1

It seems that the only examples of real evolution to which we have to point are the evolution of scientific theories.

2

But the fact remains: evolution is a science, and has developed in 80 years, and "intelligent design" simply is not.

3

As has become all too common with regard to famous and infamous trials, the popular perception of what transpired in the courtroom comes not from the transcript of the court proceeding itself, but rather from the motion picture and/or stage play that was based -- often loosely -- on the trial. Inherit the Wind was both a prize-winning play and movie. ~ Alan Dershowitz

All in all, Bryan does quite well defending his position and Darrow comes off as something of an anti-religious cynic. The law was on Darrow's side, although it took more than half a century for the Supreme court to vindicate his position. But the primitive and misapplied evolution taught by John Scopes was neither good sciences nor good morality. ~ Alan Dershowitz

4

Interesting. I've never seen the movie, nor will I (it reeks of Lifetime, as most pompous dramatizations do - I can imagine a hack hollywood writer swinging for the fences with the premise. bleh), but the way it actually played out seems cool.

The trial was a publicity stunt.

Nah, it was just a test case, and that's how defendants in these cases are frequently found. Just because Scopes wasn't a hardscrabble teacher that was unjustly fired doesn't make the case any less important or legitimate. It would've been a publicity stunt if Darrow were opening an auto garage after the case and wanted free advertising. As it happened, it was a pretty standard example of how these kinds of cases actually work. Of course, if I'd seen the movie as a kid or something, and thought that life operated according to the narrative principles of Hollywood, I might be singing a different tune.

Scopes was a fan of Bryan.

Aren't we all?

That's pretty hilarious that Scopes was teaching eugenics. Ha! One thing is for sure: from now on, I'm reserving restaurant tables as "the Jukes family."

5

The evidence and the moral speak for themselves!

Note to self: don't marry anyone named "Margaret, mother of criminals."

Got it.

Thanks, George William Hunter!

6

Nice how often Darwin's theory of natural selection is used by nutty racists who want to use it to propose UNNATURAL selection on goups or classes of people they don't like and as an absurd cover for racism as science; when neither Darwin's theory or he himself were racist. I refer you to the story in the Voyage of the Beagle when he heard described a black woman jumping off a cliff rather than being taken back into slaver described as "brute obstinance" rather than the poetic "last stand of a Roman matron" that it would be described as if her color were changed.

As far as science and racism I recommend Steven Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" for an expose on the silly and the perposterous studies done by early "pioneers" in this field who measured the skulls of the "races" of men in order to ascertain thier relative intelligence. Using his own data, but seperating out women and men (The difference in size between women and men accounted for the biggest variability in the sample), Gould said that the smartest people according to this nimrod racist "scientist", once you seperated women and men were...

Black African males!

Of course this nimrod had LOTS of females in the African sample so that unseparated the African sample appeared in his published works at the bottom as he assumed them to be.

The actual science on the subject, as apposed to racist sorting of sizes of skulls, and idiotic ascribing of traits to the shape of skulls; is that there is surprisingly little difference between any two people on the entire planet. This is based upon DNA molecular evidence and is born out by repeated sampling; and this IS NOT with ascribing any good or bad value to any DNA sequence or frequncy of an allele (i.e you think dark people are stupid so you assume that having genes for dark skin makes you a stupid and worthless person. We all (except albino's) have genes to make our skin dark, and they are the same genes in an African population as a Norweigan population they just have a different frequency of being a working copy, all related to filtering out harmful sunlight while still gettig enought to synthesize vitamin D. Given enough time and allowing selective pressure to be applied and you could get a dark skinned population out of a bunch of isolated Norweigans in Africa and you could get a light skinned population out of a bunch of isolated Africans in Norway; the genes to make a Black man are present within a white population and vice versu.). The incredible similarity on a genetic level between all humans indicates that we are a very young species; probably not more than 100,000 years.

Racist have alwyas used whatever idea or philosophy they could glom onto to support their kooky notions. They even (GASP!) have used religion including refering to Africans as "the son's of Ham" who was allowed to be taken as slave by God. The Bible also allows slavery saying "As for male and female slaves, take them from the nations that surround you.". And in the movie "MR. and MRs. Loving" about the publicity stunt/test case of a white man who loved and married a black woman the Virginia judge said that "God had placed the seperate races on seperate continents to not allow mixing, and therefore mixing would never occur without the intervention of man and is not part of Gods plan.".

I don't believe true religion is discredited by it being used for hatred and incorrect assertions of racial superiority; and science has born out that people are people and all very similar and that natural selection often means caring for others of our species (as in vampire bats and many other species) rather than sterilizing and imprisoning those who we don't like or have genetic traits ever so slightly different than our own.

7

Mylo

Nice how often Darwin's theory of natural selection is used by nutty racists who want to use it to propose UNNATURAL selection on goups or classes of people they don't like and as an absurd cover for racism as science; when neither Darwin's theory or he himself were racist.

We cannot understand much of the history of late 19th and early 20th century anthropology, with its plethora of taxonomic names proposed for nearly every scrap of fossil bone, unless we appreciate its obsession with the identification and ranking of races. For many schemes of classification sought to tag the various fossils as ancestors of modern races and to use their relative age and apishness as a criterion for racial superiority. ~ Stephen Jay Gould

Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life by Charles Darwin

Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world. ~ Charles Darwin

Man in his wild condition seems to be in this respect almost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes, which have never yet survived long, when removed from their native country. ~ Charles Darwin

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now, between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla. ~ Charles Darwin

The creed of Eugenics is founded upon the idea of evolution. ~ Francis Galton

The feeble nations of the world are necessarily giving way before the nobler varieties of mankind. ~ Francis Galton

In considering whether any method of selecting the better types for multiplication, or the worse types for elimination, can from a practical basis for eugenic reform, those eugenists who, like myself, are hoping to be able to utilize the methods which have been effective in organic evolution, are inevitably led to consider what guidance can be obtained from a study of the action of natural selection. ~ Leonard Darwin

Of all the problems which will have to be faced in the future, in my opinion, the most difficult will be those concerning the treatment of the inferior races of mankind. ~ Leonard Darwin

8

Those opposing evolution would do better, in my opinion, simply to focus on the flaws of the theory, using only sound logic and science. It seems to me these arguments abound: Michael Behe's "Black Box" comes to mind, and I think Michael Denton wrote a book, which I think I read, but I can't recall the title.

The key issue for me is the dogmatism of Darwinists.

A friend of mine very much takes this approach -- don't you believe in evolution, he asks, as if he were speaking of the round earth or the existence of God, in terms of certitude. He--a fellow Catholic--operates on the misapprehension that the Church shares his devotion to evolution.

I respond that I hold no brief for or against evolution. I don't particularly believe it, on the macro level (does anyone dispute it on the micro level?), but if it really were established, it wouldn't detract from my faith.

While I don't speak for the Church, that's more or less the Catholic Church's position: what's non-negotiable is that God DID create, and that he did--in some fashion--form an original pair of humanity who did, in fact, fall into sin. The age of the earth, the development of species, are non-concerns for the Catholic Church.

But who are the dogmatists? Why, the adherents to Evolution, who cast into outer darkness anyone who raises embarrassing questions.

9

~DS~

Believe it or not there are honest Young Earth Creationists, sadly lost in the glare of the shysters like Hovind and Baugh. Kurt Wise for example plainly states that he believes in YEC because he considers it a measure of faith. He openly admits that the evidence for evo is highly favorable, and he states that if it were not for his faith, he would accept dating methods and evolution precisely because the evidence is so powerful.

I believe Dr Wise would say that, absent his Christian faith, he would have little reason to question the herd mentality/orthodoxy. His faith has given him a lens to view the evidence differently. You have concluded that faith is wrong ('unprovavle' or 'irrelevant') and must distort the evidence. I have concluded that his faith is based on Reality which offers him an advantage of examining Reality over those who lack faith. A truly unbiased person would ignore faith altogether and ask 'Has Dr Wise made valid observations?'. There is no such thing as a 'truly unbiased person'.

10

Apart from the scientific argument, Joe's description of the beliefs that were presented in the "Scopes" text book are important to consider. Evolution is not just a model for describing the development and progression of processes but involves a belief system and worldview with considerable moral implications. Consequently, presuppositions are accepted as a matter of faith and have considerable moral implications (e.g., eugencis, abortion, stem cell research).

11

jpe:

I'll give Joe his "pubplicity stunt" for Scopes if he'll admit straight out that Glsasroth v. Moore was a fundraising scam for for Coral Ridge Ministries.

Well, Joe? How about it?

How honest are you?

12

Try this link for info about Kennedy, as well as the original decision on Glasroth v. Moore.

Here:http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religion/glsrthmre111802opn.pdf

13

Thanks for blogging this, Joe.

14

Evolution is not just a model for describing the development and progression of processes but involves a belief system and worldview with considerable moral implications.

Nope. Here's why.

15

Joe, what did you think of the Da Vici Code?

I suspect you thought it was a worthless pile of #@#@##. Yet thoe who love the book claim that it's manstream Christians who are, to borrow Septimus's word "dogmatic" about their rejection of gnostic gospels and the idea the Costantine "started Christianity and first suggested the divinity of Jesus.

Mainstream Christians find the book shallow, poorly researched and distorting facts. The book casually dismisses soem 2000 years of well founded Christian theological thought.

Scientists view the Discovery isntitute in the same way as Christians view Da vinci Code, and it adds nothing to the discussion to say scietists are "dogmatic" about evolution. This is like saying mathematicicans are dogmatic about 2+2 = 4. After a certain amount of time, we proved it and we've moved on.

16

Bevets,

Kurt can speak for himself as to why he professes the view that he does. In fact, I've been trying to get his e-mail is anyone has it handy to ask more about this. I'd like to review him for the Know Your Creationist series.
As much as Kurt's honesty, I feel he's making a fundamental error. One does not view science through faith so much as one allows science to fill in details of the processes the Creator, accepted on faith, may have used.

17

JPE: That's pretty hilarious that Scopes was teaching eugenics.

Actually, it turns out that Scopes may not have even been teaching evolution. I couldn’t find a solid enough reference to include it but it appears that since he was only a substitute that he was never required to give that particular lesson. That’s why I consider it more a “publicity stunt” than a true “test case.”

DS: If there is a Creator deity, then one shouldn't feel threatened by facts gleaned from studying that creation, or by theories advanced to explain those facts. One would merely be studying the artifacts of Creation and learning about the methods used by the Creator.

I agree. Like the Plantinga quote from my last post, I think that Christians should agree that no matter how it happens it is God doing it. Unfortunately, their position makes it more difficult to advocate my own – that design in nature should be empirically detectable. My problem with most Darwinian explanations is not that they are a threat to my faith but that I don’t find them plausible.

Septimus: Those opposing evolution would do better, in my opinion, simply to focus on the flaws of the theory, using only sound logic and science.

But this is just what many ID theorists are criticized for doing. Pointing out that Darwinism relies on bad logic and science is considered insufficient until they have a theory to replace it with. I agree, though, that we need to keep pointing out the holes in the theory until the neo-Darwinists stop claiming that they will be plugged up in the future.

JPE: Nope. Here's why.

What I’ve never been able to understand is that if a person holds the position that nature is all there is, then how can there be a “naturalistic fallacy?” Moral properties have to be identified with natural properties if natural properties is all that exist.

18

Joe M: Joe, what did you think of the Da Vici Code?

I suspect you thought it was a worthless pile of #@#@##.

Yes, actually, I did, though probably not for the reasons you might think. I can stomach a bit of heresy if it is plausible. But Brown’s book contained too many eye-rolling contrivances for my taste.

Take, for example, the way the first murder victim was found (I’m trying not to give too much away for those who haven’t read it). He had 15 minutes before he died and yet he concocts an unnecessarily elaborate puzzle for his grand-daughter to solve. Why didn’t he just write her a note in code since she’s a cryptographer!

The whole book was filled with such silly plot points that had no other reason for being there other than to show off the author’s “erudition.” It was like reading a bad Umberto Eco knockoff.

(But yes, I have to say that the arcana was at the level of third-rate conspiracy theory nonsense. And it was so offensive toward the Catholic Church that it bordered on bigotry.)

Mainstream Christians find the book shallow, poorly researched and distorting facts. The book casually dismisses soem 2000 years of well founded Christian theological thought.

So true. What is sad is that oftentimes the real story is often more intriguing than the myths yet people prefer to believe the distortions.

Scientists view the Discovery isntitute in the same way as Christians view Da vinci Code, and it adds nothing to the discussion to say scietists are "dogmatic" about evolution.

The problem is that most of the DI’s critics have no idea what they really stand for. How many people, for example, know that the DI opposes the inclusion of ID into the Dover curriculum?

19

The problem is that most of the DI’s critics have no idea what they really stand for. How many people, for example, know that the DI opposes the inclusion of ID into the Dover curriculum?

Their objections are to the wording used, not the principle, and likewise they probably consider this a strategic blunder.

20

Moderate Their objections are to the wording used, not the principle, and likewise they probably consider this a strategic blunder.

No, actually, their objections are quite clear:

"When we first read about the Dover policy, we publicly criticized it because according to published reports the intent was to mandate the teaching of intelligent design,” explained West. “Although we think discussion of intelligent design should not be prohibited, we don't think intelligent design should be required in public schools.

“What should be required is full disclosure of the scientific evidence for and against Darwin's theory,” added West, “which is the approach supported by the overwhelming majority of the public."

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2341

21

Hey Joe,

Read the first part:

"Dover's current policy has a number of problems, not the least of which is its lack of clarity. At one point, it appears to prohibit Dover schools from teaching anything about 'the origins of life.' At another point, it appears to both mandate as well as prohibit the teaching of the scientific theory of intelligent design. The policy's incoherence raises serious problems from the standpoint of constitutional law. Thus, the policy should be withdrawn and rewritten."

And I have to laugh at their disingenuous, "oh we don't really want ID taught in class...where would you ever get that idea from..."

22

"The creed of Eugenics is founded upon the idea of evolution. ~ Francis Gal ton"

The creed of many White Supremacist groups are founded upon the Bible. That does not make the Bible valid or invalid.

23

Moderate: Read the first part:

I did. There’s nothing in that section that disputes what they say next: that ID should not be mandated in schools.

And I have to laugh at their disingenuous, "oh we don't really want ID taught in class...where would you ever get that idea from..."

First of all, that is not what they said. They claim that ID should not be mandated in public schools. I'm not sure how that is disingenuous but I'm hoping you can explain.

24

First of all, that is not what they said. They claim that ID should not be mandated in public schools. I'm not sure how that is disingenuous but I'm hoping you can explain.

Let's see, they start an organization who's sole purpose is to develop a theory of ID and to propagate it into the mass culture. Then when they get into a position where they are actually going to have the theory of ID taught alongside evolution, they say they don't want it. If they think it is valid science, why don't they want it taught in school? If they think that it is worth teaching in some school settings, why not teach it in public school? Could it be perhaps they realize that it is more of a theological and philisophical development right now more than a scientific theory?

25

As to the DaVinci Code . . .

I haven't read it, not planning to, any time soon. I think I don't need to, in order to form *a* valid opinion about it, which is as follows:

As far as I can tell, the book posits some sort of massive conspiracy and cover-up, the benefit of Rome and/or orthodox (small-o) Christianity in general, to the detriment of Gnostics or others whose truth was suppressed.

Is that last statement essentially accurate? If so, then I simply find conspiracy/coverup theories of history, by their nature, hugely implausible. Perhaps -- in another thread -- someone wishes to demonstrate why the DaVinci Conspiracy/Coverup passes what should be an extremely high proof threshhold, before which lie the detritus of all the various theories, down through the ages, that aimed high, but crashed and burned instead. If the arguments are compelling, perhaps I will change my mind and read DaVinci Code.

As to dogmatism: I think there's a huge difference in being dogmatic about dogma--i.e., something that is *supposed* to be a settled matter -- and dogmatic about scientific inquiry, which, silly me, I thought is by definition not a closed matter.

Joe, I agree the ID'ers are being criticized just for critiquing Darwin, and have been successfully goaded into offering a competing theory; and perhaps their competing theory is all it should be. I really don't know.

My point is solely tactical. It's entirely reasonable, and surely less daunting, to raise valid questions about a prevailing theory. I think it's not reasonable to say that you can't critique a proffered theory without posing ones own. That's like saying you can't say the emperor has no clothes, unless you join the parade.

Yes, a full-blown, alternate explanation is a more devastating critique; but it is still valid to question that which proposes to be the explanation--that's what you get for offering an explanation: people get to ask intelligent questions, and you are expected (if you wish to be persuasive) to answer.

Because, after all, until significant new data is brought forward (and I don't know just what that would be, honestly), maybe the best an opponent of evolution may achieve is to have it be the "best" explanation, insofar as it is least problematic--but still problematic; and therefore, it predominates, but is offered with humility and a dose of agnosticism.

Seems to me, ID'ers and Creationists who really do want to win the fight on epirical grounds shouldn't be unhappy with that.

26

DS-

Nice plug for Hugh Ross. Where did you find him :-)

Here's his website once again everyone. It's worth a visit:

www.reasons.org

I'm not really convinced that people in the ID field are trying to pass ID off as a science. What I see are people who are presenting the findings of science and correlating those with what would be expected if nature has been put together by an intelligent force.

And it seems perfectly valid to me to have folks poking holes in supposed scientific findings that are more correctly called unproven and unsupported theories. Unlike 2+2=4. Comparing that sentence to the theory of macro evolution is exactly why people fight against how this is taught in schools. It's biased brain washing that has quashed many would be free thinkers.

27

Septimus wrote

"I respond that I hold no brief for or against evolution. I don't particularly believe it, on the macro level (does anyone dispute it on the micro level?), but if it really were established, it wouldn't detract from my faith."

That's good. Because evolution is "established" at least as well as any of the other extraordinarily powerful and useful theories that form the bedrock of modern science, e.g., theory of relativity, wave/particle theory of light, etc.

What's a pity is that evangelical Christians are particularly prone to believe garbage to the contrary, i.e., that evolution is in "crisis" and similar nonsense. The phrase "pathetic rube" comes to mind. These charlatans who feed evangelicals this crud are really an embarassment to your religion and the sooner you figure that out and get those monkeys off your back, the better.

"It's entirely reasonable, and surely less daunting, to raise valid questions about a prevailing theory."

Indeed. Scientists do this all the time and have raised many valid and interesting questions about evolution for the past 150 years. That is why the principles of evolutionary biology and developmental biology have become increasingly useful to scientists as they explore the molecular mechanisms which underlie, e.g., cell differentiation and cancers.

Meanwhile, Christian creationists have spread bogus falsehoods and lies in an attempt to disparage the work of scientists, bringing absolutely nothing to the table. Rather than advancing scientific understanding, scientists are forced to address the bogus press releases and pseudoscientific garbage released by the evangelical front organizations like the ill-named Discovery Institute.

Again, evangelical Christians should be ASHAMED of this crap. And it will come back to bite them in the ass. Just watch what happens to the miserable suckers in Dover like Bill "Oxycontin Recoverer" Buckingham, an ignorant non-scientist who bought the DIscovery Institute crap hook line and sinker. He is a Liar for Jesus and he's about to discover what happens to lying buffoons when they refuse to step away from the soapbox.

28

~DS~

~DS~:Believe it or not there are honest Young Earth Creationists, sadly lost in the glare of the shysters like Hovind and Baugh. Kurt Wise for example plainly states that he believes in YEC because he considers it a measure of faith. He openly admits that the evidence for evo is highly favorable, and he states that if it were not for his faith, he would accept dating methods and evolution precisely because the evidence is so powerful.

bevets: I believe Dr Wise would say that, absent his Christian faith, he would have little reason to question the herd mentality/orthodoxy. His faith has given him a lens to view the evidence differently. You have concluded that faith is wrong ('unprovavle' or 'irrelevant') and must distort the evidence. I have concluded that his faith is based on Reality which offers him an advantage of examining Reality over those who lack faith. A truly unbiased person would ignore faith altogether and ask 'Has Dr Wise made valid observations?'. There is no such thing as a 'truly unbiased person'.

~DS~: Kurt can speak for himself as to why he professes the view that he does. In fact, I've been trying to get his e-mail is anyone has it handy to ask more about this. I'd like to review him for the Know Your Creationist series.

I have known Dr Wise for several years, I suspect he would find my perception of his views more accurate than yours. You could send him a letter in care of Bryan College.

Patrick

"The creed of Eugenics is founded upon the idea of evolution. ~ Francis Galton"

The creed of many White Supremacist groups are founded upon the Bible. That does not make the Bible valid or invalid.

The distinction, here, is that White Supremecy is inconsistent with sound biblical teaching.

cf: Galatians 3:26-28

29

Joe said :I agree. Like the Plantinga quote from my last post, I think that Christians should agree that no matter how it happens it is God doing it. Unfortunately, their position makes it more difficult to advocate my own – that design in nature should be empirically detectable.

Design might be empirically detectable, or at least reasonably guessable. I'd say it is reasonably guessable in some contexts. We look for design in things like radio broadcasts to detect codes and ciphers. Mostly we're checking for human designers of course and often have precedent to help us narrow our search.
I don't know if detecting design in nature, non human design that is, is by and of itself much to bolster a specific deity. But it would seem to me to at least offer something very interesting. Anyone who has an inkling of curiosity would want to know more about it. A lot would depend on what 'it' was that we're hypothetically making a high quality in formed guess on. Right? I mean if we found a blob of metal on Mars, that seemed to be the product of non human intelligence, we probably be more inclined to think ET's. If we found that the basic structure of the universe appears designed, lets say enough so that to conclude 'it was designe'd is a rational conclusion, does that suggest a more advanced alien or a Creator Deity, or where might the difference between the two lay?

Joe said: My problem with most Darwinian explanations is not that they are a threat to my faith but that I don’t find them plausible.

Well, you know enough about it by now since I've been regaling with the grandeur of Evolutionary Biology [grin]. So I take you understand the stochastic nature of it and all, and so can form your own informed opinion. In terms of plausibility, iterating systems competing for 'resources' will 'evolve'. It's an emergent property. It's built into the universe. It has to happen.

And we see so much similarity in biota at every level, one clearly favoring phylogeny, that common descent is pretty solid. It's not a question that common descent occurred, it's more a question of how did it occur. How and why an ancient, particular, change occurred, and remember that there have been uncounted trillions, is always going to be no better or no worse than the level of detail we have of that event preserved.
But Joe ... In terms of design pr plausibility, if this process was designed to iterate out like this, it's nothing short of brilliant. No human words could do such a feat justice. Words like magnificent and elegant don't even begin to cover how amazing that would be. The Bioengineering it would imply that, over trillions of generations, the Creator could be assured of end result precise morphologies at precise times is exquisite. I can't imagine a more sophisticated design method.

30

Bevets

"The distinction, here, is that White Supremecy is inconsistent with sound biblical teaching."

Don't tell me, tell THEM bevets. Try and convince the White Supremacy how "unsound" their own apologetics are.

There is nothing consistent with sound biblical teaching about spreading lies and disinformation in order to get bogus pseudoscientific crap taught in public schools, but that is EXACTLY what the evangelical-funded (and Moonie-employing) Discovery Institute is up to.

Go figure.

31

Unlike 2+2=4. Comparing that sentence to the theory of macro evolution is exactly why people fight against how this is taught in schools. It's biased brain washing that has quashed many would be free thinkers.

Oh dear. Comparing math to science is exactly why kids could benefit from philosophy of science that could be occasioned by the ID/Evolution stuff.

32

There's something faintly gnostic about the way Evolution is presented to us, by those who really believe it. If you're smart enough, you'll get it; otherwise, you're a "pathetic rube."

Well, I'm a reasonably intelligent fellow; and I readily admit there are subjects, in the sciences, that baffle me, as I think they might be expected to baffle anyone, because they are difficult subjects.

But I think I'm bright enough that, if I ask someone to explain it to me, I can grasp it--if explained well.

Further, I insist that, in the main, if one *really* understands a subject, one ought to be able to explain it in a reasonably brief, lucid fashion that a reasonably intelligent layman can grasp; i.e., rather than only the elect cognoscenti getting it.

And brief, lucid responses are just what seem lacking to the "irreducible complexity" critique, or the "lack of fossil records" critique, or to my own question: why aren't there transitional species now? Where's post-homo sapiens?

Can it really just be lousy PR?

The pro-evolution position dominates the media, certainly plenty of publishing houses, and the vast majority of academia and the scientific "community," to say the least.

How hard would it be for someone to produce something clear and accurate to refute the principal attacks on Darwinism? A book; a web page; an op-ed in major papers; someone engaging to appear on TV or radio?

(If anyone wishes to point me to them, please do so.)

Instead, it seems to me the response from the pro-evolution position is to call its critics dolts and morons, and flat-earthers, to attribute only dark motives to them, and to explain it all in terms of irrational fundamentalism, and to try to drive them away.

Well--there's plenty of all that to go around, no question; but that doesn't explain everyone who finds fault with "the Theory" -- and it still leaves me wondering what the answer to those reasonable-sounding questions was.

33

Can it really just be lousy PR?

No it's just that there is so much to understand. It's like electronics. you won't be able to trouble shoot a Television set down to the component level after reading a few articles on how TV's work. You might get the basic idea, or a little better than the basic idea if you've had some prereuiaites, without understanding it in fine detail.
Common descent is apparent when studying morphology/physiology. It's so apparent even at gross anatomical detail that early naturalists strongly suspected it, but could not figure out how a species might change over time. It took awhile for ideas like fixity of species, to give way to the concept of plasticity over many generations. And they lacked a lot of the analytical tools, and even some basic concepts like Deep Time, which would help them finally start to get a handle on it. They eventually did start piecing it together though. And that effort continues to this day. It shows no signs of being complete, that's for sure!
There have been many more species in the history of life than there are people living to study them.
But common descent is usually a good place to start, this is usually the point of contention with the anti-science kinds of creationism.

You can get an overview of the complexity inherent in common descent, the evidence, and themes here Here. There's a few megs worth there. One of the points in favor of common descent is that so many divergent sub-fields in biology are concordant with it, and that's an important point to understand. But if you want to discuss a few individual categories, that's not a bad idea either. Better than trying to drink from a fire hose.

34

jpe,

Are you suggesting that an 'ought' can't be the absolute that an 'is' is?

Ed

35

No - the idea is that one can't be derived from the other.

36

mumon:

But the fact remains: evolution is a science, and has developed in 80 years, and "intelligent design" simply is not.

Why is it that simple? It seems you are making 'science' an arbitrary label. What is it that makes ID antithetical to science. And what is so different about the set of deductions that leads to a theory of evolutions and the set of deductions that leads to a theory of ID?

37

jpe,

From whence does an 'ought' come if not from an 'is'?

Ed

38

"But I think I'm bright enough that, if I ask someone to explain it to me, I can grasp it--if explained well."

Hahahaha, what an absurdly arrogant statement. If Septimus can't understand it, then it must be crap because he's "bright enough."

"The pro-evolution position dominates the media, certainly plenty of publishing houses, and the vast majority of academia and the scientific "community," to say the least."

That's because it WORKS, dammit. That's why the pro "HIV causes AIDs" and the pro "Rockets can take men to the moon" position and the pro "Holocaust actually happened" and the pro "Global warming is real" and the pro "Slavery sucked for black people" positions also "dominate the media", in spite of the existence of sometimes vocal minorities who claim otherwise.

My god, the arrogance and ignorance on display here is at an all-time high.

"How hard would it be for someone to produce something clear and accurate to refute the principal attacks on Darwinism?"

It's not hard. It's been done many times. Fundies like Phil Johnson aren't interested in objective reality unless it expressly includes deities or mysterious all-powerful beings.

"there's plenty of [irrational immoral morons] to go around, no question; but that doesn't explain everyone who finds fault with "the Theory" -- and it still leaves me wondering what the answer to those reasonable-sounding questions was."

In so far as most scientists doing basic research are not motivated by big bucks but rather by the possibility of making a big discovery, you can rest assured Septimus that if any of those "reasonable sounding" questions has scientific merit, it will be addressed.

The guy who proves that evolutionary biology is a pile of crap will get a Nobel prize. Hint: it's not going to happen but if it did, I can guarantee you it won't be because of the work of some conservative evangelical nitwit at St. Podunk University.

39

Mr. Ed asks

"What is it that makes ID antithetical to science?"

The implicit reliance on a group of mysterious all-powerful beings for whom there is ZILCHO evidence, Mr. Ed.

Any other questions from the peanut-brained gallery?

Or do I need to teach Mr. Ed about the enterocraftic theory which provides an equally "compelling" explanation for the diversity of life on earth?

40

DS --

Thanks; that's a helpful and interesting link; I browsed it for awhile, and bookmarked for another day.

The web page is generally polite, discursive and clear, yet it takes the view that there really is nothing to the criticism of evolution but religious dogmatism. Even if that's true, the "nothing but" contention naturally invites skeptism; from a tactical point of view, it doesn't help the cause.

When the page said, in effect -- nothing about Evolution refutes God, or his role as Creator; he could be the hidden hand behind evolution, no problem -- that, it seems to me, is what most laymen who find "Intelligent Design" appealing, like: the acknowledgement of a place for God. Very few people object to evolution on religious grounds, except on the basis of the (erroneous) notion that evolution is athiestic.

Seems to me, nothing need prevent instructors in schools, yes public schools, from making this point. And if I were an evolution proponent, debating ID folks, competing for public opinion, I'd make that statement about once every 15 seconds and take the wind from the sails of the ID PR gambit.

In short, seems to me a lot smarter ways to deal with this controversy, than what we're doing.

41

"Seems to me, nothing need prevent instructors in schools, yes public schools, from making this point."

What is the point exactly?

And do I understand, correctly, Septimus, that the reason that the point is made is to coddle Christians who have been misinformed by THEIR OWN SELF-PROCLAIMED LEADERS that evolution is atheistic?

How about instead of raising philosophical religious issues in public school science classrooms, folks like Phil Johnson and the charlatans at the Discovery Institute simply STOP spreading disinformation about the "secular humanist" conspiracy and the alleged slippery slope from evolutionary biology to atheism?

Why aren't you concerned about the lies spread by members of your own religion, Septimus???

42

Can all the pro-evolution people, say Andrew Flew. Still a non-believer in the Christian God, but nerveless has concluded, against his historic positions, evolution is untenable and accepts ID. From my experience, pro-evolution people are very dogmatic. If you don’t understand then your stupid or it is too complicated to easily explain, they then go on to ridicule those they disagree with as being stupid and beneath them, and if any might believe they are intelligent to understand, they are then ridiculed for being arrogant to presume they could understand. In the pro-evolution mind if you do not understand you are stupid so they reason you shouldn’t act like you could understand. Maybe it is not a matter of understanding but a lack of faith. So please all the dogmatic evolutionists reading this post please once again as in previous post let others and me who question evolution know what idiots we are for questioning the holy bible of evolution. It feels like the Evolution Inquisition. By the way if the theory of evolution was proven true, it wouldn't damage my faith. The point is it has as many holes as my swiss cheese.

43

Larry Lord wrote: The implicit reliance on a group of mysterious all-powerful beings for whom there is ZILCHO evidence, Mr. Ed.

I don't believe, nor do I think ID adherents believe in a 'group of mysterious all-powerful beings'. Why do you throw that into the equation, other than to begin building your uber-strohmensch.

Larry Lord wrote: Any other questions from the peanut-brained gallery?

Just left that one in to show the mentality that we're dealing with.

44

When the page said, in effect -- nothing about Evolution refutes God, or his role as Creator; he could be the hidden hand behind evolution, no problem -- that, it seems to me, is what most laymen who find "Intelligent Design" appealing, like: the acknowledgement of a place for God.

Well theistic evolution is pretty damn contingent on God also Sep. You sure can't have it without God.

45

By the way if the theory of evolution was proven true, it wouldn't damage my faith.

Nor should it. The Catholic Church and most Protestant denominations have no problem with the theory of evolution. The only people trying to turn evolution into a religious issue are those Christians who rely on the inerrancy of the literalist interpretation of Genesis and those who believe that if they were to accept evolution then their need for god disappears.

46

Larry, Larry, Larry, "ZILCHO" evidence---man, you just haven't been keeping up. I would gather you believe a lot of things exist which you've never seen with much less evidence to show for it than intelligent design. Of course, when those you don't agree with reason in the same manner and come to a conclusion you don't like, you need to resort to calling them peanut-brained etc...

I've sure never seen any experiment to date that produces life from eternal, dead nothingness. That's right where your thinking takes you, and every breath you suck through your ungrateful nostrils refutes your own reasoning.

If it were to be proven tomorrow without refute that God exists, I wonder how you would feel? My hunch is that if you can honestly begin answering that question, you'll tap into a lot of emotional baggage that explains your self proclaimed rational thought.

47

Joe, please don't ask rhetorical questions:

"The problem is that most of the DI’s critics have no idea what they really stand for. How many people, for example, know that the DI opposes the inclusion of ID into the Dover curriculum?"

Most evolutionists involved in this issue do know that fact. The also know the reason: Its adherents in DOVER are explicilty religiously based. That means there is a good risk that the trial judgge will find that ID is subterfuge creationism and simply bar it completely on religious grouunds.

Mnay millions of dollars will be "wasted.' if that happens. The DI would have to disband, regroup inder a new name, and a code word for creationism.

Now who's fault is it that DI'sc ritics don't know what they stans for? They have web site> They have a newsletter. They have press releases. They write books.

The truth is, they don't stand for any scientific priciples at all. They can't even agree on a definition for the intelligent design they advocate.

48

Of course, everything that Joe McFaul just wrote is true.

Mr. Ed spins like a top and writes

"I don't believe, nor do I think ID adherents believe in a 'group of mysterious all-powerful beings'. Why do you throw that into the equation, other than to begin building your uber-strohmensch."

Surely you aren't this clueless, Mr. Ed. Please tell me you aren't this clueless.

If "ID adherents" don't believe in a "group of mysterious all-powerful beings" then what do they call the "intelligence" that was capable of (1) "designing" and (2) creating all of the diverse life forms that every lived on earth????

It's my impression that most "ID adherents" maintain that the "designers" aren't specified. (The remaining ID adherents who expressly say that the designer is the Christian God are, of course, the relatively honest ones).

But whether or not the "designers" are specified, they surely must exist if "ID theory" is to have any meaning.

Are you intelligent enough to grasp this fundamental point, Mr. Ed? I doubt that you are, given your previous efforts, but go ahead: surprise me.

If you appear to have the intelligence of an above-average high school student, I might let you in on the latest alternative theory to evolution for explaining the diversity of life on earth: enterocraftic theory. It's totally cool, man!!!

49

Septimus makes two good points:

1. As to the Da Vinci Code:

"As far as I can tell, the book posits some sort of massive conspiracy and cover-up, the benefit of Rome and/or orthodox (small-o) Christianity in general, to the detriment of Gnostics or others whose truth was suppressed.

Is that last statement essentially accurate? If so, then I simply find conspiracy/coverup theories of history, by their nature, hugely implausible."

Yes it does, that's why I brought it up. According to Phillip E. Johnson, all of science--all of it!--has entered into a conspiracy to prevent the "truth" about evolution from getting out. That is the fundamental argument made by the ID crowd--a vast consiracy theory.

2. Septimus accurately summarized the actual standing of evolution today:

"Because, after all, until significant new data is brought forward (and I don't know just what that would be, honestly), maybe the best an opponent of evolution may achieve is to have it be the "best" explanation, insofar as it is least problematic--but still problematic; and therefore, it predominates, but is offered with humility and a dose of agnosticism."

No problem, because that's all proponents of evolution want. And incidentally, that's also true for quantum mechanics, and relativity, and a host of other scietific theories. They are only the "best available" as of today's date. The key is "significant" "new" "DATA." That means facts, not accusations of philosophical naturalism, not accusations of muisplaced worldviews, not accusations of teaching eugenics.

If you think ID would work, then propose a scheme of detectign design that works. Dembski hasn't done this yet. He can't distinguish between a snowflake and a pyramid. You think certain bilogical systems are so irrducibly complex that they must have been designed? Come up with a list of 20 or 30 or so, and have a research program in place to identify all you can find. Publish papers identifying the systems. There may be an underlying pattern to the designs giving clues about the designer(s). Behe suggested 5 natural systems in 1996, now admits those don't work and refuses to come up with any more suggested examples becasue those all are since shown to be evolved.

Intellgent design is in shambles.

50

Oh, good grief! The evangelical outpost got overrun with a flood of incorrect data again?

1. The anti-evolution law that Gov. Peay signed into effect in Tennessee was, itself, a publicity stunt. It was wrong-headed and unconstitutional under Tennessee's freedom of religion clause. Yes, the test case was a bit of a publicity stunt for Dayton, Tennessee. It remains a fact, however, that no case may get to trial unless there is a genuine case or controversy. That a publicity stunt was required to overcome a the publicity stunt the creationists pulled off is no surprise -- nor is it any dishonor.

Creationism is nothing but a publicity stunt at this point in history. Creationism has done nothing to contribute to science or knowledge in nearly 200 years.

2. Scopes was not the plaintiff in the case. The State of Tennessee was the plaintiff, the prosecution. Scopes was charged with a crime. If you can't get the basic facts right, what else have you gotten dead wrong?

3. Darrow wasn't the lead defense attorney, either. The ACLU had a local guy do that. Same with the prosecution. This is basic, basic legal procedure. If it's revelation to creationists . . . well, that's one more realm of ignorance where the light finally starts to shine. The trial was in 1925 -- you guys are just figuring it out?

4. Yes, Scopes was a fan of Bryan. Scopes was a broad-minded, well-educated man, and fair. History does not record whether Bryan returned the favor. It is a fact that many Tennesseeans were happy to see John Scopes move out of the state. So much for education, broad-mindedness and fairness.

5. Yes, the Hunter text was atrocious. However, in racist Tennessee in 1925, it was a crime to teach evolution, but not a crime to teach racism. Creationists of 1925 liked the racism, hated the suggestion that whites might be related to blacks. Have creationists today changed? Creationists today are not defending evolution in order to link whites to blacks . . .

Darwin and his family were anti-racist, and a large portion of the Wedgewood family fortune went to fight slavery (successfully in Britain) and racism. Darwin would have been saddened by the racist overtones in the Hunter text. Darwin's science denied that racism. Too bad Hunter didn't figure that out.

6. "During the trial?" Scopes plead guilty, essentially. There was no trial after the pretrial motions to voir dire science experts were denied. Are you sure you know anything at all about this case?

Since all expert testimony was disallowed, where do you get the claim that expert testimony was allowed?

7. The defense "wanted to lose?" You again misunderstand the trial procedure. The judge refused to allow expert testimony. A trial of the law was impossible, therefore, and the best that could be hoped for was an appeal. The creationists knew they'd had their butts whipped, however -- they urged a technical overturn of the the case (which the Tennessee Supreme Court was only too happy to provide) in order that the case could NOT be appealed, again to avoid an argument on the constitutionality of the bizarre law.

Darrow's having Scopes plead guilty was exactly the OPPOSITE of "wanting to lose." It was the only way to get a fair hearing of the law, once all the facts had been disallowed at trial.

8. Mencken was unfair? He was not the only reporter at the trial -- only one of the most insulting to what he called the "booboisie" -- and much of the trial was carried live on radio. The media were not unfair, collectively -- the case for creationism cannot stand the light of day. Creationism does not like sunlight.

Creationism lost badly in the Scopes trial. To the credit of creationists, in solid Machiavellian fashion, they successfully kept the issues from getting into federal court for another 50 years.

How about a true epilogue? Can you tell us any scientific advance made by creationism since 1925? Has creationism yet eschewed racism? Has creationism diagnosed or cured any disease? Has creationism led to any advance in religion? Has it promoted anti-racism there?

Sour grapes, Mr. Carter. With the perspective of nearly 80 years, creationists and enemies of science still refuse to get the facts straight.

51

Tim said: >>Apart from the scientific argument, Joe's description of the beliefs that were presented in the "Scopes" text book are important to consider. Evolution is not just a model for describing the development and progression of processes but involves a belief system and worldview with considerable moral implications. Consequently, presuppositions are accepted as a matter of faith and have considerable moral implications (e.g., eugencis, abortion, stem cell research).

52

Tim is smoking Phil Johnson's crack again. Nasty stuff.

Meanwhile, Ed wrote

"Creationists of 1925 liked the racism, hated the suggestion that whites might be related to blacks. Have creationists today changed? Creationists today are not defending evolution in order to link whites to blacks . . ."

There was an article recently about a Christian private school in one of the red states down south which got busted for "teaching the controversy" about whether or not black sleeves led rewarding and fulfilling lives. I would not be surprised in the least if the Christians who run that school are also ID apologists. For what it's worth, after their folly was revealed, the Christians thereafter pulled the absurd slavery apologetics text they had been "absent-mindedly" peddling.

But perhaps they've reinstated it again. After all, those southern Christian children deserve to hear both sides of the story, right, and not just some dogma promulgated by politically correct Northern historians? Am I right about that?

http://newsobserver.com/news/story/1913619p-8258411c.html

53

H.L. Mencken on Americans of 1925: "the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers who ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages."

Of course, Mencken didn't live to see how Americans have behaved in the years following 9/11, which is probably the clearest indication of how many chickens and sheep actually breathe the air around here.

54

Larry wrote: If "ID adherents" don't believe in a "group of mysterious all-powerful beings" then what do they call the "intelligence" that was capable of (1) "designing" and (2) creating all of the diverse life forms that every lived on earth????

Do you know the difference between one and more than one? Even if the 'designer(s)' aren't specified, there is no possible way to go into any detail about a number of designers. Nor is there a reason except, of course, if you're trying to build up a strawman argument.

Are you intelligent enough to grasp this fundamental point, Mr. Ed? I doubt that you are, given your previous efforts, but go ahead: surprise me.

Its a funny irony that people who can't seem to get through a single post without immaturely insulting someone are most likely to have the chutzpah to question another's intelligence.

55

Larry Lord wrote in typical fashion: There was an article recently about a Christian private school in one of the red states down south which got busted for "teaching the controversy" about whether or not black sleeves led rewarding and fulfilling lives. I would not be surprised in the least if the Christians who run that school are also ID apologists. For what it's worth, after their folly was revealed, the Christians thereafter pulled the absurd slavery apologetics text they had been "absent-mindedly" peddling.

For all the mud-slinging and calling ID adherents dishonest, you might just want to try to stay above the fray, Larry. Or, are you suggesting that if a school has it's students read a book, they are necessarily "peddling" the ideas in that book? 'Cause I read Mein Kampf in school and I don't think they were peddling the ideas therein.

56

Ed Darrell wrote: Sour grapes, Mr. Carter. With the perspective of nearly 80 years, creationists and enemies of science still refuse to get the facts straight.

With all due respect, Ed, for nearly 80 years there has also been a crowd all to eager to brand 'Creationists' as enemies of science. To me, there is no greater enemy of science than he who seeks to quiet the critics of his theories.

57

Mr. Ed writes

"To me, there is no greater enemy of science than he who seeks to quiet the critics of his theories."

Hahahaha. Your paranoid delusional tendencies run over. Creationists are quite vocal and continue to be so and will no doubt never cease to be so. They can't be "quieted".

What scientists (and many reasonable parents who aren't members of your cult-like religious sect) want is for creationists to stop peddling their garbage to schoolchildren.

Is that so hard to understand, Ed?

In terms of the scientific debate, there will always be groups of whining cranks who feel that they are shut out. Look at the Sasquatch and UFO apologists. I sure do pity them. But they aren't as eager to get their pseudoscientific crap into science classrooms as fundies seem to be. So scientists generally could care less about them. Their theories, like creationists theories, are ignored by researchers because they are useless.

Is there something about religion that distinguishes its leaders and its followers from those who subscribe to non-religious quackery? Why aren't UFOologists working feverishly and investing great amounts of money into revamping public school textbooks to "teach the controversy" about Area 42 or whatever?

Are you intelligent and brave enough to answer that question, Mr. Ed? Surprise me.

58

Mr. Ed apparently doesn't understand that under ID theory, multiple designers are required for the theory to make any sense at all. Why does he say there is no possible way to go into any detail about the number of designers? Hasn't he studied the fossil record at all? It clearly calls for multiple designers.

see: http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000509.html

That's the problem with science. It requires you to address facts when proposing your theory.

And is there a reason to examine the attributes of the desginers? Not if the only possible designer is God. But, of course, that can't be what he meant, right? This isn't about God.

59

Larry wrote: Hey, Ed, don't bring it to me. Take your little lecture on the virtues of reading Mein Kampf to Cary Christian. I'm sure they'll be all ears there. Probably you'll want to throw in some holocaust denial literature, too, just to complete the package.

Another little bit of dishonestly just for kicks, eh Larry? When you start it's a very slippery slope.

60

In case anyone doesn't recognize how stupidly foolish Mr. Ed is with his pathetic attempts to duck away from necessary attributes of the alleged "intelligent" designers, here is more proof.

In response to my demonstration that Christians in the United States also engage in strange apologetics with respect to slavery and justify those apologetics with rhetoric that is similar to that used by creationists (surprise, surprise), Mr. Ed asked me

"Or, are you suggesting that if a school has it's students read a book, they are necessarily "peddling" the ideas in that book?"

Here's my answer: No, Mr. Ed, I'm not suggesting that. I'm concluding that and telling you in a straightforward fashion that a Christian schools was peddling those ideas to schoolchildren.

If Mr. Ed had a brain, he would have used to open the link I included in my post which included the following information that is relevant to anyone who is willing to entertain the shocking possibility that Christians can be anything less than 100% honest:

"The booklet isn't the only connection its two co-authors have with the school.

One of the authors, Douglas Wilson, a pastor in Moscow, Idaho, wrote a book on classical education upon which the school bases its philosophy. Wilson's Association of Classical and Christian Schools accredited Cary Christian, and he is scheduled to speak at the school's graduation in May.

Some school leaders, including Stephenson, founded Christ Church in Cary, which is affiliated with Wilson's Idaho church.

The booklet's other author, Steve Wilkins, is a member of the board of directors of the Alabama-based League of the South. That is classified as a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights group."

Please feel free to smear the Southern Poverty Law Center. I'm sure Jesus hates their unfair characterization of the League of the South as much as you do, Mr. Ed.

61

"Another little bit of dishonestly just for kicks, eh Larry?"

Where's the dishonesty, Mr. Ed? C'mon, be specific you sick little troll.

62

Ed Darrell Darrow wasn't the lead defense attorney, either. The ACLU had a local guy do that. Same with the prosecution. This is basic, basic legal procedure. If it's revelation to creationists . . . well, that's one more realm of ignorance where the light finally starts to shine. The trial was in 1925 -- you guys are just figuring it out?

Yes, Ed, Darrow was the lead defense attorney. Before you “correct” someone you might want to check your facts.

It is a fact that many Tennesseeans were happy to see John Scopes move out of the state.

So you know a “fact” about people’s opinions. Um, okay, Ed. Whatever you say…

"During the trial?" Scopes plead guilty, essentially. There was no trial after the pretrial motions to voir dire science experts were denied. Are you sure you know anything at all about this case?

Do you even have a clue what you are talking about? On the eighth day of the trial Darrow asked the jury to find his client guilty. It was the Scopes Trial not the Scopes Pretrial Motion Hearings.

Since all expert testimony was disallowed, where do you get the claim that expert testimony was allowed?

Expert testimony was submitted into the trial in affidavit form.

Sour grapes, Mr. Carter. With the perspective of nearly 80 years, creationists and enemies of science still refuse to get the facts straight.

Why don’t you try again on a topic that you know something about Ed. Once again you’ve come woefully unprepared.

63

Joe:

Mr. Ed apparently doesn't understand that under ID theory, multiple designers are required for the theory to make any sense at all. Why does he say there is no possible way to go into any detail about the number of designers? Hasn't he studied the fossil record at all? It clearly calls for multiple designers.

MDT was dreamed up as a red herring to be thrown out to the mainstream ID crowd. There is no justification for it.

64

Larry wrote: In response to my demonstration that Christians in the United States also engage in strange apologetics with respect to slavery and justify those apologetics with rhetoric that is similar to that used by creationists (surprise, surprise), Mr. Ed asked me "Or, are you suggesting that if a school has it's students read a book, they are necessarily "peddling" the ideas in that book?"

First, this is how Larry begins to frame a strawman argument. He turns unjustified generalizations into specific accusations.

Second, regarding the book, have you read it? This might be a good place to start. But, since neither of us seems to have read it we're reduced to the news article as our source of knowledge on the topic. But it was also the news article that said:

"Until two years ago, Stephenson said, middle school students also had read excerpts from "Southern Slavery." He said the booklet was a counterpoint to "Uncle Tom's Cabin," which he said portrayed all Southern whites as treating their slaves badly...
Stephenson said the booklet is discussed for two days. Even as they read the booklet, he said, students are told slavery was wrong."

You have to give all of the facts, Larry.

65

Larry wrote: Where's the dishonesty, Mr. Ed? C'mon, be specific you sick little troll.

The dishonestly was in your attempt to turn the fact that I read Mein Kampf in school--to prove that a school need not adhere to beliefs of every text is has it's students read--into a the lie that I somehow want to extol the "virtures of Mein Kampf". And worse still, to use that lie to try to label me as a holocaust denier.

That, Larry, is your lie. Who is the sick troll?

66

Larry wrote: And "one" is a more specific claim than "multiple." I'm not going into detail. I'm keeping it real. We're talking about an awesome accomplishment here, Ed, an accomplishment that makes the lunar expedition look less difficult than blinking an eye. It took thousands of people working together to put a man on the moon. The idea that one being could have designed and created all the life on earth is absurd. Surely you agree that it is much more likely the work of a vast conglomeration of aliens, rather than one single superdooper powerful one? Is that unreasonable, Mr. Ed?

Yes, its unreasonable because you're putting human limitations on a non-human entity. You're putting time constraints on an entity that is not necessarily bound by time as we understand it. And as far as a "conglomeration of aliens", there you run into the problem infinite regression. Also, you have a problem with the nature of an omnipotent/omniscient being. There cannot be multiple omniscient beings with opposing views as MDT would seem to imply.

67

Septimus wrote: "Those opposing evolution would do better, in my opinion, simply to focus on the flaws of the theory, using only sound logic and science...
The key issue for me is the dogmatism of Darwinists."

Yes, it is theory (with a capital 'T') not truth.

Good topic Joe, the real story of the 'Scopes Trial' hasn't had much exposure in the MSM.

68

Joe McFaul wrote: The truth is, they don't stand for any scientific priciples at all. They can't even agree on a definition for the intelligent design they advocate.

Are you implying that all Evolutionists are in agreement as to the specifics of this theory?

69

If you read my smalltown newspaper (Hilo Tribune-Herald) letters to the editor you would see that the brain trust of East Hawaii has been going over the evolution vs. creationism dispute, hammer and tongs, for months with no resolution in sight. Thus it passes my test as one one of the insoluable issues of our Age.
What I think may be a resolvable issue is whether or not the teaching of evolution in the early part of the last century was done for political as well as for scientific reasons. I believe it was. If a hundred and fourty years ago evolution was taught as a truth that suggested a certain public policy (eugenics, a hierarchy of the races with placement by level of "advancement") what guarantee do we have that it will not be used in this way again? Or isn't being used to promote a public policy agenda now?

70

Mr. ED;

I'm not implying it.

I'm saying it. ALL evolutionists agree:

1. common descent

2. natural selection based on genetic mutation

3. DNA and genetics applied to evolution

4. Age of the earth at +4 billion years

5. fossil record shows transitions

6. general accuracy of radiometric dating

7. Older fossils are of more simple life forms followed by more complex lifeforms later.

Now as to ID, your turn:

All ID proponents do not agree on any of the following:

1. common descent

2. accuracy of radiometric dating

3. age of the earth

4. direct creation of humans

5 natural selection

6. definition of "kind" "species" or "phylum"

7. accuracy of DNA and genetic studies

8. whether the Cambrian explosion even occured

9. Whether there are any biological structures above the molecular level that are irreducubly complex.

10. What, if any, molecular structures are irreducibly complex.

11. How many designers are there?

12. Whether the designer(s) must be divine.

13. What is the definition of irrducible complexity

14. Whether the Explanatory Filter, as currently defined, works.

15. Whether there is a religious component to ID.

There are internal debates between evolutionists regarding minor issues like the relative importance of genetic drift. There are no disputes over major issues like, "What is evolution?" You can't say the same about ID. It is specifically designed to be only a negative response to evolution and to avoid providing any details about the so-called theory.

71

"MDT was dreamed up as a red herring to be thrown out to the mainstream ID crowd. There is no justification for it."

Handwaving!

Rebut it, don't call it names. Specifically, what are its logical and scientific errors? I personally would like to hear the ones that don't also apply to single designer ID, but go ahead and list all the errors anyway. As Joe Carter is so fond of pointing out, why is a proponent's motivation relevant? Who cares if all ID proponents are Christian fundamentalists if they happen to be right?

72

Please identify the best examples of transition in the fossil record? Did these transitons occur over a long period of time or does a "punctuated equilibrium" scenario or some other theory make more sense?

73

I have read a lot of words, but very few facts from the likes of Larry Lord and Joe McFaul.

Larry seems to like to promote his self declared intelligence by touting terms and theories as if they were "hero badges". However, there are never any specifics, other than demeaning verbage. I really liked the "global warming" as a fact. Larry, you might want to visit www.debunkers.org with that garbage and see how you are treated there.

Then there's Joe, who seems to think the scientific community agrees on the definition of a species. The vast majority of the canids can interbreed and yet they are seperate species, but that's contrary to the definition of a species. The common dog is a Canis lupus familiarus, or is it a Canis familiaris, or is it Canis familiarus? familiaris. Well, actually, nobody knows for sure and this ain't rocket science we're dealing with.

In 2002, there was a verified report out of Morocco of a mule foal that was 3/4 donkey and 1/4 horse. What species is that critter, Joe? Don't say "Quarter Horse", because that's my line!

Then there's the continuing question of why living things utilize the levo (sinister) rotatory amino acids instead of both rotations and/or the dextro rotatory amino acids. 50% of both rotations is natural and even found that way on the Murchison Meteorite, so how was that feature "selected" and why does it continue to be selected? It sure looks more like a design than a random happening.

Then we have to wonder about the cyanobacteria. They're supposed to be the oldest fossils ever found, at around "3.5 billion" years in age. However, the wonder is, why they are still around instead of evolving into something else?

Since the cyanobacteria is so simple, how about Joe and Larry making some for us, in the lab from scratch? Since they know all about the cyanobacteria, it should be an easy task. We'll even call it "Franken-bacteria"!

74

I know you'll excuse the typo in my previous post. It should be "Canis familiarus familiarus?"

On second thought, we can call that bacteria "Franken-bacteria", since Frankenstein used existing parts and that wouldn't be consistant with "from scratch". How about"Larry, Joe and Moe bacteria"?

75

Old fingers and old mind make typos. We can't call it "Franken-bacteria".

I was sorta wondering if Larry and Joe were to drank a lot of Dr. Pepper (CO2 has a lot of sources that aren't biological) and they were tested for radio carbon, how old do you think they would test at? Of course, they may also be health types and take a lot of Dolomite. With a half life around 56K for radio carbon material, I think they might be pushing 1000 years old.

76

Old fingers and old mind make typos. We can't call it "Franken-bacteria".

I was sorta wondering if Larry and Joe were to drink a lot of Dr. Pepper (CO2 has a lot of sources that aren't biological) and they were tested for radio carbon, how old do you think they would test at? Of course, they may also be health types and take a lot of Dolomite. With a half life around 56K for radio carbon material, I think they might be pushing 1000 years old.

77

I just read the whole post so far. Man, you guys have been going at it for a while. Interesting to read.

I have studied science and have some interest in this topic, but I am no philosopher. I noticed a couple questions raised that I also have that haven't been answered:

How did life come from non-life and break the LAW of Biogenesis?

Where are all the species today if macro-evolution has been goin on and is going on today?

To be fair, some questions were raised about the designer that may not have been discused. Something about multiple designer theory?

I agree with the previous post that this is somthing that will never be resolved. I don't know why or how one would prove a designer. How can we put human limitations on the designer? (I'll be honest, I have no problem calling the designer God.) I don't think you can scientifically prove God. I look at the complexity of biology and see design. Proevolutionists look at it and want to theorize where it came from. There is no one who is unbiased.

I agree with Larry. It is miraculous! (Go ahead Mr. Lord, let the name calling begin.)

I like the way Hugh Ross describes this. For the created being to try to understand the creator is like a two dimensional person trying to understand a three dimensional being making contact with their 2-D world (piece of paper). All the 2-D guy sees is circles. That is why we believe God intervened with us so we can understand who he is and how we are to live.

That is what I believe. It takes faith. It also takes faith to believe in the random, purposeless origins of life that materialistic evolution teaches, I believe more faith.

I have to go to bed and rest my feeble mind.

78

Dr les,
There is no "Law of Biogenesis" in the sense you probably mean, or rather it's not a Law along the lines of Newtonian Laws of Motion. It's more an old saying, basically made in the 19th century, that life doesn't spring spontaneously out of nowhere routinely, as was once considered possible early on in microbiology.
The term 'Law' is considered somewhat archaic these days and even bona fide Laws are not absolute. Newton's Laws for example are not infallible. At high energy intertial frames of reference, they don't work. Just as in everyday life, Laws were made to be broken [wink].

Abiogenesis is the study of possible processes which might lead to self replicating molecules. (There isn't any relatively easy to understand process that does for abio what Natural Selection does for common descent. About the closest you get is something called a "hypercycle") We may never know exactly what happened. In fact my guess is that we won't know precisely what happened, unless we get lucky and astumble of an entity who is willing to tell us and who we can check to make sure he's not pulling out leg, or his pseodpod, if yuo will. Here's a few ideas though in the context of Creationist objections to abio. Lots of interesting stuff there.

The problem with abio is testing the ideas, just like the complaint against IDC. First you have to try and figure out some portion of what may have hapened. We have almost no material from the time period in question. And even if we did, we're talking about infinitesimally tiny objects and processes. It's hard to see how such events would be preserved in great detail.
The oldest sedimentary strata already shows likely signatures of primitive chemosynthesis. So the ideas you can test are very limited. It's constrained by what strata we do have, analysis of extant organisms, and playing around in a lab with various types of gooey compounds under varying conditions.

But if evolution was a method used by the Creator, then it's no more purposeless or driven by chance than any other phenomena.