Skip to comments.MU professor takes heat for views on ‘intelligent design’
Posted on 04/26/2007 9:28:48 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
As a theory, I believe that intelligent design fits the evidence of biology better than Darwinian evolution. -- MU Professor John Marshall
A Columbia medical professor made his case for scientific acceptance of "intelligent design" last night and found himself taking fire from his peers for his view.
John Marshall, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Missouri-Columbia, argued in front of about 100 people in a University Hospital auditorium that mainstream scientists were trying to kick intelligent design "off the playing field of science."
At the heart of the argument for design, say proponents, is that elements of life and the physical world cannot be explained by evolution and show signs of being formed by an intelligent creator.
"Its as much science as Darwinian evolution is science," Marshall said. "And as a theory, I believe that intelligent design fits the evidence of biology better than Darwinian evolution."
Marshall held up DNA as a possible example of intelligent design in action, calling it the "most complex, densely packed, elaborate assembly of information in the known universe."
He said DNA even bears similarities to computer codes or a language.
"Theres some three billion characters of information in each of our cells," he said. "If one were to put this code, write it out like you would onto a newspaper, you would fill some 75,000 pages of the New York Times."
Some scientists in the audience, however, accused Marshall of masking religion as science.
"I think" intelligent design "is a code word for God," said John OConnor, a water consultant and retired chairman of the MU Department of Civil Engineering. "I think that theres no reason for us to mince around and pretend that thats not really what" intelligent design "is trying to propagate."
Frank Schmidt, an MU biochemistry professor, said he counted "21 distortions 15 half-truths and 10 untruths" in Marshalls 45-minute presentation.
"What you are doing is cloaking a narrow definition of Christianity, which I find personally offensive, as some sort of scientific truth," Schmidt said. "And that is what really hacks me off."
Schmidt questioned Marshall about whether intelligent design proposes a testable prediction, as he said real scientific theory does, or if it simply says that we cant understand everything. When Marshall would not directly answer the question, Schmidt turned and left the auditorium, saying Marshall should not "pretend to be objective."
Up to 10 years ago, Marshall said he was an agnostic who believed in the theory of evolution. But in 1998, he converted to Christianity, and three years later the arguments of intelligent design finally swayed him into that camp. He said that although intelligent design does have religious implications for many people, it does not rely on any religious doctrine.
Rather than convince detractors that intelligent design was truth, Marshall repeatedly said he wanted the theory to become part of the scientific discussion, asking scientists to have tolerance toward his view.
Several people in the audience said they appreciated Marshalls message. Among them was Tim Spurgeon of Columbia. As an analytical chemist, Spurgeon said, hes charged with searching for the truth. "I think that if we simply say that were going to only look at whats in the box of only what can be natural, and yet theres this big white elephant in the room that no ones willing to touch
I think were fooling ourselves."
Like most state schools, MU is a hotbed of liberal doctrine. He will be shunned and belittled without mercy.
ping list handy?
Low volume ping list
FReepmail me to be on, or off, this list.
Well at least he has the courage to face the anti-intelligent-design establishment. There are too many others who would cave in to their pressure & not teach the subject in their class.
...therefore it equals 'religion' to some academics?
Darwinism is more palatable with the addition of Charles to the front?
Perhaps if we started calling the INTELLIGENT DESIGNER with a first and last name!?....hmmmm? How's this....
GOD SMITH, INTELLIGENT DESIGNER of the Universe...
He won’t be shunned and belittled. But he’s wrong, and in science, if you’re wrong, other scientists will point out your errors and correct your logic.
Can’t take the heat? Get out of the kitchen.
Now that Dr. Behe has admitted that ID requires no facts, Professor Marshall has a ways to go to start a "scientific discussion" on ID.
That'll be fine with the Smithists, but it's not going to sit well with the Jonesians.
LOL. Even funnier is that a "smith" is a maker; manufacturer.
“He wont be shunned and belittled. But hes wrong, and in science, if youre wrong, other scientists will point out your errors and correct your logic.”
And of course the majority of “scientists” have always been right.
Fine. He is really angry with God.
He can be "hacked off" forever here.
Liberal doctrine has nothing to od with it. It has to do with science, and ID is not science.
No. He called out Marshall for lying.
yes, ‘Smith’ is a great choice :-)
I don’t mind the idea of amino acids forming in some pool and sticking together to make peptides. I don’t mind the idea of purines and pyramidines forming in some other close by pool and sticking together with some sugars that have formed there, and some phosphates that are hanging around, and producing short strands of self-replicating nucleic acid.
I’m just wondering how the nucleic acid started making protein - where did the enzymes come from? I don’t think the protein pool could have made the right enzymes. And how does the nucleic acid get long enough to code for proteins with no enzymes? How do you make proteins without rRNA, mRNA and tRNA and why would you have them before you made proteins?
I, personally, don't find his arguements some that I could make myself. But, the totally automatic opposition to anything that even hints at God within the academic setting I find disgusting.
It doesn't matter if God is mentioned in connection with ethics, philosophy, history, literature or social moral questions, there is an academic leftist disparagement that makes me loath those involved.
Plain, un-belief, I have no trouble with and even enjoy a broad circle of argument and debate. But the current culture found in many academic settings does not impress me as accepting of a wide span of beliefs. It has been some years since I lived in Columbia, but I have done enough business there recently to have a continuing flavor for the community. Is the liberal arts academic community not as I descibe?
Please read the distintions I make and the question I ask at 18.
The greatest barrier to the truth, is to believe you already know it.
Ever try to reason with a yellow dog democrat socialist?
Now that Dr. Marshall has admitted that Evolution requires no facts, Professor Behe has a ways to go to start a “scientific discussion” on evolution.
After all the facts are indisputable, aren’t they?
The greatest barrier to the truth, is to believe that you already know it. Which means no further study in that area is necessary unless it affirms the belief that you already have, any evidence to the contrary is dismissed out of hand.
Science is not really open to new ideas, just the ones they like.
No other Scientists will belittle him, declaring that they are the holders of all truth, no evidence will be presented to discredit him, only the same old adhominim attacks that are always used by Federal grant holders.
OOGA BOOGA! Gonna jump out of the bushes and grab ya! There is no wall of separation between science, philosophy, and religion, just like there is no wall of separation between intelligence and design, or thought and action. No need to artificially construct such a wall, either, unless one happens to be devoted to a peculiar philosophy of his own. These days they call it "methodological naturalism."
“I don’t recall any instance where religion disagreed with science and turned out on the winning side.”
That may or may not be true. This disagreement is between scientists.
Intelligent Design predicts irreducible complexity.
Now, what does Evolution predict?
On the contrary, ID is testable, makes predictions (irreducible complexity), and falsifiable (requires bias).
It's Evolution that has no agreed upon scientitific falsifiability criteria, however.
No. " It's Evolution that has no agreed upon scientitific falsifiability criteria,
Then name it.
No. It invented and claims irreducible complaxity. It predicts nothing.
" Now, what does Evolution predict?"
Evolution is a scientific theory that encompasses the processes of genetic diversity. Predictions consist of possibilities and their consequences.
The issue really is, when will ID introduce any ideas.
So far ID'ers generated a lot of rhetoric and profits, but no new ideas.
Here is a short and simple speculation on how amino acids currently form in space. The 3 most common amino acids are formed floating in molecular clouds and on the surfaces of meteorites. In fact all the building blocks of life are found in space, including fatty acids and sugars.
It seems probable that these could also have formed on the surface of the earth 4.5 billion years ago. The hard part is figuring out how to get from building blocks to whatever early life-forms might've been like.
Evolution as it is usually presented in the classroom incorporates abiogenesis. There’s some talk about organic molecules forming in deep sea vents or clay substrates or outer space as you say, and something about micelles.
And from there a leap to cells and natural selection, with every confidence that science will fill in that great gap as it has filled in so many others, and the notion that organic molecules must also have been naturally selected until they reached the level of complexity called life.
I don’t think I’ve read an attempt to fill the gap in, plausible or no, although I admit I’ve not read in depth on the subject.
Rubbish. Evolution isn't even scientific. To be scientific it would have to be falsifiable.
Yet you can't show any peer-reviewed scientific criteria for its falsifiability.
Nor can you enumerate specific "evolutionary" predictions.
You're just spouting the same tired old Evolutionary propaganda as if repeating old lies enough times would make something true.
Name Evolutionary Theory's scientific falsifiability criteria.
Enumerate Evolutionary Theory's predictions.
You can just spout gobbledegook in some vain attempt to wish that your audience will be bamboozled with your BS.
Hey, here's a great idea, try running away with "I don't have time" excuses, or better yet, toss a few ad hominems (I mean, Evolutionists would view such tricks as brilliant, after all). It's not as though you can answer the above challenges for specific responses...
" To be scientific it would have to be falsifiable."
It is. Learn some science.
Let's put it this way. The evolutionists on this site are also Al Gore global warming believers. Their logic requires it.
Anything is possible in public school.
But we live in an exciting time to be a scientist, so its normal for scientists to be wildly optimistic.
Time will tell whether we’re right or not.
If Evolution is falsifiable as you claim, then you should have no trouble listing its scientific falsifiability criteria.
You've been on here long enough, and I've seen you repeatedly ignore the relevant answers given to you. When you can provide evidence that genetic control does not control the information that provides for almost all life forms, and provide evidence that mutations are impossible, you'll have evidence that falsifies the mechanism of evolution.
Like I said, you, Mr. Spunkets, can't show scientific falsification criteria for Evolutionary theory...because that theory isn't *scientifically* falsifiable (which is to say, it isn't scientific).
What I can or can't provide is beside the point, by the way. It's all up to you, and you keep coming up short.
The issue really is, when will evolution introduce any ideas.
So far Evolutionists have generated a lot of rhetoric and profits, but no new ideas.
Funny how this works.
Interesting choice of words. "Lying." Not that you disagree with his presentation, or that he presented any logic in the framework or self-consistency, nor valid. No - by "lying. As such, you also wouldn't dare to acknowledge that theories do not have to be perfectly accurate to be scientifically useful - as in classical mechanics.
No - for you it is "liar!"
That speaks volumes - do you realize that?
Moreover, I saw your response to Southack when he simply pointed out the double standard of your previous post and (simply and correctly stated) that evolution was evolution isn't scientific. Your flippant rebuke was:
Ah, OK. Whatever. That is a "valley girl" response. It was as impressive as your lying comment. Buzz words like that are for Bill and Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid, and that moniker fits them. You attempt to throw all of those who oppose you as liars, whatever.
I noticed in your profile you quote C.S. Lewis. Are you familiar with all of his work? Or did you pick out that one quote about tyranny because you liked how it sounded? C.S. Lewis was a man of great wisdom. He was also an incredible Christian.
I don't want to make any assumptions about you or the current status of your relationship with God, so please share that. The reason I would like you to do so is because I am observing in you a hostility that is more deep seated about the debate regarding intelligent design. Your responses ape those of the academics who launched on this guy.
Since you like to issue challenges (as you did here to Southack) I would like to issue one to you as well:
When you can provide evidence that genetic control does not control the information that provides for almost all life forms, and provide evidence that mutations are impossible, you'll have evidence that falsifies the mechanism of evolution.
spunkets - either man was created by God with a purpose and a destiny, or he is a multifaceted complex organism accidentally with no reason or purpose; and he was formed from non-living nothingness.
If the latter is true, then when we die comes "the nothing." But if the former is true, we are accountable to Him. Tell me, is that what really scares you? I
Produce the fossil of a cambrian rabbit, a shark with a pelvis, or find a centaur or a mermaid.
Any one of which will do it.
So you missed animal testing, cancer research using sea animals, antibiotic development, recombinant DNA manufacturing, organ transplants, blood screening, genetic disease research, tissue regeneration research, gene targeting to fight cancer, embryo screening (OK, this one isn't necessarily a good thing), quorum sensing, etc.
I think if I thought about for 5 minutes I could come up with more.
You don't really know anything about biology, do you?
All that is Evolution theory? You left out the 2008 Ford Taurus and the IPoD Nano.
I am speechless. Talk about a stretch. Your post must qualify for an award on Free Republic for the all time record for building a bridge out of balsa wood.
Incorrect. None of the above are enumerated as scientific falsification criteria in any peer-reviewed document on Evolution.
Which is to say, you tried to defend Evolutionary theory and failed. Hard.
Now, you can try again...but the typical Evolutionist response when revealed as such a glaring failure is to:
1. cry to mommy that you "don't have time"
2. pretend that you are right anyway, even though you can't cite actual scientific literature for your claimed "point"
3. change the subject
4. toss adhominems into the thread, or
5. insist that your failure to cite actual scientific literature is somehow my fault, followed by a demand that I do something for you to prove you to be correct for you.
Wow! You've just itemized a host of intelligent design accomplishments without managing to find a single Evolutionary advance...unless you somehow fantasize that organs are transplanting themselves...
Seemed only fair since evos always seem to leave out all the intermediate species that must have existed for Darwinism to be true. But what the everything else seems to fit pretty well, so just chalk that up as an unexplained anomily. That word alone absolves you of almost all obligation to make your argument actually make sense. Please don't bring up money again as a motive for ID, EVO's are funded by all most everyone, including the ACLU, NEA, Cristians for the seperation of Church and State..........
I never did - you are confusing me with another poster.
But, I agree that the Evolution crowd is unarguably leftist in nature and that substantial resources (financial and otherwise) are devoted to propping it up.
To a leftist, Evolution Theory cannot fail. Their carefully constructed world-view would collapse.
Sorry Sky. that post was ment for Mr. perfect himself <1/1,000,000th%