How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

which article? the one you posted?

yes - or, actually, I just re-read the article, and the "witch hunt" phrase was in a quote, not in the text of the article. So I'll amend it to say that I think that Bruce Chapman would serve his cause better if he toned down his language.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Spock

Indeed. Unfortunately a lot of academians use their tenure as a podium for radical ideas or worse; this is just another example.

Yes, I think that the shutting down of original thought and exploration if it at all goes against the unproveable tenets of evolution certainly qualifies as "radical ideas or worse".

[Insidious Rex]

So when do we get to see this "testable argument for intelligent design"? I would be quite intrigued. And if Gonzalez is so keen on having a voice for intelligent design at Iowa State then why has he been refusing to partake in a forum on the subject that has been organized by the faculty there? He said the only way hell partake in a forum on the subject is if his opponents arent included. Well gosh... That has to make you wonder... I would think if he has reams of evidence he wouldnt turn down a forum to show what he has.

[brownjenkins]

an interesting article (from 2001) on the subject which point's to some of the issues i've been raising (my bold)

Last Monday, Mark Edwards, PR man for the conservative think tank the Discovery Institute, was excited. "We landed on the front page of yesterday's New York Times," he enthused. Two weeks prior, the Discovery Institute was featured in a story on the front page of the Los Angeles Times. And CNN recently turned its cameras on the Seattle institute.

The national media has come calling because the 11-year-old institute, co-founded by onetime Reagan assistant Bruce Chapman and politico-turned-futurist George Gilder, is at the center of a new movement challenging the validity of Darwinian evolution. The movement has created a stir based on the identity of some of its proponents: They are not Bible-thumping creationists, but academics at mainstream institutions, including the University of Washington.

These folks have come up with sophisticated arguments for something they call "intelligent design," which, like creationism, points to some kind of creator or "designer" of the universe but, unlike creationism, evades the subject of who that creator is. Most followers are Christians, however, and when pressed admit that God is the most likely candidate for the designer they suggest. "Of course that's the implication," Chapman says.

Michael Behe makes one of the most interesting and scientifically rigorous arguments in favor of intelligent design. Like several other leading design theorists, Michael Behe is a fellow of the Discovery Institute, though his full-time job is as professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. Behe says he was taught as a child in Catholic schools that God directed evolution. He began to doubt evolution later, particularly as he pondered a phenomenon he calls "irreducible complexity."

To explain the concept, he uses the example of a hairlike filament on some bacteria called a flagellum. "Bacterial flagellum is literally an outboard motor that some bacteria use to swim," Behe says. The flagellum requires "dozens or even hundreds of precisely tailored parts," Behe writes in his widely reviewed 1996 book Darwin's Black Box. Here's the crucial part: All of those parts must be present together for the so-called motor to function properly.

"Nobody has ever proposed how something like that could be put together step by step," Behe says. Darwinism is a step-by-step process, defined by successive waves of random mutations, each of which are naturally selected because of increased functionality that help an organism to survive. Why would a piece of the motor known as a flagellum be selected, Behe asks, if it didn't add any increased functionality on its own?

Edis, the Truman State physicist, counters that irreducible complexity is "a new name for an argument that's been around since Darwin's time." He says people used to question evolution's theory of a step-by-step process by asking what's the use of half a wing or what's the use of half an eye? What Behe is overlooking, Edis says, is that "each piece doesn't have to be selected for the use you see today." Recent theories, for instance, link the development of wings to other functions besides flying, one being heat regulation. So half of a wing could have served a purpose. It's only when all the pieces come together that an entirely new function arises.

University of Washington astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, yet another Discovery Institute fellow, takes a still different approach. Gonzalez doesn't pick apart Darwinism but looks at what astronomers call "fine-tuning." It is essentially the degree of precision in all sorts of areas necessary for complex life to exist. For example, life depends on a highly specified amount of oxygen and carbon produced by stars. Do stars produce exactly the right amount just by chance?

Gonzalez says that a lot of astronomers, himself included, cannot help but deduce that the "the universe was intended for advanced conscious beings to exist."

At the same time, Gonzalez acknowledges that his astronomical deduction coincides with an intuitive impression he has had ever since he was 5 or 6 years old and looked up at the night sky. "I've always been under the impression that there was something more than the universe." That feeling has spurred on his work. "My motivation is one of inspiration--the beauty of the universe," he says. "I am driven, literally driven, to study this."

Yet some say introducing God, or some euphemism of such, into the equation poses a limitation to study. According to Scott of the National Center of Science Education, design theorists say, "'Well, gee, I can't understand it. Therefore I'm saying God did it.' . . . and once you say God did it, you stop looking for a natural cause. It's what we call a science stopper."

[Rían]

btw, according to you guys' "Bible", TalkOrigins, apparently science CAN have a say on the subject of intelligent design, as long as it's a "No" Not a "it's not in the realm of science", but a flat-out "No." Explain that one! After all, if they can say "No", then that must mean that there's things to scientifically consider.

Here's the article: here - look at the last paragraph - I'll excerpt it here:

... is there a design evident in the structure of living organisms? ... Science answers No to [this] question.

(incidental pet peeve - I hate how the word "Science" (which means "knowledge") is usually used (by evolutionists, at least) to represent a wise person - I mean, "science answers"? To me, just seems like another heavy-handed way to try to stomp on any constructive criticism or development of new ideas in this field - after all, who would go against Mr. Science? (just don't talk about how even evolutionists disagree among themselves!)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So when do we get to see this "testable argument for intelligent design"? I would be quite intrigued.

I don't know - it mentions a book, tho.

And if Gonzalez is so keen on having a voice for intelligent design at Iowa State then why has he been refusing to partake in a forum on the subject that has been organized by the faculty there? He said the only way hell partake in a forum on the subject is if his opponents arent included. Well gosh... That has to make you wonder... I would think if he has reams of evidence he wouldnt turn down a forum to show what he has.

I don't know that he IS "keen" on this. Do you have links for what you said? I imagine he just wants to float some ideas without getting shot down by people who won't even consider what he has to say. To me, the biggest issue here (and the original thread topic) is the hostile attitude by many, many evolutionists against ANY perceived attack on their theory.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

an interesting article (from 2001) on the subject which point's to some of the issues i've been raising (my bold)

To me, brownie, these are non-issues - let me try to explain why.

Your first bolded bit - why should it matter if they stop at trying to find out who the creator is? As I've said many times here (and I just don't get any responses that I've seen), the SETI scientists and the Mars rover scientists would make intelligent judgements if they found some things that looked like they were intelligently designed, and no one would fault them. There are hallmarks of intelligent design that they look for all the time - so why do evolutionists so vehemently try to keep these things out of their field?

The second bolded bit - "each piece doesn't have to be selected for the use you see today" - that's certainly true. Although I see some problems with this in terms of wings, I won't bother to mention them because they pale in comparison to the problems I see with things like how different types of lungs supposedly developed. I don't see how not having a working lung, while macro-evolving from one lung type to another, could be selected for.

As for the third bolded bit - that's such a ridiculously inaccurate strawman that it doesn't deserve comment, except to say I've never seen any creationist/IDist say that
(and one more - that quote by the NCSE guy, whose stated purpose is to support evolution, IIRC, deserves 2 rollie-eyed guys!)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't know that he IS "keen" on this. Do you have links for what you said? I imagine he just wants to float some ideas without getting shot down by people who won't even consider what he has to say. To me, the biggest issue here (and the original thread topic) is the hostile attitude by many, many evolutionists against ANY perceived attack on their theory.

the issue is being able to defend one's theory without getting all huffy and bent out of shape... and this goes back to your "no" quote in the previous post

it's not about one quote or one fanatic on either side (and there are plenty on both) ... it is about the vast majority of level-headed and even-handed scientists who realize that "creation" is just not a part of scientific investigation ... this doesn't mean it's wrong (even if some might say as much out of frustration or even spite) ... it just means it is not a productive line of reasoning where scientific thought is concerned

as the other article said ... it is a "science stopper" ... it says, "the creator starts here, no point in theorizing any further than 6,000 years ago" (or wherever you put "creation")

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Your first bolded bit - why should it matter if they stop at trying to find out who the creator is? As I've said many times here (and I just don't get any responses that I've seen), the SETI scientists and the Mars rover scientists would make intelligent judgements if they found some things that looked like they were intelligently designed, and no one would fault them. There are hallmarks of intelligent design that they look for all the time - so why do evolutionists so vehemently try to keep these things out of their field?

so you don't read my posts?

SETI scientists look for things that they observe intelligent species on the earth doing (us!)... i.e. we know that humans here broadcast television over certain frequencies... we assume an alien race might do the same and so we look for it... and, if we find it, we try to eliminate other possible causes to figure out if it is intelligent or not

once again, theories based upon observable evidence... "creation" has never been observed, so any theory based upon it is not a scientific theory

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The second bolded bit - "each piece doesn't have to be selected for the use you see today" - that's certainly true. Although I see some problems with this in terms of wings, I won't bother to mention them because they pale in comparison to the problems I see with things like how different types of lungs supposedly developed. I don't see how not having a working lung, while macro-evolving from one lung type to another, could be selected for.

all good points proving we still have a long way to go, and may even be headed down the wrong path at times... but you also illustrate the fact that the details can actually be argued, discussed and compared with evidence we see in the world

creation doesn't allow for that... it's a completely open-ended philosophical discussion... for instance, most creator theories assume the creator is "all-powerful"... but what if he was just "very-powerful", but far from "all-powerful"... maybe the shortfalls and inadequacies we see in our world were just mistakes

both the above are equally valid philosophical theories (and only two of many)... but it is the lack of any observable evidence that renders them unscientific

[Count Comfect]

University of Washington astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, yet another Discovery Institute fellow, takes a still different approach. Gonzalez doesn't pick apart Darwinism but looks at what astronomers call "fine-tuning." It is essentially the degree of precision in all sorts of areas necessary for complex life to exist. For example, life depends on a highly specified amount of oxygen and carbon produced by stars. Do stars produce exactly the right amount just by chance?

Gonzalez says that a lot of astronomers, himself included, cannot help but deduce that the "the universe was intended for advanced conscious beings to exist."

Thought this (from brownjenkins article quote above) deserved requoting, since it is the same name (and I assume, the same professor, since he is cited as a Discovery Institute guy in both places) as the professor Guillermo Gonzalez in Rian's article.

I'd like to know what his testable hypothesis of ID is (from Rian's article) but if the above is the way he is thinking, I think he's missing something important. The stars don't need to produce the exact right proportions of carbon and oxygen "by chance" - what could happen is that life evolves under circumstances including those proportions of carbon and oxygen because those are the proportions available. After all, we have no idea if life evolves elsewhere with different proportions, so it is hard to say those proportions are necessary to all life. They are necessary to life as we know it, but that could well be because life as we know it evolved with those proportions already fixed. It's a fallacy to assume that A was necessary for B to come into existence just because A is necessary for B now. B could have adapted to A in the interim (where B is "life", not a specific organism in this case).

On another point, why is Prof. Gonzalez at two different institutions in these two articles?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't know that he IS "keen" on this. Do you have links for what you said?

from the local paper: http://www.iowastatedaily.com/vnews/.../43168d658d5da

I also have a good friend who is a junior at ISU so I can ask her for a local take on this although knowing her Im pretty sure she wont care. But frankly Im a bit dubious of a group like Discovery Institute being used as an unbiased source on intelligent design issues in academia... kind of like asking Microsoft about computer companies that only include Netscape on their computers.

[brownjenkins]

good link ID and comments CC... here is the controversial statement btw...

We, the undersigned faculty members at Iowa State, reject all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor.

Advocates of Intelligent Design claim the position of our planet and the complexity of particular life forms and processes are such that they may only be explained by the existence of a creator or designer of the universe.

Such claims, however, are premised on 1) the arbitrary selection of features claimed to be engineered by a designer; 2) unverifiable conclusions about the wishes and desires of that designer; and 3) an abandonment by science of methodological naturalism.

Methodological naturalism, the view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events, is the foundation of the natural sciences. The history of science contains many instances where complex natural phenomena were eventually understood only by adherence to methodological naturalism.

Whether one believes in a creator or not, views regarding a supernatural creator are, by their very nature, claims of religious faith, and not within the scope or abilities of science. We, therefore, urge all faculty members to uphold the integrity of our university of science and technology, and convey to students and the general public the importance of methodological naturalism in science and reject efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science.

i'd sign it

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

it's not about one quote or one fanatic on either side (and there are plenty on both) ... it is about the vast majority of level-headed and even-handed scientists who realize that "creation" is just not a part of scientific investigation ... this doesn't mean it's wrong (even if some might say as much out of frustration or even spite) ... it just means it is not a productive line of reasoning where scientific thought is concerned

but some scientists think it IS a part of scientific investigation, and IMO they shouldn't be shut down.

as the other article said ... it is a "science stopper" ... it says, "the creator starts here, no point in theorizing any further than 6,000 years ago" (or wherever you put "creation")

It's not a science stopper - many brilliant scientists have been creationists, and that certainly didn't stop them from doing their thing. Why should a creationist theorize outside where his/her theory goes, and why should an evolutionist theorize outside where his/her theory goes, and why should other scientists theorize outside where their theories go? Please apply things evenly

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

so you don't read my posts?

I'm sorry, I really really DO read your posts, but perhaps I missed some, or perhaps (the more likely scenario, I think) we're not communicating clearly.

SETI scientists look for things that they observe intelligent species on the earth doing (us!)... i.e. we know that humans here broadcast television over certain frequencies... we assume an alien race might do the same and so we look for it... and, if we find it, we try to eliminate other possible causes to figure out if it is intelligent or not

once again, theories based upon observable evidence... "creation" has never been observed, so any theory based upon it is not a scientific theory

But that's exactly it!!! A creator is also an "alien race", and just like SETI scientists analyze signals for hallmarks of intelligent design, we can do the same thing with our universe. We do NOT know how the aliens generated their signal, but we DO know some signs of intelligent design, and that's what we're looking for.

And again, from what I understand, you're saying "creation" in the sense of making something out of nothing has never been observed. I'm saying that that is irrelevant; perhaps the aliens made their signals out of nothing - we don't KNOW how they made the signals - yet we keep looking, and have certain traits and signs to look for, given that we know hallmarks of intelligent design. And again, I don't think God making the universe is something out of nothing, anyway - it's something from something. But that doesn't matter - we don't tell SETI scientists to stop analyzing signals just because we don't know how they came about.

all good points proving we still have a long way to go, and may even be headed down the wrong path at times... but you also illustrate the fact that the details can actually be argued, discussed and compared with evidence we see in the world

yes, but does my above statement show that this is true with creationism/ID, too?

creation doesn't allow for that... it's a completely open-ended philosophical discussion... for instance, most creator theories assume the creator is "all-powerful"... but what if he was just "very-powerful", but far from "all-powerful"... maybe the shortfalls and inadequacies we see in our world were just mistakes

It's looking for hallmarks of intelligent design, like the SETI scientists. I think ID is one valid area to scientifically explore in the field of origins, like we CURRENTLY DO in in other fields like SETI and Mars rover explorations. I think YEC is another area to scientifically explore, like I said in my "biology teacher" post - there are parts of it that are DEFINITELY testable scientifically, and parts that aren't, just like evolution.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It's not a science stopper - many brilliant scientists have been creationists, and that certainly didn't stop them from doing their thing. Why should a creationist theorize outside where his/her theory goes, and why should an evolutionist theorize outside where his/her theory goes, and why should other scientists theorize outside where their theories go? Please apply things evenly

many big bang theorists believe that god must have been the "cause", because it is difficult to come up with another theory... but this is not part of their theories, or their science

it's a label given to the unknown... science is about the knowable... how you define the unknowable is completely unrelated... it is the essential difference between science and philosophy

both are productive endeavors, but with very different approaches and goals, best studied individually

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

from the local paper: http://www.iowastatedaily.com/vnews/.../43168d658d5da

thanks for the link! Read it ("read" as in past tense of "read" - as in, "I have read it" - stupid English!)

I also have a good friend who is a junior at ISU so I can ask her for a local take on this although knowing her Im pretty sure she wont care. But frankly Im a bit dubious of a group like Discovery Institute being used as an unbiased source on intelligent design issues in academia... kind of like asking Microsoft about computer companies that only include Netscape on their computers.

Y'know, why does bias matter if they're reporting facts? If you won't consider anything the Discovery Instutite brings up, then please ignore all info from NCSE, who has a stated bias towards evolution.

Let's just try to compile facts and analyze them If DI has facts because they're interested in the subject, then they're facts; if NCSE has facts, then they're facts, too.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

yes, but does my above statement show that this is true with creationism/ID, too?

no, because your statement assumes the existance of an all-powerful creator (something we've never observed)

SETI scientists only assume the exisitance of other beings like us... and they look for stuff we might do that would be visible across vast stretches of space

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

good link ID and comments CC... here is the controversial statement btw...

oh, great - glad you posted it! Thanks!

from Iowa statementAdvocates of Intelligent Design claim the position of our planet and the complexity of particular life forms and processes are such that they may only be explained by the existence of a creator or designer of the universe.

um, yes, but why don't you include the scientific part of this claim?
Oh, so you can knock down the strawman.

Such claims, however, are premised on 1) the arbitrary selection of features claimed to be engineered by a designer; 2) unverifiable conclusions about the wishes and desires of that designer; and 3) an abandonment by science of methodological naturalism.

1) arbitrary? How is it arbitrary? They look at things in the world and see if any fit with hallmarks of intelligent design, such as SETI scientists use.
2) What do the wishes and desires of the designer have to do with anything? Again, it's hallmarks of intelligent design, like specified complexity and irreducible complexity and going against observed natural results of natural processes.
3) Yes, that recently adopted philosophy that many think is wrong and/or irrelevant.

Methodological naturalism, the view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events, is the foundation of the natural sciences.

Oh, baloney! It's a recent development.

The history of science contains many instances where complex natural phenomena were eventually understood only by adherence to methodological naturalism.

Maybe that's because they were natural phenomena. However, if a reasonable person at SETI gets a signal that shows an alien at a backyard barbeque, then "adherence to methodological naturalism" to try to explain the signal would be pretty silly, wouldn't it? Science means "knowledge" - go where the data takes you! Don't shut out possibilities! You don't have to explore them, but let other people explore them, if they think they're valid.

Whether one believes in a creator or not, views regarding a supernatural creator are, by their very nature, claims of religious faith, and not within the scope or abilities of science.

I'll remember that and use it against you when you claim that life arose thru naturalistic means. Now, I have no problem with you saying that you think life came about through naturalistic means, and you propose some possible mechanisms.

We, therefore, urge all faculty members to uphold the integrity of our university of science and technology, and convey to students and the general public the importance of methodological naturalism in science and reject efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science.

Squash any attempt to see if scientific methods can be properly used in the area of origins, just like it's currently being used in other areas!

Science is the search for knowledge! The very word means "knowledge"! It is NOT methodological naturalism; and meth. nat. is certainly not the foundation of the natural sciences.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownie

no, because your statement assumes the existance of an all-powerful creator (something we've never observed)

YEC does; ID doesn't.
And as you guys have said so often before, there's lots of things we can't observe directly yet we still infer they're there

SETI scientists only assume the exisitance of other beings like us... and they look for stuff we might do that would be visible across vast stretches of space

And so do IDers.


Whew - got a numb bottom! Gotta get up for a bit - it's been fun!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Y'know, why does bias matter if they're reporting facts? If you won't consider anything the Discovery Instutite brings up, then please ignore all info from NCSE, who has a stated bias towards evolution.

Let's just try to compile facts and analyze them If DI has facts because they're interested in the subject, then they're facts; if NCSE has facts, then they're facts, too.

That wasnt "facts" that was an over spun "reporting" piece from a source that has a massive vested interest in intelligent design. Facts would be nice actually. Why dont we ever hear any... This was simply a story Rian.