Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught

one of the worse anti-science articles I've seen yet

no matter how many times ID-ers say it - there is no debate within the scientific community about the ideas of common decent, adaptatation, or natural selection

this author proves how little he knows about evolution with this line...

evolution does not promote "chance" or "random" anywhere in its theory, natural selection is the OPPOSITE of chance

 

There is no debate if you don't want to know about it.

There are longer lists and I guess I'll post them.

I suggest you google some of these names like- Dr. James Allan

And get more informed.

 

ID for Dummies-

Intelligent Design through the Scientific Method:

i. Observation:
The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

ii. Hypothesis:
If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

iii. Experiment:
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

iv. Conclusion:
Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.

Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information:

Putting Intelligent Design to the Test:
Table 1. Ways Designers Act When Designing (Observations):
(1) Take many parts and arrange them in highly specified and complex patterns which perform a specific function.
(2) Rapidly infuse any amounts of genetic information into the biosphere, including large amounts, such that at times rapid morphological or genetic changes could occur in populations.
(3) 'Re-use parts' over-and-over in different types of organisms (design upon a common blueprint).
(4) Be said to typically NOT create completely functionless objects or parts (although we may sometimes think something is functionless, but not realize its true function).

Table 2. Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

Table 3. Examining the Evidence (Experiment and Conclusion):
Line of Evidence Data (Experiment) Prediction of Design Met? (Conclusion)
(1) Biochemical complexity / Laws of the Universe. High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures are commonly found. The bacterial flagellum is a prime example. Specified complexity found in the laws of the universe may be another.
(2) Fossil Record Biological complexity (i.e. new species) tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any similar precursors. The Cambrian explosion is a prime example.
(3) Distribution of Molecular and Morphological Characteristics Similar parts found in different organisms. Many genes and functional parts not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms. The "root" of the tree of life is a prime example.
(4) DNA Biochemical and Biological Functionality Increased knowledge of genetics has created a strong trend towards functionality for "junk-DNA." Examples include recently discovered functionality in some pseudogenes, microRNAs, introns, LINE and ALU elements. Examples of DNA of unknown function persist, but discovery of function may be expected (or lack of current function still explainable under a design paradigm).

 

Dr Allan told us that he accepted evolution as a young student at university ‘virtually from the word go.’ He says, ‘For about 40 years I believed in the theory of evolution.’ He thought that evolution explained the similarities that exist between living things—such as all living things sharing the system of coding genetic information on DNA—and never questioned the idea. Things shared the DNA code because they had a common ancestor, he thought.

Jim started to go to a different church and heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the first time. He says:

‘I saw my weaknesses, my sin, my faults. I was converted and I began to read Scripture really meaningfully for the first time.’

However, he carried on believing in evolution, until one day his wife said, ‘Is there any reason why God should not have created all forms of life on the basis of a universal genetic code?’

Jim shared his response:

‘My immediate reaction was one of annoyance. What is she on about?—absolute nonsense! What does she know about such things? And then I got up in a state of irritation and I stalked out of the house. As I walked, I found myself thinking, and I really believe at that stage God spoke to me. He humbled me. I suddenly found myself thinking, you know, maybe she does have a point. Maybe God did create all forms of life on the basis of a universal genetic code. I mean, why should we expect God to do otherwise?

‘This whole argument of DNA—the universality of DNA—is a major plank of the common ancestry argument. I became aware that the Word of God was more important than my concept of science. And I truly can say that I became aware that I’d been worshipping and serving created things rather than the Creator, as Paul said (Romans 1:25).’

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/jumping_ship.asp

Now that's some science!

 

Claim CA111.1:
More than 300 scientists (over 400 as of 7/18/2005) from all disciplines have signed a statement expressing skepticism of the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.
Source:
Discovery Institute, 2004. Doubts over evolution mount with over 300 scientists expressing skepticism with central tenet of Darwin's theory. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2114
Discovery Institute, 2005. Eighty years after Scopes trial new scientific evidence convinces over 400 scientists that Darwinian evolution is deficient. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732
Response:

1. The criticisms of the general claim that many scientists reject evolution apply also to this list of scientists.
* Claims of skepticism are worthless without reliable evidence as a basis for the skepticism. Such evidence is lacking. Claims for such evidence by the Discovery Institute (DI) have been repeatedly examined and dismissed by those who understand evolutionary biology.
* Compared with all the scientists who accept evolution, 400 scientists is a minuscule amount. The National Center for Science Education has compiled, as a parody of lists such as that from the Discovery Institute, a list of more than 500 scientists all named Steve, or with variants of that name, who support evolution (NCSE 2003). There are only five Steves on the DI's list of 400.
* The DI's list is exaggerated as an anti-evolution document (see below).

2. The statement which the signatories agreed to is not anti-evolution. It says,

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. (Discovery Institute 2004)

Since scientists are trained to examine evidence and to be skeptical of everything, even ardent evolutionists could sign such a statement. Indeed, it is well known that random mutation and natural selection are not the only mechanisms contributing to the complexity of life; other mechanisms such as genetic drift and symbiosis are important, too. The statement signed by the scientists of "Project Steve" is more more specific:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools. (NCSE 2003)

Although many of the people on the Discovery Institute's list are anti-evolutionists, it is likely that most of them would disagree with fixity of "kinds" and a young earth (Evans 2001). In another list, the Discovery Institute put out a bibliography of publications that "represent dissenting viewpoints that challenge one or another aspect of neo-Darwinism . . ., discuss problems that evolutionary theory faces, or suggest important new lines of evidence that biology must consider when explaining origins." When the authors of the publications were contacted, none said that their works support "intelligent design" or challenge evolution (Branch 2002).

3. Most of the signators to the DI's list (about 80%) are not biologists; some are not even scientists. Generally speaking, mathematicians, electrical engineers, philosophers, and so forth are only marginally more qualified to comment on the validity of evolution than the average person on the street.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111_1.html

 

Mr. MEOWGI- That is why I listed Dr. Allan. And that is the response I expected. Because it exposes the real issue. Once a scientist believes in God, creation or ID then he can no longer be a scientist right?

I think that hits the heart of the issue. Think about it.

Now go back and read some of his recent work in genetics.

 

That proves the point I was making- There are scientists on both sides of this issue.

Science is divided on this.

 

I have not seen the discovery list until your post.

There are lists I have checked and I will check theirs.

But just glancing at the list you posted that signed the discovery document there are lots of biologists, physicists, geologists... etc.

What is important is to check them out.

So why don't you?

 

And if I am totally posting babble, I apologize I have not been able to post with more thought... A busy work day means hit and run posting for me.

Think about it, once we leave this world we don't have to understand origins any more just destinations.

 

God speaking to you is not science.

 

no it is not - a list of 300 "scientists", mostly people who are not even in biology doesn't make a theory divided.

You are also assuming all viewpoints as equals here - they are not. The is where real science comes into the discussion. Views that have no evidence are discredited and discarded.

Evolution does not prove or disprove the supernatural - evolution's scope is to explain the natural world - all the evidence points towards common decent and natural selection. You can have your evolution and your god too. One does not exclude the other. Evolution only excludes a literal reading of Genesis. But why would anyone depend on a literal reading of Genesis in the first place anyways? it is filled with contridictions and sillyness.

 

agreed

 

rhester -

check this out

they claim 6,603 signatures to date

 

Thanks, I was aware of many clergy who would agree but seeing that was new to me. I am glad you posted it.

I understand and I have always stated my position based upon my own faith.

Introducing scientists that believe in ID or creation and who have worked to present their own work into the scientific community has never been with a motive to prove the science one way or another, just to challenge the evolution only mind set.

Think of my position in these terms- I know that the origin of the universe is unknown to me (personally). I studied evolution as a student, after college I became a Christian. I never thought about any challenge to evolution until I read about a challenge to evolution. I then studied these challenges, and went back and looked at what I previously believed. From my faith I could accept the literal account in Genesis. From my reason I could accept scientific challenge to evolution. Actually I didn't really feel any need to resolve the two until I understood what a leap I was taking in evolutionary origins. There are too many holes for me to fill in evolution.

I am not smart enough to fill the holes in evolution. There are brilliant scientists in my mind who can better try to fill those holes but I personally have not been satisfied. Am I biased. YES!

I admit that all along.

Could we all have bias? I know when I was studying evolution I never saw that I had a bias.

 

cloud their scientific judgment is a little strong...

That would disqualify them as scientists.

I have actually read their work and they are scientific in their approach and in their conclusions.

I am not trying to separate their beliefs from their work, just pointing out that the whole idea to discredit them is wrong.

That is not taking an honest look at their work.

 

Do Christians who believe in evolution have a bias?

 

double.

 

Again, I began as a Christian who believed in evolution and yes I had a bias, because I not only studied evolution I debated for evolution. While debating evolution with religious people (before I was a Christian) I felt pretty confident and closed to any arguement. I had a bias because I was open to one narrow view, but I was so confident in my position I saw no reason or need to explore any other view. Plus the weight of the textbooks was so completely in my corner there was no reason at all to question my own conclusions.