For those who think that the object of science is to follow the truth wherever it leads, there’s this in from the AP: “Some scientists are urging Florida's Legislature to reject a bill that would protect teachers from being fired if they present information challenging evolution.”

If you’re wondering why any scientific theory should be immune from criticism in institutions which are supposedly training young people for critical thinking, it’s because the stalwarts of science orthodoxy have proclaimed, ex academia, that evolution is “a scientific fact” and that its alternative, Intelligent Design, is “religion posing as science.” Neither is true.

ID is a research program to discover, scientifically, whether the design in nature, universally acknowledged in the scientific community, is actual or merely apparent. ID does not deny the validity of evolutionary processes—only that naturalistic mechanisms alone are unable to account for the complexity of life. ID is based on scientific criteria and empirical data, similar to that used in fields like archaeology, to determine the authenticity of human artifacts; forensics, to distinguish death by natural causes from murder; and cryptography, to decide whether a collection of symbols is a random string of characters or a message of human origin. ID does not attempt to answer or address whether the designer is divine or extraterrestrial, mortal or immortal, or of natural or supernatural origin. The only attribute ID is concerned with is intelligence. Hence, contrary to all the fear-mongering since Dover, there is no religion being smuggled in with ID.

Darwinian evolution is another story. Despite the exercised assertions of the evolutionary establishment, Darwinian evolution is not a fact; it's a theory, and not a particularly scientific one at that, for several reasons: 

1. The evidence trotted out in its support is fraught with holes (the fossil record), frauds (Haeckel’s embryology, fake fossils, staged peppered moths), intelligently designed and controlled experiments (Urey-Miller) or just-so stories to explain how a frog could turn into a prince after eons of random variation, adaptation and natural selection.

2. Everything it foists as a product of common descent—e.g., similarities in morphology and genomes—is better explained as a product of common design.

3. Its essential feature, macro-evolution, has never been observed or reproduced even in micro-organisms whose explosive rates of replication should virtually guarantee its validity. Thus, it has no predictive power and, consequently, has not contributed to a single technological or medical advance since it was conjectured 150 years ago.

4. In fact, Darwinian evolution has a tendency to be a science-stopper, as evidenced by the establishment’s readiness to label apparent inert portions of DNA (expected by the theory) as “junk.” As it turns out, those “inert” regions of DNA are increasingly being found essential in direct or indirect gene expression.

5. It is not dictated by the evidence or the science, or by reason of its technological usefulness, but by…theology. That’s right!

For those whose theology makes no room for God or the supernatural, naturalistic evolution promises to answer those BIG metaphysical questions of “How did I get here?” “And who am I?”

For others who desire a moral universe, but want to exonerate the Law-Giver from any culpability for the existence of evil, theistic evolution gives them a not-so-omnipotent or sovereign God who set things in motion, but has nary a clue as to how they’ll turn out or how to set the course straight. And since he’s not in total control, it turns out that he’s not too particular about those morals either.

If you doubt the religious underpinnings of Darwinism consider its . . .

Patron saint: Charles Darwin
Founding text: On the Origin of Species
Magisterium: The National Academy of Science
Holy day: Darwin Day
Sacred relics: humanoid fossils
Evangelists: Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, Kenneth Miller
Religious symbol: the Darwin fish plaque, available in assorted styles and colors

And--as this news item exposes, yet again--its unpardonable sin: “Putting other theories before Darwin.”

Comments

[Rolley Haggard]

Regis -- Very well said, my friend.

[Luke]

It's complete crap that scientists wouldn't want to allow critical thought about the theory. I also agree that evolution is wrong- God did indeed create the world as stated in Genesis, in six twenty-four hour periods.

However, I have a few problems with the points enumerated here: The biggest being point 2: "Everything it foists as a product of common descent—e.g., similarities in morphology and genomes—is better explained as a product of common design." Your definition of "better explained" could be greatly different from scientists, particularly evolutionistic scientists.

Most proponents of evolution I've spoken with (the educated ones, anyway) actually openly admit there are holes in the theory- that's why it's a theory, they fully admit. Science is trying to fill those gaps and is constantly redefining what "evolution" is. Constantly seeking to find out what is true.

Basically, this list would read like propaganda to those that would be most likely to be "brought around" to see the truth of creation than anything convincing, particularly the part about the theology of evolution. They'd agree the extremists go that far- but that's the extreme end, and not the "Average evolutionist." At least, with those I've spoken with. Of course, your mileage may vary! :)

[Pinon Coffee]

"Complete c---"? Hmm... ask the fired professors from Baylor... or the majority of news articles about Patrick Henry's biology course...

"Better explained"--well, that is the entire point of ID, is asking about it ientifically. I guess I don't see why you're objecting?

But it doesn't sound like you'd be opposed to a law protecting teachers who talk about the evidence, then. It sounds like a great idea to me.

[Joe Meert]

Actually, Intelligent design is not a scientific research program. It is a propaganda program aimed at misrepresenting science and injecting a socio-political agenda under the guise of science. They try to blind the public with movies and claims of discrimination, but in fact they are not doing research. They are spending money on lobbying and complaining about not getting a fair hearing. Oh, by the way the authors of the Florida bill claim that intelligent design and creationism won't be introduced. You might want to change your blog.

[Regis Nicoll]

Joe--While it may be that "the authors of the Florida bill claim that intelligent design and creationism won't be introduced," that's not what the obscurists are arguing, per the AP piece:

"The scientists believe evolution is a scientific fact and argue that the 'Academic Freedom' bill would let teachers present Intelligent Design or Biblical Creationism as an alternative."

[James Willis]

Joe, you better check your facts because there are an increasing number of respected scientists and institutions doing research about intelligent design. They do not have the funding or get the media attention that their evolutionary counterparts get, but their research is emperical and well docmented. Most proponents of Intelligent Design are only asking that the academic community allow these researchers a fair chance to present their findings. This is something that has not been allowed because the media, government, and educational instituitons are all controlled by evolutionary thinking.

[Matt]

Evolution proponents argue that ID is a way of inserting theism into science. However, at the same time you could easily build just as strong an argument that proponents of evolution are inserting atheism into science.

[Luke]

I realized when I re-read my first sentence it didn't say what I meant!

"It's complete crap that scientists wouldn't want to allow critical thought about the theory."

What I meant to say was:

"I think it's a horrible thing that scientists wouldn't want to allow critical thought about the theory."

I apologize veryvery much for the confusion- I hope this is clearer!

[jmoore]

How is intelligent design empirical? It is based on the presumption that if scientists can't explain something, then the designer did it. That is an argument based on negative evidence and an argument for continued ignorance! Once you have said the designer did it, why would any believer try to find another explanation or investigate any further? ID makes no specific predictions about what you should or shouldn't find and would stop scientific investigation in its tracks. ID advocates will tell the public that it doesn't matter who the designer is, but almost all of them turn to each other in Discovery Institute-sponsored conferences and say it was God. How can anyone empirically test for God? That in itself is a proof that ID is not science!

Scientific practice was codified during the Enlightenment, when people were intentionally trying to exclude any religious or magical explanations for the things people were seeing. Back before this naturalistic practice came about, things like lightning were explained as God, or the gods, being angry. That explanation did nothing to help predict when and where to expect lightning. Naturalistic science has allowed us to predict when and where lightning occurs and the same goes for so many phenomena that science has studied.

So, a supernatural designer is outside the sphere of science, because science looks for natural, not supernatural, explanations for phenomena. Maybe supernatural beings exist, but they can not be tested or explained by science. The fact that science has been so successful is a sign that natural explanation work well. Let science continue to do that. If you want supernatural explanations, stick to religion and magic.

I oppose this bill because it doesn't define what is acceptable scientific information. The House version states that "germane" information is allowed. Well, any creationist teacher may see the bible as germane, and as long as they believe it is, they are protected by the state under this bill (but not by federal law). That is just inviting federal lawsuits and huge legal costs for the school districts.

The bill also protects students from being penalized for views that differ from evolution, and the bill doesn't even say these students have to hold a scientific view in opposition. In other words, a student can say "God did it" and the bill protects them from being penalized in science class. One could interpret this bill then as allowing a student to say "God did it" for every answer on the test and not get any points taken off! How is that advancement of learning?

[LeeQuod]

Regurgitating the Party Line, jmoore wrote: "How is intelligent design empirical? It is based on the presumption that if scientists can't explain something, then the designer did it."

ID is not based on such a presumption. This is a slur promulgated by ID's critics. ID is an attempt to avoid creating a huge number of hypothetical entities to explain observed phenomena just to be congruent with Darwinian theory.

Real science doesn't force the facts to fit the theory.

[Luke]

jmoore:

I can see where you're coming from. I don't agree, but I can see where you're coming from, particularly the student writing "God did it" and getting away with it.

One thing several of my friends did in college-level biology tests regarding evolution was write something along the lines of: "God created the world with the power of his Word in six days. However, the answer you want is..." and proceed to write the "correct" answer. This is what I would suggest objecting students write and teachers then accept. It shows that the students learned what the teacher taught, even if they disagree, and it allows them to show that disagreement.

[Regis Nicoll]

As LeeQuod suggested, ID is not founded on the presumption that "God did it"; rather, its presumption is that some things are BEST explained as products of intelligence and that they can be discerned as such empirically; by the same kinds of criteria that an archaeologist discerns that the Rosetta Stone was produced by intelligent agents rather than by the combined effects of wind erosion, glacial effects and tectonic shifts.

[Steve]

Regis,

Precisely. It could have been a deity; it could have been the Vorlons. I wonder why people have such a hard time dealing with the concept. I suspect it's not so much they can't understand it as they don't want to understand it. Oh well, one does what one can.

[jmoore]

I ask my question again. How do you empirically test for a supernatural designer?

If you propose that something was designed by the supernatural, how do you test that idea? What kind of evidence do you look for and how do you determine it wasn't formed another way?

[Luke]

Vorlons? Someone else on a Christian forum knows what Vorlons are?! Rejoice!

In seriousness, people who fight ID thinking it synonymous with Christianity might get that idea since the loudest proponents and those getting the attention are usually tightly tied with Christianity. I could see why they would think it- though I agree that it's not true that ID is strictly Christian.

[Regis Nicoll]

Jmoore—Again, ID is NOT about testing for a supernatural designer but about testing for INTELLIGENCE. How is that done? Using the same criteria SETI researchers use to determine if extraterrestrial signals are random noise events or messages from intelligent beings.

What might qualify as such in the living world? The genome. After analyzing the chemical sequences of DNA, Bill Gates remarked “It’s like a piece of software, only much more sophisticated than anything we’ve developed.”

Just think, if the most highly evolved thing in the cosmos--the human mind--using the collective imagination, creativity and cognitive power of the brightest software engineers on the planet employing all the rigors of the scientific method, is unable to re-create the instructions resident in DNA, then to conjecture they could have been cobbled together from a trial-and-error process of random variation and adaptation is nothing short of stupefying.

Even staunch atheists like Carl Sagan, Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle recognized that the informational content of DNA could not have arisen on earth by chance alone. That’s why they came up with a theory rivaling anything imagined by H.G. Wells or Gene Roddenberry: Panspermia—the notion that refuse from an extraterrestrial civilization containing the seeds of life were distributed throughout the cosmos on the “wings” of comets. (I’m not making this stuff up.) Of course, how those super seeds and their master producers came into existence is left to anyone’s imagination.

So in a very real sense the troika of Sagan, Crick and Hoyle could be considered in the vanguard of the ID movement.

[LeeQuod]

(Wow, I can actually correct Regis for once, if even just a little; can't pass this up.) Actually, Regis, Sagan/Crick/Hoyle didn't create the panspermia theory - it has been around since the time of Anaxagoras, but really got popular in the last two centuries.

Crick added the wrinkle of *directed* panspermia, meaning that some other life forms deliberately sent DNA toward places likely to allow life to continue.

And, as you indicated, to test for directed panspermia we could re-use those techniques we've been using to look for a supernatural designer. ;-)

[Regis Nicoll]

LeeQuod--Good point. Many people presume that early civilizations were all theistic; and are surprised when they learn that naturalism and sophism (ancient postmodernism) go back at least as far as the ancient Greek philosophers.

[labrialumn]

jmoore,
ID involves two main principles: that information can be distinguished from randomness, simple order, and fractal order, and that there is such a thing as irreducible complexity. Both of these terms are very tightly and rigorously defined. Further, they are not claiming that they infer or deduce a supernatural designer - even the Darwinian proselytizer Richard Dawkins admits that design is very possible, but that due to his religious precommitments, it would have to be finite aliens, not an uncreated creator.

Evolutionist proselytizers don't want you to know that.

Luke,
"burble-wheep"

BTW, panspermia is certainly possible, within limits. If God created life on Mars, some bacterial, fungal or archaeical (coin?) spores might have made it to Earth in meteors thrown up by the major impactors. It is even just barely possible for such spores to reach Mars from Earth prior to the space program (and -have- since the space program, the Soviet landers were not well sterilized).

[John M]

Darwin made some nice points in his theory. But even he would change much of his thinking with a look into the micro machines within cells.

Many Darwinists have become neo-Darwinists, which is obviously a religion. An odd one that can't explain the beginnings of life except by weird theories of aliens throwing seeds of life onto the earth. Nice science.

The neo-Dar's religion is lately taking a beating such as in the powerful "Expelled" documentary. Hey, Mr. Evolutionary Biologist, we want to have an intelligent discussion with you. No name calling, no running away, just honest discussion, questioning, and debate of your theory which just might not be all that it's cracked up to be. This controversy isn't going away. Stand up, be civil, and gently enlighten us. No need to be offensive or over the top. If ID is all a sham, it will be clear to all. Americans are not stupid as you might think. We are generally intelligent, but we do not bow to kings, or dictators of science. We ask questions, think, and decide for ourselves what is true, or what seems to make the best sense.

Neo-Darwinists, it's time for you to be afraid.

[Caleb]

It seems like Regis is putting together a scientific argument against the theory of evolution. Does he have any scientific expertise or credentials? I am just curious.
A second note: Scientists reject intelligent design not because it is an opposing theory to evolution, but because they believe the theory is wrong. In the same way, if someone proposed a theory that there is no such thing as atoms, scientists would reject this theory not because they hold religiously to the belief of atoms, but because they that atoms match up with the scientific evidence the best.

[Jason Taylor]

It seems like Caleb is trying to make an ad hominem. The lack of scientific credentials in someone speaking about science is evidence for it's unreliability but it is not conclusive and therefore requires further argument. To say it is conclusive is in effect to make science a priestly guild that is allowed to intimidate the huddled masses with it's wonders.
By comparison I have no military rank, nor position. Nor do I have a history degree. Yet I am quite qualified to expound on military history. I have no degrees in theology or philosophy yet I talk about these all the time. I am not a professional baseball player but I do know the difference between a fast ball and a curve.
In short argument from lack of demonstrated credentials has some merit. But that merit is limited. And any institution that starts to think it's own credentials are absolute judges, has gone a step toward becoming an Ivory Tower, incapable of hearing new data.

[Steve]

Caleb,
Though I prefer to remain anonymous, I am prepared to match my academic and scientific credentials against yours any time you like, and Regis is absolutely on target.

You are quite wrong that scientists reject ID. In a survey only two years ago, less than half of US physicians accept the proposition that life arose by purely natural means. A solid majority of protestant physicians consider ID more plausible than evolution. That amounts to hundreds of thousands of professionals with advanced graduate training in the biological sciences who have been educated in the "evidence" for evolution/abiogenesis and reject its conclusions.

University biology professors are an unrepresentative sample of scientists, where groupthink and peer pressure overwhelm much possibility of independent thought. Still, there are enough cracks in the facade to reveal ample insecurity even behind the ivory curtain.

[Regis Nicoll]

Caleb—It’s a fair question. My education and professional experience has been in physics and nuclear science. However, it was during my graduate work in radiobiology that I first questioned the explanatory power of Darwinism. After surveying the nearly century’s-long research on drosophila exposed to the mutational effects of radiation, I realized that no directional change had ever been observed that resulted in a more evolutionary “fit” strain, much less an “uber” fly. Despite the innumerable generations of flies that were exposed, those that survived displayed higher morality and morbidity than the unexposed cohorts. And yet genetic mutation is supposedly the creative process of new and improved life forms, according to neo-Darwinian lore. It didn’t square.

As to why scientists reject ID, I couldn’t care less. What I DO care about is academic suppression of ideas that buck the reigning paradigms. Folks guilty of such forget that the greatest breakthroughs of science occurred when intrepid innovators dared to question the status quo.

[LeeQuod]

Regis, as I recall, you started your career roughly at the time when "nuclear physicist" had the same scientific and intellectual credibility as the proverbial "rocket scientist" of the prior generation.

And I always find it intriguing that the same crowd who condemn the Catholic Church for its treatment of Galileo (who was trying to get his maverick ideas adopted faster and more widespread than ID proponents are) will quickly turn to Inquisitional tactics when their own control base is threatened.

[Steve]

Wow, Regis! Radiating fruit flies resulted in higher morality? You should get a Nobel for that one!

More seriously, there are ample historical examples where the majority scientific community has been led astray en masse and marginalized dissenters who later proved correct; it is naive to think this cannot happen today or in the future. [On the other hand, the level of faith displayed by the more ardent Darwinists presupposes a certain naivete].

It is interesting to note the parallels between attempts to silence ID proponents and the tactics of intimidation directed toward global warming skeptics. I wonder what will happen if the earth continues to cool. Will they abandon their faith in the theory, or like the Darwinists keep modifying the theory to adapt to an increasingly inconvenient truth?

[Steve (SBK)]

Perhaps it would be good if we all had a higher dose of that radiation: "those that survived displayed higher morality".
(Was the Son the source of that radiation? :P)

[LeeQuod]

Perhaps in a nod to statistics we could call this the "Stevens' t test".

I sure remember seeing films of horribly deformed Drosophila melanogaster specimens and wondering how anything beneficial could come from random mutation. It was one of my first experiences with the word "hope" in a scientific context (as in "Scientists hope to be able to...").

[Regis Nicoll]

"Higher morality"...oops! On the other hand, come to think of it, certain flies exhibited bizarre behaviors after exposure that might be morally suspect in human populations.

LeeQuod--more accurately, I worked in the applied fields of nuclear engineering and health (radiological safety) physics.

[Steve]

That didn't take long. I quote from above: "I wonder what will happen if the earth continues to cool. Will they abandon their faith in the theory, or like the Darwinists keep modifying the theory to adapt to an increasingly inconvenient truth?"

Linked by Drudge today:

"Ocean Cooling to Briefly Halt Global Warming, Researchers Say"
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aU.evtnk6DPo&refer=worldwide

Scientist now says earth won't warm, or might even cool, for the next ten years. But have faith. As surely as the Great Pumpkin will return...