Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[tonyrey]

…PART TWO…

Buddhism does not seek to explain the origin of intelligence, merely to use it in tested ways. I can observe feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness within myself - all elements that Buddhism says exist.

Where is the scientific evidence for Buddhism? Your combination of Buddhism and evolution infringes the principle of economy. It postulates material and immaterial elements without explaining how they are related or how they originated. It cannot be falsified neither can it be verified by experimentation.

I do not need to know how they arose, it is enough to know that they exist and that they can be used to help me in my journey on the Buddhist path.

You may not need to know how they arose but if they remain unexplained your explanation lacks a solid foundation. Design by one Supreme Being is an incomparably simpler explanation which corresponds to our personal experience and belief in the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. Truth, goodness, compassion and love are illusions if we are the product of random mutations.

How complex is that Supreme Being? Was it designed? If not then what was its origin? All the same questions that you are asking me also apply to any proposed Supreme Being.

Not at all. Your explanation is an infinite regress of heterogeneous beings who are not creators and whose existence remains unexplained. They are not regarded as the source of truth, goodness, compassion and love. Nor are they believed to explain creativity or the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity - which you have conveniently ignored.
The Creator, on the other hand, is the Source of everything, the Ultimate Reality without whom there would be a multitude of heterogeneous, inexplicable factors. It is more economical and reasonable to believe in one Creator who shares His power of creativity with His creatures. As for complexity, there are many thoughts, feelings and desires in your mind but that does not prevent you from being one person.

There is only one version of evolution - the scientific version.

If only one version of evolution is presented in the science class it implies that evolution by Design is not worth teaching. That is brain-washing, not education…Do you really think atheists will say to their students:
“Evolution may also be the result of Design.”? It is far more likely they will trot out similar arguments to yours… If you believed in Design I can’t imagine you permitting NeoDarwinism to be taught, let alone both versions.

 

[liquidpele]

…PART ONE …

This infringes the principle of economy.

What scientific evidence is there for reincarnation?
How can chimps be morally responsible for their actions when they don’t even know what morality is?
Why do you reject God in favour of gods? What about Occam’s razor?
Animal trials simply prove the ignorance of those who conducted them. Would you conduct them?
My precise words were “complexity in nature”. Now:

1. Why did simple molecules became more complex?
2. Why did simple organisms became more complex?

.
They cannot be conscious of themselves because they do not have an abstract concept of the self. You have not explained how the power of abstract thought, free will and responsibility have evolved.

I am delighted you admit evolution by chance is incredibly unlikely.
The card-shuffling illustration assumes that **any **ordering of the cards is an acceptable outcome. This is the equivalent of saying almost any ordering of the amino acids would build a functional protein. So whatever happens randomly is “easy” to achieve, regardless of calculations of probability. In reality only one specific sequence of amino acids out of 1060 possible sequences is adequate to produce a properly folding protein which could be used. BTW How often in history have all four suits come up in proper numerical order?

Even with natural selection the fortuitous origin and development of a bacterium is so improbable it is not even worth considering:
pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=38373&pageindex=3#page

The enormous improbability of abiogenesis is illustrated by the fact that dedicated teams of specialists in biochemistry working with the most sophisticated equipment for more than half a century have failed miserably to synthesize one living cell.
You are continuing to evade my question. Is your experience nothing? Why do you totally ignore it? After all your entire argument stems from your use of intelligence rather than random events. The fact that you rely on intelligence rather than random events demonstrates that you believe, and act as if, intelligence is more powerful than fortuitous events.
Natural selection is not a random process but it selects from the possibilities presented by random mutations. The **primary **mechanism of evolution is a succession of random mutations, i.e. fortuitous events, and therefore evolution is ultimately due to Chance - according to NeoDarwinists.

I… I don’t know where to start… you have so many misconceptions there that I don’t even know if I should bother. Perhaps you should understand what you are arguing against before you try to argue it.

You completely miss his point about reincarnation being an option just like ID - because neither is provable… and put up a strawman to attack.

You neglect that chimps, and several other animals, have elaborate social structures that include punishment, battles, caring for one another, using tools, etc. Have you never watched Animal Planet channel for crying out loud??

You throw out Occam’s razor like it supports your theory, but completely miss how probably evolution actually is (not to mention we have witnessed it in a lab)… and abiogenesis is still more likely than a biblical God that has no proof.

I agree with you about the animal trials.

Simple molecules become more complex because of probability, but not all of it… this is why the pharmaceutical companies get very low (less than 1% sometimes) yields in developing their drugs, because not all of it forms the correct molecules. You might see this as a condemnation of advanced molecules forming in the real world - remember that most of the time we are trying to replicate molecules we already found in the real world, we just need them manufactured in greater numbers.

Simple organisms become more complex because mutations sometimes give them an advantage, and they stay more complex after that… I mean, do you even understand natural selection or do you just attack it with no understanding of how it works at all? Here is something for you to watch:

wimp.com/newinfo/ and wimp.com/evolutionbasics/

An abstract concept of the self we like to think is black and white, but it’s not. You’re making a false dichotomy. Different animals have different levels of this ability, us at the top, and lower animals on the bottom, with chips, dolphins, etc near us. You do realize they’ve taught monkeys to speak in [crude] sign language and they can label themselves right?

Abiogenesis does appear to be unlikely at first glance, but there is some evidence supporting it: wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/ let me know when you find some that supports a creator that doesn’t involve your opinion.

Evolution does not depend on randomness because only the beneficial mutations survive. Mutations are random, but they do not define evolution, and other things like genetic drift have been discovered since darwin’s original theory.

As for the high improbability of things… you should perhaps take a statistics class… some more videos for you:

youtube.com/watch?v=98OTsYfTt-c
youtube.com/watch?v=C5NPpoM5lIQ

Have a nice day, I need some beer after reading your post.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

*… I need some beer after reading your post. *

And I need some whisky in my coffee :compcoff: after reading yours.

*You throw out Occam’s razor like it supports your theory, but completely miss how probably evolution actually is (not to mention we have witnessed it in a lab)… *

Yes, after intelligently designing your experiment!:newidea:

 

[reggieM]

The card-shuffling illustration assumes that **any **ordering of the cards is an acceptable outcome. This is the equivalent of saying almost any ordering of the amino acids would build a functional protein. So whatever happens randomly is “easy” to achieve, regardless of calculations of probability. In reality only one specific sequence of amino acids out of 1060 possible sequences is adequate to produce a properly folding protein which could be used. BTW How often in history have all four suits come up in proper numerical order?

It’s interesting about the card-shuffling example. I would take the bet any time. I’ll bet a dollar that the 1 in 1.03 x 10[sup]166[/sup] chance comes in and I’ll take a mere $10M to win. Of course, whatever order of cards that comes up will be the winner – so, actually, the odds are 1 in 1 or 100% certain that an undefined arrangement of cards will appear.
Whatever is shuffled is the order that was predicted.
Of course, if an order is given before the shuffle, then that’s a different bet.

 

[liquidpele]

It’s interesting about the card-shuffling example. I would take the bet any time. I’ll bet a dollar that the 1 in 1.03 x 10[sup]166[/sup] chance comes in and I’ll take a mere $10M to win. Of course, whatever order of cards that comes up will be the winner – so, actually, the odds are 1 in 1 or 100% certain that an undefined arrangement of cards will appear.
Whatever is shuffled is the order that was predicted.
Of course, if an order is given before the shuffle, then that’s a different bet.

Actually, the card/slot machine thing as described above is a common misconception as well. In the case of evolution, you have a pre-existing set of X number of cards… and you keep the ALL the same except one (or maybe a few)… so you’re betting on just a few cards. Then consider that you have this same bet going on millions of times a year in most cases… and you just need to win once.

Also, all the needed changes for a particular major change don’t usually happen at once… you have steps, so if you have mutation A, and it doesn’t have negative consequences, it will likely stick around for a bit in some of the population, and then mutation B might happen in an animal that already has mutation A, so it combines with mutation A to give the lifeform an advantage. Also note that during that time, 100 million other mutations might have happened within a few years that didn’t have helpful effects or just didn’t get passed along for one of many reasons, but like I said you only need to win the odds once.

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele

*… I need some beer after reading your post. *

And I need some whisky in my coffee :compcoff: after reading yours.

*You throw out Occam’s razor like it supports your theory, but completely miss how probably evolution actually is (not to mention we have witnessed it in a lab)… *

Yes, after intelligently designing your experiment!:newidea:

coffee at night??

I see you mentioned that the experiments are intelligently designed again…
We already discussed your claim that an experiment defines the subject matter here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5246030&postcount=431
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5246484&postcount=433

To reiterate, an experiment being designed does not define the thing being tested. Such a notion is absurd.

 

[reggieM]

Actually, the card/slot machine thing as described above is a common misconception as well. In the case of evolution, you have a pre-existing set of X number of cards… and you keep the ALL the same except one (or maybe a few)… so you’re betting on just a few cards. Then consider that you have this same bet going on millions of times a year in most cases… and you just need to win once.

Also, all the needed changes for a particular major change don’t usually happen at once… you have steps, so if you have mutation A, and it doesn’t have negative consequences, it will likely stick around for a bit in some of the population, and then mutation B might happen in an animal that already has mutation A, so it combines with mutation A to give the lifeform an advantage. Also note that during that time, 100 million other mutations might have happened within a few years that didn’t have helpful effects or just didn’t get passed along for one of many reasons, but like I said you only need to win the odds once.

In the so-called evolution of new genes, an entirely new sequence of information is required. So its not just one mutation that makes it work. The mutations needed to create a new gene are rare enough but they also have to create a functional sequence – occuring in the right succession. It’s very much like shuffling a deck of cards and then getting a recognizable (functional) order from them.

 

[liquidpele]

In the so-called evolution of new genes, an entirely new sequence of information is required. So its not just one mutation that makes it work. The mutations needed to create a new gene are rare enough but they also have to create a functional sequence – occuring in the right succession. It’s very much like shuffling a deck of cards and then getting a recognizable (functional) order from them.

No, it is not as you describe.

thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/questions/question/2297/

pnas.org/content/104/43/17004.abstract

arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.genet.38.072902.092831

scientificblogging.com/adaptive_complexity/evolution_new_genes_flies

At least google the subject before you make claims.

 

[reggieM]

No, it is not as you describe.

thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/questions/question/2297/

From the first link you posted:

This can cause DNA to rearrange itself, bits of DNA can get copied or duplicated, and this means that there’s the opportunity for **new genetic combinations **to emerge; and once they emerge they can then get co-opted or changed or manipulated in order to do other jobs; and we know this happens because if you look in human DNA you can find the ghosts of genes long dead hidden in our genetic closet.

Could you explain that paragraph for me, please? Your claim is that only one mutation is required to create a new functional gene.

I will quote your previous explaination here:

if you have mutation A, and it doesn’t have negative consequences, it will likely stick around for a bit in some of the population, and then mutation B might happen in an animal that already has mutation A, so it combines with mutation A to give the lifeform an advantage

 

[greylorn]

Of course archaeologists and cosmologists can do experiments… are you insane? We can go look for things, we can date very old items, we can look at starts, see the red shift in the spectrum, see gravitational lensing, etc etc. Just because they can’t always prove their theories doesn’t make them not science… it’s the fact that they could find evidence that completely dis-proves them that makes them science. I mean, do you even remember the scientific method from elementary school?

Perhaps you have confused observation with experimentation.

 

[rossum]

Our responses to each other are getting too long. I will drop the subtopics that I see as not relevant to the point of this thread: “Is intelligent design a plausible theory?”. If you want to reintroduce a subtopic then please do so, but explain why you think that it is relevant.

My precise words were “complexity in nature”.

Precisely. A snowflake is an example of “complexity in nature”. Please acknowledge that snowflakes are examples of complexity in nature that arise without an intelligent designer. Once you have done that we can progress to discussing other examples of complexity in nature.

I am delighted you admit evolution by chance is incredibly unlikely.

Evolution by chance alone is a typical creationist strawman. What you have not done is to to show that “evolution by chance and natural selection” is unlikely. That is a very different proposition.

The card-shuffling illustration assumes that any ordering of the cards is an acceptable outcome.

Precisely my point. That was why I told you to go and read Dembski. You were missing the “Specified” part of CSI. Your application of Borel’s law was incorrect.

This is the equivalent of saying almost any ordering of the amino acids would build a functional protein.

Almost every arrangement of amino acids will build a protein; the majority of proteins will have some functions or other. The question is whether or not the functions of the protein are useful in their context. Snake venom proteins are very useful to snakes; they are less useful to us when injected into our bloodstreams by a snake bite.

So whatever happens randomly is “easy” to achieve, regardless of calculations of probability. In reality only one specific sequence of amino acids out of 1060 possible sequences is adequate to produce a properly folding protein which could be used.

I assume that your “1060” should have read 10[sup]60[/sup]. (You get superscripts by typing “[noparse]10[sup]60[/sup][/noparse]”)

You are making a common creationist error. There is more than one way to bake a cake. It has been estimated (Yockey 1994) that there are 2.3 x 10[sup]93[/sup] different ways of making a functioning Cytochrome C protein. Evolution is not looking for a single target it is looking for any one of a very large number of targets.

Even with natural selection the fortuitous origin and development of a bacterium is so improbable

You need to bear in mind that evolution does not start from a random position, it starts from an organism that functions well enough to be able to reproduce the next generation. The starting point is constrained to be “able to reproduce”. This renders your completely random model useless.

Natural selection is not a random process but it selects from the possibilities presented by random mutations. The **primary **mechanism of evolution is a succession of random mutations, i.e. fortuitous events, and therefore evolution is ultimately due to Chance - according to NeoDarwinists.

If I put a lot of randomly sized particles through a sieve then what I get out is not longer random but only particles small enough to pass through the sieve. The (name removed by moderator)ut was random, the output is not. Evolution is the same, the output is not random.

Evolution is an iterative process over many generations. For example, it is next to (name removed by moderator)ossible to get ten heads when throwing ten coins. Now change to an iterative process: throw the coins, keep any heads you get and just rethrow the tails. Repeat. You will get to ten heads a lot quicker. The random coin tosses are the equivalent of random mutations. Keeping the heads and rethrowing the tails is the equivalent of natural selection. Your random model does not include the “just rethrow the tails” element of natural selection so your model is useless. GIGO.

rossum

 

[liquidpele]

From the first link you posted:

Could you explain that paragraph for me, please? Your claim is that only one mutation is required to create a new functional gene.

I will quote your previous explaination here:

if you have mutation A, and it doesn’t have negative consequences, it will likely stick around for a bit in some of the population, and then mutation B might happen in an animal that already has mutation A, so it combines with mutation A to give the lifeform an advantage

You’re picking out the one quote that looks like it might support your view. “New genetic combinations emerging” does not mean “new genetic combinations suddenly pop into existence completely different than anything seen before”

To quote the last article…

The two researchers looked at ACP genes in the genomes of two fly species that have different mating behaviors. There were plenty of duplicate copies of ACP genes in these genomes, but is there evidence that these genes have acquired new functions?

To answer this question, the researchers looked at the rates of evolutionary change in these genes. Genes can evolve in three basic ways: 1) they can be resistant to change, because evolution is favoring the status quo (this is called negative selection); 2) they can evolve neutrally, meaning they steadily pick up random mutations which aren’t weeded out by selection (this suggests that the gene may no longer be functional); and 3) they can change very rapidly, faster than the neutral rate, suggesting that evolution is favoring a new function (this is called positive selection). The idea here is that you can draw conclusions about how a gene is evolving based on how much that gene has changed between species.

We can apply this idea to gene duplication. After an accidental copying event, evolution may act to preserve both copies in a largely unchanged form, in which case both copies will exhibit few changes in DNA sequence - maybe each copy specializes in a slightly different function, which means that we’ll see a few changes, but not many. Or, one copy may become completely useless, destroyed by mutation and thus evolving at the neutral rate. The final possibility is that one or both copies may be subject to positive selection, which means that evolution quickly favors randomly arising beneficial mutations. In this final case, either one or both copies will exhibit more DNA changes than you see at the neutral rate.

So what did the researchers find? Not surprisingly, it was a mixed bag. Some Acp genes are strongly constrained by evolution, meaning that they serve a critical function that tolerates no changes in the gene structure. But in many cases of duplicated genes, one copy evolved slowly (negative selection), while the other copy evolved very quickly (positive selection). This suggests that evolution is favoring the original function in one copy of the gene, and a new function in the other copy.

 

[liquidpele]

Perhaps you have confused observation with experimentation.

You are thinking experimentation must be complex. An example of something simple would be looking at a blank part of the sky, coming up with a hypothesis that even the blank parts are filled with things that are just too far away for us to see, designing an experiment that could even be as simple as the hubble looking over there for 40 days in a row (very complicated actually), and seeing what we see in the ultra deep field.

howtonotbedepressed.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/hubble_ultra_deep_field.jpg

An experiment doesn’t mean we have to touch the item, it just means we are testing a hypothesis in some way… which can be by observation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

To reiterate, an experiment being designed does not define the thing being tested. Such a notion is absurd.

On the contrary, every experiment in science is intelligently designed. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say science can design an experiment for accidental abiogenesis (which it hasn’t yet) and then say the accidental abiogenesis was not intelligently designed.

You have painted yourself into a logical corner.

Accidental abiogenesis has never been proven. Yet there would be no reluctance to put it in science textbooks and make a great clamor about all the grand experiments which have been conducted to prove nothing of the sort. Intelligent design is highly likely, yet it will not be put in science textbooks.

I guess we know who is behind that little trick. :juggle:

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele

To reiterate, an experiment being designed does not define the thing being tested. Such a notion is absurd.

On the contrary, every experiment in science is intelligently designed. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say science can design an experiment for accidental abiogenesis (which it hasn’t yet) and then say the accidental abiogenesis was not intelligently designed.

You have painted yourself into a logical corner.

Accidental abiogenesis has never been proven. Yet there would be no reluctance to put it in science textbooks and make a great clamor about all the grand experiments which have been conducted to prove nothing of the sort. Intelligent design is highly likely, yet it will not be put in science textbooks.

I guess we know who is behind that little trick. :juggle:

Ah, I think I finally see why you keep bringing this up. Lets say I have an experiment where I freeze ice. Does freezing ice mean that ice can’t freeze by itself without design? Yes, it would mean that ice in nature *could *have been frozen by design… except that everything we see in nature seems to contradict that, and such a theory quickly becomes proven false. That is the nature of science, you’re making a hypothesis that has many experiments and lots of evidence and none of that supports it, and yet you refuse to modify or abandon it but still claim that it is science. All evidence points to the fact that a designer was not necessary, so even though it’s a theoretical possibility, there is no *direct *evidence to support it.

If abiogenesis is claimed as being proven in textbooks, then I agree that would be incorrect, but I doubt that is the case. Abiogenesis is a theory, and like I said, we see experiments that support it, but it’s not proven to even be possible yet. If we did replicate it in the lab while replicating early earth conditions, it would mean that it’s possible that life began without a designer. Before you even start, no, that does not mean that there is a designer because we were able to design something like that - you can’t say that both it not being possible in nature AND it being possible in nature show there is a designer. Either it’s possible in nature, or there HAS to be a designer, and given what we know about the world, physical laws, chemistry, and evolution, the former seems to be the predominant scientific theory given the evidence… in fact there is NO evidence for ID in this thread beyond misconceptions about evolution, pointing out abiogenesis is not proven but might be in some textbooks, and completely false claims about the nature of experimentation.

 

[edwest2]

Once again, all I’m seeing is the insistence argument. People who say ID isn’t science often enough believe that others will believe what they say. I don’t.

First, see the article published in the New York Times by Cardinal Schoenborn titled Finding Design in Nature. He rightly says that any science that denies actual design in nature is ideology, not science.

It is very clear that the knee jerk reaction to reject actual design in nature is out of a concern over sneaking God back into the classroom or people starting to believe in God. A fear that it would tip the balance against the current atheism, paganism and relativism currently being marketed by the media and here as well.

The SETI project is an excellent example. Anyone who denies this can look it up. It’s run by scientists.

Peace,
Ed

 

[liquidpele]

Once again, all I’m seeing is the insistence argument. People who say ID isn’t science often enough believe that others will believe what they say. I don’t.

First, see the article published in the New York Times by Cardinal Schoenborn titled Finding Design in Nature. He rightly says that any science that denies actual design in nature is ideology, not science.

It is very clear that the knee jerk reaction to reject actual design in nature is out of a concern over sneaking God back into the classroom or people starting to believe in God. A fear that it would tip the balance against the current atheism, paganism and relativism currently being marketed by the media and here as well.

The SETI project is an excellent example. Anyone who denies this can look it up. It’s run by scientists.

Peace,
Ed

Ha! So the SETI project is science just because it is run by scientists? Some scientists attend church, is church now science as well?

The SETI project is a project, but I don’t know you can really say it’s science. If you did, you could say they have a hypothesis that there is life out there, and they are trying to prove it by contacting them, but since there is no way to disprove that there is life out there and we must wait for life to contact us and can’t directly cause what we need to test, it’s really a *horrible * example of what science is about. (hypothesis must be falsifiable - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis ). Science does not mean you can claim something that cannot be disproven and then insist that it must be an option and that it is scientific. By the way, did you know when we first saw a pulsar star, they thought it was a sign of life because it was so regular? Turns out a lot of stuff looks like it’s by design but it’s probably not.

ID fails to be science, because it does not follow the scientific method, the thing that even my wife’s 3rd graders understand, and because it is not falsifiable or provable by any experiment we can conjure up.

uic.edu/classes/bios/bios100/labs/scimethod.htm

sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

I agree with you that all I hear in this thread are insistence arguments though. Problem is, I seem to be the only one providing sources and links. Interesting.

 

[edwest2]

Ha! So the SETI project is science just because it is run by scientists? Some scientists attend church, is church now science as well?

The SETI project is a project, but I don’t know you can really say it’s science. If you did, you could say they have a hypothesis that there is life out there, and they are trying to prove it by contacting them, but since there is no way to disprove that there is life out there and we must wait for life to contact us and can’t directly cause what we need to test, it’s really a horrible example of what science is about. Science does not mean you can claim something that cannot be disproven and then insist that it must be an option and that it is scientific. By the way, did you know when we first saw a pulsar star, they thought it was a sign of life because it was so regular? Turns out a lot of stuff looks like it’s by design but it’s probably not.

ID fails to be science, because it does not follow the scientific method… the thing that even my wife’s 3rd graders understand.

uic.edu/classes/bios/bios100/labs/scimethod.htm

sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

You are welcome to try and explain how ID can follow the scientific method when there is no experiment that can prove it, no evidence that supports it, etc. There is only a hypothesis about something that cannot be proven or disproven, which blatantly contradicts what science is.

You seem to want to believe in only science. This is a Catholic forum so don’t be surprised if you get answers from a Catholic perspective. Science is not the only way of knowing. It is not to be worshipped - that is idolatry.

Design needs a designer. The Catholic Church recognizes design in nature. It’s true but you are free to deny it.

Science is not god. Only God is God and He has spoken through the prophets.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

All evidence points to the fact that a designer was not necessary, so even though it’s a theoretical possibility, there is no direct evidence to support it.

With respect to accidental abiogenesis, this is absolutely false and you know it. What “evidence” are you talking about? What “fact” are you talking about? Do you know something nobody else in the scientific world knows? Or do you just have blind faith in your non-existent evidence and fact?

:bowdown: ACCIDENTAL ABIOGENESIS!

 

[liquidpele]

You seem to want to believe in only science. This is a Catholic forum so don’t be surprised if you get answers from a Catholic perspective. Science is not the only way of knowing. It is not to be worshipped - that is idolatry.

Design needs a designer. The Catholic Church recognizes design in nature. It’s true but you are free to deny it.

Science is not god. Only God is God and He has spoken through the prophets.

Peace,
Ed

Nice strawman. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Science is not the only way of learning, I never said that. I simply said that ID is not science. I have no problem with it being an idea. In fact, I think it’s very interesting. It should not be in a science class though, and I personally don’t think it to be plausible which was the original question. The catholic church also recognizes evolution by the way, go back a page or two and you’ll see where i quoted John Paul II.