alltruenews
New Blood
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9
Almost one year ago, I began an email debate regarding Evolution and Intelligent Design with my Creationist brother.
We have a great relationship so there was no threat of actual alienation over this topic. After about 100 pages worth of back and forth content, I decided to plainly state my position with the summarized information below. I know it's long, but this could be an invaluable resource for any critically thinking person if they were to find themselves in a similar debate. Please feel free to use my arguments and they are based in science and fact.
I would also love to hear any of your comments on this arguments effectiveness as it did not seem to move my brother an inch. So please let me have it. As I'm new to the JREF Forums, I was forced to remove all my web links and sources. Enjoy!
______________________________
Why I Reject ID
In its current form, ID begins with the final (supernatural) answer in place and works backward through the data interpreting it. This is a fact. The high-profile supporters of ID are unapologetic when interpreting the data this way and manipulating it to fit their predetermined conclusion. Nowhere in any scientific endeavor will you see this backwardness practiced. I can't stress this point enough.
ID's main argument is to illustrate the weaknesses of the theory of evolution
This is commonly referred to as a negative argument. Although there have been some recent efforts to mount a positive argument, this positive argument has (so far) been philosophical and non-scientific in nature. I'll explain below. To build an argument based on a negative may be effective when trying to reach the common man, however it is very weak to argue that your idea is correct by stating that the other view is incorrect. This is a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy. Most spectators to this debate don't even notice this.
ID’s positive argument is (so far) not working
To illustrate my point regarding the failure of ID to mount a positive argument I single out the cheerleader of the positive side, Dr. Behe himself. When on the stand in the Dover, PA trial, Dr. Behe was presented with genetic data in the form of 58 peer-reviewed publications, 9 peer-reviewed books and several peer-reviewed immunology texts showing (among other things) that the bacterial flagellum was related to other (more primitive and reduced) forms of the same structure still with us today. This data shows a common ancestry through tested gene linage from more primitive structures right up through the flagship of ID... the bacterial flagellum. More importantly, it shows that primitive forms of the bacterial flagellum exist and work quite well in a simpler and reduced form. The immunology texts showed that Dr. Behe’s “Irreducibly Complex” blood-clotting system works perfectly well in the puffer fish despite missing 3 parts. Cross-examination also showed that Dr Behe’s redefinition of the blood-clotting system was designed to avoid peer-reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument. When asked to comment on the presentation he saw and the views that he promotes along with his apparent dismissal of all this accepted scientific data, Dr. Behe stated that what he was presented with “wasn’t good enough.”
Whether Dr. Behe agrees with the accepted science or not, it is simply inexcusable for him to write article after article and appear in documentary after documentary claiming the "unexplainable" nature of the bacterial flagellum or the blood-clotting cascade while testable scientific explanations are readily available. I know about this data and I fix computers.
None of ID's proponents actually use ID concepts in their own scientific endeavors
Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe and all of the other scholarly promoters of ID have failed to present or use ID in their own science in their own labs. No experiments, no tests, no testable data, just philosophy and pseudoscience. Dr. Behe is now suffering from his university’s estrangement on a scientific level because of his failure to acknowledge proven and tested science. Even the Discovery Institute is acknowledging Dr. Behe’s estrangement.
ID presents a different standard of evidence than other disciplines
It took me a while to decipher exactly what was being presented as "evidence" from the ID camp, but I now finally understand that ID proponents consider illuminating the complexity in systems as evidence of their hypothesis. In other words, ID proponents consider complexity as "evidence" of design. When they discover extreme complexity, they stop and announce that yet more evidence of ID has been found. Jonathan Wells and Michael Behe both openly conduct themselves in this unscientific way. I've listened to probably more that 20 interviews given by these two ID proponents, and in many of these interviews they offer complexity as actual evidence of ID. Unfortunately, this does not meet even the most basic standard of actual scientific evidence, as it is not testable and other working testable explanations exist.
ID has yet to follow accepted channels and present concepts through the accepted methods of scientific review
It is standard practice for all concepts in science to present their data to the people in those fields through symposiums, conference and peer-review. You cannot leapfrog over these intentionally placed hurdles and then expect to be received as a legitimate theory or real science. Many times we will see weak concepts floated directly through public forums like the mass media without scientific review. This was the case in the cold fusion debacle. These concepts are usually discredited within a few weeks because their "evidence" is not up to the standards of science. If ID were in fact true, why would the proponents with the data dodge the accepted norms?
The ID proponent’s explanation for this failure to follow the accepted scientific method is to claim that their papers are dead on arrival. However, this is patently untrue as witnessed by all of the scientific attention and rebuttal the ID claims have received over the years. If their concepts were being dismissed or ignored, how do you explain the scientific scrutiny of the ID claims? Remember, ID is making the claims of a flawed evolutionary theory; it’s up to ID’s proponents to produce the evidence. I will acknowledge that the time and effort put into researching ID papers has been reduced as there seems to be nothing new coming out as of late.
Even if we grant ID proponents a pass regarding their odd and unique application of the scientific method, we still have the problem of the scientific accuracy of the claims
If ID's claims were true, the very objects of ID's focus would bear witness to those claims. The eye, the wing, the lung, the bacterial flagellum and the heart would show no primitive history because (according to the ID hypothesis) they were designed as they exist today. These fantastic and wonderful devices would appear with no earlier examples and would show no sign of development or "evolution" through time. However, this is absolutely not the case. We see primitive examples of these in the fossil record and in "living fossils" such as the alligator. We can see many examples of the eye's evolution by looking at the mollusk family today, as there is almost every stage of eye development expressed there. Mollusk eyes range from simple light receptors to eyes more complex than our own. Why would there be primitive and barely functioning examples of eyes, hearts, lungs or wings out there in the real world if they were irreducibly complex from their current advanced form? And why would there be a molecular link from the primitive to the more advanced unless they evolved?
ID provides no actual theory
ID proponents have offered no explanation of just what their theory is. They claim that ID states that there is scientific evidence of the handy-work of an intelligent designer in the history of life. However, there is no explanation of when that design occurred, how the design was accomplished, what the purpose of the design might be or who the designer is. All we have is the bare assertion. These missing elements are the core of a scientific theory.
I believe that there are two interconnected reasons for this shortcoming:
1) ID proponents have no idea what the answers to three of those questions are and they cannot publicly state that they believe God to be the answer to the forth. This is due to the fact that they want ID adopted in schools and the constitution is very clear on federal dollars supporting any particular religion.
2) ID proponents have painted themselves into a corner as supporters of ID are all deeply routed in many different sets of religious beliefs and any attempt to answer the date, method or purpose questions will alienate huge numbers of supporters no matter what the direction the ID proponents go in.
Along this line… I’ve always wondered just what a science class in ID would look like. What does one actually teach? What would students study? The example above speaks directly to my earlier claim of how you have not been exposed to the whole story. If you just stop and think about it, there is no actual scientific content to ID.
The molecular evidence points to evolution and evolution only
There is no explanation for the molecular-common components witnessed in life forms other than evolution. ID offers absolutely no explanation or model for this evidence and has so far ignored it. Why do we find the molecular relationships between animals if they were individually designed and did not evolve from more primitive forms or a common ancestor?
Also, it’s interesting to note that molecular evolutionary changes can be tracked in animals and these show a steady testable clock. When this molecular clock is applied to the molecular differences between chimpanzees and humans, the split-off date corresponds almost perfectly with the fossil evidence of the split-off date. Why would these two unrelated bodies of evidence correspond so perfectly if we did not share a common ancestor with the chimpanzee?
ID is confusing unexplained for unexplainable
One cornerstone of the ID argument is that some biological functions are unexplained and therefore could not have come about through natural causes. Despite the fact that most of these functions (bacterial flagellum and blood-clotting cascade) have now been largely explained, ID holds onto these examples and continues to present them to those of an unscientific background as evidence supporting ID. This reasoning is no different from looking up in the sky at a blob of light and deducing it to be a UFO over any other explanation.
This argument can be very effective when aimed at those of an unscientific background. This argument intentionally ignores many recent advancements in biology (as Dr. Behe also does) and offers simplistic explanations for complex systems. It’s called the argument from ignorance and it is a massive logical fallacy.
Robust efforts to disprove evolution have (so far) failed
No scientific theory in the history of this planet has been placed more squarely in the crosshairs of scientific review and non-scientific ridicule than the theory of evolution. Many ID proponents have made much of evolution's non-intuitive nature and its lack of instant evidence and the time needed for the theory to work. These individuals have carefully crafted their message to appeal to those of an unscientific background. They scorn the evidence of the natural world and introduce simplistic non-scientific examples of soda cans, mountains, beaches and watches to prove their point. They have presented their concepts in churches, living rooms and town meetings. However, these sideshow theatrics are somehow never brought into the light of day of honest scrutiny when presenting their case in a courtroom. Why didn't any proponents of ID present the soda can, mountain or beach analogy during the Dover, PA trial? The answer is simple; because their argument is philosophical not scientific and they know it.
Disproving evolution requires that the evidence in support of evolution somehow be explained away. As I stated in the beginning of this discussion, it would take the scientist of the century to disprove evolution. This is a huge problem for ID as the evidence for evolution is so deep and covers so many disciplines of science. I will address the direct evidence later in this letter.
99 percent of all species on this planet have gone extinct
Regardless of where you stand on the fossil record or the age of the earth, you must accept the demise of all the previous fossilized examples of animals as they are no longer with us. If there is a designer, this is uncompromising evidence of design that has failed on a massive scale. Could a designer of bridges or buildings continue to walk the streets with such a track record? Surely such a "designer" would be locked up for such failure and carnage. A 99 percent failure rate does not scream out “intelligent design” to me.
If you believe that the extinction of 99 percent of previous animals on this planet was due to a worldwide flood, please present tested and accepted geological evidence of this flood along with some accepted explanation for the multiple strata that these fossils are found within. A worldwide flood would leave evidence and any flood-based theory also needs to explain the multiple geologic resting places of all these fossils, as they are not found in just one strata, as they would be with a flood scenario.
Claiming a worldwide flood places the burden of proof on the claimant as there is a working alternative hypothesis explaining the demise of these life forms that is testable across multiple disciplines of science, falsifiable and requires no flood.
All of ID’s current arguments could be applied to any discipline
The arguments mounted by ID proponents regarding the still unknown or confusing aspects of evolution could just as easily be applied to medicine, cosmology or physics. The germ theory of disease is still denied by many and there are aspects of physics that do not make total sense to physicists. Dark matter (which I’ll address later) and other questions about how galaxies work are a puzzle and many cosmological ideas have been tossed because they don’t hold up to scrutiny. However, these disagreements do not call for a dismantling of these areas of study because the core theories are sound and backed up by testable experiments with predictable outcomes, just like evolution. Why is it then that the theory of evolution is singled out by organizations such as the Discovery Institute? If the true core concern was bad science, which they state it is, they could go after any field and perhaps get some real traction. However, you said it best when you acknowledged the Discover Institute’s obvious agenda. Your response was to claim that science has an agenda too. But remember, we’re discussing the way things really are… and this will always trump agendas.
Replacing evolution with ID is simply not possible
Over 150 years of testable, reproducible, predictable and falsifiable data spanning multiple scientific disciplines would need to be tossed out if the scientific community were to adopt ID as a viable theory. Modern biology would have to be removed as evolution and ID cannot coexist because they offer two very different explanations for one known outcome. As I’ve mentioned in earlier emails, Einstein turned physics upside down with Relativity, but he was correct and therefore his theory quickly took its proper place within both the scientific and non-scientific view of the world. How is it possible to remove a verifiable working theory and replace it with one that cannot stand up to even the basics of scientific scrutiny? It is therefore absolutely impossible for ID to replace the theory of evolution and this leaves us with the “teach the controversy” model of ID.
It is my firm prediction that ID will “evolve” into a philosophical argument calling for academic freedom and to push institutions to “teach the controversies” within evolutionary theory. There is nowhere else for ID to go as it cannot play ball in the big leagues. Unfortunately for ID the controversies within evolutionary biology are largely over evolutionary triggers and rates of evolution, not whether evolution is the actual explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.
Already I’m witnessing the Discovery Institute acknowledging certain aspects of common descent and only arguing over whether life began as a one-time affair or if it started in multiple events. Obviously they promote the multiple event concept. Most of ID’s arguments are great thought experiments, but they will remain just that until some kind of actual ID evidence is available.
ID proponents incorrectly claim that the origin of life is a huge problem for evolution
You’ve heard it and I’ve heard it. ID proponents are relentless in their attempts to point out that we do not know how life began on this planet and that this is a huge problem for evolutionary biology. Many ID proponents incorrectly point to this as actual evidence that the theory of evolution is flat out wrong. This is a straw-man argument as ID proponents are beating up on claims never made by evolutionary biologists.
Biology is the study of living things, not how they became living things. The theory of evolution makes no claims as to how life began, it only makes claims about what happened after. Believe me, scholarly ID proponents know this yet they continue to drag this sorry, tired argument out over and over again. This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say that you’ve been told half-truths and unscientific information about evolutionary theory. Once someone really understands exactly what evolutionary claims are, the rhetoric is replaced by science.
Democracy cannot apply to science… why evolutionary biology ‘has the microphone’
One of ID’s more successful arguments is to appeal to our “sensibilities” and argue to have the concepts of ID taught alongside evolution as an issue of fairness. This obviously appeals to America’s long-standing notion of fairness and I admit that it does have a certain attraction. However, science is not a democratic endeavor. You cannot teach unproven and un-testable concepts as science just because you can construct an emotional argument.
Here’s a good example of how and why science cannot be a democratic process:
A room full of people could vote on what sex a single cat might be, but their votes do not change the sex of the cat. The cat is the gender that the cat is. Just because we’ve applied democratic principles to the question of the cat’s gender doesn’t mean that science and the natural world are taking those democratic principles into account. Understanding this concept is the backbone of how science works in the natural world.
The reason mentioned above is why evolutionary biology “has the microphone” as you say. There is no grand conspiracy, it’s because evolutionary biology has the goods and here’s why:
There are no other working explanations, models or theories for life’s diversity that can pass any scientific tests. Evolution stands alone here. I don’t know how else to say it but without reproducible and predictable tests, ID or Creation Science will never get the microphone.
ID can offer no more actual evidence than any other creation story
Native Americans, Aboriginal peoples, Island cultures, Bush peoples and all tribe-based cultures have some faith-based concepts of creation. Obviously you’re willing to pass on all of these other accounts of creation and their gods, yet ID has supplied just as much testable scientific evidence as these creation models have. Many of these cultures have written accounts that they also hold to be without error. I will grant you that these other belief systems do not produce video documentaries or put scholars up front promoting their concepts, but at the end of the day, there is a tie score regarding the actual evidence produced and that’s what matters if you want your concept accepted and taught in a classroom or accepted as a working scientific theory.
Many ID proponents claim that evolution is some kind of theology or life-philosophy
Please allow me to put this notion to bed. This is emotional thinking and is not based in fact. Religions and faith require some form of a god or deity and evolution falls far short of that right out of the gate. Also, acknowledging evolution does not require any set of beliefs from anyone. There is not social construct or requirement to believe in a set of rules or doctrine to acknowledge evolution. I’m primarily speaking of a set of rules such as your church penned when looking for a new Music Director. That list had requirements that were obviously well outside of the field of music and spoke directly to faith. Those are dogmatic rules and are representative of a religion or faith. Evolution requires no such social or faith-based contract. Without a dogmatic set of core beliefs or a deity, you don’t have a faith or religion. Simply put, you either acknowledge evolution or you don’t.
I recently heard Creationist Kent Hovind in an interview claim that evolution is a religion and it uses time as its god. This notion is insane, as all disciplines need time to operate. Math, science, music, art ect. all require time to produce their fruits. Do we hear anyone in their right mind calling math or physics a religion? The theory of evolution is part of biological science and is no more a theology than history or geology is.
Mr. Hovind’s aim was to demonstrate that the teaching of evolution was religious in nature and that this defies the separation of church and state as federal money goes to schools. He obviously needs evolution to be a religion for his point to work. This is some serious mental gymnastics.
Fear and misunderstandings do not make the science wrong
Stephen Asma recently interviewed Ken Ham about his new Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY. Mr. Asma is an expert on America’s natural science museums and is a published author on the subject. Mr. Asma asked Ken Ham directly why he does not believe the theory of evolution to be correct. Mr. Ham replied that evolution reduces humans to having no purpose and that’s why he doesn’t accept evolution. Now, I know that Ken Ham is only one person but his response speaks volumes as many feel that he is their voice on this issue. What Mr. Ham fails to realize is that his fear of humans having “no purpose” does not make all of the testable science wrong.
First of all I personally disagree with Ken Ham regarding evolution reducing people to having no purpose, but more to the point, just because Ken Ham is uncomfortable with
a personal feeling doesn’t make the science wrong. Just like the cat/gender vote in my previous scenario, Ken Ham’s fears (or anyone’s fears) do not change science or the facts. The science is what the science is and it cannot be rendered wrong by fears or magical thinking.
Cultural beliefs are being dressed up as science
Previously in this discussion I had brought up the fact that ID seems to be stalled in the US. Now, it’s true that there is a small pocket of people sympathetic to ID in England, but this is tiny. I completely understand that “numbers” do not make something correct, but it is very curious that the notion of ID gets no traction outside of a Christian fundamentalist culture. I had also mentioned that any real scientific breakthrough would circle this globe in a matter of minutes. So why is it that ID stays almost totally limited to the US? I know I’ve posed this question to you previously, but after a lot of thought and careful consideration, I think I have the answer to this curiosity.
Both science and reality discriminate against concepts that cannot hold up to scrutiny and favor concepts that can be demonstrated and tested. However, cultures are very accepting of any concept that strengthens their core belief systems. Isn’t it interesting that phenomena like crop circles tend to stay where they grew from and are supported by the culture and never seem to spread beyond their cultural roots? We never hear of crop circles showing up in Bangladesh or China. Many Mexican supernatural claims and beliefs get no play here in the states as well. If these phenomena were real, they would be evenly distributed throughout the globe regardless of culture. It is my argument that ID is just an extension of this same thing and that the concepts put forth in ID strengthen the core belief systems of the culture they sprang forth from. As in the case of Einstein’s Relativity, if ID’s concepts were even remotely true they’d be accepted by scientists across the globe in a matter of days if not minutes. So it is my hypothesis that ID is a cultural belief born out of Creation Science and is attempting to dress up as science.
Here’s an example of cultural beliefs bleeding into science:
There is no one out there in the scientific mainstream arguing that DNA isn’t the protein that codes for genetics. No one is out there in the scientific mainstream arguing that HIV isn’t the virus that causes AIDS. However, in some small cultures (outside the mainstream where a counter beliefs offers support for their own belief systems) both of these “battles” actually do rage. Hopefully not for long as these are the types of cultural beliefs that kill.
Are ID’s ideas based in cultural beliefs or in evidence?
The application of Occam’s razor
When two or more hypothesis exists for one known event, reason demands we apply Occam’s razor. Occam’s razor simply states that the more probable and less complex model wins. For example;
Is it more likely that people claiming to have been abducted by UFO’s are suffering from a known sleeping state called “Sleep Paralysis” which not only causes physical paralysis but hallucinations, or that alien beings from other worlds are coming to earth and abducting them? Which model offers the most likely answer and which model is more probable?
With the evolution/ID debate we have a similar model. Is it more likely that a supernatural designer designed all of the life forms on this planet independently, intentionally gave them molecular and genetic testable similarities, buried bones of more primitive forms deep within the earth and then gave all of these life forms a common measurable code that is testable and predictable just to trick us, or that they evolved from a common ancestor using the same testable natural processes currently observed around us? When you apply Occam’s razor to the ID/Evolution discussion, evolution is clearly the more probable answer.
Which is more probable; all of biology, paleontology and geology are wrong or that the untestable ID model is wrong?
I understand that this does not disqualify ID, but it is one more example of how ID fails to stand up to yet another scientific application.
Most importantly, ID is not falsifiable
Unfortunately for ID, the failure to produce any testable science can always be explained away by invoking some supernatural force. There is no body of actual science where this strange practice is acceptable. Unlike evolution, there is no data or test or discovery that can disprove ID in its current form. Therefore it can never stand up to scientific tests because you can't test something that can't fail the test.
__________________________________
Why I Support Evolutionary Theory
Evolutionary concepts began purely by observation
Observations made in nature caused many people (not just Darwin) to consider the notion of evolution. There was no final end game in Darwin's sights. He did not promote evolution and then go looking to mine and manipulate the data selectively to prove it later. He was recording what he observed and later tried to come up with the most reasonable hypothesis. When faced with the options he saw, he chose the only testable option. I understand that it took him over 30 years to finalize "The Origin of Species." This is how good science is done. If you have evidence that evolution is the result of an unscientific agenda-driven conspiracy, please provide that evidence. Keep in mind all of the testable science backing evolution and the scale of what would be required to manufacture this pro-evolutionary evidence if it wasn’t true.
The evidence is clear that animals do change and their change is due to pressures brought on by natural occurrences
Originally we saw this in island populations and in the general fossil record. Only later do we find the molecular, genetic and biological evidence agreeing with the earlier observed evidence. These advanced sciences were not known to Darwin, yet his original concepts still stand and are strengthened with each new discovery. Sure there have been corrections and additions to the theory, but the theory stands stronger today because of these corrections. Again, this is how science operates. Deniers of evolution who point to the corrections as a weakness show an honest lack of scientific understanding.
Evolution is measurable, testable and falsifiable
You can measure the frequencies of gene allele changes within a given population and you can test animals relationship's to each other. You can make predictions as a result of these tests and you can falsify the claims of these tests by the potential of discovering new data or receiving a non-evolutionary outcome in the lab. I've said it before and I'll say it again; finding a fossil in the wrong strata or finding more advanced forms before their primitive ancestors would falsify both evolution and the fossil record.
Both ID and evolution make claims but only the theory of evolution produces evidence
ID makes huge claims. It claims not only how animals came to be but that there is a supernatural cause and a supernatural designer. It has not produced any evidence demonstrating the supernatural or offered any testable alternative to animals evolving. Evolution only claims that animals evolved from a simpler life form into the diversity and species we see today. To this there are mountains of evidence. The biological, molecular, fossil, genetic and observational evidence surrounds us and is growing by the day. Some may try to move the goalpost and claim that evolution fails to explain how life began, but the theory makes no claims regarding this.
The presence of common endogenous retroviruses is absolute irrefutable evidence of a common ancestor between chimpanzees and man
Endogenous retroviruses exist all throughout the animal kingdom but no animals share the exact endogenous retroviruses with other animals whom they do not have a recent common ancestor because the only way to share an endogenous retrovirus is from mother to child. This is measurable, testable, and falsifiable. We have many common endogenous retroviruses with chimpanzees and the only way this could ever have happened is to have had common offspring at one time or another.
The fused primate chromosome is rock solid evidence of human evolution
All great apes (aside from us) have 48 chromosomes while we have 46. This would represent an absolute end to the theory of evolution if these were not found. Chromosomes cannot disappear without killing the animal so what happened? It was discovered last year that the very two missing chromosomes present in the great apes are actually fused together in modern humans. This was discovered by sequencing the chimpanzee genome and presented at the trial in Dover, PA and the ID lawyers did not dispute this finding or ask any questions regarding this evidence being fact. They simply accepted it as evidence without argument.
Yes, there are weaknesses and things still not understood within evolutionary theory
There are still disagreements within the scientific community as to the triggers and the processes of evolution. However, the fact of evolution remains unmolested within this scientific disagreement.
Yes, evolution is both fact and theory. Evolution is defined as the change in gene allele frequencies in a given population. This occurs and no one (not even Kent Hovind) denies this. The theory is in how this plays out. A scientific theory is a testable hypothesis that has yet to be proven wrong. This means that despite all robust efforts, no one has been able to disprove the highly falsifiable theory of evolution. ID cannot play in this arena, as it's unfalsifiable.
Like a puzzle, it all fits
The estimated age of the earth (geologically) agrees with the fossil record, the fossil record agrees with the biological record and the biological record agrees with molecular findings and molecular findings agree with the genetics and genetics (as well as all of the above mentioned disciplines) are scientifically testable. If any of these factors didn't square, we'd have a real problem with evolution. Many evolution deniers will argue with the methods of determining these facts, but keep in mind that the larger point regarding the earth's age and the geological findings that match. As Ken Miller PhD at Brown University said "I believe in God, but I don't believe in a deceptive one."
Both you and I understand (probably better than the average person) that there is fighting over exactly what this or that fossil means, however there are no mainstream fossil fighters arguing over whether evolution actually happened or is happening now.
Evolution makes only one case
The claims made in the classroom are the very same claims made in the courtroom. Nowhere in evolution's evidence do you see two sets of rules as you see in ID. It is not necessary to have two distinctions because the claims of evolutionary theory require no such bizarre gymnastics to promote. I am primarily speaking about how ID will present the “hand of a designer” beach/mountain argument as evidence around the kitchen table, but intentionally stay away from that argument when in the courtroom.
Darwin simply followed the evidence
It is my argument that personal beliefs did not drive Darwin to his conclusions as I believe he was driven by the evidence. If Darwin had pursued an agenda and let that agenda direct him, the science would eventually fall apart. However, the science does not fall apart and is growing in evidence by the day. Also, Darwin had been a theology student and did believe in God. He simply could not ignore the mounting evidence of his own observations. Plus, his personal beliefs have no bearing on whether the theory is accurate or not. Did you know that fundamentalist Muslims consider evolution to be a Christian plot to undermine Islam? They point to Darwin's ties to Christianity, The Church of England and his time at seminary as their evidence. I mention this to illustrate that one can twist almost any view to support their own theology, but science is science. Thinking Darwin to be a Christian pawn is laughable in the west, but it makes total sense to the huge scores of Muslims.
We have a great relationship so there was no threat of actual alienation over this topic. After about 100 pages worth of back and forth content, I decided to plainly state my position with the summarized information below. I know it's long, but this could be an invaluable resource for any critically thinking person if they were to find themselves in a similar debate. Please feel free to use my arguments and they are based in science and fact.
I would also love to hear any of your comments on this arguments effectiveness as it did not seem to move my brother an inch. So please let me have it. As I'm new to the JREF Forums, I was forced to remove all my web links and sources. Enjoy!
______________________________
Why I Reject ID
In its current form, ID begins with the final (supernatural) answer in place and works backward through the data interpreting it. This is a fact. The high-profile supporters of ID are unapologetic when interpreting the data this way and manipulating it to fit their predetermined conclusion. Nowhere in any scientific endeavor will you see this backwardness practiced. I can't stress this point enough.
ID's main argument is to illustrate the weaknesses of the theory of evolution
This is commonly referred to as a negative argument. Although there have been some recent efforts to mount a positive argument, this positive argument has (so far) been philosophical and non-scientific in nature. I'll explain below. To build an argument based on a negative may be effective when trying to reach the common man, however it is very weak to argue that your idea is correct by stating that the other view is incorrect. This is a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy. Most spectators to this debate don't even notice this.
ID’s positive argument is (so far) not working
To illustrate my point regarding the failure of ID to mount a positive argument I single out the cheerleader of the positive side, Dr. Behe himself. When on the stand in the Dover, PA trial, Dr. Behe was presented with genetic data in the form of 58 peer-reviewed publications, 9 peer-reviewed books and several peer-reviewed immunology texts showing (among other things) that the bacterial flagellum was related to other (more primitive and reduced) forms of the same structure still with us today. This data shows a common ancestry through tested gene linage from more primitive structures right up through the flagship of ID... the bacterial flagellum. More importantly, it shows that primitive forms of the bacterial flagellum exist and work quite well in a simpler and reduced form. The immunology texts showed that Dr. Behe’s “Irreducibly Complex” blood-clotting system works perfectly well in the puffer fish despite missing 3 parts. Cross-examination also showed that Dr Behe’s redefinition of the blood-clotting system was designed to avoid peer-reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument. When asked to comment on the presentation he saw and the views that he promotes along with his apparent dismissal of all this accepted scientific data, Dr. Behe stated that what he was presented with “wasn’t good enough.”
Whether Dr. Behe agrees with the accepted science or not, it is simply inexcusable for him to write article after article and appear in documentary after documentary claiming the "unexplainable" nature of the bacterial flagellum or the blood-clotting cascade while testable scientific explanations are readily available. I know about this data and I fix computers.
None of ID's proponents actually use ID concepts in their own scientific endeavors
Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe and all of the other scholarly promoters of ID have failed to present or use ID in their own science in their own labs. No experiments, no tests, no testable data, just philosophy and pseudoscience. Dr. Behe is now suffering from his university’s estrangement on a scientific level because of his failure to acknowledge proven and tested science. Even the Discovery Institute is acknowledging Dr. Behe’s estrangement.
ID presents a different standard of evidence than other disciplines
It took me a while to decipher exactly what was being presented as "evidence" from the ID camp, but I now finally understand that ID proponents consider illuminating the complexity in systems as evidence of their hypothesis. In other words, ID proponents consider complexity as "evidence" of design. When they discover extreme complexity, they stop and announce that yet more evidence of ID has been found. Jonathan Wells and Michael Behe both openly conduct themselves in this unscientific way. I've listened to probably more that 20 interviews given by these two ID proponents, and in many of these interviews they offer complexity as actual evidence of ID. Unfortunately, this does not meet even the most basic standard of actual scientific evidence, as it is not testable and other working testable explanations exist.
ID has yet to follow accepted channels and present concepts through the accepted methods of scientific review
It is standard practice for all concepts in science to present their data to the people in those fields through symposiums, conference and peer-review. You cannot leapfrog over these intentionally placed hurdles and then expect to be received as a legitimate theory or real science. Many times we will see weak concepts floated directly through public forums like the mass media without scientific review. This was the case in the cold fusion debacle. These concepts are usually discredited within a few weeks because their "evidence" is not up to the standards of science. If ID were in fact true, why would the proponents with the data dodge the accepted norms?
The ID proponent’s explanation for this failure to follow the accepted scientific method is to claim that their papers are dead on arrival. However, this is patently untrue as witnessed by all of the scientific attention and rebuttal the ID claims have received over the years. If their concepts were being dismissed or ignored, how do you explain the scientific scrutiny of the ID claims? Remember, ID is making the claims of a flawed evolutionary theory; it’s up to ID’s proponents to produce the evidence. I will acknowledge that the time and effort put into researching ID papers has been reduced as there seems to be nothing new coming out as of late.
Even if we grant ID proponents a pass regarding their odd and unique application of the scientific method, we still have the problem of the scientific accuracy of the claims
If ID's claims were true, the very objects of ID's focus would bear witness to those claims. The eye, the wing, the lung, the bacterial flagellum and the heart would show no primitive history because (according to the ID hypothesis) they were designed as they exist today. These fantastic and wonderful devices would appear with no earlier examples and would show no sign of development or "evolution" through time. However, this is absolutely not the case. We see primitive examples of these in the fossil record and in "living fossils" such as the alligator. We can see many examples of the eye's evolution by looking at the mollusk family today, as there is almost every stage of eye development expressed there. Mollusk eyes range from simple light receptors to eyes more complex than our own. Why would there be primitive and barely functioning examples of eyes, hearts, lungs or wings out there in the real world if they were irreducibly complex from their current advanced form? And why would there be a molecular link from the primitive to the more advanced unless they evolved?
ID provides no actual theory
ID proponents have offered no explanation of just what their theory is. They claim that ID states that there is scientific evidence of the handy-work of an intelligent designer in the history of life. However, there is no explanation of when that design occurred, how the design was accomplished, what the purpose of the design might be or who the designer is. All we have is the bare assertion. These missing elements are the core of a scientific theory.
I believe that there are two interconnected reasons for this shortcoming:
1) ID proponents have no idea what the answers to three of those questions are and they cannot publicly state that they believe God to be the answer to the forth. This is due to the fact that they want ID adopted in schools and the constitution is very clear on federal dollars supporting any particular religion.
2) ID proponents have painted themselves into a corner as supporters of ID are all deeply routed in many different sets of religious beliefs and any attempt to answer the date, method or purpose questions will alienate huge numbers of supporters no matter what the direction the ID proponents go in.
Along this line… I’ve always wondered just what a science class in ID would look like. What does one actually teach? What would students study? The example above speaks directly to my earlier claim of how you have not been exposed to the whole story. If you just stop and think about it, there is no actual scientific content to ID.
The molecular evidence points to evolution and evolution only
There is no explanation for the molecular-common components witnessed in life forms other than evolution. ID offers absolutely no explanation or model for this evidence and has so far ignored it. Why do we find the molecular relationships between animals if they were individually designed and did not evolve from more primitive forms or a common ancestor?
Also, it’s interesting to note that molecular evolutionary changes can be tracked in animals and these show a steady testable clock. When this molecular clock is applied to the molecular differences between chimpanzees and humans, the split-off date corresponds almost perfectly with the fossil evidence of the split-off date. Why would these two unrelated bodies of evidence correspond so perfectly if we did not share a common ancestor with the chimpanzee?
ID is confusing unexplained for unexplainable
One cornerstone of the ID argument is that some biological functions are unexplained and therefore could not have come about through natural causes. Despite the fact that most of these functions (bacterial flagellum and blood-clotting cascade) have now been largely explained, ID holds onto these examples and continues to present them to those of an unscientific background as evidence supporting ID. This reasoning is no different from looking up in the sky at a blob of light and deducing it to be a UFO over any other explanation.
This argument can be very effective when aimed at those of an unscientific background. This argument intentionally ignores many recent advancements in biology (as Dr. Behe also does) and offers simplistic explanations for complex systems. It’s called the argument from ignorance and it is a massive logical fallacy.
Robust efforts to disprove evolution have (so far) failed
No scientific theory in the history of this planet has been placed more squarely in the crosshairs of scientific review and non-scientific ridicule than the theory of evolution. Many ID proponents have made much of evolution's non-intuitive nature and its lack of instant evidence and the time needed for the theory to work. These individuals have carefully crafted their message to appeal to those of an unscientific background. They scorn the evidence of the natural world and introduce simplistic non-scientific examples of soda cans, mountains, beaches and watches to prove their point. They have presented their concepts in churches, living rooms and town meetings. However, these sideshow theatrics are somehow never brought into the light of day of honest scrutiny when presenting their case in a courtroom. Why didn't any proponents of ID present the soda can, mountain or beach analogy during the Dover, PA trial? The answer is simple; because their argument is philosophical not scientific and they know it.
Disproving evolution requires that the evidence in support of evolution somehow be explained away. As I stated in the beginning of this discussion, it would take the scientist of the century to disprove evolution. This is a huge problem for ID as the evidence for evolution is so deep and covers so many disciplines of science. I will address the direct evidence later in this letter.
99 percent of all species on this planet have gone extinct
Regardless of where you stand on the fossil record or the age of the earth, you must accept the demise of all the previous fossilized examples of animals as they are no longer with us. If there is a designer, this is uncompromising evidence of design that has failed on a massive scale. Could a designer of bridges or buildings continue to walk the streets with such a track record? Surely such a "designer" would be locked up for such failure and carnage. A 99 percent failure rate does not scream out “intelligent design” to me.
If you believe that the extinction of 99 percent of previous animals on this planet was due to a worldwide flood, please present tested and accepted geological evidence of this flood along with some accepted explanation for the multiple strata that these fossils are found within. A worldwide flood would leave evidence and any flood-based theory also needs to explain the multiple geologic resting places of all these fossils, as they are not found in just one strata, as they would be with a flood scenario.
Claiming a worldwide flood places the burden of proof on the claimant as there is a working alternative hypothesis explaining the demise of these life forms that is testable across multiple disciplines of science, falsifiable and requires no flood.
All of ID’s current arguments could be applied to any discipline
The arguments mounted by ID proponents regarding the still unknown or confusing aspects of evolution could just as easily be applied to medicine, cosmology or physics. The germ theory of disease is still denied by many and there are aspects of physics that do not make total sense to physicists. Dark matter (which I’ll address later) and other questions about how galaxies work are a puzzle and many cosmological ideas have been tossed because they don’t hold up to scrutiny. However, these disagreements do not call for a dismantling of these areas of study because the core theories are sound and backed up by testable experiments with predictable outcomes, just like evolution. Why is it then that the theory of evolution is singled out by organizations such as the Discovery Institute? If the true core concern was bad science, which they state it is, they could go after any field and perhaps get some real traction. However, you said it best when you acknowledged the Discover Institute’s obvious agenda. Your response was to claim that science has an agenda too. But remember, we’re discussing the way things really are… and this will always trump agendas.
Replacing evolution with ID is simply not possible
Over 150 years of testable, reproducible, predictable and falsifiable data spanning multiple scientific disciplines would need to be tossed out if the scientific community were to adopt ID as a viable theory. Modern biology would have to be removed as evolution and ID cannot coexist because they offer two very different explanations for one known outcome. As I’ve mentioned in earlier emails, Einstein turned physics upside down with Relativity, but he was correct and therefore his theory quickly took its proper place within both the scientific and non-scientific view of the world. How is it possible to remove a verifiable working theory and replace it with one that cannot stand up to even the basics of scientific scrutiny? It is therefore absolutely impossible for ID to replace the theory of evolution and this leaves us with the “teach the controversy” model of ID.
It is my firm prediction that ID will “evolve” into a philosophical argument calling for academic freedom and to push institutions to “teach the controversies” within evolutionary theory. There is nowhere else for ID to go as it cannot play ball in the big leagues. Unfortunately for ID the controversies within evolutionary biology are largely over evolutionary triggers and rates of evolution, not whether evolution is the actual explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.
Already I’m witnessing the Discovery Institute acknowledging certain aspects of common descent and only arguing over whether life began as a one-time affair or if it started in multiple events. Obviously they promote the multiple event concept. Most of ID’s arguments are great thought experiments, but they will remain just that until some kind of actual ID evidence is available.
ID proponents incorrectly claim that the origin of life is a huge problem for evolution
You’ve heard it and I’ve heard it. ID proponents are relentless in their attempts to point out that we do not know how life began on this planet and that this is a huge problem for evolutionary biology. Many ID proponents incorrectly point to this as actual evidence that the theory of evolution is flat out wrong. This is a straw-man argument as ID proponents are beating up on claims never made by evolutionary biologists.
Biology is the study of living things, not how they became living things. The theory of evolution makes no claims as to how life began, it only makes claims about what happened after. Believe me, scholarly ID proponents know this yet they continue to drag this sorry, tired argument out over and over again. This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say that you’ve been told half-truths and unscientific information about evolutionary theory. Once someone really understands exactly what evolutionary claims are, the rhetoric is replaced by science.
Democracy cannot apply to science… why evolutionary biology ‘has the microphone’
One of ID’s more successful arguments is to appeal to our “sensibilities” and argue to have the concepts of ID taught alongside evolution as an issue of fairness. This obviously appeals to America’s long-standing notion of fairness and I admit that it does have a certain attraction. However, science is not a democratic endeavor. You cannot teach unproven and un-testable concepts as science just because you can construct an emotional argument.
Here’s a good example of how and why science cannot be a democratic process:
A room full of people could vote on what sex a single cat might be, but their votes do not change the sex of the cat. The cat is the gender that the cat is. Just because we’ve applied democratic principles to the question of the cat’s gender doesn’t mean that science and the natural world are taking those democratic principles into account. Understanding this concept is the backbone of how science works in the natural world.
The reason mentioned above is why evolutionary biology “has the microphone” as you say. There is no grand conspiracy, it’s because evolutionary biology has the goods and here’s why:
There are no other working explanations, models or theories for life’s diversity that can pass any scientific tests. Evolution stands alone here. I don’t know how else to say it but without reproducible and predictable tests, ID or Creation Science will never get the microphone.
ID can offer no more actual evidence than any other creation story
Native Americans, Aboriginal peoples, Island cultures, Bush peoples and all tribe-based cultures have some faith-based concepts of creation. Obviously you’re willing to pass on all of these other accounts of creation and their gods, yet ID has supplied just as much testable scientific evidence as these creation models have. Many of these cultures have written accounts that they also hold to be without error. I will grant you that these other belief systems do not produce video documentaries or put scholars up front promoting their concepts, but at the end of the day, there is a tie score regarding the actual evidence produced and that’s what matters if you want your concept accepted and taught in a classroom or accepted as a working scientific theory.
Many ID proponents claim that evolution is some kind of theology or life-philosophy
Please allow me to put this notion to bed. This is emotional thinking and is not based in fact. Religions and faith require some form of a god or deity and evolution falls far short of that right out of the gate. Also, acknowledging evolution does not require any set of beliefs from anyone. There is not social construct or requirement to believe in a set of rules or doctrine to acknowledge evolution. I’m primarily speaking of a set of rules such as your church penned when looking for a new Music Director. That list had requirements that were obviously well outside of the field of music and spoke directly to faith. Those are dogmatic rules and are representative of a religion or faith. Evolution requires no such social or faith-based contract. Without a dogmatic set of core beliefs or a deity, you don’t have a faith or religion. Simply put, you either acknowledge evolution or you don’t.
I recently heard Creationist Kent Hovind in an interview claim that evolution is a religion and it uses time as its god. This notion is insane, as all disciplines need time to operate. Math, science, music, art ect. all require time to produce their fruits. Do we hear anyone in their right mind calling math or physics a religion? The theory of evolution is part of biological science and is no more a theology than history or geology is.
Mr. Hovind’s aim was to demonstrate that the teaching of evolution was religious in nature and that this defies the separation of church and state as federal money goes to schools. He obviously needs evolution to be a religion for his point to work. This is some serious mental gymnastics.
Fear and misunderstandings do not make the science wrong
Stephen Asma recently interviewed Ken Ham about his new Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY. Mr. Asma is an expert on America’s natural science museums and is a published author on the subject. Mr. Asma asked Ken Ham directly why he does not believe the theory of evolution to be correct. Mr. Ham replied that evolution reduces humans to having no purpose and that’s why he doesn’t accept evolution. Now, I know that Ken Ham is only one person but his response speaks volumes as many feel that he is their voice on this issue. What Mr. Ham fails to realize is that his fear of humans having “no purpose” does not make all of the testable science wrong.
First of all I personally disagree with Ken Ham regarding evolution reducing people to having no purpose, but more to the point, just because Ken Ham is uncomfortable with
a personal feeling doesn’t make the science wrong. Just like the cat/gender vote in my previous scenario, Ken Ham’s fears (or anyone’s fears) do not change science or the facts. The science is what the science is and it cannot be rendered wrong by fears or magical thinking.
Cultural beliefs are being dressed up as science
Previously in this discussion I had brought up the fact that ID seems to be stalled in the US. Now, it’s true that there is a small pocket of people sympathetic to ID in England, but this is tiny. I completely understand that “numbers” do not make something correct, but it is very curious that the notion of ID gets no traction outside of a Christian fundamentalist culture. I had also mentioned that any real scientific breakthrough would circle this globe in a matter of minutes. So why is it that ID stays almost totally limited to the US? I know I’ve posed this question to you previously, but after a lot of thought and careful consideration, I think I have the answer to this curiosity.
Both science and reality discriminate against concepts that cannot hold up to scrutiny and favor concepts that can be demonstrated and tested. However, cultures are very accepting of any concept that strengthens their core belief systems. Isn’t it interesting that phenomena like crop circles tend to stay where they grew from and are supported by the culture and never seem to spread beyond their cultural roots? We never hear of crop circles showing up in Bangladesh or China. Many Mexican supernatural claims and beliefs get no play here in the states as well. If these phenomena were real, they would be evenly distributed throughout the globe regardless of culture. It is my argument that ID is just an extension of this same thing and that the concepts put forth in ID strengthen the core belief systems of the culture they sprang forth from. As in the case of Einstein’s Relativity, if ID’s concepts were even remotely true they’d be accepted by scientists across the globe in a matter of days if not minutes. So it is my hypothesis that ID is a cultural belief born out of Creation Science and is attempting to dress up as science.
Here’s an example of cultural beliefs bleeding into science:
There is no one out there in the scientific mainstream arguing that DNA isn’t the protein that codes for genetics. No one is out there in the scientific mainstream arguing that HIV isn’t the virus that causes AIDS. However, in some small cultures (outside the mainstream where a counter beliefs offers support for their own belief systems) both of these “battles” actually do rage. Hopefully not for long as these are the types of cultural beliefs that kill.
Are ID’s ideas based in cultural beliefs or in evidence?
The application of Occam’s razor
When two or more hypothesis exists for one known event, reason demands we apply Occam’s razor. Occam’s razor simply states that the more probable and less complex model wins. For example;
Is it more likely that people claiming to have been abducted by UFO’s are suffering from a known sleeping state called “Sleep Paralysis” which not only causes physical paralysis but hallucinations, or that alien beings from other worlds are coming to earth and abducting them? Which model offers the most likely answer and which model is more probable?
With the evolution/ID debate we have a similar model. Is it more likely that a supernatural designer designed all of the life forms on this planet independently, intentionally gave them molecular and genetic testable similarities, buried bones of more primitive forms deep within the earth and then gave all of these life forms a common measurable code that is testable and predictable just to trick us, or that they evolved from a common ancestor using the same testable natural processes currently observed around us? When you apply Occam’s razor to the ID/Evolution discussion, evolution is clearly the more probable answer.
Which is more probable; all of biology, paleontology and geology are wrong or that the untestable ID model is wrong?
I understand that this does not disqualify ID, but it is one more example of how ID fails to stand up to yet another scientific application.
Most importantly, ID is not falsifiable
Unfortunately for ID, the failure to produce any testable science can always be explained away by invoking some supernatural force. There is no body of actual science where this strange practice is acceptable. Unlike evolution, there is no data or test or discovery that can disprove ID in its current form. Therefore it can never stand up to scientific tests because you can't test something that can't fail the test.
__________________________________
Why I Support Evolutionary Theory
Evolutionary concepts began purely by observation
Observations made in nature caused many people (not just Darwin) to consider the notion of evolution. There was no final end game in Darwin's sights. He did not promote evolution and then go looking to mine and manipulate the data selectively to prove it later. He was recording what he observed and later tried to come up with the most reasonable hypothesis. When faced with the options he saw, he chose the only testable option. I understand that it took him over 30 years to finalize "The Origin of Species." This is how good science is done. If you have evidence that evolution is the result of an unscientific agenda-driven conspiracy, please provide that evidence. Keep in mind all of the testable science backing evolution and the scale of what would be required to manufacture this pro-evolutionary evidence if it wasn’t true.
The evidence is clear that animals do change and their change is due to pressures brought on by natural occurrences
Originally we saw this in island populations and in the general fossil record. Only later do we find the molecular, genetic and biological evidence agreeing with the earlier observed evidence. These advanced sciences were not known to Darwin, yet his original concepts still stand and are strengthened with each new discovery. Sure there have been corrections and additions to the theory, but the theory stands stronger today because of these corrections. Again, this is how science operates. Deniers of evolution who point to the corrections as a weakness show an honest lack of scientific understanding.
Evolution is measurable, testable and falsifiable
You can measure the frequencies of gene allele changes within a given population and you can test animals relationship's to each other. You can make predictions as a result of these tests and you can falsify the claims of these tests by the potential of discovering new data or receiving a non-evolutionary outcome in the lab. I've said it before and I'll say it again; finding a fossil in the wrong strata or finding more advanced forms before their primitive ancestors would falsify both evolution and the fossil record.
Both ID and evolution make claims but only the theory of evolution produces evidence
ID makes huge claims. It claims not only how animals came to be but that there is a supernatural cause and a supernatural designer. It has not produced any evidence demonstrating the supernatural or offered any testable alternative to animals evolving. Evolution only claims that animals evolved from a simpler life form into the diversity and species we see today. To this there are mountains of evidence. The biological, molecular, fossil, genetic and observational evidence surrounds us and is growing by the day. Some may try to move the goalpost and claim that evolution fails to explain how life began, but the theory makes no claims regarding this.
The presence of common endogenous retroviruses is absolute irrefutable evidence of a common ancestor between chimpanzees and man
Endogenous retroviruses exist all throughout the animal kingdom but no animals share the exact endogenous retroviruses with other animals whom they do not have a recent common ancestor because the only way to share an endogenous retrovirus is from mother to child. This is measurable, testable, and falsifiable. We have many common endogenous retroviruses with chimpanzees and the only way this could ever have happened is to have had common offspring at one time or another.
The fused primate chromosome is rock solid evidence of human evolution
All great apes (aside from us) have 48 chromosomes while we have 46. This would represent an absolute end to the theory of evolution if these were not found. Chromosomes cannot disappear without killing the animal so what happened? It was discovered last year that the very two missing chromosomes present in the great apes are actually fused together in modern humans. This was discovered by sequencing the chimpanzee genome and presented at the trial in Dover, PA and the ID lawyers did not dispute this finding or ask any questions regarding this evidence being fact. They simply accepted it as evidence without argument.
Yes, there are weaknesses and things still not understood within evolutionary theory
There are still disagreements within the scientific community as to the triggers and the processes of evolution. However, the fact of evolution remains unmolested within this scientific disagreement.
Yes, evolution is both fact and theory. Evolution is defined as the change in gene allele frequencies in a given population. This occurs and no one (not even Kent Hovind) denies this. The theory is in how this plays out. A scientific theory is a testable hypothesis that has yet to be proven wrong. This means that despite all robust efforts, no one has been able to disprove the highly falsifiable theory of evolution. ID cannot play in this arena, as it's unfalsifiable.
Like a puzzle, it all fits
The estimated age of the earth (geologically) agrees with the fossil record, the fossil record agrees with the biological record and the biological record agrees with molecular findings and molecular findings agree with the genetics and genetics (as well as all of the above mentioned disciplines) are scientifically testable. If any of these factors didn't square, we'd have a real problem with evolution. Many evolution deniers will argue with the methods of determining these facts, but keep in mind that the larger point regarding the earth's age and the geological findings that match. As Ken Miller PhD at Brown University said "I believe in God, but I don't believe in a deceptive one."
Both you and I understand (probably better than the average person) that there is fighting over exactly what this or that fossil means, however there are no mainstream fossil fighters arguing over whether evolution actually happened or is happening now.
Evolution makes only one case
The claims made in the classroom are the very same claims made in the courtroom. Nowhere in evolution's evidence do you see two sets of rules as you see in ID. It is not necessary to have two distinctions because the claims of evolutionary theory require no such bizarre gymnastics to promote. I am primarily speaking about how ID will present the “hand of a designer” beach/mountain argument as evidence around the kitchen table, but intentionally stay away from that argument when in the courtroom.
Darwin simply followed the evidence
It is my argument that personal beliefs did not drive Darwin to his conclusions as I believe he was driven by the evidence. If Darwin had pursued an agenda and let that agenda direct him, the science would eventually fall apart. However, the science does not fall apart and is growing in evidence by the day. Also, Darwin had been a theology student and did believe in God. He simply could not ignore the mounting evidence of his own observations. Plus, his personal beliefs have no bearing on whether the theory is accurate or not. Did you know that fundamentalist Muslims consider evolution to be a Christian plot to undermine Islam? They point to Darwin's ties to Christianity, The Church of England and his time at seminary as their evidence. I mention this to illustrate that one can twist almost any view to support their own theology, but science is science. Thinking Darwin to be a Christian pawn is laughable in the west, but it makes total sense to the huge scores of Muslims.
Last edited:
