Archive for Saturday, January 7, 2006

Major events planned on intelligent design

January 7, 2006


Both sides of the intelligent design controversy are now planning major events in Lawrence this month. But they won't mingle.

Kansas University's Campus Crusade for Christ will host William Dembski, a science professor from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., and a leading ID proponent. The free event, called "The Case for Intelligent Design," is set for 7 p.m. Jan. 23 at the Lied Center.

"Dr. Dembski is a distinguished scholar and a leading authority on intelligent design," Mark Brown, director of KU's Campus Crusade for Christ, said in a statement. "Much of the press and discussion has been more name-calling and caricature than substantive. We wanted to bring in an author that could present the academic and scientific perspective."

It will be a busy week for those watching the state's duel between intelligent design proponents and their critics who agree with a federal judge's recent ruling that intelligent design isn't a scientific theory but gussied-up creationism.

Days after Dembski's visit, on Jan. 28, the plaintiff's attorneys who successfully fought to keep intelligent design teaching out of schools in Dover, Pa., are set to speak at the Dole Institute of Politics.

Declined invitations

Dembski is the author of "The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design" and a senior fellow with Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture in Seattle.

Organizers asked three Kansas University scientists critical of intelligent design to also speak at the event, but all declined.

Brown said organizers could have used corporate funds distributed by the university for the event if there had been KU scientists on the roster. Brown said he offered to change the speaking format to make the invitation more attractive to the KU professors, but that didn't work.

"It's been frustrating that we didn't have more interest from the professors' side," he said.

The event is being paid for with private funds from churches and Campus Crusade for Christ, which is using money from outside donors, Brown said.

KU is not supporting either of the events on intelligent design slated for that week, KU spokesman Todd Cohen said.

Avoiding a 'circus'

Leonard Krishtalka, director of KU's Biodiversity Institute, said he was one scientist who declined an invitation to debate Dembski.

"There is nothing to debate," Krishtalka said. "Intelligent design is religion thinly disguised as science and does not belong in the science classroom."

Krishtalka said debates are rarely about truth, but about winning.

"In order to win, one has to get down and dirty in these debates," Krishtalka said. "I refuse to make either science or religion into a circus or into cheap entertainment."

Jack Krebs, president of Kansas Citizens for Science, a group critical of intelligent design, said he volunteered to speak at the Campus Crusade event. Krebs said he told organizers he would not defend evolution at the event, but rather take a broad perspective and discuss, for example, his view that evolution need not conflict with religion. But Krebs said he was turned down.

"I think it's revealing that they want to 'teach the controversy,' but they only want to teach the controversy in the way that they see it," Krebs said.

Brown said he wanted professors to speak at the event. Krebs is not a KU professor. He teaches math at Oskaloosa High School, where he's also technology director.

John Calvert, director of the Intelligent Design Network, which played a key role in the Kansas State Board of Education's recent adoption of science standards critical of evolution, said he wasn't surprised KU scientists declined invitations.

"That's consistent with the boycott of the Kansas hearings," he said.

Mainstream scientists refused to participate in the board's hearings, saying they weren't really about science.

Calvert said scientists' refusal to compete with intelligent design proponents in a public forum made it difficult to know who is right.

"You can't know they're better unless they engage in a competition," he said.


b_asinbeer 12 years, 5 months ago

Should be interesting on Jan. 23rd. I'm wondering what they have to say. Then again, we already know that ID does not belong in a science classroom. The Supreme Court in Pennsylvania has also ruled against ID in science classes. Teaching christianity in classrooms is not something that the citizens of Kansas should tolerate. It should stay in churches.

And to those that say ID does not preach religion/christianity, look at who's funding this event: "The event is being paid for with private funds from churches and Campus Crusade for Christ...."

Hazel Ripstra 12 years, 5 months ago

I appreciate Sophia Maines' recent articles on ID, but there is one big mistake in this article: Dembski is not a science professor. He has degrees in math, philosophy, and divinity. He has no professional science credentials.

kidmystic 12 years, 5 months ago

So, like the KU professors, let's rationalize why we shouldn't go to the 23rd event instead of going and having to actually think about what the man is saying and combat that with counter facts. Yeah, it's much easier to talk about degrees than facts. I've always questioned every truth before making it a belief. That way, if it is true, it will withstand any test. To make nasty comments about the speaker on the 23rd and refuse to go? You're no better than the fundamentalist you hate so much. We discount Christians saying they won't question their faith of psuedo-science, but when the shoes on the other foot...

kidmystic 12 years, 5 months ago

PS-just did a search on Dembski's credentials He has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University. A graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago where he earned a B.A. in psychology, an M.S. in statistics, and a Ph.D. in philosophy, he also received a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1988 and a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1996. He has held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships

Yeah, he's a nobody.

b_asinbeer 12 years, 5 months ago

kidmystic....for example, just because you have a PhD in astronomy, a JD, an MD all together, doesn't make you an expert in a totally different field like Computer Engineering. So, since you are slow, and failed to get Jkrebs' point, he does not have the qualifications to say that ID is science. Duh! ;o)

gr 12 years, 5 months ago

Maybe he was saying, getting several degrees does require one to think.

kidmystic 12 years, 5 months ago

And Darwin studied medicine and theology at Cambridge. So unless he was talking about medicine or the study of God, we shouldn't read him? I'd like to see Bill Gates graduate degree in business and computer science. Are you saying these men were not qualified to excel in their fields b/c they didn't have a piece of paper? Again, attacking someone who is obviously well studied and practiced in a particular area, as Dembski is in ID and evolution, b/c they don't have the right degree is a poor excuse for not attending and refusing to allow the debate.

b_asinbeer 12 years, 5 months ago

I'm not attacking Dembski...he's probably brilliant in the fields he has degrees in, but since he does not have a SCIENCE background, chances are he's ill equipped to claim ID is science (ps-on the Darwin comment...medicine is science, unless you fundies wanna argue otherwise....)

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 12 years, 5 months ago

If Dembski wants to challenge currently accepted theories of evolution, all he has to do is do the research, submit it to peer review, and if it has any merit, voila, the accepted theories change. It's that simple, but obviously not very easy.

He'd rather take the easy way, and have public meetings where he complains about how unfair scientists are.

wonderhorse 12 years, 5 months ago


I've said it more than once, but, just one peer reviewed article. That is all I ask for me to think about ID as a science. Just one.

gr 12 years, 5 months ago

Wonderinghorse, I've given you several.

bozo: Have there been articles published about evolution? Evolution defined as new information being added to the DNA pool?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 12 years, 5 months ago

Only trouble is the theory in question is evolution, not Darwinism. Other than that, as usual, you almost have a rational argument.

b_asinbeer 12 years, 5 months ago

Arminius commenting on ID? There's something wrong're not gonna tie all this into Clinton are you? ;o)

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 12 years, 5 months ago

You've again demonstrated why you will never be the arbiter of what is "fair."

fossilhunter 12 years, 5 months ago

gr - no one has done a peer reviewed paper on Intelligent Design. Not a one. Zero, zilch.

There are several papers per year discussing/arguing about questions within and about evolution. All scientific and peer-reviewed.

gr 12 years, 5 months ago

As I've asked many times, please state what you are looking for. What you asked so far, "Intelligent Design", in all it's vagueness, I've shown. If you want to define your terms in more detail so someone can answer, please do.

Otherwise, we'll consider you as one who just spouts.

gr 12 years, 5 months ago

Excuse me, make that "fossilhunter".

fossilhunter 12 years, 5 months ago

gr - You've linked to articles ABOUT intelligent design...but no one has done any papers explaining the science of ID where they are submitted for blind review and accepted for publication. This was a fact that came up repeatedly in the Dover trial.

PoeticHeteroSapien 12 years, 5 months ago

GR - tell me you're kidding!

"Have there been articles published about evolution? Evolution defined as new information being added to the DNA pool?"

Are you kidding? There is an entire course on how new information is added to a gene pool, it's called Genetics.

You can take this course at KU. I took mine at McNeese State as an undergraduate biology major, and we spent a couple of WEEKS examining the ways in which new information is added to the gene pool.

By the way, Darwin's famous idea wasn't about adding new information to the gene pool. His idea was about a way to reduce the amount of information in a gene pool, thus shaping the changes to that population. He called it "Natural Selection." That's why we (that is, those who know science) talk about evolution and "Darwinism" as different things. Darwin's idea was revolutionary, but he didn't discover evolution.

gr 12 years, 5 months ago

The courses in Genetics I took did not show anything about adding information to the gene pool. It was about selection and transferring of DNA information and populations.

I have no problem with Natural Selection. However, with Darwin's idea, there needs to be somewhere where that information comes from to select against.

So, can you give me just one case of information being added to the gene pool? Since you spent a couple of weeks in the course on it, maybe you could list some of the ways and examples new information is added. That's what evolution (not natural selection) is based upon, isn't it?

PoeticHeteroSapien 12 years, 5 months ago

Gr - Now I know you're kidding.

Elements adding to genetic variation, generally during meiosis (or occasionally during fertilization, or afterward) --

Point mutations Duplication mutations Inversion mutations Recombination mutations Transpositional elements Endogenous retroviral elements

There are of course more, but all these mutations "create new information" (as you put it) either by themselves, or when they combine with one another to cause frame shifts, inversions, and especially duplications followed by mutations in subsequent generations. Many mutations are "nonsense" mutations that don't really change anything, but many are not.

Against this new information in any given individual, you have acting the forces of natural selection. It's why some mutations are good, and most are bad. But it's child's play to illustrate what you claim cannot happen:


And so on.

A personal anecdote: I have what my family calls "frinkley toes", where my pinkie toes grow slightly up over the toe next to it, instead of laying flat like a "normal" foot. This makes me genetically different from the rest of the population. Natural selection may act against me if the toe slows me down fleeing from a predator, or it may work for me by giving me a superior grip when leaping across rocks in pursuit of prey. My toe was caused by that "new information" type of mutation you claim does not happen, and natural selection will determine whether or not I am going to pass it to my kids and grandkids, to spread through the population.

It's really quite simple, and yet so elegant a concept. What blows my mind is that most people don't grasp it. But you already knew all that, having taken genetics, right?

b_asinbeer 12 years, 5 months ago

Great post poetic (i think the frinkley toes was a little too much info....but whatever proves your point to clueless gr)

I don't think gr took any genetics courses....that's why he didn't know about the world of mutation in genes. ;o)

PoeticHeteroSapien 12 years, 5 months ago

The toe thing's not as gross as it sounds, you hardly notice it unless I point it out.

I'm actually kinda proud of my frinkley toes. Not only does it make me much better than an average person at martial arts because I can kick in ways that most people can't, but it helped prove to my family, during my uncle's nasty divorce several years ago, that my cousin Jenny (who shares the toe trait that even my siblings do not) was my uncle's daughter, even when her awful mother was claiming she was not really his. Steve had just gone through a horrible boat explosion accident, burned over a lot of his lower body, and was not strong enough or working enough to afford to fight over it. Really a terrible situation.

This was before DNA testing was cheap, and paternity tests were based on blood type, a poor indicator. While on vacation at uncle Steve's house in Florida, I noticed that Jenny and I had the same toes-- we confronted her mom about it, and she admitted the truth. So, as I said, I now consider it a mark of pride, as does she. I was sixteen at the time, and have been interested in genetics ever since.

gr 12 years, 5 months ago


I'm afraid that taking existing information and damaging, duplicating, or reversing it does not count as adding new information. It could be argued that new information could be broken down into subsets of existing changed information, but I think we both know that organs, such as toes, have a lot more information than just a few base pairs. Keep in mind, base pairs are not information, but rather, are the encoding of information. New information results in new organs and new designs.

Your example of duplicated and damaged code does not prove new information. Scrambling a working code does result in something new. Ask a computer programmer. No matter how many times you take a working piece of code and randomize it, will it ever result in a working program. Duplicating DNA could result in twice the existing function, but not new. Maybe you could give some examples of how some of these many mutations help result in new organs and functions.

New organs, designs, or functions should not be confused with the following example. In sickle-cell anemia, there is a mutation which results in the blood cells being deformed. As a result, malaria bacteria cannot attacked the deformed cells giving the "function" of not getting malaria. However, ask someone with sickle-cell anemia if they think their inferior blood cells is a "new function" or design.

Taking code for normal toes and damaging it isn't really new information. However, one could argue that the location is new. Having a toe grow out of your heel would be a new location which would no doubt be selected against. Having one grow out of your chin would most likely be selected against through mate selection. But, it would be a stretch to call this a new organ. Toes have lots of DNA code but to add successive damage to the code and hope for selection IS hard to grasp. Where did this toe come from to start with? With the code required and for small mutations to accumulate, there could be no selection for the partial beginnings of a toe.

By the way, doesn't "selection" imply, subset? A reduction of the total quantity? That it has to work on something to start with?

I'm a little confused by your statement of whether natural selection will determine whether you pass on your damaged DNA to your kids. I assume you must have meant something else as I'm sure you are aware that you WILL pass it on to your kids, especially if you have enough of them. Natural selection has nothing to do with it. Whether Frinkley toes is expressed depends upon whether it is recessive or not. But, you WILL pass the DNA on to your kids and, if it's recessive, there's a 50% chance your grandkids will have the DNA.

gr 12 years, 5 months ago

b: name some damaged DNA that results in NEW information in the form of organs or design. My genetics courses spoke plenty on mutations. How even a slight duplication of a chromosome can have serious detrimental results.

PoeticHeteroSapien 12 years, 5 months ago

Actually you have it about as wrong as possible, and I can't help but wonder how much of it is simple ignorance and how much of it is willful:

You say "Duplicating DNA could result in twice the existing function," but we know that it does not do that. Either you did not actually take genetics but are just reading Creationist websites, or you slept through that section. Duplicating genes does nothing at all, generally, until/unless the duplicated gene then undergoes another type of mutation.

You keep using the word "damage" as though any change to a code is negative-- but we know that is also not true.

For instance, as I said above, a duplication mutation typically does nothing. If a whole gene is replicated then you simply have two locations making the same protein. No effect. However, if one of those two locations then has a change (note, not damage, but change, which is totally natural and happens every time a new zygote is formed!) in the code, it will likely code for a new protein. That new protein may function just like the old one, or it may function better, merely differently, or it may function worse/not at all.

MOST of the time, as I said, the change has a negative effect... but it's dishonest of you to pretend that all change is bad.

When I said natural selection would decide whether or not my kids would pass it on, I wasn't talking about recessives. I was talking about fatal/detrimental mutations, the ones you're pretending are the only kind. If the mutation is NOT fatal or detrimental, but neutral or helpful, then the gene gets passed along in just the way you said, above. If my frinkley toes slowed me down and I got eaten by a predator, my kids would not exist (or they would tend to get eaten by predators)... but if it helped me fight better, or run faster, or just did nothing at all, it gets passed on- like in the case of my cousin Jenny and I. My toes are different, they are NOT "damaged". In fact, as I pointed out, you can argue that my new toe DNA information makes me a superior fighter.

PoeticHeteroSapien 12 years, 5 months ago

Most DNA changes ARE negative, we know that, and that's why so many pregnancies spontaneously abort before they even reach the second trimester.... and many more will later miscarry due to genetic factors, something else you should have covered in genetics. A person who has sickle-cell knows that his anemia is the result of a double-recessive inheritance that is beneficial to 3/4ths of the people who carry that particular gene trait, and only the other 1/4th will suffer. It's a fairly handy demonstration that changes to DNA represent only change and not damage.

You asked me to demonstrate that new information could emerge, I did that. Then you changed your tune to stop asking for change in information and started calling it damage. Well, I'm sorry, but you don't get to redefine genetics to suit your view. I said before and I reiterate now: change is change. Some is good, some does nothing, most of it is bad/negative.

We know the ways in which new traits form, we know the way new proteins are coded for, and yes, we even know the way to get new organs, etc... but asking me to sum that up on here is like asking me to explain global economics in a bulletin board post... it's WAY too much info to sum up, and you know it.

Mr_Christopher 12 years, 5 months ago

Calling the theologian William Dembski a science professor is generous indeed. What he teaches at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary looks alot more like Christain propaganda. Take a look at his syllabi and exam materials yourself:

Now is THAT the sort of science we want taught in our public schools?

Mr_Christopher 12 years, 5 months ago

Hey have you guys seen the Ken Miller presentation at Case University yet? He was the key expert witness in the Kitzmiller v Dover trail.

He discusses the Kitzmiller case, intelligent design creationism, and evolution. You can find a link to the online video on the Pandas Thumb here

It is extreemly informative.

Mr_Christopher 12 years, 5 months ago

I am link happy today!

To learn more on the religious cult known as Campus Crusade For Christ go here

Dembski and the Discovery Institute claim intelligent design creationism is not religious nor about creationism. If intelligent deisgn is not religious or recycled creationism, when you read the Campus Crusade for Christ's faith statement you cannot help but wonder why they have this interest in intelligent design.

"Statement of Faith

The sole basis of our beliefs is the Bible, God's infallible written Word, the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments..."

fossilhunter 12 years, 5 months ago

Mr_C -- Are those links to Dembski's class real or a parody?!

Mr_Christopher 12 years, 5 months ago

Fossil Hunter, dude would I kid you? Those are REAL. I got them from Dembski's own web site:

Under the "teaching" header:

Is that NOT scary or what? This is a guy who promotes himself as a scientist. I suspect this is also a glimpse into what a intelligent design class would eventually look like.

I would be intersted in hearing your take on the Intelligent Design that Dembski teaches.

inunison 12 years, 5 months ago

Mr_Christopher your last comment is so rich. Following your own logic, you should also wonder why Nazis had interest in ToE. If you want to discredit ID, go ahead, but use something that makes sense.

fossilhunter 12 years, 5 months ago

Mr-C - Wow....what to say.... Talk about indoctrination!

inunison -- Hitler had a foot fetish?!

Mr_Christopher 12 years, 5 months ago

You may be reading a little more into my comment, or perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been.

Feel free to ignore that comment.

And IDC does a pretty good job of discrediting itself.

BTW, have you seen the proposed IDC class in California that spawned yet the latest legal action? Here is a look at what they want to teach kids in one California school (with a critique by Ken Hurst)

Mr_Christopher 12 years, 5 months ago

fossil hunter, do you ever participate over at ? They speak fossil talk there often.

Yeah Dembski's claim to being a scientist and how he is a big wig in the "science department" at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary looks pretty hollow when you examine exactly what he is teaching and calling "science"

Regarding some proposed IDC in the classroom legislation in Kentucky, Demsbki was quoted in some paper today (I did not bookmark the article) saying something about they have to teach the scientific merits of ID and not the religious to avoid litigation. Well look at Dembski's own "science" course material and tell me where is the science? And please explain the obvious core content of Christianity in his intelligent design course material.

What gives here?


Mr_Christopher 12 years, 5 months ago

Here is the article in Kentucky I mentioned:

from that article:

"There are cultural forces at play here which go very deep," Dembski said. "This is about our creation story, how we came about."

Dembski cautioned that any school board that adopts intelligent design in its curriculum must justify it on scientific, rather than religious, grounds to survive a legal challenge. "

Well now tell me this, how do you teach the "creation story" on "scientific grounds", Mr Dembski? As a educated theologian, Dembski should know better. And what scientific grounds are there for IDC?

Well without us having to change the definition of science that is ;-)

gr 12 years, 5 months ago

Poetic: Yes, doubling not always, but as I said, "could" result in added function. Well, a brief review of a genetics textbook under the heading of, Quantitative Inheritance, lists some examples of duplication of function. Wheat is thought to be a merge of three genomes resulting in three color gene sets or loci. This causes not the normal segregation of three different color quantities, but seven different colors ranging from white to red. I also remember reading that having double expression of proteins affects such things as flower color and hair color. These aren't the same duplications of genes as implied nor is color change really an increased function, though. You win.

I'm curious about your statement, "However, if one of those two locations then has a change (note, not damage, but change, which is totally natural and happens every time a new zygote is formed!) in the code, it will likely code for a new protein. ". Please shed some light on this. I've never heard of mutation happening each time a zygote is formed. Maybe you mean crossover and segregation rather than change. This does not result in "new" things but only segregation of existing proteins. However, your next statement, "MOST of the time, as I said, the change has a negative effect... but it's dishonest of you to pretend that all change is bad." appears that you DO mean, mutation. Mutation naturally occurs with each zygote?

I never said all damage (change) is bad. Some aren't necessarily negative. All I'm saying, is that a mutation doesn't result in new organs/functions.

I question whether your frinkley toes is advantageous. Humor me and pretend they are not. Are you saying they "won't" be passed on? You speak of predators - come on! You are implying that a disadvantageous trait means it won't be passed on. You question my understanding of genetics....

Changed DNA that results in damaged blood cells sounds worse than a change. I talked about change being damaged as you did not present a new organ or function. And, I thought we were talking about evolution, not genetics. But, I guess you say changes in genetics result in evolution. I have to admit that one person's "damage" is another's "new trait".

If you really thought I was ignorant, would you be taking the attitude you are?

I think you know what I'm asking for. I've read that Dawkins couldn't come up with an example, either. And I know where this is heading. Small "changes" may not add new functions, organs, or features, and even though many are detrimental which reduces the probability even more, some are not. Given enough billions and billions of years, those small "changes" will suddenly become a new protein. Given enough billions and billions of years more, those proteins accumulate and suddenly become a new organ. There are no observations of such things since it takes billions and billions of years.

gr 12 years, 5 months ago

What some find to be so obvious, others have to go through all kinds of contortions. I guess each side says the same thing.

Would you ever admit to an unknown structure being designed?

Are you suffering from "static"?

Evolutionists presupposes there is no God. Creationists presupposes there is a God who designed life. They both see the same thing, but both of their conclusions are "tainted" by their presuppositions. Creationists say there is no evidence that it was "God", but there is quite ample evidence that life was designed, whether it be by God, space aliens, or some other entity responsible for the design. While they do believe it is God, they are only wanting the science of design taught on equal footing with the "billions of years is responsible for it" idea. Some think teaching design in science means they are going to teach Bible class and say God made us. Unfortunately, there are some who may want to do that. However, as I understood it, ID is only to say that these structures, these pathways, these complex integrations where one break in the link causes disaster, sure enough looks like it was designed. Personally, I would teach neither in science class. I would teach what is observable, repeatable....

I will not be able to convince you of creation nor design. You could only come to that on your own. Thousands accepted the idea of design from an inanimate object shown in 2001. But tell me, if you were to pretend there was a "Designer" of life, whoever/whatever that may be, what would you look for? What evidence would you see?

MaxOblivion 12 years, 5 months ago

Poetic your rebuttal of those claims about all mutations being damaging was very informative to read. Thank you very much for spending the time to write and explain it in a very clear manner.

I think you should save the text of the claim and explanation because in addition to being clear science it really highlights the misinformation that creationists try to spread on lay sites.

MaxOblivion 12 years, 5 months ago

[quote] Evolutionists presupposes there is no God. [/quote]

Well you started off with mis-information and propaganda and went down hill from there.

EvaTrujillo 12 years, 5 months ago

Oh please, evolution has never presupposed that there was not a god, gods, goddesses, etc. Never, ever. But Intelligent design presupposes a maker. A maker, meaning a single diety-sounds like somebody's religion. Which diety, and how come only one diety - now that clearly infers a religion! For most of us, this is not hard: Evolution and creationism, intelligent design or stupid design can co-exist. They can, they can, they can! Please do not insult the gods, anymore, if they're there.

MaxOblivion 12 years, 5 months ago

Yeah the crazy thing is he (gr_) knows hes lying, we know hes lying, he knows that we know hes lying and we know that he knows that we know hes lying. Yes he still lies.

The dishonesty of these guys is unbelievable its why im so against them getting into our schools. The education of children is a precious thing and to turn it over to charlatans and con men sickens me.

Kaiser_Soze 12 years, 5 months ago

The inference of an intelligent agent is what we have when we remove the possibility of random natural events being able to produce highly sophisticated information sharing nanotechnology (biological systems).

Why do we remove random events having that power of inventiveness? It's all about mathematical probabilities. By the process of elimination we arrive at the mathematical probability of an intelligent agent. Random mutations are random, and it is that randomness which is evolutions fatal flaw. Random events may occasionally produce some type of simple non chaotic outcome, but as more random events occur that non chaotic event will turn back into chaos. The more complex something is the less chance it came about by random forces.

A good example is the snowflakes. They are produced by a fairly complex process and they are fairly complex designs. But as random natural events act on the snowflake the design doesn't increase in complexity, it breaks down completely e.g the flake melts or compacts. The snowflake is one of the most complex designs you will find occuring by a natural force on earth. We cannot expect natural processes found on earth to produce something with moving parts, like say a mousetrap. What to speak of the most sophisticated technology ever encountered (biological systems).

Evolutionists tell us that all life (except the first life which was the result of magic dust that self organized from dust into extremely complex nanotechnological replicating living machines) came to exist through random mutations gradually building every part of every species.

What we have around us are millions of species of extremely complex living entities, from oak trees to dolphins, from banana trees to human beings. Every form of life has a blueprint stored within the lifeform which tells the nanotechnology within the cells and organs how to construct the particular body plan. There are numerous types of very complex coded information within every living entity along with extremely tiny molecular nanotechnology which reads the code, understands the code, and then constructs extremely complex biological machines.

Can random mutations build these microscopic nanotechnologies, molecular bio-factories, coding systems (coding, reading, understanding the code) and the blueprints which they come with?

Evolutionists tell us that random mistakes in a genome not only create information processing and storing systems, but also the information they utilize, the nanotechnology which can make use of the information, and the end result of a color coordinated artistically brilliant highly complex living entity, like a tiger, or an orchid, or a butterfly, or pretty much anything.

It's crediblity which evolution is so obviously lacking which makes ID preferred due to probability.

Kaiser_Soze 12 years, 5 months ago

Evolution is presented in schools as de facto absolute truth. Any problems are explained away with the caveat "We know evolution is true, but we haven't been able to figure it out yet". Is that good faith science? I see a double standard. If the study of the question of the origin or mechanism which leads to the diversification of species leads us into the realm of mathematical probablity concepts which points towards the necessity of an intelligent design mechanism working in nature, then it would be bad faith to disallow that mathematical conclusion because it points towards a conclusion which some people feel uncomfortable with.

ID is not a supernatural explanation. It is a question of logic and probability. The intelligent design mechanism may be natural or it may be supernatural, what is unavoidable is the fact that some type of intelligent design mechanism is in fact needed to explain how biological systems have come to exist in the way in which they exist. It is the mathematical probability that ID is true i.e that evolution is based on mathematical probabilities which are so astronomical that they are not acceptable, and that the nature of biological systems is that they are based upon millions of cases of specified complexity which makes evolution completely untenable. Simply stated there is no mathematical support for any other argument other then ID when it comes to biology. Also the fossil record conclusively rejects any kind of evolutionary paradigm because there is absolutely no trace of evolution in the fossil record. Ultimately science must win, but evolution is not science, it is faith that no other solution is possible.

From Dr. Emile Borel, who discovered the laws of probability:

"The occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in ten followed by 50 zeros is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place."

From Professor Harold Morowitz:

"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 to 10-340,000,000. This number is 1 to 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering, since there is only supposed to be approximately 10-80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!"

Kaiser_Soze 12 years, 5 months ago

Still at the end of the day what went on in Dover says a lot about how the church and state issue is viewed by many people. Clearly the inclusion of a few paragraphs into a schools curriculum about evolution not being an infallible doctrine is not what was meant to be protected against in the constitution. In fact promoting evolution as an infallible doctrine is in essence promoting a single religious belief over all others. Even though some people claim that evolution is compatible with religious beliefs, that still doesn't change the fact that evolutionary theory as presented does in fact make a theological argument. That argument is that "nature" is the supreme cause of our existence and it is "nature" which guides and shapes our existence as humans.

Evolution is essentially nature worship, nature is the pantheistic deity which can perfrom countless miracles, the impossible is made possible by the almighty nature, behold the glory of nature. All other concepts of the origins and diversifications of species are not allowed to be spoken of if they swerve away from nature worship.

It's a wonder to me how evolution activists get so emotional over this issue. From a psychoanalytic perspective I would assume that from hearing and reading the words of evolution activists that they feel that they are under attack. They feel like they are battling some enemy who is out to take their land and their freedoms. Like cornered animals they show their teeth and claws when they feel the most threatened.

The language they use is full of rhetorical devices meant to incite their own fear in others. The "creationists" at the gates. The barbarians are ready to take down our gods and install their own. Our freedom to think and our freedom to speak will be curtailed by the barbaric hordes of creationists. They will first come for the children. Next they will take control over the towns and cities. They will hang the minority races or enslave them. They will force a theocracy on us all and we will have no choice but to submit to the demon creationists or perish in their re-education camps.

Behold what which ID hath/whilst wrought.

That seems to me to be the underlying psychology at play in the minds and hearts of the rabid evolution activist.

Otherwise why the big whoop?

Why are they so fiercely against ID? What is it in evolution which provokes such deep seated allegiance? What makes it worth fighting so hard for as the exclusive "acceptable" "scientific" basal paradigm within "science", schooling, and society?

Kaiser_Soze 12 years, 5 months ago

This is not a scientific debate to them, it's a crusade. A lynch mob mentality is strong within the evolution fanatic camp. They are inquisitors and they will not tolerate blasphemy. In fact to them there is no debate which is worthy of being taken seriously. Like the inquisitors of the past they simply want a confession, not an argument. The inquisition of the past and the modern version of it were both really about power, not ideology. Therefore debate in both instances was not desired. The Church during the inquistion was trying to establish itself as the final arbiter of law and justice for the sake of power and wealth. No other religion would be allowed to gain a following, it would be an ontological challenge to the divine sanction for the earthly power of the leaders of the church.

The modern inquisitors are no different in motivation and tact. They seek to stamp out all challenges to their divinely mandated ontological supremacy in the service of their wealth, power, and goals. They promote a world where religion is something which should be laughed at and mocked so that they can live free from the fear of immanent theocratization. They see the enemy, and a God who has relevance to society is it.

They think that the ignorant mob of unruly citizens need to be told what to think. They need to treated like cattle which are herded into mental pens where their diseased minds can be cleansed of the infectious religious impluse. The schools must not be allowed to be controlled by the common rabble. We must control them and lead them like the simple beasts they are. We must convince them that religion is for fools, god is dead, and that our lives ultimately have no meaning beyond what we can stuff into our various holes. It all ends with death, is our message. That is our gift.

The history of how evolution became the dominant basal paradigm is quite fascinating. The Royal Society was the primary instrument of it's transformation from an obscure little theory into the officially sanctioned academic creation myth. The Royal Society is more or less in charge of what passes for education in British schools, and it is still today one of if not the main force behind evolution as official dogma. Their origins and history is fascinating. It's kind of a religious history. I'll leave that for you to discover on your own. Let's just they that they were motivated by ideas removed from the scientific field.

Kaiser_Soze 12 years, 5 months ago

I put it to you that if you take dirt, water, and solar energy, and leave them alone and then come back millions of years later that you will not find oak trees nor apple trees, neither will you find oysters nor lobsters, neither will you find whales nor walruses, neither will you find leopards nor rhinos, neither will you find Jessica Alba nor cake and candy. I put it to you that all you will find after leaving dirt and water and the sun's rays alone for millions of years is some non living form of dirt and water acted upon by solar rays.

If you think that this hypothesis is non scientific, please state why. ID predicts that that no matter how much time dirt and water sit around under the sun that complex living biological nano technology of the type observed in our biosphere and in the fossil record will never come into existence.

The complexity of even the most simple form of life is so complex that even with all of the power of the world's greatest minds and advanced technology, no one can even come close to creating a living thing. Not for lack of trying mind you. It's just that the complexity of the most simple form of life is so complex that we cannot even come close to building it. We can create unbelievably complex forms of technology, but the simplest form of life is beyond our reach. These simplest forms of life are machines that are functioning based on molecular sized interdependent nano technology and coding. They are not simple in any sense of the word.

A scientific analysis would leave us only one conclusion as to how living machines based on nano technology came into existence. Why? Because there are only 2 possibilites, and one of them mathematically and scientifically impossible. You decried the 2nd law of thermodynamics because it conclusively denies any possibility of matter self organizing into complex nano technology/living replicating machines.

All life that we have experience of has come into existence from another form of life. The chicken comes from the egg, the egg comes from the chicken, the pear tree comes from a pear seed and pear pollen, pear seeds and pear pollen comes from the pear tree, DNA and RNA comes into existence from the birth of cells, cells come into birth due to the instructions of DNA and RNA. All life exists in a closed system.

Evolutionists don't like to confront this problem, that's because they end up in the non enviable position of positing a theory which is based on a foundation of impossibility.

Life as we know it cannot come into existence by the random mixture of chemicals anymore then a computer can come into existence in the same manner. This is the scientific truth, yet evolutionists like to call an intelligent agent at work as being impossible and a fantasy. Yet it is the ONLY possible rational conclusion.

So to say that science does not predict an intelligent designer is false, it DEMANDS one.

MaxOblivion 12 years, 5 months ago

I rest my case. Nut jobs the lot of them.

fossilhunter 12 years, 5 months ago

Kaiser - Evolution in the act....What is the "intelligence" of a virus that is "created" in birds and is "designed" to start infecting people?

PoeticHeteroSapien 12 years, 5 months ago

GR - the short version is this:

You asked "Please shed some light on this. I've never heard of mutation happening each time a zygote is formed."

Okay, I figured if you had taken genetics as you said, you'd know that we average about a hundred unique mutations in every individual born on this planet, of which approximately two affect active genes.

A change in an active-coding triplet group of an exon, and also any change in the way the gene is read by the reader proteins (like a frame shift, inversion, new stop codon, etc etc) will produce a different set of amino acids in the resulting proteins produced in the cellular machinery.

Here is the chart of triplets and how they code for each amino acid:

Every slightly-different protein has the potential to make a new result, and from that, new structures and functions in the DNA coded for.

In my example given above, GATTACAGATTACA changing to GATTACAGATTAAA, we have only one base-pair change, a point mutation. I'll add one base to the end just to give us an even triplet number... say, cytosine. Once you change the DNA to the mRNA strand that actually codes the proteins, the results are as follows:



old: GAT -> CUA -> Leucine TAC -> AUG -> "start" AGA -> UCU -> Serine TTA -> AAU -> Asparagine CAC -> AUG -> "start"

new: GAT -> CUA -> Leucine TAC -> AUG -> "start" AGA -> UCU -> Serine TTA -> AAU -> Asparagine AAC -> UUG -> Leucine

So in the final sequence, the result of only ONE point mutation following a small duplication, we have a major shift from a "start coding" marker to a triplet that instead codes for the amino acid Leucine. The result? A VERY different set of proteins. Any small change can result in a gene being turned on, a protein being changed (which changes its function in the body), etc. In other words, "new" information, all by natural biochemical processes.

And as for the fitness vs frinkley toe issue, I spoke of humans as if we were still being acted on by a simple-to-understand type of selection: predator pressure. I thought that would be obvious.

EvaTrujillo 12 years, 5 months ago

And so.... creationists can't imagine that their diety may be doing some things randomly? There, there, evolution and creationism/intelligent or stupid design do co-exist -always have, always will.

b_asinbeer 12 years, 5 months ago

poetic---great posts. But don't bother'll never convince the fundies, no matter how wrong they are.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.