Reader comments
Readers' forum: Science needs the 'what ifs'
91 comments | Read story
Pisa | 6:50 a.m. May 5, 2008
What nonsense. The PR machine of ID is in full swing. I teach biology, and
people can "what if" all they want; but if you are dealing in
science, then measured data is your stock in trade. The Intelligent Design
proponents want nothing less than to inject Christian concepts into science,
which by its very nature is nonreligious (not anti-religious). Google
"wedge strategy" together with "intelligent design". It
shouldn't matter, but perhaps it does, that I am a Christian who wants to
keep science the neutral observer of natural phenomena that it has been up till
now. It has served Western Civilization well in that form.
Ryan | 7:40 a.m. May 5, 2008
Timj,
Throwing around insults and misrepresenting ID might be fun, so I don't entirely hold it against you, but getting into the nitty-gritty is a lot more productive.
Would you like to try it? If so, it would be a "rare treat" indeed, as most in the anti-ID crowd simply leave it at the insults and refuse to address the actual substance (claiming they don't want to "dignify" it with a response or claiming that the other person is too stupid to carry on a worthwhile discussion).
Kind of funny, huh? Insult something then refuse to discuss it in detail. (Is that part of the scientific method?)
The exception is Ken Miller, but as you have the chance to learn in a different thread, Ken Miller does not understand ID. So I give him credit for his efforts, ignorant as they are.
So are you willing to discuss it, or no?
Throwing around insults and misrepresenting ID might be fun, so I don't entirely hold it against you, but getting into the nitty-gritty is a lot more productive.
Would you like to try it? If so, it would be a "rare treat" indeed, as most in the anti-ID crowd simply leave it at the insults and refuse to address the actual substance (claiming they don't want to "dignify" it with a response or claiming that the other person is too stupid to carry on a worthwhile discussion).
Kind of funny, huh? Insult something then refuse to discuss it in detail. (Is that part of the scientific method?)
The exception is Ken Miller, but as you have the chance to learn in a different thread, Ken Miller does not understand ID. So I give him credit for his efforts, ignorant as they are.
So are you willing to discuss it, or no?
Comments continue below
Ryan | 7:51 a.m. May 5, 2008
Pisa,
I think the wedge strategy was a good one. Of course it was not science. But, then again, it didn't claim to be.
The fact that wedge wanted to use intelligent design to promote religion does not, of course, make intelligent design religious any more than Richard Dawkins' strategy to use science to promote atheism makes science atheistic.
I think the wedge strategy was a good one. Of course it was not science. But, then again, it didn't claim to be.
The fact that wedge wanted to use intelligent design to promote religion does not, of course, make intelligent design religious any more than Richard Dawkins' strategy to use science to promote atheism makes science atheistic.
fr1nk | 7:51 a.m. May 5, 2008
Please feel free to what if all you want. Come up with other theories, but use
science to support your theory. If your hypothesis is that god did it or it is
too complex to understand then scientists are not going to take it seriously.
And we shouldnt.
Ernest T Bass | 7:53 a.m. May 5, 2008
Science is always asking "what if", that is the process with how a
theory becomes scientific law.
I.D. is afraid to ask "what if" because the answers to those questions generally steer them towards the answers science has provided.
You've got it all backwards.
I.D. is afraid to ask "what if" because the answers to those questions generally steer them towards the answers science has provided.
You've got it all backwards.
Science going way of Religion | 8:00 a.m. May 5, 2008
Science is now making the classical religions have made through the years.
Assuming they make no mistakes and being closed to new truth from outsiders.
Unless they change their ways they will go down the same blind alleys that has
plagued religion.
Catholics and LDS leaders have both had to back track on claims that once made on what was truth, showing that even they are not immune of needing to be open, Evengelicals claim in spite of inrefuteable evidence to the contrary that the universe is about 12,000 years old and that all who do not believe as they do will go to hell and suffer great pain forever and ever. This from a God that is all powerful and loving.
Unless science wants to go down similar dark and blind alleys, they need to continue to be open to new ideas and self criticism.
Catholics and LDS leaders have both had to back track on claims that once made on what was truth, showing that even they are not immune of needing to be open, Evengelicals claim in spite of inrefuteable evidence to the contrary that the universe is about 12,000 years old and that all who do not believe as they do will go to hell and suffer great pain forever and ever. This from a God that is all powerful and loving.
Unless science wants to go down similar dark and blind alleys, they need to continue to be open to new ideas and self criticism.
Timj | 8:36 a.m. May 5, 2008
Ryan,
You've made claims about Ken Miller not understanding ID. As far as I can tell, you've never exactly detailed those claims.
So please elaborate.
By the way, can you tell us what your background in science is? How much do you know about evolution, and through what sources have you learned it?
Can you also tell us what ID has brought to the scientific community, and how it has improved our understanding of the natural world?
Could you also please tell us why the Templeton foundation, which is dedicated to linking religion and science, pulled their significant financial support from ID. It didn't have anything to do with lack of research, did it?
Lots of questions, I know. I won't be able to check back here until lunch time.
You've made claims about Ken Miller not understanding ID. As far as I can tell, you've never exactly detailed those claims.
So please elaborate.
By the way, can you tell us what your background in science is? How much do you know about evolution, and through what sources have you learned it?
Can you also tell us what ID has brought to the scientific community, and how it has improved our understanding of the natural world?
Could you also please tell us why the Templeton foundation, which is dedicated to linking religion and science, pulled their significant financial support from ID. It didn't have anything to do with lack of research, did it?
Lots of questions, I know. I won't be able to check back here until lunch time.
fr1nk | 8:54 a.m. May 5, 2008
Ryan: There IS no substance to discuss. If you would like to bring up some
substance I will be happy to discuss it, as would all scientists.
Bert | 8:56 a.m. May 5, 2008
ID alows "what if's" as long as the final answer is always
"God did it".
Anon | 9:03 a.m. May 5, 2008
Can we know some objects were designed, even if we know nothing about how they
were produced?
Clearly the answer is yes. That's all ID is about.
Moreover, any criterion which distinguishes design from non-design will also show that biological structures were designed. It's not a religious claim, but a falsifiable logico-deductive one based on empirical evidence and statistics.
The metaphysics of "science" (note the scare quotes) force an answer of "no" to the initial question whenever, in the opinion of the "scientist," a designer which is not a terrestrial being is implicated. The evidence is not considered, and a combination of "chance and necessity" is invoked to explain the phenomenon. That's the background to naturalistic evolution.
Thus, intelligence has been expelled from "scientific" discourse by prior commitments to a strictly naturalistic universe. Given the choice between design where "God" may be implicated (say, in the origination of biological life) and impossible explanations involving only randomness and natural law, "science" will take the latter and anything else will be smeared as "religion."
Read "No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased Without Intelligence," "Darwin's Black Box," and "The Edge of Evolution" for the real arguments.
Clearly the answer is yes. That's all ID is about.
Moreover, any criterion which distinguishes design from non-design will also show that biological structures were designed. It's not a religious claim, but a falsifiable logico-deductive one based on empirical evidence and statistics.
The metaphysics of "science" (note the scare quotes) force an answer of "no" to the initial question whenever, in the opinion of the "scientist," a designer which is not a terrestrial being is implicated. The evidence is not considered, and a combination of "chance and necessity" is invoked to explain the phenomenon. That's the background to naturalistic evolution.
Thus, intelligence has been expelled from "scientific" discourse by prior commitments to a strictly naturalistic universe. Given the choice between design where "God" may be implicated (say, in the origination of biological life) and impossible explanations involving only randomness and natural law, "science" will take the latter and anything else will be smeared as "religion."
Read "No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased Without Intelligence," "Darwin's Black Box," and "The Edge of Evolution" for the real arguments.
NickB | 9:10 a.m. May 5, 2008
"What if" the explanation of a phenomenon that is today inexplicably
complex and appears to be "designed" merely requires several more
years of careful research before it is understood as yet another example of how
natural processes can produce extraordinary biological processes?
How is science advanced by ID saying that since we're not TODAY able to conceive of how the complex phenomenon is natural in origin, that it therefore must be attributed to a "designer" and hence it is no longer necessary to continue researching the phenomenon for its mechanisms of action?
After all, what's the point of attempting to scientifically understand a miracle?
ID isn't remotely a way of advancing knowledge. It's a roadblock to knowledge.
How is science advanced by ID saying that since we're not TODAY able to conceive of how the complex phenomenon is natural in origin, that it therefore must be attributed to a "designer" and hence it is no longer necessary to continue researching the phenomenon for its mechanisms of action?
After all, what's the point of attempting to scientifically understand a miracle?
ID isn't remotely a way of advancing knowledge. It's a roadblock to knowledge.
RE:Science going way of religion | 9:16 a.m. May 5, 2008
You're wrong. I know of no organization that is more self critical and
open to new ideas than science. Nothing would please a young biologist more
than to discredit some long held principle or truth. If you were to really look
into the history of genetics, physics, evolution, biology or chemistry, you will
see a long history of adjusting to new data. And one more thing for the record,
I don't know ANY scientist that will ever say, this is 100% correct. They
will only say, this has met a p value less than 5% and therefore fails to reject
the null hypothesis.
J | 9:21 a.m. May 5, 2008
ID is espoused by creationists who want to be taken seriously in the scientific
community. It won't work.
To the letter writer: "what if?" is a great question to ask. The problem with ID is that that is the ONLY question one CAN ask! It is a theory entirely made up of "what if's?" There is no test, no experiment, nothing one can do to prove ID, short of the the designer him/herself appearing and proclaiming it to be true.
SO, it is not that ID has not YET been proven true, but may be in the future. By its very nature, it CANNOT be proven true. ID is "what if?" and nothing more.
As for Ryan, above, I echo another writer in saying that there is no substance to ID. Where is it? Where are the nuances? This is ID: the universe is so complex that God must have created it. Done. That's the theory, and that's the end. Now that's what I call science! Save it for church, where it belongs...
To the letter writer: "what if?" is a great question to ask. The problem with ID is that that is the ONLY question one CAN ask! It is a theory entirely made up of "what if's?" There is no test, no experiment, nothing one can do to prove ID, short of the the designer him/herself appearing and proclaiming it to be true.
SO, it is not that ID has not YET been proven true, but may be in the future. By its very nature, it CANNOT be proven true. ID is "what if?" and nothing more.
As for Ryan, above, I echo another writer in saying that there is no substance to ID. Where is it? Where are the nuances? This is ID: the universe is so complex that God must have created it. Done. That's the theory, and that's the end. Now that's what I call science! Save it for church, where it belongs...
mark | 9:37 a.m. May 5, 2008
Ryan, you want a discussion of the "nitty gritty" of evolution? You
can find out about the issue in depth, with evidence provided. Enter any
biology class at any college and you will get your fill.
The "anti-id crowd" as you call them include well educated people that study the actual evidence. These people are called scientist, they are called biologists and they are not anti-id any more then they are anti-flat earth, or anti-young earth. They are pro rationality and pro evidence.
And science, of course, will accept evidence that is presented by id proponents. But the burden is on those proponents to gather and present evidence. It seems that they have failed to do this. It seems that they have no evidence to back up their claims.
You want a discussion of "actual substance", then by all means have it. Go for it. But your post seemed to utterly lack the substantive discussion you claim to want.
That most nonsensical of a movie, "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" generating this current tantrum by id proponents is full of mischaracterizations, misrepresentations, spin, and outright lies, but, also, like your post, no substance.
The "anti-id crowd" as you call them include well educated people that study the actual evidence. These people are called scientist, they are called biologists and they are not anti-id any more then they are anti-flat earth, or anti-young earth. They are pro rationality and pro evidence.
And science, of course, will accept evidence that is presented by id proponents. But the burden is on those proponents to gather and present evidence. It seems that they have failed to do this. It seems that they have no evidence to back up their claims.
You want a discussion of "actual substance", then by all means have it. Go for it. But your post seemed to utterly lack the substantive discussion you claim to want.
That most nonsensical of a movie, "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" generating this current tantrum by id proponents is full of mischaracterizations, misrepresentations, spin, and outright lies, but, also, like your post, no substance.
fr1nk | 9:47 a.m. May 5, 2008
Anon: You said "Can we know some objects were designed, even if we know
nothing about how they were produced?" Name one.
If there is an intelligent designer then he/she/it did not do a very good job and perhaps should look for a different line of work.
If there is an intelligent designer then he/she/it did not do a very good job and perhaps should look for a different line of work.
Expelled = "Documentary"? | 10:06 a.m. May 5, 2008
You REALLY consider the movie Expelled to be a "Documentary"?
Documentaries are what you get from PBS, National Geographic, etc... Not Hollywood.
That said... The "What if" is important in advancing Science, but what makes Science "Science" is the PROOF of your theory, and not leaving the investigation/proof of your thesis at "What if...".
Documentaries are what you get from PBS, National Geographic, etc... Not Hollywood.
That said... The "What if" is important in advancing Science, but what makes Science "Science" is the PROOF of your theory, and not leaving the investigation/proof of your thesis at "What if...".
Too "fr1nk 9:47" | 10:19 a.m. May 5, 2008
I don't speak for Anon but when I read your question dozens of examples
came to mind so I thought I'd reply.
Example:
I don't know how Television works (in technical detail) but I can observe it, know that it works, but that doesn't mean I know how it was designed nor created nor even how it works.
Just because I don't understand something as simple as a man-made object like a TV Camera, TV broadcast and TV set work, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or wasn't designed or created.
From my observations I believe that the TV was designed... Even though I don't know how it was created.
Maybe I missed the point of your question but the answer seems so obvious to me.
Example:
I don't know how Television works (in technical detail) but I can observe it, know that it works, but that doesn't mean I know how it was designed nor created nor even how it works.
Just because I don't understand something as simple as a man-made object like a TV Camera, TV broadcast and TV set work, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or wasn't designed or created.
From my observations I believe that the TV was designed... Even though I don't know how it was created.
Maybe I missed the point of your question but the answer seems so obvious to me.
Anonymous | 10:22 a.m. May 5, 2008
Why do you suppose it is that some "religious" people think that if
they delve into the world of science or contemplate scientific explanations for
things they are somehow going to lose their souls?
Pisa | 10:29 a.m. May 5, 2008
Ryan thinks the wedge strategy is a good one. In case the observers are
unfamiliar with it, the wedge strategy is the brainchild of The Discovery
Institute, which is the leading proponent of Intelligent Design. In their
document, they explicitly say they want to change science in the following
way;
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
Now, that may be a perfectly proper lesson for Sunday School, but it clearly is not science. Science works for every religion and for the non-religious alike, because it tries to decipher how the universe functions. It is silent about God, not because it denies God, but because it can't observe God. People like Ryan are exercised about evolutionary theory because they think it is inherently anti-God, which is ludicrous given the Pope's and other religious leaders' stance on evolution.
ID will fail in the scientific community on its lack of merit. But it will succeed in some circles that are distressed by evolutionary theory. This is just the latest go around of a resistance that started with the publication of the Origin of Species, 150 years ago.
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
Now, that may be a perfectly proper lesson for Sunday School, but it clearly is not science. Science works for every religion and for the non-religious alike, because it tries to decipher how the universe functions. It is silent about God, not because it denies God, but because it can't observe God. People like Ryan are exercised about evolutionary theory because they think it is inherently anti-God, which is ludicrous given the Pope's and other religious leaders' stance on evolution.
ID will fail in the scientific community on its lack of merit. But it will succeed in some circles that are distressed by evolutionary theory. This is just the latest go around of a resistance that started with the publication of the Origin of Species, 150 years ago.
fr1nk | 10:39 a.m. May 5, 2008
Clearly you did miss the point of my question. I can name plenty of things that
are beyond my technical knowledge but that doesnt mean they are beyond the
knowledge of everyone. We (I think) were speaking of nature and the supposed
point of ID. I dont think that you would say the because you dont understand how
a TV works that it is impossible for anyone to understand it, would you? That is
the (new) premise of ID. I was hoping to hear one natural thing that anon thinks
is too complex to be explained.
Thomas | 11:13 a.m. May 5, 2008
"Expelled" is a documentary in the same sense Michael Moore's
movies are "documentaries." "Propaganda film" is a much
better term.
Ryan | 11:22 a.m. May 5, 2008
Timj,
You wrote: "You've made claims about Ken Miller not understanding ID. As far as I can tell, you've never exactly detailed those claims."
I started to discuss it in the comments on my letter from Saturday. Perhaps you missed it? I will be happy to join you there.
You wrote: "By the way, can you tell us what your background in science is?"
Since it would be a logical fallacy for you to accept or reject anything on the basis of my credentials, I assume you ask this as a personal question - small talk? I'd rather stick to the issue. How 'bout we do that?
You wrote: "Can you also tell us what ID has brought to the scientific community, and how it has improved our understanding of the natural world?"
Sure. According to ID, the natural world includes things that were designed. It's one more factor to consider.
You wrote: "You've made claims about Ken Miller not understanding ID. As far as I can tell, you've never exactly detailed those claims."
I started to discuss it in the comments on my letter from Saturday. Perhaps you missed it? I will be happy to join you there.
You wrote: "By the way, can you tell us what your background in science is?"
Since it would be a logical fallacy for you to accept or reject anything on the basis of my credentials, I assume you ask this as a personal question - small talk? I'd rather stick to the issue. How 'bout we do that?
You wrote: "Can you also tell us what ID has brought to the scientific community, and how it has improved our understanding of the natural world?"
Sure. According to ID, the natural world includes things that were designed. It's one more factor to consider.
Ernest T. Bass | 11:22 a.m. May 5, 2008
When ID asks 'what if' and the answer is something other than
'God', it leads to excommunication.
Too "fr1nk 10:39" | 11:31 a.m. May 5, 2008
If it has to be a "Natural" example... I don't understand how the
cells of a featus divide and combine to create seperate organs such as heart,
lungs, brain, eyes, neurons, etc, and all end up so well connected that they
work together perfectly.
I know that's just Biology, and many os us understand biology (even though we don't understand the design and can't make cells do these amazing things ourselvs).
Part of your criteria was, "A natural phenomenon that Nobody can understand". But I don't think all ID advocates believe "No one can understand it". In fact I think there are many people who understand how the earth was created (in general but not in detail).
I don't think it was done by miracle or magic, but under the same laws of physics, chemestry, biology, etc that scientists are starting to understand. That doesn't preclude a being (call it God if you will) being involved in the design and using natural laws to carry out his design.
I'm also not saying ID is "Science". To me it's a theory based on theology, so it may never be "Provable" and therefore doesn't fit in the Science box. (my opinion)
I know that's just Biology, and many os us understand biology (even though we don't understand the design and can't make cells do these amazing things ourselvs).
Part of your criteria was, "A natural phenomenon that Nobody can understand". But I don't think all ID advocates believe "No one can understand it". In fact I think there are many people who understand how the earth was created (in general but not in detail).
I don't think it was done by miracle or magic, but under the same laws of physics, chemestry, biology, etc that scientists are starting to understand. That doesn't preclude a being (call it God if you will) being involved in the design and using natural laws to carry out his design.
I'm also not saying ID is "Science". To me it's a theory based on theology, so it may never be "Provable" and therefore doesn't fit in the Science box. (my opinion)
TO: Ryan | 11:41 a.m. May 5, 2008
Ryan,
Now, please formulate an experiment to test your statement. Reveal the evidence that we are missing. Better yet, explain how ID can be proven to be true or untrue. The logical fallacy is yours, and you have put yourself, and ID, in an enviable position: namely, by its nature, ID cannot be proven false. Of course, it can't be proven to be true, either (and yes, that is a BIG problem for you). Yet even the fact that you cannot substantiate ID also works in your favor: you can't explain it, so it must be God. That is, to say the least, a logical fallacy.
I don't want you to prove ID. It's not likely, any more that anyone can definitively prove evolutionary theory. But, at least evolutionary theory can produce evidence to back its claims, can produce tangible evidence for people to look at and examine. Can ID do that? Am I missing something?
Assume someone has no knowledge of either evolution or ID. Explain how ID can be known. Obviously, it can't. It is the acceptance of ignorance.
Now, please formulate an experiment to test your statement. Reveal the evidence that we are missing. Better yet, explain how ID can be proven to be true or untrue. The logical fallacy is yours, and you have put yourself, and ID, in an enviable position: namely, by its nature, ID cannot be proven false. Of course, it can't be proven to be true, either (and yes, that is a BIG problem for you). Yet even the fact that you cannot substantiate ID also works in your favor: you can't explain it, so it must be God. That is, to say the least, a logical fallacy.
I don't want you to prove ID. It's not likely, any more that anyone can definitively prove evolutionary theory. But, at least evolutionary theory can produce evidence to back its claims, can produce tangible evidence for people to look at and examine. Can ID do that? Am I missing something?
Assume someone has no knowledge of either evolution or ID. Explain how ID can be known. Obviously, it can't. It is the acceptance of ignorance.
Timj | 11:57 a.m. May 5, 2008
Ryan,
Your credentials would tell me if you have a background in science or not. I assume (although I may be wrong) that your refusal to tell us about your background in science indicates that you have none (or at least very little). I guess what I really care about is if you speak the language of science or not. Can you define "species" accurately. Do you understand that evolution and the big bang are two very different things. Do you understand how mutations work. What is a theory, and how is it different from a hypothesis. Little things like that.
If you had, say, a degree in biology, I would assume (probably correctly) that you and I could speak the same language. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced we can, and that can create some problems when speaking about intelligent design and evolution.
Your credentials would tell me if you have a background in science or not. I assume (although I may be wrong) that your refusal to tell us about your background in science indicates that you have none (or at least very little). I guess what I really care about is if you speak the language of science or not. Can you define "species" accurately. Do you understand that evolution and the big bang are two very different things. Do you understand how mutations work. What is a theory, and how is it different from a hypothesis. Little things like that.
If you had, say, a degree in biology, I would assume (probably correctly) that you and I could speak the same language. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced we can, and that can create some problems when speaking about intelligent design and evolution.
Anonymous | 11:58 a.m. May 5, 2008
Science IS God.
It's only in the unenlightened mind that the separation is created.
It's only in the unenlightened mind that the separation is created.
Timj | 12:05 p.m. May 5, 2008
So how do we collect evidence for ID?
Well, Behe claims something is too complex to be formed by evolution...
How do you prove that?
But disproving it...now that's not so difficult. In fact, many of the things Behe mentioned in his first book have been challenged (successfully). All scientists have to do is come up with a possible way for something (let's say flagella) to be formed. If scientists can break it down, step by step, in a way that makes sense, does that mean ID is proven wrong? In scientific circles, yes. Hence, ID is not taken seriously.
Well, Behe claims something is too complex to be formed by evolution...
How do you prove that?
But disproving it...now that's not so difficult. In fact, many of the things Behe mentioned in his first book have been challenged (successfully). All scientists have to do is come up with a possible way for something (let's say flagella) to be formed. If scientists can break it down, step by step, in a way that makes sense, does that mean ID is proven wrong? In scientific circles, yes. Hence, ID is not taken seriously.
ID's motives | 12:22 p.m. May 5, 2008
The genesis, history and financial backing of the ID movement, especially
including the film "Expelled," lays bare the lie that ID has anything
to do with advancing science. If "Expelled" is supposed to be a film
about intellectual freedom and fairness, why is it so heavily marketed to
Christian fundamentalists?
ID is, always has been, and can never be more than an attempt by religious fundamentalists to shore-up their literalist interpretation of the Bible in the face of advances in science that make it increasingly difficult to hold such views.
ID is, always has been, and can never be more than an attempt by religious fundamentalists to shore-up their literalist interpretation of the Bible in the face of advances in science that make it increasingly difficult to hold such views.
looking for answers | 12:32 p.m. May 5, 2008
Until science can definitively prove how the universe was created - how
something was created from nothing - and how organic evolved from inorganic, it
can only theorize based on a specific examination and limited knowledge.
The order and relationships already exist. Science merely looks for ways to observe and measure. It can draw no conclusions as to source nor answers the big question of why other than to say just because it is. Many use the broad definition of evolution when they really mean mutation and adaptation. The fossil record is incomplete at best, and is statistically problematic in its periods of proliferation and absence. Chance and necessity are too random to have produced anything close to the linear evolution being touted as fact. There are many unknowns, but many of the 'scientists' here would rather have aliens be responsible for the whole thing rather than anything which could be construed as god.
The order and relationships already exist. Science merely looks for ways to observe and measure. It can draw no conclusions as to source nor answers the big question of why other than to say just because it is. Many use the broad definition of evolution when they really mean mutation and adaptation. The fossil record is incomplete at best, and is statistically problematic in its periods of proliferation and absence. Chance and necessity are too random to have produced anything close to the linear evolution being touted as fact. There are many unknowns, but many of the 'scientists' here would rather have aliens be responsible for the whole thing rather than anything which could be construed as god.
GWB | 12:34 p.m. May 5, 2008
Too "fr1nk 10:39": You say with regard to examples "I don't
understand how the cells of a featus divide and combine to create seperate
organs such as heart, lungs, brain, eyes, neurons, etc, and all end up so well
connected that they work together perfectly" and "I know that's
just Biology, and many os us understand biology" and use the cell division
in a fetus to support a designer.
I, as a scientist, understand how they divide including the process. I also understand how to disrupt the whole thing or how one cell can be taken for an 8 cell mass and turn that cell into a brain cell or a red blood cell. I know what "growth factors must be added and when they must be added to make it turn into muscle cells.
Unfortunately, a vocal minority of people do not want to allow this research to continue. Why?
Could it be that those of weak faith would lose their faith if a scientist can control life in a manner that should only be the province of God?
I, as a scientist, understand how they divide including the process. I also understand how to disrupt the whole thing or how one cell can be taken for an 8 cell mass and turn that cell into a brain cell or a red blood cell. I know what "growth factors must be added and when they must be added to make it turn into muscle cells.
Unfortunately, a vocal minority of people do not want to allow this research to continue. Why?
Could it be that those of weak faith would lose their faith if a scientist can control life in a manner that should only be the province of God?
RangerGordon | 12:38 p.m. May 5, 2008
If science were staring off dreamily into space and imagining, "What
if?" then, yes, any theory would be equally plausible, equally
scientific.
The problem with the "Intelligent Design" theory is that it does not allow for any testable hypothesis. Either you believe that God created the universe, or you don't. Neither assumption can be proved or disproved.
Evolution, on the other hand, can be proved or disproved by whether or not hypotheses based on the theory can be confirmed through observation of natural processes. So, Evolution--whether correct or incorrect--is at least a scientific theory.
Evolution has nothing to say about whether God created the universe or not. Who is to say God wouldn't use the evolutionary process to create life?
Those pushing Intelligent Design are the same people who have been pushing Creationism in public schools
since time out of mind. If we've reached a point where we cannot tell the difference between real and fake science, we may as well throw out all the books--including Darwin--and teach only government-approved Bible Studies in school.
The problem with the "Intelligent Design" theory is that it does not allow for any testable hypothesis. Either you believe that God created the universe, or you don't. Neither assumption can be proved or disproved.
Evolution, on the other hand, can be proved or disproved by whether or not hypotheses based on the theory can be confirmed through observation of natural processes. So, Evolution--whether correct or incorrect--is at least a scientific theory.
Evolution has nothing to say about whether God created the universe or not. Who is to say God wouldn't use the evolutionary process to create life?
Those pushing Intelligent Design are the same people who have been pushing Creationism in public schools
since time out of mind. If we've reached a point where we cannot tell the difference between real and fake science, we may as well throw out all the books--including Darwin--and teach only government-approved Bible Studies in school.
Gus Talwynd | 12:56 p.m. May 5, 2008
The Intelligent Design mythology is starting to get really old. Perhaps this is
because the believers need to see their argument validated by one another since
it is very unlikely they would consider another (i.e. scientific) explaination
of the natural order in the world.
True believers only want their "truths" to be in the conversations because it is the foundation upon which they find meaning in life. If some concept or idea challenges their "truth", it becomes necessary to reject whatever they don't want to believe to maintain their perception of the world and reinforce their faith.
Whether it is a question of abiogenesis or evolution, the Intelligent Design (creationist)crowd have their faith. Their is no need for proof since it is made true through their faith, and faith alone. No explaination based on experimental data can alter their view.
They will continue to believe what gives them purpose. To have everything appear so simple as the work of some grand designer means that their are no questions they need consider. Also, it means they don't have to face the contradictions their beliefs have to scientifically-revealed truths. They can still say the apple falls from the tree by God's hand.
True believers only want their "truths" to be in the conversations because it is the foundation upon which they find meaning in life. If some concept or idea challenges their "truth", it becomes necessary to reject whatever they don't want to believe to maintain their perception of the world and reinforce their faith.
Whether it is a question of abiogenesis or evolution, the Intelligent Design (creationist)crowd have their faith. Their is no need for proof since it is made true through their faith, and faith alone. No explaination based on experimental data can alter their view.
They will continue to believe what gives them purpose. To have everything appear so simple as the work of some grand designer means that their are no questions they need consider. Also, it means they don't have to face the contradictions their beliefs have to scientifically-revealed truths. They can still say the apple falls from the tree by God's hand.
fr1nk | 1:12 p.m. May 5, 2008
To looking for answers:
Organic molecules didnt "evolve from inorganic". We can take inorganic molecules in the lab today and make organic compounds.
"The fossil record is incomplete at best, and is statistically problematic in its periods of proliferation and absence"---
You are mistaken, the fossil record has stood the test of time in holding up Darwins theory of natural selection. The periods of proliferation and absence also help prove evolutionary theory. There are no missing links, all the links are there. Just look.
"There are many unknowns, but many of the 'scientists' here would rather have aliens be responsible for the whole thing rather than anything which could be construed as god."---
Wrong again, scientists would rather know the truth whatever it is, but will not just stop their work because someone said "god did it".
ID simply isnt science. It has no testable theory or any data to look at. It is simply a backhanded way to try to inject religion into public schools, and scientists will not simply stand by and let religious fundamentalists try to undo what has taken so many years of work to accomplish.
Organic molecules didnt "evolve from inorganic". We can take inorganic molecules in the lab today and make organic compounds.
"The fossil record is incomplete at best, and is statistically problematic in its periods of proliferation and absence"---
You are mistaken, the fossil record has stood the test of time in holding up Darwins theory of natural selection. The periods of proliferation and absence also help prove evolutionary theory. There are no missing links, all the links are there. Just look.
"There are many unknowns, but many of the 'scientists' here would rather have aliens be responsible for the whole thing rather than anything which could be construed as god."---
Wrong again, scientists would rather know the truth whatever it is, but will not just stop their work because someone said "god did it".
ID simply isnt science. It has no testable theory or any data to look at. It is simply a backhanded way to try to inject religion into public schools, and scientists will not simply stand by and let religious fundamentalists try to undo what has taken so many years of work to accomplish.
Ryan | 1:32 p.m. May 5, 2008
Fr1nk,
You wrote: "If you would like to bring up some substance I will be happy to discuss it, as would all scientists."
Thank you. I look forward to an extensive discussion.
There are two broad questions; whether ID is science and whether ID is religious. Since ID does not claim to be religious, the burden is on anyone who thinks it is religious to expose it as such. Since ID claims to be science, that burden is on ID.
If you'd like to make an issue of the religious question, I would be happy to respond. Otherwise, I'll keep it on science.
The first claim I would make is that design inferences can be made in science. Let's start with the fact that various disciplines in science infer design all the time - the subject of my letter Saturday.
Do you dispute the claim that design inferences can be made?
[after you reply, I would like to discuss the basis for these inferences, what limitations (if any) should be placed on them and what the basis may be for those limitations. Establishing this provides a framework for answering the question of whether ID is a scientific endeavor.]
You wrote: "If you would like to bring up some substance I will be happy to discuss it, as would all scientists."
Thank you. I look forward to an extensive discussion.
There are two broad questions; whether ID is science and whether ID is religious. Since ID does not claim to be religious, the burden is on anyone who thinks it is religious to expose it as such. Since ID claims to be science, that burden is on ID.
If you'd like to make an issue of the religious question, I would be happy to respond. Otherwise, I'll keep it on science.
The first claim I would make is that design inferences can be made in science. Let's start with the fact that various disciplines in science infer design all the time - the subject of my letter Saturday.
Do you dispute the claim that design inferences can be made?
[after you reply, I would like to discuss the basis for these inferences, what limitations (if any) should be placed on them and what the basis may be for those limitations. Establishing this provides a framework for answering the question of whether ID is a scientific endeavor.]
Timj | 1:45 p.m. May 5, 2008
It's funny that aliens were brought up.
Science isn't concerned with God or aliens...but some who support ID name aliens as possible "Intelligent Designers". "Look, it's not about God!" they claim. "It might have been extra-terrestrials!"
Meanwhile, many people who accept evolution, with its vast amount of evidence, are also religious (myself included).
Science isn't concerned with God or aliens...but some who support ID name aliens as possible "Intelligent Designers". "Look, it's not about God!" they claim. "It might have been extra-terrestrials!"
Meanwhile, many people who accept evolution, with its vast amount of evidence, are also religious (myself included).
Too "GWB" | 1:54 p.m. May 5, 2008
The tricks you and the scientists back at the lab can do with cells are very
impressive, but what I described has been going on according to the way it was
DESIGNED for a long time (a long time before us smart men figured it out).
My point is... What does man's understanding it, or being able to mimic it, have to do with it being a design? And if it works the way it does by design... What precludes it from being an intelegent design (instead of just a random thing)?
2nd Point... If you (a simple man) can tweek a cell to make it do what you want... What makes you think a perfected being who understands more biology, physics, chemestry and biology than we will ever know, couldn't do it?
I'm not saying this proves anything. It's just something to think about.
My point is... What does man's understanding it, or being able to mimic it, have to do with it being a design? And if it works the way it does by design... What precludes it from being an intelegent design (instead of just a random thing)?
2nd Point... If you (a simple man) can tweek a cell to make it do what you want... What makes you think a perfected being who understands more biology, physics, chemestry and biology than we will ever know, couldn't do it?
I'm not saying this proves anything. It's just something to think about.
Ryan | 2:03 p.m. May 5, 2008
Ernest T Bass,
You wrote (to the original letter writer): "I.D. is afraid to ask "what if" because the answers to those questions generally steer them towards the answers science has provided. You've got it all backwards."
Do you have an example?
You wrote (to the original letter writer): "I.D. is afraid to ask "what if" because the answers to those questions generally steer them towards the answers science has provided. You've got it all backwards."
Do you have an example?
2 "GWB | 12:34" | 2:18 p.m. May 5, 2008
Was the point of your comment to Prove or Discredit ID? In my mind your comment
goes a long way to convincing me ID is possible.
If you can make a cell do whatever you want... that sounds like "Intelegent Design". So Intelegent Design is not only possible, it's being done all the time in your lab. I'm sure you're very smart, but if you can do intelegent design it's within the realm of possibility that God can too.
If there is a God, he knows more about Physics, Chemestry and Biology and all Sciences than you or I will ever know. So anything we can do, I would assume he can do too.
If you can make a cell do whatever you want... that sounds like "Intelegent Design". So Intelegent Design is not only possible, it's being done all the time in your lab. I'm sure you're very smart, but if you can do intelegent design it's within the realm of possibility that God can too.
If there is a God, he knows more about Physics, Chemestry and Biology and all Sciences than you or I will ever know. So anything we can do, I would assume he can do too.
Ryan | 2:18 p.m. May 5, 2008
RangerGordon,
You wrote: "Evolution has nothing to say about whether God created the universe or not."
You are on a tangent from ID, because you are talking about God, but since you are also talking about evolution taking sides I will raise an issue
I mentioned to SonofBob in a different thread.
38 nobel laureates signed a letter stating that "evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."
I will ask you the question I asked of him:
"Perhaps you can tell me how anyone can know that variation is unplanned and unguided? Do you think it is a scientific claim?"
He didn't answer. Perhaps you will?
You wrote: "Evolution has nothing to say about whether God created the universe or not."
You are on a tangent from ID, because you are talking about God, but since you are also talking about evolution taking sides I will raise an issue
I mentioned to SonofBob in a different thread.
38 nobel laureates signed a letter stating that "evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."
I will ask you the question I asked of him:
"Perhaps you can tell me how anyone can know that variation is unplanned and unguided? Do you think it is a scientific claim?"
He didn't answer. Perhaps you will?
Ryan | 2:29 p.m. May 5, 2008
Timj,
You don't seem interested in having that Ken Miller discussion on the other thread, so I'll bring it here.
You wrote: "Sure. Tell me how Ken Miller doesn't understand ID. I've never met or talked with anyone who's read Miller's book and still accepts ID, so this will be a rare treat."
Haven't read his book. Sorry. But I will be happy to tell you how Ken Miller doesn't understand ID.
First, I want to see if you understand it.
I ran across a video of Miller giving a lecture (on ID, ostensibly) and it was immediately clear that he is clueless.
He put up a quote from Behe which read:
"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional."
Miller read the quote aloud, but he substituted the words "the way that evolution works" in place of the word "directly." Apparently he thought his phrase was inter-changeable with "directly."
Do you see what Miller did wrong?
You don't seem interested in having that Ken Miller discussion on the other thread, so I'll bring it here.
You wrote: "Sure. Tell me how Ken Miller doesn't understand ID. I've never met or talked with anyone who's read Miller's book and still accepts ID, so this will be a rare treat."
Haven't read his book. Sorry. But I will be happy to tell you how Ken Miller doesn't understand ID.
First, I want to see if you understand it.
I ran across a video of Miller giving a lecture (on ID, ostensibly) and it was immediately clear that he is clueless.
He put up a quote from Behe which read:
"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional."
Miller read the quote aloud, but he substituted the words "the way that evolution works" in place of the word "directly." Apparently he thought his phrase was inter-changeable with "directly."
Do you see what Miller did wrong?
John | 2:31 p.m. May 5, 2008
The purpose of the documentary was to point out that science is stifling and
working hard to eliminate discussion of the topic. They are getting rid of those
who do not agree with evolution, threatening the funding of those who will not
toe the line.
Just as with Global Warming, science and the media are NOT allowing discussions on the topic. Just like most of the letters published here.
Apparently, those who complain the loudest, didn't go see it, and if they did, they missed the entire point.
Just as with Global Warming, science and the media are NOT allowing discussions on the topic. Just like most of the letters published here.
Apparently, those who complain the loudest, didn't go see it, and if they did, they missed the entire point.
And? | 2:38 p.m. May 5, 2008
Science see fish evolved fins to swim. Bats evolved sonar to hunt in darkness.
These look like intelligent designs because form closely follows
functionality.
The same folks who believe in intelligent design fail to see that designing golden wings for angel isn't an example of intelligent design.
Wings evolved to fly through earth's atmosphere. How do wing enhance the ability to appear from heaven? Wings are light, strong and flexible. Gold is heavy soft and has no spring back.
The same folks who believe in intelligent design fail to see that designing golden wings for angel isn't an example of intelligent design.
Wings evolved to fly through earth's atmosphere. How do wing enhance the ability to appear from heaven? Wings are light, strong and flexible. Gold is heavy soft and has no spring back.
Timj | 2:40 p.m. May 5, 2008
Ryan,
"Evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection." That's correct. It's random much like, say, snowflake formation is random and unplanned.
Could God plan out the exact structure of each individual snowflake? Certainly. Did he? Science can't really say yes or no. But if we want to understand how snowflakes (very complex structures, by the way) are formed, we look for the scientific evidence behind it. We understand (like biologists understand) that snowflake formation is unguided and unplanned.
By the way, I'm still waiting for evidence that you can speak the language of science, and I'm still waiting to hear why Ken Miller doesn't understand ID.
"Evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection." That's correct. It's random much like, say, snowflake formation is random and unplanned.
Could God plan out the exact structure of each individual snowflake? Certainly. Did he? Science can't really say yes or no. But if we want to understand how snowflakes (very complex structures, by the way) are formed, we look for the scientific evidence behind it. We understand (like biologists understand) that snowflake formation is unguided and unplanned.
By the way, I'm still waiting for evidence that you can speak the language of science, and I'm still waiting to hear why Ken Miller doesn't understand ID.
Ryan | 2:43 p.m. May 5, 2008
Timj,
You wrote: "If you had, say, a degree in biology, I would assume (probably correctly) that you and I could speak the same language. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced we can, and that can create some problems when speaking about intelligent design and evolution."
I asked you a question (in a different comment) to see if you understand ID well enough to see what Miller did wrong. If you don't understand, I will gladly explain it to you.
Answer my question and I will answer your quiz - eg if I know the big bang is not the same as evolution (and yes I do understand the difference between cosmic genesis and abiogenesis and cosmic evolution and biological evolution)
You wrote: "If you had, say, a degree in biology, I would assume (probably correctly) that you and I could speak the same language. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced we can, and that can create some problems when speaking about intelligent design and evolution."
I asked you a question (in a different comment) to see if you understand ID well enough to see what Miller did wrong. If you don't understand, I will gladly explain it to you.
Answer my question and I will answer your quiz - eg if I know the big bang is not the same as evolution (and yes I do understand the difference between cosmic genesis and abiogenesis and cosmic evolution and biological evolution)
Timj | 2:44 p.m. May 5, 2008
Sorry, Ryan,
I started that last post before your last post showed up.
For the record, I would recommend reading Miller's book. Listening to a lecture is great, but, as I stated yesterday, I've never met anyone who's read Miller's book who still believes in ID.
By the way, I have read numerous ID stuff, including "Black Box".
I started that last post before your last post showed up.
For the record, I would recommend reading Miller's book. Listening to a lecture is great, but, as I stated yesterday, I've never met anyone who's read Miller's book who still believes in ID.
By the way, I have read numerous ID stuff, including "Black Box".
I Can Prove It | 2:46 p.m. May 5, 2008
I can prove that God had a hand in creating the universe. Give me about 50
years. I'll die and then I'll ask Him. If you go first, you ask Him.
Timj | 2:50 p.m. May 5, 2008
Did Miller have the correct quote up on the screen?
I admit that I don't understand how that changes the meaning of the quote at all. Maybe you could enlighten me?
In any case, in Miller's book, he refutes everything Behe talked about. In the Kitzmiller vs. Dover court case, Behe found each of his "irreducibly complex systems" reduced to basic evolution...one specialist came in and testified for each system, and showed how that system came about through evolution.
Anyway, again, read Miller's book.
I admit that I don't understand how that changes the meaning of the quote at all. Maybe you could enlighten me?
In any case, in Miller's book, he refutes everything Behe talked about. In the Kitzmiller vs. Dover court case, Behe found each of his "irreducibly complex systems" reduced to basic evolution...one specialist came in and testified for each system, and showed how that system came about through evolution.
Anyway, again, read Miller's book.
Timj | 2:55 p.m. May 5, 2008
John,
Uh...this is the media and we're discussing ID. Scientists have written books about it. The discussion is not being stifled. But until ID can come up with evidence that isn't easily refuted, scientists won't accept it as science. Sorry, but that's just how science works.
Search for expelled exposed to get a second opinion on the claims the movie makes.
You may also be interested to know that, even recently, several people in education have been fired because of their support of evolution.
Uh...this is the media and we're discussing ID. Scientists have written books about it. The discussion is not being stifled. But until ID can come up with evidence that isn't easily refuted, scientists won't accept it as science. Sorry, but that's just how science works.
Search for expelled exposed to get a second opinion on the claims the movie makes.
You may also be interested to know that, even recently, several people in education have been fired because of their support of evolution.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Five players miss Jazz practice 9:22 p.m.
- Storm pounds Utah for 2nd day 9:18 p.m.
- Utah Capitol renovation boss quits 9:15 p.m.
- Downtown plans three-day 'Eve' 9:13 p.m.
- More than 2 bars per block in S.L. 9:09 p.m.
- Heath care reform advocates rally 9:09 p.m.
- Sandy halts Granite annexations 9:07 p.m.
- Ugandans debate death penalty 9:01 p.m.
- U.S. to fork over $3B to tribes 9:00 p.m.
- Obama: Stimulus to spur job growth 8:59 p.m.
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall
- Yet again, we learn BCS is a big joke
- Storm pounds Utah for 2nd day
- Cougars in better mood about bowl
- Williams' late jumper tops Spurs
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax
- Ranking the bowl games
- $2M error could mean layoffs
- Witness: Mitchell stalked victims
- Dr.: Mitchell seeks signs from God
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
278 - Letters: Global warming a lie212
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl205
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall162
- Cougars going back to Vegas147
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil142
- George lost in rivalry hatefest119
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax107
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony101
- Harpring's NBA career is over99
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
We are going to have to find away to survive in the coming turbulent...
That's it? Build your brand and get back to fact based coverage, that's your...
Those who rag on higher education are just crying sour grapes. They reveal...
Spend? What kind of ill concieved logic is this? Any third grader knows...
You want to discipline your child? Fine, that's your right as a parent....
Thanks for the article! There are some very tough wrestlers this year and it...
it's clear to any non-biased observer that the republicans have no desire to...
well, it was kinda nuts that this was ever a restriction in the first place....
i have to agree with Jordan fan, Alex Hart was the real deal this past...
7500 seats sold that is not just for fun. I went to the game and was totally...
Advertisements
To base your faith in God on gaps in our scientific knowledge is to base your faith on something that will slowly disappear. Much better to base your faith on spiritual matters.
Intelligent Design is not good science and it is not good religion. It's the new anti-evolution, prepackaged with lots of lights and special effects, but ultimately empty.