Creating an insult to intelligence

Raymond Joseph Douglas

Look, all I ask of the BBC etc , is honest debate on the whole subject of creation/intelligent design/evolution. But, like so many other subjects on which the BBC has a entrenched position, honest debate is just one thing they ain't gonna do ! Hail Darwin ! Hail Dawkins !, is the mantra of the BEEB !

David T

Oh Melanie, please, not again!

Look, I will fight tooth and nail to protect the religious - and other intellectual and cultural - freedoms.

However, can we please keep theology, and this defence of religious sentiment dressed up as science, out of biology lessons.

PS: If Humphries believes something is reasonable, it almost certainly isn't.

Ronnie

Thanks for clearing that up.

Dominic L-R

Yes, there is a difference between a literal interpretation of the 6-day creation of the Bible, and a more vague 'there must be a designer' of the ID school, but essentially it amounts to the same thing - a hypothesis that there is some kind of creator of the Universe, so it is really not surprising that the two get conflated. Both theories plug the gap of our ignorance with a gigantic assumption (there must be a designer) rather than say, as Richard Dawkins does, 'at present, we don't know how life began, but we're working on it'.
Further, Melanie states "ID proponents do not necessarily believe in a personalised Creator, or God". In theory this may be true, but in reality the majority of ID proponents do believe in a personalised God. To make this point more robust, perhaps Melanie could provide us with a list of scientists who promote Intelligent Design, but are not Christians.

Campbell

Inteligent Design is not a scientific theory. It is a belief. Why? Because it fails the first test that any proposition must pass to be considered as a useful scientific tool; namely it cannot be falsified.
ID posits an intelligent designer of some kind whose existence cannot be proved or disproved (cf God) and as such it is impossible ever to finally show that that Intelligent Design is wrong unlike Evolution.
Falsifiability has been a major part of scientific method since Francis Bacon and no one can argue with the benefits that that scientific method has brought.
Whether Creationists and Intelligent Designers are bosom buddies are at daggers drawn is neither here nor there since to the onlooker there is not a lot of difference in the end, between whoever or whatever is doing the intelligent design and a deity.

David Wood

Congratulations Melonie Phillips for having the courage to support Intelligent Design depite the political ramblings of prof. Dawkins. There is , however, one point I would like to make. The term "Creator" really should be replaced by "a form of intelligence". This may sound trivial but most important

Duncan Marr

Haven’t you heard of the “Wedge Strategy”? This is the mission statement from the Discovery Institute, the main lobby group for intelligent design, which specifically states that intelligent design is creationism repackaged, the purpose of which is to ‘affirm the reality of God’.

Dr William Dembski, the most prominent proponent of intelligent design says “Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory”.

Let’s ignore for the moment the fact that those touting intelligent design themselves disagree with you. If intelligent design is science, then where is the science? What scientific hypotheses have been proposed? How have they been tested? What were the results? Most particularly, if you accept the possibility of intelligent design, then precisely what constitutes scientific evidence?

The court was NOT wrong in the Dover case. Yes, some intelligent design supporters reject young earth creationism – but never for scientific reasons, always for religious ones i.e. how literally to take the Bible. In exactly the same way, the fact that some intelligent designers accept common descent (Prof Michael Behe), but others don’t (William Dembski), is always a product of differing religious views (the precise status of man as ‘God’s special creation’), never the science.

I’m sorry Melanie – you’re either being incredibly naïve, or disingenuous. Intelligent design is simply a religiously motivated political project. The most immediate goal is to circumvent the ‘separation of church and state’ clause in the American constitution by attempting to attach a veneer of scientific respectability to religious ideas, and the wider goal is promote religion itself. As I say, you don’t have to believe me (or Prof Miller) – just look to the people behind it.

Original Tony

People don't want to accept the Judeo-Christian God because he challenges our sin-nature and this we find very uncomfortable as it not only exposes our fallen state but it flies in the face of modernism and humanism.

People dont like being told they are in a fallen state and need help to get out of the mud. That's why they turn to other religions that do not challenge their sin nature nor preach repentance.

In my view God created mankind in a perfect state. WE destroyed that perfect state by rebelling and God in His love and wisdom bult a bridge back to Him called Jesus Christ.

But few will get on that narrow bridge back to Him and wide will be the path to destruction.

If my viewpoint is correct, it explains why there is so much war and misery on earth; it's there because WE cause it under God's gift of freedom of choice, after all we are not robots and he is not a puppet-master. We have taken our freedom of choice and thrown God, the world and each other in the dustbin.

I personally will head for that narrow bridge, a bridge back to amazing love and unconditional acceptance.

What will you do in your humanity and who will save you if you are wrong? The scientists? The Dawkins of this world? Plah!

Kristi Collins

"This is because Creationism comes out of religion while Intelligent Design comes out of science"
The problem with this statement is that ID 'says' it comes out of science but in reality (and if you look deeper) it does not.

Look into what scientific theory really means and then see if ID really follows that model. If not then it is not science, even if the IDers say it is.
The scientific community would look at the evidence if there was any to look at.
Just because they have an 'idea' does not constitute it being science in any way shape or form.

Nick

So the obvious question is who designed the designers? Or is it just turtles all the way down?

Creationism and 'intelligent design' are one and the same. Pure, unadulterated bunkum.

Simon

Dear Melanie,

Is creationism (as though there were one such view, when in fact there are many - young earth, Biblical, unbiblical, and whatever) really not scientific, not at all? Are you asserting, in effect, that you think that to be a creationist is to be anti-science?

Is ID-ism (whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, pantheist or extra terrestrial) really standing with atheism, on the side of science, and both against creationism? Against "totally ludicrous" "totally off the wall" "Bible literalists"? Is that what you really think?

Has it escaped your notice that creationists generally do believe in micro-evolution, and that what they protest about is atheistic macroevolution (not considering the age of the earth for the moment)?

To me, your ID-ist stance looks very much like what I believe as a biological creationist. I see far more clear water between ID-ism and atheistic evolutionism than between ID-ism and creationism.

Is it really possible for anyone (atheist, agnostic or theist) to behave as though they have no prior commitment to what they believe, and then turn to science and 'follow where it leads'?

If it were possible to offload (or at least supress) one's prior beliefs in this way, then how is it that ID-ists think that science leads to an Intelligent Designer, and atheists think science leads to none, and agnostics think that science doesn't lead to either?

Do you claim that ID-ists alone 'follow science to where it leads' whereas both atheists (on the one hand) and creationists (on the other) do not?

Is your belief in the Creator God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob based on what you think "the complexity of science suggests" and not on the Hebrew Scriptures and/or Jewish upbringing?

campbell

Dominic L-R: some clever clogs will no doubt come up with names of scientists pedalling ID who are not Christian - Muslims or Jews for example - but your point is fundamentally sound: beteen an Intelligent Designer and a God there is not a cigarette paper's width of difference.

David T

"People don't want to accept the Judeo-Christian God because he challenges our sin-nature and this we find very uncomfortable as it not only exposes our fallen state but it flies in the face of modernism and humanism."

For me, it is more about my desire to wear wool and linen mixed together, without fear of divine punishment.

Dave

Mel writes "This is because Creationism comes out of religion while Intelligent Design comes out of science."
Rubbish. ID isn't scientific. Those who believe in it simply follow a scientific path before throwing up their hands and giving up, placing their faith in a "designer" or God.
Frankly nothing could be less scientific.
Interestingly new research today from the journal "Intelligence" says "Intelligence measured as psychometric g is negatively related to religious belief."
In other words believing in God, gods, spaghetti monsters or "designers" means you are stupid.
And that's a measurable scientific fact!

Tas Walker

"nothing more than an attempt to repackage good old-fashioned Creationism and make it more palatable."

This is a totally unacceptable marginalizing of people and should not be tolerated. It marginalizes IDers AND creationists both.

What, pray tell, is so unpalatable about creationism? Instead of uttering slurs and innuendo please state your reasons why you think creationism is so bad.

When have you ever heard a creationist scientist given the opportunity to put their view on any mainstream forum? They are simply vilified, mocked and ridiculed but never given an opportunity to respond to the attacks on their position.

For goodness sake, Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Maxwell, Pasteur, Boyle, Steno, and the other early pioneers of science were biblical creationists. Our western values were incredibly fashioned by the ideas of the Reformation which was began with a biblical creationist foundation.

The whole strategy of these clowns, the atheistic media and the atheistic scientific elite (typified by the likes of Dorko), is a cowardly, sneaky, underhand attempt to avoid the arguments of the IDers and creationists. Instead, they mock, attack, vilify and misrepresent.

So while ID and creationism are different approaches to the reality of the supreme designer, don't let the enemies of God drive a wedge between the two. Stick up for each other.

disappointed

Wow. A couple of years ago Mel was my favourite blogger because of her independent thinking.

These days she seems to have swallowed whole every single shibboleth of the Christian Right. Islam is now the only thing I agree with her about but at this rate she'll end up pro-Islamic as she realises she has more in common with 14th century cavemen than she does with modernity...

Neil Saunders

Much as I respect Melanie's opinions on social issues, she does herself no favours when she addresses highly technical scientific issues that lie completely outside her areas of likely expertise.

I have no scientific qualifications myself (although I've read popular accounts of science, such as Asimov's, Gribbin's and Bill Bryson's, not to mention numerous books on evolution and natural selection).

I do know that the whole area - in which even the most eminent experts engage in acrimonious disagreements - is a minefield even for the highly-informed (of which I am certainly not one!).

However, as someone rather better read in philosophy, I am surprised, more than two centuries after David Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion", that the argument from design - in various guises - should keep popping up like an especially refractory weed in an otherwise reasonably well-tended garden.

Colin Walls

In the Kitzmiller-Dover trial the arch proponent of ID was forced to admit that any definition of science broad enough to include ID was also broad enough to include astrology. You aren't claiming astrology is science are you Melanie?

ID isn't science, there is no evidence for it, it makes no predictions, it isn't testable and, as has been noted above, it isn't falsifiable.

As for it being separate from creationism, you might want to do a quick search for "cdesign proponentsists", this is a good start - http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html

In fact ID has become such an embarrassment to the Discovery Institute they have moved on to other slogans such as "Teach the Controversy" and "Critical Analysis of Evolution".

The fact they are focusing on the "problems" of evolution rather than coming up with positive evidence for their own position shows the intellectual bankruptcy of their position.

Stephen

If the intelligence behind the design set the universe in motion but then stepped back and took no further part in its evolution - how do we know and what difference does belief in the intelligence behind the design make? If the intelligence behind the design has been active throughout the progress of evolution, is that intelligence taking responsiblity for the 'red in tooth and claw' part of the nature as well as the awe-inspiring, the beautiful and the marvellously functional? If the intelligence behind the design thought that lions eating the cubs of their new mates or wasps laying their larvae in caterpillars so that the larvae would be able to eat their way out of the paralysed caterpillar was the best it could do then we should be very afraid. We certainly have few grounds for believing that that intelligence is benign or worthy of our allegience or worship.

DavidJ

Is'nt it strange how arrogance is synonymous with ignorance.

Campbell

Tas Walker: You utterly fail to understand how science works if you think that praying in aid great scientific names from the past in any form bolsters the Creationist/ID arguement. The whole history and progress in science consists in proving the great names were wrong.

So what if Newton was a literal Creationist? He also developed a mathematical system that was later overturned by Einstein who in his turn... Newtonian physics were proven wrong or faulty after a couple of hundred years providing a pretty damn good system which produced useful results.

The point is that his physics were falsifiable and produced amazing results. His BELIEF in creationism (and many other oddities) was not falsifiable, was not science and so went precisely nowhere.

What is unplatable about Creationism is, to me, it arrogance. Its refusal to recognise that science has developed tools and methods to winnow out the true from the false and that if it wishes to be treated as science it must, of neccessity, submit to methods, that have in the last 300 years produced an explosion of knowledge unparalleled in history.

As a believer I have to say that I also find that arrogance impious.

Nonvexatious

As an atheist who respects other people's spititual and religious beliefs, I find Richard Dawkins arrogant, tendentious and lacking in rigour, insight, understanding or any sense of the mystery if the universe. But, Nick, even if you accept the big bang theory to be correct, there are still turtles all the way down before that, aren't there?

Ronnie

'My readings suggest it's not actually a creator Captain, but a form of intelligence...that created life.'

'So, Spock, what you are saying is that it created, but yet it is not a creator.'

'Exactly! It's life Jim, but not as we know it.'

'Twaddle!'

'Shut-up Bones!'

libertarian

It seems that those who sometimes denounce God, intelligent design, etc.... replace it with yet another God.....just an observation....

Francis

Yes, indeed, Stephen, something has gone wrong with our world and it is difficult to reconcile certain things therein without a belief in an original happy state of this world and the sin of our Progenitor.

I seem to remember that the behaviour of the caterpillar and the wasp was an observation that brought the entomologist Fabre back to a belief in a creator -- the fine dexterity in the surgical procedure and the complexity of such survival behaviour, impossible to have learned (the wasp being dead when the larvae emerged).

It's interesting that the same observation might be used by others against a benign creator, or any creator.

Frank P

Campbell writes:

"bet[w]een an Intelligent Designer and a God there is not a cigarette paper's width of difference".

The width of a cigarette paper is extremely important if you're smoking a spliff. The difference between smoking ganja, and chewing it, is immense (I have been told). But I wouldn't recommend either, as it definitely leads to this sort of navel gazing described above.

Is that you Alastair? If so, what's with the lurking understatement? Though lower case is appropriate I agree if you are indeed he.

At the moment any advocate of ID would have great difficulty in proving to me that what is going on around this volatile global lump of rock, water, vegetation and soft tissue in any way, shape or form derived from anything more intelligent that the brain of an earthworm; and my apologies to the common earthworm to boot.

Which reminds me, I must drive round to the stables for five bags of horses***t for the roses: £1 per bag. Much better bargain than similar product found in the Speccie these days @ three quid for a few ounces of Scottish colt droppings with an occasional dollop from the old Gelding.

Oi! You lot! Don Obama is still at it y'know. Can we get back to some serious slagging-off and leave The Dork to his lucrative illiteracy. You are giving him the oxygen that makes his money machine go. Bad bastards are trying to organise our lives into ideological or whacko-religious slavery - and you're worried about who constructed the Great Machine?

The answer to that is surely simple -The Great Mechanic of course - who also made sure he's well out of reach of the lawyers ad infinitum, as he knew it was a cock-up as soon as it started to chug. An awful lot to answer for, the Great Mechanic.

If, perchance, there is anything for us ephemeral flowers (other than as unconscious fodder for my mate the earthworm; if I get a chance to whisper in the ear of whatever or whoever jigged up this jamboree: he, she, shim or it had better have a good story ready. I'm really pissed off!

And another thing while on the subject of ID - when is this poxy Government going to abandon the ID card scam, which defies any trace of intelligence? Surely that's the first thing to go when the 'cuts' are implemented. And what's more, who has picked up the contract for the facemask scam? Anybody know which company is involved and who's on the Board? Cui bono? As for the Pharmas ... pig 'flu indeed!

Avian-porcine virus I could envisage. I just saw one such pass my window.

Michael B

I'm not an IDer inline with Behe and others (though much of the work Behe and various others have forwarded is in fact worthy scientific work), I think they're on the wrong track.

However, intelligent design in a broader sense can also suggest a range from deism on through to revealed forms of theism (e.g., in the Judaic and Christian vein). Inline with preeminent thinkers such as a Kant, it most certainly appears science and philosophy are not going to positively prove either the non-existence or the existence of God. However, both science and philosophy, rigorously conceived, provide support for theism. For example, the sizeable set of anthropic coincidences in the universe alone are highly, in fact are profoundly indicative in this vein. Two or three excerpts and examples, though the entirety in that link is well worth a considered review for those who are more genuinely interested in the "intelligent design" conception, broadly conceived:

1) The ratios of the four fundamental forces, gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces, had to be balanced with great precision in order to make the universe hospitable to life.

2) Concerning electromagnetism: if slightly stronger: all red stars, no supernovae if slightly weaker: all fast-burning blue dwarves

3) A very remarkable case of fine-tuning has to do with the smoothness of the universe as it emerged from the Big Bang. The universe had to be extremely smooth, or else it would have been packed with nothing but black holes. At the same time, there had to be just the right amount of lumpiness to the early universe, to make the formation of stars and galaxies possible. Mathematician Roger Penrose (Penrose 1981) has estimated that the margin of error permitted here was less than 1 in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power (that is, 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros, more zeros than there are particles in the universe!)

Again, for obvious space reasons, those are merely three examples only, indicative of a far wider corpus of anthropic indicators and the larger set of arguments that attend those anthropic indicators.

Nick

Nonvexatious. I don't pretend to understand what happened before the Big Bang. But I have no problems whatsoever with Darwinian evolution of life from inorganic molecules. The precursor molecules of proteins and nucleic acids (amino acids and nucleotides) readily form from abiotic precursors (water, ammonia, methane, hydrogen). Such molecules are abundant in the Universe. No need to invoke a supernatural creator. All you need is time. Don't forget that it took a billion years for prokaryotic (bacteria-like) organisms to appear after the formation of the Earth. It took a further billion years for these bacterial forms to evolve into single-celled eukaryotes. That's 2 thousand million years to evolve from inorganic molecules into an amoeba. Not only does God, sitting up on his fluffy cloud, work in mysterious ways, but he also works very very very slowly.

Ronnie

'Captain, the creating non-creator is hailing us on our emergency frequency. Do you wish to respond?'

'No Mr Spock, you talk to it. I'm going to the rec. deck to watch Manchester United play Arsenal in the Champions' League semi-final. Mr Scott, are you coming?'

'Aye Captain, right behind you.'

Andy

In the Dover trial the textbook used "Of Panda's and People" had gone through several versions.

The initial versions used the term Creationism, the latter versions replaced this with Intelligent Design.

The middle versions had cdesign proponentsists.

If you wish,
Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”

The arguments are the same, exactly the same

ID=Creationism.

JohnPieret

Speaking of ignorance, the claim that Intelligent Design comes out of science displays ignorance of that good 18th-19th century British cleric, William Paley. Today's ID is just Paley's "Natural THEOLOGY" warmed over and updated. It was and is religion, just without Paley's honesty.

Roger Bacon OFM

The fundamental concept of intelligent design is the idea of “irreducible complexity”. The problem is that nobody has yet identified an example of this. It is simply a creationist ploy. It was interesting that Cardinal Schönborn fell into the trap of acknowledging ID without being aware that this was what it was about and he subsequently retracted his comments. A conventional Thomist theology has absolutely no problem in acknowledging a creator and a purpose without contradicting evolution by natural selection or any other aspect of scientific knowledge. If you cannot be bothered to study Aquinas, I don’t blame you! But don’t then turn round and say that religious belief is not compatible with reason as you have not engaged with the argument.

Dave

Michael B: You see the problem is only those set of Universal circumstances could give rise to beings that might question the staggering coincidence and then (with an inflated sense of their own self-worth common to religion and the religious) say... well that's too much of a coincidence, there must be a God.
It's just chance.

C. Gee

Nonvexatious,
An atheist cannot really respect "other people's spiritual and religious beliefs", as they are not worthy of respect. They are irrational, even though some may be more picturesque, or unobstrusive, or well-meaning than others. An atheist may respect the believer, and his feelings, and tolerate his indulging in nonsense, but only up to a point. Engaging in the debate is where I draw the line, because it always is, as you so rightly say, about turtles. At least science approaches its prime causes with imagination. The real "mysteries of the universe" - black holes, big bang, singularities, string theory, are far more mind-boggling and awe-inspiring than jealous Jahveh, or a shy designer leaving microscopic signatures on his work, or a Creator who provides meaning and purpose to the universe - but unfathomably encrypted.

Sean Healy

Darwin's theory of evolution has nothing to say about a creator or designer. It does have something to say about how natural selection is the driving force of the observable changes in species over time, though. Evolution is an empirical fact, Darwinism is a theory which can be tested against those facts. Creationism and ID cannot be tested, therefore they are beliefs.

bobxxxx

Dave wrote "(with an inflated sense of their own self-worth common to religion and the religious)"

Thanks for those comments Dave. Isn't it interesting that Christians think their species is a big deal, when we're really nothing more than an ape species on an insignificant tiny planet in an unimaginably vast universe that has more solar systems than there are grains of sand on Earth. Christians are too childish to accept this reality.

Ronnie

'Bridge to Captain Kirk!'

'Yes Spock, what is it?'

'I understand it is now what you call...half time.'

'That is correct, but the first-half highlights are on.'

'I'm afraid that the non-creating creator insists on speaking with you.'

'I see. Let me speak to Chekhov.'

'Kepten!'

'Mr Chekhov. Plot a course for the furthest corner of this galaxy and then take us there at maximum warp speed.'

'Yes Kepten. Kepten?'

'Yes Mr Chekhov?'

'Are there any goals yet?'

'No, it's been very tactical. I'll let you know if anything happens.'

'Ladna, davai.'

'Indeed. Kirk out'

'Captain! Ah'm no sure we've got enough dylithium crystals to get us there and back.'

'I don't care Scotty. If we don't get far away from here right now, I will top myself.'

Augustus

Social values and scientific and material calculations should not be introduced into the concept of religion. The art of being religious does not lie in merely thinking about God in Heaven, or an image or an atmosphere in a church or a temple, it is something quite different. It is an inward attunement of the mind with a form of reality which exists as a counterpart to our personal life. Religious consciousness is really that attainment by which the mind within tunes itself in harmony with its sought after counterpart, and by contact with which it becomes complete or whole. Thus, religion is the technique of becoming complete in one's life, whereas every other performance is a lesser activity which keeps us always less than whole.

What we call life is a phantom -
it passes quickly. We cling to a form of existence which we call life, a bodily life, a social life, which is here today, but tomorrow it is not. We cling to its form yet we know it's a form which does not persist, a form which always passes away and can pass away at any moment, and this includes our bodily form. Yet we seem to be interested in pampering only the bodily needs of the physical form and physical relationships in life, instead of contemplating the values which are meaningful to what we are basically, essentially, and privately. The counterpart of what we lack does not lie in the wealth of the world, or the social relationship of the world, but in what we are essentially: A spiritual unit that seeks for a perfection and fulfillment which can only be brought into existence by that which is akin to it in an outer world.

Paul

What a crock...

ID is creationism. Creationists believe that God/Supreme being/Magic fairy in the sky designed and created the universe.

ID believes that something designed and created the universe. They must have had Godlike powers to do this. Where did they come from? Did they eveolve or where they created? If the latter, who created them? And who created those creators...and so on.

Unless you say that they always existed in which case you are back to a designer with godlike powers who desiged and created the universe and has always existed.

If it looks like a duck...

cuffleyburgers

Melanie

there's a rather obvious flaw in your theorem - who created the creator?

Intelligent design is just bunkum as well.

Polly Gamma

Hahahaha Frank P

Well said!

Michael B

Dave,
Not so. Three points.
1) You're making an assertion only, without reasoning your way to that assertion, hence you're indulging the very fallacy you're complaining of.
2) Read - and then add some intelligence (aka comprehension) to your reading ability. I specifically noted the anthropic indicators are in fact indicative, if profoundly indicative imo and the opinion of others, not positive proofs.
3) Your own inflated sense of self-worth, so common among Dawkins' apparatchiks and acolytes, is reflective of (quite literally) nothing more than an arrogation and a sneering dismissiveness of that which fails to comport with your arrogation.
Making an assertion and reasoning backwards from your desired conclusion is not a sign of intelligence or any type of reasoning ability, better and more rigorously understood.

Nick

Michael B. The anthropic argument was neatly summed up by the late Douglas Adams.

'Isn't is amazing' said the puddle of water, 'that this hole in the ground is exactly the right size and shape for me!'

phayes

“However, both science and philosophy, rigorously conceived, provide support for theism.” --Michael B.

No they don't - that's (rather obviously) a non sequitur. For an intelligent look at the status of the “anthropic principle” in science, see here:

http://www.phys.cwru.edu/events/cerca_video_archive.php

(IIRC Weinberg points out under what circumstances it's legitimate to apply [resort to] it in science - and even then it's got nothing to do with God, of course).

JM Daniel

Evolution is far from fact. There are NO accounts of one species changing to another species. It is a belief system. There is, in fact, more evidence to support creation than evolution.

C. Gee

Roger Bacon OFM,
What do you mean by "compatible"?
Compatible in the sense that religion and science are Mr.and Mrs. Spratt, licking the platter clean? Getting along in parallel involves no contradiction, it is true. The point is that they are not reconcilable. Religion is irrational, science is rational. Any individual who thinks both are true must do some pretty fancy definitional footwork on "truth", to reconcile them.
The self-contradictory tendency in man, may have an evolutionary explanation. Dawkins suggests several ways that the religion tendency in Man conferred survival advantages. But then, I suppose, there is the religious explanation of scientific tendencies: Creators create creators.

Roger Bacon OFM

The essential axiom of the scientific method is that everything that exists can be perceived by the sensory organs of an ape-descended, carbon based life-form, with or without the assistance of those artefacts that that life-form can invent. This is of course an axiom and not a fact. Stated so baldly, this basic axiom of science is clearly just that, an axiom, it cannot be demonstrated to be a fact nor can it be disproved. When written out it does not even seem very probable! However, it has allowed us to develop a range of theories that can predict the observable results of experiments. Whether these can go on to tell us anything about the fundamental nature of existence is a different question. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics explicitly excludes this. The real claims of science to understand the fundamental nature of the universe are much less than popular culture believes.

Dr. G Hurd

There errors of fact, and reasoning in Ms. Phillips’s editorial. The easiest to correct is her objection that “intelligent design” is not creationism. Every significant IDC author has made it explicit that ID is intended to reintroduce creationism into American schools. Phillip Johnson, Mike Behe, William Dembski, and Jonathan Wells have all publicly expressed the identification of the “designer” with the Abrahamic God of the Old Testament.

The brand name “intelligent design” was coined to mask “scientific creationism” following the Edwards v. Aguillar (1987) Supreme Court decision.

Far more significant is the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (2005) where teaching "intelligent design" in public schools was found to be unconstitutional. In the creationist textbook targeted at American High Schools, _Of Pandas and People_, the phrase “scientific creationism” was swapped with “intelligent design.” Most famously, the word editing failed at one point, and the word “creationist” became “cdesignproponetist.”
Phillips argued that the Judge was misled by Ken Miller’s testimony in that trial. Other than Barbara Forrest’s brilliant testimony on the history of “intelligent design creationism,” the most effective witnesses against ID creationism were the creationists. Under oath, Mike Behe testified that there was no other “designer” intended other than God. He even acknowledged that to expand the notion of “science” large enough to include intelligent design creationism, would also embrace astrology. Would Phillips now add astrology to the science curriculum? Let’s not over look the stork theory of obstetrics.

We scientists and educators do not “smear” ID with “creationism.” The ID authors have all wallowed in the creationist trough voluntarily. In fact, their denial of God when addressing secular audiences is one of the few significant points that “regular vanilla” creationists object to in the ID campaign.

Jorge P

ID requires a creator, in the end. Ask ID supporters if they think the "designer" could be an alien. Because even if it were an alien, the alien would've come about through evolution anyway.

Sleeping dolls

bobxxxx, I agree, but kindly remove the word "insignificant". The unusual (if not the only) existence of life on this planet makes it highly significant. And, for the record, I knew a lady once that swore the "creator" was a large robot called Gordon. She had loads of "evidence" too.

boxermk

Einsten clearly rejected a belief in the Jewish or Christian God, but I think these quotes are relevant to Melanie's points:

"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness."
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

boxermk

Another Einsten quote:

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres." (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)

stanley Jerusalem

David T
April 29th, 2009 2:58pm
"People don't want to accept the Judeo-Christian God because he challenges our sin-nature and this we find very uncomfortable as it not only exposes our fallen state but it flies in the face of modernism and humanism."
For me, it is more about my desire to wear wool and linen mixed together, without fear of divine punishment."
I'm sorry but you represent a perfect example of another forbidden mixture, namely a horse and a bull using the same brain.Anyway why complain if it doesn't disturb the horses? Why do you think you have to be right? What difference will it make to the price of corn flakes?
So much fuss over a misquote from an arrogant man who has swallowed his own propaganda.

stanley Jerusalem

David T
April 29th, 2009 2:58pm
"People don't want to accept the Judeo-Christian God because he challenges our sin-nature and this we find very uncomfortable as it not only exposes our fallen state but it flies in the face of modernism and humanism."
For me, it is more about my desire to wear wool and linen mixed together, without fear of divine punishment."
I'm sorry but you represent a perfect example of another forbidden mixture, namely a horse and a bull using the same brain.Anyway why complain if it doesn't disturb the horses? Why do you think you have to be right? What difference will it make to the price of corn flakes?
So much fuss over a misquote from an arrogant man who has swallowed his own propaganda.
Let's watch the Arsenal Man U match.

C. Gee

Michael B,
So much must have been in place before the anthropic fine-tuning of our universe, including the fine-tuner. And that way turtles lie. I find it far less of a stretch to think that the universe is the way it is by the one chance in godzillion, based on the evidence of the universe itself, than that the chances of there being an anthropic fine-tuner are 100%, based on the evidence that the universe is too much of a fluke!

Bo

I was rather disturbed to read Melanie's article promoting ID.

However, reading through the comments made me much happier - there is a lot of vocal, intelligent people who don't sign up for the ID sham!

Paul Burnett

Melanie wrote: "...Creationism comes out of religion while Intelligent Design comes out of science."

That's utterly wrong. Intelligent design creationism was developed by right-wing religious fundamentalists in America following the 1987 US Supreme Court decision forbidding its bogus predecessor, "creation science," from being taught in public schools. There is no science supporting intelligent design creationism - it is a pseudoscience.

One of the great proofs that intelligent design creationism is creationism was shown in the 2005 Dover Trial, wherein an early draft of the creationist "textbook" "Pandas and People" was shown to have undergone a wholesale substitution of "creation," "creationism" and "creationists" with a new term, "intelligent design" and "intelligent design proponents." Unfortunately one term was missed and an intermediate transitional fossil was created: Google the term "cdesign proponentsists" to see the whole sordid story of how the creationists lie and distort the truth.

Terry

So who and what is the intelligent designer? If you propound the ID theory, you must follow it through and answer these questions.

Atom

Melanie,

Thank you for your courageous and *correct* article concerning what ID is. (This is from an ID proponent who shakes his head when the mainstream media consistently gets it wrong, by only interviewing opponents of ID. If you want to know what a particle physicist is would you interview a construction worker?)

BTW, the Dembski quote about John's Gospel and ID is found in a book trying to harmonize ID and Theology, hence the connection. Do your research, commenters.

Glen Davidson

Paley has generally been considered to be a creationist, so I can see no reason why ID would not be.

To portray ID as simply coming from creationism is not correct, no matter how much overlap there is. But it definitely comes out of religion, and from religions with a Creator.

Apparently Melanie simply takes the word of the Dishonesty Institute at face value.

How could ID come out of science when it has no theory, as admitted by prominent IDists like Phillip Johnson and Paul Nelson? And especially, how can it come from science when it posits no definite causes for definite effects?

Above all, neither Melanie nor anyone else can tell us how to do science with ID. Which is not a problem for Melanie, since she isn't concerned about ID's attempts to disembowel science, and is only too happy to accept its apologetics.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

C. Gee

Ronnie and Frank P,
Thank you both.

Glen Davidson

Paley has generally been considered to be a creationist, so I can see no reason why ID would not be.

To portray ID as simply coming from creationism is not correct, no matter how much overlap there is. But it definitely comes out of religion, and from religions with a Creator.

Apparently Melanie simply takes the word of the Dishonesty Institute at face value.

How could ID come out of science when it has no theory, as admitted by prominent IDists like Phillip Johnson and Paul Nelson? And especially, how can it come from science when it posits no definite causes for definite effects?

Above all, neither Melanie nor anyone else can tell us how to do science with ID. Which is not a problem for Melanie, since she isn't concerned about ID's attempts to disembowel science, and is only too happy to accept its apologetics.

Glen Davidson
electricconsciousness.tripod.com

Nelson

Thanks for a refreshingly honest point of view -- I very much appreciate the distinction you make. Many (like Ken Miller) like to obfuscate the difference between ID and creationism, much to their own emotive advantage in the public debate. Grateful for your boldness in stating the difference.

Joe Blough

Funny, the Discovery Institute (the biggest promoters of ID creationism) leave no doubt about who the designer is. Read their Wedge Document, it states "We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

It also lists, as one of its goals "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God."

Sounds like creationism to me.

Dave

So, Mel. ManPigBird Flu... evolution or ID?
And just how Intelligent would such a "designer" really be?
Does this show God is stupid? Vicious? Or not real?

Sergey

Terry, ID is not a theory, but a scientific critique of a specific theory. This critique can be valid without proposing any alternative theory.

Henry

So The Dork is point blank misquoting Ms Phillips and spatchcocking Mr Muelhenberg's comments.

Truly, The Dork moves in mysterious ways.

Perhaps he thinks he's God and can order the universe howsoever he pleases?

On bookshelves next year: The Dawkins Delusion.

Paul Burnett

"Pot Head" quotes Sir David Attenborough's summation "I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in East Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball."

The so-called "intelligent" designer has a number of unintelligent and even malignant designs. For instance, make a list of all disease organisms - they were "intelligently" designed, according to the intelligent design creationists. All forms of cancer were simmilarly "intelligently" designed. The human back, the appendix, and other painful reminders of mortality were "intelligently" designed. The intelligent designer has a sick - if not malicious - sense of humor.

Look up the recurrent laryngeal nerve for an example of a really stupid design - the nerve goes from the brain, down through the aorta and back up to the larynx.

AllanS

Attenborough's screw-worm fly is an emotional argument, not a rational one. Pain and evil may be necessary to achieve a higher good which cannot be achieved in any other way. Just as a good doctor might cause necessary pain, God may well be responsible for evil in the world but not morally culpable for it. We would be wise to neither condemn God nor acquit him until we have the whole story. In the meanwhile, since the jury is still out, it is best to believe that God is good. Even God is innocent until proven guilty.

JohnB

For 'Pot Head' and his like, sadly, the final resort is always foul language. Notice which side the abuse always seems to come from - the supporters of evolution. Isn't their argument strong enough?

hadrian

Granted I.D. is a form of creationism just what is the problem with that? Design does after all hint at a designer!!!
Atheists are free to interpret the evidence in line with their world-view presuppositions as best they can but they most certainly are not enforcing it on those of us who happen to be convinced theists and, heaven forfend, actually take God at His Word and seek to interpret the created order as He has revealed it to be understood.
However another point to this is the rather shrill response of evolutionists. Perhaps I.D. threatens them just as much because the sheer weight of the evidence is forcing upon anincreasing number of scientists/cosmologists/metaphysicists what is termed a 'paradign shift' a sort of fundamental sea change in approach which the 'old guard' of the scared guild will resist mightily. We'll see; but I simply refuse to apologise for being an unfliching six day creationist and looking at the evidence within that framework of explication and presupposition. Dawkins et al has a 'No God' presupposition and, surprise, surprise, we find that drives him to explaining things as NOT from a Creator. Hardly earth-shatteringly unexpected!

Pot Head

JohnB

"For 'Pot Head' and his like, sadly, the final resort is always foul language"

My abuse was meant to be good natured blog rough & tumble ,I note from which side the pure hate comes from.

From the rest of the Sir David Attenborough's interview

Sir David Attenborough has revealed that he receives hate mail from viewers for failing to credit God in his documentaries. In an interview with this week's Radio Times about his latest documentary, on Charles Darwin and natural selection, the broadcaster said: "They tell me to burn in hell and good riddance."

I Believe Dawkins in-box fill up with similar filth from the believers in an all loving god.

Political Umpire

Melanie writes: "Intelligent Design, whose proponents are mainly scientists, holds that the complexity of science suggests that there must have been a governing intelligence behind the origin of matter, which could not have developed spontaneously from nothing."

But that still leaves the question of who created the governing intelligence, or the creator's creator, and so on. We are still left with the problem of something from nothing.

Secondly, what is "the complexity of science"? It is indeed complex from our point of view, but that means little. If we found a stone age tribe in the Amazon, which had had no prior contact with the outside world, and we showed them in one afternoon the internet, the Saturn V rocket and an ipod, they may well conclude that the 'complexity' of those things could not have been the work of man and must be magical/divine.

Similarly, the 'complexity of science' may well be easily understood by a more advanced civilisation than our own; it only looks complex from where we're sitting.

Finally, as others have observed, any creator has a lot to answer for given the amount of suffering by innocents on Earth.

Noddy

Instead of us all argueing about God and creation etc. why don't we all just disbelieve?
Then again,I've heard about this geezer who married a 9 year old and his followers reckon that's the way to go.

benjamin

Oooh la la! Melanie really put her foot in it with this article. Five minutes research on Internet would have shown you that the proponents of ID are almost all coming straight out of the Creationist University (sic), the Discovery Institute.
I've always liked the example of the human vertebral column as a prime example of Stoopid Design. It wasn't at all designed for an upright ape - and it generally packs in between 40-50 years of age (personal experience). Almost everthing about it would be done differently if the designer had bothered to think about it.

Linda Smith

C. Gee posted (29 April, 5:16pm) 'The real "mysteries of the universe"- black holes, big bang, singularies, string theory ...."

To my mind, the real "mysteries of the universe" are mind and consciousness.

Neil Saunders

To AllanS

Why believe in God at all until there's some compelling, publicly-available and verifiable evidence for His existence?

Incidentally, we have to live in the world as we find it - limited in time and space - and to describe as best we can in accordance with the evidence available to us. We cannot afford to wait "until we have the whole story", if indeed we ever do.

Tas

Hume did not bury the design argument. It is alive and well and getting even stronger as a result of modern scientific discoveries. Read Antony Flew's account of reasons why he became an atheist and then the reasons why he abandoned atheism in his book "There is a God".

By the way, Pit Head:
Attenborough's theological objection has been answered many times. e.g. http://creation.com/article/5833/

journeyman

I believe as one commentator has put it,that I.D is just another attempt to subvert the seperation of Church and State,according to the American Constitution.The anti-evolution lobby never forgave the Darwinists for the bashing they got many years ago.
I.D belongs in theological speculations--not in the science lab,and will never be on an equal footing with Evolution as a science.
As to poetic eloquence and sophistry dressed as science,we are waisting our time attempting to prove or disprove the "how many angels on the end of a pin ",discussion and there are as I am sure you know,more clear and present dangers to attend to,such as the questionable future of the best version of civilization yet devised,namely the Western variety.
Dawkins comes in handy for demolishing the "Great Beard In the Sky",childishness,in which I understand you also agree with him.
Darwinian evolutionary theory is felt by Creationists and the I,D fraternity alike,as a cold,heartless,negation of spiritual values,leaving us in a mechanical world of atoms,cells and microbes,without explanations for our existence and some kind of ultimate manifest destiny.
Tha assumption is that without one form or another of diety,Creationist or I.D,we will run the risk of eventually lapsing into a degenerate state of immoral nihilism.
I am absolutely sure it is possible to be a Darwinist,anti-Left-Islamist,American-Thinker fan,Melanie Phillips fan,appreciate our Judeao-Christian-Greco-Roman heritage in comparison to worse alternatives,an atheist,believe that a return to religion as an antidote or counter-weight to Islamism or Leftist moral relatavism is barking up the wrong tree,and utilize ones spiritualty to silence that "Internal Chatter"that prompts us to want an answer to this impossible question in the first place.

Andre Lieven

Sergey wrote:
"Terry, ID is not a theory, but a scientific critique of a specific theory. This critique can be valid without proposing any alternative theory."

In a word, wrong. Such "critiques" result in nothing more than a repeat of the old Monty Python argument sketch.

Until you have an alternate hypothesis, and a method to test it, and to falsify it, you do NOT have science. Critiques of science that are not scientific are meaningless to science. If you don't like gravity, well, you will still fall if you go out a skyscraper window.

ID is creationism. The evidence
of this fact is undeniable, and was one key point in the correct decision in the Kitzmiller trial.

gary

"I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in East Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball.
"The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."

That argument depends on placing the worth of an innocence child in a non-industrial society over that of a worm. It assumes that human concepts about moral values are somehow innate in evolution. It assumes that things which humans find offensive are proof of the absence of intelligence.

R. Bullock

Melanie, you are exactly right, and you are a virtual lone voice of perfect sanity among the media today. Thank you. Thank you for making the common sense obversations in an uncommonly clear manner. You are right, keep up the good work. From the Intelligent Design Network of Ohio www.idnetohio.com. For more common sense see http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2?author=10

Frank P

AllanS

"Even God is innocent until proven guilty."

Why? You're pandering to lawyers now! Nobody is innocent until proven guilty in the concept of God's Universe of omniscience and omnipotence. They are innocent, or guilty, or neither. Just as God "exists", or is a construct of human imagination, or neither. As none of these concepts is possible to prove or disprove it is utterly pointless discussing it, never mind having a trial to
make lawyers and judges rich. Anyway you'd never get it past the CPS (which employs some very strange phenomena and if there is a God and he created the CPS he should be hung, drawn and quartered). Amen.

C.Gee

Are you the bloke from Bond Street who used to create my suits? If so, thank you, too. Now THAT was intelligent design.

Back to Barack Obama: how wonderfully convenient that Newsnight was abandoned tonight to allow Gavin Esler to hold a service of worship to celebrate the First Hundred Days on Earth of the Obamessiah - on the very day that the UK Government was defeated in the House of Commons over the maltreatment of the Gurkha veterans.

Thank God (if he exists, of course) that the Executive Director of this Magazine managed to draw attention to this latest debacle in his Daily Politics programme and publicise this latest Prime Ministerial bungling. In fact if God really does exist surely he would whisper in the PM's ear, "Gordon - Resign, ffs! I knew your old Dad well - spoke to him daily, and he would be ashamed of you."

Oli

JohnB-
Perhaps in this forum the foul language comes from an evolutionist, but as the threats to Sir David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins attest, the ID proponents often resort to underhanded and abusive methods.

I would love to engage in constructive debate but there is little to debate.
ID fails the test be being impossible to falsify.
IT IS NOT SCIENCE.

It is also not a 'scientific critique' it is being pedaled as a 'theory' (or more often fact).

Even the Pope said ID wasn't science!!!

hands up all those who think the pope is wrong!

Ellis

"In coming to the conclusion that a governing intelligence must have been responsible for the ultimate origin of matter, Intelligent Design proponents are essentially saying there must have been a creator."

ID proponents may well believe that a creator is the ultimate origin of matter, but that is not part of ID senso stricto.
ID proponents maintain that it is objectively demonstrable that living organisms are too complex to have arisen as a result of random mutation and natural selection, a perfectly reasonable assertion and one that can be evaluated by the usual methods of science. They may also, away from their role as scientists, assert their personal opinion that the God of the Bible is the cause of this otherwise impossible complexity. Doing so does not empty their scientific conclusions of significance.

Herbert Thornton

The question of whether Intelligent Design and Creationism are the same thing, or related, or completely unrelated seems to me to be of little consequence - and even to miss the real point.

Science of course has formulated (or has discovered based on a very considerable amount of evidence if you prefer to put it that way) both the theory of evolution and the theory that the Universe came into being as the result of a cosmic Big Bang and that "before" that it simply didn't exist, nor, there being no universe, did the phenomenon of time.

So, assuming that the Big Bang was the moment of creation - or the moment when the universe began if you want to put it that way - isn't any attempt to account for it related in the most basic way, to the question of some sort of Creationism? Did something create it, or cause it or did it just 'happen'?

Certainly, what we see is a Universe where life has evolved. Does that mean that the universe was designed so that life would eventually evolve, here & there? Or is the answer to that question completely unascertainable and unknowable?

Compared to those questions, arguments about whether an electric eel's ability to deliver severe electric shocks or whether the shape of butterflies' wings evolved with no outside help or whether their development resulted from a certain amount of tweaking by an intelligent designer (or, preposterously, came suddenly into being during a specific week six thousand years ago) seem to me, as I have said, to have little to do with the real point.

Sergey

Goal of Discovery Institute is to make a room for Creator in general picture of universe, not to prove His existence. The fact that most members of ID movement are devoted Christians does not mean that they want to discredit science as such: they fight not against science, but against scientism, that is, against militant materialism. The fact of evolution is not disputed by ID, only a specific theory explaining evolution. This another widespread confusion: the term "evolution" misused as synonim of Darwinism, both by creationists and atheists. One can fully recognise evolution and reject Darwinism.

Sergey

All parasitic organisms (fungi, bacteria, worms, insects) are descendants of free-living forms. They are not examples of progressive evolution, but of regress and devolution. And yes, emergence of parasites is almost the only thing in natural history which can be more or less adequately explained by Darwinian theory. ID does not deny evolution by natural selection in some taxa, it only states that these mechanisms are not enough and can not explain a progressive evolution.

Derek BLADES

Roger Bacon OFM (April 29th, 2009 6:04pm) is going nicely until he writes "Whether [scientific theories] can go on to tell us anything about the fundamental nature of existence is a different question." Who says "existence” has a “fundamental nature” or indeed any “nature” at all? And what do you mean by “existence” anyway? You are faulting science for not being able to cast light on a non-problem that you have invented yourself.

Conservative Cabbie

Dave

"In other words believing in God, gods, spaghetti monsters or "designers" means you are stupid.
And that's a measurable scientific fact!"

Well, as the proof of something being scientific is it's falsifiability, let me run some names past you. Martin Luther King, Martin Luther, Barack Obama, Leonardo Da Vinci, Sir Isaac Newton none of whom can justifiably be called stupid. There you go, your "scientific fact" has just been falsified. I didn't realise I was a budding scientist. I must have learnt something in my General Science 'O' Level.

Larry Fafarman

Yes -- a big difference between creationism and intelligent design is that creationism is based on religious sources whereas ID is based on scientific observation and reasoning. One book's substitution of the words "intelligent design" for the word "creationism" does not change that fact. Creationism can be taught by any Sunday School teacher whereas teaching some of the more technically sophisticated concepts of intelligent design may require a high degree of scientific knowledge. I am always rankled by the term "intelligent design creationism."

Richard Forrest

"... the fact is that Intelligent Design not only does not come out of Creationism but stands against it. ..."

What complete and utter nonsense! The ID movement was founded by a lawyer, not a scientist, and was devised to circumvent US laws against teaching religion in schools. It has nothing of any scientific value to offer, and its main argument - that of "irreducible complexity" -was anticipated by evolutionary theory over 8o years ago.
It is no more than the "God of the gaps" repackaged in scientific sounding terms to fool the ignorant and gullible into thinking that science supports their religious dogma.

Science advances by looking at phenomena we can observe and measure, formulating hypotheses which limit possible outcomes from that evidence and acquiring further evidence to test those hypotheses. The assertion that an unidentified but possibly supernatural "intelligent designer" (which, of course, is only a disingenuous way of referring to God) has interfered in normal evolutionary processes using unspecified but possibly supernatural means sets no constraints on possible outcomes, and is untestable using the tools of science.

If anyone has any doubts about the religious basis of the ID movement, I urge them to read Judge Jones' ruling on the Kitzmilller v. Dover trial, which is widely available on the web. One of the most telling revelations is that in declaring that irreducibly complex systems such as the bacterial flagella could not have evolved, Behe *specifically* excluded the explanations published in the scientific literature, and dismissed as "unconvincing" many papers on the subject without even bothering to read them!

The ID movement has contributed nothing to science. It was founded for dishonest reasons, and is no more than "scientific" creationism repackaged. I have been reading creationist books and web sites for over 30 years, and have yet to come across any which does not build its arguments on distortion, misrepresentation and outright falsehoods. I oppose creationism in all its forms because I detest dishonesty. When it comes from those claiming the moral high ground, as creationists do, it's rank hypocrisy.

Nick

Larry Fafarman. ID is 'based on scientific observation and reasoning' is it?

Perhaps you can direct me to a reference in the peer-reviewed, independent scientific literature which backs this rather bold statement up? Just one will suffice.

Dave

Conservative Cabbie; Nice to have you back. Well the sad case is measuring intelligence in a modern society against belief in a god of some description showed lower average intelligence when more people were believers.
Not to say individuals can't be smart and also believe in a creator. But on average the stonger the hold of religion the stupider the population.
To explain why throwing up the odd name doesn't actually prove anything you should remember that as a rule of thumb the plural of andecdote isn't data.
I can see why Dawkins gets so agressive (too much so in my opinion). There is no God. No proof. Yet we have slippery ideas like ID contaminating our education system.
It makes me angry too. And arguing really is like banging your head against a brick wall. Better to realise there's no point arguing with religious people because by the act of belief they show themselves not to be rational

Richard Forrest

Tas Walker (who is presumably this Tas Walker: http://biblicalgeology.net/) writes:
"What, pray tell, is so unpalatable about creationism? Instead of uttering slurs and innuendo please state your reasons why you think creationism is so bad."

It's because the movement is deeply and fundamentally dishonest.

I've been reading creationist sources for over 30 years, and have yet to come across any which does not build its argument on distortion, misrepresentation and outright falsehoods. I don't expect anyone simply to take my word for this, which is why I have posted a detailed analysis of several creationist web pages on my web site here: http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/index.php

I've invited creationists on numerous occasions to provide evidence that I am wrong in any of the instances of dishonesty I identify, but none has been able to do so.

I've asked creationists on numerous occasions to provide a link to an honest creationist souces, but none been able to do so.

I have asked creationists to provide a link to any "evolutionist" web site they think is dishonest. None has responded to that request either.

I can see no other conclusion but that creationists are systematically dishonest, accept that they are systematically dishonest, and don't care that they are systematically dishonest.

What other conclusion can you draw from this evidence?

Roger Bacon OFM

C Gee, as I wrote if you cannot be bothered to study the subject, stay out of this argument. It is not possible to cover everything on a blogpost. If you are really interested in understanding how conventional theology and science can be compatible there are a number of sources that you can look at. "Creation and Evolution" is a report of the 2006 Schulerkreis conference, which looked at this point and takes the current scientific understanding as its starting point. An accessible recent writer on the theology of Thomas Aquinas is the late Herbert McCabe; Melanie would hate him for his politics but that is another matter. The French palaeontologist and Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin covered much of this ground more than 50 years ago; his book “The Phenomenon of Man” with a forward by Julian Huxley addresses the whole question of evolution, again taking the science as given. A caution on this is that de Chardin was a bit of mystic as well as being a scientist and you could well find some of this irritating.

I doubt very much whether you will bother to look at any of this but then again you might. If you do you will at least understand why some serious intellects do find science and belief compatible. You may even be able to develop some cogent arguments as to why they are not!

John Dale

I don't know what planet Larry Fafarman lives on, but if he thinks that ID is based on scientific observation, its certainly not this one.

TomS

ID and Creationism are all part of the same ritual superstious nonsense - Religion.

I used to think that the Spectator was a good mag for intellegent rational people. I'm beginning to question that assumption since it started to push rediculous religious nonsense at its readers.

TomS

Melanie, do you view the biological process of evolution to be a true description of the development of life on this planet?

John Flemming

If ID is science, then where (and what) is the theory? Where is the research? What does it predict? How has it been tested? What experiments have been carried out?
No, Melanie, ID is pure creationism, under an unconvincing alias.
To quote William Dembski (http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006139.cfm), "I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."
ID can't tell science from superstiton.

JohnB

Hi Oli and Pot Head. Thanks for your replies. If you read through this thread you will find that 100% of the name calling comes from evolutionists. It is very regrettable if believers in Creation take the same low road.

By the way, I wonder where all the people who 'know' that Creation is rubbish get their information from. I ask because I have never ever seen a pro-creation article in any newspaper. It hardly seems fair to base your opposition to Creation on reading the hundreds of scoffing articles written by journalists who are just following the herd, does it?

That's why, in addition to reading Creations books and magazines, I have read Darwin and Dawkins. Quite frankly, Dawkin's books are very poorly argued. For example, read his 'Methinks it is like a weasel' argument in 'The Blind Watchmaker'. It does not stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever. Read it and see.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes, John

Laurence Boyce

"Creationism comes out of religion while Intelligent Design comes out of science."

Oh really? In that case, you will have no difficulty in listing a whole bunch of atheists who support ID theory. I'll make it easy for you Melanie. Just name one.

Epistemological Realist

Nick says:

I have no problems whatsoever with Darwinian evolution of life from inorganic molecules. .... No need to invoke a supernatural creator. All you need is time.

There, you see -- you do believe in miracles and unreal entities!
There is no such thing as "Darwinian evolutiuon of life". Darwin himself had, and his modern-day followers have, no realistic (or even unrealistic) mechanism to propose for it: by definition, "darwinian evolution" only gets started once there IS life.

Nick

Epistemological Realist: No, Darwinian evolution applies to molecular stability and reactivity too. It is not exclusive to biological systems. For example, a particular protein or lipid molecule may be more stable to changes in pH or temperature and thus will be selected for under abiotic conditions. No need for supernatural intervention.

stoat100

I like Michael Schermer's take on it: This is like the Monty Python sketch involving a dubious 'cat license': "This isn't a cat license - it's a dog license with CAT written on it, in crayon!"

Murdo

I am amazed that this kind of guff passes for intelligent discussion. Ms Phillips simply rebuffs any argument she does not accept with 'It is wrong.' or 'He is wrong.' We can talk in circles about this nonsensical idea - creationism/ID - but there was one interesting point: of course intelligent people can be wrong; but so can unintelligent people ... and Melanie Phillips, although she doesn't appear to believe in her own infallibility.

Micky Mollallegn

Excellent article. Thank you Melanie.

Dr. Robert Stovold

Statements of scientists are not necessarily statements of science. Even if the statement "most proponents of I.D. are scientists" were true, it wouls still be irrelevent. Most scientists aren't proponents of I.D., for the very good reason that Irreducible Complexity (a cornerstone of I.D.) rests on misunderstandings of how evolution works, and has been debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001.html

TheGlovner

I would just like to point out that quoting famous scientists from earlier tha about 1900 as supporter of the biblical (or any other religion for that matter) myths that religion supports is flawed statement statement.

Many people from these times if they did not acknowledge god were laughed at and not taken seriously and if from the world of science could have been banned from their field as religion was supported by the Powers that be. The only difference now is that more people are intelligent and as such can freely announce their atheism without being punished for not believing the mass delusion of the uneducated.

Tim Greenway

The court was wrong - you assert the court was wrong? On what basis - your own? Come on Melanie, do you really need to peddle incredulous rubbish such as this. We all know ID is creationism in disguise.

And who said Ken Miller was muddled? I think you confuse muddled with your lack of understanding.

Hayward Maberley

Original Tony
“People don't want to accept the Judeo-Christian God because he challenges our sin-nature and this we find very uncomfortable as it not only exposes our fallen state but it flies in the face of modernism and humanism.”
That Old Original Sin, Tony, that has been a strong marketing tool of Paulinity For it is an artefact of Paul, the previously named Saul, who had fallen from his horse on the road to Damascus when he was on a mission to “persecute” followers of Jesus. He had cracked his head, came to, with a loss of sight and what is obviously a case of concussion, possibly brain damage.
As Paul he decides to take over the very movement, the followers of Jesus, that he had been persecuting. Rebadges it as “Christian”, places himself as the leader, chief theoretician and pamphleteer.
Paul devises OS, continually beats the poor followers of Jesus about the head and “soul” with that and much else. There was no evidence of OS until Paul came along. If I were to have been a follower of Jesus at that time, I would have probably asked Paul some hard questions. Such as where in the OT is there a mention of OS? Why is it we never heard Jesus talk of OS? Itwas taken up by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in the struggle again Gnosticism.[
Later Pelagianism strted to flourish for if one can be at all rational about any religion why should one accept that a “sin” supposedly committed at the very beginning of “creation” can effect a new born child.
Of course Paulinity opposed this strongly, it was cutting into its franchise in the Holy Roman Empire. Then Augustine joins the fray. He the “saint” who said "Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet" and argued against it. For Augustine it was all about “concupiscence” Rather like all those modern day Southern evangelists, who having wallowed in sin and fornication decide that no one else should.
Paulinity, then the fledgling One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was the sole holder of the franchise at that time. Did noy pursue fully grateful all of Augustine's arguments on OS. They might have ended up like the Shakers. For Augustine was definitely down on sexuality. Obviously if he had had enough that was it for everyone else!
But the “Church” needed all the “faithful” to reproduce in order to keep the franchise going, so much of what was in Augustine’s arguments was swept under the carpet.

Nehama, UK

No Melanie, you are wrong, very wrong (not that you read comments anyway), Intelligent Design does not stand against Creationism, ID is Creationism in disguise. End of story. No ifs, no buts.

Michael B

Nick,
Not so. There's a difference between reasoning backwards in the simplistically tendentious manner you're attributing to Douglas Adams vs. the probabilistic accounting reflected in the anthropic argument. Again, it's not a proof in a mathematical/deductive sense, but it is profoundly indicative.

phayes,
You don't seem to know what a non sequitur is. Or perhaps you don't know how to distinguish a proof, in a deductive/mathematical sense, from something which is more indicative. The anthropic "coincidences," or coincidences, such as the various arcane constants physicists are knowledgeable of, is suggestive of intelligence. In fact, it is one of the motivators behind multiverse theories. Likewise, a couple of quotes from the link already provided:

"[There] is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all... It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe... The impression of design is overwhelming." physicist Paul Davies

"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say "supernatural") plan." Nobel prize winning physicist Arno Penzias

Mark

Given that the textbook put forward by ID enthusiasts - who are ALL of the Judaeo-Christian religion - which featured in the Dover trial, simply had "creation" replaced by "intelligent design" throughout using a word processor replacement tool, is it not possible, Melanie, that you are simply wrong here?

Intelligent Design fails as science. It makes no testable predictions. Evolution (Darwin called it "descent with modification") is an observation; Natural Selection is the theory that best explains that observation. It's backed up by overwhelming evidence. Which is why no serious scientist (I don't include the occasional rogue engineering professor in Bristol or Leeds here) has any reason to suppose there might have been a supernatural designer.

Science has so far, simply not needed the hypothesis of a designer. If you put your religion up against scientific evidence, which is your choice, you will come a cropper.

Learn some science, please. You insult your readers, and your editors, with this lazy and sadly ignorant piece of writing.

RedRuth

Phillip Johnson, the founder of the ID movement has admitted there's no 'theory of ID'. At the moment it's nothing but pseudoscience. There's nothing to debate.

Virtually all Biologists accept evolution by common descent as proven beyond reasonable doubt. There is no controversy except in the minds of people like Phillips who certainly isn't a scientist.

Epistemological Realist

Nick, you say
a particular protein or lipid molecule may be more stable to changes in pH or temperature and thus will be selected for under abiotic conditions.

But how is it going to leave descendants, for natural selection to continue working on?
When I was going on Dawkins' site the line was usually more like "we never said the theory of evolution explained anything but the development of life once it exists -- so it's illegitimate to criticise Darwinism for having no account of life's first appearance" (sometimes not without a strong hint of "so yah boo")
The truth is that the atheist is as heavily dependent as any theist/IDer/Creationist on the strictly inexplicable. Don't be embarrassed about it!

Nick

Michael B, how do we know there aren't trillions of 'failed' Universes out there with conditions that are not suitable for the evolution of life?

New Age Outlaw

Until the Liars For Darwin cultists show that their childish hypothesis has any truth to it (150 years and counting....) and that their absurd extrapolation of data is warranted, I.D. will remain the most plausible explanation for both life's origins and it's diversity. Actually, not only the most plausible explanation, but as of our current knowledge, it's the only possible explanation. We know what intelligence can produce and we recognize it when we see it. On the other hand, the blind forces of nature have never shown they're, not even with the Darwinist's ace-in-the-hole natural selection at work.

There's a reason why all honest biologists have abandoned nearly all of Darwin's pseudo-scientific, Victorian era views. They've been exposed as a sham. Of course their new hypothesis isn't much better. It involves massive levels of self-organization in nature. Of course this level of self-organization has never been witnessed in billions upon billions of hours of research, but it's there. *wink* *wink*

You see folks, all that nano-machinery and that optimized digital code that makes you run - that wasn't the product of intelligence, no sir. It's all the product of nature's "super invisible magical self-organization principle", which just so happens to produce results that are identical to the results of intelligent agency. How sill

For the record - if intelligence-based explanations for life are unfalsifiable, then that would make unintelligence-based explanations for life inherently unprovable. In other words - not science. Duh.

Keith

There are at least 45 well documented creationist stories,many of them more feasible than those of the Abraham religions.Intelligent design could mean a mad scientist who has gone away but may soon return to wash us off his petri dish.

Tommy T Cat

ID didn't 'grow out of science' any more than christian science grows out of science.

Andre Lieven

Larry Fafarman claimed:

"Yes -- a big difference between creationism and intelligent design is that creationism is based on religious sources whereas ID is based on scientific observation and reasoning."

-A difference which makes no difference is no difference- James Blish.

Since ID has provided NO actual science, as shown by the testimony of Michael Behe, who testified that -there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.-

Given that he is a far more authoritative spokesman for ID than you are, I will accept his statement that falsifies yours.

ID is creationism in a bad disguise, one that has failed to work since Kitzmiller.

Jared Jammer

For the record - I.D. isn't anti-evolution. That myth came from the Liars For Darwin who created it as a means of dishonestly conflating I.D. with Biblical creationism. By doing this they could more easily write I.D. off and avoid actual debate, their last remaining tactic since they know they could never win any debates against I.D. advocates (I.D. has all of the evidence).

For the anti-science I.D. hater that claimed I.D. had no theory - John A. Davison would disagree. He's the brilliant Vermont biologist who's fact-filled idea that evolution was a prescribed event was so frightening to the Darwinian orthodoxy that he was immediately demoted and both he and his theory's existence ignored for decades.

As for the "who designed the designer?" nonsense - who knows? Who knows who designed the designer, and who knows who designed the designer's designer, etc. That's currently unknowable and may always be unknowable. Either way, it's little more than a distraction tactic which doesn't address the issue of whether or not both our universe and life show ample evidence of design. Thus far all evidence from both cosmology and biology says yes it does.

There's a reason why, despite trying downplay I.D. as a non-threat, anti-I.Dists just can't stop obsessing over it. They know that the scientific revolution has begun and they're scared. Very scared. Who can blame them? The further the research goes, the stronger the appearance of design becomes - the exact opposite of what one would expect if the design were an illusion, as charlatan Richard Dawkins professes.

Nothing in science makes sense except in the light of Intelligent Design.

Richard Fieldsend

How do you explain the fact the the 'ID textbook' was literally created by taking the 'creationist' version and running a word processor 'search and replace' on the text. This was so clumsily done that there is even an occurrence of the term 'reintelligent designed' ('recreated' with 'intelligent design' used to replace the creation in the middle of the word).

If ID was science it would be able to stand up to the harsh light of scientific query. To date there are *no* peer reviewed papers on the subject. It is religious idiocy given a coat of paint, nothing more, nothing less.

Keith

Funny how ID supporters ignore the unintelligent and random-seeming features of the universe. Only those features that seem intelligent to certain humans are considered as evidence for an external creative intelligence.

Additionally proving ID shows us nothing of the motivations of the purported designer. It could be an "evil" designer. Or just doing it for a lark. Of course, those that already believe will believe it must be "good"... just because.

Herbert Thornton

I'm repeating myself, but when we ask - 'what caused the Big Bang?' - is that a valid question - or is it one that asks about the unknowable and so cannot be answered?

So I again invite people to suggest an explanation - if you think there is one - for the phenomenon of the Big Bang.

Richard Ford

Melanie Phillips;
"while Intelligent Design comes out of science."

That's the best laugh I've had today. Calling ID science - sometimes the comedy writes itself (or Melanie does it for us).

RickK

As stated in blog responses to this article, it was not Ken Miller or any witness for the plaintiffs that demonstrated that Intelligent Design is just the latest repackaging of creationism. It was the Intelligent Design witnesses that made the case all too well - they and their evidence.

The fact that the proposed Intelligent Design textbook was simply the result of a search & replace on a creationist textbook is a perfectly adequate "smoking gun" piece of evidence, or perhaps I should say a solid piece of DNA evidence.

But if you really want to demonstrate how Intelligent Design is creationism, look at the funding of the groups that promote ID, look at the people who promote ID in public discussion forums, and the number of places on the web where the ultimate ID argument against evolution is founded on "because evolution denies God."

ID/creationism ARE NOT SCIENCE. ID/creationism offers no mechanisms, offers no observability, offers no potential falsifications, and make makes no predictions. Evolution offers all of the above.

Finally, if Christian Creationism was allowed in U.S. public school science classes, nobody would ever have heard of intelligent design.

This article is as thin and fundamentally dishonest as the defendants' arguments in Kitzmiller.

The Biologista

Mel,

It's creationism! Perhaps not a very specific 6-day creation, 6000 year old earth variety, but creationism none the less. The main proponent institution, the Discovery Institute, is a Christian organisation. Their stated strategy being:

"to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"

Raymond Joseph Douglas,

Scientific truth is not decided in the arena of public debates- the reason this debate is in that arena is because the creationists are not interested in winning the scientific battle. They want to convince you and the people you vote for.

Marla Brunker, NYC

"Intelligent Design, whose proponents are mainly scientists . . . "

Wow, you can't get anything right. The handful of ID supporters with anything resembling scientific chops in the life sciences are, TO A ONE, do so for religious reasons, or are getting money to support it, or both. ID's primary support (in the States, at least) comes from the Discovery Institute, which does PR for it. Not research, not labwork, no scholarship, just spin--for which you are clearly a sucker.

"This is because Creationism comes out of religion while Intelligent Design comes out of science."

Why, because THEY say their scientists? Ms. Phillips, you wouldn't know science if it kissed you on the lips.

RickK

And, responding to your statements in the past that evolution doesn't explain the origin of the first life, or other commenters' statements that evolution doesn't explain the birth of the universe -

the theory of evolution isn't about the origin of the universe or the first life.

You're right, evolution doesn't address thing that it's not meant to address.

Is Chemistry weak/false/invalid because it doesn't explain where the elements come from?

Are your cookbooks useless because they don't address farming practices?

Just because you repeate the same arguments over and over doesn't make them any less silly.

Roger Stanyard

Message to Tas Walker.

Perhaps you might want to point out to everyone here that you work for Creationion Ministries International, a notorious young earth creationist organisation, that you hold a literal interpretation of the bible and think the world is 6,000 years old.

Moreover, I've never seen you state that Intelligent Design is an explanation of the differences between species. Your position remains solely that of a young earth creationist.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

Mark Langford

"Intelligent Design was a form of Creationism in its ruling that teaching Intelligent Design violated the constitutional ban against teaching religion in public schools. But the court was simply wrong,"

Did you actually read the case notes? Did you analyse the scientific evidence?

If you actually go to the source, you will find that the witnesses brought forward by the anti-evolution side, when placed under oath, had to admit that there was no genuine piece of reliable evidence available to contradict the evolutionary model, and that the only "higher being" they would consider in the role of "Intelligent Designer" was the Christian version of God.

Some people refer to ID as creationism in a cheap tuxedo; I prefer to think of it as cowardly and fraudulent.

Roger Stanyard

Jared Jammer points to John A Davison as an expert who claims that those who don't accept ID are Liars for Darwin.

OK, well show us just one single peer reviewed scientific paper by Davison which supports ID.

Just one.

The man claims to have been working in science for 50 years, so let him support his own assertions in his own words.

Or, as I suspect, can't he?

John A. Davison

Jared Jammer

Thank you for this morning's kind words.

It seems that most people would rather "debate" than face reality. There is not a shred of evidence in support of the Darwinian fantasy. It has survived for a century and a half for one reason only. Its proponents are congenitally incapable of accepting the reality that phylogeny could never have occurred without a Plan, a word Robert Broom had the temerity to captalize. His reward for that innocuous suggestion was to be ignored by the "establishment," but not by this investigator. Robert Broom, Leo Berg, Pierre Grasse, Otto Schindewolf, William Bateson and Reginald C. Punnett, among others, including myself, have all reached the same conclusion.

I have carried it one step futher by maintaining that the Plan has been realized and creative evolution is no longer in progress and that the current biota is the terminal one in a planned sequence. It should surprise no one that I am not very popular with either camp in a "debate" which should never have been initiated.

Real scientists don't debate. They "discover" and then do their best to "enlighten." The latter is the difficult part.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

jadavison.wordpress.com

Conservative Cabbie

Dave

"There is no God"

"they show themselves not to be rational"

If you want to limit mankind to rationality alone then you deny us progress. As much of our development has been brought about by "leaps of faith" as has been caused by rationality. A rational scientific view of the world is just one of a number of ways of viewing the world and a severely limiting one at that. I would far rather a world of wonder and awe than one of rational realities.

It's interesting to note that Sir Isaac Newton wrote his 'Principia Mathematica' with the intention of proving God's design. So maybe ID has a place after all, a starting point that leads to new discoveries.

Conservative Cabbie

This post really brought out the zealots. Not the religious ones but the zealots of rationality who resort to insults and abuse to make their point.

If they are an advert for rationality, then they can take their rationality and shove it up their bunsen burners.

Tim Greenway

Evolution explaining the origin life - *hand to forehead*

Come on ID(iots), evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution describes the diversity of life on earth.

I wonder, do creationists and ID intellectual vacuity?

John Haile

Melanie, it is actually a lie that ID is different than Creationism. If you doubt that, look at the Wedge strategy from the Discovery Institute, authored by Philip Johnson, one of the 'fathers' of Intelligent Design which states that: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." If you think the two dogmas are different, then at best you are misinformed, at worst you are lying.

JohnB

Roger Stanyard states that Tas Walker works for a 'notorious young earth creationist organisation'.I googled 'notorious' just to see exactly the sort of organisation Roger had in mind. The definition of notorious included the following:
'scandalous, shady, shameful, unadmirable and wicked'. It rather sounds as if Mr Stanyard would say anything, doesn't it? By what stretch of the imagination does believing in a Creator fit any of the above?

Another perfect example of the Evolution lobby doing what it does best - abuse instead of facts.

Pisaac

Conservative Cabbie

Religion is the reason man made little progress for hundreds of years until science and rationality came to the fore. Religion has tried to keep people subjugated to its tenets and beliefs, and still does.

OK, if ID has any validity it has to produce evidence that all can see and understand. There must be no 'this is so complicated that an intelligent designer must have done it'!

What 'leaps of faith' have helped us along the way?

Nakashima

"cdesign propentsists" - Look it up Melanie, then print a retraction.

Richard Forrest

...and as an additional question to Tas Walker:

An article on AiG's web site (which has incidentally now been taken down) contains the following passage:

"The scientist who discovered it, Dr Achim Reisdorf, was interviewed in depth in a German-language publication that is sympathetic to the Bible. It is fascinating to watch him wrestle with the evidence, while trying to hold that the sediments were deposited over a million years."

The facts of the case are:
1) The AiG authors of the article - Tas Walker and Carl Wieland did not interview Achim Reisdorf.
2) The article in "Faktum" to which this refers makes no mention of his "wrestling with the evidence".
3) Achim Reisdorf has co-authored a paper in which he gives a detailed account of how this specimen came to be preserved. It presents no problem for geology or palaeontology.
4) The sediments were not laid down over "millions of years" - as the 'Faktum' article explains.

Perhaps you can explain why you felt it necessary to invent something to support your case?

I suggest that anyone who has any interest in the matter reads my analysis of this article.
http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/swissichthyosaur/index.php

Sarah

Just one question Mel.....who is the creator?

I dare you to come up with anything other than 'God'.
Or do you believe in aliens?

Pisaac

John A Davison

I do not know if your comments stem from ignorance or arrogance, a refusal to accept what is staring you in the face.

Native fence lizards in the USA have for years been plagued by the spread of fire ants from South America. A naturalit studied four different sites that had been infested for different periods, from the present to 68 years ago.

The fence lizards that live in the 68-year site have developed longer legs to help them escape, compared to the other sites.

Evolution in action - NOW, my friend

Mike Holloway

Ms. Philips,

Please, could you one day write an article on what sources you use for the subject, how you come to your conclusions, and what your history and connection is to the subject? As a believer, scientist, and educator in the US, I can assure you that the defense and the judge in the Kitzmiller trial did excellent professional jobs. The case wasn't left to the complaintants, and the judge was not biased. You can believe what was presented there. There wasn't any conspiracy. This leaves me confused as to where you're coming from, and I'm sure we'd all like to better understand.

Richard Forrest

JohnB wrote:

"I googled 'notorious' just to see exactly the sort of organisation Roger had in mind. The definition of notorious included the following:
'scandalous, shady, shameful, unadmirable and wicked'. It rather sounds as if Mr Stanyard would say anything, doesn't it? By what stretch of the imagination does believing in a Creator fit any of the above?"

It seems a pretty apt description of creationist web sites. Many of the founders of the sciences of geology and palaeontology were devout Christians who struggled to reconcile the clear evidence from the natural world that the Biblical account of creation is not supported by evidence and their faith. Many scientists, including many evolutionary biologists are devout Christians.

This is not an issue of belief in a creator. It is about the claims of creationists that their religious convictions should be taught as science in science classes, and the way in which they promote their agenda. If they were not making such a claim this would not be an issue, and if they were making that claim honestly this would not be an issue.

I have been reading creationist sources for over 30 years, and have yet to come across any which does not build its arguments on distortion, misrepresentation and outright falsehoods. I don't expect anyone to take my word for this, which is why I have posted some of the evidence from which I draw this conclusion on my web site. The article on AiG's site co-authored by Tas Walker, who has posted here, is one of several I analyse.
http://plesiosaur.com/creationism/index.php

I've posted this link on numerous occasions and invited creationists to demonstrate that I am incorrect in any of my analysis.

No creationist has even tried to do so.

I've invited creationists on numerous occasions to post a link to an honest creationist site.

No creationist has done so.

I've invited creationists on numerous occasions to post an analysis of any "evolutionist" site which is dishonest.

No creationist has even tried to do so.

The only conclusion I can draw from this evidence is that creationists accept that their arguments are dishonest, but find such dishonesty acceptable when it comes from other creationists.

What other conclusion do you think one can draw from the evidence?

Ian

"But the court was simply wrong, doubtless because it had heard muddled testimony from the likes of Prof Miller."

I see. I take it Ms Phillips is an expert on legal matters? Or is it evolutionary biology? Or maybe the history of creationism? No? Just an English degree? So why should anyone take her seriously over Ken Miller, Judge Jones and, most importantly, Barbara Forrest?

Barbara Forrest? You know, the historian of science who demonstrated in her testimony in the Kitzmiller trial that "creation science" was replaced with "intelligent design" in a simple cut and paste "Of Pandas and People", the intelligent design textbook.

So is Ms Phillips running her mouth without bothering to educate herself about the facts of the matter, or is intentionally misleading the public? Either way, the Spectator, if it has a shred of journalistic integrity, needs to distance itself from this rubbish.

Pisaac

Augustus - "The art of being religious is something quite different. It is an inward attunement of the mind with a form of reality which exists as a counterpart to our personal life. Religious consciousness is really that attainment by which the mind within tunes itself in harmony with its sought after counterpart, and by contact with which it becomes complete or whole. Thus, religion is the technique of becoming complete in one's life".

I get similar sensations when I drink copious amounts of real ale, but it's certainly nothing to do with religion!

RickK

John A. Davison wrote: "There is not a shred of evidence in support of the Darwinian fantasy. It has survived for a century and a half for one reason only. Its proponents are congenitally incapable of accepting the reality that phylogeny could never have occurred without a Plan"

If there was a plan, does that mean Ediacaran fauna, Tiktaalik, Cynodonts, feathered dinosaurs, and millions of other extinct species were rough drafts thrown away by an error-prone designer? I'd fire a designer that had a 1% success rate.

"not a shred of evidence" - that simply is a lie. You can refute the role of natural selection versus symbiosis versus whatever. But you can't say there is no evidence. Even Phillip E. Johnson, the proclaimed father of intelligent design, admitted that evolution is internally consistent and tells a good story to match the evidence.

So to say there is no evidence that species evolve is a flat out lie. And when you lead with that, the rest of the argument falls flat. And apparently you and the scientists and philosophers you always list have made a habit out of ineffective argument, since none has proposed a credible, evidence-based alternative to evolution of species.

But there is one element of your argument that I find interesting. You've come to the conclusion that "the Plan has been realized", that the "current biota is the terminal one".

How galatically arrogant to think that current life, YOU, are the goal of the 13.5 billion year plan of the universe.

Fragmeister

"As an atheist who respects other people's spititual and religious beliefs, I find Richard Dawkins arrogant, tendentious and lacking in rigour, insight, understanding or any sense of the mystery if the universe."

Please read Unweaving The Rainbow, Dawkins's best book in my opinion.

As for the matter of Ms Phillips's understanding of science and theology. As a teacher, this is a U grade piece, lacking in anything more than muddled thinking. ID is not science and I cannot see that having a creator (of whatever flavour) is not creationism.

C. Gee

Roger Bacon OFM,
Thank you for your reading list for Conventional Theology 101. That you chose Bacon's name for these purposes suggests that science and religion inhabit the same space in your mind. Perhaps you are a conventional Christian and a scientist. That you are an intellect I don't doubt, but insistence on your readings in theology do not necessarily establish you as a serious one, though certainly earnest.
You say (April 29,5:04)
"If you cannot be bothered to read Aquinas, I don't blame you! But don't then turn around and say that religious belief is not compatible with science as you have not engaged in the argument."
Melanie's argument that ID and Creationism are "completely different" you deal with by saying, quite rightly, that ID is a "creationist ploy". She explains her view by saying that creationism "comes out of religion" and ID "comes out of science". Is this where you think she is "turning round" to say that religious belief is not compatible with science? This is such a peculiar reading of her argument, that I fear it is merely a pretext for you to air the Thomist bee in your bonnet.
She does in fact say:
"But belief in a Creator is common to all people of monotheistic faith - many scientists among them - the vast majority of whom would regard Creationism as totally ludicrous." She assumes compatibility between religious belief in a Creator and science. She merely splits the religious hair as to what in religion is ludicrous - Earth made in 6 days - and what is not, a personalized God, or a creator-intelligence.
As a general point of order: If you assume people are not qualified to enter into your theological argument, why do you obtrude it into a different discussion? If that pet argument is how a mind may hold two mutually contradictory beliefs, then none of your theological authorities is the last word on it, and there may be psychologists or epistemoligists who can contribute. If your authorities were the last word, then there is no discussion to be engaged. If the discussion cannot even begin without reference to your authorities, then confine the debate to theologists.
And finally, yes, there are churchgoers in lab coats, and, as you insist, experimental scientists in monks' habits, but that does not make self-contradiction not self-contradiction. The epistemological reconciliation is a linguistic compromise: "God" is a place-holder for what we do not know, do not yet know, and may never know scientifically. The psychological reconcilation would be interesting to know. There is an evolutionary reconciliation too.
This may not be "cogent" enough for Conventional Theology 101. Do I wish "to understand why serious intellects can find religious belief and science compatible? I would rather just accept that you do, just like I accept that rich men vote socialist. In other words, I shall not trespass on your intellectual seriousness, as you suggest. Call me "Jesting Pilate".

John D

Mike Holloway,
I agree totally.

Rob,
Yes, she is!

Roger Smith

I would agree that in the strictest of philosophical terms, intelligent design is not creationism. Instead I.D. would be a subset of creationism. Speaking pragmatically, on the other hand, the two are virtually indistinguishable from each other, since the majority of those who would teach intelligent design are Christians looking for a way to put their religious foot in the door. So for all practical purposes I.D. may as well be creationism.

By attacking Darwinists Phillips is missing the whole point. Phillips needs to be attacking creationists who are sullying her hypothesis by making it virtually identical to creationism. Doing otherwise, such as this article, is only perpetuating the misconception.

In other words, this article is FAIL.

Dave

@Conservative Cabbie; "I would far rather a world of wonder and awe than one of rational realities."
Oh come on. What mean is you'd rather cower in a cave as disease cuts a swaithe through our numbers.
To say science doesn't provide wonders equal to those of religion is just obtuse.
Science also has the added advantage of being real.

logdon

Blimey, lost me on this one, Mel. Or rather some of those convoluted comments did.

My question is who is the designer? Or more realistically, if you believe in ID, who or what organised the force which brought life into being? Another life? If so, what created that, and so on, stretching to infinity.

I can understand that when you observe the incredible intricacy of life and all it's virtually infinite variants you have to wonder how could anything so perfect and complex be created without a plan.

A big question, indeed. However a bigger one is in my first para's. Where did it all begin?

hadrian

One really has to laugh at the sheer visciouisness in the language of the evolutionists. Those who dare so much as question it are 'lunatics' believe in 'fairy tales' and, it is implied, if not explicitly stated, are something akin to jihadist terrorists threatning the lives of good upstanding TV pundits and BBC experts.
Fact-you will find many scientists who do not buy into your darwinian model, many with several higher degrees and doctorates. The science just isn't there to compel them. Evolution is an interpretive framework just as ID and creationism are. It imports into the science Lab as much prior philosophical baggage as theism, only there's an a- prefixed to it.
Fact- why is it such confident evolutionists will often simply refuse to DEBATE with ID creationists as as the proper minded/intelligent way to dish their feeble opponents? Ad hominem arguments about 'evil' e-mails only deflects the argument.
As for Attenborough's burrowing worm, he forgets one thing- the created order suffered a divine curse as a result of man's moral fall. You may detest the very idea of that but as you insist life is valueless chance anyway I fail to see the logical consistency in your moral indignation.
This thread vividly proves what a massive investment /reliance the atheist has in/on evolution to oust theism from the public forum. This is a fundamental battle indeed and one the atheists are eventually going to lose.

Alan Calverd

The only problem with intelligent design is a lack of evidence of either intelligence or design.

Q

What is the mechanism by which Irreducible Complexity is instilled? "Poof!" creationism.

What are the predictions of ID/creationism? We don't feel evolution can explain "X".

ID/creationism is the invocation of magic to support an argument of incredulity.

Contrast this to the Theory of Evolution predicting the rather specific geologic strata in which the Tiktaalik transitional form would be found. This validated prediction is very strong evidence that our mainstream scientific understanding of mechanisms producing life's diversity and its preservation in the fossil record are, indeed, correct. Proposed scientific mechanisms are validated in their ability to make accurate predictions. ID/creationism can offer no such precise and accurate predictions and as such, have found no legitimate application beyond apologetics.

Lee Bowman

Melanie is correct; Dover was a sham. Not in the first part of the ruling, based on evidence that (1) the school board appeared to have religious motives, a purported violation of prongs 1 & 2 of the 'Lemon test', from a prior Supreme Court case, Lemon v Kurtzman. If the purveyors (notably Wm. Buckingham) had any religious motives, a violation of prong 1, i.e. a lack of "secular purpose", could well be established, and it was by Judge Jones.

A lengthy attempt to conflate ID with religion, which I feel failed, allowed a ruling of a violation of prong 2, that the board was in effect, "advancing religion". These two alleged violations, along with some purge red testimony regarding who paid for the donated books were enough to find the board guilty.

Here's the rub. The board was guilty of a 'prong one' violation. But the conclusion that ID is religion 'in drag' is false (how's that for a new analogy?). In essence, ID is the hypothesis that there is evidence of design in biologic systems, based on several factors, "irreducible complexity' being one. And no, IC has NOT been disproven. Exaptation as a 'cure all' aside, to even conjecture that assumption ignores a detailed analysis of biologic systems. Most of the points made in the above comments are vacuous, and if I had the time (and ~ 1500 word space) I'd address them all.

Much hype is made over the cut and paste of 'intelligent design (proponent)' over 'creationism' and 'creationist' in 'Panda's and People', but it's not germane to current ID synthesis, nor to the intent of it's current proponents. While creationists use the term occasionally, employing it merely to make their views sound more scientific, and to avoid a violation Edwards v Aguillard decision discrediting 'creation science', present day proponents approach it from a science perspective. Ken Ham et all disavow the term, as they feel it implies the Creator as a tinkerer. But however biologic forms arrived in their present form, there is evidence that it was a gradual process, and ID does NOT implicitly rule that out! It is open to what the data points to, and will employ the scientific method(s) to verify or falsify its predictions.

Commenter Larry Fafarman summarized it well:

"... a big difference between creationism and intelligent design is that creationism is based on religious sources whereas ID is based on scientific observation and reasoning. One book's substitution of the words "intelligent design" for the word "creationism" does not change that fact."

It's that simple. A review of the objections to ID show them to be false assumption based on isolated examples, irrelevant points, and an ignorance of ID's true intent. ID proposes inquiry of the design premise, holds religious views to be irrelevant to the observed data, and is in full support of science. ID proponents support evolution, but question its foundational tenet that purely natural causes drive it. To not only deny teleology as a possible (and perhaps foundational) factor but to strictly prohibit its consideration is the true "science stopper", and I hold NAS and the NCSE largely responsible for furthering and maintaining that fascist position.

Dominic Shields

I take it that this piece is satirical ?

James Williams

I research the creationism/evolution issue in schools in the UK and have read a lot of Intelligent Design material.

I suggest that Melanie Phillips reads “Creationism’s Trojan Horse” by Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross. This book charts the rise of Intelligent Design as a way of bringing creationism into American classrooms. http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/

I am aware that Melanie Phillips has referred to evolution as 'just a theory' – a statement that even creationists now stop making as they are aware that the term 'theory' in science is about as good as it gets. Gravity is a theory, so too are atoms - both are also scientific fact. Evolution is also a scientific fact - creationists even accept this (while pretending not to) when they try to discredit more and more discoveries of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Creationists, even the most hardened six day creationist, all accept that the aminals and plants we have to day are descended from original 'forms' over time. Where they differ is on the idea that there are fixed ‘kinds’ and that humans are entirely separate from any other animal group.
Intelligent Design was initiated not through science but by lawyers, Christians and creationists. It is not science, since science requires evidence and no evidence exists for a designer. Their premise is that of a lack of evidence - e.g. not knowing how a complex structure could evolve, proves 'design' and that the limitations of science to provide answers to every single phenomenon leads to a 'designer'. This is a false logic - all of science has unanswered questions e.g. gravity, but the fact that we do not understand every aspect of gravity, e.g. what causes mass in all matter, does not make it false and lead to the conclusion that gravity can only work by the invisible hand of a designer controlling things.
By all means talk of such things in schools, in the proper place – R.E lessons, but do not bring pseudo-science into mainstream science.

Neil Gostling

Science relies on (scientific) theories and hypotheses which are testable, like the Theory of Gravitation, and the Theory of Evolution. We can ask questions, we can create experiments which will either support or break down our hypothesis. Intelligent Design has yet to perform a single experiment to test its theory. There is no theory. There is no science. The Discovery Institute does not do science, it simply wishes to put into place a world view that is really indistinguishable from biblical creation. Let's not forget that if we do not rely on the scientific method, we will soon lose the battle against infectious diseases (which evolve to evade the immune system under the Darwinian process, not the Intelligent Design one). Science will improve our lives, not intelligent design, which does not try to understand or enrich lives. Its view point is one that the world is so complex (without actually quantifying complexity) that it must have been put together by a much smarter organism than us! What a waste of time. Science does not have all the answers, but it attempts to answer questions. We have got good evidence (Miller Urey etc.) for how complex molecules like amino acids could form, not a definitive answer I grant, but certainly it shows that simple organic molecules can form those essential to life, without intelligent help.

Whisper

Seriously, Melanie, if you plan to write in the public forum about these subjects, at least make some pretense at having researched the topic. ID is and always has been, a trumped up attempt to make Creationism 'scientific'.

Political Umpire

I take the following from a review by Robert Nola of Meera Nanda?s book "Prophets Facing Backward"

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=49

"In the West we are familiar with the way in which creationists have co-opted the word ?science? to give 'creation science' wider credibility. Creationists conduct no experiments, make hardly any observational investigations, do not investigate hypotheses in relation to experiment and observation, and publish their results in no journal that is even vaguely scientific - except their own publications. Their programme of 'creation science' has not discovered one novel fact, the discovery of genuine novelty being one of the features of nearly all sciences. Finally, creation science is in conflict with theories of evolution, but fails to show in what way it might be superior either on grounds of evidence, or by offering better explanations, and the like. In these respects it exhibits all the features of a speculative hypothesis that is maintained not by anything that might be vaguely deemed scientific, but by other, extra-scientific interests. In these respects it is certainly a non-science, and there are good grounds for declaring it a pseudo-science.

This is not to say that all speculative doctrines have no scientific value. As Popperians are fond of pointing out, there are doctrines which are advanced on grounds other than those accepted in the sciences, the prime example being Ancient Greek atomism. This was arrived at by philosophical considerations; but it remained a piece of influential metaphysical speculation that had no empirical basis until one was provided towards the end of the 19th century. So even Popperians who are fond of demarcating science from non-science, and from pseudo-science, leave room for a doctrine such as atomism which is non-scientific but not necessarily pseudo-scientific. Of course, one of the things rejected by all postmodernists, and some other approaches in contemporary science studies, is any attempt to draw up such lines of demarcation. But given these broad demarcations, a close comparison can be drawn between 'Vedic Science' and 'creation science' that sets both at odds with ancient Greek atomism. All three doctrines share the feature of being non-scientific, but atomism left itself open to becoming scientific while the first two doctrines do not, thereby exhibiting all the features of a pseudo-science. Yet both are touted by their advocates as scientific."

http://cricketandcivilisation.blogspot.com

Bruce, UK

It is the I part of ID that is the nub. If the I part is not the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then what is it?

Come on Melanie, if the I part is not some form of benevolent sky fairy, magic man, great serpent (pantheistic faiths also tend to have a senior prefect) or other supernatural manifestation then it is not creationism. If, however, the I is sky fairy et al then it is creationism. I am open what the I may be, do tell.

Spud

Henry: "On bookshelves next year: The Dawkins Delusion."

You're somewhat behind the wave - that was on bookshelves two years ago.

And that's exactly where it should have stayed.

JohnB

Pisaac: You say that the fence lizards that live in the 68-year site have developed longer legs to help them escape, compared to the other sites.

What you are referring to is micro evolution: the lizards which survived were those which had longer legs and when they bred they produced offspring with longer legs. This is not something which is disputed by Creationists. In fact, it may be that the gene for shorter legs has been lost from the population. I'm afraid you're setting up a straw man here.

Peter

Intelligent Design is not intelligent it is simply creationism under another name. It is not science No sensible person would see it as anything more than an cynical and sleazy attempt to pollute science classes with attempt to with religion. It is noting more than or less than creationism and like creationism it is intellectually bankrupt worthless garbage.
There can be no honest debate with those that believe in ID or creationism because they are by their nature corrupt, dishonest and untrustworthy.

Andrew

Thanks for wheeze Melanie. Can we have a comedy article on irreducible complexity next.

kate b

Genesis actually says in Beginnings, which is plural, and the earth is already there empty and void, yet it is not meant to be as mentioned later in the scriptures. It is also built upon the floods, again plural and also mentioned later in scripture. It is odd that the earliest human writing is only around 5.5 thousand years old and not much older, maybe our beginning is not that old, and other beginnings ie dinosaurs were much longer. I do believe in an intelligent designer who keeps promises and tells the future, Psalm 83 and OvediYah is coming together pretty fast for instance, and Jews are still around as promised despite people trying to kill them off in every generation. Yes I agree, there is an extremely Intelligent Designer.

John Stockwell

Other forms of "scientific creationism"
also are packaged as to provide plausible deniability regarding their origin in religion. For a discussion of the most damning piece of evidence against ID that came up in Kintzmiller, search on
"cdesign proponentists", a word misspelling that occurred in a version of the ID "textbook" _Of Pandas and People_. The misspelling occurred when a global substitution on the "creationsts" and "design proponents" failed.

John A. Davison

Pisaac

message April 30th 2009, 7:15PM

It is always some anonymous blowhard that comes up with the kind of comment you made. One who must hide his identity as he insults another is an intellectual coward.

Variations in leg length, even if true, can hardly be considered creative evolution. Are basketball players a separate species from Olympic gymnasts?

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Not at all. It is now a matter of record.

jadavison.wordpress.com

Dave Howe

Why is the Spectator promulgating such foolishness? ID absolutely is creationism; it is merely employing a poor disguise in order to circumvent US law. Just google the phrase "cdesign proponentsists", for the evidence...

RickK

hadrian said: "Fact-you will find many scientists who do not buy into your darwinian model, many with several higher degrees and doctorates."

Not in the Earth sciences. Even a cursory research of the Answers in Genesis "scientists who reject Darwinism" list finds that they are (1) not in the natural sciences; (2) motivated strongly by Abrahamic religions; (3) have tried to get their name OFF the list but AiG refuses.

Scientists don't have to lie to find evidence that supports evolution, find evolution in action, and demonstrate evolution in labs.

Lee Bowman believes the irreducible complexity argument even though it has failed EVERY test.

What irreducible complexity says is "I can't think of a way it could evolve, and I'm certain that nobody will EVER be born who is smart enough to think of a way it could evolve, so it MUST have been God." Or, more succinctly, "only God can invent something I can't understand."

But what people like Lee and Melanie don't seem to have is historical perspective. Complex features in biology are just the latest of HUNDREDS of things that were once attributed to god(s) that were later explained through natural causes:

The Sun - was a God, now explained by science
The Moon - was a God, now understood by science
The stars - were God, now science
The tides - were attributed to God, now science
The seasons - attributed to God, now science
Earthquakes - were God, now science
Lightning - was God, now science
Rain & drought - was God, now science
Health & disease - was God, now science
Schizophrenia - was demonic possession, now science
Epilepsy - was divine possession, now science
Origin of species - was God, now science (evolution)
Identity & personality - was the soul, now neuroscience

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."
— Isaac Asimov

Hayward

Keith,
I'm with you on the petri dish hypothesis.
There are many worlds in the great Laboratory of the Multiverse. How many we do not know, possibly one of those great known unknowns?
There may be many experiments running on these worlds, put in place by who/whatever. Every so often the experiment is checked on, possibly another variable introduced to see what that may do to a particular experiment.
But every so often the killing bottle or a variation is needed, just as in any laboratory. Makes you wonder what went wrong with the dinosaur experiment on earth?
I would suggest that the current experiment on this particular world in an arm of the Milky Way is not one of the best in attaining the crown of creation.
That is if we are thinking along the lines of ID!!!

Mortimer

You say:

"Creationism comes out of religion while Intelligent Design comes out of science."

You're obviously ill-informed on all three subjects, particularly of what science is and isn't.

Back to school for you. This time, pay attention.

Joshua Norton

Rubbish, tripe and codswollop.
Intelligent design is creationism in a cheap suit, plain and simple. Some people accept it but not creationism because the latter term has been more thoroughly discredited.

The sole difference is that Creationists explicitly identify their creator. Intelligent designers are more coy and coquettish, at least when speaking to non-religious groups. When soliciting donations from the religious, they are considerably more forthcoming.

The Kitzmiller case is worthy of mention because it found, in the phrase "Cdesign proponentsists", a fossilized transitional form between creationists and intelligent design proponents. Demonstrating that the latter is the direct lineal descendant of the former.

Pisaac

John A Davison

I am afraid you are deluding yourself.

If,68 years ago,fence lizards had shorter legs than now, and that is when they started to be attacked and killed by fire ants, this proves that their bodies adapted to the circumstances - evolution in action.

Peppered moths - in the Industrial Revolution soot covered trees that had light and darker coloured moths. It was easier for birds to see and eat the lighter coloured moths and its population was decimated. The darker version moths survived and grew in population by 1000%.

Natural selection in action in modern times.

Conservative Cabbie

David

"What mean is you'd rather cower in a cave as disease cuts a swaithe through our numbers."

If you re-read my comment, I was talking about the binary choice that people on here are battling over. I would not want a society in which reason is dominant, nor would I want a society in which faith is dominant. The two can and should work side by side. As a conservative, I believe that we are the beneficiaries of hundreds of years of interactions, values and culture. It is not just science that got us to this position, it is religion, theology, culture,philosophy as well as science. We are the better for the fusion of all those elements and will suffer if we reject the totality of our experiences in favour of a fashionable dogma like the superiority of science. Reason by definition lacks imagination. I would prefer to live in a world in which imagination can flourish and I'm afraid that won't be allowed in your intolerant rational utopia.

"Science also has the added advantage of being real."

Just because something can't be falsified doesn't mean it isn't real.

I may be obtuse Dave but at least I'm happy to let people live as they choose without shouting them down for having the audacity of having a different view to myself.

Richard Forrest

In response to John A. Davison, who refers to "annonymous blowhards": I'm not annonymous, and I'm not a blowhard. You can find my analysis of several creationist sources here: plesiosaur.com/creationism/index, and if you navigate around the site find out plenty about me and my research interests.

Let's have a look at your web site, shall we?

From http://jadavison.wordpress.com/2007/12/25/evolution-is-finished/#more-21

"I see no evidence for the emergence of any new life forms, only trivial variations in existing species."

Well, the scientists who have actually *studied* such things have reported the emergences of hundreds of new species both in nature and in the laboratory. There are numerous scientific papers which describe this. Here are just a few:

Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-176
Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436
de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.
Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60: 545-553
Koopman, K. F. 1950. Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution. 4:135-148
Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of Botany. 79:701-707.
Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653
Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.
Smith, D. C. 1988. Heritable divergence of Rhagoletis pomonella host races by seasonal asynchrony. Nature. 336:66-67.
Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany. 76:1119-1124.
Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-122

I suggest that unless you can demonstrate with evidence that *all* these cases of speciation are unsound, your assertion is either an expression of your ignornance on the subject, or a deliberate falsehood.

"Related to this sequence is the evidence that Homo sapiens seems to be the youngest mammal ever to appear"
That distinction probably goes to a rodent, whose rapid breeding rates drive their evolution far more rapidly than that of humans. The Faeroe Island house mouse speciated from its ancestral stock within the past 250 years. Homo sapiens has been around for about 100,000 years.
In fact, the rate of evolutionary change in small rodents is so rapid that their remains are used to date archaeological digs. The "vole clock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vole_Clock.

"I know of not a single replacement. If others think they do, please use this opportunity to identify it along with its immediate ancestor and the cytogenetic mechansim by which it was produced."

I've given you several examples. When you've produced the evidence to refute them, I can provide hundreds more. Unless you can demonstrate *from the evidence* that they are *ALL* unsound, your "theory" goes up in smoke.

"The atheist Darwinian establishment "
Who exactly are the "atheist Darwinian establishment"?
Firstly, there is no "Darwinian establishment". Modern evolutionary biology is not "Darwinian". Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is only a component of the modern synthesism, and there is considerable dispute within the field as to how significant it is. Some reputable biologists think that it is a relatively minor component.
Secondly, what on earth has this to do with religious belief? Many scientists, including many evolutionary biologists - Simon Conway Morris is a good example - are devout Christians.
No theory in any branch of any science invokes God. *ALL* science is "atheistic" in this sense. That does not stop scientists from having religious beliefs. It does, however, stop those scientists from having their religious beliefs taught as science in science classes.

" demonstrate to the scientific community that little has changed in the century and a half since the publication of Darwin’s 'Origin of Species',"

I can only assume that you are grossly ignorant of the history of evolutionary biology over the past century and a half. For much of the first half century after the publication of "Origin of Species", Darwin's theory was very much in decline because it lacked a critical component, that of particulate inheritance. This element was provided by the rediscovery of Mendel's work in genetics, and was further augmented by the discovery of de Vries and others of mutations. This led to the develpment of the "modern synthesis" by Mayr and others in the 1920s and 30s, helped by the work of Fisher and Haldane in statistics. Evolutionary theory is develping rapidly today as we gain an ever better understanding of the genetic mechanisms which underlie evolutionary processes.
All of this information is readily available in books, academic papers and on the internet. Why not educate yourself in the subject?

"a book which offers, in my opinion, absolutely nothing of substance relating to its title. "

As you demonstrate in this blog that you know very little of the subject, why on earth should anyone consider your opinion to be of any value?

JohnB

Why did it take over 190 comments before Melanie was accused of acting like a 'Holocaust denier'? The evolutionists are not quite up to their usual speed here!

I think that perhaps, in the absence of proper research into the creationist case, simple abuse is easier and therefore the preferred option. Just read the number of insults above.

Hayward Maberley

Mr Norton,
"Rubbish, tripe and codswollop.
Intelligent design is creationism in a cheap suit, plain and simple."
Yes they have simply re-outfitted "Creationism" from the Biblical style robes of Charlton Heston clothing ID in the cheap suit of a dodgy car/tinman sales rep. However the spiel remains the same.
Good one, thankyou Joshua

John A. Davison

ian (aka Last Hussar) May 1st, 2009, 2:11 AM

I see another rant from one who must insult from behind the veil of anonymity. Ordinarily I ignore cowards like ian, but he is so far out of touch with reality that I feel compelled to respond.

Of course Intelligent Design is not evolution. ID is the prerequisite for understanding evolution just as it is the prerequisite for undertanding every other aspect of the universe. It is a starting point which allows us to ask meaningful questions.

I ask - when did an atheist Darwinian last ask a question? Darwinians don't need to ask questions as they already have all the answers.

In 2004 I published my paper "Is Evolution Finished?" Asking that question permitted an examination of the facts. Lo and behold, all available facts plead that "creative" evolution IS finished.

The variations that appear like new forms of flu or resistance to antibiotics or insecticides do not represent creative evolution because they are transient reversible transformations, something creative evolution has never been. All available evidence indicates that the present biota is a terminal one which is in the process of rapid extinction without a single replacement having appeared in historical times and without a new Genus in the last two million years.

I no longer ask the question "Is evolution finished?" I have now rearranged the words to read "Evolution is finished." It is one of the threads on my weblog. I recommend that ian and others like ian present their evidence that evolution is not finished on my weblog where I can respond to them at length. I have neither the time nor the inclination to attempt to enlighten congenital atheist Darwinian mystics who deny that every aspect of the universe WAS designed. Atheist Darwinians, like their enemies, the religious fanatics cannot be reached though reason.

"Then there are he fanatical atheists whose intolerabce is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it springs from the same source... They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres...Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein

"Where there is design there is a designer."
William Paley

All that can be ascertained is that there WAS a designer or more accurately, that there WERE one or more designers. My personal bias is that there had to be at least two, one benevolent, the other malevolent. How else can we explain such panderers of hate as Paul Zachary Myers, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and their thousands of adoring followers, some of whom seem to be present here? You can't turn over a rock without finding a Darwinian there grinning up at you with smug confidence that he has just made a fool of you.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Not at all. It is a matter of record.

Ronnie

Very well said Cabbie.

I would like to add that just as we would be unwise to allow 'science' to deny people their right to believe, neither should we pretend that our desire or need to believe is based on 'science'.

In other words, if you want your religion taught in schools, then work to change the law don't try to pretend that your religion is something it isn't. If you can't succeed in changing the law then live with it.

Note: in this case 'religion' is not synonomous with belief. People can believe without having to join an organised gang that broadly observes rules established in AD 325 in what is now Turkey.

Ronnie

Rob I, so you've not seen 'Capricorn 1'?

Roger Stanyard

JohnB says "Roger Stanyard states that Tas Walker works for a 'notorious young earth creationist organisation'.I googled 'notorious' just to see exactly the sort of organisation Roger had in mind."

Answers in Genesis, Creation Research, Creation Ministries International, European Theological Seminary..... Perhaps JohnB might want to do a google search on John Mackay and necrophilia to get the point. Perhaps he might like to ask the head of the Biblical Creation Society why his name appears on the list of BNP members.

Sleaze is endemic amongst the creationists.

That's because their entire position is unsustainable without resort to systematic, frequent and habitual lying and deception.

Mark

JohnB, May 1st, 09:39: "...proper research into the creationist case..."

Aha. So ID IS creationism, then?

Believe me, matey, many scientists who wish nothing better than to do proper research, have been forced to look at creationism in order to be able to point out just where it's many flaws are and to answer the increasingly desperate questions raised by creationists. You don't need to do much of this kind of research, because it doesn't actually have any good points. It ain't science.

Roger Stanyard

Tas Walker claims "Hume did not bury the design argument. It is alive and well and getting even stronger as a result of modern scientific discoveries. "

Oh, do tell us where. I've just come up with a list of scientific papers supporting design. Here it is:

(long, isn't it?)

So why are you lying?

John A. Davison

Richard Forrest, May 1, 2009, 9:13 AM.

You have recited the typical Darwinian pablum with virtually no verification that the so called "species" that you claim to be of recent origin are anything more than experimntally unverified subspecies or intraspeciic varieties none of which are incipient new species in any event. If you are going to respond to my thesis, do it on my weblog where I issued my challenges or in a published paper. No one has done either as yet and until they do I will persist in my conclusion that creative volution is finished, a conclusion I share with both Robert Broom, an anti-Darwinian and Julian Huxley the Darwinian who coined the term the "Modern Synthesis."

You bore me to tears with the same old tired litany of unverified assertions so characteristic of the hide bound Darwinian worshippers of the Great God Chance.

You are just another "True believer" and there is absolutely nothing that can be done for you, a congenital, "born to lose," loser.

Go read William Wright's "Born That Way." It won't help you but read it anyway!

Ronnie

John A. Davison, I have a question.

The designer, or designers, is/are not creator(s)?

Please note that I am not looking for a fight, I'm just interested.

Fragmeister

Can I propose what I think is a new term: malmeme? A malmeme is a bad idea that worms its way maliciously into the public consciousness (like malware in a computer).

ID is an archetypal malmeme - deliberately planted so that others could take advantage, not of your bank account but of your brain.

Roger Stanyard

Fragmeister says "Can I propose what I think is a new term: malmeme?"

Better call it a Melaniememe.

Roger Stanyard

john A davison says "You bore me to tears with the same old tired litany of unverified assertions so characteristic of the hide bound Darwinian worshippers of the Great God Chance."

This is of course the same John A Davison that tried to get PZ Myers fired from his academic position because Myers disagreed with him.

See http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/john_a_davison_is_such_a_tattl.php

Same old tired sneering and arrogance at work here I'm afraid.

So where is Davison's "creationist" science published?

Um, nowhere.

As Myers points out after Davison tried to get him fired, Davison is an Internet crank crackpot.

Apparently Davison has also be banned from Richard Dawkins public forum.

Roger Stanyard

This is the level of Davison's intellectual debate. It's part of the letter he wrote trying to get PZ Myers fired:

"It is not I who needs to hear from the Provost of the University of Minnesota. It is P.Z. Meyers, the most foul mouthed, base degenerate and miserable excuse for a human being that ever hosted a blog. That such a creature should be influencing our youth in or out of the University classroom or any place else should be unthinkable to any objective investigator of the greatest unsolved mystery in all of biological science. This creature is the bottom of the intellectual barrel and has no business representing any university in any capacity whatsoever. I am confident that The University of Minnesota will see to it that he receives his just rewards for his wholesale rejection of every aspect of what intellectual integrity demands. The man is a text book degenerate and a blight upon the face of academe. I am surprised he has been allowed to go as far as he already has. He has violated every aspect of the one thing that matters most of all, the unhindered search for the truth."

So, here's a warning. If you cross paths with Davison, expect him to try and get you fired from your job.

epistemological Realist

I will pass on a useful rule of thumb for spotting the kind of blinkered fundamentalist evolutionists with whom it really is a waste of time trying to debate (quite a few seem to have congregated here) They are the people who in contradistinction to being right (sc. in agreement with themselves) recognise only one category: ie, being a liar.
The well supported professional (but opposing) opinion, the genuine disagreement arising from differing presuppositions, even the honest mistake, are all categories unknown to them, subsumed under the catch-all heading of "lies".
Given such a spectacular initial disability in the field of analytical thinking, why would anyone expect to find their judgment any better elsewhere?

Stephen Bain

Intelligent design does not "come out of science." A truly scientific answer would be "there's no evidence to support it, so we remain agnostic towards it."

Bring us actual evidence that god(s) did it, rather than god-of-the-gaps and warmed over watchmaker arguments.

John A. Davison

I see I am wasting my time here. No more responses will be presented here from me to the standard pablum with which Darwinian atheists doggedly continue to degrade every forum where they surface which is just about everywhere!

With my distinguished predecessors, we win and the Darwinian mystics lose. It is as simple as that!

Enjoy your mindless "debate," a vehicle that has no place in science and never did have.

"Facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty."
Galileo

"Hypotheses have to be reasonable, facts don't."
anonymous

"An hypothesis doesn't cease to be an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it."
Boris Ephrussi

"Truth is uncontrovertibe, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
Winston Churchill

Lee Bowman

RickK at 1:45am:

"Scientists don't have to lie to find evidence that supports evolution"

True, but the data can be misinterpreted, and often is. Reason being, that once predictions are made, there is a tendency for one to seek data that supports it, or to give a skewed interpretation of existing data. Paleontological data is the fossil record, and because of the difficulty acquiring transitionals, finding a species with a displaced appendage or internal bone will often be labeled transitional, even though conjectural.

Not being a Creationist, my position is that there indeed *are* some transitionals, but that genetic tweaking by unknown intelligences is an alternate explanation to mutational alterations, primarily since many of these alterations don't confer a reproductive or survival advantage. The same holds true for conjectural intermediates to a complex organ a vertebrate/invertebrate eye.

While simpler eyes exist, there is no proof that they were not separately implemented in a species. The Nillson Pelger 1994 paper, and Erik's more recent videos purport a "pessimistic" (and very short) time to evolve by detailing curvature models, detailing the intermediate form advantages, but do not address the complex features of the 'evolved' retina, its support and data processing system, and the associated focusing, aiming and iris adjusting musculature.

Rather than present a paper here, do your own research, starting with a search of 'eye', 'retina', and 'anatomy'. Those three terms will get you to Webvision. Click the arrows at the bottom of the page to advance. Spend enough time to absorb some of the details of the fovea, glial cells, rods/cones, and the rhodospin process. Then compare that to Nilsson's "light sensitive patch", LOL.

"Lee Bowman believes the irreducible complexity argument even though it has failed EVERY test."

Not so. The complexity issue is central to the problems Darwinian evolution faces. Cooption (exaptation) has been used to explain away intermediate stages of development where one function is later coopted for an alternate function. This is said to explain intermediated stages of evolution where no repro advantage would otherwise occur. While true in some cases, it cannot be true in enough cases to explain the development of complexity in toto (all speciation). While homologies exist and may indeed be transitional in some cases, intelligent input is more likely in speciation than random events, however selected.

"What irreducible complexity says is "I can't think of a way it could evolve ... so it MUST have been God."

Uh uh. What ID and IC say is that there is evidence of intelligent input, i.e. 'design' and even 'purpose'. What say I to the predator/prey and parasite/host situation? Some would say it's due to man's 'fall'. Another possibility is that earthly life was meant to be competitive and perilous at times, or as entertainment for celestial entities. Wasn't it Shakespeare who said, "All the world is a stage, and we are merely actors." He might have been not that far off.

My take is there's much out there we can't yet fathom. We are not alone in the cosmos. If you choose the atheist mindset, you just might be painting yourself into a corner. Take 'rational thought' up a peg and consider the evidence for life (and adventure) beyond.

Andy P

Ms Phillips, you really ought to do some research on the foundations of the likes of The Discovery Institute; Wiki is a good place to start. ID most certainly DID NOT come out of science. Get your facts straight.

Billious

It really doesn’t matter whether an idiot looks at a tree and calls it a spaceship or a bi-lateral trade agreement, the idiot is still an idiot and the tree is still just a tree. BTW how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
And as for calling ID a science, what?!

Richard Forrest

"You have recited the typical Darwinian pablum with virtually no verification that the so called "species" that you claim to be of recent origin are anything more than experimntally unverified subspecies or intraspeciic varieties none of which are incipient new species in any event."
No, I've posted a list of several scientific papers which present the evidence from which the authors conclude that a speciation event had occurred. If - as is clearly the case - you cannot address that evidence and provide an alternative, testable explanation for that evidence, your position lacks support.
"If you are going to respond to my thesis, do it on my weblog where I issued my challenges or in a published paper."
Why should I need to? I posted a list of published papers - and they are only a small selection of the many available - which demonstrates that your "thesis" is based on a false assertion.
"No one has done either as yet"

I've just done so by posting a list of scientific papers which describe observed instances of speciation events. If speciation events occur and can be observed, your thesis lacks support.

"and until they do I will persist in my conclusion that creative volution is finished, a conclusion I share with both Robert Broom, an anti-Darwinian and Julian Huxley the Darwinian who coined the term the "Modern Synthesis.""

Just as well that in the 58 years since Broom died, and the 30 years since Huxley died scientists have made great advances in understanding of the evolutionary process. Mind you, I'm not aware of any publication by either of those authors which contains the suggestion that "creative evolution" is finished.

"You bore me to tears with the same old tired litany of unverified assertions so characteristic of the hide bound Darwinian worshippers of the Great God Chance."

Then perhaps you should address the evidence and learn something about evolutionary theory in that case. You might even find that if you were actually to *learn* something about it you'd find it interesting.

Billious

It really doesn’t matter whether an idiot looks at a tree and calls it a spaceship or a bi-lateral trade agreement, the idiot is still an idiot and the tree is still just a tree. BTW how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
And as for calling ID a science, what?!

Richard Forrest

Lee Bowman wrote:
"True, but the data can be misinterpreted, and often is."
So perhaps you can give some examples of this?
"Reason being, that once predictions are made, there is a tendency for one to seek data that supports it, or to give a skewed interpretation of existing data"
No doubt. As a matter of idle curiosity, why should scientists *not* look for date that supports their predictions?
"Paleontological data is the fossil record, and because of the difficulty acquiring transitionals, "
There's a difficulty? Funny, but as a vertebrate palaeontologist I'm aware of a great wealth of fossils demonstrating most of the major transitions in the history of vertebrate evolution, and that more are being found all the time.
What do you know that I don't?
"finding a species with a displaced appendage or internal bone will often be labeled transitional, even though conjectural."
Not by any competent palaeontologist, it wouldn't. Mind you, we have many excellent examples of superbly preserved transitional fossils.
"Not being a Creationist, my position is that there indeed *are* some transitionals, but that genetic tweaking by unknown intelligences is an alternate explanation to mutational alterations,"
Well bully for you. And how do you propose to test this "position"? There's no evidence whatsoever for "unknown intelligences" in the geological record, let alone the technological device needed to make such genetic changes, which makes it a rather useless idea.
"The same holds true for conjectural intermediates to a complex organ a vertebrate/invertebrate eye."
You *have* been relying on creationist sources! The full spectrum of intermediates, from a patch of light-sensitive cells to the vertebrate eye can be found in modern organisms - something Darwin devoted a chapter of "Origin of Species" to describing. This shows that the indermediate stages are viable.
"While simpler eyes exist, there is no proof that they were not separately implemented in a species."
Actually, there is. The same genes trigger the development of eyes in organisms as diverse as insects, flatworms and vertebrates.

Why not learn something about evolutionary biology instead of regurgitating material from creationist sources. Such sources are deeply and systematically dishonest, and are highly unreliable.

Richard Forrest

Oh, and by the way, it's worth pointing out that Lee Bowman is a paid employee of the “Discovery Institute”.

We have Tas Walker and John A. Davison here as well - quite a little gathering of creationists. Now watch them all descend into empty bluster and assertion rather than providing any scientific evidence to support their claims.

Epistemological Realist

"....Wiki is a good place to start..."
-- what a card you are, Andy P!

Roger Stanyard

John A davison states "I see I am wasting my time here. No more responses will be presented here from me to the standard pablum with which Darwinian atheists doggedly continue to degrade every forum where they surface which is just about everywhere!"

How interesting! Does that include all the web sites you've been banned from, including that of the Intelligent designer, Bill Dembski?

Bye. And don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.

tony s

Intelligent Design proponents are not scientists. They have not had one peer-reviewed paper published between them. If they had evidence of a creator it would be the biggest discovery of all time and they would be lining up for their Nobel prizes. In reality ID is a load of un-scientific twaddle.

Roger Stanyard

Lee Bowman says "Not being a Creationist, my position is that there indeed *are* some transitionals, but that genetic tweaking by unknown intelligences is an alternate explanation to mutational alterations...."

Oh, go on, then, show us the scientific theory of |Intelligent Design and how it can be tested with the scientific method.

While you're at it, explain why Phillip Johnson of the Discoery Institute has publcly sated that Intelligent design is not even a theory (i.e. explanation of the differences between species) but not even a hypothesis.

It's nothing more than a set of ideas (his words).

Why do the IDers and creationists in here continue to lie through their back teeth and deceive?

Is there absolutely no integrity between the lot of them?

Let's pin Lee Bowman down a bit more and ask:

1. How did this intelligence somewhere interfere with genes?

2. What happens when the interference takes place?

3. When did this intelligence do the interfereing?

4. Where can we see the same thing in operation today?

These are simply questions. Give us an answer!

Roger Stanyard

Surprise, surprise, Lee Bowman is part of the Discovery Institute and thinks it necesdsary to withold the information from everyone else in here.

OK, so, um, what science has come out of the Biologic Institute which supports your position Bowman?

(Biologic is the research arm of the Discovery Institute.)

Jonathan

Interesting that you should neglect to point out that Ken Miller himself believes in God, and thus is presumably not confused when he criticises creationists, as distinct from people who believe in a creator God (such as himself). Believing ID would entirely be in Miller's interest, but he has the intellectual honesty and knowledge to admit that the science simply doesn't support Intelligent Design. He also knows that it's merely a rebranding of the rubbished 'creation science' that was killed off by the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard.

ID is utter pseudoscience, and we'd all get along a lot better if people stopped attempting to distort science to prove their God exists. Miller is capable of distinguishing between faith-based belief and science; would that the cdesign proponentsists would take a similar view.

Francis Shanahan

Melanie, I'm sorry but I could not disagree more. "while Intelligent Design comes out of science". On what are you basing this claim? Science has shown that evolution through random mutation and natural selection has governed the development of the world's biology, not a designer, intelligent or otherwise. There is absolutely no scientific evidence anywhere in the natural world of a designer nor do the proponents of intelligent design utilise the scientific process. If you are to claim that ID is based on science, you must cite references to published, peer reviewed studies documenting evidence of intelligent design (I'll save you the trouble, there are none).

http://FrancisShanahan.com

Ronnie

Before the door hits his arse I just wonder if John A. Davison could answer my question.

I don't consider myself a Darwinist or a Creationist but I would like something better than 'we are right and they are wrong'. I'd like a little more 'why'.

Richard

Josh Norton

Interesting to see how you spell "codswollop". I was going to use the same description, but was not sure on the spelling; I was leaning towards "codswallop" though. Does anyone have a definitive source for this? Such a useful word in describing an article like this.

Roger Stanyard

Jonathan,

Most religious people do not accept either ID or biblical literalism (YEC).

Miller is Roman Catholic and that church has no truck with the creationists who, for the most part, are evangelical Calvinistic fundamentalists.

The most bogus argument that creationists present is that the issue is a difference between Christians and atheists. That's fraud.

Indeed, the whole YEC/ID scam is a menace to religion and has opened the door wide open for the world to listen to Richard Dawkins et al.

Richard

John A. Davison

Interesting that you only attack evolution. You have no argument that actually supports your position, just attacks one that you disagree with. Even if evolution was not correct as currently formulated that is not evidence for an intelligent creator.

What makes you think there was an intelligent creator? There is absolutely no evidence for one, and strong evidence for creationism coming from human myths and sesarch for underdstanding. Looking at history of belief, gods are always invoked to explain the unknown. Once a phenomenon is explained as a natural process suddenly gods have one role fewer. Why then, knowing that the god does not act as we once thought, do we still believe in the god?

As for your arguments against evolution, they are the usual lies and misunderstandings of the very basics of evolution. For example what makes you think that evolution as described by Darwin and others is "creative"? It has no purpose; it is an emergent phenomenon, not a process aiming towards a result. that is fundamental to the theory, and failing to understand that suggests you really don't understand evolution.

What makes you think that "variations that appear like new forms of flu or resistance to antibiotics or insecticides do not represent creative evolution because they are transient reversible transformations, something creative evolution has never been"?. You're making that up, as far as I can see. There is no fundamental difference between evolution in a virus and evolution in large organisms.

Paul

"The confusion arises partly out of ignorance, with people lazily confusing belief in a Creator with Creationism." .... and presumably a belief a builder with buildings, or a belief in a baker with cakes. What a pile of tripe!

stanley Jerusalem

"Does anyone have a definitive source for this? Such a useful word in describing an article like this."
Happy to oblige Richard. My late dad used it to mean complete nonsense and would use it in front of the ladies thus granting it a level of decency that the rest of his colourful fishmonger's vocabulary never earned and which never crossed the threshold of our home. One Hiram Codd did 'invent' a cold refreshing drink which it is claimed was called codswallop and since the Cockney slang for a glass of beer is a glass of wallop, maybe this is its etymological origin. Otherwise this posting could well qualify for such a description

Richard

P.S. "There is not a shred of evidence in support of the Darwinian fantasy" is a complete, utter, stupid and obvious lie. It is simply untreu. There is more evidence for evolution than almost all other scientific theories. The evidence is broad and consistent. It covers all areas of the life sciences, and various aspects of the Earth sciences. I have seen much of it myself. Other parts I have been told about by the very people who first decribed it. It is there.

On the other hand there is not a shred of evidence for an intelligent creator, is there? In fact I challenge you to point some out. You haven't done yet.

John A. Davison

"Prescribed" intellectual trash like Paul Zachary Myers, Wesley Esberry and Richard Dawkins are their own worst enemies, masquerading as scientists, reduced to peddling Tshirts, bumper stickers and coffee mugs all sporting the Big Red A for Atheism, their only goal in life. They are nothing but magnets serving to attract other "prescribed" intellectual trash to their hate filled, foul mouthed, degenerate little ghettos, proving only one thing -

"Birds of a feather flock together."
Cervantes

Now just what are you going to do about it, have me banished from this forum too? I couldn't care less.

Do what you have to do, what you were predestined to have to do probably millions of years ago.

"EVERYTHING is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.

"Forgive them father for they know not what they do."
Jesus Christ our Savior.

Forgive me Jesus for not being a very good Christian.

I love it so!

Pisaac

John A Davison.

"All that can be ascertained is that there WAS a designer or more accurately, that there WERE one or more designers. My personal bias is that there had to be at least two, one benevolent, the other malevolent. How else can we explain such panderers of hate as Paul Zachary Myers, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and their thousands of adoring followers, some of whom seem to be present here? You can't turn over a rock without finding a Darwinian there grinning up at you with smug confidence that he has just made a fool of you."

I sense here a very bitter man, evident from the whole tone of his posts. Probably because he cannot prove a word of what he says.

Instead of trying to belittle everyone, why not do two things;

1) Give some verifiable evidence of a Designer.

2) Quote from Dawkins, PZ and Hutchings, showing were they have shown 'hate'.

John A. Davison

For any illiterates here who believe I am not an evolutionist -

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

It is only the mechanism by which it took place (past tense) that has ever been in question. Random mutation, natural selection and Mendelian (sexual) genetics had absolutely nothing to do with any aspect of phylogeny, a phenomenon no longer in progress.

Dave

@ConservativeCabbie. Oh come on you're better than this. I'm not shouting you down I'm just pointing out there is no God. You find my certainty unsettling and see it as an attack.
In your rainbow coloured approach to life how would you like us to mix and match science and religion?
Should ID be taught in schools? Of course not but that's where your slippery slope leads.
I can see why Dawkins gets so het up because this discussion is like banging my head against a brick wall.
There is no God. And before you say I have to prove that. I say first you have to prove there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The balls in your court!

Pisaac

Dave.

"There is no God. And before you say I have to prove that. I say first you have to prove there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster".

All Hail his Noodly Appendages!

stanley Jerusalem

I must say that arguing about the existence of a Creator or otherwise does seem to bring out the worst in our contributors. They seem to abandon the accepted rules of polite debate as soon as the word God or Atheist appears and fling all the invective some of them have at their disposal like punting at an Aunt Sally. There appears to be no middle ground or if there ever were,it is now sown thickly with anti-intellectual anti-personnel mines.
I would appeal for a little Christian charity from our atheists, be they Christian or Jewish and just as much from our orthodox and benign fundamentalists irrespective of their respective football teams. Remember Hillel's dictum to the Roman General trying to take the piss by asking him to teach him the whole Torah while he stood on one foot. ואהבת לרעך כמוכך,In K.J. Version 'Love thy neighbour as thyself.' Sorry you others, it's first in Leviticus and then in the Talmud. The other Jewish bloke used it too, I know, but he's not on my football team.

Slugsie

Oh come on. ID has been shown time and time again to be nothing more than Creationism with the creator fudges out so as to not appear theistic. If you actually look at any of the evidence etc shown in the court cases mentioned you'd know that.

Oh, and to #1 Raymond Joseph Douglas. It's been debated over and over. Creation and ID are NOT SCIENCE. If either one of them was able to even slightly satisfy the requirements of a scientific theory then there would be no need for a debate. Science doesn't care about what you think, or who can discuss something better than who. It cares about the simple, demonstrable, repeatable truth. It's not democratic, and it's not sympathetic. If the BBC are spouting about the likes of Darwin and Dawkins etc, it's because they have proved to be correct on the subjects they work(ed) in.

Religionist get their voice - oh boy do they ever. Now that atheists are starting to stand up and want to be heard on an equal platform the theistic claim all sorts in a vain effort to keep their special privileges - privileges that many of us do not think they deserve.

Epistemological Realist

What's become of Nick?
he was going to explain how it's possible to have natural selection when there are no self-replicating organisms.

John A. Davison

Carry on with your idiotic "debates."

It is hard to believe isn't it?

It doesn't get any better than this!

Just remember - what happens on the interet stays on the internet unless some cowardly nothing deletes it.

I love it so.

Roger Stanyard

John A Davison says - "Prescribed" intellectual trash like Paul Zachary Myers, Wesley Esberry and Richard Dawkins are their own worst enemies, masquerading as scientists, reduced to peddling Tshirts, bumper stickers and coffee mugs all sporting the Big Red A for Atheism, their only goal in life. They are nothing but magnets serving to attract other "prescribed" intellectual trash to their hate filled, foul mouthed, degenerate little ghettos, proving only one thing -"

And your own intellectual standards compared to the rest of the world are precisely what?

Go, then, show us what the scientific theory of Intelligent design is and how can it be tested with the scientific method?

(Twiddles thumbs and waits for ever.)

Roger Stanyard, Intellectual Trash, British Centre for Science Education

Roger Stanyard

John A Davison - answer the damn questions.

Michael B

Would any of Dawkins' aficionados care to point to what they deem to be one or two of the most intelligently conceived comments they (their group, in general) have forwarded, in this or the adjacent thread? One or two comments that reflects some discernible reasoning ability? Is there one or two that can be pointed to? Perhaps I've missed it.

Anonymous Blowhard

This article is being discussed elsewhere by proper scientists.

http://www.sciencefile.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1241095474/new

Conservative Cabbie

Ronnie

I don't see why the law should even be a factor, people should be taught a number of views and be allowed to form their opinions. I cannot for the life of me see what the mad mullahs of science like Dave are so scared of. If science is the only truth as he maintains then science will win out. But if people choose (choice being the apposite word here) to believe in young-earth creationism, God's design, little green aliens or that the world is carried on the back of a turtle then that should be up to them and should effect Dave not one bit.

Conservative Cabbie

Dave

I don't have to prove anything because I'm not the one making assertions. I have no problem with you not believing in a God but I do wonder why you are so resentful of those that do.

"In your rainbow coloured approach to life"

You can sneer all you like, but I'm quite proud of the fact that I respect people for who they are rather than wanting them to conform to my way of thinking. I didn't realise science was so intolerant.

"You find my certainty unsettling and see it as an attack."

Again, I have no problem with your certainty. I see it neither as unsettling or an attack. It is your attacks that I view as an attack. Like when you called religious people stupid or equate people who believe in a God with a belief in a spaghetti monster. I'm sure Mother Theresa or the millions who do good work throughout the world as part of their faith wouldn't be happy with the comparison.

"I can see why Dawkins gets so het up because this discussion is like banging my head against a brick wall."

I'm the one who happily accepts the differing views, you're the one who is completely intransigent and yet, supposedly, it's you that is "banging (your) head against a brick wall. To borrow your words, "Oh come on you're better than this".

I respect your belief in science, I share a lot of it although not with the levels of zealotry that you demonstrate, but I also respect those that have a different view of the world. Why does that bother you so much?

Richard Forrest

I wrote: "Now watch them all descend into empty bluster and assertion rather than providing any scientific evidence to support their claims."

I posted a list of references to scientific papers which show that his premise is false, and that therefore any argument he might build on it is flawed, and we get this from John A. Davison:

"Carry on with your idiotic "debates."

It is hard to believe isn't it?

It doesn't get any better than this!

Just remember - what happens on the interet stays on the internet unless some cowardly nothing deletes it.

I love it so."

What is recorded is, of course, his retreat into empty bombast rather than address any evidence.

There is no need to try hard to make creationists look ignorant and dishonest. They do it all by themselves with little prompting.

Sleeping Beastly

Why is anyone advancing ID as a scientific theory? It isn't; it's a critique of certain assumptions made in discussing evolutionary theory. As such, it's worth looking at. But full-fledged scientific theory it is not.

ed

Disagree, ID is Creationism. It is promoted by the same people who promoted Creationism, and for the same reasons. To get religious ideology taught is our schools.

Dave

Conservatice Cabbie. Personally I think Dawkins can alienate people, although having met him he's fascinating and a formidable intellect. I'd always put myself on the wishy-washy liberal end of things, yet somehow we're at a point where your ascribing the same adjectives applied to Dawkins to me.
Perhaps this is just a function of the argument itself and people's particular worldviews. Perhaps there is no happy medium.
I tell you what depresses me, that we live in a world that has made so many advances and yes a world where religion does bring comfort to people. But the downside of this is Mad Mullahs, ID in schools and a journalist who can command an op ed page in the mail who apparently believes this rubbish and will defend it.
This is the gloomy downside to religious belief.

@Pisaac Hail a fellow Pastafarian!

RickK

Isn't this entertaining.

Melanie says Intelligent Design isn't religious creationism, but then those that rush to the defense of Intelligent Design lash out at us "Darwinian atheists" (Davison's words, not mine).

Davison also (typically) lashes out at any idea presented anonymously - just another ad hominem attack to distract from the emptiness of his own arguments.

Bowman dismisses "transition species" by saying some fossil with a displaced bone is called transitional." That is a glaring and gross dismissal of a fantastic wealth of fossils.

ID/creationism require no transitional species. If the designer designs a species to suddenly exist, there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER to make an intermediate form. BUT, what we find is quite the opposite. We identify gaps in the species record, we are able in some cases to even predict when the "missing link" would have lived and where. Tiktaalik was found this way. Tiktaalik didn't have a "displaced bone", it was a completely new species between fish and amphibian, and the researchers found FIVE of them.

Similarly, molecular biology offers MANY ways to code the same pr
There have been many attacks on evolution in this discussion. Even the "irreducible complexity" argument is nothing but a "this is too complex to evolve" argument.

The best and brightest of Intelligent Design have failed once again to:

1) describe a mechanism by which "intelligent design" enters a creature or a feature;

2) point to an observation of intelligent design actually happening;

3) offer a test for intelligent design; or

4) offer predictions made by using the "theory" of intelligent design.

As Davison's liberal use of the word "atheist" demonstrates, Intelligent Design is simply a smoke screen thrown up by people who are uncomfortable with the implications of evolutionary theory on their personal religious beliefs. Period.

Isn't this thread entertaining? It's Dover Deja Vu.

Melanie says Intelligent Design isn't religious creationism, but then those that rush to the defense of Intelligent Design lash out at us "Darwinian atheists" (Davison's words, not mine). Melanie, if ID isn't based on religion, why do its defenders paint evolution-supporters as "atheist"?

Can I just point out, Mr. Davison: REAL scientific debates are about interpretation of facts, not about the religious views of the debaters.

Davison stays true to form. First, lash out at anyone who doesn't give their full name. Second, quote the same list of scientists or philosophers. Third, attack evolution, but fail utterly to mount an evidence-based argument in favor of his theories.

Bowman waves away "transition species" by saying some fossil with a displaced bone is called transitional." That is a glaring and gross dismissal of a fantastic wealth of fossils.

ID/creationism requires no transitional species. If the designer designs a species to suddenly exist, there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER to make an intermediate form. BUT, what we find is quite the opposite. We identify gaps in the species record, we are able in some cases to even predict when and where the "missing link" would have lived. Tiktaalik was found this way. Tiktaalik didn't have a "displaced bone", it had a fish's tail with an amphibian head on a jointed neck! It's so dramatic that it rivals Kirk Cameron's crockoduck. And they found FIVE of them!

Evolution demands transition species. ID/Creationism has no need whatsoever for transitional forms. So why do we keep finding them?

There have been many attacks on evolution in this discussion. Even the "irreducible complexity" argument is nothing but a "this is too complex to evolve" argument.

Through all of it, the best and brightest of Intelligent Design have failed once again to:

1) describe a mechanism by which "intelligent design" enters a creature or a feature;

2) point to an observation of intelligent design actually happening;

3) offer a test for intelligent design; or

4) offer predictions made by using the "theory" of intelligent design.

As Davison's liberal use of the word "atheist" demonstrates, Intelligent Design is simply a smoke screen thrown up by people who are uncomfortable with the implications of evolutionary theory on their personal religious beliefs. Period.

And by saying "there is not a shred of evidence for evolution", ID's defenders demonstrate the ease with which they are willing to abandon honesty to defend their beliefs.

This thread has been a small re-enactment of the Dover trial, where the fervor and falsehoods of ID's proponents fails once again to overcome the honest facts and science of evolution.

Richard

Richard Forrest

Yes, what always struck me was the dishonesty of creationists/ID-proponents.

They are religious, almost all those I have argued with are Christian. Most profess believe that they should tell the truth and that Satan is the Prince of Lies. Yet their arguments are riddled with disingenuous twists, dishonest characterisation of their opponents' views and downright, straight-out lies. All in a desperate, failed attempt to prop up their view of the world.

hadrian

Political Empire asserts: 'creationists conduct no experiments...'
I suggest he actually read the creationist literature to see just what characteristically ignorant misrepresentation that is. Creationist scientiss are to be found in many universities pursuing their research and testing hypotheses within their creationist framework. It might cause the committed atheist to howl in rage but there you are.One has to laugh at our 'post-modern' world where nothing is 'wrong' and all is truth - except of course when it comes to cosmogony...God presumably gets just too uncomfortably close, even in the Lab's rarefied and tentative enviroment. To operate in this shrill manner is simply pathetic.
In the end of course it comes down to considering whether we see behind the mind boggling complexity of life a purposive creator and therefore purpose or sheer, blind, value-less, chance and meaninglessness.

Pisaac

Hadrian

"Creationist scientists are to be found in many universities pursuing their research and testing hypotheses within their creationist framework".

Out of interest can let us know what results their research and hypotheses are producing at this point in time and what evidence is scientifically testable.

Oh, also, please name some people and which universities they attend.

I won't hold my breath!

Still Ian, (still aka elsewhere as Last Hussar)

Dear Mr Davidson-
when you start a personal attack on me from a position of ignorance, why should I listen to anything you have to say.

Why exactly am I a coward? I published my first name - Ian. Basic cyber security is not to give out your surname in a public forum, especially if, like mine, it is quite rare (in two pools of names totalling approx (140,000, there were 4 of my name, me, my wife and 2 others). I used 'Last Hussar' as that is the 'nickname' that I use online, so others from other sites, would recognise me.

You then went into a long rant, short of facts, of how you think evolution is wrong, without presenting one fact.

There are lots of evidence for evolution. There is none for a creator. All creationist arguments are basically "2+2<>4 ergo 2+2=5" ie- 'We've found a flaw, therefore there must be a creator.'

1) Even if you found a fatal flaw that would not prove Creation, because that would rely on having only one alternative, and be impossible for there to be any others. OK - why not the 'hurricane in a junkyard'- given an infinate amount of time in infinate space, all things that are possible must happen. As long at there is a possibility to the accidental creation of life as we know it, then it will, given enough time, happen. Doesn't matter how improbable, as long as it is not impossible.

Or what about it is a closed time travel loop, the first humans are actually travellers from the future, who agreed to be mind wiped into believing creation, and sent back (with all the species we know) to ensure that life on Earth has a start point. Can you disprove either of these?

2) Creationist have never found a fatal flaw.

3) Why does a whale have legs?

Lee Bowman

RickK 9:01

"Bowman dismisses "transition species" by saying some fossil with a displaced bone is called transitional."

Examples being variations of hind limb bones in whales, or an intermediate of an ancestral reptilian jaw bone to a mammalian malleus bone transition, et al, just one categorical example.

" ... we are able in some cases to even predict when the missing link" would have lived and where. Tiktaalik was found this way. Tiktaalik didn't have a "displaced bone", it was a completely new species between fish and amphibian."

That of course is a different transitional example, and yes, I have read "Your Inner Fish". Shubin makes some good and bad points. Fins to fingers would not occur as hypothesized, IMO. At least NOT via random phenotypic genetic variation ONLY. There would have to be intelligent input at certain points. That is the substance of 'one' ID hypothesis, and to verify or falsify it requires ongoing research, and its acceptance as valid scientific inquiry. I'm not advocating (nor is DI) teaching it as theory, but merely accepting it as hypothetical. In that regard, it qualifies as science.

As I stated above, I accept evolutionary change, but not in its current synthesis. My predictive synthesis is:

1) Most observed evolutionary function is for a) adaptation, and b) diversity. Both are 'designed in' processes, the first to aid in survival, and the second so that each progeny has diverse features 'beyond' a mere blending parental imbued traits. IOW 'extended diversity', so that we-don't-all-look-alike. I also predict that most genetic variations of those types are from a pool of variant trait genes existant within the genome, rather than mutations. Antibiotic immunity would come from a pool of adaptive genes as well.

I accept natural selection (what works best stays), but NOT random mutations as its source to select from. To select from junk would produce junk.

But beyond the above evo processes, does true speciation occur in nature? In essence, if affirmative, that would account for all bioforms the exist today (and the extinct ones as well). I feel that these were intentioned changes. As for motive for change, compare any present day automotive phyla with a model T. But the question remains: When aquatics decide to migrate to land, can a natural progression of phenotypic alterations occur, even given vast time periods?

The answer is no. Species progressions are a result of incremental alterations, by genetic alterations to see 'what works', an ongoing creative process. And by whom? I wasn't around to observe, but my prediction is that non-biologic entities were involved over the eons. I also predict that higher ups (or even One) oversee non-corporeal life, and that a hierarchy exists. Furthermore, I deny alopatric speciation (which of course occurs naturally) as speciation, so no, actual speciation has NOT been observed.

Rick and others have implied that ID proposes no mechanisms for the design process. I have stated that it's a 'cut and try' procedure, and over vast time periods. If so, this would point to multiple designers, and no, not aliens. Aliens would likely be of a biologic form (like us), and therefore created. The formation of life would of necessity be from antecedent designers, and of a different form, possibly spirit, angelic or an unknown form. Scientists today tend toward the belief that consciousness is synaptic. I strongly disagree, and there is much evidence of dualism (if you want to call it that). We are spirit entities ourselves, and of a possible lineage from the conjectural higher ones. Bioforms are simply a vehicles for an earthly existence, perhaps metaphorically a 'sabbatical' from the spirit realm. So enjoy your time here!

Some of the above are not the predictions of mainstream ID, but are my own. And they are *obviously* not from the Creationist camp. ID is based on empirical evidences. Design inference is logical and viable, and I predict it will evolve in its sophistication. While not religiously based, ID does have theological implications, but these are secondary to its investigative prowess. The design paradigm is its central focus, the others possibly in time. But again, it is strictly investigative, and not canonical text based.

And finally, why do I make those predictions? They're simply based strictly on empirical evidences, *including* the accumulated paleontologic and genetic data on hand, and of course, rational unbiased thought.

Jay F.

In response, here's why I, a budding biologist, find both creationism and ID distasteful. Part of the scientific process, and I'll admit its often overlooked, is making sure you don't embellish on the implications of your data set. There's no data that I've personally been exposed to that points distinctly to the existence of a creator. So the prudent thing to do would be to withhold judgment and to keep chugging along doing the work. If you want to keep a pet hypothesis close to your heart, thats fine, test it when you can. However, it seems in the creationist camp and the ID camp as though folks are making declarations instead of proposing new areas of investigation. ID and creationism both have a huge mountain of inductive reasoning to clamber over before either will win any substantial number of scientific converts. As far as the assertion that theres a large portion of the scientific community that support ID, well thats just not been my experience in the field, they're a strikingly small minority.

John A. Davison

I am on record that there is no evidence for a Designer at present, nor is there any need for one. I have oorrected William Paley's assertion -

"Where there is design there is a designer"

by substituting "was" for Paley's "is"

I am inclined to do the same with Einstein's

Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control.

Henry Ford invented the assembly line. Henry Ford is dead. The assembly line still exists.

Similarly Frederic Nietzsche claimed -

"Gott ist tot."

Does that deny God's prior existence? Not in my book it doesn't.

What must have been happened probably millions of years ago was the invention and implementation of goal seeking programs which would ensure the present biota as the terminal products. Whether or not there has been supernatural intervention along the way is problematical and not subject to experimental analysis, but only a damn fool would dream that the origin or origins of life and life's subsequent evolution was inrinsic in the nature of prebiological matter. Yet that assumption is precisely what the Darwinian fairy tale demands. As for evidence for a "prescribed" evolution I refer you to my 2005 paper in which I presented both indirect and direct evidence for a determined evolution. I have no intention of repeatimg here what is freely available both on my weblog and on Uncommon Descent's sidebar.

Incidentally Uncommon Descent has just banished me for the fourth and, I can assure you, the last time. It is no better than Pharyngula, richarddawkins.net forum, EvC, Panda's Thumb and After The Bar Closes, just another natural assemblage of congenital groupthinking nincompoops, not one of whom ever had an orginal idea in his entire "prescribed" life.

"Great spirits have always encounterd violent opposition from mediocre minds."
Albert Einstein

I don;t care for the Inquisition tactics being emplyed here. They remind me of the methods used at Panda's Thumb, After The Bar Closes and EvC, all bastions of Darwinian mysticism.

"You can lead a person to the literature but yon can't make him read and comprehend it."
John A. Davison, after the old saw about the horse who refused to drink.

You may now resume your empty "debate," something real scientists never do.

Enjoy yourselves if you get my drift.

aramkr

David T and a host of others on this site are simply not well-enough read on the subject or strong enough in math and the sciences to comment.

Richard

Hadrian

You misunderstand what an experiment is, and even what an hypothesis is by the scientific meaning (it should make verifyable predictions for a start; evolution does, and theese have all been borne out so far). Before talking about such things, I suggest you learn the definitions important to science. "Creation scientists" conduct a dishonest parody of science. They twist the evidence, twist teh very definitions of science, lie and use fancy propaganda to persuade people that there is scientific evidence, not just their own bigotted religious views, behind creation. There is none at all.

VMartin

Some remarks to ongoing discussion:

There is nothing more ridiculous than "speciation" that one of the opponents of professor Davison here listed from "peer-reviewed" journals. Darwinists see "speciation", "adaptation" and "natural selection" everywhere. But it occur only in their heads.
I supported professor Davison at every forum I could. I added to his resources such anti-darwinian scientists like Jakob von Uexkull, Adolf Portmann or Wilhelm Troll (German idealistic morphology).
.
Regarding P.Z.Myers:
The first question P.Z.Myers asked me at his forum was if I had read "Selfish gene". I've asked him if he had read something from Adolf Portman. I have been banned immediately.
.
.
Professor Davison is right. There is no meaningful discussion with darwnists. I've tried it several times (regarding evolution of polymorphis mimicry of Papilio Dardanus where natural selection obviously could,t have played any role for instance) only to find out that darwinism is a myth
their atheistic supporters hold to like a rescue wheel.

Axel Grees

Melanie said: "This is because Creationism comes out of religion while Intelligent Design comes out of science."

LMAO! Oh! What a shame! I used to like your columns....

But a statement like this only indicates your total lack of understanding of science.

Which branch of science has lied to you by saying that a god designed the universe?

As usual, the views are far too simplistic - the need to reduce the universe to the invention of some kind of simplistic idea of a creator is just too great..........

John A. Davison

Where is my last message? Am I not allowed to respond to attacks on my science and my chartacter? Does this blog want to have that reputation? If it does then don't allow me to to be heard. It is as simple as that.

Ronnie

Cabbie, in general I agree with you but I do think we have to differentiate between what is 'taught' within a national schools curriculum and what people can learn anywhere through choice.

So, you can choose to learn anything you like (it's the one thing 'they' cannot take away from us) but in a national schools curriculum I think we would look for an acceptably sound and rational basis for life to be taught.

I am a Christian, more impressed by God's grace than trying to establish or insist on the literal truth of Genesis, and I do not think that the Creationist/ID people have made a compelling case. Shouting loudly is not a substitute. However, it is a position that eveyone is free to explore.

Returning to school curricula, I refer you to a previous thread where we both agreed that the US was partly founded by people fleeing religious persecution. In that context, it could be claimed that the Creationist/ID people are attempting to subvert the US constition (and the Law) by trying to have particular religious views (obviously dressed up as ID) taught in schools.

Light blue touch paper and retire.

Richard Forrest

hadrian writes:
"reationist scientiss are to be found in many universities pursuing their research and testing hypotheses within their creationist framework."

There are?
I know that there are scientist who are creationists, and who carry out research and publish it in academic journals. However, none of them they carry out their research within their creationist framework - mainly because such a framework provides no structure whatsoever for research. The idea that if we don't know how something was created, the only possible answer is that "God did it" provides no such framework, and neither does the idea that no matter what the evidence may show, one particular and narrow interpretation of the Bible must be correct.

Perhaps you can prove me wrong by identifying *any* paper *ever* published by *any* creationist scientist which reports on research carried out within a "creationist framework". If you can't, your assertion falls flat.

Richard Forrest

Sleeping Beastly wrote:

"It isn't; it's a critique of certain assumptions made in discussing evolutionary theory."

Actually, it's an attack on the fundamental assumptions and methods of science. The ID assertion is that if we can't explain how certain structures could evolve by small incremental steps, the only possible alternative is that an unidentified but possibly supernatural "intelligent designer" (and it is a mark of the dishonesty of the movement that they use this euphemism when they obviously mean God), possibly using supernatural means is responsible.

Firstly, this is scientifically illiterate: even if it were proved beyond any possible doubt that a structure could not have evolved, that provides no support whatsoever for any other hypothesis. An hypotheses has to stand or fall on its own merits, not by falsifying a different hypothesis.

Secondly, if supernatural means are accomodated as possible explanations, it makes the hypothesis untestable. An hypothesis sets constraints on possible outcomes: there has to be a potential observation or measurement which it cannot explain. "God did it" sets no such constraints - unless the actions of God can be limited in some way.

Thirdly, the ID "theory" is deeply dishonest. As Michael Behe revealed in the Dover trial, he claimed that the poster-boy structure of the ID movement, the bacterial flagellum, could not have evolved by *specifically* rejecting the explanation for how it could have evolved which has been published in scientific papers on the subject - most of which he rejected as "unconvincing" without even bothering to read them!

Creationists - and this includes the ID crowd - demand that we should reject naturalism as a basis for science. They dishonesty equate evolutionary science with naturalism, when in fact it is the fundamental assumption of all science. It's the assumption which makes science possible. It should be noted that the assumption of naturalism when engaged in scientific research does not mean that all scientists are atheists - it's patently obvious that many scientists hold strong religious beliefs. However, science is mute on the subject of faith. The existence of God is not a question which can be addressed by the tools of science, because there is no potential observation or measurement which could *disprove* the existence of God.

Emmet Sweeney

With all the hullaballoo over Darwin these days several clergymen have put pen to paper, in various publications, declaring that Darwinism is no threat to Christianity, and not incompatible with Christian belief. Among other things, these writers fall into the trap of assuming that what we call “science” is a neutral and ideologically disinterested enterprise, and that faith has nothing to fear from it. That of course is how science should be, but in fact never, or rarely ever, is. In failing to see the ideological agenda behind various “scientific” ideas, these clergymen play according to the rules set down by the modern intellectual establishment, which is, and has been since the beginning of the twentieth century, militantly anti-Christian.
The first mistake these clergymen invariably make is to equate Darwinism with evolution. This is a myth propagated by the establishment for a very specific purpose: For evolution itself is in no way contrary to religion or religious belief; and in fact it might just be one of the greatest proofs, from the natural world, of an intelligent designer.
We need to be very clear here. The idea of evolution long predated Darwin, and arguably originated among the Hindus and Buddhists of India, who viewed it as a manifestation of the general striving of all living things towards perfection. In the West, several of the Greek philosophers alluded to it. Famously, in the early 19th century, French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamark, proposed that living organisms could inherit characteristics acquired by their parents. For various reasons, Lamark’s explanation was discounted, and, as scientists looked into the question in ever greater depth, it became clear that there was no simple, mechanistic solution. An attempt by another scientist to propose “natural selection” (nature doing what human breeders of domestic animals do), was similarly discounted about twenty years before Darwin. By the mid-nineteenth century, scientists and philosophers increasingly talked of an “intelligent life force” or such like, in order to account for it.
It was at this point that Darwin published his own, rather naïve, theory. His ideas were easily demolished by the most brilliant and competent scientists of the time, who quickly pointed out that human breeders of domestic animals had never yet succeeded in producing a new species, so that it was highly unlikely that nature, working much more slowly, could achieve this end. Yet ideologically, Darwin’s moment had come. His cause was taken up by some of the most vehement materialist propagandists of the age, including Thomas Huxley and the notorious racist biologist of Germany, Ernst Haekel. These men rightly understood that the fossil record, which was now being catalogued and described in detail, showed a progressive advancement of life-forms on the planet, and that this seemed a purposeful and intelligent process. In short, there appeared to be an eschatological element in nature; and this might just provide religion with an almost unassailable argument for a divine creator. Something had to be done to stop this. Evolution had to be explained in purely mechanistic terms, whether the explanation was a good one or not. It had to be shown to be nothing but an accident; and Darwin gave as plausible a mechanism as the materialists could ever hope to find. They embraced him and his ideas with open arms.
Darwin’s ideas then were not called upon to explain evolution; they were called upon to explain it away.
The next step was for the Darwinists to claim evolution for themselves. This was done in a very simple fashion, with the unwitting collusion of several prominent, but rather simple-minded, religious people. It was put out that Darwinism equalled evolution, and that there were only two choices or schools of thought available: either we agreed with Darwin, or we were biblical fundamentalists who believed the world was created in six days in the years 4004 BC. And this is the story put about by the popular media to this day.
Yet the truth is that there are other options, though the Darwinists rarely allow the public to hear of them. Both the Darwinists and the biblical fundamentalists are wrong. Evolution happened, but the process which gave rise to new species remains entirely unknown. How the myriads of living things in our world managed to be designed so perfectly and so specifically for the life that each leads, is an enduring mystery. It was not explained by Lamark; it was not explained by Darwin, and it was not explained by Haldane’s “Neo-Darwinism” (which sought to bolster Darwin’s flagging theory by the invocation of random genetic mutation). The reality, as many are now beginning to understand, is that the process of evolution is not understood, and may never be.
Darwin himself was a rather unimaginative man who was not malicious, and who quite possibly never understood the implications of the ideological battle waged in his name by Huxley et al.

Roger Stanyard

Harian says " Creationist scientiss are to be found in many universities pursuing their research and testing hypotheses within their creationist framework."

Where? Name me just one practising YEC scientist in the UK in the key areas of evolutionary biology or geology.

While you're at it, direct us to any peer reviewed creationist scientific paper they have produced. Just one will do.

(Twiddles thumbs waiting forever.)

Roger Stanyard

Emmet Sweeney - I've never seen such unsubstantiated verbal crapola even from creationists.

It's so bad that it its beyond pulling to pieces. It's not even remotely accurate. It's turgid rhetoric.

Roger Stanyard

John A davison whinges "Where is my last message? Am I not allowed to respond to attacks on my science and my chartacter?"

Feel free. We are all ears. Nobody is stopping you posting to this site. Nobody is asking you to retract your nasty personal attacks and smears on people you disagree with.

While you are at it, perhaps you could condescent to answer the questions of the "intellectual trash" in here.

Have a nice day - with your martyrdom complex.

Roger Stanyard

John A Davison claims "As for evidence for a "prescribed" evolution I refer you to my 2005 paper in which I presented both indirect and direct evidence for a determined evolution. I have no intention of repeatimg here what is freely available both on my weblog and on Uncommon Descent's sidebar."

Pity you don't have the honesty to point out that this was not a peer reviewed paper.

IIRC you also got kicked off of Dembski's sleazy blog?

Ronnie

John A. Davison, kinda touchy aren't you.

Peoples' posts often don't appear here (maybe the Designer(s) reject them, who knows).

Just write another one.

John A. davison

I have no idea where anyone ever thought I regarded myself as a martyr. Hell, I love exposing intellectual trash wherever I find it. I have been doing it for over a half century. Of course I have been banished from Uncommon Descent. I have no more respect for them than I do for Pharyngula, After The Bar Closes, EvC or any other intellectual ghetto.

So far I am satisfied that I have not yet been banned here. But if anyone here or anywhere else thinks I am going to be treated like dirt without striking back they are very sadly mistaken.

"I'm an old campaigner and I love a good fight."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

By the way, where is my message in which I demanded an apology from Richard Forrest? Am I being censored? If I am just say so and I will stop wasting my valuable time here. Censoring is usually the prelude to banishment. Is Forrest running this blog by any chance?

Incidentally, Rivista di Biologia, where I published several papers, is very definitely a peer revued journal.

Pisaac

Emmett Sweeney

I do not think I have seen as many lies in one post as I have in yours.

Pete Hoskin

John A. Davidson: sometimes comments don't get through for a variety of technical reasons at your end or ours. Apologies.

If one of your comments hasn't appeared - or you feel you've been unfairly moderated - you can always email me at phoskin @ spectator.co.uk and I'll look into it.

Richard Forrest

John A. Davison wrote:
"But if anyone here or anywhere else thinks I am going to be treated like dirt without striking back they are very sadly mistaken."
Is pointing out that your thesis is based on the falsehood that no instances of speciation have been observed "treating you like dirt"?
I've given you a list of scientific papers which describe observed instance of speciation events, and your only response is empty bluster. A *real* scientist would address the evidence.
It's also worth noting that you have not addressed any of the other specific points I raised in my criticism of your silly blog. Real scientists respond to criticism with evidence and argument, not empty assertions and the accusation that their critics are "blowhards" and "intellectual cowards".
You are wrong in your assertion that no instances of speciation have been observed, you are wrong in your assertion that "Homo sapiens seems to be the youngest mammal ever to appear", you are wrong when you assert that there is an "atheistic Darwinian establishment", you are wrong when you assert that "little has changed in the century and a half since the publication of Darwin’s 'Origin of Species'", and you are wrong when you reject 'Origin of Species' as offering "absolutely nothing of substance relating to its title".
"Incidentally, Rivista di Biologia, where I published several papers, is very definitely a peer revued journal."
Rivista di Biologia is edited by a creationist, and is not regarded as of having much academic or scientific clout by anyone in the scientific community. It has been described as "a journal which caters to papers which are speculative and controversial to the point of crackpottery " - which is no doubt why they published your contribution.
It's patently clear that either you don't have a clue about evolutionary biology and the history of the science, or are quite prepared to promote outright falsehoods to support your arguments.
Which is it?

RickK

Emmett Sweeney said: "For evolution itself is in no way contrary to religion or religious belief; and in fact it might just be one of the greatest proofs, from the natural world, of an intelligent designer."

If people wish to say some intelligent force set off the Big Bang and set a great plan in motion, there's no evidence whatsoever, but at least it's not an assault on science.

But when people think some super-being is actively interjecting to conjure up a bacterial flagellum or a slightly different form of eyeball, that's completely contrary to science and evidence.

Natural effects have natural causes. We have billions of pieces of evidence to support that statement and none to refute it.

Davison, Bowman, and all the gang over at the Discovery Institute would like to point at an eyeball or a blood clot and say "we will NEVER figure out how this could evolve, so stop looking and just say God/Allah/Aliens/The Divine Designer did it." Um, call me crazy, but I don't think science is about saying "let's stop looking."

Sweeney then says that dog breeders demolished Darwin by saying in 1000 years they'd never created a different species. Of course, this argument is complete nonsense. We got from wolf to chihuahua in a few hundred years. So it is ludicrous to say that over a MILLION years we can't get from water dog to seal. Darwin was correct to point to dog breeding as an example of the fundamental mechanisms that can lead to speciation.

The argument that evolution can't create completely new forms because we've never seen it is like saying the ONLY way to prove that an adult human can grown from a fetus is to spend 20 years to watch one grow. Of course there are other ways to prove it in a shorter period of time - prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

And of course, as the folks on CSI will tell you, DNA evidence is more reliable than even eye witness accounts. And all the DNA evidence is on the side of common descent.

Lee Bowman accepts evolutionary timescales, and accepts that evolution happens. That's good, at least. He's not advocating the magical appearance of new species popping up out of the mud - the version of creationism/ID presented in the ID textbook "Of Pandas and People". Mr. Bowman even accepts natural selection.

His complaint with evolutionary theory seems to be with mutation as an agent of variation:
"I accept natural selection (what works best stays), but NOT random mutations as its source to select from. To select from junk would produce junk."

This seems odd to me, as mutation is a key source of the "diversity" and "adaptation" that Mr. Bowman says he accepts. And genetic mutation is so completely observable that it is stunning that anyone remotely aware of the science would refute it.

Each of us has something like 100 genetic mutations in ourselves. Most are neutral, some can be harmful, some beneficial. This "junk" that Mr. Bowman refers to has produced documented benefits even in modern humans. And that's even after we've learned to control our environments and removed many selection forces from our lives.

But probably the most glaring example of mutation-selection are the Lenski experiements where a set of mutations gave one subpopulation of E. coli a tremendous advantage over the remainder of its population, and the subpopulation dramatically overwhelmed the "unmutated" strain. Each genetic change was recorded in excruciating detail.

Mr. Bowman then says that some higher forces is trying out different forms and keeping what works. So he contradicts himself where he earlier said that he said "I accept natural selection..." Mr. Bowman is in essence saying speciation occurs through SUPERNATURAL SELECTION.

Now, we have ample evidence from recent observations, experiements, and observations of the fossil record to indicate natural selection (those that adapt best get to procreate) as a primary force in evolutionary change. We have exactly ZERO evidence of a SUPERNATURAL SELECTOR.

And, as science by definition only operates within the natural world, Mr. Bowman quite effectively refutes Melanie Phillips's original assertion that ID is science.

Just as in the Dover case, it is the proponents of Intelligent Design that make the case that ID is not science.

Emmet Sweeney

Dear Roger Stanyard, please, by all means, pull my "unsubstantiated verbal crapola" to pieces. Don't be lazy now!

Xavier Kreiss

"Intelligent design comes out of science": no, it doesn't. Its theories are not testable.

ID states that certain things are too complex to have been produced by evolution. But it doesn't propose any testable alternative.

ID is certainly deist: if things are created, there must be a creator.

And ID does not stand against creationism: it's just creationism in new clothes .

In 1987, the teaching of "creation science" in schools was outlawed in the US, along with the inclusion of the creationist book "Biology and Origins" in school curricula. In the same year, "Of Pandas and People" was published, and ID proponents tried to have it included in the curriculum in Texas.

But the text of this new book turned out to be practically identical to "Biology and origins" - the word "creationists", for instance, was simply replaced by "design proponents". And in one place, the erase-paste job wasn't even done properly, and the words "cdesign proponentsists" appeared.

Evolution may one day be disproved. But up to now all discoveries in biology, paleontology, etc, have borne it out, and it is accepted and used by (probably) over 99% of scientists in those fields. They do not take ID seriously, and this does not surprise me.

Ronnie

John A. Davison, aside from telling us how great you are, demanding apologies and daring the moderators to ban you, do you have anything sensible to say?

brian t

The court in the USA spent hundreds of hours discussing all this, and did not arrive its conclusion lightly. Did you miss the evidence that showed that someone had gone through one of the text books with "Search & Replace", replacing "creation" with "intelligent design" or something along those lines.

I also don't get this bit: "The confusion arises partly out of ignorance, with people lazily confusing belief in a Creator with Creationism". OK, some believers in a creator don't believe in creationism, but so what? The point is that creationism starts with belief in a creator, and, even if we allow that it doesn't always go in both directions, it's hardly relevant to the question on the table.

Ditto for "The difference between them and people of religious faith is that ID proponents do not necessarily believe in a personalised Creator, or God." Yes, we know, and again, so what? None of the evidence out there suggests there is any kind of creator, personalized or not, but when it comes to the court case that Prof. Miller was referring to, the ID supporters explicitly believe in a personalized god, as do all those who use the term "intelligent design" to describe their agenda - most of them in the USA.

Roger Stanyard

John A Davison states "If I am just say so and I will stop wasting my valuable time here. Censoring is usually the prelude to banishment. Is Forrest running this blog by any chance?"

Paranoid fruitcake!

Roger Stanyard

Sweeny demands that I pull his crapola to pieces.

I don't know where to begin because it is so bad. It's incoherent drivel.

Lets start with what appears to be the fist paragraph:

"The idea of evolution long predated Darwin, and arguably originated among the Hindus and Buddhists of India, who viewed it as a manifestation of the general striving of all living things towards perfection."

sono longer is the theory of evolution by natural selection a product of Darwin and wallace. It's a religious invention by Hindus and Buddhists.

Well, show us the texts where they demonstrate the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Or, how abt this "Evolution had to be explained in purely mechanistic terms, whether the explanation was a good one or not. It had to be shown to be nothing but an accident; and Darwin gave as plausible a mechanism as the materialists could ever hope to find. They embraced him and his ideas with open arms."

Evolution is not an accident. It's directed by an arms war for survival, called natural selection.

Epistemological Realist

Richard Forrest thinks:
"even if it were proved beyond any possible doubt that a structure could not have evolved, that provides no support whatsoever for any other hypothesis. An hypotheses has to stand or fall on its own merits, not by falsifying a different hypothesis."
Sherlock Holmes had a better grasp of logic:
When you have eliminated the impossible [as in "proved beyond possible doubt that a structure could not have evolved"] then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth

Epistemological Realist

RickK:
"Natural effects have natural causes. We have billions of pieces of evidence to support that statement and none to refute it."

But all your pieces of evidence are within nature. Whatever actually gave rise to nature (ie matter and time) in the first place could not itself be natural.
You could try claiming that matter is eternally self-existent, but then you're on a hiding to nothing.

Skevos Mavros

I usually enjoy reading Ms Phillips, but when she said: "This is because Creationism comes out of religion while Intelligent Design comes out of science." I was startled.

Intelligent Design (ID) does not come out of science. It is a movement that is primarily political in nature (not party-political), and it has conducted no scientific experiments, has published no articles in respected scientific journals, and makes no falsifiable claims -- hence it cannot be a science.

Just because some proponents of ID are scientists does not make ID a science, any more than because some proponents of opera are scientists doesn't make opera a science. To be a science requires (at a minimum) some falsifiable theories - ID has none.

Ms Phillips also says: "Creationism, whose proponents are Bible literalists, is a specific doctrine which holds that the earth was literally created in six days."

This definition of creationism is too narrow and incomplete - many bible-based creationists are not "Young Earth Creationists", but are "Old Earth Creationists". This group still think god designed the species as they are now, they just don't take the "six days" literally. Some even accept a form of divinely-guided evolution.

Lastly, the court case mentioned in the article also heard compelling evidence that those calling themselves ID proponents were actually creationsists who had merely changed their wording.

ID is not science - it is creationism in a lab coat.

stanley Jerusalem

What a thoroughly unpleasant load of people!
It would be difficult to say whether your zealotry exceeds your coherence or your evangelism your comprehension. All in all it would be easiest to say a plague on 'both' of your houses were it not for the fact that the rest of us are all acquainted with perfectly decent balanced individuals who though holding many of your beliefs are satisfied with living decent unimpeachable lives and who would rather die than offer the type of insults many of you have flung around either in making your points or in evading doing so. Maybe it makes for entertaining reading for some but I would venture that the majority who come to this site, even those whom we occasionally excoriate, are heartily fed up with you.
You all give scholarship a bad name and illustrate why our schools of higher learning today are hot beds of dissension, intrigue and prejudice.

Lee Bowman

RickK @ 2:44

"[Bowman's] complaint with evolutionary theory seems to be with mutation as an agent of variation: [citation] "I accept natural selection (what works best stays), but NOT random mutations as its source to select from. To select from junk would produce junk."

This seems odd to me, as mutation is a key source of the "diversity" and "adaptation" that Mr. Bowman says he accepts. And genetic mutation is so completely observable that it is stunning that anyone remotely aware of the science would refute it."

My response:

Here's where I diverge from mainstream thought. While random mutations are one source of change (sickle cell mutation as a classic example), and are though to be the source of most altered traits that natural selection will act upon, I am predicting that there exists within the genome (quoting from my prior statement at 1:25am), "I also predict that most genetic variations of those types are from a pool of variant trait genes existant within the genome, rather than mutations. Antibiotic immunity would come from a pool of adaptive genes as well." As previously stated, I propose that variants for adaptation are a 'designed in' function for adaptation/survival, and that these variants are extant in the genome.

In other words, I propose that there exists a pool of available variants to test the waters for better adaptability. But as I've also stated, I do not accept that speciation variations are either a part of this pool, or happen via mutational events. These appear to be designer interventions, or deliberate coding alterations. While mutations do occur via folding and transcription errors, they are mostly neutral and do not affect the outcome, or as I've stated, become useful traits to be selected from. I admit that this is a divergence from accepted thought.

"Mr. Bowman then says that some higher forces is trying out different forms and keeping what works. So he contradicts himself where he earlier said that he said "I accept natural selection ... " Mr. Bowman is in essence saying speciation occurs through SUPERNATURAL SELECTION."

Not really; let me clarify. My thinking is that the entities that have acted in a designer function are NOT supernatural, but a natural part of our cosmology. The 'supernatural' caveat is largely mankind's opinion, based on the Biblical account of the supreme Creator. It is exactly this 'disqualifier'(supernaturality) that science uses both to 'rule out' design ("supernaturality is a myth"), or even if it exists, to merely prohibit its exploration ("science can't study it since it's out of the natural universe"). Design inferences abound, but there is no evidence, other than scriptural accounts, that incremental design processes occurred outside of the natural universe. I feel they did not, and are therefore explorable.

That said, the existence of a Supreme God, and yes, possibly outside of the natural universe, is not ruled out. The designers at the natural level either acted on their own or under supreme authority, but acted *within* the natural world. Since there is no firm evidence to refute this, ID is simply NOT beyond scientific purview. Keep in mind that the term 'natural' in this context refers to the realm of naturality (natural world), and NOT a connotation of 'unguided'. Intellgences exist as operatives, and we cannot therefore summarily rule out other intelligence(s).

Interesting that science denies scriptural accounts, but uses the Genesis depiction of the creation event(s) to rule out species origins via teleology as a valid pursuit. To first discredit scripture, and then use it as authoritative is contradictive logic. So the question of supernaturality, which remains conjectural, remains also as an unanswered question. The creative process at the biologic level was done either in or out of the natural universe (or both ways), but there is currently no validation of which mode applies. Since we ourselves can now do species alterations by natural processes (genetic engineering), earlier events could just as well have been done by similar methods. This is essentially a validation of the design hypothesis.

Michael B

Anonymous Blowhard,

Your so-called "proper scientists" were doing fine as long as they were talking among themselves, misrepresenting Phillips' position, calling her names, etc. But as soon as I entered the fray in opposition to their misrepresentations and facile arguments, it appears the deleted the entire thread. Seems "proper scientists" like to dish it out, the sneers and facile arrogations, but they don't much care for being on the receiving end of it. More substantively as well, they had problems dealing with even rudimentary forms of comprehension and reasoning. In sum, they turned out to be petulant, not proper.

Tom Stith

Arguments that support Intelligent Design seem to be nothing more than, "I can't think of another explanation I like better, so ID must be true."

Complexity? It's not an intrinsic, objective trait of anything. It's just a word that describes how we perceive things. Nothing more.

Marcus Pennell

ID was created by creatonists as a way of introducing religious debate into American schools. It was a deliberately cynical attempt to discredit evolution by repackaging some aspects of creationism with a pseudo-scientific spin to get them into the classroom. ID is just an unsupportable hypothesis which even its creators don't believe in. It is bogus.

Richard Forrest

Epistemological Realist wrote:
"Sherlock Holmes had a better grasp of logic:
When you have eliminated the impossible [as in "proved beyond possible doubt that a structure could not have evolved"] then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
..and you evidently have no grasp whatsoever of the nature of science.
If we don't know how a structure originated, we don't know how a structure originated. As scientists, we look at the evidence, formulate hypotheses, and test them by acquiring more evidence. What we *don't* do is to abandon science in favour of the untestable assertion that "God - sorry, I mean an 'Intelligent Designer' - did it, possibly using supernatural methods."
Scientific hypotheses limit possible outcomes. Unless you can propose a potential observation or measurement which can *not* be "explained" by "God did it", that "explanation" has no place in science.

Johnn A. Davison

I don't expect an apology from any Darwinian because they are sincere in their belief in the Darwinian fantasy. I have presented plenty of evidence for a designed evolution as would be obvious to anyone who has read my papers. Intelligent Design is implicit in everything all my distinguished sources published as well. They all rejected every aspect of the atheist Darwinian myth. It is not just John A. Davison that you treat with contempt and ridicule. I am little more than a representive of some of the greatest biologists of the post Darwinian era.

Let the record show whom it is that you reject.

In chronological order -

St. George Mivart, author of "Genesis of Species" who destroyed the core of Darwinism when he asked the question -

How can Natural Selection have been involved in the first appearance of novel structures?: a question which remains unanswered to this very day.

William Bateson, the father of modern genetics, who concluded that Mendelism had nothing to do with speciation or evolution in general, that evolution was the expression of an enormous potential of pre-existing information.

Henry Fairfield Osborn, the head of the American Museum of Natural History who opined that nothing in the fossil record supported a role for natural selection.

Reginald C. Punnett who questioned that natural selection had any role in mimicry and that the various patterns reflected information already present and not arrived at through the gradual accumulation of mutations as the Darwinian scheme assumes.

Leo Berg, author of Nomogenesis, the greatest Russian bIologist of his day and, in my opinion, the greatest evoloutionist of all time. Berg rejected any role for chance in both ontogeny and phylogeny and agreed with Bateson, Punnett and Osborn that evolution was in large part an unfolding of pre-existing information.

Pierre Grasse, the French equivelent of Leo Berg, who also dismissed natural selection as without significance in creative ascending evolution.

Otto Schihdewolf, the greatest paleontologist since Cuvier, who with Richard B. Goldschmidt produced abundant evidence that gradualism played no role in evolution, that evolution had proceeded in jumps or saltations, a mechanism incompatible with every feature of the Darwinian model.

Not one of these great scholars who are my primary sources, was either an atheist or a religious fanatic.

These then are the minds that Richard Forrest and other Darwinians have rejected. I am but their current representative,
their champion if you will.

As for being a Creationist, I plead guilty as I can see no other alternative to the most failed, the most tested and the most ill conceived flight of human imagination in the history of science.

You will find full documetation of everything I have said here on my weblog and in my papers and those of my distinguished predecessors on whose shoulders I am proud to stand.

"No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men"
Thomas Carlyle

I have no intention of responding to any interrogations on this blog because I am confident I have already answered them all in my publications which obviously have not been given serious consideration by the participants here. It is sad this this blog, like so many others, finds it necessary to attack those with whom its clientele differ.

I repeat -

"Birds of a feather flock together."

As for debate, scientists do not engage in that activity. Scientists discover and then attempt to enlighten those with whom they disagree, pretty much a hopeless task when it comes to the question of our origins as any fool can see.

The truth is that whether we are creationists or atheists is largely independent of experience and has now been shown to have a heritable basis, thus supporting what Einstein believed to his dying day -

"EVERYTHING is determined...by forces over which we have no control." my emphasis

I thank Spectator Access for allowing me to speak here which is more than I can say for many other internet forums whose names I need not mention and whose clientele are well represented here as elsewhere.

Everyone is welcome at my weblog -

jadavison.wordpress.com,

the only requirement being civility and full disclosure of ones identity. I have found this to be an effective deterrent to those incapable of productive discourse.

Pepe

Melanie, are you kidding or just ignorant?

The term "Intelligent Design" as well as pretty much all the original literature that used it was the product of "The Institute for Creation Research" (ICR). What the Dover trial proved was that the ICR literally "created" the term as a way to shoehorn creationism into schools. They just got all their old Creationism literature (which they had been publishing for decades), changed the terms, changed every mention of the word "god" for "creator", and republished it.

The "evil atheistic" claim that ID is merely creationism with another name is based on the fact that it is EXACTLY what it is. The exact same people who had been pushing Creationism are now pushing ID, using exactly the same books and arguments (with terms changed), funded by exactly the same people (ICR).

Richard Forrest

Epistemological Realist wrote:
"But all your pieces of evidence are within nature. Whatever actually gave rise to nature (ie matter and time) in the first place could not itself be natural."

It's something called "science". Science - all science - is based on the assumption of methodological naturalism. This means that it deals with phenomena which can be observed and measured, and does so under the assumption that systems behave in a consistent and coherent manner - i.e. if we carry out the same test under the same conditions, it will always produce the same result. Science advances by formulating hypotheses - models of the behaviour of systems - which set limits on possible outcomes. This means that we can test those hypotheses: if the experiment or set of observations produces results which lie outside the possible outcomes, that hypothesis is revised or rejected.

This means that science *can't* address the question of whether or not God exists, because there is no possible observation or measurement which could *not* be explained by "God did it". This is also why the ID assertion is not science: there is no possible observation or measurement which could *not* be explained by the intervention of a possibly supernatural external agency.

And yes, science is based on a set of assumptions. However, the extraordinary success of science in finding explanations for how the universe functions demonstrates the validity of those assumptions. Science is validated by the fact that it works - it provides the basis for the technology which makes our modern world possible.

One can argue till the cows come home over the existence of some external agency which created the universe and the natural laws which organise its workings, but that is not an issue which can be addressed by science, or even one which can be resolved by looking for evidence. My personal view is that it is a pointless argument. One either believes in God by faith, or one doesn't. It's an entirely personal, entirely subjective position which has nothing to do with science. For every scientist who is an outspoken atheist, one can find a scientist who is a devout religious believer.

RickK

Michael B.

I'll answer your assertion that the universe was created specifically to support life. You say the universe it too finely tuned, so it MUST have been created by some grand intelligence.

First, I'm glad to hear you think the IDers are on the wrong track, and that you're not hear advocating an active Divine Designer tinkering with eyeballs and blood clots. So you and I are on common ground there.

But as to the universe being designed specifically for life:

1) I am a little taken aback by the ease with which you and John A Davison can conclude that this incalculably grand universe of 100+ billion galaxies, each with 100+ billion stars, was made for our little blue ball whirling in the suburbs of a decidedly average galaxy. You at least don't conclude that we, humans, are the pinnacle of the creation of the universe. But it still takes a strong sense of hubris to think that life was the whole point of all of this.

2) If life was the whole point, and the Intelligent Designer is a creator of universes, then don't you think he could have tuned things just a little so that 99.99999999999...% of his great universe wasn't INSTANTLY LETHAL to life?

3) Evolutionary theory says life evolved within and adapted to the conditions of our universe. You say the universe was made for the life.

Your argument applies PERFECTLY if I use it to conclude that the city was made specifically for the benefit of the cockroaches.

Sorry, but I'm not convinced.

Lee Bowman

Richard Forrest @ 10:02
elaborated on Sleeping Beastly's definition of ID:

Forrest:

"It isn't; it's a critique of certain assumptions made in discussing evolutionary theory."

"Actually, it's an attack on the fundamental assumptions and methods of science. The ID assertion is that if we can't explain how certain structures could evolve by small incremental steps, the only possible alternative is that an unidentified but possibly supernatural "intelligent designer" (and it is a mark of the dishonesty of the movement that they use this euphemism when they obviously mean God), possibly using supernatural means is responsible."

My (Lee Bowman) response:

Fist, ID is not an attack on science. It's premise is design. It makes no claims (or assumptions) of supernaturality. Your assertion that IDsts euphamize by not specifying the purported designer(s) as God is fallaceous. It is an assumption in and of itself.

Forrest:

"Firstly, this is scientifically illiterate: even if it were proved beyond any possible doubt that a structure could not have evolved, that provides no support whatsoever for any other hypothesis. An hypotheses has to stand or fall on its own merits, not by falsifying a different hypothesis."

Bowman:

If not 'self evolution' nor ID, please submit a third hypothesis is causative.

Forrest:

"Secondly, if supernatural means are accommodated as possible explanations, it makes the hypothesis untestable. An hypothesis sets constraints on possible outcomes: there has to be a potential observation or measurement which it cannot explain. "God did it" sets no such constraints - unless the actions of God can be limited in some way."

Bowman:

Actually yes, if God directed, buy by surrogates (angelics, spirit entities), this WOULD constitute a limited action. Creation by divine fiat (Biblical account) may be true, but ID proposes design by mechanistic means.

Forrest:

"Thirdly, the ID "theory" is deeply dishonest. As Michael Behe revealed in the Dover trial, he claimed that the poster-boy structure of the ID movement, the bacterial flagellum, could not have evolved by *specifically* rejecting the explanation for how it could have evolved which has been published in scientific papers on the subject - most of which he rejected as "unconvincing" without even bothering to read them!"

Bowman:

I and many others disagree that during the trial Kenneth Miller made an absolute case for flagellum evolution. Briefly, the TTSS device, which has only 10 of ~ 42 flagellar proteins is claimed as an intermediate, and one with a coopted function. The consensus of opinion, and there have been peer review papers detailing, is that the TTSS came into existence MUCH later than the flagellum, and was therefore not a precursor. This contravenes the claim that the flagella evolved, and by extension, that IC is disproven. And contra to your claim, I'm sure that Behe has read much on the subject.

Also (and not to be ignored), there has been no explanations by Miller or others, of how the flagellar components would assemble, even if a precursor could be established. Miller's prior paper, 'The Flagellum Unspun' places the emphasis on homologies between the the flagellum and the TTSS, but it drops to irrelevance if the flagellum preceded the TTSS, which I believe is the consensus opinion to date.

Forrest:

"Creationists - and this includes the ID crowd - demand that we should reject naturalism as a basis for science."

Not so. This is an utterly false statement. Please make your case.

"They dishonesty equate evolutionary science with naturalism, when in fact it is the fundamental assumption of all science."

There is no denial of science as the means to study naturalistic phenomena. No, the term 'naturalism' is denied ONLY when applied to the mutations as the sole source of novelty, complexity and phenotypic progression. Please do not mix terms by stating that natural phenomenon is denied. This is the same logic that has led to jokingly silly terms like "intelligent falling". There is simply no denying that natural phenomena underlies virtually all of our existence, and there is if fact, no controversy there.

Forrest:

"It's the assumption which makes science possible. It should be noted that the assumption of naturalism when engaged in scientific research does not mean that all scientists are atheists - it's patently obvious that many scientists hold strong religious beliefs. However, science is mute on the subject of faith. The existence of God is not a question which can be addressed by the tools of science, because there is no potential observation or measurement which could *disprove* the existence of God."

My final response:

Intelligent Design is also moot on that point. And yes, atheism, agnosticism or theistic positions remain as personal choices.

YESHUAIMSURE

Only Creationists will appreciate this one. - David Pawson, the great Bible expositor, claims to have struck on something quite fascinating. During his studies into the Jewish aliya, he stumbled upon a report aka 1870 concerning a very early return to Zion, a group of Jews led by a rabbi landed in Israel (then Palestine)amidst pouring RAIN and the rabbi praised God for His sign that His blessing was upon their return.
Now this stimulated Pawson to dig further and asked his brother in law who conveniently worked in some Meteorological capacity within the armed forces whether he could source any rainfall data for Palestine/Israel as far back as the early 19th century and beyond. He could and provided the said data.
Pawson was astonished after graphically plotting the data to discover that peaks in Israels rainfall coincided with aliya waves. In addition, the total rainfall for a prolonged period commencing from the time of significant aliya (exact period not quoted)had increased 2 and a half fold.
Furthermore,the highest rainfall for a hundred years was- wait for it - YES 1948.
WOW. Of course the atheists and Co. will bleat that anything can be suggested by statistics.
We theists however recall scripture and are reminded that a major Yahweh blessing was RAIN and a major curse was DROUGHT.
This period was pre desalination plants, reservoirs etc and we would be wise to ponder these things. MARANATHA

RickK

Epistemological Realist:

If you want to believe some being created the universe, I have no argument against that. My only response is borrowed from Mr. Hitchens: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

But AFTER the birth of the universe, it appears based on the aforementioned billions of examples, that natural effects have natural causes. So we can comfortably leave god or any other divine designer out of our equations as we search for how the diversity of life came to be.

hadrian

Scrolling down this incredibly long thread once again vividly highlights the spitting venom that even daring to question Darwinian ideology evokes!
Pisaac asks for some Creationists working away at research within their own presuppositional framework.
Well, I might mention the fascinating stuff being pursued by physicist, Dr Russell Humphreys into starlight and cosmogony.
Just to throw some further names in the pot-
Dr Jerry R. Bergman- Psychology, Sociology, Biology.
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology.
Dr Walter J.Veith, zoology.
Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany.

Let's be clear about this- natural evidence is not sought to 'prove' Genesis or manipulate someone into Biblical Truth/Christian discipleship. The Scriptures ans Christ Himself tell us fallen man simply WILL not believe whatever the evidence! They will simply readjust it to fit their preconceived anti-God outlook. Belife can ONLY come to a person as a result of supernatural, spiritual regeneration 'from above'.
Hwoever those of us who do thus believe will then seek to understand the created order in the light of the Information communicated to us by our God ( in Scripture) AS the Scripture itself indicates to the atheist this is rank, incredible foolishness but of course the atheist himself then ha to live in a bizarrely schizophrenic world of radical meaninglessness on the one hand and the need for some kind of meaningful value system on the other. This tension results in metaphysical incoherence.

Lee Bowman

Marcus Pennell @ 7:28

"ID was created by creatonists as a way of introducing religious debate into American schools. It was a deliberately cynical attempt to discredit evolution by repackaging some aspects of creationism with a pseudo-scientific spin to get them into the classroom."

The concept of biologic design goes back at least to the early Roman Empire. This late movement, spearheaded perhaps by Phillip Johnson, does have a reactionary element to it, since it goes against prevailing evolutionary thought. Notice I didn't say Darwinist thought, although it has Darwinist underpinnings. At question is the philosophical, yes philosophical assumption that evolutionary theory explains all of life. But Johnson did not invent the term, which dates to Plato, Socrates and beyond.

Science IS science, and Plato would agree. While a supporter of rational thought and material explanations, Plato saw beyond that, acknowledging the spiritual realm. He admitted that not all things were knowable in easily definable and quantifiable terms. We can learn by his perceptions.

"ID is just an unsupportable hypothesis which even its creators don't believe in. It is bogus."

I assume you are referring to Phillip Johnson being quoted in World Magazine as stating, "I don’t think there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory." I think it's obvious that Johnson was admitting that its place is at this time precarious, but certainly not denying ID as plausible, and as valid science. The ID hypothesis has been around since the beginning of recorded history, and trumps materialism as an explation for the existence of biologic forms.

Andy Phillips

Melanie needs to read up on Dover v Kitzmiller, where the plaintiffs PROVED that 'intelligent design' is dressed up creationism. It just is. Everyone knows that 'Intelligent designer' is GOD. The only reason that they came up with 'intelligent design' was to try and get around the US Constitution 'establishment clause.' That was proved at Dover v Kitzmiller. You can learn more about the excellent Dr. Miller by watching his lecture on YouTube.

Melanie is, I'm afraid, simply arguing from ignorance.

Clark

Intelligent design most certainly does NOT come from people who see "Well, if we can't figure it out right this very second with science, obviously some intelligent design is behind it."

See, thing is, when science doesn't know the answer...it keeps looking. Science doesn't go "Well, obviously since we can't figure it out, it must have been intelligently designed and we can leave it at that."

Intelligent Design is a term that literally comes exactly from what you say it doesn't. It's a not-very-clever repackaging of "Creationism".

Intelligent Design involves creation. Please note that science does not.

Jesse

You clearly aren't aware that the proponents of intelligent design changed their text books after the 1987 court case, changing all the incidents of 'creationism' to 'intelligent design'. Look it up - the text book was 'of pandas and people'.

Brigid

You cannot possibly have an honest debate on ID and evolution. Evolution is a theory that holds up to the scientific method. ID does not. ID is merely Creationism wrapped in pseudo-scientific jargon in an attempt for it to be taught in schools.

How can you have an honest debate about a movement that is willfully being dishonest?

taobananaboat

So let me get this straight. The distinction is that a Creationist believes that God (an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being) created the universe while Intelligent Designers believe that some unknown entity (also, coincidentally, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being) created the universe. Well, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I guess what I'm saying is, a duck created the universe.

It's as valid as this drivel.

billy badask

er. and who created the creator, in ID theory?

René Kabis

Intelligent design coming from SCIENCE?? Whoa, what are you smoking, and can I please have some?

I'll believe in a flat earth before I'll believe in that.

Intelligent Design is to Science as Unicorns and Fairies are to the Real World. It don't get much simpler than that.

John A. Davison

Lamarckism is a testable and failed hypothesis as August Weismann was quick to demonstrate by cutting off the tails of new born rats. Lamarckism is indistinguishable from Darwin's "Provisional hypothesis of Pangenesis" and went the same way when Weismann's tailless rats produced litters with normal tails.

By way of contrast the Darwinian scheme doesn't even qualify as an hypothesis since it has no predictive value whatsover. That is what prompted Stephen Jay Gould to compare evolution to a drunk reeling back and forth between the gutter and the barroom door. On another occasion he claimed that "intelligence was an evolutionry accident."

It is hard to believe isn't it?

The Darwinian pipe dream is the most ridiculous fantasy ever conjured up by an overactive human imagination. In order to accept its premises one must abandon any thought that there was a purposeful goal in the history of life, a posture required by the congenital atheist mentality which is central to the Darwinian scheme. The Darwnian hoax is a pathetic joke just as Adam Sedgwick told his student Charles Darwin when Sedgwick read "On the Origin of Species" hot off the press in 1859. It remains a monumental joke to the present day, a century and a half of mass hysteria fueled by six generations of congenital atheists currently perfectly defined by the Paul Zachary Myers / Richard Dawkins dynamic duo, both of whom have abandoned any semblance of science to dedicate all their energies to the conversion of the entire world to their commitment to Universal Atheism, as they desicrate our most sacred institutions in the process.

Go to Pharyngula and poke the big red A that adorns each day's edition of hate speech and you will find Richard Dawkins exhorting all within cybershot to "come out," "Join the Atheist Movement" and buy your coffee mugs, bumper stickers and Tshirts all emblazoned with the big red A for Atheism.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Not at all. It is a matter of record.

MelaniePhillipdoesn'tknowshestakingabout

"cdesign proponentist"

QED

Steve Dutch

Granted the Universe had a Designer:
1. Can you prove the Designer interacts with the Universe?
2. Can you prove the Designer has any interest in humans?
3. Can you prove the Designer has any kind of morality or ethics?
4. Can you prove the Designer ever communicates his/her/its intentions to humans?
5. Can you prove that any of those communications have been accurately recorded and preserved?
6. Can you prove that any purported record actually IS that record?
7. Are you willing to renounce your sect/cult if it turns out that some other group's record is the real one?
This is why the ID debate is dishonest. How many ID believers are willing to accept that the trues picture of the Designer is in Buddhism, or Hinduism, or Islam?

sam

"This is because Creationism comes out of religion (true) while Intelligent Design comes out of science (no it doesn't.). (Young Earth) Creationism, whose proponents are Bible literalists, is a specific doctrine which holds that the earth was literally created in six days. Intelligent Design, whose proponents are mainly scientists (*no* they're not.), holds that the complexity of science suggests that there must have been a governing intelligence behind the origin of matter (I thought we were talking about evolution, not abiogenesis)....(insert more pathetically researched drivel)"

And then you realize the "journalist" has done half-ass research and knows apparently zilch about the topic she seems so passionate in writing about. She's a "noob" to the topic, most definitely, either that or a woefully dishonest human being.

-cdesign proponentist-

Amy

Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught in schools for the same reason that Modified Newtonian Dynamics should not be taught in schools. Both are currently hypotheses without enough data to be considered a scientific theory.

Also, the Theory of Evolution has over 100 years worth of solid data. Give ID people actual funding and see if they can get that much solid scientific data. Give them funding and watch them fail, because ID is not a truly scientific idea.

I can understand why people are drawn to ID. They want scientific proof of an "intelligent" creator so that they can feel less alone and like they have a purpose. Unfortunately, it's just not true. Be my guest to research it, but don't teach it to kids unless you've got a large repository of solid, scientific data, too.

RickK

Lee Bowman writes:
" "I also predict that most genetic variations of those types are from a pool of variant trait genes existant within the genome, rather than mutations. Antibiotic immunity would come from a pool of adaptive genes as well." As previously stated, I propose that variants for adaptation are a 'designed in' function for adaptation/survival, and that these variants are extant in the genome"

OK, so your assertion is that this pool of genetic material was "designed in" to assist in evolution and adaptation. How did it get there? What was the mechanism? How did supernatural design become natural material? Did one species give birth to another? Did the tissue magically re-form at the touch of the Divine Designer?

Because science knows several perfectly natural, non-Divine ways of inserting more genetic material: gene duplication, retroviruses, and just plain old additive mutation.

So are you saying that there is a non-natural way of inserting mutations, or are you saying there an undectably subtle Divine guiding hand on these natural mechanisms?

As for science using scripture, I simply don't know what you mean here.

Finally, you say because we can manipulate genes, the design hypothesis is valid. This is a completely empty argument. I can use exactly the same argument to say that our ability to harness electricity is validation of the Zeus lightningbolt hypotheses.

You assume a supernatural being, and you attempt to twist science to validate what is outside of evidence-based analysis.

Don't you see the historical perspective here? Can't you see that placing faith before evidence, and denying any explanation that doesn't validate your faith, is just a re-enactment of a recurring historical theme?

Copernicus was wrong because God said so!
Galileo was wrong because God said so!
Darwin was wrong because God said so!

You make the argument that since there is no evidence to REFUTE a divine/supernatural guiding hand, that it can't be ruled out.

There is also no evidence to rule out the existence of an invisible, incorporeal dragon in my garage (thank you Dr. Sagan). That doesn't mean scientists should waste any time investigating my garage.

Again, Mr. Hitchens offers an appropriate response: "What can be asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence."

RickK

Oh, and Mr. Bowman points out in another post that the idea of biologic design dates back to Plato.

Ok, that is an example of argument from antiquity, a subspecies of argument from authority, which is a common logical fallacy and well-known trick of weak debaters and TV advertisers. It is proof of NOTHING.

I can just as easily point out that the belief that the motion of the heavens affect our daily lives pre-dates Plato.

That doesn't make astrology a science.

Whether the concept of Intelligent Design is new or old doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence for it!

Returning to "irreducible complexity", this is another logcal fallacy called "argument from personal incredulity" which is a subspecies of "argument from ignorance". What the ID proponents are saying is "we can't figure out how this bacteria's flagellum evolved, so it must have been put there by the Divine Designer."

[I can't help but wonder why the Great Creator of Universes would bother involving himself directly in making a little rotating thread on the hindquarters of a germ. ]

This argument again proves nothing. We could just as easily conclude "we can't figure out how to contain a nuclear fusion reaction, so we should just give up and conclude only God can do it." Now, some people might agree with that conclusion, but it sure isn't science. And therefore neither is "irreducible complexity."

After seeing some of the arguments here, or non-arguments, scripture quoting and blatant paranoia (looks at Mr. Davison), it is certainly clear why Judge Jones sounds so terribly annoyed with the Intelligent Design proponents in his legal opinion.

And it is so very clear why ID proponents avoid the scientific community, where their empty arguments are easily exposed, and instead to take their slogans directly to our children.

Raymond Joseph Douglas, the first poster, said all he wanted was an honest debate. Well, science showed up at the debate with facts and models and mechanisms and, above all, evidence.

Creationism/ID showed up with logical fallacies, indignation, paranoia and a decided lack of evidence.

So Mr. Douglas will not get his honest debate, but it's not the fault of the "Darwinists."

Leon

Natural selection has a lot of evidence. Intelligent Design has something called irreducible complexity, all though all the examples have been shown to be reducible. Defend ID as being different to Creationism if you like, it stil doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

stanley Jerusalem

Here is a perfect example of my complaint:-
Andy Phillips
May 2nd, 2009 11:27pm
"Melanie is, I'm afraid, simply arguing from ignorance."
Why couldn't he bring himself to say say 'simply arguing from insufficient information?'
How crass!

Tristan

ID is an infinite recursion, a sure sign of a bad theory.

IE, it explains that life is too complex to not be designed, but any such Being capable of design would itself be too complex not to have been designed.

So what you have is an endless series of designers designing designers, one of which creates life.

Toss in ID's refusal to describe the mechanism of design, criteria for determining what is designed and what isn't, and a refusal to descbe what a 'designer' is, and your left with nothing of substance.

Casseopeia

Regardless of your reasoning, Ma'am, both "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism" have one thing in common - and that is religion. And religion has no place in a science class.

Chris Pollock

Oh dear. Another attempt to introduce religion onto the same playing field as science.

They're different answers to DIFFERENT questions. Get used to it and stop trying to combine them.

Richard Forrest

Johnn A. Davison wrote:

"I don't expect an apology from any Darwinian because they are sincere in their belief in the Darwinian fantasy."
Why on earth should anyone apologise to you?
"I have presented plenty of evidence for a designed evolution as would be obvious to anyone who has read my papers.""
I've read the paper you have been boasting about, "Is Evolution Finished?". It is based on the premise that speciation no longer occurs. There are hundreds, if not thousands of papers in the scientific literature which describe speciation events both in nature and in the laboratory. Unless you can address the evidence and argument contained in every one of those papers, your argument is based on a false premise and is therefore unsound.

You won't address the evidence, preferring to resort to empty bluster and producing assertions that authors such as St. George Mivart (who died in 1900), William Bateson (who died in 1926), Henry Fairfield Osborn (who died in 1935), Reginald C. Punnett (note spelling) (who died at the advanced age of 92 in 1967), Leo Berg (and I can't find out when he died, but as he was publishing in the 1920s it must have been some time ago), Pierre Grasse, who died in 1985 at the age of 90, but whose main contribution to evolutionary biology was published in the 1920s, Otto Schindewolf, who died in 1971 (and retired in 1964) support your position.

Not only does argument from authority have no place in science, but none of them support your position. All you have done is to list some of the scientists who argued against Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, and claim that they support your unfounded argument. The 1920s and 30s were a time of great disputes and arguments in science over the mechanisms of evolution. Modern evolutionary theory came out of those arguments, and has advanced dramatically in the 80 years since then. It's a dynamic scientific discipline, and though interesting the views of early 20th century geneticist and biologists are irrelevant to our modern understanding of evolutionary processes.

Ronnie

stanley Jerusalem, I think that Melanie Phillips would be the last person to admit that she doesn't have enough information. That same actual dearth of information does not, in many cases, prevent her from believing that she can make a robust case for her 'point'.

Now, it is a moot point as to whether not knowing that you don't have enough information can be classed as ignorance.

Mike Williams

"Intelligent Design comes out of science." I think you are confusing science with wishful thinking.

This column is an insult to my intelligence.

Roger Stanyard

Lee Bowman claims "The ID hypothesis has been around since the beginning of recorded history..."

According to Phillip Johnson, the driving force behind ID, it isn't even a hypothesis. So who are we to believe from the Discovery Institute's PR puffery machine?

Intelligent Design is an invention of Meyers, Phillips et al and dates back no longer that the late 1980s.

Moreover, we have all long known that it is a political movement, the objective of which is social re-engineering along fundamentalist conservative lines. Science it is not.

See the Wedge Document and Of Pandas and People.

You lost at the Dover court case, big time and utterly completly. All the rest is BS.

Roger Stanyard

John A Davison claims "That is what prompted Stephen Jay Gould to compare evolution to a drunk reeling back and forth between the gutter and the barroom door. "

This is standard creationist smoke and mirrors - quoting people who accept the theory of evolution by natural selection out of context to suggest that they are opposed to it.

Gould was not an IDer or YEC. he thought they were nuts (as does virtually every scientist). He was a maujor advocate of the theory.

So, Davison, why are you trying to deceive people in this discussion? So far, we;'ve established that you have been kicked out of heaven knows how many forums and groups, you've screamed how unitellectual those that disagree with you are, you've attemped to get acdemics fired for disagreeing with you, you've claimed that your are walking out of this discussion...

Do you have any integrity whatsover?

Or do you get some kind of pleasure making a fool of yourself all over the Internet?

Roger Stanyard

Hadrian claims "Creationist scientiss are to be found in many universities pursuing their research and testing hypotheses within their creationist framework."

Where?

Name me any practisng scientist in the UK in the key subjects of evolutionary biology or geology who are creationists?

Just one.

Show us a single peer reviewed scientific paper which supports your bogus and fraudulent claim.

(Twiddles thumbs and waits for ever.)

Roger Stanyard

Lee Bowman claims "Interesting that science denies scriptural accounts, but uses the Genesis depiction of the creation event(s) to rule out species origins via teleology as a valid pursuit."

Where?

But, of course, your hypocracy is stunning - fundamentalists all rule out the scriptutes of those religions they don't accept. I haven't seen you using Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist or other non-Christian scriptures in support of ID/creationism.

Strange, isn't it, that the IDers all claim that their "science" has nothing to do with religion, no siree bob. As soon as we scratch the surface, we get drenched in religious fundamentalism.

You lost Dover.

Why?

Roger Stanyard

Hadrian claims: "Dr Russell Humphreys into starlight and cosmogony.
Just to throw some further names in the pot-
Dr Jerry R. Bergman-"

OK, tell us where we can read their scientific papers in peer reviewed publications?

Or aren't there any?

Bergman was fired as an academic for not being any good at his job. He then got involved with a neo-Nazi group, claiming how hard done by he was.

Russell Humpreys isn't even a practising scuientists.

I've no idea who the other nutters you mention are.

BTW, some time back I checked out Bergman's bogus list of creationist scientists. I found that three quarters of the names were phoney. It included people long dead, people who weren't by any definition scientists...

His list was as phoney as his science. No wonder he was sacked.

Roger Stanyard

Epistemological Realist says: "But all your pieces of evidence are within nature. Whatever actually gave rise to nature (ie matter and time) in the first place could not itself be natural. "

What the heck has that got to do with the theory of evolution by natural selection? The latter is an explanation of the differences between species, not the origins of the universe.

Yet again we see the creationists' game of smoke and mirrors. It's the same old rhetorical tricks again.

They get the biologists to debate, lose, then switch to preposterous claims in physics and claim how they have won the debate because the biologist is untrained in physics and can't refute the idiocies put forward.

I'll ask again? Where is your personal integrity?

Roger Stanyard

Hadrian - I forgot. I have come across Nacy Darrel. She's a YECer who has never worked in evolutionary biology. She's a speech therapist who once did some work with the Central Elecricity Generating Board on environmental issues.

Richard Forrest

Lee Bowman wrote:
"Fist, ID is not an attack on science. It's premise is design. It makes no claims (or assumptions) of supernaturality."

Phillip E. Johnson wrote:
"Unless we have a priori knowledge that naturalism is true, then we cannot rule out the possibility that supernatural action may have affected the history of life, and that evidence of that action may exist."
http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/ratzsch.htm

I wrote: "Creationists - and this includes the ID crowd - demand that we should reject naturalism as a basis for science."
Lee Bowman wrote: "Not so. This is an utterly false statement. Please make your case."

William Dembski wrote:
"Intelligent Design entails that naturalism in all forms be rejected. Metaphysical naturalism, the view that undirected natural causes wholly govern the world, is to be rejected because it is false. Methodological naturalism, the view that for the sake of science, scientific explanation ought never exceed undirected natural causes, is to be rejected because it stifles inquiry"
From here: http://www.discovery.org/a/121
Please note that this is the Discovery Institute's web site

Lee Bowman wrote:
"If not 'self evolution' nor ID, please submit a third hypothesis is causative."
Something else we don't know about did it.
"We don't know" is an excellent answer in science. It's what motivates research. "We don't know, therefore it must have been an "Intelligent Designer", possibly using supernatural powers, and we should therefore reject naturalism as a basis for science" takes us nowhere.

Lee Bowman wrote: "Actually yes, if God directed, buy by surrogates (angelics, spirit entities), this WOULD constitute a limited action."
What mechanism limits these actions?
" Creation by divine fiat (Biblical account) may be true, but ID proposes design by mechanistic means."
"An intelligent designer, possibly using supernatural powers" is not a mechanistic process.
What potential observation or measurement could not be explained by this?
If squadrons of pigs with huge, rainbow coloured wings suddenly appeared out of thin air and flew in intricate geometric patterns over Trafalgar Square, what proposed mechanism of ID would prohibit such a phenomenon?

Lee Bowman wrote: "The consensus of opinion, and there have been peer review papers detailing, is that the TTSS came into existence MUCH later than the flagellum, and was therefore not a precursor."
What is the TTSS? Do you mean the Type III secretory system?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

Lee Bowman wrote: "There is no denial of science as the means to study naturalistic phenomena. No, the term 'naturalism' is denied ONLY when applied to the mutations as the sole source of novelty, complexity and phenotypic progression"

This is very amusing. So what you are saying is that you don't deny naturalism unless it leads to results which don't suit your preconceptions, in which case you'll abandon science in favour of the "explanation" that "GodImeananintelligentdesigner did it".

Lee Bowman wrote: "Intelligent Design is also moot on that point. And yes, atheism, agnosticism or theistic positions remain as personal choices." ...and we are expected to believe that it's just pure coincidence that virtually all ID proponents are fundamentalist Christians? Perhaps you can explain why, when anyone criticises ID on scientific grounds its proponents almost always bring religion into the argument?

stanley Jerusalem

Roger Stanyard
May 3rd, 2009 10:34am
"Lee Bowman claims "Fist, ID is not an attack on science. It's premise is design. It makes no claims (or assumptions) of supernaturality."
Lying bastard."
Does it make you want to continue reading?

Richard Forrest

Leon wrote:
"Natural selection has a lot of evidence. Intelligent Design has something called irreducible complexity, all though all the examples have been shown to be reducible."
Actually, ID doesn't even have that. "Irreducible complexity" was *predicted* by evolutionary theory over 90 years ago as "interlocking complexity" (which is essentially an identical concept) by Herman Muller.

RickK

stanley Jerusalem:

"argument from ignorance" is a standard term referring to a common logical fallacy in debating. It's not calling the subject ignorant, it is saying the argument is based on ignorance: "if I don't understand it, it can't be true."

Peter

I almost wouldn't mind having ID taught in it classrooms, just so long as ID wasn't substituted for evolution, and not taught in a science class. Although I am not a proponent of ID, I do not see a contradiction between ID and evolution, I don't understand the either/or attitude many who support ID profess.

The evidence for evolution can be seen through reproducible observation of fossil and living biological evidence and micro evolution studies, there is nothing to say this isn't the design of some intelligence but at the same time there isn't anything to say that it is ID either. Such a conclusion is not reproducible, which doesn't mean ID doesn't exist.

The power of science is in its ability to make observations through reproducible means, the universe is designed how it is designed, the why isn't a matter of science, it is a matter of how we want to look at it, therefore I do not believe ID is proper for a science class, but fine as its own study if that is what one connects with

Lizard

"Intelligent Design" was created (in probably less than 6 days) solely to work around US laws banning the teaching of Creationism. It is entirely the creation (sigh...) of the US Religious Right, and is fundamentally anti-scientific. It does not come from science; it denies science by saying that anytime a scientists says "We don't know", the only possible answer is "A Creator did it!". This is known as the "God of the gaps" argument, and it's a well-known logical fallacy.

(If life is too complex to arise from nothing, how could the CREATOR of life arise from nothing?)

John A. Davison

Roger Stanyard

If I am making a fool of myself "all over the internet," then why have I been banished from so many so-called "forums"? Wouldn't it be more fun for them to keep me around as a kind of "house punching bag?"

It must be very frustrating for you to see me still holding forth here which is a good thing. I hope I give you indigestion.

I recommend you call for my banishment to alleviate the discomfort I hope I am bringing to you and your many atheist friends assembled here.

Do what you have to do, what you were "prescribed" to do. Do your level best to have me banished here as well. I don't believe you can manage it no matter how many signatures you get. If I was to be banished here it would have happened long before this. Of course I could be wrong.

Time will tell.

I have an alternative explanation which I suspect you will find absurd and I hope you do. Nothing gives me more pleasure than to have an adversary commit intellectual suicide with his own words. It clears the way as it were.

The reason I have been banished from the "groupthinktanks" of both the Biblical Fundamentalista and the atheist Darwinista is because I have rejected both camps as presenting nothing whatsoever to do with the great mystery of organic evolution.

There is not a word in all the combined writings of Darwin, Gould, Mayr, Provine, Haldane, Fisher etc,etc, that ever had anything to do with the appearance either of a true species or of any of the higher taxa from Phylum right on down, not a word. The same can be said for the Holy Bible, a document central to the survival of Western civilization, a document being constantly denigrated by ethical trash like Paul Zachary Myers, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.

I suggest that the real reason I have been banished from all these "forums" may be summarised in the single word "fear," fear that they have all wasted their lives pursuing a phantom, an illusory delusion.

I have some good friends among the Creationists who are much more tolerant than you Darwinian worshippers of the Great God Chance. One of these is Terry Trainor, a Christian gentleman and thoroughly decent human being who had this to say -

"Davison is the Darwinians' worst nightmare."

That has a nice ring to it if I may say so and apparently I can still say so here.

Good luck! I think you are going to need it.

Edd Almond

"The whole strategy of these clowns, the atheistic media and the atheistic scientific elite (typified by the likes of Dorko), is a cowardly, sneaky, underhand attempt to avoid the arguments of the IDers and creationists. Instead, they mock, attack, vilify and misrepresent."

Erm, I don't see any rational attempt to reply to the God Delusion yet, nor Coynes book. As for "avoiding the arguments", ID supporters have a history of avoiding the evidence, misquoting scientists, taking parts of published evidence out of context and failing to do any peer reviewed studies themselves to support their claims. You yourself take to name calling for lack of any coherent argument. Your examples of the many theistic scientists also brings with it another point; science is not stubbornly stuck in it's ways, in each case these scientists challenged the orthodox view *with supportive evidence* and their ideas were quickly accepted. Compare that to the excruciatingly slow responses by religious leaders. In both cases there were many people who didn't like this challenge to the status quo. If ID had any real evidence behind it then it would be published and, even under fierce opposition, be accepted by the scientific community. I don't see any evidence, all I see is rhetoric and lobbying outside science to try and get a foothold.

stanley Jerusalem

RickK
May 3rd, 2009 1:43pm

stanley Jerusalem:
"argument from ignorance" is a standard term referring to a common logical fallacy in debating."
Jargon it may be, RickK, but it most certainly qualifies as insult too. Why should it be necessary to insult to prove a point? Insult should be reserved for those who are worthy.

harry

where does a journalist with no qualifications in science get off writing this crap?

VMartin1

Roger Stanyard's naodarwinian matrix:

"What the heck has that got to do with the theory of evolution by natural selection? The latter is an explanation of the differences between species, not the origins of the universe."

According darwinists everything evolves. I was surprised to hear Richard Dawkins that if God existed He would have evolved as well. Every theologist and philosopher must be surprised by this neodarwinian nonsense.

But neodarwinian matrix continues:
"They get the biologists to debate, lose, then switch to preposterous claims in physics and claim how they have won the debate because the biologist is untrained in physics and can't refute the idiocies put forward."

If there is some idiocism than it is on the part of neodarwinian pseudo-scientific establishment. They use lies and pseudoarguments to
dismiss serious objections regarding nonsense of "Natural Selection". If they can't win they pretends the problem does not exist.

One for all - the problem of descent of testicles in mammals. It was Swiss zoologist Adlof Portman who challeged the darwinian myth about "cooling spermatozoa". Not only there are many mammals with internal testicles but also birds having temperature often 42 Grad Celsius do not have any spermatozoa problems due higher temperature. Simply - darwinists consider the effect for reason and vice versa. They attacked Adolf Portmann in 1956 that his arguments are unbased and unscientific because birds cool their testicles! It turned out some years ago that that it is nonsense. Fowls do not cool their testicles. Authors of the scientific research asked themselves what was the reason of descentet testicles then. But the problem must be forgotten and other non-selectionists explanations - like Portmans' Selbst-darstellung of species must be hold under cover.
The same for various and serious problems regarding mimicry. I've "discussed" those problems on several forums - from which I have been like professor Davison simply banned.

Ross Barnett

Its interesting to note that one of the major pieces of evidence in the Dover trial were draft manuscripts of "of pandas and people" the intelligent design textbook that was to be made available to students. What the Design Institute didnt want people to know was that it included chunks of the earlier textbook "creation biology" where the term "creationist" had been replace by "design proponent". Intelligent Design IS creationism and, if such a thing is possible, it is even more steeped in lies and ignorance than the latter.

David Child, Ph.D.

"Intelligent Design, whose proponents are mainly scientists, ..."

Kindly list the names of these "scientists".

"Science" require evidence; until you can produce evidence of "a governing intelligence behind the origin of matter", ID will remain firmly in the realm of religion, not science.

Richard Forrest

John A. Davison wrote:
"If I am making a fool of myself "all over the internet," then why have I been banished from so many so-called "forums"? "

Because someone who insists on making a fool of themselves in a particularly obnoxious way is an irritation most people prefer not to put up with.
Your whole thesis is based on the falsehood that no instances of speciation have been observed, and what you claim as supporting evidence is nothing more than arguments from the authority of scientists involved in evolutionary biology almost a century ago.
If you had any confidence in the validity of your "theory", you'd address the evidence and argument presented in the numerous scientific papers which describe speciation events.
You won't because you can't. That's because you are an intellectual midget with delusions of grandeur, a grotesquely inflated sense of his own importance, and utter dishonest to boot.

Michael B

RickK,

As with others, you know how to arrogate with great facility - yet you fail to evidence much of an ability to think and reason well. In fact, you don't even read and comprehend well since you misrepresented what I plainly stated. I did not say, in the conclusory manner you're attributing to me, that on the basis of the anthropic argument the universe "MUST have been created by some grand intelligence." Instead, I said the sizeable set of anthropic coincidences, or "coincidences," in the universe are profoundly indicative of intelligence, of mind. "MUST" and "indicative" are different things; hence, you're the one prone to misapprehensions and conclusory statements, not I. (I tend to agree with preeminent thinkers such as a Kant or a Kierkegaard, that science and philosophy cannot prove the non-existence or the existence of God. They were both theists, btw, but were not readily given to conclusory statements.)

And you need not be "glad" (or "sorry") about anything, we have little in common as pertains to this set of issues - the theistic, atheistic and anti-theistic issues together with philosophical and scientific issues, more rigorously conceived. For example and to touch on a subject others have alluded to herein, there's an absolutely critical difference between a methodological materialism vs. a metaphysical materialism. The greater part of science relies upon the former, not the latter. (I emphasize "the greater part" because intuition, abductive reasoning, etc. often play a critical role in formulating, for example, hypotheses, and abductive reasoning is not apparently reliant upon purely empirical/rational bases, nor even upon a methodological materialsim.)

Finally, you do in fact underappreciate the raw power of the anthropic argument. For example, multiverse theories are motivated in substantial part out of a need to explain the anthropic "coincidences" and that fact alone should give anyone who is more genuinely concerned with better conceptions of science and rigorous forms of reasoning in general much pause.

Pisaac

John A Davison says

"Davison is the Darwinians' worst nightmare." says Terry Trainor.

Possibly true - you come up with such unfounded tripe that it may deflect the unknowing from realising the truth of evolution.

Terry Trainor, oh yes, a YEC who claims that man is not causing global warming and says it "may not even exist".

Excuse me?

Frank Stallone

If your 'Creator' of ID didn't 'create', then s/he isn't much of a creator. It's not being lazy. ID is just the last redoubt of creationists who acknowledge that all falsifiable aspects of creationism have in fact been proven incongruent with observable data, but they still want to believe that there's a magical superbeing behind the scenes.

Epistemological Realist

Richard Forrest:
you don't like the inference that to disprove evolution leads irresistibly to Intelligent Design? There could be at least two reasons for such a reluctance to follow where logic leads.
Perhaps you think that where the origin of the cosmos is concerned, the alternatives of evolution and ID are not exhaustive -- that there is a third possibility? I would be absolutely fascinated to know what it could be.
Because of course if (as I suspect) the possibilities ARE exhaustive, then to disprove one is to establish the other.
But I notice also that you have smuggled into your definition of science the proviso that only natural causation may be considered by science, - or it doesn't count as science!
You didn't discover that from science; it's a metaphysical premiss, which from a scientific point of view you plucked out of the air.

Richard Forrest

VMartin1 (who is John A Davison posting under a pseudonym judging by the language and scientific incompetence of his post) wrote:

"According darwinists everything evolves."

One wonders who these "darwinists" are in that case. Evolutionary biologists will tell you that evolutionary theory explains how populations of replicating organisms evolve. It has nothing to do with the Big Bang, or any other field of science, though some scientists in other field have proposed an analogous process at work.

Frankly, the rest of this post is a load of ...well, testicles.

Richard Forrest

Epistemological Realist wrote:
"you don't like the inference that to disprove evolution leads irresistibly to Intelligent Design?"

No, because it's scientifically illiterate, and I've explained why it's scientifically illiterate. Which part of my explanation do you not understand?

"There could be at least two reasons for such a reluctance to follow where logic leads."

What logic? Perhaps you can explain the logic which says that if we don't have a scientific explanation for a phenomenon we should abandon science in favour of the "explanation" that GodIMeanAnIntelligentDesigner did it rather than using the tools of science to look for an explanation?

"Perhaps you think that where the origin of the cosmos is concerned, the alternatives of evolution and ID are not exhaustive"

Evolutionary theory has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the cosmos. It's a theory which explains how evolution works. Evolution is a phenomenon of nature which we have observed and measured in populations of replicating organisms in the natural world and replicated in the laboratory. It's the only scientific explanation for most of biology as well as the fossil record.

"But I notice also that you have smuggled into your definition of science the proviso that only natural causation may be considered by science, - or it doesn't count as science!
You didn't discover that from science; it's a metaphysical premiss, which from a scientific point of view you plucked out of the air"

I haven't "smuggled" anything into "my" definition of science! Science - ALL science - is built on the assumption of naturalism. The fact that science has proved to be an extraordinarily powerful tool for gaining understanding of how the universe works shows that it's a pretty good assumption. If you want to reject science, fine. That's your prerogative. However, there is a certain irony in the fact that you use a device made possible by the findings of science to communicate that rejection.

Justin

So a respected professor and the US courts are wrong? Because you dont agree, thats your basis?

NHD V

Some invisible, intangible, undetectable sophont crafted this single functional ecosystem for some unknown purpose. A purpose that can only be divined through the teachings of a historical document known to have a biased set of authors, and a editorial council with a known agenda.

Which then begs the question on how evidence to 'intelligent design' was brought about. Evidence that consistently shows to be anecdotal rather than empirical.

'Intelligent Design' is a bad theory broken by basic critical thought and reinforced solely by sophists.

John A. Davison

This is for Richard Forrest who insists on calling me an "intellectual midget."

The criteria for speciation have not been met in the several examples you have cited any more than they have been met for Darwin's finches which, as far as we know, are all one species. The reason for tis failure is that Darwinians are afraid to test their silly notions for fear that they will commit intellectual suicide in the attempt to prove their assumptions. It is unfortunate but revealing that you must resort to name calling to establish your position.

There is only one thing that has become certain where I am concerned. That is that I have more enemies than any other person in the internet history dealing with the subject of our origins, a position I relish more than you will ever know.

As for enemies in general let me quite Katherine Hepburn -

"Enemies are so stimulating."

You have just proved that with your bombast. I would just go away if you did not insist on behaving like a perfect boor. One might think that a grown man would have enough sense to leave a sleeping dog alone.

As for the Godless aimless fairy tale we know as neo-Darwnism, only congenital atheists like P.Z. Myers, Richard Dawkins and now yourself could possibly grant it any credibility whatsoever. But there you are, proudly joining forces with the scum of the ethical earth, arrogantly insulting a real scientist with gay abandon. I have no idea who you are, but I am willing to bet that you, like Dawkins and Myers, are not a scientist either.

As for the bankruptcy of the Darwinian hoax I will quote Groucho Marx -

"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five."

Thank you for exposing yourself. It is always with his own words that ones real character emerges. I doubt very much if you are a scientist because I have yet to find one willing publicly to behave as you and certain others have on this weblog.

Congratulations and good luck to you too. You are going to need it in the immediate future because the Darwinian hoax is finished as explanatory science.

It doesn't get any better than this.

Alan Fox

I am puzzled that Ms Phillips considers "Intelligent Design", a strategy developed in the US by The Discovery Institute which is funded largely by one Howard Ahmanson (those curious should Google the name) to circumvent the separation of church and state and insert religious material into science classes is deemed by her to be of sufficient interest to her readership in the UK, where no such separation exists. Anyway, I hope Ms Phillips does take time to look through some of the comments. I would especially recommend Gary Hurd’s comment (April 29th 6.04pm) for a résumé of the recent history of ID.

Alan Fox

Richard Forrest writes:

"VMartin1 (who is John A Davison posting under a pseudonym judging by the language and scientific incompetence of his post)..."

I can confirm VMartin is a separate entity from the inimitable Professor Davison. We should allow John a little leeway, as he is now in his 81st year.

Michael

Indeed; and it is Prof Miller who is wrong. Creationism and Intelligent Design are two completely different ways of looking at the world; and you don’t have to subscribe to either to realise the untruth that is being propagated -- and the wrong that is being done to people’s reputations -- by the pretence that they are connected..."

Yes. I say the world is round. You say it is flat. We simply have different perspectives. Witless.

RickK

John A. Davison,

Just wondering.

Do you realize that with every single post where you equate evolution with atheism, you are directly refuting Melanie Phillips's assertion that Intelligent Design "theory" is not religiously motivated?

You are doing more to make Ms. Phillips's article look silly than any of the pro-science people on this thread.

Thanks for that, Mate. Keep up the good work!

mammal

Evolution doesnt even deal with the idea that there is or isnt a designer tha started the whole process. Evolution only theorizes that life evolved; that more complex forms of life evolved from more simple forms (or vice versa). Thats what ID is arguing against. ID proposes that life did not evolve, but that all forms of life appeared as they exist today, fully formed. And that IS religious creationism, because that comes from the Bible not from science. If there is some kind of "scientific theory" behind it then its quackery because theres just no evidence for that. Theres also no evidence for a designer, which is why that doesnt belong in science classes either. But, like I said, evolution doesnt deal with that question in the first place. Thats what people always seem to misunderstand.

Edwin

Intelligent Design IS Creationism. this isn't a 'claim' or a 'political position' or an 'attempt to advance atheism'. Rather, it is a simple statement of fact. The book which was central to the landmark case in the united states 'of panda's and people' contained passages within it which showed EXPLICITLY that the term 'creationism' had been replaced with the term 'Intelligent Design' - in one glaring example, the editing job was so shoddy that the term Creintelligent Designationsim appeared within the text! Propopnents of either of these pseudo-scientific attempts to inject religion into science are mistaken (willfully or otherwise) on the very fundamentals of the scientific process. furthermore, if one then argues that the fundamentals of science need to be changed, then all that you will do is confirm your desire to undermine science.

Let me ask you a question: when you say 'intelligent design', what intelligence are you thinking of? Is it an alien being - Xenu perhaps? Is it Vishnu, or Shiva, or perhaps Odin or Uhuru Mazda? Or are you simply dancing around claiming the hand of the Christian God is at work?

Finally, spare us all your calls for a 'fair and honest debate' on the 'controversy' between evolution and creationism/ID: there is none. Amongst the scientific community there is a universal acceptance of the fact of evolution - some of the mechanics are still hotly debated, but there is NO debate that evolution is the mechanism of change. To claim otherwise is disingenuous at best, outright falsehood at worst, and it undermines the credibility of anyone calling for fair and honest debate.

Finally, consider the philosophical notion of the 'argument from ignorance', which is an attack on an idea or concept rooted in the inability of the arguer to understand that which they are attacking. Just because YOU don't know how evolution could possibly work, doesn't mean that it's false; there are plenty of other people in the world who DO understand it.

johnny

Ms. Phillips, I have been a follower of your writings on Islam for some time and enjoy them.

But Im afraid you are losing us with this sudden turn of events concerning ID and Creation as some type of Science. We have kept this out of our schools so my kids and grandkids can have a science based education. Religious philosophy is best served in the religious house or your personal homes, not in schools.

Even Phillip E. Johnson, one of the founders and initiators of ID state its meme:
“ This [the intelligent design movement] isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science, it’s about religion and philosophy.”
And that’s not the only time Johnson has specifically explained the religious nature of ID. Another quote:
“The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that “In the beginning was the Word,” and “In the beginning God created.” Establishing that point isn’t enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message.”
Another ID proponent, William Dembski, also makes the religious intent of “intelligent design” crystal clear in this quote:
“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.”
I believe you are incorrect in that ID is not religious based.
Sounds to me like there is quite a bit or religion base here going on.

Eik Corell

Intelligent Design isn't science, it's Creationism in disguise. Don't take my word for it. As others have mentioned: take that of the plaintiffs of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case where Intelligent Design got absolutely hammered.

harry

John davison are you serious? Richard Dawkins is not a real scientist? Is this a joke??? He is probably the worlds leading biologist. And I can tell you now, its not only the nutter atheists which 'lend any credence' to evolution, its just about every scientist, so I don't know which ones you are protecting.

As for testing and observations.... look up

ring species
island lizard evolution
Human chromosome fusion 13 & 21 (i think)

You, like melanie phillips are un-informed and believe you are the one that knows the truth to a global conspiracy that has covered up the truth about evolution as being false for 150 years.

harry

For speciation look up ring species.

stanley Jerusalem

And as the sun quickly sets in the North, the argument continues unabated and we really would like to say farewell to all those level-headed,civilised scientists and religionists out there who managed to hold their peace and not get spattered by the oublief flying around on this thread. For my part,as an erstwhile sophont,I don't think I have ever seen so many new words, none of which I shall ever again have cause to employ.
Angels on the head of a pin has nothing on this lot...

John A. Davison

I have addressed the issues raised in this thread in three essays. The first here -

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/johnadavison.html

and two more -

"What is an atheist?"

"What is a creationist?

which can be found by pressing the ESSAYS button on the top of my home page.

jadavison.wordpress.com

There you will also find my rather provocative essay -

"The Age of Denial"

which I suspect will give the Darwinista even more reasons to believe I am daft, which always makes for a spirited response don't you know!

I love it so!

jack fulcher

ID is religion (whether it's specifically creationism is just a matter of symantics) because it depends on some big invisible being to make the whole thing work. ID is not scientific as it cannot be falsified (a point made more than once by your intelligent readers). Please stick to politics, as you apparently don't understand science.

Richard Forrest

John A. Davison wrote:
"The criteria for speciation have not been met in the several examples you have cited"

They have according to the authors of the papers, and have been accepted as such by the editors of the journals in which they were published, the experts who reviewed them, and in most cases by the scientific community. There may be disputes in some cases - that is normal for science - but the fact that speciation events have been observed in nature and replicated in the laboratory is not questioned by any competent scientist. The evidence is too strong.

" any more than they have been met for Darwin's finches which, as far as we know, are all one species."

As far as we know there are 13 or 14 species:
Genus Geospiza
Large Cactus-finch, Geospiza conirostris
Sharp-beaked Ground-finch, Geospiza difficilis
Vampire Finch, Geospiza difficilis septentrionalis
Medium Ground-finch, Geospiza fortis
Small Ground-finch, Geospiza fuliginosa
Large Ground-finch, Geospiza magnirostris
Darwin's Large Ground-finch, Geospiza magnirostris magnirostris - possibly extinct (1957?)
Common Cactus-finch, Geospiza scandens
Genus Camarhynchus
Vegetarian Finch, Camarhynchus crassirostris - sometimes separated in Platyspiza
Large Tree-finch, Camarhynchus psittacula
Medium Tree-finch, Camarhynchus pauper
Small Tree-finch, Camarhynchus parvulus
Woodpecker Finch, Camarhynchus pallidus - sometimes separated in Cactospiza
Mangrove Finch, Camarhynchus heliobates
Genus Certhidea
Warbler Finch, Certhidea olivacea
Genus Pinaroloxias
Cocos Island Finch, Pinaroloxias inornata

If you think that the taxonomists who described those species are wrong, address the evidence and argument they have presented.

"The reason for tis failure is that Darwinians are afraid to test their silly notions for fear that they will commit intellectual suicide in the attempt to prove their assumptions. "

As there is no such failure, your argument fails. Evolutionary theory has been exhaustively tested by observation and experiment.

"It is unfortunate but revealing that you must resort to name calling to establish your position."

My word! The irony! "anonymous blowhard" and " intellectual coward" spring to mind.

I posted as list of several papers which describe speciation events. You have not addressed the evidence and argument presented in any of those papers, but instead try to dismiss them with the sweeping assertion that "criteria for speciation have not been met". If they have not been met, demonstrate that from the evidence. Contrary to your apparent belief, arguments from authority have no place in science, especially coming from someone as ignorant of biology as you appear to be.

stanley Jerusalem

jadavison.wordpress.com
"There you will also find my rather provocative essay -
"The Age of Denial"
which I suspect will give the Darwinista even more reasons to believe I am daft, which always makes for a spirited response don't you know!
I love it so!"

You really couldn't make it up, Folks!
It puts me in mind of the Lesser Spotted Oozlum bird which rotates around, accelerating in ever-decreasing circles, until it finally disappears up its own fundament with a resounding report[which we lucky people have been party to].

John A. Davison

Richard Forrest must be the only person in the world who still believes there are 13 or 14 species of Galapagos finches.

I recommend Googling the work of the Grants, husband and wife team, for a reality check on the valiidty of the species of Darwin's finches.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Bye now. Wake me if anyone says anything significant. I am bored to tears with this nonsense and getting tired of it all.

Epistemological Realist

Hi again Richard,
I will concentrate on the question of the basis of science ( though I'm dying to know if you think there is a third alternative to evolution or special creation)

you say
"I haven't "smuggled" anything into "my" definition of science! Science - ALL science - is built on the assumption of naturalism"

I am happy to delete "smuggled" and "my" if you think them too personal. I will substitute "assumed without valid grounds" and in place of "you", "the atheist scientific community" (which, please note, is not co-terminous with "the scientific community").
Atheists have claimed a kind of philosophical droit-de-seigneur over the whole scientific enterprise for more than a century now -- but only by a kind of mega-confidence trick.
It is NO part of the definition of science that it must be conducted with materialist presuppositions or rule out in advance any but materialistic explanations. Don't you see that any such claim is utterly UNscientific in that it is strictly META-scientific? That's why we talk of metaphysics.
The materialist metaphysical assumption you champion has no inherent validity. it is an axiom derived ultimately from nothing more compelling than the personal beliefs and biases of those who think like yourself.
I feel that you would like to bear me down with the sheer weight of your insistence that if I don't accept the same naturalistic presuppositions as you, it means I don't understand the nature of science!
That's the confidence trick in action, though only in toothless online mode -- there is a less pleasant real-world mode involving jobs lost, tenure denied etc.
The totalitarian-style imposition of materialistic metaphysics, rhetorically presented as being of the essence of science itself, forces science into a ludicrously unscientific ideological straitjacket.
Just consider what follows from it.
If to assume the possibility of non-material causation is inherently unscientific, then it was impossible for Newton and countless others to practise science.
As for ID, -- if non-material agency, that is, the operation of intelligence, cannot be detected by scientific methods, then whatever did Sagan and his colleagues imagine they were doing with their Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence?

Richard Forrest

John A. Davison wrote:

"Richard Forrest must be the only person in the world who still believes there are 13 or 14 species of Galapagos finches."

You mean this:

http://www.amazon.com/Ecology-Evolution-Darwins-Finches-Peter/dp/0691048665

From the "Ecology and Evolution of Darwin's Finches" by Peter Grant and Johnathan Wiener. It shows 14 species.

"I recommend Googling the work of the Grants, husband and wife team, for a reality check on the valiidty of the species of Darwin's finches."

From page 28 of the book: "Fourteen species are currently recognized"

So it looks as if the authority to which you appealed thinks that there are 14 species.

Do you get a kick out of shooting yourself in the foot?

Lee Bowman

Alan Fox @ 12:25am

Mind if I parse your sentence, Alan?

"I am puzzled that Ms Phillips considers "Intelligent Design", a strategy developed in the US by The Discovery Institute ... "

First, it's not a strategy, but rather an investigatory pursuit. Second, it was not developed by DI. Intelligent Design is supported by DI, but with no religious dogma attached.

" ... which is funded largely by one Howard Ahmanson ... "

*Early* funding has been documented prior to 2000. Present day funding is from membership fees and multiple donor sources.

" ... to circumvent the separation of church and state and insert religious material into science classes ... "

Sorry Alan, last time I asked, that was not one of their goals, nor that of board member Howard Ahmanson Jr. Freedom to consider Intelligent Design in all areas of academia is supported, but again as a teleological hypothesis, not religion. By the way, have you checked out Barry Arrington's 4/24 thread, where conflation of ID and religion has been discussed and discredited, along with discussions of algorithmic ID coding functions. These evidences are gaining ground in scientific circles.

And as to why discuss ID in the UK? I believe we are all members of the same cosmic community.

Regarding Gary Hurd's comments, would you label him honest and objective concerning his views and political position. Google "Gary Hurd" and NCSE.

Sorry for butting in ...

Lee Bowman

mammal @ 1:42am

"Evolution doesnt even deal with the idea that there is or isnt a designer tha started the whole process. Evolution only theorizes that life evolved;"

Just to fill you in on ID's approach to the question of origins, to the degree that evolutionary processes are verified, ID accepts as confirmed science. Macroevolution has not been confirmed. ID accepts evolution as an embryogenic function to aid in species survival. Both are subject to verification or falsification, but difficult to do given the forensic nature of both.

" ... ID proposes that life did not evolve, but that all forms of life appeared as they exist today, fully formed."

[may I fill in for ya?] .. and with their distinctive features already intact - fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc?

"ID proposes that life did not evolve, but that all forms of life appeared as they exist today, fully formed. And that IS religious creationism, because that comes from the Bible not from science."

You're kidding, right? I'll assume that you are sincere in your statement. What you're describing is 'Young Earth Creationism', based on an acceptance of Biblical Literalism. Check out any ID website for the facts on what ID stands for.

Epistemological Realist

RickK and Richard Forrest;
sorry, i seem to have missed a couple of replies -- busy weekend. I don't have the time now except just to remark on yours, Rick:

"If you want to believe some being created the universe, I have no argument against that. My only response is borrowed from Mr. Hitchens: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." "

Even though you have no argument, if Richard's and others' posts are anything to go by, I suspect you may still in practice want me to adopt a default stance of methodological atheism.

Now, why should I? Why shouldn't you adopt my default stance?

You can't prove that the cosmos was able to create itself out of (literally) nothing: and what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

"But AFTER the birth of the universe, it appears based on the aforementioned billions of examples, that natural effects have natural causes. So we can comfortably leave God or any other divine designer out of our equations as we search for how the diversity of life came to be."

But we should surely be very uncomfortable leaving the possibility out of our equations when it comes to the said birth of the universe, -- given that Darwinism has apparently nothing whatsoever to contribute on that most fundamental of questions. We all know that natural effects have natural causes; but so what? On your own account, we are still firmly at square one with regard to the most momentous question in the universe, the one on which hangs every ethical or intellectual or practical consideration there is, and that determines what cultural paradigm ought to prevail. Is that the ignorance that you are comfortable with?

In actual fact (and sometimes behind a mask of diversionary dismissiveness) what evolutionists seem to be saying is this: We evolutionists have absolutely no clue how life got here, but we know lots of other stuff, so we think we should be allowed to make as though we do know, and tell you the meaning of it, along with all the educational and intellectual and ethical consequences that follow.

And that is pretty much what Dawkins and others do say.

Lee Bowman

Edwin
johnny
Eik Corell

If you'd like to know the truth about Dover v. Kitzmiller, go here (three links):
http://www.discovery.org/a/3877

To summarize: The Dover school board was ignorant of ID (similar to you guys it seems), and their lead wittness William Buckingham admitted that on the stand. Same for the Judge in the case. NCSE and the ACLU used that trial as a springboard for their adgenda, to remove free discourse from academia, and to stifle objective scientific pursuit. ID is gaining ground, due to additional evidences being continually uncovered almost daily.

Hey, religion isn't a threat! This is NOT the middle ages. Moreover, given the constitution and court cases, there is absolutely NO WAY that religion could be mixed with science. Picture in your mind what would happen the first time scripture was cited in a science class. Get over it!

But please, read at least one of the links.

Later,
Science Supporter

Richard Forrest

Epistemological Realist wrote:

"I am happy to delete "smuggled" and "my" if you think them too personal. I will substitute "assumed without valid grounds" and in place of "you", "the atheist scientific community" (which, please note, is not co-terminous with "the scientific community")."

There is neither an "atheist scientific community" nor an "non-atheist scientific community". There is a the scientific community, and all scientists in all fields carry out their scientific research under the assumption of naturalism.

If you think I am wrong, cite *ANY* paper which has *EVER* been published in *ANY* scientific journal which does not build its arguments on the assumption of naturalism - i.e. it invokes the intervention of "non-material agency".

"If to assume the possibility of non-material causation is inherently unscientific, then it was impossible for Newton and countless others to practise science."

Why? Many devout believers practice science under the same assumption of naturalism as every other scientist. "Non-material causation" forms no part of any of Newton's scientific theories, any more than it does in any other theory which has ever been developed in any field of science. If you think I am wrong, provide a citation which refers to such a theory.

"As for ID, -- if non-material agency, that is, the operation of intelligence, cannot be detected by scientific methods, then whatever did Sagan and his colleagues imagine they were doing with their Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence?"

SETI is not looking for any "non-material agency". It is looking for a material agency - i.e. a civilization using technology similar to our own - and is doing so by testing the hypothesis that radio waves made by their technological devices share characteristics with those of our devices.

RickK

Epistimological Realist said:
"As for ID, -- if non-material agency, that is, the operation of intelligence, cannot be detected by scientific methods, then whatever did Sagan and his colleagues imagine they were doing with their Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence?"

You can't be serious!

Forrest wasn't saying we can't detect intelligence in other creatures.

Sagan and SETI were looking for our neighbors, not our gods.

Sergey

Dawkins is not a scientist, but popular science writer, that is, a journalist and showman. Can anybody name a single group of organisms in which he has an expert knowledge? Theoretical biology is not a science, it is a philosophy, and ethology? in which he got his Ph.D, is a philosophy too. His only book with some pretensions in science, "The egoistic gene", is a load of crap. Jay Stephen Gould, the leading US paleontologist, made a devastating critique of it. Unlike Dawkins, he knew something about real biological facts.

califlefty

Most of us vaguely understand how a virus works. The little demons sneak inside our cells by a variety of ingenious methods. Once inside, they head for the nucleus where all our nuclear DNA is located. The virus can't reproduce by itself, it has to hijack the replicative machinery inside our own cells. Our DNA receives new instructions from Mr. Virus; churning out more viruses. Then the cell dies, the cell wall dissolves, and away the baby viruses go to infect another cell.
Given the news about H1N1 Swine flu it's nice to be able to say something nice about viruses in the context of evolution ... Animals have defenses against viruses that shut them down in their tracks, usually anyway. Sometimes, the little bastards will insert in the genome, successfully replicate a few hundred times, the copies reinserting back into the genome, and then the antibody Calvary comes riding to the rescue and shuts those little suckers down before they kill every cell in our body. Once they're neutralized, those little scraps of viral remnants remain in the genome, like a signpost saying "I, Mr. Virus, was here". These preserved viral scraps are called Endogenous Retro-viruses or ERVs for short.
What's really interesting is occasionally, by chance, the cell thus partially infected with a virus will be a reproductive cell, which also happens to go on to produce progeny. And when that happens, every descendant of that individual will have that same dead viral base pair sequence, like a distinctive genetic 'scar', encoded in the same exact places in a genome that that one reproductive cell had. If you and I had the exact same, unique, viral fragments in the same hundreds of places in our genome, that would be proof-admissible in court-that you and I share a unique common ancestor.
Well, it so happens humans and chimpanzees, have seven, count'em, seven, of the exact same viral base pairs sequences, each roughly one-thousand or so pairs long, and each in several hundred respective locations in their respective genomes. We know how that can happen; chimps and humans shared a common ancestor. We can also estimate how long those viral fragments have been there because there are slight, random changes to the sequence over time. The molecular clock on the shared ERVs works out to about 5-8 million years. Which just happens, oddly enough, to be exactly what the fossil evidence would suggest for a split between the ancestors of chimps, and the ancestors of humans. What a flippin coincidence, huh?
There's more. In addition to ERVs, we also share broader genetic markers that have no function as far as we can tell called LINEs and SINEs. We share them with chimps, we share them with mice. But when a human-chimp ERV just happens to lie in the same region as a LINE or SINE we share with a mouse, why the mouse elements are overwritten by the human-chimp ERV! And that's exactly what you'd expect, if the ancestors of primates diverged from the ancestors of rodents before the chimps and humans split. And when you calculate those molecular clocks, why it works out to about 70-80 million years, which again just happens to line up with the fossil evidence for the primate-rodent split. Wow! Another coincidence!
We can see how ERVs insert into genomes, we can see how those viral sequences get passed on to cells during mitosis. It's not controversial, we see it happening. We can make it happen on command in a lab. And the argument that it's 'common design' is going to be a particularly hard sale, given that these particular sequences aren't even native to the human and chimp genome, or any plant or animal, on earth. They're only used by viruses.
'Show me the proof' huh? Well, there it is. ERVs aren't just evidence folks, they're more than a smoking gun; ERVs are a high quality video surveillance tape of common descent pulling the trigger. The creationist response? Not much. Usually some vague assertion about 'common design', or that some ERV or other has been found to do something other than just lay there uselessly in the genome. Let's be clear about this; the critical fact here isn't that ERV's have no function, although as best we can tell the vast majority don't have any function at all. The critical fact is how they got to be in the same place on both the chimp and human genome in hundreds of places. Since the point of insertion is controlled by chance and local chemistry, the odds of seven distinct ERVs each inserting in the same exact respective places in both genomes, each genome being several billion base pairs long, and each of the seven inserting hundreds of times, is significantly greater than the chance of winning the lottery 25 consecutive times in a row ...
Creationists really don't have an answer for it, because the only plausible answer is common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees.
You could spend your entire scientific career studying human-chimp ERVs. And those ERVs are just one small piece of the genetic evidence for common descent between only two species, out of millions. And the genetic evidence in turn makes up only one small portion of the over all evidence for common descent. All of those lines of evidence converge on the same solution; we humans share ancestors with other creatures on earth, some more recently than others. This common ancestry interlocks consistently across all the lines of evidence; genetic, fossil, and comparative homology. And that kind of convergence is itself pretty damn powerful evidence.

Pete Hoskin

FOR THE ATTENTION OF ALL COMMENTERS:

This thread is getting particularly incendiary, and many of the comments are gratuitously offensive and ad hominem in nature. This cannot continue.

In which case, a number of comments have been taken down. And any further ad hominem attacks will not be published.

Epistemological Realist

harry, you say

"John davison are you serious? Richard Dawkins is not a real scientist? Is this a joke??? He is probably the worlds leading biologist."

come on harry, it is long since he was even any kind of a biologist never mind the world's leading. Whatever he may or may not have achieved at the coal face in his young day, he has just retired from, what, twelve or fifteen years as a propagandist for atheism, not a scientist

John A. Davison

Is it an ad hominem attack to claim the Richard Dawkins lives in a fantasy world entirely of his own construction or that he has abandsoned any semblance of science to dedicate all his energies to the conscription of as many souls as possible to Universal Atheism? That is all a matter of record.

And what about my suggestion that Darwin's remains be removed from Westminster Abbey? Darwin is dead and hardly receptive to my opinion of his influence on British science.

An ad hominem attack requires a living target.

I am certainly not the first to describe Richard Dawkins as an intellectual disaster.

Fortunately I have little more to add here and I am getting tired of being treated with naked contempt by the Darwinista with which this thread is so generously fortified. If you are going to muzzle me I think you should do the same with those who are far more virulent than I.

Epistemological Realist

RickK:
"Forrest wasn't saying we can't detect intelligence in other creatures.

Sagan and SETI were looking for our neighbors, not our gods."

well, that may bring us right back to the point Melanie was making (though I must admit by now the details of her article are a little fuzzy in my memory, and though it's right there at the top of the page, I'm losing the will to swot it up again)
Wasn't she talking about the minimalism of ID? Thopugh I would personally go further, all ID is really saying is that intelligence can be detected in the organised complexity of biological nature, full stop.
Now you want to make a theological objection, and differentiate between the intelligence of the creature and the Creator??
Pretty good for atheists, but I don't buy it!
SETI was predicated on the (valid) assumption that intelligent design can be detected by scientific methods -- so is ID.

Pete Hoskin

John A. Davison: None of your comments have been taken down, so I'm not quite sure why you feel "muzzled".

Sometimes comments don't get through to us for a variety of technical reasons, as opposed to them not appearing because of moderation. If you suspect that's happened, then you can always email me on phoskin @ spectator.co.uk and I'll happily look into it.

John A. Davison

Peter R. Grant is a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinian just like Ernst Mayr who described himself with those very words. Spontaneous genetically fit hybrids have been produced between finches assumed to be separate species, thus rendering the notion that they were separate species absurd. If the Darwinians were confident that there were 13 or 14 separate species of Galapagos finches, they long ago would have domesticated them and tested their hypothesis directly. My God, the canary is a finch and has been domsticated for centuries.

The simple truth is that Darwinians are terrified at the prospect of testing their beliefs which is why never do it. In short, Darwinians are not scientists. They are mostly armchair theoreticians like Stephen Jay Gould, J.B.S. Haldane, Ronald Fisher, Ernst Mayr, etc, not one of whom ever did an experiment in their lives.

I say Darwin's precious finches will remain intra-specific varieties until they are proven to be otherwise. I suggest some young investigator undertake that which today's generation of Darwinians still don't have the stomach for. He could make a real name for himelf in short order. Furthermore, beak size an assumed specific feature is clearly phasic depending on the vegetation which is associated with variations in Galapagos climate. Beak size is definitely not a speciic feature.

It should also be noted that spontaneous hybrids have been observed between the terrestrial and marine Galapagos iguanas. The taxonomists, bless their hearts, have placed these in separate Genera! Taxonomists never do experiments either!

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Not at all. It is a matter of record.

Darwinians don't do experiments as they already have all the answers. It is laughable.

"Orthodoxy means not thinking - not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconciousness.
George Orwell, 1984

Sergey

"Lamarckism is a testable and failed hypothesis as August Weismann was quick to demonstrate by cutting off the tails of new born rats."
Lamarckism actually never asserted that traumas can became inherited, he ascribed this only to physiological adaptations. And Weisman was not quick: he cut the tails (not of rats, but of mice) for 20 years and measured the length of the tails to see if there is some shortening. This experiment was also quite redundant: Jews have been circumcised for more 3000 years, but no single Jew is now born already circumcised.
There are much more to Lamarckism than inheritance of aquired traits, and in many aspects he was more insightful and sober researcher than Darwin.

Epistemological Realist

PS
Richard Forrest, you said:
"SETI is not looking for any "non-material agency". It is looking for a material agency - i.e. a civilization using technology similar to our own"

Nonsense.
The non-material is just what they ARE looking for. Intelligence, whether in animal, human, alien or deity, IS non-material.
SETI is not looking for material entities, however small and green, but for evidence of a consciousness capable of purposefully manipulating the material.

Sergey

To John A. Davidson: I must object to your characterisation of Ernst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould as "armchair theoreticians". Theoreticians, yes, but not armchair. Mayr made a lot of field work in New Guinea as ornitologist and taxonomist, and Gould not only studied and described thousands of fossils but discovered new paleontologic sites of primary importance. You can not do experiments in paleontology: it is a descriptive science, just as most of zoology. Both, incidentally, inflict mortal blows to Darwinian orthodoxy: Mayr by discovery of stasis (inherent stability of species during most time of their existence) and introducing the term "genetical revolution" as description of speciation events, and Gould by introducing punctuated equilibrum theory. May be, they were self-proclamed Darwinists, but their work certainly not. Gould also made a devastating rebuttal of Dawkins ultra-Darwinian "gene-centered" approach. Mayr also scorned Dawkins, calling his approach "beanbag" genetics, which he wanted to see dead in water.

Alan Fox

@ Lee Bowman

I’ll just reply to a few points you raise without re-quoting everything, as I can’t imagine these issues are of wide interest in the UK.

If the DI were doing or sponsoring any sort of scientific research, you might have a case that something investigatory going on. Demski and Marks at the “Evolutionary Informatics Lab” producing mathematical models that don’t match reality is not science.

If you don’t like “developed”, I can substitute “promoted”.

So you asked the DI whether there intent was to circumvent church and state legislation and they said “no”? Paraphrasing Ms. Rice-Davies, well they would, wouldn’t they? Who was their spokesman? Casey Luskin? Can you publish his reply to your query?

Yes, I am aware of lawyer, Barry Arrington and the blog, formerly William Dembski’s, which he now runs. I wouldn’t necessarily look there for scientific explanations.

Why is “Intelligent Design” not of interest in the UK? It’s because it serves no purpose here. There is no legislation comparable to Edwards v. Aguillard in the UK. You can promote straight creationism if you wish. Have you heard of Sir Peter Vardy?

Regarding Dr. Gary Hurd, he is a long-time campaigner against creationism and is consequently knowledgeable about events in which he has been involved. If you dispute any details of his post, I presume you can bring evidence to correct any errors. I have no reason to doubt Gary Hurd’s integrity. Regarding his objectivity, we all suffer from viewpoint bias, but as his comment related to events, there wasn’t much scope for misrepresentation.

Alan Fox

May I thank califlefty (May 4th, 2009 2:56pm)for a very straightforward description of ERVs and their role as evidence for common descent.

John A. Davison

I agree that Lamarck was a more sober scientist than Darwin. He at least proposed a true hypothesis, one that could be tested. All such tests have failed.

By way of contrast, the Darwinian scheme is immune to testing because it is based on random events that cannot be predicted. What can be predicted about a "random walk"?

A hypothesis that cannot predict is not an hypothesis.

Furthermore, every attempt to produce new species through even the most intensive selection imaginable have failed miserably as Theodosius Dobzhansky, who conducted such attempts, freely admitted. The miracle is how he could possibly have remained a Darwinian which he most certainly did! Similarly, Julian Huxley, a Darwinian selectionist himself, concluded neverthless that evolution was finished as I have fully documented in my Manifesto and papers. How Huxley remained a Darwinian is another miracle!

Apparently neither were prepared to abandon that which they had proved to be without foundation. I believe it was because they were congenitally opposed to the only conceivable alternative, a guided process which demanded an intelligent source.

According to the Darwinian model, evolution should always be in operation, constantly adapting organisms to a changing environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. Contemporary species are disappearing at a rate unprecedented in the history of the earth without a single replacement known to appear in historical times. That is just one of several reasons I have concluded that evolution WAS a goal directed process no longer in progress.

In short -

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

Just because someone claims that speciation is going on does not make that so. A true new species will be unable to form a fertile hybrid when crossed with its parent. That requires an experimental test not just an opinion. Such tests have not been forthcoming because, in my opinion, Darwinians, who dominate the evolutionary scene, are not willing to test their hypothesis because they are mortally af afraid of what such tests might reveal. Darwin's finches are but a single example of this fear. I am convinced that Richard Dawkins and Paul Zachary Myers both recognize that the Darwinian scheme is without foundation which is why they are so desperate to denigrate the only conceivable alternative which is a planned phylogeny which I believe is now fully realized with only extinction remaining.

The perfect model for phylogeny is ontogeny, the development of the individual. They both have always proceeded on the basis of contained initial information and they both terminate irreversibly, ontogeny with the death of the individual, phylogeny with the ultimate extinction of its products. Those are my convictions and I hope they can be expressed without evoking ridicule and thinly veiled contempt.

Richard Forrest

Epistemological Realist wrote:
"Nonsense.
The non-material is just what they ARE looking for."

In what way is a radio signal which has the characteristics of those made by humans "non-material"?

That's what SETI are looking for.

Here's what Seth Shostak, one of the scientists working at SETI has to say on the subject of the claims of IDers that SETI is engaged in the same kind of research:
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_intelligentdesign_051201.html

Sergey

"Demski and Marks at the “Evolutionary Informatics Lab” producing mathematical models that don’t match reality is not science."
Neodarwinism consists of mathematical models developed by Fisher, Haldane and Wright that don’t match any biological reality either. Is it a science? More like alchemistry to me. I am a mathematician, but spent 7 years as researcher in experimental biology labs. These mathematicians who created Neodarwinism had no knowledge in biology whatsoever.

Olorin

The evidence that convinced Judge Jones was more than a thousand documented references provided by Barbara Forrest. The defendants did not refute a single point made by Prof. Forrest. Indeed, their reaction was to conduct attacks in the press, including personal smears.

What actual evidence can you provide that controverts her testimony?

RickK

I replied to Epistemological Realist that if he wants to believe some divine power set off the Big Bang, but everything after that was natural causes, that's fine.

He didn't acknowledge the point, but instead said we should be uncomfortable that evolutionary theory doesn't address the important questions of the birth of the universe and the origin of the first life.

Here is why that criticism is flawed:

It is like saying chemistry is not valid because it doesn't explain where the elements came from.

Should we find fault with a talented automobile designer if he knows nothing of mining?

Is a book that doesn't explain the printing process actually worth the paper it's printed on?

This is a common method of criticizing evolution - finding it inadequate because it doesn't explain the origin of everything.

It's simple: evolutionary theory is a model to explain how the diversity of life developed.

Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with... well... topics it has nothing to do with.

Alan Fox

Sergey writes:

“Neodarwinism consists of mathematical models developed by Fisher, Haldane and Wright that don’t match any biological reality either. Is it a science?”

Mathematics is normally considered, like logic, a branch of philosophy. Mathematics is not science. Science involves observation, detection and measurement of real phenomena, mathematics providing useful analytical tools in the process. Neodarwinism, by which I presume you mean developmental and evolutionary biology (evo-devo) is a fruitful and expanding area of science.

Sergey continues:

“More like alchemistry to me.”

I’m not sure that’s a word. Did you mean alchemy?

Sergey writes:

“I am a mathematician, but spent 7 years as researcher in experimental biology labs. These mathematicians who created Neodarwinism had no knowledge in biology whatsoever.”

Science builds on a wide body of growing knowledge produced by myriad researchers. Evolutionary biology, developmental biology and molecular biology are all young sciences that have progressed exponentially far beyond the foundations provided by the “mathematicians” J. B. S. Haldane (biochemist and geneticist), Ronald Fisher (statistician and geneticist) and Sewall Wright (geneticist). It is ludicrous to claim that these three had no knowledge of biology, as a quick perusal of their careers in Wikpedia demonstrates.

John A. Davison

I challenge Richard Forrest or any one else to cite an example when a Darwinian tested his assumption that two forms he regards as separate species are actually that. Such a test may require artificial insemination and rearing the progeny and crossing them with the presumed parental forms. I further challenge him or anyone else to name any extant species and prove which current species was its parent.

I believe we are not able to identify such events because they are no longer occurring and haven't been for a very long time. I believe that we are seeing the isolated dead ends of a phenomenon no longer in progress. If I am wrong Richard Forrest should have no difficulty whatsoever proving just that.

Until that happens I will stick to my conviction that creative evolution is a phenomenon of the distant past, a conclusion independently reached by Pierre Grasse, Julian Huxley, Robert Broom and Otto Schindewolf as I have documented elsewhere.

But will he and can he?

We will soon see.

John A. Davison

I recommrnd that Richard Forrest apologuize for calling me a liar and, if that is impossible for him, I demand that comment be removed from the record. If that can't be done, I am through with this forum and will broadcast its shabby tactics wherever I am allowed. That sort of insolent, low class behavior should not be permitted in any forum dedicated to revealing the truth.

The ball is in the court of the moderator.

John A Davison

The Punctuated Equilibrum (punk eek) of Eldredge and Gould was nothing but a gimmick which made much of what was already well known, namely, that evolution, when it did take place, did so in spurts. Punk eek explained nothing. They avoided the one fundamental problem which was the mechanism by which evolution took (past tense) place.

The failure to produce an experimental evolution led Otto Schindewolf to comment as follows -

Many recent authors have spoken of EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION; There is NO SUCH THING. Evolution, a unique, historical course of events that took place in the past, is not repeatable experimentally and cannot be investigated in that way.
Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 311, words in caps originally in italics.

I agree and his concluson is in complete accord with my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH). Gould snubbed Schindewolf as I have pointed out here, just as he snubbed every other critic of the Darwinian myth. So did Mayr and so have Provine, Myer, Dawkins and every other Darwinian with whom I am aware.

The entire Darwinian proposal has and had absolutely nothing to do with phylogeny, absolutely nothing. It can not be patched up or rescued. It must be abandoned in its entirety. Until that takes place, and it WILL take place very soon now, there will be little progress in evolutionary science.

I agree with Leo Berg as I do with Otto Schindewolf who had independently reached the same conclusion about a determined phylogeny in which chance played no role whatsoever. Referring to both ontogeny and phylogeny -

"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134

"No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men."
Thomas Carlyle

Richard Forrest

John A. Davison wrote:
"I challenge Richard Forrest or any one else to cite an example when a Darwinian tested his assumption that two forms he regards as separate species are actually that."

Here's a review paper on the subject of experiments on speciation in the laboratory:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2410209

Here's another:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/338370

And another:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/428407

"I further challenge him or anyone else to name any extant species and prove which current species was its parent."

Several such cases are described here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf

"I believe we are not able to identify such events because they are no longer occurring and haven't been for a very long time. I believe that we are seeing the isolated dead ends of a phenomenon no longer in progress."

Well bully for you. The evidence - which I'm sure you won't address - shows otherwise.

"If I am wrong Richard Forrest should have no difficulty whatsoever proving just that"

I've given you many instance of speciation events. You simply dismiss them without addressing the evidence or argument.

"a conclusion independently reached by Pierre Grasse, Julian Huxley, Robert Broom and Otto Schindewolf as I have documented elsewhere."

Do you honestly think that we have made no progress in our understanding of evolutionary biology in the past 90 years, or that appeals to authority have no place in science?

"But will he and can he?
We will soon see."

I've done so repeatedly.

Emmet Sweeney

Dear Roger Stanyard, you asked me to demonstrate that "evolution by natural selection" was "a religious invention of Hindus and Buddhists". Why should I prove something I never claimed? The whole purpose of my piece was to demonstrate that "evolution" was not one and the same as Darwin's natural selection, and that belief in evolution long predated Darwin's rather naive attempt to explain how it happened. If you wont read my letter, how can you criticize it; and how can I answer criticisms based on what you imagined I wrote?

Emmet

John A. Davison

I see that Richard Forrest is no longer on record calling me a liar. That is a good thing and I am grateful for it.

Forrest seems to think that all he has to is to cite papers written by Darwinians in order to counter my claim that creative evolution is a phenomenon of the distant past. I am afraid that won't be sufficient any more than is the unfounded claim that there are 13 or 14 species of Darwin's finches. Assertions demand proof and without that proof they remain - well - assertions.

While I am aware that many of my assertions are also without proof, they are at least in accord with the testimony of the fossil record and the experimental laboratory which is more than I can say for any aspect of the Darwinian model which seems to me, as it did to all my several sources, to be without foundation.