Nobel Laureates urge rejection of intelligent design

What a ridiculously reasonable sounding letter they've written. The easier for the board to dismiss it as the rantings of crazies.

a modest experiment

Well! 38 Nobel winners, but not a Steve on the list.

Well! 38 Nobel winners, but not a Steve on the list.

Was this letter a rush job? 38 Nobel prize winners seems like a rather small amount all things considered especially considering that a few of them are peace prize winners. After all the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard resulted in 72 Nobel prize winner rejected creationism where all of them where winners of one of the three science prizes with a more detailed statement. Some more recent petitions of Nobel winners have gotten signers as well. I am sure they can get a few dozen more signers by October if they tried.

They reject the idea of Darwinian evolution as dogma, yet reject the proposed state science standards outright, probably without actually reading the standards. Isn't that what defines dogma?

They reject the idea of Darwinian evolution as dogma, yet reject the proposed state science standards outright, probably without actually reading the standards.

Lots of ID supporters hold Elie Wiezel is the highest esteem. His leadership is getting this letter signed will drive them up the wall.

They reject the idea of Darwinian evolution as dogma, yet reject the proposed state science standards outright, probably without actually reading the standards. Isn't that what defines dogma?

— joel

Joel's comment is remarkably ambiguous. It could be read as an indictment of the Kansas Board of Education and would, in that instance, be perfectly accurate, as a couple of the board members admitted not bothering to read the majority report. If Joel was referring to the Nobel laureates as "they", it becomes harder to try to assign a useful meaning to the comment.

Wasn't WD crowing on his blog about having a Very Important Private Meeting with a laureate (unnamed) about two months ago?

How they were convinced that "Darwinism" was going to topple like a house of cards?

How they were convinced that "Darwinism" was going to topple like a house of cards?

Steve Hawking is a Project Steve Steve, so that's three, neh?

Hawking is indeed number 300 on the Steve list, but he has never won a Nobel prize.

Does Tradesports have a contract on the Dover case?

The letter will not mean a thing.

First, god trumps Nobel prizes. Second, science is devoid of bible, therefore needs bible added to it, and as soon as possible.

So much for intelligent life in Kansas.

Well, I was just having a conversation with a certain ID supporter I know. He was quick to remind me that the Kansas Science Education standards do NOT include the teaching of intelligent design. If anyone can address this statement directly, please let me know, but I'm afraid in this provincial point he's correct, and the laureates' letter is wrong in its last statement. The standards include a lot of clauses about teaching scientific evidence against evolution, which is code-word for ID or other creationist notions. But, can anyone point me to where these standards explicitly suggest the teaching of intelligent design?

He was quick to remind me that the Kansas Science Education standards do NOT include the teaching of intelligent design.

First, god trumps Nobel prizes. Second, science is devoid of bible, therefore needs bible added to it, and as soon as possible.

can anyone point me to where these standards explicitly suggest the teaching of intelligent design?

I see. So ID is all about "getting Bible added to science", and when IDers tell us otherwise, they are just lying to us.

Hee hee - this is really funny! Of all the living Nobel prize winners, only 38 chose to sign the declaration. Does that mean that only a minoriy of Noble prize winners support this statement, and that a majority do not?

Also, I find it odd that none of the signers are biologists!

I respect their insight, and this is significant, but quite frankly, these folks are not authorities on the topic at hand.

The notion that majority of Nobel laureates support teaching ID or generally disagree with the declaration of 39 Nobel laureates (as suggested in comment 48724 by dave) is laughable. Perhaps these 39 laureates are members of some circle of people close to Wiesel. Generally, I agree that collecting signatures is not the best way to prove anything (remember the habit of Discovery Institute crowd of collecting signatures against "Darwinism"). However, there is no doubt whatsoever that the overwhelming majority of Nobel laureates, including those working in biology and related fields, share the attitude of these 39 to the attempts to subvert proper education of Kansas kids.

Comment #48724 Posted by Dave on September 18, 2005 06:42 PM (e) (s) Hee hee - this is really funny! Of all the living Nobel prize winners, only 38 chose to sign the declaration. Does that mean that only a minoriy of Noble prize winners support this statement, and that a majority do not?

Also, I find it odd that none of the signers are biologists!

I respect their insight, and this is significant, but quite frankly, these folks are not authorities on the topic at hand.

Correction: I meant to say (vis the Nobel prize winners) "Most of them..." But Moss caught a 65 yard bomb and lost track of what I was doing...

Well, Dave here again, fresh from his beating at the hands of the fundamentalists!

Look I never said that there was a Nobel prize in Biology, I just said that none of the signatories were biologists. But, yes, I think its fine for these folks to comment on science, its just not a very scientific survey, IMHO.

Its like accepting positive evidence for evolutionary theory, while ignoring evidence to the contrary.

And yes, its still significant, like I said that 38 Nobelists made this statement, but over on Telic thoughts, there are some very good observations that suggest these Nobelists don't appreciate what they are saying.

Look I never said that there was a Nobel prize in Biology, I just said that none of the signatories were biologists. But, yes, I think its fine for these folks to comment on science, its just not a very scientific survey, IMHO.

Its like accepting positive evidence for evolutionary theory, while ignoring evidence to the contrary.

And yes, its still significant, like I said that 38 Nobelists made this statement, but over on Telic thoughts, there are some very good observations that suggest these Nobelists don't appreciate what they are saying.

Relax! Why are you so agitated?

Anyway, you ask a good question, so here is Nobel laureate Charles Townes on the topic of intelligent design and evolution.

http://wittingshire.blogspot.com/2005/06/nobel-laureateintelligent-design-as.html

I'm not sharing this to blow anyone away, or to embarrass someone, or to refute the 38 signers. I'm just trying to point out that there are some pretty knowledgeable folks on both sides of the discussion, and quite frankly, its pretty remarkable that anyone comes out in defense of ID (not that ID is inherently anti-evolution) given the atmosphere that folks like you create.

I'm still beside myself trying to figure out why the NCSE (E. Scott) would slander and intimidate a high-school senior who tried to invite Michael Behe to speak at Emmaus High in PA. Heck, even Princeton lets Behe speak.

What are you folks so worried about, because it sure isn't science.

Hello Dave the Troll! I'm not worried about anything. It's cool.

And, you're absolutely right about "intelligent design", it sure isn't science.

You said it, Bud, and I'm with you on that one.

Dave wrote:
"Look I never said that there was a Nobel prize in Biology, I just said that none of the signatories were biologists."

Let's see:
Richard Axel and Linda Buck discovered odorant receptor genes and are studying mechanism of smelling.
Guenter Blobel studied how proteins, once synthesized, are transported to the right locations in the cells.
Aaron Ciechanover, Avram Hershko and Irwin Rose studied ubiquitin system, which is involved in destruction of proteins.
Leland Hartwell and Paul Nurse are geneticists who discovered genes that regulate cell divisions.
H. Robert Horvitz is a geneticist who studied development of C. elegans and discovered among other things genes involved in programed cell death.
Erwin Neher is a neurobiologist who studied ion channels.
Ferid Murad studied nitric oxide as a signaling molecule in our body.
Harold Varmus discovered a gene that cause cancer.
John Walker determined a structure of an enzyme that synthesize ATP, which is a source of energy in our cells.

Are you saying that all these people are not biologists?

Dave wrote:
"Anyway, you ask a good question, so here is Nobel laureate Charles Townes on the topic of intelligent design and evolution."

Reading what Charles Townes actually said, I don't get an impression that Charles Townes opposes evolution. And he is certainly against creationists and anti-evolution movement. What he is believing, it seems, is that the God created universe and the laws of nature in such a way that made life and evolution possible. What he is talking is about cosmological fine-tuning. He did use the words Intelligent Design, but I doubt he meant the way IDists mean and don't think he is on the ID side. He is just religious and that's fine with me. He is a physicist and is very old. As great as he is, I have a suspicion that he is not up to date with what ID movement is all about.

"the laureates' letter is wrong in its last statement"

Well, it's certainly not grammatical. Which, while trivial, is more substantial than any of the criticisms offered by the creationist trolls.

I'm not quite sure why the IDers would be referencing that interview as he goes on to say

"People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one. Maybe that's a bad word to use in public, but it's just a shame that the argument is coming up that way, because it's very misleading."

He talks about design in terms of the physical constants and laws that govern the universe that have led to the existance of life and that as a christian he sees a role for god in the design of those laws and constants

I'm just trying to point out that there are some pretty knowledgeable folks on both sides of the discussion

Anyway, you ask a good question, so here is Nobel laureate Charles Townes on the topic of intelligent design and evolution.

Sorry for the off-topic, and I'm sure it has been done before, but I would like to offer a quick and simple critique of Bob Davis' "A Modest Experiment", which he linked to comment #48653 (the first comment in this article).

Firstly, life already existed in the PreCambrian, whereas the experiment you refer to in the statement, "I've created a soup [1] of pre-cambrian chemicals, and pre-cambrian gases and pre-cambrian electrical storms" sounds a lot to me like the Miller-Urey abiogenesis experiment. So, instead I'm assuming that you're actually trying to simulate the emergence of life in 60 million years.

Even I've misunderstood the first point, and you intend to add appropriate basic organisms to the beakers (although how this would be accomplished in itself I am unsure) the following criticism is still valid: testing 60 million (small) beakers for one year is completely different from testing 1 (enormous) beaker for 60 million years. It's the equivalent of emptying the primordial soup of all amino acids (or more complex lifeforms) every year for 60 million years. At best you could calculate an upper bound on what could happen in one year for the given volume of chemicals using this experiment.

Therefore, when no complex life forms after a year (which it obviously won't), you certainly cannot use that to provide any evidence against the possibility that life could not arise spontaneously and/or that natural selection cannot account for the Cambrian explosion.

I hope this helps.

Aha, after reading more about the Bob Davis Institute, I think I see the joke lol.

Perhaps it just that I'm used to seeing Creationists propose sillier and more illogical things on a daily basis that I tend to take ridiculous claims seriously ;)

... evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

Regarding John Wilkins' observations, I initially had the same misgivings about the wording, but then realized that "random" and "unguided" must necessarily go hand-in-hand. So the letter says nothing about the possibility that some form of "guidance" might have started the ball rolling, but then allowed random mutations and natural selection to have their way.

Perhaps it just that I'm used to seeing Creationists propose sillier and more illogical things on a daily basis that I tend to take ridiculous claims seriously ;)

Perhaps it just that I'm used to seeing Creationists propose sillier and more illogical things on a daily basis that I tend to take ridiculous claims seriously ;)

DrJohn states:

"Come on, you can say it. What does that modification of science in the Kansas standards actually mean in effect and in the Great State of Kansas?"

While the revised Kansas Standards Minority Report does not specifically mention ID, they do something far more insidious: They specifically allow the supernatural to be taught as a part of science. It amazes me how many people are missing this.

In Kansas it will soon be possible to teach that tornadoes are caused by the Wizard of Oz, and still be in compliance with the standards.

I guess stimulating an open discussion and debate are not in the charter of this website!

More like - "Kill the heretics!"

Anyway, ID and evolution aren't mutually exclusive. At best, ID is a hypothesis, and there are some credible scenarios where ID could develop into a science. If ID is about detecting intelligent causes, then the challenge for science is to develop a series of tests that indicate with a reasonable level of confidence and determine if some material aspect of the universe arose due to an intelligent cause, rather than a naturalistic cause.

I don't know if its possible in the life sciences, but I'm open to the idea. The SETI folks seem to think its possible. Forensics experts do this as well in their respective domains.

I think that its absurd to close our eyes to this possibility and limit science to searching for naturalistic causes. (e.g., spontaneous generation) I think its OK to look for these causes, but lets be honest and ackowledge that this search could be a dead-end, to the possibliity that life is the product of the actions of some intelligent agent. (whatever or whoever that is)

I think that its absurd to close our eyes to this possibility and limit science to searching for naturalistic causes. (e.g., spontaneous generation)I think its OK to look for these causes, but lets be honest and ackowledge that this search could be a dead-end, to the possibliity that life is the product of the actions of some intelligent agent. (whatever or whoever that is)

— Dave

I think that its absurd to close our eyes to this possibility and limit science to searching for naturalistic causes.

[Townes said]Now, that design could include evolution perfectly well. It's very clear that there is evolution, and it's important. Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they're both consistent. [Interviewer]They don't have to negate each other, you're saying. God could have created the universe, set the parameters for the laws of physics and chemistry and biology, and set the evolutionary process in motion, But that's not what the Christian fundamentalists are arguing should be taught in Kansas. [Dr. Townes:] People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they're saying, "Everything is made at once and then nothing can change." But there's no reason the universe can't allow for changes and plan for them, too. People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one.[emphasis added here] Maybe that's a bad word to use in public, but it's just a shame that the argument is coming up that way, because it's very misleading. [Interviewer] That seems to come up when religion seeks to control or limit the scope of science. We're seeing that with the regulation of research into stem cells and cloning. Should there be areas of scientific inquiry that are off-limits due to a culture's prevailing religious principles? [Dr. Townes:] My answer to that is, we should explore as much as we can. We should think about everything, try to explore everything, and question things. That's part of our human characteristic in nature that has made us so great and able to achieve so much. Of course there are problems if we do scientific experiments on people that involve killing them --- that's a scientific experiment sure, but ethically it has problems. There are ethical issues with certain kinds of scientific experimentation. But outside of the ethical issues, I think we should try very hard to understand everything we can and to question things.

I guess stimulating an open discussion and debate are not in the charter of this website! More like - "Kill the heretics!"

If ID is about detecting intelligent causes, then the challenge for science is to develop a series of tests that indicate with a reasonable level of confidence and determine if some material aspect of the universe arose due to an intelligent cause, rather than a naturalistic cause.

Yes - I've read the original source for the Townes interview and now remember, so thanks for catching that. I agree with Townses, and don't think that ID and Evolution are mutually exclusive things.

As far as the scientific method is concerned, and applications to ID, I do think it is possible for interested scientists to develop tests that can discriminate between products of naturalistic mechanisms as well as intelligent causes, while never having to contend with identifying just who the designer is.

This is similar to what the SETI folks are trying to accomplish.

I think interested scientists may be able to show naturulistic orgins, but lets face it, its looking less and less likely every day, so if we are honest, we have to say that given the evidence we have, design is a plausible explanation for certain aspects of nature.

So, let scientists that are interested in exploring these avenues do so, without recrimination or censorship.

And I'm still beside myself regarding the tactics of E. Scott. She's essentially the head of a modern day scientific priesthood.

As far as the scientific method is concerned, and applications to ID, I do think it is possible for interested scientists to develop tests that can discriminate between products of naturalistic mechanisms as well as intelligent causes, while never having to contend with identifying just who the designer is.

And I'm still beside myself regarding the tactics of E. Scott. She's essentially the head of a modern day scientific priesthood.

So, let scientists that are interested in exploring these avenues do so, without recrimination or censorship.

Yeah, Dave, whatever...

Name an actual ID, uh, "scientist" (one who is doing any actual lab or field work in biology) who has been the object of recrimination or censorship. Lay out the details; document what "recrimination" or "censorship" you are talking about.

Or, let's go back a step: please first just name any IDist who you think is actually doing something that the rest of the scientific world would recognize as science (lab or field work) "to develop tests" or to "explor[e] these avenues" that ID supposedly has to offer. And, again, of course, please link us to the scientific publications, summaries of the research programs, etc., that would document this supposed work.

Of course, that really requires us to go back one further step, and to identify exactly what specific, detailed testable hypothesis any ID advocate has come up with, at which any such hypothetical ID "scientist" woould be directing any such hypothetical program of "scientific research." Again, document your response.

Oh, and--for reasons that I hope would be obvious--P.R., books published by religious presses aimed at the lay public, blithering, bleating, and hand-waving just don't count, .

I await your detailed and documented responses, though not with bated breath...

given the evidence we have, design is a plausible explanation for certain aspects of nature.

Time once again for this link

I think interested scientists may be able to show naturulistic orgins, but lets face it, its looking less and less likely every day, so if we are honest, we have to say that given the evidence we have, design is a plausible explanation for certain aspects of nature.

— Dave

Here's a couple more articles from the last couple of months. Now Dave, how do you justify your "less and less likely every day" comment?

The RNA World on Ice: A New Scenario for the Emergence of RNA Information
Alexander V. Vlassov, Sergei A. Kazakov, Brian H. Johnston and Laura F. Landweber
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Volume 61, Number 2
Date: August 2005
Pages: 264 - 273

Evolution of the Genetic Triplet Code via Two Types of Doublet Codons
Huan-Lin Wu, Stefan Bagby, Jean M.H. and den van Elsen
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Volume 61, Number 1
Date: July 2005
Pages: 54 - 64

And yes, its still significant, like I said that 38 Nobelists made this statement, but over on Telic thoughts, there are some very good observations that suggest these Nobelists don't appreciate what they are saying.

— Dave

As far as the scientific method is concerned, and applications to ID, I do think it is possible for interested scientists to develop tests that can discriminate between products of naturalistic mechanisms as well as intelligent causes, while never having to contend with identifying just who the designer is.

design is a plausible explanation for certain aspects of nature.

Scientists that are friendly to ID abound - they are the 400 or so folks that signed the Discovery Institute statement regarding the limitations of RMNS.

Scientists that are doing lab work is AFAIK a very small list. Michael Behe at Lehigh University comes to mind, and I'm pretty sure he would say that he has few counterparts. Another that I can think of would be Dean Kenyon.

ID is a different type of science than say most fields of biology - and they are not mutually exclusive. ID is probably most closely related to the fields of bioinformatics and mathematics.

The best example of recrimination that I am aware of would be that of Richard Sternberg, who is not an ID scientist, but was the head of a journal that published a paper by an ID scientist. I would say it is the best example because there is so much public information available about it.

I also mentioned Eugenie Scott and her treatment of a high-school senior at Emmaus High a few years back. That seems particularly blatant based on what I have been able to find online. Scott is a very skilled rhetorician and she does not hesitate to use authoritarian/totalitarian methods. When practiced against a teenager, that is outrageous.

As far as religious motives go on the part of the ID community, and the political/rhetoric dimension, I would say that the ID folks are catching up with the evolutionists in many regards. Many evolutionists are atheists, so perhaps we should question their motives. I'm not sure a religious test is a good path to take, unless you can define which religious views are allowed and which are not. Keep in mind that the NCSE is essentially a lobbying organization for Darwinistic fundamentalism - but they hide behind a name that suggests they are more than that.

Dembski has published mathematical tests for detecting intelligent causes - essentially a litmus test you apply to a dataset. I'm sure the SETI folks use similar methods for analysing the signals they are collecting. So, if Dr. SETI stands up one day and proclaims that he has detected a signal that suggests an intelligent, extra-terrestrial cause, would that be a scientific, credible statement? I think so. If you agree, then how is that different than concluding that some aspects of life were designed based upon the apparent specified complexity of molecular systmes and structures?

Design is a possibility, certainly no less possible than spontaneous generation. I can't really comment on the two papers that were cited, but I am aware of many papers in those areas, and in general, they are highly speculative and preliminary. I don't think anyone would suggest that we have anything close to a theory regarding how information first originated. It seems that when it comes to papers like those, the scientific standards are not quite so high.

Some writers criticize ID for the lack of papers that have been published in comparison to other scientific fields. But, won't that be the case for any new field? And didn't Darwin's rhetoric inspire people to do the science to flush out his hypothesis?

As anybody who has actually read one of Darwin's major books knows, Darwin always accumulated an immense amount of evidence before he published. He was a cautious man and very well aware of the opposition his ideas were likely to arouse. And Darwin was very careful to pay his dues by publishing a significant volume of empirical research before he ventured into theory.

Scientists that are friendly to ID abound - they are the 400 or so folks that signed the Discovery Institute statement regarding the limitations of RMNS.

Scientists that are doing lab work is AFAIK a very small list. Michael Behe at Lehigh University comes to mind, and I'm pretty sure he would say that he has few counterparts. Another that I can think of would be Dean Kenyon.

ID is a different type of science than say most fields of biology - and they are not mutually exclusive. ID is probably most closely related to the fields of bioinformatics and mathematics.

The best example of recrimination that I am aware of would be that of Richard Sternberg, who is not an ID scientist, but was the head of a journal that published a paper by an ID scientist. I would say it is the best example because there is so much public information available about it.

I also mentioned Eugenie Scott and her treatment of a high-school senior at Emmaus High a few years back. That seems particularly blatant based on what I have been able to find online. Scott is a very skilled rhetorician and she does not hesitate to use authoritarian/totalitarian methods. When practiced against a teenager, that is outrageous.

As far as religious motives go on the part of the ID community, and the political/rhetoric dimension, I would say that the ID folks are catching up with the evolutionists in many regards. Many evolutionists are atheists, so perhaps we should question their motives.

Dembski has published mathematical tests for detecting intelligent causes - essentially a litmus test you apply to a dataset. I'm sure the SETI folks use similar methods for analysing the signals they are collecting

Some writers criticize ID for the lack of papers that have been published in comparison to other scientific fields. But, won't that be the case for any new field? And didn't Darwin's rhetoric inspire people to do the science to flush out his hypothesis?

I'm sure the SETI folks use similar methods for analysing the signals they are collecting.

— Dave

Y'know, unlike WD and outright creeps like Sal, I don't mind so much that people like the "Dave" above invest a great deal of effort in lying to themselves, or in swapping their "pledge o' faith" trading cards or whatever they do in theit secret tree-house headquarters.
However, I myself have finally had my patience frayed to ribbons by their insistance in lying, and repeating the same ad nauseum the same lies, not only to those unaware of their intentions but to people who KNOW they are lying, and have repeatedly proven in public that they are lying, and who really have better things to do than continue attempting to cushion the blow that must come when struggling to excuse the fact that people like the "Dave" above are insincere, fingers-in-the-ears, evil-minded liars.

Dave, your sort of "faith" is writ on water, built upon sand. Putting a "Jesus Loves You" smiley face sticker upon your lies and fears doesn't transmute these base metals of your character into the gold of knowledge, much less wisdom.
Time to put aside these childish things, perhaps: there certainly is room for Christian ideas in this big world.

Scientists that are friendly to ID abound - they are the 400 or so folks that signed the Discovery Institute statement regarding the limitations of RMNS.

Scientists that are doing lab work is AFAIK a very small list. Michael Behe at Lehigh University comes to mind, and I'm pretty sure he would say that he has few counterparts. Another that I can think of would be Dean Kenyon.

Many evolutionists are atheists,

Dembski has published mathematical tests for detecting intelligent causes - essentially a litmus test you apply to a dataset. I'm sure the SETI folks use similar methods for analysing the signals they are collecting.

Design is a possibility, certainly no less possible than spontaneous generation. I can't really comment on the two papers that were cited, but I am aware of many papers in those areas, and in general, they are highly speculative and preliminary.

Some writers criticize ID for the lack of papers that have been published in comparison to other scientific fields. But, won't that be the case for any new field?

Dave, here's another question for you (which you also won't answer):

If you know anything at all about the ID "controversy", then you must KNOW that your heroes are in court right now trying to argue that creationism/ID is SCIENCE and has NO RELIGIOUS PURPOSE OR AIM. You KNOW that if the courts rule that creationism/ID is NOT science and IS nothing but religious doctrine, then your crap will never see the inside of a science classroom. So you must KNOW that every time you blither to us that creationism/ID is all about God and faith and the Bible and all that, you are UNDERMINING YOUR OWN HEROES by demonstrating, right here in public, that your heroes are lying under oath when they claim that creationism/ID has NO religious purpose or aims.

So why the heck do you do it ANYWAY? Why the heck are you in here yammering about religion when your own leaders are trying so desperately to argue that ID/creationism is NOT about religion? Are you and the other creationists in here really THAT stupid? Really and truly?

Any IDer or creationist in here, how about answering that question for me. Why are you in here arguing that ID/creationism is all about God and the Bible, while Discovery Institute and other creationists are currently in Kansas and Dover arguing that ID/creationism is NOT all about God and the Bible?

Why are you **undercutting your own side**????????

I really truly want to know.

I think interested scientists may be able to show naturulistic orgins, but lets face it, its looking less and less likely every day, so if we are honest, we have to say that given the evidence we have, design is a plausible explanation for certain aspects of nature.

— Dave

Date: 2002-12-04 A totally new and highly controversial theory on the origin of life on earth, is set to cause a storm in the science world and has implications for the existence of life on other planets. Research* by Professor William Martin of the University of Dusseldorf and Dr Michael Russell of the Scottish Environmental Research Centre in Glasgow, claims that living systems originated from inorganic incubators - small compartments in iron sulphide rocks. The new theory radically departs from existing perceptions of how life developed and it will be published in Philosophical Transactions B, a learned journal produced by the Royal Society. ...

Date: 1999-05-13 New York University chemistry professor Robert Shapiro has published a new book and paper that challenge existing assumptions about life on Earth and elsewhere in the Universe. In Planetary Dreams, Shapiro raises the issue of whether that laws of nature might favor the generation of life throughout the Universe. Furthermore, Shapiro suggests that the hypothesis that life is unique to Earth could prove to be just as implausible as theories of Divine Creation. hese arguments are presented in Shapiro's article, "Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life,"which appeared in the April 13th Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Vol. 96, Issue 8, 4396-4401). Shapiro also lays out his argument in a new book entitled PLANETARY DREAMS, which was published by John Wiley & Sons in April. ...

Date: 1999-07-15 A University of Hawai'i researcher and her colleagues from the NASA Space Science Division have confirmed that a new form of carbon previously made in the laboratory also exists in nature. The finding indicates that the pure carbon molecules known as fullerenes could have been a factor in the early history of Earth and might even have played a role in the origin of life. University of Hawai'i at Manoa organic geochemist Luann Becker and NASA colleagues Theodore E. Bunch and Louis J. Allamandola discovered the presence of fullerene carbon molecules in the 4.6-billion-year-old Allende meteorite, which has been of interest to scientists since it landed in Mexico three decades ago. ...

It is looking less and less likely every day that Dave will back up his statements.

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant: It is looking less and less likely every day that Dave will back up his statements.

"Scientists that are friendly to ID abound - they are the 400 or so folks that signed the Discovery Institute statement regarding the limitations of RMNS."

But how many of them are called Steve?

"The best example of recrimination that I am aware of would be that of Richard Sternberg, who is not an ID _scientist_, [my emphasis]"

You can say that again.

"As far as religious motives go on the part of the ID community, [...] I would say that the ID folks are catching up with the evolutionists in many regards."

???

I understand all the words, and the syntax looks like English. But I just can't decipher the meaning of that sentence. Are you making a point, or just making unsubstantiated and unfriendly insinuations?

[Notice, BTW that I quote _properly_, something certain - ah - unnamed creationists have repeatedly failed to do]

"Many evolutionists are atheists,"

???

You just go _right_ on believing that. And when you can actually present a poll that backs that statement, I _might_ begin to take it seriously.

"Keep in mind that the NCSE is essentially a lobbying organization for Darwinistic fundamentalism"

Oh, _please_, not the old 'eveel atheist conspiracy' crap. It's worse than ludicrous for so many reasons...

... a lobbying organization for Darwinistic fundamentalism

Still no response from Dave. He must be busy in his laboratory doing research on Intelligent Design 'science'.

The specific case where the details are public in which Eugenie Scott targeted a high-school student was that of Danny Phillips of Colorodo.

There are cases where the NCSE does perform a useful service. This was not one of them. The PBS shows on evolution are, as Danny Phililps noted, little more than propaganda tools.

This is what poor little Danny said:

"Now scientists don't like my request because it challenges the dogma that is fundamental to their philosophical viewpoints about nature, and I don't like evolution because it challenges my own philosophical views."

and this is what mean ol' Darwinist Eugenie Scott said about him:

"If Danny Phillips doesn't want to learn evolution, well, he's going to be less educated than if he does. He should learn evolution. If he doesn't want to accept it, that's his own business. But his views should not prevail for 80,000 students who need to learn evolution to be educated."

Dave, Dave, Dave... you should apologize to Dr. Scott. If this is what people like you consider "authoritarian/totalitarian", you'd better buy a new vocabulary.

Hi Dave, welcome back.

Now answer my questions.

What is the scientific theory of ID? What, according to this scientific theory of ID, did the designer do, specifically? What mechanisms did the designer use to do whatever the heck you think it did? Where can we see the designer using these mechanisms today to do, well, anything?

Comment #49061

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 21, 2005 07:07 AM (e) (s)

Dave, here's another question for you (which you also won't answer):

If you know anything at all about the ID "controversy", then you must KNOW that your heroes are in court right now trying to argue that creationism/ID is SCIENCE and has NO RELIGIOUS PURPOSE OR AIM. You KNOW that if the courts rule that creationism/ID is NOT science and IS nothing but religious doctrine, then your crap will never see the inside of a science classroom. So you must KNOW that every time you blither to us that creationism/ID is all about God and faith and the Bible and all that, you are UNDERMINING YOUR OWN HEROES by demonstrating, right here in public, that your heroes are lying under oath when they claim that creationism/ID has NO religious purpose or aims.

So why the heck do you do it ANYWAY? Why the heck are you in here yammering about religion when your own leaders are trying so desperately to argue that ID/creationism is NOT about religion? Are you and the other creationists in here really THAT stupid? Really and truly?

Any IDer or creationist in here, how about answering that question for me. Why are you in here arguing that ID/creationism is all about God and the Bible, while Discovery Institute and other creationists are currently in Kansas and Dover arguing that ID/creationism is NOT all about God and the Bible?

Why are you **undercutting your own side**????????

I really truly want to know.

This is what poor little Danny said: "Now scientists don't like my request because it challenges the dogma that is fundamental to their philosophical viewpoints about nature, and I don't like evolution because it challenges my own philosophical views."

Dembski has published mathematical tests for detecting intelligent causes - essentially a litmus test you apply to a dataset. I'm sure the SETI folks use similar methods for analysing the signals they are collecting.

We've heard several creationists say things to the effect that SETI must do something like Dembski, so ID is science. Of course, they don't do anything like Dembski, and what they do is illuminating about why ID can't work without some info about the Designer. Has anybody at Panda's Thumb written an article about this?

Certain Americans seem to be a pox on the whole world at the moment. They are now trying to interfere with Astronomy as a fudge to deal with their unintelligent design of GPS. They want to redefine reality to be something simpler for them because of their personal inability to deal with the real world. Seem familiar at all ..?

I think interested scientists may be able to show naturulistic orgins, but lets face it, its looking less and less likely every day, so if we are honest, we have to say that given the evidence we have, design is a plausible explanation for certain aspects of nature.

— Dave

I'm suggesting that design is a possibility, and that any scientist that chooses to float that hypothesis is entitled to without recrimination or threat.

We as scientists should not define science in such a way to exclude that possibility.

I think that the cases of Samuel Chen and Danny Phillips are illuminating. They show that organizations such as NCSE and ABAT have political and philosophical motivations, no different than the Discovery Institute.

I stand by my comments regarding Eugenie Scott - she uses authoritarian and totalitarian methods.

Dave hilariously ad-libbed:

"We as scientists [...]"

Are you a Christian Scientist, Dave? 'cause no other definition of "scientist" seems to fit your public persona...

Also, when poor little Danny said something that is only barely exscusable in an indoctrinated 16-year-old who's been spoon-fed ID talking points, Dr. Scott basically replied, "If you want to remain ignorant, that's your privilege; but it is wrong to keep everybody else ignorant just because you don't like what science tells us."

This has nothing authoritarian, nothing totalitarian about it; it's the plain fact of the matter. Dr. Scott is right, and Danny Phillips is wrong. Twist the thing as you want, this won't change.

Now, since you are an incorregible troll, I'll stop pointing out your misrepresentations. The truth is out there: it took me one minute to find out what Danny Phillips had said and what Genie Scott had responded. "Scientist", ideed!

I'm suggesting that design is a possibility

We as scientists should not define science in such a way to exclude that possibility.

We as scientists

Dave, as an actual scientist who does actual research (albeit not in evolutionary biology) I am offended that you classify yourself as a scientist. Please desist.

Wingardium leviosa.

I'm suggesting that design is a possibility, and that any scientist that chooses to float that hypothesis is entitled to without recrimination or threat.

I think interested scientists may be able to show naturulistic orgins, but lets face it, its looking less and less likely every day, so if we are honest, we have to say that given the evidence we have, design is a plausible explanation for certain aspects of nature.

We as scientists

but lets face it, its looking less and less likely every day