Today's Washington Post has an outstanding article on how DNA research is confirming the theory of evolution.
I've known that DNA research provides the evidence that Intelligent Designers are least prepared to handle six years ago. I learned it from Phillip Johnson, the architect of the Intelligent Design wedge strategy. In 1999 Johnson came to a church in downtown Oklahoma City to spout his lawyer's case for ID (Johnson is a lawyer, not a scientist).
When Johnson finished his presentation he received questions. After fielding a number of comments from fundamentalist Christians who clearly failed to perceive the distinction that Johnson was trying to make between ID and "creation science," Johnson got a question from a molecular biologist who explained that DNA research shows we share chains of "junk DNA" with primates and asked Johnson how ID could explain that.
As soon as Johnson began to speak about DNA, the building's fire alarm went off and Johnson loudly exclaimed that it was not unusual for evolutionists to try to sabotage his speeches. Then at an inaudible tone of voice he tried to time a response to the question in the brief intervals between the alarm's ear-splitting sirens.
I saw the same fire alarm routine at a church in Albuquerque, New Mexico in the early 1970's when Henry Morris was making a presentation on Creation Science and had to field a difficult question from a paleontologist.
In both instances, when people left the meeting, most of them left talking about the alarm and the kind of person that would set it off. Only the most astute realized that the alarm's timing perfectly coincided with the most significant challenge to the speaker's presentation.
24 comments:
ID fails mainly when it is framed as conflicting with evolution.
dlw
The trouble is
Evolution is a scientific theory, and should be taught in a science class.
ID or creationism or more philosophy or theology, and the proper place to teach that would be a philosophy class (or home or church).
You don't teach Regulary Metric Verse in chemistry class.
mom2,
Here's a link to an article that might clear up some confusion for you:
Evolution and Religion Evolution and Religion: Do They Conflict?
You have to be kidding - the fire alarm?! Really???
That is so insane.
I heard from a friend of mine in albuquerque last week. She said Rio Rancho has voted to teach ID. It is just about to tear the little community a part. When I look back at the people who started the move to seperate the school districts. I wonder what there reason were. I'm not sure.
I received some newspaper articles from your Aunt Dena. I will mail it on to you. She is in Oregon, Salem. So I am not sure where the article was published.
>Why, incidentally, are the ideas of ID and evolution incompatible? Can you not believe that God created the earth and everything in it, and allowed species to evolve afterwards?
Sure, I could believe that, but I'd have to go against scripture to believe in the 'evolve afterwards' part. After all, Genesis states in several places that living things were created after their own kind. To me, that rules out macro-evolution.
>It is the height of arrogance to assume that we know God's intent through the words of other men.
No, it's not arrogance. It's faith. Once you step out in faith on God's Word, you know that it's not man that authored the Bible. If you haven't done that, you are commenting on something that you personally have not experienced or have firsthand knowledge of. Only those that have taken the leap of faith are qualified to talk about whether God is faithful or not - and whether His word is true. That's only logical. Don't take my word for it, take God's ... and see for yourself.
Christians don't need to be trying to "back door" the gospel into the world. Intelligent Design is not creation. It's not a happy medium or a meet-me-halfway kind of thing. Don't abandon the Word of God for some misguided attempt at relational evangelism. The Bible teaches creation, not ID. And please don't be dishonest with the world. They know that the only reason christians support ID is they think it helps them. It smacks of dishonesty. Christian, if you believe Biblical creation, be true to yourself, the world and the Lord and just say so.
The American church is going through an identity crisis, because this nation is throwing off it's Godly heritage. In Psalms 2:3 they are quoted as saying, "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us." That's exactly what they're doing. But Christians are responding politically to spiritual problems. It's so easy to do. Personally, I had to cut off the tv during the 2004 election.
As far as our children, parents are in a tough spot. We are responsible to God for them. If we entrust their education and development to another, then there is a certain level of risk we must accept. Just like in the Army, we can delegate authority, but not responsibility. My wife and I have chosen to homeschool. Everyone can't do that, though, and not everyone that can should.
I talk to my kids about origins of life and I show them with the biology textbooks the reasonings of evolution, along with the inaccuracies and long-discredited information. I try to explain rationally the impossibilities of it. I point the teaching out when we see it on tv, which is quite often. More importantly, I teach them the Word of God. I am not afraid of the false doctrines on origins of life, because if God did indeed create this earth like his Word says he did, objective science will bear it out.
http://www.j-accuse.org/
J'accuse - French for "I accuse." Comes from the French author and philosopher Emile Zola, who successfully showed that French judges responded to the terms of a secret agreement rather than their oaths. The French judges had covered up corruption and indicted an innocent man, Alfred Dreyfus. The false indictment of Dreyfus responded to public prejudice and hatred of a perceived class of people.
I would suggest reading Job 6:25-30.
Mom2,
I appreciate your statement,
"To accuse Christians of being dishonest because we know that ID is all that the left will allow our children to be exposed to and desire that above evolution seems like a back door slap."
It bothers me, too. Secularists know we don't believe evolution and don't want it taught to our kids. To them, for us to advocate Intelligent Design is a bait-and-switch, especially since we did not arrive at that position because of the weight of science, but through a compromise. Can you understand why it would seem dishonest to them for a Christian to champion ID in the place of Creation?
TBD said,
"Can you not believe that God created the earth and everything in it, and allowed species to evolve afterwards?"
You can, but then you make God in your own image, which is idolatry. Belief in evolution completely excludes belief in the God of the Bible. They are incompatible, from an origins of life point of view.
Bruce, I read the linked article, and I don't agree with it. Those misguided preachers he talks about believe the book they preach. It concerns me to see you point someone who believes the Bible to this article which says it's all subject to fallible interpretation.
Evolution IS used to attack the faith of people who believe in God. First and foremost it explains why we are here in a way that those who do not believe in God can accept.
And evolution does indeed teach that humans came from monkeys. No one should hide that. It does NOT teach that God formed Adam out of the earth, and after he was fully formed, God breathed life into him and he became a living thing. It's as clear an event in the Bible as the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
But there is scientific evidence that life began abruptly and in fully-functional forms, many of which are living today. There is scientific evidence of a world-wide flood. There is scientific evidence of the destruction of Pharoh's army at the bottom of the Red Sea.
What there is NOT any scientific evidence of, is a transitional form. Of any type.
A more credible article to point the Christian to would be here:
Evolution and Christianity Mix Like Oil and Water
Bruce,
I'm with Howie on this subject. I fail to see the importance of including ID in a science class. I've read all the articles that have been posted here and in the comments as well.
Thanks so much for blogging. I know your heart and so I am a little amused by those who don't. Keep on keeping on.
Regarding ID and Biblical creation, why are some so adamant about excluding something that they can't prove is false? While Biblical Creation can't be proven by the scientific method, it can't be disproved by it either. Therefore, for folks to want to exclude it as they do is illogical. Are they interested in seeking truth? Are they following the evidence where it leads? It's only fair and reasonable to allow it a place at the table. I have yet to see where science has discovered transitional forms, so therefore there is already faith involved in science classes around the country. So, this 'faith vs. science' debate is not exactly that persuasive in my opinion.
In short, Intelligent Design or the "theory of intelligent design" (though it's highly dubious attempting to assign scientific value to this theory) has now become the backdoor method for creationists to reintroduce religion into the public sphere, specifically public schools. As stated here already, there is no hard scientific data to support intelligent design, it is little more than a rhetorical tool. From a scientific perspective all the evidence for intelligent design can be summed up in about two paragraphs. So if it's going to be taught in a science class, the entirety of the scientific evidence will only encompass a small portion of one-day. Everything after that will be little more than theorizing about the existence of a Creator.
From a scientific point of view, you might as well mandate the necessity of teaching students that some people believe the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. Theories that few if any scientists would support since there is no viable evidence to back up these suppositions. I'd say it's fortunate that these arcane beliefs were not included in biblical texts or some would surely be trying to mandate their teaching as well.
In a very real sense gravity is little more than a scientific theory, much like the theory of evolution, and while physics and a number of sciences provide the physical evidence which rather conclusive supports the theory of gravity, its validity could (though hardly reasonably) be brought into question.
Considering the immense body of evidence supporting evolutionary biology, the intelligent design theorists (I'm being generous) and the creationists have about as much chance finding hard evidence of any kind that would support the overturn of the theory of evolution as they do of finding evidence supporting the overturn of the theory of gravity. Statistically their chances have a zero sum equivalent. Pursuing such a course is simply not feasible from a scientific perspective, it is nothing short of a faith-based initiative.
Personally I don't have a problem with theology being taught in public schools, as long as a number of theological beliefs are included in those teachings. But just try to include Hinduism, Buddhism or Islam in a public school curriculum and see how much support you get from the Christian right. What this is really about is trying to indoctrinate children into a Judeo-Christian belief system, most specifically fundamentalist Christianity, regardless of what anyone trying to sell the intelligent design propaganda would tell you.
In fact this Intelligent Design "theory" is a blatant attempt at blurring the lines between science and theology. Ultimately it must fail since science does not require religion, but most importantly religious faith needs no science to support it. For by its very definition faith exists in the absence of evidence. If evidence is required, then by point of logic, faith is most assuredly lacking or absent altogether. Perhaps those pushing this agenda should consider this point carefully.
Trust me on this one, I have faith.
Aaron
"creationists have about as much chance finding hard evidence of any kind that would support the overturn of the theory of evolution as they do of finding evidence supporting the overturn of the theory of gravity."
Evolution as an origin of life issue doesn't have the kind of hard evidence supporting it, like what you're implying a creationist would need to overturn it. It is deduced from observed data and the debate is over the interpretation of the data. During the Scopes trial, the creationists refused to consider the data, because they were afraid that it would prove God didn't exist. The roles have been reversed now, and the evolutionists do not consider opposing data because it may mean they were wrong.
Let's save ourselves some heartache and remove evolutionary explaination for the origin of life out of the classroom. The origin of life is not a scientific issue and should not be taught in a science class. It would be more appropriate in philosophy because it can't be proved.
ogThe Dead Aaron,
Let me summarize your post for you: "ID is not science because I believe the scientists who say so and I'm right, dang it!" You rehashed all the same objections with none of the actual evidence to support your views. For instance, tell me what you think of irreducible complexity? How is that both nonscientific and unprovable. Jonathan Wells has actually done an excellent job in his Newsweek letter to the editor in describing a test that could prove it wrong. Also, let us know what paper or book actually documents evidence that evolution has been directly observed or duplicated.
I love this statement you made:
"In a very real sense gravity is little more than a scientific theory, much like the theory of evolution, and while physics and a number of sciences provide the physical evidence which rather conclusive supports the theory of gravity, its validity could (though hardly reasonably) be brought into question."
While you did an excellent job of showing that you know absolutely nothing about the scientific method, you cloaked it in very good rhetoric -- so that's good for you because most people won't notice. You see a scientific Law is one that has been proved through actual repeatable observations of the Law in work (which evolutionist can't do -- that's why it theorizes the jump from species to species without actual evidence - like say an in-between humanoid species or evidence of individual protein sequenced DNA changes in any species over a period of time), or doing an experiment repeatedly that shows the Law holds up (which again evolutionists have been unable to do). Theories speculate in areas that cannot do this. ID speculates as well. That is why it is a theory too. The only difference is that ID not only seeks to show the problems with evolution -- which no one in their right mind can say is not science (after all hunderds upon thousands of articles have been published by biologists since Darwin showing flaws in the various strands of the theory) -- but also it speculates that the only legitimate speculation that can be made is that some type of intellegence designed it, thus making it as legitimately scientific as evolution, since evolution can't prove its central thesis as well.
The problem is that guys like you assume that science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is correct simply because there are similarities between species like this article claims to prove. Problem is, there is no evidence to prove that the DNA proteins changed structure over time to bring about the human species. Neither can they isolate the specific proteins that changed and show species that exist along that line. Also with 96% DNA similarities, don't you find it strange that chimpanzees don't have anywhere close to the reasoning capabilities of humans and can't be found to be getting any better in their reasoning generation after generation, despite zoologists attempts?
So, while you have shown that you can build straw men and at the same time that you can't discern a Law from a theory in terms of the scientific method, you still haven't proven that ID is in any way unscientific, since it suffers from the same testability problem as evolution.
Also, you said, "Considering the immense body of evidence supporting evolutionary biology, the intelligent design theorists (I'm being generous) and the creationists have about as much chance finding hard evidence of any kind that would support the overturn of the theory of evolution as they do of finding evidence supporting the overturn of the theory of gravity. Statistically their chances have a zero sum equivalent. Pursuing such a course is simply not feasible from a scientific perspective, it is nothing short of a faith-based initiative."
If you want to debate statistics, then evolution would be on the losing end. Here is one articles about William Dembski's work on statistics and evolutionary theory.
http://www.newcreationism.org/CreationArticle12.html
Basically for one protein molecule to line up correctly by chance, the probablility is 1x10^161 and for all proteins to line up for life to exist in its simpliest from then it is 1x10^339. Those stats are well above the possibility bound of 1x10^150. Thus evolution is statistically impossible.
Finally, you said, "Trust me on this one, I have faith."
1. I can't trust someone who doesn't know the difference between how the LAW of Gravity and the THEORY of evolution are determined to be legitimate.
and
2. I believe you have faith. Unfortuantely it is in a system that has been deceiving people from its inception. If you remember correctly, Darwin's speculations only proved micro-evolution, not macro. And the birds whose beaks changed, actually changed back once the drought ended, thus showing that no DNA was actually changed.
In the end, you did a great job of making a compeling case without actually saying anything. I think you should actually read the ID source material with an open mind, instead of defending evolution like those who stake their livelihoods on it being true -- by rhetorical nonsense.
Geez...sometimes I think being "educated" causes things to get too complicated.
Eye roll....deep sigh.
Tilts head to the side....smile
Job 6:24-30
Dr. Prescott
I like your blog, you've get some interesting characters posting here, and I always appreciate that.
I don't think that either "Chaplin Paul" or "D.R." caught my point. And of course they make the assumption that when I refer to faith I'm referring to having faith in the theory of evolution, something that's rather ridiculous. Just for the record and to clear up the confusion I don't have faith in any theory, since theories don't require or engender the type of faith we are discussing. But I'm not surprised the my point was lost on them.
Chaplin Paul
Evolutionary theory, is not an explanation, nor is it being taught as an explanation to the mystery of life. It is an investigation and an examination of biological life on this planet. It is not a belief system and I have yet to run across anyone in the field of science who thinks it is. The only people who do believe it is a belief system are those who are being manipulated by the current propaganda. The position you support would attempt to stifle scientific investigation.
D.R.
I must've really gotten to you since you felt it necessary to repeat some of the nonscientific gobbledygook that's been printed lately in support of the validity of a theory that clearly has no scientific validity. While it may sound scientific to you, that doesn't make it true science.
Try naming me one reputable scientist who supports this so-called theory, you can't you know why? Because there aren't any. Do you know why no reputable scientist will put their name behind this religious political movement? Because the moment that they did so they'd lose all credibility. The source material you mentioned on intelligent design is not just laughable, it's an affront and an attack on all good science and scientific method.
History is replete with examples of scientists, and scientific theories which have come under assault from established religions and religious sects who feel that the investigation of the universe is a threat to their preeminence and control of their followers, and oftentimes they've been correct in their assessments.
This little Inquisition is no different than those of the past, for a time, in the right political atmosphere, such purveyors may prevail, but inevitably attempts to gag scientists and repress scientific investigation are ultimately doomed to failure. So enjoy your laurels while ye may, such empty glories are always fleeting and sure to leave you with an unsatisfied frustrated feeling in the end.
I just hope we can avoid the burning and torture of evolutionary biologists before this intelligent design craze blows over.
Aaron
Conservatives don't have a corner on grace Mom2. Bruce, I'd like to hear more about this "junk DNA".
Mom2,
Now just what would my side be? North side? South side? East side? West side? Or perhaps its right side or wrong side, wrong side out, or right side up, oh wait..maybe it's sideways? hmm...looks into the distance....scratches head.
(Sorry Bruce, I couldn't resist...I'm done)
Aaron said,
"Evolutionary theory, is not an explanation, nor is it being taught as an explanation to the mystery of life."
If that were true, there would be no debate.
The problem here is that people who believe the Bible do not want their children taught that mankind descended from primates and all life forms have a common ancestor. I am one of those people. This teaching is not the same as learning mathematics or history or biology or any other discipline. It has far-reaching implications on our knowledge of God and the moral restraints of our society. If it were true.
Yet the conclusions reached on the evidence are suppositions, based on evidentiary place-holders, assumptions of evidence where there is no evidence. Scientists who break tradition and acknowledge evidence which goes against the accepted norm are rejected by the scientific community. You can't even question evolution and be considered a legitimate scientist. Why?
It is a belief system, not a scientific theory. If it were a theory, scientists would welcome the challenge. But evolution is not to be challenged.
No Christian should teach that evolution is true or legitimate or possible. That person will answer to God. They break the 2nd commandment, "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image," because they have made god in their own image, a god to suit themselves.
There is no reason for the Christian to teach Intelligent Design. Either believe the Bible, or get another book and call youself something else. It is not possible to sanctify evolution and the God of the Bible. They are mutually exclusive. If the creation account is not true, the Bible as a whole and Judaism and Christianity must be false, based on what the Bible says about itself. If it has been corrupted by men, it still must be thrown out, because God promised to preserve it, and Jesus said not even a jot of the writing would be lost.
I don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist and my integrity is too great to believe in intelligent design, therefore I'm a creationist.
Post a Comment