Forget Intelligent design, go whole hog and insist on the Garden of Eden.
PS Wasn't that in Iraq?

Well, Daniel, I assume you're doing this because it's the summer doldrums and we all see our traffic slump around now. And it's also the summertime silly season.

But let's not neglect the problems with evolution as traditionally understood. Just hitting the high spots, "mutations" as we normally see them are almost always disadvantageous, not good, five-legged calves, two-headed snakes, Downs syndrome, Sickle-cell disease, etc. Big boobs are about the only good ones I can think of offhand.

Then I believe there's the problem of statistical incidence of mutations versus the time available for enough of them to produce evolved species.

Then there's the problem of fossil evidence, or lack thereof, for transitional species. A single archaeopteryx does not an evolutionary descent make. There's the related problem of what the fossil evidence does show, which is species continuing unchanged for millions of years and then simply dying out, or alternatively, surfacing unchanged in present times, like the Coelacinth.

All these suggest bodies of data outside evolution as understood. Intelligent design is probably too much of a leap, but I don't like the sense of unchallengeable orthodoxy I see with evolution, either.

He also believed that Iraq had "WMD's" , and that the people of the Middle East are yearning for democracy.

Mitchell: He was half right!

John Bruce,

I don't think anyone has a problem with an alternate competing scientific theory that challenges evolution.

Rather I think the problem us scientists have with Intelligent Design (ID) is that (to use a better author's words): "...ID is neither observable nor repeatable...[ID also] violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. ID violates Occam's Razor by postulating an entity or entities to explain something that may have a simpler and scientifically supportable explanation not involving unobservable help."

In other words, ID is *not* science, it was not derived in a scientific manner and does not meet the requirements of a valid scientific theory. This doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't be taught. It simply means that it does not belong in a science class. No more than a lesson on evolution should be necessarily be required in Sunday School.

Thoughts?

jprime314,
Is pre-biological evolution or directed panspermia observable and repeatable?

Interestingly enough, your little quote is very interesting if you replace "ID" with "evolution." Doing so gives an accurate description of the religious belief known as evolution.

Dave C.

Its a bit late, so I'll probably addend my response in the morning but...

Evolutionary theory does have some hypotheses which one can test in laboratory experiments on germs, virus, and bacteria with short generational spans. There have even been some experiments showing the activity of natural selection on higher-level life and the generation of life from non-life (see for example the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment)

However, even those hypotheses of evolutionary theory which cannot be tested in the lab, do yet make predictions about what we should find in the natural world. And biologists can, and do, gather empirical data (in the same way that astronomers or geologists do) to confirm or dispute these hypotheses.

Now let's go to ID. What are the hypotheses of ID that can be tested in a similar manner? Irreducible complexity? Specified complexity? The definitions and measures here are fairly arbitrary. Any sort of non-randomness can be attributed to an Intelligent Designer; and if a non-intelligent cause is found, then *its* cause can be attributed to an Intelligent Designer. So no matter what evidence is produced, it can always be used to "prove" intelligent design. Not so with evolution.

Again, I'm not saying that God did not create the universe. I am saying that I doubt we can ever describe God using science; and that any attempt to describe God is by definition a matter of faith and religion, not science. Ultimately, science is about rigorous methods, reproduceability, and competitive scrutiny. And ID is rather light on these...and therefore should not be taught in science classes. It certainly doesn't help ID when its leading proponents (i.e. Phillip Johnson, Rick Santorum) openly declare that they are trying to advance an evangelical Christian agenda in their fight for ID.

Bush is a fu@#$%g idiot.

The intelligensia seems ot have trouble understanding issues of faith.

I think evolution is true, liberals clearly evolved from chimps. :))

At the risk of being attacked by both sides... Evolution explains a lot. I think it's the best explanation of the development of life that we have now. But there's a lot it doesn't explain. And there's a lot that it tries to explain that people have not directly observed and/or don't have a detailed causal story for.

Right now, most public school students get a boring "this is true, memorize it for the test, blah, blah, blah" description of evolution. Most people who came in believing in creation or ID come out believing in creation or ID because their concerns have never been addressed.

And teaching of evolution often overreaches. There are at the moment absolutely no good worked-out theories of how life originated. There are a lot of possiblilities but all of them have major problems. The Miller-Urey experiment once seemed to point to a possible mechanism but it has turned out to be a dead end. The chemicals produced by the M-U experiment degrade fairly quickly in a M-U environment. Putting out M-U as evidence of evolution then gives critics a big, fat legitimate target. "See the lies they're teaching your kids."

Even creationists accept "laboratory experiments on germs, virus, and bacteria with short generational spans," They believe disease resistance can spread. But they say it's all "microevolution," all "within the same kind"--not evolution to a different "kind" (a biblical term, meaning roughly genus or family). Creationist or ID students then say, "But you haven't seen it create new species." And teachers say, "trust me, given enough time, it will." All right, actually they say, "Scientists agree that given enough time, it will." To which the students say (prompted by their pastors/parents/etc), "Well, that's just the scientists' secular humanist faith." And then their pastors/parents/etc. give them a list of a few thousand science PhDs who have signed an ID petition and the students think they can ignore what their biology books say.

Much, much better to deal with the criticisms openly and honestly. ID is mostly criticism. It makes very few predictions. Treating ID as a scientific theory--seeing how well it explains and predicts, and comparing it to evolution--could be the best thing that has happened to the teaching of evolution.

> liberals clearly evolved from chimps. :))

And conservatives didn't? Does that mean that they're still chimps?

Seriously, though, jprime has it exactly right: ID is not science. It's fundamental hypothesis is untestable by expirement or observation.

Actually, though, ID may have a place in the science curriculum as an example of what is not science, much the way Lamarkian evolutionary theory serves as an example of a theory that doesn't hold up to scientific rigor.

Most people seem to think that science and mathematics have been handed down from on-high fully formed, and that's the way it's normally taught, as dogma to be memorized and regurgitated. Students should understand that science is primarily a method or process, not just a body of information to be memorized.

To those who say ID takes you away from "science", yes, that's a problem, because as soon as you start to talk about the "intelligence", you're in the catechism. This is why ID as it's now seen won't work as science. On the other hand, evolutionary theory is probably not borne out by what we know of mutation statistics -- how many mutations does it take for an amoeba to evolve into an earthworm? How many of those occur per ten thousand years? Was there time enough for this to happen between the cooling of the earth and the first fossil earthworms? The fossil evidence also doesn't display smooth transitions that you would expect from the theory. So a challenge exists for a scientific theory that better explains the fossil record than evolution. This is no different from the astronomers who started to look closely at the movements of the planets and decided the earth-centered model of the solar system didn't match the date.

Given that the fossil evidence does not show transitional forms, the discussion is over as to whether evolution is a sound theory. Mumbo jumbo about experiments, bursts of evolution,etc, are no different than liberal economists telling us in econospeak how great socialism is, even when there is no food on the shelves for sale in socialist economies. It's just intellectuals making the absurd sound reasonable.

It's amazing how the "no transitional forms" argument continues to rear its head. It makes one wonder if people even bother to investigate the claims they make before making them. Check out: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

The rest of the "Transitional fossils" section is worth looking at too.

asg- I went to your 'source'. Doesn't look any different to me than what I said previously. Just like economists using jargon to 'prove' the soviet economic model was superior to ours prior to its collapse. If there was food on the shelves, you wouldn't need jargon. And if the 'transitional forms' were really transitional forms, all the other jargon would not be necessary. There would be no need for dna tests, etc, to bolster the argument, if it were as sound as your source tries to make it.

There is a part of me that recalls the somnolent majority of my junior high school biology class and thinks its interest might have been caught with a little controversy over evolution. Another part of me wonders why, considering the many layers of veiling required to make Christian doctrine about creation presentable in public schools as "intelligent design," its mostly Christian advocates bother with it.

Having said that, the necessity for the President of the United States to deliver himself of opinions about high school curricula is not evident to me. It couldn't have hurt him to suppress the politician's pandering instinct for one day and just ducked the question.

I'm interested to know what people would think if Bush was a Buddhist. as I recall, doesn't the Tao of the Buddha say that the Buddha is in everything and is everything? would there be the same anti-Buddhist fervor? it still wouldn't stop the "keep religion out of the classroom" meme.

secondly, if Evolution is so great, why isn't it a law? it's just a theory. so is ID. in fact, there's a whole mess of different theories of how we got from there to here. seems some people are deathly afraid that ID may be right.

"if Evolution is so great, why isn't it a law? "

What? How stupid are you? Scientific principles aren't made into laws.

I would be content to teach the huge problems with the postulate of evolution. Evolution is not a fact or a theory because it cannot be falsified. It is a non-scientific misnomer to teach it as a theory.

We have millions of billions of concrete examples of one species only producing itself. There is not one example of any species ever changing into any other species.

I give you the periodic table. Please show me how life can be produced from inert chhemicals. With all our sufisticated labs and knowledge no one has been able to creat life, even under strict laboritory conditions. Yet evolutionists tell us life can from inert chemicals in a primordial puddle!? Who actually believes this nonsense?

A certain faith is required to believe in evolution or IT. Because the science we know says evolution could not have happened. It takes a blind faith to believe in evolution. The monsterous complexity of the human DNA chain says it must have had a designer. Yet evolutionist claim it happened by accident inspite of no natural mechanism to perform this miracle. Blind faith in this miraculous mechanism.

Evolution is not a fact or a theory because it cannot be falsified. It is a non-scientific misnomer to teach it as a theory.

You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. Please familiarize yourself with the scientific definition of "theory" and "falsifiable" before shooting off your ignorant mouth again.

Evolution may be an incorrect theory but it's most certainly a theory (in the same sense as the theory of gravity, or the theory of plate techtonics) and as such is clearly falsifiable.

Who invited the monkeys, Dan?

This thread is a depressing commentary on science education in America. The anti-evolution commenters are doubtless college graduates. They are very likely intelligent people.

And they are comfortable sounding very, very, VERY stupid on the subject of evolution. They simply don't care that none of their objections is either true or interesting.

It's as if everything's been reduced to the level of Crossfire, and people think "did not"/"did too" is an acceptable means of discussing science.

This socially accepted ignorance is bound to hurt America short- and long-term, as compared with other Western nations whose citizens have some respect for science.

"What? How stupid are you? Scientific principles aren't made into laws."

Quite stupid. I surmised that if you teach a theory as anything other than a theory, that you would be doing a disservice to science. Apparently, teaching theories as laws is what you do in modern academia.

again, I wonder what the problem with teaching ID and other non-evolution theories is? are you afraid that children will start to think for themselves? come to their own conclusions? not be indoctrinated into whatever version of the truth you believe?

seems like some people have no faith in how smart children can be.

You forgot to mock the most ridiculous of his assertations.

"The monsterous complexity of the human DNA chain says it must have had a designer."

This is the equivalent of a small child responding with a 'Because.' Wow, this 'nucleic acid' stuff sure is hard to remember. There must be a God.

Moron.

The issue of the emergence of life has come up a few times in the comments. But does this have any relevance to the evolution/ID controversy? Do scientists have to describe scientifically the emergence of life in order for "evolution" to be true? Couldn't there have been a creator, and, once life is established, the evolution of species?

My reaction to ID is that it simply collects the outstanding questions in evolutionary biology and says, "That's God!" Scientists, though, cannot accept this. Theories like ID, in essence, put up a road block, saying science should go no further. This is the refuge of insecure believers.

Finally, in regard to Krauthammer: The push by Intelligence Design advocates to have their theory considered equivalent to evolution in biology seems a bit like the push for neoconservatives to have their theory considered equivalent to realism and liberal internationalism in international relations. Neither really offers much in describing how life, or the world, works.

At the risk of re-igniting the flames, I just have to ask: Why do so many people believe that either a scientific theory is right or there is a God? Why not both? After all, some of the greatest scientists in history believed in God. I have no doubt that some day, scientists will discover the mechanism by which life came about, just as they discovered that the earth is round and that disease is caused by organisms that we cannot see. None of these discoveries means that God doesn't exist. It just means that the mechanism s/he used are so subtle that we will probably never understand all of it.

So, in other words, a lengthy list of examples refuting the claim that the fossil record contains no transitional forms is "jargon" and can therefore be dismissed. Tell me, what sort of citation would cause you to question your view that the fossil record contains no transitional forms? Is there any such, even in principle?

But, in any case, this is a pretty good example displaying why the evolution/creation debate is not about science; it's about politics. Scientific citations or examples are of little value in it.

Wow, a UofChicago prof defending orthodoxy and not showing any skepticism toward the philosophical presuppositions of Darwinism. Such is the state of the academy today, I guess. Yes, and I too will go to Charles Krauthammer for an authoritative opinion on the matter.

I'll slow down for the stupid- i.e. MacStansbury.

Technically, everything in science is a theory (including evolution), with varying levels of proof.

ID is a theory, its not a scientific theory. Its not science. It doesn't belong in a SCIENCE class.

If you're too stupid to know what science is, let me know, I'll try and help you with that, too.

At the risk of re-igniting the flames, I just have to ask: Why do so many people believe that either a scientific theory is right or there is a God? Why not both?

I have another question: Why do so many people believe that either ID or evolution is bad science? Why not both? The debates I see tend to seek to prove one and demolish the other, rather than look at both skeptically.

Alan, we're unfortunately going to have to add you to the stupid group.

ID is not science.

Whether its a good theory is not relevant to the discussion. Its not a scientific theory. So it shouldn't be taught in SCIENCE class.

Is this honestly that difficult to understand?

In the context of science teaching, evolutionary biology is the only coherent scientific approach extant.
Intelligent Design in biology is no more an appropriate element of science tscience" than would be "Creative Landscape Artist Theory" in geography:
"...never mind ice ages and plate tectonics, obviously the Atlantic was designed the shape it is to produce the Gulf Stream. And the mountains aren't produced by vulcanism, deposition, uplift and erosion. They were shaped to look real pretty and keep Nevada from getting mixed up with California."

(With Slartibartfast subcontractor for fjords, presumably)

And as for "teach the controversy":
Well, what about the Multiple Designers variant of ID?

Wassat?

That is, the best evidence from biology is for multiple, competing, antagonistic, periodically incompetent and occasionally sadistic designers.

Shall we teach THAT controversy, hmm?

Not sure if anybody is still reading this, but I can't leave a question unanswered.

Larry asked: "Why do so many people believe that either a scientific theory is right or there is a God?"

This is not the same question as Evolution versus ID. While I like to consider myself a scientist, I probably don't yet fit the qualifications (I'm about to begin my last semester of Masters work in Physics), I also consider myself a Christian. A belief in Evolution does not necessitate a lack of belief in a God. ID proponents take any "hole" that they perceive in Evolutionary theory and say that it is God. There is absolutely no difference between choosing God to fill the "hole" and choosing my cat. Neither case is science, they are faith.

My beliefs trend toward God starting the universe...setting the wheels in motion, and then taking a hands off approach thereafter. We are his experiment. He doesn't want to bias the results, so he doesn't...interfere seems like too harsh of a word, but it's all I got right now. He created what would lead to the birth of our world and therefore our birth, but he was nothing more than indirectly involved in the creation of mankind.

I have to say the anti-evolution comments here have a distressing pedestrian illiteracy to them.

First, in re the contention that evolutionary theory is missing something due to not explaining origin of life, that simply misunderstands evolutionary theory - it is in short ignorance. Origin of life is a seperate question, not part of evolutionary theory, although in fact contra to the assertion made in the comment, there are interesting and potentially robust hypotheses in this regard that would in fact dovetail with evolutionary theory.

Leaving this aside, the post which states:
"I would be content to teach the huge problems with the postulate of evolution. Evolution is not a fact or a theory because it cannot be falsified. It is a non-scientific misnomer to teach it as a theory.

We have millions of billions of concrete examples of one species only producing itself. There is not one example of any species ever changing into any other species.

I give you the periodic table. Please show me how life can be produced from inert chhemicals. With all our sufisticated labs and knowledge no one has been able to creat life, even under strict laboritory conditions. Yet evolutionists tell us life can from inert chemicals in a primordial puddle!? Who actually believes this nonsense?' is pure rubbish and dangerously illiterate.

Evolutionary theory, as any properly trained biologist can tell you, does indeed make testable assertions - that is indeed why it is a robust and accepted theory (one should of course recall that scientific usage of theory is not popular usage).

As for one species transitioning or speciating, well this is again simply illiteracy (unsurprisingly critics don't have the first clue), as well as factually incorrect. Instances of speciation are well documented, of course keeping in mind that actual theory does not in any way posit the simple minded and vulgar concept of one species suddenly given birth to another, but rather speciation occurs through random mutation and isolation or seperation of populations.

As for the last claim in regards to origin of life, again that is not a claim of evolutionary science but a seperate claim re abiogenesis, origin of life theory. As it happens present work in the area demonstrates that under certain conditions basic building blocks of life can generate.

Finally there is this tripe:
But let's not neglect the problems with evolution as traditionally understood. Just hitting the high spots, "mutations" as we normally see them are almost always disadvantageous, not good, five-legged calves, two-headed snakes, Downs syndrome, Sickle-cell disease, etc. Big boobs are about the only good ones I can think of offhand.

This is not a problem at all, mutations are random and there is nothing in evolutionary theory that would predict they would tend to be good. Anyone posing this as a problem merely indicates they are fundamentally ignorant and are trying to critique something they don't even understand on a basic level.

Then I believe there's the problem of statistical incidence of mutations versus the time available for enough of them to produce evolved species.
Rubbish. The claim doesn't even make sense.

Then there's the problem of fossil evidence, or lack thereof, for transitional species. A single archaeopteryx does not an evolutionary descent make. There's the related problem of what the fossil evidence does show, which is species continuing unchanged for millions of years and then simply dying out, or alternatively, surfacing unchanged in present times, like the Coelacinth.

Fossil evidence is not the sole proof, indeed genetics has become rather more robust, and frankly it's rather amazing that there is the evidence that we have. Fossilisation is a random thing that quite simply would not be expected to adequately capture all or even more variation over time.

As to some species "not changing" -at least morphologically - well, so? Evolutionary theory doesn't suppose that change is inevitable. Rather simply it posits the mechanism by which change does happen. A species that fits well into an environment that remains stable (relative to its endowment) will remain stable as selective pressures continue to weed out changes (of course it is equally true that divergence of sub populations may not be captured in the fossil record simply due to the fact fossilisation is not a regular or even common process, and that in fact speciation may be occuring while one may have simply fossils of the unchanged).

It's truly sad and pitiful every anti-evolutionary theory post here has failed to demonstrate anything but the most simple and elementary acquaintance with the actual theory (as opposed to the cartoonish distortions by those hostile to it).

ID is not science.

Technically, true. I should not use "bad science" and "not science" interchangeably. Global warming theory is bad science. ID is a series of Occam's Razor arguments, a philosophy. Evolution attempts to be science but seems to be more philosophy than observation. My point is that one can be skeptical about both.

Since evolution assumes that information (such as DNA) can spontaneously generate, and evolution is a hypothetical process, have scientists ever observed this process producing information?