Darwin, Intelligent Design, and Freedom of Discovery on Evolutionists' Holy Day

U.S. News and World Report ^ | february 10, 2009 | Casey Luskin

[GodGunsGuts]

Darwin, Intelligent Design, and Freedom of Discovery on Evolutionists' Holy Day

By Casey Luskin

Posted February 10, 2009

February 12 used to be universally recognized as the birthday of Abraham Lincoln—a day celebrating freedom. Needing a patron saint, Darwinists in recent years have converted February 12 into "Darwin Day."

There's nothing wrong with celebrating Darwin's birthday—if that's what you really want to do. But in recent years the advocacy of evolution has become increasingly associated with attempts to subvert freedom. To reclaim February 12 for those who love freedom, Discovery Institute and others in the intelligent design (ID) movement are calling February 12, 2009, "Academic Freedom Day" (see www.AcademicFreedomDay.com).

To be sure, Darwin supported academic freedom. In On the Origin of Species, he openly discussed weaknesses in his arguments and declared that "a fair result can only be obtained by stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."

One would think that Darwin's latter-day defenders would follow his approach and allow debate over evolution in the classroom. But a lot has changed in the past 150 years.

Darwinists today seek to stifle scientific dissent from their viewpoint by asserting that there are no serious scientific weaknesses in modern evolutionary theory (called neo-Darwinism). The real losers here are students and scientific progress.

The more we discover about the cell, the more we are learning that it functions like a miniature factory, replete with motors, powerhouses, garbage disposals, guarded gates, transportation corridors, and most importantly, CPUs. The central information processing machinery of the cell runs on a language-based code composed of irreducibly complex circuits and machines: The myriad enzymes used in the process that converts the genetic information in DNA into proteins are themselves created by the process that converts DNA into proteins.

The problem for Darwinists is obvious: The simplest cell won't function unless this basic machinery is intact, so how does such complexity evolve via a "blind" and "undirected" Darwinian process of numerous, successive, slight modifications?

Even scientists who reject ID admit that neo-Darwinism is lacking. Biochemist Franklin Harold stated in a 2001 Oxford University Press monograph that "there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." Indeed, over 750 Ph.D. scientists have signed a list declaring their view that random mutation and natural selection are impotent to explain the complexity of life (see www.dissentfromdarwin.org).

As we sequence more genomes of species, biologists are also finding that one gene or trait implies one evolutionary tree, while another gene yields an entirely different tree. No wonder the cover of the journal New Scientist recently declared that with respect to his vision of a grand tree of life, "Darwin Was Wrong."

Common descent—the view that all species are related—has also failed to overcome a problem that Darwin recognized in his own day: the lack of evolutionary transitions documented in the fossil record. Instead, what we see are new biological forms coming into existence in "explosions," without clear evolutionary precursors.

Finally, Darwinists have long-argued that our cells can't be designed because they are full of functionless "junk DNA." But in recent years, biologists have discovered that the vast majority of our DNA is performing vital cellular functions and isn't "junk" at all. The wrong-headed conclusions of modern Darwinists have stifled scientific progress and slowed discovery of function for noncoding DNA.

Despite the bluffs of Darwinists, neo-Darwinism has plenty of scientific weaknesses that are discussed in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Since cellular language implies an author, and microbiological machines imply an engineer, and genetically encoded programs imply a programmer, increasing numbers of scientists feel the solution is intelligent design.

-------------------

Casey Luskin is cofounder of the Intelligent Design & Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center and program officer in public policy and legal affairs at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. He holds bachelor's and master's degrees in Earth sciences from the University of California-San Diego and a law degree from the University of San Diego.

[dan1123]

“So, Father Stormer, how is your congregation doing?”
“Fine, Monseigneur. But explaining this concept of transubstantiation has me troubled. And rising from the dead? Come on - get real.”
“What are you getting at, my son?”
“I just don't buy it. It's crap. Did I mention I said that during my last sermon?”

So science has doctrine now?

[dan1123]

Quite simply: Is irreducible complexity part of the scientific dissent to the theory of evolution that “evolutionists” are stifling?

Ah, a perfect circle.

1. The scientific establishment claims that all science must be from peer-reviewed articles.
2. They refuse to publish and/or fire anyone who considers ID.
3. Since no peer-reviewed papers exist (thanks to step 2), they declare ID not "science".

So the ultimate answer is that something is not science because the scientific community doesn't want it to be. (for earlier examples see the Big Bang Theory, J Harlen Bretz, and the Copernican Revolution.)

Of course, this has been the standard operating procedure of science for a very long time, as evidenced by Max Planck's quote, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

[GodGunsGuts]

What dan1123 said...plus...the situation facing Darwinists is far worse than simply a few instances of irreducible bio-complexity. As it turns out, all life is irreducibly complex, thus negating naturalistic explanations right out of the box.

[dmz]

Nice gambit.

Don’t address the question that you specifically requested that I clarify, instead claim that the rules of the game are such that my team cannot play.

OK. Do you have any natural science grounded articles or studies, of any variety at all, that would support the notion of irreducible complexity?

It is still OK to suggest that the natural sciences study the natural world, right?

[dmz]

All life is irreducibly complex? I guess it was premature send that caused there to be nothing other than your pronouncement that it is so.

[GodGunsGuts]

==All life is irreducibly complex? I guess it was premature send that caused there to be nothing other than your pronouncement that it is so.

Please see the following. As you will see, all life is IC. I’m pinging a few others, not to gang up on you, but rather because they are actively engaged in this subject at the moment:

Part I

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_2/j21_2_109-115.pdf

Part II

http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_77-83.pdf

[demshateGod]

You don’t think being called pig-ignorant is an attempt to stifle debate? The most common way those guys try to shut me down is to marginalize me. That’s really what it always comes down to, “You’re an idiot.”

[count-your-change]

“followup: where can one read a peer reviewed, scientific article on irreducible complexity?”

You might try these:

Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119.

[tacticalogic]

The article you posted, in paragraph 6, uses the irreducible complexity argument in favor of ID and against evolution. Where’s the science to demonstrate this?

Add to that the tacit assertion that ID and evolution must be mutually exclusive.

[CottShop]

[[You don’t think being called pig-ignorant is an attempt to stifle debate? The most common way those guys try to shut me down is to marginalize me. That’s really what it always comes down to, “You’re an idiot.”]]

That unfortunately is the only real defense hey have for macroevolution- a wise man once said that you can tell someone’s theory is i trouble when they have to start al ltheir ‘arguments’ for hteir case with insults and maligning comments. When htey have no ammo- they throw spitballs.

[Natufian]

Casey Luskin. Wasn’t he present in Dover when the judge determined that ID isn’t science and is a form of creationism in disguise?

[dan1123]

OK. Do you have any natural science grounded articles or studies, of any variety at all, that would support the notion of irreducible complexity?

One difficulty with such a task is that we still do not fully understand genetics. One way around that though is to consider genetic algorithms in the computer science side. You can look here for a take on exploring what the limits of genetic algorithms (and by extension evolution?) are. From the linked article:

Genetic algorithms (GAs) are robust adaptive systems that have been applied successfully to hard optimization problems, both artificial and real world. Yet GAs do fail... If we are ever to understand how hard a problem GAs can solve, how quickly, and with what reliability, we must get our hands around what "hard" is.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Diamond]

where can one read a peer reviewed, scientific article on irreducible complexity?

You're about nine years out of date. Lament the fact all you want, but IC is officially part of the peer reviewed scientific lexicon:

Thornhill, R.H., Ussery, D.W. 2000. "A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution." J. Theor. Bio. 203: 111-116.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

...in Dover when the judge determined that ID isn’t science and is a form of creationism in disguise?

You mean the federal judge who demonstrated his scientific credentials by issuing a judgment that was a nearly verbatim regurgitation of an ACLU brief?

Cordially,

[dmz]

I’m pinging a few others, not to gang up on you, but rather because they are actively engaged in this subject at the moment:

LOL. Ganged up on. On an anonymous internet forum. Not possible.

We who argue evolution on this site are already voices in the wilderness. We are not in the posting majority.

[Natufian]

You mean the federal judge who demonstrated his scientific credentials by issuing a judgment that was a nearly verbatim regurgitation of an ACLU brief?

Cordially,

---

Judges specifically ask for detailed and well written briefs in order to assist in the writing of their findings. It’s common practice. The 91% quoted by DI was typical hyperbole by them - just as absurd as the arguments that were put forward by ID’ers in the trial and as dishonest as the actions of the defendents - who should have been prosecuted for perjury.

[Diamond]

It’s common practice.

Yes, for lawyers and judges, it is. For scientists, though, it is not. Can you imagine scientists having to rely on ACLU legal bildge to prop up their results?

Your fav federal judge in that same judgment also presumed the authority to falsify a religious belief. Was he relying on a well-written ACLU brief when he did that, too? I guess if you don't mind philospher/king/judges dictating what science is you won't mind if they dictate theology, too.

Cordially,

[Natufian]

Yes, for lawyers and judges, it is. For scientists, though, it is not. Can you imagine scientists having to rely on ACLU legal bildge to prop up their results?

Your fav federal judge in that same judgment also presumed the authority to falsify a religious belief. Was he relying on a well-written ACLU brief when he did that, too? I guess if you don’t mind philospher/king/judges dictating what science is you won’t mind if they dictate theology, too.

---

Yes, but it’s a judge we are talking about. The ACLU brief was a distilation of scientific evidence along with other briefs from the plaintiffs that were not presented by the ACLU. The defendent’s lawyers also put forward briefs based on what they consider passes for scientific evidence. Both were quoted from.

The judges’ finding was based on that together with the mountain of evidence presented during 40 days of trial and the pre-trail depostions from all parties. The same that passes in courts across the land every day.

Seems to me that people define an activist judge as one who comes to a different conclusion than they hope for, so it’s no surprise that you’re trying to push that angle. However, Jones is a Republican and was a Bush appointee so you’ll need to come up with something better than whining and distorting everyday procedures to get that one to fly.

All the best.

[Diamond]

Yes, but it’s a judge we are talking about...

Exactly. Which is what is so ludicrous about his presuming the authority to falsify a religious belief, as well as his entire irrelevant analysis of whether ID was science or not, after he found a supposed violation of the Establishment Clause.

Seems to me that people define an activist judge as one who comes to a different conclusion than they hope for, so it’s no surprise that you’re trying to push that angle. However, Jones is a Republican and was a Bush appointee so you’ll need to come up with something better than whining and distorting everyday procedures to get that one to fly.

The well-worn "Jones is a Republican and a Bush appointee" canard I suppose is intended to support for the notion that we should we uncritically accept as dogma whatever "Bush-appointed Republican Judges" say when they delve into scientific minutia and theology. Who did or did not appoint Judge Jones has nothing to do with whether his ruling and/or portions of it were accurate, Constitutional, or within the scope of his authority.

Here are a few of some of just his factual errors, which he copied from the ACLU brief, I guess during one of his everyday procedures:

Table C

Selected Examples of ACLU Errors Perpetuated by Judge Jones

Judge Jones’ Decision	ACLU’s Proposed “Findings of Fact”	Trial Record
He [Behe] was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.”	He [Behe] was confronted with the fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books and several immunology text-book chapters about the evolution of the immune system, P256, 280, 281, 283, 747, 748, 755 and 743, and he insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution -it was "not good enough.	Behe’s real testimony: These articles are excellent articles I assume. However, they do not address the question that I am posing. So it’s not that they aren't good enough. It’s simply that they are addressed to a different subject.1
...ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.	Intelligent design is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.	Expert witness Scott Minnich testified at trial that there were between “seven and ten” peer-reviewed papers supporting ID,2 and he discussed a pro-intelligent design article in the peer-reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 3 Additional peer-reviewed publications were listed in an annotated bibliography submitted in an amicus brief accepted as part of the official court record by Judge Jones.4
In addition to failing to	Besides failing to produce	Microbiologist Scott Minnich testified in
produce papers in	papers in peer-reviewed	court showing slides of the genetic
peer-reviewed journals, ID	journals, intelligent design	knock-out experiments he performed in
also features no scientific	also features no scientific	his own laboratory at the University of
research or testing.	research or testing.	Idaho which found that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to its complement of 35 genes.5 Judge Jones failed to mention any of Minnich’s experimental data supporting the irreducible complexity of the flagellum.

A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs’ Proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”
By John G. West and David K. DeWolf *

Do you really want federal judges deciding what is and is not science? Do you really want federal judges deciding what are true and false religious beliefs? Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it.

Cordially,