What is Intelligent Design

[Ghosty]

Buffalo: Selectively quoting Church Fathers doesn’t prove your point, because I can match them with contrary quotes by other Church Fathers.

“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation” (Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

“With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation” (ibid., 2:9).

“For in these days [of creation] the morning and evening are counted until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!” (Augustine, The City of God 11:6 [A.D. 419]).

Augustine certainly didn’t seem to believe that the Church was under attack by alternative explainations of our origins. As you can see, he even went so far as to chide those Christians who obstinately held on to literalist interpretations of Scripture in the face of the overwhelming evidence supplied by reason.

Vern: You might want to stop playing with oriel. I have reason to believe he’s a schizophrenic and that this is just a captive audience for his paranoid ramblings.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ghosty:

Vern: You might want to stop playing with oriel. I have reason to believe he’s a schizophrenic and that this is just a captive audience for his paranoid ramblings.

If he isn’t, he’s doing one heck of an imitation.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[Ghosty]

I’ve worked with a LOT of schizophrenics, and this guy is text book. Espescially when he goes into his numerology stuff. It’s a great opportunity for exposure to the illness for those who don’t get to see it in real life.

You can also check out www.timecube.com for another online schizophrenic (site contains offensive language).

 

[oriel36]

Ghosty:

I’ve worked with a LOT of schizophrenics, and this guy is text book. Espescially when he goes into his numerology stuff. It’s a great opportunity for exposure to the illness for those who don’t get to see it in real life.

You can also check out www.timecube.com for another online schizophrenic (site contains offensive language).

What makes you an intellectual weakling is that you accept gematria as a valid resolution for 666 while there is no numerology involved .The numerology is all yours while I point out that mediocrity is the spirit of the antichrist or if you prefer,an antichristian condition.

The Book of Revelation is not for everybody and especially weak minds who settle on a mediocre solution of Nero and Rome to account for the images and the values attached.

Call me what you will but you follow that Arian heretic and his empirical doctrine.His conclusions are not just wrong but hilarious making you look who call him a ‘genius’ to be the dumbest people on Earth.

 

[PhilVaz]

Numerology, getting off topic…but look for the movie The Beast to be released 6/6/06, will generate more sales of Left Behind novels and Harold Camping books.

To get back on topic, I’ll have to quote the following every 20 to 25 posts in our creation-evolution-ID threads from now on…

“According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.” (From "Human Persons Created in the Image of God" (paragraph 63) by the International Theological Commission, headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, statement released July 2004, from plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002)

Phil P

 

[Ghosty]

What makes you an intellectual weakling is that you accept gematria as a valid resolution for 666 while there is no numerology involved .The numerology is all yours while I point out that mediocrity is the spirit of the antichrist or if you prefer,an antichristian condition.

The Book of Revelation is not for everybody and especially weak minds who settle on a mediocre solution of Nero and Rome to account for the images and the values attached.

Call me what you will but you follow that Arian heretic and his empirical doctrine.His conclusions are not just wrong but hilarious making you look who call him a ‘genius’ to be the dumbest people on Earth.

I rest my case. Either this is an act, or we have ourselves a Mr. Timecube.

 

[oriel36]

HagiaSophia:

What is intelligent design? Its proponents maintain that living creatures are just too intricate to have arisen by evolution. Throughout the natural world, they say, there is evidence of deliberate design. Is it not reasonable, then, to infer the existence of an intelligent designer? To evade the charge that intelligent design is a religious theory – creationism dressed up as science – its advocates make no explicit claims about who or what this designer might be. But students will presumably get the desired point. As one Pennsylvania teacher observed: ‘‘The first question they will ask is: ‘Well, who’s the designer? Do you mean God?’’’

What binds animate and inanimate life together on this planet and makes it mathematically unique is the tendency of forms to follow the phi proportion in all its forms.

mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html

In ancient times it was so well known that Plato could say that it is the most binding relationship in the Universe while Kepler called it a jewel.It is so playful to work with this proportion as we are surrounded by it that only the dull and dreary would object to this one geometric proportion that makes Earth special from anywhere else.

The whole point in investigating natural phenomena and especially the developmental side of geology,astronomy and the emergence of life on the planet is to maintain the same balances we observe in nature and as best we can present it is a way that strenghtens our connection with our temporal existence and the ingenuity that makes life possible.The cold technical gaze sees nature as a machine and looks for efficiency in design but it is the sparkling cyclical elements which catch our attension in how life regenerates in various forms resonates with the majesty of God.

People are told that theories are ‘elegant’ and probably accept what they are told because of some mathematical deficiency but since when did God ever treat his servants so badly if this were the case.The truth is that people can enter and leave the appreceation of natural forms at any time without having to know any principles or laws and indeed it is now implicit that they reject the sterile ideas that reduce the working of nature to a machine or as an exercise in observation and measurement followed by guesswork.

Like Dante,we see that it is Love that moves the Sun and the other stars,or in the form of a seashell,a pinecone or a great work of art or music or in the smallest kindness done without looking for a reward or recognition.This is my Christian Universe.

As the geometer who sets himself
To square the circle and who cannot find,
135 For all his thought, the principle he needs,

      Just so was I on seeing this new vision 
      I wanted to see how our image fuses 
      Into the circle and finds its place in it, 

      Yet my wings were not meant for such a flight ¡ª

140 Except that then my mind was struck by lightning
Through which my longing was at last fulfilled.

      Here powers failed my high imagination: 
      But by now my desire and will were turned, 
      Like a balanced wheel rotated evenly,

145 By the Love that moves the sun and the other stars.

italianstudies.org/comedy/Paradiso33.htm

 

[oriel36]

PhilVaz:

“According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.” (From "Human Persons Created in the Image of God" (paragraph 63) by the International Theological Commission, headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, statement released July 2004, from plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002)

Phil P

The whole point of showing where Newton backslid from pure Copernican heliocentricity back into geocentricity and from the guys in the early 20th century expanded it to relativistic homocentricity is that these empirical freaks are making their judgements based on what they see directly when they look out on the stellar Universe.

They are coming up with the Big bang idea because their instruments are telling them that the galaxies appear to be moving away from each other hence in rewinding this picture into the past,the galactic Universe must have begun as a point.

physics.uc.edu/~hanson/ASTRO/LECTURENOTES/Cosmo/Page2.html%between%

What this means is that they imagine that they do not have to take greater centers of rotation into account such as the axis of orbital motion of the Earth around the Sun or the greater one of the Earth and the solar system around the galactic axis.

The reason they have their idiotic ‘cosmological principle’ is that they can’t even get past the local illusions generated by the Earth’s axial rotation and which Copernicus dumped wholesale back in 1453.The reason every point looks the same from all directions is just a bigger illusion which makes everything appear to rotate around the Earth.

ottawa.rasc.ca/pictures/pdelorme/polaris.jpg

That is why it is not a good idea to fix the Earth’s rotation directly to the stars as Flamsteed did and Newton built his ballistic agenda on.

One question .

In principle,how would you know the local Milky Way stars were rotating against the external galaxies ?. Think of a carousel and an axis of rotation far removed from our location.

 

[mlchance]

From the Link Posted by HagiaSophia:

From a scientific perspective, one of the most frustrating things about intelligent design is that (unlike Darwinism) it is virtually impossible to test.

This is wrong on two points:

1. It isn’t possible to test Darwinism. Unless, of course, you have a time machine and a time-lapse camera.
2. The basic mechanism of intelligent design can be tested. For example, William Dembski has developed a mathematical model to test for design in an information series. This system is testable. DNA is an information system. According to Dembski, his mathematical model shows that DNA has the qualities of the designed information system.

Intelligent design might be bad science. It is certainly science that can be improved upon. But it is not untestable, and it is certainly bad form to make false claims in order to support any position.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Catholic2003]

2. The basic mechanism of intelligent design can be tested. For example, William Dembski has developed a mathematical model to test for design in an information series. This system is testable.

I’m afraid this isn’t true. A while back, I had an actual problem where I needed to distinguish between a random sequences of bits and sequences of bits that were designed by a human. So I figured I would try out this ID stuff to see if it worked. I read Dembski’s mathematical papers, and went to a website where Dembski posted, and I found out there is no mathematical model, although he hopes they will develop one someday.

There is something called an “explanatory filter”, but it is more conceptual than mathematical. And although Dembski claims that his mathematics proves that evolution is impossible, this mathematics is unique to the problem of evolution, and cannot be applied to other problems. It takes a while to see this, because there are supposedly other examples of ID, but it turns out that all the other examples are just applications of standard Fisher hypothesis testing.

 

[oriel36]

Catholic2003:

I’m afraid this isn’t true. A while back, I had an actual problem where I needed to distinguish between a random sequences of bits and sequences of bits that were designed by a human. So I figured I would try out this ID stuff to see if it worked. I read Dembski’s mathematical papers, and went to a website where Dembski posted, and I found out there is no mathematical model, although he hopes they will develop one someday.

There is something called an “explanatory filter”, but it is more conceptual than mathematical. And although Dembski claims that his mathematics proves that evolution is impossible, this mathematics is unique to the problem of evolution, and cannot be applied to other problems. It takes a while to see this, because there are supposedly other examples of ID, but it turns out that all the other examples are just applications of standard Fisher hypothesis testing.

This is like the idiocy that tried to prove by experiment that seashells grew in rocks.

alan-cutler.com/excerpt.html

I can’t repeat often enough how this stupidity and empirical chanting of proof by experiment is such a lousy way to approach natural phenomena.Steno’s realisation of the seashells on mountaintops is intuitive,no experiments are required to justify the correctness of his insight,only common sense that it does not lead to anything absurd.

What you are doing leads to absurdity and amounts to nothing more than guesswork.

 

[jdnation]

Vern>None of which proves “creation science.” The most advanced scientists of the day, Galileo among them, had hard evidence the earth orbited the sun. In fact, everyone who seriously studied it saw it was true.

What did that topic have to do with creation science? It had to do with showing how the scientific consensus has screwed up many times in the past. And no there was no hard evidence, they couldn’t answer Aristotle’s arguments. The ‘technology’ (stronger telescopes) to prove it at the time didn’t exist yet.

Vern>What I find at such sites is the wildest pistache of half-truths and wild speculation since someone got me to read “Chariots of the Gods.”

I can say the same for evolution. Try looking at it again and seeing if it fits their worldview… not yours!

Vern>And on no evidence.

Empty assertations from someone who doesn’t even want to look at any evidence.

VErn>Let me see – I could skim those crazy sites, then to on to some that have some solid science in them? Is that an acceptable alternative?

Well, go for it!

Vern>You’re missing the point – we see evolution in action. The difference between “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution” is an artificial one.

Yeah, ‘artificial,’ because you can’t prove anything about the macro-part. It’s the part you can’t see, but hey, keep the faith!

Vern>We see organisms adapting under environmenal pressure to become different in critical aspects of their being. That’s evolution.

Creationists agree, but that’s not macro-evolution, it’s adaptation and micro-evolution, in the case of bacteria, it’s devolution.

Vern>No, it’s not what you said.

Really? Please go re-read where I said… “In which case you’re then saying that our ancestral early simple celled organisms had all the complexity that we do. In which case you next problem is how such complexity existed at the beginning through chance.”

And “As for the turning on/off gene scenario, turning off genes will stop growth of some areas of the body. But this by itself won’t produce something else, it’s only off. Which leaves turning on something new to create new organs or whatever. Which means that all such information should be there from the beginning of the organism’s creation.”

Oh, and also “But if you’re going to go the extra mile and not associate yourself with the ID’ers then you’re basically asking me to accept the idea that such complexity arose all at once purely by chance”

Vern>Darwin sailed around the world and gathered specimens and fossils. His study was based on the hard evidence he found.

Well, in Darwin’s own words…

“I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change… Hence, if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, I have at least … done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.”

“I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”

“You will be greatly disappointed (by my book); it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas.”

Yes Darwin did sail around the world, he collected fossils, specimens and made factual observations. The problem is his wild speculation about his observations and data, and this was led by Darwin’s own biased presuppositions. He interpreted evidence to suit his view. We can toss in one by his brother Erasmus in a letter to him about his book that spells it out:

“In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won’t fit in, why, ‘so much the worse for the facts’ is my feeling.”

Vern>And it’s not chasing after every wierd idea that comes along, either. The Church doesn’t oblige us to accept Creation Science, or Intelligent Design or any other anti-scientific theory.

It shouldn’t chase after any weird idea, let alone one as equally unsubstantiated as macro-evolution. The Church doesn’t oblige us to accept that either. You know for all the stuff you say about ID, they don’t reject evolution, they just bring God more into the picture to solve the problems of probability etc. They are not naturalistic evolutionists, they are theistic evolutionists, practically the same as you. They believe in evolution and the creator providence of God. You seem wholly confused on the topic, especially since your responses lack knowledge of the thing you try desperately to defend leaving you to resort to insults about creationism most of the time. Hang out with PhilVaz sometime, he knows what he’s talking about, his website is very informative.

 

[jdnation]

Interesting article from AiG today:

Can creationists be scientists?

by Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D., astrophysics, AiG–USA speaker and researcher

It has been often said that “creationists cannot be real scientists.”

Several years ago, the National Academy of Sciences published a guidebook entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science.1 This guidebook states that evolution is “the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things.”

In addition, the late evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky once made the now well-known comment that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”2

But is a belief in “particles-to-people” evolution really necessary to understand biology and other sciences? Is it even helpful? Are there any technological advances that have been made because of a belief in evolution?

Although evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how a computer works, how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? No, not at all.

In fact, the Ph.D. cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton, who speaks at many conferences, has stated, “The fact is that, though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.”3

Nor has technology arisen due to a belief in evolution. Computers, cellular phones and DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics which God created. It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible. How can a belief in evolution (a belief that complex biological machines do not require an intelligent designer) aid in the development of complex machines which are clearly intelligently designed?

Technology has shown us that sophisticated machines require intelligent designers—not random chance. Science and technology are perfectly consistent with the Bible.

So it shouldn’t be surprising that there have been many scientists who believed in biblical creation. In my own research field of astrophysics, I am reminded of several of the great minds of history. Consider Isaac Newton, who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope and made a number of discoveries in optics.

Consider Johannes Kepler, who discovered the three laws of planetary motion, or James Clerk Maxwell who discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. These great scientists believed the Bible.

Today as well, there are many Ph.D. scientists who reject evolution and instead believe that God created in six days as recorded in Scripture. Consider Dr. Russ Humphreys, a Ph.D. nuclear physicist who has developed (among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields4 which was able to predict the field strengths of the outer planets. Did a belief in the Bible hinder his research? Not at all.

On the contrary, Dr. Humphreys was able to make these predictions precisely because he started from the principles of Scripture. Dr. John Baumgardner, a Ph.D. geophysicist and biblical creationist, has a model of catastrophic plate tectonics, which the journal Nature once featured (this model is based on the global Genesis Flood).

Additionally, think of all the people who have benefited from a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan. The MRI scanner was developed by the creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian5 who has been featured twice in our magazineCreation.

Whole article here:
answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0405lead.asp

 

[vern_humphrey]

jdnation:

What did that topic have to do with creation science? It had to do with showing how the scientific consensus has screwed up many times in the past.

You brought it up – as if the science of the 17th Century, when the rules were still being developed means that they’re still not deveoped.

jdnation:

Empty assertations from someone who doesn’t even want to look at any evidence…

Actually, I have quite a nice collection of local fossils – did you miss my post about not being able to find living examples of those plants and animals?

jdnation:

Yeah, ‘artificial,’ because you can’t prove anything about the macro-part. It’s the part you can’t see, but hey, keep the faith!..

Actually, it has been proven in the examples I gave you – but, hey, keep the faith!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

jdnation:

Creationists agree, but that’s not macro-evolution, it’s adaptation and micro-evolution, in the case of bacteria, it’s devolution…

Wrongo! It’s the emergence of new species of bacteria – and they are as advanced as the species they split from.

jdnation:
Really? Please go re-read where I said… “In which case you’re then saying that our ancestral early simple celled organisms had all the complexity that we do. In which case you next problem is how such complexity existed at the beginning through chance.” …*

Complexity is a function of the molecular structure of DNA. Your idea that it came about through “chance” is YOUR idea – not mine, and not part of any accepted theory of evolution.

jdnation:

And “As for the turning on/off gene scenario, turning off genes will stop growth of some areas of the body But this by itself won’t produce something else, it’s only off. Which leaves turning on something new to create new organs or whatever. Which means that all such information should be there from the beginning of the organism’s creation.” …

What part of “turning on” did you not understand? http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

jdnation:

Oh, and also “But if you’re going to go the extra mile and not associate yourself with the ID’ers then you’re basically asking me to accept the idea that such complexity arose all at once purely by chance”…

You’re really into this idea that everyone thinks evolution is a matter of “purely by chance” aren’t you?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

jdnation:

Well, in Darwin’s own words…

“I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science”

So what? Do you think Darwin is a god, and people worship him?

Darwin was a biologist, who gathered data and developed a hypothesis. Later scientists have done a lot more work on it.

I’m always amused that Creation Scientists want to attack 19th Century science, and dare not look at up-to-date work of the 21st Century/http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

jdnation:

It shouldn’t chase after any weird idea, let alone one as equally unsubstantiated as macro-evolution. The Church doesn’t oblige us to accept that either. You know for all the stuff you say about ID, they don’t reject evolution, they just bring God more into the picture to solve the problems of probability etc. They are not naturalistic evolutionists, they are theistic evolutionists, practically the same as you. They believe in evolution and the creator providence of God. You seem wholly confused on the topic, especially since your responses lack knowledge of the thing you try desperately to defend leaving you to resort to insults about creationism most of the time. Hang out with PhilVaz sometime, he knows what he’s talking about, his website is very informative.

As opposed to someone who believes – in some oddball mathematical model that doesn’t exist?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[PhilVaz]

jdnation << They believe in evolution and the creator providence of God. You seem wholly confused on the topic, especially since your responses lack knowledge of the thing you try desperately to defend leaving you to resort to insults about creationism most of the time. Hang out with PhilVaz sometime, he knows what he’s talking about, his website is very informative. >>

Thanks for the compliment. PhilVaz apologetics site here But to defend Vern, I think he knows the science much better than me, he just doesn’t quote all the research and expert sources I have at my fingertips. I’ve known him from the old FidoNet days back in the late 1990s.

On IDers and evolution, depends which intelligent designer you mean, some IDers accept macroevolution, or have no problem with it aside from the “mechanism” (natural selection, punc eq, etc) which scientists themselves debate, but many IDers reject it wholesale. Behe accepts “common descent,” Dembski at times says “evolution per se is not the issue,” but other times he’ll publish books trying to debunk common descent (e.g. Uncommon Dissent, I’ll admit its a pretty good book), and then there are the “popular” books on ID that unfairly equate evolution with atheism (e.g. The Case For A Creator by Strobel), and at the far end there are the young-earth IDers (e.g. Paul Nelson of Discovery Institute I think, and much of the evangelical/fundamentalist believing general public).

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

jdnation << Are there any technological advances that have been made because of a belief in evolution? … science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how a computer works, how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? No, not at all. >>

I don’t know who this John Lisle is, but he appears to have his degree in astrophysics, not biology. I’ve already quoted the geneticist Dobzhansky, and the signed Project Steve statement, here is what other biologists, geologists or paleontologists have said, or philosophers of science, on the success, technological, and medical advances of evolutionary theory, how it explains and unites our study of natural history, biology and the related sciences:

“Evolution is the central unifying concept of natural history; it is the foundation of all of modern paleontology and biology…Biological evolution is not debated in the scientific community – organisms become new species through modification over time… ‘it simply has not been an issue for a century’ [citing Futuyma]…The crowning achievement of paleontology has been the demonstration, from the history of life, of the validity of the evolutionary theory…” (Evolution and the Fossil Record 2001 PDF, by the American Geological Institute and The Paleontological Society, pages 1, 10, 13)

“Like Newton’s physics in 1800, evolutionary theory today rests on a huge record of successes. In both cases, we find a unified theory whose problem-solving strategies are applied to illuminate a host of diverse phenomena. Both theories offer problem solutions that can be subjected to rigorous independent checks. Both open up new lines of inquiry and have a history of surmounting apparent obstacles. The virtues of successful science are clearly displayed in both…Darwin is the Newton of biology. Evolutionary theory is not simply an area of science that has had some success at solving problems. It has unified biology and it has inspired important biological disciplines.” (Philip Kitcher, professor of philosophy and zoology, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism [MIT Press, 1982], page 54)

“Far from being merely a speculative notion, as implied when someone says, ‘evolution is just a theory,’ the core concepts of evolution are well documented and well confirmed. Natural selection has been repeatedly demonstrated in both field and laboratory, and descent with modification is so well documented that scientists are justified in saying that evolution is true… But people who oppose evolution, and seek to have creationism or intelligent design included in science curricula, seek to dismiss and change the most successful way of knowing ever discovered. They wish to substitute opinion and belief for evidence and testing. The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning.” (Statement on Evolution from the Botanical Society of America, 2003, representing thousands of botanists, plant biologists and other scientists)

All of these quotes and references I’ve looked up myself. And of course don’t forget the line from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“…the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator…” (paragraph 283)

It appears that John Lisle doesn’t know what he’s talking about at least according to my sources. :tsktsk:

Phil P

 

[Ghosty]

PhilVaz: Since you’re the local librarian of this stuff, would you mind posting a link to some of the recent studies that proved speciation? I’m refering to the cases, I believe it was in certain plants, where scientists simulated selective pressures over the course of a few “generations” and then found that the plants from the selective pressure group could not breed with the plants from the non-pressured group any longer. I don’t remember all the details, but I know I’ve read articles about it online. I figure you’d know where to find it if anyone could

 

[PhilVaz]

<< PhilVaz: Since you’re the local librarian of this stuff, would you mind posting a link to some of the recent studies that proved speciation? >>

Well I’ll do better, I’ll let you see my lecture notes and course syllabus on the topic, Dr. Ballard is just a pen name. That’s me. Just kidding.

And here is a little 17-page something I whipped up on a related subject.

Phil P

 

[jdnation]

Vern>You brought it up – as if the science of the 17th Century, when the rules were still being developed means that they’re still not deveoped.

Yes, I did bring it up as a response to what you were saying about the ‘scientific consensus’ and how good it was. So you believe the scientific community today has finally fixed all those problems now? It’s typical of each generation of humanity to delude themselves to think that they are the most advanced and perfected stage. For all you know, future scientists, even if they’re evolutionists, would look back and laugh at all the strange incorrect theories and beliefs their predecessors had.

Vern>Actually, I have quite a nice collection of local fossils – did you miss my post about not being able to find living examples of those plants and animals?

So what? You found fossils of extinct animals. Much to the surprise of evolutionists today, some of these animals thought long extinct are sometimes actually found alive! They give them the name ‘living fossils.’ Anyway, what’s the argument here?

Vern>Actually, it has been proven in the examples I gave you – but, hey, keep the faith!

And as I explained, I saw those examples differently. They did not show macro-evolution. You make no attempt to explain the part of how the already complex DNA with some of the genes off and on came into existence… the probability requires faith. But you claim that’s nonsense.

Vern>Wrongo! It’s the emergence of new species of bacteria – and they are as advanced as the species they split from.

They are short some of the things their previous forms were. If one were to keep up that ‘shortening’ it only means less complexity. If, as you explain, it’s some gene’s turned off and on… then it’s different, but this is neither gain nor loss of complexity. Which takes us back to my previous question about how the complexity existed to begin with.

Vern>Complexity is a function of the molecular structure of DNA. Your idea that it came about through “chance” is YOUR idea – not mine, and not part of any accepted theory of evolution… You’re really into this idea that everyone thinks evolution is a matter of “purely by chance” aren’t you?

I know of no other, please inform me of what the accepted part is. God?

Vern>What part of “turning on” did you not understand?

What? What did that have to do with what I said?

Vern>So what? Do you think Darwin is a god, and people worship him? Darwin was a biologist, who gathered data and developed a hypothesis. Later scientists have done a lot more work on it. I’m always amused that Creation Scientists want to attack 19th Century science, and dare not look at up-to-date work of the 21st Century

We were talking about the idea of scientists pushing God out of the picture. The scientific community is made up of lots of different people with their own philosophical opinions, both theists and atheists, creationists and naturalists, and those like you who comprimise between the two worldviews. I used Darwin as an example. You responded to that without a problem, and I explained further how his worldview shaped his speculation.

Vern>As opposed to someone who believes – in some oddball mathematical model that doesn’t exist?

Well this is honestly the first time I’ve heard about this. Could you please teach me about the resolution to that oddity?

 

[jdnation]

But Phil, I believe Mr. Lise was talking about how evolutionary theory has not contributed to advancements in technology, or anything in the field of operational science which deals with processes taking place in the present. No doubt though that evolution does form a big part of the education of people going into the fields of biology. But most of it is spent still trying to figure out the whole process and unlock the mysteries of the origin of life. Basically one learns evolution to discover more about evolution. So the great deal of biologists, antropologists etc spend their time still trying to learn more about the past, but nothing of it contributes to ‘progress.’ Those things are only done by biologists etc who are examining present day living things and how they work now, which is operational science. That is where progress is taking place to aid humanity.

Operational science looks at what the body is like now, what it does now, how it behaves now and what we can do with it under present day circumstances. Origins Science, evolution science, try and figure out how it got there, but is yet to contribute to the process of helping soceity, and well, it doesn’t have to at all, because that’s not what it’s about, that’s not it’s job. It is not origins science that aids operational science, it is rather operational science that is ‘aiding’ evolutionists in building and refining their theory.