400 Scientists Sign "Dissent From Darwinism"

[Paul Brand]

The same webpage you reference regarding Denton is the same one which suggests he favors "Directed Evolution". (See section called "What is the evidence for 'directed evolution' ?").

I'm left a little bit confused as to what Denton believes. On one hand, we have him rejecting supernatural intervention, but on the other hand accepting directional evolution, and an implicit rejection of the RM/NS mechanism (which is unguided). He also claims that evolution is inevitable in life permitting planets such as ours.

My guess is that he believes that evolution is guided, but that the programming for direction was there from the beginning, and since the beginning, things have taken place naturally. (I'm open to that possibility, BTW). In this sense, it does seem to differ a little bit from Behe, but it doesn't seem so far distant that it could not be considered a part of ID. Perhaps it is a grey area.

Regarding Johnson, I had heard from others than he didn't believe in any kind of evolution, so your quote regarding his comments about archaopteryx surprises me also.

They find the common doctrines more compelling than the ones by which they differ. That's why they have affiliated.

The reason for their affiliation may be religiously motivated, but as a Christian, I would want to distance myself from the particular beliefs of the Moonies. I personally don't have a problem with religious motivation. For me, it is because of the religious implications that I am interested in ID. You say you were once interested in what ID had to say, but surely you must have realized that there would be religious motivations. There must be something else, or something more specific that you object to regarding the Wedge document.

 

[Helen]

Paul,
A number of the men in the ID movement are personal friends. Phil Johnson is a very good friend of ours. He is a conservative born-again Christian who, due in large part to his two strokes in the past few years, has come much closer to the Lord. He takes a number of YEC arguments very seriously but has not made any public stand one way or the other.

None of us agree with Jonathan's religious views, but, and I think I speak for a number of us, we really love him dearly anyway. He is a marvelous man in many ways with a keen sense of humor as well as striking intelligence.

I don't know Denton and cannot speak for or about him.

I do know that a goodly number of the active ID participants are violently opposed to the young earth/young creation point of view. So to call ID a front for that is infuriating to them, to say the least -- yet that is what is commonly done in the media and many people seem to believe it.

Essentially, what ID is trying to do is about the same as a forensic investigation team does at a crime scene. They explore the evidence and hold it up to the light of what we know from our own experience and research. The forensics folk first of all must determine if a crime has been committed or whether what they are viewing was, in fact, an accident. ID is asking science to do the same thing. Look at something to see if a design "has been committed" or if what we see is an accident produced by time and chance without any intelligent intervention or purpose or beginning point.

The Dembski filter is one way of trying to do that. Irreducible complexity is another (Mike Behe). Sometimes there is the simple common sense approach (my favorite!). That sort of approach says that since we can look at a painting of a pansy and presume an artist, how is it we can look at the almost infinitely more complex real pansy and say "time and chance"?

We recognize design in a brick wall that we do not see in a pile of bricks. Why? We recognize design in a Dior gown that we do not see in a fabric store. Why? These are real questions and are part of the impetus behind the ID movement.

That is added to the fact that evolution as it is taught in schools and proclaimed here on this board by Galatian and others has shown to be, with advancing biologic and genetic knowledge, a total impossibility. Dr. Sanford, the inventor of the gene gun, has stated flat out that there is no way for a cell to make a de novo protein. That is necessary for evolution to progress.

He has also noticed in his work with berries that natural selection can cripple itself if it tries to select for more than two or three traits at the most. The reason is because for every trait selected for, a certain percentage of the population without that trait must be eliminated. Two traits, more elimination. Three traits, more elimination. Past three and evidently you lose your population! This also is a problem for evolution.

There is another logical problem which does not seem to strike evolutionists as logical, if you check some of the responses on this board recently: the fact that certain traits can be selected for (natural selection) indicates there were more traits then than now. More potential variability in any given gene pool.

The same goes for the fact that mutations which are expressed are almost always negative in terms of what has happened genetically (in multicellular organisms). That means they must have happened to something better than what they produced. The genetic load building in each living population of organisms today is a clear (to me, at least) proclamation that there was a time in the past when, without these mutations, we had much more robust life forms than today.

None of these things is a religious statement.

All are part of the ID movement.

Hope that helps.

 

[Paul Brand]

I've read Dembski's book "The Design Revolution". I agree in the logic behind the Explanatory Filter. Applying it is not so easy in biology, particularly if you want to insert numerical probabilities. So many factors to consider. Specificity in particular is difficult to categorize at times.

The problem that many scientists seem to have is the issue relating around the subjectivity of the Filter. How does one distinguish something that is specified from what is not? Take the Virgin of the Underpass as an example (I'm sure you've seen the pictures). At what level of detail does something become specified? Personally, I think the Underpass examples lacks a lot of specificity, but I can only state that in qualitative terms, I can't say that it is 35% specified, though that may be a good estimate. Calculating complexity is also no easy task. Calculating a raw probability is not necessarily valid, one must also consider the number of equally or greater complex possibilities, and the probabilities of each possibility. It seems that Dembski rather takes the probability of a specific event, and compares it to the universal probability bound. I don't think this is valid, because I think the universal probability bound is a rather arbitrary number. Yes, it indicates the number of individual events that have occurred in history, but it doesn't include events that require a combination of individual events (such as a mutation resulting in a gain in information).

Nevertheless, I think much of science involves determinations that are not quantifiable, and I'm fine with that. It seems like a double-standard to expect ID to come up with quantifiable calculations, when such a calculation is not required to show that the archaeopteryx is a transitional life form (and perhaps it is a transitional life form, I just don't think such a judgment is quantifiable).

I think the Explanatory Filter is more easily applied in cosmology and fine-tuning, but it still runs into a bit of difficulty, and is still ultimately not quantifiable.

My problem with YEC is that it is opposed to Big Bang cosmology, which (in my opinion) has been the greatest asset for the defense of theism in the last several centuries. That being said, I'm not absolutely opposed to YEC, but I've found it difficult to buy all the explanations offered that conflict with modern science.

(Sorry for my rambling)

 

[Helen]

The Big Bang was given that name in ridicule because it is so close to what the Bible says! Twelve times, in the Bible, God says He stretched the heavens.

I agree with you that a lot of the YEC standard stuff is not valid. I don't believe one flood laid down all or most of the earth's geologic column. I don't believe the Flood of Noah fossilized anything.

My husband is Barry Setterfield. You might be interested in what he has found regarding geology and Bible history. Our website is
www.setterfield.org

Look in "Talking about Geology" for a start and see what you think.

As far as ID is concerned, perhaps the best evidence for it is that, given what we know in biology and genetics, evolution couldn't have happened! That's a negative evidence, to be sure, but nevertheless evidence. It's sort of like looking at the burnt shell of a house and saying "Well, we know a flood didn't do this!"

 

[The Galatian]

Regarding Phillip Johnson:

He takes a number of YEC arguments very seriously but has not made any public stand one way or the other.

He makes a number of surprising statements in "Darwin on Trial" the idea that God would create a harmful structure in an organism from "whimsey."

I do know that a goodly number of the active ID participants are violently opposed to the young earth/young creation point of view. So to call ID a front for that is infuriating to them, to say the least -- yet that is what is commonly done in the media and many people seem to believe it.

When I was younger, there were a good number of patriotic Americans who opposed the Vietnam War. I thought it was a bad idea, myself, but I did not associate myself with any antiwar organizations, because they did not clean out the extremists, and I believed (correctly as it turned out) that people would assume that they all were extremists. If IDers do not want to be thought of as creationists, they could avoid that by distancing themselves from them.

Essentially, what ID is trying to do is about the same as a forensic investigation team does at a crime scene. They explore the evidence and hold it up to the light of what we know from our own experience and research. The forensics folk first of all must determine if a crime has been committed or whether what they are viewing was, in fact, an accident. ID is asking science to do the same thing.

Science already does this. I have a friend who is a forensics expert for a large city. He does exactly what other scientists do in gathering evidence and making inferences from them. ID fails because it can only make assumptions about a "designer", but cannot do anything of use to science. And if it doesn't do anything, what good is it?

Look at something to see if a design "has been committed" or if what we see is an accident produced by time and chance without any intelligent intervention or purpose or beginning point.

There are many directed processes in nature, that do not have any discernable intelligence. So it's not a dichotomy. There are other, more reasonable explanations.

The Dembski filter is one way of trying
to do that.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work unless one has determined the answer before the filter is applied. Not useful.

Irreducible complexity is another (Mike Behe).

Once it became apparent that irreducible complexity evolves with no intelligent intervention that failed, too. This is why Denton points out that the idea of an intelligent origin for the universe rules out YE creationism.

"In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview."
Michael Denton "Nature's Destiny"

Sometimes there is the simple common sense approach (my favorite!). That sort of approach says that since we can look at a painting of a pansy and presume an artist, how is it we can look at the almost infinitely more complex real pansy and say "time and chance"?

As you know, Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by chance.

That is added to the fact that evolution as it is taught in schools and proclaimed here on this board by Galatian and others has shown to be, with advancing biologic and genetic knowledge, a total impossibility.

Unfortunately, there's not a scrap of evidence for that assertion.

Dr. Sanford, the inventor of the gene gun, has stated flat out that there is no way for a cell to make a de novo protein.

Evolution does nothing de novo. It always modifies something that was there before.

That is necessary for evolution to progress.

Nope.

He has also noticed in his work with berries that natural selection can cripple itself if it tries to select for more than two or three traits at the most.

This is why most evolution seems to occur in isolated populations. A trait can evolve there, and then spread to a larger population.

The reason is because for every trait selected for, a certain percentage of the population without that trait must be eliminated.

Only if you insist that the trait become fixed in the population at once. But if it can exist (as we know happens) as one of dozens of alleles, then there is no problem.

There is another logical problem which does not seem to strike evolutionists as logical, if you check some of the responses on this board recently: the fact that certain traits can be selected for (natural selection) indicates there were more traits then than now.

If you assume mutations don't happen. But they do. And a few of them will always be useful, and these tend to persist.

More potential variability in any given gene pool.

We know that variability increases for a very simple reason. Adam and Eve could have, at most, four alleles for each gene. Yet most human genes have many alleles, most of them useful. That information could only have evolved after them.

The same goes for the fact that mutations which are expressed are almost always negative in terms of what has happened genetically (in multicellular organisms).

That's a misconception. It was thought so originally, because only drastic mutations could be observed. Most of them turn out to be harmful. But most mutations don't do very much at all (although they can later, for various reasons). A few are harmful, and a very few are useful. Natural selection sorts it out.

None of these things is a religious statement.

They are certainly statements of faith.

All are part of the ID movement.

If so, Michael Denton is yet another scientist who has given up on ID.

He says common descent has a naturalistic explanation.

"This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."
Michael Denton, in "Nature's Destiny"

[ July 28, 2005, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: The Galatian ]

 

[Gup20]

Why all the attacks on ID from those who don't believe in Genesis (evolutionists)? Shouldn't they be welcoming a train of thought that doesn't directly support Biblical creation? Here they are claiming that there are all these similarities and conformities between ID and evolution - why don't they stop believing in evolution and become followers of ID? In fact, evolutionists fear ID because it is gaining such a following and such momentum. They know it's capable to flinging open the door to actually taking a critical look at evolution. Evolution is far too weak to stand actual scrutiny. It's the primary option now because it's the only option. With almost "Islamic Jihaddist" vigor, evolutionists strive to keep it that way too - doing all they can to insure that evolution is the ONLY theory taught in public schools, and the ONLY worldview in publications.

The reason for the resistence to ID is that evolution is based upon faith. It's just as hard for the evolutionist to give up their faith as it is for any religious person to give up their faith. However, I think it best for science that people be allowed to continue on doing real science (instead of the non-sense of evoution) unhindered by a corrupt worldview - or the notion that there is only one theory. For some it takes the ability to dis-associtate the creator from the creation by simply not naming Him.

I would say, however, that replacing one Godless belief system (faith) with another (replacing evolution with Intelligent Design) is errancy in the way that replacing a greater evil with a lesser evil is errancy. We should strive to replace evil with good. While ID may be closer to the truth than evolution, it is not the truth. There is only one truth - and that is written in scripture.

 

[Helen]

Excellent post, Gup, and thanks for joining in. I would say, though, that things WERE intelligently designed and they show it!

Intelligent Design walks up to the door of theology but does not, or should not, go through it. Those that do are impinging their own personal faiths on the actual movement.

 

[The Galatian]

Why all the attacks on ID from those who don't believe in Genesis (evolutionists)?

As you learned earlier, many evolutionists accept Genesis. However, YE creationists do not accept Genesis, since God refutes the YE claim of life's creation ex nihilo. He clearly says it was not so created.

There is no way to reconcile God's Word with YE creationism.

Shouldn't they be welcoming a train of thought that doesn't directly support Biblical creation?

You've assumed that it's logical to agree with anyone who disagres with anyone who disagrees with you.

But Denton has broken with ID. His view of evolution is now consistent with Darwinism. He sees an intelligence behind it all, but then so did Darwin and Wallace when they worked out their theory.

The Discovery Institute, on the other hand, remain orthodox IDers. And they have admitted the "governing goal" of ID is to advance their unorthodox religious ideas.

Here they are claiming that there are all these similarities and conformities between ID and evolution - why don't they stop believing in evolution and become followers of ID?

It happened with Denton (as it's happening more and more these days) that an IDer realized that Darwinian evolution was the correct theory, and he abandoned his old ideas.

People are moving from ID to science, not the other way around.

In fact, evolutionists fear ID because it is gaining such a following and such momentum.

You guys have started believing your own press releases. Denton is hardly the only ID to abandon ship on ID.

As more and more people realize ID is nothing but creationism in clean clothes and a shave, they are leaving it for science.

They know it's capable to flinging open the door to actually taking a critical look at evolution.

If it could do that, it would actually be welcome. People like Gould and Simpson, and Margulis and others who have critically examined evolutionary theory have produced welcome changes in it to better explain how life diversifies.

But it can't It's just "Godmustadunnit."

And even if God did it, (He did) science works on how it happened. ID can't do anything useful for science.

And if it can't do anything, what good is it?

Evolution is far too weak to stand actual scrutiny.

You're far from the first person to say so. But after the scuffle is over, it's always evolution still standing.

It's the primary option now because it's the only option. With almost "Islamic Jihaddist" vigor, evolutionists strive to keep it that way too

Funny you should mention that. Jonathan Wells is leading the ID Jihad. He says the Rev. Myung Son Moon gave him a mission to "destroy evolution." You're just a foot soldier for Rev. Moon.

doing all they can to insure that evolution is the ONLY theory taught in public schools,

Obviously, a religious doctrine like ID can't be taught in public schools. It's the law. Unless you revoke our religious freedoms, that will remain.

and the ONLY worldview in publications.

Actually some IDers do some good work apart from their religious beliefs, and they get published.

Keep in mind, ID would have to acually produce some contribution to knowledge if you wanted to publish something in a scientific journal.

And Dembski says that's not the case yet. Some think it never will.

Ironically, if it ever does, it will simply confirm Darwinism, as Denton points out.

The reason for the resistence to ID is that evolution is based upon faith.

Here's a way to test that:
Go up to a scientist and ask him why he accepts evolution. If he starts citing evidence, you're wrong.

Try it.

I would say, however, that replacing one Godless belief system (faith) with another (replacing evolution with Intelligent Design)

I would say the Moonies and people like Phillip Johnson certainly have an unusual view of God, but I would not call them "Godless." Johnson may even be a Christian, albeit a rather unorthodox one.

 

[Helen]

Your declarations don't make truth, Galatian. And that is all you are offering here. In the meantime, Phil and his wife are members of Berkeley Presbyterian church and hold a very biblical faith. If you mean by unorthodox, they are not Roman Catholic, which you are. Instead they, and we, are born-again biblical Christians. Your slams against people you don't know are sickening.

I have, by the way, asked a number of scientists why they believe in evolution. I do it frequently, as a matter of fact. You know the answer 99.9% of the time? "Because it's been proven. It's a fact." No evidence, just repeating what they have been told is true. When I ask them what in their own field, whatever it is, makes them believe evolution is true 100% of them are hesitant to offer anything.

That is personal experience and knowledge against your meaningless and constant declarations. You may tell me I am wrong, or "mistaken" again, which you do frequently, in effect calling me a liar, but I know the truth of what I have heard and the people I know. Your declarations to the contrary mean nothing.

 

[The Galatian]

Your declarations don't make truth, Galatian.

But what I say is true.

In the meantime, Phil and his wife are members of Berkeley Presbyterian church and hold a very biblical faith.

I don't know how he sounds in church. I only know him from his expressions of faith in "Darwin on Trial." And I have never heard a presbyterian say that God would make give an animal a feature that makes it more likely to be caught and eaten by a predator for "whimsy."

If you mean by unorthodox,

See above.

they are not Roman Catholic, which you are. Instead they, and we, are born-again biblical Christians.

Even most non-Catholics are orthodox. Prebyterians tend to be. But Johnson's idea is truely unusual.

Your slams against people you don't know are sickening.

Do you doubt he wrote it? It's true.

I have, by the way, asked a number of scientists why they believe in evolution. I do it frequently, as a matter of fact. You know the answer 99.9% of the time? "Because it's been proven. It's a fact." No evidence, just repeating what they have been told is true. When I ask them what in their own field, whatever it is, makes them believe evolution is true 100% of them are hesitant to offer anything.

Odd, that seems to never happen to others. I have asked that question to a number of scientists, and I get evidence 99.8% of the time. (That last statistic, like 93% of all cited statistic, was just made up, but it's a very high number)

I notice that scientists on these boards most often answer that way.

That is personal experience and knowledge against your meaningless and constant declarations.

I've spent a lot of years in the sciences, and among biologists. So perhaps my sample is different than yours.

You may tell me I am wrong, or "mistaken" again, which you do frequently,

As you do me.

in effect calling me a liar,

You will sometimes do that to me, when you get upset, but I don't remember saying it to you.

I suppose the answer is for each of us to do the test for ourselves and see how it comes out. Then neither your declarations nor mine will matter.

[ July 29, 2005, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: The Galatian ]

 

[Paul Brand]

The Discovery Institute, on the other hand, remain orthodox IDers. And they have admitted the "governing goal" of ID is to advance their unorthodox religious ideas.

What are these unorthodox religious ideas? (I asked you a similar quesion in my previous post to you, but you haven't yet responded).

People are moving from ID to science, not the other way around.

Either that's begging the question, or rhetorical nonesense. I easily tire of rhetoric.

It's just "Godmustadunnit."

More rhetoric.

And even if God did it, (He did) science works on how it happened. ID can't do anything useful for science.

Blah blah blah. No substance.

Funny you should mention that. Jonathan Wells is leading the ID Jihad. He says the Rev. Myung Son Moon gave him a mission to "destroy evolution." You're just a foot soldier for Rev. Moon.

But you admitted before that the Wedge document was not for the purpose of enhancing Wells' Moonie ideology.

Keep in mind, ID would have to acually produce some contribution to knowledge if you wanted to publish something in a scientific journal.

I'd refer you to Dembski's book, "The Design Revolution" if you were interested in reading a rebuttal to your accusation.

And Dembski says that's not the case yet.

That's inaccurate.

Ironically, if it ever does, it will simply confirm Darwinism, as Denton points out.

You keep citing the one example of a person leaving ID. What other high profile ID proponent can you name that abandoned ID in biology?

Here's a way to test that:
Go up to a scientist and ask him why he accepts evolution. If he starts citing evidence, you're wrong.

That's just silly. You know you need to critically examine the evidence.

I would say the Moonies and people like Phillip Johnson certainly have an unusual view of God, but I would not call them "Godless." Johnson may even be a Christian, albeit a rather unorthodox one. [/QB]

Again, you have failed to show that the ID movement exists for the purpose of promoting the Moonies. Regarding Johnson, you claimed you don't even know what he believes, so I don't know what justification you have for calling him unorthodox.

I don't mean to be rude to you Galatian, but you need to go beyond blind rhetoric, false accusations, and poor logic to make your point. Personally speaking, I lean somewhat in favor of Denton's new view (directed evolution/ID in astronomy), and so we may be in the same boat. But I think your reasoning is sub-par.

 

[Helen]

To Galatian: If Darwin on Trial is the only book you have read by Phil -- and it was his first on the subject -- then you are fourteen years behind. Read some of his other books and see what he is saying before you continue your ignorant comments about what you think he believes.

No, you haven't called me a liar straight out. You just treat what I say with such supercilious snobbery that the effect is either to say "this lady is totally incompetant" or "this lady is lying." You have complimented me before on my competance so that only leaves you indicating I lie.

I'm not quite as circuitous. You lie. You lie about the meaning of what I am saying and about others. I know what I am saying is getting across clearly to others because of PM's I get. I know you are lying about others because I know some of them.

You protest "But what I say is true." I know better.

 

[The Galatian]

If Darwin on Trial is the only book you have read by Phil -- and it was his first on the subject -- then you are fourteen years behind.

I have not read that he recanted. I will certainly agree that he has become orthodox if you can show me that he has.

Read some of his other books and see what he is saying before you continue your ignorant comments about what you think he believes.

As I said, I only rely on what he writes.

No, you haven't called me a liar straight out. You just treat what I say with such supercilious snobbery that the effect is either to say "this lady is totally incompetant" or "this lady is lying."

Just a few posts ago, I wrote that you were a competent and formidable debator. I do know somethings you don't, as I'm sure you know things I don't.

You have complimented me before on my competance so that only leaves you indicating I lie.

Or possibly that you don't know everything. I certainly did not hint that you lie.

I'm not quite as circuitous. You lie. You lie about the meaning of what I am saying and about others.

I would be pleased to see an example. You sometimes make accusations when you get upset, but I don't hold you to them.

I know what I am saying is getting across clearly to others because of PM's I get. I know you are lying about others because I know some of them.

If you think I'm lying about Johnson, read his book and see.

I wish we could have a discussion without anyone becoming angry and accusatory. My offer is genuine. If you think I've lied to you, show me how, and we can talk about it.