I suppose it would, if you think of Marxism as a poison. On the other hand, I think it is somewhat applicable because Gould's Marxist leanings are well known, and it's easy to understand he could favor a viewpoint that would leave the human race to figure out its own morals without hints provided by any sort of transcendental source.
I haven't said, "X thinks that there isn't enough evidence!" I've said, "Here is what X noted about the lack of transitional forms." Granted he may disagree with me about *why* there are no good examples of specific transitional forms, but that doesn't mean I can't quote him as part of my argument nonetheless. And I even acknowledged in this thread that he still holds strictly to Darwinian style evolutionary theory. I'm simply showing that he relies on a large, general body evidence for his position (not specific examples).
From my point of view, it is noteworthy that evolutionists can't rely on their evidence to tell me with much specificity at all what life-forms we specifically evolved from, but still want me to believe with 100% certainty that I evolved from a chimp of some sort. Seems sort of like, "I'm not sure... but trust me, you had to have come from some sort of monkey-like creature." That's not good enough for me, and to be honest my placing faith in such a position would be just as much a leap as it is for me to believe in the God you say doesn't exist (if not more of a leap). And as long as there are more then a few other scientists who are published, working, and respected in their fields who offer other theories, I'm going to be open to hearing what they have to say. And I think most people are like me. Polls show that less then 10% are strict evolutionists and the majority is open to creationism and would like to see it presented. Even though in our public education evolution was the only idea of origins presented to us, we still haven't seen strong enough evidence to completely convince us.
I'm not sure what you're referring to concerning Marxism.
At least I wrote out the original context of the quote you take issue with (you might've missed it, but it was in response to one of the first comments that quesitoned my use of it), and at least I'm willing to discuss that context and my views of it.
So I'm not sure what you're trying to show by giving a completely unrelated quote for which you've given zero context and whose context you do not discuss. There is no similarity between what you've done and what I did.
Actually, you're incorrect in saying the blood clotting work has turned out to be an embarrasment to Behe. On the contrary he has written defenses of it to contest the attacks on his work. Hardly "embarrasment".
With your comment that speciation has been observed in nature, I assume you're referring to ring species. An article at answersingenesis.org, which lists many scientists among its contributors, states "... there is no reason to believe that the differences between the two... species are the result of any new, more complex, functional genetic information not al-ready present in an ancestral, interbreeding... population. Because there is no evidence of any such information-adding change, it is misleading to say this gives evidence of evolution, of even a little bit of the sort of change required to eventually turn a fish into a philosopher... an ancestral species can split into other species within the limits of the information already present in that kind--just as creationists maintain must have happened."
Lastly, yes, I did read the contexts of the quotes I have cited. The fact that they disagree with my position doesn't mean I can't cite them. Patterson's quote is extremely telling of the fact that there is virtually no conclusive *specific* evidence for evoltution. It shows that he has to look at the universe of fossils and come to a general conclusion. He can't hold up a specific piece of evidence and say, "Here we see the transition from creature X to creature Y." Creation scientists see the same universe of evidence, but come to different conclusions.
John Morris (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&acti on=view&ID=2605) says, "Evolution, at the most, is an idea about history, not observational science. There may be inferences we can make about the past based on modern observations, and these may or may not be true, but don't bother claiming that ideas about history are the same as repeatable observations in the present. And don't insult us by thinking that we will believe that they are."
I was taught that plagerism is when you *publish* another persons work without giving credit to the source. The way I feel about this board is that it is similar to a conversation. If quoted some of the world magazine article in a conversation I don't think you would question my integrity. In discussions, we don't always cite where we get our information... unless someone asks.
But think as you must... at least now I know where it came from. I originally typed out the article for my perosnal reference only, and subsequently lost track of the printed edition. Back then the actually article wasn't online yet (not sure if there is a lag) and so, to be honest (though, as you said, you question my integrity) I didn't know what article it was from anyway.
It's good to know its online now, and I've put the URL in my copy so I can cite it in the future.
I was taught that plagerism is when you *publish* another persons work without giving credit to the source. The way I feel about this board is that it is similar to a conversation. If quoted some of the world magazine article in a conversation I don't think you would question my integrity. In discussions, we don't always cite where we get our information... unless someone asks.
But think as you must... at least now I know where it came from. I originally typed out the article for my perosnal reference only, and subsequently lost track of the printed edition. Back then the actually article wasn't online yet (not sure if there is a lag) and so, to be honest (though, as you said, you question my integrity) I didn't know what article it was from anyway.
It's good to know its online now, and I've put the URL in my copy so I can cite it in the future.
There are two purposes of sex. One is procreation. The other is, as you put it, "fun". I have no idea where you got the idea that I thought otherwise. If I or my wife were infertile that wouldn't prevent us from having and enjoying sex often. In fact, studies have shown that Christians and others who keep sex as something to be enjoyed only in the context of marriage tend to have better, more satisfying and more 'fun' sex lives.
The Christian Scriptures are very clear that the place intended for sex is marriage. Because of that my conscience was stricken when I was tempted to bring sex outside of marriage. There is nothing wrong with sex inside marriage, in fact, everything about it is right.
And I'm not so sure I've given a false representation of Patterson. The fact is the passage quoted continues '... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test.'"
I think it's pretty clear what he is saying there. There is no way to know how one form gave rise to another, or if one form is an ancestor of another (i.e. he says "is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds?"). He can try to back-peddle if he wants, but what he said certainly seems clear to me. Perhaps now he thinks he was being *to* honest when he said, "such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test." Maybe he would now take that statement back since it (obviously) has given creation scientists plenty of ammo... but that doesn't change the fact that he said it.
And I don't think I gave a false presentation of Gould either. Obviously he is a "microbe to man" evolutionist. Everyone knows that. The quote just shows that he sees gaps that present a problem for some evolutionary theories, just as creation scientists do. He simply interprets the "gaps" I cited him referring to in ways other then many creation scientists.
Re:So it almost seems evolution follows a... desig
on
Is Evolution Predictable?
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Sure. After some mistakes as a teenager and getting into some hallucinatory drugs (beginning at 12 years old) I ended up one fucked up kid. I was hearing voices and exhibiting some very, very odd behavior. I had no idea what reality was and probably would not have been able to function in the world very well.
I was brought to a secular therapist and it did no good. I was then brought to a Christian therapist. He didn't "cast a demon out of me" or anything like that, but simply presented the worldview that, though he didn't have all the answers, God did, and God's word is the key to understanding life.
While in jail for some crimes I had committed while on drugs I read through some of the Christian Scriptures. As I read through Proverbs I began to realize how much wisdom really was contained in the Bible... though I had trouble believing or understanding some of the harder truths presented therein. And on top of that, my mind was still quite warped and the schizophrenic tendancies continued unabated. I could not believe in Christ... it had to be a fantastic work of fiction, all this bullshit about him paying for our sins.
After about a year I was contemplating suicide because 'the voices' were still getting me to do things that I otherwise would not be doing and were still effecting my life in a negative way. That is when I stopped at a church and heard some Scripture being read. I don't even remember what verse it was, but I know the feeling that came over me... something happened. The voices stopped immediately. I had a feeling like someone was holding me tight, and all the sudden my doubts in Christ's love were gone. I didn't just "believe" but I *knew* Christ had provided for my forgiveness and redemption. I felt healed, I felt clean, I felt peace, and I felt loved to the nth degree. I felt as if God had allowed all these things to happen to me so that, one day, I would turn back to Him, His friendship and love that He desires for us. The bible teaches that faith is a gift from God, and at that point in time I was given it. That's all I know.
From that point on the truths in the Scriptures have shown themselves to be powerful time and time again, and the love of God has continually provided for me. I've never heard another "voice", and to be honest that stage of my life seems like some nightmare that I woke up from. It's hard to believe it even actually happened.
As I've applied the truths in the Scriptures to my life I've continually become a better person and my quality of life has steadily increased. There is no figure in history one can model himself after that will provide more peace then Christ. By all accounts he is an absolutely beautiful person. And I know he has provided for my peace and life.
Another, less serious, but important (at the time) anecdote involves my first heartbreak. I was 19 at the time, and had been a Christian for several years. The girl I was dating at the time was pressuring me to do sexual things that I felt were out of place outside marriage, given my Christian values. She would claim to want to be "more pure" in our relationship when I brought up my concerns, but later she'd start right back up with asking me to do the same things. And, as she was very beautiful, I kept giving in.
I had grown to love her, my first love, but I ended up breaking up with her because of all this. I was heart-broken and ended up very depressed, lying around my place wondering if I should've been a better man and helped "bring her up" to a more Christian lifestyle instead of just leaving her. As a young kid I remember feeling like it had been 19 years before I fell in love for the first time... maybe it would be 19 more before I ever had a chance to love a girl like this again.
I kept telling myself what an asshole I was, but then I remember the thought entering my mind, "She was weak-willed." Weak-willed wasn't a word I normally used in my vocabularly, and it was the first semi-encourging thought I'd had for days so it stu
Sweet. They didn't have the article online when I originally read it (I have the print subscription) and so I hand typed the entire thing and saved it on my computer (I thought it was interesting). I also did a little more investigation into the quote of Paterson, etc. and recorded that too.
Good to know they're putting their stuff online now.
To use your casino analogy, the experiment is like poker player drawing the same 7 hands in a row... twice. Sure, randomness and predictability aren't to be confused. But the same gene's in the same order twice??? That is a bit more specific then a casino predicting they'll win a little less then one percent of the time in craps.
And I'm not so sure I've given a false representation of Patterson. What is the context? You said I ripped him out of context, but you failed to give it. The fact is the passage quoted continues '... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test.'"
I think it's pretty clear what he is saying there. There is no way to know how one form gave rise to another, or if one form is an ancestor of another (i.e. he says "is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds?"). He can try to back-peddle if he wants, but what he said certainly seems clear to me. Perhaps now he thinks he was being *to* honest when he said, "such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test." Maybe he would now take that statement back since it (obviously) has given creation scientists plenty of ammo... but that doesn't change the fact that he said it.
I'm a 'geek', system admin at Duke University, MCSE certified, CCNA certified, and responsible for a wide range of systems that are used by doctors, scientests, and other geeks.
So don't tell me I don't want to learn or that I don't think information or science is useful just because I pray and have experienced the power of prayer where science fails (and, believe it or not, science doesn't hold the answer to all of life's problems).
Very good point. I'm not sure how applicable the "6 card" analogy is... most likely what they've found is a bit more noteworthy then that. But nonetheless, you're right that just one experiment isn't nearly enought to get hysterical about.
That does make sense. Again, what is interesting about the article, to me, is that the same exact mutations occured (not just survived, but occured in the first place and then survived) in the same order the second time. Then the same ones eventually died off and the same one or two survived as the most fit.
I'm not saying one experiment is the straw that breaks Darwin's hypothesis. I of course observe the survival of the fittest like everyone else. I'm just saying it is an interesting find, that's all.
May not suprise you, but it seemed to suprise the scientists in the article somewhat.
I'm not saying one experiment is the straw that breaks Darwin's hypothesis. I of course observe the survival of the fittest like everyone else. I'm just saying it is an interesting find, IMHO, that's all.
Re:So it almost seems evolution follows a... desig
on
Is Evolution Predictable?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Again, what is interesting about the article, to me, is that not only do they predict he surviving mutations... but they predict which mutations will *form*. The same exact mutations *occured* in the same order the second time... and, as you said, the same ones eventually died off and the same one or two survived as the most fit.
I'm not saying one experiment is the straw that breaks Darwin's hypothesis. I of course observe the survival of the fittest like everyone else. I'm just saying it is an interesting find, that's all.
Explain how I'm wrong, again, plese. I stated, as you said, that Darwin stated that the mutations were random. What I was responding to was the article that said perhaps the mutations aren't random b/c we can predict them.
The article said, to be exact, "The group then conducted the experiment again, and the same mutations developed." In other words, not only did the same mutations *survive*. The same mutations *occured*.
The crux of Darwinism is precisely that evolution is undirected, stemming from *random* mutations. Those who say there is a purpose and pattern to evolution are no longer in the Darwinist paradigm. Whether they want to or not, they are advocating Intelligent Design. Since purpose, direction, and non-random order can be observed everywhere in nature, perhaps they will eventually inspire a scientific revolution.
Some people use the controversy over Intelligent Design to warn about "fundamentalists" who want to reverse modern science and take us back to the Dark Ages. The overheated reaction- including purges of scientists who doubt Darwinism, censorship of dissident ideas, and legal action against promulgating Intelligent Design--is a textbook illustration of what the pioneering historian of science Thomas Kuhn describes in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962).
He shows how scientists develop "paradigms," or explanatory models, the terms of which they use to organize their findings and interpret their research. For example, for centuries, the Ptolemaic model of the universe, the assumption that the moon, the sun, and the planets revolve around the earth, was adequate to account for nearly all astronomical observations. But then someone discovered "anomalies" that the model cannot easily explain. Galileo with his telescope observed that some other planets had moons revolving around them, as earth does.
Typically, the old-paradigm scientists first defend the model by attacking the anomaly detectors, often virulently, sometimes using the law and institutional power to silence the critics of the established model. Galileo was tried, forced to recant, and put in prison. Meanwhile the scientists tinker with the model and try to make it fit the observations. The Ptolemaic system was modified with epicycles and complex new mathematical models. Eventually though, as more and more anomalies are discovered, the old paradigm is abandoned and a new one that explains the anomalies takes its place (such as the Copernican model that the earth revolves around the sun along with the other planets).
Intelligent Design has found anomalies that just cannot be explained in terms of Darwin's random natural selection. As Michael Behe has shown, the most basic mechanisms of life--the structures within a cell, the chemistry of blood-clotting, the processing of oxygen--display "irreducible complexity" that could not have evolved randomly. If these already complex and finely tuned structures were not in place, life on any level could not exist.
Apologists for evolution often simply ignore these anomalies. They launch off on "evidence" for Darwinism, such as how bacteria develop strains that are resistant to antibiotics through natural selection. But no one denies that natural selection occurs... of course the fittest survive. However, Darwinism insists that natural selection is what creates new species. And the evidence for that happening--for bacteria turning into another life form--is lacking. As more discoveries like the one in the article above come about, perhaps a revolution will begin to take place.
We know that evolution can help an organism adapt... and, as the article shows, we are beginning to show that organisms do this in accordance to a pattern or (dare I say) a design.
We still do know that organisms evolve into new species. And, dare I say, I doubt we ever will. The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them... . I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "The absence of fossi
I'm not so sure it is a false representation of Patterson. He says, "The passage quoted continues '... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test.'"
I think it's pretty clear what he is saying there. There is no way to know how one form gave rise to another, or if one form is an ancestor of another (i.e. he says "is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds?"). He can try to back-peddle if he wants, but what he said certainly seems clear to me. Perhaps now he thinks he was being *to* honest when he said, "such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test." Maybe he would now take that statement back since it (obviously) has given creation scientists plenty of ammo... but that doesn't change the fact that he said it.
I don't know. And again, I'm no physical scientist. I do know that the Discovery Institute is just one organization involving creation scientists. There are quite a few other organizations, and sometimes slight differences might keep some of their membership varied. Given that the DI has 400 petitioners (if you are correct), I'd say the number of non-active creation scientists (such as those I knew at NCSU) and active creation scientists in other organizations would have to bring the total to the thousands.
Hardly a "few on the fringes". I don't think I'm kidding myself here. And as far as scientists not being concerned about science trumping faith... of course Christian scientists are going to state they believe the Scriptures as literally true. I'm just saying that I've heard a number of them say that if the evidence *proved* an older earth, they would have to begin to understand some of the Scriptures in a more poetic sense... and it wouldn't be the end of their faith. However, they haven't yet seen that "proof"... and even if considerable evidence is presented to them, they won't give up on the literally true Scriptures until they've critically and sceptically analyzed that evidence. After all... that's what science is all about, isn't it?
The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them... . I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Yet you are saying you and many evolutionists see the fossil record as consisting of nothing but transitional forms. Given the fact that even evolutionists debate over aspects of evolution as critical as these, I think it is truly sad that school boards, under threat of legal and political action, are removing standards that encourage "critical examination" of evolution simply because they are afraid of Christian views of science somehow seeping into society. As I said in my first post, I find very interesting the similarities between the present situation and how I noted Thomas Kuhn describes 'scientific revolutions' in my first post.
I'm not sure about the finances of the Discovery Institute, but I know of other creation scientists' organizations that fund scientific research. There are quite a few scientists out there (respected and published in their respective fields including genetics, biology, paleantology, and geology) that view the same evidence as the naturalist evolutionists but come to different conclusions.
The creation scientists that I've read or heard are not, as you say, "worried that science has somehow usurped their faith." In fact, many will specifically tell you that they are theologically secure in their faith regardless of where science leads them. If the earth does end up being 600 million years old instead of 6000 years old, then a bit of theological tip-toeing still more then adequately preservers the Scriptures claims to be a perfect *moral* guide, perfectly able to equip man to know Christ and his salvation. The real problem, they say, is that the evidence does not lead them to the same conclusions of naturalistic evolutionists. And there are many such scientists. I even knew a few when I was at NCSU (including one of the top professors in the botany dept.) and that school is by no means a Christian institution.
There may even be as many creation scientists as there are hard-core "molecule to man" evolutionists. The problem is, most scientists specialize in other areas and don't really care about the debate... so they just blindly accept whatever hypothesis they've heard in school. Thankfully, most people are not hopelessly deceived. Polls in America show that the majority believes in creation, and many more want it taught. Less than 10% are confirmed evolutionists, yet they seemingly control education. They may teach that evolution is well proven, but we don't have to believe them.
If you don't like what I've written about Galileo you can take it up with my physics and history professors at NCSU. I'm just regurgitating what I've learned there. I'm not a historian by training; I'm a programmer. And the jist of my post remains the same. I wasn't saying the present situation is exactly like the situation Galileo was in. I was saying I see some similarities; that's all.
The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them... . I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Yet many evolutionists here have said they see the fossil record as consisting of nothing but transitional forms. Given the fact that even evolutionists debate over aspects of evolution as critical as these, I think it is truly sad that school boards, under threat of legal and political action, are removing standards that encourage "critical examination" of evolution simply because they are afraid of Christian views of science somehow seeping into society (note Ohio State School Boards decision yesterday). As I said in my first post, I find very interesting the similarities between the present situation and how I noted Thomas Kuhn describes 'scientific revolutions' in my first post.
There are quite a few scientists out there (respected and published in their respective fields including genetics, biology, paleantology, and geology) that view the same evidence as the naturalist evolutionists but come to different conclusions.
You said, "Information addition/increase is a known fact."
Again, this is where we disagree. There are quite a number of scientists who disagree with you there... many times more then just a few "fringe" scientists. I'm talking about published, respected professors and scientists in fields like biology and genetics. Again, I'm not a geneticist nor a geologist so I'm not prepared to discuss these things in depth. Here is an article that seems to approach this subject. It may be worth your time to read or skim over. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chap ter2.asp Another, slightly different view, held by many "creationist" scientists is described at http://www.nwcreation.net/genetics.html. All I can do is give you these to think through and to show that there are quite a few scientists who disagree with the naturalistic position of "molecules to man" evolution.
My point is that creation scientists have a wide variety of hypothesis to explain the same natural phenomena that naturalistic or atheistic scientists attempt to explain. There is a lot of work done in these fields.
Given that fact I think it is sad that, yesterday for instance, the Ohio Board of Education decided to delete standards saying students should be able to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The standards even included a disclaimer that they do not require the teaching of intelligent design. As I understand it, some evolutionists raised the issue of court action in Ohio if the Ohio State Board of Education did not remove that guideline. And Ohio Governor Bob Taft indicated a few days ago that over time he would be selecting new board members who would not be critical of evolution.
The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them... . I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Yet you are saying you and many evolutionists see the fossil record as consisting of nothing but transitional forms. Given the fact that even evolutionists debate over aspects of evolution as critical as these, I think it is truly sad tha
You said, "WHAT lack of transitional forms? The entire fossil record is practically nothing BUT transistional(sp) forms."
That is where we definitely disagree. I'm not a geologist or a paleontologist so it wouldn't make sense for me to argue with you about specific fossils, but I know of quite a few that would disagree with you. And I know that number grows every year as I've been following creationist organizations for years. One example is Dr. Joachim Scheven, a zoologist/paleontologist with a Ph.D. from the University of Munich. Dr Scheven even has a species of twisted-wing insect named after him: Bohartilla joachimscheveni. He discovered it Dominican amber (fossilized tree resin), which evolutionists claim is 35 million years old. If that were true, imagine how many millions of generations of this Bohartilla would have given mutations the opportunity to change this type drastically. However, it is fundamentally identical to the living Bohartilla from Central America.
He says, "Fossils never show any significant 'evolution' -- rather, they show that fossil creatures have no remaining living counterparts (extinction), or that they have stayed essentially the same (stasis), or have degenerated (lost information)."
Considering ring species, an article at answersingenesis.org, which lists many scientists among its contributors, states "... there is no reason to believe that the differences between the two... species are the result of any new, more complex, functional genetic information not al-ready present in an ancestral, interbreeding... population. Because there is no evidence of any such information-adding change, it is misleading to say this gives evidence of evolution, of even a little bit of the sort of change required to eventually turn a fish into a philosopher."
Basically, "an ancestral species can split into other species within the limits of the information already present in that kind--just as creationists maintain must have happened."
I think the Dover, PA case failed because of the strong religious motive of the school board members involved. However, as more and more scientists come to see the validity of alternate theories explaining what we find in the fossil record and in the complexity of life's processes we will see different results down the road.
You said: "As I see it, it's a disagreement over how to explain stuff that we don't yet understand. Personally, I think that in a public school setting, 'We don't know' is preferable to 'We don't know, but some people think God did it.'"
The problem is in the public school setting the "we don't know but some people think..." is already being given as the answer. For instance, "We don't know why there is a lack of the transitional forms that Darwin expected would be found in great and mighty abundance in the fossil record... but some people think punctuated equilibrium is likely the reason". So if evolutionary theorist should be able to give attempts at explainations concerning what "we don't know" then it is hypocritical to deny creationists the same right.
Who cares if ID can't be proven consclusively by any means we currently have. PE likely can't be proven either. We are just looking for evidence of how species come to be, not necessarily for absolute proof. Is there evidence that some processes are "irreducible complex" so that they would not be able to evolve as Darwin has described? Then lets at least acknowledge it and be open to examining it. Gould himself said, of punctuated equilibrium, "We might find direct evidence of speciation, but such good fortune would be rare indeed because the event occurs so rapidly in such a small population...". In other words, proof of PE is going to be rare if we ever find it at all. But that hasn't stopped people from exploring the theory and teaching it in public schools.
Just because the evidence is "unproven" and "questionable" doesn't mean scientists everywhere should have to ignore it or risk being ostracized, nor does it mean the evidence shouldn't be at the least discussed at the academic level if not investigated thoroughly. I'd say the lack of transitional forms makes evolution "unproven" and even "questionable", but that doesn't mean I think scientists shouldn't at least explore the theory. All ID proponents are saying is that the problems with evolutionary theory should be discussed openly with all options on the table... as scientific progress continues. None of them are saying scientific study should halt. The evolutionary pundits and bigots are the one claiming that.
####### The "anomalies" you point at are nothing of the sort. The advent of quantum mechanics came about not because of "anomalies," but because experiments were being done whose results flat out contradicted a classical interpretation. We had definitive knowledge that things did not work as we expected at the atomic level. We have no such evidence against evolution aside from the unproven and questionable conjecture that certain biological systems are "irreducibly complex." #######
Just because the evidence is "unproven" and "questionable" doesn't mean scientists everywhere should have to ignore it or risk being ostracized, nor does it mean the evidence shouldn't be at the least discussed at the academic level if not investigated thoroughly. I'd say the lack of transitional forms makes evolution "unproven" and even "questionable", but that doesn't mean I think scientists shouldn't at least explore the theory. All ID proponents are saying is that the problems with evolutionary theory should be discussed openly with all options on the table... as scientific progress continues. None of them are saying scientific study should halt.
####### Finally, you have no idea what you are talking about with regard to undirected evolution. You're creating a strawman. Random mutation is a factor for creating variation, but selection pressures direct evolution and which variations survive. You are mischaraterizing the process. Do you not see how you are arbitrarily attaching "Purpose" to the things you think are important while disregarding the rest? #######
Let me say it this way, if one acknowledges a personal God as directing the creation of life and also trys to acknowledge Darwin's evolution he is trying to have his cake and eat it too. Granted, there are theistic evolutionists who have a picture of "God" as a completely uninvolved, non personal being who could give a rat's ass about how things are coming along in his test tube that he randomized and is going to check on in a few trillion years to see what happened. Their picture of God is not incompatable with Darwin's evolution. However, those who seek to hold to the Judeo-Christian view of a very personally involved God who has created life with very specific intent, precision, and purpose simply cannot hold to Darwin's theory in its purest form. The random formation of life "by chance" is not consistent with the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose it would, if you think of Marxism as a poison. On the other hand, I think it is somewhat applicable because Gould's Marxist leanings are well known, and it's easy to understand he could favor a viewpoint that would leave the human race to figure out its own morals without hints provided by any sort of transcendental source.
I haven't said, "X thinks that there isn't enough evidence!" I've said, "Here is what X noted about the lack of transitional forms." Granted he may disagree with me about *why* there are no good examples of specific transitional forms, but that doesn't mean I can't quote him as part of my argument nonetheless. And I even acknowledged in this thread that he still holds strictly to Darwinian style evolutionary theory. I'm simply showing that he relies on a large, general body evidence for his position (not specific examples).
From my point of view, it is noteworthy that evolutionists can't rely on their evidence to tell me with much specificity at all what life-forms we specifically evolved from, but still want me to believe with 100% certainty that I evolved from a chimp of some sort. Seems sort of like, "I'm not sure... but trust me, you had to have come from some sort of monkey-like creature." That's not good enough for me, and to be honest my placing faith in such a position would be just as much a leap as it is for me to believe in the God you say doesn't exist (if not more of a leap). And as long as there are more then a few other scientists who are published, working, and respected in their fields who offer other theories, I'm going to be open to hearing what they have to say. And I think most people are like me. Polls show that less then 10% are strict evolutionists and the majority is open to creationism and would like to see it presented. Even though in our public education evolution was the only idea of origins presented to us, we still haven't seen strong enough evidence to completely convince us.
I'm not sure what you're referring to concerning Marxism.
At least I wrote out the original context of the quote you take issue with (you might've missed it, but it was in response to one of the first comments that quesitoned my use of it), and at least I'm willing to discuss that context and my views of it.
So I'm not sure what you're trying to show by giving a completely unrelated quote for which you've given zero context and whose context you do not discuss. There is no similarity between what you've done and what I did.
Actually, you're incorrect in saying the blood clotting work has turned out to be an embarrasment to Behe. On the contrary he has written defenses of it to contest the attacks on his work. Hardly "embarrasment".
i on=view&ID=2605) says, "Evolution, at the most, is an idea about history, not observational science. There may be inferences we can make about the past based on modern observations, and these may or may not be true, but don't bother claiming that ideas about history are the same as repeatable observations in the present. And don't insult us by thinking that we will believe that they are."
With your comment that speciation has been observed in nature, I assume you're referring to ring species. An article at answersingenesis.org, which lists many scientists among its contributors, states "... there is no reason to believe that the differences between the two... species are the result of any new, more complex, functional genetic information not al-ready present in an ancestral, interbreeding... population. Because there is no evidence of any such information-adding change, it is misleading to say this gives evidence of evolution, of even a little bit of the sort of change required to eventually turn a fish into a philosopher... an ancestral species can split into other species within the limits of the information already present in that kind--just as creationists maintain must have happened."
Lastly, yes, I did read the contexts of the quotes I have cited. The fact that they disagree with my position doesn't mean I can't cite them. Patterson's quote is extremely telling of the fact that there is virtually no conclusive *specific* evidence for evoltution. It shows that he has to look at the universe of fossils and come to a general conclusion. He can't hold up a specific piece of evidence and say, "Here we see the transition from creature X to creature Y." Creation scientists see the same universe of evidence, but come to different conclusions.
John Morris (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&act
I was taught that plagerism is when you *publish* another persons work without giving credit to the source. The way I feel about this board is that it is similar to a conversation. If quoted some of the world magazine article in a conversation I don't think you would question my integrity. In discussions, we don't always cite where we get our information... unless someone asks.
But think as you must... at least now I know where it came from. I originally typed out the article for my perosnal reference only, and subsequently lost track of the printed edition. Back then the actually article wasn't online yet (not sure if there is a lag) and so, to be honest (though, as you said, you question my integrity) I didn't know what article it was from anyway.
It's good to know its online now, and I've put the URL in my copy so I can cite it in the future.
I was taught that plagerism is when you *publish* another persons work without giving credit to the source. The way I feel about this board is that it is similar to a conversation. If quoted some of the world magazine article in a conversation I don't think you would question my integrity. In discussions, we don't always cite where we get our information... unless someone asks.
But think as you must... at least now I know where it came from. I originally typed out the article for my perosnal reference only, and subsequently lost track of the printed edition. Back then the actually article wasn't online yet (not sure if there is a lag) and so, to be honest (though, as you said, you question my integrity) I didn't know what article it was from anyway.
It's good to know its online now, and I've put the URL in my copy so I can cite it in the future.
There are two purposes of sex. One is procreation. The other is, as you put it, "fun". I have no idea where you got the idea that I thought otherwise. If I or my wife were infertile that wouldn't prevent us from having and enjoying sex often. In fact, studies have shown that Christians and others who keep sex as something to be enjoyed only in the context of marriage tend to have better, more satisfying and more 'fun' sex lives.
The Christian Scriptures are very clear that the place intended for sex is marriage. Because of that my conscience was stricken when I was tempted to bring sex outside of marriage. There is nothing wrong with sex inside marriage, in fact, everything about it is right.
And I'm not so sure I've given a false representation of Patterson. The fact is the passage quoted continues '... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test.'"
I think it's pretty clear what he is saying there. There is no way to know how one form gave rise to another, or if one form is an ancestor of another (i.e. he says "is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds?"). He can try to back-peddle if he wants, but what he said certainly seems clear to me. Perhaps now he thinks he was being *to* honest when he said, "such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test." Maybe he would now take that statement back since it (obviously) has given creation scientists plenty of ammo... but that doesn't change the fact that he said it.
And I don't think I gave a false presentation of Gould either. Obviously he is a "microbe to man" evolutionist. Everyone knows that. The quote just shows that he sees gaps that present a problem for some evolutionary theories, just as creation scientists do. He simply interprets the "gaps" I cited him referring to in ways other then many creation scientists.
Sure. After some mistakes as a teenager and getting into some hallucinatory drugs (beginning at 12 years old) I ended up one fucked up kid. I was hearing voices and exhibiting some very, very odd behavior. I had no idea what reality was and probably would not have been able to function in the world very well.
I was brought to a secular therapist and it did no good. I was then brought to a Christian therapist. He didn't "cast a demon out of me" or anything like that, but simply presented the worldview that, though he didn't have all the answers, God did, and God's word is the key to understanding life.
While in jail for some crimes I had committed while on drugs I read through some of the Christian Scriptures. As I read through Proverbs I began to realize how much wisdom really was contained in the Bible... though I had trouble believing or understanding some of the harder truths presented therein. And on top of that, my mind was still quite warped and the schizophrenic tendancies continued unabated. I could not believe in Christ... it had to be a fantastic work of fiction, all this bullshit about him paying for our sins.
After about a year I was contemplating suicide because 'the voices' were still getting me to do things that I otherwise would not be doing and were still effecting my life in a negative way. That is when I stopped at a church and heard some Scripture being read. I don't even remember what verse it was, but I know the feeling that came over me... something happened. The voices stopped immediately. I had a feeling like someone was holding me tight, and all the sudden my doubts in Christ's love were gone. I didn't just "believe" but I *knew* Christ had provided for my forgiveness and redemption. I felt healed, I felt clean, I felt peace, and I felt loved to the nth degree. I felt as if God had allowed all these things to happen to me so that, one day, I would turn back to Him, His friendship and love that He desires for us. The bible teaches that faith is a gift from God, and at that point in time I was given it. That's all I know.
From that point on the truths in the Scriptures have shown themselves to be powerful time and time again, and the love of God has continually provided for me. I've never heard another "voice", and to be honest that stage of my life seems like some nightmare that I woke up from. It's hard to believe it even actually happened.
As I've applied the truths in the Scriptures to my life I've continually become a better person and my quality of life has steadily increased. There is no figure in history one can model himself after that will provide more peace then Christ. By all accounts he is an absolutely beautiful person. And I know he has provided for my peace and life.
Another, less serious, but important (at the time) anecdote involves my first heartbreak. I was 19 at the time, and had been a Christian for several years. The girl I was dating at the time was pressuring me to do sexual things that I felt were out of place outside marriage, given my Christian values. She would claim to want to be "more pure" in our relationship when I brought up my concerns, but later she'd start right back up with asking me to do the same things. And, as she was very beautiful, I kept giving in.
I had grown to love her, my first love, but I ended up breaking up with her because of all this. I was heart-broken and ended up very depressed, lying around my place wondering if I should've been a better man and helped "bring her up" to a more Christian lifestyle instead of just leaving her. As a young kid I remember feeling like it had been 19 years before I fell in love for the first time... maybe it would be 19 more before I ever had a chance to love a girl like this again.
I kept telling myself what an asshole I was, but then I remember the thought entering my mind, "She was weak-willed." Weak-willed wasn't a word I normally used in my vocabularly, and it was the first semi-encourging thought I'd had for days so it stu
Sweet. They didn't have the article online when I originally read it (I have the print subscription) and so I hand typed the entire thing and saved it on my computer (I thought it was interesting). I also did a little more investigation into the quote of Paterson, etc. and recorded that too.
Good to know they're putting their stuff online now.
To use your casino analogy, the experiment is like poker player drawing the same 7 hands in a row... twice. Sure, randomness and predictability aren't to be confused. But the same gene's in the same order twice??? That is a bit more specific then a casino predicting they'll win a little less then one percent of the time in craps.
And I'm not so sure I've given a false representation of Patterson. What is the context? You said I ripped him out of context, but you failed to give it. The fact is the passage quoted continues '... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test.'"
I think it's pretty clear what he is saying there. There is no way to know how one form gave rise to another, or if one form is an ancestor of another (i.e. he says "is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds?"). He can try to back-peddle if he wants, but what he said certainly seems clear to me. Perhaps now he thinks he was being *to* honest when he said, "such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test." Maybe he would now take that statement back since it (obviously) has given creation scientists plenty of ammo... but that doesn't change the fact that he said it.
I'm a 'geek', system admin at Duke University, MCSE certified, CCNA certified, and responsible for a wide range of systems that are used by doctors, scientests, and other geeks.
So don't tell me I don't want to learn or that I don't think information or science is useful just because I pray and have experienced the power of prayer where science fails (and, believe it or not, science doesn't hold the answer to all of life's problems).
Very good point. I'm not sure how applicable the "6 card" analogy is... most likely what they've found is a bit more noteworthy then that. But nonetheless, you're right that just one experiment isn't nearly enought to get hysterical about.
That does make sense. Again, what is interesting about the article, to me, is that the same exact mutations occured (not just survived, but occured in the first place and then survived) in the same order the second time. Then the same ones eventually died off and the same one or two survived as the most fit.
I'm not saying one experiment is the straw that breaks Darwin's hypothesis. I of course observe the survival of the fittest like everyone else. I'm just saying it is an interesting find, that's all.
May not suprise you, but it seemed to suprise the scientists in the article somewhat.
I'm not saying one experiment is the straw that breaks Darwin's hypothesis. I of course observe the survival of the fittest like everyone else. I'm just saying it is an interesting find, IMHO, that's all.
Again, what is interesting about the article, to me, is that not only do they predict he surviving mutations... but they predict which mutations will *form*. The same exact mutations *occured* in the same order the second time... and, as you said, the same ones eventually died off and the same one or two survived as the most fit.
I'm not saying one experiment is the straw that breaks Darwin's hypothesis. I of course observe the survival of the fittest like everyone else. I'm just saying it is an interesting find, that's all.
Explain how I'm wrong, again, plese. I stated, as you said, that Darwin stated that the mutations were random. What I was responding to was the article that said perhaps the mutations aren't random b/c we can predict them.
The article said, to be exact, "The group then conducted the experiment again, and the same mutations developed." In other words, not only did the same mutations *survive*. The same mutations *occured*.
The crux of Darwinism is precisely that evolution is undirected, stemming from *random* mutations. Those who say there is a purpose and pattern to evolution are no longer in the Darwinist paradigm. Whether they want to or not, they are advocating Intelligent Design. Since purpose, direction, and non-random order can be observed everywhere in nature, perhaps they will eventually inspire a scientific revolution.
... . I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "The absence of fossi
Some people use the controversy over Intelligent Design to warn about "fundamentalists" who want to reverse modern science and take us back to the Dark Ages. The overheated reaction- including purges of scientists who doubt Darwinism, censorship of dissident ideas, and legal action against promulgating Intelligent Design--is a textbook illustration of what the pioneering historian of science Thomas Kuhn describes in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962).
He shows how scientists develop "paradigms," or explanatory models, the terms of which they use to organize their findings and interpret their research. For example, for centuries, the Ptolemaic model of the universe, the assumption that the moon, the sun, and the planets revolve around the earth, was adequate to account for nearly all astronomical observations. But then someone discovered "anomalies" that the model cannot easily explain. Galileo with his telescope observed that some other planets had moons revolving around them, as earth does.
Typically, the old-paradigm scientists first defend the model by attacking the anomaly detectors, often virulently, sometimes using the law and institutional power to silence the critics of the established model. Galileo was tried, forced to recant, and put in prison. Meanwhile the scientists tinker with the model and try to make it fit the observations. The Ptolemaic system was modified with epicycles and complex new mathematical models. Eventually though, as more and more anomalies are discovered, the old paradigm is abandoned and a new one that explains the anomalies takes its place (such as the Copernican model that the earth revolves around the sun along with the other planets).
Intelligent Design has found anomalies that just cannot be explained in terms of Darwin's random natural selection. As Michael Behe has shown, the most basic mechanisms of life--the structures within a cell, the chemistry of blood-clotting, the processing of oxygen--display "irreducible complexity" that could not have evolved randomly. If these already complex and finely tuned structures were not in place, life on any level could not exist.
Apologists for evolution often simply ignore these anomalies. They launch off on "evidence" for Darwinism, such as how bacteria develop strains that are resistant to antibiotics through natural selection. But no one denies that natural selection occurs... of course the fittest survive. However, Darwinism insists that natural selection is what creates new species. And the evidence for that happening--for bacteria turning into another life form--is lacking. As more discoveries like the one in the article above come about, perhaps a revolution will begin to take place.
We know that evolution can help an organism adapt... and, as the article shows, we are beginning to show that organisms do this in accordance to a pattern or (dare I say) a design.
We still do know that organisms evolve into new species. And, dare I say, I doubt we ever will. The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them
I'm not so sure it is a false representation of Patterson. He says, "The passage quoted continues '... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test.'"
I think it's pretty clear what he is saying there. There is no way to know how one form gave rise to another, or if one form is an ancestor of another (i.e. he says "is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds?"). He can try to back-peddle if he wants, but what he said certainly seems clear to me. Perhaps now he thinks he was being *to* honest when he said, "such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test." Maybe he would now take that statement back since it (obviously) has given creation scientists plenty of ammo... but that doesn't change the fact that he said it.
I don't know. And again, I'm no physical scientist. I do know that the Discovery Institute is just one organization involving creation scientists. There are quite a few other organizations, and sometimes slight differences might keep some of their membership varied. Given that the DI has 400 petitioners (if you are correct), I'd say the number of non-active creation scientists (such as those I knew at NCSU) and active creation scientists in other organizations would have to bring the total to the thousands.
Hardly a "few on the fringes". I don't think I'm kidding myself here. And as far as scientists not being concerned about science trumping faith... of course Christian scientists are going to state they believe the Scriptures as literally true. I'm just saying that I've heard a number of them say that if the evidence *proved* an older earth, they would have to begin to understand some of the Scriptures in a more poetic sense... and it wouldn't be the end of their faith. However, they haven't yet seen that "proof"... and even if considerable evidence is presented to them, they won't give up on the literally true Scriptures until they've critically and sceptically analyzed that evidence. After all... that's what science is all about, isn't it?
The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them ... . I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Yet you are saying you and many evolutionists see the fossil record as consisting of nothing but transitional forms. Given the fact that even evolutionists debate over aspects of evolution as critical as these, I think it is truly sad that school boards, under threat of legal and political action, are removing standards that encourage "critical examination" of evolution simply because they are afraid of Christian views of science somehow seeping into society. As I said in my first post, I find very interesting the similarities between the present situation and how I noted Thomas Kuhn describes 'scientific revolutions' in my first post.
I'm not sure about the finances of the Discovery Institute, but I know of other creation scientists' organizations that fund scientific research. There are quite a few scientists out there (respected and published in their respective fields including genetics, biology, paleantology, and geology) that view the same evidence as the naturalist evolutionists but come to different conclusions.
The creation scientists that I've read or heard are not, as you say, "worried that science has somehow usurped their faith." In fact, many will specifically tell you that they are theologically secure in their faith regardless of where science leads them. If the earth does end up being 600 million years old instead of 6000 years old, then a bit of theological tip-toeing still more then adequately preservers the Scriptures claims to be a perfect *moral* guide, perfectly able to equip man to know Christ and his salvation. The real problem, they say, is that the evidence does not lead them to the same conclusions of naturalistic evolutionists. And there are many such scientists. I even knew a few when I was at NCSU (including one of the top professors in the botany dept.) and that school is by no means a Christian institution.
There may even be as many creation scientists as there are hard-core "molecule to man" evolutionists. The problem is, most scientists specialize in other areas and don't really care about the debate... so they just blindly accept whatever hypothesis they've heard in school. Thankfully, most people are not hopelessly deceived. Polls in America show that the majority believes in creation, and many more want it taught. Less than 10% are confirmed evolutionists, yet they seemingly control education. They may teach that evolution is well proven, but we don't have to believe them.
If you don't like what I've written about Galileo you can take it up with my physics and history professors at NCSU. I'm just regurgitating what I've learned there. I'm not a historian by training; I'm a programmer. And the jist of my post remains the same. I wasn't saying the present situation is exactly like the situation Galileo was in. I was saying I see some similarities; that's all.
... . I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them
Yet many evolutionists here have said they see the fossil record as consisting of nothing but transitional forms. Given the fact that even evolutionists debate over aspects of evolution as critical as these, I think it is truly sad that school boards, under threat of legal and political action, are removing standards that encourage "critical examination" of evolution simply because they are afraid of Christian views of science somehow seeping into society (note Ohio State School Boards decision yesterday). As I said in my first post, I find very interesting the similarities between the present situation and how I noted Thomas Kuhn describes 'scientific revolutions' in my first post.
There are quite a few scientists out there (respected and published in their respective fields including genetics, biology, paleantology, and geology) that view the same evidence as the naturalist evolutionists but come to different conclusions.
You said, "Information addition/increase is a known fact."
... . I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Again, this is where we disagree. There are quite a number of scientists who disagree with you there... many times more then just a few "fringe" scientists. I'm talking about published, respected professors and scientists in fields like biology and genetics. Again, I'm not a geneticist nor a geologist so I'm not prepared to discuss these things in depth. Here is an article that seems to approach this subject. It may be worth your time to read or skim over. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chap ter2.asp Another, slightly different view, held by many "creationist" scientists is described at http://www.nwcreation.net/genetics.html. All I can do is give you these to think through and to show that there are quite a few scientists who disagree with the naturalistic position of "molecules to man" evolution.
Concerning the rest of your post, scientists have found real and valid problems with dating methods and assumptions currently employed (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/e arth.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/ra diodating.asp), as well as the interpretation of the fossil record as getting more complex through layers of "younger" rock (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/e volution.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fo ssils.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossils. asp).
My point is that creation scientists have a wide variety of hypothesis to explain the same natural phenomena that naturalistic or atheistic scientists attempt to explain. There is a lot of work done in these fields.
Given that fact I think it is sad that, yesterday for instance, the Ohio Board of Education decided to delete standards saying students should be able to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The standards even included a disclaimer that they do not require the teaching of intelligent design. As I understand it, some evolutionists raised the issue of court action in Ohio if the Ohio State Board of Education did not remove that guideline. And Ohio Governor Bob Taft indicated a few days ago that over time he would be selecting new board members who would not be critical of evolution.
The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them
Yet you are saying you and many evolutionists see the fossil record as consisting of nothing but transitional forms. Given the fact that even evolutionists debate over aspects of evolution as critical as these, I think it is truly sad tha
You said, "WHAT lack of transitional forms? The entire fossil record is practically nothing BUT transistional(sp) forms."
That is where we definitely disagree. I'm not a geologist or a paleontologist so it wouldn't make sense for me to argue with you about specific fossils, but I know of quite a few that would disagree with you. And I know that number grows every year as I've been following creationist organizations for years. One example is Dr. Joachim Scheven, a zoologist/paleontologist with a Ph.D. from the University of Munich. Dr Scheven even has a species of twisted-wing insect named after him: Bohartilla joachimscheveni. He discovered it Dominican amber (fossilized tree resin), which evolutionists claim is 35 million years old. If that were true, imagine how many millions of generations of this Bohartilla would have given mutations the opportunity to change this type drastically. However, it is fundamentally identical to the living Bohartilla from Central America.
He says, "Fossils never show any significant 'evolution' -- rather, they show that fossil creatures have no remaining living counterparts (extinction), or that they have stayed essentially the same (stasis), or have degenerated (lost information)."
Considering ring species, an article at answersingenesis.org, which lists many scientists among its contributors, states "... there is no reason to believe that the differences between the two... species are the result of any new, more complex, functional genetic information not al-ready present in an ancestral, interbreeding... population. Because there is no evidence of any such information-adding change, it is misleading to say this gives evidence of evolution, of even a little bit of the sort of change required to eventually turn a fish into a philosopher."
Basically, "an ancestral species can split into other species within the limits of the information already present in that kind--just as creationists maintain must have happened."
I think the Dover, PA case failed because of the strong religious motive of the school board members involved. However, as more and more scientists come to see the validity of alternate theories explaining what we find in the fossil record and in the complexity of life's processes we will see different results down the road.
You said: "As I see it, it's a disagreement over how to explain stuff that we don't yet understand. Personally, I think that in a public school setting, 'We don't know' is preferable to 'We don't know, but some people think God did it.'"
The problem is in the public school setting the "we don't know but some people think..." is already being given as the answer. For instance, "We don't know why there is a lack of the transitional forms that Darwin expected would be found in great and mighty abundance in the fossil record... but some people think punctuated equilibrium is likely the reason". So if evolutionary theorist should be able to give attempts at explainations concerning what "we don't know" then it is hypocritical to deny creationists the same right.
Who cares if ID can't be proven consclusively by any means we currently have. PE likely can't be proven either. We are just looking for evidence of how species come to be, not necessarily for absolute proof. Is there evidence that some processes are "irreducible complex" so that they would not be able to evolve as Darwin has described? Then lets at least acknowledge it and be open to examining it. Gould himself said, of punctuated equilibrium, "We might find direct evidence of speciation, but such good fortune would be rare indeed because the event occurs so rapidly in such a small population...". In other words, proof of PE is going to be rare if we ever find it at all. But that hasn't stopped people from exploring the theory and teaching it in public schools.
Just because the evidence is "unproven" and "questionable" doesn't mean scientists everywhere should have to ignore it or risk being ostracized, nor does it mean the evidence shouldn't be at the least discussed at the academic level if not investigated thoroughly. I'd say the lack of transitional forms makes evolution "unproven" and even "questionable", but that doesn't mean I think scientists shouldn't at least explore the theory. All ID proponents are saying is that the problems with evolutionary theory should be discussed openly with all options on the table... as scientific progress continues. None of them are saying scientific study should halt. The evolutionary pundits and bigots are the one claiming that.
#######
The "anomalies" you point at are nothing of the sort. The advent of quantum mechanics came about not because of "anomalies," but because experiments were being done whose results flat out contradicted a classical interpretation. We had definitive knowledge that things did not work as we expected at the atomic level. We have no such evidence against evolution aside from the unproven and questionable conjecture that certain biological systems are "irreducibly complex."
#######
Just because the evidence is "unproven" and "questionable" doesn't mean scientists everywhere should have to ignore it or risk being ostracized, nor does it mean the evidence shouldn't be at the least discussed at the academic level if not investigated thoroughly. I'd say the lack of transitional forms makes evolution "unproven" and even "questionable", but that doesn't mean I think scientists shouldn't at least explore the theory. All ID proponents are saying is that the problems with evolutionary theory should be discussed openly with all options on the table... as scientific progress continues. None of them are saying scientific study should halt.
#######
Finally, you have no idea what you are talking about with regard to undirected evolution. You're creating a strawman. Random mutation is a factor for creating variation, but selection pressures direct evolution and which variations survive. You are mischaraterizing the process. Do you not see how you are arbitrarily attaching "Purpose" to the things you think are important while disregarding the rest?
#######
Let me say it this way, if one acknowledges a personal God as directing the creation of life and also trys to acknowledge Darwin's evolution he is trying to have his cake and eat it too. Granted, there are theistic evolutionists who have a picture of "God" as a completely uninvolved, non personal being who could give a rat's ass about how things are coming along in his test tube that he randomized and is going to check on in a few trillion years to see what happened. Their picture of God is not incompatable with Darwin's evolution. However, those who seek to hold to the Judeo-Christian view of a very personally involved God who has created life with very specific intent, precision, and purpose simply cannot hold to Darwin's theory in its purest form. The random formation of life "by chance" is not consistent with the Judeo-Christian belief system.