New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | August 9, 2005

Cathy Young exposes a secularist conspiracy so vast and insidious that even reality is in on the plot.

Comments

|8.9.05 @ 10:15AM|#

But seriously, look on the bright side: earnest do-gooders who oppose and vote down vouchers that allow poor kids to leave subpar schools where they learn about the importance of self-esteem and ethnic pride just might support vouchers that allow poor kids to leave subpar schools where they learn how the universe hatched from an egg of the great Sky Turtle. Or whatever it is ID proponents talk about.

Anything that increases awareness of the worthlessness of public schools might just be a blessing in disguise.

|8.9.05 @ 10:16AM|#

I think that many who are able to reconcile evolutionary theory and God do believe in an Intelligent Design of a sort. I think that's why they're sympathetic to it.

|8.9.05 @ 10:19AM|#

Cathy,

The fact that one Cardinal wrote one article in a newspaper does not prove that the Catholic church is qualifying its position.

The Church has no "position" on evolution per se. That's not its area of competence.

It is only insofar as zealous ideologues for atheism (like Mr. Dawkins) take the evidence for evolution as a sort of argument for God's nonexistence that members of the Church (popes, cardinals, etc.) feel constrained to object.

|8.9.05 @ 10:19AM|#

David, I'd have to think that there's a difference between being able to reconcile it, and actually wading through the piles of intellectual excrement put out by the ID crowd.

It's one thing to believe in God, but still recognize evolution as a valid scientific theory, yet another to actually buy into eggs and Great Sky Turtles.

|8.9.05 @ 10:27AM|#

Here are links to a two part interview with a Jesuit theologian (AND critic of the Intelligent Design movement) that buttresses my claim:

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=74786

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=74825

Here's a link to reporter John Allen's take on the matter, including a clarification from the Cardinal himself:

http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/

|8.9.05 @ 10:30AM|#

mediageek,

I would guess that they don't bother wading through either evolutionary theory or ID. I was thinking back to a retreat many years ago(in high school), where they had a speaker who discussed evolution but stressed that God must have been directing it. That belief is at least related to, if not the forefather of ID.

|8.9.05 @ 10:31AM|#

Why not teach intelligent design in religion class, and evolution in science class and let the students form their own opinion instead of state-mandating one for them?

|8.9.05 @ 10:33AM|#

Since this thread has too many Daves/Davids, I 'll post by my full name

|8.9.05 @ 10:36AM|#

The Church has no "position" on evolution per se. That's not its area of competence.

That's because the Catholics learned their lesson with Galileo. They know better than to speak up on topics they don't know anything about.

The Fundys, on the other hand, are long overdue for their scientifically derived bitch-slap.

B.D.|8.9.05 @ 10:42AM|#

dave_b,

Or have both debated in a Philosophy class. Granted, most schools probably no longer have a philosophy class, but...

Wasn't the universe sneezed out and isn't the apocalypse going to be triggered by the great white handkerchief?

|8.9.05 @ 10:45AM|#

There is no doubt that the majority of Intelligent Design (ID) proponents have a not-so-hidden theistic agenda and are using whatever the debatable intellectual merits of ID may be as a wedge against what they perceive to be a public school science curriculum which is at least implicitly hostile to their world-view. I suggest, however, that the motives behind those proponents are irrelevant to whether there are theoretically valid grounds to question orthodox Darwinism. Moreover, there are those like David Berlinski whose objections to orthodox Darwinism certainly do not appear at all to be a subterfuge for naive Christian creationism and whose concerns deserve to be addressed on the merits.

On the other hand, following any number of debates and discussions on this topic, I've come to agree with something akin to Ms Young's view and conclude that insofar as ID is a matter of any intellectually valid concern, it is a matter for the philosophy of science and probably an inappropriate topic at the public school level. In the best of all possible worlds it might be possible to teach an intellectually appropriate skepticism about scientific theory in the public schools, but we live in a world far short of that ideal and ought to recognize as much.

(N.B. -- Every time I weigh in on this topic I feel, rather like a civil rights attorney defending the Klan or some neo-Nazi group, an urge to distance myself somewhat from the client. For what it's worth, though a theist who believes that the universe was divinely created, I have no theological problem with whatever happens to be the prevailing scientific model explaining just how God got the job done, the creation of humanity included.)

|8.9.05 @ 10:47AM|#

A couple years ago, one of the writers in National Review stated, approximately, "We've destroyed Marx. We've destroyed Freud. Now we're going to destroy Darwin."

Darwin specifically rejected the idea that natural selection occurs in human societies.

Marx, however, dedicated The Communist Manifesto to Darwin.

|8.9.05 @ 11:08AM|#

joe

Thanks for mentioning Marx's like of Darwin. Every time I hear leftist objections to applying evolutionary concepts to social structures, as Cathy mentions, because that is Social Darwinism, I remind people that Marxism is itself a form of social Darwinism (although not THE social darwinism). Darwin may have objected to applying his ideas to society, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't.

What gets me about people like the NR writer you mentioned is that (1) they arbitrarily group those thinkers together as the Big Three of modernism and (2) they think of Marx, Freud, et al. as having been "destroyed." They haven't been destroyed: their conclusions and prescriptions have been discredited, but many facets of their approaches to their disciplines are still very much alive. Darwin ain't going nowhere.

Sorry, I'm rambling.

|8.9.05 @ 11:10AM|#

First, I should emphasize that much of the ID movement seems to be a front for things that have nothing to do with scientific inquiry.

That said, there are a few people who ask some genuinely interesting questions. The problem is that they seem to be less interested in the answers, and more interested in reminding us that these questions haven't been answered yet.

So I'd like to pose a question to them, and if they can answer it then I will treat their theory as a viable scientific theory and direct competitor of evolution:

They claim that you can examine an organism and based on that examination attribute some of its characteristics to design and others to evolution. (Most ID proponents claim to believe in an old earth, and claim to accept that evolution has occurred. They just think that it can't account for everything.)

If they're right, then they should be able to examine organisms that we know have been intelligently designed (genetically modified food, engineered viruses and bacteria, selectively bred plants and animals) from their wild cousins. And they should be able to design a computer program that can do this: Feed the program enough data on each organism and eventually it will tell you which is wild and which is designed.

Most importantly, the program should be able to distinguish particular features that were designed from those that even the ID crowd acknowledge as products of evolution (e.g. antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance in insects, etc.).

If they can do that, if they can come up with a systematic way to distinguish design from evolution, I will give them a second consideration on evolution. I'll hear them out, and if they can apply their TESTED methods to things that most scientists attribute to evolution, well, I'll give their idea some serious consideration.

The key is that their methods have to be TESTED. Right now, all they've got is some open questions. If they can demonstrate some methodologies for tackling those questions, I'll be much more receptive.

But until they can demonstrate some sound methodologies, their ideas have no place in a science classroom.

|8.9.05 @ 11:15AM|#

That's WAY too complicated, Thoreau. You need something that fits into the category of "God said it, I believe it, and that's good enough for me."

|8.9.05 @ 11:17AM|#

Cathy, good article. I found it clearly written and well-thought out, unlike Michael Ruse's interview w/ Salon.com: http://www.salon.com/books/int/2005/08/06/ruse/index.html

Sadly, although Ruse has a PhD in philosophy and is supposedly versed in the arguments pro and con regarding evolutionary theory and ID (since that his is area of study) the interview makes obvious that Cathy Young's grasp of the topic is much more clear and her argument lucid, coherent, and compelling. Apparently Ruse just wanted to sell a lot of copies of his new book.

|8.9.05 @ 11:22AM|#

Actually, JMoore, Marx claimed that while he had discovered the principles behind the evolution of society, he specifically rejected the idea that social evolution resulted from Darwinian principles. Marx recognized that he was working in a different field.

|8.9.05 @ 11:25AM|#

Also, some of Marx's conclusions, and most of Freud's, continue to have broad acceptance - so much so that those who claim to oppose them in toto almost always include ideas that those men first promulgated into their own belief systems, without acknowledging their source.

For example, no one rejects the existence of a subconscious, not even the most ferocious of Freud's detractors.

|8.9.05 @ 11:35AM|#

"If your theory was right then you'd be able to formulate a Thoreau Algorithm. You haven't done that yet, so leave me alone until you do."

That is a great idea. If for no other reason than there would be a method of getting ID/Creationists off scientists backs so they can go back to doing something useful.
IT seems to me that the fundies are committed to fighting this fight to the exclusion of all else. Most evolutionists think of this as an inconvenience. Unfortunately, this kind of gives the fundies an advantage, at least in the public outreach sense.

|8.9.05 @ 11:36AM|#

That belief is at least related to, if not the forefather of ID.

Yes, but I think there's a difference between, say, a biologist who believes in God as the creator of the universe, and an ID Fundy intent on using the Bible in a heavy-handed attempt to discredit the scientific method in order to bolster his faith.

|8.9.05 @ 11:37AM|#

thoreau: J has stated he is an evolutionary biologist in the last evolution discussion thread

I am a grad student and my research is in the area of evolutionary biology

|8.9.05 @ 11:56AM|#

Mediageek,

I wasn't really thiking about biologists who believe in God(although the man who gave the lecture at that retreat was a PhD), but people who may have attended similar events growing up, and have fit God into the evolution gaps.

It's no so much a matter of people believing in God therefore accepting ID, as it is being sympathetic to ID (as it's been hyped) because it doesn't conflict their existing worldview.

|8.9.05 @ 12:01PM|#

Check it out, TechCentralStation is giving posting anti-evolution pieces now.

http://techcentralstation.com/080805I.html

Just don't let that shake your faith in the "Global Warming Isn't Real" position that these lovers of science keep pushing.

drf|8.9.05 @ 12:02PM|#

Thoreau: feel better soon.

David M: That's a good point - and why this doesn't belong in science class. maybe a philosophy elective, but not science.

Still recommend Penn and Teller's Bullshit episode on this.

barf.

|8.9.05 @ 12:02PM|#

Isn't this episode another good reason for separation of education and state? Politicians appeal to voting blocks, the way Bush has, with ideas for education that are detrimental to educating. These bad ideas, if adapted, then have the force of taxpayer dollars behind them.

BTW, this is a really interesting volume:

Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution

"Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, believes firmly in evolution. He also believes in God (he's a Catholic) a belief not widely shared among scientists..."

http://tinyurl.com/96yp9

Full disclosure: I'm a non-believer.

|8.9.05 @ 12:05PM|#

biologist-

How would you propose to formalize this challenge?

We obviously need some organisms to compare. On the one side, genetically modified food seems promising. I recall reading about zebrafish and other animals being modified to include green fluorescent protein. There's a clear-cut example of an intelligent modification that nature would be very unlikely to produce. Genetically modified crops also provide an abundant list of "intelligently designed" creatures. I don't know much about biological weapons, but it's a popular topic of current research (NIH is building some Biosafety Level 4 labs). I don't know to what extent biological warfare research has focused on genetic engineering, since a big part of the challenge in biowarfare lies in delivering the organisms via powders and aerosols rather than making the organisms more deadly.

On the other side of the ledger, I need more examples of organisms that even the fundies acknowledge as examples of evolution: Antibiotic resistance is one. I recall hearing about how moths in England changed their color in response to air pollution, but I don't know the latest on that anecdote. I know there are others, but I don't recall any of them off the top of my head.

Once we've got a list of unambiguous examples of design and evolution, we need to ask them to do some sort of comparison, devise some sort of test that can sort the organisms, or, more accurately, the traits, into two columns.

What do we challenge them to do, however? What constitutes a valid test? The algorithm has to be, in some sense, "dumb." It can't "know" which items belong on which list. This isn't a perfect analogy, but if you gave a person 30 data points they could fit that data set perfectly using an equation with 30 adjustable parameters.

As you can see, my thinking on the subject is still in an early stage. I know that there are "designed" organisms out there, as well as organisms that even the ID people acknowledge as examples of evolution. If ID proponents want to call their pursuit science then they should be able to develop methodologies that say something interesting about those organisms and the differences between them. That's where I'm stuck at, and I'm trying to figure out what would be "interesting enough" to constitute a proof of concept.

|8.9.05 @ 12:19PM|#

I would think that Marxism and Darwinism were diametrically opposed, considering that Darwinism states that inequality is a by-product of natural selection, whereas Marxism believes inequality is a man-made obstacle to be torn down and overcome.

|8.9.05 @ 12:21PM|#

Check out this piece by Ron Bailey:

Origin of the Specious
Why do neoconservatives doubt Darwin?

http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml

Ron makes interesting and strong points but I think the political motivation, like what's driving Bush, is neglected. The neocons wanted to draw in the fundamentalist Christian community to support their hawkish agenda.

|8.9.05 @ 12:22PM|#

SPD,

Those would be contradictory statements if they were made about the same object, but they are not.

Darwinism is about beings' physical attributes. Marxism is about human social systems.

|8.9.05 @ 12:27PM|#

joe-

To the extent that social behavior is hereditary, evolution is about social systems as well. Lions usually hunt in groups and tigers usually hunt solo.

|8.9.05 @ 12:32PM|#

True, thoreau, but very little of what Marx was writing about had to do with inhereted social behaviors. To the extent that it did - the structure of the family, for example - he discussed the influence of society as being in opposition to the natural.

|8.9.05 @ 12:37PM|#

I wonder if evolution can explain politics:

Libertarians hunt either individually or in small groups composed primarily of males. They have few opportunities to mate. Consequently, their numbers are small.

Liberals mate with many different partners (or at least try to) but use protection most of the time (or so they claim). Conservatives mate with only a single partner (supposedly) but eschew protection (supposedly). Either way, liberals and conservatives have strategies that are better suited to increasing their numbers.

(And yes, the above was totally a joke.)

|8.9.05 @ 12:39PM|#

I think you're on to something, Thoreau. Even when libertarian females join the pack, they're not usually interested in reproducing, anyway.

Sounds like the Benadryl's working to good effect. But tell me: have you ever looked at your hands? I mean really, REALLY looked at your hands?

|8.9.05 @ 12:43PM|#

You know, it makes me laugh that the people who supported public schools and public radio, which basically did what they wanted when they were in power, are surprised when the same tools are used in the same way when the other team is in power.

You made great propaganda machines. Why are you so surprised that they are being used?

As long as the government has control of these tools, the ruling party will use them. I think this suggest a fairly straightforward course of action.....

|8.9.05 @ 1:10PM|#

theistic darwinists do all believe in intelligent design, in a sense. that is, the small letters sense, which is a spiritual belief, rather than Intelligent Design, the pseudoscientific hypothesis.

thoreau,

your challenge would be interesting in that it would underscore that ID is a fundamentally unscientific hypothesis. proponents would probably answer with the most rational objection to your challenge - that human design and divine design are not necessarily similar - which would lead to the inevitable conclusion that no one really knows what divine design would look like. which in turn would shine a bright light on the fact that, no matter what, ID is absolutely unfalsifiable.

however, this is obvious enough to the critical mind without needing to offer this challenge.

|8.9.05 @ 1:13PM|#

"Now, it's quite true that mainstream scientists vehemently reject the idea of allowing evolution and 'intelligent design' to compete freely in the nation's public school classrooms. The reason is that 'intelligent design' is not science. A scientific hypothesis must be testable�meaning that, if it is wrong, there should be a way to disprove it."

So are we going to stop teaching Marxism and Freudianism in economics and psych classes too? They're both pretty fucking unfalsifiable.

|8.9.05 @ 1:13PM|#

libertarian girls don't want sex. they just want to know that they can have it, if they want.

|8.9.05 @ 1:23PM|#

it seems to me that capitalism in its purest form approaches social Darwinism. Marxism seems to act in opposition to the natural inclination to protect oneself and one's own family first, and the rest of society be damned.

thoreau:

the peppered moth (Biston betularia) is the case study you're likely recalling. the initial studies were done by HBD Kettlewell. I've read one of his early papers and although there is much to find fault with in his experimental design, later independent studies have borne out his results and conclusions. some people still argue against this but in my opinion, their arguments are baseless.

some people still refuse to acknowledge that microbial resistance to antibiotics constitutes a form of evolution. part of these arguments hinge on claims that the variation already exists in natural microbial populations (put there by God, presumably) and natural selection acts on God's preexisting plan for bacteria.

the above claims against evolution I have heard largely espoused by anti-scientific creationists, rather than ID adherents, per se.

the ID claims seem to me to be focused on origins of life and particular molecules and molecular assemblages without challenging natural selection's ability to act on those structures and organisms possessing said structures.

disclaimer: I've read (most) of Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box", so my perception of ID is based on Behe.

the real issue isn't Darwinian evolution and speciation vs. ID, since ID doesn't challenge evolution's ability to result in speciation. the real issue is ID vs. a natural phenomenon that results in life &/or complex structures that occur in living organisms. I just don't see a way to test ID, since origins of life research is conducted by intelligent designers of experiments, those experiments can't be used to disprove the ID postulate that life originated by an intelligent designer. we're left with Occam's Razor: don't invoke unnecessary factors in your explanations.

|8.9.05 @ 1:28PM|#

marxism is an economic theory, not a scientific one, and freudianism includes all kinds of unscientific theories, but is still useful to teach as a building block of modern psychology (just as marxism should be dealt with in a discussion of the recent history of economics).

in this same way, ID could be taught as an example of a modern pseudoscientific theory, if the curriculum called for critical thinking lessons of that sort. if not, teachers could just stick to the actual findings of science.

|8.9.05 @ 1:55PM|#

My econ classes never discussed Marxism in any detail. I mostly took microeconomics classes, and they would just talk about how markets worked. While talking about supply and demand and markets they'd point to the theoretical and practical problems posed by price controls and other elements of central planning. The lesson was clear: This is why the Soviet Union failed.

|8.9.05 @ 2:28PM|#

I'll probably be kicked out for this, but...

Isn't there something "nanny statish" about people who insist that only evolution should be mentioned in the classroom? My thinking is that IF science (and by that I mean the scientific method, logic, and critical thinking) were actually being taught, would having ID presented really cause a whole classroom to be swayed to the dark side? Am I just too much of an optimist to think that kids aren't that dumb?

In my high school biology class, one student who we all were aware was very religious asked if she could present an "alternative view" after we finished our section on evolution, and was allowed to do so. It was easy for the students to see the holes in that argument, and it made them think about the two together. I'd wager my former classmates have a better understanding of evolution than those who are simply taught it by rote.

Just a thought.

|8.9.05 @ 2:39PM|#

linguist:

The problem for me is twofold:

1) A science class should cover that which is science. If nontestable alternative theories are to be explored, they must be qualified as something other than science. At that point, I begin to wonder why one would insist that they are being taught in that same classroom if not to insinuate that somehow they are scientific.

2) You could bring the same sort of analysis as ID to every classroom subject. History could have an Intelligent Mover hypothesis of WWII. A geometry proof could be something like: A is parallel to B because God said so. Eventually, you have to note that the explanatory power of "because God said so" is quite thin. If these explanations are 'just as valid', one wonders why you should go to school at all.

|8.9.05 @ 2:53PM|#

linguist, you might as well say that we ought to teach kids that the holocaust never happened, because the smart ones will realize we're lying to them.

|8.9.05 @ 2:57PM|#

linguist,

The opposition to teaching ID has several origins, but most of the boil down to intellectual disgust, both with the "theory" of ID as well as the means by which its proponents seek to spread it. I don't think, properly taught by competent teachers, that an intelligent student wouldn't see through Intelligent Design. The sad fact is that the lack of the former causes some to think we should not teach the latter.

thoreau,

The most effective argument to deploy with people unfamiliar with biology is what I think of as the argument of unintelligent design. The appendix, our tendency to suffer slipped disks, the male tendency to scrotal hernia, the fact that our molars are so commonly impacted on eruption, nearsightedness, farsightedness, even our ineffiecient method of breathing* all indicate that we were not intelligently designed, but are rather imperfectly evolved bodies built on top of last year's model.

*For a fine example of a better done respiratory system, check out that of birds. Unlike ours, in which air goes into a blind sac and must be expelled in reverse through the same pathway, the birds' has unidirectional flow throughout almost the entire system. This allows for far more efficient gas exchange (indeed, most of the gas in the bottom of our lungs is CO2, or, if a smoker like me, filth) than most vertebrates could even dream about. We are evolved long-distance runners, but our method of breathing, as most of us can testify, severely limits those capabilities. If God were paying attention, why didn't he give us bird-model lungs?

|8.9.05 @ 3:05PM|#

Wow, Cathy Young really had something new and innovative to say. Not. :)

What makes Dawkins a "militant" atheist? That he speaks out on the matter? He must be "militant" about memes too. :)

thoreau,

That said, there are a few people who ask some genuinely interesting questions.

You repeat this mantra over and over again as if it has some validity. What are these interesting questions? Who are the people asking them?

Rick Barton,

Sounds like a fruitless exercise.

|8.9.05 @ 3:19PM|#

hak,

having read and enjoyed dawkins, i believe that if memes were a more controversial matter, dawkins would be plenty militant about them.

|8.9.05 @ 3:24PM|#

"(Most ID proponents claim to believe in an old earth, and claim to accept that evolution has occurred. They just think that it can't account for everything.)"

I see no problem with evolution as a factual process which has occured and continues to occur. However, no scientific journals I've read have ever posited that the process of evolution is sufficient to explain the origen of things. At best, the Big Bang Theory and sufficient time for natural evolution leave unanswered the question, "where'd that Big Bang come from?"

ID on the other hand, is obviously not science and shouldn't be taught in a science class. However, the two aren't at odds. Evolution describes a process while ID posits a theory for its beginning. What am I missing?

Either way, wouldn't time in school be better spent by teaching kids about credit cards and balancing checkbooks? Or is the there some connection between the indebtedness of our population and the bankruptcy of our minds?

Apologies if someone covered this topic later in the thread...after reading a third of the way down, I just couldn't take it any longer...

|8.9.05 @ 3:26PM|#

zach,

Dawkins is a passionate guy and possessed with a lot of energy on the matter. I guess that bothers the more soft-minded individuals amongst us. :)

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.9.05 @ 3:27PM|#

Libertarins damning an idea to oblivion without discussing it--interesting. I believe that many people who want vouchers want them because of such closed-minded dictatorial thinking. It is the worshiper of science and human beings that want to keep these people's kids in government schools for propaganda purposes.

I cannot see how you could divorce Darwanism from human development. Since we are just an animal who likes to look at pictures of itself naked (and why not!), this seems a too convenient "out." Why should I respect the rights of a weaker human being? They bring down the species, why not push them to the edge of the pack and let wolves devour their flesh?

Back when I was growing up, along with the fears of global COOLING, we were taught of this fairy-tale named "evolution." As we all sit around and fear global WARMING, I am still waiting for the missing link. Please, place it in my hand. Can't?

Since this "evolution" would obviously take place at different rates, you'd figure that A would become B sometime in our lifetime. Please show me three plants or creatures that NATURALLY evolved yesterday. Last week? Last month? Last year?

|8.9.05 @ 3:44PM|#

hak,

i didn't get the impression that ms. young was bothered by him at all. but i could be wrong. either way, dismissing people as 'soft-minded' doesn't serve any purpose.

kelso,

Please show me three plants or creatures that NATURALLY evolved yesterday. Last week? Last month? Last year?

.........

hak, i take that back.

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.9.05 @ 3:51PM|#

Zach: I will take that as you admission of defeat, thanks! I accept.

|8.9.05 @ 3:53PM|#

wait a minute... ooohhhhhh. "steven j. kelso, sr."

haha, damn you.

i need coffee.

|8.9.05 @ 3:57PM|#

Hakluyt,

What sounds like a fruitless exercise?

|8.9.05 @ 4:06PM|#

Kelso,

Cheap rhetoric can't mask misunderstanding. Global cooling was and is the likely future of the planet; the climate scientists who managed to get the cover of Newsweek once in the 1970s were incorrect when they predicted that the near future meant cooling, but as people were first working out what causes ice ages, it didn't seem so implausible. And, indeed, it still doesn't, if one thinks a little farther out then 50 years. That, unfortunately, is not something many humans are apparently capable of. There is no reason that short-term, anthropogenic global warming couldn't be followed by a major cooling that was part of the system behind Earth's history of climate shifts (and the onset of which could even be accelerated by an initial burst of warming). But, like I said, it is easier to be a smart aleck than to inform oneself.

As for answering your question seeking something that naturally evolved yesterday, it hardly seems worth the time it would take to remediate all of the misunderstandings that your question implies. It would be helpful if you bothered to actually learn about evolution before attempting to criticize it. You might begin with what evolves: populations, not individuals, do. Therefore, for there to be substantial change in, say, a population of human beings, you would need at a minimum several thousand years before once sees noticeable change in a population. That, of course, is what one sees in the fossil record (which, naturally you won't accept, preferring to cry out for a missing link, refusing to be convinced by anything other than a chimp's head on a human's body), which shows a fairly smooth continuum from Homo sapiens back through time to Australopithecus afarensis. We don't look that much like Lucy, but with everything in between, it is relatively easy to see how to get from point A to point F via B,C,D, and E. Even for bacteria, one would need at least a year for noticeable change. That, of course, is what one sees in the evolution of antibiotic resistance. Or in the evolution of virulence in various populations of HIV due to differences in condom use--compare, for example, the relatively benign strand common in the US to that running rampant in the brothels of Southeast Asia (known, so you can look it up, as HIV-1E)--see Paul Ewald's EVOLUTION OF INFECTIOUS DISEASE for more. Or, for that matter, in the evolution of resistance to antiviral medications given to HIV-infected individuals--what works at the beginning in ONE PATIENT becomes ineffective long before that person dies.

You might also look into what the notion of fitness means.

I would ask you to wonder, if God is behind all of this, why he/she/it would bother creating one group of humans--many Africans--who have an inherited resistance to malaria reliant on a particular variety of the B-hemoglobin gene but which can also kill its bearer via sickle-cell anemia, and then would create another group of humans--Mediterraneans--with an enzyme variety that causes glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, which provokes a different sort of anemia but also protects against malaria. Does God just enjoy variety? Did he think that, even if several groups of people were immune to one disease, at least they would suffer from a plenitude of others that were directly related to their salvation from the first? Or might a more reasonable answer to the question be that God had nothing to do with it? That natural selection seizes upon whatever is available to it--in this case, fewer people dying of anemia than of malaria--thus encouraging the increase in a population of genes defending against malaria? And that the reason one group has one defense and another has a totally unrelated one is because no one is controlling where and how the requisite mutations arose?

|8.9.05 @ 4:07PM|#

Kelso,

(a) We discuss the idea all the time.

(b) There is a point were open-mindedness can lead to your brain flopping out of your head.

(c) Who is being "dictatorial" here? Oh, that's right, ridicule equals that particular quality. :)

(d) Why should I respect the rights of a weaker human being? Because we've created cultures that do that for a sub-set of reasons (e.g., see the contract theorists, theorists of civil republicanism, etc.). I think what you're trying to get at is the notion that morality has to come from outside source. Of course, this merely changes the locus of debate and leads to a lot of circular reasoning to boot.

(e) Please show me three plants or creatures that NATURALLY evolved yesterday. Last week? Last month? Last year? You want some observed instances of speciation? It exists in the fossil record regarding whales. For an example of current observations see: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/26/MN172778.DTL

|8.9.05 @ 4:09PM|#

i just remembered. the guy from that 70's show was named michael kelso. which means that maybe this guy is actually being serious.

that's kind of a scary thought.

|8.9.05 @ 4:10PM|#

To me (biochem undergrad who worked in pharm. research for several years and always amazed at how many Ph.D.'s failed to understand the scientific method), the theory of evolution (on the macro scale - differentation between phyla, for example) is a dangerous thing.

Why?

Because, it is essentially untestable in our lifetime. Differentation on that scale is not observable, even assuming non-punctuated equilibrium evolutionary theories, within timescales that most of us are capable of comprehending. And we haven't actually, verifiably, (and most importantly, for the scientific method) repeatably observed it. So as "science", it's nothing more than an untested hypothesis based upon the best available evidence. However, even the most ardent supporter of macro-evolution (of which I am one) must admit that the best available evidence is in no way conclusive. (and that is where the concept of punctuated equilibrium found traction - the holes that exist in the current evidence).

This is dangerous because it lets people get sloppy with what "science" means. Treating macroevolution as a "scientific" fact that can't be questioned by serious minds opens the door for all sorts of loonies to question all of science.

Don't treat science as a religion. Science is about asking questions. Even ones that at first glance appear to be dumb.

Religion is about having faith in answers. Proclaiming that Darwinian macro-evolution is unquestionable, especially at this stage in the observation of evidence, is more religious than scientific. You fall directly into the trap created by those who seek to discredit all science when you do so.

|8.9.05 @ 4:15PM|#

Quasibill

Every great branch is originally a little twig. You bely your own ignorance of macroevolutionary theory, and your statments reek of the old-school thoughts of Carl Linnaeus. Consider the birds, nested as they are within a family of dinosaurs (to use the Linnaean term). How did such a major phyla get there? Because lord knows major phyla can't just evolve from one another! Unless maybe they do. But I have to go back to work.

|8.9.05 @ 4:26PM|#

Proclaiming that Darwinian macro-evolution is unquestionable, especially at this stage in the observation of evidence, is more religious than scientific.

no one's saying that it's unquestionable. in science everything's questionable, and in fact the darwinian theory of evolution (natural selection) is constantly being questioned within the scientific community. the thing is, there's a right (intelligent) way and a wrong (stupid) way of questioning it. the right way is to point to hard evidence that would seem to contradict the darwinian model. the wrong way is to simply state that the existing evidence is "not enough" and thus there must have been an intelligent designer.

it's the equivalent of trying to convict someone of murder without any actual evidence that he committed the crime, simply because there's a possibility that there are "holes" his alibi.

|8.9.05 @ 4:32PM|#

Hi Cap'n!

"ID on the other hand, is obviously not science and shouldn't be taught in a science class. However, the two aren't at odds. Evolution describes a process while ID posits a theory for its beginning. What am I missing?"

What's missing is the ability among those competing in the political sphere to differentiate between facts and articles of faith. This ability allows scientists and products of the Catholic school system like myself to consider evolution and the existence of God without their heads exploding.

This issue demonstrates itself in lots of arenas. It reminds me of an interview I heard with a Republican congressman having a hissy fit regarding the whole pledge of allegience Charlie Foxtrot. He insisted that it was a "fact" that the United States of America was one nation under God.

|8.9.05 @ 4:36PM|#

Some day, someone will come along and disprove the theory of evolution. But the Darwin thumpers will hang him for blasphemy.

"What is the origin of life?" is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Science is not only poking its nose where it doesn't belong, it's censoring speech.

|8.9.05 @ 4:37PM|#

also quasibill, at this point, there is no legitimate debate among scientists as to whether or not evolution has taken place. the debate within the scientific community - and even with the ID folk - concerns how it took place. darwin's theory is that evolution takes place by a process of natural selection.

like any good scientific theory, it relates known phenomena - reproduction, mutation, natural defenses, limited resources, etc. - in order to explain other known phenomena; in this case, evolution. ID is unscientific because in invokes its own untestable phenomenon, that of an intelligent designer, to explain a known phenomenon, evolution.

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.9.05 @ 4:40PM|#

TJ: The weather is a little like the stock market--it goes up, it goes down. That's what it does. When you can predict what the temprature will be next week and if it will rain, let me know. While humans could have a small affect on global temprature, it isn't great and couldn't last for long. A "simple" large volcanic eruption can cool the earth quite easily. (Back in the 1770s, it snowed in America in July!) You'd better alert the news media and major scientists of your research--they are still going on about warming.

Hell, have you noticed how "ugly" women were in just say the 1700's? When X mates with Y we get Z who looks quite like X & Y. When Z mates with M, N looks like X,Y,Z AND M! Of course skeletal features change--reproduction leads to many changes based upon who we are mating with. We don't evolve, we just practice a finite but incalculable multiplication. This theoretical "million years" has to end some time, why not yesterday? Surely, in the 200 years or so that we've been a country, some evolutionary change had to take place. Point it out to me. Place it in my hand.

I may be a human, but I am an individual. I don't look much like an Australian Aborigine, but we are both humans with little different other than features. Species have become extinct for thousands of years. Because they no longer exists does not prove that they "evolved" into something else.

What you get from bacteria is adaptation, not evolution. It may change some of it's make-up due to antibiotics, but it is still the same basic germ. It will never lead to a bird or frog--it will always be a bacteria. The Hiv bug will still be an Hiv bug, it will NOT evolve.

Please answer me, not using any form of morality, why we shouldn't kill all of these "defective" Africans? The continent sucks--evolution really seemed to screw up on this one.

Who controls who we fall in love with? People have been fruitful and multiplying for a long time. While my daugher has Hemoglobin C-Trait, if she does not have children with someone who carries the sickle-cell trait, her children will suffer no ill effects. Somewhere out there, someone like my daughter WILL have children with a man who has sickle-cell. This is how our bodies have adapted and changed in incalculable ways. Still, we are human beings. Living different places (and therefore mating with different people), we are constantly changing. Yet, at the end of the day, we are still human.

|8.9.05 @ 4:56PM|#

passingthru:

Darwinism is so well established and supported by observation that if in fact a superior explanation is ever devised, it will have to overcome a great deal of intellectual inertia. This does not make science into religion, but scientists into fallible humans.

Darwinism does not address the origin of life, it addresses the origin of species (from other, already existing species).

What is the basis for your claim that the origin of life is not a fit subject for scientific research?

Quasibill:

there is no reason to think that the mechanisms responsible for macroevolution and microevolution are different mechanisms. the distinction between macro- and micro- evolution is largely artificial and subjective.

phyla are intellectual constructs we use to organize relationships among organisms. each phylum can be subjectively defined, but there is no uniform general definition or diagnosis for phyla, or for any taxon other than species, and even species definitions and diagnoses are hotly debated (see: "Species Concepts and Phylogenetic Theory: A Debate" edited by Wheeler and Meier. the grand old man of the Biological Species Concept, Ernst Mayr, takes on all comers)

as in any historical science, we often can't directly observe particular events, but we can infer them from circumstantial evidence, as in the example of a murder without witnesses

example of a missing link: the most famous, Archaeopteryx lithographica. other bird/ reptile transition fossils are also known, but the fact is that every generation is a link to past generations and a transition to future generations. the defining, diagnostic transitional characteristics can only be recognized post hoc.

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.9.05 @ 4:56PM|#

There is a "right" way and a "wrong" way to question evolution and Zach will be the arbiter. Much like Hakluyt says we can't kill "inferior" humans: because a society some people made up from thin air says so. Weak.

I view your reasoned belief in science as faith; you veiw my reasoned belief (AND faith) in God as the author of science has entirely faith. Who gave you the right to tell me what to believe? I once again state my position: parents should be free from unreasonable government interference in educating their children. Why do you pick my pocket (Jefferson's religious reasoning don't ya know!) by forcing me not only to pay for the teaching of this fairy tale, but forcing it on my children. Give me freedom!

We are not a nation of, by and for scientists. I hear this same reasoning from lawyers and cops when they defend sobriety check points. Pretty soon they are going to say to you: "What, are you a lawyer?"

|8.9.05 @ 4:58PM|#

kelso, you are making all kinds of scientific conclusions without having conducted the science, or even understanding it.

actual scientists have established that global warming is happening, and that it's not just "the weather going up and down". actual scientists have established a genetic link between those species that have "just become extinct" and the new ones that just happened to appear soon after them. actual scientists understand that evolution IS the "adaptation" you mentioned on a larger scale over millions of years.

and this:
"Please answer me, not using any form of morality, why we shouldn't kill all of these "defective" Africans? The continent sucks--evolution really seemed to screw up on this one."

is probably one of the stupidest things i have ever heard. you just asked a moral question and then instructed TJ to answer without using moral reasoning. and then you accused, um, the process of evolution, of morally "screwing up".

|8.9.05 @ 5:05PM|#

...What you get from bacteria is adaptation, not evolution. It may change some of it's make-up due to antibiotics, but it is still the same basic germ. It will never lead to a bird or frog--it will always be a bacteria. The Hiv bug will still be an Hiv bug, it will NOT evolve...

Comment by: Steven J. Kelso Sr. at August 9, 2005 04:40 PM

Generally, I try not to be rude, but you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Thanks, though for proving me right from a post earlier today about the fact that many still don't acknowledge antibiotic resistance as an evolutionary phenomenon.

Adaptation: Process of evolutionary modification which results in improved survival and reproductive efficiency

also: Any morphological, physiological, sensory, developmental or behavioral character that enhances survival and reproductive success of an organism.

even taking the second definition, selection acts on differences between individuals in a population to change the proportions of the alleles (different forms of a gene) in a population. In other words, selection acts on populations of bacteria previously unexposed to antibiotics by reducing the rate of reproduction or killing the bacteria. The ability to resist the antibiotic is an adaptation of some individuals in the population. The increase in proportion of antibiotic-resistant individuals in the population (by the death of antibiotic susceptible bacteria) indicates that the population is evolving. Not speciating, but they are evolving.

|8.9.05 @ 5:05PM|#

There is a "right" way and a "wrong" way to question evolution and Zach will be the arbiter.

no mr. kelso, history is actually the arbiter. the scientific method of questioning, over 400 years, has resulted in the more information about the world around us, and more innovations based on that information (for instance, your computer), than religious faith has since its inception.

Who gave you the right to tell me what to believe?

i don't have that right. i do have the right to call it stupid. and i am right. (disclaimer: not all religious beliefs are stupid. kelso's clearly are.)

Why do you pick my pocket (Jefferson's religious reasoning don't ya know!) by forcing me not only to pay for the teaching of this fairy tale, but forcing it on my children. Give me freedom!

hey, if you don't want your kids to learn science, home school them and leave it out of the curriculum. if you do, then don't bitch about it if they actually end up learning some science.

|8.9.05 @ 5:12PM|#

Kelso,

How old is the Earth?

The Hiv bug will still be an Hiv bug, it will NOT evolve.

One wonders where the HIV bug came from if it didn't evolve into the HIV bug?

|8.9.05 @ 5:13PM|#

Kelso,

It will never lead to a bird or frog--it will always be a bacteria.

You have no way of knowing whether that claim is true or not.

|8.9.05 @ 5:19PM|#

hak, it clearly came from God to punish infidelity.

|8.9.05 @ 5:20PM|#

Kelso,

Much like Hakluyt says we can't kill "inferior" humans: because a society some people made up from thin air says so.

Yes, societies of humans created the moral, legal, etc. templates for how to run a society. We see this happening in human societies all the time both historically and currently.

Who gave you the right to tell me what to believe?

Well, you see, in this country, we have free speech; free speech entails hearing things that you might not agree with it. I suggest you grow up about the matter.

I once again state my position: parents should be free from unreasonable government interference in educating their children.

Define "unreasonable" via examples.

|8.9.05 @ 5:21PM|#

zach,

The "hold old is the Earth?" question is a good way to smoke out irrational creationist types. :)

|8.9.05 @ 5:56PM|#

what's the point? he's already called evolution a "fairy tale".

|8.9.05 @ 5:58PM|#

Hakluyt-

First, and I know we'll disagree, I thought Behe raised good questions. His challenges were answered, but I found his book to be a fascinating read.

I know, I know, you disagree. Well, I guess I have a different idea of what constitutes an interesting question. For instance, when I learned thermodynamics as a college freshman, I spent some of the following summer inventing Maxwell Demons and then debunking them so I could understand thermodynamics better. I also deepened my understanding of statistical physics when I contemplated the possibility of variable radioactive decay rates.

Then again, teaching optics without math also deepened my understanding of science, as I had to examine the things that I had taken for granted and understand the basic facts and mechanisms underlying the phenomena. I was surprised how much I was able to deduce about the process of light absorption from the simple observation that larger film grains require shorter exposures to develop. (It starts off sounding simple, but then when you think about the next step it becomes confounding again for a while.)

I guess the difference between you and me is that whereas you have no patience for fools, I enjoy contemplating faulty ideas and trying to understand the key mistakes underlying those ideas. In doing so I gain a deeper appreciation for the foundations of what we do know. As I contemplate the foundations of our scientific theories, I see more connections between ideas and just how firm the foundation really is.

So I welcome a lot of (wrong) challenges, because contemplating them deepens my understanding of science. Hell, most of what I know about science has come from debunking my own errors and answering naive questions from students.

Anyway, back to the handful of good people in ID: I admit that this is all second hand, but a colleague whom I respect used to observe the ID movement from the inside, participating in their mailing lists and attending their conferences. He was always skeptical of the notion, but he observed out of curiosity. He went to one of their conferences and presented a paper debunking a creationist idea called "the privileged planet hypothesis." (He's an astrophysicist.) Anyway, he described some diamonds in the rough at that conference, including a guy who used information theory and thermodynamics to derive constraints on evolutionary phenomena. And I want to emphasize that this presenter (wish I could recall his name) wasn't bastardizing thermo the way most creationists do.

Then again, my friend also observed that there was a real freak show element there as well.

I guess it all comes down to whether you can appreciate wrong ideas as an opportunity for learning.

|8.9.05 @ 6:04PM|#

with the introduction of the virus causing it to adapt (not evolve, it was trying to survive the human immune system and won?)

What is the difference? If the only viruses (viri?) that survive are those carrying a particular mutation, and the result is a new and different strain, how is that not evolution?

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.9.05 @ 6:11PM|#

Let's be a little clearer on our terms. We have Evolution as in your grand-daddy was a monkey and evolution as in change due to outside stimuli. That virus will still be a virus, just different. (see my sickle-cell example)

Why do humans have different skin color? Is this a reaction to the environment? I don't know, but I do know that we are all still human beings, brothers.

|8.9.05 @ 6:16PM|#

Kelso,

No one is running or hiding. We've provided you answers, you just fail to notice them. :)

thoreau,

I appreciate wrong ideas as a weapon against the irrational. :)

|8.9.05 @ 6:24PM|#

kelso's entire actual philosophy can be summed up with his own statement:

How do I explain the playtapus? I don't; ask Him.

kelso, he's not going to explain it to you. to put it in terms you'll understand, He gave you your own brain. try to use it.

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.9.05 @ 6:28PM|#

You mean like your failure to answer my question about morality? Who are you to judge morality? The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice. Who are you to say that they are wrong? I have yet to see a rational explanation of why a human being should not have dominion over a lesser. Why? Because you can't. You borrow Judeo-Christian morality and claim it as your own.

|8.9.05 @ 6:33PM|#

One thing that mystifies me about the evolution disbelievers (and I know a lot of them): they are not scientifically illiterate or agnostic in other areas. They believe in Einstein's theories, and in gravity, and that we did in fact go to the moon, and that the earth is round and revolves around the sun. They believe in Western science and Western medicine; when their children are ill (and here I'm not addressing Christian Scientists or similar sects, of course), they don't sit around praying - they go to the doctor and take full advantage of 21st century medical technology, and then they go home and pray. They don't play with snakes or do stupidly harmful things in the belief that the Lord will intervene to save them. Many of them are college educated and professional and, were you to never broach the subject with them, you might never suspect they don't believe in evolution.

Why? Why can they accept all the other modern stuff without seeing it as an affront to God, but not evolution?

Yes, I've asked some of them myself and no, I've never gotten a coherent answer.

On the other hand, I know someone who's just as intelligent, college educated, professional, evolution believing...and she has chided me for wearing bras, as they interrupt my chi and can cause breast cancer. But at least she's not demanding that science class give the bra serious consideration as a carcinogen.

Sorry for interrupting. It's just something I wondered.

I have nothing whatever to contribute to the scientific discussions...

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.9.05 @ 6:34PM|#

I have used it, that's why I don't ask. What difference does it make? If the playtapus holds the key to the secrets of life, let me know. You see, I view science as a tool, not a religion. I am more than happy to let people who are experts at science do the investigation. Common sense, reason and faith informs my judgment of whether he needs to go back to the drawing board. If Evolution helps you think it out, then please, do so. It's for the children! :)

Now, if you could just explain to me what woman want. Now THAT'S a question worth asking!

|8.9.05 @ 6:35PM|#

kelso, i love my life, and i love the people that are close to me in my life. i don't want to get hurt or killed, and i certainly don't want my friends and family to get hurt or killed. it's not such a stretch then to say that i don't want people in general to be hurt or killed if it can be helped.

if you're saying that you could care less about anyone but yourself unless there's a god to punish or reward you for your moral deeds, you've got problems way beyond faulty reasoning.

|8.9.05 @ 6:38PM|#

I am more than happy to let people who are experts at science do the investigation. Common sense, reason and faith informs my judgment of whether he needs to go back to the drawing board.

well your common sense and reason at least have failed you, for the reasons specified above. the bottom line is that you rely entirely on your faith to tell you whether or not to accept a scientific idea.

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.9.05 @ 6:42PM|#

Actually, stubby did a pretty good job of describing me (the first part, not the bra part!) I would only add that when my child was seriously ill, I also prayed as I took her to the doctor.

Why don't I believe evolution? Let's forget about the fact that I have seen no proof of the theory, only wild speculation. Rationally, how could anybody believe this fairy-tale? Scientists have believed in a lot of theories that turned out wrong. Am I to believe that they are now perfect? The number of people that believe something has little bearing. Majorities are wrong all the time!

I won't even drop the "nuke" and talk about what happened "In the beginning..."

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.9.05 @ 6:48PM|#

If you are among the fittest, why wouldn't you survive? You presuppose that you or your family would not. You've got at least a little faith in evolution, don't you?

Again, you come from a position that hurting other people is wrong. Making it personal does not prove the morality of it. It just says that you are selfish (we all are) and want to protect your own. A tiger will kill to protect its young, yet has no conscience about it. Are we equal to the animals? Pointing to me also does not prove where the morality comes from. I understand my compassion for others comes from the fact that I was created in God's image.

|8.9.05 @ 6:55PM|#

Mr. Kelso-

Well, I'm no philosopher, I won't debate the logical underpinnings of secular morality. But even from an evolutionary perspective an injunction against murder makes sense. We are social primates, we survive by trading and cooperating. And even in libertopia we would band together for common defense against violence.

The lesson is that even evolution provides a context for cooperating rather than killing each other.

|8.9.05 @ 6:56PM|#

What we really need is an alternative theory of medicine which predicts that wearing thongs is the best way to avoid cervical cancer.

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.9.05 @ 7:00PM|#

You can get more by stealing than working, why not take whatever you want and destroy whoever gets in your way? It happens every day. How could evolution provide morality? Survival of the fittest is not moral.

I am not a primate. Though I have some things in common with a chimp, lizards also have eyes and the similar body systems that I do. I am not a lizard either.

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.9.05 @ 7:07PM|#

Do we relly need more fat woman showing "whale tail?"

|8.9.05 @ 7:07PM|#

I am not a primate.

If you have a flat face instead of an elongated snout, fingernails instead of claws, fingered hands instead of paws, color vision, and both eyes facing in the same direction to enable depth perception, you're a primate. (And even if you're color-blind, you'd count as a primate providing the other members of your species have that trait; you would just be a defective example.)

So which trait do you lack, to account for your non-primate status?

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.9.05 @ 7:09PM|#

Dominion. I am not an animal--I am a human being. I descend from Adam, not KoKo or Bonzo.

|8.9.05 @ 7:42PM|#

Kelso and the creationists are like lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits--if you can't beat 'em, make the cost of business to high for it to be worth the effort.

Generally, though, I buy William Saletan's argument on Slate--that the intellectually honest ID people will eventually come around to evolution, and that indeed the fact that ID has largely replaced young-earth creationism represents a great victory for the proponents of evolution. Intelligent people will not hold to inanities; creationists became IDers, and eventually they will be full-blown evolutionists.

|8.9.05 @ 7:51PM|#

TJ-

I agree. Once upon a time the God of the Gaps was an awesome entity: He Who Brought The Flood And Confounded The Geologists! Nowadays, the God of the Gaps is He Who Tinkered With A Few Chemical Reactions. There will always be creationists, but their numbers will decline, and the fact that they have to rely on ID (which is compatible with an old earth) shows their desperation.

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.9.05 @ 7:55PM|#

Actually, I agree with TJ and Thoreau.

Many are called, few are chosen. Spent so much time talking about the front of the book that we forgot about the back of the book.

|8.9.05 @ 8:23PM|#

Mr. Kelso:

I'm not getting into the debate - really, I'm not - there's just one thing about the "I can't believe in evolution cos I've seen no proof." We've seen fossils, which is more proof than any competing theory can offer.

And we've no proof of the existence of God, or the resurrection of Jesus, and that doesn't keep you (or me) from being Christians. And if you believe that proof of God's, and Jesus', existence can be inferred from evidence all around us - so too can the validity of evolutionary theories.

As I said, not getting into the debate. But if you're going to refuse to believe in evolution, refuse honestly.

Thoreau - remember another thread, long ago and far away - I think it started from an "I can't believe how sluttily teenagers are dressing nowadays" article and then took off - concerning people who dress inappropriately for their size and shape? An ill-considered thong is way more visually disturbing than an ill-considered absence of brassiere. All I'm saying.

|8.9.05 @ 8:37PM|#

The real question is, was it evolution or divine intervention that provided this forum with someone at least as condescending in his posts as Hak?

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.9.05 @ 8:42PM|#

Fossils? They prove that its previous owner existed. I fail to see how this can honestly and openly be called proof.

Who's denying that dinosaurs and other such critters exsisted? It is an incredible leap of logic to conclude 2+2=8. Sorry. Can't do it.

|8.9.05 @ 8:48PM|#

And now I shall speak out on the whole butt floss issue.

The thong sticking up from underneath a pair of jeans is extraordinarily unattractive, even on an otherwise attractive form. It is a concept that totally bypasses the play of hidden and seen that attractive clothing conveys. Wearing the jeans prevents the thong from doing what it is supposed to do, and showing the thong completely kills the 'hey, that is a nice butt' thing that jeans can do. So, for all of our sakes, wear the thong completely hidden under the jeans. Unleash the power of the thong at the appropriate time.

This has been a public service announcement ...

|8.9.05 @ 8:48PM|#

"You can get more by stealing than working, why not take whatever you want and destroy whoever gets in your way? It happens every day. How could evolution provide morality? Survival of the fittest is not moral."

This, along with most all the other philosophizing from you, is just silly grade school crap.

�You can get more by stealing than working� � Only until the other monkeys catch up with you and hit you with sticks (or throw rocks). Bands of monkeys practice this simple form of morality. Not too much of a stretch to imagine more intelligent animals codifying rules about this behavior for the betterment of society.

History is full of examples of moral societies prior to Christianity. The early Greeks (Plato, Aristotle) knew naught of the Ten Commandments, yet they wrote extensively about morality.

From the secular humanists of today, to early tribes thousands of years ago, man has banded together in groups, developed rules to co-exist, and thrived, all without religion.

There are plenty of examples of Xian religion being the proximate cause of war, usually the most immoral of human endeavor.

The claim that religion provided morality to the world is embarrassingly childish. I�d feel sorry for you, if your previous posts didn�t indicate someone who�s ignorance is informed with certain arrogance.

|8.9.05 @ 8:57PM|#

Kelso:

The normal response to your question regarding speciation would be the socratic: "Well, you acknowledge that evolution occurs by natural selection within species, and that these changes can become permanent features of the species if they convey significant enough environmental advantages. If we start stacking changes atop changes, won't we eventually have a new species? Do the changes stop for some reason at the species line? Why? How?"

Also, I don't gather your point about ethics. Any bunch of jackasses who live in perpetual crime zones can figure out that, hey, maybe there is a set of rules we can all follow that will make us all better off in the long run. It should not be surprising that once humans formed tribes we should carry with us rules for living successfully, well, in tribes.

Also, "Do unto others" is very similar to "ethical action is a categorical imperative" in practice.

|8.10.05 @ 12:59AM|#

Kelso wrote: I have used it, that's why I don't ask. What difference does it make? If the playtapus holds the key to the secrets of life, let me know. You see, I view science as a tool, not a religion.

It's convenient for him to view science as just a tool so he doesn't have to think about implications of science on his religion. He enjoys the fruits of labor from 100s of years of scientific endeavor, but then falls back on his "faith" when science comes too close to shattering his religious beliefs.

For religious people, the foundation of their lives, their morality, is based on their faith. They'll believe in science as long as it doesn't pose a threat to their religion. If it does, like evolution, they'll spit out all kinds of arguments and nonsense just to avoid facing reality.

|8.10.05 @ 1:53AM|#

ID? If it was actually design, it certainly couldn't be intelligent.

|8.10.05 @ 1:55AM|#

ID? If it was actually design, it certainly couldn't be intelligent.

There are eye conditions, retinopathies, where blood vessels in the retina leak. Sometimes, in various parts of our anatomy, the body limits the damage caused from leaking blood vessels and saves organs and functions by growing new blood vessels. But with some retinopathies, the new blood vessels grow on the surface of the retina as well, causing blindness.

It's easy to see the mechanisms of adaptation and selection (evolution) at work here. It's rather harder to see design, unless the designer was thought to be malicious or not too intelligent.

(sorry about the partial previous post)

|8.10.05 @ 2:18AM|#

joe:

Check it out, TechCentralStation is giving posting anti-evolution pieces now.

http://techcentralstation.com/080805I.html

At least the author is in the field, but his argument seems weak. He says: "Yet the fossil record, our only source of the history of life on Earth, is almost (if not totally) devoid of transitional forms of life that would connect the supposed evolution of amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, etc."

But in the book that I cited at 12:02 PM...

Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution

http://tinyurl.com/96yp9

...Miller does point to transitional forms.

Also, if the evidence for evolution is minimal, it's infinitesimal or null for ID. The author of the techcentral piece seems to ignore that.

|8.10.05 @ 8:49AM|#

After a short read through the responses, I see that once again many who are clearly highly educated on a scientific subject have HUGE problems with applying the scientific method.

I repeat - I advocate evolution, mostly because it is the best supported hypothesis. However, once again, the scientific method is about observation and repeatability.

Here's an OT example of what I'm talking about. I gave a Ph.D. a project to decrease run time on an analysis. Now the instrument in use has many different but fairly well understood general variables that can affect run time. The Ph.D. goes out and spends an entire day running single analyses on different set-ups that each involve changing more than 3 variables at a time. The next day, he hands an analysis with a short run time. Happy, I ask 2 questions that a scientist should always ask: 1. Was this an anomoly? and 2. What caused the shorter run time. Mr. Ph.D. needed to spend an extra day (after having it explained to him that he DIDN'T know what had caused the shorter run time) running new experiments to answer both questions.

Back to topic: Have we repeatably observed macro-evolution at work? Have we demonstrated it in a controlled environmnet absent other variables?

Again, I agree that the evidence we have points to evolution. But those who point to gaps in the evidence ARE being scientific. That's also part of science - questioning assumptions that are used to cover gaps in the chain of evidence. Now, proposing ID without proposing a method of falsifiing it is not scientific. In that respect, it is quite clear that thoreau is one of the few well-trained Ph.D.'s out there - instead of disparaging the question, he's thought out a method of possibly testing the hypothesis. THAT'S what a scientist does.

Finally, as to the point about evolution in a petri dish being dispositive proof about macro-evolution - whoa. If you'd be so kind to give me your name so I can warn my old company to avoid hiring you, you'd be doing science a great service. That's one HUGE assumption you've made. And one that any chemical engineering will laugh at your face for making. In fact, that is generally the whole basis of the chem. eng. profession - dealing with all the fallacies built into the assumption of scalability.

|8.10.05 @ 9:01AM|#

quasibill-

To be fair, as biologist has pointed out it's not entirely clear that I can formulate a meaningful test of ID. A good test has to be very explicit in what is and isn't proof of concept. My idea is still at an early stage: We've got some examples of "micro-evolution" that even the ID crowd can agree on, and we've got some clear examples of "intelligent design." It just seems to me that if the ID folks are right then they should be able to say something interesting about that set of data, or devise an interesting method for analyzing them.

|8.10.05 @ 9:28AM|#

thoreau,

My point (however obtuse and long-winded it was) was that you display scientific reasoning in your response to the question. And that's unfortunately rare in today's environment where most people (even academics) think science is about knowing lots of 'facts' instead of being a method to use to discover truth.

I have no idea how much you know about analytical chemistry, but I would have hired you in a second into my old R&D group - I could've taught you all you needed to know in a couple of weeks. You already have the more important and harder to develop scientific mindset.

So the fact that your method is rough and has problems isn't that big of a deal - you've only just started the process. But that's lightyears ahead of biologist and others, who just disparage the question out of hand based upon assumptions.

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.10.05 @ 9:32AM|#

TJ: Uh, haven't you ever watched a Discovery Channel episode? After all is said and done, the strongest male gets his pick of the females. That is until a bigger one comes along and kicks some tail.

Where did they get this morality from? They knew nothing of those who came before them? Their parents did not tell them behave? Behave how? Where did this morality come from? Seeing how mean and selfish even the smallest child can be, it surely doesn't come from unbridled human nature. I did not claim that religion brought morality. Christianity is not a religion. It is a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

Jason: No, you wouldn't get a frog becoming a bird. You'd get a (hopefully) improved frog.

coachacola: I have seen no credible science that has contradicted my understanding of the Bible. I view science as the art that explains the world that was created. Science has never even came close to making me hide in a closet. Why should I be scared of a light bulb? Sorry, fairy-tales do not scare me.

Rick: Why do these deformities exist? How many oppurtunities are there for someone with a defective gene to pass it along? From the time of ejaculation to birth nine or so months later, how many things can go wrong? We covered your so-called "transitional" species hoodoo. Many different species have similarites, including ones alive today. This alone is not enough to prove your theory. What other evidence do you have?

Just so it is understood, I have not bought the ID Theory. It is interesting, but I have seen some silly examples. That said, I am not afraid to let them make their case. I do not feel the need to forbid evolution being taught in our schools. What I object to is the close-mindedness of those who claim that the theory has been proved--it has not. It seems like every year, a new study is released telling me X is unhealthy. Almost without fail, the next year, a new study comes along telling me that no, it's not as bad as we feared. Just use moderation. Thanks, but I already knew that. Many of the same people who claim that "Global Warming" is gonna kill us all also believe in "2nd-hand smoke." Do we really have to debate how silly THAT one is?

I sense ulterior motives here. How much does you disbelief of God move you to except a theory that has provided so little tangible evidence?

|8.10.05 @ 9:52AM|#

Jason: No, you wouldn't get a frog becoming a bird. You'd get a (hopefully) improved frog.

There are frogs that glide already. Flying is a big improvement in certain environments. This is a heap problem. If we are allowing for cumulative evolutionary changes to occur in a species, what mechanism are you proposing that prevents a heap of these allowable changes from adding wings if environmental factors favor incremental steps in that direction? Species level differences are not magical barriers. They can be broken down into small changes.

|8.10.05 @ 9:59AM|#

"Finally, as to the point about evolution in a petri dish being dispositive proof about macro-evolution - whoa."

It isn't dispositive proof, but it is highly suggestive. I fail to see the significance of the macro evolution distinction. A species is a category we slapped on critters who have X difference in traits. I would think that acknowledging the role of evolution and natural selection in trait differences leads one to the question, "What is so special about the difference between X and X-1 that the speciation threshold can't be crossed by the same mechanism we already know is operative?"

To me, this is like assuming that gravitation isn't an inverse square law (sticking to Newton here) on other planets. Scientists make inductive claims like these all the time.

|8.10.05 @ 10:02AM|#

Mr. Kelso-

I'd be happy to allow alternatives to evolution to be taught in science class...if any of those alternatives had strong supporting evidence. All they've got is questions right now, and no method for getting any answer better than "Well, we can't explain this, so we conclude that evolution is wrong."

I see a data set out there that could make or break the alternative theories if they developed some methodologies to really tackle the problem. I'm thinking about the best way to pose the challenge to them, and if I ever come up with a good test for ID I'm going to publish it. I kind of doubt that they'll be able to meet my challenge, but by putting it out there I'll be opening myself to being proven wrong.

You can say that evolution hasn't been proven. Well, in some ultimate philosophical sense not even quantum electrodynamics has been proven. Oh, sure the predictions of the theory have, in many instances, been validated to something like 14 decimal places, but one can always think of scenarios where it hasn't been tested yet.

But that's OK: Scientific theories don't have to be proven once and for all, because science doesn't deal in absolute certainty. Science is about asking questions and seeing if possible answers are supported by data. When a proposed answer is supported we don't enthrone it for all eternity, we merely keep it around for the next test. If a proposed answer is unsupported we don't automatically discard it, because for all we know the person who did the test made a mistake. But if an idea keeps failing tests, well, our patience is finite, and we spend less time on theories that don't pass tests.

So far, evolution has passed so many tests that despite the gaps we're willing to keep the theory in the starting line-up, and see how it will fare when we get some new data concerning those gaps.

Anyway, I need a nap. Whether it's a design flaw or a failure of evolution, my immune system is taking a long time to fight off this virus.

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.10.05 @ 10:06AM|#

Actually, I don't discount the idea, but it seems kind of far fetched to me. Since so many other species have become extinct, it seems that this may be the reason that these frogs are still around today. What proof do we have that these frogs weren't created that way? The adaptations that I have seen all seem quite smaller than growing such appendages.

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.10.05 @ 10:20AM|#

thoreau: I support your kind of science. Unfortunately, I have been told here several times that evolution is a proven fact. Anyone who suggests an alternative is shunned. It may be rationalized otherwise, but evolution presents a bunch of observations and great leaps of logic to support it. I do not fear having the possibility of evolution being taught. I do not fear having my beliefs tested. I even leave the possibility that my views will be dismissed out of hand--you have that right.

Gravity is a theory (theory used in the scientific sense), but we have come pretty far in proving its properties. We mave have much to learn, but I am not aware of too mant people who deny its exsistance.

I guess that we will have to disagree with eachother, but I do not see any proof that my creation belief is correct.

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.10.05 @ 10:22AM|#

Of course, I meant to say:

I guess that we will have to disagree with eachother, but I do not see any proof that my creation belief is INcorrect. And I haven't.

|8.10.05 @ 10:24AM|#

"It isn't dispositive proof, but it is highly suggestive"

And that is my entire point. As long as you acknowledge that we don't have dispositive proof, you've avoided the trap. You acknowledge that our knowledge is imperfect. And again, I agree, the evidence is HIGHLY suggestive. But that is very different from unquestionable. And like I said, thoreau has shown how a scientist would approach the question - not by spouting 'facts', but by proposing a test which can have observable results. And, as thoreau noted, its a rare test that can definitively answer a question by itself, and takes a lot of work to design even a merely useful test. But that's what scientists do - test hypotheses in an attempt to answer questions.

"To me, this is like assuming that gravitation isn't an inverse square law (sticking to Newton here) on other planets. Scientists make inductive claims like these all the time."

But see, you're already talking about "assumptions" and "claims". A good scientist, when making such, will qualify them and admit that, until tested, they are just that, claims and assumptions. They may be based upon the best available evidence, and therefore highly likely, but that is different from an established fact.

Again, so as to make it clear, I believe in evolution (I'm kinda a fan of punctuated equilibrium, myself) and am generally an agnostic. In fact, much of my libertarian beliefs sprung from the coherence of natural order in the 'natural' world with natural order in the 'social' world. So my argument isn't in favor of ID. I just cringe when I see people using faith based arguments (in that they believe something that hasn't yet been repeatably observed to be true) against ID - it's opening a Pandora's box, IMO. The best response is - evolution is the hypothesis best supported by the currently available positive evidence, and there is no positive evidence against it currently.

Positing the existence of some external intelligent force requires some positive evidence in support before serious scientists will accept it en toto. But dismissing outlandish theories out of hand is a mistake that has all too often occurred in the history of science.

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.10.05 @ 10:32AM|#

OK, it is highly suggestive that since two pieces of nothing could collide to create something, it is highly suggestive that a creator was involved.

|8.10.05 @ 10:45AM|#

"OK, it is highly suggestive that since two pieces of nothing could collide to create something, it is highly suggestive that a creator was involved."

I don't follow this at all. In the case of evolution leading to speciation, the mere accumulation of changes we both acknowledge are happening is sufficient to explain morphological differences between species. We know that changes are occurring and we know that they can add up. To say that they can't add up to sufficient changes to cause speciation requires the postulation of a mechanism to stop the changes from occurring at the magic species line. That is why evolution on a small scale is suggestive of evolution on a large scale so long as sufficient time has passed.

What you are indicating is suggestive is certainly not suggestive in the same way. Besides, was the creator part of the nothing or part of the something?

|8.10.05 @ 10:46AM|#

The real question is, was it evolution or divine intervention that provided this forum with someone at least as condescending in his posts as Hak?

Good question - probably divine intervention, if only to balance things out. While I've never seen anyone else in here who condescends as condescendingly as Hak, this forum does seem to have more than its share of the smart kids who sat in the back of the class. So having Hak around to treat everyone, even the coolest kids, like they're gauche idiots makes sense.


Although I've never had the honor of Hak conscending to me directly, I've often wondered -does he talk this way to his friends and acquaintences in person and, if so, do they ever talk to him again? I mean, I've often wanted to begin some conversations with a "Goodness, aren't you stupid...," I've just never had the nerve.

Or is he, in real life, the mousy type? And if he answered either question, could we believe him?

On the other hand, I think Hak is a lawyer. Which would explain the condescension.

Jason - great line in Christopher Hitchens' latest VF piece - "Some people wearing shorts who shouldn't wear jeans."

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.10.05 @ 10:55AM|#

Jason: I concur that small changes are taking place (an isolated virus becomes widespread because of plane travel and our body creates antibodies to fight it, changing us and the virus.) How does this add up to a frog becoming a bird?

...was the creator part of the nothing or part of the something?

You tell me; I am not the one arguing for evolution. I guess that we are both left with theories we can't prove, huh? Maybe we shold put our information out, perhaps in science class, and then let the people decide? I have enough confidence in my beliefs, how about you?

|8.10.05 @ 11:07AM|#

"To say that they can't add up to sufficient changes to cause speciation requires the postulation of a mechanism to stop the changes from occurring at the magic species line."

I agree partially. To say "can't" is just as absolute as "does". So the scientific response would be an acknowledgment that we haven't actually repeatably observed the occurrence of such an accumulation of minor changes into such a major adaptation, and therefore do not absolutely know one way or the other. However, the best available evidence points very strongly to "does", while leaving little room for "doesn't".

We don't need to quibble over the obviously arbitrary species line, there are clear difference between, say, sharks and condors. We haven't repeatably observed the development of lungs from gills, or wings from fins. And again, the problem is the timescales involved even if evolution is a given - we don't expect to see such large scale mutations over the course of even a couple of hundred years (well, except if you're a punctuated type and you're observing a punctuation).

It's equivalent to the question of how do you "know" the Iraq war made us safer from terrorists? You can't, for approximately 225 years, when you can determine whether we've had less than the 2 incidents of successful islamic extremist terrorist attacks in the United States we've had in the first 225 years. Anything else is just a belief, one way or the other.

Scientists aren't scared by the fact that their knowledge is imperfect. In fact, there would be no need for basic science if knowledge was perfect. And there'd be alot less need for engineers.

|8.10.05 @ 11:52AM|#

"You tell me; I am not the one arguing for evolution. I guess that we are both left with theories we can't prove, huh? Maybe we shold put our information out, perhaps in science class, and then let the people decide? I have enough confidence in my beliefs, how about you?"

But that's just it. All things we can't prove are not of equal probability, and the purpose of a science class is to introduce ideas that have been subjected to the scientific method. The kind of reserved skepticism quasibill is referring to is applicable to all of astronomy, all of biology, all of cosmology, all of particle physics, all of thermodynamics, all of chemistry, and so on. Are you suggesting that the proposition "Because God said so" needs to be taught in each of those class rooms as well? Is that proposition REALLY 'Just a theory you can't prove" in the same way that Bose-Einstien condensation is just a theory you cant prove?

What you are suggesting is either that we dilute the definition of science to mean "any theory postulated by anybody, no matter how improbable, unobservable, or untestable," or that you want to grant scientific status to a theory that clearly isn't scientific in the traditional sense.

If we are putting all possbilities out on the table, why not solipsism? That is just another theory you can't prove, and it explains everything, too. You are all figments of my imagination, and my glorious mind creates the rules as it sees fit. If you don't like solipsism, we can always go to idealism as a broad theory of everything. Everything is mind, there is no matter. Prove me wrong.

Science classes should teach science.

|8.10.05 @ 11:58AM|#

"How does this add up to a frog becoming a bird?"

How about tree frogs that glide compared to lilly pad frogs that swim? Are they related? How could small changes lead to gliding? What if gliding farther conveys survival advantages, and the gliding feet become ever more efficient. Come on, this is not a stretch.

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.10.05 @ 12:15PM|#

You keep asking questions that your own theory cannot answer. Which is more probable: a being created the Earth or two bits of nothing came together to form something? Creation is not just some theory you can't prove. Questioning if we were created is a logical question when pondering the beginning. You may reject that idea, but that does not make it immprobable.

During the congressional hearings on cloning, a goup of scientists, who freely admited that science was their religion, testified that they believe that life on Earth was caused by beings from outer space and that science cannot be stopped by us and we should not outlaw cloning. I would believe that before I'd believe in evolution.

You can plainly see with your eyes that these frogs are related to eachother. But, then again, you can also tell that primates that live in trees and ones that never live in trees are related. So what? Plants come from seeds, grow, repoduce, eat, live, get old and die. Sound familiar? Are we toadstools? Was your great-granddaddy a fern?

|8.10.05 @ 12:24PM|#

quasibill:

I agree with everything you are saying. What I am suggesting is that it is not the case that scientific skepticism implies that inductive hypotheses are no more scientific than 'because God said so.'

To advance in science, you have to take the observed and abstract (yes, with reservations) to general cases so that you ultimately are dealing with general rules. Given the nature of the process of natural selection, there is no reason to suspect it will stop at the species level, so one should generally assume that it continues. Here, you are forced to choose between two assumptions: 1) you've never observed a cessation of natural selection of traits so you'd be assuming that such a cessation occurs without empirical evidence or 2) you've never observed speciation, which your theory tells you occurs much to slowly to observe anyway.

Sure, we should approach these with an open mind, but I don't think these are on equal footing, either.

|8.10.05 @ 12:36PM|#

Was your great-granddaddy a fern?

No, but after a few years with alzheimers, my grandmother was a vegetable. Great design.

|8.10.05 @ 12:42PM|#

Kelso:

Holy crap, that was random. The question was, can you see how a non gliding frog could evolve to a gliding frog? I chose those to demonstrate how wings might evolve from wingless critters in response to environmental pressures. If those same environmental factors that select for flying in that species continue to favor flying, could you see how bone structure could become lighter, just like a bird's? A species is just a series of steps.

|8.10.05 @ 12:51PM|#

Kelso:
"I did not claim that religion brought morality."

Liar. The implication of this quote is clear:

"Much like Hakluyt says we can't kill "inferior" humans: because a society some people made up from thin air says so. Weak."

Kelso again:
"Christianity is not a religion. It is a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ."

So is your morality informed by this direct relationship? I.E. does god talk to you? Or is there some book that helps out? Just curious.

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.10.05 @ 12:51PM|#

...could you see how bone structure could become lighter, just like a bird's? A species is just a series of steps.

No.

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.10.05 @ 12:57PM|#

TJ: Please read what I wrote again; it is quite clear.

And the answer is no, I have never actually physically heard God speak. Then again, I ain't never seen an ameoba became a moose either.

The knowledge of good and evil is a part of what makes us men. It is a part of our being.

|8.10.05 @ 2:21PM|#

...could you see how bone structure could become lighter, just like a bird's? A species is just a series of steps.

jason, of course he can't. he doesn't want to. he'll argument with you until he's been proved obviously wrong, and then simply insist that no, you're wrong, because god said so.

|8.10.05 @ 2:21PM|#

argue*

|8.10.05 @ 2:24PM|#

During the congressional hearings on cloning, a goup of scientists, who freely admited that science was their religion, testified that they believe that life on Earth was caused by beings from outer space and that science cannot be stopped by us and we should not outlaw cloning. I would believe that before I'd believe in evolution.

i bet you would. that doesn't particularly help your case, buddy.

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.10.05 @ 2:33PM|#

Why Zach? They're your kind of people.

Still waiting for your proof, Zach.

|8.10.05 @ 2:44PM|#

people who claim that science is their religion, and that life was brough to earth by aliens, are not my kind of people. they're called scientologists, and they're a cult. (or raelians, actually).

my proof for what exactly, kelso? as many people have said repeatedly on this thread, and as you don't seem to be able to grasp, science does not deal in absolute proof.

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.10.05 @ 3:09PM|#

Good; then you won't be mad if the schools that I am forced to pay for with my tax dollars covers another subject that doesn't have "proof:" Did God create the Earth?

It must be nice to make up any crazy scenario and claim "science does not deal in absolute proof."

OK, give me a little non-absolute truth.

|8.10.05 @ 3:15PM|#

OK. science deals with gathering empirical evidence, drawing provisional conclusions based on it, and forming theories explaining it. so, evidence, conclusions and theories, within the world of science today:

- the occurrence of evolution: not 100% proven (of course), but supported by evidence sufficient that there is no ongoing debate among reputable scientists concerning it. in other words, it's a provisional conclusion based on evidence, and not a theory;
- the darwinian theory of evolution, natural selection: holds the most weight among scientific theories of the mechanism of evolution, but still debated among reputable scientists, and rightly so;
- intelligent design theory: not based on evidence, but rather on the false dilemma that if evolution was not caused by darwinian natural selection, it must have been caused by an intelligent designer. thus, it does not deal with conclusions that may be drawn from empirical observation, and is not at all debated within the scientific community; and
- creationism: is obviously based on faith, specifically a literal interpretation of genesis, and has nothing to do with science.

this is about as clear as i can make it. for some reason i don't have much "faith" that you'll see what i'm saying. in case you get upset, read this post again. it says nothing about whether or not a god exists.

|8.10.05 @ 3:23PM|#

Good; then you won't be mad if the schools that I am forced to pay for with my tax dollars covers another subject that doesn't have "proof:" Did God create the Earth?

that might be a great question for a philosophy class. but since science does have to do with empirical evidence, and there is no empirical evidence that a god created the earth, i would be upset if that religious idea were presented as science. you're introducing yet another false dilemma, that a concept must be either absolutely proven or relegated to the status of "fairy tale".

again, to keep it simple, i'll relate it to a murder case. overwhelming evidence that someone committed a murder does not constitute absolute proof. nothing, in fact, could ever constitute absolute proof that the defendant committed the murder. that's why the logical standard is not absolute proof of the crime - since such a standard is unsustainable - but rather, evidence sufficient to overcome reasonable doubt.

so you could say that scientists agree that evolution happened, not absolutely, but beyond a reasonable doubt. you reject this conclusion, not based on contradictory evidence, but religious faith.

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.10.05 @ 3:32PM|#

Neither does ID (which I am sceptical of) claim an existance of God. Neither has my argument. I simply asked two questions: Where did it all come from? and please show me the evidence that lifeforms "evolve." I have seen none. Yes, there is a lot of diversity and there sure are some crazy critters running the earth. This is not evidence. This is fact.

What you and others fail to understand is that you are in fact placing you faith in a scientific theory that says A, B and C, but you jump to the Z and damn anybody who disagrees with you. Trust me, people who agree with me think that you are just as crazy as you view us. Don't we all have that right?

I am not trying to convert anyone nor am I seeking a dictatorship. All that I want is the right for me to choose what my children will learn. I do not have that. I am not good enough at math. I cannot home school. Why should you spend my tax dollars paying for your faith in science as a god.

I've even got an idea that should make a majority of people happy. Allow parents to send their children to a school that will teach them what parents want. A free choice. A free mind. Gee, that sounds almost libertarian.!

|8.10.05 @ 3:40PM|#

i really can't think of any more ways to explain to you why science is not faith. it obviously would be a fruitless exercise anyway, as you have already decided what you do and don't want to hear.

again, if tax dollars are to be spent on teaching kids science, then science is what ought to be taught to them. your religious beliefs are not scientific. so they shouldn't be taught in a science class as scientific beliefs. it has nothing to do with my faith or your faith or who thinks who is crazy. it's a simple case of what science is and what it ain't.

but obviously this central point, in one form or another, has been repeated to you a ridiculous number of times on this thread. no wonder i'm the only one left. and now, i'm going to do something more intellectually challenging. like computer pinball.

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.10.05 @ 3:41PM|#

No, I reject it because of, as you might say, all of your "evidence" for evolution is circumstantial. Yes, there is a frog with different anatomy that allows it to glide. All the other frogs can't, therefore, this must be an evolution. Uh?

I have been told by a parent long ago that God created the earth. Someone else came along and said no, life on this planet evolved from a big bang of nothing that created sludge that became a microscopic critter.

Science, as a tool, is the discovery of the world around us and how it works. How can we harness what we have learned to better our lives?

Using science as a tool, and studing your circumstantial evidence, I the jury refuse to convict.

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.10.05 @ 3:44PM|#

I also accept your admission of defeat.

|8.10.05 @ 3:59PM|#

Kelso:
"Good; then you won't be mad if the schools that I am forced to pay for with my tax dollars covers another subject that doesn't have "proof:" Did God create the Earth?"
Kelso again:
"Why should you spend my tax dollars paying for your faith in science as a god."

Two things come to mind:
1) We aren't dealing in proofs here, we are dealing in probabilities. The sun may not rise tomorrow, and the theory of evolution may be "false". What matters is which way the smart money bets.

2) We wouldn't need as many of your tax dollars if we get the churches to pay taxes.

|8.10.05 @ 4:09PM|#

i think that 'defeat' comment was supposed to draw me back in.

sorry pal. this computer pinball is just too much fun.

|8.10.05 @ 4:11PM|#

oh one final thing, i meant to provide this link earlier: "true believer syndrome"

|8.10.05 @ 4:12PM|#

"Using science as a tool, and studing your circumstantial evidence, I the jury refuse to convict."

I grant you can refuse to convict (convict what, by the way?), but you are certainly not doing so using science as a tool.

This:

"Yes, there is a frog with different anatomy that allows it to glide. All the other frogs can't, therefore, this must be an evolution. Uh?"

is not the case being made and you know it. You sort of casually left out all of the pieces that are science. You know, that we observe evolution within species, that we observe evolution within species can have an impact on morphology, that we can observe that evolution within species is driven by natural selection such that those variations that grant survival advantages tend to dominate a sub population over time, that those advantaged traits are cumulative where selection strongly favors a given advantage, and that species differentiation is nothing more than an accumulation of traits. With all that context, along with genetic similarities and fossils that indicate hybrid species have existed, a case is made for the gliding frog and the non gliding frog having a common ancestor. I'm sure a biologist could do a better job of making the whole case than I. It is certainly not a matter of looking at two frogs and inferring the whole story from nothing.

|8.10.05 @ 4:15PM|#

oops i meant: Faith

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.10.05 @ 4:16PM|#

Nope, it was honest.

Taxing churches would violate the seperation of church and state. (Ha, Ha!!!!!)

I am not talking about religion, I am talking about the origin of the species (Ha!) My smart money says that the sun will probably rise and all this ain't an accident. I invite you to ponder the shape of a woman. Their softness. The sweet smell. What a great gift!

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.10.05 @ 4:19PM|#

I didn't criticize natural selection; science and experience has provided me enough proof that the strong have a natural advantage.

That fossil that you call a "hybrid," could it not be simply a extinct species?

|8.10.05 @ 4:31PM|#

and please show me the evidence that lifeforms "evolve." I have seen none. Yes, there is a lot of diversity and there sure are some crazy critters running the earth. This is not evidence. This is fact.

What about the fossil record? It isn't perfect, but there's a definite progression of life forms over millions of years.

Oh, wait, you probably don't believe that those bones in the ground are millions of years old.

|8.10.05 @ 4:35PM|#

My thoughts on evolution and religion are vast, deep and insightful. Too bad I never have time to post them when one of these threads come up.

I will say that I am convinced that the preponderance of evidence is that evolution is a real process by which new forms of life arise. I.D. obsesses over the incomplete areas of evolutionary knowledge but does not itself qualify as a full-fledged scientific theory.

And the great distinction some make between "microevolution" (changes within a species) and "macroevolution" (transformation from one species into another) is either a smokescreen or a misunderstanding. It's just a matter of degree. Lots of little changes can add up to big changes over a long time. The dividing line between one species and another is sometimes hard to make, because the definition of "species" is not completely objective. Is the domesticated dog its own species, Canis familaris, or just a subspecies of wolf, Canis lupus familaris? Latter people are arguing the latter. Are the Kodiak bear, the grizzly bear, the European brown bear and the Tibetan bear different species? Despite the variation, they are all considered subspecies of a single species, Ursos arctos.

However, I can understand the fears of some that teaching evolution could lead to a breakdown of the moral order.

I mean, imagine trying to keep maintain discipline in a room full of giggling junior high students after you mention Homo erectus.

|8.10.05 @ 4:38PM|#

I've even got an idea that should make a majority of people happy. Allow parents to send their children to a school that will teach them what parents want.

This I can agree with. And let the parents and their children take the consequences, if there are any. And kids who are taught the "wrong" thing are free to change their minds or be persuaded otherwise after graduation.

drf|8.10.05 @ 4:43PM|#

Homo erectus.

giggle.

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.10.05 @ 5:20PM|#

thoreau: you are correct; they are not millions of years old. I believe that you are viewing the evidence and drawing the wrong conclusion. These fossils, as far as I can tell since evolutionists won't provide enough evidence, are of species that have became extinct. I suppose that if a supporter of the theory of evolution could show me one species that evolved. It is true that I can't scientifically porove the existance of God, but apparently evolutionists can't prove their schtick either. Did they become extinct because of natural selection? I guess that it would be interesting to know, but...

Stevo: Thanks for letting me excercise my rights? I have never believed in evolution and turned out just fine. While this discussion is fun, the answer is not gonna pay my bills. Scientists can keep on believing this mumbo-jumbo, just keep curing disease and making cool products. I'll be happy.

|8.10.05 @ 5:50PM|#

Scientists can keep on believing this mumbo-jumbo, just keep curing disease and making cool products.

What if I told you that the people who make antibiotics, antivirals, pesticides, and herbicides find that evolutionary biology is helpful in their endeavor to make better products? And that they sometimes hire people who are well-versed in evolutionary biology? Would you want your kids to learn about evolution?

What if I told you that geologists, whose work is important in finding oil and minerals, describe the world with a theory that says it's about 4.5 billion years old? And that oil and mineral companies sometimes hire people who have a deep understanding of rock formations? Would you want your kids to learn about geology?

What if I told you that nuclear physics is used in medicine, power generation, warfare, and a number of other engineering and research applications? (radioactive tracers and neutron scattering are ubiquitous in medical and materials research) What if I told you that this same field of study has been used to determine that the fossils in the ground are millions of years old? And that there are jobs available for people who understand nuclear physics? Would you want your kids to learn about it?

What if I told you that the GPS system relies on General Relativity? And that General Relativity is a pivotal part of cosmology, which says that the universe is at least 10-15 billion years old? (I can never remember the precise number.) Would you want your kids to learn about the science that makes GPS possible?

Granted, most of the good jobs out there don't urgently require a deep knowledge of these areas of science. But there are excellent jobs that do require such knowledge, and they make possible many of the cool things that you enjoy.

Food for thought.

Steven J. Kelso Sr.|8.10.05 @ 6:03PM|#

This mumbo jumbo may be helpful to them, good. I thought that is what my quote said.

But, since it is not a requirement to be any of those things, and since evolution does not hold up to questioning, and since many fine scientist share my beliefs and do just fine, my kids will know it's foolishness.

As I said before, you can call an inch a mile, that does not change the length of an inch.

|8.10.05 @ 7:52PM|#

Kelso says...
"my kids will know it's foolishness."

Heh Heh, well, you can -tell- them it's foolishness. They may eventually decide their old man is the foolish one. Best luck.