Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

The New York Times ^ | December 4, 2005 | LAURIE GOODSTEIN

[Right Wing Professor]

TO read the headlines, intelligent design as a challenge to evolution seems to be building momentum.

...

Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for. It has gained little support among the academics who should have been its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's credibility.

On college campuses, the movement's theorists are academic pariahs, publicly denounced by their own colleagues. Design proponents have published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

[Stultis]

The curriculum of contemporary public schools is loaded with junk and nonsense. To displace some of that baggage with ID would in fact be an enormous improvement.

Displace? This is the problem. The inclusion of ID can only serve to INCREASE the amount of "junk and nonsense" in the curricula. If you lower the bar for one subject (teaching ID in science curricula before it's objectively succeeded in scientific research) then anything else might sneak in under the bar. Likewise if one "identity group" (in this case conservative theists opposed to evolution) is seen to be successful in manipulating the curricula, then other identity groups will only be further stimulated in their attempts. (Indeed antievolutionists prove this by frequently citing the influence of the left in manipulating curricula as a justification for their efforts.)

The best course is to insist uncompromisingly on high and hard-nosed academic standards in all subjects.

[Ophiucus]

Summary of your argument: Evolution is science and ID is not. Because I say so.

If you honestly follwed the discussions on this and other threads, you would understand that evolution is an observed fact. Evolutionary theory follows the rigid standards of science.

ID does not follow any standards of science. It is a post facto declaration devoid of standards, verification, experimentation, data, or reproducibility. It not science.

[Sun]

A biologist is a scientist. Did you ever hear of a biological scientist?

[JeffAtlanta]

How to Contruct a Falsifiable Theory in Which the Universe Came Into Being Several Thousand Year Ago
by Tipler, Frank J
PSA 2: 873-902 1984

Frank J. Tipler is a professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University, New Orleans, physicist, theologian and cornucopian philosopher.

[Free2BeMe]

DNA evidence doesn't prove anything on its own. It's often said since the genetic code between different organisms is so similar then there must be a common origin. That's not true. DNA codes for proteins. Many proteins are not specific to one specie, but are found in many species. If the protein has the same function in those different species, then the DNA sequence that codes for that protein would only need to be slightly different between species - different enough to allow the protein to retain its 3-D spatial functionality for different species' body temps, metabolic needs, etc. Carbonic anhydrase is often used as an example. Its the enzyme that converts carbon dioxide to carbonic acid, which is basically the perfect physiologic buffer. How many different ways can there be to turn carbon dioxide to carbonic acid? Not too many, therefore, a more-or-less common carbonic anhydrase enzyme to all species, which only has to be different enough to account for each specie's physiologic conditions. If the enzymes are basically the same, then their amino acid sequence is going to be basically the same. DNA codes for the amino acid sequence, thus the DNA sequence being so similar. This works for all proteins, and the main differences between species' genetic codes (besides what's mentioned above) is for specie-specific proteins. You're looking at genetic differences between species and applying a conclusion to it that supports your point - not drawing your point from what is there. Inference is not fact.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Whatever you do, don't open your eyes and read. Learning follows, and that way lies madness...

[JeffAtlanta]

You're looking at genetic differences between species and applying a conclusion to it that supports your point - not drawing your point from what is there. Inference is not fact.

This is not what I am talking about at all. I am talking about DNA fragment 'fossils' that were introduced by retro-viruses.

[Sun]

"Frank J. Tipler is a professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University, New Orleans, physicist, theologian and cornucopian philosopher."

And your point is?

Next give me the run down on EACH of these people, and keep in mind, that it is possible to have multiple degrees.

In other words, you can be a scientist and something else, as well.

[Sun]

Yes, yes, reading is a good thing.

Please read the following link, with a snippet to wet the appetite:

Another pouch, thought to be vestigal, by evolutionists UNTIL JUST RECENTLY (emphasis mine), becomes a gland that assists in calcium balance."

http://www.christiankeys.ca/DictionaryNotes.html

[Coyoteman]

Intelligent design (pay careful attention to this) is a theory which involves trying to form a conclusion....

Stop right there. ID is not a theory because it is not a testable body of evidence. It does not rise to the level of a theory, it is a mere hypothesis. Period

ID is not a theory because it has already assumed the answer! It is not in search of anything! The Discovery Institute is not trying to discover anything. They already know what the goal is (see The Wedge Strategy) for details. It is a religiously-inspired political movement which they are trying to force into schools.

[narby]

The problem is that science isn't hierarchical. There's nothing analogous to the papacy.

Michael Crichton's recent book "State of Fear" proposed that scientific organizations should develop a "double blind" method of funding where researchers wouldn't know where the money came from for their work, and philanthropists donating to such organizations would not know where their money was going. Crichton believes that some method like this is necessary to prevent the abuse of science.

Of course the downside is that science is supported sometimes only because it can be abused as a source of information sutable for political action. If the abuse was impossible, the money might just dry up.

Someone should start some scientific grant organization that uses such techniques, and had some slick PR people that can sell both the public and the philanthropist community on the idea that any other system of scientific funding is suspect.

Perhaps some sort of "quality rating" organization for scientific research would work.

I think the scientific community may not appreciate the necessity of good PR, because it has not really needed it before now. That's not unlike the aviation community, that doesn't know how to sell itself, because for years pilots were the cool guys, and many little boys wanted to be one when they grew up. Now the GA aviation community is on the edge of shrinking even while national affluence is high enough so that many could afford to buy airplanes. The GA folks don't know how to turn that situation around, and don't even recognize that they need to.

[Coyoteman]

Instead of arguing about the meaning of words in scientific terms and other semantics how about offering an argument for Evolution?

OK, here is a small sample.

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[JeffAtlanta]

And your point is? Next give me the run down on EACH of these people, and keep in mind, that it is possible to have multiple degrees. In other words, you can be a scientist and something else, as well.

My point is that it is very doubtful that scientists with graduate level biological training would ever think that the theory of evolution encompasses the origin of life.

A few like Behe may squirt through, but even he now acknowledges common descent.

By looking at your list of great minds, most are just as suspected - computer scientists or engineers that do not posses graduate level biological degrees. One common thread, however, is that almost all have a strong interest or even a degree in religious studies.

[jess35]

I could have received a degree in Biology 35 years ago and used it to become a registered nurse. Does that make me a biologist?

[jess35]

Project Steve :

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

If they can find 750 scientists named Steve, will the ID crowd recognize it as a legitimate consensus? ;)

[Senator Bedfellow]

Changing the subject already? Probably a good move - the last topic didn't look good for you.

[Free2BeMe]

"Is the theory of gravity propaganda? Tell that to yourself the next time you trip and fall. How about the theories on inertia, mass, and motion? Propaganda? Doesn't seem to be when you stub your toe in the middle of the night."

There's phenomenal evidence we experience every second that make the theories of Gravity, Mass, etc. the most plausible causes behind those forces. Evolution is not the most plausible theory for the origins of the species. The "proofs" are circumstantial where they're not pure inference. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence, logical conclusions and inconsistencies in the theory that stand against evolution.

[JeffAtlanta]

The Role of Theology in Current Evolutionary Reasoning
by Nelson, Paul A
Biology and Philosophy 11: 493-517 1996

From the ISCID biography on Paul A Nelson...

Paul Nelson is a philosopher of biology, specializing in evo-devo and developmental biology. He is also a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design. Dr. Nelson received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago Department of Philosophy.

These are examples of ID's experts in biology?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

The page you linked to is a great compendium of creationist misconceptions about what evolution is.

The specific example of vestigial is a great case in point. Vestigial does NOT meant that the organ/structure has no function now. It means that the organ/structure is doing something other than what it was originally designed for. This has been known since Darwin.

Just because you find a function for a structure (the appendix, for instance) does NOT meant the structure is not a vestige of an earlier structure that had a different function (in this case, the appendix was used to help digest cellulose in our ancestors.)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#vestiges

[Gumlegs]

One common thread, however, is that almost all have a strong interest or even a degree in religious studies.

That can't possibly be. How many times have we been told on this very thread that ID has nothing whatever to do with religion?

/scarcasm