Redstate

Since I've seen this horse turned into pulp, reconstituted, and pulped once more, I don't have anything new to add to your post. However, for the sake of pure intellectual mischievousness, I'd like to throw out a few ideas and questions:

1. Take the Fermi Paradox.  (I've been reading a lot of Baxter lately.) If evolution is the true origin of life, and there's nothing particularly special about life on Earth, why do we not see (or hear) signs of other intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy. Given the sheer numbers, does it make really sense that intelligent life only evolved on Earth?
   
2. To the ID proponents - also consider the Fermi Paradox. Given the existence of an intelligent designer, is it reasonable to assume that this designer got everything right on the first try? Is it even fair to say that humans were the designer's ultimate creation, and not one revision in a line of intelligent species as the designer learned to build better intelligence? If this is the case, why do we not observe those that came before us and those that came after us in the designer's progression of intelligence? Or is the absence of other intelligent (more so and less so) life an indicator that the designer wipes out its creations before moving on to the next batch? (Cue ominous music.)
   
3. If an alien intelligence showed up tomorrow and said, "Yeah, we engineered life on Earth," what would the consequences be for both the theories of evolution and intelligent design? Is one, the other, or both discarded? Assuming that the alien race said no more than that they were responsible for life and answered no more inquiries, can the speculation of the origin of other life even continue? Do we find ourselves content finally knowing the answer of where we came from, or would we start insisting on answering the question of the origin of the aliens?
   
4. Evaluating ID and evolution from an aesthetic point of view, which theory is more interesting and inspirational? Personally, I find the idea of evolution to be more uplifting than ID, because if humans have come from lesser beings, it suggests that humans (given time) will become higher beings. Comparing the development things like art and culture between homo sapiens with those of homo erectus, members of the homo genus have come quite a ways. Given the theory of evolution, I have the hope that mankind has not yet reached its pinnacle of development. Any other thoughts on this facet of the debate?

I'm just throwing these out to get people to think about these respective theories for the sake of thinking about them. I'm getting bored with the ID v. evolution debates, so this is my contribution to hopefully seed some more interesting conversation.

I tried to seed the last ID discussion with the carot of separation of church and state (another juicy debatable topic), and look what happened there. I even tried to set the tone by asking people to consider only the merits of the lawsuit.

Basically, you mention ID and you introduce a wormhole that sucks every discussion into evolution v. ID on the merits of science. I give up. You can hold out hope, but I will remind you that even you helped suck my last topic down that wormhole ;-) (a friendly jab).

I am truly sorry that I was not part of the solution in your last post. In my defense, I did answer your first amendment questions in my initial post, though my answers were largely of the poor "me too" variety. It seemed that the burden of justification was on those who believed that teaching intelligent design was a violation of the establishment clause.

As for the wormhole argument, the same things happened in my earlier posts. I'm wondering whether the problem is not an defect in the topic, but a defect in the people arguing about the topic. It seems like people are more interested in proving themselves "right" and their opponents "wrong" than chilling out and exploring the topic. (I'm guilty as sin as well.)

However, perhaps my assessment of human nature is simply flawed and there are some RedStaters out there who are interested in discussing the situation rather than scoring rhetorical points...

(Hint, hint...)

Your latest comments in turn incriminate me too! Now I feel bad ;-)

I hope you took my comments above as friendly jesting. On a serious note, I guess I owe you an apology for doing the same thing to your topic. I guess we are even, lol.

As for people being defective I have a more practical explanation. Both sides of the debate recognize that this is their waterloo. ID brings people who believe in a creation back to the academic table on the topic of origins. Evolution has had a long standing monopoly. Without any viable challengers, the weaknesses of the theory are irrelevant. With a viable challenger, any weaknesses become possible chinks in the armor that could blow it apart given enough time.

Actually, Normandy would be a better comparison. Anyway, I think the nature of the subject is also such that there are not really any impartial observers. You are firmly on one side or the other of the debate. And given the traditional emnity between science and religion, we have a recipe for arguments.

...that it takes just as much, if not more, faith to believe in macro-evolution as it does to believe in God.

State that to a scientist and watch the fur fly. I have and the results were entertaining, especially when I argued them down to the point and they had to eventually agree with me. :D

What you claim about God cannot be verified.

What has been discovered about the history of life on earth has been verified. Faith has nothing to do with it.

Creationism is either something like theistic evolution, in which case it is merely metaphysical quibbling or it is young earth creationism, in which case the YEC has accused God of being a liar.

Boy, this topic is like kudzu...

First off, I think a nice healthy debate over intelligent design is fine in the proper setting.  At the college level, courses in the philosophy of science or some sort of comparative studies course could really benefit from spending time on this debate.  It certainly presents an interesting crossroad of science and faith.  Even in high school, in the proper format, intelligent design could find a home.  But not in science class, unless the theory actually gains scientific validity and acceptance in the wider scientific community.

Second, I still have yet to fully understand how ID and evolution cannot coexist.  If the bible must be taken literally, I can see that conflict, but not all ID depends on biblical interpretation.  The deist clockwork god works here, as do a number of Christian faiths (including, I believe, Catholicism) who see God's work in the ordering of the natural universe, which can include evolution.  Why can't this be like the Sistine Chapel, with the finger of God touching the primordial soup and bringing forth life?  In the end, if you don't get stuck on a literal reading of Genesis, this shouldn't be a problem.

Scientific discoveries don't have anything to do with faith. Please explain to me why you are under the impression that they do.

Trying to carefully avoid getting into any more ID vs. creationist brawls, so I am keeping this on the lighter side.

I always found Asimov's sci-fi to be really interesting for this very reason. His vision of the future supposes that humans are the only intelligent life in the galaxy that have evolved anywhere. I find that to be very intriguing contrasted to all the other sci-fi authors who vision the galaxy teeming with diverse intelligent life forms. [I guess Asimov was not familiar with the big Powerball jackpots with multiple winners ;-)]

over ID is that they are either committed to naturalism on a philosophical level, or committed to the ultimately philosophical idea that scientific methodology must proceed on a naturalistic basis, the inspiration being that, otherwise, it will be impossible to elaborate scientific theory as a closed system capable of being distinguished from other disciplines.  Neither proposition is self-evident; the notion that the integrity of science is threatened by any thought that it might not be possible to offer a purely naturalistic explanation for everything is a clever way of begging the question.  But there we are.  

As to the religious issue, all I can say is that the great fathers and doctors of the Church didn't really dogmatize on the specific details of the interpretation of Genesis, so the fear that any introduction of ID will lead us back to Bishop Ussher is just so much paranoia.

Evolution is an attempt by scientists to explain the phenomenon that is our existence.  All of the evidence they cite to support it is simply that, evidence.  There has never been conclusive proof that macro-evolution, in fact, happened.  It's largely speculation based upon fragmentary information.  As such, it requires just as much faith by those who believe in it as those who believe in intelligent design that it is true.      

I grew up on Asimov's Norby books. I'm also a huge fan of the first three Foundation books. (Though in the intro to the second three, Asimov basically apologizes to the readers in advance that he did the last three because he couldn't turn down the cash to do so.)

Asimov did attempt to take on aliens in "The Gods Themselves". It's been a while since I read it, but the gist is that aliens in an alternate universe feed off the positrons in this universe, creating an excess of free electrons (and free electricity) in this universe. Both races are pleased as the device doing this is basically a free energy generator, but they have to find a way to wean their respective cultures off the free energy as the electron/positron imbalance in each universe is destructive on a cosmic scale.

It's generally thought to be a poor attempt by Asimov to prove that he can write female and alien characters. Not to keep praising Stephen Baxter, but he also assumes that humans are alone in the universe in the first and third books in the Manifold series. In the first one, he tries and projects humanity's future, given inconveniences such as the stars eventually burning out and energy and matter becoming uniformly distributed about the universe, and in the third book, he looks at the development of the human species and attempts to answer the question about why humans exist as they do.

Haven't the Catholics also accepted evolution as a possible way that God created humans? I remember hearing something to this effect, but I can't find any official pronouncements from the Holy See.

It seems to me that the people most protesting the teaching of evolutions are Protestants. Am I right in observation, or is there greater support for ID among other sects and religions?

But I feel like opposition to evolution comes from folks with faith based on a literal interpretation of the bible, which is primarily a Protestant faith. There is no way to fit the evolutionary shoe on the Garden of Eden.  I'm sure there are some naturalist/atheists who assert evolution proves that God doesn't exist, but that argument is so meritless it deserves nothing but scorn.  It seems to me that some devout people may derive from the theory of evolution that argument, but I've never heard it made by someone I know or respect.  I'm sure there are some websites out there, but who cares about the loony tunes?  

I would be happy with a discussion in biology class at the start of the evolution chapter in high school which discussed how the theories surrounding the spontaneous creation of life are murky and religion often governs people's approaches to that topic.  If that's all ID really wants, and then we can go on to discuss the development of species, by all means, let's do it.  But when we move into full blown Creationism, Old Earth vs New Earth, etc., that's when the science leaves and something else shows up.

There is also this notion that all disciplines that have the label "science" applied to them are equally scientific in nature and all disciplines not labeled as "science" (whether ligitimately or via demagoguery) are equally unscientific in nature. Such distinctions are really made to win debate points and to try to create self serving caste systems.

An example of a softer science is cryptozoology. It incorporates many things normally excluded from scientific analysis, such as eye witness testimony. Depending on who you talk to you will be told it is or is not science (though almost universally cryptozoologists consider themselves in the "science" camp).

Western civilization is obliging to the notion that "science" is the highest caste of learning and religion/spiritual things the lowest. We then proceed to try to draw distinctions that allow our pet discipline into the highest caste while pushing those we don't like to the lower levels in a way reminiscent of political redistricting exercises.

Sincerely,

Sylvester McMonkey McBean

Evolution is not "a way" that God created something. People often confuse old earth creationism and evolution. You will find no evolutionist that will say anything other than we are products of natural forces and processes. If you believe God was that force, you aren't promoting evolution but rather old earth creationism.

With that said, yes, church history does support the idea that the earth is old and that creation wasn't in six days. Time didn't become a dogmatic issue with anyone until recently.

is a possible means of creation.  My own Church, the Orthodox, says much the same thing.  You might try the website of the Holy See, as I believe that the statement was issued at some point during the past decade.

Most of those who object to the teaching of evolution are Protestant, but this is to go through the matter with a rather coarse comb.  Many Protestants will object to any theory of evolution whatsoever, even those that a Catholic or Orthodox could embrace as conceivable.  Others object on the more philosphical grounds from which advocates of ID also offer their objections: evolution may be one thing, philosophical naturalism is another.

How do you define old earth creationism? I ask because it seems from the subtext that you have some big misunderstandings about what OEC proposes. The mainstream of OEC follows the same progressive fossil record that evolution does. Yet it seems that you and Cjkarr would classify what OEC really proposes as part of the "evolution" camp.

First: Let's say that an intelligent being sees a barren earth, and injects just the right combination of molecules or simple cellular organisms into the environment that evolve into the forms of life we see today. Would such a scenario fall under the rubric of "intelligent design"?

Second: Let's say that a god is responsible for the creation of the earth. He "initialized" earth such that given time, humans would emerge, though he didn't create humans directly or at the time of creation. Is this incompatible with stories of Christian creation?

Third: In the theory of intelligent design, does intelligent design reject the notion of an intelligent being creating the right situations for an evolutionary process to eventually generate life? Or does it assume that all species as we see them now were created directly by these intelligent designers and were not evolved from simpler forms? That is, does intelligent design require that homo sapiens was directly designed by an intelligent being and not descended from a previous form that was directly created by the intelligent being.

I'm confused now.

if evolution is "a means" by which God created life on Earth, and if evolutionists define evolution as life springing from natural forces and processes, doesn't anyone see the problem? God is not a natural force.

If we're just speaking of life, and no other cosmic creation, I've always seen evolution used as a term for the idea that species change and adapt in response to environmental pressures on a macro scale that eventually leads to new species that displace the older species and are reproductively incompatible with any other species that any have branched the original species. It's roughly the same idea as natural selection, but on a larger scale. It doesn't really speak about a god any more than it speaks about pie. From the biologist-types I have as friends, I don't know if they really know when life first emerged or whether it emerged by itself. See my request for clarification below to gain a bit more insight from where I'm coming from.

As for the "evolutionists", I don't know who you are specifically speaking about here. Would it include scientists who view evolution as a normal natural and occurring process? Or is an atheistic persuasion required for inclusion? I think you understand my views from our former conversations fairly well - am I considered an evolutionist?

First: yes, sort of. ID generally attempts to explain more than simply the spontaneous appearance of the first life. It also explains other difficulties such as macroevolution while accepting microevolution as is.

Second: What you are desribing is more or less what people would call theistic evolution, i.e. God did the big bang and then let everything run by itself while watching from a distance. This is fairly incompatible with Christian creation since at the very least the Bible says that God had active involvement in the creation of various classes of species (at the very least). However this may be more compatible with ID than it is with any form of creationism.

Third: No it doesn't reject it, at least not out of pocket. ID is compatible with the notion of a progressive stepwise creative process. For example a designer might be required to go from a fish to an amphibian or from an ape to a chimp (and maybe the "design" is more of a retooling ;-)). But a designer is not required to go from a yellow lab to a doberman. You will find some variation within ID community, but this is generally the case.

latter term is defined in such a way as to require naturalism.  If, on the other hand, the term is specified such that it connotes the idea that, owing to the irreducible complexity of many life systems, Divine involvement was necessary at certain points in the process to ensure that evolutionary progress occurred, they are not incompatible.  

This link succinctly clarifies some key terms and distinctions in the debate: http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php?PHPSESSID=db7a5e073a969260c6f
9c2f5ea16f15c .

Besides my Seattle Times article and my response to the pro-Darwin column, wittingshire.blogspot.com also offers other key evidences against Neo-Darwinism and materialism further down.

...macro-evolution is only a theory and a fragmented one at best. And even within the theory of Macro-evolution (not to be confused with Micro-evolution, which is provable and observable), evidence vastly contradicts itself. Dating methods (especially Carbon dating) are largely inaccurate. Unless someone builds a time machine so that scientists can go back in time and observe exactly what happened, Macro-evolution remains unprovable by the scientific method. Therefore, it takes just as much faith to believe macro-evolution as it does to believe in Intelligent Design.

Yes, the scientific model that describes the history of life on earth is called the theory of evolution. It is a scientific theory. Scientific theories are not idle speculation. Scientific theories are the models that best reflect the evidence gathered to date and continue to make accurate predictions about what kind of discoveries will be made in the future. The theory of evolution has been extremely successful in meeting those criteria.

Science doesn't call its evidence proof. Claiming that scientists "didn't prove x" doesn't really mean anything. Scientists never prove anything. On the other hand, the evidence about the history of life on earth has been carefully studied and validated. Over the course of time, scientists have discovered that Darwin's initial discovery was essentially correct, there is an ongoing variation in life over time and natural selection works on populations. The mechanism that allows this to happen, DNA, is different than Darwin had speculated, but since genetics had not been invented yet, there is no way he could have known exactly how it would have worked.

Scientists work with facts that can be verified by anyone. No faith is required to see or understand these facts or why they fit into the model. That is why the vast majority of Christians belong to church bodies that have no problem with evolution or any other scientific discoveries.

It's disappointing to see otherwise well-informed people say about a scientific theory that "it's only a theory" as if the scientists were merely speculating in an uninformed fashion about something or other. A scientific theory is the best model available. It fits the evidence and it makes robust, testable predictions.

The time machine that you are looking for exists in our DNA. The relationship of all life on earth has been confirmed by it. No faith was required, just evidence.

cjkarr, I don't think that any of the major players in the debate are protesting that evolution is being taught.  I'm a six-day Creationist, and even I'm not protesting that.

The major debate right now is the opposite -- prominent materialist evolutionists are protesting that ID is gaining some momentum.  They do not want to see ID added to any curriculum, they don't want the debate, they don't want a sticker on science books stating that evolution is a theory.  Admittedly, the sticker idea seems silly to me, but the overall argument right now is over whether ID should be included at all, or whether students should be indoctrinated with the naturalistic point of view while neglecting to discuss problems and alternatives.

As you state, "A scientific theory is the best model available."  It's a model alright, but it might not be the best one.  I don't understand calling it is what it is, a theory, is so unnerving.  There is no way to prove that macro-evolution occurred.  None.  It's speculation.    

The mere fact that all life has DNA only implies harmony in design, not a causal relationship between the species.  This is not evidence for evolution.  

The refusal to allow id to be taught in classrooms is another example of how intolerant academe is of an idea that does not conform to its worldview.  

There is no way to fit the evolutionary shoe on the Garden of Eden.

I'm not up on my evolutionary dogma. According to the theory of evolution, didn't the human species begin as one or two people? The idea that the first people may have been called Adam and Eve (and they had lots of pets and several kids) isn't wholly inconsistant with evolution.

I would be happy with a discussion in biology class at the start of the evolution chapter in high school which discussed how the theories surrounding the spontaneous creation of life are murky and religion often governs people's approaches to that topic.

I think that's pretty close to what ID design movement is asking for. Let's just knock evolution off the pedestal. But all of the self-righteous jeers from the ACLU and scientists emboldens the movement to seek parity. Evolution is a flawed theory. Neither evolution nor intelligent design can be proven. Evolution requires faith in the power of randomness. Intelligent design requires belief in a higher power. Let the kids decide for themselves which makes more sense to them.

There are vast ammounst of very clear evidence that strongly suggest that the theory of evultion has a very high probability of being correct.  

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=speculating

"to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence"

this is not what is happening with evolution, ID on the other hand, is speculation.  it is not a theory as it doesnt not lay out testable hypothesis.  you cannot proove your pet theory by merely pointing out difficulties in someone elses theory.  this is basic science, what we were (or should have been) taught in 9th grade.

The problem with the proper use of the term theory in science comes from those who want to reject science or try to equate their own speculations with the well-constructed and rigorously tested theories of science. A scientific theory is not speculation.

Common ancestry of all known life forms has been demonstrated by, among other evidence, the manner in which the DNA of organisms has diverged over time. I agree that the use of DNA, by itself, is not evidence for common ancestry, but an investigation of the way DNA has varied, particularly in non-coding areas and broken genes, in different species shows that there has been common ancestry.

I'm not sure what you consider macro-evolution, but one simple example of common ancestry is the fact that ascorbic acid (vitamin C), which is generally synthesized by other mammals cannot be synthesized by the great apes, including humans, because they share an identical defect in that gene. As you go through the details of genetics, supported by other scientific evidence, there is so much evidence to support common ancestry that it becomes incumbent upon those who oppose the idea that life on earth shares a common ancestry to provide some evidence to support their proposition.

According to the theory of evolution, didn't the human species begin as one or two people?

No.

Populations change over time. It is the entire population that, from a historical perspective, we would consider to have evolved into a new species, but there is no time during which we would be able to say: "There it is. That's the new species. That one is different."

Sometimes a population is separated from another population in the species. If these populations remain isolated from each other they will eventually evolve into two separate species because new genes are limited to one population or the other.

The refusal to allow ID to be taught in a science class is a reflection of the objection that scientists and teachers have to having something other than science taught in science classes. When the proponents of ID begin to engage in science and with this research discover through the scientific method that a theory of ID is valid, it will be accepted and it will be taught.

Since you're paying attention to all this, I'd like to pose a few questions that I've asked elsewhere. I said I was not going to beat the dead horse, but since you seem to be a principle in the ID movement, I'll break my rule:

1. Is ID best taught in a science class or a philosophy class? If taught in a scientific class, how do you approach the existence of the intelligent designer in a scientific manner?
   
2. Much of the ID theory seems based upon the criticism of evolutionary theory. What original and testable hypotheses does ID put forth so that interested parties can scientifically test the theory? Or in other words, how do you quantify and compare different levels of design? The human ear is complex and appears to be well designed, but does it display more or less design on the part of a designer than say, mitochondria?
   
3. Much of the problem with this debate is that ordinary people and scientists speak different languages when speaking of these topics. Words like "proof" and "theory" have significantly different meanings between the two. Are you or  the Discovery Institute making an effort to rectify this situation so that the debate can be held using terms whose meanings everyone accepts uniformly?
   
4. What is your and the Discovery Institute's opinions on the formation of the cosmic universe? Does the structure of our planets, galaxies, and other complex non-living things exhibit the properties of design that the ID movement sees in life? If so, is there a movement to criticize astronomical sciences where portions of the origin theories are weak or incomplete? Or in other words, is there anything uniquely special about the theory of evolution that prompts criticism while materialistic explanations of cosmic origins are exempt?

Thanks in advance for you answers and views.

I've been meandering through this thread trying to figure out what it is in particular was at the root of this, since I think evolution and God are perfectly compatible.  To me, natural forces are an expression of the system God designed.  God in his omnipotence and omnipresence works through the laws of nature he designed.  Evolution is one of them.  His miracles are when he decided to intervene outside the normal framework he created, and thus are rightly defined super"natural."  That's my worldview, in a nutshell.  

If we're only debating whether random chance started life or not, I don't care about the answer because it doesn't really affect the outcome.  "Randomness," to me, could be the hand of God undetectable.  Randomness could actually be the ordered creation of a Creator, but we simply don't understand the system.  But at any point if theological concerns trump scientific ones, then I think we've improperly crossed disciplines.

The evidence - that genetic traits of populations have changed over time - is equally compatible with a theory other than Darwinian evolution.

Diversity among finches, for example, can be explained as the LOSS of genetic information through  isolation of populations, extinctions, and such. The assumption of this model is that all current related species (Galapagos finches) are descended from an original mating kind, but divergent kinds are not ancestrally related. One mating pair of mongrel finches lands on an island chain, subsequent generations get isolated and preserve the specialized SUBSET of genetics most favorable to the niche.

This happens to fit very well with OBSERVABLE genetics. Dogs are a single species, observably descended from an original kind of mongrel wild dog. Over time, they've been breed to ELIMINATE genetic info originally present, leaving only the particular characteristics of the current "pure" breeds we see today.

The same scientific principles (eg natural selection) apply. And we can observe the process. And we don't have to assume factors that have never been observed (introduction of new genetic information -- specified complexity -- through random processes).

Case closed, right?

Your theory ignores one process which we know to occur: mutation.  By definition, it expands the genenic information available and is essentially limitless in its potential to bring change.  The Hawaiian Honeycreepers, also descendent from finch-like colonizers, are a much more dramatic example of adaptive radiation than the Galapagos finches since more time has elapsed in the Hawaiian case.  Bills of Hawaiian Honeycreepers range from conical finch-type bills to thin deeply curved bills several inches long.  The capacity to create nearly infinite variation through mutation is a much better explanation than the possession of such variation by a very few colonizers.

The biggest prediction of Darwinian evolution is that the fossil record would contain evidence of gradual change over time. Solid evidence is totally lacking. According to Darwin himself, this should invalidate his theory.

Instead, neo-Darwinists dreamed up "Punctuated Equilibrium", where changes take place rapidly and leave no evidence.

Embryology has been totally discredited -- Haeckel's faked drawings, "gill slits" that aren't, alternate modes of digit formation, etc.

Morphology has been the mainstay of classification -- but results there are totally at odds with newer genetic research, like this study on

ducks, grebes, and flamingos.

I've read on this for years now, coming from an original confidence in Darwinian evolution (as taught in all public education). But, macro evolution just appears to be bad science. Historically, scientific  dogma has died a slow, difficult death. To believe otherwise -- that the establishment scientific community has definitely gotten it Right This Time -- seems unwise.

According to your link, one of the synonyms for speculate is think, which also means to have an opinion.  Scientists' belief that macro-evolution occurred is an opinion, it is not fact.  And despite what some may believe, there is no way to "test" macro-evolution, just as some have argued there's no way to "prove" intelligent design theory.  And, no, by pointing out flaws in macro-evolution, I am not trying to prove intelligent design.  What I am trying to prove is that they are both just theories.  Yet, for some reason, those who support macro-evolution are unwilling to accept that.  Somehow, in spite of the fact that their theory is just as unproveable as intelligent design, they believe that to not be so.    

1. One of the purposes of science is to examine data and propose an explanation of how the data interrelate. Intellegent Design takes an explanation and tries to find data to fit it. That's dogmatism.
   
2. Intellegent Design cannot be disproved, unless Yahweh appears and says he didn't create us, in which case he is not the God of the Torah. Reducto ad absurdum.

For those who believe in ID: who designed your Designer? And who designed that designer?

Obviously I know of mutation. But, I do not know of any observed beneficial mutation that added genetic information in a specified, complex way. To speculate that genetic information must have been increased (since we see the current variation), is not logically valid.

Would you claim that Hawaiian Honeycreepers exhibit a dramatically broader diversity than, say, domesticated dogs? We KNOW (from human eyewitnesses) that current dog breeds descended from common ancestors through LOSS of genetic information. If we had no living examples, and only skeletal remains to go by, morphologists would almost certainly break dogs into a number of species based on size, shape, and other physical characteristics.

Given the speculative mechanism (beneficial mutation) and the observable and repeatable mechanism (genetic information loss), the choice seems obvious.

Geocentric cosmology? Flat Earth? Astrology?

A scientific theory is speculation because it advances a certain interpretation of information.  

I have no problem with common ancestry among the species, in fact, it makes a heck of a lot of sense to me.  But, just because that commonality exists does not imply causation.  Rather, all it implies is a coherence to the structure, or design.  

what you term "science" is a hybrid of fact and speculation.  Again, prove to me that macro-evolution actually occurred.  Prove to me that chaos breeds order.  Prove to me that the Big Bang occurred, and that it occurred spontaneously, on its own.  

I have no problem with actual science, that is experiments that can actually be reproduced.  But, alas, the really great questions of our time -- how the universe formed, what set it in motion, how we came into existence -- cannot be reproduced and thus cannot be answered by the scientific model alone.  Let's face it: to a certain degree, scientists are philosophers -- they construct a narrative to fill in the gaps.  I have no problem with that, but let's stop acting as if that isn't the case.  And let's stop treating other theories differently because some are unwilling to accept that truth.

Google provides some examples of beneficial mutation here.

wasn't religious in nature, so why are you bringing up G-d?

Since the process of science is to observe, form hypotheses, and test those hypotheses - never claiming that any of them are "'proven", only disproven - there certainly is a way to test or disprove evolution.

Find a complete set of similar creatures found on Earth (felines for example). Sequence their DNA and record this data to some form of medium. Save and preserve this media for a number of years. This amount of time should be something on the order of millions of years. After the required time, unseal the DNA records and compare the DNA from the past with the DNA from the future's present. If there exist in the future species of felines that are significantly different in genetic makeup and no record of the "new" species was recorded in the past, then we have a pretty good set of evidence that life does evolve. If none of the future's felines are different than modern felines (given a million years), we have probably just shown that evolution is not a theory that fits our observations.

(I imagine that a similar tests will become possible in our lifetimes as we become better able to extract more accurate DNA from fossils eons old. Of course, not finding a fossil of modern man in the Jurassic era doesn't prove that man wasn't there, but it is probably a reasonable indicator that he wasn't - assuming that we find a significant number of fossils of many differing species of the time.)

The problem with this test is the amount of time involved. It would be like having a fruit fly measure long term climate change. This is not a flaw in the theory, as the theory is testable and disprovable, but an unfortunate consequence arising from our short life spans. The only way that astronomers get around these problems is that they observe phenomena from far, far away, and given the finite speed of light, we observer far, far into the past.

Science does not prove things. Science investigates things using the scientific method. It collects evidence. Given the evidence it has collected, it develops useful models that help us understand the world around us.  These models also imply different areas of research to learn more about the world around it.

Asking for proof from science shows a lack of understanding of what science does and claims to be able to do. At some point the evidence forces models to fit within the set of useful possibilities. In the most technical sense, Newtonian mechanics is wrong, but it is essentially correct, so close to correct that engineers usually do their analysis of problems using Newtonian mechanics. We even know that there are problems with quantum mechanics, but we don't throw it out completely just because we don't have enough information that confirm that we understand it perfectly. Certainly we wouldn't claim that Newtonian and quantum theory are hopeless, throw them out and insist that pixies are really responsible for the mechanics of the universe.

Some questions are currently beyond the ken of science. Some may be forever beyond it. Based on what we know right now, we may never learn about anything that happened, if anything did happen before the Big Bang. That may or may not change, we cannot tell today. On the other hand, we do know a lot about things that have happened since the Big Bang.

I disagree with your comment about science. Scientists seek knowledge and they develop models to help understand the knowledge that has been collected. Science is a specific discipline and method. Yes, being able to reproduce observations is an important part of science, but it is not exclusive knowledge and it isn't exclusively limited to a specific kind of experiment. The same method of testing DNA that helps catch criminals and keeps prosecutors from railroading the innocent is used to demonstrate the relationships of different species. This method is reliable, predictable, repeatable and, in a nonrigorous sense of the word proof, offers proof that macroevolution has happened.

The problem for critics of biological evolution is that they have no models to offer as alternatives, nor can they point to evidence that works better for their model than for evolution. They have to do science to make claims about science. When they do, scientists will listen.

Paleontological evidence is rare and always has been, but genetic evidence is rich and we are gathering it as fast as possible.

PE was not dreamed up. It was a model developed to fit the evidence. Yes, there is evidence, it does not depend on a lack of evidence.

Did anyone ever rely on Haekel's attempts to show some of the similarities of embryos? Have they in the past century?

Yes, genetics does help us to understand evolutionary relationships as the article you cited shows.

What scientific alternative to biological evolution do you support? What evidence can you point me to?

not saying I agree, but I think I see where you are coming from moreso than I did before. I don't think it is entirely consistent, but it is probably not blatantly inconsistent either.

I think I am going to digest this for a bit and get back to you when I have more time to write a longer response. But in the mean time, I'd like you to explain something to me if you will. When you say He works through the laws of nature, what do you mean? If He created the laws and set them in motion, what work does He need to do "through" them. It seems to me that the result would be the same if he sat back and watched the laws of nature as opposed to working throught them. The only work I see left to do is the supernatural works which you also mention.

It would be easy to disprove that speciation has repeatedly occurred through variation and natural selection. Just show, through genetic analysis that there are multiple, independent origins of life on earth. Those who claim that there is a 'problem with macro-evolution' should find it very easy to demonstrate this problem by showing that various species are not related in any way. The test is easy. The problem for those who are opposed to evolution is that the evidence is continuing to confirm the hypothesis that there is a common ancestor to all life on earth.

"Through genetic analysis?" Similarly, you could prove that the contents of my silverware drawer share a common ancestor. Hey, look at that! The spoons are made of virtually the same metal as the forks. They must be cousins. Let's further prove their relationship by testing the butter knifes. It's a break-through!

Just because the artist painted multiple portraits from the same palette doesn't mean the subjects are family members.

Your method might be very useful for taxonomy, but it wouldn't be enough to prove the theory of evolution. (And you wouldn't support the results of test anymore if evolution failed the test. "Well, they must have done it wrong!")

What is this, argument by analogy?  If you're going to do that, then add the fact that chemical analysis has shown that all your sliverware came from the same metalworks, the maker's mark shows it comes from the same company, and the various other stampings prove it comes from the same product line.  Sure, we didn't PROVE you got them all from the same box, but then what is proof.

Or, to put it another way:  Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: (pulling down a diagram of Chewie) this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case? (calmly) Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!

Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending creationism, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.

And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the theory of evolution... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

This is all the more impressive considering it has been observed over human timespans.  Now imagine the same forces at work over geologic time.  

...confusing "change" with "evolution", that is. There are many examples of selection (natural or directed) from among existing genes. Killing off all the individuals that can't tolerate high temperature, low phosphate, or whatever...is simply selecting for reproduction those individuals that already HAVE the genetic information to be successful. Straining off large cells for hundreds of generations, then claiming to have "evolved" a new "large" strain; yes, the genetic makeup might now mostly/exclusively code for "large" traits, but that's simply preservation of previously existing information (and LOSS of information capable of coding for small traits).

The key concept (still missing from these examples) is the introduction of new, useful information. This article and those it links have some scientific discussion from a creationist perspective.

The evidence for PE is, as I understand it, the rapid appearance of fully developed species with no precursors in the fossil record. So the lack of evidence for gradual evolution, instead of disproving that theory, has given birth to a newer theory that actually predicts that there will be no evidence to support it. Clever, but not terribly scientific.

(I'm new to this blog, so forgive me if I'm beating a rhetorical question...)

Read the full story on Haeckel's fraudulent embryo drawings. And yes, my understanding is that they were used in textbooks for decades (into the late 90s, and possibly even now) -- long after they were totally discredited.

National Geographic, November 2004, features a cover story "Was Darwin Wrong?". Of course, the pat answer is a resounding "No". But they still rely on embryology (totally discredited), morphology (fantasy, now being discredited by genetic research), paleontology (which never provided support), and biogeography (ignoring better explanations that fit the evidence). See Dr. Terry Mortenson's response for detailed criticism.

The Q&A section on AnswersInGenesis.org is a good one-stop for summary info, and also includes some more technical stuff.

Assuming we mean "one population dividing into separate populations unable to interbreed", there's no problem with that in either model.

Darwinism predicts infrequent speciation as new information is accumulated through beneficial mutations and selection.

Creationism predicts (potentially rapid) speciation through selection and LOSS of previously existing information.

I don't know that we can ever prove or disprove either, but at least the mechanisms required for the creationist model (selection and information loss) are statistically reasonable and readily observable. And from an information theory perspective, this seems downright obvious.

Regarding common ancestry, the following excerpt is taken from this article in the section "DNA comparisons--subject to interpretation".

---

For example, hemoglobin, the complex molecule that carries oxygen in blood and results in its red color, is found in vertebrates. But it is also found in some earthworms, starfish, crustaceans, mollusks, and even in some bacteria. An antigen receptor protein has the same unusual single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this cannot be explained by a common ancestor of sharks and camels.6 And there are many other examples of similarities that cannot be due to evolution.

I disagree that science does not prove things, it does.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the point of the scientific model was to test hypotheses, to determine whether an idea has merit.  To prove its merit, one has to actually verify that it can be done.  And, this, I'm afraid, is the sticking point: macro-evolution cannot be proven.

Science is highly effective as a tool to gain knowledge.  But, it is not, in and of itself, the end-all, be-all explanation to the truly great questions of life and the universe.  The problem with science as religion is that it ultimately fails because it cannot answer every question.  It's simply not possible.  Sure, we know much more than we did a hundred years ago about things such as DNA, but the discovery of DNA is not further verification of evolution.  If anything, the highly intricate level of symmetry among all species at their most basic level suggests it's not happenstance but deliberate.  Why it's deliberate is another question.  Some believe that it's evidence of a gradual mutation of species that somehow occurred without direction, while others believe it points to a grand design -- the patterns are too similar and too complex to merely be the result of chance.  Whatever the case may be, there is no conclusive evidence that the naturalistic view of this process is somehow more verifiable than the intelligent design view.  Until there is conclusive proof, which I doubt anyone will be able to provide, this is a philosophical question, not a scientific question.  As such, you cannot state that the "facts" fit one specific model -- they don't.  They simply point out that there is a great degree of similarity in the composition of species.  The existence of a common condition does not equal causation.    

There are alternative theories, it's just some are unwilling to accept them.  The evidence you cite they need to rely on is, in fact, the same evidence macro-evolutionists rely on, it's just they have a different interpretation of how that evidence fits together.  

To a certain degree, it seems to modern society has become so bogged down in the accumulation of knowledge that it supports theories that don't make basic sense.

• How does something that is lesser perfect become more perfect?  When has that ever happened?
  
• When has chaos created order?  How has chaos created such symmetry and harmony in the universe when that is not in its nature?  
  
• How does something spontaneously occur? Why haven't we witnessed more spontaneous occurrences?
  
• Why are the species dwindling instead of increasing in number?  Why haven't we witnessed a "jump," a new species emerge?  If the answer is we haven't had enough time, then why are we positing a theory that is based on this same lack of observation?
  
• Why are there so many gaps in the fossil record?  Why are we positing a theory as fact when the evidence it relies on is inconclusive at best?

Science, that is the scientific method, is a method of gathering and observing evidence in such a way that others can also verify your results, conclusions can be reached and further ideas for investigation will arise. It is an iterative process, as each discovery gives scientists new grounds for further investigation.

As I have said, science does not prove things, not in the mathematical sense; yet it has already proven, in the colloquial sense, that speciation has happened and continues to happen. If you mean something other than speciation when you say macro-evolution, please define it clearly. For scientists, speciation and macro-evolution are interchangable. As I understand it, all levels above species in taxonomy are for convenience, though they almost always show the degree of relatedness. Let's not forget that Carl Linnaeus developed his taxonomy system well before evolution was discovered, yet it is consistent with evolution.

Science never claims to be a religion. Science claims to be able to study the questions that it is capable of studying with the scientific method and nothing more. It seems unfair to me to criticize science for something it does not do.

The discovery of DNA was the discovery of the mechanism of evolution. I don't see what evidence you use to justify introducing the concept of deliberate into the discussion. The hypothesis of common descent already explains common genetic materials. If you add another mechanism, the one that is responsible for deliberate, then this mechanism should be identifiable, testable, and explain more than the hypothesis of common descent does by itself. Life, of course, does not change over time by chance. Sure, the mutations themselves are unpredictable, but some types of genetic alterations are more common than others and the actual expression of these alterations in the organism are what decides whether this gene will be passed to following generations. The environment is a cruel taskmaster, it is not random at all.

Yes, the evidence that has been gathered about the history of life on earth does fit the model called the theory of evolution. No other model is as robust. No other model exists that does not posit something for which scientific evidence does not exist. If new evidence comes along, then new models will be developed. Science deals with the evidence that exists. Right now, because no evidence is available, science cannot tell us if any gods exist or which gods do not exist. It cannot tell us the proper way to worship a god. It cannot tell us if there is an afterlife.

Quick answers to your questions:

• In life, there is no concept of perfection. There is the concept of fitness, but that is specific to the environment.
• We don't know what was before the Big Bang. Nothing since the Big Bang has been chaos.
• There appear to be spontaneous events at the quantum level that have been observed a number of times. If you are speaking of the origins of life, chemical processes may have made it inevitable, not spontaneous. Once life overwhelmed the earth, the chemistry required for this would have disappeared.
• We have observed new species in the wild and in a long-term man-made test that has been going on for millennia, we are developing new species from domesticated canids.
• Fossils rarely form because dead organisms tend to be scavanged. The fossil record is but a small part of the evidence for evolution and this record, like the rest of the threads of evidence, is consistent with the theory. Even if there were no fossils at all, the theory of evolution would still be what we use to help us understand the history of life on earth. The fact that fossils exist helps us understand some of the past better.
• Facts are facts, theories are theories. Scientists never say that theories are facts.

Quoting from the introductory page:

"Answers in Genesis is a Christian apologetics ministry"

These are the kinds of studies that illustrate the great leap that is made to get from natural selection to the theory that we all evolved from a common organism. In all of these studies the "mutation" is a variation of traits that already exist in the organism. Some of the organisms already exhibit the abilibility to grow at the various temperatures, or utilize the various nutritents, etc and these studies--all involving a great deal of intelligent intervention by the way--simply enhance an already existing trait. E. Coli remain E. Coli, etc.

To assume that these types of "mutations"--and I question whether many of these are really mutations-- would lead to entirely new organisms simply if given enough time is pure speculation.

I always cringe to see groups such as Answers in Genesis pop up in ID discussions--or on news shows as they have recently--because these groups are not really reflective of the ID movement. Answers in Genesis is committed to a very literal interpretation of Genesis, 7 24 hour creation days, young earth, etc. Most people in the Intelligent Design movement would not agree with this position not with a lot of the absolute junk "science" these groups put out in support of a young earth.

that is was from a creationist perspective, did he not? Thanks for confirming, Sherlock.

Science cannot tell us about the gods.

Religion cannot tell us about science.

Why would someone go to a religious site that explicitly refuses to accept specific discoveries of science to learn about science?

I'm curious about why you disagree here. Delbrück and Luria did a test that was reported more than 60 years ago and is now a commonplace in science classes that demonstrate that bacterial mutations occur.

There are also bacteria that digest nylon using nylonase, an enzyme not found elsewhere.

There was no leap. There was discovery. It's a fascinating field to learn about.

all "creationist" tend to get painted with the same brush in these debates. There is a big difference in AIG's approach to creation and that of Intelligent Design.

Like Hinduism. You just keep coming back if you don't get it right, over and over again. Just Re-evolve right back into what you once were.

I like to think there may be Dimensional Evolution. That this living state we percieve ourselves in is actually us being dead. That when we go back to our spiritual form, is when real life begins, but it occures in another dimension.

Or maybe it's Energy Evolution. Maybe everything is actually a form of energy. That all energy is essentially the same thing, it just takes an endless amount of forms. A Rock, A Human, Fly Poop, all forms of energy that take these endless forms

Or maybe it's just all accidental, and we die, the planet eventually burns up into the sun and nothing and no one every knew we ever happened. That is, if there is anyone else out there to know anything.

Or maybe it is ID in a form we never expected. Like some giant kid (about the size of several million universes) and he watches us under this microscope, because it's time to add the "New" Elephant seeds, yes we may just be a class project for some horribly giant thing.

One things for sure, no one knows anything absoutely, yet.

post. I didn't mean to sound like I was questioning the existence of mutations, just trying to point out that these are not mutations in response to selective pressure applied by the researchers but rather selection of traits already existent in the organism.

I agree that mutation and natural selection occur and they explain a lot of what we see. But to go from the kind of changes that we see from natural selection to explaining all of biological diversity is still a leap to me.

same thing to the same people.

Perhaps the issue is what we mean by "prove." In one sense there is the absolute cetain proof, as in mathematical or logical proofs. However, I don't think most people mean "prove it" in this way. I think what most mean by "prove" is more like the "beyond a reasonable doubt" type of proof. To say science can't prove anything in the first sense is true, but to prove in the second sense is one of the goals of the scientific research.

And while I agree with the sentiment people of trying to express, the "Evolution is just a theory" phrase creates all sorts of issues. We could say the theroy of relativity is "just a theory" but it's getting about as close to be absolutely proven as we are ever going to get.

I'd caution against lumping AIG in with other groups that push "junk science". They appear to be quite driven to present only information that can stand up to objective scientific scrutiny. I know there are other groups that give creationism the junk science reputation, but I would not include AIG among them. If you are able to point out to them anything that is clearly junk, they will certainly correct their content; they even have a section dedicated to arguments that should not be used since they are not well supported (or downright incorrect).

On a related note, I came to believe in a literal Genesis interpretation, 6 day creation and all, from studying solid scientific information of which AIG is only one source.

However, the point here is that ID is a superset of creationism, and creationism is only a part of ID. ID would be compatible with "aliens turned Earth into a laboratory for science experiments" too. The term "creationist", being more exclusive, is virtually synonymous with a Christian view toward origins. Both old earth and new earth creationist camps are driven by Christianity, and both camps are generally labeled junk science by evolutionists.

Anyway, if someone claims to be a creationist, they are almost invariably Christian, so an article listed as "supporting creationism" hosted on a "Christian apologetic" site is about as surprising as birds that can fly or fish that can swim. It is hardly noteworthy. Nor is it an important disclaimer unless we want to also specifically point out that certain paleontologists are atheists and dedicated to naturalism, etc.

• Experts in the field know a lot more than I do
  
• Experts in the field know a lot less than most people think they do

We still don't have a full understanding of genetic coding, overlapping codons, and such. What is called a mutation might actually be manifestation of a coding mechanism not fully understood and yet to be discovered. Or, it could be a mutation. :-)

But attributing every "new" trait to beneficial mutation is unwarranted; it could just be expression of built in variability.

An intersting case cited in this article:

---

Some bacteria already had the resistance. For instance, when scientists at the University of Alberta revived bacteria from members of the Franklin expedition who perished in the Artic nearly 150 years ago, they found some of the bacteria were resistant to antibiotics such as clindamycin and cefoxitin - both of which were developed more than a century after the men died. In other words, these bacteria had an inherited resistance - the information for resistance was already in the genes. When antibiotics are used in such instances, the non-resistant bacteria die, leaving the resistant ones.

There are also Orthodox Jews and Muslims that believe in creation according to Genesis. In fact, prior to Hutton's geologic age theories catching on in the late 1700s, nearly everyone accepted young Earth creation (except "eternal universe" beliefs like some Eastern religions).

Heck, even the ancient Chinese believed in Genesis.

It was only around 1800 that mainstream monotheistic religion began to entertain the idea of an Earth older than about 6000 years. Belief that church history has always allowed for an Earth that is [bm]illions of years old is a common misconception.

While time is important, the more important issue is death. If evolution (death and struggle for survival) existed for eons before man...what kind of penalty would it be for sin? The literal reading of Genesis states that there was no animal (nephesh chayyah) death before the fall, and that it is an intruder into God's creation. To claim that God created a method (evolution) that requires death for advancement, imposes death as a penalty for sin, and then calls it "very good" -- would be to claim God is self contradicting.

Old Earth (or progressive) creationism is in reality a compromise position that takes the worst points from both models.

Your right wrwom, "proof" is a broad term. Even the theory of relativity has many holes, like when you try to explain small things (like atoms) with it, it just can't. Quantum Physics can, but it can't with big things.

I'm affraid if the criteria is "absolute proof" then we may never figure anything out.

Sir Issiac Newton was a brilliant man, apparently, but even algebra and his specific calculation on gravity were way off, as Einstein proved, but we still can use the math as a tool to explain other things. String Theory is attempting to make one math that can be used in all things, but we'll see about that one.

Everything we have is a form of a tool, and all of our tools are flawed in one respect or another.

We can hold up a grain of sand and proclaim, "This is a grain of sand". But there will be those that say, "No it isn't. Pure sand in 100% silicon, that sample has granite in it". In other words you'll never satisfy that type of person with simple, all-incompasing terms like "proof". And, that type of person has a real problem looking at what can be useful even if it does have a flaw.

In this post, you will see everything from attacking carbon dating, to attacking any theory that doesn't represent one that they want to hear. (Notice the term "want to hear").

If it is that other theories are possible, (which it is) then those theories need to come foward with some other type of flawed proof that is more compelling that what is out there, and provide some supporting evidence of it.

Attacking a theory is fine, nothing wrong with that when there is somthing else to offer that is equally compelling. Unless of course someone would like to supplant one theory with another that does not have equal compelling evidence.

I would like to see a lot less attacking of this theory and have some "proof" provided or some "evidence", or some other form of something that can match the evidence for evolution.

My eyes are wide open, bring forward the goods for all to see and evaluate, I await.

I begin by noting that I couldn't care less whether we're descended from protoplasm or whether we came into being wholly formed; I suspect God is fully capable of achieving the same end either way he feels appropriate (or indeed, any other way he feels appropriate). The earth could be 4.5 billion years old or 10,000; it wouldn't particularly bother me either way, though I harbor a secret hope for the 4.5 billion number for a host of irrelevant reasons.

With all that said, I note that -- as a member of a family of microbiologists -- it is extraordinarily important to remember that theories sometimes produce post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning in their advocates, especially when those advocates are defending the theory. Simply because a theory explains an event does not mean it is correct; it means it fits. It might fit very well indeed; it might even be right. But let us not forget that spontaneous generation was once considered dispositive, as it seemed to fit the known facts so well. Theories are interpretive guides, not laws; the best scientists always keep that in mind.

Visit some of the links provided here that contain information about intelligent design.  There is proof there.  Some are unwilling to accept that interpretation of the information, which is fine.  But, since the academic world is about the free exchange of ideas and no theory is absolutely proveable, let's allow these issues to be debated freely.

When I bring up some serious questions about the cogency of macro-evolution, the response has been that not everything is testable, not everything can be definitively proved.  I understand that.  But that should not be an excuse to pooh-pooh or minimize those flaws.  Interestingly, the same standard, when applied to intelligent design, is justification to dismiss it.  (God cannot be "proved," so the theory is invalid.)  It sounds as if the proveability test is a matter of convenience depending on the theory in question.    

Mutations are mutations. We cannot tell if the mutation will happen to improve fitness or decrease fitness until we know the environment in which the results of the mutation will be expressed.

Where do you think the variability came from?

I have no idea if AIG was accurate in their report or not. They failed to provide a reference for the claim.

As someone who has followed this discussion for a number of years, watched the results of others who have made comments to them and made my own recommendations for corrections, I must disagree. AIG is a religious site. It is completely committed to the religious doctrine of a young earth creation and Noachian flood. Both of those doctrines are inconsistent with the physical evidence.

You are free to believe these religious doctrines, and I would never try to argue with you about them on religious grounds. Each person is free to interpret the Bible as they choose. As science, however, the hypothesis of a young earth was known to be wrong before Darwin was born. Your belief about the age of the earth is exclusively religious.

that everything was made by something that designed it. It seems to me the structure of things, (the universe, life, etc..) is just too incredible, like it would have to be less likely that this happened by accident than if it was planned. In fact, accidental evolution seems so far reaching that compaired to a theory that says it must have been planned, it doesn't seem to stack up.

Yet, that is simply a philosphy, and I try to be careful to unitize some form of standard of proof before I allow myself to start to believe in something. I believe that the theory of evolution may be very accurate after all, but I also keep in mind that it most likely possesses several severe flaws and know I must be patient to see what will be discovered next.

I also realize that it is my "core" belief that something might indeed have made all this. But, if I am to eventually find some sort of proof of anything that supports any theory whatsoever concerning pre-planned life or any other theory for that matter, then I only know how to apply the standards I have been taught, and those standards have tools I can use, many of them. Tools that gather data in satelites that pier into the past by looking  at light that died out millions of years agol, and looking into color patterns ans so forth. And there are thousands of these tools. We can measure the speed of light. We are sure we can see atomic particles of light (photonic energy) and exactly how fast it normally travels. How much we can slow it down, and how much we can speed it up. Yeah, light is not a constant, as Einstein thought. We can see these things happen, and we can measure them. We can look off into space and see spectrums of light and literally tell how far things are away from us. Is all that math, all that knowledge, all completely wrong?

Maybe, every single instrument we have all tells us lies, that it's all wrong. Well ok, lets say that's true. That the speed of light is not what we see, but is actually doing something that we can't observe, it's tricking us, and every single thing we used to measure it. This speed calculation has come to define what we believe the age of the universe is, because we think we know how far light can go in a given time period.

Which in itself could be very damaging to many ID theories, certainly not all. So, if we start, piece by piece, and we decide what is a good tool to use (i.e. theory of relativity) and what is not (Zues created the world after burping) we start to form some opinions, they sometimes become theories and then tools are made to test such theories.

I would like very much to ask what other form of science or data (tool) is out there, that I can study that is as formibable as E=mc(2) to determine the age of the universe with some supportive tools and studies that can show it be tested and verified.

Because that's the only way I know how to do it.

I mean where is it that I can find such a tool. I really am all ears, eyes wide open, and really want to see.

I stated my belief in a young Earth was based on study of scientific material, but you claim it is "exclusively religious". I don't think you have the information to make such a claim.

I've studied the history of how theories of geologic processes have developed and the data they used, but disagree with the interpretations that were reached. There are better, more scientifically rigorous interpretations. I don't claim to know or understand it all, but I love to do research. In the discussion branch on genetics and evolution, I believe I've stuck to scientific evidence and logical argument; if not, I don't mind (and would really appreciate) if someone would point out any errors.

Consider your statement that the young Earth hypothesis was "known to be wrong before Darwin was born". Who, and how, was it proved wrong? Hutton formed geologic theories in the late 1700s after studying rock formations on the Scottish coast. He had no modern scientific instruments -- only his observations, his assumptions (uniformitarianism), and his imagination. Darwin drew heavily upon Hutton's long age theories. They (and many like them) DISPUTED the young Earth theory, but it's not accurate to claim then (or now) that the theory was known to be wrong.

Is there any "air-tight" case for a [bm]illions-of-years old Earth that, if credibly disproved with valid scientific evidence, would cause you to reconsider your position on the age of the Earth?

If not...no problem, I guess I can't do anything to pursuade you. But if you can accept the possiblity that 200 years of scientific dogma might be in error, I'd be happy to share more info.

There are so many examples of bad science, I might not know where to begin. How long did the Grand Canyon take to form? Coal formations? How can we see stars that are billions of light years away?

I remember reading a report on one species in the therapod transition series that (from memory) had deficient night vision but excellent hearing to compensate, etc., etc. -- an entire species described in detail, based on a single fossil tooth. The articles on evolution of social behaviors are actually pretty amusing because of the imagination displayed. Another poster suggested that scientists don't just make this stuff up; in many cases, I'd have to differ.

Variability is presumably part of the original genetic information content. The mechanism may not be fully understood at present; some of what we consider copying errors might actually be expression of content we just don't recognize or understand. Think about how much DNA is labelled "junk" -- because we don't know what it does, and assume it does nothing important. The human appendix used to be considered "junk".

I know there are real mutations as well, and some even have an effect that could be considered beneficial in a limited scope (the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia also provides immunity to malaria). But even this is an information LOSS...a degradation that trends away from any supposed evolutionary improvement, and typically (always?) causes overall fitness to suffer.

Re: the AIG article, the Franklin expedition source was "Ed Struzik, Ancient bacteria revived, Sunday Herald (Calgary, Ontario, Canada), 16 Sept. 1990, A1" (cited on another page -- my bad for linking to a page without cite). The article (also quoted here) says

    "Scientists at the University of Alberta have revived bacteria from members of the historic Franklin expedition who mysteriously perished in the Arctic nearly 150 years ago.

    'Not only are the six strains of bacteria almost certainly the oldest ever revived', says medical microbiologist Dr. Kinga Kowalewska-Grochowska, 'three of them also happen to be resistant to antibiotics.'

    In this case, the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin, both of which developed more than a century after the men died, were among those used."

I hadn't seen the Evolution is Dead site before. At a glance, the quotes section looks pretty interesting...

...but you've made several inaccurate statements.

Speciation and macro-evolution are not interchangeable. The former occurs when one breeding population divides into two (or more) populations that cannot interbreed. The latter never happens :-), but is claimed to have happened whenever the former is observed or suggested. It is a common ruse to offer proof of speciation and claim that it proves macro-evolution.

Again, from the information theory perspective -- a macro-evolutionary change would be a speciation event in which the overall genetic information content INCREASED in specified complexity. Can anyone point to any natural speciation event that did NOT result from genetic information LOSS?

The taxonomic (and cladistic) classification schemes are consistent with evolution in that they represent how people have imagined life is organized. Correlations between imagination do not translate to correlations in fact. Every time you see a new "surprise" reported in a DNA hybridization study, you can rightly read that to mean "genetics has just shown again that our morphology-based classification system is largely fiction".



If confirmed by further research, the findings indicate that the way we have grouped birds into distinct families, based generally on morphological traits like body structure and other similar physical characteristics, is wrong.

Mainstream science depends utterly on absolute faith in certain unproven assumptions, like common descent. Such faith in any other context would be called religious.

Fossils were originally the only evidence "for" evolution. Since that didn't pan out, it's been replaced by bluster. Willingness to believe in evolution, even without the fossil record, indicates

 a) how little support evolution actually gets from the fossil record (none), and

 b) how unwilling most are to believe in any other possibility.

Scientists routinely claim that evolution is fact, not theory.

Dr. Russell Humphreys (formally of Sandia National Labs) has described a White Hole Cosmology hypothesis. Building on Einstein's theories, his proposal is young and hotly debated, but does describe an interesting notion about the interactions of gravity, starlight,  and time. And there is some observational data to support parts of his hypothesis, like quantized redshift values.

The claims of young earth creationists have been disproven. Young earth creationism is inconsistent with the evidence, it is not merely a different way to interpret the evidence. Very few proponents of YEC are trained in science. Fewer still even make an attempt to do research that they are willing to submit to peer review.

Yes, I will accept evidence that shows that any scientific theory is wrong. I will not accept claims, like YEC, that ignore evidence.

If you think that variability is inherent in genes and not just the genome, please tell us what mechanism tells the unexpressed genetic information to be left out. We can actually identify differing genes at particular sites. How does your model handle this?

Scientific citations are useful. Quotations from news articles may or may not be useful. There is no reason that these bacteria could not have been resistant, but it would be useful to actually look at the scientific research rather than a lay report about it. This has nothing to do with Luria's work, of course.

If you have a special definition for macro-evolution, you need to define it. The only information theory that I have seen applied to evolution has been misapplied by opponents of evolution who don't understand information theory. In reality, the vast majority of genetic changes 'add information'. From information theory's POV, the problem is the quality of the transmission. It doesn't care if the information itself is useful, accurate, or meaningful.

What speciation events arose as a loss of information?

Linnaeus wasn't perfect? Do you have a point to this? He was very good for his time and the fact that his approach is still robust, if not totally perfect, has a lot to do with other problems that were observed already. Galapagos finches are a good start at understanding this.

All of the evidence is consistent with common descent. It is not faith. It is a model that works. As I have said previously, if there is evidence that there was not common descent, the model will have to be changed.

Fossils were never the only evidence for evolution. Apparently you haven't even read Darwin's work, let alone any scientific books that have come along since then.

Why not browse through talkorigins.org, paying special attention to the quotemine project.

Linnaeus was right. Of course, you do realize Carolus Linnaeus was a Biblical Creationist, right? And that he was trying to describe the organization of life according to originally created "kinds". As opposed to the Darwinian single "tree of life", Linnaeus would have represented his classifications as an "orchard" -- each tree representing one kind, branching into the many varieties observed, but no tree ever "evolving" into some other kind of tree.

And this is exactly what we see with finches, dogs, cats, etc.

FYI - I'm much better read than you assume. talkorigins has provided me some hilarious tales of imaginative evolution, and quite a few examples of "speciation" through information loss. Note that the fruit fly experiments used "selection" of pre-existing genetic information. Specialization in this way, discarding unwanted genetic information, is an information LOSS.

The plant hybridization experiments combine information from two separate sources into a single third source. No net information gain...simply a single carrier of the information (possibly recreating an ancestral variety, as when purebreed dogs mate and produce mongrels).

Since species is such a pliable term anyway, perhaps it has lost its usefulness. Wolves, coyotes, and canines are classified as distinct species, even though they can interbreed (thus violating the Biological Species Concept).

Darwin cited the short-legged Ancon sheep as an example of one-step production of a new breed. On further examination, this too is simply a genetic information loss causing achondroplasia, a cartilage and skeletal defect.

Darwin's finches are much better explained as the variety in a population derived from an original mongrel pair, as expressed over periods of isolation and specialization.

Problems for common ancestry: hemoglobin, and embryonic digit formation come to mind. I assume you've already read these also, so I won't bother digging up the links.

PS - One of us doesn't understand information theory; it's a significant aspect of my daily work, so I really hope it isn't me. :-)

Regarding your questions:

"If an alien intelligence showed up tomorrow and said, "Yeah, we engineered life on Earth," what would the consequences be for both the theories of evolution and intelligent design? Is one, the other, or both discarded? Assuming that the alien race said no more than that they were responsible for life and answered no more inquiries, can the speculation of the origin of other life even continue?"

If the aliens are unable to prove they are responsible for life on earth, then my immediate reaction would be suspicion.  Just what do they want from us.  Are they looking for gratitude? A handout?  Also, is there some Cosmic court of justice in which we can file a lawsuit against them for making us with genetic defects or a tendancy to violence?

I haven't read this entire strand of posts, so I suppose someone else may have pointed this out. However, this ABC News story is about an unlikely new convert to ID theory:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976