The good guys win again

[packsaddle]

Rooster7,

Regarding ID supporters and their view of science: They ARE either engaging in a deception, or they are ignorant of science, or both. Most of the ID supporters with whom I am currently involved have explicitly stated their ignorance of both science and evolution. Your statement regarding evolution being more religion than science indicates ignorance of both evolution AND science. I am glad that you welcome enlightenment.

 

If you believe God is the intelligent designer then perhaps you can answer why other ID supporters use the term 'intelligent designer' rather than simply acknowledging God? I see this is part of the deception (so did the court) as well as a refusal to acknowledge God.

 

The so-called "Big Bang" is a fairly recent model of the universe (1927) whose characteristics contain predictions that could be tested. Incidentally it was originated by a Catholic priest.

The "Big Bang" idea was one of several competing models regarding the nature of the universe...one notable competitor was the steady-state model (Hoyle). As empirical evidence has gathered, the "Big Bang" model has been tested and unrejected while the steady-state model has not been supported by that same evidence. This is called 'science'. Giving short shrift here, the evidence was gathered through direct observations of motions of galaxies and through the collective application of principles of Doppler shift and a lucky set of observations made by Penzias and Wilson in 1964 regarding microwave radiation. There are still supporters of the steady-state model and in the classroom it is fair to teach that both models continue to be debated and that both are subject to objective test. Biblical creation, having no objective predictive capacity whatsoever and being untestable, would be inappropriate for inclusion along with the other models of the universe.

The same philosophy applies to biology. To my knowledge, ID supporters do not ask for ID wording to be applied to subjects of physics or astronomy, but only to biology. Honest support of ID would, in fact, cause its inclusion in the curricula for phyiscs and astronomy. For that matter, honest support for ID would place it in all science classes regardless of field. But that never happens.

The only thing in the process that could be represented as an act of faith is the underlying working assumption of all science that observable phenomena have rational explanations.

 

Because what happened prior to the "Big Bang" is thus far unpredicted or at least unobservable, one can do little more than speculate on what caused it. To my knowledge the 'cause' of the "Big Bang" is not taught in public school science classes.

[packsaddle]

OGE, to answer your question natural selection is the process by which populations change gene frequencies. It is the mechanism by which populations evolve. Strictly speaking, the change in the gene frequency IS evolution.

 

The phenomenon that some are concerned about is 'speciation', a different but related matter. There are contemporary examples of speciation and here is a link to some of those examples:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

 

Some persons who can't accept these facts can take the discussion to a different level including the definition of 'species'. Fair enough, scientists debate this as well. The crucial difference is that when confronted with objective evidence and rational thought to the contrary, a scientist will either be persuaded to reject a hypothesis or else produce better objective evidence in response.

 

Edited part: typo, sorry(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Fishsqueezer]

Sorry Rooster, I guess you didn't notice the bold blue text in the paragraph under 1865 that said:

"Some prominent scientists continue to reject the idea of evolution, but only a few years after On the Origin of Species is published, evolution is mainstream science. Magazines and newspapers -- even religious publications -- promote evolution. On exam papers at church-run Cambridge University, students are told to assume "the truth ... that the existing species of plants and animals have been derived by generation from others widely different."

 

This is not one persons opinion and the indication is that the opinion is widely held. It is the text written by the fact checkers and writers for the series based on factual history. As I suspected, if it doesn't agree with your view of the world, then it is just opinion or biased. Are you now going to say that the writers for the series are all biased even though they clearly present both sides of the issue? Would you question the Creation Science Institute publications so doggedly? Methinks not.

[scoutingagain]

OGE,

 

I'll try and answer your question, where do other species come from? Althought cut this poor physical scientist turned manager some slack.

 

Your description of natural selection is accuruate for the most part as I understand it. However you only describe one form or branch of the potential evolutionary tree within a given population. There are potentially many different genetic mutations that would encourage survival within a single species. In your example some of the slower antelope may find an environment or ecololgy where there are not a lot of lions, say a swamp. But the swamp has insects and diseases. Those antelope that have thicker fur and hide make it more difficult for insects to bite and they have higher survival rates. Over the years and generations those with thicker fur and hide begin to look more like water buffalo than antelope. The fast antelop begin to look more like gazelles than antelope. Eventually the Water Buffalo and Gazelle look nothing like each other, but share a common ancestor. Very simplified but I hope you get the idea.

 

And remember, we're talking about a phenomenon that occurs(in high end mammals at least) many, many generations and millions of years (as measured by man, as Ed pointed out I don't know how God measures time, if He measures it at all.)

 

The fast lion? Oh it becomes a Jaguar or Cheetah maybe.

 

There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that is inconsistent with the existence of God, or even Christianity. It does tend to dispute the idea that the Heaven, Earth and all life were made in the time it takes the Earth to spin on it's axis 7 times.

 

The theory of evolution is not just some abstract idea. The potential consequences of a mutation of the bird flu virus into a strain that could transmit itself between humans could be devestating to our species. Medical science considers this possibility because the evolutionary theory predicts that such a mutation is possible(although not certain). If I am a government leader who has the authority to marshal resources in research, do I consider the idea that such a mutation could occur and direct research and resources into ways to protect human beings from such a disease? Or do I assume that such a change would not be intelligent and the Intelligent Designer would not allow it to happen and not worry about it? Or maybe it is an intelligent change and I as a leader should not direct research into ways that would counter the changes imposed by the Intelligent Designer? (It is God's Will.)

 

SA

[Rooster7]

Packsaddle,

 

Despite your proclamation concerning my knowledge or lack thereof, I know enough. I know enough to realize that those who embrace evolution are blind to the possibility that there could be another cause (for life as we know it). As OGE pointed out, I can understand how certain characteristics have become dominant via survival of the fittest, but I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for evolution (i.e. organisms adapting to new environments and changing their physical appearance over time, through future generations). How do new permutations of a species develop? What innate mechanism recognizes the need to change? And how does it transpire and initiate the change?

 

If you believe God is the intelligent designer then perhaps you can answer why other ID supporters use the term 'intelligent designer' rather than simply acknowledging God? I see this is part of the deception (so did the court) as well as a refusal to acknowledge God.

 

I already admitted that I believe in God as the designer. But if one wishes, one can embrace ID without believing in God. Are there not religious faiths which dont accept the concept of a monotheistic God? Is the idea of a being, far superior to the human species, incomprehensible to you?

 

Because what happened prior to the "Big Bang" is thus far unpredicted or at least unobservable, one can do little more than speculate on what caused it. To my knowledge the 'cause' of the "Big Bang" is not taught in public school science classes.

 

Arent you being just a little hypocritical? If the Big Bang can be taught as science without recognizing a cause, why not ID? They are both theories whereas the source of the event cannot be identified by observation. And while we may be able to observe rocks and animals, we cannot say with any certainty (by observation) how they were created or evolved. That is to say, evolution is also a past event, which is unobservable.

 

Fishsqueezer,

 

I saw the blue print, but I fail to see how that translates to "the general public and most churches". So you found an example where a university supported the theory. Good. I didn't doubt that you'd be able to find an example. I do doubt that you will be able to demonstrate that it was a widely held viewpoint by those in the general public and in particular in most churches. And this manure about how I will never bend to any view other than mine is a poor substitute for reason. I could just as easily throw the same stuff on top of your posts (or should I say composts).

 

[firstpusk]

"How do new permutations of a species develop? What innate mechanism recognizes the need to change? And how does it transpire and initiate the change?"

 

There is variation within the population. Natural selection acts on the variation. The random part of evolution is the variation of genes within a population. There is no recognition of "the need to change". Those individuals without the advantageous adaptation fail to survive, reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation. I believe among the links you were given today was one on observed speciation. I know that I have given it to you before. You didn't read it then either.

 

"Arent you being just a little hypocritical? If the Big Bang can be taught as science without recognizing a cause, why not ID? They are both theories whereas the source of the event cannot be identified by observation. And while we may be able to observe rocks and animals, we cannot say with any certainty (by observation) how they were created or evolved. That is to say, evolution is also a past event, which is unobservable."

 

No. He is not being hypocritical. There is evidence for the big bang - verifiable scientific evidence. The universe is expanding and the patterns of that expansion when calculated back point to a sigularity around 13 billion years ago. ID has no scientific evidence to support it. It is not science. It might be philosophy but third rate philosophical speculation. And from my perspective it is bad theology with no respect for Scripture or this powerful mind that God gave us.

 

Evolution is similar to the big bang. We can speculate about what cause that explosion. We can also speculate about how life came into existence. Neither theory is dependent on an explanation of the initial cause. They are both verified by other observations. When it comes to evolution, we can say with a significant degree of confidence that the mechanisms of evolution are capable of producing what we see. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that ID would have to address. The only way ID supporters could address it is by doing research. They don't do research. ID is a dead end as creationism before it. Judge Jones handed the ID crowd their head on a platter. ID is done.

[Scoutndad]

Disturbing to read FirstPusks last 3 sentences...coherent logic up to that point.

 

The Judge did what he had to do...no case...rule against...open and shut.

ID dead...doubtful...but maybe by that name.

PC has been the death of many of those that believe they can fight their spiritual beliefs under neutral name tags, but it simply does not work. As was mentioned previously, those that believe God as the Divine Creator should not call it ID.

 

Only one thing still disturbs me about the scientific discussions:

 

Before any serious scientist can speak of Evolution of life, they must prove the start from nothingness...

 

Don't talk about certainty of confidence...the scientific crowd has none and will never have it until they develop a time machine (neither will the ID crowd) so is it so abstract to recognize both?

 

By the way, the scientific community sure took a hit with stem cell research scandal. It seems that even scientific data can stumble sometimes...

[packsaddle]

Firstpusk addressed the comments nicely. A couple of additions:

The court identified ID as an attempt by biblical creationists to insert their religious beliefs into science curricula. The use of 'intelligent design' as a term to mask the true intent was (and is) a deception designed to 'get around' a legal obstacle placed in their path by a previous court ruling. Claims to the contrary after this ruling have the ring of dishonesty.

 

However, I also disagree with Firstpusk's final assessment of heads on platters. My observations are that scientists are rather inept politically and tend toward surprise when the arena of politics treats them to, well, politics. The ID promoters that I have observed are very adept politically and very effectively use the mechanisms of politics to keep their interests very alive. The next iteration of this conflict has already begun and 'creationism' and 'intelligent design' are being shunned in the discourse. They know this battle was lost and the next tactic is to insert yet a new wording into curriculum standards that allow religion to be inserted aside science. Here's how:

 

Two words (there may be other versions as well) are being promoted for inclusion for biology standards, usually only those standards that have to do with topics of genetics and evolution. In these curriculum standards, the effort is to insert wording that requires 'critical analysis' of the topics of the standard. The stated intent is to allow critical analysis of whatever scientific topic is the subject of the standard. To the person who has not previously experienced this tactic, this seems quite reasonable because critical analysis is indeed the process that produced the subject material in the first place. However, my observations are that the subject wording is only being promoted for biology and no other field of science. Moreover, the wording is only promoted for those subjects of biology that had previously been targeted for inclusion of ID. Delete creationism, insert ID...delete ID, insert 'critically analyze'.

 

If, as an earlier post suggested, one pulls back the curtain of deceit and investigates the underlying motives as well as the persons responsible for the strategy, you will again find the same persons that support ID and creationism. And the stated purpose of the new wording is not simply to promote critical thought, but to allow a venue for alternative ideas (including religious ones) to be presented as critical of the scientific views and with equal scientific weight in the classroom.

 

This approach might actually be welcome in the classroom and at my institution the courses that address evolution employ this to advantage. An example:

 

A study done for college-level students in which this was actually adopted involved 103 freshman biology majors at Central Washington University. They were divided into four sections and taught in a quite different manner. Two sections were presented with both "Icons of Evolution" (a book promoting ID) and Dawkins's "The Blind Watchmaker" as part of the course. The other two sections were merely taught the conventional biology course reading "The Red Queen" about evolution of sex and human nature.

In the sections that read both an evolutionary text as well as the ID text, 61% of the students indicated a change of mind regarding their beliefs. The vast majority of change was in the direction of evolutionary thought.

The other two sections only had 21% changes of mind, again mostly in favor of evolution. Of the small number of self-proclaimed biblical literalists in the course, 4 out of 6 moved in the 'rationalist' direction.

This suggests that if done carefully, college students tend to be susceptible to rational thought and this type of critical analysis will actually hurt, rather than help, the creationist's side.

The study noted, however, that high school students may not be as prepared to respond to this approach and the study therefore cannot be used to predict the outcome in a high school biology class.

 

Nevertheless, the new wording is again being promoted for no other field of science than biology. If this critical analysis is needed in the science classroom, why not for physics and chemistry as well? One answer is that the fundamentalists have given up in those fields but not in biology. And the deception is perpetuated.

 

Scoutndad, the true origin of life is not necessary to be known in order to address subsequent changes scientifically. Science acknowledges, no, it revels in unknown things like the origin of life. As observational and experimental methods expand, many questions like that one are being answered. The mechanism of the origin of life may not be provable post facto. But the possible mechanisms may well have been identified already, just waiting for experimental test. If you haven't read it already, the book by Christian DeDuve, "Vital Dust",

http://www.thymos.com/mind/deduve.html

 

gives the most comprehensive objective depiction I have read of these possibilities recently. The book is a few years old now so much has been done to fill in some of the gaps but it is still a landmark for having synthesized so many diverse pieces of the puzzle.

 

As for scientific fraud, it does happen unfortunately. But the beauty of experimental science is that the observations must be capable of being independently duplicated. This is just one more step in true critical analysis... and the fraud, if it is important enough to warrant attention, will always be detected. Science tolerates mistakes but not deceit. Another one of the reasons ID and science don't mix. That scientist is no longer a scientist but a liar and he will never again be accepted by the scientific arena. The scientific fraud should practice asking, "Would you like fries with your order?"

 

In religion, after the frauds have served their time, they just start another TV show - they just loot fewer people each successive time around.

[Scoutndad]

Fantastic post packsaddle and I look forward to sitting down with your suggested reading. I especially enjoyed the unfortunate truth at the end that both sides will continue to mar their credibility but as long as we do not use a bigoted slant on an issue larger than we are (ID case)I still believe that our kids can continue to be challenged with the idea that both ideas can coexist and that a well researched and well informed decision is the best education.

 

Let them rule to keep ID out of school science classes and give them the ability to use this ruling to support their future cases (Moore did a tremendous job in covering all of his bases). I will continue to pay to have my children start the day with a prayer, learn about God along with all of their other critical and necessary academic subjects, and pledge allegiance to their flag.

[evmori]

the true origin of life is not necessary to be known in order to address subsequent changes scientifically.

 

If you don't know how it started, how do you know where it's going? Or when/how it will end?

 

It seems to me knowing how something comes to be is important.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

A blessed Christmas to all

[Fishsqueezer]

Rooster7 Posted: Tuesday, 12/20/2005: 9:03:27 PM Intelligent design does not directly support a specific religion. It simply purports that there was/is a designer. There is empirical evidence to support this claim.

 

I guess I passed this one over. OK, where is the empirical evidence? You have asked others to provide proof of their stance, now it is your turn. After all this discussion I would think you would have pulled it out. Empirical evidence of a designer would answer all questions.

 

 

Kittle Posted: Wednesday, 12/21/2005: 9:06:46 AM Evolution is a theory, not proven fact, but it is taught as fact. Let's just stick to teaching what can be proven in our classrooms.

 

Evolution is a fact proven by thousands of scientifically reviewed studies over a hundred years. Show me the empirical studies by ID that has actual data supporting ID. Until you can do that you will have to accept evolution. It is not a he said she said. It has been he said she said no it isnt so there.

 

 

Rooster7 Posted: Wednesday, 12/21/2005: 10:53:36 AM It's a convenient out every time someone punches a hole in the theory of evolution. Ironically, few secular scientists would afford Christians that out in regard to the theory of creationism. In short, there is plenty of evidence of ID - the existence of God (a.k.a. a superior being) as an intelligent designer - if one is merely willing to open his eyes.

 

Again, where is this evidence? Youve said it twice now but presented nothing. Facts man. That is what will prove your point.

 

 

Evmori Posted: Wednesday, 12/21/2005: 12:53:37 PM So teaching evolution as fact without also teaching all the possible theory gives a one sided and inaccurate view of evolution.

 

You are now supporting that all possible theories of creation and change should be taught or just your other theory?

 

 

Rooster7 Posted: Wednesday, 12/21/2005: 2:22:02 PM Ironically, many of the same folks who attack people of faith for not being more open minded, defend the conclusions made by secular scientists as if the possibly of misinterpretation of the data is inconceivable.

 

I have seen nothing in these posts that attack you for not having an open mind. What I see are many reasoned scientific arguments backed by research that call to question your information. You then present nothing as a rebuttal except to accuse us of having closed minds. Again, data my friend. Where is the data you speak of?

 

 

Rooster7 Posted: Wednesday, 12/21/2005: 9:31:38 PM As I mentioned earlier, empirical data exists which suggests there is an intelligent design to our world and its inhabitants. No matter what the numbers are, pro and con, I've always thought that scientists were supposed to be open to all theories that could not be disproved. Could someone show me the evidence that disproves the possibility of ID?

 

Pages of discussion have shown that ID is not science and is not the most logical explanation for the evidence of evolution. You state again that empirical data exists but present none. You call on us to present data but will not do the same yourself? Again, data my friend. Where is the data you speak of? Until you present some you have made no convincing argument.

 

Rooster7 also posted on that day

If the scientific community is truly interested in finding truth, then it should use the same approach to ID as it does with evolution. Assume that it may be valid until evidence can be produced that says otherwise.

 

Actually, the argument should be that until ID provides some physical actual data that proves their point it is not science and not even a scientific theory. Science does not assume something to be true until proven false. The evidence has to prove it true until new evidence proves it false. Show me your evidence. Your arguments stating that because scientific conclusions change with new evidence means that all science is wrong is a false argument. No theory is written in stone (oops I didnt mean to gig you with that one I guess yours is).

 

 

Rooster7 Posted: Tuesday, 12/27/2005: 10:20:21 AM Many have chosen to close their minds to the possibility that proof of ID exists, and consequently they will never find such proof achieving a self fulfilling prophecy which is entirely contrary to the goals of science.

 

Show me the proof!! Third time youve said this yet still no proof.

 

 

Rooster7 Posted: Wednesday, 12/28/2005: 3:14:47 PM I agree that we should not attempt to put God in a box. However, I think those who embrace evolution tend to do so because they have done exactly that. They cannot comprehend a God so omnipotent that He could create the Heavens and the Earth in seven days. Yet, they can easily imagine a fish crawling out of a pond and growing legs. Go figure.

 

Your argument is absurd. You make a ridiculous straw man of a fish sprouting legs that no evolutionist would ever make then shoot it down. Show me the evolution article that says a fish sprouted legs and began walking around. If you are going to debate you need to present more than imaginary arguments.

 

 

Rooster7 Posted: Thursday, 12/29/2005: 5:49:39 PM I can understand how certain characteristics have become dominant via survival of the fittest, but I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for evolution (i.e. organisms adapting to new environments and changing their physical appearance over time, through future generations). How do new permutations of a species develop? What innate mechanism recognizes the need to change? And how does it transpire and initiate the change?

 

Your argument again demonstrates a lack of understanding of evolution. There is no innate mechanism that recognizes a need to change. That idea went out 100 years ago with Lamarck. Again, the individual does not change it is born with a genetic difference that may or may not provide an advantage. If it provides an advantage then the individual can pass that gene on to offspring who again may survive better. Here are some sources of information that will show you how a new species can develop if you dare to take the time to educate yourself.

http://lifesciences.asu.edu/evolution/

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622882/description

http://hbes.com/HBES/journal2.htm

 

 

Rooster7 Posted: Thursday, 12/29/2005: 5:49:39 PM Arent you being just a little hypocritical? If the Big Bang can be taught as science without recognizing a cause, why not ID?

 

Because the big bang is based on sound scientific theories and ID is not.

 

 

Rooster7 Posted: Thursday, 12/29/2005: 5:49:39 PM I do doubt that you will be able to demonstrate that it was a widely held viewpoint by those in the general public and in particular in most churches. And this manure about how I will never bend to any view other than mine is a poor substitute for reason. I could just as easily throw the same stuff on top of your posts (or should I say composts).

 

How about mainstream science, magazines (plural), newspapers (plural), church publications (plural), universities (even church universities again plural). As I suspected, you will never see proof as long as you deny the credibility of history. You argue that I have shown nothing, yet I have produced pages of evidence and lists of books and journals. What have you provided? Personal attacks? That is the first sign of a lost argument.

 

 

Scoutndad you may want to elucidate on the stem cell scandal that shook the scientific community.

 

 

 

[firstpusk]

Scoutndad, I am talking about ID as a public relations/political strategy to force religion into the schools. You are right. Folks on my side are fighting a hydra. The ID folks already are arguing for "sudden appearance" or "teach the controversy" instead of Intelligent Design. The Discovery Institute has tried to convince creationists of all stripes conform to their non-biblical strategy. They have promised much but have only delivered big legal bills for the folks in Dover.

 

About the start of life, that is not part of the theory of evolution and it never has been. Evolution explains the development and diversity of life not its ultimate origin. Speciation occurs and has been observed. Many branches of science beyond biology support the theory of evolution. No branch of science supports the "theory" of intelligent design. Your time machine comment is simply a variation of "were you there" argument some creationists ask students to use to confront their science teachers. Thankfully, science has other tools besides time machines to observe the history of life.

 

There is actually a scientific controversy over the the Korean cloning claims. It is instructive about how science is self-correcting. The same can not be claimed for creationists, especially the ID types. They want a creationist big tent were everyone agrees not to bicker until they have slain the dragon of evolution.

[BrentAllen]

This is probably overly simplistic and repetitive, but the problem us "believers" have is their is no room in science for a religious explanation, which directly conflicts with our religious beliefs. Christian students are asked, in effect, to study and believe material which goes against their religious beliefs. We are not asking that science teach religion, we only ask that science acknowledge religion, so that we don't feel we are being asked to choose between the two.

 

firstpusk states: "The random part of evolution is the variation of genes within a population." My question is - what caused those variations? Can you prove what caused them? Maybe it was God tinkering with the species? Can you rule out the possibility that ID caused this variation?

 

Those models used to calculate the formation of the universe 13 million years ago - are they the same ones currently being used to predict global warming? Are they the same ones used to predict the weather 24 hours from now, and do so with such high precision?

 

All you evolutionists want proof of ID. I consider myself living, breathing proof of ID.

 

Do evolutionists celebrate Thanksgiving? If so, who do they pray to, giving thanks? To the particular gene mutation or variation that caused them to be created? I would like a copy of that prayer, please, so I can be scientifically correct next Thanksgiving.

[OldGreyEagle]

I am not sure a lion would want to morph into a Cheetah as everyone knows, Cheetahs never prosper

[firstpusk]

BrentAllen, that is an interesting list of questions.

 

First off, why do you assume that evolution violates the religious beliefs of Christian students. I went to a Christian elementary school and a Christian university both taught evolution. I think that there are specific churches and denominations that assert this, but it is certainly not universally held in Christianity. Evolution does raise some issues for students that are raised to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. I know a number of biology teachers. Their approach is express understanding of this problem and ask that students talk about it with their parents and/or clergy. That may not make them happy, but it is the best a teacher can do for them.

 

The sources of variation within the gene pool are mutation, recombination and gene flow. I can post some links for you on this later.

 

The basis of the prediction of the age of the universe is the red shift in light from distant stars. This indicated that the universe was expanding. Astronomers work back from data on the rate of expansion to determine how long ago it all started. That's pretty simplistic but it expresses the idea. The models for climatic change and weather prediction are different because they are dealing with different systems. BTW, the universe is around 13 billion years old.

 

You and I are miraculous. I don't think you should assume it is any different whether you are a product of special creation or evolution. Nor do I think that you should assume that someone accepting evolution must be an atheist. I am a member of the BSA in good standing. A lay minister in my church and a recipient of my faith's religious emblem. I also accept evolution as the only scientific explanation of the development and diversity of life. On Thanksgiving I thank my God.