Univ. of Kansas Takes Up Creation Debate

I've stayed out of this one for ages, since citing Richard Dawkins's book The Ancestors' Tale. But let me pick on Kiloran a bit, with his constant re-stating of the above complaint. [Devil's Advocate Mode n:]

You don't get it. They (IDers) have NOTHING TO PROVE. Theirs is the DEFAULT position. If it's not "X" (Darwinism), it MUST be "Y" (c'mon, guys, let's call him God. [Ed. note: Er, it IS a "him", right? Or is that another thread? ])

For you to demand that they play by your rules, that is, prove the existence of ID through the scientific method, is folly. Are they asking you to play by theirs, that is, "prove" Darwinism by FAITH? [Ed. note: Now THERE'S an idea! :lol: "We believe it because, er, we believe it."] Come to think of it, a few of them DO claim Darwinism is a "religion", eh?

Yeah, a few of their more "scientifically-oriented" people are fumbling around, making noises as if they WILL "play by the scientific method", that is, DISprove Darwinism, while the vast majority of IDers stand by, some puzzled, many aghast. Most know in their hearts there's nothing to prove: it's all in the Christian Bible. But they're letting their new pseudo-scientific "front men" provide the legal wedge this time. It's time for a little pragmatism. And, democracy being democracy, sometimes it WORKS! It got us the 18th Amendment, didn't it?

 

I appreciate your response.
I reiterated my response precisely because the proponents of ID cannot/will not meet the challenge of justifying ID on its scientific methods.
My intent is not to convince (convert?) them but to not allow them, without objection, to define the conversation in terms of perceived deficiencies in the theory of evolution and other accepted scientific theories which has been their primary tactic.
What is obvious to most of us, that disproving the theory of evolution does not prove ID, is exactly the message proponents of ID are pressing.

 

I don't come from a religious or scientific background and don't feel qualified to enter into this discussion in a meaningful way I wish to thank all participants for a highly interesting (and not very antagonistic) discussion.

 

Wow! I agree. I am learning a lot here, and Jack....that summarizes my thoughts very well.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. Really, none of us want to convert anyone. It's not my place or anyone else's to try to change what people believe. People are free to believe whatever theywish, and it's OK to believe in intelligent design.

But the problem is that ID proponents are attempting a backhanded and sketchy assault against evolution and science... instead of confronting the theory of evolution through the scientific method, they are using our classrooms, our school boards, our legislatures, and our courtrooms to artificially undermine it.

This is a culture war issue, no doubt, and it is also my intention not to allow ID proponents to frame the debate about how evolution is flawed... it's simply not their place.

After all, the people who are most vocal about promoting ID aren't scientists who are working to find flaws in evolution... but NON-scientists.

Preachers, evangelists, uninformed parents... etc etc.

 

I agree that there should be a presentation of the scientific evidence. However, as I am taking the stance of it producing attitude change, that valid criticisms can be brought forth showing the gaps in evolution. Only then, IMO, will many individuals accept the possibility of there being another explanation. Now once individuals are at that piont, there should be empirical data in support of any other competing theory.

I have already posted books that go into some of the evidence, I'm not sure how you can say they are only criticisms of evolution as none of these include evolution in the summary:

The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology
Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design
Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute)
Mere Creation; Science, Faith & Intelligent Design

Perhaps books aren't what you are referring to, but rather studies. I can't say why there hasn't been more published in scientific journals, although I have some hypothesis. Research takes money and I am assume that it is difficult to get much of the research money out there to prove ID. Possibly, this research is being done, but will not be published in any respectable journal for various reasons (including it being bad science, it not being given an objective review, or the conclusions being watered down to the point of not being able to make any statements about ID). The ID scientists are focusing on books in reaching the public to get the word out there and not focusing on journals (as the reality is very few in the public read journals or would even know where to look--much less understand a journal article in molecular biology). There is also the hypothesis that there is no evidence out there. I read a scientific point-counterpoint about a year ago on evolution vs ID, but I can't remember what the title was to find it online.

The same question you ask about how to test ID, I ask about evolution. How does one test for macroevolution at the level of complex mammals? How can one test that a DNA moleculure was formed from random processes?

 

Therein lies the main problem. These are people who won't even approach evolution with an open mind- they refuse to even learn about it and simply denounce it without any real basis for doing so.

Everyone claims to be an expert nowadays. In science, it takes a whole lot of effort to become an expert, not just reading a few one-sided websites explaining why evolution is wrong. You have to know the whole story behind the story to be able to determine the legitimacy of anything.

Everyone who knows the principles of DNA mutation on a molecular basis, down to single-and double-strand breaks, the proteins that are involved in maintenance and repair and cell checkpoints and replication arrest, which DNA is more likely to be mutated and why, and how the conformation of the sugar-phosphate backbone is involved, raise your hand...

Now tell me how many psychiatrists or chemists know that stuff. I have taken classes with chemistry PhD students, trust me, they don't understand it. They're lost in molecular pharmacology. They have to do all sorts of catching up to be able to handle it, much as I would have to go back and study my organic and physical chemistry books to be able to synthesize a bunch of molecules like they do on a daily basis.

Just because someone has a PhD or MD or other postgraduate degree doesn't mean they have an understanding of these things either. I wanted to point that out.

 

Most of the biochemistry/molecular biology research money out there is spent on researching things like cancer and heart disease. Using that money for ID research, if it even exists, would be a great downfall for public health. Yes, let's take more millions away from multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer's research, problems that we already know are real, things that cause great harm to people every day, to attempt to disprove evolution and prove God exists.

That would be the biggest shame I've ever seen.

 

It'll be called "faith-based budgeting", my dear. :lol:

 

Nature and life are not random. Nature tries EVERY combination and permutation. In order to be successful, you must reproduce. A combination or permutation may work, but it must reproduce to be passed on ("natural selection").

Multiple genome projects continue to teach us much. Textbooks are being rewritten, phylogentic relationships are being redrawn. This is the nature of science, science strives to prove itself false. We only accept what we cannot show to be false, and we keep testing. Science is a process, not an endpoint, never a belief system. No "family tree" exists in nature, rather, as the Periodic Table, it is a systematic way of understanding - always subject to being amended and changed.

If ID wants to be part of science, then a basic principle is that ID must strive to show that ID is false - based on evidence, not opinion. Any conflict is within religion, not within science. DI proponents appear to not understand the nature of science. Trying to inject ID into science, means that ID is subject to rigorous peer review and must be based on evidence.

Science normally starts with a hypothesis (a testable statement), not a conclusion. ID starts with a conclusion (too complex, therefore, it must be drived from the supernatural). A "fact" is a repeatedly confirmed observation - that often causes a hypothesis to be revised. ID does not see ID as subject to revision ("god did it").

The conflict is within religion and belief systems, not within science.

 

How many on this board know the priniciples of DNA mutation for that matter? I used to know a lot of that stuff, but I have lost a great deal of it. Even when I was more familiar with it, I still could not fathom how something so complicated as DNA came from a randomness, not to mention things like DNA replication. The evidence for evolution is not entirely based on DNA mutations, I am just using that as an example that I have a basic knowledge. With just a brief look at the Dissent List list, I found 8 people in the first 3 pages (of 13) with PhD's in biology, molecular biology or biochemistry who should understand the mutations well enough to decide whether or not this is evidence of mutations (not necassarily ID proponents). There may have been more, but some people are listed with their position and not their degree and I don't have the time to look them up or go through all 12 pages.

I used the example of chemistry, physics and several doctors to show that you can be scientific and still be a proponent of ID (not that they were experts in DNA). That it is not just a gathering of people who have no clue about science.

 

skruse: well, well said. You got it all.

 

Thank you. As a scientist and teacher at the high school and university levels, I deal with student and general public questions every day. An excellent reference is:

Scott, E.C. (2004). Evolution vs. Creationism. Westport CT: Greenwood Press. (272 pp.) $49.95 from Amazon.com

 

So nature tried every possible combo of 3 billion base pairs?

Isn't opening itself up to scientific debate allowing it to be proven false? Again, there seems to be attempt to simply discredit any ID proponent as not understanding science.

Didn't the entire theory of evolution get its beginning from observations at Galapagos? ID has started the same way with scientists making observations about the incredible complexity of life and looking at the scientific evidence. I don't think that any true ID scientist sees it as not being subject to revision, just as evolution is subject to revision. ID makes no suppositions about how the desinger is, that is your putting words into their mouth. You are right, the conflict is religion and belief systems as scientists and the public try to rectify two beliefs that may be contradictory.

 

Joining in this debate late, but I have to say that Laughingman hit the nail on the head with the above. ID cannot possibly be considered science, and it should never be taught in science class. The basic underlying "faith" behind ID could be used to expain ANYTHING that hasn't otherwise been proven scientifically.

Questioning evolution is good, and certainly evolutionary theory has gaps that haven't yet been explained scientifically, and may never be. Further, I would freely admit that the explanation for the gaps may very well be ID. But this can never be proven, and ID will never be science EVEN IF IT IS THE RIGHT ANSWER. Man created science, and science has no room for ID.

I really think the debate is that simple.

 

This is what I've been getting at. It's the literal interpretations that cause conflicts. That's why I've been asking fshagan those questions. I agree that what's proven is the first place to start, though that has always been a moving target. My Free Will blurbs were certainly metaphysical but science had a major role to play in the logical foundation of the concept. Free will couldn't exist in a Newtonian Universe. Quantum mechanics changes that. Science and philosophy have grown closer together in a lot of ways since the early days of science.

You guys should check out "When Science Meets Religion". It's an interesting read. I don't agree with several things that it posits but it's still a good read. And short too. Only like 150 pages or so.

 

No. Darwin travelled far and wide in the HMS Beagle. It was in the Galapogos Islands that "the apple fell on his head". He noticed a variety of similarities, particularly in birds, between there and the mainland. He also drew on his knowlege of the breeding for specific traits done by farmers et al.

 

DNA as a macromolecule is rather simple, if you look at it. It's made of 4 differing nucleotides. That's it. All of life's diversity from A, T, C and G stuck together. How more simple can the fundamental molecule of life get?

Now when you get into conformational changes and breaks, you're talking basic organic chemistry. Molecules just getting comfortable with each other's electron fields causes the shape of the molecule, a couple electrophilic attacks and you have a break in the chain. Mutation waiting to happen. Mutations happen from all sorts of things that get loose in the body (reactive oxygen species), replication errors, duplications (DNA is pretty flexible and bendy), chromosomal breaks (they're sticky little things and don't like to un-stick) and a host of other things.

Replication is simple too if you look at it. A only pairs with T, any other nucleotide won't fit, it will block the machinery. And if you're talking about the machinery being complex- well enzymes also are pretty logical too. Enough combinations of amino acids yields a protein that can bind to and unwind DNA, another one that can add nucleotides on the daughter strand, and yet another that puts it all back together. It's all about making so many combinations until something works. Kinda like the Rubik's cube.

I'm getting cut short here- need a ride home and have to take it. But I think I've said enough anyway.

 

It's not that ALL ID proponent don't understand science...

it's that MOST don't. Most of the ones you see thumping bibles, on television, speaking in front of legislatures DON'T because they are non-scientists.

I'll say it again. Scientists who are working on questioning evolution (and it's unfair to call them ID scientists if they just simply dispute evolution) are not the one making such a ruckus about ID in schools... it's non-scientists.

This is not about science to them... it's about culture war.

 

Again, the theory of evolution does not need our defending.

If ID is to be taught in the science classroom, as ID proponants desire, it must pass the test of whether it is science on its own questionable merit.

I have yet to read anything supporting ID which approaches this standard.