As in, what intelligent design is not, according to a rather egocentric and arrogant federal judge. The basic story is here, and it involves the usual suspects in opposition to any mention of You Know Who. In a fit of judicial activism, Da Judge went a few steps further. Must be an atheist, to judge from this:
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III, a Republican appointed by President Bush, did not confine his opinion to the missteps of a local school board. Instead he explicitly sought to vanquish intelligent design, the argument that aspects of life are so complex as to require the hand, subtle or not, of a supernatural creator. This theory, he said, relies on the unprovable existence of a Christian God and therefore is not science.
Note that “Republican appointed by President Bush.” As if this would indicate that the judge was some sort of knuckle-dragging, Bible-thumping Fundie. Also note the swipe at a “Christian God.” Somewhat gratuitous, don’t you think? After all, if memory serves, the Jewish God came first. Does this mean that if I’d remained Jewish I could teach intelligent design?
Despite all of this, the thinking Christian (or Jew) has to admit that any theory that can not be proven in an objective, repeatable experiment, and whose validity ultimately depends on an unprovable assumption, should not be taught as “science.”
Hey, wait a minute. Does this not also describe Darwin’s theory of evolution? Isn’t the basic assumption, that all life evolved into its basic forms today through utilitarian adaptation to its environment, equally unprovable?
I say, let’s teach both intelligent design and evolutionary theory as it is now assumed (ha!) to be true. Both require assumptions; both can be taught as science. Students are free to believe, or disbelieve, in the assumptions.
What I’d like to know from some unbelieving evolutionary biologist is this: given that great apes still exist, and have nowhere near the intelligence of homo sapiens sapiens, it’s clear that apes did not and do not need our big, fat, chess club brains to survive. Yet we have them.
Thanks, He Who Must Not Be Named.
# of chimps, worldwide: 200,000
# of humans, worldwide: 6 Billion
We seem to be doing a little better than them. Think our big brains might have something to do with that?
Not an evolutionary biologist, but I don’t believe. (At least, not in ID or in the kind of God you presumably do.)
You say:
…any theory that can not be proven in an objective, repeatable experiment, and whose validity ultimately depends on an unprovable assumption, should not be taught as “science.â€? Hey, wait a minute. Does this not also describe Darwin’s theory of evolution?
I say: Nope. Evolution is observed at the microlevel by the emergence of new features (such as repeated emergence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria), and the macrolevel by observed speciations. (See, for example, http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML ) You can push this sort of thing to occur in the lab (though of course not with the level of control that you have in physics or chemistry), and model it with bioinformatics to make predictions.
You cannot “observe” intelligent design — any appearance of design might be the result of actual input from some other being (in which case, I’d like to know who or what that is — just telling me that this is a basis for faith in God is silly, since it could just as well be space aliens or invisible pink unicorns), or it might be an artifact, as proposed by evolution, which suggests that random changes which happen to give a temporary advantage in the current environment will be preserved, giving the appearance that the organism was “designed” for its environment.
You say: given that great apes still exist, and have nowhere near the intelligence of homo sapiens sapiens, it’s clear that apes did not and do not need our big, fat, chess club brains to survive.
I say: You should bear in mind that the great apes of today are not identical to whatever common ancestor we share with them. That’s not how it works. All species around today are equally “old”. You could just as well suggest that because bacteria still exist today there is no reason why any multicellular life should exist. And that’s right — there is no reason. It’s just one strategy that was tried, through an accumulation of gradual changes, and it turned out to work pretty well. Multicellular organisms could eat the single-celled critters, thus taking advantage of the hard work the single-celled critters were doing gathering energy from the chemicals in the environment. Predators that could eat fast enough to maintain their metabolisms and reproduce, did so.
The concept of evolution is simply that if you have some things that are able to make imperfect copies of themselves, then the versions of those things that are able to copy themselves most often will tend to be seen more often in the environment. Simple, but subtle. Over long periods of time, as new variations are “discovered” by chance, very large changes can occur. Two populations from a single species that are in slightly different environments can be shaped by those environments until they’re no longer similar enough to breed.
Some people simply think that no series of small changes can add up to a change that big. However, the argument over “irreducible complexity” is simply an argument from ignorance. It says, “I don’t know the series of small events that could lead to feature X, therefore no series of small events could lead to it.” It also tends to ignore obvious evidence of intermediate stages. e.g. One of the very first anti-evolution arguments based on complexity used the eye. Apparently whoever asked, “What use is half an eye?” hadn’t heard of the Euglenids, which are one-celled organisms that have a very primitive photosensitive organelle. Behe makes arguments based on chemical systems where removing any one piece makes the whole thing break down, ignoring the fact that stuff like that happens all the time in computer code — you write section A, then section B, then section C… and then you REPLACE section A with something else, creating a unified whole of BCD where B and C can’t work together without help from D (or A, which isn’t around to observe anymore). Obviously computer code is actually designed, but there’s a whole field of evolutionary algorithms in which you generate random “adaptations” to try to find novel ways of quickly solving complex problems, and in any case there’s no reason, in principle, why a chemical system generating random mutations should NOT proceed as described. Given enough generations, stuff like that is bound to happen eventually.
Might natural selection and random events be methods by which God tweaks the world into his desired state? Sure. But, by the same token, gamblers who are winning credit some kind of skill or divine favor, while the ones who are losing blame chance. Unless you have a way to distinguish divine intervention from a roll of the dice, it’s wishful thinking.
Sir
Got here from the Slate site. Had to see for myself whether anyone was seriously advancing the idea that the failure of great apes to evolve uniformly and in unison into homo sapiens is a sort of proof that Darwinian theories are incorrect.
Amazing!!! The unbelievable failure of modern education is surely at fault.
Just to give a brief answer (I will assume that you are in fact serious) requires me to make two points:
First, great apes have not remained static in the last half-million years. They have evolved into gorillas, chimps, orangs and baboons in response to the forces exerted by their environments. No one believes that the anthropoid ancestor of mankind was a gorilla, chimp, orang or baboon.
Second, the environement that shaped the changes that resulted in our species were local. When I studied this it was thought that East Africa was a lush jungle/forest about a million years ago and hosted a large population of apes. Over the ages it dried and became plains and prairies. In adapting to this environmental change one species of those apes managed to ‘learn’ to walk upright, use first their ‘hands’ and then ‘tools’, live in groups by communicating verbally and nonverbally and finally to achieve ‘culture’.
And actually–if one cared to look instead of making glib bloggers’ remarks–there are many ways that our amazing ability to split and analyse DNA has ‘proved’ that assumptions based on Darwinian evolution are confirmed by ‘hard’ science.
I have to add that there is a sadness in my heart to see people like yourself who seem to know so little about science but are obviously intelligent and articulate so that they believe they can speak cleverly and therefore add to the discussion. It is rather like the IntelligentDesign advocates who believe the public schools should “teach the controversy” in science class. Science in not–in this sense–a ‘controversy’.
My condolences on the quality of your education
J McCann
The great apes you refer to did not exist at the time the evolutionary tree branched off to form homo sapiens and other primates that exist today. We did not descend from any animal existing today-we are all ancestors of previous beings. The great apes and the humans evolved to fit different biological niches–we have bigger brains, but they have bigger hands and harrier bodies. Life is capable of thriving in many, many varieties–it’s not a matter of needing a bigger brain.
Not to kick a dog when he’s down, but look at it this way- does the simultaneous existence of poisonous spiders and non-poisonous spiders disprove evolution? Because hey, clearly spiders can survive without venom, so what possible evolutionary purpose could venom serve? God must have just decided to make the venomous ones for variety- maybe because he wants His people to get necrotic bites if they don’t check the outhouse seat for black widow spiders? (And observe, the Lord teaches us another valuable lesson.)
More generally, any hypothesis has to be provable/falsifiable to be considered a scientific theory. Whereas ID seems to used primarily as a band-aid creationists apply to whatever miniscule holes are available in evolutionary theory at any given moment, how does it fit under the common definition of a scientific theory?
I agree Jack. We should stop teaching our children these theories that aren’t proven as fact. How can we ground our children’s minds if we don’t teach them what reality truly is?
So let’s toss out Einstein’s theory of general relativity, after all, it’s a theory and not a fact right? Let’s rid ourselves of quantum mechanics too since that’s just a theory. I don’t think we need atomic theory either, it’s not a fact, but the former citizens of Nagasaki & Hiroshima might disagree with us on these points, eh?
I’m sorry to be the one to point this out Jack, but evolution is a fact. However, evolution through natural selection as proposed by Darwin is theory, not fact. Evolution happens, end of story, we just don’t know exactly how it happens, but we have a pretty good idea, thanks to Darwin. Afterall, why would everyone be up in arms about the Avian flu if evolution wasn’t a fact? If the Avian flu hadn’t evolved so that it could infect humans as well as birds, you’d be on safe ground and no person would have to worry about that disease. Not to mention bacteria evolving to become immune to certain antibiotics, etc, the evidence is massive.
You’re an idiot.
I agree Jack. We should stop teaching our children these theories that aren’t proven as fact. How can we ground our children’s minds if we don’t teach them what reality truly is?
So let’s toss out Einstein’s theory of general relativity, after all, it’s a theory and not a fact right? Let’s rid ourselves of quantum mechanics too since that’s just a theory. I don’t think we need atomic theory either, it’s not a fact, but the former citizens of Nagasaki & Hiroshima might disagree with us on these points, eh?
In science, you cannot reap the rewards and disavow the knowledge that got you there. But that’s what you’re essentially poposing. Guess we’ll have to do away with everything since much of science is based on theories, eh?
I’m sorry to be the one to point this out Jack, but evolution is a fact. However, evolution through natural selection as proposed by Darwin is theory, not fact. Evolution happens, end of story, we just don’t know exactly how it happens, but we have a pretty good idea, thanks to Darwin. Afterall, why would everyone be up in arms about the Avian flu if evolution wasn’t a fact? If the Avian flu hadn’t evolved so that it could infect humans as well as birds, you’d be on safe ground and no person would have to worry about that disease. Not to mention bacteria evolving to become immune to certain antibiotics, etc, the evidence is massive.
Belief in evolution does not preclude belief in G-d.
Wow, it’s good to see all this learned discourse due to a tongue-in-cheek post. My edukashion is good, thinks I. At least I did ok in engineering and higher math in grad school.
I am not a creationist, but am a believer. I also know that evidence is not the same as proof. Hence evolution remains a theory. As does, for that matter, Einstein’s theory of relativity. ID is, frankly, religion all dressed up with some aspects of sicence — but which requires belief in something unprovable. Â
Seriously — thanks to those who weighed in; biology is not my field and I might still be teachable. No cheap shots on that one, please…
Hi, Jack,
You’re my first blog response (woo hoo!).
I do not agree with JJ that you’re an idiot. Luckily, you’re just self-satisfyingly ignorant. Idiocy cannot be corrected, but ignorance can.
In this particular instance, you are ignorant about science in general (and its concomitants: theory, hypothesis-testing, peer-review, etc.), evolutionary theory, judicial activism, the principle of separation of church and state, the Dover ruling itself, the proper role of education in American society, the process of critical thinking, and (I dare say) about ID and the ID movement. Unfortunately, you are not alone — you have the company of the vast majority of Americans.
Please be assured that my intention is not to denigrate you, but to point you to a more credible source of information about the ID movement and the Dover case, in particular. I think your ignorance stems, in part, from the basic story you reference. If you got your information from televised or Web-based news “coverage” as opposed to having read the actual text of the ruling, then you are not informed enough to have a credible opinion about the issue(s) involved. I read the ruling, then viewed — in total frustration (and sometimes horror) — the alleged coverage of the story by CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, among others. They ommitted the substance of the 139 page ruling, which demonstrated the scientific vacuity of ID, as well as the incredible level of deceit ID proponents engage in in their pursuit to supplant the scientific method in our public schools.
You can view the document at http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Dec20opinion.pdf
When you’ve read it, then come back and defend ID on its own scientific, non-religious merits, rather than simply trying to denigrate evolutionary theory. Pointing to problems in one theory as proof of another is not science, but fallacious reasoning. Also, I would love for you to explain, after reading the reasoning behind the ruling, how it was a “fit of judicial activism.”
Dang, Jack!
I got interrupted while I was composing my first blog response, and didn’t notice your latest post before submitting my message. I guess I took your original post too seriously and assumed too much. I sounded harsher (and as I read it now, more arrogant) than I wish I had (or have a right to be). All caught up in the novelty of my first blog I suppose.
Please accept my apologies for the tenor of my initial response (although the challenges still stand if you care to take them up).
Your point on the evolution of primate brains makes no sense. Evolution is the process by which gene frequencies WITHIN a gene pool change over time. Gorilla brains don’t compete with human brains (and to the extent they do, evolution has nothing to say about this). Rather, gorilla brains compete with other gorilla brains, just as human brains compete with other human brains. Natural selection is the (highly non-random) process that exerts itself on gene frequencies within a population. It determines which genes become more frequent, and which genes die out.
Jack, don’t stress. That “Christian God” bit was a swipe, because really, he’s not all that unknowable. His name’s Frank, actually, and he’s a good guy–bought me lunch at Arby’s the other day. Says that Judge Jones is a real dick. Then he muttered something about the eighth circle of hell, I don’t know.
Why do IDers insist on talking ALL about evolution and NOTHING about ID?
If ID is science, demonstrate it by talking about ID. Science is simple:
1. Observe.
2. Hypothosise.
3. Predict based upon 1 and 2.
4. Experiment.
5. Revise 3 based upon the results of 4.
Repeat as needed.
Attacking evolution is as useful in this process as attacking Shakespeare (the “he didn’t write the plays” controversy) would be.
If you want ID taught in schools, do the science. If it produces better results than evolution, evolution will wither away naturally.
IDers have indeed 1) observed the world around them. They have hypothysised that there there is a “designer.” I have never heard them make a single prediction based upon this hypothesis. They certainly have never done an experiment. The only revisions they have done are in the verbage of their attacks on evolution, which is a total smokescreen.
IDers, make a prediction: WHAT IS THE DESIGNER GOING TO DO NEXT?
After all, if memory serves, the Jewish God came first.
I personally thought it was Zaroastrianism which predates Judaism by 1000 years, however the Hinduistic texts called the Vegas are even older and predate the invention of Judaism by 1500 years. Hinduism is the oldest religion and third most popular with ~13% of the worlds population claiming belief in Hinduism.
Given that the great apes require major human intervention and protection to survive the next twenty years, and that mankind is not (at least wasn’t, last time I went to the mall) in any conceivable danger of a similar fate, I’m left wondering what point he’s trying to make.
He’s trying to demonstrate two things: 1) he doesn’t know anything about the subject of evolution, and 2) he knows even less about intelligent design.
I am a working neuroscientist who has published papers on the subject of brain evolution. My knowledge encompasses some parts of evolutionary biology, but not all. So, to take a stab at your question about human brains (assuming it’s serious):
Different evolutionary lineages of animals have particular specializations. To pick a few examples: cats (housecats, tigers, lions) hunt, many birds sing, snakes squeeze their prey to death or poison them, and so on. These specializations give species access to exclusive niches, therefore giving them a survival advantage.
In the case of our species, to put it briefly: our big brains let us make tools and live all over the place, but other great apes are stuck in warm places like central Africa.
Now, the longer answer.
Primates are notable for being social. Going back 65 million years to the origins of primates, an interesting pattern emerges: new groups of primate species show up with somewhat bigger brains than the existing lines. (Note that there are different ways to measure bigger; for the technically inclined, go here and read the papers by Clark et al. and Burish et al.) Today, these different groups all exist on Earth.
In the case of primates, big brains make it possible to cooperate socially and to be more clever about obtaining resources. A leading idea among anthropologists is that primates are engaged in an evolutionary “arms race” in which bigger brains provide enough advantage that this has driven the rise of new species, in particular great apes and humans. To read more, do a Web search on “Alison Jolly” or “Machiavellian intelligence.”
Regarding the distinction between scientific theories and the ID movement, the difference is that scientific investigation is built upon testing conceptual frameworks by comparing them with reality. In cases of a mismatch, the framework needs to change. Sometimes the change can be large, which leads an untrained person to think that the whole of science is some unsteady edifice that can come crashing down at any moment. However, even the big revolutions (relativity, evolution by natural selection, the periodic table, plate tectonics) came about as a result of many years of accumulation of evidence, followed by synthesis by a few people. The events only look like revolutions because we are far enough away that they look sudden. If you are interested and in the NYC area, I highly recommend the Darwin exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History, which documents the piles of evidence Darwin worked with in reaching his conclusions. It’s an inspiring story.
In the case of Intelligent Design, there really isn’t a framework. To my knowledge there is essentially no evidence that one would call research. Teaching it as part of a science class would be inappropriate, unless it’s a class in which facts are dispensed without presentation of evidence. Unfortunately, classes (not just science) can be like that.
Considering the judge:
1. He is not supposed to deliberate on what is science and what is not, but to apply as a criteria the present consensus in society. As it is represented by the former comments, quite in the box all of them, evolution theory is science, ID is not.
2. A strengthening contextual circumstance is the social circles from which each of these proposals came. ID is clearly a religious-Christian hypothesis in this sense.
3. A strict definition of science of course is tricky. However, ID is nothing but a modern version of the medieval theological argument of Deus ex machina, and really has nothing to do with science.
He did a good job.
Must be an atheist, to judge from this:
His understanding the difference between faith and reason?
Note that “Republican appointed by President Bush.� As if this would indicate that the judge was some sort of knuckle-dragging, Bible-thumping Fundie.
More as if a group of people, including a certain sitting president, have been blaming every court decision they don’t like on politically-motivated “activist judges”.
Also note the swipe at a “Christian God.� Somewhat gratuitous, don’t you think?
About as much as your mention of Islam in your previous article. There are as many good militant theocrats as empirically provable gods.
“Must be an atheist, to judge from this:”
By you definition of atheist, Pope John Paul II was also an atheist because he too explicitly recognized the difference between faith and reason.
It appears to me that you fundamentalist are lacking in faith. You have a need to understand in very simple terms the actions of a infinite God. Logically this makes no sense. If a human could understand God, God wouldn’t be God.
Evolution and creation by God are orthogonal concepts. Evolution describes how something happens. Creation describes why. These are totally different things. Science versus philosophy.
Well, I guess most everything to say has been said, so I won’t write a discourse, but I would like to say this: I wish those who question evolution would take the time to pick up a biology book and READ once in awhile before they throw out mindless examples. All of these “challenges” have been addressed again and again, and again, and many have actual science behind them (thus, evolution is not like ID at all). I think a quote from Billy Madison is appropriate, because statements like that really do make us, as a society, dumber for having heard them. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
I’m not going to lecture you on why paleontology, geology, biology, chemistry, astronomy and medicine will back deep-time evolutionary processes. Instead, I thought I’d just point out that your “activist judge” is a life-long Republican who was appointed by President Bush. So I guess the definition of “activist judge” is anyone who does something you don’t like.
Your argument about chimps and people and big brains is ridiculous and displays your complete ignorance of evolutionary theory. I’d suggest you use your chess club brain to read up on evolutionary theory before you comment on it. A good introduction is “Ever Since Darwin” by Steven Jay Gould. You might then follow up with “What Evolution Is” by Ernst Mayr.
The attacks on the judge say everyhing that needs to be said. The hapless, almost wilful ignorance of evolutionary theory is the cherry on top.
“Despite all of this, the thinking Christian (or Jew) has to admit that any theory that can not be proven in an objective, repeatable experiment, and whose validity ultimately depends on an unprovable assumption, should not be taught as “science.â€?”
Dude, ALL theories can’t be proven. Science doesn’t purport to prove anything. That being said, ID isn’t a theory. It isn’t even a hypothesis, as it doesn’t explain the existing data. At best, it’s a notion.
“Hey, wait a minute. Does this not also describe Darwin’s theory of evolution? Isn’t the basic assumption, that all life evolved into its basic forms today through utilitarian adaptation to its environment, equally unprovable?”
It’s been tested in ways that could falsify it time and time again. That’s why we call it a theory instead of a hypothesis.
Say, can you explain the gigabytes of sequence data that conform to nested hierarchies–both for organisms and protein families, over the evolution of entire phyla (note that this is far more vast than any creationist blubber about “speciation”). Why don’t IDists ever discuss and explain all of these data, to which more is added every day?
Idiot.
“Despite all of this, the thinking Christian (or Jew) has to admit that any theory that can not be proven in an objective, repeatable experiment, and whose validity ultimately depends on an unprovable assumption, should not be taught as “science.â€?
Hey, wait a minute. Does this not also describe Darwin’s theory of evolution? Isn’t the basic assumption, that all life evolved into its basic forms today through utilitarian adaptation to its environment, equally unprovable?”
No. There’s lots of evidence for evolution – check Wikipedia for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution. But the real reason you’re wrong is that evolution, in the end, is about the process of change, and not about the specific changes made. Wikipedia again:
“The modern synthesis understands evolution to be a change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next. The mechanisms that produce these changes are the basic mechanisms of population genetics: natural selection and genetic drift acting on genetic variation created by mutation, sex, and gene flow.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Evolution). There’s no mention of the history of life on Earth in that short statement.
The history of life on Earth provides evidence for the theory of evolution. It is not the content of the theory of evolution.
John: “Why don’t IDists ever discuss and explain all of these data, to which more is added every day? ”
IDist NEVER discuss ID. They merely attack evolution. As I said in my previous post, this is as useful as attacking Shakespeare, in terms of advancing ID. However, since they know nothing about science, evolution, or ID, this doesn’t bother them.
When they can trap you into talking about evolution, it diverts the discussion from ID, which they require, since there really isn’t anything about ID to discuss outside of church.
Mr. Rich, I reiterate: make a prediction…what is the designer going to do next? Then propose an experimet to demonstrate the validity, or lack thereof, of your prediction.
Stop attacking the judge and evolution and demonstrate that there is more to ID than an your need to believe that you are more important in the scheme of things than you really are.
sounds boring. I’m not interested in “science” crap
Regarding both Jack Rich’s last post (Dec. 21 8:17pm) and subsequent replies: it is important to keep in mind that science does not provide “proof” the way that one encounters in math. That is: axiomatic reasoning that leads to a firm conclusion. This critique of science is a mistaken idea common for various reasons among mathematicians (they really work this way) and engineers (they are mostly taught to apply theories rather than form new ones).
Usually, scientific inquiry looks for a natural explanation that is parsimonious, meaning the simplest explanation that is consistent with observed evidence. When the explanation is provisional in the sense that some new facts could foreseeably require a modification, that’s a hypothesis. In my scientific work I form hypotheses all the time.
But when enough evidence accumulates, explanations can become part of a larger framework, called a theory. Theories need to be supported by multiple lines of evidence. General relativity is one such example: it’s supported by many independent tests, and it’s pretty much here to stay.
Likewise, the theory of evolution by natural selection is basically a fact. Since Darwin’s original insight, later waves of progress in biology have built upon this foundation: the Modern Synthesis (see Mayr), DNA sequence data, and a deeper understanding of how selection acts on developmental mechanisms. In the words of the early 20th-century biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Anyway, good luck, and I encourage you to read more, including the judge’s entire ruling, which is dead-on. The readings mentioned by others above are also good, including the suggestions by Mike Ferrell (though I hope you will ignore his opening salvo).
1. Evolution is not a finished discipline but an ongoing field of research. The relationship between small genetic mutations and innovative changes in animals has been recently addressed by Kirschner and Gerhart in a recently published book, “The Plausibility of Life”. It is aimed at a large audience- not just for specialists. Anybody interested in evolution should do a bit of reading before pontificating. Snap decisions that evolution is “wrong” based on common sense are simply fatuous.
2. Special relativity is very well established now, but it was subject to much skepticism in the first half of the twentieth century. An enormous amount of experimental evidence now supports it beyond reasonable doubt. Some of this evidence was found by investigators trying to disprove relativity.
[...] Slate: Jonesing for science However, not everyone is gung-ho for Darwin. Jack Rich, a Reformed Baptist at Wrong Side of the Tracks, reprehends the decision and suggests that evolution has some dark spots of its own: “What I’d like to know from some unbelieving evolutionary biologist is this: given that great apes still exist, and have nowhere near the intelligence of homo sapiens sapiens, it’s clear that apes did not and do not need our big, fat, chess club brains to survive. Yet we have them.” And Yaakov Menken at the orthodox Jewish journal Cross Currents draws a distinction between biblical creationism and ID, which he thinks is an inchoate theory made controversial only by its conclusions: “If we employ the same standards of probability that we use in every other area of life—including critical life and death medical decisions—we reach the conclusion that both the formation of life and the development of many structures most probably did not happen by chance.” [...]
Jack Rich writes:
Hey, wait a minute. Does this not also describe Darwin’s theory of evolution? Isn’t the basic assumption, that all life evolved into its basic forms today through utilitarian adaptation to its environment, equally unprovable?
Well, no. There are many, many observations which can be accounted for within an evolutionary framework one prominent example: the Galagapos Finches. There is an enormous literature on evolution – why not sample it ?
Another way to look at evolution. . . Next time you sit down at a restaurant, think about what it is you’re actually getting. All restaurants sell you prepared food, yet there’s so much difference between them, why? It’s just food, right? Different businessmen use different strategies to survive: some use food quality, some food quantity, some specialise in a particular food type, some in a low cost of the meal, and some depend not on food but on aspects of their service. Many aren’t successful and go out of business, a few survive and get imitated by newer competitors. They in turn modify their strategies- mixing, tweaking, looking for new angles- in hopes of getting their own advantage and (if they survive) get imitated in turn.
The result? One business- meals for sale- turns into 5 star restaurants, fast food, Denny’s, Hooter’s, Subway, and innumerable other examples. Evolution of species happens the same way. The apes and humans are descended of creatures that used different strategies for survival; this forced different traits and different sets of genes to be favored or suppressed. Repeat over a few million years, you get very different species.
If you still have doubts, btw, and don’t trust the avian flu example someone presented, look at domesticated plants and animals. They were intelligently designed- by us- but using evolutionary methods.
[...] Slate: Jonesing for science However, not everyone is gung-ho for Darwin. Jack Rich, a Reformed Baptist at Wrong Side of the Tracks, reprehends the decision and suggests that evolution has some dark spots of its own: “What I’d like to know from some unbelieving evolutionary biologist is this: given that great apes still exist, and have nowhere near the intelligence of homo sapiens sapiens, it’s clear that apes did not and do not need our big, fat, chess club brains to survive. Yet we have them.” And Yaakov Menken at the orthodox Jewish journal Cross Currents draws a distinction between biblical creationism and ID, which he thinks is an inchoate theory made controversial only by its conclusions: “If we employ the same standards of probability that we use in every other area of life—including critical life and death medical decisions—we reach the conclusion that both the formation of life and the development of many structures most probably did not happen by chance.” [...]