Redstate

I think that ID proponents should give up on trying to get it recognized as a scientific theory. It fits better into philosophy, anyways.

Generally philosophy doesn't deal with theories of the supernatural. Although the debate of creationism vs evolution is a good topic to disucss in the philosophy of science.

Here is a site that criticizes Stein's documentary:

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

The existence and nature of God have been the subject of philosophy dating back at least to St. Augustine, and proceeding through Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Pascal, Laplace, Hume, and Kierkegaard, to name just a few.

Aquinas put forward an argument from design as one of his "five ways" of demonstrating God's existence in the 13th century, IIRC. This argument was not really different from the one that ID is based on today.

Yes, but those are not considered modern topics of interest by most philosophers. Old philosophical demonstrations that god exists are studied today because they are logically erroneous.

In the same way, the study of creation science or ID can help science students learn how to avoid similar mistakes in reasoning.

Sorry, but you made me laugh. Thomas Aquinas could squash whatever "modern" philosophers you are referring to. For that matter, many modern Christian Philosophers coudl squash your "modern" (of course you mean atheist) philosophers. You know where you can put that "logically erroneous" crap. Simply denying blazingly obvious premises does not count as discovering a logical error.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

Aliens planting the first cell "seed" or crystals carrying proteins around and lining up to create the first cell is a better, more scientific theory than ID.
The thing we must all remember here is that ID is NOT questioning Darwinism, it is however questioning how life began. When the the above mentioned are the only two theories mentioned by Dawinist elites (as I am guessing Dawkins is) there is no reason to oppress the possibility of ID.
In schools the creation of the world should be taught as two theories...."some people believe in Dawinism, others creationism-both are theories". ID is trying to find a way to bride a gap that exists in Darwin's theory and there should be no reason that it is not further researched.
MelZ

MelZ

One is a theory based on religious belief, ID/Creationism.

One is a scientific theory based on science, Darwin.

By all means, teach ID/Creationism in schools, but let's also teach Pastafarism and Storkism and whatever floats your boat at the same time, and other faith based theory of creation at the same time in a class that is not labeled science. Well unless you want government to endorse one specific version of faith based beliefs that is.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Naturalism is based on life coming from non-life. Abiogenesis an absurd assumption but something evolutionists have to believe by faith.

I completely agree with you.

"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson

Abiogenesis is no more abusrd than the belief that life on earth was started by other life (e.g. God, aliens, etc) considering that the other life form also must have origin.

Unlike ID, hypothesis of abiogenesis are scientific - anything else would fall into the realm of philosophy or theology.

And just so you know at one point in time it was considered absurd to believe that the sun was not being carried by a giant chariot from one side of the flat earth to the other.

For one thing, there's plenty of philosophical background to back-up the idea that life could be created by, e. g., God, but not much that really suggests that it life can come from non-life. Granted, this hinges on a philosophical assumption that a living thing is distinctly and irreducibly different than a non-living thing, which is an assumption that Myers, Dawkins, et alia, do not share. Still, it's worked pretty well for the philosophers.

Also, assuming that life arose on Earth by originated elsewhere (that is, life was seeded from extraterrestrial sources, either intentionally or otherwise) still doesn't get you around the need to explain the origin of life, just as positing a Big Bang doesn't explain why the Big Bang ... banged.

Abiogenesis is a major problem for those wishing to use evolution as an argument against the existence of, or need for, God.

Incidentally, I went to see "Expelled" myself this afternoon. I don't doubt that the film has its flaws, but I don't really think the argument over ID-in-the-classroom really does a good job of engaging the subject. The problem isn't just that ID isn't to be mentioned in school. The problem is that many scientific institutions and organizations are crushing inquiry into the idea in a fashion that seems almost systematic. There are people with a lot personally invested in the idea that science disproves religion, or opposes it by its nature, an idea that has never really been true.

--
This too shall pass.

As far as science is concerned there is absolutely no evidence whatsover that life was created intelligently. There just isn't. You're right that ID belongs in the areas of philosophy and theology, not science. And yes, science doesn't know how life started but until evidence suggests any scientific theory, the best we can say is "I don't know."

As far as your thoughts about people wishing to use evolution to disprove God, well, any good scientist will tell you that it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. The very question of whether God (at least, a supernatural God) exists or not, is not a scientific question. That being said, scientists are people and their opinion will vary just as the opinion of everyday people. None of the scientists I work with or have met at events ever brought up wanting to disprove God. Maybe it's because they're good scientists and know it's impossible to prove or disprove anything regarding the supernatural/metaphysical nature of reality.

As far as institutions go, nobody is preventing scientific inquiry into ID. It's just that ID, if assuming supernatural origin, is not science. "Natural" ID could be, but there is zero evidence to support it at the moment so it's nothing more than a thought experiment.

False. Thst's kind of the whole point of the movie you refuse to see. Grants denied, tenure denied, job loss, blackballing from any NEW job, AND if somehow, despite all that, you still manage to produce a scholarly paper *that passes peer review* [yes, Virginia, there are some intellectually honest scientists] -- the poor schmuck who publishes your peer-reviewed paper will lose HIS job. (And I'll bet the howling mob will try to go after those reviewers, too).

But nobody is preventing scientific inquiry into ID. There's just making it career suicide and certain financial ruin to do so.

• I never said that ID doesn't belong in science. Philosophy was once understood to encompass the whole of intellectual inquiry. While I am, as yet, unconvinced that ID belongs in, say, a high school science class, the context of the movie is much broader than the question of what is⁰ our children learning?
• Actually, there are multiple prominent figures in the scientific community who seem to view science as antithetical to religion. Dawkins, Myers, and Dennett all spring to mind, but "Expelled" managed to dig up multiple others. They're out there, though I don't think they represent the majority, they may well be vocal and powerful enough to shout anyone else down at the moment.

0. That's intentional. I think it's funny.

--
This too shall pass.

The hypothesis for extraterestrial origins of life are still scientific in the sense that they do not put a super-natural cause behind life. That being set, they are still just hypothesis - there is little evidence to support them but it is certainly possible to find some. Some organic molecules related to life have been detected in space after all.

A hypothesis stating that life was created by a supernatural entity is unscientific because science doesn't deal with the supernatural. A hypothesis stating that life was created by a "natural" intelligent life form (e.g. aliens) could be scientific evidence, but there is not any, not even anecdotal evidence to even remotely support it. Even if there were, that would only explain how life on Earth got started, not how life in general (since the creator would have to be alive in some sense as well) got started.

Second, as I said before if you want to be taken seriously by scientists, stop saying "Darwinism". We don't say "Einsteinism" to refer to relativity. In addition, Darwin's idea are quite old and have long been updated, refined (and some rejected) over the course of the last 100 or so years. Science advances exponentially over time. For you to attack Darwin when attacking Evolution is the same as for me to attack Galileo when attacking Quantum Physics.

And no, in science class in public schools kids should learn science. Science education is already bad enough (judging by the many comments here), and it needs to be improved not taken back to the stone age. The only way creationism and ID should be covered in science class is as examples of pseudo-science that some people attempt to present as science. That is, refering to public schools. If you want to put your kids at a severe disadvantage by placing them in private school were pseudo-science is taught as science, then go ahead, be my guest.

...since there is nothing in nature that suggests that it could happen. In fact everything we know points to abiogenesis being absurdly improbable.

Abiogenesis is the study of the natural transformation of organic molecules into what we would consider to be a primitive life-form. It is NOT supernatural in that the hypothesis presented do not include any supernatural forces (that would make them un-scientific).

Just because we have no clue about how it happened, this does not in any way imply that it must have happened supernaturally. At one point humans didn't know how and why the planets and stars moved as they did. Those humans made the mistake of assuming that a divine power is responsible for those observations (e.g. a chariot carrying the sun, etc). We obviously know better now. If we want to make more scientific progress, we shouldn't make the same mistake.

Abiogenesis is the study of the natural transformation of organic molecules into what we would consider to be a primitive life-form.

Abiogenesis has never ever ever been observed. In fact, all the scientific evidence points to it being highly improbable (certainly not achievable given the limitations of our observable universe). And if abiogenesis is fatally wounded, evolutionary theory comes crashing down like a house of cards.

Thus abiogenesis is extra-natural or supernatural for the simple fact that it has not been observed in nature. If you don't like the label "supernatural", then just break concepts up into two categories: things that have been observed and things that require religious faith. Abiogenesis is in the latter category.

Pigsflyingenesis is the study of the natural transformation from a pig to a flying pig. But I would say that a flying pig is something supernatural.

You make some wrong assumptions:

1. IF some phenomena hasn't been observed naturally, it does not imply it CANNOT happen. Nobody was able to observe atoms 2000 years ago but even then the Greeks made the hypothesis that they exist.

2. Along with 1. if some phenomena hasn't been observed naturally, it is NOT SCIENTIFIC to assume it has a supernatural cause. The scientific assumption is to assume a natural one. Now that may be an "intelligent" one (e.g. aliens) or not. In the early days of human history nobody knew how and why the sun moved, so they placed supernatural explanations on it. We now know better.

3. Abiogenesis does not require religious faith. The current scientific explanation for the origin of life is: "life started somehow, somewhere in a natural process". This is the common scientific opinion about processes that are not yet understood. We certainly don't know all there is to know about black holes. Does that mean that you need religious faith to believe that black holes obey the laws of physics as supposed to the will of some intelligent designer?

On the other hand, assuming that life has supernatural cause DOES require religious faith for obvious reasons.

4. If for some reason it was shown that aliens placed the first life form on earth, that would not render the theories of evolution regarding what happened afterwards as wrong. Evolution studies how life developed once it was started, not how it started.

Do you believe that abiogenesis occurred or not despite the lack of evidence?

I'll try to make this more clear. Consider these two statements:

Statement A: "life on Earth started somewhere somehow at some point in time"

Statement B: "Some intelligent supernatural entity created life on Earth at some point in time."

Statement A is clearly self-evident by the mere fact that we observe life right now. It does not take ANY religious faith to believe in it and is the current scientific position on the origin of life (with some added details regarding the estimated time at which life started).

Statement B on the other hand CLEARLY takes religious faith to believe in.

Abiogenesis is of course focused on natural explanations since it is part of science. And of course abiogenesis occurred (it is not something to believe or not believe in), since we have life, it must have started somehow. Yes, we don't know how it happened but when we do science, we have to make this assumption. When dealing with any phenomena science ALWAYS makes the assumption that the cause is a natural process. Making the assumption that the cause is supernatural has NEVER EVER EVER EVER made any useful contributions or results. Kapish?

The problem is that the "scientific community " argues that 'statement B" can't possibly be true! They have used their 'science' as basis for the denial of the existence of God in any form and continually denigrate those 'bitter peolple who cling to their faith'. The elitism of the 'scientifc community' is just amazing.

Sorry, no cigar. The scientific community argues that statement B cannot be proved or disproved by science. As such, science does not deal with the supernatural or the metaphysical nature of reality. That's it. Plenty of scientists (including me) have our own religious beliefs.

a lot of conservative college students across America would disagree with you.

Your statement "The scientific community argues that statement B cannot be proved or disproved by science." isn't the view of the 'leading' evolutionists.

The circles in which you seem to orbit may believe that but the 'leading scientists' in the public eye promulgate a very different view.

If you don't like the label "supernatural", then just break concepts up into two categories: things that have been observed and things that require religious faith. Abiogenesis is in the latter category.

This is a false dichotomy. What about Hawking Radiation? It has not been observed, and it does not require religious faith. Stephen Hawking believes it exists, not as a matter of faith but as a matter of applying generally accepted theories to the odd situation of Black Holes. Most people in the scientific community believe Hawking Radiation exists, but as it has not been observed, this is not certain...but it is certainly a falsifiable proposition, it will likely be tested once we have advanced enough equipment, and it certainly has nothing to do with religious faith.

"Just because we have no clue about how it happened, this does not in any way imply that it must have happened supernaturally."

Thank you for admitting you have no clue how it happened. That leaves open the possibility that a Designer made it happen. And yes, you created a straw man by saying "must", but I reject your pile of straw. For the most part, folks opposing the brute indoctrination of Darwinism simply want of a discussion of the merits of the various postulates.

"...divine power.... We obviously know better now. If we want to make more scientific progress, we shouldn't make the same mistake."

Not sure which religion you're poking at, but Jews, Christians, and Catholics are fair game in today's world, so let's have some fun there.... Galileo was persecuted by both the Catholic Church and also by some of his fellow scientists for his sun-centric view of the solar system. So the Catholic Church is clearly BAD. But modern Popes claim that the naturalistic theory of origins, evolution, is perfectly compatible with the Bible and should be accepted. So is the Catholic Church good? Or bad? And what exactly do you mean by making "the same mistake"? The mistake of listening to religion? If so, why should we listen to modern Popes when they proclaim that the evolution theory of our origins is good by them?

It has been well documented that many, not all, of the "fathers of modern science" worshiped God. Many of those indicated that their passion for discovering the natural laws of science was fueled by their belief in a consistent, trustworthy, orderly God. Evolution is based on randomness. Odd that so many of the fathers of modern science achieved greatness while standing on an allegedly bogus foundation.

My point was that as far as explanations of the natural world, scientific theories have beaten supernatural theories EVERY SINGLE TIME. Most Christians in the western world have long moved on from trying to argue the opposite. Why there are ones here in America still trying to argue otherwise is beyond me.

Yes, many scientists believe in God. I am one. However, we still use the scientific method in making theories. When I am working on some problem, I never resort to "God did it". Science is not the place for that. Again, the point of this discussion is not that science and God should be in conflict. It's that science deals with the natural while religion deals with the supernatural. It serves no purpose for religious folks to try to insert God into science because it has never ever worked.

Vitalism was debunked long ago, when the first organic chemicals were synthesized, and were thus proven to not have a magical origin.

Simple laboratory experiments, simulating primodial conditions, have spontaneously generated sugars, amino acids and nucleotides (the units that make up DNA). So it is plausible that in a billion years, something like a bacteria cell might evolve from chemical reactions.

There is no evidence at all that live was created by a supernatural intervention. That is a fantastically complex theory, positing the existance of an intelligent controlling agent. It's amazingly bad science, and journals and grant agencies are completely correct to not dispense funds earmarked for real science to people who do not understand that science is or is not.

"plausible"

Working from fuzzy memory, somebody, somewhere declared that one or more monkeys randomly banging away at typewriters would eventually recreate the works of Shakespeare. Was a cool soundbite. Unfortunately, nobody at the time questioned the claim. Since then, statistical analyses have been run and the results are that the cool soundbite didn't pass the reality test.

Your claim that "it is plausible that in a billion years, something like a bacteria cell might evolve from chemical reactions" sounds cool. Can you give us some statistical analyses to back up the claim?

Some astronomically small number.

And yet... someone wins every few drawings. It's odd when a couple of months goes by and someone *DOESN'T* win.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

The odds for winning at gambling are many, many, many orders of magnitude better than the topics we are discussing.

But, somewhere, eventually, that tiny tiny chance actualizes.

We won the powerball.

As improbable as improbable can be... but not impossible. Given a universe chock full of drawings... somewhere it was inevitable that someone's number would be picked.

It was ours.

Congratulations.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Then, the odds are that there is another planet somewhere in this vast universe that someone named Erik is typing a message at this very point in time. This planet is exactly like ours in every single way. Because, if it can happen once, then it can certainly happen twice...given the long odds. Can't it?

Erik

"A hypothesis stating that life was created by a supernatural entity is unscientific because science doesn't deal with the supernatural"

That isn't any less absurd than saying physics doesn't include the study of energy since we can't touch and feel it. If a supernatural source had anything to do with a physical event, science would be perfectly comfortble with studying everything about the relationship between the two just so long as they had tools to measure. Science (based on our tools) would probably stop before it could ever talk about the nature of the supernatural, but not whether or not it can or cannot interact with what we can measure.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

What you fail to see is that once you can measure and detect something using the scientific method than it no longer falls within the area of the supernatural. Hence, yes, "energy" is not something you can touch but we can come up with perfectly naturalistic explanations regarding electricity, magnetism, quantum interactions, etc.

Once mistake people have made in the past is assuming that just because we don't know something, than it must have supernatural cause. The movements of the heavenly bodies are one example of that. Fortunately, we have learned that assuming supernatural causes to natural events has NEVER produced useful scientific results.

determining the source of something does not automatically make the event "natural". If the source of something measured was determined to be supernatural, then the source remains supernatural even if we can measure the results.

"Once mistake people have made in the past is assuming that just because we don't know something, than it must have supernatural cause"

That is very true. Unfortunatley the pendulum has swung the other way for at least the last century. People blatantly deny the obvious supernatural events in the world by claiming that since they can be measured or found to have "rules", then there can be no supernatural influence (see the sun dancing in the sky over Fatima, a pile of crutches in Loudes, the incorruptable bodies of various saints, demonic possession...). Whether or not you can find patterns, explainations, rules, etc does not negate the obvious supernatural occurrences. They do not happen commonly and they have faith based explainations that do work (see exorcism).

The purpose of science is to predict future events, not explain our past. Dropping a ball several times to determine the acceleration is 9.8m/s^2 is science. Claiming the origin of the ball is Spokane, WA is not science, that's history. While the history of it may be informative and may help lead you in further investigations, it has no place being called a scientific theory. Scientists need to stick to building models that predict future events and not worry so much about things with metaphysical ramifications.

BTW, Science has NEVER produced any useful metaphycial results, so they should probably quit trying to push it.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

First, predicting future events is certainly a big part of science but it's certainly not the whole picture.

Second, science at the moment does not claim an origin of life. Science simply works under the assumption that that origin is natural. As I said before, that assumption has always worked for science and the opposite assumption has never worked.

Third, you're touched on important point about metaphysics vs natural world. At one point in time the movements of the heavens were considered metaphysical in origin. People were killed because they claimed otherwise. We now know much better. Arguing that just because we don't know how life started, therefore it must have been designed, is as ridiculous as the arguments thousands of years ago that the gods move the stars and planets because we didn't know how or why they moved.

Like it or not, there are many areas in metaphysics which will in the future cross over into the natural world due to better measuring technology. This has been happening for the past 2000 years and will not stop now. If you're faith is based on a literal creation story written thousands of years than, that's too bad. Even the Catholics made the wise decision to keep religion where it belongs and let science explore the natural world.

No I am not a literal creationist. I'm all for exploring the natural world.

I am a Catholic, and the Church gets a bum rap for "squashing science". The "truth" about people like Gallileo is that many scientists are arrogant, they teach theory as fact prior to proving their theory (I guess it's just our nature), the Church funds a lot of science (the research that went into developing a heliocentric model), and many Christians are drawn to science because of their desire to understand how God does things.

Sure there are Christians who recoil at some scientific theories, but it is not because they are crazy. Dawkins is a perfect example of someone who became drunk on his own "knowledge" to the point where he can't even tell that evolution does not indicate a lack of a God. While I agree that science is a fantastic and necessary study, many Christians rightly recognise that it is not worth your soul if that's what the price would be (if you don't recognise the belief in a soul, fine, but look to atheist regimes like Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, etc and see what lack of an absolute moral authority does to a man's character).

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

No I did not say all atheists are Nazis, communists, etc. I said it has a demonstrable draining effect on man in general.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

I did not mean to diss Catholics in any way, sorry if you got that impression. I am actually happy that the Church has moved away from seeking supernatural explanations to natural phenomena. I am amazed that the many evangelical churches here in the USA have not yet done so as well.

I certainly won't claim that science has the answer to everything. There is certainly a need for intellectual exploration of metaphysics, theology, and philosophy. I have my own religious beliefs just like most people. The original discussion was on whether supernatural ID theories can be scientific or not. Well, as you can presume the answer is no. That doesn't mean that we should not discuss these topics, just that they aren't science that is all.

As addicted as I am to a good argument (and it has been fun), I got to get to work or I can't justify my income. Thanks for the discussion though. I think this is a good spot for you and me to end.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

I've heard the whole big bang hocus pocus, but what was the initiator? If there was just nothingness before the big bang, where did the somethingness that followed come from? You might want to wrap your head with duct tape before you "explain" this little problem with that theory. Don't get me wrong, I am not against science, but to decree that there is no God is silly. To think that the human being originated in pond scum that advanced through chance mutations that were beneficial to survival is the real stretch. I believe that God has ordered the advancement of species in a way that we can understand through DNA science, but no monkey is my uncle!
Tim Schieferecke

The answer to that question is "I don't know". Yes, a scientist is not afraid to say that they don't know. I have read about several theories regarding the nature of the event we refer to as "the big bang". I am not a physicist, so my knowledge is limited but from what I have read, right now there is not one single theory or hypothesis that beats all others, regarding the event that caused what we refer as "the big bang".

If you're actually interested in learning about it, check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Speculative_physics_beyond_the_Big...

In any way, I don't want to turn this into some kinda of creation vs. evolution debate. It is quite obvious that as far as science is concerned evolution happened. As long as you don't claim that what you believe is based on science, than I could care less if you think that no monkey is your uncle, which by the way is true.

The question of "what came before the big bang" might be meaningless, like asking "what is north of the north pole". Isn't the universe a 4 dimensional manifold (not counting all those extra cyclical dimensions that string theory predicts).

"It is quite obvious that as far as science is concerned evolution happened."

Ah, a variation on the ol' "if you don't BELIEVE in evolution, you're not a scientist" claim. Profound.

Define your terms.

Does "evolution" mean, life from organelles, from biochemicals, from organic molecules, from inorganic compounds from raw atoms?

Does "evolution" mean, no genetic information, to some genetic information, to more and more genetic information by random chance?

Does "evolution" mean, tulips and elephants are both originally born from similar random, naturalistic events?

Does "evolution" mean, variation within a species when pressured by environmental conditions or directed breeding?

I can observe the fourth option. I can set up experiments and make the fourth option happen. I believe the fourth option.

I can not observe the first three. (And no, duplicated DNA in a screwed up cell division does not give you more genetic info, it gives you a duplicate of the same info.) If I am to believe the the first three, I must take them on faith.

This is not the place for this since if you wanted to read about the evidence for evolution you can find answers to these questions quite easily. I do work in the area of bioinformatics and yes I had to study it rigorously. The evidence is simply overwhelming and there is scientific evidence for any other alternative. There is still a great deal of debate regarding many concepts in evolution including some that you mentioned.

In any case, if you want to put your kids at a disadvantage and take them to a creationist school, be my guest. Just don't force it on the rest of us, there is already enough of a brain drain in science in America, we don't need to create more problems by denying basic scientific principles in public schools.

believeing in evolution do anybody anyway. The debate is very important for philosophical reasons, but how somebody going to be at a practical disadvantage, whether their wrong or right about where they come from well its actually pretty ridiculous. There's some things that just aren't practically important to know. If science really was concerned about the practical real world than they wouldn't spend so much time on what happened billions of years and go and then less people would be rejecting them.

I'm surprised to see it stated so baldly, however.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I am gonna tell you what I tell my students when they ask me a question. Google it.

Now, if you actually wanted to know the impact of the theories on evolution in the areas of drug design, biomedical sciences, etc. I'd assume you'd at least Google it before embarrassing yourself. You'd certainly be able to find an answer that is far more credible than what some dude can post on a comment here.

More likely, however, you really aren't interested in the practical implications of theories in the field of evolutionary biology. More likely you're trying to use this question as a really sappy argument. So I won't tell you what those practical implications are since I don't believe you're actually interested in the answer. If you are, than google it.

if they didn't think we evolved from some ape or something to that effect. That really stretches credibility, but whatever. Whether what you say is true or not, most kids aren't going into science, so your arguement that somehow kids are at a disadvantage because they don't know that they came from some ape millions of years agos still doesn't hold, I'm sure if they decide they want to get a job in making drugs they can make whatever changes to their beliefs they need to.

This is getting silly. Obviously I won't be able to change your mind. If you choose to deny basic science than be my guest. But also remember to deny quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity and EM. Those contradict the creation story in the Bible on a way more profound level than evolution ever will.

a belief in evolution actually has. You make the rather unbelievable claim that somehow whaat a person thinks about origins effects their ability to make drugs and you run back to " Well this is basic science", so what if its basic science, if this is such an important topic to you, and it seems it is seeing how time you've spent on it, than explain why we should give a hoot. If you can't explain why it at all matters than go take your arrogant opinions elsewhere.

I am no expert, but I have heard the same thing, from many sources. When he speaks of Evolution's application, I think he means natural selection and variation of species, the whole finches-on-the-Galapagos-Islands thing. Or, for example, illness-causing-bacteria adapting to antibiotics leading to things like Extensively Drug-resistant Tuberculosis. We might be mystified at what was going on if we did not know about evolution.

exists and if the principals of evolution exist, were debating if we got from amoeba to human via evolution. Does that have any effect on drug research - I find it incredibly hard to believe it would.

A lot of modern inventions rest on scientific principles that, at the time, seemed to have no application, but today are essential. For example, Quantum Mechanics was all strictly theoretical, but today has lots of applications in modern technologies that were unheard of back in the 1910s/1920s. And I have heard (and it seems about right) that knowledge of General Relativity is required to be able to coordinate communication between satellites and the ground/other satellites. And certainly would play a role if we engaged in interstellar or even interplanetary travel.

So if this stuff has no application now, who knows what application it will have in the future.

Besides, even if Relativity and Quantum mechanics had no application, wouldn't you still be glad that we knew about them? I want to know as much about the world as possible.

But I don't really know much about relativity and Quantum pysics anyway. I'm into theology, history and Politics and lacking some scientific knowledge doesn't bother me. I will definitelly learn more about science ( I plan to take an astronomy class, and a class on origins next school year) but there's a limit to how much you can know in the world and for me science and math isn't what I'll spend a whole lot of time studying. I'm not really trying to get into an arguement regarding evolution, what I'm arguing is that somehow kids will be at this huge disadvantage if they aren't taught evolution as fact, I fail to see how it cause any great harm. Especially considering 90%+ of kids won't even be harmed in any practical way if they think the sun revolves around the earth - its a specialized world and knowing alot about science doesn't do everybody good.

I find it ironic that you're asking about the benefits of science while using one of the greatest scientific inventions so far.

Call me arrogant, but yes, the same principles that ID and creationists use to deny evolution can be used in denying almost all groundbreaking scientific theories. Why don't you complain that physics teachers are teaching quantum mechanics? If your faith really is based on a creation story than evolution is the least of your problems.

"Call me arrogant, but yes, the same principles that ID and creationists use to deny evolution can be used in denying almost all groundbreaking scientific theories."
How many creationists can you cite who actually speak out against "ground breaking discoveries" that are actually useful in the real world, as opposed to theories about what was going on billions of years ago.

so are you attacking evolution because you think it's not useful or because it contradicts creation stories? If it's the first choice, than you just haven't studied it enough. If it's the second than you should also attack quantum mechanics being taught in school.

And the reason why creationists don't attack quantum mechanics is because they have no clue of the very basic principles behind it. If they knew they'd realize that quantum physics contradicts their creation stories in a far more profound manner than any biological theory ever could. Then again creationists cannot even understand evolution, hence they think it contradicts whatever Faith they have and cannot recognize that one can be a person of faith and still use science to learn about the natural world.

I don't believe in macro evolution, but I don't really recall having made any attacks on it. What I'm attacking is the idea that you positied that somehow kids are going to be at a disadvantage if they aren't taught evolution as fact. It really doesn't seem credible to me that whether we evolved from some amoeba billions of years ago has an impact on real life.

-
NARF

Evolution Matters if you have any interest in human health or food production.

Paragraphs 8-13 (the important ones to make your point) focus on breeding and DNA pattern matching. Not even hard core creationists disagree with the principles of breeding. The disagreement is primarily in origin of species and how species become other species. That article does not give any importance to the theory of evolution

And Engineers (the guys who actually work with DNA) don't need the theory of evolution to do their work.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

I work with DNA, RNA, and protein sequences, along with micro-array expression data every day. I NEED theories of evolution for my work. I really do. Now that's not the case for all people who work in those areas, but evolutionary information is critical in many areas.

tadams1138,

None of your posts has been more inaccurate than this last one, and that's saying something.

As one of those guys who "actually work with DNA"., I can tell you that not one of the hundreds of theses, peer-reviewed papers and conference presentations originating from our lab would make sense outside of an evolutionary framework.

SARS, AIDS, malaria, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and H5N1 bird flu all evolved from more benign species that pose little or no threat to humans. Those who study disease are very directly concerned with the genetic relationships among these pathogenic organisms, and the co-evolutionary responses of their hosts.

Pretty sure you could analyze similarities between species of disease without actually knowing how they jumped. Or do you guys (who "actually work with DNA") actually know the mechanisms by which they adapt? I venture you don't. Regardless of how one strain goes to another, it is not impossible to work within a framework that doesn't explain the origin of life. Sure understanding species relationships is critical, just like I said breeding is not something that creationists deny (or do you know some weirdos I don't?). But evolution goes way beyond breeding. It goes way beyond what you need to deal with DNA sequencing, DNA differentials and chemical experiments. Evolution tries to explain the creation of "new" information in DNA, something I find evolution is insufficient at. Please by all means fill me in (not sarcastic) if you actually use evolution in your work to explain "new" information in DNA. Or do you just write it off and say "evolution did it" and move on to complete your work?

Using evolution to explain breeding is like using string theory to explain Newtonian physics. Unnecessary and highly suspect.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

Understanding air flow is to understanding the weather as understanding breeding is to understanding how a whole new species comes to exist.

Evolution is insufficient. There has to be more.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

Then certainly the rest of life can. So I agree with your point here. Bacteria at one point in time was entirely susceptible to antibiotics...but no more. The reason, they evolved.

How it began or who turned on the light switch is still the open question in my mind.

And where will it end...we'll all talk about it at The Restaraunt at the End of the Universe.

Erik

My degree is in biochem. And I had the units for a degree in genetics too. From UC Davis. I have a passing familiarity on this topic and my education is from a hard left, secular, world class university. If you want more of my resume, do some research with google or medline. I'm not anonymous.

You still haven't defined your terms. If you define "evolution" as variation within a species when pressured by environmental conditions or directed breeding, then we agree. If you push it to the origin of life position, then we don't agree.

Genetic information is really stable - that is to say, the number of genes we carry. What is more common are changes to specific genes, and most common are changes to gene switches. This is where evolution really occurs and its the kind of "information" you're looking for. Then there are mutations of the chromosomes, which do occur fairly often (see Robertsonian transocations or autosomal reciprocal translocations.)

For example, Geoffroy's cat, the Margay and Ocelot have 36 chromosomes whereas the wild and domestic cat has 38 chromosomes. And then there are the Canids: the Gray Wolf and the Coyote have 78 chromosomes, the Maned Wolf 76, the Hoary Fox 74, the Bat-eared Fox 72, the Gray Fox 66, the Fennec Fox 64, the Kit Fox 50, and the Red Fox 36.

So how do different types of cats (suborder Feliformia) or dogs (suborder Caniformia) - have members of the same "kind" with different numbers of chromosomes? Because all of these animals (along with many other mammals) belong to the order Carnivora where their ancestor (see African palm civet) had 38 chromosomes and hence mutated.

The Ancestral Carnivore Karyotype (2n = 38) Lives Today in Ringtails, Journal of Heredity 2008 99(3):241-253

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

I don't mean this as a reply to anything having to do with 'Expelled' but your comment about the big bang (which has nothing to do with Evolution -vs- Creationism by the way) reminded me of something.

I remember being younger and more contemplative than I am now and wondering exactly what you asked: if the big bang is true, where did it all come from? I saw this as a great rhetorical argument in favor of religion until it occurred to me that religion doesn't really have the answer either.

Even if we believe that every word of the bible is true, that god created the heavens and the earth, the question simply becomes: where did god from? Or, in other words, who created god? So the bible really doesn't have the answer either to the paradox you point out.

I don't mean to imply that this was any brilliant insight on my part; I'm sure that I'm roughly the billionth person to whom this has occurred, but in any case, it marked the end of my interest in any religion. I mean, I was only even keeping the window cracked because I thought that at least it could answer this one question, but when I realized that it didn't even have this ace in the whole, that was it for me.

-exits

bed someday. I'll pray for you regardless.
Tim Schieferecke

You bring an important point that there will always be metaphysical questions which science cannot answer. This is because as our scientific knowledge grows, so does the knowledge of metaphysical possibilities. In terms of learning about the world, the difference between science and religion is that science never stops while most religions end at a point where they just say "God did it" or "God only knows".

This by itself is not necessarily a reason to abandon religion. Personally I have one, but I certainly won't claim that my religious beliefs are based on science. Heck, I won't even claim that they're true since I haven't seen any scientific evidence that supports them :)

In terms of learning about the world, the difference between science and religion is that science never stops..

Yes it does. There are stop signs. The 'big bang' is one. The Heisenberg principle is another. Science can get thisssssClose to figuring out how it's all put together, and then a Giant Wall of Uncertainty comes down and closes off further inquiry. The beauty of the Big Bang is that it is impossible to tell what happened before that. The beauty of the Heisenberg principle is that it is impossible to tell what happened to that thing you were watching.

If I didn't know better, I'd say that Somebody has rigged the game so we can never really be sure whether He's there. Or not. And in fact I don't know better, and never will. So maybe He's there. And maybe not.

You gotta admit though, if you didn't want to be found, rigging a one-way singularity to hide behind is pretty cool.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

Even though I'm a Jew, I've always been partial to Tertullian's formulation: certum est, quia impossibile ("It is certain, because it is impossible").

You are partially correct that science does hit a wall when there is no way to measure what you need in order to go further. The big bang is one of those walls since it is difficult to imagine how you could measure and detect data about anything that happened before it. However, in the past couple of decades there have been a number of hypothesis regarding physics and origin of the universe beyond the big bang, some even supported by evidence. As measuring tools become more and more advanced, science will go on. Of course, every (good) scientist knows that whatever new theory is presented, it is just an approximation of the data that is detected and nothing more. As such science will never find "the truth" but only get closer to it.

Barriers are put up. Just ask those arguing against Global Warming. That's the whole point of the movie. Why did those scientists not get published as often? Find some science in that!

-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Saving baby whales and baby trees, but killing baby humans. Huh?

Your statement is ridiculous but I wanted to comment on your footer quote.

First, there is not such thing as "evolutionist". Those who study evolution are called evolutionary biologists. Second, those evolutionary scientists study how evolution happened, not whether we should save off dying species. That falls more into the area of ecology and the decisions to put a species on the endangered list are ultimately made by our government through politics. Just thought to clarify.

Seriously, I often wonder if semantics and passion generate more heat than light in the evolution vs intelligent design debate.

Skepticism is in order re evolution and intelligent design (the ideologies thereof, I mean). For starters, why should evolution be upwards? Is that intelligent design creeping in there?

Just sayin'

Or show me any grad student with 70 pubs. His work was featured in many distinguished journals including a cover article for Nature. This was plain and simple viewpoint discrimination -- Gonzalez believed in ID while his colleagues didn't, and they didn't want him getting tenure like Behe did. Don't worry, there are tons of ID people in academia now that are being quiet until tenure.

Ben Stein also recently said that my profession (science) leads to murder, violence

How do you know what his actual argument is if you haven't seen the movie? At least have an open mind -- the prior probability of Ben Stein's argument being right is greater than 0.

And despite what Panda's Thumb says, ID can be formulated scientifically. It starts off with a probabilistic critique of known naturalistic and stochastic explanations, and then is coupled to the discovery of instances in nature that match our own human intuition of what "design" is (engineers can tell you what it is).

The bottom line is that young scientists now have compelling scientific evidence against Darwinism, but the old guard is suppressing it. This is what Expelled is about.

Most of those pubs came before he was at Iowa St. In fact, they are part of the reason he got the job.

But once he had the job, his productivity dramatically change... for the worse. He didn't publish much at all.

He spent his time on creationist and ID work. Valuable, perhaps, but not scientific. He tried to pass off philosophical works as scientific work and got "no sale".

He wasn't doing the job he was supposed to be doing. There was no "conspiracy" just a guy who couldn't cut it at his job.

Maybe the politically correct thing would be to tell him he was trying really hard, give him some gold stars and let him get tenure. Thankfully, we aren't there yet.

As someone else pointed out, his publication record WHILE at ISU is substantially sub-par.

You are partially correct that ID can be formulated as a scientific hypothesis. However, the way the folks at the Discovery institute formulate it, it is not. And the reason for that is that there is zero scientific evidence for the possible scientific ID hypothesis that people have put out.

And yes, I haven't seen the movie. But I have read many many papers both pro- and con-ID and the understanding you get from there is bound to be much better than from an hour and half documentary targeting non-scientists.

ID folks have so far shown zero scientific evidence to back up their claims.

For the origin of the universe, that is.

"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson