NationStates Jolt Archive

These two letters were today published in the Times. I thought people on this forum would have an opinion on them

NOTE: Neither letters are by religious activists

Sir, Like many biologists, Richard Dawkins (Weekend Review, May 21) views the theory of intelligent design merely as an attack on evolution when, being essentially identical to the anthropic principle, it has far wider implications.
Such ideas should not be dismissed simply because they have been hijacked by creationists. Despite Dawkins’s relentless propaganda, rational criticism of evolution and a distaste for biological reductionism do not equate to religious fundamentalism; bigotry should be resisted from whichever direction it comes.

Yours faithfully,
MILTON WAINWRIGHT,
Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology,
University of Sheffield,
Sheffield S10 2TN.
May 21.

And

Sir, By building a straw man of creationists (supposedly) misquoting Darwin and Lewontin, Professor Dawkins labels the lot as “ignorant” and skirts the big issue — there is no hard evidence for molecules-to-man evolution.

Dawkins has long touted stories on how the eye and other organs came into being by supposed slow evolutionary processes, but there is no experimental evidence, even if one did accept the fossils as a record of such changes. Any serious thinker knows that the fossils of the “Cambrian Explosion” period, near the base of the geological column, include some of the most sophisticated eyes ever known to have existed — the compound eyes of trilobites have double calcite lenses, which defeat any slow evolutionary explanation, and, what is more, they have no precursor in the rocks.

The non-evolutionist side of the argument is growing not because of ignorance, but because of the rise of knowledge about the real facts of science without the fairytale additions of evolutionism. A growing number of academics on both sides of the Atlantic are attracted to the straightforward logic of scientific reasoning.

The logical, coded machinery of DNA and the information system it carries shout design to an unprejudiced mind. Dawkins’s defence is based not on scientific facts, but on ideology. Evolutionary thinking is teetering as a way of looking at the evidence, not because of some isolated problems here and there, but because the whole structure is scientifically wrong.

Yours faithfully,
ANDY C. McINTOSH,
(Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory),
Energy and Resources Research Institute,
Houldsworth Building,
University of Leeds,
Clarendon Road, Leeds LS2 9JT.
May 23.

Interesting letters, but it was my understanding that the Cambrian Explosion was over rated by some of the people who classified fossils. The quote "Fuck, not another Phylum" comes to mind...

What is the deal with this Creationism vs. Evolutionism thing? From the creationist point of view, the universe was created around 4000BC. The dinosaur bones and 10 000 year old pre-human skeletons are here only so that our freedom to believe in God is preserved. They aren't really that old, they just appear to be. The universe appears to have evolved. Whether it did evolve, or was created and given the appearence of evolution to preserve our freedom, doesn't really matter. All of the principals of evolution still apply today. Who cares whether evolution is fact or just an illusion, can't we just accept that the basic principals apply whether it happened or not?

As said before: Intelligent Design is not a testable hypothesis. As are statements that we are the result of a chaosgod sneezing, we are all just a computerprogram in the matrix etc. That does not necessarily mean those hypotheses are wrong, but it does mean they cannot be called science.

What is the deal with this Creationism vs. Evolutionism thing? From the creationist point of view, the universe was created around 4000BC.
"Begat" as used in Genesis does not mean "was the parent of", it means "was the ancestor of". Thus those claims to have traced each generation to determine the age of the earth are, simply, wrong. Each generation isn't listed.

As regards the letters, the belief that the majority of scientists believe in evolution is just another media myth. A majority of molecular biologists do support ID, just not necessarily the version espoused by creationists.

As regards the letters, the belief that the majority of scientists believe in evolution is just another media myth. A majority of molecular biologists do support ID, just not necessarily the version espoused by creationists.
A myth? Then why did I have to read a book on evolution as a part of the entrance exam to university and why do we have courses on evolution? Why do we teach myths that we don't believe in?

What is the deal with this Creationism vs. Evolutionism thing? From the creationist point of view, the universe was created around 4000BC. The dinosaur bones and 10 000 year old pre-human skeletons are here only so that our freedom to believe in God is preserved. They aren't really that old, they just appear to be. The universe appears to have evolved. Whether it did evolve, or was created and given the appearence of evolution to preserve our freedom, doesn't really matter. All of the principals of evolution still apply today. Who cares whether evolution is fact or just an illusion, can't we just accept that the basic principals apply whether it happened or not?

I doubt any self-respecting Creationist holds such views. or perhaps there are some, but I've never met them.

The principles of evolution don't help me in my research lab today. Why should I hold on to them, even if I have learned about them for the past 10 years at my university?

Are you suggesting that we simply let evolution be, or have I missed your delicate point of sacrcasm?

As regards the letters, the belief that the majority of scientists believe in evolution is just another media myth. A majority of molecular biologists do support ID, just not necessarily the version espoused by creationists.
Prove it. I've been in the sciences professionally for almost a decade and I have met a grand total of TWO scientists who believe in the Intelligent design theory. All the surveys I have read on the subject indicates that only a tiny minority of scientists even grant that Creationism is worth thinking about at all. If you can support your wild claim with anything then please do so, but otherwise you can just kick back and enjoy the sound of my laughter.

As regards the letters, the belief that the majority of scientists believe in evolution is just another media myth. A majority of molecular biologists do support ID, just not necessarily the version espoused by creationists.

Quite a few scientists do not believe in evolution, true. That however does not automatically mean they believe in ID.

Evolution is the best scientific theory we have. It might be wrong; but at least showing it wrong is theoretically possible. However, noone has been able to conclusively do that sofar - and many, many have tried.

Intelligent design cannot be tested, it is not possible to show if its right or wrong. You can explain any inconsistency by saying "it was just designed that way". You have to take it on faith - just like religion. A scientist can believe it, just like he/she believes in God -but he cannot claim it is valid science.

A myth? Then why did I have to read a book on evolution as a part of the entrance exam to university and why do we have courses on evolution? Why do we teach myths that we don't believe in?

There are plenty of examples in history where the majority have been wrong. It is possible today, wouldn't you say?

I doubt any self-respecting Creationist holds such views. or perhaps there are some, but I've never met them.

The principles of evolution don't help me in my research lab today. Why should I hold on to them, even if I have learned about them for the past 10 years at my university?

Are you suggesting that we simply let evolution be, or have I missed your delicate point of sacrcasm?

I'm suggesting that we all realise the principals of evolution as necessary to the description of human behaviour in modern times, but agree to disagree on the truth in evolution.

Quite a few scientists do not believe in evolution, true. That however does not automatically mean they believe in ID.

Evolution is the best scientific theory we have. It might be wrong; but at least showing it wrong is theoretically possible. However, noone has been able to conclusively do that sofar - and many, many have tried.

Intelligent design cannot be tested, it is not possible to show if its right or wrong. You can explain any inconsistency by saying "it was just designed that way". You have to take it on faith - just like religion. A scientist can believe it, just like he/she believes in God -but he cannot claim it is valid science.

On what basis is evolution the best theory? That fact that 99.9% of research money is spent on evolution compared to the piddely little bit on creation gives you an idea of the huge bias out there. It does nothing to prove that evolution is the best theory, but more likely the most popular theory.
Based on my research, I cannot prove evolution is wrong, but I can conclude that it makes evolution look unlikely. Perhaps the same goes for most molecular biologists, if they were willing to criticise evolution theory. I have found most are too reluctant to, most likely because its their jobs or their reputation on the line. You really have to be a big shot in science, or/and have a really secure job/financial backing before you can safely criticise evolution theory. That does not give me much confidence in evolution, our most 'popular theory'.

There are plenty of examples in history where the majority have been wrong. It is possible today, wouldn't you say?
Anything is possible, but I haven't seen any competing theories out there. I won't dismiss a theory just because the majority think it's correct. ;)

There are plenty of examples in history where the majority have been wrong. It is possible today, wouldn't you say?

Yep - which is why we should only teach children valid science instead of dogma in schools: science at least comes with this disclaimer.

Yours faithfully,
MILTON WAINWRIGHT,
Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology,
University of Sheffield,
Sheffield S10 2TN.
May 21.

This guy simply states that the idea should not simply be dismissed becease creationists like it. A fair point, but it is not the only reason why people will dismiss it.

--------------

Yours faithfully,
ANDY C. McINTOSH,
(Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory),
Energy and Resources Research Institute,
Houldsworth Building,
University of Leeds,
Clarendon Road, Leeds LS2 9JT.
May 23.

This guy is attacking evolution itself (or at least the kind of evolution dawkins proposes). Notice how he is working in an entirely different field of science. Anyone who knows a bit about science (scientific philosophy), knows that different fields require different methodology and that methods that lead to succes in one branch can't be just exported to other branches. In fact, my philosophy prof once said that scientists that have proven themselves in their branch and at an older age decide to become a philosopher and look at the other branches are the highest on his 'list of bad philosophers'. They are new to the branch, yet they think they have knowledge about it because they are experts in another branch, and they usually just apply their 'natural' methods from their old branch.

This guy seems to fit the category.

These two letters were today published in the Times. I thought people on this forum would have an opinion on them

NOTE: Neither letters are by religious activists

And
It is difficult to comment on either letter without reading the article by Dawkins.

Quite a few scientists do not believe in evolution, true. That however does not automatically mean they believe in ID.

Evolution is the best scientific theory we have. It might be wrong; but at least showing it wrong is theoretically possible. However, noone has been able to conclusively do that sofar - and many, many have tried.

Intelligent design cannot be tested, it is not possible to show if its right or wrong. You can explain any inconsistency by saying "it was just designed that way". You have to take it on faith - just like religion. A scientist can believe it, just like he/she believes in God -but he cannot claim it is valid science.
Exactly. There is no scientific theory behind ID Creationism, it's just a wild-ass guess. "Um, we think there wasn't a universe, and then there was. And something made it happen."

Testing evolutionary theory, even finding serious problems with it, would not in any way support ID Creationism. It would just mean that our existing theory still needs work, something that all scientists know and admit. We know we don't have it all down pat right now. We know it's a work in progress. But there's no progress to be had from throwing up our hands and making up myths to explain what we don't yet understand.

I'm suggesting that we all realise the principals of evolution as necessary to the description of human behaviour in modern times, but agree to disagree on the truth in evolution.

Are you suggesting that an adequate description of modern human behaviour requires evolutionary theory? That really is a bit statement, and I can't see the connecting logic. Am I missing something very obvious? I thought that there were plenty of examples of professionals in the field of the study of human behaviour that do not use evolutionary theory at all.
I might add that I hope we are not confusing cultural evolution with biological evolution.

Anything is possible, but I haven't seen any competing theories out there. I won't dismiss a theory just because the majority think it's correct. ;)

fair answer!!

1. If you want to read real flames by people who should know better, I'd recommend Physical Review Letters B. The most erudite verbal bitchslaps you will ever read can be found there.

2. Smart people, especially very dedicated, very specialized people, can be very stupid in their own ways. Even in their area of expertise. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman come to mind (they rediscovered convection and called it "cold fusion"). That said, considering his expertise, he really should be aware of a nobel prize winning thermodynamics paper that expects the opposite of what he claims.

3. One of his examples of irreducable complexity elsewhere is "flight." That's pretty well destroyed by the usefulness of gliding for many animals. This speaks persuasively of a man driven by emotional need rather than rational thought.

4. If he wants to talk design he's better off sticking to a discussion of the fine structure constant. Self-assembling molecules aren't even particularly uncommon. And some demonstrations of how a high degree of order arise from physical laws can be as simple as boiling a pot of water. (A rolling boil will settle into hexagonal convection cells) . It's it because God magically influances every roiling boil because he likes hexagons? Or is it the most efficent way to move heat? Fibonaci sequences in plants have similar explainations, as does the frequent appearence of the golden ratio. Optimal solutions to important problems honed over vast stretches of time.

5. Evolution has made testable predictions that have been verified. And attracts industrial investment for the development of new products. ID, in any form, has failed to do anything more attract money for printing books. When in doubt, I go with the ideology that inspires people to make new and better tools.

Lastly: The anthropic principle isn't exactly embraced by science. There is certainly a kind of veneer of authenticity to it, but most scientists consider it the boundry between philosophy and actual science. Religion for our rational nature. As one might expect it's greatly unsatisfactory to science and encourages more ever more inventive experiments. Such as the quest to make microscopic blackholes. Should our universe be cooperative, it might be possible to make them, and not only probe the realm of quantum gravity, but it might be possible to detect the influence of another near by universe. An accomplishment that would to some degree step beyond the bounds of the anthropic principle. In so far as it is accepted by science, it's permission to turn one's attention elsewhere and attempt to solve problems which can be expected to yield solutions over the course of one's life. A quality some might say it shares with the copenhagen interpretation (which actually does make a testable prediction or two if memory serves).

ID isn't science. It's sole prediction is that at some point magic happened, and we'll never find the answer so we should stop looking. (The and start praying is said silently to oneself.) It would lead us to believe, that evolutionary biology wouldn't necessarily afford us short cuts to investigate, engineer, and perfect a more perfect dominion over our biology, and that of those organisms we depend on. It would have us spread our resources more thinly, searching for exploitable features that are distributed randomly, or according to the master plan of Hale-Bopp's chief science officer. It's not a deterministic universe. And neither ID nor faith have produced medications effective at treating chronic pain. When they put something beyond pamphlets on the table, scientists won't be alone in beating a path to their door.

Are you suggesting that an adequate description of modern human behaviour requires evolutionary theory? That really is a bit statement, and I can't see the connecting logic. Am I missing something very obvious? I thought that there were plenty of examples of professionals in the field of the study of human behaviour that do not use evolutionary theory at all.
I might add that I hope we are not confusing cultural evolution with biological evolution.

No we're not confusing cultural evolution with biological evolution. I wasn't aware that an adequate description of human emotion and feeling was around that didn't require the brain to be a hundred thousand years old. I'm interested though. Anywhere I can find out more?

Exactly. There is no scientific theory behind ID Creationism, it's just a wild-ass guess. "Um, we think there wasn't a universe, and then there was. And something made it happen."

Testing evolutionary theory, even finding serious problems with it, would not in any way support ID Creationism. It would just mean that our existing theory still needs work, something that all scientists know and admit. We know we don't have it all down pat right now. We know it's a work in progress. But there's no progress to be had from throwing up our hands and making up myths to explain what we don't yet understand.

I disagree. Evolution and creation have a lot more in common than you seem to suggest. Both are theories, according to the science community. Both have 'and then there was' explanations. A big 'bang' for evolution, a spoken word for creation. If you find a major flaw in one theory, and a better fitting set of explanations in the other theory, then, ok, that is not proof, but it does lend more support to the theory with the better explanations.
In case you didn't realize, the evolution theory required a lot of people to throw up a lot of explanations, many of which are still not even remotely possibly, according to the laws of science that we currently observe. Myth making, in other words. That seems to be what you are accusing creationism of. Its a case of having the log in your own eye.

A myth? Then why did I have to read a book on evolution as a part of the entrance exam to university and why do we have courses on evolution? Why do we teach myths that we don't believe in?
Read what my post says. Don't make up what you want me to have said so that you can argue.

Prove it. I've been in the sciences professionally for almost a decade and I have met a grand total of TWO scientists who believe in the Intelligent design theory. All the surveys I have read on the subject indicates that only a tiny minority of scientists even grant that Creationism is worth thinking about at all. If you can support your wild claim with anything then please do so, but otherwise you can just kick back and enjoy the sound of my laughter.
What sciences? What conferences do you go to? Are you a molecular biologist? Who published these surveys? Where can I find them? What were their criteria? How did they select their samples?


Quite a few scientists do not believe in evolution, true. That however does not automatically mean they believe in ID.

I didn't claim that they did automatically believe in ID. I actually only refered to MBs.


Evolution is the best scientific theory we have. It might be wrong; but at least showing it wrong is theoretically possible. However, noone has been able to conclusively do that sofar - and many, many have tried.
However if a majority of molecular biologists can shred evolution when it comes to it's theories regarding cells (and I've heard them do it) then you either ignore molecular biology (which is very bad science) or you acknowledge your theory is massively flawed (which is not being done).


Intelligent design cannot be tested, it is not possible to show if its right or wrong. You can explain any inconsistency by saying "it was just designed that way". You have to take it on faith - just like religion. A scientist can believe it, just like he/she believes in God -but he cannot claim it is valid science.
When a creationist says that evolution cannot be proven, they are openly mocked. Yet evolutionists are asking a standard of proof for the ID theory that they will not accept being requested of evolution. That is inconsistent.
Moreover, do you honestly think a scientist you has spent 7-8 years getting a BSc and a PhD will just give up when they get to a lab? "Oh, I don't understand why this is this way. It was just made like that! I'll go home now."
As I said, a majority of molecular biologists do believe in ID, yet they keep researching to find out exactly how it works, exactly how it is made.
The belief that if ID were to become an additional accepted theory all scientific progress would stop is not only dogmatic in the extreme, it's just plain stupid.

No we're not confusing cultural evolution with biological evolution. I wasn't aware that an adequate description of human emotion and feeling was around that didn't require the brain to be a hundred thousand years old. I'm interested though. Anywhere I can find out more?

C C I'm sorry, but I'm having more trouble with your sarcasm, I think. Are you saying that a brain needs to be a hundred thousand years old in order to explain the human emotion and feelings that we now observe? I don't get it.

I disagree. Evolution and creation have a lot more in common than you seem to suggest. Both are theories, according to the science community.

Um, in a word: No. They aren't. Scientists do not view Creationism as a scientific theory, because it isn't one.


Both have 'and then there was' explanations. A big 'bang' for evolution, a spoken word for creation. If you find a major flaw in one theory, and a better fitting set of explanations in the other theory, then, ok, that is not proof, but it does lend more support to the theory with the better explanations.

Creationism is not testable, in any way. It makes no predictions that can be examined by science. It's theory is wholely outside of the natural realm. It cannot be examined scientifically, and thus science has nothing to say about it. Whether or not evolution is correct has no bearing on whether or not Creationism is correct. If evolution were 100% disproven that wouldn't make Creationism any more likely, any more than it would demonstrate evidence for the universe riding on the back of a giant turtle.

PS: The "Big Bang" is not in any way a part of the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. It would be better if you learned what evolutionary theory is BEFORE you start trying to compare it to Creationism.


In case you didn't realize, the evolution theory required a lot of people to throw up a lot of explanations, many of which are still not even remotely possibly, according to the laws of science that we currently observe. Myth making, in other words. That seems to be what you are accusing creationism of. Its a case of having the log in your own eye.
Totally wrong. Evolution theory has developed and been shaped by many unique, innovative, and radical hypotheses, but NONE of them were myth. None of them pointed to supernatural forces. ALL of them provided testable, scientific theories, which could be examined and supported/refuted by scientific methods. Creationism never has done any of this.

What sciences? What conferences do you go to? Are you a molecular biologist? Who published these surveys? Where can I find them? What were their criteria? How did they select their samples?

Here's your first lesson in science: if YOU make an assertion the burden of proof is on YOU to support it. You made the initial assertion regarding the number of scientists supporting ID, so the burden of proof is on you to support it. I didn't even have to mention my personal experience as rebuttal (I was just feeling generous), because you failed to in any way support your hypothesis.

Both have 'and then there was' explanations. A big 'bang' for evolution, a spoken word for creation.
Big Bang isn't evoulution. Evolution explains how species evolve, it doesn't say how life, the universe and everything came about.

A myth? Then why did I have to read a book on evolution as a part of the entrance exam to university and why do we have courses on evolution? Why do we teach myths that we don't believe in?

Actually, what he is reffering to, is that there is a significant majority of scientists who adopt the theory, and theology of "Theistic Evolution", basically the idea of a "God" who oversees the evolutionary process. This still falls into the theological principle of "Intelligent Design"; though not as YEC and OEC types do... .The only principled difference between Secular Evolutionists and Theistic Evolutionists, is the theological component of their personal belief in the theory... The theories themselves are the same in their scientific application and study. Hense why it is "Theistic" Evolution (an evolutionary process guided by God)... They are in fact, "Evolutionists" who believe in ID as part of their personal theology.

The Creation vs. Evolution debate is often portrayed as "Christians" vs. "Atheists" in many circles (especially YEC's)... That is in no way a true statement. Not all Christians believe in "Young Earth Creation", and not all holders of Evolutionary Theory are Atheists...

Read what my post says. Don't make up what you want me to have said so that you can argue.


What sciences? What conferences do you go to? Are you a molecular biologist? Who published these surveys? Where can I find them? What were their criteria? How did they select their samples?



I didn't claim that they did automatically believe in ID. I actually only refered to MBs.


However if a majority of molecular biologists can shred evolution when it comes to it's theories regarding cells (and I've heard them do it) then you either ignore molecular biology (which is very bad science) or you acknowledge your theory is massively flawed (which is not being done).


When a creationist says that evolution cannot be proven, they are openly mocked. Yet evolutionists are asking a standard of proof for the ID theory that they will not accept being requested of evolution. That is inconsistent.
Moreover, do you honestly think a scientist you has spent 7-8 years getting a BSc and a PhD will just give up when they get to a lab? "Oh, I don't understand why this is this way. It was just made like that! I'll go home now."
As I said, a majority of molecular biologists do believe in ID, yet they keep researching to find out exactly how it works, exactly how it is made.
The belief that if ID were to become an additional accepted theory all scientific progress would stop is not only dogmatic in the extreme, it's just plain stupid.

I agree with you, M. M. I am living proof of a molecular biologists who is pursuing research in a lab, and trys to keep an open mind about the discoveries that I uncover. Even after 10 years of study in a university that is known to be strongly pro-evolutionist theory, I am far from convinced that it is an adequate theory. I would recommend it to be taught to my children alongside the ID theory, for I want them to have open minds, and make their own intelligent choices. Yet, I will not hide from them which theory is my favourite.

Believing in ID has not caused my research to suffer in any way, as far as I have noticed. My boss seems doesn't have any complaints about the quality of my work. I intend to publish in one of the main line jounals (PNAS) in the next few weeks.

Actually, what he is reffering to, is that there is a significant majority of scientists who adopt the theory, and theology of "Theistic Evolution", basically the idea of a "God" who oversees the evolutionary process.

Actually, it's not a majority. Since nobody else seems to feel like supporting their claims, let me do your homework for you:

As of 1997 (according to Gallup) only 40% of scientists believed there was a supernatural hand anywhere in the process of evolution. 55% supported naturalistic evolution without any supernatural force or Creator.

Actually, it's not a majority. Since nobody else seems to feel like supporting their claims, let me do your homework for you:

As of 1997 (according to Gallup) only 40% of scientists believed there was a supernatural hand anywhere in the process of evolution. 55% supported naturalistic evolution without any supernatural force or Creator.
Wow. Those numbers are lower than I expected. Thanks for the data, though.

I still dont really know what the hypothesis of intelligent design is about. Does anyone actually know how it is supposed to work apart from :god made it that way?

What predictions can it make?
What is the process by which it drives evolution?
What actual scientific evidence is there for it?

I'm pretty sure the answer to all these questions is 'none whatsoever'. Anyone care to elaborate?

These two letters were today published in the Times. I thought people on this forum would have an opinion on them

NOTE: Neither letters are by religious activists

How can we be sure that they aren't from religious fanatics? Just because they're signed by professors of blahblah from the University of blahblah doesn't mean anything. If I signed this Fredrich Nietszche, would you then believe that he's still alive?

From what I see, it's a concerted co-ordinated effort on the behalf of creationists to attack Dawkins, and in so doing attempt to destroy his credibility. They usually base their reasoning on the idea that if enough crap is flung eventually some will stick. And then hope that the person they're attacking will feel forced to defend him/her self against the attacks. Which will add weight to the religious laalaa's ideas that evolutionary theory is flawed.
Not that it matters, because if the person doesn't respond this 'proves' that they have no answer for the criticisms. They're screwed either way.

Here's your first lesson in science: if YOU make an assertion the burden of proof is on YOU to support it. You made the initial assertion regarding the number of scientists supporting ID, so the burden of proof is on you to support it. I didn't even have to mention my personal experience as rebuttal (I was just feeling generous), because you failed to in any way support your hypothesis.
Here's your first lesson in debate: saying "Nyah Nyah! I asked first!" is not considered witty, original or even amusing.

My evidence is anecdotal. Which is that of the molecular biologists I have spoken with, all have told me that the majority of MBs they have spoken with do not support evolution.
Now, you answer me:
What sciences are you qualified in?
What sciences do you work in?
What conferences do you go to?
Are you a molecular biologist?
Who published these surveys?
Where can I find them?
What were their criteria?
How did they select their samples?

Big Bang isn't evoulution. Evolution explains how species evolve, it doesn't say how life, the universe and everything came about.

True, big bang isnt evolution, but popular evolution depends on it, I would say. If you took away the big bang, what other origin is there? Some, I believe, but far less probable even than the big bang.
At any rate, my point was to show that there are quite a few similarities between evolution and creation theories.
To prove either theory, it is a matter of looking for the right questions.
In actual fact, such questions are not easy. Have you ever tried to think about a good question that would prove either theory to be the right one? Such questions are worth millions of dollars.
Most questions are e.g., how to stop a certain bacterium or virus from defeating the human immune system.
But trying to think up a question....how can I prove evolution to be right? Can you think of an example?

Read what my post says. Don't make up what you want me to have said so that you can argue.


What sciences? What conferences do you go to? Are you a molecular biologist? Who published these surveys? Where can I find them? What were their criteria? How did they select their samples?



I didn't claim that they did automatically believe in ID. I actually only refered to MBs.


However if a majority of molecular biologists can shred evolution when it comes to it's theories regarding cells (and I've heard them do it) then you either ignore molecular biology (which is very bad science) or you acknowledge your theory is massively flawed (which is not being done).


When a creationist says that evolution cannot be proven, they are openly mocked. Yet evolutionists are asking a standard of proof for the ID theory that they will not accept being requested of evolution. That is inconsistent.
Moreover, do you honestly think a scientist you has spent 7-8 years getting a BSc and a PhD will just give up when they get to a lab? "Oh, I don't understand why this is this way. It was just made like that! I'll go home now."
As I said, a majority of molecular biologists do believe in ID, yet they keep researching to find out exactly how it works, exactly how it is made.
The belief that if ID were to become an additional accepted theory all scientific progress would stop is not only dogmatic in the extreme, it's just plain stupid.

Funny I did a genetics degree that ran shared many modules with the molecular biologists and now one on either course believed ID, nor did any of the lecturers, nor any of the researchers that I spoke to about it. I would like to know where you got the idea that most molecular biologists believe in ID from.

Some of the problems in this discusion come from the confusion between the lay persons definition of a theroy and the scientific definition. Under the scientific definition of a theory neither ID nor creationism is a theory because they are both untestable hypothesis, and are unfalseifiable. You can prove TOE wrong, it is a theory that works however. So far it is the only scientific theory that fits the known data. If TOE was proved wrong then ID would not take it's place we would have to go back to the drawing board and start all over again. God or any unmeasurable force does not exist in science as they are untestable, neither ID nor creationism will ever be science untill the definition of science is changed.

The TOE has problems, but they are minor corrections to the exact method not a total rewriting of the central tenants that have stood over one hundred years of intensive testing. Hell I could be wrong, you should always keep an open mind but I would not put a single pound on the ID being excepted as the way man came about.

On what basis is evolution the best theory? That fact that 99.9% of research money is spent on evolution compared to the piddely little bit on creation gives you an idea of the huge bias out there. It does nothing to prove that evolution is the best theory, but more likely the most popular theory.
Based on my research, I cannot prove evolution is wrong, but I can conclude that it makes evolution look unlikely. Perhaps the same goes for most molecular biologists, if they were willing to criticise evolution theory. I have found most are too reluctant to, most likely because its their jobs or their reputation on the line. You really have to be a big shot in science, or/and have a really secure job/financial backing before you can safely criticise evolution theory. That does not give me much confidence in evolution, our most 'popular theory'.

So - evolution is more dominant a scientific theory PURELY because it is given preferential treatment? More money, etc...?

You must realise how ridiculous such a claim is, when Judeo/Christian religion has been pushing it's particular mythology for 3000 years or more, largely unmolested?

I am a scientist, working in a scientific field... and I have yet to see ANY evidence that so much as throws a shadow of doubt over the principles of evolution... much less makes evolution seem 'unlikely', as you claim to have seen.

What is this 'evidence', of yours?

I am sick of this "Evolution as a theory bull*@#!, evololution is a fact by biologists in the know, NATURAL SELECTION, how evolution comes about is the theory. When there is so much evidence that evolution occured. Also, this thing about the eyes being complicated in early lifeforms means what? we only have fossil records and scientists cannot be 100% sure that the eyes are the way we have labelled them.

Dawin will have a larger influence in the next millenium than Jesus did in the last 2. Just because evolution stabs at the heart of human pride doesnt make it wrong. I have also met atheists who reject evolution based on the fact that they feel kinda put down that they are animals and not special. Last time i checked no chimpanzee was having a discussion using a computer, even though some have been trained to talk using keyboards. Anyway i digress, there is no reason to feel ashamed to be human, the fact that we have achieved so much in a relatively short time (crocodiles have been on the planet for over 100 million years compared to us with over 100,000 or something years and we could wipe them out if we wanted).

And this molecular/reductionist attitude to life is nothing new. We already know that pleasure and pain are chemical/electrical messengers going to the brain and we are all made up of quarks so whats the big f*#@#ing deal b@#ches!

Is it just me, or does the majority of arguing done in the Western World over evolution's validity happen in the U.S.A.? What's up with that!?

True, big bang isnt evolution, but popular evolution depends on it, I would say. If you took away the big bang, what other origin is there? Some, I believe, but far less probable even than the big bang.
At any rate, my point was to show that there are quite a few similarities between evolution and creation theories.
To prove either theory, it is a matter of looking for the right questions.
In actual fact, such questions are not easy. Have you ever tried to think about a good question that would prove either theory to be the right one? Such questions are worth millions of dollars.
Most questions are e.g., how to stop a certain bacterium or virus from defeating the human immune system.
But trying to think up a question....how can I prove evolution to be right? Can you think of an example?

You can't. You can't prove any scientific theory right, not by the rules of science. What you do is put forward a hypothesis and try and disprove it. There is no such thing as fact, simply the theory that the evidence most supports.

Actually, it's not a majority. Since nobody else seems to feel like supporting their claims, let me do your homework for you:

As of 1997 (according to Gallup) only 40% of scientists believed there was a supernatural hand anywhere in the process of evolution. 55% supported naturalistic evolution without any supernatural force or Creator.

Where's the other 5%?

I disagree. Evolution and creation have a lot more in common than you seem to suggest. Both are theories, according to the science community. Both have 'and then there was' explanations. A big 'bang' for evolution, a spoken word for creation. If you find a major flaw in one theory, and a better fitting set of explanations in the other theory, then, ok, that is not proof, but it does lend more support to the theory with the better explanations.
In case you didn't realize, the evolution theory required a lot of people to throw up a lot of explanations, many of which are still not even remotely possibly, according to the laws of science that we currently observe. Myth making, in other words. That seems to be what you are accusing creationism of. Its a case of having the log in your own eye.

Both are not 'theories' according to the scientific community. Either you are misinformed, or you are attempting a pattern of misinformation.

One of the tenets of science is that, in order to be considered a valid, scientific 'theory', an assertion must be falsifiable.

To put it quite simply, since ID relies on the existence of an unmeasurable intelligence as it's originator, ID is not falsifiable.

Thus - ID is NOT a scientific theory.

Also, of course, the Big Bang has NOTHING to do with evolution... other than the fact you MIGHT find both subjects in one science book....

Is it just me, or does the majority of arguing done in the Western World over evolution's validity happen in the U.S.A.? What's up with that!?
Haven't heard any debates over here in Europe.

Edit: Actually this forum is the only place where I've witnessed a debate. I didn't know a debate existed until a few months ago. :D

1. Creationalism can not be a tested theory. So really its more of a biased and religiously promoted concept as opposed to an actual scientific theory.

2. Why don't we get the government and general ignorant populace out of the debate and let the scientists handle it. Most of those who wrote the letter can easily be seen as fools, as opposed to actual scientists.

Here's your first lesson in debate: saying "Nyah Nyah! I asked first!" is not considered witty, original or even amusing.



Actually - since the original assertion WAS yours, and definitely flies in the face of accepted evidence... the burden of proof really IS on you, I'm afraid.

So, cite sources... present valid evidence, please.... or else your argument is just hollow rhetoric.

However if a majority of molecular biologists can shred evolution when it comes to it's theories regarding cells (and I've heard them do it) then you either ignore molecular biology (which is very bad science) or you acknowledge your theory is massively flawed (which is not being done).

A majority is not even needed - one would be enough. He would however need to write a serious paper about it, have it peer reviewed and published in a respectable, impartial journal. Not a website on the internet, not a national magazine sponsored by "insert godloving society here".

If scientists then choose to ignore it, they are mock scientists.

When a creationist says that evolution cannot be proven, they are openly mocked.

Yep. Because the question is not wheter it can be proven or not - it is if it can be disproven. A scientist is not supposed to find "evidence" supporting his own little hypothesis - he is supposed to attack it with everything he has, and then ask his co-scientists to help him if he fails.
And if the hypothesis then still stands.. THEN it gets serious attention by the scientific community.

Evolution can be tested. It can -theoretically- be proven wrong. You cannot test ID; and therefor it can by definition not be science.
Again: this does not mean it is not true. It just states there is no reason to assume it true.

Yet evolutionists are asking a standard of proof for the ID theory that they will not accept being requested of evolution. That is inconsistent.

Incorrect -see above.

Moreover, do you honestly think a scientist you has spent 7-8 years getting a BSc and a PhD will just give up when they get to a lab? "Oh, I don't understand why this is this way. It was just made like that! I'll go home now."

Eeehm.. no; and I fail to see relevance ?
He might be unwilling to acknowledge his own pet theory is wrong though. Fortunately, that is what peer reviewing is for.

As I said, a majority of molecular biologists do believe in ID, yet they keep researching to find out exactly how it works, exactly how it is made.

And again: you cannot claim something is a valid scientific hyposthesis if it can not be tested. Evolution *can* be tested and so far has passed the tests. ID cannot, and therefor does not get a mark.

The belief that if ID were to become an additional accepted theory all scientific progress would stop is not only dogmatic in the extreme, it's just plain stupid.

Actually - it would mean the end of science as we know it, since it means you would be throwing away the scientific method.
Unless you can devise a test for ID ?

So - evolution is more dominant a scientific theory PURELY because it is given preferential treatment? More money, etc...?

You must realise how ridiculous such a claim is, when Judeo/Christian religion has been pushing it's particular mythology for 3000 years or more, largely unmolested?

I am a scientist, working in a scientific field... and I have yet to see ANY evidence that so much as throws a shadow of doubt over the principles of evolution... much less makes evolution seem 'unlikely', as you claim to have seen.

What is this 'evidence', of yours?

There is no documented evidence of an organism generating new genetic information. There is only horizontal transfer, or a loss of information. However, an increase in genetic material has to be accounted for. There is not even an good explanation of how an organism might generate new information. The example of antibiotic resistance is one of horizontal transfer. There is simply the exchange of a gene through bacterial conjugation, or via a virus infection. But this is not the generation of a new gene. So how do we get new genes? We find some plants have lots more genetic information even than humans. How did they get those massive chromosomes? We can look at their genome, to see if any new information was inserted. Do we see any? Yes? Can we trace their origins? sometimes, usually from infections, eg. from pathogenic bacteria like Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Do we see any mechanisms for creating new genes? Absolutely not!
I can hear you say, lack of evidence is not evidence. Quite right. But lack of evidence is definitely, in this situation, is better explained by creation than evolution.

Something no-one seems to discuss is evolution due to environmental direction. According to usual evolution, everything is an accident of cell replication and one in a few million changes is taken on board by a species. This means that if you have a small population of animals, then the chances of them evolving a useful trait are pretty small. SO how, in that case did humans evolve to the point we are now at considering that they were all but wiped out in several episodes in the past million years?
For instance - it's becoming increasingly common for chinese paddy field workers to be born with webbed toes. As they mostly wear sandals, there'd be no reason for this to be a useful trait, but it appears to be directed by the fact that they work knee-deep in water every day.
Just an idea...

The reason said change is "taken aboard" is because its... all with me now.

SUITED FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.

All evolution is by environment pressure.

Both are not 'theories' according to the scientific community. Either you are misinformed, or you are attempting a pattern of misinformation.

One of the tenets of science is that, in order to be considered a valid, scientific 'theory', an assertion must be falsifiable.

To put it quite simply, since ID relies on the existence of an unmeasurable intelligence as it's originator, ID is not falsifiable.

Thus - ID is NOT a scientific theory.

Also, of course, the Big Bang has NOTHING to do with evolution... other than the fact you MIGHT find both subjects in one science book....

I don't want to fight over the exact definition of a theory. In this case, hypothesis works just as well for me.

I do know several other scientist in my field who don't accept all aspects of evolution as a satisfactory explanation for what they observe. Thus, the statement that the science community considers both theories, or hypotheses, as just that is true.

My argument is that both theories or hypotheses are explanations. In some cases one theory seems more likely than the other, while in another case, it is reversed.
Evolution is not only more popular because of the more money thrown at it, but because it is more socially acceptable, more likely to have a good reputation if you believe it, more likely to publish papers, more likely to have a job and get funding. The list goes on. Its a viscious circle. Once you are on the outside......you have to beg on the street for money. But this does not make evolution more right. Just as the popular theory before Darwin (creation) didn't make it more right.

There is no documented evidence of an organism generating new genetic information. There is only horizontal transfer, or a loss of information. However, an increase in genetic material has to be accounted for. There is not even an good explanation of how an organism might generate new information. The example of antibiotic resistance is one of horizontal transfer. There is simply the exchange of a gene through bacterial conjugation, or via a virus infection. But this is not the generation of a new gene. So how do we get new genes? We find some plants have lots more genetic information even than humans. How did they get those massive chromosomes? We can look at their genome, to see if any new information was inserted. Do we see any? Yes? Can we trace their origins? sometimes, usually from infections, eg. from pathogenic bacteria like Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Do we see any mechanisms for creating new genes? Absolutely not!
I can hear you say, lack of evidence is not evidence. Quite right. But lack of evidence is definitely, in this situation, is better explained by creation than evolution.
Entire genes can get duplicated and then one of them changes over time and acquires a new function. There are many duplicate genes in our genome and similar structures and sub-units are found in many proteins with different functions.

Science uses deductive reasoning. Proof matters, and evidence is taken into account. However, and to understand the prcept of "deduction" one needs only review some of Doyle's writtings on Sherlock Holmes... "When all other alternatives have been excluded, that which remains, however unlikely, must be the truth."

That being said, theory is made upon the precept of the "best fit" scenario. That theory which best fits all available facts, regardless of its statistical likelyhood of occurance, is the accepted standard untill something better comes along.

The same applied to gravitation, Newton being surplanted by Lorentz, who is then surplanted by Einstein... As more understanding is gleened from the data and evidence, theories "evolve" or are thrown out in favor of new ones, to answer new understandings.

I don't want to fight over the exact definition of a theory. In this case, hypothesis works just as well for me.
Wrong. Evolution is a theory - a hypothesis, while unprovable at the present time, has stood up to stiff resistance and scrutiny by the scientific community, and is conciviably falsifiable.

Creation/ID are hypothesises, or whatever the plural is - They have not stood up to scrutiny and are NOT falsifiable.

I do know several other scientist in my field who don't accept all aspects of evolution as a satisfactory explanation for what they observe. Thus, the statement that the science community considers both theories, or hypotheses, as just that is true.
This is true. However, evolution has all the evidence on it's side. There is no evidence for creation that is not a thinly veiled attack on evolution.

My argument is that both theories or hypotheses are explanations. In some cases one theory seems more likely than the other, while in another case, it is reversed.
There are NO situations where creation/ID is more likely than evolution. Creation/ID depend on the presence of some omnipotent entity without any explanation of where this bugger would come from. The chances of such a being arrising from chance are infinitely higher than the chances of species arrising by chance.

Evolution is not only more popular because of the more money thrown at it, but because it is more socially acceptable, more likely to have a good reputation if you believe it, more likely to publish papers, more likely to have a job and get funding. The list goes on. Its a viscious circle. Once you are on the outside......you have to beg on the street for money. But this does not make evolution more right. Just as the popular theory before Darwin (creation) didn't make it more right.

Just because you're the minority doesn't make you right, either.

There is no documented evidence of an organism generating new genetic information. There is only horizontal transfer, or a loss of information. However, an increase in genetic material has to be accounted for. There is not even an good explanation of how an organism might generate new information. The example of antibiotic resistance is one of horizontal transfer. There is simply the exchange of a gene through bacterial conjugation, or via a virus infection. But this is not the generation of a new gene. So how do we get new genes? We find some plants have lots more genetic information even than humans. How did they get those massive chromosomes? We can look at their genome, to see if any new information was inserted. Do we see any? Yes? Can we trace their origins? sometimes, usually from infections, eg. from pathogenic bacteria like Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Do we see any mechanisms for creating new genes? Absolutely not!
I can hear you say, lack of evidence is not evidence. Quite right. But lack of evidence is definitely, in this situation, is better explained by creation than evolution.

I agree... LACK OF EVIDENCE is far better explained by Creation... since THAT is all the evidence there is for 'Creationism'.... exactly none.

If you are willing to accept one text, not tested, not peer-reviewed, and expected to be taken on faith, as a valid 'evidence' in the comparison of scientific 'theories'... well, I have no way to debate with you.

I don't want to fight over the exact definition of a theory. In this case, hypothesis works just as well for me.

I do know several other scientist in my field who don't accept all aspects of evolution as a satisfactory explanation for what they observe. Thus, the statement that the science community considers both theories, or hypotheses, as just that is true.

My argument is that both theories or hypotheses are explanations. In some cases one theory seems more likely than the other, while in another case, it is reversed.
Evolution is not only more popular because of the more money thrown at it, but because it is more socially acceptable, more likely to have a good reputation if you believe it, more likely to publish papers, more likely to have a job and get funding. The list goes on. Its a viscious circle. Once you are on the outside......you have to beg on the street for money. But this does not make evolution more right. Just as the popular theory before Darwin (creation) didn't make it more right.

You seem to think that, given equal funding, Creationism would somehow be the 'equal' of evolution, within the scientific arena.

That might have been possible a few hundred years ago, but, hopefully, we have moved beyond that now.... since modern science SEEMS to judge each 'theory' on it's merits in terms of evidentiary support.

Creationism HAS no evidentiary support.

It is NOT scientific to just make up mystery answers to the problems you cannot solve.

I agree... LACK OF EVIDENCE is far better explained by Creation... since THAT is all the evidence there is for 'Creationism'.... exactly none.

If you are willing to accept one text, not tested, not peer-reviewed, and expected to be taken on faith, as a valid 'evidence' in the comparison of scientific 'theories'... well, I have no way to debate with you.

I have a couple of other shreds of 'evidence' for you.

The first one is Mitochondria Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. These are terms used my modern scientists. The theory is that since mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to offspring, and never father to offspring, since the mother produces the egg and it's mitochondria are the only survivors, thus all mitochondrial DNA today, if creation is right, must come from a single woman. note, this does not rule out evolution, so long as we all evolved from a single woman. However, this is unlikely, since all the models of human evolution needs populations. Individuals cannot evolve. When this theory was most investigated, the popular evolutionary model was that humans arose from various places on earth, Africa, Asia, Europe, etc. The research showed that every human can be traced back to a single woman. The geneticists were quick to point out that this doesn't rule out evolution, since it may have been a single woman in a community that was responsible for passing on her mitochondria (all the other women must have been wiped out before they passed on their mitochondrial genes, or none of their offspring passed on their mitochondria). The long and the short of it is that the information fits perfectly to the creation theory, while only poorly to some versions of the evolution theory, and completely not with other versions.

There is another example. Creation theory says that since creation, organisms will generally lose information, since mutations either result in loss of genes or transfer of genes, but never generation of new genes. Evolution theory, however, has it that organisms create new genes out of nothing, although there has never been any evidence for this, and not even a good explanation.
A study of bacterial genomes reveals that, without exception, the overall trend is a loss of information. Parasitic bacteria are the best examples of this, since they have lost the basic information (genes) needed to survive on their own, in many cases.
Thus the evidence fits creation far better. Evolution theory is left guessing why, at this stage.

Bull. Genes are not "spontaneously" created. New genes are accidentaly created extra copies of a previous gene. These genes may be harmful or helpful, but they exist. And they do do something different from the orginal gene: Several syndromes, including Down, are caused by extra copies of a normal gene or chromosome.

As for the Eve thing, I've been expecting something like that, since the first "human" was a new being from an older species, logically if you were to trace back you'd find there was one "orginal" human, probably female. This female would be able to breed back into the orginal species she came from, creating sufficient genetic material for survival. Her offspring would inhererit the traits, breed back into orginal population, etc. until they had reached a point where they had become too far removed from the orginal population to interbreed: by that point, they would have enough individuals of their own species to survive.

Evolution may be guessing at some things, but Creationism is one big guess.

I have a couple of other shreds of 'evidence' for you.

The first one is Mitochondria Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. These are terms used my modern scientists. The theory is that since mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to offspring, and never father to offspring, since the mother produces the egg and it's mitochondria are the only survivors, thus all mitochondrial DNA today, if creation is right, must come from a single woman. note, this does not rule out evolution, so long as we all evolved from a single woman. However, this is unlikely, since all the models of human evolution needs populations. Individuals cannot evolve. When this theory was most investigated, the popular evolutionary model was that humans arose from various places on earth, Africa, Asia, Europe, etc. The research showed that every human can be traced back to a single woman. The geneticists were quick to point out that this doesn't rule out evolution, since it may have been a single woman in a community that was responsible for passing on her mitochondria (all the other women must have been wiped out before they passed on their mitochondrial genes, or none of their offspring passed on their mitochondria). The long and the short of it is that the information fits perfectly to the creation theory, while only poorly to some versions of the evolution theory, and completely not with other versions.

There is another example. Creation theory says that since creation, organisms will generally lose information, since mutations either result in loss of genes or transfer of genes, but never generation of new genes. Evolution theory, however, has it that organisms create new genes out of nothing, although there has never been any evidence for this, and not even a good explanation.
A study of bacterial genomes reveals that, without exception, the overall trend is a loss of information. Parasitic bacteria are the best examples of this, since they have lost the basic information (genes) needed to survive on their own, in many cases.
Thus the evidence fits creation far better. Evolution theory is left guessing why, at this stage.

That all people somewhere in the past probably had a common ancestor 'eve' does fit evolution. If a woman ever had mutation that benefited her and her offspring and she and her offspring survived for the gene to spread in the population, over time the population will consist of people with that gene only by selection. This means that they all had a common ancestor, this woman. Now let's apply this to a gene located in the mitochondrial DNA (or any other part of the genome that can only be gotten from your mother) and you end up that if you go back long enough in the list of 'mother of', we find a common 'mother'.

A problem for creation caused by this data: how do you explain the different 'races' if they all came from one mother without using evolution?

mutations can expand the amount of data. Mutations that expand the amount of 'genetic bits' exist - syndrome of down anyone?

Bull. Genes are not "spontaneously" created. New genes are accidentaly created extra copies of a previous gene. These genes may be harmful or helpful, but they exist. And they do do something different from the orginal gene: Several syndromes, including Down, are caused by extra copies of a normal gene or chromosome.

As for the Eve thing, I've been expecting something like that, since the first "human" was a new being from an older species, logically if you were to trace back you'd find there was one "orginal" human, probably female. This female would be able to breed back into the orginal species she came from, creating sufficient genetic material for survival. Her offspring would inhererit the traits, breed back into orginal population, etc. until they had reached a point where they had become too far removed from the orginal population to interbreed: by that point, they would have enough individuals of their own species to survive.

Evolution may be guessing at some things, but Creationism is one big guess.

Extra copies of a single gene is a long way from the creation of a new gene. Rather than making new genes, they tend to get included as introns, the so called junk DNA. How anyone is ever supposed to get a brand spaking new gene out of junk DNA is beyond me. Not only has this never been discovered, it takes a very precise combination of promotor, ribosome binding site, start codon, stop codon, and a whole lot of codons in between that somehow have to make exactly the right sense to code for a novel protein that probably needs to be folded exactly right by a chaperone (usually another protein) that just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Thus this new protein goes on the interact with other proteins and to fulfill a function that was deperately needed by only that protein in that indivdual cell, as the cell goes on the form a new organ, eg. the eye. Sounds like fiction, eh? More like desperation to me. If you have really studied molecular biology, you will see just how big a leap in logic this is.
Sounds like you are the one with the bull, mate.

This eve was not allowed to breed back into the species she came from, for that would allow the inclusion of mitochondria from other individuals, something that was ruled out by the researchers.

And then there is the Y-Chromosome, which I forgot to mention before. It shows a similar pattern of inheiritance, on the male side. It too can be traced back to a single male, although not as definitely. Thus a real problem for the evolutionists. Note, I'm not saying that you chaps can't explain it, only that your explanations sound a bit flimsy. To me, it looks rather like the claim that the Bible made that all humans come from Adam and Eve is a much better fitting explanation. Even if you don't believe in God, you have to ponder at how such a conclusion (as a single man and a single woman being the ancestors of the entire human race) came to be accepted as true, when there was so much in evolution theory that 'proved' it wrong (consider all the human bones found everywhere that apparently proved that humans arose from many difference locations on earth). What a marvelous find!!

That all people somewhere in the past probably had a common ancestor 'eve' does fit evolution. If a woman ever had mutation that benefited her and her offspring and she and her offspring survived for the gene to spread in the population, over time the population will consist of people with that gene only by selection. This means that they all had a common ancestor, this woman. Now let's apply this to a gene located in the mitochondrial DNA (or any other part of the genome that can only be gotten from your mother) and you end up that if you go back long enough in the list of 'mother of', we find a common 'mother'.

A problem for creation caused by this data: how do you explain the different 'races' if they all came from one mother without using evolution?

mutations can expand the amount of data. Mutations that expand the amount of 'genetic bits' exist - syndrome of down anyone?

The mutations in the mitochondrial DNA were not beneficial ones (as I understood it), but simply trademarks or something like bar codes. They don't necessarily affect the performance of the mitochondria, thus cannot be selected, but they can be detected.

The races can be explained by adaptation and another term, phenotypic plasticity. Every good scientist can explain this. It doesn't require hundreds of thousands of years to get the asian eye, for example. Only several generations will suffice.

Actually, the most accepted theory is the "out of Africa" theory, meaning, yes, in fact, humans DID arrise in just one place.

And if the first people didn't breed back into their original species, we would have died of inbreeding a long time ago.

I never said EVERY copy of a gene does something. Sometimes, multiple copies somehow interact to cause a different effect than just 1. Down syndrome, for example, is caused by an extra copy of a normal gene. So, obviously, the second copy is doing something different than intended, somehow.

Actually, what he is reffering to, is that there is a significant majority of scientists who adopt the theory, and theology of "Theistic Evolution", basically the idea of a "God" who oversees the evolutionary process. This still falls into the theological principle of "Intelligent Design";

However, such scientists separate the theistic part from the science. They believe that a creator is involved, but do not seek evidence for that (as no such evidence could possibly be found). The theory of evolution, as it stands - and as it must stay - makes no statement about God. Whether or not an individual believes (but does not claim to have evidence for) a God behind the process is irrelevant to the theory.

(This isn't an argument - you basically said the same thing below - just wanted to concur).

I agree with you, M. M. I am living proof of a molecular biologists who is pursuing research in a lab, and trys to keep an open mind about the discoveries that I uncover. Even after 10 years of study in a university that is known to be strongly pro-evolutionist theory, I am far from convinced that it is an adequate theory. I would recommend it to be taught to my children alongside the ID theory, for I want them to have open minds, and make their own intelligent choices. Yet, I will not hide from them which theory is my favourite.

Believing in ID has not caused my research to suffer in any way, as far as I have noticed. My boss seems doesn't have any complaints about the quality of my work. I intend to publish in one of the main line jounals (PNAS) in the next few weeks.

Your research may not have suffered, but your scientific integrity certainly has. You suggest that we teach an idea that is not scientific, and is certainly not a theory, alongside one that is.

The vast majority of scientists believe in a creator. However, as scientists, we must separate that from our work. God is, by definition, outside the realm of science.

I was actually hoping that people might comment on the letters as opposed to decending into another Creation-Evolution conflict. Ah well.

Since the first post mentions the evolution of the eye and how there is supposedly no evidence whatsoever for it, I suggest everyone pick up a copy of the latest Nature. I have't read the article yet, but the cover story seems to point to very early precursors of the eye.

There is no documented evidence of an organism generating new genetic information. There is only horizontal transfer, or a loss of information. However, an increase in genetic material has to be accounted for. There is not even an good explanation of how an organism might generate new information. The example of antibiotic resistance is one of horizontal transfer. There is simply the exchange of a gene through bacterial conjugation, or via a virus infection. But this is not the generation of a new gene. So how do we get new genes? We find some plants have lots more genetic information even than humans. How did they get those massive chromosomes? We can look at their genome, to see if any new information was inserted. Do we see any? Yes? Can we trace their origins? sometimes, usually from infections, eg. from pathogenic bacteria like Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Do we see any mechanisms for creating new genes? Absolutely not!
I can hear you say, lack of evidence is not evidence. Quite right. But lack of evidence is definitely, in this situation, is better explained by creation than evolution.

Completely incorrect. Just as we can trace the information that is added by pathogens, we can trace information back in specific genes and see evidence that the genes themselves were copied. We have also observed mutations in which nucleic acids are added.

I don't want to fight over the exact definition of a theory. In this case, hypothesis works just as well for me.

I do know several other scientist in my field who don't accept all aspects of evolution as a satisfactory explanation for what they observe. Thus, the statement that the science community considers both theories, or hypotheses, as just that is true.

Your lack of logic is amazing. "Some people think that the theory evolution isn't completely correct (ie. all scientists). Obviously this means that this other idea, which can't even be classified as scientific, must be just as good!"

Even if evolution were disproven tomorrow, that would not provide any support at all for ID or Creationism.

<snip>
I thought you were saying, "Prove ID!" If you weren't, fine.




Eeehm.. no; and I fail to see relevance ?
This was perfectly relevant. Just not to this thread.
Damn Firefox and it's tabbed browsing!


And again: you cannot claim something is a valid scientific hyposthesis if it can not be tested. Evolution *can* be tested and so far has passed the tests. ID cannot, and therefor does not get a mark.

Actually - it would mean the end of science as we know it, since it means you would be throwing away the scientific method.
Unless you can devise a test for ID ?
A test? Umm...does something exist that we can't rationally explain by any means other than ID. To disprove it, find another explanation.
Edit: The following part is a joke.
I imagine that as scientific knowledge increases there will be many proofs and disproofs!
Edit: The afore mentioned 'joke' statement was a joke. :rolleyes:

A test? Umm...does something exist that we can't rationally explain by any means other than ID. To disprove it, find another explanation.

Wrong. That wouldn't disprove ID, as the IDer could just say, "Oh, well God did it that way then.

There already are other explanations for everything any IDer has brought up and they are still clamoring "No, we can't explain it!"

Meanwhile, this seems to be an admission that ID is exactly like those who thought lightning was Zeus throwing things. We don't know, so we'll just make something up. Cute.

I was actually hoping that people might comment on the letters as opposed to decending into another Creation-Evolution conflict. Ah well.
Sorry.
Umm...quite interesting. Although it does kind of read like they don't like him.
Understandable actually, he carries on about stuff that, let's be honest, isn't really important and gets lots of money and attention and they probably both do very serious research that could well improve life for many people but are underfunded and generally ignored.

The general problems with the available letters is that biologic evolution, seems statistically "unlikely".

Their eye example is a misnomer (by assuming full evolutionary creation of the eye as found in early cambrian fossiles in crustacians).

It is already well known, even though it is not seen by fossiles, that animals pre-dating the cambrian type invertibrate possessed simple eyes (indeed, oysters and clams have "occular" mechanisms far simpler than those found in arthoropods and other such cambrian exo-skelletal type life forms).

The cambrian explosion documents well in fossil evidence the eye of early arthropoidic life... However, in descent, outside of the arthoropods, little fossilizes amongst invertebrate and vertibrates lacking hard calcified exoskellatons. Even human eyes (being more in descent of those of molluscs, being divergent from the eye adapted towards the use by arthropods) does not fossilize.

many ID'ers of the YEC and OEC teams, think of evolution, somehow, as a linear system of descent. It is more of a tree type descent. With divergent paths taken by many different forms. (Ex. Dinosaurs and Mammals are divergences from Reptilian).

As a Theistic Evolutionist, I certainly see theological merit in ID. Though not as the YEC wish to portray it as a scientific principle.

Is it just me, or does the majority of arguing done in the Western World over evolution's validity happen in the U.S.A.? What's up with that!?

Well, I guess there are not many "hard" creationists in other Western countries. This does not mean there is no scientific discussion about evolution, but at least most of us (this time refering to Germans) think religious creationism is just rediculous. Though there ARE many rational and/or liberal Christians who somehow believe in evolution influenced by God.

Well, I think that they will be ways to proove or disprove IE in the coming years. I do not think it untestable, just untestable with our current level of scientific knowledge. Just as people 500 years ago couldn't test lightning, but now we understand it. It may take time but it will be possible.

God uses science to do everything. He is best scientist in the universe. Creationist arguments are only unscientific because they quote old records in which the scientific creation of life was easier to describe as "He just made it" than to go into the cellular level etc etc. The writers of the Bible didn't know about that stuff, so it is all simplified.

As has been stated: There is no scientific proof for or against ID. Though I think there are some things which once further investigated can lead to some interesting discoveries.

On another note: A point in the direction of ID is the creation of life/ one cell organisms. This has been done by scientists. But they have been unable to just make it happen. They had to intervene. In other words, they had to use their intelligence and design a living cell. This does not prove ID, but it is a big step in the right direction. It leads us to see that life is more complex and needs to be guided by someone who knows what they are doing.

Who knows, God could've created all animals in separate pitri dishes :D

But as for being untestable, I disagree. We may have to work around the issue, but we can find ways of testing.

Care to suggest any? I can't see any sort of having everyone short "OY, GOD! SHOW YOURSELF SO WE CAN END THIS DEBATE!!!"

Of course scientists can't get it to work. Remember how long this was supposed to have taken? When they've done this a few billion times, then maybe they can say that it isn't working.

examine the creation and you'll know more about the creator.

Your suggested method is very unscientific. I suggest we continue research in biology, etc. Following what we know so far. Technology will improve and we'll be able to asked deeper questions. That's just how it goes. Patience is required :)

Well, I think that they will be ways to proove or disprove IE in the coming years. I do not think it untestable, just untestable with our current level of scientific knowledge.

Incorrect. The proposal of ID is completely outside of the realm of science. We cannot test an intelligent creator that, by definition, lies outside of our universe. Science only deals with that which we can measure - that which is within our universe. Lightning was never untestable. We simply didn't have the means to test it. The existence of anything outside the universe or transcending the rules of the universe is, by the definition of science, untestable.

Creationism and ID are unscientific because they both rely completely on the existence of a force outside the universe - which is, by definition, outside the realm of science.

On another note: A point in the direction of ID is the creation of life/ one cell organisms. This has been done by scientists. But they have been unable to just make it happen. They had to intervene. In other words, they had to use their intelligence and design a living cell.

Wait. You are claiming that scientists have designed and put together a living cell? You'll have to back that one up my dear. Scientists have been trying that for quite a while - and have yet to be able to do it. If you have a breakthrough paper that no one in the scientific community has yet seen, by all means produce it.

But as for being untestable, I disagree. We may have to work around the issue, but we can find ways of testing.

Not within the confines of science, we can't.

I do examine the creation. I see things that point to evolution. Therefore, evolution is the creator. You assume God is true, then you look for him. This is not scientific. Give me evidence of God, and then I'll form a hypothesis tenatively stating he is true.

I do examine the creation. I see things that point to evolution. Therefore, evolution is the creator. You assume God is true, then you look for him. This is not scientific. Give me evidence of God, and then I'll form a hypothesis tenatively stating he is true.
Evolution is not the theory that deals with creation of life

Just the change of life

So ID is still possible with evolution holding true

Point. I fell into the typical creationism trap of confusing the issue. I'll take that. But I still think abiogenesis is more likely than any sort of omnipotent being. Abiogenesis may be unlikely, but a God is more unlikely.

Point. I fell into the typical creationism trap of confusing the issue. I'll take that. But I still think abiogenesis is more likely than any sort of omnipotent being. Abiogenesis may be unlikely, but a God is more unlikely.
:) I happen to agree just wanted to point it out before someone else jumped all over you

I thought you were saying, "Prove ID!" If you weren't, fine.

Oh no. I in fact somewhat like the concept of ID - I just get annoyed by people that insist it is valid science. It is quite possible the theories of evolution and natural selection are wrong and ID is not - but that is an entirely different issue.

Lets make an analogy: saying that ID is science is like saying apples are a type of meat. Both can be eaten, but they are obviously quite different in nature.

A test? Umm...does something exist that we can't rationally explain by any means other than ID. To disprove it, find another explanation.

Well.. a huge copyright sign in the middle of the earth saying "I made this" would be convincing. And disproving that was made by intelligent design would indeed be hard (though not impossible :P)

I don't want to fight over the exact definition of a theory. In this case, hypothesis works just as well for me.

I do know several other scientist in my field who don't accept all aspects of evolution as a satisfactory explanation for what they observe. Thus, the statement that the science community considers both theories, or hypotheses, as just that is true.


Bruarong, I don't think you're a scientist. The statements you make are addressed in many undergraduate sciences classes. You always speak vaguely: "I do know several other scientists..." From what I've seen in my lifetime, big-name scientists are the most likely to support radical departures from the norm, not less.

If you a scientist, why don't you provide evidence of this? Who are you? Where did you earn your doctorate? Where do you work? What have you published? Any scientist who feels qualified to make statements about this matter would proudly identify themselves and their credentials. Considering you have not provided any data to support your view, you probably aren't willing to show that you're not really a scientists. You're just someone with a high-school education who has been spoon-fed creationist literature.

You also mentioned 99.9% of funding goes to evolution research. Where can I find this data? I just looked at NSF and NIH websites, but I fail to find anything resembling the numbers you are spouting off.

Incorrect. The proposal of ID is completely outside of the realm of science. We cannot test an intelligent creator that, by definition, lies outside of our universe. Science only deals with that which we can measure - that which is within our universe. Lightning was never untestable. We simply didn't have the means to test it. The existence of anything outside the universe or transcending the rules of the universe is, by the definition of science, untestable.

Creationism and ID are unscientific because they both rely completely on the existence of a force outside the universe - which is, by definition, outside the realm of science.



God is not outside the Universe. He obeys all the physical laws, but knows how to use them better than we do. Assuming he is outside of the universe is a convenient way of saying "that is a problem I am too close minded to examine".

God and evolutionary theory are not mutually exclusive.

As for the lightning thing, you are disagreeing with me, just to reaffirm what I said. sheesh.

"Lightning was never untestable. We simply didn't have the means to test it. "

Did I not just say that?! Stop being as close minded as the creationists and TRY to see it a little more scientifically. IE possible until proven impossible.

I swear people are just denouncing what they don't agree with on the basis that they don't agree, so it must not be true. Your counter-points are very vehement in the negative, but not very informative. Science is about have a mind open to ALL possibilities.



Oh, and about evolution not being concerned with the creation of life. I never said it was. I just pointed to ID being concerned with creation of life, and biology as a whole is concerned with it. Evolution is JUST PART of science. it is not the whole.

God is not outside the Universe. He obeys all the physical laws, but knows how to use them better than we do. Assuming he is outside of the universe is a convenient way of saying "that is a problem I am too close minded to examine".


No it is logical there has to be a motivating force … if god was contained within the universe how could he create it?

Not to mention that if he was “all powerful” but contained within a finite space (ever expanding but measurable) then either the sum of the universes power is infinite or part of him exists outside of it


God and evolutionary theory are not mutually exclusive.

As for the lightning thing, you are disagreeing with me, just to reaffirm what I said. sheesh.

"Lightning was never untestable. We simply didn't have the means to test it. "

Did I not just say that?! Stop being as close minded as the creationists and TRY to see it a little more scientifically. IE possible until proven impossible.

I swear people are just denouncing what they don't agree with on the basis that they don't agree, so it must not be true. Your counter-points are very vehement in the negative, but not very informative. Science is about have a mind open to ALL possibilities.


Creationism is not and can not be a scientific theory so we cant consider it “scientifically” it relies on an un-testable force (god)
If he was completely testable then he would not be infinite (all knowing nor all powerful nor any of the omni’s ) he would be a finite being with a finite set of powers (which would hardly make him a god would it not)

"Lightning was never untestable. We simply didn't have the means to test it. "Did I not just say that?! Stop being as close minded as the creationists and TRY to see it a little more scientifically. IE possible until proven impossible.

Being untestable and not having the means to test it are two completely different things.

Example: I want to measure how much a standard bar of gold weighs. However, since I do not have a bar of gold I cannot. I do not have the means to perform my measurement, but if had had the bar I could have done it. I can think of a test - but cannot perform it.

Intelligent Design on the other hand is untestable - not due to a lack of resources, but due to the very nature of the idea. Which, for the umpteenth time, does not mean it cannot be true - but it does mean it can not be called scientific.

its OK as long as its not being used to verify the myths contained in a book written a couple millennia ago.

its OK as long as it allows for the possibility of white mice, a guy name slartibartfast and the number 42

God is not outside the Universe. He obeys all the physical laws, but knows how to use them better than we do. Assuming he is outside of the universe is a convenient way of saying "that is a problem I am too close minded to examine".

If God were bound by the laws of our universe, God would not be omnipotent - by definition. Any being which created the universe, as I and most believe God did, would, by definition exist outside of its laws.

Meanwhile, if God only works within the laws of the universe, then we still can not measure God. We would simply be measuring the way things work. Thus, again, we could never test God.

God and evolutionary theory are not mutually exclusive.

I am well aware of this. Unfortunately, IDers and Creationists don't seem to be.

As for the lightning thing, you are disagreeing with me, just to reaffirm what I said. sheesh.

No, you used the word incorrectly. When we say that something is untestable in science, we do not mean "we don't currently have the capability but might have it later." We mean that testing that is a logical impossibiliity. By definition, any omnipotent being is not bound by the laws of the Universe, thus it is outside the realm of science.

Did I not just say that?! Stop being as close minded as the creationists and TRY to see it a little more scientifically. IE possible until proven impossible.

Anyone who has even considered the logic behind the scientific method is well aware that it is impossible to test for God.

I swear people are just denouncing what they don't agree with on the basis that they don't agree, so it must not be true. Your counter-points are very vehement in the negative, but not very informative. Science is about have a mind open to ALL possibilities.

Incorrect. Science is about having an open mind to all things which can be tested and have not been disproven. if it cannot be tested, it cannot be part of your hypothesis. Science does not concern itself with religion - for good reason - it is outside the realm of science altogether. Science takes no position on the existence or non-existence of a deity - with good reason - it is outside the realm of science.

*shrug*

God is not outside the Universe. He obeys all the physical laws, but knows how to use them better than we do. Assuming he is outside of the universe is a convenient way of saying "that is a problem I am too close minded to examine".

God and evolutionary theory are not mutually exclusive.

As for the lightning thing, you are disagreeing with me, just to reaffirm what I said. sheesh.

"Lightning was never untestable. We simply didn't have the means to test it. "

Did I not just say that?! Stop being as close minded as the creationists and TRY to see it a little more scientifically. IE possible until proven impossible.

I swear people are just denouncing what they don't agree with on the basis that they don't agree, so it must not be true. Your counter-points are very vehement in the negative, but not very informative. Science is about have a mind open to ALL possibilities.



Oh, and about evolution not being concerned with the creation of life. I never said it was. I just pointed to ID being concerned with creation of life, and biology as a whole is concerned with it. Evolution is JUST PART of science. it is not the whole.

You think ID is falsifiable? Fine, give us a test for which it is possible to falsify an intelligent creator, untill you can do this, this entire debate is worthless.

Oh no. I in fact somewhat like the concept of ID - I just get annoyed by people that insist it is valid science. It is quite possible the theories of evolution and natural selection are wrong and ID is not - but that is an entirely different issue.
I would think that natural selection is a fact, not a theory. I mean we can see it happening today.
Quick example:
The British water vole was perfectly adapted to its environment. When threatened it would dive into a river and swim to its burrow. Whatever had threatened it could no longer catch it. Then some idiot animal rights activists freed a load of mink from a fur farm. Mink dive into the water after it, chase it to it's burrow, dig in after it and eat it. Thus, the water vole is going extinct, possibly by 2006. Natural selection.

Is it definitely still a theory?



Lets make an analogy: saying that ID is science is like saying apples are a type of meat. Both can be eaten, but they are obviously quite different in nature.
Well.. a huge copyright sign in the middle of the earth saying "I made this" would be convincing. And disproving that was made by intelligent design would indeed be hard (though not impossible :P)
LOL. True.

I would think that natural selection is a fact, not a theory. I mean we can see it happening today.
Quick example:
The British water vole was perfectly adapted to its environment. When threatened it would dive into a river and swim to its burrow. Whatever had threatened it could no longer catch it. Then some idiot animal rights activists freed a load of mink from a fur farm. Mink dive into the water after it, chase it to it's burrow, dig in after it and eat it. Thus, the water vole is going extinct, possibly by 2006. Natural selection.

Is it definitely still a theory?

Yes. By the scientific method, it is.

Of course, in science, there is nothing higher than theory. Even a law (which is a term that doesn't get much usage anymore - since we've proven "laws" wrong) is nothing more than a theory with a lot of backing behind it.

Is there something wrong with me by not actually caring how we evolved? Personally, I'm an Athiest, so I'm inclined against religious descriptions of human creation. However, wouldn't it be more important to look at the current problems of the world rather than debating about what may or may not have happened and doesn't seem will be ever proven concisely either way to all people?

Just my opinion. :)

Is there something wrong with me by not actually caring how we evolved? Personally, I'm an Athiest, so I'm inclined against religious descriptions of human creation. However, wouldn't it be more important to look at the current problems of the world rather than debating about what may or may not have happened and doesn't seem will be ever proven concisely either way to all people?

Just my opinion. :)

You don't personally have to care.

However, it's a bit silly to think that knowing where things come from has nothing to do with the current problems of the world. Evolutionary theory has informed, for instance, the biotech industry which, in turn, pushes medical technology. Is improvement of medical technology not current enough?

As said before: Intelligent Design is not a testable hypothesis. As are statements that we are the result of a chaosgod sneezing, we are all just a computerprogram in the matrix etc. That does not necessarily mean those hypotheses are wrong, but it does mean they cannot be called science.
AMEN to that. *bows*

You don't personally have to care.

However, it's a bit silly to think that knowing where things come from has nothing to do with the current problems of the world. Evolutionary theory has informed, for instance, the biotech industry which, in turn, pushes medical technology. Is improvement of medical technology not current enough?
What has it informed them of?

Incorrect. The proposal of ID is completely outside of the realm of science.

Actually we can

The notion of intellegent design comes partly with irriducable complexity. The idea being this. If you throw a bunch of sticks on the ground you can see shapes develop in a pattern. These shapes were just the result of some kind of random movement, but they are shapes. The shapes are explainable as being constructed by the sticks. However the sticks themselves are just there. There are no smaller sticks or things that look like sticks but arent etc. The sticks are just there. You can't explain there origins because they have no lower parts. Basic irriducable complexity is the idea that there are points at which you cannot reduce things to a simpler, more explainable level. If this metaphor confuses people then I can see why.

Well, there are some things that were previously thought to be irreducably complex, but aren't. A good example would be the mammalian jaw.

In mammalians, the joint between upper and lower jaw are the squamosal and the dentary, while in reptiles and birds it is between the quadratum and the articulary. The question was over many decades

A palaeontologist in the 1920's (who is frequently quoted even today by certain unaware Creationists, if i'm not mistaken) stated "How could they change from one joint to the other? They would have been without a usable joint in the meantime."

More recently (i think 1980's or 1990's), they found the cynodont Probainognathus with actually has the two joints parallel to each other. Thus, the transition was not a problem, and something that seemed previously 'irreducibly complex' wasn't that way at all. Because of this example (and a few others), i'm sceptical towards irreducable complexity.

On another note: A point in the direction of ID is the creation of life/ one cell organisms. This has been done by scientists. But they have been unable to just make it happen. They had to intervene. In other words, they had to use their intelligence and design a living cell. This does not prove ID, but it is a big step in the right direction. It leads us to see that life is more complex and needs to be guided by someone who knows what they are doing.Doesn't mean much.

Imagine you went to some desert or other and saw a particularly interesting lump of rock, naturally wind-carved in an interesting shape... You then decided to have a scale-copy put into your garden. You need to engineer, to design, to specify the shape of this copy, despite the original being a complete fluke, subservient only to the laws of nature and chance...

Just because you have to reverse-engineer something doesn't mean someone had to engineer it in the first place.

There was an 'electronic evolution' experiment which used a Programmable Gate Array chip (that could be configured to operate in many different ways) to essentially 'evolve' a circuit that would produce a particular output to a particular input. To cut the story short, it was a simple function, but one which would (under a human designer's hand) require the use of a small timing/clock circuit. The eventual design (artificially 'bred' through trial and error, but completely hands-off) that was arbitrarily chosen as the 'completed' circuit did not have an actual dedicated and indentifiable timing circuit. IIRC, it even had some isolated sections of circuit that were not connected directly to any other part (except by capacitance/leakage, probably) but which could not be deconfigured and yet keep the rest of the ciruit functioning...

Far beyond 'design'. It produced something that the designers were not even (prior to the discovery) capable of designing themselves, was produced through hands-off selection and mutation techniques and while it was an experiment in the scientists' lab under given (environmental?) conditions and pressures, it was not 'designed' or guided outside of the conditions that it found itself in. Very much as living cells and organisms do, IMHO... No need for a 'natural' designer, but it would need conscious thought (and research) to make an 'artificial' copy, yes...

Actually we can

The notion of intellegent design comes partly with irriducable complexity. The idea being this. If you throw a bunch of sticks on the ground you can see shapes develop in a pattern. These shapes were just the result of some kind of random movement, but they are shapes. The shapes are explainable as being constructed by the sticks. However the sticks themselves are just there. There are no smaller sticks or things that look like sticks but arent etc. The sticks are just there. You can't explain there origins because they have no lower parts. Basic irriducable complexity is the idea that there are points at which you cannot reduce things to a simpler, more explainable level. If this metaphor confuses people then I can see why.

So can I... because it doesn't make any sense.

And seeing as ID has absolutely no method of diagnosing and identifying "irreducible complexity" it is nothing more than a meaningless catch phrase. Something designed to sound impressive as long as you don't think about it too hard. Code for "wow that looks complicated, I refuse to believe it evolved".

Behe told us all that the bacterial flagellum was "irreducibly complex"... then he was presented with a potential evolutionary pathway for it's gradual development.

He told us the blood clotting cascade was "irreducibly complex"... then he was presented with a potential evolutionary pathway for it's gradual development.

And so on, and so on... and never at any point does Behe provide any objective means of testing for irreducible complexity. Apparently you're just supposed to be able to know it when you see it... only as shown above that doesn't work. That isn't science. That's an argument from incredulity. It's one big logical fallacy.

That is ID. "I personally can't comprehend how something happened... therefore it couldn't have happened" does not a theory make.

Anyone else notice that neither of the letters say anything informative or offer any kind of scientific proof about intelligent design whatsoever? It's the same shit anyone who believes in intelligent design have said over and over again: Just because creationists believe in it doesn't mean it's wrong. And: Life is too complex to not have been intelligently designed.

Why should these two be taken any more seriously than anyone else supporting intelligent design if the best they can do is repeat the same thing over and over again (namely, life is too complex to not have been intelligently designed)?

I have a couple of other shreds of 'evidence' for you.

The first one is Mitochondria Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. These are terms used my modern scientists. The theory is that since mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to offspring, and never father to offspring, since the mother produces the egg and it's mitochondria are the only survivors, thus all mitochondrial DNA today, if creation is right, must come from a single woman. note, this does not rule out evolution, so long as we all evolved from a single woman. However, this is unlikely, since all the models of human evolution needs populations. Individuals cannot evolve. When this theory was most investigated, the popular evolutionary model was that humans arose from various places on earth, Africa, Asia, Europe, etc. The research showed that every human can be traced back to a single woman. The geneticists were quick to point out that this doesn't rule out evolution, since it may have been a single woman in a community that was responsible for passing on her mitochondria (all the other women must have been wiped out before they passed on their mitochondrial genes, or none of their offspring passed on their mitochondria). The long and the short of it is that the information fits perfectly to the creation theory, while only poorly to some versions of the evolution theory, and completely not with other versions.

There is another example. Creation theory says that since creation, organisms will generally lose information, since mutations either result in loss of genes or transfer of genes, but never generation of new genes. Evolution theory, however, has it that organisms create new genes out of nothing, although there has never been any evidence for this, and not even a good explanation.
A study of bacterial genomes reveals that, without exception, the overall trend is a loss of information. Parasitic bacteria are the best examples of this, since they have lost the basic information (genes) needed to survive on their own, in many cases.
Thus the evidence fits creation far better. Evolution theory is left guessing why, at this stage.

First: Doesn't have to be one woman - just one small cluster of closely related individuals... depending on WHEN the 'marker' arises that you are tracking, this may not even be a 'human' thing.

Note: This is consistent with the 'cradle of life' assumption.

Second: Current theory doesn't support what you say it does. Strawman.
The most prevalent current theories seem to circulate around 'humans' largely arising in one place... probably as an evolutionary niche gave them an advantage over other similar forms - which is EXACTLY consistent with the theory of 'evolution'.

Third: Accidental gene duplication + mutation = effective addition of a gene.

Anybody who denies the absolute truth of the neo-darwinian theory of evolution gets a reading that's off the chart on the "retardometer". We should not "respect" the views of those who disagree. We should ridicule them and call them names until they cry. If you doesn't understand or misunderstand a point that's fine, it can be explained slowly and carefully, but don't think for a second that it is untrue just because you're too slow to pick it up straight away.

In my experience, though, those who don't believe in evolution are almost impossible to enlighten because not only do they have a lot to learn, they have a lot to unlearn, which is far more difficult. Only a small fraction of the population is capable of considering an opinion they don't like. Thus it becomes impossible to get them to accept even the most basic and obvious facts.

I think this cartoon sums it all up very nicely:
http://images.villagevoice.com/issues/0520/tmw-big.jpg

I have a couple of other shreds of 'evidence' for you.

The first one is Mitochondria Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. These are terms used my modern scientists.

And misunderstood by modern creationists and IDers...

The theory is that since mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to offspring, and never father to offspring, since the mother produces the egg and it's mitochondria are the only survivors, thus all mitochondrial DNA today, if creation is right, must come from a single woman.

Oh boy...

Look, "mitochondrial Eve" is simply the most recent common female ancestor of the human race. The same analysis which established that also placed her living at approximately 150,000 years ago.

"Y chromosome Adam" is the same. The most recent common male ancestor of all living humans. The analysis here indicates he lived approximately 75,000 years ago.

Take a wild guess why these are not analogous to the biblical "Adam and Eve" of creationism.

The long and the short of it is that the information fits perfectly to the creation theory, while only poorly to some versions of the evolution theory, and completely not with other versions.

Sure... if a woman dead for 75 millenia can get together with a guy and produce offspring...

There is another example. Creation theory says that since creation, organisms will generally lose information, since mutations either result in loss of genes or transfer of genes, but never generation of new genes.

This has been conclusively demonstrate to be absolutely false. We've observed the creation of new genes within our own lifetime for cripes sake. Flavobacterium Sp. K172 evolved a brand new gene to produce a nylon digesting enzyme through a frame shift mutation just a few decades ago.

A study of bacterial genomes reveals that, without exception, the overall trend is a loss of information.

Care to cite that study?

Actually we can

The notion of intellegent design comes partly with irriducable complexity. The idea being this. If you throw a bunch of sticks on the ground you can see shapes develop in a pattern. These shapes were just the result of some kind of random movement, but they are shapes. The shapes are explainable as being constructed by the sticks. However the sticks themselves are just there. There are no smaller sticks or things that look like sticks but arent etc. The sticks are just there. You can't explain there origins because they have no lower parts. Basic irriducable complexity is the idea that there are points at which you cannot reduce things to a simpler, more explainable level. If this metaphor confuses people then I can see why.

Why not just use the mousetrap, Neo? It's the classic Irreducible Complexity example for a reason...

The idea is that the mousetrap does not function if it lacks one part. Thus, the mousetrap MUST have been created as an artifact.

(I'll not bother destroying Irreducible Complexity, yet... I just thought I'd show you what it actually WAS, first.... I guess I just am morally opposed to fighting against unarmed opponents.)

Why not just use the mousetrap, Neo? It's the classic Irreducible Complexity example for a reason...

The idea is that the mousetrap does not function if it lacks one part. Thus, the mousetrap MUST have been created as an artifact.

(I'll not bother destroying Irreducible Complexity, yet... I just thought I'd show you what it actually WAS, first.... I guess I just am morally opposed to fighting against unarmed opponents.)

Ah but you see Grave, I can come up with my own analogies.

Actually we can

The notion of intellegent design comes partly with irriducable complexity. The idea being this. If you throw a bunch of sticks on the ground you can see shapes develop in a pattern. These shapes were just the result of some kind of random movement, but they are shapes. The shapes are explainable as being constructed by the sticks. However the sticks themselves are just there. There are no smaller sticks or things that look like sticks but arent etc. The sticks are just there. You can't explain there origins because they have no lower parts. Basic irriducable complexity is the idea that there are points at which you cannot reduce things to a simpler, more explainable level. If this metaphor confuses people then I can see why.

It's a lovely and almost poetic way to dress up the phrase "I don't know how it happened, and even after you explain it I don't understand, so it must be impossible, and God did it."

No ideas on the mammalian jaws, anyone, or do you generally agree with what i said?

I mean, the reptile-mammal transition is one quite well known... :)

It's a lovely and almost poetic way to dress up the phrase "I don't know how it happened, and even after you explain it I don't understand, so it must be impossible, and God did it."

Dude! its simple...you gota be hick to not get it...

Ah but you see Grave, I can come up with my own analogies.

The problem is, Neo - your 'pile of sticks' is not irreducibly complex.

It is, in fact, very obviously REDUCIBLY complex.

Basically - if you use YOUR example, you defeat I.C. yourself...

Jeez, I'm just trying to help...