Below are some questions that I sometimes get countering my arguments about ID. I respond in kind.
Question from ID sceptic: The sense that I get from speaking with various scientists on the subject is that the evidence to support evolution is not only OVERWHELMING, but extremely consistent across the various scientific disciplines -- physics, chemistry, geology, biology, anthropology, zoology, genetics, etc., the latter offering up recently some of the most compelling evidence.
Let's start with definitions. No denies that evolution happens. Change over time happens. You can demonstrate evolution within a species very easily. It's the notion of biological evolution that I and others take issue with. The claim that all living things are modified descendants of a common ancestor that lived in the distant past is what we question. This is not just bunk science either. Researchers working in fields such as paleontology, embryology, microbiology, biochemistry and genetics have uncovered systematic evidence that is deeply at odds with naturalistic evolution. Again I ask: what is the evidence for biological evolution?
Question: I get from them is essentially like that of a NASA engineer being confronted with accusations from the conspiracy crowd that the whole Apollo program was nothing more than a Hollywood movie set.
The conspiracy charge is one of many red herrings that people throw out to simply dismiss the issues that ID has raised. There are really two movements among ID proponents.
The first is to point out legitimate issues with biological evolution. In this regard we do not dismiss it out right, but rather point out how the evidence needs to be reviewed. Many people claim that it is reviewed but in many others presume it to be a "fact". To that end I believe evolution has become a myth and a religion. Richard Hawkins has said "The fact of evolution is, beyond all educated and reasonable doubt, massively supported by evidence from fossils and from geographical distribution, and even more conclusively by modern molecular genetic evidence." So is it a theory or is it fact? The evidence typically cited to support such claims is either flawed (fruit flies, Miller Ulney) or flat out fabricated (Haeckel, peppered moths). It seems that evolution also has a monopoly going on. An evolutionary claim is true provided there is an evolutionary argument that supports it… that's a logical circle.
The second part of ID is identifying complex biological functions that could not have happened by chance. For example, it is statistically improbably if not impossible for a biological entity like a bacterium flagellum to come about by the means of biological evolution. Darwin himself gave us the grounds for falsifying evolutionary theory: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Well, that's exactly what we've demonstrated.
The people who are leading the ID theory are no lightweights or black helicopter theorists.
And this is not just idle chatter. Already school districts in Ohio, Georgia and Texas have adopted charters to introduce evidence that counters the theory of evolution and to examine textbooks that TO THIS DAY still carry the Haeckel etching fraud, the stapled peppered moths and other spurious claims.
Statement:Is evolution without its mysteries and gaps in our understanding? Of course not.
Exactly. Gaps for sure. Just to emphasize that this isn't just crackpots and mathmeticians. Franklin Harold, a professor emeritus of cell biology at Colorado State University. In 2001 he published "The Way of the Cell" with Oxford University Press. He remarked: "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
The great SJ Gould said of the Haeckel fakes: "We have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks."
Although I'm certain that Carl Sagan meant something totally different, I think we should take his quote to heart in this discussion: "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring"
StatementBut it's a dangerous, foolishly naive practice to plug God and the supernatural into knowlege gaps, as has been frequently and repeatedly demonstrated throughout history. Dangerous because it makes religion look like silly superstition when understanding and scientific light is cast on ignorance and false tradition.
Who's plugging God into the equation? Let's be clear here. ID makes no claim of a particular God behind this thing. The charge of "creationism is disguise" is another red herring. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design but claims that "the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement." He goes on to say that opponents say this because "it's the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." A few points here (with a nod to ARN):
1) Unlike creationism, intelligent design is based on science, not sacred texts. Intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws.
2) Creationists know that intelligent design theory is not creationism. AIG and ICR fervently criticize ID. ICR goes on to say "Design is not enough!"
3) Like Darwinism, design theory may have implications for religion, but these implications are distinct from its scientific program. Oxford's Richard Dawkins, for example, claims that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Harvard's E.O. Wilson employs Darwinian biology to deconstruct religion and the arts. As John G. West has pointed out: "If Darwinists have the right to explore the cultural and theological implications of Darwin's theory without disqualifying Darwinism as science, then ID-inspired discussions in the social sciences and the humanities clearly do not disqualify design as a scientific theory."
Science writer Robert Wright has written for Time magazine: "Critics of ID, which has been billed in the press as new and sophisticated, say it's just creationism in disguise. If so it's a good disguise. Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us."
Whatever problems the theory of intelligent design may have, it should be allowed to fail on its own merits, not on the merits of some other theory
Just a quick note on some recent examples beyond the flagellum in support of ID and irreducibly complex systems. Keep in mind, macroevolution dictates that a particular mechanism or function exists because of minute steps of natural selection and mutation for "survival." These examples demonstrate incredibly complex systems within the human body.
*Biological DNA replication. I'll quote this piece: "Whenever a bacterium divides, it must replicate all of its DNA. Biologists Tania Baker and Stephen Bell of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology describe this process in vivid terms. Writing in the same issue of Cell as Alberts, they note that if the string of DNA in an E. coli bacterium were about a yard thick, the machinery that copies the DNA would be about the size of a FedEx delivery truck. Unlike a truck, however, this machinery would travel along the "string" at 375 miles per hour. And as it copied the DNA, it would make only one error every 106 miles." This is an incredibl sophisitated process that has no macroevolution accountability.
*Fluid Balance. As I understand it, the body remains hydrated in this way: 1) a sensor in the hypothalamic cell detects the fluid needs of the body 2) that cell then produces ecoungh vasopressin to satisfy fluid regulation 3) the cell then transports the vasopressin to the pituitary gland to wait for use 4) the pituitary gland stores the vasopressin in a very specific way 5) the hypothalamus then sends a nerve impulse to the the pituitary gland to send off vasopressin 6) the bloodstream takes the vasopressin to the kidney 7) a vasopressin receptor on te kidney cell membrane recognizes the vasopressing, locks onto it to absorb water 8) the liver and kidney in tandem rid the bloodstream of vasopressin to turn off the sequence. Notice that if one of the 8 factors is missing the system breaks down and the body will die. According to macroevolution, without this functional process, the body would die and not pass on its genetic material to further generations
It won't do to simply dismiss these example, as many do, by saying: "we just haven't found the breakdown yet." Is that science? If someone touts a theory that "breaks down" when you can't break something down, it won't do to dismiss something that can't be broken down by saying "I can't do it yet."
Some friendly folks have accused me of ad hominem attacks and not addressing Gore's remarks. Do I really have to?
It's amazing what you can find on the Internet.
Sam is a decent guy... but I'm glad to see him go.
It seems that the French have a problem with God (shocker!)
Fantastic first hand account on Intellectual Conservative
Peter Jennings over the weekend:
Anti-I. R. has an excellent piece blasting apart the 
Sunday services at 1:00pm if anyone wants to join me. (
Argh! I just put up my Google Ad Sense and the top item coming up is a biography of John Kerry!! I've put it on the "filtered URLs" but it will likely show up for a while. The question I have is this: If you look closely at the ad, the displayed URL is www.campaign2004.con (notice the .con). The ad still hasn't come off! So big note here: I DO NOT SUPPORT JOHN KERRY.
I got a kick out of Glenn Beck the other day. He ran a promo all day that there would be content inappropriate for immature listeners. It turns out Glenn was going to play the audio of an actual abortion. People called in frantic and disturbed about the stunt. Some people were deeply troubled and even changed their minds on their previous pro-choice decisions. Beck warned his audience that certain radio stations would sub over the audio because it was too graphic. Tensions were high.
I'm troubled how certain pundits and scholars are throwing the term "failure" around concerning the Iraq war.
Great discussion on a drive-by-radio show on NPR:
