuss these processes, even though language has its limitations. I know this myself firsthand as I comment here! I see your point that mutation is far from complete chance such as a roll of the dice every time a species propagates. And yet, even though each mutation is subject to a complexity of chemical and physical forces of nature, it is still called chance mutation.

So if you are uncertain as to the nature of causation, why rule out a designer? Is it because you think ID rules out the true science that has been accomplished?

Also, given the world is what it is, how does a designer change anything that you do, other than relegate portions of your trade to theology?

I need to clarify my comment, since I looked at it and went "huh?"

1. More specifically, how is chance mutation not chance?

2. Given that true science is not discounted in its efforts in evolution, how would the presence of a designer reduce or eliminate the role of science? In determining causation? And if so, isn't this something evolution has difficulty knowing anyway? So, what's the rub?

Lazy Iguana, adaptation is not the same as evolution. The reason no one can test evolution is that if it takes place over millions of years, it's impossible to test. You can draw conclusions from data, but you cannot test for it.

...and I'm letting UL run with this for the moment because we're in agreement and I currently have little to add.

Godless Dad, you are a scientist? What field? Sorry if I misunderstood that?

1. More specifically, how is chance mutation not chance?

There are many things that can cause a mutation, some of them we understand perfectly, there are probably others we don't understand or don't even know about.

First, evolutionary theory doesn't address the causes of mutation, other branches of biology and biochemistry do that. Evolution addresses what a given population does with a new trait once it becomes part of the organism. Does it give the species a reproductive advantage that it can then pass down to future generations, thus bolstering the new trait and possibly creating a new species? Or does the new trait hinder the organism and leave it at a reproductive disadvantage, thus eliminating the trait from the population?

From an organism's perspective, any new trait via mutation or any other mechanism is produced by chance. Whether there is a measurable cause or not, if you're a frog with a fifth leg, you're stuck with it. If it somehow gives you an advantage, viola, you've eventually got a new species of five-legged frogs. If it hinders you, you aren't going to have much chance to pass it down and even if you do, your offspring are at the same disadvantage and eventually it will disappear.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here, it might be my ignorance. What I am saying is that regardless of the cause of a mutation, which could be by chance, those causes are not addressed by evolution. Evolution addresses what an organism does with those changes and it has nothing to do with chance. If the new trait is advantageous, it continues, if not, it doesn't. Simple.

2. Given that true science is not discounted in its efforts in evolution, how would the presence of a designer reduce or eliminate the role of science?

It wouldn't. There is a fine, nuanced line here that many people miss. I am not arguing that there is *not* a creator. Evolution does not argue that there is *not* a creator. There very well could be despite the fact that I don't believe in one. Many scientists certainly believe in a creator.

The difference is that science attempts to know what can be known through careful observation, measurement and hypothesis. Science acknowledges that there could be a god, or aliens, or a spaghetti monster that created everything. At this time however, no one can offer any empirical evidence of any of these, so science is content to leave those questions to the philosophers and theologians.

To say, however, "we don't understand this so God must have made it", is anti-scientific. It's the same approach that has been used to explain the unexplainable throughout all of human history. The problem for IDers is that this approach has always proven itself to be wrong. 3000 years ago they believed the gods moved the planets. 2500 years ago they gave up on that but believed God put the earth at the center of the universe. 500 years ago that was taken away from religion, but people still believed that species of plants and animals were all static in their design and thus produced by god. 150 years ago Darwin showed that species are not static and change over time. The only questions left are the tiny biochemical and physical ones and the the gigantic cosmological ones and religion, once again, is desperately trying to hold on to God as an explaination for them.

The fundamental difference here is that science takes all the empirical data it can and formulates and tests a hypothesis based on that data, ultimately arriving at a theory. Religion starts with a theory and fits the facts and data to it.

Science: "There are certain things we don't have enough data on, those will have to wait."

Religion: "God exists because there are things we don't have any data on and never will."

In determining causation? And if so, isn't this something evolution has difficulty knowing anyway? So, what's the rub?

Ultimate causation? Yes. Evolutionists have never attempted to address the ultimate question of causation. However, the subjects that evolutionists have addressed, they have addressed scientifically. ID is not a scientific approach, and that's my only problem with it.

In short, science has no interest in discrediting faith, religion and philosopy, but if it happens, so be it.

ID and faith in general have a long history of attempting to discredit science, sometimes violently, sometimes secretively, rarely honestly and out in the open.

I think that's one of the reasons that people of faith have difficulty understanding the scientific position. We have no interest in explaining god because there is no evidence that he exists. You are welcome to your faith. Where science gets offended is when you dress faith as science and attempt to bring it to the party without following the rules. ID is 100% guilty of doing this and that is what is offensive, it is not the theory itself, which people are welcome to consider and believe if they wish. Just don't call it science, because it isn't.

Just a couple of other comments about a few things that have been said:

The first mention of the latest iteration of Intelligent Design theory was in a book called Of Pandas and People, published in 1993. This is not a decades old endeavor.

This book is meant to be a high school biology text. As I have noted before, new theories, in the past, have not made their first appearance in text books. That is the last place they should appear, after adequate research and study have been done and after the scientific community has been convinced. Behe himself has compared his theory to the Big Bang theory which was once rejected because of its supposed religious implications. But the Big Bang theory did not appear in text books until it was accepted widely by the scientific community, ID appeared there before anyone had ever heard of it. This also addresses my assertion that ID has been rushed out to the general population to quickly get it into schools as a challenge to Darwinism and Evolution.

If you need more evidence, consder that nearly all work that has been done on ID has been funded by a division of the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank, called the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC). Both Michael Behe and William Dembski, the most famous champions of ID, are members of the CRSC. The CRSC is a private, non-profit organization that is primarily funded by a man named Howard Ahmanson, Jr. and his organization, the Fieldstead Institute. This organization is a far right-wing Christian Reconstructionist think-tank. Reconstructionism is a Protestant movement that calls for all of society to be refounded on biblical principals, placing legal and educational issues under the oversight of the church. Pretty easy, really, to see where this is going.

Creationism lost the battle to keep Darwinism out of schools in America. The response? The leading Christian think tanks decided that if they couldn't claim that Darwinism and evolution were bad science, they would have to claim that creationism was good science in order to get it into science classes so it could compete with the evolutionary theories they despise. And in fact, the proof is in the CRSC's "Wedge" strategy:

Governing Goals

1. To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

2. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals

1. To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.

2. To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.

3. To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals

1. To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

2. To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.

3. To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.


Give me one other example of a scientific movement behind a given theory that had an immediate, a five year, and a twenty year plan. Also, where in this plan is the research? Where is the documentation? Where is the peer-review, the study with other disciplines? I'll tell you: it isn't in there. What is there is a strategy for rushing a repackaged version of creationism out to what the CRSC sees as a society that has left its moral compass behind in the persuit of scientific materialism.

Dembski: "Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options. But Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is seen as a live option. The problem with materialism is that it rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option. Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration."

Stop me when all of this starts to sound like science to anyone.

Adaptation is evolution. At least it is a step in the process.

Godlessdad:

I've learned a lot from you. Thank you. You've helped me rethink the real issue at hand, plus I think I understand you more clearly. You are a committed scientist.

Undoubtedly, this is a philosophical clash between classical realism and scientific materialism; ID being a modern version of Aquinas' third way to prove the existence of God. And I must admit, I see tremendous problems with scientific materialism as a philosophy. But as a commited Catholic Christian, I am commited to the truth, no matter how it is aquired, for truth is one. There isn't Christian truth versus atheist truth. You may be apt to find that dualism in Protestant thinking.

What I think you are saying is that as a scientist, you are tired of being pulled into the fray that is outside or beyond the scope of your work. You don't want others to assume of you that which is not your position. As a scientist in the evolutionary community, you are commited to the scientific method which is tried and true. But as a method, it is limited to what can be empirically observed and tested.

Then may I make a suggestion? If at any time in the future you witness a discussion regarding the existence of God, please remind those who misuse the science of evolution as a proof against God's existence by telling them in essence what you told me in this comment.

On my blogsite, I run into this misapplication time and time again. I am a Christian, but I am honest enough to remind people that there is no scientific proof for or against the existence of God. Both Christians and atheists don't like it but "dems da facts." There are philosophical proofs for the existence of God; it is reasonable to assert the possibility of the existence of God; we have areas of study that deal with this in a more than satisfactory manner.

I have one other request, take it or leave it. If you would be willing, please take time to reflect on what your philosophical positions are. I say this because I recognize, from my vantage point, that you are fair and honest in your inquiry. Does your belief soley depend on only that which gives you epistemic certainty? If so, what presuppositions guide you to hold the criteria that if a deity is to exist, why epistemic certainty? For instance, I dialogued with a young man that said that there is no way that God could exist since the presence of evil proves that he doesn't. His presupposition was that if God exists, and if he were to be loving, would not allow evil to co-exist with him. My question was why just this position? Unfortunately, he didn't pursue it, for he was using the standard rebuttal to get me off his case.

I hope I have been clear enough. Thanks again for taking time to explain your position. I will be careful to avoid suspicion in the future and give the benefit of the doubt.

Sam

I've learned a lot from you. Thank you. You've helped me rethink the real issue at hand, plus I think I understand you more clearly. You are a committed scientist.

It is always nice to have a discussion like this without it degenerating into name calling and disrespect.

Undoubtedly, this is a philosophical clash between classical realism and scientific materialism; ID being a modern version of Aquinas' third way to prove the existence of God. And I must admit, I see tremendous problems with scientific materialism as a philosophy. But as a commited Catholic Christian, I am commited to the truth, no matter how it is aquired, for truth is one. There isn't Christian truth versus atheist truth. You may be apt to find that dualism in Protestant thinking.

It is clear that there are those who feel that science has made us too materialistic. I happen to disagree with that position, but that's a topic for another time. Suffice to say I think if you put two people together who put truth above ego you at least wind up with an honest discussion. If everyone were similarly aligned at least you could do away with the deception that tend to permiate both sides of this argument when money, power, influence, fame, etc. are suddenly at stake.

What I think you are saying is that as a scientist, you are tired of being pulled into the fray that is outside or beyond the scope of your work. You don't want others to assume of you that which is not your position. As a scientist in the evolutionary community, you are commited to the scientific method which is tried and true. But as a method, it is limited to what can be empirically observed and tested.

I think the discussion on the nature of the universe and whether there is a higher power, a creator, where it all came from, etc. is a very interesting one. I just don't believe it is a scientific one. That said, any evolutionist or scientist of any stripe that suggests that their work disproves the existence of god, or that they can do so scientifically is full of it.

Then may I make a suggestion? If at any time in the future you witness a discussion regarding the existence of God, please remind those who misuse the science of evolution as a proof against God's existence by telling them in essence what you told me in this comment.

I will, and I have done so in the past. I'm certainly only representing the supremacy of the Scientific Method itself, not those who apply it. Obviously and unfortunately, there is tremendous room for the misuse of science just as there is for the misuse of religion and philosophy.

On my blogsite, I run into this misapplication time and time again. I am a Christian, but I am honest enough to remind people that there is no scientific proof for or against the existence of God. Both Christians and atheists don't like it but "dems da facts." There are philosophical proofs for the existence of God; it is reasonable to assert the possibility of the existence of God; we have areas of study that deal with this in a more than satisfactory manner.

Nothing to add to that, I couldn't agree more.

I have one other request, take it or leave it. If you would be willing, please take time to reflect on what your philosophical positions are. I say this because I recognize, from my vantage point, that you are fair and honest in your inquiry. Does your belief soley depend on only that which gives you epistemic certainty? If so, what presuppositions guide you to hold the criteria that if a deity is to exist, why epistemic certainty? For instance, I dialogued with a young man that said that there is no way that God could exist since the presence of evil proves that he doesn't. His presupposition was that if God exists, and if he were to be loving, would not allow evil to co-exist with him. My question was why just this position? Unfortunately, he didn't pursue it, for he was using the standard rebuttal to get me off his case.

I have spent a lot of time in this reflection and there is definitely inertia in what you say for opening a whole new discussion, because, as I have said, the philosophical debate is very interesting to me. For now, I appreciate you words and I will spend some time thinking about what you've said, ne belief should remain unexamined.

I hope I have been clear enough. Thanks again for taking time to explain your position. I will be careful to avoid suspicion in the future and give the benefit of the doubt.

Unfortunately, there will always be people who take up any banner who will seemingly do everything in their power to make their own cause look ugly. I certainly acknowledge that there are those in the scientific community and in the atheistic community who have said some very ugly, unsupportable things about people who think as you do. Just as there are those in the religion camp who have been very ugly towards me. I think it behooves us both to serve as better examples to both sides. There is definitely room for inquiry and debate without ugliness and dishonesty.

I hope this isn't the last time we engage.

Scott

Godless Dad is my new hero. Excellent debate. The thing is, no matter how much we discuss, we can't get around the fact that NO ONE KNOWS if there is a God. It's improbable, and there is NO PROOF, but we can't say we know for sure.

Aliens could have done the same thing God is said to do. Go ahead and proove they didn't. In fact, this could all be a dream. If we're taking things on faith ANYTHING is possible. Just because millions of people choose to believe the same thing doesn't make it true. It just shows the level of the room. Quite sad, really.

We can all continue to believe that things will get better in the next life, OR we could actually improve things on this one. God is a distraction.

Polanco:

I'm glad you enjoyed the debate. I did as well. When truth is pursued, all win. As to your statements about knowledge, the scientific method is one means towards knowledge to gain epistemic certainty. But, it is not the only means. So for you to say that no one knows that there is a god depends on how you define know. If it's epistemic certainty within a scientific framework, I'll agree. If it's through a philosophical construct with reason in the drivers seat, I'll disagree. If it's based on faith in divine revelation, I'll disagree with you again.

The fact that you mention that aliens could have done all this is one conclusion that you can arrive at through Aquinas' 5 ways, for his proof only acknowledge a first mover, it doesn't describe the essence of the first mover. And again, I agree with you that millions of people believing in something doesn't make a belief right. However, that is not the argument that buttresses Christianity. If Christians use that fallacy, you need to tell them it's an ad populum fallacy and it proves nothing. They'll fumble and grumble, but that's okay. It'll sharpen them up to look deeper. It's there, it's just they need to quit being lazy and think!

God is only a distraction negatively when people use him as a means to avoid being responsible for their own behavior. Otherwise, God is the greatest being and is most certainly the greatest joy a person could know. But, that we'll leave for next time.

Polanco:

I must correct what I said about epistemic certainty. I think the scientific method is the only means to achieve epistemic certainty, for it involves eyewitness observation, standardized measurement, quantifiable interpretation, etc. The method itself has a very narrow application, though effective in what it does. It does not have the capacity to help us understand issues of history and faith. Science has been used in these two areas, but can only come up with probabilities. That's not science's fault. It's just the nature of the method. To conclude that science cannot prove the existence of God as I've seen some bloggers state, assumes something of God that if he were to exist, he'd be quantifiable in some manner. It would leave no room for the existence of an incorporeal deity. This topic is more in keeping with metaphysics.

Unfortunately David Hume poo pooed metaphysics because he thought one could not arrive at any certainty through aposteriori reasoning. The only way one can know is through the senses, and knowledge is in terms of probability. Anything other than this is a pipe dream. To me, Hume builds castles in the air. The logical end result of Hume is skepticism, which is what your comments sound like. I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm addressing the content of your statements.

I look forward to future civil debates with you, for I recall the ones we had in the past were quite favorable. See ya.

godlessdad:

I concur with you that when truth is pursued, all win. I think I benefited greatly from our discussion. It brought "added value" to me!

Maybe after this week, we could pick up from from here. Perhaps you could introduce the topic, have it at this site. I'll look forward to it. I'm on a truth journey, and so no doubt we will all benefit.

Now, I must continue working on my final term papers or I'm sunk. Augustine and Plato are calling. Bye.

Wow, fun discussion!

I'm going to go ahead and continue with regular posts now as it seems that this comment stream has run it's course. Thanks to all who participated and UL, welcome to my blog!

Here is a completely different view of the recent trial in Kansas. Perhaps you'll be interested in reading about it.

Oh yeesh. I wish I had more time and I don't.

Lazy Iguana, prove that adaption is evolution.

Adaption is merely that: adaption. There is no change in the DNA or any other indicators that the animal is anything other than what it started out as. Too many people confuse the two, and it is scientifically innacurate.

I will take a moment to throw some grist in the mill. Try the following recent news stories;

You might want to read this Jesuit's remarks (he is the directory of the Vatican's Observatory)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2005-11-18-vaticanastronomer_x.htm
To quote;
"If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly."

Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.

"God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity," he wrote. "He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves."

This makes much more sense than trying to argue that God actually tweaks the process to get the determined results. If God is all powerful then his process shouldn't need tweaking. So which is it? God 's biological processes require constant management by God himself, or his process is flawless and can run on it's own without needing his intervention? If the later than there should be no manufactor's signature to see, just the process and it's results, which is what evolutionists argue.

This makes the Vatican's viewpoint fit both religion and science.

This article from the New York Times, not normally a source of reliable data for me, but it does provide an interesting viewpoint.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html?adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1133741341-RZQF6rUNpq2vCW0tUPyd8g


Additionally here is an interesting blog I just found out about from Instapundit.
http://godlorica.blogspot.com/

JB: Thanks for the NY Times link. I find two things about it most telling:

1. Theological academics are beginning to shun ID because, as I've said before, it has not been subjected to the normal rigors required of a new scientific theory.

2. The Discovery Institute is distancing itself from the Dover, PA. case. This is very telling because these types of confrontations are exactly what they were after in the beginning. Apparently, now they realize that their efforts to politicize this issue have backfired and they need to get back to the scientific drawing board if they want their ideas to gain any real traction.

Saur: Very telling that the blog post you linked starts out with the following in its very first paragraph:

The state has thereby become the subject of ridicule by athiest Libocrats.

It seems we've resorted to name-calling and movement of the playing field. How apt would you be to give consideration to an article that started off by referring to you as a "theocratic, bible-thumping repiglican"?

Evolution is not an atheistic philosophy, it a series of scientific theories that describe how life behaves. The article to which the post refers gives itself away when it states:

They held several press conferences and related events, and manned a booth outside the hearing room with handouts characterizing the hearings as an “attack on scientists,” describing our side as “anti-science activists,” condemning Intelligent Design as a pseudo-science, and (in an outreach to the “theistic evolutionists” of KCFS’s website post) arguing that evolution does not deny the role of a divine creator in the creation and development of life.

(Emphasis added)

This article, and the Discovery Institute itself are operating from the position that evolution is a direct attack on god. It is not. Plenty of theologically inclined scientists are perfectly comfortable in describing the natural world with science and evolution while holding that the larger questions unapproached by science can be answered by believing in a creator.

This is the crux of the difference between the two camps. As I demonstrated earlier, the CRSC and its parent group, the Discovery Institute see this as a war between atheism and Christianity. It is not, and the other side has never once framed it that way. This is a political and social movement, not a scientific one, and the language of the post you linked and the associated article demonstrate that.

As for why the Evolutionists decided not to show up for a six day dog and pony show pitting ID against Evolution? The answer is simple: their research speaks for itself. Science is not on trial here. Granting this request only serves to legitimize ID as something worthy of scientific debate, and it isn't.

This entire sham is, by the way, a common underhanded debate tactic. Position the other side as something it is not and then claim victory when it doesn't stoop to defending the false claim.

Nice try.

The encouraging news is that the good people of Dover dumped the ID supporting members of their school board and replaced them with the opposition. So at least a few people in that community have been doing some independent research of their own.

The godlorica blog that JB linked is really interesting. If you guys get a chance you should check it out!

Godlorica.blogspot.com