Saturday, October 01, 2005
Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design Redux
I discovered another pummelling essay destroying Intelligent Design. This one is good because it not only lays out the "evolution" of the Intelligent Design camp, but also explains the science behind evolution in a way that any astute reader would be able to understand.
It's nice and thorough with about six long but fascinating pages - so set aside some time if you're going to read it.
Previously on jeffmilner.com.
It's nice and thorough with about six long but fascinating pages - so set aside some time if you're going to read it.
Previously on jeffmilner.com.
posted by Jeff Milner at 10/01/2005 09:41:00 AM
Comments: 4(Permalink)
Comments:
Hi Jeff,
I'm not a genius - but I don't think it'll take one to figure out that that article you cited was completely biased.
This whole argument is starting to irritate me. Everyone is taking such a black and white stance on the issue.
I'm going to express my thoughts on this topic on my blog, hopefully within the next week, and I want to invite you to have a look and tell me what you think.
Franz
I'm not a genius - but I don't think it'll take one to figure out that that article you cited was completely biased.
This whole argument is starting to irritate me. Everyone is taking such a black and white stance on the issue.
I'm going to express my thoughts on this topic on my blog, hopefully within the next week, and I want to invite you to have a look and tell me what you think.
Franz
Comment posted by Franz at 10/01/2005 2:51 PM (Permalink)
Franz,
Please do. I'd be glad to read what you have to say about the article.
I hope you address what exactly makes the article biased. It is true that the article indicates scientific proof for evolution and little or no evidence for "intelligent design" but that in itself doesn't constitute a bias if there just isn't data available to back up the creationist viewpoint.
If anything, I would say the article illustrates how biased the "intelligent design" people have been, in the States anyway - for example, with their stickers on text-books that single out "the theory of evolution" as "a theory, not a fact" while ignoring "atomic theory", "gravitation theory", and a myriad of other scientific theories. As the author of the article points out, "By singling out evolution as uniquely controversial among scientific theories, the stickers catered to religious biases and thus violated the First Amendment."
Please do. I'd be glad to read what you have to say about the article.
I hope you address what exactly makes the article biased. It is true that the article indicates scientific proof for evolution and little or no evidence for "intelligent design" but that in itself doesn't constitute a bias if there just isn't data available to back up the creationist viewpoint.
If anything, I would say the article illustrates how biased the "intelligent design" people have been, in the States anyway - for example, with their stickers on text-books that single out "the theory of evolution" as "a theory, not a fact" while ignoring "atomic theory", "gravitation theory", and a myriad of other scientific theories. As the author of the article points out, "By singling out evolution as uniquely controversial among scientific theories, the stickers catered to religious biases and thus violated the First Amendment."
Comment posted by Jeff Milner at 10/01/2005 3:13 PM (Permalink)
Anti-intelligent design (ID) articles are typically biased. The sad part is that most people don't bother to take the time to research ID for what it is: a counter-theory that propses that amongst other reasons, irreducibly complex organisms, such as the cilium, bacterial flagellum, blood clotting system, bombardier beetle and so forth, were intelligently designed. ID makes no claim as to who the 'designer' is. It's evolutionists that inject religion into ID by suggesting ID is just another form of Creationism when it truely isn't. If people do the research they learn that is absolutely the case. I'm not proposing that ID is a "fact" - I won't make the same mistake evolutionists make in that regard. Rather, I'm proposing that a valid and scientifically supported theory such as ID makes really good claims against macroevolutionary theory. I looked that evidence and made my mind that macroevolution doesn't make sense as it doesn't have valid answers. Do the research, stop drinking the Kool-aid and make up your minds for yourself. Stop hopping on this evolution-ignorance-band-wagon.
Don't let the phrase "scientific proof". "scientific proof" is surely subjective in this article as the article makes conceptual observations about this "proof", not physical ones. The article doesn't propose any scientifically valid statements that convince me otherwise.
For more info visit: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org
My blog: http://evolutionnomore.blogspot.com
Don't let the phrase "scientific proof". "scientific proof" is surely subjective in this article as the article makes conceptual observations about this "proof", not physical ones. The article doesn't propose any scientifically valid statements that convince me otherwise.
For more info visit: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org
My blog: http://evolutionnomore.blogspot.com
Comment posted by Mike at 10/05/2005 1:03 PM (Permalink)
Mike,
First off, thanks for your thoughts on this matter. Many of the things you brought up were mentioned in the article, but you didn't really comment on the fact that the author clears up these misconceptions.
Did you read the whole article? In case you never I'll try and show you what it has to say about the concerns you raised.
You wondered about: "irreducibly complex organisms". The article mentions quite a few specific examples where something that at first appears "irreducibly complex" actually can be broken down and shown to have very similar traits to less complex life forms.
From page 5 of the article: "Now, we do not know the precise order in which the components of the camera eye evolved--but the point is that the appearance of 'irreducible complexity' cannot be an argument against neo-Darwinism if we can document a plausible sequence in which the complexity can arise from a series of adaptive steps. The 'irreducible complexity' argument is not, in fact, completely novel. It descends, with modification, from the British theologian William Paley, who in 1802 raised the famous 'argument from design' in his book Natural Theology. Paley argued that just as finding a watch on the ground implies a conscious designer (the watchmaker), so finding an equally complex organism implies a cosmic designer (God)."
The author of the article, Jerry Coyne, then goes on to explain the evolution of the human eye. Later he admits that scientists do not have a complete knowledge of how blood clotting developed, (one of the specifics you brought up) but he does however explain that like the human eye there is evidence for a belief in blood clotting forming from different stages. He concludes that point with the following:
"...It is more difficult to trace the evolution of biochemical pathways than of anatomical structures because the ancestral metabolic pathways are no longer present. But biologists are beginning to provide plausible scenarios for how "irreducibly complex" biochemical pathways might have evolved. As expected, these systems involve using bits co-opted from other pathways originally having different functions. (Thus, one of the enzymes in the blood-clotting system also plays a role in digestion and cell division.) In view of our progress in understanding biochemical evolution, it is simply irrational to say that because we do not completely understand how biochemical pathways evolved, we should give up trying and invoke the intelligent designer. If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance 'God.'"
You said, "ID makes no claim as to who the 'designer' is". Officially ID might not make a claim because, as the article points out, the movement is trying to separate itself from previous similar creationist movements that were discredited for being based on religion. However (and this wasn't really brought up in the article), many religious and philosophic systems define God as the creator of the universe. It is my opinion, that belief in ID is indicative of belief in God. Most people would not believe in an intelligent designer and then go on to say that he's not a god, just a really good scientist. It's disingenuous to insincerely imply that ID doesn't believe in a God as the creator.
Independent of who ID claims is, or isn't, the intelligent designer, can you honestly tell me that you don't believe it is God? If not God then who? Flying Spaghetti Monster?
You said, "I'm not proposing that ID is a 'fact' - I won't make the same mistake evolutionists make in that regard". But when evolutionists have done repeatable experiments that show hard evidence of evolution it makes what they claim fact. ID has the same right to claim their beliefs are "fact" when they can show repeatable experiments using the scientific method. That's how science works. Do you need examples or do you just want to read the article?
You said, "scientifically supported theory such as ID makes really good claims against macroevolutionary theory" (sic). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand this really good claim to be that, if it's very complex and not all the pieces of the puzzle for how this fits in with the ample previous evidence for evolution then we should throw out all the evidence and assume it was all made by some mysterious intelligent designer. Is that right? Do I need to point out how backward this thinking is?
You point out that you don't claim ID as fact. This may seem like a convenient escape from having to provide evidence for your beliefs but it's my opinion that if you expect anyone to take ID seriously then there absolutely should be some kind of reason for believing it. Where are the experiments? How can you be comfortable with a baseless theory that if something at present seems too complex to happen naturally it must be ID.
Evidence, on the other hand, shows that as species evolve they are known to become more and more complex. The article illustrates examples ranging from specific organs such as the human eye to whole species like fruit flies and armadillos. From the article: "Diatoms get bigger, clamshells get ribbier, horses get larger and toothier, and the human lineage evolves bigger brains, smaller teeth, and increased efficiency at bipedal walking. Moreover, we now have transitional forms connecting major groups of organisms, including fish with tetrapods, dinosaurs with birds, reptiles with mammals, and land mammals with whales. Darwin predicted that such forms would be found, and their discovery vindicated him fully. It also destroys the creationist notion that species were created in their present form and thereafter remained unchanged".
You said, "The article doesn't propose any scientifically valid statements that convince me otherwise." If you're not convinced that all the evidence for evolution over the last 100 or so years is scientifically valid then nothing I'm going to say is going to change your mind. But I have to ask, what do you think about the selective evolution that is evident in the breeding of house cats and dogs over the last (I'm guessing how long they've been breeding them) 1000 years? If that's possible in such a relatively short time, then doesn't it make sense that natural selection over 4 and a half billion years would be capable of changing the species so much more?
You also said that these points were "amongst other reasons" I'd be interested to hear any other supporting evidence for ID. Preferably something that uses the scientific method to back it up.
First off, thanks for your thoughts on this matter. Many of the things you brought up were mentioned in the article, but you didn't really comment on the fact that the author clears up these misconceptions.
Did you read the whole article? In case you never I'll try and show you what it has to say about the concerns you raised.
You wondered about: "irreducibly complex organisms". The article mentions quite a few specific examples where something that at first appears "irreducibly complex" actually can be broken down and shown to have very similar traits to less complex life forms.
From page 5 of the article: "Now, we do not know the precise order in which the components of the camera eye evolved--but the point is that the appearance of 'irreducible complexity' cannot be an argument against neo-Darwinism if we can document a plausible sequence in which the complexity can arise from a series of adaptive steps. The 'irreducible complexity' argument is not, in fact, completely novel. It descends, with modification, from the British theologian William Paley, who in 1802 raised the famous 'argument from design' in his book Natural Theology. Paley argued that just as finding a watch on the ground implies a conscious designer (the watchmaker), so finding an equally complex organism implies a cosmic designer (God)."
The author of the article, Jerry Coyne, then goes on to explain the evolution of the human eye. Later he admits that scientists do not have a complete knowledge of how blood clotting developed, (one of the specifics you brought up) but he does however explain that like the human eye there is evidence for a belief in blood clotting forming from different stages. He concludes that point with the following:
"...It is more difficult to trace the evolution of biochemical pathways than of anatomical structures because the ancestral metabolic pathways are no longer present. But biologists are beginning to provide plausible scenarios for how "irreducibly complex" biochemical pathways might have evolved. As expected, these systems involve using bits co-opted from other pathways originally having different functions. (Thus, one of the enzymes in the blood-clotting system also plays a role in digestion and cell division.) In view of our progress in understanding biochemical evolution, it is simply irrational to say that because we do not completely understand how biochemical pathways evolved, we should give up trying and invoke the intelligent designer. If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance 'God.'"
You said, "ID makes no claim as to who the 'designer' is". Officially ID might not make a claim because, as the article points out, the movement is trying to separate itself from previous similar creationist movements that were discredited for being based on religion. However (and this wasn't really brought up in the article), many religious and philosophic systems define God as the creator of the universe. It is my opinion, that belief in ID is indicative of belief in God. Most people would not believe in an intelligent designer and then go on to say that he's not a god, just a really good scientist. It's disingenuous to insincerely imply that ID doesn't believe in a God as the creator.
Independent of who ID claims is, or isn't, the intelligent designer, can you honestly tell me that you don't believe it is God? If not God then who? Flying Spaghetti Monster?
You said, "I'm not proposing that ID is a 'fact' - I won't make the same mistake evolutionists make in that regard". But when evolutionists have done repeatable experiments that show hard evidence of evolution it makes what they claim fact. ID has the same right to claim their beliefs are "fact" when they can show repeatable experiments using the scientific method. That's how science works. Do you need examples or do you just want to read the article?
You said, "scientifically supported theory such as ID makes really good claims against macroevolutionary theory" (sic). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand this really good claim to be that, if it's very complex and not all the pieces of the puzzle for how this fits in with the ample previous evidence for evolution then we should throw out all the evidence and assume it was all made by some mysterious intelligent designer. Is that right? Do I need to point out how backward this thinking is?
You point out that you don't claim ID as fact. This may seem like a convenient escape from having to provide evidence for your beliefs but it's my opinion that if you expect anyone to take ID seriously then there absolutely should be some kind of reason for believing it. Where are the experiments? How can you be comfortable with a baseless theory that if something at present seems too complex to happen naturally it must be ID.
Evidence, on the other hand, shows that as species evolve they are known to become more and more complex. The article illustrates examples ranging from specific organs such as the human eye to whole species like fruit flies and armadillos. From the article: "Diatoms get bigger, clamshells get ribbier, horses get larger and toothier, and the human lineage evolves bigger brains, smaller teeth, and increased efficiency at bipedal walking. Moreover, we now have transitional forms connecting major groups of organisms, including fish with tetrapods, dinosaurs with birds, reptiles with mammals, and land mammals with whales. Darwin predicted that such forms would be found, and their discovery vindicated him fully. It also destroys the creationist notion that species were created in their present form and thereafter remained unchanged".
You said, "The article doesn't propose any scientifically valid statements that convince me otherwise." If you're not convinced that all the evidence for evolution over the last 100 or so years is scientifically valid then nothing I'm going to say is going to change your mind. But I have to ask, what do you think about the selective evolution that is evident in the breeding of house cats and dogs over the last (I'm guessing how long they've been breeding them) 1000 years? If that's possible in such a relatively short time, then doesn't it make sense that natural selection over 4 and a half billion years would be capable of changing the species so much more?
You also said that these points were "amongst other reasons" I'd be interested to hear any other supporting evidence for ID. Preferably something that uses the scientific method to back it up.
Comment posted by Jeff Milner at 10/05/2005 3:02 PM (Permalink)
Read more in the Archives
