ID advocates set up Kangaroo Court in Kansas

I wonder what would happen if all biologists or even scientists refused to take part in a kangaroo court? Could this be the best way of beating the rigged system? If only one side came, then the school board might either ignore them or adopt a radically pro- ID stance, leading to a challenge in a real court, where backroom deals and pressures may be exposed.

From the KC Star story:

'John Millam, a software engineer with a doctorate in physics, left work early in Kansas City to come to the hearing at a Topeka hotel. The Mission resident said he doesn't want the panel studying science standards to veer too far in any direction.

"The scientists say, 'We're right.' The creationists say, 'We're right,' " Millam said. "Science should be neutral."'

Um, sir? Science IS neutral...it follows the evidence. And the fact that you've divided the "controversy" into "scientists" and "creationists" indicates what should be taught in a public school science class and what should be taught in a Sunday (or Saturday, etc.) school class.

This would be a great forum to expose the scientific vacuity of ID and the theological risks. I wonder if such arguments would be allowed to be expressed.
Will the truth prevail? We shall see.

Will the 3-member BoE subcommittee be made up of IDC supporters only? I couldn't tell from the KC Star story. But if they're the ones controlling the "trial," I suppose the hope is that any real scientists who participate will be blindsided by well-practiced, Gish-galloping galoots from the DI.

DI's biggest problem is that there is essentially no debate in the scientific community as to evolution's validity. But by bypassing the traditional channels by which academic validity is gained and going right to the public, they're laying the groundwork to gain the ability to soon say that there IS a debate. Else why all these debates?

Notch raises a good point; the more scientists allow themselves to be engaged in these types of rigged events, the more easy it will be for the John Millams of this world to draw a '50/50' dichotomy and conclude that "neutrality" is the way to go.

Of course, remaining silent has its problems too. But in an event as rigged as the one Kansas is setting up, it might be best to just sit it out. Anyone school board that thinks scientific questions can be decided by a simple majority deserve the embarrassment that will come when no one shows up for its kangaroo court.

Board gets a lesson Both sides of evolution debate air views By Barbara Hollingsworth The Capital-Journal Kansas doesn't need a modern-day version of the Scopes Monkey Trial. The chairman of the Kansas State Board of Education and the chairman of a committee revising the state science standards agree on that much. But in a downtown meeting late Wednesday following the last public hearing on the state's science standards, they couldn't agree on just what format an informed debate about evolution might take. The meeting also was attended by proponents of intelligent design. Earlier in the evening, the teaching of evolution also received all of the focus during a public hearing about revisions to the state science standards at the Capitol Plaza Hotel. About 150 people attended the hearing, among them preachers, scientists, college teachers, parents and students speaking about the state's science standards, which lay out what Kansas students should learn and be tested on. On one side of Wednesday's public hearing were those who said science as it is currently taught censors criticism of evolution. On the other side, supporters of the current teaching of evolution said critics wrongly seek to redefine science in favor of religious-based views. The conservative-dominated state school board also hopes to gather expert differing opinions, and it created a three-member subcommittee earlier this month to hear testimony about evolution. Subcommittee members have discussed having hearings that could resemble a trial in which witnesses would be cross-examined by the opposing side. At Wednesday's late meeting, board chairman Steve Abrams, of Arkansas City, said the four public hearings conducted throughout the state have been valuable, but they haven't provided a forum for experts to debate. Barbara Hollingsworth, "Board gets a lesson" Topeka Capital-Journal, February 24, 2005.

"I think this goes to the heart of the controversy that I am unaware of any other forum where the public can hear both sides of a discussion and have questions asked that would be relevant to their greater understanding," he said. "I believe it is important we have greater understanding of this by the public." But Steve Case, chairman of the committee revising the standards, questioned how the witnesses would be selected and if they would have expertise in the area they covered. He also said many scientists would feel uncomfortable speaking in a trial format. Plus, Case said many of his colleagues see the outcome as a forgone conclusion. It is widely expected that the state board will deviate from the science standards written by Case's committee as board members did in 1999. That year, the board removed references to the age of the Earth and macroevolution, or changes from one species to another. "That is the perception in the science community: because of the politics, because of the controversy, it is a rigged hearing," Case said. Case did agree to help develop a list of topics that could be debated, but he didn't agree on the format those debates should take and said he doesn't want to be involved in that process. He suggested the debate be done in written statements. After the meeting, Abrams said he still believes the hearings need to include a spoken, public debate. Speaking at the Capitol Plaza Hotel, Doug Phenix likened the debate to a tennis coach accusing a baseball coach of not playing baseball by the rules of tennis and teaching about the controversy. "You can see how absurd this situation is," said Phenix, a Topeka pastor who has a degree in chemistry. "We have a group of people wanting us to play baseball by the rules of tennis." Evolution -- the theory that says species change over time responding to environmental and genetic factors -- is under attack by intelligent design proponents. Intelligent design is the idea that life is too complicated to have been created by chance happenings and was more likely guided by an intelligent being. Intelligent design proponents say science is too limited in viewing the world only by natural observations and ruling out the possibility of an intelligent being. But supporters of evolution say that the intelligent design proponents would wrongly redefine science. While more speakers at the Capitol Plaza spoke in favor of the current standards, many were critical of how evolution is currently taught. Joy Bourdess, of Overland Park, said a controversy clearly exists, and children must be taught about that debate. "I believe that anything else dumbs down the education process," she said. "I believe quality education teaches critical thinking skills." The science committee revising the state standards has rejected changes that would open evolution to criticism, but at least one speaker recognized that state board members may make a different choice. "If your good work does not prevail this year, I am certain it will after the 2006 elections," Lawrence resident Phil Baringer told members of the science committee. Barbara Hollingsworth can be reached at (785) 295-1285 or barbara.hollingsworth@cjonline.com. Barbara Hollingsworth, "Board gets a lesson" Topeka Capital-Journal, February 24, 2005.

Is anyone else old enough to remember the 1972 Munich Olympic basketball gold medal game, where the officials re-played the last several seconds over and over again until the Russians could win?

Will the 3-member BoE subcommittee be made up of IDC supporters only?

Is it too far out to believe that John H. Marburger III will storm this "trial" à la Al Sharpton on Boston Legal? Cause that would be so cool.

Anyway, I remain optimistic about the kangaroo kourt situation (if it even happens).

Is anyone else old enough to remember the 1972 Munich Olympic basketball gold medal game, where the officials re-played the last several seconds over and over again until the Russians could win?

I run into this at work (in a PA public school) all the time. Especially from social studies teachers who teach "BOTH communism and democracy"
Can't you just teach both "theories"??? Sure, I'll teach the Muslim kids, the Shinto kids, the Buddist kids, Jews, Born Agains, Jehovah's Witnesses..... THE VERSION OF CREATION THAT I AM FAMILIAR WITH (I am Catholic). Is that acceptable???
If you want a religious version of the story, buck up and send your kid to a religious school. Every one of the religions above would have a rightful lawsuit against me for indoctrinating their kids wth "my religion". I have three degrees, two in Biology and one in Education. NONE in theology. i am not qualified to lecture on creationism.
A second point, if you do not think evolution is a fact, I do not have the time or patience to deal with you. What you BELIEVE is seperate from what you can PROVE. Also, remember there is a huge difference between kneeling down and bending over.

If the 3-member BoE subcommittee are all creationists, and they get to be the "judges," how could this "court" be anything other than the marsupial variety? What a farce... what IS the matter with Kansas? (Somebody oughtta write a book!)

What you BELIEVE is seperate from what you can PROVE.

See, this is why science needs a field program. Too many people seem to think that the correctness of their ideas will carry them on through: that, as happens in science, truth will out, evidence will convince, and all will be well.

Well, it won't. For all the glib chuckling at ID, we're losing ground to them, not gaining it. They (both the ID movement in particular and the anti-SoCaS movement in general) are playing this smart, as if it were a long-term chess game where they are racking up the pieces they need, framing the discussions the ay they want. They are playing politics. They have lawyers on our side. We need lawyers and field advocates for our side. What we are doing isn't working. People don't trust us. We are turning people off, in part because the creationists have better "frames" than we do (we have complicated points about scientific philosophy. They have "equal time" "teach to the debate" "liberty" "your faith and dogma" and so forth) The hostility to science is incredible in this modern day, and it's getting entrenched while we sit on our hands and laugh at the latest goofiness. But while we think it's goofy, people in these states are seeing it as deadly serious. And even though ID people usually lose these things, they build a massive resivoir of resentment and revolution among ordinary people.

From what I see, too many of us seem to think that just because we can refute their arguments, all is well and good. But we win those battles almost always at the expense of losing the war.

We need more political wings to go right out into these communities and push clear, powerful messages about the importance of clearly delineated science and the values of religious tolerance.

The Hollingsworth article mentions that experts will be cross examined "by the opposing side". Does anyone have any information about how that will be conducted? Will the panel conduct the cross examinations, any scientist giving testimony for that side, or designated attorneys?

Also, instead of boycotting, what would the effect be of all biologists in the US applying to give evidence. The ID side is going to get evidence from all the scientists who accept ID; why not make it obvious (and on the record) what a small minority of scientists that represents; and how the "fair" format is designed to actively exclude available evidence supporting evolution?

Boiling science down to slogans in the hopes they will be catchier than the ID slogans is a blueprint for failure. Science doesn't lend itself to catchy slogans.

Undoubtedly what is planned is that the Discovery Institute circus of philosophers, lawyers, and a few scientists who've never managed to publish original research confirming "intelligent design"....

It isn't a question of selling the technical science itself: of course that can't be boiled down into a message. It's a question of selling values that respect science, and that can be comfortable with what science is all about. That's the battle we are losing.

If you want to go on pretending that all will be well, that we can get by purely by dint of our righteousness, then you are in for the same surprise that liberals had when they realized in 2004 that there were more conservatives out there than them, and they were way more pissed than liberals had imagined. The SC that will ultimately hear challenges to teaching ID will be one radically changed from the one that last heard such a case, and the ID movement has a far mroe insidious set of legal arguments. You can't pretend that the SC will protect you forever. At some point, we maybe might want to see if we can maybe appeal to the regular people who are ultimately going to decide what can and cannot be taught in school.

'John Millam, a software engineer with a doctorate in physics, left work early in Kansas City to come to the hearing at a Topeka hotel. The Mission resident said he doesn't want the panel studying science standards to veer too far in any direction. "The scientists say, 'We're right.' The creationists say, 'We're right,'" Millam said. "Science should be neutral."'

What you BELIEVE is seperate from what you can PROVE. Now ~that's~ some thin ice for an evolutionist to be skating on, dude. Applied consistently, that principle would effectively mean having to "teach the controversy" to the science students, no?

— FL

I think the proposed "trial" may be more akin to the Inquisition's trial of Galileo. There the church fathers "knew" that Galileo was guilty of heresy but for appearances they held a "hearing." What the ID majority of the Kansas BofE has proposed is juridically no different. The outcome---that is the decision by the board's majority---is predetermined, and the "trial" is for the sake of appearance only. I think the best course to follow would be to decline to participate on the basis that the entire venture is a farce, but build a case for a suit once the decision is handed down from on high.

On the other hand, if Steve Case and crowd knew the ground rules in advance they might be able to marshal a group of witnesses and counsel that could demolish any ID promoters. But that would depend greatly on the ground rules (which the board majority seems to be making up as it goes along) and who the participants were. In the end, though the entire venture sounds like a serious attempt to cook the books so to speak.

"They are in need (often desperate need) of philosphers to clean up the mangled mass of concepts they employ."

To some extent, I agree. Philosophers like Daniel Dennet and Peter Singer certainly have taken science and run with it to what I think is some positive end for philosophy. And philosophers of science have indeed contributed some keen insights to the process of science that have hopefully made it more robust and self-skeptical.

But the sort of philosophers I suspect Nick is thinking of are neither of these. Instead, they tend to be in the mold of Tipler: out there people who want to ead all sorts of technical ideas into science without having much of a grasp of the evidence, or even how science works. And I suspect they are going to be much more akin to Phillip Johnson's lawyerly brand of philosophy than Decarte's.

I get the impression that Mr. Matzke believes "circus of medicine-men, ambulance chasers and alchemists" would be equally suitable.

My own opinion is that scientists, excepting the exceptional such as Newton, Darwin and Einstein, are little more than data collectors, accountants of natural phenomena.

They are in need (often desperate need) of philosphers to clean up the mangled mass of concepts they employ.

But the sort of philosophers I suspect Nick is thinking of are neither of these. Instead, they tend to be in the mold of Tipler: out there people who want to ead all sorts of technical ideas into science without having much of a grasp of the evidence, or even how science works.

Also, instead of boycotting, what would the effect be of all biologists in the US applying to give evidence. The ID side is going to get evidence from all the scientists who accept ID; why not make it obvious (and on the record) what a small minority of scientists that represents; and how the "fair" format is designed to actively exclude available evidence supporting evolution?

— Tom Curtis

Someone should issue a public challenge: Anyone who testifies as an expert must show the laboratory in which she or he does the work that makes him or her an expert. To qualify, they have to demonstrate their work and tell what their hypothesis is, and how they are testing it.

Bring on those ID experts!

Is anyone else old enough to remember the 1972 Munich Olympic basketball gold medal game, where the officials re-played the last several seconds over and over again until the Russians could win?

The notion of a "Project Kansas" akin to NCSE's Project Steve offers some potential. I can imagine Steve Case offering a list of biologists, all tenured faculty at Kansas Colleges, including some evangelical institutions, wanting to testity. Like Project Steve, limiting the proposed "witnesses" to tenured biologists from Kansas colleges and universities, but marshalling as many as possible, should bring the numbers into the low 100's. It would take some effort but, if successful, if offers the potential of putting to rest the false notion that there is a controversy. Such an effort would be particularly effective, if the volunteer witnesses included a number f aculty from evangelical schools. To that end, someone might contact Richard Colling, an evangelical Christian with a PhD in microbiology and chair of the biology department at Olivet Nazarene University in Bourbonnais, Illinois, who has written a book Random Designer arguing for the validity of evolution. Dr. Colling might well know several biology faculty at Kansas evangelical universities who could be contacted.

If you want a religious version of the story, buck up and send your kid to a religious school.

— Jim McCusker

My own opinion is that scientists, excepting the exceptional such as Newton, Darwin and Einstein, are little more than data collectors, accountants of natural phenomena. They are, as a rule, ill-equipped to examine their own disciplines critically, or to venture into the more theoretical areas of their fields.

It's deja vous, all over again. (from Yogi Bera) I can't wait.

The charge of "philosophy" (usually meant pejoratively in the sense of "metaphysics) is commonplace on this board. The implication seems to be that philosophical positions are invalid for some reason, or that they don't measure up to "scientific" ones, perhaps because they cannot be verified or falsified, etc. I would be interested to learn the opinions of the PT community on this score.

— Michael Finely

My own opinion is that scientists, excepting the exceptional such as Newton, Darwin and Einstein, are little more than data collectors, accountants of natural phenomena. They are, as a rule, ill-equipped to examine their own disciplines critically, or to venture into the more theoretical areas of their fields.

I just posted on Talk Origins about how such comments bother me. Creationism and ID, without thorough mainstream science rebuttal, don't belong in religious schools, churches or Sunday schools any more than they do in public schools, because that is tantamount to bearing false witness.

I suppose if most scientists disagreed with MY religion, I would also hold the opinion that they are (except for the rare newsworthy genius) all bottle washers, floor sweepers, and otherwise uninformed and thoughtless automatons. This is a paradigmatic example of the naturalistically committed scientist's inability to seperate distinct issues. What has "my religion" to do with the undue glorification of science over other objective, truth-seeking disciplines such as philosophy? What has it to do with ID for that matter? I would assume that without the philosophical background I assume they lack, they are universally unaware of the scientific foundations of the very work they do for a living.

— Flint

Name a specific instance in which a philosopher has made a significant contribution to any field of theoretical science. I can't think of a single one.

— Steve Reuland

Name a specific instance in which a philosopher has made a significant contribution to any field of theoretical science. I can't think of a single one.

Name a specific instance in which a philosopher has made a significant contribution to any field of theoretical science. I can't think of a single one.

It's deja vu all over again. (Yogi Berra). Sorry. And 10 days?

Michael Finley wrote" My own opinion is that scientists, excepting the exceptional such as Newton, Darwin and Einstein, are little more than data collectors, accountants of natural phenomena. They are, as a rule, ill-equipped to examine their own disciplines critically, or to venture into the more theoretical areas of their fields. They are in need (often desperate need) of philosphers to clean up the mangled mass of concepts they employ.

It's worthwhile remembering that science grew out of philosophy; Isaac Newton and many other scientists of past centuries called themselves "natural philosophers".

I'm not sure how seriously to take this question, but let me hit a few of my personal favorites: (1) Aristotle, referred to by his fans as "The Philosopher," founded most of the theoretical sciences, the philosophy of science, and invented formal logic, (2) Descartes replaced the medieval concept of relational space with the modern concept of extentional space, and invented analytic geometry, (3) Leibniz invented calculus (independently of Newton), and (4) Frege, Russell and Whitehead invented mathematical logic. Add to these the philosophers of science from Pascal to Kuhn, Bacon to Quine who have attempted to set science on firm ground.

— Michael Finely

Ernst Mach

— David Heddle

I suppose if most scientists disagreed with MY religion, I would also hold the opinion that they are (except for the rare newsworthy genius) all bottle washers, floor sweepers, and otherwise uninformed and thoughtless automatons. This is a paradigmatic example of the naturalistically committed scientist's inability to seperate distinct issues. What has "my religion" to do with the undue glorification of science over other objective, truth-seeking disciplines such as philosophy? What has it to do with ID for that matter?

My experience with scientists, which is not expansive but also not exceedingly limited, is that they are usually naive realists. They believe that the human confrontation of nature is unproblematic. Some that I have known believe a warmed over version of logical positivism without any knowledge of its death or why it died.

If scientists are to hold philosophy qua mode of explanation in contempt, which many of the posters on this blog clearly do, they better be able to defend a version of positivism.

If scientists are to hold philosophy qua mode of explanation in contempt, which many of the posters on this blog clearly do, they better be able to defend a version of positivism.

[quote-Scott Davidson]...while ID may cut it in some philosophical circles it isn't science.

I agree, but what's your point. I suspect your emphasis on "isn't" is the very thing I'm interested in. The emphasis is derogatory, i.e., "isn't science, and therefore, isn't deserving of serious consideration." And if I am correct in my characterization, what is the ground of this feeling of superiority?

What, for instance, makes scientific modes of inquiry superior to metaphysical, phenomenological or conceptual (e.g., "natural language philosophy") modes of inquiry?

If ID were to "cut it" as philosophy (and it may not), though not as science, would an intelligent person be justified in dismissing it out of hand because it isn't science? In other words, can their be objective truths about the world we live in that, while accessible to human reason, are inaccessible to science? Could ID be correct and not scientific? If not, why not? Whence the privilege of science?

We might as well insist our auto mechanics and dentists make a defense of positivism before we allow them to work on cars or teeth, for all the good it does to complain about the philosophy of scientists.

— Ed Darrell

Make that "ultimate causes of nature."

Now, at the last minute, they have hatched a plan to put evolution on trial for 10 days, with no standards of evidence, none of the rules found in a normal trial, no rules for what counts as a "scientist" or an "expert", and no limitation that the "witnesses" be from Kansas.

For all the glib chuckling at ID, we're losing ground to them, not gaining it. They (both the ID movement in particular and the anti-SoCaS movement in general) are playing this smart, as if it were a long-term chess game where they are racking up the pieces they need, framing the discussions the ay they want. They are playing politics.

I agree, but what's your point. I suspect your emphasis on "isn't" is the very thing I'm interested in. The emphasis is derogatory, i.e., "isn't science, and therefore, isn't deserving of serious consideration." And if I am correct in my characterization, what is the ground of this feeling of superiority?

What, for instance, makes scientific modes of inquiry superior to metaphysical, phenomenological or conceptual (e.g., "natural language philosophy") modes of inquiry?

In other words, can their be objective truths about the world we live in that, while accessible to human reason, are inaccessible to science?

Could ID be correct and not scientific?

Whence the privilege of science?

Philosophers worry about the dynamics of paradigms and scientists worry about the supernovas and snails. When it comes to the ultimate causes in nature, however, the two disciplines start to step on each others toes. And my primary point is this: It?s not immediately clear whose turf it is. When it comes to the ultimate causes in nature, however, the two disciplines start to step on each others toes. And my primary point is this: It?s not immediately clear whose turf it is.

Whence the privilege of science?

— Michael Finley

If you want to go on pretending that all will be well, that we can get by purely by dint of our righteousness, then you are in for the same surprise that liberals had when they realized in 2004 that there were more conservatives out there than them, and they were way more pissed than liberals had imagined.

Undoubtedly what is planned is that the Discovery Institute circus of philosophers, lawyers, and a few scientists who've never managed to publish original research confirming "intelligent design" will invade Kansas and attempt to give their pseudoscience some thin illusion of respectability.

I do think it's appropriate to privilege science in science classes.

— SteveS

SteveS:

I admit the topic as I've pushed it has little to do with Kansas. I am in agreement that philosophical positions have no business in a science class, and I take ID to be an empirically based philosophical position.

I siezed on "philosophers" to have an out-of-place discussion, and I apologize if this has irked those among you who would prefer to talk about Kansas. My bar is much lower than the ID crowd's: I want philosophy out of science classes.

SteveS:

I admit the topic as I've pushed it has little to do with Kansas. I am in agreement that philosophical positions have no business in a science class, and I take ID to be an empirically based philosophical position.

I siezed on "philosophers" to have an out-of-place discussion, and I apologize if this has irked those among you who would prefer to talk about Kansas. My bar is much lower than the ID crowd's: I want philosophy out of science classes.

Michael Finley wrote I agree, but what's your point. I suspect your emphasis on "isn't" is the very thing I'm interested in. The emphasis is derogatory, i.e., "isn't science, and therefore, isn't deserving of serious consideration." And if I am correct in my characterization, what is the ground of this feeling of superiority?

Simply talk of mutation and natural selection without committing to the cause of mutation, e.g., "DNA copying alterations" or some such phrase instead of "random DNA copying errors"?

I agree. Nevertheless, the teaching of science needs to be delimited in such a way that metaphysical naturalism stays out of science classes as well. Leave the philosophy to philosophy classes. Metaphysical versus methodological naturalism is a distinction without a difference. Methodological naturalism produces naturalistic conclusions, i.e., conclusions dependent on metaphysical naturalism.

Why not teach evolution, and modify the teaching of neo-Darwinian mechanisms to leave aside talk of chance as the cause of mutation, etc. Simply talk of mutation and natural selection without committing to the cause of mutation, e.g., "DNA copying alterations" or some such phrase instead of "random DNA copying errors"? What is lost here but the underlying naturalism?

I want philosophy out of science classes.

Nevertheless, the teaching of science needs to be delimited in such a way that metaphysical naturalism stays out of science classes as well. Leave the philosophy to philosophy classes. Metaphysical versus methodological naturalism is a distinction without a difference. Methodological naturalism produces naturalistic conclusions, i.e., conclusions dependent on metaphysical naturalism. Why not teach evolution, and modify the teaching of neo-Darwinian mechanisms to leave aside talk of chance as the cause of mutation, etc. Simply talk of mutation and natural selection without committing to the cause of mutation, e.g., "DNA copying alterations" or some such phrase instead of "random DNA copying errors"? What is lost here but the underlying naturalism?

— Michael Finley

Umm, because where they occur is random? Unless you want to imply that there is a reason why they happen? Why did the DNA sequence change at this point and not some other location? Chance.

This is a paradigmatic example of the naturalistically committed scientist's inability to seperate distinct issues. What has "my religion" to do with the undue glorification of science over other objective, truth-seeking disciplines such as philosophy? What has it to do with ID for that matter?

Oops, make that five MILLENIA of religious futility in trying to explain and manipulate the world.

I get the impression that Mr. Matzke believes "circus of medicine-men, ambulance chasers and alchemists" would be equally suitable. I can understand the inclusion of lawyers; no one cares for lawyers? I also understand (but disagree) with your characterization of ID scientists. What puzzles me is that philosophers are heading up the parade.

— Michael Finley

Michael Finley wrote:
Nevertheless, the teaching of science needs to be delimited in such a way that metaphysical naturalism stays out of science classes as well. Leave the philosophy to philosophy classes. Metaphysical versus methodological naturalism is a distinction without a difference. Methodological naturalism produces naturalistic conclusions, i.e., conclusions dependent on metaphysical naturalism.
Why not teach evolution, and modify the teaching of neo-Darwinian mechanisms to leave aside talk of chance as the cause of mutation, etc. Simply talk of mutation and natural selection without committing to the cause of mutation, e.g., "DNA copying alterations" or some such phrase instead of "random DNA copying errors"? What is lost here but the underlying naturalism?

So, would you suggest suppressing mention of chance in other areas of science, such as quantum mechanics and meteorology? I would suggest that you read Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" (I hope the title is correct) for a great explanation of the role of chance and randomness in evolutionary theory, and how it is compatible with faith in God.

From what I see, too many of us seem to think that just because we can refute their arguments, all is well and good. But we win those battles almost always at the expense of losing the war. We need more political wings to go right out into these communities and push clear, powerful messages about the importance of clearly delineated science and the values of religious tolerance.

Michael Finley wrote: Nevertheless, the teaching of science needs to be delimited in such a way that metaphysical naturalism stays out of science classes as well. Leave the philosophy to philosophy classes. Metaphysical versus methodological naturalism is a distinction without a difference. Methodological naturalism produces naturalistic conclusions, i.e., conclusions dependent on metaphysical naturalism.

Only two things are necessary to make the hearing scientific. Firstly the number speakers representing a point of view should be proportional to the number of papers in the scientific literature which represent that point of view. Second, propositional logic should be disallowed. Only scientific hypotheses, experimental tests and experimental results should be presented.

(1) Who hatched this idea in the first place? Who set up the "rules"? Who is really running the show?

— Nick Matzke

(2) Why was this new, highly irregular procedure tacked onto the normal procedures at the last minute? Was the problem that only creationists supported the Intelligent Design Network revisions at the regular public comment sessions?

(3) Can science be redefined based on a bare majority on a state school board? (The conservatives gained a 6-4 majority in the last election, which is why this is happening now)

(4) Should the real scientific community participate in this show trial at all? Why can't "intelligent design" follow the route taken by every other idea in the science classrooms --- peer-reviewed publishing, acceptance by the scientific community, and finally incorporation into the introductory textbooks? Why is ID forced to "cut in line" via political means?

He also said many scientists would feel uncomfortable speaking in a trial format.

Sure, I'll teach the Muslim kids, the Shinto kids, the Buddist kids, Jews, Born Agains, Jehovah's Witnesses . . . .. THE VERSION OF CREATION THAT I AM FAMILIAR WITH (I am Catholic). Is that acceptable???

No, it's not acceptable. What's acceptable is you teach a neutral theory that doesn't attempt to characterize the intelligent agent(s). Intelligence is the not the exclusive domain of religion. Supposedly even evolutionary biologists are intelligent agents and I for one am willing to give them the benefit of doubt in the regard. If you want a religious version of the story, buck up and send your kid to a religious school.

— Jim McCusker

If you want only an atheist version of the story buck up and send your kid to a private school that kowtows to atheism. Every one of the religions above would have a rightful lawsuit against me for indoctrinating their kids wth "my religion".

A second point, if you do not think evolution is a fact, I do not have the time or patience to deal with you.

What you BELIEVE is seperate from what you can PROVE.

I'm a little surprised that the philosophy of science is taking a beating here. Philosophers of science are not navel gazing metaphysicians. Philosophers of science like Eliot Sober, Philip Kitcher, Daniel Dennett, Peter Godfrey-Smith, Michael Ruse, John Wilkins, et al are anything but slouches when it comes to biology. Unfortunately, there's always been an image problem with philosophy due to the co-opting of the term by non-philosophers to mean anything that is asserted as an opinion.

IDists cannot be construed as philosophers of science in any sense of the word, let alone philosophers. No one in the field recognizes them as such nor pays any attention to their work. Simply calling oneself a philosopher doesn't make it so. Michael Finley's assertion that methodological naturalism is a metaphysical position simply demonstrates his woeful lack of understanding of the terms. Again, another example of IDists redefining terms and parading them about as if they were self-evident.

I recommend an extended essay by John Wilkins entitled "Evolution and Philosophy An Introduction" which can be found on the Talk.Origins website: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil.html

"Maybe the penalty for perjury makes them uncomfortable.  Just a guess . . . "

Not a particularly smart guess given that MOST people are uncomfortable speaking in public, period, let alone in a trial format.

You can do a lot better than this.

Dear Dave,

You are a disgrace to, well, everything and everyone honest and decent, clearly uninterested in furthering human knowledge or happiness and a disgrace to you faith and phantasies.

Intelligent design questions the mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself.

Michael Finley's assertion that methodological naturalism is a metaphysical position simply demonstrates his woeful lack of understanding of the terms.

He also said many scientists would feel uncomfortable speaking in a trial format.

Maybe the penalty for perjury makes them uncomfortable. Just a guess . . .

"Why isn't it a universe full of tapioca, say, or very large chairs? I mean, if nothing wants to be something, why can't it be anything?" The wizards stirred their tea and thought about this. "Because," said the Archchancellor, after a while. "That's a good answer, sir," said Ponder, as diplomatically as he could. "But it does rather close the door on further questions." "Best kind of answer there is, then."

DNA copying errors are random in that we predict them based upon our incomplete understanding of the initial conditions and forces at play. It isn't equiprobable, as we do understand something about varying propensities for mutation in areas in a genome. It represents the degree that the determinate factors, if any, that underlie the process are understood. Any given mutation could be described as the result of determinant physical forces, but at the macro-level it is justly described as random. Randomness is not about how something is caused if at all, but about our understanding of its causes. That's why pulling a card from a deck is a random even though it is possible that the card that was selected was foreordained by the prior conditions leading up to the event that we could exactly predict if we had enough knowledge. It's random from our perspective

As for describing scientists as mere record-keepers, that is shameless belittling. ID is no more successful when taking the debate to philosophy of science, so knock yourself out there if you want to try and make that case.

Edit:

The first sentence is intended to read: DNA copying errors are random in that we cannot predict them based upon our incomplete understanding of the initial conditions and forces at play.

Unfortunately, simplicity and soundbites sell a lot better than complexity and elaboration. If you can figure out a way to simplify and soundbite-ize evolution without selling it short, I'm all for it.

Because the scientific community is heavily weighted by atheists and any challenge to atheistic evolutionary theory doesn't get a fair hearing through regular channels.

Why not teach evolution, and modify the teaching of neo-Darwinian mechanisms to leave aside talk of chance as the cause of mutation, etc. Simply talk of mutation and natural selection without committing to the cause of mutation, e.g., "DNA copying alterations" or some such phrase instead of "random DNA copying errors"? What is lost here but the underlying naturalism?

— Michael Finley

1. Just to add to the list of philosophers making real contributions to science, there's Gotlob Frege, and Rusell and Whitehead, who contributed to the foundations of mathematics in a big way. And more recently, Norton and Earman, whose work in philosophy of space-time (especially on the 'hole argument') has had real impact as well.

2. But I do think there's a problem in philosophy on the ID/creationism issue. When figures like Alvin Plantinga, who is generally regarded as a pretty smart guy in philosophical circles, can claim (as he has in Pennock's recent collection on ID) that the evidence in biology really doesn't look as though evolution is right, we have a problem. When Dembski can publish a book as badly argued as The Design Inference with a good academic publisher, we have a problem.

3. I suspect the real problem is the long tradition of taking skeptics seriously in philosophy. This is important if you're writing about the fundamentals of epistemology, where everything seems to crumble in our grasp. But it gets selectively (and illegitimately) extended to cases like evolution where the religious dogmatists have dubious and entirely unscientific motives for being especially skeptical about particular bits of science. If their skepticism there were consistently applied to other bits of knowledge, we'd be back to ground zero. This is fair enough if you want to take that stance in epistemolgy. But it has absolutely nothing to teach us about evolution that doesn't apply equally to chemistry, physics, and just plain everyday common sense. This kind of skepticism is like a universal solvent-- there's no containing it.

In his later years, Langdon Gilkey (a pro-evolution theologian from the Univ of Chicago who was one of the evolutionist heroes of McClean v. Arkansas), insisted in his public lectures--at least the one I attended--that philosophers of science were indeed the people we (and he very specifically included ~scientists~ in that "we") needed to listen to, regarding the issue of what is science and what is not.

Of course, the evolutionists (the ones I observed, anyway) simply blew him off on that point. Acted like he never said such a thing; didn't even bother to agree or disagree with him on that point. And the sad thing was, they could afford to ignore him.

Gilkey was necessary, back in the days of McClean, when evolutionists needed a religious or theological foil to counteract the influence of people of faith; but now that his bit of service to the Darwinist faith was long since done, nobody seemed to be in the mood to take him seriously on anything he said that might call for revised thinking on the ~evolutionist's~ side of the fence, imo. A shame, but c'est la vie.

FL

When figures like Alvin Plantinga, who is generally regarded as a pretty smart guy in philosophical circles, can claim (as he has in Pennock's recent collection on ID) that the evidence in biology really doesn't look as though evolution is right, we have a problem.

— Bryson Brown

If the 3-member BoE subcommittee are all creationists, and they get to be the "judges," how could this "court" be anything other than the marsupial variety? What a farce . . . what IS the matter with Kansas? (Somebody oughtta write a book!)

They did!! Check out What's the Matter with Kansas?

Cheers,
LT

While the whole exercise has become very vexing and embarrassing to me as a Kansas and a former science teacher, it is important to remember this fact. Science teachers teach science.
They come into the profession from many backgrounds and bring their own belief systems to the table. The lessons regarding topics such as, how did our species find its way here?, and, was their an intentionality to the process?; have always been ones that allowed teachers to present their own dogma, both theistic and atheistic, as fact. My hope, perhaps naive, is that students will pay attention to the political controversy and thus will pay a bit more attention when the topic comes around in Biology.

It's really rather silly to complain that Creationism doesn't belong in Sunday school, and is likely to be seen as butting in where you don't belong. If you're going to demand equal time for "mainstream science rebuttal" in church, you're inviting the turnaround argument from the Creationists that they should be able to offer rebuttal in science class. Insisting that they are bearing false witness but you aren't just begs the question --- says who?

— ts

ID advocates set up Kangaroo Court in Kansas

Michael Finley write:

"Even though I am sympathetic with ID, I have little interest in these kinds of proceedings. These disputes are better kept in academia, and to the victor go the graduate students.

What does interest me is the following sentence from Nick Matzke's initial post:

Undoubtedly what is planned is that the Discovery Institute circus of philosophers, lawyers, and a few scientists who've never managed to publish original research confirming "intelligent design" . . . .

I get the impression that Mr. Matzke believes "circus of medicine-men, ambulance chasers and alchemists" would be equally suitable. "

Indeed, as they will have almost the same amount of collective experience and knowledge as DI hacks.

"I can understand the inclusion of lawyers; no one cares for lawyers? I also understand (but disagree) with your characterization of ID scientists. What puzzles me is that philosophers are heading up the parade.

The charge of "philosophy" (usually meant pejoratively in the sense of "metaphysics) is commonplace on this board. The implication seems to be that philosophical positions are invalid for some reason, or that they don't measure up to "scientific" ones, perhaps because they cannot be verified or falsified, etc. I would be interested to learn the opinions of the PT community on this score.

My own opinion is that scientists, excepting the exceptional such as Newton, Darwin and Einstein, are little more than data collectors, accountants of natural phenomena. "

Then your opinion is not born out by the facts.

They are, as a rule, ill-equipped to examine their own disciplines critically, or to venture into the more theoretical areas of their fields. They are in need (often desperate need) of philosphers to clean up the mangled mass of concepts they employ.

Bawahaha. How many professional scientists do you know?

Care to give an example? If you're going to vent simply because ID takes a beating in this forum, you should endeavor to do it more intelligently.

SteveS wrote:

I do think it's appropriate to privilege science in science classes.

Michael Finley writes:

"I agree. Nevertheless, the teaching of science needs to be delimited in such a way that metaphysical naturalism stays out of science classes as well. Leave the philosophy to philosophy classes. Metaphysical versus methodological naturalism is a distinction without a difference. Methodological naturalism produces naturalistic conclusions, i.e., conclusions dependent on metaphysical naturalism.

Why not teach evolution, and modify the teaching of neo-Darwinian mechanisms to leave aside talk of chance as the cause of mutation, etc. Simply talk of mutation and natural selection without committing to the cause of mutation, e.g., "DNA copying alterations" or some such phrase instead of "random DNA copying errors"? What is lost here but the underlying naturalism?"

In other words these things contradict your erroneous philosophy of science, and do not want them taught.

Whether these are factual or not, is irrelevant in you philosophy.

It always nice to meet a post-modernist that doesn't know what they are talking about. On the other hand, thats par for the course.

Creationists and IDers are already demanding rebuttals.

So it is they who are inviting a "turnaround argument."

I do not advocate prohibiting that right or demanding equal time for rebuttals.

My own opinion is that scientists, excepting the exceptional such as Newton, Darwin and Einstein, are little more than data collectors, accountants of natural phenomena. They are, as a rule, ill-equipped to examine their own disciplines critically, or to venture into the more theoretical areas of their fields. They are in need (often desperate need) of philosphers to clean up the mangled mass of concepts they employ.

— Michael Finley

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html Philosophers do conceptual tidying up, among other things, but scientists are the ones making all the sawdust in the workshop, and they need not be so tidy. And no cleaner should tell any professional (other than cleaners) how it ought to be done. Creationists who say, "evolution is not like what Popper said science should be, so it isn't science" are like the janitor who says that teachers don't keep their classrooms clean enough, so they aren't teachers.

But that's exactly what you did: "Creationism and ID, without thorough mainstream science rebuttal, don't belong in religious schools, churches or Sunday schools"

— ts

I've said this before, but I think we should call their bluff and "teach the controversy" but on our terms. I realize that's an unpopular position but I don't see this ID strategy going away any time soon. It's given them a lot of political capital and we've contributed to this by playing their game.

Here's a way of turning the tables:

1. Develop a curriculum that addresses ID claims in the context of the scientific method. The curriculum would use ID and Creationist materials as a contrast, providing an ready-made foil for what is and is not science based on the scientific method alone.

2. Target "evolution friendly states" -- the blue states for instance -- as places for implementing this new "experimental" curriculum. There are good reasons why you don't see IDists peddling their goods in places like Massachusetts.

3. IDists will of course cry foul and claim their position is being misrepresented. But then what recourse would they have? The only way to stop it is by challenging its legality in the courts, namely, because it violates church/state separation.

4. The courts rule in favor of IDists, the precedent is set, and their "teach the controversy" strategy is over.

Well duh. The point is that saying that Creationism shouldn't be taught in churches without scientists standing by to rebut it legitimates their demands.

I should add that this scenario is unlikely as the IDists wouldn't be so stupid as to undercut their only political weapon, but then that's the point of calling their bluff. It puts them in a catch-22. Of course, the ACLU could challenge this in the courts and it would provide the same effect.

OK I should have said, Creationism and ID, *with or without* thorough mainstream science rebuttal do not belong in churches, etc. And again, I?m only making a moral judgment that many churches themselves make.

I should add that this scenario is unlikely as the IDists wouldn't be so stupid as to undercut their only political weapon, but then that's the point of calling their bluff. It puts them in a catch-22. Of course, the ACLU could challenge this in the courts and it would provide the same effect.

— buridan

Sorry, but this is really pathetic. Aside from the fact that you've now reversed your claim after saying you didn't claim it, the idea that Creationism doesn't belong in churches is ludicrous.

— ts

I didn?t reverse or deny any claim.

I completely agree Frank. And that's why I think calling their bluff turns the tables. It realigns the players so-to-speak and shifts the attention rather than removes it. Our present strategy, if there actually is one, is purely reactive -- attempting to put out fires as they crop up. I think this has the opposite effect and feeds into their media attention. The only other solution is to ignore the whole thing, which doesn't seem to be an option. So I guess what I'm suggesting is to fight fire with fire. It's a risk but our present game plan doesn't seem to be working.

In fact, Darwin did "teach both sides" when he set descent with modification up against special creation as a mechanism for generating diversity in The Origin of Species . This was the way I was introduced to evolution in Freshman Biology at a Catholic (well, Jesuit anyway :) university. But I am sure the IDC's don't really want their empty statements examined "critically." Rather, the strategy is to sow enough doubt into the discussion of evolution as to leave the door open for creationism.

The secondary goal is to discredit all of science as a way of knowing about the observable world, thus allowing their primitive fundamentalist theology to be accorded the respect they think it is due from other Christians.

If I had to guess where this springs from, I would point at one of the 7 deadly sins: Pride. Both religion and science teach that the Universe does not revolve around us. I call it the Principle of Copernicus and my Mom, both of whom were quite adamant on the subject. The IDC's lack of humility is really quite galling, and the characterization of some of them on this forum as "arrogant" is apt.

Now you're just flat out lying. Perhaps you've absorbed too much DaveScot and Heddle.

— ts

. . .the idea that Creationism doesn't belong in churches is ludicrous. Despite what judgment "many churches make", quite obviously those churches that do teach Creationism don't make a moral judgment against doing so. Creationism is taught and preached in numerous fundamentalist churches, and to say that they can't teach their doctrine, no matter how false you think it to be or how much of "an assault on standards of knowledge and practice in theology" Ed Darrell may think it is, it is a deep violation of the spirit of freedom of religion on which this country was founded to deny them the right to teach their doctrine. I personally believe that all theology is an assault on standards of knowledge and breeds false belief and irrationality, but if you want to believe in and preach and teach nonsense about dead people moving rocks or that a wafer is literally a divine body or that the earth is 6000 years old in your religious institutions, that's up to you.

I've learned that it is possible to get a Ph.D. in biology at the University of Kansas without having a course in evolutionary biology.

So much for the central place Darwinism has in science.

— Salvador T. Cordova

Indeed, a PhD in biology at your univerisity can be earned without much reference to orthodox evolutionary theory. I would posit the same is true of many univerisities including the Ivy League Univeristy Michael Behe graduated from.

The point of Melott's quote and the rest of the thread was to show that Darwinism (as in Origin of Species) is not needed to understand biology.

Supposedly phylogeny and the tree of life unifies biolgy, but then this breaks down because of the problem of convergence. Suffice to say, empirically detected similarity, with little or no reference for common descent among species is operationally effective in biology. Creationists were the originators of comparative anatomy, and they could see hierachically ordered similarity with no presumption of common descent, but rather common design....

Natural Selection is true, but extrapolating that as the mechanism for organic evolution is unwarranted. There are numerous examples where Darwinian mechanisms are clearly limited and inadequate to explain the features of life.

A chemist can't do chemistry without knowing and understanding and ultimately BELIEVING in atoms. Atomic structure is a FOUNDATIONAL concept.

In contrast, a biologist doesn't need Darwinism (as in orgin of species) to understand the topic of biology. In fact, the word "design" seems to be a more important concept. If anything, design, architecture, predictable behaviors of designs are foundational concepts in biology.

One can go on believing the IDists and their sympathizers are stupid, ignorant, and wicked. I only need point to the likes of established and respected scientist Richard Sternberg. Scientists like Stanley Salthe and Michael Denton. Their dissent from Darwinism has nothing to do with religion, but a matter of emprical realities and theoretical considerations.

I want students to understand what Darwinism is. I want them to understand the theory and the evidence for it (or lack thereof). I want them to understand biology and chemistry to a high degree. Then I want to ask them why gross morphological similarites (such as fossil skeletons) should necessarily explain something like the Avian lung.

What sort of transitional or ancestor heart is needed to link a mammalian versus reptilian heart? I want to ask whether configurational (not thermal) entropy rises in non-living matter, and if it does, how can abiogensis be reasonable. You take a dead organism, and the bio-polymers decay (as in configurational entropy rises). Why don't novel, viable, complex life forms arise from lifeless biotic material? Yet naturalistic theories expect there to be an exception for abiogenesis?

I mentioned the problem of hearts that to a biology senior who specializes in anaotmy and physiology. She is a creationist. She rolled her eyes in disbelief that people seriously believe such transitionals, not just for the heart, but for many such organs, exist.

ID does not necessarily solve the problem, but it becomes rather plausible compared to the obvious, if not fatal problems for Darwinism.

Dr. John A. Davison is an example of a bio professor emeritus from a secular university who is not an Evangelical Christian, but whose scientfic conscience is speaking out against these obvious, and potentially fatal problems for Darwinism.

I have every reason then to wish this Kangaroo Court ought to last months. If the Darwinists think they will win a public debate of this length (as opposed to 2 hours), they are wrong.

ID has prevailed because the impression of design is too overwhelming, and careful scrutiny of Darwin's work shows Darwinian ideas scientifically inadequate.

In the past few years, with the abundance of ID materials available, the biology programs around the nation are equipping the next generation of IDists and creationists with powerful tools to wage the advance of ID. Biology is real science, and real science will ultimately prevail over the metaphysical dogmatism of Darwinism.

It's a mistake to think Darwinism is losing because of religion. Darwinism is losing because the science is prevailing over Darwinian dogmatism.

ID has prevailed because the impression of design is too overwhelming, and careful scrutiny of Darwin's work shows Darwinian ideas scientifically inadequate. In the past few years, with the abundance of ID materials available, the biology programs around the nation are equipping the next generation of IDists and creationists with powerful tools to wage the advance of ID. Biology is real science, and real science will ultimately prevail over the metaphysical dogmatism of Darwinism.

— Salvador T. Cordova

In contrast, a biologist doesn't need Darwinism (as in orgin of species) to understand the topic of biology.

— Salvador

I want to ask whether configurational (not thermal) entropy rises in non-living matter

Why don?t novel, viable, complex life forms arise from lifeless biotic material? Yet naturalistic theories expect there to be an exception for abiogenesis?

Convergence is expected in features needed for dealing directly with the environment, such as streamlined shape for animals that swim.

Convergence isn't expected in dna sequences, since those don't directly interact with the outside. Verified convergence of dna, in species that haven't been messed with by human geneticists, would be evidence against the current theory.

Henry

A committee of conservative Kansas State Board of Education members Tuesday backed off a plan to preside over a public debate between advocates of evolution and advocates of intelligent design, which critics had said would constitute a second Scopes Monkey Trial. Instead, the three-member panel decided to have the experts address in writing eight questions (listed on page 3B) that deal with the definition of science, evidence concerning evolution and evidence that can falsify evolution. "I like the written debate because it is going to put it in black and white," board member Connie Morris said during a teleconference with Chairman Steve Abrams and board member Kathy Martin. Abrams proposed the idea of a paper debate and the questions to be addressed. The board agreed to forward the idea and questions to leaders of evolution and intelligent design camps, who serve on a science standards committee, to get their input before making a final decision. Supporters of evolution said the process was a "fiasco."

Those questions seem to put evolution on trial. Even if they get terrible responses and claim evolution has failed, why should they then include intelligent design in the curriculum? Shouldn't they teach nothing if evolution is falsified via this written "debate"?

abiogenesis doesn't require "novel, viable, complex life forms", just a replicating molecule to form after many millions of years of random jostlings --- which will, over time, tend to produce more complex molecules, much as a bag of computer cables tends to get more knotted over time. As always, these entropy arguments fail because the majority of the increase in entropy is occurring 93 million miles away. No law of physics is violated, regardless how desperately you wish that were so.

The emergence of a replicator that increases in complexity is refuted theoretically and empirically. Spiegelman's experiment is a beautiful example of why replicators would tend toward simplicity rather than complexity. A simple replication process becoming a complex Turing Machine replicator does not make sense as illustrated by Spiegelman's experiment. Dr. Richard B. Hoppe and I debated that experiment at ARN and he cited Avida as refuting my view. I claim Avida is unrealistic and tautological, and that deacrease in functional complexity is by far the norm, a trend which natural selection can only slow down, but in no wise ultimately reverse.

Introduced by the British mathematician Alan Turing in 1936, a Turing machine is a particularly simple computer, one whose operations are limited to reading and writing symbols on tape, or moving along the tape to the left or to the right one symbol at a time. Its behavior at a given moment is determined by the symbol in the square currently being read and by the current state of the machine.

Henry wrote: Convergence is expected in features needed for dealing directly with the environment, such as streamlined shape for animals that swim.

Convergence isn't expected in dna sequences, since those don't directly interact with the outside. Verified convergence of dna, in species that haven't been messed with by human geneticists, would be evidence against the current theory. Henry

40 peer-reviewed articles 11. Michael S. Y. Lee, "Molecular phylogenies become functional," Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14 (1999): 177-178. It has been widely believed that "molecular convergence" is impossible: i.e., that gene and protein sequences could not evolve to the same sequence via natural selection. While morphological patterns may exhibit misleading functional similarities -- misleading, that is, because the similarity in question would exist not for historical, but adaptive reasons -- molecular data were thought to convey a reliable historical signal. If a high enough degree of similarity were observed, the molecular data indicated true (evolutionary) history, or homology. In this report, however, Michael Lee of Queensland University explains that such "optimistic views of sequence data have now been challenged by recent studies that suggest that molecular data, like morphological traits, can exhibit concerted adaptive evolution" -- meaning that molecular similarities may not always give reliable historical information. As Lee reports, of one such study, ...the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene implied...an absurd phylogeny of mammals, regardless of the method of tree construction. Cats and whales fell within primates, grouping with simians (monkeys and apes) and strepsirhines (lemurs, bush-babies and lorises) to the exclusion of tarsiers. Cytochrome b is probably the most commonly sequenced gene in vertebrates, making this surprising result even more disconcerting. (p. 177) Lee concludes that "morphological and molecular systematics might have more in common than previously assumed" (p. 178), meaning that misleading similarities, long the bane of classical evolutionary systematics, may also infect molecular data.

The Molecules Converge The convergence of antifreeze proteins and the multiple paths to a C4 photosynthesis can therefore be added to the other examples of molecular convergence mentioned earlier, such as the 'five-site rule' for vertebrate colur vision (CHapter 7) and probably also rhodopsin itself. As already noted, the combinatorial vastness of protein 'space' would, a priori, suggest that examples of molecular convergence would be very rare indeed: there are after all, so many alternatives. As it happens, however, there is a growing list of such examples. These include the proteases and peptidases, aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, cytokinases, proteins associated with malaria, NADH dehydrogenase 1, lactate dehydrogenases, nicotine oxidaes, the evolution of polysaccharide lyases, light-harvesting proteins, proteins associated with cartilage (lamprins) and various elastic proteins, chitin-binding proteins, HIV-portease, antigen receptors in sharks, as well as biochemical processes such as thoses involved with nucleaotide binding by proteins, possibly DM domain factors involved with sexual determination, and signalling.

biological convergence can mean many things and operate at many levels. As I shall argue, however, there are some common implications, despite apparantly bewildering range of examples.... I believe the topic of convergence is important for two main reasons. One is widely acknowledged, if as often subject to procrustean procedures of accommodation. It concerns phylogeny, with the obvious circularity of two questions : do we trust our phylogeny and thereby define convergence (which everyone does), or do we trust our characters to be convergent (for whatever reason) and define our phylogeny? As phylogeny depends on characters, the two questions are inseperable... Even so, no phylogeny is free of its convergences, and it is often the case that a biologist believes a phylogeny because in his or her view certain convergences would be too incredible to be true. During my time in the libraries I have been particularly struck by the adjectives that accompany descriptions of evolutionary convergence. Words like, 'remarkable', 'striking', 'extraordinary', or even 'astonishing' and 'uncanny' are common place. It is well appreciated that seldom are the similarities precise, and this in itself is as concrete a piece of evidence for the reality of evolution as can be provided. Even so, the frequency of adjectival surprise associated with descriptions of convergence suggests there is almost a feeling of unease in these similarities. Indeed, I strongly suspect that some of these biologists sense the ghost of teleology looking over their shoulders.

The bottom line is that empirical evidence supports the ID thesis for origin of life.

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

ID has a thesis for the origin of life? Great !!! Glad to hear it !!!!

What is that thesis?

How does ID "theory" propose life began?

What, exactly, did the designer do to produce, according to this thesis?

What mechanisms did it use to do whatever it is that IDers think it did to produce life?

Where can we see these mechanisms in action today?

How is it that the designer was there to "begin life"? How did the designer's life begin? Did it evolve? Was it designed by another designer? How can we tell?

Or are you simply lying to us when you claim that ID has a "thesis for the origin of life" . . . . .?

Sal, your laundry list points decidedly in one direction - there is no CSI in living things. Every instance of molecular convergence you cite involves low (by Demski's standard) information. And collectively they refute the ID schtick that protein functionality is impossibly rare in sequence space.

This is something that evolutionary theory requires, and ID denies. And the facts, the body of which grows daily, are piling up on the side of evolutionary theory in no uncertain terms.

Which raises a question - is this one of those new ideas that ID advocates in KS want to add to the biology curriculum? Or does "teach the controversy" really mean "teach a few logical and factual errors instead of real biology"? Do you think the ID-leaning school board is interested in learning some of the reality that conflicts their mistaken beliefs on the subject?

Spiegelman's experiment is a beautiful example of why replicators would tend toward simplicity rather than complexity. A simple replication process becoming a complex Turing Machine replicator does not make sense as illustrated by Spiegelman's experiment

The emergence of a replicator that increases in complexity is refuted theoretically and empirically.

The "Speigelman experiment" in the mid-1960s, briefly described here, showed that under conditions of selection for replication speed, self-replicating RNA strands decreased in length by about 90% and increased in replication speed by about 20 times. In a replication using Avida, Ofria, Adami, and Collier demonstrated the same effect: with replication efficiency being the only selective pressure operating, Avida critters trim down to the minimum necessary to continue replicating. Spiegelman's experiment, and its replication in Avida, is a beautiful example of the conditions that must hold in order that complexity will not evolve, namely a completely undifferentiated extrinsic fitness environment.

RBH wrote: I have also observed on a number of occasions that a Turing Machine is actually a very simple device, and I'm not alone in that judgment.

Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life. Trevors JT, Abel DL. .... How did inanimate nature write (1) the conceptual instructions needed to organize metabolism? (2) a language/operating system needed to symbolically represent, record and replicate those instructions? (3) a bijective coding scheme (a one-to-one correspondence of symbol meaning) with planned redundancy so as to reduce noise pollution between triplet codon "block code" symbols ("bytes") and amino acid symbols? We could even add a fourth question. How did inanimate nature design and engineer (4) a cell [Turing machine? (Turing, 1936)] capable of implementing those coded instructions?

The Origin of Life A natural and fundamental question to ask, on learning of these incredibly intricately interlocking pieces of software and hardware is: "How did they ever get started in the first place?" It is truly a baffling thing. One has to imagine some sort of a bootstrap process occurring, somewhat like that which is used in the development of new computer languages--but a bootstrap from simple molecules to entire cells is almost beyond one's power to imagine.....For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer. And perhaps experiencing that sense of wonder and awe is more satisfying than having an answer--at least for a while.

RBH wrote: Salvador's oohing and ahhing about Turing machines may impress the undergraduates in his IDEA entourage, but not me.

"They have a lifetime of investigation to decide for themselves which side is right. But I believe after all is said and done, they will be inclined to believe intelligent design because of what they know and will learn."

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

That's nice.

You seem not to have answered my simple question. That's OK -- I'll just ask again. And again and again and again and again, as many times as I need to, until I get an answer from you.

My question again:

*ahem*

What is the ID thesis for how life began?

What, according to ID "theory", did the designer do, specifically, to produce life?

What mechanisms did it use, according to the "theory" of ID, to do whatever the heck you think it did?

Where can we see these mechanisms in action today?

And if ID, uh, "theory" doesn't have answers to any of these questions, please explain to us what scientific research program ID "theory" proposes we can use to answer them.

Or is "POOF!!! God --- er, I mean, The Unknown Intelligent Designer -- dunnit!!!!!!" the extent of ID, uh, "scientific theory . . . .

Are you simply lying to us when you claim that ID "theory" has a scientific "thesis" for the origin of life . . . ?

IDers have been yammering for years now about their "scientific theory". Well, show it to us. Show us how it answers questions better than "darwinism" or "evolutionism" or whatever other code word you want to use, does.

Put up or shut up. Fish or cut bait. Shit or get off the toilet.

The subject of evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within biology as a whole. While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution', most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. 'Evolution' would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one. - A.S. Wilkins, "Evolutionary processes: a special issue" BioEssays 22 (2000): 1051--1052.

"When Dobzhansky said that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, he was not just making an epistemological claim. He was making a political statement. A war cry to rally the troops."

What, according to ID "theory", did the designer do, specifically, to produce life?

If the IDist succeed in painting the evolutonary community as not worthy of the public trust, if they succeed in fostering public distrust of the evolutionary community, if they can frame the evolutionary community as an impediment to scientific progress and scientific education and a waste of public money, not only will the public schools be affected, but eventually the universities and public grants will be affected. The aim of the IDists is to paint the evolutionary community as pushing an atheisitic agenda rather than science.

What is the ID thesis for how life began? What, according to ID "theory", did the designer do, specifically, to produce life?

That's like asking "What, according to evolution 'theory', did chemical evolution do, specifically, to produce life?"

I've learned that it is possible to get a Ph.D. in biology at the University of Kansas without having a course in evolutionary biology. And you are reveling in this national ignorance.

The point of Melott's quote and the rest of the thread was to show that Darwinism (as in Origin of Species) is not needed to understand biology.

Do we know what happened? Of course not.

Common design is a stronger, more encompassing paradigm than common descent because common design covers the issue of convergence and similarity more adequately than common descent.

— Salvador

Meanwhile, the hypothesis of chemical evolution as the originator of Earth life continues to be taught in public school biology classes, mechanism or no mechanism. It would not be a problem to thus offer ID as an alternative scientific explanation for the origin of life, seeing as no mechanism for either hypothesis has yet been confirmed or even established beyond the proposal stage.

Meanwhile, the hypothesis of chemical evolution as the originator of Earth life continues to be taught in public school biology classes, mechanism or no mechanism.

— ever the linguistic gymnast, FL

It would not be a problem to thus offer ID as an alternative scientific explanation for the origin of life

"Some people - who, remarkably, tend to cluster in a particular political domain - have expressed incredulity that life was not somehow consciously engineered."

Chemists have been doing experiments for 50 years to determine how and under what conditions chemistry resulted in primitive life. IDiots have done no such experiments. One is science, one is armchair blathering.

Darwinian evolution (as in the origin of all species, not adaptational evolution as seen in anti-biotic resistance) is an inessential theory to biology, and arguably an impediment.

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

THow dreadful.

You seem, though, not to have answered my simple question, AGAIN. That's OK --- I'll just ask again. And again and again and again and again, as many times as I need to, until I get an answer from you.

My question again:

*ahem*

What is the ID thesis for how life began?

What, according to ID "theory", did the designer do, specifically, to produce life?

What mechanisms did it use, according to the "theory" of ID, to do whatever the heck you think it did?

Where can we see these mechanisms in action today?

And if ID, uh, "theory" doesn't have answers to any of these questions, please explain to us what scientific research program ID "theory" proposes we can use to answer them.

Or is "POOF!!! God ---- er, I mean, The Unknown Intelligent Designer --- dunnit!!!!!!" the extent of ID, uh, "scientific theory . . . .

Are you simply lying to us when you claim that ID "theory" has a scientific "thesis" for the origin of life . . . ?

IDers have been yammering for years now about their "scientific theory". Well, show it to us. Show us how it answers questions better than "darwinism" or "evolutionism" or whatever other code word you want to use, does.

Put up or shut up. Fish or cut bait. Shit or get off the toilet.

It would not be a problem to thus offer ID as an alternative scientific explanation for the origin of life

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

That's nice.

And what, again, is this "alternative scientific explanation for the origin of life"? Other than "an unknown thing did an unknown something at an unknown time using unknown mechanisms".

Or does your, uh, "alternative scientific explanation for the origin of life" consist solely of "POOF !!! God -- er, I mean, The Unknown Intelligent Designer -- dunnit !!"

Are you and other IDers just lying to us when you claim that ID has no religious purpose, aims or goals?

It REALLY IS science to say "Here is a proposal, here is how it can be tested, here is what would show that it is incorrect, here is how a test might be constructed, here is how we might learn from such a test how to improve the proposal and test the improvement."

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

Indeed. That is why I specifically said, in my question, "And if ID, uh, "theory" doesn't have answers to any of these questions, please explain to us what scientific research program ID "theory" proposes we can use to answer them."

FL was kind enough to tell us that, uh, ID doesn't HAVE any scientific research program to answer any of them. Nor is it interested in any.

Gee, it's almost as if ID is, well, just religious apologetics, and hasn't anything scientific to say at all. And of course THAT would mean that all those IDers are, well, LYING UNDER OATH to us when they claim to have an "alternative scientific theory" . . . . .

I wonder what happens to, uh, "Christians" who lie?

The aim of the IDists is to paint the evolutionary community as pushing an atheisitic agenda rather than science.

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

I see. So, when IDers testify in court and in front of legislatures that they have no religious aims, goals or purpose, and that they are emphatically NOT advancing any religious idea or agenda, they are flat-out lying to us.

That's what I *thought*. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

BTW, does this "atheistic agenda" of the "evolutionary community" include all those evolutionary biologists who happen to be Christians . . . . ?

Okay, okay, it might interfere with some people's non-scientific faith-commitment to naturalism and materialism as the ultimate grids with which to interpret physical data, but ~other than that~, no problemo to offer ID in science class.)

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

I'm a little curious as to YOUY committment to "naturalism" and "materialism". So let me ask you this; when you get sick, do you ask your doctor to examine NON-natural and NON-material causes for your illness? Do you ask him to try NON-natural and NON-material treatments for your sickness?

Or do you ask him to treat your naturalistic materialistic diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your naturalistic materialistic germs.

What about your local weather forecaster on TV --- do you ask him or her to use NON-natural or NON-material means to predict the weather patterns?

If so, how exactly do these work.

If not, why not.

Salvador wrote: The emergence of a replicator that increases in complexity is refuted theoretically and empirically.

Russell responds: I’m sure PT regulars will be shocked, shocked, to learn that Sal has his facts wrong again. Spiegelman’s “in vitro evolution” experiments show that, yes, if you set up a situation where the enzyme and coat components coded by the phage RNA are of no value in its replication, the genome “devolves” into a simpler form lacking those genes, and retaining only those features required for recognition, and therefore copying, by the (artificially supplied) replicase.

Russel continues: However, if you set up a similar experiment (lots of artificially supplied replicase, ribonucleoside triphosphates, comfortable ionic conditions…) but NO template RNA, the enzyme will slowly, randomly, concatenate nucleotides until, eventually, some minimal sequence appears that happens to be minimally recognized as a template by the enzyme. Wait long enough, and a minimal replicon will emerge, and evolve into more complex forms more efficiently copied by the enzyme, with no input “information” (i.e. template) at all.

Russell insists: All of which completely destroys Sal’s contention:

Damn! I forgot the test-tubes were intelligently designed! There goes my whole argument.

This is just stupid, and I assume that pretty much everyone can see that.

I'm going to invoke Russell's Rule and not bother with Sal unless it seems anyone with half a brain is taking him even half seriously.

I'm delighted to report the number seems to be on the rise of biology seniors at secular schools who reject Darwinism. Their beliefs are not from lack of exposure to Darwinian philosophy, but rather exposure to the real science and design in biology.

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

How dreadful.

You seem, though, not to have answered my simple question, AGAIN. That's OK --- I'll just ask again. And again and again and again and again, as many times as I need to, until I get an answer from you.

My question again:

*ahem*

What is the ID thesis for how life began?

What, according to ID "theory", did the designer do, specifically, to produce life?

What mechanisms did it use, according to the "theory" of ID, to do whatever the heck you think it did?

Where can we see these mechanisms in action today?

And if ID, uh, "theory" doesn't have answers to any of these questions, please explain to us what scientific research program ID "theory" proposes we can use to answer them.

Or is "POOF!!! God ---- er, I mean, The Unknown Intelligent Designer --- dunnit!!!!!!" the extent of ID, uh, "scientific theory . . . .

Are you simply lying to us when you claim that ID "theory" has a scientific "thesis" for the origin of life . . . ?

IDers have been yammering for years now about their "scientific theory". Well, show it to us. Show us how it answers questions better than "darwinism" or "evolutionism" or whatever other code word you want to use, does.

Put up or shut up. Fish or cut bait. Shit or get off the toilet.

Artificial! As in intelligently designed? We have an environment where we got presumably pre-existing or synthetically manufactured enzymes? Further we have a nicely purified lab environment free of the chemical agents that would be likely in a pre-biotic soup which would deliver destructive cross reactions. That experiment has intelligent design written all over it.

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

Hmm, so any experiment performed by a human is, a priori, evidence that the observed phenomenon is "intelligently designed" . . . . ?

The ice in my freezer is the result of an "intelligently designed" apparatus. Does that mean, in your opinion, that ice **cannot form under "natural" conditions without the involvement of an "intelligent designer"**? Would you mind pointing to the "intelligent designer" who produced all that ice in the Arctic?

And, would you please explain to me which laws of nature or chemistry or physics operate INSIDE a lab that don't operate just as well OUTSIDE it?

Oh, and I am STILL waiting to hear this "ID thesis for life's origin" that you say you have.

Or were you just lying to us when you claimed to have one . . . .

Are the Darwinists so sure their side will win a public debate with IDists?

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

Science isn't decided by "public debate".

But I'm curious ------ creation "scientists" and intelligent design "theorists" have LOST every single court case they have ever been involved with. Every single one. All of them.

Why is that?

Does it have something to do with the fact that, in court rather than in "public debates", they are forced to back up everything they say, and cannot just engage in lots of "gee whiz" nonspecifics? Does it have something to do with the fact that, when IDers make statements like "we have an alternative scientific explanation for life's origin", they are then obligated to PRODUCE IT, instead of (like you) waving your arms all about it without actually telling anyone what it is? Does it have anything to do with the fact that IDers know just as well as anyone else that they DO NOT HAVE any "scientific alternative", and ID is nothing but a religious crusade, coupled with a deliberate dishonest effort to conceal that fact?

Why haven't any IDers been able to produce any "alternative scientific theory" in court? Why haven't IDers been able to convince ONE judge, just ONE judge, that either (1) ID is science or (2) evolutionary biology isn't. Why is it that courts have consistently, clearly and unequivocably rejected every argument made by creation "scientists" and intelligent design "theorists". Every single one of them. Why is it that creationists/IDers have never won a single court case, and have never been able to successfully pass a single law requiring their crap to be taught in schools. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not a one.

Wait, let me guess ------------------ the judges (including the Bush-appointed ones) are all just god-hating atheists who are out to get you. Right?

Salvador, why are you dodging the Rev. Dr.'s questions? Maybe you could enlist one of those 15 year old geniuses you keep bragging about to respond for you.

Salvador, why are you dodging the Rev. Dr.'s questions?

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

Well, I *did* tell him to put up or shut up.

Perhaps, being like all IDers unable to "put up", he has indeed "shut up".

Abiogenesis without significant intelligent intervention has never been demonstrated in the lab

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

If it is at some point in the future, would that mean, in your opinion, that there is no god? If so, I feel very sorry for your lack of faith. If not, then what difference does it make to you?

You DO know, don't you, that every time in history that religion has made that bet ("science will NEVER be able to explain this"), it has lost.

Every single time.

If I were you, I wouldn't be so willing to bet my entire religious faith on the hope that science will NOT EVER be able to explain X, Y or Z. . . . . .

But then, unlike you, I prefer to keep god in our areas of knowledge and understanding, rather than try to stuff god into our (ever-shrinking) areas of ignorance and lack of knowledge. "God of the gaps" is silly kindergarten theology, as well as silly kindergarten "science".

But alas, as I have long noticed, fundamentalists don't worship a god anyway -- they worship a *book about god*, and are too dumb to tell the difference.

Hey Great White Wonder (GWW)!

I just noticed just noticed you're back to the Kangaroo Court of Kansas.

How ya doin' pal, so great to see ya! How is Ambassador of PandasThumb on this fine day. Man it's swell seeing you back at PandasThumb! This place would not be the same with ya. Glad to see the management reconsidered things and invited you back.

You embody everything PandasThumb stands for, and you should therefore be a permanent part of this place. I'll be glad to refer visitors to your posts. How does that sound?

Man, your return to PandasThumb has made my day. Glad to see ya back. I hope as long as PandasThumb is around, you'll be it's foremost ambassador.

Welcome back.

Salvador
PS
I lobbied for your return. Just wanted to let you know I was backing you up, man.

Reverend Lenny wrote: "Shit"

The Reverend wrote: How dreadful. You seem, though, not to have answered my simple question, AGAIN.

The Reverend asked: What is the ID thesis for how life began? What, according to ID “theory”, did the designer do, specifically, to produce life?

The Reverend Dr. asked: What mechanisms did it use, according to the “theory” of ID, to do whatever the heck you think it did?

The Reverend Doctor asked: Where can we see these mechanisms in action today?

The Reverend Doctor asked: And if ID, uh, “theory” doesn’t have answers to any of these questions, please explain to us what scientific research program ID “theory” proposes we can use to answer them.

Unlike the Darwinists who fabricate clearly untenable mechanisms as absolute fact, we IDist at least offer something causally adequate...

There is already enough data to destroy Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory.

Reverend Lenny wrote:

"Shit"

How unbecoming reverend. Don't you know such behavior does not endear you to the open minded visitors I'm sending to PandasThumb?

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

Neither does lying for the Lord, Salvador.

What is the ID thesis for how life began?

What, according to ID "theory", did the designer do, specifically, to produce life?

Intelligent Agency with no detailed description of the process.

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

I sdee. SO when you claimed that you had a "scientific thesis for the origin of life", you were simply lying to us.

Got it.

Tell you what, Salvador -- let's forget all about a "detailed description". Just give me the thumbnail version. The designer did what, according to ID, to produce life.

Oh, and since I presume the designer is itself alive, where did IT come from. Did it evolve, or was IT designed.

Or is your "designer" just god, and are IDers just lying to us when they claim ID has no religious aims, puirpose, goals or effect.

Intelligence is left as "undefined" in the ID community.

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

No kidding. I wodner why? It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that teaching religious doctrines, or advancing religious opinions in school classrooms, is illegal. Would it?

Why is the IDer "left as undefined", Salvador. Why doesn't the ID movement make any effort -- none at all whatsoever -- to identify the designer or determine what i did or didn't do.

Why is that, Salvador.

It wouldn't have anything to do wit the fact that ID is religious apologetics, not science would it?

And if ID, uh, "theory" doesn't have answers to any of these questions, please explain to us what scientific research program ID "theory" proposes we can use to answer them.

Again your questions are misplaced. There is already enough data to destroy Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory.

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

Says you.

So that would be, "No, Lenny, ID doesn't HAVE any scientififc reseaqrch program to propose to answer any of these questiopns, and isn't particularly interested in any."

Does that have anything to do with the fact that ID is religious apologetics and not science?

So, a modest reasearch program is indicated, but what is needed more immediately is just educating the public about what is already known

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

Uh, hey Salvador -- you jsut got finished teloing me that NOTHING is known about the designer. You don't know what it is. You don't know what it did. You don't know how it did it. And you're not interetsed in finding out . . . . .

Which is it, Salvador. Are you lying when you say you DO have things to teach about the Designer, or are you lying when you say you DON'T.

Getting them books by Michael Denton

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

That would be the same Michael Denton who has rejected ID and creationism and is now a theistic evolutionist. Right?

Thanks for confirming for me that (1) you don't have any "scientific thesis for the origin or life and (2) you were just lying to us when you claimed you did.

What happens to "Christians" who lie, Salvador?

Salvador, why are you dodging the Rev. Dr.'s questions?

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

Well, I *did* tell him to put up or shut up.

Perhaps, being like all IDers unable to "put up", he has indeed "shut up".

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

Looks like I got his attention after all, huh.

Are you going to answer the rest of my questions, Salvador, now that you've confirmed for me that (1) you don't have any scientific thesis for the origin of life, and (2) you were just lying to us when you claimed you did?

Do you believe in magic - in a science class? How the Bible describes how it all came to pass It was magic; natural laws we're suspending But still this is science, or so we're pretending I'll tell you 'bout the magic and it'll cloud your minds But you can't think too hard or the story unwinds If you believe in magic, don't bother to choose 'tween old earth and young earth; we aim to confuse Just go and witness. It may seem like fraud But lying's a virtue if you're lying for God Your tongue starts tripping and you can't seem to find the source or the context of the quotes that you've mined If you believe in magic, come along with me We'll trash math and science, and do it with glee And maybe, if the rhet'ric is right They'll jettison Darwin for Genesis Lite And we'll go preaching, brother, then you'll find How the Lord breaks the rules of the world He designed Yeah, do you believe in magic Yeah, believe it's a battle for the young kids' souls Believe in the magic of the creo-troll Believe in the magic that can set you free Ohh, talking 'bout magic Do you believe like I believe Do you believe in magic Do you believe like I believe Do you believe, believer Do you believe like I believe Do you believe in magic

I'm just a lurker but I just had to say: Russell, That was bee-YOOO-tiful! It took three paper towels to wipe the coffee off of my computer. The best I can do is "Fart in z'eir zhenerahl direction!"
Thanks, Gary

Rev Flank worte: That would be the same Michael Denton who has rejected ID and creationism and is now a theistic evolutionist. Right?

In 1999: Michael Denton Darwinism Defeated critiqing Lamoureux and Johnson: Johnson is certainly guilty of misusing the terms, but then so are many biologists, I must confess, myself for having entitled a previous book of mine Evolution: A Theory in Crisis when a more appropriate title would have been Darwinism a Theory in Crisis. Moreover, in section of the book I often use the term evolution or evolutionary model when I should have used Darwinism or Darwinian model of evolution. The book was intended to be an attack on the Darwinian claim that all evolution can be be plausibly explained by the accumulation of successive small random mutations. In the last paragraph of the book I summarized its essential theme in the concluding statement that "nature refuses to be imprisoned" within the confines of Darwinian thought. however the book was not intended to support special creationism. In the last paragraphs of the first chapter "Genesis rejected" I wrote that "The world bore no trace of the supernatural drama that Genesis implied," that the special creationist framework "was frankly non-scientific and irreconcilable with the fundamental aim of science to reduce all phenomena to purely natural explanations." If I had always used the terms Darwinism and evolution more carefully, much confusion could have been avoided. Nonetheless, throughout most of the text the terms are used correctly and there should have been no doubt that the book was intended primarly as a critique of classic gradualist Darwinism. Ironically both creationists and Darwinists, for thier own different reasons, often found it conveiniet to read 'evolution' for "Darwinism' in Evolution: A Theory in CrisisEvolution: A Theory in Crisis -- the creationists to find support of their antievolutionism and the Darwinists to claim the book was antinevolution rather than anti-Darwin.

Schutzenberger argued that even if Darwinism could account for biological adaptation--which he never accepted--it was incapable fo accounting for abstract pattern that seemed ubiquitous in nature.... reading it [his own book Nature's Destiny ] left me with the very powerful impression that the laws of nature might also be fine-tuned not only of the environment of life but also for the existence of the actual set of life forms .... This would imply of course that life on earth is, as many nineteenth-century biologists believe... After Nature's Destiny was published, the main focus of my research became, as it had been for many biologist of the pre-Darwinian era I am now quite convinced that the discovery that the protein folds are natural forms is only the beginning of what may turn out to be a major Platonic revision of biology, and an eventual relocation of biological order away form genes and mechanism and back in to nature--where it resided before the Darwinian revolution. During the course of this journey I wrote two books: Evolution a Theory in Crisis and Nature's Destiny. Evolution was written while I still adhered to the superwatch modeld of nature. Despite this, I still believe it represents one of the most convincing critiques of the assumption that the organic world is continuum that classical Darwinism demands.

Michael Denton in Uncommon Dissent 2004 : I also believe that not only the non-adaptive order but a great deal of the adaptive order of biology will ultimately prove to be -- like the goblin and ribosomal folds -- inherent in the fabric of nature herself. Such a view is intellectually exciting because it holds out the prospect of a final union of biology and physics, and thus of a fully rational and lawful biology. Such a biology would be as profoundly anti-Darwinian as could be imagined....I believe it is the one route that can lead to a new synthesis between faith and reason.

I still believe it represents one of the most convincing critiques of the assumption that the organic world is continuum that classical Darwinism demands.

Again your questions are misplaced. There is already enough data to destroy Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory. An ID research program could entail finding more evidence against the inadequacy of abiogenesis plus Darwinian evolution as the cause of the main features of life.

— Salvador T. Cordova

What you fail to take into account is that it's not either ID or evolution. You've set up a false dichotomy

— GCT

For what it is worth, Michael Denton, in an email to me recently, said he really liked my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis paper which I had sent to him as an attachment even before it was accepted for publication. I differ from Denton in the sense that I do not see evolution as emerging entirely from the nature of life. I believe the pump was thoroughly primed and front-loaded in what were, in all probability, several independent beginnings. Denton has undergone quite a transformation since his first book and I suspect he is not through maturing yet. On one point we are in complete agreement. Darwinism is a monumental failure and will never be patched up.

John A. Davison

...because when you wish for something hard enough, it becomes true. Wish and pray are interchangeable.

Evolution, a phenomenon of the past, is undeniable. Chance never had anything to do with it. Once again, aware of the fact that I command no respect here as on every other forum where I have participated, I do something that is really anathema to the Darwinian mystics. I appeal to authority, in this case the greatest French zoologist of his day and a man of encyclopedic knowledge. In this excerpt he put his finger on the real issues with which we still are confronted:

"Directed by all-powerful selectiom, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped. We believe that there is no reason for being forced to choose between 'either randomness or the supernatural,' a choice into which the advocates of randomness in biology strive vainly to back their opponents. It is neither randomness nor supernatural power, but laws which govern living beings; to determine these laws is the aim and goal of science which should here have the final say."

"To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded assumption which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts."
Pierre Grasse, page 107

With these words Grasse ended Chapter IV, entitled EVOLUTION AND CHANCE.

Now just watch for the knee-jerk responses from the worshippers of the Great God Chance.

John A. Davison

Evolution, a phenomenon of the past, is undeniable.

I command no respect here as on every other forum where I have participated

I do something that is really anathema to the Darwinian mystics. I appeal to authority,

Re "or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8."

But you did. ;)

Henry