Intelligent Design in Science Class

[a_priori]

When asked by a young lady what is the biggest problem facing the world today, Pope Benedict replied that too many are acting and living like there is no God.

Haven’t people been doing that as long as there have been people? With all due respect to the Holy Father, this is hardly revelational. It also has nothing to do with the discussion.

You are missing the ideological dimension here: God cannot return to the public school. The idea of actual design in nature cannot be given any credence because someone, somewhere may connect the idea with God, which the Church does.

Scientific inquiry and ideology have no business being mentioned in the same discussion. If they are, someone has an ax to grind. There is no “ideological dimension” here. What is the evidence pointing to?

Don’t you get it? The ACLU is removing religious monuments from public buildings, turning the local Nativity into another holiday prop down there with plastic Santas and reindeer. Even Richard Dawkins puts up a Christmas Tree which means nothing. Got that?

Got what?? The ACLU is going to work at removing religious monuments regardless of what science finds. There is nothing to “get”.

There are people here who are manning the barricades and simply shouting down any who mention the dreaded initials ID or who promote design in nature, which exists, by the way.

I’m not manning any barricades. I’m merely trying to serve Christ and appreciate what He hath wrought. Nothing more. Nothing less.

There are only two paths: the straignt and narrow, and the wide road to destruction.

If Catholics want to reach the world and advance the cause of Christ, we should stop holding the same values as society and live out our faith by helping others selflessly and showing our faith by our works. This will save more people than jousting at windmills and insisting we begin all scientific inquiry by starting with the conclusion.

 

[M0nkey]

Did you see any probabilities there?

I don’t think you are aware, these findings are based on digital organisms. Mathematically there is no other way to analytically compute these except through probability theory. Science is not gambling. Again, real life empirical evidence is lacking.

Once you have agreed that IC systems do evolve we can move on to look at how easy or difficult it is for them to do so.

You seem entrenched in your faith that is so, I cannot deter you away from it except to point out that this is to you what your signature tries to absolve Ultimate Truth.

Lenski’s experiment had nothing to do with the evolutin of the eye.

That’s the main argument, right? That an eye cannot evolve or it’s unlikely to evolve.

Except is is. You cannot see what you close your eyes to. Read Observed Instances of Speciation, then read More observed examples of speciation.

Oh yes, speciation, I was very much aware of that. I’ve read about these occurrences, mostly happen on fruit flies that migrate, but they remain fruit flies. It’s irrelevant since a fruit fly can hardly transform into something else.

Your creationist source is grossly misrepresenting Darwin.

Funny, I believe that it is you who clings to this false dichotomy. Darwin was no Darwinist.

Abiogenesis is not evolution.

Now you are changing the argument claiming is something else. So you are basically telling me the theory only concerns complex organisms? When are you going to come clean? This doctrine of yours flunks basic science.

 

[reggieM]

It’s not an issue of science. It’s a matter of law.

“Religious alternative’ to evolution barred from public-school science classes”
msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

If the teaching of evolution is a matter of law and not science, then we should consult legal experts and not scientists to understand the meaning of evolutionary theory.

 

[reggieM]

"In general, however, ID proponents have tended to assert that some scientifically verifiable fact – for example, this particular molecular biological structure is too complicated to have come about through natural selection alone – directly demonstrates the existence of an intelligent designer.
“These types of arguments have considerable merit, more than Catholics have been inclined to grant, precisely because they focus on quite particular trouble spots for a purely materialist, reductionist account of evolution.”

The author is Benjamin Wiker and is taken from the April 19, 2009 Our Sunday Visitor, a Catholic newspaper.

That was a superb article by Benjamin Wiker in the OSV - highly recommended as a Catholic view on Intelligent Design and evolution. Thanks for posting that reference.

 

[rossum]

The One True God. Who else?

All hail Loki!

Vishnu is the One for me!

Ahura Mazda - He is the best!

Allahu Akbar!

Om mani padme hum!

etc.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I don’t think you are aware, these findings are based on digital organisms.

I am perfectly aware that Lenski’s paper is about digital organsims, that is why he was able to give a mutation by mutation listing of how an IC system evolved. Irreducible Complexity is a general concept which does not just apply to living organisms. To quote Behe’s own definition:A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

Behe - Darwin’s Black Box, 39
There is nothing there about living organisms, just systems and parts. Behe himself used the example of a mousetrap, which is not a living organism either.

Mathematically there is no other way to analytically compute these except through probability theory.

Rubbish. I have written genetic algorithms myself and there is no use of probability theory in the algorithm itself. There is a PRNG, but that is not probability theory. It is possible to use probability theory models to calculate some expected results from such an experiment, but no probability theory is used in the actual program itself. If you think that Lenski did use probability theory in his program then the entire program is available online. Read it and point out to us where he did so.

I note your continued failure to show any specific place in Lenski’s experimental results that was not empirical data.

You seem entrenched in your faith that is so

Stop avoiding the question. Do you accept that IC systems can evolve, yes or no? Behe does, why can’t you?

That’s the main argument, right? That an eye cannot evolve or it’s unlikely to evolve.

Wrong. The argument is not about the eye specifically but about whether or not IC systems in general can evolve.

Oh yes, speciation, I was very much aware of that. I’ve read about these occurrences, mostly happen on fruit flies that migrate, but they remain fruit flies. It’s irrelevant since a fruit fly can hardly transform into something else.

The category “fruit fly” covers a large number of species. Change from one species of fruit fly to another species of fruit fly is speciation. The category “mammal” covers a large number of species. Change from one species of mammal to another species of mammal is speciation. Your dismissal of fruit flies requires equally that you dismiss the descent of human from an earlier species of mammal, such as Homo erectus as “irrelevant”: they are both still mammals. Speciation is a change of species. We have observed many such changes. We have the evidence of the evolution of species no matter how much you may wish to dismiss it as irrelevant.

Funny, I believe that it is you who clings to this false dichotomy. Darwin was no Darwinist.

On the contrary it is you who seems to be clinging to the belief that the Bible says that there is no God.

Now you are changing the argument claiming is something else.

I am changing nothing. Abiogenesis describes how the first living organisms got started from non-living chemicals. Evolution describes how those living organisms have changed over time. The question you asked in your post #111 was “Tell me exactly how a single celled organism could have evolved?” The origin of the first single celled living organism is the area of abiogenesis, which is why I pointed you are abiogenesis and the Powner et al paper that dealt with that area of work.

So you are basically telling me the theory only concerns complex organisms?

The theory of evolution concerns living organisms, it describes the changes in the genomes of populations of living organisms over time. Abiogenesis describes the origin of the first living organisms. Darwin called his book “On the Origin of Species”, not “On the Origin of Species and of Life”. The exact details of the origin of life are not important for evolution, it just requires that life exists - which it obviously does.

To quote Darwin: There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. [emphasis added]

Darwin - Origins, 6th edition, Chapter 15
Darwin excluded the origin of life from his theory, and we continue to do the same now. That has not changed since 1859.

rossum

 

[M0nkey]

I am perfectly aware that Lenski’s paper is about digital organsims,

Well then why are we wasting our time talking about this? Empirical data has to point ultimately to reality, in other words, off the computer into real world observation. This shows your lack of discernment as empirical data in scientific endeavor has nothing to do with a computer program. I must be followed by experimentation. It can most certainly help, yes, I agree, but ultimately it has to show what is really happening in nature. The mouse trap is only there to prove a concept, that in mechanical parts it’s similar to an eye. This reflects reality as when you have a missing part an eye ceases to function. You must see the relevance here.

Rubbish. I have written genetic algorithms myself and there is no use of probability theory in the algorithm itself.

My understanding is natural selection has to be preceded by allele frequencies. These are typically calculated by probabilities and yes, I believe PRNG can be considered a mathematical probability since it brings in a random function into the computation.

Stop avoiding the question. Do you accept that IC systems can evolve, yes or no? Behe does, why can’t you?

Not as long as you can’t show evidence that goes beyond a computer program.

Wrong. The argument is not about the eye specifically but about whether or not IC systems in general can evolve.

But the eye furthers the point in my argument, so I would like to keep it. Show exactly how an eye can evolve? I know; it’s too hard, improbable, weren’t you the one saying “IC systems evolve relatively easily?” This should be readily observable in nature.

We have the evidence of the evolution of species no matter how much you may wish to dismiss it as irrelevant.

Evidence for evolution, yes, evidence of a common ancestor, most definitely not.

On the contrary it is you who seems to be clinging to the belief that the Bible says that there is no God.

What?

I am changing nothing.

Look, bacteria are living organisms. I don’t know where you get off talking about abiogenesis. My question still stands.

 

[buffalo]

All hail Loki!

Vishnu is the One for me!

Ahura Mazda - He is the best!

Allahu Akbar!

Om mani padme hum!

etc.

rossum

It comes down to a creator or atheism.

God is everyone’s Creator.

 

[rossum]

Well then why are we wasting our time talking about this? Empirical data has to point ultimately to reality, in other words, off the computer into real world observation.

Computers are perfectly real; have you ever dropped one on your foot? I gave you Behe’s definition of Irreducible Complexity which talked merely about systems and parts. A computer program is a system and it has parts. Lenksi’s experiment used a system with parts. It met Behe’s definition for IC.

Lenski showed that random mutations and selection could move a genome from a non-IC state to an IC state. That is enough to show that IC systems can evolve. It was enough for Michael Behe whao has also accepted that IC systems can evolve.

But the eye furthers the point in my argument, so I would like to keep it. Show exactly how an eye can evolve?

Apart from the retina and optic nerve all parts of the metazoan eye are optional. All other parts of the mammalian eye are missing in one or another eyes found elsewhere in the metazoa. A nautilus does not have a lens, yet its eye functions well enough for a nautilus. If you move into single celled organisms then all that is needed is a light sensitive chemical and a messenger chemical. I suspect that it would be possible to dispense with the messenger chemical for a very simple organism, the mere presence of the light affected version of the light sensitive chemical would be enough. A system with one part does not meet the definition of IC, which requires several parts.

To build an IC system from such simple beginnings just add a new part as a non-essential helper and then allow evolution to make the new part essential as the system adjusts to the presence of the new part and comes to rely on it. Repeat for millions of years.

I know; it’s too hard, improbable, weren’t you the one saying “IC systems evolve relatively easily?” This should be readily observable in nature.

I have already quoted the figures from Behe and Snoke (2004). In a ton of soil the bacteria are evolving simple IC systems at the rate of just under ten times a week on average. That seems to me to qualify as “relatively easily”. Do you disagree with Professor Behe’s own figures?

Evidence for evolution, yes, evidence of a common ancestor, most definitely not.

Read 29+ evidences for macroevolution. We have the evidence. In science the evidence wins.

Look, bacteria are living organisms. I don’t know where you get off talking about abiogenesis. My question still stands.

Modern bacteria evolved from earlier bacteria. The first living organisms were the result of abiogenesis.

rossum

 

[M0nkey]

Computers are perfectly real; have you ever dropped one on your foot?

I am sure you are aware that a simulation does not equate to empirical observation. This is purely theoretical.

Apart from the retina and optic nerve all parts of the metazoan eye are optional. All other parts of the mammalian eye are missing in one or another eyes found elsewhere in the metazoa. A nautilus does not have a lens, yet its eye functions well enough for a nautilus. If you move into single celled organisms then all that is needed is a light sensitive chemical and a messenger chemical. I suspect that it would be possible to dispense with the messenger chemical for a very simple organism, the mere presence of the light affected version of the light sensitive chemical would be enough. A system with one part does not meet the definition of IC, which requires several parts.
To build an IC system from such simple beginnings just add a new part as a non-essential helper and then allow evolution to make the new part essential as the system adjusts to the presence of the new part and comes to rely on it. Repeat for millions of years.

In your subjective opinion.

In a ton of soil the bacteria are evolving simple IC systems at the rate of just under ten times a week on average.

That does not mean bacteria can go from “simple IC systems” to objective ICs such as an eye.

Read 29+ evidences for macroevolution.

The ‘evidence’ is based on extrapolated speculation. So far, it is more of a philosophy or a mode of thinking. As mentioned, empirical observations do show that there are more differences than previously thought. The tree may not be an accurate representation.

Modern bacteria evolved from earlier bacteria. The first living organisms were the result of abiogenesis.

Irrelevant.

 

[CWBetts]

I can accept bacteria evolving to other kind of bacteria. I can accept horses and zebras having a common ancestor. I can even accept cats and dgs having a common ancestor. I cannot accept that humanity eveolved by accident, with no direction from God. In a nutshell, that is all Intelligent Design/Theistic Evolution is arguing: that all of this world we live in didn’t just “happen” It was made. Why do evolutionists find this idea so offensive?

 

[Namesake]

I can accept bacteria evolving to other kind of bacteria. I can accept horses and zebras having a common ancestor. I can even accept cats and dgs having a common ancestor. I cannot accept that humanity eveolved by accident, with no direction from God. In a nutshell, that is all Intelligent Design/Theistic Evolution is arguing: that all of this world we live in didn’t just “happen” It was made. Why do evolutionists find this idea so offensive?

It’s not offensive until you try to force that belief on other people. Just let science do what it does and leave your design ideas out of the science classroom. It’s very simple.

 

[CWBetts]

It’s not offensive until you try to force that belief on other people. Just let science do what it does and leave your design ideas out of the science classroom. It’s very simple.

I’ll make a deal. I won’t bring up design in science, and you don’t keep me from exercising my constitutional rights by saying that I can’t read my Bible in a public school. (And yes, that exact thing does happen in American classrooms. Everyone has rights except Christians, and especially Catholics)

 

[a_priori]

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read, “Don’t pray in my school and I won’t think in your Church.” It’s going to get very ugly before it’s over I’m afraid.

 

[Namesake]

I’ll make a deal. I won’t bring up design in science, and you don’t keep me from exercising my constitutional rights by saying that I can’t read my Bible in a public school. (And yes, that exact thing does happen in American classrooms. Everyone has rights except Christians, and especially Catholics)

OK, but it’s slightly more complicated than that.

Lets agree that you won’t try to get ID included in science classrooms and you can read the Bible as long as it isn’t disruptive in the school, and you will allow anyone to read whatever holy book they want to read. Same rules for everyone. Deal?

 

[buffalo]

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read, “Don’t pray in my school and I won’t think in your Church.” It’s going to get very ugly before it’s over I’m afraid.

As if the only thinking that goes on is in science.

 

[CWBetts]

OK, but it’s slightly more complicated than that.

Lets agree that you won’t try to get ID included in science classrooms and you can read the Bible as long as it isn’t disruptive in the school, and you will allow anyone to read whatever holy book they want to read. Same rules for everyone. Deal?

How, exactly, would reading the Bible, or talking to others about our faith on our own time possibly be disruptive? The constitution guarentees free exercise of religion. That’s the part that the ACLU (Anti-Catholic Lawyers Union) simply ignores. And I would even say that free exercise does not get turned off in a science classroom. That means a student should be able to bring up his ideas in class, provided he is being respectful, without being ridiculed. Evolutionists seem to for get that true science is self-correcting. That means it is open to criticisms. Why does evolutionary thoery seem to be exempt from criticism? What are the evolutionists afraid of? Except maybe that they have to accept that there may be an intelligence out there greater than they are and that intelligence is inscrutible to the finite himan mind.

 

[Namesake]

How, exactly, would reading the Bible, or talking to others about our faith on our own time possibly be disruptive?

It wouldn’t be.

 

[Namesake]

That means a student should be able to bring up his ideas in class, provided he is being respectful, without being ridiculed.

Not in a science class. Not in a math class.

 

[Namesake]

Why does evolutionary thoery (sic) seem to be exempt from criticism?

It’s not. It should be relatively exempt from unfounded criticism.