Oct 302012
 

Brittany J 166x250 We don’t have all the answers, evolution is a theoryAccording to my man Webster, theory is defined as “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation.” Basically, a theory may be regarded as correct, but it is not given as fact. It has not yet been proven true. So why is it, then, that in collegiate programs, where we are supposed to be receiving the best education possible, theory is presented as fact?

Like many of you, as a freshman I had to take LIFE 102 as an Introduction to Biology course. When we began discussing evolution, what struck me was that this information was never presented as the theory it is. Instead, I was told that this was fact: evolution is the only response we have to the question of where the human species came from.

The problem I had with the system was that I was told that evolution was fact, and yet I didn’t believe in evolution. I came from a private high school, where we were obviously on the whole Intelligent Design bandwagon. All of my science courses at my Lutheran high school were from an evolutionary standpoint, but it was always presented as theory.

Evolution is a theory, just as Intelligent Design is a theory. I cannot prove to you that God exists, but you cannot prove to me that He doesn’t. Hence why these two theories have existed fairly peacefully for years.

So when I came to college, I expected theories to be presented as theories and facts to be presented as facts. It was disheartening to find that this was not the case.

I learned the material, I took the exams, I did fairly well. I passed a course where I did not believe in the curriculum — a first for me. But never, in this course, was there even mention of the fact that other theories exist. Evolution is not the only theory out there, so where is the equal representation?

I am not asking for Intelligent Design to be offered as a course. I am fully aware of the separation of church and state. Being that this is a public university, I expect evolution to be taught.

The change that I would like to see is for professors to admit that they don’t have all the answers. The theory that they are presenting does not house all of the answers to our questions, it is simply the theory that isn’t supposed to step on people’s toes.

So at least make mention of the fact that the theory of evolution is not proven true and is open to experimentation. At least make mention of the fact that there are at least two different tracks one can take in answering the question “where do we come from?”

I don’t have all the answers to that question. But Charles Darwin didn’t either. Since neither of us can prove that God does or does not exist, why don’t we just count our losses and admit that we don’t know?

I’m not saying that God even needs to be mentioned. But spend a little bit of time acknowledging my beliefs, and understand that there are some things about evolution that I may not know. I was taught evolution in my science classes, sure, but I am by no means an expert. Creationism, though, that I know and know well.

Let’s treat these theories equally. Let’s admit that there are things that we don’t know.  Let’s make the little private school kid feel included in the conversation.

I believe in God, in a Higher Power, in Intelligent Design. That has nothing to do with perfect science, it has nothing to do with proving theories. It has everything to do with plain and simple faith. And I would like my faith, my practiced theology, my belief system to be acknowledged and regarded as a valid theory. Just as I promise to regard evolution as a valid theory.

Brittany Jordan is a sophomore psychology major. Her column appears every other Tuesday in the Collegian. Letters and feedback can be sent to letters@collegian.com.

To read a response column by columnist Res Stecker, click here.

 We don’t have all the answers, evolution is a theory
 Posted by on October 30, 2012 at 12:00 pm Opinion Tagged with: , , ,  Add comments
  • What

    Except that you’re using the wrong definition of theory.

    A SCIENTIFIC theory is: “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.” Saying evolution is “just a theory” is like saying evolution is “just’ a very-factually based, tested thousands if not hundreds of thousands of times, and almost universally accepted by scientists and scholars.

    You are being mislead by the definition you presented as a theory. Scientific theory is much different from common language definition of theory.

    Gravity is listed as a theory. Ever think about that? We all know gravity’s true…if you don’t, I’d welcome you to test it.

    After all it’s “just a theory”.

    Furthermore, here are some other things that are just theories: tectonic plate theory, the periodic table of elements, the atomic theory, and the theory of cells. But, since they’re just theories, by your logic we should also teach my “theory” that humans and animals are all built up of tiny pieces of candy. Right?

    • http://twitter.com/RichardorRes Res Stecker

      Genius^^^

    • LeeBowman

      The definition you cited is the classic AAAS definition, presented in a ‘press release’ entitled “Q & A on Evolution and Intelligent Design”, essentially a propaganda piece. Following AAAS’s definition [shame on you Mr. Webster], it reads, “Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than “just a theory.” It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease.”
      http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml

      What they fail to make clear however, is that while ‘reams’ of data have been collected and assimilated regarding the theory of evolution [T of E], establishing the various methodologies to explain it causalities remain a work in progress, and for the following reason:

      While the progression of species transitions from simple [monocellular prokaryote to eukaryote to the higher phylogenetic variety] has been documented via the fossil record, it cannot be demonstrated empirically. It is basically a historic, forensic study, and non-replicable.

      The AAAS concludes the above paragraph with, “Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.”

      So while both gravity and the T of E are factual in their ‘observable’ outcomes, the ‘causalities’ of both are unproven at this juncture.

      • McCowan

        And yet astronomers have calculated the orbit of Pluto. They have never seen and will never see a full orbit of the sun.

      • wfraser11

        Totallly idiotic post by a philosopher who attacks science with, babble. Waste of time interacting with this guy.

    • guinness blaine

      As a physics major, please don’t compare gravity to evolution. We understand evolution in a much more stable way than our understanding of gravity, largely because we actually know what causes evolution. There is no “theory of gravity,” although the theory of general relativity describes gravitation… in ways incompatible with our most up-to-date understanding of quantum field theory. Gravity is a big problem for physicists, whereas evolution is something reliable for biologists to hang a hat on. The Law of Universal Gravitation, which was at one point considered established, has since been demonstrated false (although a useful approximation) and overturned.

      In the future, please compare the theory of evolution with its kind – established theories we actually understand which are under no threat of being overturned, like plate tectonic theory, atomic theory, cell theory, or similar.

      TL;DR – gravity is not listed as a theory because we’re not certain enough about how it works, though we know it exists. A theory is not the suggestion of a phenomenon, but rather a complete model.

  • Les Lane

    I commend you for writing about a subject where your knowledge is obviously limited. This is a great way to engage others and open learning possibilities.

    In science, evolution is regarded as both a fact and a (scientific) theory. Concepts are proved in mathematics, but never proved in science. Science is inherently incomplete, meaning that there are questions it either can’t answer or answer well.

    Science and evolution are both complex and most students go through college w/o adequately understanding either. These are both important ideas. One shouldnt go through life w/o serious efforts to understand them and college is the place to begin because it’s an environment with knowledgeable people who are willing to discuss. On the one hand we should learn from those who know more and on the other we should inform those who know less.

    • Human Ape

      “I commend you for writing about a subject where your knowledge is obviously limited.”

      Limited? The airhead’s knowledge is zero. She knows absolutely nothing about science.

  • BigIdeaSeeker

    Fact: populations have evolved and do continue to evolve. Theory: natural selection is the means by which said factual evolution has taken place. Thus, the theory is a working framework that explains the fact of biological evolution. Scientific theory is very different from Webster’s “theory.”

    • Brittany Jordan

      I believe in microevolution, that populations evolve and adapt. It’s when you get into the macroevolution, that I, and everything else, came from a microbial cyst in the primordial sludge that I run into problems. It’s a working framework, sure, but it’s not fact, as proven by the scientific method.

      • wfraser11

        The micro macro mambo written by a creationsit who has never looked at the fossil record logically. Fraud.

        • LeeBowman

          Wrong. The terms were coined by a Russian entomologist in 1927. And the distinction is valid, since microevolution is observable adaptations [minor phenotypic alterations within a given species to aid in environmental adaptations], whereas macroevolution refers to major phenotypic revisions which result in taxa outside of a given species, genus, or even family. IOW, a radically altered phyla.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kevin-Brown/515057114 Kevin Brown

            And yet it doesn’t appear in science text books. Just because some Russian entomologist coined the phrase doesn’t mean that it still isn’t used as mumbo jumbo by creationists. Also to be clear there is NO difference between micro and macro evolution. They are the exact same thing. There is nothing that separates them.

          • LeeBowman

            Of course it’s used by Creationists, as well as ID proponents. And it is a valid descriptor IMO, as it distinguishes between adaptive alterations and the more complex taxonomic alterations which lead to revised body-plans.

            The current scientific consensus denies the distinction, due primarily to its belief [yes belief, an un-proven subjective conclusion] that minor adaptive alterations build over vast time to radically altered body-plans. This may well be in select cases, but there are a plethora of examples where it does NOT fit the data.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kevin-Brown/515057114 Kevin Brown

            They currently deny the distinction because there isn’t one.

            Can you define the exact moment when micro becomes macro?

            The reality is that you can’t. Evolution is a thousand incredibly small changes over time in a large population. A species doesn’t suddenly grow an arm or change it’s tooth arrangement as you may like to think. This happens slowly such that you can’t tell the difference between generation 1 and 2. However the changes become apparent between generation 1 and 1,000. Where do you define macro? Arbitrarily at generation 487? or do you define it when a new population appeared in a desert region at population 569 even though they can still interbreed? Maybe at generation 739 when the species produce infertile offspring or maybe at generation 957 when they don’t produce offspring.

            The reality is that the function, application and method are all the same.

            Creationists are just no longer able to deny the evolution happens so they play word games and try to blur the lines. The theory of ID is built around this idea. they NEVER define “kinds” or even attempt to say when the primary “kind” appears. They have created a moving target that they change depending on the question. More than a couple of questions will trip them up. This is just the dying breaths of creationism. 20 years ago they were still denying that evolution even existed. Today they build a theory around it but add exceptions, in another 20 years it will change to evolution happened for every other species but humans. (DI latest book already has the set up for this).

            Also with respect it is hypocritical at best to say belief. Especially considering that you are supporting a belief, that has ZERO support, is entirely subjective (ID doesn’t define anything), completely unproved (impossible to prove if they did do research) and religiously subjective conclusion. So you are welcome to say what you want but in almost all cases the same complaints can be added in greater number and severity to your own hypothesis so it doesn’t do you much good.

            As much as you may not like Evolution the simple reality is that it is the best possible explanation for the diversity of life on this planet by leaps and bounds above any other theory. It has been proven right down to the genetic level and it continues to be proven as we learn more about our DNA.

            I will fully welcome the theory of ID if and when spend the time and energy completing their theory instead of spending 75% of the budget on marketing and political games. Currently ID is no more a scientific theory than a can of Pepsi because they treat themselves like one.

          • LeeBowman

            “Can you define the exact moment when micro becomes macro”

            Never. It is a false conflation that adaptive changes become body plan re-designs [avian flight, land mammals to cetaceans]. While there may be adaptive changes along the way, they do not constitute the requisite re-designs.

            It may be a mix of the two, but avian flight is a prime example of the requirement for design intervention at key points. With no look-ahead facility, there is no way that adaptive phenotypic alterations would eventually become a highly engineered matrix of mechanisms to allow for extended flight. A gliding squirrel perhaps, but never more than that.

            But as non-engineers, rank-and-file biologists and paleontologists can’t seem to wrap their minds around those requirements. Instead, they smile and confidently chortle, mutant-did-it. And Daddy Darwin would be proud.

          • McCowan

            Bird flight is evolutionary as well. You really need to keep up. Latest theory is feathers on dinosaurs were used for courtship.

          • Kevin Brown

            Tell that to the flying squirrel.
            The Black-bearded Gliding Lizard of Asia
            and the flying Fish
            I guess they didn’t get the memo.

            Heck Google “walking Fish” and it will blow your mind because they don’t exist either. =)

            FYI I actively work in engineering. I understand how design and efficiency works. I also understand just how inefficient and animal designs are. What is better a god who created a system that will adapt and change over time fore ever and ever. Or a god that has to micro manage the world and does a pretty incompetent job of it. I will never understand why creationists insist that God is incompetent.

            Also Lee are your designs created by a biologist. How about letting a landscape architect do the load calculations. I know here’s a great idea lets let the survey crew do all the hydraulic modeling. I have a uncle
            who fancies himself a geologist let him do the drilling. After all, all it doesn’t take any education or training or much experience to do your job. Just an internet connection.

            Maybe instead of suggesting that several million people are incompetent frauds you should take a moment get off of your arrogant high hoarse and thank god that you are just as incompetent at everyone elses job as they are at yours. Because by your standard you don’t deserve or need your job because ANYONE can do it.

          • McCowan

            An what is your point?

          • McCowan

            My point was in the first sentence.

            “Bird flight was evolutionary”

  • Glen Davidson

    “At least make mention of the fact that there are at least two different
    tracks one can take in answering the question “where do we come from?”

    You mean magic, or the hard work of actually matching up cause and effect?

    In what way are the two even slightly comparable?

    What has design or intelligence ever explained about life with its extremely derivative nature? The latter is required by evolutionary mechanisms, and is an absurd impediment to any sort of intelligent design.

    Why would anyone thinking of designing bird or bat wings even look at the terrestrial forelimbs of bird and bat ancestors for structures out of which to make wings, instead of looking at the working vertebrate wings of pterosaurs? Intelligence would look at what works, or possibly begin from first principles, while evolution can only adapt ancestral characteristics–as we see in all vertebrate wings and throughout life.

    Evolution is called a theory because it integrates otherwise disparate information into a coherent whole, in this case including the matching up of causes and effects. “Intelligent design” is something that simply tries to claim for design what only evolutionary theory explains, while ignoring the fact that life is rife with details that make no sense from a design standpoint.

    Of course evolution has questions, as does any research science. Evolutionary theory actually does have many answers, while “intelligent design” has no answers, no causal model, no research program, and no interest in doing real ID science (the closest they come is doing evolutionary science in order to play their false dilemma of evolution vs. intelligent design). Real science seeks for causes, fake science like ID seeks to win by excuses and by rubbishing actual research results.

    Glen Davidson

  • Jerrold Alpern

    The National Academy of Sciences, the foremost scientific organization in the country, defines theory as: “In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”

    You are confusing one common meaning of theory with the scientific meaning. If someone invited you to a performance of Mary Poppins because it was a “hit”, would you expect to see a mob killing?

    Your belief system, which includes Intelligent Design, is not a scientific theory, it is faith, which is not testable or falsifiable and is therefore not science. To teach it as of equal value with the theory of evolution would contradict the very science you are expected to learn. The theory of evolution explains and predicts everything in biology, which would be incomprehensible without it. Intelligent Design proponents do no research, publish no peer-reviewed papers and have never produced any evidence for their beliefs. Evolution is supported by 150 years of research and evidence by tens of thousands of scientists working in every country in the world. No evidence has ever been found that contradicts it.. Modern agriculture and medicine, among many other fields, would be impossible without it.

    Listen more closely to your professors. They are not claiming to “have all the answers”. They are stating that the scientific method is the best means that has ever been devised for finding answers to questions about the natural world. The existence or non-existence of God has nothing to do with science. Science does not negate your religion but your religion is not science and if you attempt to apply religion to the natural world then you will always get the wrong answers because you are using the wrong method.

    • Brittany Jordan

      For the record, no archaeological findings have ever contradicted the Bible, either. And the Evolutionary Theory, according to my apparent “limited knowledge”, does negate my religion. Who am I praying to if not my creator? I’m not saying that my religion is science, but it’s a theory. Just like evolution is a theory. Religion is not fact. Evolution is not fact. Don’t treat it as such.
      And as for the impossibilty concerns you raised…”with God, all things are possible.” Matthew 19:26. That’s how I can know that even without evolution, agriculture and medicine would still be possible.

      • Jerrold Alpern

        Brittany,

        The various books of the Bible are historical documents that have, over the past 150 years, been subjected to the professional, fact-based inquiries of archaeologists and historians. In some cases there has been confirmation and in some cases not. Any statement about the outcomes must take into account which version of the Bible is being investigated.

        The theory of evolution has no bearing on your personal prayers to whomever or whatever you, or any other person, believes in.

        You choose to ignore what I wrote about the definition of theory. Well, here’s a definition of fact, again from the NAS: “In
        science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all
        practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however,
        is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even
        discarded tomorrow.” Evolution is accepted as both theory and fact by virtually all scientists. To disprove it as either fact or theory would require following the scientific method to assemble other facts and inferences in support of such a conclusion not simply making an unsupported claim that evolution is false.

        Your quote, “with God, all things are possible” illustrates precisely why religion and belief are inapplicable to science. If all things are possible, then nothing can be tested or examined or proved, because God could step in and change everything at any moment. That is supernatural causation and science deals only with natural causation. And, incidentally, even in your own private belief world, God, no matter how powerful, would still have to resort to evolution to make modern agriculture and medicine possible. Any other way wouldn’t work.

      • wfraser11

        Brittany, pray to whoever you want to. If you have scientific data supporting an intelligent designer, please present it. If the magical designer is a Christian God, what about the world’s 5600 religions. Isn’t this a denominational dispute not science. The Vatican says ID is neither science or religion. Behe and Dembski are scientific outcast because they have
        no data to support their assertions. the work is rejected by science and not publishable in any scientific journal of merit. You are a typical creationist, a science denier, a logic attacker and someone who thinks their non scientific philosophy ideas means scientists are atheists.
        ID is”inextricably linked to its creationsit roots” Kitzmiller vs Dover 2005. The Suprme Court says it is not consitutional as a public school subject. Its not science and never will be.
        Believe what you will, however when you attack logic and reason with unfounded scientific fraud, you will get a similar reraction every single time by anyone who understands scientific
        methods. Endo f story Brittany. Stop attacking science. You have provided zero evidence for your alternative concept. No evidence, no theory.
        If you have evidence, please, write a research paper and submit it to a research journal.
        You will not take mankind back to The Dark Ages with superstitious fraud.

        • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

          In fact, ID creationist guru William Dembski has admitted his Dark Ages desire, “…but let’s admit that our aim, as proponents of intelligent design, is to beat naturalistic evolution, and the scientific materialism that undergirds it, back to the Stone Age. “DEALING WITH THE BACKLASH AGAINST INTELLIGENT DESIGN version 1.1, April 14, 2004”

          Dr. Dr. Dembski is now among the trailer-trash of theology schools. Even the young earth creationists have fired him.

      • wfraser11

        Yup. that’s true. Wheres the ark. How did Noah get millions of species on board 4000 years ago? Oh yes thats right, kinds. And then they magically changed into millions of species. its magic !

      • Les Lane

        Brittany, you appear still not to grasp the meaning of scientific theory. Make the effort to broaden your understanding.

      • wfraser11

        Your religion is not a theory until you can prove some other mechanism explains how life evolved on the planet. Until then, you have no theory and it is not science. Got it?

      • Human Ape

        “For the record, no archaeological findings have ever contradicted the Bible, either.”

        The airhead is a Bible thumper. What a surprise!

        Airhead, you are pathetic. This is the 21st century and you still waste your time reading a worthless ancient book that’s full of genocide and idiotic fantasies. Your disease is incurable. You will forever be a drooling moron. Thanks for disgracing my country.

        • Brittany Jordan

          Human Ape (creative, really. You’re so clever),
          There is this thing, it’s called the New Testament. The entire Bible is not made up of parables and stories (or genocide and fantasies for that matter). Read it, then bash it, I beg of you.
          And our country, it was based on Christiantiy. Does “one nation, under God” ring a bell? Check out the back of our currency- “In God We Trust”. And yet I’m the one disgracing it? I think you get awarded that.
          From one “drooling moron” to another, insults don’t help you. Try something else.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            Ms. Jordan, obviously your knowledge of history is a pathetic as you abilities in science. The “Oath of Allegiance” originally dates from the end of the Civil War. The “in God” parts were added in the late 1950s in the midst of the anti-communist hysteria. That was when the currency was changed as well.

            Unlike todays religious-right children, I am old enough to remember.

            As for the Bible, I suggest you don’t read it too carefully. As a scientist I am a militant agnostic- I don’t know if gods exist, and neither do you. As a student of the Bible, I am certain that the various biblical gods do not exist. I do think that someone named Yeshua ben Yosef was a reform rabbi who was executed by the Romans. I think I might have liked him. The religion that was invented decades later has as little to do with him as the “pledge” has to do with being an American.

          • Eric Webster

            ‘Dr.’ Hurd, I don’t believe any respectable scientist would lower themselves to interjecting belittling snips into a conversation amongst young adults. This is a ‘coming of age’ conversation in which kids are slowly emerging from the safe bubble of what their parents and tight nit community have always told them to believe and confronting the wide world of knowledge and world views at large.
            Furthermore your grammar is poor which makes taking you seriously difficult.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            Mr. Webster, “tight nit (sic) community?” A good rule for on-line conversations is to avoid making grammar, or spelling flames when you have made a stupid error in the same post. A “nit” is the egg of a mite, the word you were trying to use, a “knit,” is a woven fabric.

            Other than that, I have more respect for university students than you do. You seem to want them treated as children. They are not children.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            I’d also note that many of my professional colleagues felt I stopped being a “respectable scientist” when I began to devote increasing amounts of time refuting creationist stupidities.

          • EC

            The phrase “one nation, under God” was only added on June 14, 1954. Seriously, go Google it.

            You know nothing of science. You apparently know nothing of this nation’s history either. Why on Earth are your inane thoughts being published?

          • McCowan

            Thats only if you believe in Google.

          • Chris

            We did read the New Testament. Our country is not based on Christianity. One nation under God was inserted during the Cold War at the behest of the Knights of Columbus. Christians in this country clearly don’t follow the New Testament as shown in this video. http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/10/31/ah-but-thats-the-republican-interpretation-of-the-new-testament/

          • der3plate

            “Under god” was added to the pledge in 1954 during an era where there were thousands of god fearing idiots trying to strangle America.

            “/And our country, it was based on Christiantiy/” Yeah. Another lie. USA was NEVER based on Christianity. What better way to unravel your terrible arguments than use quotes from the founding fathers?

            “Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies.” – Thomas Jefferson

            “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.” – Thomas Jefferson

            “In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people.” – James Madison

            ” The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.” – John Adams

            “Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.” – Benjamin Franklin

            “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.”- John Adams

            Whoops. Looks like another subject you should avoid is history. What educational concept are you going to ruin next, music? Literature?

          • der3plate

            Forgot to mention “In God We Trust” was added in 1956. Recent history. VERY recent.

          • wfraser11

            Jordan.
            No one is arguing you can’t be a Christian. But when you
            attack science with it, stand by a napalm strike on your logic.
            You defame Christianity by sharing creationist fraud.

          • Carkoon

            The Bible most certainly does contain stories; at least one of the stories regarding the birth of Jesus must be a story in order to account for the discrepancies between the gospels of Luke and Matthew.

            Second, our country was not based on Christianity. Please see Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, which states very clearly that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”. That was ratified unanimously by members of Congress, including several founding fathers. If anyone would know whether the nation was founded upon Christianity, then they would.

            Third, the phrase “One nation, under god” was added to the pledge only in 1954 in the height of the Cold War in order to separate ourselves further from the Soviet Union; it by no means is an indication that these attitudes are correct.

          • Joe Citizen

            In what way is our country “based on Christianity”???
            In which book of the bible is the “separation of powers”? A bi-cameral legislature? A presidency? What chapters or verses are the foundation of the Bill of Rights???
            Do you have any idea what you’re talking about???
            Have you ever heard of the Treaty of Tripoli? Google it… Article 11, specifically.

          • ET

            You haven’t read your bible have you? If you think no stories of genocide exist in it, you are reading the wrong book or being wilfully ignorant. One of the most famous stories in the Bible (Noah’s Ark) is about genocide.

            I can find quotes from almost very Founding Father of your country stating that religion is bad.

            “One nation under god” and “in god we trust” were only introduced in 1958. they did not exist when you country was created.

            Evolution is a fact. Francis Collins, a catholic and head of the Human Genome Project, has been quoted saying that even if you ignore every other piece of evidence, the DNA evidence alone is enough to prove evolution as FACT. Not an idea, not a hypothesis. A FACT.

          • ET

            Sorry, 1954.

          • History Jerk

            Except that’s incorrect. Our nation was founded on freedom, not on religion. The Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by congress during George Washington’s presidency, explicitly stated that ‘The United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion,’ Our nation’s original motto wasn’t ‘In God We Trust,’ but rather ‘E Pluribus Unum’ which is Latin for, ‘Out of Many, One,’ signifying the unity of our country, but was replaced with ‘In God We Trust’ in 1956. As for ‘one nation, under God,’ that was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. These are simple facts.

            Additionally, Washington, Jefferson, Paine, Franklin and several other founders weren’t even Christians, but deists, which is the belief in a creator who set the whole cosmos up, but doesn’t interfere in human affairs and most certainly never demands praise.

          • Kivahut

            Oh honey, you’re making this too easy. The “One nation, under god” wasn’t a part of this country’s beginnings. It was added in 1954. “In God We Trust” was added to currency in 1956. Do you know anything about critical thinking or research? You can’t make this stuff up, or cherry pick. You’re giving women journalists a really bad name.

          • Reason

            Oh no… The US was not created based on Christianity. It was not even based on Christian morals. It was based on humanistic morals (some of which are present in the bible, true, but the morals existed before the bible. It has no claim over them). And big fail on the “one nation under god”. That was added in the fifties during the red scare, just like “in god we trust” was. They were used in an effort to unite the country, not under one god, but against another nation – The USSR (at the time it was communist, and was an atheist state).

            It’s painfully obvious you don’t even have an elementary grasp of science, evolution, or even the pieces of your own country’s history that you use to feel better about your ignorance. Please, I don’t think you are stupid, but I want you to educate yourself before speaking. Especially on topics such as science, where it is absolutely necessary to at least have a small amount of understanding in order to debate on it.

      • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

        Ms. Jordan, the city of London is mentioned in the Harry Potter books. This did not constitute “proof” there is a Hogworts Hall. For the archaeological status of the Bible, see:

        Finkelstein, Israel, Neil Silberman
        2001 “The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts New” York: The Free Press

        They assume you know:

        Mazar, Amihai
        1992 “Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E.” The Anchor Bible Reference Library NewYork: ABRL/Doubleday

      • Chris

        No findings have confirmed the Bible. There are no fossils to prove Adam and Eve’s existence or the wacko fable of the Ark. Evolution IS FACT – you yourself are proof as well as the flu you will catch if you don’t get an evolution science based flu shot.

        God doesn’t help me with science. If he did then he was responsible for helping the German science in WWII on live humans. Your general knowledge of science and the history of this planet is abysmal.

        • Seraphim

          Actually, that flu shot would be more germ theory based

      • McCowan

        There are many contradictions in the bible Brittany. Mary and Joseph travelling to Jerusalem for example. Why did they go? Because of a census? There is no record of hundreds of thousands of people travelling to their birth place or evidence of a giant census.

      • wfraser11

        For the record Brittany, you just like debating.
        Waste of time here. Babble away.

      • guinness blaine

        This is an important thing for evolution opponents to understand: no part of the theory of evolution states that there is no God. There is nothing in it to keep someone from believing in a higher power. Darwin himself said “It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist.” It was a Christian biologist, Theodosius Dobzhansky, who wrote the essay “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.”

      • Marc B.

        Why do you bother arguing about things such as evolution, empirical evidence and scientific methodology while at the same time asserting that an undetectable supernatural being can suspend the laws of physics? Don’t you see how absurd this is? You have a false dichotomy flourishing in your reasoning.. Are there only two choices, i.e., evolution/existence of the universe or your god? Maybe, it was a “something” or a “nothing” that gets the credit.

      • Carkoon

        Except the archeological evidence that shows Jews were not in Egypt during the time the Pyramids were built.

        Or that there was ever a census conducted by the Romans that ordered people to return to their places of birth, which contradicts the reason that Joseph and Mary had to return to Bethlehem where they had Jesus. The Romans kept extremely good records, and there is no indication of a world-wide census ever being taken that required people to return to their places of birth.

        Or geological records, which show no evidence for a global flood six thousand years ago.

      • Kivahut

        Um, other than the archaeological dig that showed neolithic people in Judea were making glue 2,300 years before your bible says the world was made. http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/glue.html.
        There are many archaeological findings that contradict the bible. There’s plenty of geological finds too.

      • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

        I am an archaeologist and I can tell you that the LACK of archaeological findings for an exodus out of egypt is one good sign that the bible is wrong sometimes. Not to mention not a single chariot or piece of egyptian military armor at the bottom of the red sea.

        Germ theory is a theory, atomic theory is a theory, the theory of gravity is just a theory…theory in science is not what you think theory means. a theory in science EXPLAINS a fact.

        and i like how you quote the bible, a quote that basically says “MAGIC” and you think that is an answer to anything. stick to writing because science is not your strong suit.

      • BornRight

        ////For the record, no archaeological findings have ever contradicted the Bible, either///

        You must be kidding. The Bible states the Earth is a paltry 6000 years old. But all scientific analysis have dated the Earth to 4.5 billion years. This has been corroborated by dating other solar system material such as Moon rocks & asteroids.

        The Bible states God created all living things in a mere 6 days. We have concrete evidence that life evolved gradually over hundreds of millions of years.

        The Bible states there was a cataclysmic global flood that destroyed all life except those on Noah’s ark. There can’t be anything more stupid than this.

        You’re outright blind in your religious faith. That’s fine, but keep it out of science.

  • Bruce in Orlando

    “Poe’s Law is an axiom suggesting that it’s difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between parodies of religious or other fundamentalism and its genuine proponents, since they both seem equally insane.” Brittany is likely spoofing us by parroting several simple minded argument fallacy ever made about evolution. You did forget to use the phrases ‘Marxist lie’ and ‘liberal elite’.

    • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

      Bruce, I am sorry but I think you are being too kind to Ms. Jordan.

  • http://twitter.com/RichardorRes Res Stecker

    Professors, at least legitamite ones, are men and woman of science.
    They would have absolutely no reason to teach the idea of intelligent design because it has no basis in science, and thus does not belong in a classroom outside of philosophy courses.
    Evolutionary theory is more of an explanation about how the worlds ecosystems have come to exist today. It is is a matter of testable fact, explaining it like it is up for debate is pointless.
    Think of it this way.
    Evolutionary Theory is grounded in presentable facts, like math. 2+2+4, and we know that by testing it.
    Intelligent Design is as you said grounded in faith. It is no researchable, testable, or provable beyond reasonable doubt. It is impossible to teach anyone something like this without telling them it is “just because” you totally eliminate the criticial thinking process which is so valuable in our society.
    You can believe with all your heart that 2+2=5, but just believing something strongly without evidence does not make it true.

    • Brittany Jordan

      Okay, fair enough. But if this evidence covers as much as you claim it to, then you should be able to replicate it, no? Catch me if I’m wrong, but going off of the scientific process, in order for something to be accepted as fact, it has to be replicated. So, if scientists have those “presentable facts” for the creation of the world, then they should be able to create a universe of their own, right? You can believe with all your heart that there is no intelligence behind where we came from, but that doesn’t make it true.

      • LeeBowman

        Your are correct. It is NON-replicable. And in somewhat desperate attempts
        to confirm a long-held prediction, science *extrapolates* the data to conform to
        the prediction(s) they have set out to confirm. Subjectivity on steroids …

        • Human Ape

          LeeBowman is a retarded liar for the magic Jeebus man. His stupidity burns.

          • LeeBowman

            LOL. Would you like to discuss design inferences, and their pro and con? On the other hand, I’ve never seen you raise any logical points of contention; only rhetoric.

          • Chris

            ID is BS – proven in court. These “design inferences” come from a bunch of clowns at the DI that are paid to obfuscate. Their “Institute” has been proven dishonest by teh Wedge document. Evolution is true – get over it – unless you have proof and fossil evidence of your magic skygod?

      • Jerrold Alpern

        Brittany,

        A) “Replicable” means that other scientists can replicate the results of another scientist’s work. It does not mean that scientists can replicate the entire process of evolution over the last 3.5 billion years and recreate the world. Replicability is an essential part of the scientific method. You have misapprehended its meaning.

        B) The theory of evolution does not deal with how the universe and life came into existence. Those are separate lines of scientific inquiry.

        C) Scientists do not “believe” that Intelligent Design is false. They do not accept ID because their is no evidence for it, it cannot be tested and it produces no verifiable explanations or predictions in the real world.

      • wfraser11

        Fossil record. Geology. Millions of replications. Life evolved. Thousands of transitional fossils. hard to replace the fatc that life evolved with ?……… Sciences understanding changes every day however. Show us the talking snake fossil.
        Life evolved.. If you have an alternative explanation and one that replaces current understanding of evolution, please, state it, or write a paper in a research journal for review.

      • arlocrescent

        To measure the height of a mountain scientifically — think now– does that mean you have to reproduce the mountain? No! You measure it twice, the measurement has been replicated, the measurement has strong validity. If you are trying to validate something more complex, such as how non-life became life, it is far more complex a problem but replication remains the same. You don’t have to re-construct the universe, you need to replicate each fact upon which you rely in your _scientific_ theory.

      • wfraser11

        Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the world. That is astronomy, geology and radiometric age dating and physics.

      • Human Ape

        Read this carefully airhead. Scientists have been able to test evolution thousands of times, whenever they compare DNA sequences of different living species. Every single time evolution has passed the test. Always evolution wins.

        Also, Ms. Airhead, evolution describes the development of new species. Evolution does not describe the beginning of the universe. That would be another branch of science which by the way does not invoke your Magic Jeebus Man.

        You don’t even know there’s different branches of science. Your stupidity burns.

        And stop using the word “intelligence” when you really mean “THE MAGIC MAN DID IT.”

        Grow up or shut up.

        Sorry, but I have zero respect for god-soaked morons who don’t know how to shut up about things they know nothing about.

        http://darwinkilledgod.blogspot.com/

        • Brittany Jordan

          Likewise, I have no repect for you. Whenever you decide to come into contact with something that cannot be explained by science (like a woman diagnosed with stage 4 thyroid cancer and given a 6 month prognosis who is still alive and kicking today, ten-plus years later, and cancer-free), you let me know.
          Have you ever read the Bible? When you decide to become a theological expert and still decide I’m wrong, then we can have a discussion. But until that day comes, learn how to shut up about things that you know nothing about.
          Until then, there is this thing called maturity that you seem to be lacking quite a bit of. You should try it out sometime.
          God bless.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            Ms. Jordan, You might be surprised but I agree with you that “human ape” AKA “bobbyxxxx” is not worthy of respect. I have also found him generally uninformed about science, or theology. He has a modest ability to insult.

            However, this does not give any support to your position. For example, you say that the cancer remission of an anonymous woman somehow “proved” supernatural intervention of a Divine. Then why did that Divine allow the rape and murder of innocent children? Why hasn’t that Divine averted the millions of death of infants happening even now? They surely never offended a god that bragged that they were all powerful.

            Your theology seems as weak as your science, and history.

            I recommend reading some competent theology. Specifically these books by Christians for Christians about science and faith;

            Frye, Roland Mushat (editor) 1983 “Is God a Creationist?: The Religious Case Against Creation-Science” New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, Inc.

            Miller, Keith B. (editor) 2003 “Perspectives on an Evolving Creation” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing

            Young, Davis A., Ralf F. Stearley 2008 “The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press

            You won’t be able to learn science, particularly psychology, until you learn more about the religion you have professed. Since the foolish creationism currently popular is built on the failed literalist reading of Genesis, you might consider these;

            Blenkinsopp, Joseph 1992 “The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible” The Anchor Bible Reference Library New York: ABRL/Doubleday

            Friedman, Richard Elliott 1987 “Who Wrote the Bible?” New York:Harper and Row

            Smith, Mark S. 2003 “The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts” Oxford University Press. (If you need to learn what Ugaritic is, see: Pardee, Dennis 2002 “Writings from the Ancient World Vol. 10: Ritual and Cult at Ugarit” Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

            If you have learned a bit of Hebrew, you might also learn from Rabbi Natan Slifkin. He is an Orthodox Jew, and his writing is a bit dense: 2006 “The Challenge of Creation: Judaism’s Encounter with Science, Cosmology and Evolution” New York: Zoo Torah and Yashar Books

            Well worth the extra effort for some actually interested.

          • Jerrold Alpern

            Brittany,

            A college education is supposed to enable the student to think rationally about their beliefs and reconsider them if necessary in the light of new evidence and rigorous logic. You have responded to reasoned argument about science by simply reiterating your irrelevant personal religious opinions. You repeatedly appeal to the Bible as though it were the equivalent of evidence-based research. It is not. Logical, evidence-based scientific reasoning is anathema to you. Why on earth are you enrolled in a college that teaches real science? if you graduate and become a teacher, you will only do harm to any students in your classes. If you do not intend to teach, what will you do with your degree? It will be of no use if you follow any vocation that involves anything other than your particular brand of fundamentalist religion.

          • Chris

            Yes it can be explained by science. The cancer went away like so many other illnesses. Otherwise colds would be fatal too. Yes many of us have studied that wacko Bible written by a King in England to satisfy his version of Christianity. It is filled with contradictions. The Ten Commandments are full of holes as it is. You may know about the Bible but you don’t know enough about reality. Common problem in this country. People continue to waste time reading the bible, praying and going to church instead of learning and doing useful things to contribute to society. All that reading and you still cannot get everybody to agree on its supposed inerrant content.

          • McCowan

            Have there been NO cancer remissions in non-christians? What about the child who gets cancer and dies? If you can say that your God cured one person’s cancer then you will have to admit he could have cured the child’s cancer and choose not to.

            Maturity? I was a first year college student as well. I HAVE read the Bible. That is why I don’t believe in gods any more.

          • Terriblepun

            You mean “respect”. Telling someone to “shut up” isn’t professional and doesn’t reflect well on you. You may want to consider reading over your posts.

          • ZeroKaiser

            You know, this Human Ape person may only be embarrassing himself, but that hardly gives you license to respond in kind. You start off your column by turning to a dictionary for the definition of “theory”, you are clearly woeful uneducated on the topic at hand (evolution), and if you had put forth the effort into reading your bible, as you expect Human Ape to do, you would be familiar with how many contradictions and how little actual evidence there is. And yoet you’ve got the guts to use the phrase “learn how to shut up about things that you know nothing about”?

            Ignorance is OK, though I wouldn’t expect people to suffer your ignorance quietly, as evidenced by the comments here. But if there is one sure way to look bad, it is to act as a hypocrite.

      • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

        Ms. Jordan and Mr. Bowman are both incorrect that we have not “replicated” evolution. What creationists do in order to deny reality is fantasize a stupid “evolution” of monsters like the “croc-o-duck” The existence of such a freak would be the end of evolutionary biology.

        • LeeBowman

          LOL.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            The “croc-o-duck” was in fact an exact demand for “proof” of evolution made by evangelical creationist Ray Comfort. His popularity has grown following the fraud and tax cheating convictions of creationist preacher Kent Hovind.

            And, I understand ID creationism very well. Their “gradualism” is merely the demonstrated evolution of new species the few honest ones cannot still deny. The theological failure of ID is worse than there lack of any science. The notion that “design efforts were injected where required” reduced your god to an incompetent tweeker that could do things correctly in the first place. What does that do to the creationist exaggeration of Genesis 1:31. “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.”

            So “very good” just means “sort of ok, but I need to tweek all the eggs and sperm, Oh and then the embryos- ‘cuz really it sux.”

          • Chris

            If there was a designer he was too clueless for words. Totally garbage design of the human anatomy, multiple versions of eyes and human DNA contains all sorts of bits from viruses and bacteria. Yes you do have work to do. Duck-O-crock did exist at one point.

      • http://twitter.com/RichardorRes Res Stecker

        Briittany I do not want to attack you like the other people here do, I think your beliefs have merit based on the evidence you know of, I disagree with you, but do not hate you for your beliefs.
        Also, scientists today have been able to litteraly create life at the microscopic scale, if you dig around a bit on the internet you can find that, Not exactly a universe in a bottle, but it would not surpise me if one day in the future scientist could artifically create just about anything.
        There is no way for me to totally disprove your claim of an intillegence behind our existence, but their is no way you could prove it to me using scientific data, since you are the one making the claim, the burden of proof lies with you.

      • Kivahut

        Maybe you should try highlights. The added blond would at least excuse some of your lack of critical thinking. We did “create” a universe. It was dropped on Nagasaki Japan on 9 August 1945. I attached a picture of it. Describing why that is a recreation of the birth of our universe might give you an aneurysm, and I wouldn’t want to do that before you get highlights.

    • LeeBowman

      “Evolutionary theory is more of an explanation about how the worlds
      ecosystems have come to exist today. It is is a matter of testable fact,
      explaining it like it is up for debate is pointless.”

      It is only testable to a degree; by purported parallel studies, such as a strain of E. coli developing the ability to synthesize the enzyme nylonase via HGT from a Flavobacterium strain, or possibly via a single-step mutation and natural selection. Voilà, evolution by undirected natural processes has been proven!

      As well, the development of antibiotic resistance has been long touted as proof of evolutionary adaptation, which it is. But there is no valid parallel of either of the above to macroevolutionary changes, or if you don’t like that terminology, the ensuing of novel [radically revised] body-plans by phenotypic alterations of a genome, and primarily the result of HGT and RM, subsequently becoming fixed within a population as a result of NS [natural selection].

      But Brittany is correct. It is taught as not just factual in its ‘occurrence’ over vast time, but as factually due to *solely* natural [random] processes. Sorry, but solely natural causation remains a NON-established fact.

      • arlocrescent

        Solely natural causation is the definition of science. Anything else introduces magic, superstition, and wishful thinking! Shall we discuss the stork theory of childbirth? It has just as much evidence as intelligent design has.

        • LeeBowman

          Only ‘magic’ if the magic-man-did-it. Consider other possibilities, or does your mind not wrap around the term ‘extraterrestrial’?

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            So, Mr. Bowman, are you now a UFO nut-job too?

          • LeeBowman

            Look up ‘extraterrestrial’. UFO’s are only one manifestation of the term.

          • LeeBowman

            Or go here for more nuances on the somewhat nebulous term.

            A quote:

            Aside from the innumerable universes which are material, there is the
            unlimited spiritual world, where the purified living entities live with
            perfect conception about life and ultimate reality.

            UFOs, if extant, would be a subset.

          • arlocrescent

            And how did the extraterrestrial get there? Nothing but another set of questions demanding a natural answer.

          • http://twitter.com/RichardorRes Res Stecker

            I suppose extra terrestrial intervention is a possibility, but it is slim lacking substantial evidence as far as I know.
            That is why I do not like the idea of an intelligence mapping out our creation. There is too little evidence, and too many factors have had to happen just right for someone to have just set the wheels in motion to get us to where we are today.
            Also, If I was designing a species, I would be damn sure to iron out the kinks before I let it run around as a dominant species. Such as humanities predisposition to developing cancers. And I would think a being capable of designing a species logically would have too.

          • LeeBowman

            By extra terrestrial I simply mean an entity or [more likely] entities working over time to create various biological phyla and fauna. The various creatures are not necessarily self-aware, but appear to be carbon molecule based vehicles for spirit forms to inhabit.

            OBE and near death experiences are evidence of that scenario. If so, your body is only ‘you’ for a time. As well, if the creators/ designers are spirit based, you might be in a distant lineage to them yourself.

            Makes perfect sense. Skirting around the vast Cosmos was something to do, but producing and inhabiting physical [carbon molecule based] bodies allows a diversion of activities, including sex, combat, sports [a form of combat], and many more social activities.

            I term this venue ‘Theme Park Earth’, a kind of (1) biologic workshop which then became (2) a venue for a sabbatical from the cosmic realm.

            Enjoy your sabbatical, although it’s likely one of many.

  • Gurulinks

    It seems to me the deep thinking word-smiths in the academic world are missing something and it reads loud and clear in these posts. Joy. Is it really joyful to believe there may be no such thing as Santa Claus? Do you remember the pure joy and hope you had as a child or seen it in your children going into Christmas? That is joy. Could it be science is a kill joy just to have a proven satisfying answer?

    “Oh you foolish Galatians! What has happen to your joy?”

    The search for the definitive missing link in Darwinism may lead to missing the link to joy. I’d hedge my bets and keep all proven and unproven options open. Academic openmindedness has too many closed doors. Prove otherwise.

    • arlocrescent

      There is no “definitive missing link”. There are millions upon millions of generations, tiny change upon tiny change, that result in the existence of separate species. To suggest there is a ‘missing link’ demonstrates that you have not understood evolution.

      • LeeBowman

        “There are millions upon millions of generations, tiny change upon tiny change, that result in the existence of separate species.”

        Actually, separate ‘phyla’. Species have been defined by Ernst Mayr as residing at the lowest level in the taxonomic ranking system. Macroevolutionary alterations involve transitions outside of a given class, order, family or genus. Speciation [by the current definition] refers only to sympatric and allopatric changes [sexual and geographic reproductive isolation].
        http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_21

        Regarding missing links, there are many, particularly within the Cambrian strata. But even where transitional links can be inserted, there is no evidence to support NS as the sole causal mechanism. Design inferences are evident where (1) alterations exceed mutational evolutionary capability, (2) multiple simultaneous point mutations are required, and (3) no selective advantage occurred at the stage of the alleged transition.

        Evolution by natural means has only been empirically demonstrated to achieve minor adaptive traits, and which fall far short of the ability to produce complex and novel taxonomic changes. Design inferences trump the proposed [and non-demonstrable] cascade of adaptations. Sorry, but that is where the data points.

        And design input by unknown agencies does NOT point decisively to religion, except to those to hold to religious views. Gurulinks is correct in the assessment to “keep all proven and unproven options open.” To do otherwise is to remain close-minded to objective scientific inquiry.

        • arlocrescent

          Design inference = faith-based guess. Nothing like science, no matter how many big words you use.

        • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

          What bullshit, Mr. Bowman. Ernst Mayr never denied the validity of subspecies. In fact, all evolution happens at that level.

          And we have of course observed the emergence of new species from old as based on Mayr’s highly restrictive criteria for “species.” I have compiled a list of dozens of examples at: “Emergence of New Species”
          http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2009/03/emergence-of-new-species.html

    • McCowan

      Joy through ignorance? I would rather feel pain.

  • arlocrescent

    You might try reading a little further down in the dictionary!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kevin-Brown/515057114 Kevin Brown

      She is. the author purposly skipped the first definition because it disagreed with her article premis. I believe that is called cherry picking by some. Lying by omission by others.

  • Lights4Ever

    Brittany, you are obviously brave to state a case where you know that you will provoke disagreement and ridicule. For all of those who look in the mirror and believe their ancestors are monkeys, I would ask them where their monkey ancestors came from, and where those ancestors came from, and when they get to “the beginning” – where did those single cells come from? The only answer is some sort of creator or “Intelligent design”.

    • arlocrescent

      No. That’s not the only answer. Science has yet to determine which of many possible explanations will be the most robust _scientific theory_, but you cannot say “Goddidit” just because the real answer is “We don’t quite know yet.”

      • Lights4Ever

        but you can say “God did NOT do it” just because he didn’t send you a youtube showing him doing it.

        • arlocrescent

          Science investigates falsifiable claims only. Gods are not falsifiable. I never said “God didn’t do it.” I said you cannot claim “goddidit” just because we don’t understand the natural processes that did do it.

  • arlocrescent

    So, here’s what you’re saying in a nutshell:

    1) My theology is not science
    2) I want you to teach my theology in science class

    Can you see what is wrong with this picture now?

    I want everyone to learn that Odin and some frost giants were around at the start of the world. OK?

    ” In the beginning of time, there was nothing: neither sand, nor sea, nor
    cool waves. Neither the heaven nor earth existed. Instead, long
    before the earth was made, Niflheim was made, and in it a spring gave
    rise to twelve rivers. To the south was Muspell, a region of heat and
    brightness guarded by Surt, a giant who carried a flaming sword. To the
    north was frigid Ginnungagap, where the rivers froze and all was ice.
    Where the sparks and warm winds of Muspell reached the south side of
    frigid Ginnungagap, the ice thawed and dripped, and from the drips
    thickened and formed the shape of a man. His name was Ymir, the first
    of and ancestor of the frost-giants.”

    • Brittany Jordan

      If you would actually read my column, you would see that I never said that my theology had to be taught in any science classes. But come on, let’s at least make mention of the fact that there are things that we don’t know. Evolutionists are comfortable starting with the microbial cysts that eventually evolved into something as complex as the human body. Creationists decide to take it a step before that, because we’re not comfortable with coincidence. It seems to me that “scientists” wouldn’t be, either…

      • arlocrescent

        In which class, then, should your “theory” (i.e. faith-based guess) be taught? You are still insisting that it should be taught along with the evidenced-based hypotheses (see, not theories yet!) of abiogensis.

        Abiogensis is clearly a scientific concept. Taught in, you know, science classes.

        I should be excused by concluding that you want your ‘theory’ (i.e. faith-based guess) taught along side abiogenesis in science class.

        So I guess you are going to teach abiogensis in religion classes now, right?

        • LeeBowman

          May I step in here for a moment? ID as an ‘adjunctive’ hypothesis to sit right alongside natural selection *within* the existing theory, is plainly NOT a “faith-based guess”.

          Rather, it is an explanation of the data based on objective reason [irreducible complexity, non-evolvable complexities and statistically improbable novel protein/ enzyme syntheses due to random folding errors], rather than a hunch, guess, or in some cases a ‘desire’ due to a religious orientation.

          In fact, ID does not depend upon religious dogma, but rather the plethora of current data in support of it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kevin-Brown/515057114 Kevin Brown

            With respect Lee What data? Even the creators of ID agree that they do not have a complete theory but just a bunch of powerful “notions”. ID proponents Text books even left in the word creationism and their fundraising is target only at religious fundamentalists. The Wedge document clearly shows that they have a religious objective. Every single court and science organization in the land agrees it’s religious. It has more of a following in the middle east than in the US.

            The discovery institute spends 75% of their budget on Marketing and Legal operations and 5% on research (a librarian is considered a research associate). The other 20% goes to their six figure salaries. (according to DI tax statement) (funny operating model for a research institute)

            So Yes evolution is “only a theory” However, by the same logic. ID is only a hypothesis. A well-funded one but still nothing that can produce testable results, one that can’t do an experiment on. They can’t even define their own CSI factors.

            HOWEVER. You are right. All theories should be taught in school based on their level of evidence and effort…… ID should be allowed a generous 30s. Followed by catastrophism with 5minuts and a host of other theories that have a greater body of evidence than ID does. Than show evolution and the 150 years nearly undispute research and development. That should take about 10 years. It’s important to show students how science progress towards a right answer as opposed jumping backwards.

          • arlocrescent

            Bollocks! “Intelligent design” is a political ploy used by creationists to get around the separation of church and state in the US constitution. That is all.

          • LeeBowman

            While true that certain creationists have co-opted the term for their own purposes, ID stands on its own as a hypothesis to explain design inferences, where evident. But creationists do not *own* the term. The term is misconstrued as a political ploy, which it plainly is not, and the concept was embraced in the ‘School of Athens’ by both Plato and Aristotle. It likely extends to the beginning of man’s epic.

          • arlocrescent

            @LeeBowman Double bollocks! It “explains” nothing. It is merely invoking the supernatural. It was invented for political purposes. For proof of my assertions, see all the evidence submitted for the Kitzmiller trial.

          • LeeBowman

            Incorrect. ID does not posit the supernatural. And no, it was not “invented” for political purposes. After the Aguillard v. Edwards case, the term was co-opted by certain creationists.

            And regarding the Kitzmiller trial, neither the board members nor Judge Jones were the least bit familiar with ID. Buckingham et al admitted so in testimony, and Judge Jones admitted so in this PLoS Genetics interview:
            http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000297

            I followed the trial, have read all of the testimony, and have critiqued it extensively. Just Google “lee bowman” and “kitzmiller” for over 20,000 hits, about ten percent of which are related to my writings on the matter. The two part verdict, of which the second part was totally incorrect, was a political sham to further the reductionist dictates of the science community. I may submit to SCOTUS a need to review the second part ruling, and have it reversed [negated] as a violation of established jurisprudence.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            Mr. Bowman, Go to the actual trial transcript you claimed to know, and search for “Dr. Gary Hurd.” And then go away with your weak creationist nonsense.

          • arlocrescent

            Right. This nonsense is apparently your hobby. I got better stuff to do than talk about this nonsense with someone whose mind is completely closed.

          • Doc Bill

            Not true, Lee, and you know it because you’ve been spouting creationist apologetics all over the Internet for years. “Intelligent design” creationism officially surfaced in the 1988 edition of “Of Pandas and People” written by fellows of the Discovery Institute who also own the definition of “ID.” It wasn’t co-opted by creationists. That is simply a lie. It was created by creationists to get around the US Constitution. As a self-boasting expert, Lee, I’m sure you’re aware of the text fossil “cdesign proponentsists” which is a cut/paste error inserting “design proponents” into the word “creationists” as evidenced by the previous edition of said book.

            Tell you what, Lee, how about you regale us with a definition of “design,” OK? What is the metric that objectively identifies something as designed. Should be easy for you, Lee, seeing as you’re an “intelligent design” expert.

          • Jerrold Alpern

            Lee,

            Talk about quote-mining! In that same interview, Judge Jones went on to say that he was educated by the witnesses at the trial, including Miller and Behe. In order to adjudicate the case, he had to determine whether ID was science. This was a basic legal requirement for the issues involved. Both sides had ample opportunity to provide testimony on the issue. Everything was fully aired. His decision was that ID was not science, it was “dressed-up creationism.” Since you have “read all the testimony”, your omission is deliberate and part of your consistent pattern of deliberate deceit and deception in your posts.

          • LeeBowman

            “Talk about quote-mining! In that same interview, Judge Jones went on to say that he was educated by the witnesses at the trial, including Miller and Behe. In order to adjudicate the case, he had to determine whether ID was science.”

            Are you saying that I ‘quotemined?’ You might want to look up the definition. Rather than copying and pasting selected words, I gave you a link to entire interview!

            Talk about obfuscating …

            And yes, we all know how he got his biology 101 passing mark from Kenneth Miller. The point is that he was schooled by a Plaintiff’s wittness! And although both he and Minnich were misrepresented [lies regarding their actual testimony] in the Judges ruling:

            ” … both Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God, and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God.”

            Personal views have nothing to do with ID as an investigative hypothesis.

            “Professor Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered.”

            BOTH Minnich and Behe denied the ‘supernatural’ requirement for ID assessment.

            “Professor Behe conceded that the proposed test could not approximate real world conditions and even if it could, Professor Minnich admitted that it would merely be a test of evolution, not design.”

            followed by:

            ” … even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design.”

            Wrong judge. If disproven for evolution [natural causation], ID would be the logical alternative. And that would include any directed mechanism that could intelligently assemble the required 40+ proteins, plus the TTSS base [not yet evolved or engineered early on]. Then Jones makes his own ‘subjective’ claim:

            “This inference to design based upon the appearance of a “purposeful arrangement of parts” is a completely subjective proposition, determined in the eye of each beholder and his/her viewpoint concerning the complexity of a system.”

            But a failure to confirm uncaused cause, leaves ‘causative’ as the logical alternative. And yes JJ, your above conclusion is highly subjective, in and of itself.

            – If a purposeful [actually 'functional'] arrangement of parts exists, and

            – If cannot be show to be functional in its piece-meal intermediates,

            – then the design inference is a valid conclusion.

            The why/ when/ who question cannot be answered at this time, or perhaps ever. But verifying design instances by alternate eliminations is valid science, where the adjudication of the scientific process by a non-science qualifed Jurist, or for that matter ANY courtroom lab, is a blattant abuse of a court’s authority, and a violation of allowable jurisprudence.

            SCOTUS may well be next for its assessment of part two of the mis-trial of the century.

          • Jerrold Alpern

            Sorry, Lee, You did quote mine. You quoted Judge Jones description of his initial state before the case as if it were applicable during and after the trial. In the rest of the interview he explained what he had learned. You then failed to note the latter. Yup, that’s quote mining.

            All you doo is endlessly rehash meaningless, ancient, evidence-absent ID arguments.

            Whether IS was science HAD to be adjudicated. That was what the case was about. The School Board wanted to introduce ID into the science curriculum on the grounds that it was science, not religion. The DI was happy to support this argument. Judge Jones was forced to rule on whether ID was science in order to adjudicate the case. Simple.

            And there is no conceivable legal route for anyone to bring the case before the Supreme Court. That you repeatedly refer to doing this is simply pathological. The only response is : put up or shut up. I’m sure we will be happy to read about your unprecedented accomplishment in the news.

          • LeeBowman

            “Sorry, Lee, You did quote mine.”

            From one source:

            The repeated use of quotes out of context in order to skew or contort the meaning of a passage or speech by an author on a controversial subject.

            I could have posted the entire interview here, but why take up a bunch of server space and abuse Brittany’s blog entry when all you need is a link?

            My only point was his admitted lack of science and biology understanding. Buckingham as well admitted the same. That debases both of their abilities to understand the issues involved.

            As for Jones, forty days of varied testimony with no school books to peruse after work, and no exams, coupled with skewed and biased testimony by a snake oil salesman, er school book author who sells text books to the Dover Area School District …

            I’d give him a C+ for trying. But did he succeed in other ways? A plethora of paid speaking engagements, several honorary degrees, a 2006 Time Magazine ’100 most influential’ people, and perhaps more. I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t make it to the Supreme Court, but that’ll be up to Obama or Romney. Yikes …

          • Jerrold Alpern

            Lee,

            You’ve just demonstrated your own quote mining!!!! He admitted his lack of knowledge at the start of the trial but thee whole interview details the subtle and complete knowledge he gained during the trial. Your statement is unsupported by the entire interview. Only if you limit the evidence to your mined quote does it stand up. You have quote mined. Period Full stop. End of argument.

      • wfraser11

        Coincidence ? You’ve jumped to the origin of life.
        If, you examine the fossil record as it is shown in the rock record,
        you would know that yes, PreCambrian micro organisms are visble in rocks over
        1 billion years old by radiometric dating. Have a problem with physics or geology?
        You need to write some papers overturning those sciences. Then uyou need to get them accepted and published. In the meantine as long as you demonstrate a deepr and deeper lack of understanding of the sciences, you will draw more and more criticisms of your thought process.
        In the Cambrian a more complex series of soft bodied organisms can be seen in the strata, as described by the Ediocaran fauna. Over a remarkably short periuod of 40 to 80 million years, benthic invertebrates evolved into multiple life forms. Later in the Paleozoic, they continued to change. A simple course in palontology would explain that rather than the superstitious nonsense whoever the creationist fraud is that taught you his Bible based
        non scientific incorrect story. It seems to me that now you are attempting to mock scientists now by advancing non logical arguments. Again, write the paper Brittany. SAhow us the PreCambrian bunny rabbit. Alot of people have patiently suggested you learn how to think. You should try it in a context other than that of a 2000 year old book. Reading one book over and over, is alot easier than studying alot of hard ones.
        You need to try the latter. Either way, you will not ever advance your disdain for logic and science into the science classroom until you have some science. So hate away.

  • o2860651

    …and that’s why you are a psychology major. You can leave the real science to the rest of us Brittany.

    • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

      o2860651, In fact Psychology is the most experimental of the social sciences. It is equally experimental as Chemistry, and more so than too much of Physics.

      • Dan Eastwood

        Dr. Hurd is right on this one. Psychology is sometimes criticized for other reasons, but never for doing too few experiments.

    • Hannah

      That is the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. As a psychology major, I am offended that you would claim it is not a real science. Yes, it is harder to come to conclusions in psychology, but that’s why there is so much research. We accept that we will never completely understand the human mind, but we try to gain better understanding of it through research. Not all psychology majors are not idiots like the author of this column.

      • Hannah

        whoops, typo. Not all psychology majors are idiots.*

  • backyard philosopher

    I found Brittany’s opinion colunn interesting because it followed Hamilton Reed’s opinion column from Oct. 22. Brittany does not reference this column, but Mr. Hamilton also uses the argument that there is a theory of gravity yet we all know it exist and therefore the theory of evolution is equally as valid. We can see this logic used in both of Res Stecker’s response. I did want to write a comment to Hamilton’s column, but it was such a slam dunk that there were no comments in 24 hrs. So, tonight I will atleast wave and say “nice shoes” as both Hamilton and Res go in for the slam. For this I will defer to the “Happy Scientist” answereing the question “Is Gravity a Theory or a Law” Basically, there is Newton’s Law of Gravity (yes gravity does exist) and there is Einsteins’s Theory of Relativity (How or why gravity works). Having said that theories do have a lot of science and evidence behind them but no guarantee.

    Many people supporting evolution including Wikipedia would describe natural selection to include evolution. My simple definition of natural selection is changes or variation within species and evolution a change from one species to another.

    There are numerous examples of natural and artifical selection. But we count on the fact that species reproduce the same species. I don’t think too many people stay awake during their pregnancy worrying that they will have a new species or even greater adaptations. (I think a tail would be nice, or wings, or even a thumb on the other side of my one thumb would be handy). Let’s give it millions of years and start pushing people off cliffs one millimeter per year. I “believe” we can fly.

    It’s also convenient that plants and animals both evolved at together. Two amazingly complex but different life forms just evolved?

    In the mean time science and medicine will progress because God has gifted us with the ability to create, reason, dream and ask questions.

    We all know that a con may have a lot of facts and truths but in the end people can loose their life savings over it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kevin-Brown/515057114 Kevin Brown

      With respect. Does this new and bizar theory of yours have a name? Because it certainly isn’t the theory of evolution nore even anything remotly close to it. Maybe it’s called the “evolutionary strawman theory”? Afterall if you are going to suggest the millions of hard working people are incompetant the very least you can do is give your new theory it’s own name.

  • Brittany Jordan

    I understand that the Evolutionary Theory is still held as a valid, academic, scientific explanation for who and what we are. It’s been tested and has held up- that’s why it’s been around so long. But here’s the thing…Christianity’s been around for far longer. If I had nothing to base my beliefs off of, like you all seem to think, why is it that millions of people like myself refuse to believe that my existence is based on coincidence? Just because I believe I am here for a purpose, and not the mere result of unsupervised adaptation, does not, in any sense, make me less educated than you. I just have faith.
    The beautiful thing about this? Those of you that are on the evolutionary bandwagon- you have no idea. You cannot prove that all of this is based on the right combination of pressure and time; you cannot prove to me that there is no creator. I wouldn’t have much of a leg to stand on if that was the case, now would I?
    Your theory has been tested and has held up. That doesn’t make it the cold, hard truth. Because neither of us know what happened before all of this was here.
    Oh, and as for the science comment, I was a Health and Exercise major. You’re telling me that the human body, as amazingly complex as it is, was mere adaptation? That’s a hell of a coincidence.

    • wfraser11

      Christianity, a good thing until the science attacks start. Then its a bad thing.
      Read about Galileo in something other than a Christian propaganda tract please.
      Trty Wikipedia. read carefully.
      However if you must be a literalist and an IDer, you need to go all the way and join the Flat Earth Society (read the Old Testament on how the earth is flat and resting on pillars).
      Fundamentalism and creationist attacks on science. No substance scientifically.

    • arlocrescent

      Science deals with falsifiable claims only. The non-falsifiable is not in the realm of science. Science cannot prove the non-existence of a deity and does not seek to. Why those who believe in deities constantly try to make science pull god into the laboratory, I’ve never understood!

      • arlocrescent

        If you had paid any attention,you would have noticed the word “coincidence” appears no where in your biology textbook about evolution. Natural selection is not “coincidence.”

    • wfraser11

      Brittany, get help and pick up some biology books. You’re a freakin mammal like all the other mammals. Whats up with you. Too much Kool Aid

    • wfraser11

      Brittany, ? Are you kidding? Its called science Brittany. You should try it instead of attacking it with ignorant rhetorhic. And just for the record, the following church national councils have released statements supportive of evolution and highly critical of creationsim. The Lutheran Church, the Methodist Church, the Episcopalian Church, the Presbyterian Church, and the Vatican. NO? Want to deny that also? Then whatever you do, don’t go to the NCSE website and read the church statements. That way you can live in denial.
      ‘ Sounds like you have a major league denominational disagreement with your non scientific “theories” based on creationist “scientific” fraud. Uh oh.

    • McCowan

      Evolutionary biology has explained the marvels of the human body. You only have to read about it or take some courses. What about Odin and Thor and the Hebrew and Greek and Roman Gods? They were around way before Christianity.
      Ever wonder why the stars all have Arabic names?

      Have you heard of a web cast called “The Atheist Experience”?
      I think it would open up your mind. But then. Most fanatics, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu etc. cannot imagine themselves with out their religion. It would mean that they have been living their whole life as a lie. So they will use any method to protect themselves including, in many cases violence, intimidation, blackmail and terrorism.

      What would happen to you if you challenged the thinking and teaching of your specific religion in public?
      Would you receive threats? Would friends and family members use emotional blackmail? (We will never speak to you again etc.)

  • Stormy Suberbielle

    Your argument needs a more ‘intelligent design’

  • Pingback: Creationist Wisdom #279: The Student | The Sensuous Curmudgeon

  • Dan Eastwood

    Brittany,
    The mark of a good education is not to equip you with all the facts, but to give you the tools to discover new things on your own. I believe what you have here is a marvelous opportunity.
    If you want to understand the evidence for biological evolution, you should should biology, or maybe biochemistry. If you want to learn why Irreducible Complexity is not accepted as valid inference, you should should math and statistics. If you want to discover why Intelligent Design is considered to be a form of religious creationism, you should study law. If you find that science disagrees with your theology, you should study philosophy, or within your own major, take a Lifespan Development class, and learn that the adult mind is capable of holding contradictory concepts.

    You are at school to learn. and you are majoring in a scientific discipline. You should take this opportunity to learn all that you can. If you succeed you should be able to resolve your conflict. If not, then perhaps you should explore another discipline that does not require asking so many questions. It’s really up to you.

    Whatever you decide, study hard! It’s worth the effort.

  • wfraser11

    Brittany, researchers far more knowledgeable than you, use the first definiton of a theory,

    a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena “.
    Apparently you’ve used a description that is really more of a description of an hypothesis. People who clarified this in their blog today, wouldn’t bother explaining this to you, however I will.
    So, if you have an alternative “theory”, which under the definition you erroneously posted, is an hypothesis, please provide scientific proof of a magical designer, a talking snake fossil and a PreCambrian bunny fossil.
    Science awaits your research paper overturning the central tent of the biological sciences.
    PS I usually don’t get my science information from creationists who are better propagandists than
    logical thinkers. Just a hint if you ever want to be taken seriously by anyone other than a kook. :)

  • wfraser11

    Brittany, You have proven with contined arguing for ID fraud what one of my favorite bloggers says
    “Its useless to argue with a creationist”. You’ve had multiple explanations and are just trolling.
    There are four explanations for this; and I’ll leave it to you to find out what they are by reading some science bloggers who are students of the creationist fantasy world.
    I’ll simply say Brittany, that none of the explanations for your argument against logic are particularly
    nice.
    I’m happy about your beliefs. Its not science and we don’t teach Bible studies in science class.
    If you want to start your own religion class Brittany, finish your degree and have at it.

  • wfraser11

    Intelligent Design is not a throy. Not even close to a theory. No data, no research, no peer reviewed scientific research articles. Unconstitutional as the establishement of religion under the ruse of being scientific, it is fraud.
    Please, publish a paper supporting your designer ideas with data. Gaps in scintific knowledge are not proof of anything unless you have some data. 6000 year old earth? Overturning physics, geology, plate tectonics, bilogy, paleontology is uh, crazy.
    Have you joined the Flat Earth Society? You need to go all the way here.

    • LeeBowman

      Your are mistaken in all of the above straw men arguments. First, peer reviewed research is in progress which establishes probability bounds which deal with the limits of natural causality to achieve upward complexity. In the following, the improbability of novel protein/ enzyme formations due to point mutations:
      http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1

      “6000 year old earth? Overturning physics, geology, plate tectonics, bi[ol]ogy, paleontology is uh, crazy. Have you joined the Flat Earth Society? You need to go all the way here.”

      Your straw man arguments define well your level of expertise.

      • arlocrescent

        Real “sciency” sounding, there, Lee, but nothing near real science.

  • Darwinator

    How is this even printed in a newspaper of an educational institute of scientific learning?

    • wfraser11

      You can write the grievance dept at Colorado Sate U at their web site.

      • Brittany Jordan

        wfraser11,
        You need better things to fill your time with than worrying about a nothing columnist. You believe what you like, and I’ll believe what I like. Learn to handle your “grievance” with me and other ID proponents in healthier ways.

        • wfraser11

          You have attempted to perpetuate ignorance. I don’t “believe” in science Brittany.
          Science is a matter of logic, testing and replication. Your claims are based on faith. However I agree , you are a nothing columnist. Pitiful display of stupid. Keep your fundamentalist fraud out of our universities and institutions of higher learning. gross display of creationist arrogance Brittany.

        • der3plate

          The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you “believe” in it or not. :)

        • Eric Webster

          Brittany I think you are a very well intentioned individual and should not let this discourse get you down. The purpose of college first and foremost is to broaden your mind so use this experience to grow from. One of the most important lessons I learned was that the lenses through which we view the world are very biased. They are shaped by our biochemistry and environment as we get older. It is improbable for people raised in Afghanistan to be Christian, and likewise, people raised in in Mississippi usually do not turn out Muslim. College is about thinking outside the box, and developing an international, intercultural, and even interspecies world view is very important to me.
          You did not have malicious intent in writing this piece and because of that commentators should not be inconsiderate. Keep your head up. No one will ever fully escape the human paradigm. In my eye it is the enlightened who recognize the existence of this box and use that understanding to guide their intellectual and behavioral development.

  • Liefy

    Everything can only be proven to the level of theory. Does that mean nothing is true?

  • Liefy

    What is faith? Believing in something without evidence. Do a little research and find some evidence and religion looks like swiss cheese with lots of holes very quickly.

  • Brendan

    Scientific Theory: a theory that explains a scientific observation; “scientific theories must be falsifiable”

    This is the definition I have found. This contradicts what you said about how Intelligent Design is a theory. How? Well, you already gave that answer. “I cannot prove to you that God exists, but you cannot prove to me that He doesn’t.” How can something be a theory if I cannot observe it, or experiment it? If I cannot prove that God exists, how is your “theory” falsifiable? Evolution, however, can be tested. And it has been done countless times. Not once, has it ever been proven wrong. Instead, all of the experiments and observations done have proven the theory of evolution, and backed it with an overwhelming amount of evidence. I’ll give you a quick example: Evolution states that humans and apes have both evolved from a common ancestor. Apes have 48 chromosomes, while humans only have 46. According to evolution, the only way this could have happened was if two of the chromosomes fused together. If this chromosome didn’t exist, then this would have disproved the entire theory of evolution, falsifying it.

    Guess what? Scientists found this fused chromosome, at the exact point on the DNA chain where it should have been.

    You believe in God, that’s fine. But aren’t you the least bit curious how God created life? How he managed to make Adam from dirt and Eve from one of his ribs? (Genesis 2:5, 2:20-22)

  • EC

    What an astoundingly ignorant article. Who published this garbage?

    Thanks for de-valuing the degree of everyone who has ever been to CSU.

    • wfraser11

      You can write the grievance dept at Colorado state U

  • McCowan

    You should sue your private high school for abuse. They obviously purposely did not prepare you for the REAL world.

  • McCowan

    “I would like my faith, my practiced theology, my belief system to be acknowledged and regarded as a valid theory.”

    I will certainly consider this Brittany. What EVIDENCE can you show me so I should acknowledge your “belief system” as a “valid theory”?
    You see. I need more than just your word.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1433386329 Joe Martin

    While the usual tired, long-debunked straw man arguments presented in this article have been adequately debunked yet again in the comments (and I applaud your efforts), I have long ago given up on the hope that any of those who, terrified of the reality of evolution, pathetically cling to Creationism will finally see the light of critical thinking and abandon their comforting, but mythical fantasy story.

    For reasons innumerable, many people NEED to believe humanity has a special place in the universe and can’t accept that the universe couldn’t care less whether we exist or not. I have found that need, for the most part, to be immune to external argument. The best we can hope for is to keep presenting the reality of evolution to them and pointing out the absurdity of Creationism/ID. Hopefully exposure to the light of reality will accumulate in their minds and eventually reach critical mass, destroying the insidious darkness of religious delusion. … Or is it energy? Can light achieve critical energy? Hmm, I’ll have to research that …

    • LeeBowman

      “For reasons innumerable, many people NEED to believe humanity has a
      special place in the universe and can’t accept that the universe
      couldn’t care less whether we exist or not.”

      As a scientist and engineer,I have no such “need” to satisfy my ‘yearnings’. I go by the data. And if the data supports natural causation, I will hold to that premise. It is common for materialists/ reductionists to claim that ID is based on a ‘need’ for it to be valid. That is only true in select cases, where a ‘believer’ wants ID to be true, since it may support their desire. But many Creationists, Ken Ham for one, despise the ID concept, since they feel that it demeans God.

      But I (and many other science oriented researchers) see the validity of the ID premise, based solely on the data which supports it. If it bothers you to think that there may have been design and/or creative efforts in the past, feel free to cover your eyes and ears and refuse to admit to that possibility. But it will not change reality, whatever that embodies.

      • Dan Eastwood

        Mr. Bowman, you and a very few others are the only ones to accept the conclusions you draw from the data. Ideas such as Irreducible Complexity and Complex Specified Information are a failed efforts to apply statistical likelihood ratios tests. You are an engineer, so the mathematics should be something you can grasp. Look it up.

        • LeeBowman

          I base IC and NEC [non-evolvable complexity] on statistical improbabilities, and similar to the Drake Equation, not necessarily quantifiable due to no hard numbers to insert into quantifications, only probabilities. But if enough negative probabilities are present, and they are in many evolutionary examples, the result will be negative.

          Without going into specifics, complex eye formations, whether vertebrate, invertebrate or arthropod, absolutely defy the probability bounds required by natural causation. Dan Erik Nilsson’s 1996 paper on a ‘conservative’ estimate of eye evolution only addresses a progressively invaginating light-sensitive patch, a spontaneously forming lense, and the selective advantage those changes would incur. But the paper omits all of the requisite ancillary mechanisms required.

          A ten layer retina with a matrix of millions of neural connected photoreceptors, along with pigments, glial cells (essentially fibre optics to guided the photons through the aggregate layers), an opsin system of replenishment, aiming and focussing musculature, and much more are not explained by reductionist evolutionary means. His “conservative” estimate of eyes having evolved in separate lineages in a short, evolutionary time span are totally unsupported by his data.

          So when more of the ‘others’ more objectively discern probabilities from the data, with or w/o hard numbers [largely untenable], Darwin’s central prediction of natural causation is essentially falsified.

          • Doc Bill

            @leebowman What are the ” probability bounds required by natural causation?” You state blah blah defy the bounds. What are the bounds? Show us a calculation that does not defy the bounds? While your at it calculate the probability of a specific molecule of water currently in the Gulf of Mexico landing in my eye next spring.

          • Dan Eastwood

            The standard reply to to bring up the Borel limit as the probability bound, which is about 10^150. It is also a quote-mine, misrepresenting the meaning of Borel’s statement.

            NEVER do the methods of Intelligent Design attempt to evaluate the probability of their own hypothesis, which is why the refuse to define a hypothesis, or the Designer.

          • Doc Bill

            Yeah, I know. I’ve been following these knuckleheads for over 30 years but it’s always fun to press them for a specific answer then watch them run away. Ask them for a probable value for something they support, like a “micro” evolution event and suddenly they have something else to do. Morons all.

          • McCowan

            “complex eye formations, whether vertebrate, invertebrate or arthropod, absolutely defy the probability bounds required by natural causation”

            Eyes were not complex when they were formed. There are still animals with no lens in their eyes. Complex eye formation via evolution has long been solved.
            Go read.

          • LeeBowman

            I’ve studied the various eye designs, and yes, they vary in complexity. But the fact that non-related lineages have similar photoreceptors, pigments, glial cells and opsin replenishment processes begs the question:

            How did they evolve so similarly when in separate lineages? The fact that they appeared to evolve in complexity, although complex trilobite eyes preceded many simpler ones, is not evidence that they self evolved.

            Their complexities [co-dependent systems with no function by themselves], along with multi-dependent systems that would need to have formed together to function is evidence of design. Basically, with the lacking of functional intermediates, evolution by random mutations is ruled out. Below is a simplified partial retinal cross section:

          • McCowan

            Are you an evolutionary biologist? A biologist of any kind? What do you mean that you have “studied various eye designs”? What are your qualifications in evolutionary eye design?

            You are rehashing Behe’s “irreducible complexity” myth. That has been discredited years ago.

            Even Darwin had a good idea about how eyes evolved.
            You can read about why Behe’s “irreducible complexity” has been discredited at the following links,

            www dot talkorigins dot org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html

            www dot talkorigins dot org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

          • Jerrold Alpern

            Lee,

            Evolution does not proceed by “random, mutations” but by random mutations acted upon by natural selection, which is a very different thing. Once again, you have set up a straw man and attempted to deny not merely the actual science that you are combating but the entire actual history of life.

          • LeeBowman

            Ah, but w/o a mutational or HGT event to produce the change, NS has nothing to select from. And for any/all required complexities to just ‘happen’ [mutate], is another assumption. The only evidence that that might be correct is the observance of what’s come down the pike. But that is also indirect evidence of ID.

            And although efforts to do that are ongoing, neither can be empirically verified by replication. 100+ years of fruit fly gestations produced nothing by misplace feet, eyes and wings. No revised body plans. None.

          • Jerrold Alpern

            Lee,

            Very sorry, but you cannot argue that evidence for evolution is simultaneously evidence for ID. The evidence for the evolution of life through common descent, including innumerable transitions of body plan is there in the fossils, in DNA, in the morphology of extant animals. read the books I suggested to Brittany plus Neil Shubin’s “Your Inner Fish”. The evidence from the fused chimp chromosomes that appears in human chromosomes has already been cited on this blog. See Kenneth Miller’s “Only a Theory for a full account”. There are tens of thousands more examples.

            Lee, doesn’t it get wearisome constantly telling lies in order to attempt to prove that what has happened in life HAS happened? And that the evidence for evolution has been found over and over again and can be seen in museums, labs, scientific papers, books, etc. and in investigations that anyone can do on their own? ID has no research, no evidence, nothing but logic-chopping blather.

            To take one example, from Cameron Smith’s The “Fact of Evolution”. Have you ever noticed that organisms reproduce? And that there is variation among the offspring? And that not all such offspring survive long enough to themselves reproduce? Then you have observed, and proved, evolution. Are you going to deny that reproduction, variation and selection take place? Then you are in such total denial of the reality that you yourself observe that it is an utter waste of time for anyone to argue with you.

          • McCowan

            That is not what the evolutionary biologists are saying? How is it that you are not published in any reputable journals with all of your insight?

          • LeeBowman

            Biologists are largely silent on the matter, due to career and tenure risks. I may publish a book on the subject, but this venue and others get points across.

            I just did 127 comments on Randi’s blog over a ten day period.
            http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=8614469

            But regarding extended verbiage, Romney has me beat.

          • Dan Eastwood

            Except you are talking complete nonsense. There are NO negative probabilities. A probability is defined as a positive number from 0.0 to 1.0, and the probabilities for all possible events in a probability space must sum to 1.0.

            Nonsense probabilities that you cannot even quantify make even LESS sense, if such a thing is possible.

            Going into specifics, the complexity of eye formations is an argument from incredulity, and has been addressed many times. Here is a good example: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

            Probabilities are not magical arguments. There is well developed theory for these statistical applications, and Irreducible Complexity argument are WRONG. Statistically, Irreducible Complexity (IC) is a likelihood ratio test where the null hypothesis of a designer is implicitly given a probability of 1.0. In simple non-mathematical terms, such a test can ONLY conclude there is a Designer. Not much of a test, is it? The CSI argument is also a likelihood ratio with an arbitrary constant in place of the assumed probability of 1.0.

            Don’t take my word for it though, try assigning probabilities to any long sequence of historical events and multiplying them all together. The results is a really small number, and by IC that series of historical events is not possible.

          • LeeBowman

            There are NO negative probabilities. A probability is defined as a positive number from 0.0 to 1.0, and the probabilities for all possible events in a probability space must sum to 1.0.

            You took me too literally. I meant a probability with a low probability. So to clarify semantics, change negative to diminutive.

            Nonsense probabilities that you cannot even quantify make even LESS sense, if such a thing is possible.

            There are many probabilities that cannot be precisely quantified. I believe that Sagan would agree. F sub p and n sub e for example are factors that can only be approximated [planet percentages and habitable planet fractions]. Thus, the result N cannot be accurately quantified.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlikCebQSlY

            Probabilities are not magical arguments. There [are] well developed theor[ies] for these statistical applications, and Irreducible Complexity argument are WRONG.

            That’s like saying that there are enough data to confirm IC refutation. There is NOT. And regarding the talkorigins piece:

            “All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today.”

            The listed steps merely list a few intermediates, or extant formations (aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve for one) that differed from other extant formations. They may well be intermediates, vestigials, or redundancies, but that is not proof of spontaneous formation.

            To conclude, if there are valid precursors in extant eyes to proceed to an evolved eye later on, detailed studies need to be done to confirm. I know of none that have done this in detail. But if designer(s) have incrementally redesigned eyes stepwise, they could well appear identically to self-evolved steps.

            But the enigmas still remain, principally that of the requisite complexity of such intermediates, and the fact that until fully formed, they would in most cases offer no ‘selective advantage’, and thus have to reason to become fixed within a population, except by chance.

            And given the plethora of requisite alterations to a primitive eye, coupled with the extreme improbabilities of ‘convergent evolution’ [identical traits forming in unrelated species based solely on similar environmental or selective pressures], complex eyes forming on their own are, YES, improbable.

          • Dan Eastwood

            Yes I took you literally, People who understand probability even a little bit don’t say “negative probability”, not even in casual conversation.

            We are not talking about the Drake equation and approximating probabilities. We are talking about the statistical methods for evaluation of evidence, and IC is a false argument.

            That’s like saying IC is just plain wrong. The number IC describes is what statisticians call a Likelihood – one step in the calculation of a likelihood ratio, but you won’t find any statisticians interpreting a likelihood in the manner of Irreducible Complexity.

            The Talk Origins piece is only the beginning. Here is Carl Zimmer: http://www.nyas.org/publications/detail.aspx?cid=93b487b2-153a-4630-9fb2-5679a061fff7

            No doubt this is insufficient detail for you, but this is just the popular science presentation. Carl Zimmer did his research for that article – Can you?

            >”YES, improbable.”

            You keep using that word, but I don’t think you know what it means.

            I predict your next reply is going to mention “Spirit Based Entities”. Be sure to give the details of how you think these entities are responsible for Intelligent Design.

          • LeeBowman

            We are not talking about the Drake equation and approximating probabilities. We are talking about the statistical methods for evaluation of evidence, and IC is a false argument.”

            Metaphorically speaking, they both seek to quantify based in part upon unknowns. And I don’t suggest the a simple string of factors can define evolutionary probabilities as in the above, just that when further experiments are done, and the appropriate algorithms to compute IC and NEC probabilities are utilized, the results will be subject to possible inaccuracies.

            The only true way to confirm natural causation would be to replicate it. Drosophila experiments were so intended, and there are currently underway experiments to replicate flagellar devices with bacteria that do not possess them. But given the time spans and varieties, I doubt that much or any evo events will be empirically replicated. Ever.

            Regarding the Carl Zimmer article, I’ve read other similar eye evo articles, and will read this one later tonight.

            That’s it for now.

          • Dan Eastwood

            Mathematically speaking, statistical inference uses observed data to evaluate specific hypotheses, and unknown quantities are estimated from the data. IC purports to do the same using the same equations, but with NO STATED HYPOTHESIS, and metaphorical data, and conclusions that can only be described as wishful thinking. IC is not a valid method of statistical inference, it is a FRAUD. It can ONLY conclude the implicit assumption, and the conclusion of those advocating Intelligent Design is always that there is a Designer.

            Replicating natural causation is exactly the subject of several recent papers by Richard Lenski.

            When you are done with the Zimmer article, you might review the Wikipedia entry on Irreducible Complexity. I think you will find a summary of IC examples and how they have been “reduced” to solvable problems, complete with links to the original sources.

            IC depends entirely on the supposition that a feature MUST evolve is a single multiple-mutation event, but breaks down when smaller steps are shown to enable the changes. If we were to take the IC/CSI idea, fill in the assumed hypothesis in a way that makes sense, and follow the proper statistical theory, we would conclude that evolution does not happen is single-event mutations, but favors gradual changes. This might seem familiar, since it is the central idea of biological evolution.

          • LeeBowman

            IC purports to do the same using the same equations, but with NO STATED HYPOTHESIS, and metaphorical data, and conclusions that can only be described as wishful thinking.

            Only with Creationists. I evaluate based on the data, and could care less whether designer(s) were involved. There is NO wishful thinking on my end.

            IC is not a valid method of statistical inference, it is a FRAUD. It can ONLY conclude the implicit assumption, and the conclusion of those advocating Intelligent Design is always that there is a Designer.

            ID is NOT fraud, except where used to present deliberate falsehoods, to ‘impose’ it as doctrine, or to violate Constitutional Law. ID, properly understood, is an investigative hypothesis; nothing more.

            When you are done with the Zimmer article, you might review the Wikipedia entry on Irreducible Complexity. I think you will find a summary of IC examples and how they have been “reduced” to solvable problems, complete with links to the original sources.

            Been there, done that. Much of the Wiki page is a misrepresentation of IC. Example:

            The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large, which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.

            There is no way to confirm the numbers, since (1) no totally anonymous surveys have been taken [no names, no departments named, nor the institution itself chronicled], and (2) any scientist supporting ID, even tentatively, would be career demeaned.

            Brian Alters, former AAAS president and expert witness at trial stated in an article published by NIH that “99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution.”

            In other words, In a stadium with 20,000 scientist attendees, only 20 would side with ID. This bogus figure has been tossed around the Net, and sadly, many believe it. Utter BS.

            Most of the other points made on this page are either exaggerations or utter falsehoods. Cite any you like, and we can discuss it.

          • Dan Eastwood

            Only with Creationists, and Intelligent Design Creationists. If your methods for assessing Irreducible Complexity are different, then it is entirely unclear what you mean. IC is touted as a method for inferring design, and in statistical inference there is a hypothesis. IC is simply a way of concluding the original assumption, and that assumption is hidden by never explicitly stating the hypothesis. There is a claim that ID does not need to define the Designer in such a way. In fact ID CANNOT define the Designer, because that reveals the FRAUD. IC is a deliberate falsehood.
            (The ambitiously curious reader could study the statistical theory for likelihood ratio tests.)

            Mr Bowman, I have little interest in discussing how wrong Intelligent Design in general. This hypothesis has failed every test, it just happens that I know the mathematical basis for this failure better than most. So far you have only repeated old arguments, and demonstrated no real understanding of what you are actually saying. Most fundamentally, Intelligent Design is a religious idea posed to make it appear as science. ID is not, and can never be, a scientific hypothesis, by the very definition of science. For that reason any attempt to prove Creation or Design through scientific means is flawed, and doomed to fail.

            And Brittany, if you are still reading, you might look into the history of the Intelligent Design movement. You will find it to be a well funded political group intent on introducing Creationist teaching into the science curriculum and perhaps on establishing a Dominionist government as well. You might even get a good research paper out of it.

          • LeeBowman

            “Only with Creationists, and Intelligent Design Creationists.”

            These are not true ID proponents, just interlopers.

            “If your methods for assessing Irreducible Complexity are different, then it is entirely unclear what you mean.

            My ‘methods’ are purely deductive, and preclude any religious bias or assumptions often injected into ID discussions.

            “There is a claim that ID does not need to define the Designer in such a way. In fact ID CANNOT define the Designer, because that reveals the FRAUD. IC is a deliberate falsehood.”

            No, your statements are false. To ‘define’ a purported ‘designer’ would be overt evidence of as a priori religious motive in addressing the question of design within a scientific purview. This is ONLY the case where a party strives to use ID as a means to further their proselytizing intent. Design within biology might infer to some a monothesitic god, but this may not be the case.

            But either way, while design inferences are present, there is no ‘designer’ inference present with data. Thus, not addressable by science. But ID as an adjunctive hypothesis plainly is.

          • Dan Eastwood

            Only the TRUE believers? Oh, well then that is completely different. Wait … how true do they need to be?

            Your method is Irreducible Complexity, unless you have cooked up something new. What have you got other than a persistent belief in your magical probabilities,

            IC in particular and Intelligent Design in general assumes a Designer. This is an implicit assumption whether you admit to it or not.

            >”Thus, not addressable by science. But ID as an adjunctive hypothesis plainly is.”

            That is directly contradictory.

            The supernatural is not addressable by science. A hypothesis about some undefined and unspecified thingie is not even hypothesis, and is certainly not testable, therefore NOT science. And by-the-way that thingie might be supernatural-but-we-won’t-say-that – also NOT science.

            Inference of design requires a hypothesis of a Designer. If the Designer cannot be defined by science, the whole thing is not science. This is getting really silly.

          • LeeBowman

            “A designer?” Why the singular article? Design could well be the result of a community effort [Google MDT, or multi designer theory]. Or by intelligent mechanisms, unbeknown to us at present. The ‘a’ article connotes the old man with a beard preconception, a religious tenet. ID only postulates ‘design’, NOT ‘designer.’

            And your term of ‘supernatural’ is a nebulous term, with multiple and highly tentative definitions. The fact of designer input in bio systems need have nothing to do with cosmic formation, and thus preclude the supernatural description. ID does not postulate supernaturality, one of the many misconstrued points made in Jones’ ruling.

            The monotheistic concept may well be true [Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Mormonism], but ID only deals with evolutionary and other scientific and mathematical data. Get your facts straight.

          • Dan Eastwood

            Precudes the need for supernatural descriptor of ID? Do you have a NATURAL descriptor of such? Is this where the Spirit Based Entities make their entrance, because that was your theory last time we met. Don’t leave me hanging on the edge of my seat, please enlighten me.

          • Dan Eastwood

            “Fill-in-the-blank” is NOT a scientific hypothesis. “Design” is completely nebulous:

            1) there is no means or mechanism (HOW does design happen),

            2) no time of action (WHEN did design occur in the past, when did it stop),

            3) no place of action (WHERE, either in species, or a location in the genome),

            4) no way to differentiate between any particular mutation being natural or design,

            5) no way to predict when design will occur and when it will not,

            6) no way to observe design in action (as opposed to the Lenski experiments),

            7) no good reason for inefficient designs,

            8) no possible designer that does not possess supernatural ability.

            I find that most any dictionary provides a perfectly good definitions of Supernatural. The only one that might not apply is Preternatural. Teaching religion belongs in the church and home (and Theology class), NOT in science classroom.

          • Doc Bill

            Ha, Lee, you are either really, really stupid or having so much fun bullshitting that you can’t stand it. No definition of the Designer (blessed be he!) really? Well, for a start the Designer is defined as being intelligent. That’s in the fricking definition! Second, the Designer acts by teleology, that is, from a distance and is undetectable. That’s two more characteristics. Third, the Designer has a purpose. You said it, Lee, “purposeful arrangement of parts.” Fourth, the Designer continues to make changes as stated by Behe in his book “Edge of Evolution.” And, finally, every proponent of ID has stated in print, on video, in audio and in person that the Designer is the God of the Christian Bible. So, really, Lee, you are screwed, blued and tattooed on this.

            And if you in your pseudo-scientific magnificence reject the writings of all of the ID “theorists” and claim that you alone know the Truth ™ then that makes you a Class A 100% Certified crackpot. But, we already know that, don’t we Lee? Still having trouble with the talking squirrels? I thought so!

          • LeeBowman

            Not even worthy of a response, since your ignorance and bias preclude any enlightenment.

            But regarding only two sophmoric points:

            “Well, for a start the Designer is defined as being intelligent. That’s in the fricking definition!”

            It’s you who have added the -er to ‘design’ connotation. Rewording a stated precept does not earn you any points.

            and “Third, the Designer has a purpose. You said it, Lee, “purposeful arrangement of parts.”

            A designer‘s purported ‘purpose had no connectivity with ‘purposeful’ as a defining term for functionality. “The purposeful arrangement of parts [Behe's wording, not mine]” actually means the ‘functional’ arrangement of parts.

            Do you understand semantical nuances? Apparently not, as you endlessly twist words to try and make a point. Not the way to win a debate!

          • McCowan

            Your methods are “purely deductive”? Heheee

          • Dan Eastwood

            My statements are based on statistical theory and the scientific method. You claim to have deduced, but so far have not produced anything but flawed statements. Your methods aren’t holding up very well so far.

            And Design within biology inferring to some supernatural cause? NOT science, by definition.

            And as for the ID research on the horizon, by this logic we might also direct future research towards the discovery of invisible pink unicorns. Just because we have not found any evidence for them yet, does not preclude that we might discover IPU’s at some point in the future, if we just look for them REALLY hard.

            Future researchers need a core understanding of the methods of science, not wishful thinking, or even “cosmic” reality, whatever that is.

          • McCowan

            And what “data” are you using? To what purpose?
            You claim certain figures are falsehoods but give no evidence to back up your claims.

          • LeeBowman

            The evidence was just provided to your other similar inquiry. The links provided cover the fact in support of that evidence.

          • Jerrold Alpern

            Lee,

            “It’s quite obvious that in its dark realm, UV and sunlight are not a problem. Voila! Evidence once more of Intelligent Design behind the various similar, yet environmentally tailored eye designs.”

            No, it’s not evidence of ID, it’s evidence of evolution by natural selection. Evolution is the most parsimonious explanation, which is always to be preferred, and it is the only one which explains the entire history of vision in all the organisms that possess it. Once again, you have twisted the evidence to fit your preconceptions.

          • LeeBowman

            Actually, eye evolution by uncaused causality is less parsiminous than ID, since intentional design works and can be demonstrated, while NS → RM has not been shown [by empirical demonstrations/ experiments] to produce novelty or complexity.

            The only examples are antibiotic resistance, some E. coli experiments where a new protein formed [nylonase], and some cited archeological examples that show a phylogenetic progression, but do not explain causality simply by their observable lineage. That requires the assumption, “It just evolved that way”, no more sensible than “godditit”.

            The ‘parsimony’ argument centers on the mistaken assumption that a designer/ creator would violate Occam’s Razor. To wit, too complicated. This is a subjective opinion that carries no weight, and is pure conjecture.

            for one to take all of the phyla and plant life on this planet and assume it just came to be on its own, is utter sophistry.

          • Jerrold Alpern

            Lee,

            ID has never been demonstrated while natural selection HAS been demonstrated hundreds of thousands of times over the past 150 years. Saying the reverse is true is a lie, pure and simple. You have nothing, NOTHING, to back up your statement while I have the entire body of scientific literature and research to back me up. So AAAS and NAS are not organizations made up of working scientists but authoritarians who dictate false ideas that somehow have brought about a world of progress and scientific and practical success? Your statement is nonsensical on the face. And in Kitzmiller v. Dover, ID was given every opportunity to prove its case and failed utterly. After careful consideration of all evidence and testimony it was ruled religion and a scientific sham by a judge who demonstrated his grasp of the issues in a comprehensive and brilliantly argued decision.

          • LeeBowman

            So AAAS and NAS are not organizations made up of working scientists, but authoritarians who dictate false ideas that somehow have brought about a world of progress and scientific and practical success?

            Regarding their leadership, yes to a large degree:
            http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml

            And in Kitzmiller v. Dover, ID was given every opportunity to prove its case and failed utterly.

            ID was not on trial. If was a school board who added a statement regarding alleged weaknesses within TofE. Or have you forgotten that fact?

            After careful consideration of all evidence and testimony it was ruled religion and a scientific sham by a judge who demonstrated his grasp of the issues in a comprehensive and brilliantly argued decision.

            You have it backwards. Part two of the decision was the ‘sham’. For a scientific illiterate jurist to issue pronouncements regarding ID was not only biased, misquided, and blatantly false, it was a violation of established jurisprudence.

            If you feel that it is/was proper for a court of law to define science, then let us now submit for judicial fiat the question of whether or not quantum physics is valid as an investigative field of inquiry. It is no less invalid as a question for courts to decide.

          • Doc Bill

            Geeze, Louise, Bowman! Anybody with 5 minutes can Google Kitzmiller and find out that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Here’s the statement read by Dover:

            “Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind”

            It’s not a critique. It’s presented as an equivalent “theory.”

            ID was defended, as you know but conveniently lie about, by Behe himself who testified under oath that the definition of science would have to be broadened to allow supernatural phenomena for ID to be considered a theory. You don’t have to be very literate to realize what Behe described was creationism. Jones’ ruling will stand and SCOTUS will have nothing to say about it because there was no appeal.

            And, finally, Lee, seriously, dude, park the delusion and actually learn something. For starters, all you have to do to become a member of the AAAS is buy a subscription to Science magazine, just like subscribing to Smithsonian makes you a member of the Smithsonian Institution. I recommend both be put on your list for Santa.

          • LeeBowman

            Geeze, Louise, Bowman! Anybody with 5 minutes can Google Kitzmiller and
            find out that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Here’s the
            statement read by Dover:

            Sure, anyone can Google the plethora of lies out there, and Wikipedia, while a good resource in many ways, fails in its Kitzmiller assessment, its ID assessment, its IC assessment, and its bio accounts of several people we both know.

            Cherry picking in this case is the only way to cut the wheat from the chaff. That metaphor by the way predates the bible, so don’t jump on it as “quoting scripture” ;~)

            The ‘chaff’ are the lies which anyone can put up. For a good example, Google ‘behe’ and ‘astrology’ for one of the best examples of quote mining I’ve ever seen.

            Regarding an appeal of the ruling, that is not necessary in this case, since jurisprudence is the issue, NOT the ruling on the school board. And yes, although they only accept one to two percent of review requests, I feel that this one warrants review, since the sham ‘judgement’ is a deterrent to the proper authority and functioning of the judicial system.

            And it’s not the membership of AAAS that is lacking; it’s its leadership.

          • McCowan

            “Wikipedia, while a good resource in many ways, fails in its Kitzmiller assessment, its ID assessment, its IC assessment, and its bio accounts of several people we both know”

            And your reasoning is?

          • LeeBowman

            Simply reading all of its ID critiques and comparing them with the facts. Another example is the Nova documentary, “Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.”
            http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/discovery_institute_responses016891.html

            They made it entertaining but highly misleading, employing actors to play the trial participants. In particular, Michael Behe’s actor display doubt and consternation in his mannerisms. And the selected citations from the Plaintiff’s testimony were quote mines, which only acted to promote the view that ID is bogus.

            But movies often do that. As a drama it succeeded. But as a documentary, it failed. Be sure to at least skim the link above. Too much to state here.

          • Doc Bill

            Ha, quote mining is what you do! You can’t point to a single quote I’ve ever used out of context, unlike you who are so dishonest.

            Cherry picking, Lee? Only you do that you as a dishonest creationist. Must gall you that you lie so much. No, Behe and astrology is not quote mining. His words are out there for all to see. No need to mine the quote since he is so clear that “intelligent design” is creationism. Oh, it must hurt to read that!

            Get help, Lee, you’re a sick puppy.

          • LeeBowman

            You’ve just admitted that you don’t understand the meaning of ‘quote mining’, which is precisely what 90% of the Behe citations do. On this forum, I even tabulated the hit ratios which contained incomplete quotations:
            http://www.christianforums.com/t7430685-5/

            And at SC back in 2009, I cited another example with a complete breakdown.

            http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/creationist-wisdom-%E2%80%94-example-62/

            Another somewhat drawn-out discussion over quote-mining, with examples, if you haven’t by now gotten a headache over the reality of it:
            http://www.metropulse.com/news/2011/apr/06/critical-thinking-or-creationism-tennessee-classro/

            While ‘creationists’ are frequently accused of quoting Darwin out of context regarding eye design, the evo freaks are a factor 10 worse, and yes, the Internet makes it soooo easy …

          • Jerrold Alpern

            Lee,

            Your dishonesty is stunning. Creationists instigated the whole legal flap in Dover because they wanted to get a court ruling in their favor. Then, when the decision went against them, they, and you, cried foul and claimed the trial a “sham”. And if the decision had gone in your favor, it would have been honest? Lee, you are about as two-faced and manipulative as they come. Anything in my favor is good, anything against me is bad, eh? Sort of like Schrodinger’s cat. Until the court rules, we don’t know if it is honest or biased. Sorry, the legal world is not like that. Anyone who goes to court has already accepted the legitimacy of that court and has agreed to abide by the outcome. Your effort to attack the court merely because its ruling went against your views, is in itself a disavowal of the entire legal system of this country. You wish to place yourself above the law, as well as above all facts and logic.

            Creationists, including Behe, submitted themselves to the court and its judgment. Judge Jones was schooled in science by the testimony he heard, which, as in any legal proceeding, was the basis of his decision. Kenneth Miller’s testimony as to the reality of evolution and the inadequacy of ID, was convincing. Behe’s testimony merely led to him having to acknowledge that he wanted the rules of science to be re-written to include supernatural causation, just so he could claim ID to be science. It didn’t work. So Judge Jones concluded, on the basis of the scientific evidence, that ID was not science. The efforts of you and the Discovery Institute to re-litigate the matter on blogs are irrelevant.

          • LeeBowman

            “Your dishonesty is stunning. Creationists instigated the whole legal flap in Dover because they wanted to get a court ruling in their favor. Then, when the decision went against them, they, and you, cried foul and claimed the trial a “sham”.

            Creationists? You mean a specific school board who acted entirely on their own. While DI provided them a CD ‘Icons of Evolution’ and met with them June of 04 per Buckingham’s request, they were not in support of the disclaimer being read, nor later on of them going to trial over the issue. Judge Jones in his summary [pg 100] stated that they did, but that was based solely on testimony from [lying] board members. DI atty. Seth Cooper recounts pre-implementation meetings in this Dec 05 paper:
            http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=652

            And if the decision had gone in your favor, it would have been honest? Lee, you are about as two-faced and manipulative as they come. Anything in my favor is good, anything against me is bad, eh? Sort of like Schrodinger’s cat. Until the court rules, we don’t know if it is honest or biased. Sorry, the legal world is not like that.”

            My favor? I and others opposed that ID be defended OR demeaned in a Court setting. And speaking for DI, they agree with tentative causative hypotheses of ToE mentioned to students [totally natural causation, which is tentative/ not fully proven], but with no alternatives presented as tautological fact. But you said it right concerning the committed Darwinist’s desires when you wrote:

            “Anything in my favor is good; anything against me is bad.”

            If anyone is hard set in favor of a pet hypotheses, it’s the evo camp!

            “Anyone who goes to court has already accepted the legitimacy of that court and has agreed to abide by the outcome. Your effort to attack the court merely because its ruling went against your views, is in itself a disavowal of the entire legal system of this country. You wish to place yourself above the law, as well as above all facts and logic.”

            I’m not attacking the Court as much as the Plaintiffs for their bald faced misrepresentations, and the Plaintiff’s attorneys for various tactics, including witness leading and theatrics. My comment 19:
            http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/dear-darwin-lobby-the-dover-trial-is-why-people-don%E2%80%99t-believe-you/

            “Creationists, including Behe, submitted themselves to the court and its judgment. “

            – He agreed to testify, knowing the cards were stacked against him.
            – Contra to unjust critiques, he testified appropriately.
            – The ‘astrology’ question was witness leading, followed by selective quotes.
            – The stack of books was theatrics. No substantial citations from them were submitted.
            – Refutations of IC by Miller [all three] were bogus, and are today unsubstantiated.

            “Judge Jones was schooled in science by the testimony he heard, which, as in any legal proceeding, was the basis of his decision. Kenneth Miller’s testimony as to the reality of evolution and the inadequacy of ID, was convincing.”

            By obfuscating that that:

            – The TTSS came first (although no motility function to employ it,
            – The remaining 40 proteins, uh, just ‘evolved’,
            – IC has been disproven!

            Something both Miller and Romney have in common: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcENY2-ZT5U

            “Behe’s testimony merely led to him having to acknowledge that he wanted the rules of science to be re-written to include supernatural causation, just so he could claim ID to be science.”

            No, when questioned [witness led] regarding a dated astrology premise, he admitted ONLY that it was ONCE regarded, by some, as a valid theory. He added [omitted in most quote mines] this:

            ” … well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori — a priori ruled out that what we — that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.”

            And Rothschild then pressed onward, trying for an affirmative reply: [witness leading]:

            ” Not, it used to be, right?

            Behe didn’t succumb, although widely cited as if he did. Judge Jones however did succumb; one example of many.

          • Jerrold Alpern

            Lee,

            You twist history just as much as you twist science. Go indulge your bizarre delusion of taking this case to the Supreme Court (which is what I assume you mean by SCOTUS) and stop wasting everyone’s time in an effort to rewrite the actual legal proceedings in Dover.

          • LeeBowman

            You make your points. I make mine. And others will decide which make more sense.

            Later …

          • Jerrold Alpern

            Except that my points are based on evidence and logic, whereas yours are based on contra-factual, unsupported assertions. The identical relationship of science and ID. Science and ID are not equivalent, nor are our positions.

          • Doc Bill

            Game, set and match to Jerrold.

            You make no sense whatsoever, Lee. Never have. Never will.

            “… carbon molecule based vehicles for spirit forms to inhabit.” Really, Lee, spirit forms? What’s next, magic beans?

          • McCowan

            How was Kitzmiller v Dover a sham? ID was proven to simply be religious creationism.

          • LeeBowman

            Here are three writings on the subject:
            http://www.traipsingintoevolution.com/

            No, ID was *declared* to be creationsim by a non-science schooled jurist. On that subject, he was force fed by prof. of philosophy Barbara Forrest. For a critique:
            http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/barbara_forrest_exposes_her_int026261.html

          • Doc Bill

            Ha, ha! Traipsing is laughable! Written by the lawyers (losing lawyers) at the Discovery Institute, who pulled ALL their fellows out of the trial!!! Only Behe was stupid enough to participate. What about Dembski? What about Meyers? What about Luskin? What about West? What about Wells? What about Chapman? What about Klinghoffer? Where was the DI at the Trial of the Century to defend ID?

            Wise up, Lee, you sucker! They bailed because they knew ID was a scam. The only person who didn’t get the memo was Behe who got slaughtered on cross.

            Lee, you really are an idiot and I hope the students are getting that drift. Moron. Nothing you say is true. ID is a scam. You are an IDiot in the fullest sense.

            Oh, and you never answered my questions because you are a pathetic, dishonest liar.

            Heed this, students. All creationists are liars. Every. Single. One. Always.

          • LeeBowman

            The more you blog, the more you bury yourself. In fact, you’re sounding more and more like bobbyxxxx.

            And yes, I’m sure they are getting the drift …

          • Doc Bill

            Let’s try again, Lee. You do this all the time. Blather about nonsense, then run away like the lying creationist coward you are.

            You made the statement, so answer the question. To wit: What are the ” probability bounds required by natural causation?” You state blah blah defy the bounds. What are the bounds? Show us a calculation that does not defy the bounds?

          • LeeBowman

            “Let’s try again, Lee. You do this all the time. Blather about nonsense, then run away like the lying creationist coward you are.”

            Thanks for dropping by, as if you have anything to contribute other than blather, and on occasion a little humor. So I run away, huh? Rather than that, I’ll give you (and others) an example of ‘running away’, and with a direct link to it.

            Back on June 1st, I dropped in to one of your fav hangouts, The Sensuous Curmudeon, only to clarify a few misconceptions regarding what ID is really about, and to dispel a few common straw man critiques of it.

            Curmedgeon was a bit accommodating about my respectful opening remark, but let my know that my time there was limited. You followed with the suggestion to “Crawl back under your rock, Lee. Nobody cares what you think.”

            But contrary to that, I had a fruitful exchange with NeonNoodle, Ed, Tomato Addict and Gary, but when Curmud told me I’d “had my say”, I could see you cheering from the bleachers. The other guys seemed a little disappointed.

            No Doc Bill, I never run away. Never have, never will. It was you and Curmud who “ran away”, and with the ensuing a posteriori, I’ve never been allowed back.
            http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/the-new-theory-of-improvident-design/#comment-34680

            Cheers

          • Doc Bill

            Hmmm, I still post at SC. What’s your problem? Never answered my question either here or there and, uh, “claiming” to have done so is playing fast and loose with the truth with a probability of 0.99999997 +/- 0.00000003

          • Dan Eastwood

            Lee Bowman>”But contrary to that, I had a fruitful exchange with NeonNoodle, Ed, Tomato Addict and Gary, but when Curmud told me I’d “had my say”, I could see you cheering from the bleachers. The other guys seemed a little disappointed.”

            If we were disappointed, it was only because we were not done explaining how completely wrong you were when the referee threw in the towel.

            Arguments aside, you really need to do a little bit of work on your understanding. If you want to make an argument based on probability, then you should have some basic understanding of the subject. You don’t need to understand the Likelihood ratios I’ve been describing, but it would help if you knew something about forming a hypothesis and testing it statistically.

          • LeeBowman

            If we were disappointed, it was only because we were not done explaining
            how completely wrong you were when the referee threw in the towel.

            So you’re a Curmudgeonite? It figures.

            The ‘Likelihood-ratio test’ you refer to is one method, but there are many others. And as stated, I am not the one to do the future research and ‘testing’, but to discredit the false anti-ID arguments tossed around ad nauseam, so that the few true rational thinkers [which excludes the seminal atheist 'deterministic' mindset] will be encouraged to do so.

            I debate guys like you and Doc Bill, but as in any debate, the point is not to convince your opponent, but the few onlookers who may resonate with your logic. That is where success lies, and that is why I invest these many unpaid hours, as I’m sure you do as well.

            I have no expectations of changing any of the deterministic minds who are set in their conceptions of reality. But in the end, the side with the most well reasoned arguments will prevail. And either way, reality will prevail ‘as-is’, rather than ‘as-you-desire-it-to-be.’

          • Doc Bill

            What debate? Lee, you are a chew toy. I play with you because you are a classic case of delusional, arrogant, ignorant creationist boob and it’s quite possible you could get elected to the State Board of Education in Texas where you could run amok with your bullshit and actually impact education. Fortunately, you’re just a basement blogger and Phoenix is a nice place to live. I’ve forgotten more about the modern theory of evolution than you will ever know but you do serve a purpose (I can’t believe I’m saying this) to keep our skills sharp so when the real propagandists come to town, Luskin and the other Disco Tute vermin, we can take them down. Kudos to you for that. Meanwhile, do us all a favor and go back under your rock. thx

          • LeeBowman

            Your words apparently have shocked your associate …

          • LeeBowman

            The question I ignored was”

            “@leebowman What are the ” probability bounds required by natural causation?” You state blah blah defy the bounds. What are the bounds? Show us a calculation that does not defy the bounds? While your at it calculate the probability of a specific molecule of water currently in the Gulf of Mexico landing in my eye next spring.”

            Now really, does that inquiry deserve a reply? I didn’t think so. I will answer your earlier design definition, however.

          • Dan Eastwood

            Irreducible Complexity can be summarized in a single sentence:

            “When you multiply a whole bunch of small numbers together, you get a number that is even smaller, especially when you compare it to numbers that are bigger.”

            It’s really that simple, and that stupid.

      • arlocrescent

        Pray tell what kind of scientist are you? I’ve found more engineers masquerading as scientists among the ID ilk than anywhere else. It may be natural for engineers, who are designers, to see design in the world. Your advanced degree, your daily work, not cellular biology, I reckon!

        • McCowan

          Bowman has been claiming he is a scientist for years now. Using the same lame excuses for arguments that he did years ago.

      • Doc Bill

        You’re neither a scientist nor an engineer. You’re a technician. Please! I’m laughing so hard I can hardly type. Seriously, Lee, consider alcohol. Lots of it. You are a Laff Riot!

        • LeeBowman

          You appear to be getting desperate. I think it’s you that need the downer …

  • Human Ape

    The airhead doesn’t know what a scientific theory is.

    Intelligent design equals magic. Magic is not a scientific theory. Magic is a fantasy for uneducated morons.

    THEORY: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. The contention that evolution should be taught as a “theory, not as a fact” confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
    – National Academy of Sciences

    darwinkilledgod dot blogspot dot com

    • LeeBowman

      Theories are only ‘end points’ that are subject to change. They are based upon facts, but never totally conclusive [factual] in their end-point assessments. New data; often may result in ‘altered’ assessments.

      So NAS’s claim that evolutionary theory is ‘hard fact’ in its conclusion of totally uncaused causality is false. But hey, like you, they are politically motivated. And unfortunately, they have an air of fascism about them; a form of governed science. What’s your excuse? ;~)

      • arlocrescent

        Holy mackerel. You swallowed this stuff hook, line, and sinker!

  • Human Ape

    Ms. Jordan, since you obviously know nothing about science why do you write about science? Is it because you want to show off your breathtaking stupidity? If that was your goal you were successful.
    http://darwinkilledgod.blogspot.com/

  • Human Ape

    “Brittany Jordan is a sophomore psychology major.”

    No knowledge of science. She doesn’t even know what science is. Yet she decides she’s qualified to write about science.

    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
    – Isaac Asimov

    http://darwinkilledgod.blogspot.com/

    • LeeBowman

      Your ongoing attacks on religion do nothing to enhance scientific inquiry. You never seem to address the actual points of contention that ID poses. Feel free to run a few of them by me ….

      LOL.

      • arlocrescent

        Your ongoing religion does nothing to enhance scientific inquiry. Your ongoing attempts to push religion into the science classroom helps neither science nor religion.

      • McCowan

        All of your “actual points of contention that ID poses” have been discredited years ago.

        Go to talkorigins dot org. Every creationist and ID argument is indexed.

        Although I don’t expect you go there. Creationists deny expertise by anyone who disagrees with them. Just a fun factoid.

        • LeeBowman

          “Although I don’t expect you go there.”

          That’s because you don’t know me. I’ve traversed that site from it’s beginning. They are often cited as authoratative, but they tend to mix facts with non-factual statements.

          One of their most popular pieces was Douglas Theobald’s “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution”, in which they mix in microevolutionary examples. As well, the valid macroevolutionary examples they provide merely document them, along with taxonomic evidentiary data, but without supportive data to confirm natural causation.

          The piece contains much useful data regarding transitions within ‘nested hierarchies, along with alleged causalities, mostly conjectural. But that’s how science and evolutionary theory works. You gather the data, then make the best of it.
          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

          Their essay on vestigial structures and atavisms discuss the various theories of how they form, and alleged vestigial histories, both pro and con. If nothing more, they encourage deductive thinking on the part of the reader.
          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

          So it’s worth a read, but the title, a kind of ‘catch phrase’, is somewhat misleading, in that macroevolution by natural means is not confirmed. Nor will it ever be, unless a way is found to observe the self-replication process proceed on its own. The 100+ years of fruitfly experiments failed in that regard. Perhaps a self-construct of a flagellum may be the next attempt.

          • McCowan

            Then where is your Noble prize? If you have been able to provide valid explanations, why are you still spouting shite?

      • Doc Bill

        OK, Lee, tell me about design. What is the measure of design, the metric? What are the units of design? How is design quantified?

        • LeeBowman

          You’ve asked me that question before. Remember? And I answered you on it, or have you forgotten my reply?

          Want an example of someone else who hits and runs? Human Ape loves to obfuscate, drop a few adhoms, and than go back to his cave.

          Anyway, I think that the design question was run by me and replied to by me at metropulse, but I can’t find the archive of it. Do you have the link?

          • Doc Bill

            No, Lee, you didn’t answer the question. You ducked it just like you always do. Quick, Lee, what is the metric for design? Quatloos per framastat?

            Come on, man, you IDiots claim to be able to detect design in nature, so what’s the metric? Can’t measure without a metric, baby. What, cat got your tongue. Should be an easy, simple answer, right? Go for it! Be a man.

            No, wait, wait, don’t tell me – suddenly you have more important things to do than waste time here, like on the previous thread and the one before that and the one before that.

          • Glen Davidson

            You should know, Doc Bill. Design is measured in gasps of
            incredulity–all of the “evidence for design” that Bowman has ever
            managed to cough up.

            Glen Davidson

          • Doc Bill

            You might be on to something, Glen! “Gasps of Incredulity.” Brilliant. I bet there’s a formula to express that in Dembskis, the probability of error approaching unity.

            Poor delusional Lee is in quite a bind, you know. Dembski now claims his own invention, the “explanatory filter” cannot be calculated and cannot discriminate “false positives,” in other words, it don’t work. And Behe has given up on “irreducible complexity” as a concept having had every example he’s proposed refuted until he finally that “maybe it just went ‘poof’ ,” although Behe hasn’t proposed a Poof the Magic Design, yet. And Meyer is mum on “specified complex information” having been unable to define any of the three terms, nor calculate a single example, nor develop a metric.

            You reading this, Lee? About time for you to crawl back under your rock.

            And, of course, we all know there’s no metric for design just as there is no metric for beauty or happiness.

            See, you round the Intertubes, Lee. This party is over and I don’t know where the monkey went.

          • LeeBowman

            Your question restated:

            “Tell you what, Lee, how about you regale us with a definition of “design,” OK? What is the metric that objectively identifies something as designed. Should be easy for you, Lee, seeing as you’re an “intelligent design” expert.”

            Something which is designed is simply an artifact or process that was produced by an intelligent agency. And ‘artifact’ within biologic structures refers to “a structure or substance not normally present, but produced by an agent or agency”, according to one dictionary definition.

            But what you seem to be asking is ‘how can it be definitively affirmed as ‘designed’ rather than non-designed?’ Behe’s “purposeful arrangement of parts” is one metric. As stated, Dembski’s is “specified complexity”, and Meyer’s is ‘specified coding’, among other evidences.

            Mine is for functions, processes and artifacts that have co- and multi-dependent components that would not have evolved by Darwinian processes, since precursors would have been non-functional, and thus offered no selective advantage. Their forming incrementally may also have been detrimental to existing functions. In each ‘design inference’, the evidence would vary and require modeling of proposed formative processes to separate inferential design from inferential self-initiation.

            But design discernment within biology requires multifaceted confirmations, since designed artifacts and systems would have involved far distant past processes, and thus like any forensic investigations, be difficult to confirm. But when shown statistically to be NEC [non-evolvable complexity], design follows as a logical alternative.

            We all exist within that ‘crime scene’ [the biologic cascade], but similar to the jury in the OJ Simson trial, you are biased against any admittance of acknowledging the design inferences that abound within the data. But take heart; you are not alone.

          • Doc Bill

            Wrong answer, Lee. “We know it when we see it” is not a metric, not a measurement, not a criteria. Behe’s “purposeful arrangement” has been destroyed over and over again as totally useless. “Plainly evident” is not objective, not a measurement, no metric involved, no calculated quantity, no nothing except your mindless childish babbling.

            Why do you keep lying about statistics and probability? Those words do not mean what you think they do.

            You still haven’t told me what “natural bounds of probability” are? Or just admit you made it up along with NEC which is an electronics company and nothing more.

            You see, what I do is science and what you do is bullshit. They are not the same. You can’t answer simple questions because you’re pushing a con game. I’m surprised you haven’t played the “civil” card, yet. And people wonder why we laugh at creationists! Run along, sonny, you’re bothering the adults.

  • Dean

    I’d suggest that mysticism and the evolution of a given belief system is a more appropriate subject for comparative Anthropology course material. The objectivity you are looking for is readily available within such a context.

    An interesting behavioural phenomenon as of late is the demand to “let the kids decide”, which voices the expectation that we allow children, who otherwise would be generally held to lack the intellectual skills required to make key decisions about their lives, to make decisions about a subject adults spend entire lives studying.

    Will this practice be biased towards facilitating an emotion based decision over one based on critical thinking? What other life shaping choices do we traditionally offer an adolescent? WIll children in fact be facing a biased indoctrination process that only offers the obvious choice between social acceptance or rejection in their family and community?

    Cheers

  • EB

    Brittany, please keep your faith out of science. It is people like you and columns like this that perpetuate stupidity in America. Everyone wants to know why America is falling behind in science and math compared to the rest of the world, its because we force everyone to “tolerate” crap science that people swear is totally real and true. The responses others have given about the scientific definition of the word theory I agree with, and that is the mistake a lot of people make when wasting time still discussing this absurd topic. In certain fields the same word can have different meanings, welcome to the English language. Additionally, you and some of the responders have eluded to the idea of “proof” or proving” this or that “theory”. In the strictest sense of scientific research you never prove anything, you can only disprove. You observe some phenomenon, postulate a hypothesis, then postulate multiple alternative hypotheses. Then you devise controlled experiments in order to disprove your alternative hypotheses. The last hypothesis that cannot be disproved is then further tested by peers in the scientific community and if it still holds up to their scrutiny and experiments it is taken as a scientific theory. Now I know the first thing you and everyone will do is fly off the handle saying “well if we can’t prove anything then nothing is real or factual”. But science does build a body of observable facts from which we can disprove certain hypotheses leaving only the hypothesis left we cannot disprove. And until someone comes up with a hypothesis that explains/fits the data better, the non-disprovable hypothesis is generally accepted as a scientific theory. Do not mistake the disprove methodology as “anything can be correct” but rather as scientists try to keep stay as open minded as possible to finding new explanations and we known we do not know everything we claim is absolutely correct, but its the best we have until more data is available, or someone analyzes said data in a different way. So please, Brittany and people in general stop whining about your faith, beliefs, crazy ideas, no one forced you to come to CSU or take any class, and also stop forcing your ideas on a scientific and educated community that neither wants them or cares to “discuss” them.

  • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

    Ms. Jordan has already been shown that her dictionary manipulation of the word “theory” won’t stand. She then explained that due to an inadequate secondary education her ability to distinguish “belief” from “fact” is impaired, and the university must make an accommodation to her intellectual failure. Ms. Jordan, here is the difference between high school and the university; It doesn’t reflect poorly on the institution if the university flunks nitwits. It is in fact an important function of the university to skim off the intellectual failures floating face-down on the pool of knowledge.

    Regarding evolutionary biology as merely a theory in the popular “only a guess” sense you favor, ignores that evolution is the only predictive theory of life. And while religious creationists like Ms. Jordan fail to understand it, the theory does in fact make predictions which have been tested. In every instance evolutionary theory has succeeded. In the most minimalist form, the theory is, “Heritable variation within populations exists which acted upon by natural selection leads to reproductive isolation between subpopulations.” Darwin offered in four major works four ways to view natural selection. In his “Origin of Species,” he emphasized the physical survival of individuals which in turn would produce more off-spring. Since the environment was not static, new species would evolve. In “The Descent of Man” he highlighted sexual selection, or what we now call “behavioral selection.” Then in his book on orchids, he introduced the concept of mutualism, and co-evolution. In that book, Darwin recounted the existence of an orchid with an extremely deep bloom. Darwin predicted that there must be a moth which had evolved an equally long proboscis. This prediction was proven over 100 years later. His book on domestication and evolution extended the notion of individual survival to groups.

    Now compare this with “intelligent design” as a “theory.” Even the professional ID creationists admit in rare honest moments there is no ID theory at all. Consider;

    Phillip Johnson
    “I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
    worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable.” (Berkley Science Review, Spring 2006).

    Paul Nelson
    “Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory now, and that’s a real problem.” (Touchstone Magazine July/August 2004).

    And what are the ID creationist predictions? They have none. In fact William Dembski rejects the very idea of ID predictions, “You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.” Personal communication, 18, September 2002. The truth is that ID cannot make any predictions.

  • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

    Ms. Jordan makes the strange assertion that, “It has everything to do with plain and simple faith. And I would like my faith, my practiced theology, my belief system to be acknowledged and regarded as a valid theory.”

    Your belief system, regardless of how strongly held does not count as a “theory.” I have lived with people (at least some) who fervently believe in gods you have never heard of. They were very nice people. Your theology is not a theory. Your emotional reactions will not matter in science. In fact, it is an impediment.

  • Thomas

    For a very in-depth look at this topic, I recommend three books by Lee Strobel: The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, and The Case for a Creator.

    • Thomas

      Brittany, thank you for your bravery in writing this.

      • LeeBowman

        And I second that.

        Cheers

        • Brittany Jordan

          Lee, thank you. Your comments have been enlightening as opposed to disheartening, and I appreciate it. Good luck in your continued work, thank you for your contributions.

          • Jerrold Alpern

            Brittany,

            There is no bravery in spouting ignorance on your own blog. You brought up a long-established, evidence-driven scientific theory that has formed the basis for all biological inquiry for the last 150 years and thought you could demolish it simply by making religious assertions about the supposed authority of the non-evidence-based Bible. You have then refused to acknowledge your multiplicity of errors in fact and in logic, preferring to accept the plaudits of others as blinkered as yourself.

            Real bravery would consist of doing the hard work of educating yourself in the real world of science and then admitting that you were wrong. You might start by reading “Why Evolution Is True” by Jerry Coyne or “Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters” by Donald Prothero or “Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul” by Kenneth Miller or “The Fact of Evolution” by Cameron MacPherson Smith or “Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails)” by Matt Young, Paul Strode and Kevin Padian. Then make an office appointment with one of your biology professors and ask them about evolution and LISTEN to what they say. Then comes the truly courageous part. You must change your mind in the face of new evidence. However, if, after all that, you still insist that the Bible trumps science, well, you should transfer to a strictly fundamentalist religious school where your “thinking” will never be challenged and your willful ignorance will be celebrated. At the moment, you are merely a troll on your own blog – propounding irrelevant arguments and adamantly refusing to deal with other views. Remember, “everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts” (the late Sen. Daniel Moynihan).

    • Brittany Jordan

      Thomas, thank you. I had the priviledge of studying Strobel’s works…it’s an amazing story of a scientific atheist on a mission to disprove Christianity, all to find that neither himself nor anyone else was able to. Great information, great testimony. It’s appreciated.

  • http://www.cvn71supportgroup.8k.com/ GunNut2600

    You know the best thing about being an Electrical Engineer? When people, who clearly have no clue what they are doing tend in my field tend to get removed from the breeding population rather rapidly. God it has to be so damn irritating as a biologist to have to listen to utter morons pontificating on subjects they clearly have no understanding of.

    I’m not sure why the ID movement doesn’t go after mathematics as well since the Bible clearly has a unique position on the value of Pi.

  • Brett

    Funny how a few words mentioning that evolution is really a theory gets everyone all up in arms. Like someone is punching holes in a holy grail. Like fostering doubt will cause everything to come tumbling down. Well all you science students. Start doubting and questioning everything you are being told. Others sure are. Here is a quote from scientist, Phillip Skell in 2005,

    “Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and
    criticisms of evolutionary theory. … Many of the scientific criticisms of
    which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the
    disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work. …
    None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century
    depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution — it provided no support. … In
    my judgment, this state of affairs has persisted mainly because too many
    scientists were afraid to challenge what had become a philosophical orthodoxy
    among their colleagues. Fortunately, that is changing as many scientists are now
    beginning to examine the evidence for neo-Darwinism more openly and critically
    in scientific journals.”
    Look out on the internet and you will find thousands of scientist that admit that evolutionary science does not have all the answers.
    So I have one thing to say to all you scientists. You are smart. Very smart. You want to stretch the frontiers of learning. Question what you learn. Seek new ways of thinking. Don’t just grasp the crutch of evolutionary thinking just because you are told to.

    • McCowan

      Please give a list of the scientists. “Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory.” Which journals? What specific scientific problems? Who are the scientists?
      Until you give specific your are just blowing heated air.

      • McCowan

        Phillip Skell signed “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” from intelligent design folks at The Discovery Institute. When the list of “scientists” was checked only 0.01% of them were educated in relevant fields.

        Maybe you should investigate Project Steve.

        From wikipwedia A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

  • KurnDerak

    I thought I had posted this, but don’t see it. So, sorry if it is double posted.

    First off, from http://www.Merriam-Webster.com:

    ” plural the•o•ries
    Definition of THEORY
    1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another ”

    That might just be the easiest and simplest definition of a scientific theory I have ever seen. What you use, as your definition, is the common non-scientific definition. The problem is that you performed a very common equivocation fallacy where you began by using one definition of theory and then used theory in a different manner while still applying the previous definition to it.

    You took LIFE102 and were tested on evolution, and passed from the sounds of it, so it makes me wonder why you appear to have such trouble understanding. Evolution is a fact, which is true. It has been proven factually correct that animals evolve. Evolution by natural selection is the theory that explains the process by which evolution has and continues to operate. There is a massive amount of evidence which supports the theory of evolution. The problem really comes when you say, “Evolution is a theory, just as Intelligent Design is a theory.” You commit that equivocation fallacy again, as you try to bring both ideas across as the same type of theory. Evolution, as has been mentioned, is a scientific theory and is supported by scientific fact. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. ID is where your attempt at using a non-scientific definition of theory applies. ID is not scientific, as A) it does not have facts to support it, and B) many claims are unfalsifiable as they are not testable at this point. Such as a creator god or being created life.

    Also, your statement that these two ideas have been peaceful sounds so blissfully ignorant of the history between people for and against the theory of evolution. There have been groups who have strongly fought against the teaching of evolution since it first became wide spread in the public mind, and those who have strongly fought for the teaching of it. There has never been peace between evolution and religion. At least some portion, whether small or big, of both sides have been going at each other for many, many years.

    I don’t know which professor(s) you have had, but in my subjective experience many have stated that we don’t have all the answers. There are many things that are taught about past and present we don’t know, and are described as exactly that.

    Why you’re disheartened is because it sounds as though when you were taught about evolution you were not properly taught to accurately understand what “Theory of evolution” means. Or possibly even what theory means. In college, theories ARE presented as theories and facts ARE presented as facts, because theories are built from a collection of facts in science. As are laws, but that’s slightly different and doesn’t directly apply here. (Fun fact: Scientific theory and scientific law are not the same thing, nor is one in any way better than the other.)

    Your request that evolution should be taught as a theory and is open to experimentation clearly shows a degree of ignorance on what science is. Something being open to experimentation is good, as it avoids holding onto anything that may be false for too long. Science is all about testing and retesting everything new and old. That is because science cannot prove anything. The best science can do is prove that it hasn’t been proven false yet. There have been many things that were reported to be true, before or even by modern science, that were later proven false. This is how we discover the best possible information and remove as much incorrect information as possible.

    If you want mention of non-scientific explanations of where we came from, find them in non-scientific classes. They have no place in a scientific class. Science doesn’t care about your beliefs. You are not the focal point of class. That is simply selfish to claim that a college with classes of 100-200+ students should take the time to specifically address your beliefs in regards to what they are teaching.

    The teaching of evolution has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of any god. If you believe that it somehow brings into question the existence of yours that is between you and your god.

    The two theories are by no means equal, and arguing that they should be is like arguing that Verne Troyer and Shaq should be treated as the same height. One is based on scientific evidence and fact, the other on religious ideology. They are by no means equal, nor should they at any point be treated equal unless the unlikely day they gain an equal amount of evidence. They don’t even match the same definition of theory.

    You want your beliefs to be regarded as a valid theory without ever meeting the criteria of being held as a valid theory while you obviously do not treat evolution as the valid theory it is. It may be best to understand first what a valid theory is before claiming what should be treated as such.

  • McCowan

    Youtube video uEP7Z55Z6nM
    A great video about theories, evolution etc.

  • hzcummi

    If pastors, priests, rabbis, and “so called”
    Christians would stop their false (old Earth) and foolish (young Earth)
    teachings, and start promoting the truth of Genesis (Observations of Moses),
    then there would hardly be any room for the ridiculous teaching of evolution.

    Collectively, Bible believers are so “blind”,
    that their approach to Genesis is a joke. Instead of seeking the truth, they
    continue to support the current lies and foolishness of Creationism. Genesis
    does not have any “Creation accounts”. When you keep telling a person
    that their car is running out of gas,

    and they refuse to look at the fuel gauge and go to the
    gas station, you begin to wonder how “dumb” they are.

    Perhaps they are just like the Jews, who value tradition
    over the truth of scripture.

    Is it strange that Atheists want the cram their false
    beliefs down everyone else’s throats, without allowing a (valid) opposing view
    to be given?

    Herman Cummings

    ephraim7@aol.com

    • Darwin’s Little Helper

      You my friend steal the cake from Brittany in ignorance. Congratulations.

  • maureen

    I only hope, Brittany, that either you learn to be a critical thinker, or that you do not pursue scientific research.

  • Terriblepun

    For the record, I pick up this paper for the Sudoku in the back.

  • abc

    Everything in science is theory, nothing can be proven. Gravity is a theory – should we not teach that? Creationism and evolution are both theories, and not necessarily separate either. I personally think they go hand-in-hand, however a biology class is about science. In science you try to come up with hypotheses that support all of the observable evidence: this is evolution – a theory (stemmed from a hypothesis) to support the scientific data. It is presentes as ‘fact’ because it has stood the test of time and data continues to support it – in science it is understood that everything should be considered thoery, but if we present everything as ‘theory’ over ‘fact’ – we aren’t going to get much learning done. Creationism has nothing to do with biology, and should not be presented in a science class.

  • jmiller

    Evolution is a scientific theory (a different definition than the literary one you and the churches use)..SEE DEFINITION BELOW…

    Religion however is a belief…based on NO facts.

    Hopefully someday you will understand religions are created by man as a means of control ..some based with some good ideas but you have to stop listening to all the crazy parts of them. Try to be a free thinker and form your own ideas of what it means to be a good humane person. The Golden Rule pretty much covers it all..

    THEORY: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed. In the “THEORY” of evolution this is the definition of theory that is used.

  • Nick

    And you can’t prove that there isn’t a flying spaghetti man. That doesn’t mean it should be given the same amount of credit as intelligent design. You’re free to believe in your circular logic, but don’t try to drag a University that bases its teachings on evidence to do the same. Find some evidence for intelligent design or a creator, and we’ll talk

  • Fact checker

    What is needed is the scientific definition of theory:

    A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it’s an accepted hypothesis.

  • Patrick

    Gravity is a theory as well, but I tend to believe I am being held down by the weight of my sins…

  • Eric Webster

    Definitions in the dictionaries of language are not scientific definitions. Theory has a different meaning to scientists than the one provided by your man Webser, however it is still not fact. There are no facts in science, only hypotheses which have evolved into theory through stringent, reproducible, falsifiable, repeated experimental support gathered by objective parties. Gravity itself is a theory, and good science does not claim ultimate truth (fact).

  • backyard philosopher

    After reading some of the comments, I would have to say that evolution seems to have more votes. Evolution does have a lot of facts behind it (the fossil record, extinction, genetics, mutation, adaptation, natural selection, etc.) The dating of fossils appears to be in direct conflict with the Bible timeframes. I’m not a scientist and won’t offer a new theory.

    I am curious about GS Hurd’s mention of Darwin’s observation of the orchid. Did the orchid come before the moth and just wast energy producing a flower waiting millions of years for a moth to evolve and pollenate it’s flower? Or did they both beat the odds and appear on the scene at the same time.

    Lee Bowmann and Dan Eastwood have debated how to calculate probability and what the probability of vision developing would be. I would like Dan to calculate how long it woud take for all the evolutionary steps to take place before man appeared on the scene. Is a zillion years enough?

    Some would say that since it happened that proves it is possible. But what are the odds that one of the five senses would ever develop let alone all five? I know that the sense of smell is a competitive advantage, but if no living oganism has the sense of smell, how would an organism ever make progress to develop this sense other than dumb luck?

    According to some, it appears that evolution is a bullet-proof machine. We don’t need to fear global warming or the deficit, because life will go on with a new and improve primate.

    I would say to take off evolutionary glasses, and keep your scentific thought process and add your humanity. I would ask if there is a difference between us and the animals. The “human ape” would say less hair and more brain cells is all. But did God create us in His image?

    I can remember taking plant physiology and being amazed at how a plant works. Or when I look at a rock, plant, or the mountains, I’m amazed. Why do we all like music? Why do we write books, build things, or laugh and tell jokes? Maybe it is creative ability.

    • Dan Eastwood

      Hello BP.
      Given that the Universe is estimated to be considerably younger than a zillion years, I think I can answer in the affirmative.

      For your question “how long it would take …”, I admit that lies outside my normal area of expertise (whereas I use likelihood ratio tests practically every working day). I think you will find better answers reviewing the available literature for yourself. May I recommend this article: “Mouse to elephant in 24 million generations” as an example of a similar question that others have studied. Specifically, they seek to understand how long it took mammals to develop from the original small size to the largest sizes.
      Original article: “Mouse to elephant in 24 million generations”
      http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/26/1120774109.abstract
      (This article is also described in numerous popular science articles.)

      I too am amazed. Why do humans share DNA in common with bananas? We can consider and hope to understand such questions with no loss of significance for the other things that amaze us.

    • Doc Bill

      Creationists misuse probability all the time and it’s unfortunate they’re not called on it more often. The “probability” or “odds” that 5 senses evolved collapses to 1, or 100% probable, because it’s already happened.

      Senses are particularly simple. Touch and hearing are both induced by pressure. One-celled animals react to pressure, too. Smell and taste are reactions to chemicals and, again, one-celled animals react to chemicals and chemical gradients. Sight is a chemical response to an interaction with electromagnetic radiation, light, and, again, many one-celled animals react to light and one could also hold up algae as using photosynthesis, too. So, the building blocks, the basics, of the senses have been around a very long time and evolved early in life’s history.

      Why not have a sense of magnetism? Well, birds do. Proteins in the eye of birds react to magnetic fields and cause the bird’s vision to blur slightly which the bird interprets as directional information.

      Why not have a sense of electric fields? Well, certain fish and eels do.

      Finally, all life evolves together in what Darwin referred to as “this tangled bank” of many, many, many interacting life forms. In the case of the orchid, Darwin observed that moths feasted on orchid honey and helped to spread orchid pollen, and predicted that a moth “might” exist to service the long-throated orchid. Just as Shubin predicted that “if” a transitional species existed between fish and amphibians it would be found in Devonian rocks and after 5 years of looking through Devonial outcrops in Canada found Tiktallik, a good representative of that proposed transitional form.

      Evolution is not random. Evolution is influenced by climate, circumstance, other life forms and so on. You don’t find penguins in the Sahara or naked mole rats in Antarctica for a reason. You didn’t get here by chance nor did you get here by design, rather you got here because your ancestors survived. Thank them for that.

      • backyard philosopher

        I sorry that it does sound a little like circular reasoning to say that since it exist today that proves it happened via evolution. I would agree that I don’t understand probability. I would hang with Brittany and say I don’t have all the answers. They say that the house always wins in Vegas, but I will have to take Evolution with me if I ever go.

        None the less it is interesting to think that development of the five senses was fairly simple.

        • Doc Bill

          Look, here’s a good example. See Jupiter up there in the night sky? It’s reflecting light, photons from the Sun. Those reflected photons are hitting photoreceptors in your eye and you see Jupiter. So, that’s a fact. Probability of 1. Now, calculate the probability of a single photon being emitted from the Sun, which is rotating, traveling 800 million miles to Jupiter which is orbiting at 13 km/sec around the sun, that photon missing everything along the way, reflecting (not getting absorbed) off the atmosphere of Jupiter, reflecting back and intercepting the Earth at 92 million miles from the Sun orbiting at 28 km/sec, making its way through the atmosphere and hitting nothing until it lands in your eye and triggers a photoreceptor so you see light.

          What’s the probability of that happening? Astronomically “small” but it happens every night and you can stare at Jupiter for hours gathering all those photons. Are photons lost on the way? Sure, undoubtedly. That’s because improbable is not the same as impossible. Note the craftier creationists never say that evolution is impossible, just improbable. They’re trying to sow doubt. But their argument is simply wrong.

          To say that it’s improbable for light to make that journey is obviously a flawed argument.

          Creationists make the same flawed argument when they try to use probability to imply that evolution is impossible. The argument is wrong. All creationist arguments are wrong.

          Circular? No. Evolution is an observed fact. All life on the planet is related. It has been demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt as explained by the modern theory of evolution how that happened. And, you know, you don’t even need the fossil record. Forget it. You can discover, demonstrate and support the theory of evolution from observation of existing life today and the genomic record; DNA. However, the fossils fit, biodiversity fits, genomic analysis fits, phylogenetic analysis fits and no data collected, not a single shred, not one, doesn’t fit. Sure, some things are unknown but nothing has been discovered or observed that does not fit the theory.

          So, there you have it. Now, if you want to go with LeeBowman’s “carbon vessels filled with spirit bodies” which he just made up and pulled out of his ass go ahead, or you can choose reality as illuminated by science and celebrate the survival of life on Earth. It’s a fascinating and inspiring story.

          • Dan Eastwood

            It is more than just improbable not being impossible. To test a hypothesis statistically requires a mathematical definition of what you are testing. You cannot just hypothesize “a designer” or any vague statement; you must specify some _measurable_ quantity that supports the hypothesis for some values and not for others. Without this definition there is no hypothesis to test.

            This is why Irreducible Complexity fails as a method, and why Intelligent Design fails as science.

          • backyard philosopher

            In one of your responses you said that you have forgotten more of science than Lee will ever learn or that his arguments were not a challenge to you. Well, I did think that Mr. Bowman had some good points. I definitely don’t think I could give you a scientific challenge. I am interested in these scientific wonders you describe. I just have a different perspective on some of the same facts. Possibly Brittany was saying to view it from more than one angle.
            Some have said that humans have worshipped a god such as an idol and give credit to god for something they don’t understand. We have learned about evolution over the last 150 years and yet there seems to be many who still hold religious beliefs. So, is it just simple or uneducated people who believe that God created life? Do animals also believe since they are uneducated or do they worship idols (i.e. dogs and fire hydrants) or are we different than the animals. We do apparently share some dna so did evolution put these strange thoughts in our mind or do we as humans have a sixth sense that tells us from history, experience, and our souls that there is a God?

          • Doc Bill

            Well, BP, if you can believe it I used to be a lot more arrogant! Yes, I’ve mellowed. Yes, I think religion is a social thing. Most people will say they go to church or joke about it but ask them about the details of their denomination and you will get blank stares. The social part does hold people together and has a survival benefit. So, yes, I think there are some components that have been selected by evolution that gives us a predisposition to believe. It’s especially important for young children to believe their parents or they could get run over by a bus.

            However, abject belief should drop off in young adulthood as one learns (hopefully) to think for oneself. By this time one should have a sense of ethics and morality and not need the rote dogma of the priests or the threats.

            Science simply doesn’t need magic to work. That’s a big difference to understand. It’s not that magic has been proven false (although there’s a strong case for that) rather it’s just not needed. The theory of evolution stands on its own complete with zillions of examples and a mechanism that doesn’t require design or magic.

            Bowman, on the other hand, just makes stuff up. Carbon vessels to hold spirit bodies? Really? That came right out of his ass with no data, no observation, no mechanism and is so fantastic as to be laughable, which it is! He could say the Flying Spaghetti Monster touched the Earth with his noodley appendage with just as much weight.

            As for the origin of life, there are many studies that have been proposed and we may never know how it actually came about, but self-assembling structures and self-assembling cyclic reactions have been demonstrated. It’s not impossible. Remember, these little single celled things percolated around for three and a half BILLION years! Multicellular critters are, by comparison, recent having evolved in the past 800 million years or so with a great expansion occurring around 600 million years ago.

            Sixth sense. Tell you what. Go to a car wash and when the arm thingie goes past the passenger window look at it and can you tell if you’re moving and the arm is stationary, or are you stationary and the arm is moving? Your sixth sense is easily fooled which is why we as a species developed history, education, logic and critical thinking.

            By the way, I love Christmas and the celebration and the music. I love Harry Potter and I love my kids. And I appreciate the brain chemicals that give me those feelings, but I don’t believe in magic. I am, however, in awe of the natural processes that came together to enable me to write this to you. I’m also in awe that, according to Lawrence Krauss, the carbon atoms in my left arm were produced by a different star than the carbon atoms in my right arm. Bronze age stories or astrophysics? You decide!

          • LeeBowman

            “In one of your responses you said that you have forgotten more of science than Lee will ever learn or that his arguments were not a challenge to you. Well, I did think that Mr. Bowman had some good points.”

            Listening to DB’s blather is not that much different than Romny’s nonsense. While he does have some knowledge of Genetics, Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology, he lacks reasoning ability, or perhaps its simply due to fixated conceptions, along with skewed logic of drawing a parallel of a photon’s intricate path to evolved complexity to try and prove a point. Want another example? Below are two of my favorites:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNbTgUl8rNs

            In this excerpt from an atheist convention talk, he equates the complexity of driftwood with functional complexity. In both the photon pathway v. creationist claims and this one, actual functional complexity is compared with random complexity, one due to chance and the other specificity. Sorry evos. You lose.

            Anyway BP, if you want to read some of my prior points along with the ensuing debates, here are three. They cover the same issues debated here.

            40 comments/ 200 total: http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=352

            22 comments http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2011/01/intelligent-design-is-not-crea.shtml

            127 comments at Randi’s blog over an 8 day period:http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=243709

          • backyard philosopher

            When Doc Bill describes the Jupiter and photons, I’m amazed at how God has given us vision to see and that those photons can actually reach us. Doc Bill just seems to see it as natural processes. A different perspective. I am interested in truth, so I like to hear Doc Bill’s perspective and will check out your web addresses. Thanks

          • Doc Bill

            Exactly my point, BP, and your “amazement” advances knowledge not one jot. I’m amazed, too, but I take the next step to find out why. You don’t. I hope you’ll be just as amazed when God gives you a kidney stone. Or you could study up on science and make changes to your diet. Your choice.

          • backyard philosopher

            You are right since I never claimed to be a scientist or researcher. If I were and I was into penguins, I would propably research how they can survive the climate. Even thought I believe they were designed to live in that environment and you believe they evolved to fit the environment we could both do the research using all available scientific technique.
            We could also ask did the kidney stone come from God or did it evolve and if evolution is true why haven’t we evolved so that we don’t get kidney stones? If we developed that ability, would part of us become reproductively isolated and become a new species?
            If we did not have X-ray/ultra sound, and went back in time 500 years, we might feel the kidney stone but not be able to see it. Therefore, does the kidney stone exist? It may take death and an autopsy to find out.
            So, do we have a soul? Many would say no, but it cannot be proven using scientific methods. Through obsevation, I can compare us to animals and see differences. Do dogs wish they had fingers and check out the internet? So, only in death will we find the proof. Maybe science can’t answer all questions and maybe Brittany got a more balanced education than some think.

          • Jerrold Alpern

            127 comments on Randi’s blog in 8 days? And all of them with the same combination of lies, irrelevancies, twisted reasoning, quote-mining and willful ignorance of reality? You are a troll, pure and simple, and a serious waste of time.

          • LeeBowman

            Brew yourself a pot of coffee, take a tranquilizer, then read them. Then you might be in a position to actually challenge any of the specifics discussed, rather than toss out your ad homs.

            Or am I asking too much? ….

          • Jerrold Alpern

            You are a waste of time.

          • LeeBowman

            Words of wisdom …

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            Jerrold, the way not to waste time with Lee Bowman’s piffle is to ignore it. I have used this method for several years. (I do have occasional lapses).

          • LeeBowman

            “To say that it’s improbable for light to make that journey is obviously a flawed argument.

            Creationists make the same flawed argument when they try to use probability to imply that evolution is impossible. The argument is wrong. All creationist arguments are wrong.”

            What a screwed analogy! The photon’s journey would only be impossible if it were to be replicated. And the particular photon to hit your (or your cat’s) eye is only one of (guess how many) other ones emanated from Jupiter and went elsewhere.

            So what?! There is no parallel with random events such as that with purported random events to build specified complexity. And not all ‘creationists’ [your and Barb Forrest's term for ID proponents as well] deny evolution. Behe, I, and most other ID proponents fully accept evolution, but not the sole result of chance events, nor selected solely due to the fulfilling of environmentally adaptive selection occurrences.

          • Dan Eastwood

            Nevertheless, the Intelligent Design Creationist use of probability to refute evolution is a flawed argument (we’ve been over that already). Specified Complexity is another undefined and untestable quantity. Complex Specified Information is Irreducible Complexity multiplied by a constant.

            If methods like Irreducible Complexity and Complex Specified Information were valid, it would be more than just an argument against evolution, it would be a major revolution in all of science. The fact that these methods cannot be used for even very simple scientific tests is evidence that that simply do not work at all.

            Miscellaneous Quibble: There are 8 senses – that’s what Brittany is learning in her psychology classes.

        • LeeBowman

          … it does sound a little like circular reasoning to say that since it exist today that proves it happened via evolution”

          You are correct. But to put it another way, the fact that taxa fit a taxonomic tree, and that chromosomes have homologies with earlier ones DO prove evolution, but NOT its causal functions, much of which is based on subjective conclusions.

          A parallel of two types of forensic events:

          It is one thing to determine a sequence of events, based on observable forensic evidence [(1) evolution or (2)a crime scene]. But a totally different and more complex set of data, based on the observable evidence AND on subjection conclusions to explain it.

          The mere existence of progressive taxa display evolution, but do not explain it. In both cases, subjective conclusions, including assumptions are required. And unlike crime events, we do not have comparative prior events to compare with, making empirical reconstructions, and thus hard confirmations impossible. While there is extensive data available, conclusions of causality can include intervention in the processes as well as total natural causation.

          DB wrote: “The “probability” or “odds” that 5 senses evolved collapses to 1, or 100% probable, because it’s already happened.”

          As stated, this demonstrates evolution, but does not explain it. Nor are there 5 primary senses. There are 6, including the oft ignored balance and spacial perception functions via the semicircular canals. And ALL mammals have them in some form. Next to touch and vision, they are one the most essential to be able to accomplish basic locomotion.

          I disagree that senses are “simple”. If you brake them down to a simpler sensory cellular structure, which itself may be considered “simple”, that does not infer simplicity in the developed senses, which encompass not only multiple ‘sensors’, but complex support systems (eyes primarily), as well as complex processing centers (vast neural networks along with the parietal, temporal & occipital lobes, cerebral cortex and more. In fact, a large portion of the brain is for sensory input and processing.http://www.buzzle.com/articles/brain-regions-and-their-functions.html

          So were the various evolutions of the various senses a simple, straight forward process? They ALL involved the addition of complex, functional data.

    • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

      Someone inclined to learn with Internet access would use a search engine to find the complete works of Charles Darwin. The URL is http://darwin-online.org.uk/

      There you can read “FERTILISATION OF ORCHIDS: THE VARIOUS CONTRIVANCES BY WHICH ORCHIDS ARE FERTILISED BY INSECTS” (1882 edition, LONDON: JOHN MURRAY, Publisher). The evolution of pollination is the classic example of mutual, or co-evolution. The insect pollinated plants gain an energy advantage over the wind-borne pollen plants (which appear earlier in the geological record BTW). This advantage is slightly diminished if the insect gets nectar, and pollen from multiple species of plant. Incremental change in the structure of the flower making it slightly more difficult for the “average” insect favors the adaptive evolution of insects to exclusively pollinate their specialized plant partner. Their mutual enhanced reproductive success guarantees the exaggeration of this trend. There are subtleties, see for example, “Evolutionary stability of mutualism between yuccas and yucca moths” http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic497544.files/Pellmyr%20and%20Huth%201994.pdf

      It is uninformed to think that these adaptations could have appeared “on the scene at the same time.” It is creationist level stupidity to think they must have appeared together in a fully evolved stature.

      • backyard philosopher

        OK, I would have to say that I am impressed that both you and “Doc Bill” would have the patience to dialogue on these subjects given the fact that I only have introductory college level knowledge in this field and even that has been quite awhile ago. In some ways it almost seems like evolutionary scientists should develop a scholarship program for the apparent under-represented creationist in the biology field. There is a verse that says, “My people parish due to a lack of knowledge”. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people lose their faith due to a lack of knowledge, and maybe creationists can’t have a good dialogue on biology due to a lack of scientific knowledge.

        I don’t read this interesting story about yucca and moths from “Letters to Nature” with evolutionary goggles, and I wonder if the same conclusions could be drawn without using evolutionary inferences. Possibly the author eludes to this by saying “It is not known whether the mechanisms represent co-evolved traits or preadaptations in yuccas, but this does not affect their significance in contributing to maintaining a mutualistic equilibrium.” So, it appears you could infer that generalist moths and generalist yuccas became more specialized, but I’m not bright/knowledgable enough to understand why a specialized moth could have not been created to pollenate a specific yucca species/variety.
        In some cases it almost seems like taking one frame out of a movie and having two people trying to describe the movie without watching the whole movie. Evolution seems to have so many moving parts to it that many of the parts can be accurate, with a smaller part inaccurate. So, you may say it is our best “theory” or possibly it is an inaccurate description of the origins of life.
        Regards.

        • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

          It is becoming obvious that you are either unwilling, or unable to learn. If you want to persist in your asinine special piece mill creationism (“specialized moth … created to pollenate (sic) a specific yucca”) your theological problems are greater than your failed logical reasoning.

          Regarding the origin of life, Charles R. Darwin in a 1871 letter to the botanist Joseph Hooker wrote, “It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. ”

          A few years earlier, he had observed in a letter to Hooker, “It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.”

    • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

      One of the most popular creationist demands is for a molecular evolution of the eye. A recent book is beautifully illustrated, “Evolution’s Witness: How Eyes Evolved” by Ivan R Schwab (2011 Oxford University Press). Schwab begins with the evolution of bacterial photosynthesis and follows multiple animal lineages including humans.

    • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

      The next bit of rhetorical nonsense by “backyard philosopher” makes it nearly certain he is a member of the religious-right. He gratuitously tossed “global warming or the deficit” into a discussion of biology versus creationism. It is well known that the radical right-wing is in denial regarding climate change, and they only like deficit spending by Republicans.

      The confirmation that he is a creationist is the popular creationist phrase “evolutionary glasses” as if that was a telling argument. In the same frame, I’d instruct “backyard creationist” to take off his creationist blinders.

      • backyard philosopher

        Since I don’t make a living at this, I’m not suprised by that I did not coin the phrase “evolutionary goggles”.
        Since you have indicated that evolution has predictive abilities, global warming would be a good predictive test. If global warming continues to increase, I would predict extinction of some plants and animals in colder climates and expansion of plants and animals from tropical/desert climates (natural selection). But what new species do you predict?
        It does seem evolutionists are challenged by answering how life first began, but are they willing to attribute all differences between humans and animals soley to brain capacity. Would an animal make a violin and actually think they could play something pleasant with it? Why do we even make scientific inquiry?
        Maybe the Subway sandwich is the end of the evolutionary chain. A diversity of plant and animal life all in a herb and cheese bun! They do seem to be taking over the world!

        • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

          Humans didn’t make violins until just recently, and very few can make any pleasant noise from one.

          The prediction of evolutionary biology about global warming is that there will be a massive extinction event. You and I will be dead. The survival of our species is hardly assured. From fossil, and genetic studies we can predict that the survivors will have a large and sparsely inhabited world to recolonize. This is known to be a favored condition for rapid species divergence.

          Current extinctions are highest in the equatorial tropics expanding out, and the polar ecologies expanding out. The relevant literature is all available to anyone with an internet connection and the brain to use it well. This seems to leave you out.