Lol... This is good.
For a long time, because of the lack of experimental verification, the Big Bang theory was called a "cult" by some people. Does that count?
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Lol... This is good.
For a long time, because of the lack of experimental verification, the Big Bang theory was called a "cult" by some people. Does that count?
Enter the clone, right on cue...
I believe Turok to be a ginormous idiot, so his flawed response doesn't surprise me he wrote it.
Okay, I will leave now and let the wanker do his thing...
I believe Turok to be a ginormous idiot, so his flawed response doesn't surprise me he wrote it.
Okay, I will leave now and let the wanker do his thing...
No, the scientists who dreamed it up are the object of worship...
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord, (or it may be a scientist)
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
--Bob Dylan--"Gotta seve somebody--
Poetic license apologies to Dylan...
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord, (or it may be a scientist)
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
--Bob Dylan--"Gotta seve somebody--
Poetic license apologies to Dylan...
Your Best Objections
Scott Adams
I got lots of thoughtful comments to yesterdayâs post on whether the Big Bang was intelligent by definition. I wasnât planning on following up on the topic, but I feel I owe it to you. Here are the top objections that people raised, along with my replies. If you didnât read yesterdayâs post, read it first.
Objection 1: The Big Bang is an event, not a thing.
I think most people realized I was referring to both the universe and what it did. People are the sum of their matter plus their actions. The universe is a sum of its matter plus its actions. To keep things simple and colorful, Iâm going to call the universe and everything it does the Big Bang.
Objection 2: The Big Bang had no intentions. Intelligence requires intention.
You canât have intentions without free will. And free will is an illusion, according to plenty of prominent scientists and big thinkers. At best, free will has never been defined in any way that would not apply equally to a human or a coin sorting machine. The coin sorter âchoosesâ which tube to redirect the nickel to in a deterministic fashion. Your brain chooses what to have for lunch in the same way, just more complicated, and with the illusion of intention. The Big Bang (okay, the universe) has no intentions, but neither do you, because itâs a nonsense superstition. You only have the illusion of intentions. So intentions must not be a necessary component of intelligence.
Objection 3: According to evolution, unintelligent processes can cause emergent phenomena, such as intelligence. The Big Bang was an unintelligent process, and the intelligence emerged later. (Implied: Duh!)
By this reasoning, people are not intelligent either. People are a collection of dumb molecules. The intelligence we exhibit is an emergent property of people, not a quality of the people themselves. No molecule in a human body is itself smart. Yet we still say the person as a whole is intelligent. And we generously include as âthe personâ all of his body parts that are not directly involved in producing intelligence. Your lungs, for example, are every bit as important as your brain in supporting the emergent intelligence you produce. They are both 100% necessary.
If I build a computer and the computer creates a spreadsheet, we donât credit the computer with the creation. We credit the one who created and programmed the computer. People are every bit the machines as computers, but more complicated and moist. The Big Bang created people, and is therefore the ultimate author of what we in turn create. (Remember, we have no free will. Weâre just like the computer in that way.)
Objection 4: But what created the Big Bang!
If there was a âbeforeâ to the Big Bang, I have no problem including it in the process and calling it intelligent. But there is no evidence to persuade me that time even existed before the Big Bang, so âbeforeâ might be a nonsense concept.
Objection 5: Itâs just semantics. All you did was say that whatever produces intelligent results must be intelligent. Itâs a circular definition.
Of course itâs semantics. Thatâs the whole point. Weâre trying to figure out what the word âintelligentâ means. If the best definition that anyone can offer is circular, then itâs silly to say the universe does or does not have an intelligent designer. The phrase would have no meaning. But if we CAN define intelligence in some meaningful way, then we might be surprised to find that the definition applies equally to humans as to the Big Bang. (After you remove your superstition about intentions, and clear up your thinking about emergent properties.)
Objection 6: Dawkins said, âAn intelligent life is intelligent enough to speculate on its own origins.â
My cat has intelligence, but I doubt sheâs doing much speculating on her origins.
I think those were the best objections I got. Let me know if I missed any objections that are better than the ones I listed.
Scott Adams
I got lots of thoughtful comments to yesterdayâs post on whether the Big Bang was intelligent by definition. I wasnât planning on following up on the topic, but I feel I owe it to you. Here are the top objections that people raised, along with my replies. If you didnât read yesterdayâs post, read it first.
Objection 1: The Big Bang is an event, not a thing.
I think most people realized I was referring to both the universe and what it did. People are the sum of their matter plus their actions. The universe is a sum of its matter plus its actions. To keep things simple and colorful, Iâm going to call the universe and everything it does the Big Bang.
Objection 2: The Big Bang had no intentions. Intelligence requires intention.
You canât have intentions without free will. And free will is an illusion, according to plenty of prominent scientists and big thinkers. At best, free will has never been defined in any way that would not apply equally to a human or a coin sorting machine. The coin sorter âchoosesâ which tube to redirect the nickel to in a deterministic fashion. Your brain chooses what to have for lunch in the same way, just more complicated, and with the illusion of intention. The Big Bang (okay, the universe) has no intentions, but neither do you, because itâs a nonsense superstition. You only have the illusion of intentions. So intentions must not be a necessary component of intelligence.
Objection 3: According to evolution, unintelligent processes can cause emergent phenomena, such as intelligence. The Big Bang was an unintelligent process, and the intelligence emerged later. (Implied: Duh!)
By this reasoning, people are not intelligent either. People are a collection of dumb molecules. The intelligence we exhibit is an emergent property of people, not a quality of the people themselves. No molecule in a human body is itself smart. Yet we still say the person as a whole is intelligent. And we generously include as âthe personâ all of his body parts that are not directly involved in producing intelligence. Your lungs, for example, are every bit as important as your brain in supporting the emergent intelligence you produce. They are both 100% necessary.
If I build a computer and the computer creates a spreadsheet, we donât credit the computer with the creation. We credit the one who created and programmed the computer. People are every bit the machines as computers, but more complicated and moist. The Big Bang created people, and is therefore the ultimate author of what we in turn create. (Remember, we have no free will. Weâre just like the computer in that way.)
Objection 4: But what created the Big Bang!
If there was a âbeforeâ to the Big Bang, I have no problem including it in the process and calling it intelligent. But there is no evidence to persuade me that time even existed before the Big Bang, so âbeforeâ might be a nonsense concept.
Objection 5: Itâs just semantics. All you did was say that whatever produces intelligent results must be intelligent. Itâs a circular definition.
Of course itâs semantics. Thatâs the whole point. Weâre trying to figure out what the word âintelligentâ means. If the best definition that anyone can offer is circular, then itâs silly to say the universe does or does not have an intelligent designer. The phrase would have no meaning. But if we CAN define intelligence in some meaningful way, then we might be surprised to find that the definition applies equally to humans as to the Big Bang. (After you remove your superstition about intentions, and clear up your thinking about emergent properties.)
Objection 6: Dawkins said, âAn intelligent life is intelligent enough to speculate on its own origins.â
My cat has intelligence, but I doubt sheâs doing much speculating on her origins.
I think those were the best objections I got. Let me know if I missed any objections that are better than the ones I listed.
This guy's an idiot.
neophyte321
Guest
GREAT SONG! ... great,song.
Dylan, a Minnasotan, would, no doubt, vote Franken ..
My favorite Dylan tune is "tangled up in blue" ... actually, my favorite Dylan tune is the Jerry Gacia Band's version of "Tangled Up in Blue"
So Help Us Darwin
By William F. Buckley Jr.
An intimidatingly learned colleague has written to a few friends to deplore the latest bulletin on Senator John McCain, who is of course running for president. The news is that McCain has agreed to speak at a luncheon hosted by the Discovery Institute in Seattle. What offends my friend is that the think tank in question supports the concept of Intelligent Design. And the question raisedâbelieve it or notâis whether such a latitudinarian thinker should be thought qualified to be president of the United States.
It seems an ancient controversy, and of course it is. Fifteen minutes after Charles Darwin explained his theory of evolution, his disciplesâapostlesâruled out any heresy on the subject of the naturalist explanation for human life. Young people are educated to think of the question in the grammar of the Scopes Trial, Clarence Darrow vs. William Jennings Bryan. That trial made for great naturalist theater. Mr. Bryan was not born either to become president or to explain how God could tolerate chicken pox, so Clarence Darrow wiped him into dust.
But the contention continued, and has been explored from time to time under heavy lights. My own forensic involvement took place nine years ago as host of Firing Line. The two-hour, nationally televised debate on the topic âResolved: that the evolutionists should acknowledge creationâ featured seven professors. Four of them took the establishmentarian scientific position. It is, essentially, that not only is naturalism established as verified science, but any interposition into the pictureâof inquisitiveness, let alone conviction that there might have been design in the evolution of our worldâis excluded.
But that was a tough night for those who hoped that the lunacy of creationist thought would prove self-evident. The evolutionists had to contend with, for instance, Phillip E. Johnson, professor emeritus of law at the University of California at Berkeley, who wrote the book Darwin on Trial, and then Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds.
In outlining epochal events in this quarrel, Johnson quoted the official directive on teaching evolution as it appeared in the 1995 position statement of the National Association of Biology Teachers. âThe diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process.â
Please note, said Professor Johnson, that two years later the board of that association dropped the words âunsupervisedâ and âimpersonal.â The meaning of it being that hard scientific research has taken from the evolutionary position not its authenticityâno one can argue with much of its description of what happened in the development of manâbut its title to exclusivity. To prove absolutely that an apple, dropped from above Johnnyâs head, will fall down on it is not the equivalent of proving that no extrinsic force had a hand in setting up that gravitational exercise.
Johnsonâs objections have to do with separating real science from the materialist philosophy that provides âthe only support for Darwinist theory.â
The questions are profound, and the arguments subtle. It is not reasonably expected of Senator McCain, or any other contender for the presidency, that in his public appearances he will explicate all the conundrums.
But the intelligent liberal community should not impose on anyone a requirement of believing that there is only the single, materialist word on the subject, and that only contempt is merited by those who consent to appear at think tanks composed of men and women prepared to explore ultimate questions, which certainly include the question, Did God have a hand in creating all of this? Including the great messes we live with?
Representing the affirmative that night on television, one debater closed with this: âIâm taken with the reply of an elderly scientific scholar to an exuberant young skeptic. âI find it easier to believe in God than to believe that Hamlet was deduced from the molecular structure of a mutton chop.ââ
By William F. Buckley Jr.
An intimidatingly learned colleague has written to a few friends to deplore the latest bulletin on Senator John McCain, who is of course running for president. The news is that McCain has agreed to speak at a luncheon hosted by the Discovery Institute in Seattle. What offends my friend is that the think tank in question supports the concept of Intelligent Design. And the question raisedâbelieve it or notâis whether such a latitudinarian thinker should be thought qualified to be president of the United States.
It seems an ancient controversy, and of course it is. Fifteen minutes after Charles Darwin explained his theory of evolution, his disciplesâapostlesâruled out any heresy on the subject of the naturalist explanation for human life. Young people are educated to think of the question in the grammar of the Scopes Trial, Clarence Darrow vs. William Jennings Bryan. That trial made for great naturalist theater. Mr. Bryan was not born either to become president or to explain how God could tolerate chicken pox, so Clarence Darrow wiped him into dust.
But the contention continued, and has been explored from time to time under heavy lights. My own forensic involvement took place nine years ago as host of Firing Line. The two-hour, nationally televised debate on the topic âResolved: that the evolutionists should acknowledge creationâ featured seven professors. Four of them took the establishmentarian scientific position. It is, essentially, that not only is naturalism established as verified science, but any interposition into the pictureâof inquisitiveness, let alone conviction that there might have been design in the evolution of our worldâis excluded.
But that was a tough night for those who hoped that the lunacy of creationist thought would prove self-evident. The evolutionists had to contend with, for instance, Phillip E. Johnson, professor emeritus of law at the University of California at Berkeley, who wrote the book Darwin on Trial, and then Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds.
In outlining epochal events in this quarrel, Johnson quoted the official directive on teaching evolution as it appeared in the 1995 position statement of the National Association of Biology Teachers. âThe diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process.â
Please note, said Professor Johnson, that two years later the board of that association dropped the words âunsupervisedâ and âimpersonal.â The meaning of it being that hard scientific research has taken from the evolutionary position not its authenticityâno one can argue with much of its description of what happened in the development of manâbut its title to exclusivity. To prove absolutely that an apple, dropped from above Johnnyâs head, will fall down on it is not the equivalent of proving that no extrinsic force had a hand in setting up that gravitational exercise.
Johnsonâs objections have to do with separating real science from the materialist philosophy that provides âthe only support for Darwinist theory.â
The questions are profound, and the arguments subtle. It is not reasonably expected of Senator McCain, or any other contender for the presidency, that in his public appearances he will explicate all the conundrums.
But the intelligent liberal community should not impose on anyone a requirement of believing that there is only the single, materialist word on the subject, and that only contempt is merited by those who consent to appear at think tanks composed of men and women prepared to explore ultimate questions, which certainly include the question, Did God have a hand in creating all of this? Including the great messes we live with?
Representing the affirmative that night on television, one debater closed with this: âIâm taken with the reply of an elderly scientific scholar to an exuberant young skeptic. âI find it easier to believe in God than to believe that Hamlet was deduced from the molecular structure of a mutton chop.ââ
So Teleologist, you want to swop essays....
Robert J. Schneider
EVOLUTION FOR CHRISTIANS
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
..or perhaps first it may be an idea to convince these 10,000 clergy folk of your ID/Creationist support agenda ...
Michael Zimmerman
An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science
Although we've reached our goal of gathering 10,000 clergy signatures, interest has been so high that we continue to add more clergy on a regular basis!
On 11 February 2007 hundreds of congregations from all portions of the country and a host of denominations will come together to discuss the compatibility of religion and science. For far too long, strident voices, in the name of Christianity, have been claiming that people must choose between religion and modern science. More than 10,000 Christian clergy have already signed The Clergy Letter demonstrating that this is a false dichotomy. Now, on the 198th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, many of these leaders will bring this message to their congregations through sermons and/or discussion groups. Together, participating religious leaders will be making the statement that religion and science are not adversaries. And, together, they will be elevating the quality of the national debate on this topic.
If your congregation would like to join this national event, please send a note to mz@butler.edu. We welcome your participation.
For too long, the misperception that science and religion are inevitably in conflict has created unnecessary division and confusion, especially concerning the teaching of evolution. I wanted to let the public know that numerous clergy from most denominations have tremendous respect for evolutionary theory and have embraced it as a core component of human knowledge, fully harmonious with religious faith.
In the fall of 2004, I worked with clergy throughout Wisconsin to prepare a statement in support of teaching evolution. We were called to action by a series of anti-evolution policies passed by the school board in Grantsburg, WI. The response was overwhelming. In a few weeks, nearly 200 clergy signed the statement, which we sent to the Grantsburg school board on December 16, 2004. Additionally, groups of educators and scientists sent letters to the Grantsburg School Board and to the Superintendent of Schools protesting these policies. In response to all of this attention, as well as the efforts of others, the Grantsburg School Board retracted their policies.
The outpouring of support from clergy around the country encouraged me to make this a nationwide project. If you want to read more about it or join us in sharing this important perspective, click here. Encourage your clergy to consider signing the statement and please feel free to link to these webpages. And, while the current focus is on Christian clergy, please let me know if you are willing to write and/or host a statement from other religions.
.....
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible â the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark â convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as âone theory among othersâ is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among Godâs good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that Godâs loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
Sincerely,
Michael Zimmerman
Dean
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Butler University
Robert J. Schneider
EVOLUTION FOR CHRISTIANS
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
..or perhaps first it may be an idea to convince these 10,000 clergy folk of your ID/Creationist support agenda ...
Michael Zimmerman
An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science
Although we've reached our goal of gathering 10,000 clergy signatures, interest has been so high that we continue to add more clergy on a regular basis!
On 11 February 2007 hundreds of congregations from all portions of the country and a host of denominations will come together to discuss the compatibility of religion and science. For far too long, strident voices, in the name of Christianity, have been claiming that people must choose between religion and modern science. More than 10,000 Christian clergy have already signed The Clergy Letter demonstrating that this is a false dichotomy. Now, on the 198th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, many of these leaders will bring this message to their congregations through sermons and/or discussion groups. Together, participating religious leaders will be making the statement that religion and science are not adversaries. And, together, they will be elevating the quality of the national debate on this topic.
If your congregation would like to join this national event, please send a note to mz@butler.edu. We welcome your participation.
For too long, the misperception that science and religion are inevitably in conflict has created unnecessary division and confusion, especially concerning the teaching of evolution. I wanted to let the public know that numerous clergy from most denominations have tremendous respect for evolutionary theory and have embraced it as a core component of human knowledge, fully harmonious with religious faith.
In the fall of 2004, I worked with clergy throughout Wisconsin to prepare a statement in support of teaching evolution. We were called to action by a series of anti-evolution policies passed by the school board in Grantsburg, WI. The response was overwhelming. In a few weeks, nearly 200 clergy signed the statement, which we sent to the Grantsburg school board on December 16, 2004. Additionally, groups of educators and scientists sent letters to the Grantsburg School Board and to the Superintendent of Schools protesting these policies. In response to all of this attention, as well as the efforts of others, the Grantsburg School Board retracted their policies.
The outpouring of support from clergy around the country encouraged me to make this a nationwide project. If you want to read more about it or join us in sharing this important perspective, click here. Encourage your clergy to consider signing the statement and please feel free to link to these webpages. And, while the current focus is on Christian clergy, please let me know if you are willing to write and/or host a statement from other religions.
.....
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible â the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark â convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as âone theory among othersâ is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among Godâs good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that Godâs loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
Sincerely,
Michael Zimmerman
Dean
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Butler University
Is Evolution Needed to Make Sense of Biology?
By Julie Thomas
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
This was the title of an essay by Theodosius Dobzhansky
written over thirty years ago and is the position
of most Darwinists today. If nothing in biology
makes sense except in the light of evolution, this
would mean everything in biology would collapse
into senseless gibberish without evolution. It would
mean that all of biology would become incoherent if
the concept of evolution was not applied. This would
also mean that without evolution, no biological
research could be done. My, it's interesting how a
useful and fruitful concept can be elevated to the
level of a necessary, all-important, and primary concept.
Now, since nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of
evolution, evolution must be *needed* by biology. This means,
I suppose, that biology did not come into existence until evolution
(however you define it) was realized. How Harvey ever made sense
of the circulatory system and Mendel made sense of inheritance must
be a truly thorny problem for those who believe nothing in biology
makes sense without the light of evolution. But there's more.
In what way was evolution needed to determine that DNA is
the genetic material?
In what way was evolution needed to determine that DNA is
two strands of nucleotides arranged as a double-helix?
In what way was evolution needed to crack the genetic code?
In what way was evolution needed to understand the lac operon?
In what way was evolution needed to determine that ribosomes
synthesize proteins?
In what way was evolution needed to determine the fluid mosaic
model of the cell membrane?
In what way was evolution needed to determine the mechanism
of the F-ATP synthase?
After all, none of these important biological insights could have
been made without a concept that is *needed* to make sense of
*all* of biology?
While we're at it, why do we need need evolution to make sense of
the following biological phenomena (for starters):
*photosynthesis
*protein synthesis
*LTP in Aplysia
*the role of potassium and sodium channels in action potentials
*membrane synthesis
*the influence of blood pressure on cardiac output
*incomplete dominance
*forming spindle fibers during mitosis
*cytokinesis
*forming actin-myosin cross-bridges during muscle contraction
*shuttling proteins across the nuclear pore complex
*chromosome structure and packing
*signal transduction
*protein folding
*the peptidoglycan cell wall
*the relationship between Tay-Sachs disease and lysosomal hydrolases
*the electron transport chain
*the trp operon
*insulin and the regulation of blood glucose
*DNA recombination
*IREs and iron metabolism
*axonemal form and function
*desmosomes
*G1 checkpoints
*regulation of membrane fluidity
*regulation of 5S rRNA expression
*glomerular filtration and urine formation
*conjugation
*the MTOC
*transport and modification through the ER
That's enough for now. I don't need evolution to make sense of
these phenomena. Of course, evolution might (and does) contribute
insights on these phenomena that lead to research, and one can always
busy themselves trying to explain the origin of these things in light
of evolution, but none of this means that evolution is required to make
any sense of this stuff. Why is it that things like chromosome
structure, iron metabolism, urine formation, and LTP make no sense
without evolution? How is it that evolution alone allows us to see
the role of glomerular blood pressure in urine formation rates? Can't we
teach students how proteins are formed without first explaining how the
protein synthesis machinery evolved? I learned about protein synthesis
without any reference to its evolution. I suppose this means my instructor
and I were more gifted than the scientific community which stumbles about
bumping its head in the dark without the necessary illumination of evolution.
Of course, maybe things have changed. So I close my eyes and
reach into my large file of articles (skewed with many focused on
evolution) and randomly pull one out. Surely since nothing in
biology makes sense without evolution I could not find one
single article which makes sense without evolution. I pull out:
Temperature sensing in bacterial gene regulation - what it all boils down to.
It makes lots of sense although I don't see where
evolution is being used as the Guiding Light. If nothing in biology
makes sense except in the light of evolution, why am I having a hard
time finding where evolution is absolutely required to turn gibberish
into meaningful concepts? Why is it so easy to find things that
would still make lots of sense if evolution was not true?
Finally, let's consider the words of someone like H. Allen Orr who,
in his review of Behe's book, wrote:
"there's a striking asymmetry in molecular versus evolutionary
education in American universities. Although many science, and all
biology, students are required to endure molecular courses, evolution-
even introductory evolution-is often an elective. The reason is simple:
biochemistry and cell biology get Junior into med school, evolution
doesn't. Consequently, many professional scientists know surprisingly
little about evolution."
Let's see. Many professional scientists know surprisingly little about
evolution. But how can the indispensable guiding light of biology be
so unimportant for so many professional scientists? These poor
scientists must not publish anything, and are incapable of teaching,
as biology must not make any sense to them at all. Furthermore, note
how Orr assumes that education in biochemistry and cell biology
does not presume at least education in an introductory evolution
course. How can this be? If nothing in biology makes sense without
evolution, then biochemistry and cell biology would not make sense
without evolution. This means students without a solid understanding
of evolution would do poorly in these classes, meaning they would
be weeded out. Since evolution is needed to make sense of cell biology,
any learning of cell biology must entail an understanding of evolution.
Thus, why it is that "many professional scientists know surprisingly
little about evolution" is an enigma.
Sorry, but I think the notion that "nothing in biology makes sense
except in the light of evolution" is a bogus and tired propagandistic
claim. Lots of things make sense in biology without the light of
evolution. That's why it's possible that "many professional
scientists know surprisingly little about evolution."
Dawkins, Richard. 1987. The Blind Watchmaker. On page 283:
"It isn't that any transformed cladists are themselves
fundamentalist creationists. My own interpretation is that they
enjoy an exaggerated idea of the importance of taxonomy in biology.
They have decided, perhaps rightly, that they can do taxonomy
better if they forget about evolution, and especially if they never
use the concept of the ancestor in thinking about taxonomy. In the
same way, a student of, say, nerve cells, might decide that he is
not aided by thinking about evolution. The nerve specialist agrees
that his nerve cells are the products of evolution, but he does not
need to use this fact in his research. He needs to know a lot
about physics and chemistry, but he believes that Darwinism is
irrelevant to his day-to-day research on nerve impulses. This is a
defensible position."
One could, I suppose, argue that these professional scientists don't
contribute any good science, but there is not a shred of evidence for
that type of ad hoc claim.
By Julie Thomas
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
This was the title of an essay by Theodosius Dobzhansky
written over thirty years ago and is the position
of most Darwinists today. If nothing in biology
makes sense except in the light of evolution, this
would mean everything in biology would collapse
into senseless gibberish without evolution. It would
mean that all of biology would become incoherent if
the concept of evolution was not applied. This would
also mean that without evolution, no biological
research could be done. My, it's interesting how a
useful and fruitful concept can be elevated to the
level of a necessary, all-important, and primary concept.
Now, since nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of
evolution, evolution must be *needed* by biology. This means,
I suppose, that biology did not come into existence until evolution
(however you define it) was realized. How Harvey ever made sense
of the circulatory system and Mendel made sense of inheritance must
be a truly thorny problem for those who believe nothing in biology
makes sense without the light of evolution. But there's more.
In what way was evolution needed to determine that DNA is
the genetic material?
In what way was evolution needed to determine that DNA is
two strands of nucleotides arranged as a double-helix?
In what way was evolution needed to crack the genetic code?
In what way was evolution needed to understand the lac operon?
In what way was evolution needed to determine that ribosomes
synthesize proteins?
In what way was evolution needed to determine the fluid mosaic
model of the cell membrane?
In what way was evolution needed to determine the mechanism
of the F-ATP synthase?
After all, none of these important biological insights could have
been made without a concept that is *needed* to make sense of
*all* of biology?
While we're at it, why do we need need evolution to make sense of
the following biological phenomena (for starters):
*photosynthesis
*protein synthesis
*LTP in Aplysia
*the role of potassium and sodium channels in action potentials
*membrane synthesis
*the influence of blood pressure on cardiac output
*incomplete dominance
*forming spindle fibers during mitosis
*cytokinesis
*forming actin-myosin cross-bridges during muscle contraction
*shuttling proteins across the nuclear pore complex
*chromosome structure and packing
*signal transduction
*protein folding
*the peptidoglycan cell wall
*the relationship between Tay-Sachs disease and lysosomal hydrolases
*the electron transport chain
*the trp operon
*insulin and the regulation of blood glucose
*DNA recombination
*IREs and iron metabolism
*axonemal form and function
*desmosomes
*G1 checkpoints
*regulation of membrane fluidity
*regulation of 5S rRNA expression
*glomerular filtration and urine formation
*conjugation
*the MTOC
*transport and modification through the ER
That's enough for now. I don't need evolution to make sense of
these phenomena. Of course, evolution might (and does) contribute
insights on these phenomena that lead to research, and one can always
busy themselves trying to explain the origin of these things in light
of evolution, but none of this means that evolution is required to make
any sense of this stuff. Why is it that things like chromosome
structure, iron metabolism, urine formation, and LTP make no sense
without evolution? How is it that evolution alone allows us to see
the role of glomerular blood pressure in urine formation rates? Can't we
teach students how proteins are formed without first explaining how the
protein synthesis machinery evolved? I learned about protein synthesis
without any reference to its evolution. I suppose this means my instructor
and I were more gifted than the scientific community which stumbles about
bumping its head in the dark without the necessary illumination of evolution.
Of course, maybe things have changed. So I close my eyes and
reach into my large file of articles (skewed with many focused on
evolution) and randomly pull one out. Surely since nothing in
biology makes sense without evolution I could not find one
single article which makes sense without evolution. I pull out:
Temperature sensing in bacterial gene regulation - what it all boils down to.
It makes lots of sense although I don't see where
evolution is being used as the Guiding Light. If nothing in biology
makes sense except in the light of evolution, why am I having a hard
time finding where evolution is absolutely required to turn gibberish
into meaningful concepts? Why is it so easy to find things that
would still make lots of sense if evolution was not true?
Finally, let's consider the words of someone like H. Allen Orr who,
in his review of Behe's book, wrote:
"there's a striking asymmetry in molecular versus evolutionary
education in American universities. Although many science, and all
biology, students are required to endure molecular courses, evolution-
even introductory evolution-is often an elective. The reason is simple:
biochemistry and cell biology get Junior into med school, evolution
doesn't. Consequently, many professional scientists know surprisingly
little about evolution."
Let's see. Many professional scientists know surprisingly little about
evolution. But how can the indispensable guiding light of biology be
so unimportant for so many professional scientists? These poor
scientists must not publish anything, and are incapable of teaching,
as biology must not make any sense to them at all. Furthermore, note
how Orr assumes that education in biochemistry and cell biology
does not presume at least education in an introductory evolution
course. How can this be? If nothing in biology makes sense without
evolution, then biochemistry and cell biology would not make sense
without evolution. This means students without a solid understanding
of evolution would do poorly in these classes, meaning they would
be weeded out. Since evolution is needed to make sense of cell biology,
any learning of cell biology must entail an understanding of evolution.
Thus, why it is that "many professional scientists know surprisingly
little about evolution" is an enigma.
Sorry, but I think the notion that "nothing in biology makes sense
except in the light of evolution" is a bogus and tired propagandistic
claim. Lots of things make sense in biology without the light of
evolution. That's why it's possible that "many professional
scientists know surprisingly little about evolution."
Dawkins, Richard. 1987. The Blind Watchmaker. On page 283:
"It isn't that any transformed cladists are themselves
fundamentalist creationists. My own interpretation is that they
enjoy an exaggerated idea of the importance of taxonomy in biology.
They have decided, perhaps rightly, that they can do taxonomy
better if they forget about evolution, and especially if they never
use the concept of the ancestor in thinking about taxonomy. In the
same way, a student of, say, nerve cells, might decide that he is
not aided by thinking about evolution. The nerve specialist agrees
that his nerve cells are the products of evolution, but he does not
need to use this fact in his research. He needs to know a lot
about physics and chemistry, but he believes that Darwinism is
irrelevant to his day-to-day research on nerve impulses. This is a
defensible position."
One could, I suppose, argue that these professional scientists don't
contribute any good science, but there is not a shred of evidence for
that type of ad hoc claim.
Stu:
Once again, ID is not creationism and ID is not anti-evolution. So both of these articles are irrelevant to ID.
Once again, ID is not creationism and ID is not anti-evolution. So both of these articles are irrelevant to ID.