UC Irvine Students Decry Evolution-Only Science, Sponsor Intelligent Design Talk

by Lauren Shepherd - University of California Irvine on October 8, 2013

Citing a lack of classroom discourse on intelligent design at the University of California Irvine – a highly regarded scientific research institution – a Christian student group recently brought in a scholar to discuss the merits of the controversial theory, which suggests an intelligence can be found in the blueprints of life.

“Intelligent design is a valid explanation that should be able to be freely taught on a scientific campus,” UC Irvine biomedical engineering major Daryl Arreza, 23, told The College Fix.

Arreza, co-president of Ratio Christi, the Christian apologetics campus group that sponsored the recent talk, said the lecture was needed to expose students to the theory of intelligent design, which is ignored in campus science classes.

“We hope people think, ‘How come we don’t hear about this in our classes?’” Arreza said.

Former UC Irvine Ratio Christi president and biomedical engineering graduate student Matt Wiersma, 22, told The Fix he believes students who enjoy scientific research would benefit from scientifically sound lectures on intelligent design.

“Lectures like these not only open students up to different points of view that they are not used to experiencing, but also show them why we are here,” Wiersma said.

The pro-intelligent design scholar who spoke at UC Irvine on Wednesday at the behest of a Ratio Christi told the audience that – despite what they may have heard to the contrary in many of their science classes – scientifically vetted evidence does indeed support the theory that life on Earth had help evolving.

The Center for Science and Culture-Discovery Institute scholar Casey Luskin told the 60 or so students and professors in the audience that the vast complexities of life back intelligent design theories, and likened believing in evolution to believing a computer or car formed itself over billions of years.

But Luskin added intelligent design is neither simply a negative argument against evolution, nor is it necessarily an appeal to a supernatural power, such as God.

Rather, he said, evidence found through the scientific method in biological complexity, paleontological fossil records, and systematics and genetics, offer proof that just as humans designed complex machines, so are life’s origins created by intelligent design.

“There is no physical or chemical law that dictates the ordering of your DNA,” Luskin said. “The base of biological systems is a language-based code in DNA, which is like a computer processing information.”

He also talked about how intelligent design explains systematics, saying complex parts of organisms will be reused in different organisms in a manner that may not match the nested hierarchy – which runs afoul of evolutionary biology. Luskin also tackled the topic of biological similarity. The Darwinian theory claims that functionally biological similarity, such as patterns in animal bone structures, results from common ancestry. Luskin said that’s only one explanation.

“Common design could be another explanation,” he said. “While human and ape DNA is said to be 99 percent similar, why couldn’t the cause of that be a common blueprint, because it is a useful design?”

Evolutionary relationships among a set of organisms, also called pro-evolutionary phylogenetic trees, were also tackled by Luskin.

“Pro-evolutionary phylogenetic trees are only as good as the assumptions they make,” Luskin said, stipulating that the groupings are more often conflicted than they are neat, which gives way to use of what he calls an escape hatch for evolutionary theory, horizontal gene transfer. “So the conclusion I see in this theory is that the cause of similar features in living things is common ancestry, except when it isn’t. So how do you know when common ancestry is really true?”

Luskin said he knows his lecture could be deemed controversial, adding that’s unfortunate.

“I think evolution should be taught, but intelligent design also has a place in discussion of our origins, and there should be full access to all scientific evidence on intelligent design as well,” he said.

Luskin added the lecture serves a secondary purpose, that being to support students such as Wiersma and Arreza, who desire a wider scientific discourse on the origins of life, a discussion that is unfortunately not often offered on a college campus.

“It is important to give students confidence they don’t have to be suppressed or bullied,” he said. “We want to equip them with as much information as possible so they can defend intelligent design scientifically.”

Luskin is an attorney with a B.S. and M.S. in Earth Sciences from UC San Diego and a law degree from the University of San Diego. He has expertise in both the scientific and legal dimensions of the debate over evolution and serves as the program officer in public policy and legal affairs for the Center for Science and Culture. The center is a program of the Discovery Institute, founded in Seattle in 1996, which supports research that both develops the scientific theory of intelligent design and challenges the neo-Darwinian theory.

While Luskin’s research originates in scientific development at the non-profit “think-tank,” Luskin also explores the impact of scientific materialism on culture and fights to give centers of education the scientific education needed to encourage academic freedom, allowing teachers to present the theory of intelligent design alongside the already accepted theory of evolution.  

To that end, Luskin helps initiate campus clubs that offer resources to help teach intelligent design, and through the center he co-founded Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA), grounded in the IDEA club he started as an undergraduate student at UC San Diego.

Luskin, in his lecture at UC Irvine, said the battle over talking about intelligent design on college campuses is largely a battle over academic freedom.

“The viewpoints of intelligent design are censored at universities, and if they are mentioned, they are talked about in a caricature,” he said. “I want to give you the scientific evidence so at least you can make up your own mind.”

Fix contributor Lauren Shepherd is a student at UC Irvine.

CLICK HERE to Like The College Fix on Facebook / TWITTER: @CollegeFix

IMAGE: Steve Corey/Flickr

Help The College Fix thrive. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation!
Share this article:
  • John Pryce

    However much sympathy I have for Christians in academia, this is frankly unacceptable.
    However much distress evolution causes them, scientifically it is unassailable, at least if your arsenal consists of ID or creationism.

    • DrBlaise

      However much distress it causes you, the scientific evidence shows that evolution can do very little: only allow organisms to adapt to the environment in limited ways. There is simply no scientific evidence that evolution is able to create new features in organisms.
      Your belief that life started by chance and has developed by chance is frankly unacceptable and does not belong in a science classroom.

      • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

        “DrBlaise” your false assertion that “scientific evidence shows that evolution can do very little: only allow organisms to adapt to the environment in limited ways” matches your dubious academic honorific. This is your first ever comment using Discus. I think it would be best if it wasn’t a lie.

        For a number of professionally detailed studies of the evolution of complex organisms, see;

        Erwin, Douglas H., James W. Valentine
        2013 “The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Diversity” New York: Roberts and Company Publishers

        Carroll, Robert L.
        1998 “Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution” New York: Cambridge University Press

        Valentine, James W.
        2005 “On the Origin of Phyla” University of Chicago Press

        For professional level studies of the evolution of complex organs, see;

        The Eye

        Nilsson and Pelger,
        1994 “A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve” Proceedings of the Royal Society 256: 53-58.

        Dan-E. Nilsson, Lars Gislén, Melissa M. Coates, Charlotta
        Skogh & Anders Garm
        2005 “Advanced optics in a jellyfish eye” Nature 435, 201-205 (12 May)

        Ivan R Schwab
        2011 “Evolution’s Witness: How Eyes Evolved” Oxford University Press

        Teeth

        Teaford, Mark F., Moya Meredith Smith, and Mark W.J.
        Ferguson
        2000/2006 “Development, Function and Evolution of Teeth” Cambridge University Press

        For some good studies of evolution more directed to amateurs, see;

        Shubin, Neal
        2008 “Your Inner Fish” New York: Pantheon Books

        Carroll, Sean B.
        2006 “The Making of the Fittest” New York: Norton

        Prothero, Donald.
        2007 “Evolution: What The Fossils Say and Why It Matters” Colombia University Press.

        • Soka Sema

          You’ve listed popular books. and two unrelated to your position scholarly works, one rather dated.

          • Nullifidian

            You’ve listed popular books.

            So you think a book like The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity is a popular book? Yeah, Joe Q. Public can’t wait to go out and shell out $65 for a book that goes in depth into geochemistry, developmental biology, phylogenetics, and the fossil record of Ediacaran and Cambrian organisms.

            There were only three books in his list intended for the general reader, and they were the last three, which doesn’t make them any less important or valuable.

            and two unrelated to your position scholarly works, one rather dated.

            Let me also tell you what’s dated:
            Watson JD, Crick FH. (1953) Molecular structure of nucleic acids; a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature 171(4356): 737–738.

            In science, it doesn’t matter if it’s “dated” if it also happens to be right. It is possible for earlier works to be superseded, but you actually have to show that this is the case, not just hand-wave away anything older than some arbitrary cutoff date.

          • Soka Sema

            Do you not know what a “popular book” means? It means non scholarly work, moron.
            Or dated?
            You people are very uneducated.
            None of that speaks to the topic at head,…intelligent design versus no intelligent design.
            The existence of genetics (discoverd by Christian) and DNA (discoverd by Christian) is not the subject nor how they work because there is NO contention there. At all.
            What I find with people like you is an underlining mental disorder , usaualy developmental and typically with sexual issues. It’s the basis of your fixation on discrediting something you don’t even understand otehr than it doesn’t approve of your anus being used as a sexual organ.

          • Nullifidian

            Do you not know what a “popular book” means? It means non scholarly work, moron.

            Yeah, that was the goddamn point, you driveling imbecile. You are claiming that scientific works like Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution and The Cambrian Explosion: The Origin of Animal Biodiversity are not scholarly works. I’ve read them; you haven’t. You are wrong.

            Or dated?

            Again, what does it matter if it’s “dated” if it also happens to be right? Do you think you can bring that tiny little brain of yours to bear on that issue and come up with a sensible response?

            The existence of genetics (discoverd by Christian) and DNA (discoverd by Christian) is not the subject nor how they work because there is NO contention there. At all.

            I’m glad to hear it. However, genetics was not the subject of any of the books or articles that Gary Hurd mentioned, although molecular phylogenetics is mentioned in some of them.

            If you’d like that to be addressed directly, I’ve got a book for you from that well-known popular press, Springer-Verlag: Where Do We Come From? The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent by Jan Klein and Naoyuki Takahata.

            None of that speaks to the topic at head,…intelligent design versus no intelligent design.

            So do you have something sensible to say in defense of intelligent design?

            What I find with people like you is an underlining mental disorder ,usaualy developmental and typically with sexual issues. It’s the basis of your fixation on discrediting something you don’t even understand otehr than it doesn’t approve of your anus being used as a sexual organ.

            LMAO!

            I guess I’ll take that as a “no”.

            Speaking of sexual issues, how on earth can ID, which is ostensibly an alternate theory for the presence of biodiversity and biological function, have anything to do with your homophobic hangups? I honestly don’t know whether to recommend therapy or a gay bar for your obviously morbid obsession with homosexuals. Either way you clearly need help.

          • Soka Sema

            Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution and The Cambrian Explosion: The Origin of Animal Biodiversity is not a scholarly work ,moron

            Have you even stepped foot in any college?

          • Nullifidian

            Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution and The Cambrian Explosion: The Origin of Animal Biodiversity is not a scholarly work ,moron

            Then you must have a very eccentric definition of “scholarly work”. But keep on sticking to your bald assertions. I’m sure that reiterating obvious BS for the fourth or fifth or sixth time will give it an aura of authenticity it never had the first time around.

            Have you even stepped foot in any college?

            Yes, and I’ve graduated. Have you ever been to college? I’m inclined to doubt it due to your eccentric spelling, punctuation, grammar, and the fact that you can’t recognize a scholarly source when you see it (or rather don’t see it, because I’d be willing to bet you’ve never clapped eyes on any scholarly work on the subject of evolution).

          • Soka Sema

            Let me guess, a 4 year degree at a community college? It explains your confusing over suggested reading and scholarly work.
            You can’t even keep up with this conversation
            I’m asserting that your obsession is not unique.

          • Nullifidian

            Let me guess, a 4 year degree at a community college?

            Community colleges don’t bestow 4-year degrees. They have 2-year associate degrees only. So despite the fact that you didn’t answer whether you’d ever been to college, I think we can infer the answer from your demonstrated ignorance of academia.

            It explains your confusing over suggested reading and scholarly work.

            So someone cannot suggest that another person read a scholarly work? Scholarly works are published only to be filed on dusty library shelves and never examined again? Their titles cannot be named without becoming “popular books”? (Recall that you started out claiming that these books were “popular books”, which is demonstrably untrue for every one of them except the last three titles, which Hurd said were intended for amateurs.)

            You can’t even keep up with this conversation

            That’s because your brain runs on trackways that aren’t constrained by logic, knowledge, or the capacity to reason.

            I’m asserting that your obsession is not unique.

            And precisely what is this “obsession” of mine? I always find it amusing to be psychoanalyzed by idiots.

          • Soka Sema

            LOL You are clearly uneducated and now thick
            I was saying you took 4 years to get a degree at a community college
            You are clearly not educated and laughably attempt to appear so with the commical word choices.
            Even your point by point copy and paste is something to laugh at , as if we are in some forum where the respondee is not right above the responder.

          • Nullifidian

            I was saying you took 4 years to get a degree at a community college
            Suuuuure you were. *pats you on the head*

            You are clearly not educated and laughably attempt to appear so with the commical word choices.

            Yes, I bow to the superior scholarship that told you that the word comical is actually spelled “commical”, plus all the other flaws in your spelling, grammar, and punctuation that clearly mark you as someone who can condescend to others on the subject of education.

            Really, you’re a peach. I’d love to keep you under glass and display you as a paradigmatic example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

          • Soka Sema

            Oh, pointing out typos is so educated.

            Every sentence you type screams “I’m a psuedo-intellectual Even the mentioning of Dunning-Kruger Effect (which no doubt came to your mind in self examination. – I suspect you only have an AA -GPA under 3 ) to assert some kind of special knowledge in hopes some 3rd grader will be convinced of your higher education.
            That might work until he/she gets to 4th grade.
            Your choice of username screams “I’m mentally disturbed and obsessed with other’s having beliefs.”

          • Nullifidian

            Every sentence you type screams “I’m a psuedo-intellectual

            Because real intellectuals dismiss scholarly works they’ve never read as “popular books” and anything older than about a decade as “dated”. Screw primary sources, which—especially for the historian or philosopher—might be hundreds or even thousands of years old.

            And this despite the fact that ID is built on popular books and websites for the credulous and its founding book, Darwin on Trial, is 22 years old and Darwin’s Black Box is 17 years old, while the idea behind ID is an unimproved version of natural theology, which is itself based on the teleological argument that goes back to classical antiquity.

            in hopes some 3rd grader will be convinced of your higher education. That might work until he/she gets to 4 grade.

            In that case, I still have three or four years in which to impress you.

          • Soka Sema

            School books and suggested reading are NOT scholarly works because they are not published in journals.
            A popular book is one that is NOT scholarly and NOT published in a journal of science.

            So your community college workbook and audio tapes are not scholarly , they are scholastic.

            Look it up, moron.

          • Nullifidian

            School books and suggested reading are NOT scholarly works, which are published in journals.

            Thank you for that moment of levity.

            Here’s a hint for you: journals are not the only sources for scholarly research. Occasionally, scientists feel as if they have something to discuss with their colleagues that would take far more than 5 pages of text, including references, to say. In such a situation, they publish a scholarly book. It is not contained within a journal, because it is too long for that format, but it is still a work of scholarship on a par with or even surpassing (because it takes longer to write and publish and represents quite a substantial investment of mental effort) the good old journal article.

            A popular book is one that is NOT scholarly and NOT published in a journal of science.

            Books aren’t published in journals, period. So what you’re asserting is that there is no possible way for a book-length treatment of a scientific issue to be scholarly, rather than popular. So Michael Lynch’s The Origins of Genome Architecture, far from representing the culmination of decades of experience in molecular evolution, is really just a “popular book” because it wasn’t printed in a journal. Ditto Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution by Jeffrey S. Levinton or Rudolf Raff’s classic The Shape of Life: Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form or any of the other thousands of books published by scientists for their colleagues.

            So your community college workbook and audio tapes are not scholarly , they are scholastic

            Yes, they would be, if I were in community college. However, The Cambrian Explosion: The Origin of Animal Biodiversity and Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution are not scholastic, nor are they popular books for the layman.

            Thank you for taking the time to give me the dumbass’ view of academic publication, but it really doesn’t work that way in practice.

          • Soka Sema

            Again, anything not published in a journal of science is NOT scholarly work that anyone can give citaton to. Until something is peer reviewed and accepted for publishing , it’s not citable, it’s not even accesible.

            Anything decribing scholarly work , whether a popular book, a student textbook, on some internet blog or scribbled on toilet paper is scholastic at best.
            You can look up the defintion of these terms and go to any journal of science for the requirements of publishing.

          • Nullifidian

            Again, anything not published in a journal of science is NOT scholarly
            work that anyone can give citaton to. Until something is peer reviewed
            and accepted for publishing , it’s not citable, it’s not even accesible.

            You are the perfect Dunning-Kruger poster child. You have no idea how scientific publishing works, but you’re prepared to lecture a scientist on something which you have absolutely no firsthand knowledge of yourself. Everything you just said is a blazing neon sign forty feet high that reads, “I DON’T KNOW WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT.”

            It is not true that anything that has been published outside journals cannot be cited. I’ve seen published papers that cited academic books and even books for the layman, though the latter are chiefly for historical context. It is not true that if something hasn’t been published yet that it cannot be cited. One merely gives the citation with the additional note that the paper is “in press”. Nor is it the case that unpublished papers are not accessible. Scientists make their work available to one another through preprints. Indeed, between preprints, conference presentations, and the general scientific grapevine, most practicing scientists can bypass the journals (except when publishing their own work) because they’re already aware of what’s been discovered before the articles come to press! Every element of what you just said was wrong. Now, think about that, and decide whether you really want to continue lecturing me about the practices of scientific publication.

            Anything decribing scholarly work , whether a popular book, a student textbook, on some internet blog or scribbled on toilet paper is scholastic at best.

            But we are not talking about popular books, we are talking about scholarly books written by scientists for the edification of their colleagues. There were only three popular books in Gary Hurd’s list of titles—the last three—and he explicitly noted that they were for the “amateur”. The rest of the works he mentioned were scholarly. Since you have never seen a scholarly book on evolution, and don’t know their contents, you have no basis to making claims like these. Those of us who have read these books or others like them are going to recognize instantly that you’re talking out your ass.

            You can look up the defintion of these terms and go to any journal of science for the requirements of publishing.

            LMAO! Thanks for the advice…. *rolls his eyes*

          • Nullifidian

            Testing.

          • The whole truth

            Soka Sema, which so-called ‘God’ of the thousands of so-called ‘Gods’ that have ever been imagined and promoted?

            You’re obviously a “devout” christian and in favor of pushing your particular christian version of ID-creation into science and education, but what about every other version of ID-creation that anyone has ever thought up and will ever think up? Should all other versions of ID-creation (religious beliefs) be allowed or pushed into science and education too?

            And speaking of “sexual issues”, you god pushers are the ones who are obsessed with what people do with their own feelings and bodies. Your sexual uptightness and frustration is obvious, otherwise you wouldn’t be so obsessed with how other people have sex. Believe it or not, your self-imposed sexual stiflement is not incumbent on everyone else.

        • thomas

          You don’t know if he is a liar. For all you know he could be a secular atheist admiring the theory of ID, such as the highly regarded atheist, Thomas Nagel. We can fling scientific reports all day at one another and spend time arguing, but why do that when we could have FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION and actually contribute more to the cause? It’s called academic freedom.

          Let him express himself, and his freedom without trying to rip at his character. I don’t think your a liar. I just think your concerned. Lets just remember there may or may not be more than one way of synthesizing evolutionary evidence. I wonder how many people knew that read your comment that ID is not against Common Descent, it has never been for sure. It is actually open to the idea! Michael Behe of all people is open to the idea! Who knew? not many, the propaganda is to prevalent.

          The truth is, due to inconsistencies in the fossil record, some ID theorists do not believe in common descent, while others do. Everyone is always going to have a different opinion other than yours, and that’s okay.

          ““Common design could be another explanation,” he said. “While human and ape DNA is said to be 99 percent similar, why couldn’t the cause of that be a common blueprint, because it is a useful design?””

          It COULD be true, potentially, let the ID/SETI people investigate it. Apparently, not many others have the interest in doing so. But it could very well revolutionize science. Science had had many revolutions already. And the Engineer(s) doesn’t have to be Divine, maybe Prometheus was more accurate than we have thought…

          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513000791

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            Actually, ‘DrBlaise’ wrote three false statements, the first that there was scientific evidence that “evolution can do very little: only allow organisms to adapt to the
            environment in limited ways.”

            This is untrue, and I provided a list of readings which demonstred that this is untrue.

            The second falsehood was his assertion that, “there is simply no scientific evidence that evolution is able to create new features in organisms.”

            This is untrue, and I provided a list of readings which demonstred that this is untrue.

            His final falsehood was the idea that the origin of life (which is quite independent of evolutionary theory), or evolutionary theory itself holds that, “… life started by chance and has developed by chance…”

            Three strikes, and you’re out.

            The origin of life obviously rests on the fundamental properties of chemistry which are not “random” in the popular sense of “chance.” Neither are the chemistry of mutations, nor natural selection merely “chance.” There certainly are elements of chance involved in the Earth’s evolutionary history. For example, the planet getting struck by a massive asteroid caused the extinction of thousands of species. That is a “chance” situtation with profound influence.

            For current thinking on the origin of life, see;

            Schopf, William (editor)
            2002 “Life’s Origin: The Beginnings of Biological Evolution” University of California Press

            Deamer, David W.
            2011 “First Life: Discovering the Connections between Stars, Cells, and How Life Began” University of California Press

          • DrBlaise

            Dr. Hurd: Addressing each of my “false assertions”

            1. I agree with you that there are a lot of niche species and environments in earth’s history. I disagree that evolution created every one of those species. Evolution is not the only option, everyday we observe another “force” at work that creates amazing niche machines and has even been able to manipulate life for specialized environments, by combining features (i.e. genetically modified foods)
            2. The references you specified do not demonstrate that evolution has created new features in organisms, they assume it. This has never been experimentally demonstrated.

            3. Indeed, the origin of life requires the opposite of chance. And indeed requires and relies on the amazing laws of chemistry and physics and a very specialized earth just to survive. The study of “simple” one-celled organisms reveals millions of precisely arranged molecules, which have been shown to not form “naturally” within any sort of prehistoric “soup”, but must be built from genetic code and machinery within the cell itself. The references you give do come close to explaining the origin of life. I do not consider imaginary “RNA” worlds or imaginary extra-terrestrial worlds as valid scientific theories, but rather science fiction.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            Your lack of understanding is not a failure of science.

            What bible college gave you a doctorate?

          • Soka Sema

            See how this mental midget Hurd responded?
            This is not an educated person. He got fired from a simple lowely research position in Georgia 3 decades ago to go into his first interest, “archeology” where no one has ever heard of him.

            Atheists are not intellectuals. Actual intellectuals come up with agnosticism,not total disbelief. They certainly don’t go rancid internet atheist or become obsessed with the destruction of other’s beliefs.

            Atheism is a genetic disorder affecting the mind where the victims can not handle broad concepts , symbolism or even a reason why someone would use such a device , and are at a loss in applying context to concepts.
            We need to start taking DNA samples from these missing links to see if they are actually the beings they haven’t been able to find.

        • DrBlaise

          Dr. Hurd: Your false assertion that my comments are “a lie” shows your inability to objectively evaluate arguments or evidence against your beliefs. You cannot even respond to someone with a different opinion without attacking their character.

          None of the studies you listed provide scientific evidence that evolution is able to “create new features in organisms.” They all assume evolution has that capability and draw conclusions based on that assumption. The millions of observations and experiments done by scientists all point to the limitations of evolution to produce new features.

          Darwin’s study of finch beaks showed the limited ability of evolution to change the size of their beaks.

          Studies of bacteria resistance shows the limited ability of bacteria to evolve.

          The decades of studying and trying to evolve fruit flies have lead to mutated flies unable to survive naturally, but nothing new.

          Centuries of breeding dogs, roses, etc, has led to many different varieties, but nothing new.

          On the origin of life (yes, I know it has NOTHING to do with evolution – wink-wink). The Miller–Urey experiment in 1961 showed the limits of chance to produce some organic-compounds that are extremely far from life. And over 60 years later, scientists have advanced those experiments to show that chance can produce some organic-compounds that are extremely far from life.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            “Dr.” Blaise, When you make repeated false assertions, and pretend to have an advanced degree you have neither supported biographically, nor by displayed background knowledge, I have every reason to question your honesty.

            Creationists very commonly claim fake degrees. Examples of your brother frauds are “Dr.” Carl Baugh, ( http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2011/10/mail-order-theology-degrees.html ) or, “Dr.” Kent Hovind ( http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2013/05/kent-hovinds-resume-derived-from-court.html ). Document your doctorate. I am very honest about mine. My standard academic bio also leaves out that I am a chemist, as that was mainly work in industry. I do have a handful of peer-reviewed publications in geochemistry, the most recent published this year.

            Repeating the lie that “The millions of observations and experiments done by scientists all point to the limitations of evolution to produce new features,” does not improve your credibility. Adding the lie that, “None of the studies you listed provide scientific evidence that evolution is able to “create new features in organisms,” utterly destroyed your status as an honest person. I can say this with confidence as you have clearly not competently read the references I have cited, if you have read them at all. For a fresh example of your incompetence and/or dishonesty, Darwin never made that great an issue of the Galapagos Islands finches in his “Origin of Species.” It was apparently their study by John Gould in 1837 that recognized their significance.

            You persist in making errors that exposed you as a fraud.
            Stanley Miller’s seminal publication was in 1953 “A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth
            Conditions” Science vol. 117:528-529. In that article, Miller only reported the presence of amino acids, as the title indicates. The laboratory methods available were not adequate to go beyond that analysis. Later replications added many more significant results. Any honest commentator should know this is so. These results were easily available in:

            Stanley L. Miller & H. James Cleaves
            2007 “Prebiotic Chemistry on the Primitive Earth,” in “Systems Biology, Volume I: Genomics” Oxford University Press 2007

            For a good review of recent research that is written for the
            marginally trained, I recommend:

            Deamer, David W.
            2011 “First Life: Discovering the Connections between Stars, Cells, and How Life Began” University of California Press

          • DrBlaise

            Dr. Hurd: It is truly disappointing that the best you can do is more character assassination and pointing out an incorrect date. (I corrected the date .. thanks for that at least.) I was hoping for more, especially from someone with a doctorate. I feel sorry for you, that your default stance seems to be everyone who does not agree with your view of evolution is a liar and unable to understand science.

            Your assertion that in more recent origin of life experiments: “Later replications added many more significant results.” These results do not dispute my assertion “that chance can produce some organic-compounds that are extremely far from life.” There is really not anything significant about the results of the new experiments as they relate to origin of life.

            I definitely understand where you are coming from when you say that the Galapagos Islands finches are not essential to Darwin’s Theory. I have yet to find any actual observations that are essential to Darwin’s Theory. Who needs actual observations and lab experiments when you have millions of scientific stories that tell you what Evolution did a long, long time ago. Just the Idea — that small changes to each generation of organisms were natural selected and built-upon from a single cell to the wide array of species today — is enough evidence in itself.

          • Timothy Horton

            I have yet to find any actual observations that are essential to Darwin’s Theory.

            Bravo! The faux Doctor hits on one of the main ideas of science without even realizing it.

            The strength of ToE is that it doesn’t depend on any one single piece of evidence to establish its veracity. The strength of ToE comes from the fact that it brings together millions upon millions of separate pieces of evidence from hundreds of scientific disciplines into one consilient and coherent explanation for the deep time history and diversity of life on Earth.

            Like a giant jigsaw puzzle, any one piece is not essential to the big picture. Remove any one and you still can clearly see the overall pattern. IDiots like the ShamDoc here demand that each piece of evidence be examined separately, in a vacuum, with no regard for how it fits with all the other pieces. That way it’s easier for them to hand-wave away. But they can never hand-wave away the consilience of all the positive evidence for evolution.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            There is the critical direct observation of new species emerging from older ones. We have done this in natural and laboratory settings. I have compiled a list of dozens of published examples. See, Emergence of New Species, http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2009/03/emergence-of-new-species.html

            That alone is a categorically clear demonstration of evolution in action.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            There was a fresh indication of incompetence from “Dr.” Blaise when he claimed, “Studies of bacteria resistance shows the limited ability of bacteria to evolve.”

            I invite him to explain away real science that documents bacterial multi-site mutations, functional mutations, in just TEN HOURS, why
            sequential mutations are functional, and more likely, and with medical
            applications.

            “Acceleration of Emergence of Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance in Connected Microenvironments” Qiucen Zhang, Guillaume Lambert, David Liao, Hyunsung Kim, Kristelle Robin, Chih-kuan Tung, Nader Pourmand, Robert H. Austin, Science 23 September 2011: Vol. 333 no. 6050 pp. 1764-1767
            From thir conclusion: “It is surprising that four apparently functional SNPs should fix in a population within 10 hours of
            exposure to antibiotic in our experiment. A detailed understanding of the order in which the SNPs occur is essential, but it is unlikely that the four SNPs emerged simultaneously; in all likelihood they are sequential (21–23). The device and data we have described here offer a template for exploring the rates at which antibiotic resistance arises in the complex fitness landscapes that prevail in the mammalian body. Furthermore, our study provides a framework for exploring rapid evolution in other contexts such as cancer (24).

            What creationists have never shown is the least reason to think they are not frauds.

          • DrBlaise

            Dr Hurd: “It is surprising that four apparently functional SNPs should fix in a population within 10 hours of
            exposure to antibiotic in our experiment.”

            - No, it is not surprising that they do not understand. “A detailed understanding of the order in which the SNPs occur is essential, but it is unlikely that the four SNPs emerged simultaneously” The scientists admit they do not understand how it happened and that the details are important. This does not surprise me. Those details are so important. There is scientific speculation that the bacteria itself has the ability to control its own rate of mutation in certain sections of its genome based on environment factors. Incredible adaptability to antibiotics, this is a feature not a bug.

    • Soka Sema

      . Intelligent design and evolution are not mutually exclusive
      The theory of evolution doesn’t even speak to first causes . It’s the lamebrain atheists that imbue “there is no god:” into the theory.
      If they didn’t , there would be no reason to add ID theory to the conversation.
      So either atheists stop making more of the Theory of Evoluton than there is, or ID should be added to the conversation as a balance.

      • Rich

        You might want to learn what constitutes a scientific theory before opining that ID is “… merely a competing theory…”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

        • Soka Sema

          You might want to learn what constitues a source……..hint, not wikipedia.

    • SFLBIB

      Liberals claim there is no difference between children raised by a mom and dad and those raised by homosexual couples. Essentially the same liberals claim that evolution is true [ostensibly because it gives them a reason to reject God]. But if evolution were true, by now the human body would have evolved with both male and female sets of organs so we could self-reproduce and raise offspring in a unisex environment. :-)

      • John Pryce

        Firstly, that is not true, because that is not how evolution works. Unlike engineering designs, evolution must build upon the existing structure. Because of this, genuine hermaphroditism in humans would be very difficult (actual hermaphrodites only have one set of organs functional at best, 99% of the time its the penis, and usually that one doesn’t work very well) because some much of the current bodily functions for the two sexes rely on contradictory hormone influxes. Earthworms, by contrast, don’t have these problems, and thus most earthworm species are functional herms (as far as I recall).
        But secondly, humans are social omnivores with a highly developed and complex set of social interactions. And while we can survive alone, we do better in pairs or groups. So as far as that goes, there is no evolutionary advantage for us to revert to some advanced form of bacteria-like binary fission.
        And thirdly, recent research into neoteny indicates that human social organization is in fact a necessary component of our big-brain capacity. The division of reproductive duties between the sexes is believed to be one of those necessary components.

        ….Oh, you were joking. Sorry, I didn’t catch the sarcasm.

        • SFLBIB

          “…evolution must build upon the existing structure.”

          That doesn’t preclude my theory. Imagine the time when there were only cells. Some of them eventually evolved into eye cells while others evolved into bone cells, etc. Hermaphroditism doesn’t seem any more difficult. Not only that, but hermaphrodites would reproduce faster since it would take only one to produce an off-spring.

          “The division of reproductive duties between the sexes is believed to be one of those necessary components.”

          Sounds like you made the case against same-sex “marriage”. ;-)

          • John Pryce

            I am not a Progressive. Most people would put me squarely in the conservative tent, under the heading of “Objectivist”. I am a liberal in the 19th Century classical sense, not in the modern one. I’m an atheist, but the concept of a creator does not offend me, nor do I find it to be ridiculous; I merely find it to be without evidentiary support, given that said Creator refuses to appear or manifest in any unmistakeable way.

            Secondly, I’m also unsure about gay marriage, precisely because I’ve come to understand that marriage itself is an institution whose principle purpose is the having and rearing of children, not love. Since gays can only adopt, its not clear what function marriage is supposed to serve, given that visitation and the delineation of property is already available to them (and as for the tax break, I’m in favor of repealing the 16th Amendment anyway, so that’s irrelevant).

            Thirdly, functional hermaphroditism is at least POSSIBLE in a species as large as ours, but there is no particular evolutionary advantage for it. The division of sexual roles serves the same function as the division of labor: specialization enhances overall productivity (though in this case the specialization is genetic and biological rather than by temperament and skill). The speed of reproduction is not itself necessarily an advantage, especially considering that the very same new field I mentioned – neoteny – has begun to indicate that it is precisely the slow maturation period of humans that makes our intelligence possible, and thus has begun to explain why we are so far and away more intellectually capable than the next smartest species.

            And fourthly, functional hermphroditism in HUMANS would literally require genetic engineering to bring about at this stage. There are no natural pressures that could lead to it, and considering that the division of sex roles has been a part of the large animal caste for literally millions of years (well back into the Cambrian period, as far as I know), it has been written so deeply into the genetic code in so many ways that it’s not clear how long it would take to develop enough workarounds (because evolution can almost never delete old structures, only work around them) to make it happen naturally.

            Fifthly: I defend evolution against ID and creationism precisely because the latter two have nothing to offer as scientific fields. I would do the same if I were a believer, because for me, a love of TRUTH comes first; prior to any other intellectual obligation I have. It’s the reason why I side against the AGW socialists, and against socialism (in all its forms).

          • SFLBIB

            Thx for your thoughtful response.

  • alanauer

    The government supports both religious institutions and higher education. One teaches myths, the other science. No wonder there are clashes like this.

  • Millikan

    Creationism is not conservative, nor is it Christian. What it is bad science, bad philosophy and bad theology. It makes no predictions, has no testable models, and has none of the successful explanatory power of the Theory of Evolution. Science and religion are two separate spheres and it is futile to try fit science into a religious framework.

    • Soka Sema

      The only people talking about Creationism are the atheists and you.. The issue is about ID , not creationism
      ID is about science only.

      • Timothy Horton

        ID is about science only.

        Wrong. ID *could* be about science if ID proponents came up with some positive evidence. However, that would mean forming relevant testable hypotheses which include appropriate falsification criteria, actually doing the testing, and publishing the positive results. So far no one from the ID camp has even begun such an effort.

        Right now the ID movement is 100% Christian apologetics still trying to ‘back-door’ religious Creationism into science classrooms.

        • LeeBowman

          Phylogenetic progressions and their mechanisms is a totally forensic (historic) study, for which empirical testing (replication of evolutionary events) has thus far failed. And not just for ID, but for virtually all evolutionary events.

          The empirical testing and falsifications that Karl Popper (and the others) refer to are the easily replicable testing of physical properties. Evolutionary events are not testable in a similar manner.

          Proposed parallels have been done, based upon bacterial studies (for one), and short gestational event studies (drosophila melanogaster) in the hopes of eliciting morphologic change, but aside from minor sympatric and allopatric alterations (essentially a form of sexual isolation), they have failed to produce new species, (actually new genus, family and orders, etc).

          So essentially, what you are asking of ID is currently beyond our capabilities in toto.

          We may, however, in the near future, be able to replicated phylogenetic alterations by induced genetic manipulations, which would essentially be a verification of genus and family changes by an intelligent agent, we ourselves. This would constitute further support for the ID premise.

          But for purely natural causation(s), I hold little hope for any directly replicable (or simply doable one time) verifications. Natural selection as a novelty producing mechanism is currently in a state of utter falsification.

          Sorry Charlie …

          • LeeBowman

            “Right now the ID movement is 100% Christian apologetics still trying to ‘back-door’ religious Creationism into science classrooms.”

            There are some who may have that agenda, but they are miniscule in number. True ID proponents have embraced ID solely by the evidence.

            The fact that many/ most ID’sts are religious could be more of a net outcome of their perceptions of reality.

          • Timothy Horton

            There are some who may have that agenda, but they are miniscule in number. True ID proponents have embraced ID solely by the evidence.

            LOL at “True ID proponents”! You can count them on the thumbs of one foot.

            The fact that many/ most ID’sts are religious could be more of a net outcome of their perceptions of reality.

            All the IDiots I’ve seen certainly have an adversarial relationship with reality. It frightens them no end, which is why the work so hard to deny it.

          • The whole truth

            Lee Bowman, in regard to the ID religious agenda you said:

            “While in their early days, a somewhat religious agenda may have existed, they are completely secular today.”

            And:

            “There are some who may have that agenda, but they are miniscule in number. True ID proponents have embraced ID solely by the evidence.”

            Wow, you really don’t have a clue and what you assert is the total opposite of the truth. ID-creationism is an unscientific, religious, political, theocratic, dominionist agenda pushed by narcissistic, dishonest, delusional, power hungry charlatans.

            Tell me Lee, would you be okay with it if the so-called ID-movement were to claim that Shiva or Zeus or Mummu or Apsu or Tiamat is the intelligent designer? And do you think that the IDiots at the discotute and other ID gangs would be okay with it if one of their gang members were to claim that Shiva or Zeus or Mummu or any so-called god other than yhwh-jesus-holy-ghost is the intelligent designer?

          • LeeBowman

            “ID-creationism is an unscientific, religious, political, theocratic, dominionist agenda pushed by narcissistic, dishonest, delusional, power hungry charlatans.”

            IDC does exist in a sense. But rather than its Barb Forrest definition, I would define them as actual ‘religionists’, who have adopted the ID term to further their agenda. To wit; the former school board in Dover PA.

            “Tell me Lee, would you be okay with it if the so-called ID-movement were to claim that Shiva or Zeus or Mummu or Apsu or Tiamat is the intelligent designer?”

            The ID ‘movement is a misnomer. ID connotes a design hypothesis within evolutionary theory, and does not attempt to define or name the intelligentsia, including multiple agents over vast time [review MDT theory as somewhat more tenable than monotheistic theories].

          • Timothy Horton

            Phylogenetic progressions and their mechanisms is a totally forensic (historic) study, for which empirical testing (replication of evolutionary events) has thus far failed. And not just for ID, but for virtually all evolutionary events.

            OK, so you don’t have the faintest clue how science actually works. Do you think the FAA has to crash a second airliner every time they investigate an aircraft accident? Science doesn’t have to recreate actual events to understand the mechanisms by which the events occurred. It’s enough to study the evidence the events left behind.

            So essentially, what you are asking of ID is currently beyond our capabilities in toto.

            Great. Tell ID to come back when it can produce testable hypotheses and falsification criteria instead of just religious propaganda.

            We may, however, in the near future, be able to replicated phylogenetic alterations by induced genetic manipulations, which would essentially be a verification of genus and family changes by an intelligent agent, we ourselves. This would constitute further support for the ID premise.

            LOL! Of course it wouldn’t. Having humans be able to recreate phenomena we observe in nature doesn’t indicate the original observed phenomena were Intelligently Designed.

            Apparently you don’t understand either science or simple logic.

            Natural selection as a novelty producing mechanism is currently in a state of utter falsification.

            Since no one in the scientific community says or thinks the creative ability of evolution involves just NS, what’s your point? You’ve already demonstrated your scientific incompetence. No need to belabor the issue.

          • LeeBowman

            “Science doesn’t have to recreate actual events to understand the mechanisms by which the events occurred. It’s enough to study the evidence the events left behind.”

            Correct, but that removes the requirement for falsification in one sense; that of empirical falsification by direct testing. Also, the ‘rabbit in the Cambrian’ example of evolutionary falsification would not falsify the current theory, due to the plethora of supportive evidence. It is the evidence of totally naturalistic progressions that is currently unverifiable.

            “Having humans be able to recreate phenomena we observe in nature doesn’t indicate the original observed phenomena were Intelligently Designed.”

            Nothing in science is proven [hard proof]. But in the absence of empirically demonstrable ‘natural event’ causation in support of the current premise, it would carry more weight.

            “Since no one in the scientific community says or thinks the creative ability of evolution involves just NS, what’s your point?”

            I’m aware of other proposed mechanisms [mutation, genetic drift, HGT et al], but NS is the primary means of selection and fixation, and was therefore so referenced.

            ID merely proposes that self-induced genetic changes are insufficient to produce novel and complex structures with non-functional intermediate forms, or where co-dependent structures would have no function if evolved separately.

            With no ‘look-ahead’ ability, the required intermediates would have no reason or purpose, and thus not form by unguided means.

          • Timothy Horton

            Correct, but that removes the requirement for falsification in one sense; that of empirical falsification by direct testing

            You really are clueless about science. Again, science doesn’t have to test an actual event. It can test the evidence left by the event. That means hypotheses about an event’s cause may never be known 100%, only supported, but wrong hypotheses can certainly be falsified by the evidence left.

            Nothing in science is proven [hard proof]. But in the absence of empirically demonstrable ‘natural event’ causation in support of the current premise, it would carry more weight

            Completely wrong. All scientific ideas have to supply their own positive evidence. If ToE was shown to be all wrong tomorrow that wouldn’t make ID win by default. As it turns out ToE has more than ample positive evidence to support its ideas. That’s why it’s a scientific theory and not wild speculation like ID.

            I’m aware of other proposed mechanisms [mutation, genetic drift, HGT et al], but NS is the primary means of selection and fixation, and was therefore so referenced.

            (facepalm) You have no idea what you’re blithering about. You might at least bother to learn what those terms mean and how they interact before embarrassing yourself further. Here’s a hint – evolution has more than one mechanism, and they all contribute to the overall feedback process.

            ID merely proposes that self-induced genetic changes are insufficient to produce novel and complex structures with non-functional intermediate forms, or where co-dependent structures would have no function if evolved separately.

            ID can propose any nonsense it wants, but until it supports those claims it stays out of science classrooms.

            And yes, environmental pressures are causative factors for morpholic and functional revisions, but for complex body-plan re-designs, they are plainly insufficient.

            LOL! Insufficient in who’s opinion? Not to scientists who actually study and work with the data in their profession. Sorry but your ignorance-based personal incredulity will get you absolutely nowhere in the scientific world.

          • LeeBowman

            Laugh all you want. At least you’re not [yet] rolling on the floor.

            “You have no idea what you’re blithering about. You might at least bother to learn what those terms mean and how they interact before embarrassing yourself further. Here’s a hint – evolution has more than one mechanism, and they all contribute to the overall feedback process.”

            I’m completely familiar with those terms. I’d say that it’s you that doesn’t understand how evolution is purported to work. Can I quote your new term, ‘feedback process’?

            By the way, what is the rough percentage of working scientists who hold to natural causation as the categorical means of phylogenetic progressions within evolutionary theory? Any idea? Or care to give an estimate?

          • Timothy Horton

            I’m completely familiar with those terms.

            Then why are you playing such an ignorant boob on the web?

            I’d say that it’s you that doesn’t understand how evolution is purported to work. Can I quote your new term, ‘feedback process’?

            I rest my case. Anyone who doesn’t understand even the basics of biology, who doesn’t get the iterative feedback nature of genetic variation and selection amassing heritable traits from generation to generation isn’t worth having a discussion with. You are indeed every bit as ignorant as your reputation says.

            Just for a laugh, why don’t you explain in your own words how evolutionary algorithms work? They use the same sort of feedback to generate all sorts of complex objects with just a few simple rules.

            By the way, what is the rough percentage of working scientists who hold to natural causation as the categorical means of phylogenetic progressions within evolutionary theory? Any idea? Or care to give an estimate?

            Various polls put the number of all scientists who accept evolution at between 85-90%, with the percentage of biologists / geneticists who accept evolution at around 99.8%. Virtually every professional scientific society in the country has issued a position statement supporting ToE and rejecting Intelligent Design Creationism.

            Scientists know ID is religiously motivated bunk, even if gullible ignorant laymen like you are still swayed by the glittering ID trash.

          • LeeBowman

            Various polls put the number of all scientists who accept evolution at between 85-90%, with the percentage of biologists / geneticists who accept evolution at around 99.8%.

            My question stated, ” … natural causation as the categorical means of phylogenetic progressions … ” which is the key issue, not whether or not evolution has occurred. And most of the polls are nonspecific on the issue of causation.

            In the pop press, figures like yours are given, due in part to lies propagated by high profile figures. Example: Brian Alters’ rambling on an NIH paper, resulting in endless quoting of that figure in the pop press and Internet.
            http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm

            I have contested that figure multiple times. Search CTL- F followed by 99.9
            http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?threaded=1&v=H8FvcYfLpOs

            http://www.amazon.com/review/R3IYDGSXUJ3Z57

            http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=J249urOZyo8&page=4

          • Timothy Horton

            Throughout mass media, figures like yours are given, due in part to lies propagated by high profile figures.

            (snip the rest of the hand waving)

            LOL! Here we go, the usual avalanche of IDiot bullshit. All the polls are lies from the evil atheist media, scientists really support ID-Creationism but won’t admit it, the scientific community is actively suppressing pro-ID results and stiffing dissension, if you can’t see the conspiracy then you must be brainwashed, blah blah blah…

            Go put on your tin foil hat and bay at the moon with the rest of the clueless nut jobs. Say ‘hi’ to Bigfoot and Elvis for me.

          • LeeBowman

            No, they’re legitimate polls. It’s just that working scientists are constrained from admitting any agreement with ID, due to constraints imposed upon them by

            * academia (initially) – agree with naturalism 100% or fail the course(s)

            * associates – never mention ID except in a derogatory way, or face ridicule (peer pressure)

            * teaching – avoid any reference to inferred design within nature, or face disciplinary measures, including being dropped from a teaching position, as well as failure to be awarded tenure down the road. BSU as a current example.

            * research employment – never speak positively regarding ID or face disciplinary measures, include job loss

            You need not buy or read ‘Slaughter of the Dissidents’ to assess its message, confirmatory of the above. Simply read a few of the comments.
            http://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Dissidents-Jerry-Bergman/product-reviews/0981873405/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?showViewpoints=1

            All of the above is simply to backup my view, that it is currently impossible to know the true percentage of working scientists and academics who accept a totally naturalistic paradigm. It is definitely far below the currently parroted figures.

          • Timothy Horton

            No, they’re legitimate polls. It’s just that working scientists are essentially handcuffed from admitting any agreement with ID, due to constraints imposed upon them by

            (snip same unsupported IDiot vomit)

            Or maybe that 99% of working biologists and geneticists really do understand the subject and really do with good reason think ID is a steaming crock of religiously motivated horseshit.

            I bet that possibility never crossed your tiny willfully ignorant mind, right?

          • LeeBowman

            “Or maybe that 99% of working biologists and geneticists really do understand the subject and really do with good reason think ID is a steaming crock of religiously motivated horseshit.”

            The are obviously those who think that way. No argument there. It’s just that those with the extreme view that there was never any intelligent input at any point in the progressions of phylogenetic lineages, and that all increases of novelty and complexity came about via the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations, is nowhere near the 99.9 mark, or even the high nineties.

            Also, regarding a rampant failure of the public, and even journalists with a degree of scientific expertise to comprehend what ID is really about has just been chronicled by John G. West. His point that ID is ‘stereotyped’ ad nauseam is well stated in this just published piece:

            http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/attempting_to_w077741.html

          • Timothy Horton

            It’s just that those with the extreme view that there was never any intelligent input at any point in the progressions of phylogenetic lineages, and that all increases of novelty and complexity came about via the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations, is nowhere near the 99.9 mark, or even the high nineties.

            Just like with ID, all the published data is against you. But I see you’re no stranger to that common Creationist tactic – making up shit as you go.

            Also, regarding a rampant failure of the public, and even journalists with a degree of scientific expertise to comprehend what ID is really about has just been chronicled by John G. West.

            LOL! “Westie”, the head liar of the DI whining because people refer to his troop of IDiots as Creationists. Guess what – they are Creationists. Not necessarily YECs, but Creationists all the same.

            Westie is the kind of dishonest scum who would spray paint DOG on the side of a pig then pitch a major hissy fit because he still couldn’t enter the animal in the Westminster Kennel Show.

          • LeeBowman

            Your first point, “Just like with ID, all the published data is against you.” is blatantly false. And the “published data” in support of ID is on the increase. But feel free to ignore it, as most evo-die-hards are fond of doing.

            And yes, ‘Westie’ is no friend of them as well. It’s just that the points he makes in this piece are valid critiques of the mainstream press, and the blatant misconstruances of ID.

            Let’s hear your critique of what he had to say, rather than a series of ad hominems spurting from your clenched teeth. Have a beer and relax. This exchange could go on till the wee hours …

          • Timothy Horton

            And the “published data” in support of ID is on the increase.

            LOL! Only in your narrow reality-denying tiny mind. I’m sure you’re impressed with the anti-science crap the DI publishes in its own vanity journal, but you’re about the only one. The next piece of positive evidence the IDiots publish will be the first.

            It’s just that the points he makes in this piece are valid critiques of the mainstream press, and the blatant misconstruances of ID.

            Of course they aren’t. He’s just miffed because most everyone with an IQ over room temperature Celsius could easily see through the DI’s charade. Rebranding of Creationism as ‘Intelligent Design” was done solely as a political ploy to circumvent the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause. It didn’t fool anyone in the science community, and it didn’t fool anyone in the legal community. Fooling the ignorant gullible ones like you doesn’t buy the IDiots anything.

            Let’s hear your critique of what he had to say

            You already have. Spray painting ID SCIENCE on the side of the Creationism pig won’t get you into science classrooms. You IDiots have to earn your way in by weight of positive evidence which you don’t have. Merely screaming “ToE can’t explain this to my ignorant layman’s satisfaction” will never do it.

          • LeeBowman

            “I’m sure you’re impressed with the anti-science crap the DI publishes in its own vanity journal, but you’re about the only one.”

            I don’t agree with all of it, but I support them in their quest open the academic and science community to ID as a valid investigative hypothesis.

            “Of course they aren’t [misconstuances regarding ID]. He’s just miffed because most everyone with an IQ over room temperature Celsius could easily see through the DI’s charade.”

            While in their early days, a somewhat religious agenda may have existed, they are completely secular today. And the fact that there are still some YEC views under their big tent, they are in a minority. As I’ve stated, religious perspectives within ID adherents has nothing to do with ID per se, and remains a personal perspective.

            He’s “miffed”, as well as most ID proponents, and for good reason!

            “Rebranding of Creationism as ‘Intelligent Design” was done solely as a political ploy to circumvent the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause.”

            ID is in NO WAY, unconstitutional. Feel free to remove your head from your arse, and understand ID, properly defined. The precise point West made is precisely reflected by your ignorance.

            Bottom Line: ID is no more “religion in disguise” than NS or RM is “atheism in disguise”. Both are valid hypotheses, and neither are etched in stone!

          • Timothy Horton

            I don’t agree with all of it, but I support them in their quest to open the academic and science community to ID as a valid investigative hypothesis.

            The path has always been open. The IDiots just refuse to play by the same standards every other scientific idea is required to follow. That’s why they keep trying these end runs around proper scientific process and resort to legal shenanigans.

            As I’ve stated, religious perspectives within ID adherents has nothing to do with ID per se, and remains a personal perspective.

            You can repeat that lie 100 times and it still won’t be true.

            “cdesignproponentist” – pretty much says it all.

            ID is in NO WAY, unconstitutional.

            The way it’s presented now by the IDiot community it sure is. It’s religiously motivated Creationism rebranded.

            If and when the IDiots start doing science properly they’ll be accepted. Until then they can go pound sand.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            And your evidence for this “intelligent input” is?

            Keep in mind that it should be discriminatory. The latest ID chattering about how ID also confirms something that evolution agrees with is meaningless. Unless there is some aspect that only an intelligent designer can do and evolution cannot AND then it is shown that the event happened, there is no reason to even consider an intelligent agent in the evolution of life on Earth.

            And so far, no ID proponent has ever done any of that. All the talk of irreducible complexity and specified functional information sounds pretty, but as dozens of scientists have pointed out… it’s meaningless gibberish. Heck Behe doesn’t even know if ID is a mechanistic notion or not (he said it was and wasn’t in the Kitzmiller trial).

            There’s a lot of brain power on the ID side and they still can’t get past quotemines, incorrect claims, and made up stories to develop a testable version of ID.

            One needs to ask, which version of ID do you promote?

          • LeeBowman

            “And your evidence for this “intelligent input” is?”

            Essentially, that of the existence of complex structures and multi-dependent systems which encompass components which are likely to have evolved in concert with other components; no function otherwise. IOW, co- and multi-dependency is one evidence of design.

            Even the morphologic layout of chordates, which I see that you have discussed on other threads, and from which all mammilian life has evolved, displays evidence of intrinsic design. But to delineate further upon this, however, would require more time and verbosity than is allowed here.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BranchiostomaLanceolatum_PioM.svg

            “Keep in mind that it should be discriminatory. The latest ID chattering about how ID also confirms something that evolution agrees with is meaningless.”

            ID and naturalistic evolution have common ground, since both appear to be operatives within. Design input at certain junctures; natural processes in between.

            “Unless there is some aspect that only an intelligent designer can do and evolution cannot, AND then it is shown that the event happened, there is no reason to even consider an intelligent agent in the evolution of life on Earth.”

            With historic (forensic) studies, the various preceding mechanistic processes can only be postulated.

            “And so far, no ID proponent has ever done any of that. All the talk of irreducible complexity and specified functional information sounds pretty, but as dozens of scientists have pointed out… it’s meaningless gibberish.”

            When something is designed, it is first specified, then designed, but not formed directly by a designing agent or agency IMO. Life forms self replicate on their own, but only in accordance with directive coding (hox6 genes et al). I see the evidence of design as encompassing the formation of genetic coding, then letting embryo processes do the actual formations.

            “Heck Behe doesn’t even know if ID is a mechanistic notion or not (he said it was and wasn’t in the Kitzmiller trial).”

            You and I can’t speak for him, but I’d say from his writings, which say much more than his limited testimony (only allowed to answer to an obstreperous inquisitor), that he holds ID to be directed actions by an intelligence that then results in mechanistic processes.

            ” … which version of ID do you promote?”

            The one most evident by the data.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            So, you have no evidence other than, “I can’t imagine how something complex could form without an intelligence”. Now, if you will just admit that.

            You see, when someone asks me for evidence (as has been done by Dr. Hurd and others in this thread), they present papers, with data, that have been discovered by experiment and observation. That data is then analyzed with statistical tools in order to remove biases. I’ve never seen an ID proponent who could do that. And you have followed exactly in there footsteps.

            “the existence of complex structures and multi-dependent systems which encompass components which are likely to have evolved in concert with other components; no function otherwise. IOW, co- and multi-dependency is one evidence of design.” IS NOT EVIDENCE.

            It’s actually a claim, for which there is no evidence.

            That being said, let’s look at what you did say. So, there is no possible way that any of said complex structures could have come about without the use of an intelligence?

            Tell me, do you know the difference between ‘design’ and ‘manufacture’? I can design all kinds of awesome stuff, but I can’t manufacture any of it.

            If things were designed, then to exist they must be manufactured. Where is the evidence of this? When? How? By Whom? Is the same designer/manufacturer from the Cambrian still involved today? How do you know? When was the last time the designer/manufacturer worked? How do you know? Do you actually understand that stuff like the “phyla appearing in the Cambrian explosion” are really nothing more than speciation events? Is a designer needed for speciation events? If not, then why is a designer needed for anything?

            Until you and other pro-ID guys get on the stick and actually do some research into your various notions (I note that you don’t say, which is quite funny), then you are wasting everyone’s time.

          • LeeBowman

            “So, you have no evidence other than, “I can’t imagine how something complex could form without an intelligence”. Now, if you will just admit that.”

            You’ve just repeated the usual ["I can't imagine how ... "] anti-ID parlance phrased to make an ID proponent sound stupid. So no, I will not admit to that. It’s not ‘imagination’; it’s deductive reason.

            “You see, when someone asks me for evidence (as has been done by Dr. Hurd and others in this thread), they present papers, with data, that have been discovered by experiment and observation.”

            Much of Dr. Hurd’s citations and references refer to speciation events, which certainly do occur. He and others then conflate speciation events with evolution at a much higher level [body plan revisions to produce genus, family, order, class and beyond], which have obviously occurred, but which have not been directly observed. Offering observable speciation events as direct proof of macroevolutioniary events is an untenable extrapolation of logic.

            “Tell me, do you know the difference between ‘design’ and ‘manufacture’? I can design all kinds of awesome stuff, but I can’t manufacture any of it.

            If things were designed, then to exist they must be manufactured. Where is the evidence of this? When? How? By Whom?”

            As I just stated, design encompasses genetic maneuvering, with embryogenesis the means of producing it. So to answer the ‘which came first’ question, it’s coding → egg → chicken, although some religionists would say that the rib came first. ;-)

            “By Whom? Is the same designer/manufacturer from the Cambrian still involved today? How do you know? When was the last time the designer/manufacturer worked? How do you know?”

            We don’t know. ID concludes design, where inferred. Nothing more.

            “Do you actually understand that stuff like the “phyla appearing in the Cambrian explosion” are really nothing more than speciation events? Is a designer needed for speciation events? If not, then why is a designer needed for anything?”

            Speciation events, or minor genetic changes that prevent successful fertilization with subsequent zygote/cleavage formation do NOT accumulate to produce radically different phyla, an extrapolation on steroids.

            “Until you and other pro-ID guys get on the stick and actually do some research into your various notions (I note that you don’t say, which is quite funny), then you are wasting everyone’s time.”

            Which is why I post my postulates. To both suggest various logical possibilities with ToE, and to encourage the academic and scientific community (and overseers) to lower the barricades currently in place, to allow and fund>/i> such research. To sit on one’s fanny and do nothing is a little like Congress doing the same at the current time.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            So, you also don’t understand how higher orders of life appear. Perhaps this can help: http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2013/09/16/where-higher-orders-of-life-come-from/

            I see a lot of claims with absolutely zero supporting evidence. There is no barricade. Heck, the Templton Foundation offered grants for ID research… no one even applied. The only barriers to ID research are ID researchers.

            ID doesn’t conclude design… it ASSUMES design… and always has.

          • LeeBowman

            I prefer this one:
            http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

            Templeton is at odds with ID. http://www.templeton.org/faqs/does-the-foundation-support-%E2%80%9Cintelligent-design%E2%80%9D

            The ‘barricade’ is plainly overt opposition to ID in toto, by AAAS, NAS, and their sister organizations. This commentator summarizes it nicely (bottom comment).

            http://www.amazon.com/review/R2F4K8Y3M0E2WP/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1?ie=UTF8&asin=0310240506&cdForum=Fx1EBW76UTIMIPA&cdPage=1&cdThread=TxGYKXGFZUITVS&store=books#wasThisHelpful

            “ID doesn’t conclude design… it ASSUMES design… and always has.”

            Not so. Any who ‘assume’ design a priori, are motivated by a religious bias. ID by definition, makes no such assumptions.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Excellent, then publish the evidence. There still isn’t any.

            ID, BTW, by the definition of those who updated it from Paley think it is religious.

          • LeeBowman

            The Wm. Paley correlation is commonly used to establish that ID has religion as is base. But in fact, Biblical references taken literally point more to a ‘poof’ scenario, rather than incremental design over vast time as is in evidence.

            To many religious folks, Biblical Literalists in particular (Ken Ham and Templeton et al), ID demeans God. ID and evolutionary theory infer a kind of ‘cut and try’ scenario, and with eons of algae and prokaryote forms prior to the higher ones, and with evidence of hominids evolving last. But ….

            * time on a celestial framework is much different than our limited time frames.

            * for all we know, this planet may have been a kind of biologic workshop; a domain to try out various flora and fauna designs, and to observe them propagate. We experiment in similar ways.

            * If lifeforms are vehicles for spirit forms to inhabit, and there is evidence of that, then designing and propagating them as vehicles to inhabit fits this scenario. We produce vehicles as well, for similar purposes.

            * And if so, we may in fact exist within an extended lineage of earlier entities who performed the actual designs.

            If so, continue to enjoy your ‘earthly sabbatical’, a brief departure from your galactic origins.

            Or, believe as Dawkins and Coyne believe, that you are atoms, and nothing more.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            You don’t have any mechanism other than poof. If the shoe fits…

            Go ahead, I’ll wait. Describe a mechanism, by which, an intelligent designer could both design and create a irreducibly complex component. Now, how is that different from an evolutionary description of the same thing? Hey, we have a testable hypothesis. Get to work on that, then publish, then have it accepted, THEN start putting it in textbooks.

            I am atoms and nothing more… well.. energy. Please feel free to point out the pars of me that are not atoms or energy. Explain how the designer makes this so.

          • LeeBowman

            “Describe a mechanism, by which, an intelligent designer could both design and create a irreducibly complex component.”

            Initial molecular constructs, unsure, since we don’t know what tools and methods might have been available. But an energy based form (no DNA or carbon based construct) might have been able to manipulate them into amino acids, proteins, and then cellular constructs. Later forms would be a stepwise progression of molecular manipulations to alter forms.

            After eukaryotes, biological forms made of these, with RNA/DNA as the coding and folding mechanisms, could have been formed, along with reproductive mechanisms with hox gene coding. At this point, the formations would self replicate, but could be altered simply by induced coding modifications, by a form of genetic engineering. We today can do similar genetic modifications.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering

            “I am atoms and nothing more… well.. energy. Please feel free to point out the pars of me that are not atoms or energy. Explain how the designer makes this so.”

            Your actual conscious essence is a spirit form, probably constructed of quantum matter in some sort of cohesive functional pattern. We don’t know at this time, but OOB experiences, along with various duality events (and experiments) are confirmatory of a mind – body separation.

            This concept is not new, and likely preceded Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29#Types_of_mind.E2.80.93body_dualism

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Talk about personal bias influencing one’s thoughts. I guess we’re done here.

            You have no evidence to support your claims of ID and we all know it.

            BTW: Before you suggest that we are “spirit” in any way shape or form, I suggest you look real hard at all the research that shows how brain damage can alter personality and beliefs.

          • LeeBowman

            First, the brain is an interface of the consciousness to all of the sensory inputs, vision, hearing, touch, taste, olfactory, temperature, and number seven, balance and spacial perception (vestibular semicircular canals), which are at quadrature to each other (90 deg apart). The act as accelerometers, for the body to discern spacial orientation in all three spacial axes (x, y, and z [vertical]). The cerebral cortex for vision occupies more than 1/3 of it.

            ” … research shows how brain damage can alter personality and beliefs.”

            Yes, and perceptions and emotions, all of which are brain functions. Anger, humor, fear, lust are all programmed brain functions, both by inheritance and by direct experience. Claustrophobia, for example, can be due to having been locked in a closet as a child.

            But none of these occur when out of body. In an OOB state, perceptions are vastly different. According to my research [and intuitive observation], the brain colors perception, and personality. If end-point cognition is external to the brain itself, it is nonetheless colored by the state of the mind.

            I go into some detail on Randi’s blog, both pg 9 and 10.

            http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=5bb306396930e797d1bf23c19a7154cf&t=243709&page=9

            http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=8641235

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Statements provided without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

          • LeeBowman

            I suggest reading my two comments on Randi’s blog. Feel free to disagree.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Why don’t you just link to the peer-reviewed papers and experimental data that supports out of body experiences here?

          • LeeBowman

            Frankly, I’m a skeptic regarding much of what I read. Paranormal stuff is often fraudulent, or at least doctored a bit, including some of the speakers on George Noory’s coasttocoastam.com, in particular of late.

            But a lot of it is genuine, which I say based on my own experiments in my early twenties. Regarding OOB (out of body), been there; done that.

            But I’m not selling anything, short of getting down on the science community for their insistent reductionist stance. The Cosmos is loaded with conscious life, although I haven’t been able to define what I have directly experienced over a two year period (age 22 to 24). I did my experiments from a scientific perspective, including double blind experiments.

            I won’t go into detail here, but I did make numerous mental + visual back and forth contacts. Go here for a few comments regarding:

            http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-motivated-reasoning-of-egnorance/

            In short, the scientific community needs to be open to ALL the data, rather than to shrug off anything that defies the Darwinist paradigm of atoms and molecules only. He did his best to discern his data, but missed the boat with his reductionist premise, which still permeates mainstream science today.

          • Timothy Horton

            Damn, this fruit cake is getting fruitier by the minute. Can’t wait until he starts telling us about his Uri Geller Psi power, homeopathy, and the healing energies of magic crystals.

          • Timothy Horton

            Great. Besides being a scientifically illiterate goober Our IDiot pusher Lee here is also a “New Age” whack-job.

          • Timothy Horton

            You’ve just repeated the usual ["I can't imagine how ... "] anti-ID parlance phrased to make an ID proponent sound stupid.

            We don’t make IDiots like you sound stupid. You guys do all the work yourselves, we just point it out.

            So no, I will not admit to that. It’s not ‘imagination’; it’s deductive reason

            It’s piss poor deductive reasoning. The claim “Science can’t explain it by natural means so ID wins by default” is a false dichotomy. There aren’t two possibilities, there are three.

            1. Unguided natural processes we know of (i.e. evolution) did it.
            2. Unguided natural processes we haven’t discovered yet did it.
            3. The Magic Designer did it.

            IDiots spend all there time attacking no. 1 in the erroneous belief that will somehow make no.3 true. FAIL.

            If you IDiots want science to accept no.3, you need positive evidence for no.3.

            To both suggest various logical possibilities with ToE, and to encourage the academic and scientific community to lower the barricades currently in place, to allow and fund such research.

            The only barricades are the ones created by the ID’s lack of any testable hypotheses or falsification criteria. There’s nothing to stop any IDiots from writing grant proposals. Problem is they have to outline the work they plan to do and explain why it’s a reasonable approach if they expect funding.

            As always the IDiots are too lazy to do the work but demand instead a scientific “affirmative action program” for their stupidity.

          • Timothy Horton

            Essentially, that of the existence of complex structures and multi-dependent systems which encompass components which are likely to have evolved in concert with other components; no function otherwise. IOW, co- and multi-dependency is one evidence of design.

            Pool clueless Lee.

            It’s been empirically demonstrated and verified that unguided iterative feedback processes involving replication with variation filtered by selection and carrying forward heritable traits can and do create both complex and IC structures. That’s why I asked you to describe how evolutionary algorithms work, to see if you understood the basics. It’s apparent that you don’t.

            We now know of at least two verified methods for producing complex irreducible structures: guided conscious design and unguided feedback processes. Therefore discovering complex irreducible structures isn’t an automatic indication of guided conscious design. The unguided feedback process present in biological evolution is just as capable.

            The one most evident by the data.

            Which as this point is none of them.

          • LeeBowman

            “Pool clueless Lee.”

            You could have also said, “Pool cueless” But in essence, logic and reason are my pool cues.

            “It’s been empirically demonstrated and verified that unguided iterative feedback processes involving replication with variation filtered by selection and carrying forward heritable traits can and do create both complex and IC structures.”

            For ‘adaptive’ revisions, yes. But as the sole means of building complexity and novelty? Nada.

            Catch this video, but be sure and read my comments. DiestPaladin conflates equal steps to evolutionary steps, which are far from being equal, a poor analogy and simply not the case. But since it is the seminal basis of Darwinist reason, it is (and will continue to be) staunchly defended.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8FvcYfLpOs

            More comments here:

            http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=J249urOZyo8&page=4

            “We now know of at least two verified methods for producing complex irreducible structures: guided conscious design and unguided feedback processes.”

            Guided or unguided. Correct.

            “Therefore discovering complex irreducible structures isn’t an automatic indication of guided conscious design.”

            Correct, but only if a natural process can be shown to be so capable. IC and NEC [non-evolvable complexity] are placeholders for design where logically inferred, by the failure to establish a viable causative natural process.

            “The unguided feedback process present in biological evolution is just as capable.”

            An unproven premise. Sorry Charlie …

          • Timothy Horton

            For ‘adaptive’ revisions, yes. But as the sole means of building complexity and novelty? Nada.

            Yes for producing complexity and novelty, as has been empirically demonstrated.

            Irreducible complexity in a genetic algorithm

            Try reading the scientific literature instead of mindlessly regurgitating your usual IDiot ignorance.

            Catch this video, but be sure and read my comments

            No. IDiot propaganda videos don’t interest me. Provide your evidence from the primary scientific literature or STFU.

            Correct, but only if a natural process can be shown to be so capable.

            Already been done to the satisfaction of the professional scientific community.

            IC and NEC [non-evolvable complexity] are placeholders for design where logically inferred, by the failure to establish a viable causative natural process.

            Also known as the “God of the Gaps” argument. Something science recognized was invalid several hundred years ago. Figures a dirt ignorant IDiot would be so behind the times.

  • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

    I am a UCI alumnus, 1973, 1976. I have also written quite a bit about Intelligent Design Creationism. (See “Why Intelligent Design Fails” 2005 Rutgers University Press, and “Stones and Bones” http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ ).

    I would be happy to address the UC Irvine’s Ratio Christi group on why ID creationism is a failure.

    • LeeBowman

      Which begs the question, Gary. Would you be willing to debate an ID proponent publicly?

      • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

        Do you represent UC Irvine’s Ratio Christi?

        No?

        Then shut up, I am not talking to you. I have seen your creationist blather spread over scores of bulletin board discussions. Even when you are repeatedly exposed as a nitwit, you repeat the same ‘cut-n-paste’ arguments over and over.

        • LeeBowman

          ROFL …

          I’m as far from being a so-called ‘creationist’ as you are, but one who examines all the data, not just the ingrained (and unproven) naturalistic views propagated by daddy Darwin.

          But yeah, I know. Debating a creationist (your false descriptor an ID proponent) would only give them credence, as RD has said. Would that be your reason to so decline?

          If so, I fully understand.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            Calculate the CSI of a tadpole. Quantitatively compare that to the CSI of a frog, and a pool cue.

            Show your work.

          • LeeBowman

            CSI studies are currently underway by researchers. But CSI quantitative analyses are just one aspect of observed complexities. And currently, statistical probabilities of purely natural causation have diminished significantly.

            And it will be others than I (or you) who perform and publish resulting data. My concern is that by stifling inquiry (design interpretations not allowed, even where evident), science is unduly constrained.

            In short, conflating design inferences with religious presuppositions is a totally false premise. And the arguments given in support of that premise largely focus on isolated ‘creationist’ leanings and motives, totally non sequiturs in critiquing the science based data.

            No more than tilting at windmills.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            So, after 17 years not one single calculation of “complex specified information” have ever been shown.

            Not one. Not for a single thing.

            That you and the other ID creationists pretend that this core concept of ID creationism is “currently underway by researchers” means you are a fraud. ID creationism is a fraud.

            Show a cohesive step-by-step demonstration that an “irreducibly complex” organ like Behe’s favorite flagella cannot have evolved. Show us the exact molecular feature that is definitively, and categorically impossible to have evolved. Support this assertion with specific reference to

            Qiucen Zhang, Guillaume Lambert, David Liao, Hyunsung Kim, Kristelle Robin, Chih-kuan Tung, Nader Pourmand, Robert H. Austin
            2011 “Acceleration of Emergence of Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance in Connected Microenvironments” Science, Vol. 333 no. 6050 pp. 1764-1767

            From their article, “It is surprising that four apparently functional SNPs should fix in a population within 10 hours of exposure to antibiotic in our experiment. A detailed understanding of the order in which the SNPs occur is essential, but it is unlikely that the four SNPs emerged simultaneously; in all likelihood they are sequential (21–23). The device and data we have described here offer a template for exploring the rates at which antibiotic resistance arises in the complex fitness landscapes that prevail in the mammalian body. Furthermore, our study provides a framework for exploring rapid evolution in other contexts such as cancer (24).

            Review this for us, Multi-site mutations, functional mutations, TEN HOURS, why sequential mutations are functional, and more likely, and with medical applications.

            Compare with any “ID” creationist research.

          • LeeBowman

            “So, after 17 years not one single calculation of “complex specified information” have ever been shown.

            Not one. Not for a single thing.”

            Axe and Gauger for “one”, published in the Journal of Molecular Biology Vol.301 and in the Journal of Molecular Biology Vol.341 regarding the statistical improbability of single proteins forming by unguided natural chemical processes. But when funding is allowed, I predict that more will follow.
            http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0022

            “Show a cohesive step-by-step demonstration that an “irreducibly complex” organ like Behe’s favorite flagella cannot have evolved.”

            Show me how ‘step-by-step’ its integral parts would self-form, w/o any intermediate functions. Oh yeah, exaptation. True in some instances, but not in the requisite ‘every’ instance for non-functional intermediates.

            “From their article, “It is surprising that four apparently functional SNPs should fix in a population within 10 hours of exposure to antibiotic in our experiment.

            … it is unlikely that the four SNPs emerged simultaneously; in all likelihood they are sequential (21–23). The device and data we have described here offer a template for exploring the rates at which antibiotic resistance arises in the complex fitness landscapes that prevail in the mammalian body.”

            Adaptive modifications may well be designed-in functions to aid in survival. But in most all cases, adaptive changes are not novelty (totally new function and construct) producing.

            Sorry, but neither antibiotic resistance nor nylonase production have no correlation to revised body plans.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            Your ill informed hand waving is delightful. I welcome all educated readers to reflect on your lack of cogent response.

            Like you, Axe and Gauger failed. They tried to demonstrate that an extant protein could not spontaneously convert to some other protein while maintaining function along every theoretical variation. What all competent readers have noted is that that is not at all related to how evolution actually has progressed. So why should Axe and Gauger save the sinking ship of ID creationism, when their assertions are irrelevant to evolution?

          • LeeBowman

            Come on, Gary. Their paper is just one of a potential many involving studies of that kind, and is of course, subject to revision and even rebuttal.

            The plain and simple fact regarding ID research is simply that for the majority of working scientists, it’s on their black list, lacks funding, and can result in loss of tenure and even the attainment of advanced degrees.

            Even tycoons like Judge Jones might get em!

            When orgs like AAAS and NAS come to their senses (like the Republican House), science will be done more objectively and cogently. Until then, science will remain more politically motivated than investigative.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            So, the failed examples you have offered are just failed examples of, “potential(ly) many involving studies of that kind.”

            And should we tax payers fund research that is such a total loser after decades of private millions of dollars have been wasted? Should incompetents be awarded with advanced degrees, and tenure?

            We have seen the disaster of political pseudoscience; the Soviet Communists rejected Darwinian evolution and promoted agricultrual practices based on Lysenkoism. Hundreds of thousands starved. We know what you frauds have offered, and it is merely reworked 1980′s creationism. Even with the “Intelligent Design” camouflage, we see the rotten core. For a set of excellent books debunking ID creationism, see:

            Matt Young, Taner Edis (Editors),
            2005 (get the paperback) “Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism” Rutgers University Press

            Barbara Carroll Forrest, Paul R. Gross
            2004 “Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design” Oxford University Press

            Really, there is a reason that Casey Luskin is the current IDC hero: he is a lawyer, like Phil Johnson. IDC fails at science results, and they try to win with politics.

          • LeeBowman

            From Young and Taner’s book:

            “The flagellum is probably not IC at all because the original function of the eubacterial flagellum, which can survive massive pruning of its components, is almost certainly secretion, not motility (Hueck 1998, Berry and Armitage 1999, Aizawa 2001).”

            Sorry, but the consensus view is that ‘secretion’ came after motility. Further, Miller’s explanation to Judge Jones [paraphrased] that “not just one, but 30 [or so] parts can be missing and still have a function [secretion].”

            But Miller simply glossed over the problem of the evolution of those thirty or so proteins, to form rotor, stator, bearings, etc. His treatise ‘The Flagellum Unspun’ was soundly rebutted by Dembski.

            http://designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm

            Further, a claim by Young & Tanner:

            “A system that evolved for one purpose can later be co-opted to serve some other purpose. So numerous are the examples of co-optation (sic)that biologists have coined a term for them: exaptations (Gould and Vrba 1982).

            An exaptation is a feature that originally evolved for one function but is now used for a different function. After a feature has been exapted, it may evolve, or adapt to its new function.”

            Co-option is the more used term, and yes, it does occur. But aside from the basal body, no co-opted functions have been proposed. None.

            And regarding avian flight, the authors provide explanations for the muscular functions at the humerus and metacarpals, no hints of how the formed, let alone increased metabolic functions, hollow bones, and (biggest omission) how intricate barbules formed from proto-feathers. Flight wings are a totally discordant design.

            Finally, yes, Casey trained in Law, similar to your original training in Social Science. But he also has a Masters in Earth Science, and has studied evolution extensively at both the graduate and undergraduate levels.

            And lastly, the points raised by Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross focused primarily on various religious orientations of early DI fellows, and on internal documents like the ‘Wedge’, which are completely aside form ID’s seminal investigative and predictive premises. More fluff than content.

          • Timothy Horton

            There is no ‘theory” of ID. There isn’t even a testable hypothesis of ID. All ID has to offer is completely unsupported religiously motivated speculation.

            You can whine all you want about the evil atheist secret conspiracies to keep ID down but the simple fact remains ID has zero science to offer. There’s absolutely no positive evidence for any supernatural Designer of life. NONE. The entire ID movement is 100% political shenanigans aimed at fooling gullible laymen.

            There’s a good reason that ID face planted so badly in Kitzmiller v. Dover, and a good reason why ID has never come close to any scientific respectability. Propagandists like Casey Luskin and Mr. Bowman here are exhibit 1A.

          • Soka Sema

            A theory is speculation, moron.

          • Rolf Aalberg

            Yeah, Newton only speculated, nevertheless apples still fall to the ground. Oh, and Einstein’s speculation, just look where that has taken us! Keep up the rejection of science, that’s the only hope for creationism. (Creationism = goddidit.) I guess a large proportion of Christians may be defined as YEC’s but they also support the ID movement because they share the same enemy and the same goal. ID would be lost without their consent.

          • Soka Sema

            The force we call gravity is not a theory, How it works is a theory and yes science has evolved, There are new theories.
            Same thing with Einsteins’ theory of relativity
            Your mental midget way of doing science would have kept us all in the dark ages. with the scientific consensus that declared the world was flat.
            The problem is you are not a man of logic , reason or science,
            You are just some old moron with a low sloping forehead and an axe to grind against “religion”

          • Rolf Aalberg

            How well you know me and my psyche, eh? You beat both Sigmund Freud and C.G. Jung. You’d make a superb headshrink! I bow to your superior intellect. Dembski and Luskin should be proud to have you on their side.

            (Although creationists play word games all the time.)

          • Eric Atkinson

            Goddamn you are fucking stupid
            .Hypothesis gathered from you statements.

          • Nullifidian

            theory: an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain or predict natural phenomena: the theory of evolution. [...] Theory implies a larger body of tested evidence and a greater degree of probability [than hypothesis] — The American Heritage Dictionary of Science

          • Timothy Horton

            Sorry but your ignorance is showing here. In science the term ‘theory’ doesn’t mean ‘speculation’. In science a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. A theory also the ability to make falsifiable predictions.

            ID has none of that, not even close. From your clueless blithering it appears you possess zero scientific training or understanding.

          • Rich

            Again, you need to learn what a scientific theory is.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

          • LeeBowman

            @ T. Horton

            “There is no ‘theory” of ID. There isn’t even a testable hypothesis of ID. All ID has to offer is completely unsupported religiously motivated speculation.”

            As I stated, ID is an investigative hypothesis within ToE, rather than a separate, independently developed theory.

            “You can whine all you want about the evil atheist secret conspiracies to keep ID down but the simple fact remains ID has zero science to offer.”

            I don’t regard atheists as evil, just short-sighted.

            “There’s absolutely no positive evidence for any supernatural Designer of life. NONE.”

            ID does not propose supernaturality, nor a monotheistic designer. Just design.

            “The entire ID movement is 100% political shenanigans aimed at fooling gullible laymen.”

            There is no “entire” summation to ID proponents, which come in all flavors, from the extreme of Biblical Literalism, to open and objective investigation and assessment of the extant forensic data, with a mindset open to where ever the data leads. Science can (and does) make pre- and post-dictions, but needs to avoid having a fixed agenda.

            I presently hold strongly to ID, but would side with materialist conclusions if the data so indicated. But as time and research proceeds, that is far from the case at hand.

            “There’s a good reason that ID face planted so badly in Kitzmiller v. Dover, and a good reason why ID has never come close to any scientific respectability. Propagandists like Casey Luskin and Mr. Bowman here are exhibit 1A.”

            Evo diehards love to cite Kitzmiller v. Dover, but it was simply a case of a science illiterate Jurist being sold a lifetime supply of snake oil by the ‘consensus’ camp.

            Of all the expert testimony presented however, Behe’s rang the truest. But as a minority presenter, and one who was ‘witness led’ by clever attorneys, along with ‘theatrics’ on the level of Comedy Central [da books and papers], his valid criteria went in one Judicial ear and out the other.

            And now it’s time to read a contra view to consensus BS:
            http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-behe-on-the-witness-stand/

          • Timothy Horton

            As I stated, ID is an investigative hypothesis within ToE, rather than a separate, independently developed theory.

            It *could* be but sadly right now it’s not even that. In order to form testable, falsifiable hypotheses the IDiots would have to make assumptions about the powers and limitations of the Magic Designer. Not a single one has been willing to step up and actually do that. I’ll wager you won’t do it either.

            ID does not propose supernaturality, nor a monotheistic designer. Just design.

            Yeah, that’s the BS party line for propaganda purposes. Sadly in practice from the IDiot camp the Designer is always the Christian God. Always.

            Evo diehards love to cite Kitzmiller v. Dover, but it was simply a case of a science illiterate Jurist being sold a lifetime supply of snake oil by the ‘consensus’ camp.

            LOL! Another willfully ignorant IDiot claiming “we was robbed!!”. If you guys spent 1/1000 the time on research as you do bellyaching about how the world is so unfair to you maybe you’d have something to show. But you don’t.

            Of all the expert testimony presented however, Behe’s rang the truest.

            You must mean the part where he said ID is science like astrology is science. Got it.

          • LeeBowman

            LeeBowman “Of all the expert testimony presented however, Behe’s rang the truest.”

            Timothy Horton “You must mean the part where he said ID is science like astrology is science. Got it.”

            There has seldom been a better example of quote mining out of context than the Behe / astrology lie. Google those two words and get 19,400 hits, all but a few utter misquotes.

            Go here to get a better picture of what Behe really stated on Day 11, PM session:
            http://www.christianforums.com/t7430685-5/

          • Timothy Horton

            It’s a matter of public record what Behe said and how he embarrassed himself in Dover. All the other IDiot “experts” did the same.

            ID had its 15 minutes of fame, had its big chance on a national stage to showcase all their “science” and it failed miserably. That’s the part you reality-denying IDiots just can’t hand wave away.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            The trial transcript is available. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

            My persoanally favorite part begins, “Are you familiar with Dr.
            Hurd?”

            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm2.html#day12pm475

          • LeeBowman

            I suggest that both of you read my comment at christianforums.com, like provided above.

            And yes, I’ve read most of the testimony including Jones’ 139 page double spaced decision multiple times. And regarding Behe’s testimony on days 10-12, that’s where I came up with the term ‘witness leading’.

          • Timothy Horton

            I suggest that both of you read my comment at christianforums.com, like provided above.

            Why? If we needed any more ID crap from you we’d squeeze your head.

            You IDiots lost Dover because your ID “experts” and their pseudoscience sucked out loud and in three colors. Man up and deal with it.

          • LeeBowman

            It’s simply a clarification of Behe’s actual testimony, and his actual take on ‘astrology’. Apparently, you prefer to believe that a working scientist accepts astrology as valid science, or that it equates in any way with ID.

            Hmmmm, apparently witness leading followed by quote mining works as a valid indoctrination tool.

            If you are a true rational thinker you’ll dig a little deeper, consider the Plaintiff attorney’s desires and motives [ID discreditation], consider a working scientist’s rationality, and admit that the Internet is a convenient means to propagate outright lies.

            Or not ….

          • Timothy Horton

            It’s simply a clarification of Behe’s actual testimony, and his actual take on ‘astrology’.

            I’ve read the actual trial transcript and know exactly what Behe said, I don’t need a scientifically illiterate ID pusher to spin doctor it for me.

            Trial’s over. You IDiots lost big time because ID has no scientific case. It’s been 8 years since then and you still have no case. But keep whining about the unfair verdict if you want us to keep laughing at you.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Tell us, does Behe say that ID is a mechanistic theory or a non-mechanistic theory?

            Has Behe read all the papers that describe the evolution of the immune system before declaring it couldn’t have evolved?

            Yes, let’s read the trascript of the one person who didn’t chicken out on the ID camp.

          • Rich

            ID believes nature was designed, so yes it is by definition supernatural.

          • LeeBowman

            If by supernatural you mean prior to cosmic matter, that would be correct. My definition of ID however refers to biologic forms only, during which time matter already existed.

            Evidence of design within biologic forms is well supported by the data. Not so with cosmic formation however, a religious belief.

            If the cosmos was formed by some sort of directed action, then yes, supernaturality (by our definition) would fit that scenario. Gene tweaking however, need not.

            ID is a validation of design where inferred, but has no religious underpinnings as a source of confirmation. Only the data, quantified and qualified by statistical probabilities.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            For a number of professionally detailed studies of the evolution of complex organisms, see;

            Erwin, Douglas H., James W. Valentine
            2013 “The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Diversity” New York: Roberts and Company Publishers

            Carroll, Robert L.
            1998 “Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution” New York: Cambridge University Press

            Valentine, James W.
            2005 “On the Origin of Phyla” University of Chicago Press

            For professional level studies of the evolution of complex organs, see;

            The Eye

            Nilsson and Pelger,
            1994 “A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve” Proceedings of the Royal Society 256: 53-58.

            Dan-E. Nilsson, Lars Gislén, Melissa M. Coates, Charlotta
            Skogh & Anders Garm
            2005 “Advanced optics in a jellyfish eye” Nature 435, 201-205 (12 May)

            Ivan R Schwab
            2011 “Evolution’s Witness: How Eyes Evolved” Oxford University Press

            Teeth

            Teaford, Mark F., Moya Meredith Smith, and Mark W.J.
            Ferguson
            2000/2006 “Development, Function and Evolution of Teeth” Cambridge University Press

            For some good studies of evolution more directed to amateurs, see;

            Shubin, Neal
            2008 “Your Inner Fish” New York: Pantheon Books

            Carroll, Sean B.
            2006 “The Making of the Fittest” New York: Norton

            Prothero, Donald.
            2007 “Evolution: What The Fossils Say and Why It Matters” Colombia University Press.

          • Rolf Aalberg
          • Rich

            “CSI studies are currently underway by researchers”
            Great! Come back to the scientific table when you’ve got some results. If they’re good, I’ll support ID. Don’t waste time here when you’ve got important work to do!

      • Rich
        • LeeBowman

          OK then, it ‘raises’ the question.

          And as ‘Get It Right’ stated: “Sadly, the error has grown more and more common with time, such that even journalists, advertisers, and major mass media entities have fallen prey to “BTQ Abuse.”

          So I guess I’m not alone. Usage and definitions do however, change over time.

          • Rich

            You mean evolve? It’s okay, you can say it. ;-)

    • Soka Sema

      You are putting Creationism and ID together for a reason and it’s not because you have a winning argument.

  • Hrafn

    I would note that Luskin’s rather limited scientific qualifications includes no background whatsoever in biology, and that the ‘legal dimension’ of ID’s attempts to insert itself into education have been an abject failure.

    For all ID’s attempts to bill itself as secular “science”, it is only through explicitly religious avenues, like Ratio Christi that it is surviving. This is hardly surprising as ID itself is, like Ratio Christi, simply Christian apologetics. In the words of one of its own most prominent proponents, it is simply Christian “theology” that has been “restated in the idiom of” science (full quote “Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.” — William Dembski).

    • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

      The full Dembski ‘quote’ should have the citation, “Signs of Intelligence,” 1999, Touchstone magazine.

      ID creationism Goddfather Phillip Johnson admitted, “My colleagues and I speak of “theistic realism” — or sometimes, “mere creation” –as the defining concept of our movement. This [Intelligent Design] means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology.” 1996, “Starting a Conversation about Evolution” ARN

      http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/ratzsch.htm

      “The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ and ‘In the beginning God created.’ Establishing that point isn’t enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message.” Foreword to “Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science” (2000).

      • Soka Sema

        You keep equating ID with Creationism because you have no valid argument beyond what you learned in the 80′s when you were fired from your research position.

        • Wesley Elsberry

          Gary sees “intelligent design” creationism as a form of creationism because it offers a subset of the same content. There are the negative arguments against evolutionary biology, and then there are the apologetics-derived arguments, all of which have long histories with clear provenance in creationism. IDC doesn’t deliver anything in the apologetics-derived category that wasn’t seen before in “creation science”. Consult the Kitzmiller transcripts for DI Fellow Scott Minnich being forced to admit that the various “bacterial flagellum is designed” arguments could be found in “creation science” sources predating IDC, and being bewildered as to why that was relevant. The top four IDC arguments, “irreducible complexity”, “specified complexity”, cosmological arguments, and “privileged planet” arguments, all are derivations of arguments made by the Rev. William Paley in his 1802 “Natural Theology”. The only novelty IDC presents is in which apologetics-related arguments from “creation science” were considered too hot to handle for defending in a court room, thus defining the new subset, much as “creation science” excised direct biblical quotation to have a shot at legal vindication. The antievolution socio-political movement cannot admit this clear observation, as that would remove the pretense that IDC could be shoved into public school science curricula. Certainly the advocates of a legal sham (wording courtesy of the SCOTUS decision in Edwards v. Aguillard and citation thereof in the Kitzmiller decision) cannot be expected to say it was a fair cop. The evidence is quite clear to those of us who have read the sources.

          • Soka Sema

            Yeah all non-sense, thanks
            ID is not Creationism , just like Darwin’s original theory is not what Darwin’s theory is today.
            Just like we now know the universe is ever expanding outward and thus must be finite in the past therefore does have a beginning and initial cause.

          • John Pryce

            Did you actually read the court’s decision in Kitzmiller v Dover? I did.

          • Wesley Elsberry

            “Soka Sema” claims IDC is different from “creation science”, but does nothing to demonstrate any difference other than the one I already noted, that its content is a subset of the content of “creation science”. “Soka Sema” claims that I provided “non-sense”, yet one can verify that what I said about Scott Minnich is true by reading the Kitzmiller transcripts and that what I said about the top four IDC arguments having their provenance go back to Paley can be verified by reading Paley, As I said, those wishing to perpetuate a legal sham cannot be expected to admit the point.

      • Dr. Dumas Turd

        A Dr. of ANTHROPOLOGY!! Talk about a useless degree!! This explains his stupid self righteous misinformed statements!!

        The most useless degree imaginable. A PhD in Education is more useful. What a twat!!

        Do not listen to this joker, he is a bitter old man that thinks he knows WAY more then he actually does.

        All he does it make generalized misinformed guesses at what he “thinks.”

        Let’s all tell this retard to take his fake degree and shove it, along with his “know it all” worthless attitude!!

  • LeeBowman

    Lauren provides a good overview of Luskin’s talk, but obscures its essence to a degree; that of clarifying ID, and of removing any religious implications.

    ID is NOT religion in disguise, since it is based solely on empirical and statistical evidence (data). It has NO religious underpinnings, none whatsoever.

    Misconceptions regarding ID:

    [1] It is merely a form of religion in disguise, based (in part) upon

    * its adherents being largely Christian,

    * its formation followed a Federal Court ruling that ‘creation science’ was unconstitutional,

    *historical data regarding activities and declarations of the early DI,

    * its non-testability and non-falsifiability,

    * a lack of published peer reviewed studies regarding,

    * the fact that IC [irreducible complexity] has been disproven, and

    * a proclamation by a District Judicial Court citing the above in a two part ruling against a school board and against ID, which is not subject to judicial adjudication.

    Firstly, there are falsities within the above largely politically based assumptions. Secondly, where any are true to an extent, ID in-fact bows to none of the above in its conclusionary substance. Nor does it circumvent or replace evolutionary theory. Rather, it is an evidence (data) based hypothesis WITHIN the current theory, subject to the same testing and verification/ falsification as the Darwinist premise of natural (unguided) causation.

    And [2], so where’s the beef? Consider that

    * if ID fails confirmatory results over a testing time frame,

    * or when/if natural causation is confirmed empirically (it has not to date),

    the current theory of evolutionary ‘causations’ will reach a new plateau. And further, due to in-place constitutional and legal precedents, religion will/can NEVER enter the science classroom, a straw-man argument ad nauseam.

    ID in its true ‘hypothetical’ and ‘investigatory’ sense is solely science related, and will remain on the table (lab bench), regardless of politically based efforts to suppress it.

    • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

      Why not tell us where you copied that comment from, and why explain why you don’t honestly provide the source? The author was Loren Haarsma and you have plagiarized their work.

      • LeeBowman

        Nice try, Gary. But I never copy and paste w/o a reference to the source. Never.

        I write on the fly, as thots come to me. I may look up a definition or peruse a paper, by my words are my own.

        I do notice that you copy and paste your own comments repeatedly regarding purported fluff spoken or written by ID proponents such as Dembski and Johnson. But that’s OK. If worth stating once, why not do it again and again.

        I have repeated the following comment several times, where relevant, including this one posted on Landon Mills’ piece. And neither Zach, nor anyone else has commented back regarding. Click on ‘recent comments’ to see the actual comment:

        http://www.lsureveille.com/opinion/columnists/run-to-the-mills-should-the-louisiana-science-education-act/article_0e5fdd72-b1f7-11e2-852f-0019bb30f31a.html

    • DD

      So, in other words, you just have name calling “creation science” and dogmatic statements “religion will/can NEVER enter the science classroom” to express your feelings about this. Interesting.

      • LeeBowman

        … due to in-place constitutional and legal precedents …

        • DD

          There is nothing in the constitution that labels intelligent design a religion. That is just the dream of those with an ideologically-driven agenda to silence disagreement….as we see with global-warming “the science is settled” alarmists as well.

          • LeeBowman

            Correct, but my reference to the above was a refutation of the notion that ‘religion’ (not ID) could someday enter the science classroom. See the “open your textbooks” cartoon, near the bottom of the page.

            http://catcherintheryehour5.wikispaces.com/Religion

            And you’re of course correct that ID is not labeled as religion in the constitution, except that johnny-come-lately authorities such as Judge Jones, who got his biology 101 from expert witness Kenneth Miller at the Dover trial, has so stated as much in his ruling, and that many take that as a sort of legal precedent in that regard, which it is not.

          • DD

            So, you’re basing your constitutional reasoning on a cartoon. Glad you cleared that up for me.

            There is no immediate threat to the economy from leftist dogmatics in this area like there is from global warming alarmists so I don’t think as much fire power will be aimed at defending ID. But more and more scientists are taking a good look at ID, from the best universities, and yes some day it will be allowed in the scientific classroom….we’ll look back and be embarrassed at the intolerance and violations of academic freedom that are going on over this issue.

          • LeeBowman

            You make some good points:

            * There is no immediate threat to the economy (or science and adademia) from leftist dogmatics in this area.

            No long term threat, although the current resistance to open and objective science perusal constitutes a fascist approach to both academics and science.

            * … more and more scientists are taking a good look at ID, from the best universities, and yes some day it will be allowed in the scientific classroom …

            As long as it is presented as an adjunct hypothesis within evolutionary theory (which ID is), there is nothing stopping its discussion at present, sans bogus legal actions, restrictive policy dictates (Bass State U), and efforts by NAS and AAAS to prohibit ID, quell funding, and not allow peer review acceptance of any paper that openly discusses design inferences.

            http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml

            * So, you’re basing your constitutional reasoning on a cartoon.

            Nada. It’s just better than me recanting 1000 words. And as I hope you realize, the cartoon depicts a contrived notion that could never take place.

          • DD

            I wish what happened at Ball State was an isolated incident, but sadly it is not. I am not for forcing ID on anyone, just for allowing it a place at the discussion table and not ghettoizing it as religion.

          • The whole truth

            DD, if ID were actually scientific (especially in a positive, productive way) instead of a poorly masked religious-theocratic-creationist-dominionist-political agenda, it might deserve a place at “the discussion table”, but since it clearly is such an agenda and its pushers are thoroughly dishonest about it, it is ghettoized by its pushers.

            Tell you what, here’s your chance to bring ID to the discussion table: Calculate/measure the ‘CSI’ in a banana, a tadpole, an adult frog, a pool cue, a human, a dandelion, a 1/4 carat raw garnet, a butterfly wing scale, and a cancer cell, and show your work.

            (HT to Gary Hurd)

          • DD

            When you successfully misapply something, for example do a live experiment in paleontology, I’ll be happy to misapply CSI in the way your are suggesting.

          • Timothy Horton

            What is the correct way to apply CSI then? Why don’t the above requested items qualify? Do they not contain any CSI?

          • DD

            “Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information–that is, specified complexity from mere complexity.”

            http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

            This definition suggests that it is categorical information rather than something that can be measured as a continuous mathematical function. This would be similar to making a categorical distinction between animal and plant life. The fact that this distinction, in and of itself (yes I know there may be other ways of doing it), does not allow for continuous measure by no means suggests it is not scientific. Similarly, your question “Do they not contain any CSI?” is like demanding the taste of the color purple.

          • Timothy Horton

            This definition suggests that it is categorical information rather than
            something that can be measured as a continuous mathematical function.

            Sorry but the IDiots including Dembski have repeatedly claimed that CSI can be calculated and that a CSI value of over 500 bits provides 100% certainty of purposeful intelligent design. Yet when asked to actually produce such measurements they waffle just as you are doing.

            Reason #2845 why “Intelligent Design” isn’t science.

          • DD

            Please find for me where Dembski claimed to measure / quantify CSI as a continuous measure. Then do one for the distinction between plant and animal life showing your work.

            It is not incomprehensible that we could be able to measure complexity of design for say one category like living organisms. But as you might know if you were involved in science, going from definition / distinction to a general agreed-upon measure takes a long and agonizing process. Given outside militant secular political forces involved in this, the process will no doubt be even more rancorous than normal.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            Re: Dembski’s calculation of CSI

            1998 “The Design Inference – Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

            2002 “No Free Lunch. Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence” Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers

            In both of these books, Dembski directly claims that “CSI” can be calculated, and he compares this imaginary index to well studied measures that are continuous variables. The most notable example of the latter is Shannon’s Information measures; entropy, and surprisal, and Kolmogorov complexity. (For an extensive review see: “Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and Dembski’s Complex Specified Information” Wesley Elsberry, Jeffrey Shallit
            http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre/papers/eandsdembski.pdf

            In public talks, and on-line discussions, Dembski had promised to demonstrate a “live” computation of CSI in “No Free Lunch.” It never happened.

          • DD

            “In both of these books, Dembski directly claims that “CSI” can be calculated.”

            Did he claim to know how it can be calculated and to have done so, as you are trying to hold him to?

            “In public talks, and on-line discussions, Dembski had promised to demonstrate a “live” computation of CSI in “No Free Lunch.”"

            What exactly did Dembski say? I’ve heard too much of the “he said, he said, he said he read somewhere that ____ said X.”

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            I am resonable confident that you know less about Dembski’s books than I do.

            Chapter 3 of “No Free Lunch” is titled “Specified Complexity as Information.” It amounts to a 52 page assertion that Dembski’s phantom “Complex Specified Information” can be calculated in the same way as Shannon’s, but 5 pages into the chapter Dembski starts hedging by trying to redefine Shannon’s entropy measure. By page 144, Dembski is having a Napoleonic fantasy that his computable CSI unifies “the whole of physics,” and is “the base (for) a comprehensive theory of human consciousness.”

            Among other problems, Dembski could never calculate the “CSI” of anything. Show how the “CSI” of a BB, a bocce ball, a cannon ball, or a hail stone vary quantitatively. Now find a biological equivalent.

          • DD

            Yes, I have seen these and you still are not convincing me that Dembski anywhere said he had calculated CSI. There is a big difference between saying CSI can be calculated and saying that someone has already operationalized a measure of it.

            There is no reason why CSI could not be calculated, though clearly much more thought needs to go into it involving skills that Dembski perhaps does not possess. As far as Elsberry and Shallit, they are outspoken anti-ID partisans and have been for quite a while, which casts doubt on their conclusions. I am aware of who these people are, but please identify their positions before citing them as evidence.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            Well, if Dembski cannot calculate the core feature of ID creationism, then who could? Dembski invented this fraud, and earned a lot of money changing his definitions over the years. He bragged that he wouldn’t bother to publish in scientific, or scholarly journals because he made more money from selling books to his believers.

            If the core “scientific” measure for ID creationism is a fraud, then what is left?

            And, because you cannot competently reply to Elsberry and Shallit you try to dismiss them as “outspoken anti-ID partisans.” How can you pretend to be intellectually honest when you defend the failures of Dembski who has promoted ID creationism since 1992. That is much longer than Elsberry and Shallit have formally, rigorously, and properly exposed the intellectual failure of IDC.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            I am reasonably confident that you know less about Dembski’s work than I do. I have corresponded with Dembski, I have read his books. He has referred to me publicly (with some hostility, but less than I hold toward him). (Google “Hurd Dembski”)

            Chapter 3 of “No Free Lunch” is titled “Specified Complexity as Information.” It amounts to a 52 page assertion that Dembski’s phantom “Complex Specified Information” can be calculated in the same way as Shannon’s, but 5 pages into the chapter Dembski starts hedging by trying to redefine Shannon’s entropy measure. By page 144, Dembski is having a Napoleonic fantasy that his computable CSI unifies “the whole of physics,” and is “the base (for) a comprehensive theory of human consciousness.”

            Among other problems, Dembski could never calculate the “CSI” of anything. Show how the “CSI” of a BB, a bocce ball, a cannon ball, or a hail stone vary quantitatively. Now find a biological equivalent.

            I directed you to Elsberry, and Shallit. They are much better
            mathematicians than I am. They show that Dembski’s “measure” of “complex specified information” cannot be calculated. It is a bogus concept.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            I thought this discussion had faded.

  • BornRight

    Casey Luskin is talking nonsense as usual and repeating long-debunked arguments. Common descent can be distinguished from common design by the simple fact that living things naturally fall into nested hierarchies in family trees, whereas designed objects, such as cars, do not form nested hierarchies even though different cars may have the same parts.

    Horizontal gene transfers do occur, primarily in microbes, but common descent can still be seen if one looks at conserved genes. And the trees obtained by these molecular comparisons produce nested hierarchies that more often than not agree with trees obtained by comparative anatomy. Luskin’s claim that phylogenetic trees are only as good as the assumptions they make is wrong. Even as far back as 1963, scientists observed that comparing the conserved protein Cytochrome C produced a tree-like structure which resembled those obtained by anatomical comparisons.

    Differences and disagreements do occur now and then, but that’s how data is refined and science progresses.

    The comparison of information in DNA to computer software is fundamentally flawed. DNA is a chemical that can react with other chemicals and the environment spontaneously. What we perceive as information in DNA is simply a result of the chemical reactions it performs. Computer software doesn’t behave this way. Moreover, we know that software is designed because we know its designer (humans). Unless such a designer is shown to be behind DNA, it is fallacious to call it designed. Trillions upon trillions of DNA replications, cell divisions and molecular assemblies occur on the planet every second. How does ID explain this? The intelligent designer magically & covertly performs countless operations on earth’s biosphere every second in a manner that we cannot detect? Or is the explanation that cells are just bags of chemicals wherein chemistry occurs spontaneously, better?

    There’s zero evidence for ID. No supernatural designer is known to exist. We’ve recovered several transitional fossils showing the transition between apes & humans, land mammals & aquatic whales, fish & tetrapods, lizards & snakes, dinosaurs & birds etc exactly as evolutionary theory predicts. There’s no denying hard evidence. ID advocates hardly do any research of their own. Instead they spend most of their time & resources on attacking evolution, finding gaps in evolutionary theory that they can exploit and by fooling the less informed public through smart talk and misrepresentations of scientific studies. ID spokespersons who write books, such as Casey Luskin & Steven Meyer are untrained as scientists, yet they talk like authorities and take on real scientists who have spend decades doing real research. ID is a big political scam driven by a religious agenda (ID’s religious roots were exposed in the Dover trial). It’s a shame that some UC Irvine students are toeing their line. Students ought to be better informed.

    • John Pryce

      Last I saw, evolution averaged 17,000 scientific papers submitted for peer review per year. SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW, not published, so this number is not dependent upon any bias from the reviewer community. ID averaged less than 15 papers SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW in its best year. So I would say that ID advocates don’t do much research.

  • gil

    i study biology.
    first- i think have a very strong evidence for design in nature
    a) we know that a self replicate robot that made from dna need a designer
    b) from a material prespective the ape is a self replicate robot
    a+b= the ape need a designer
    or even a self replicat watch.the evolution side always say that a watch need a designer because it cant self rplicat. so if we will find a self replicat watch we need to say that is made by itself
    plus: if a self replicate car cant evolve into an airplan, how can a bacteria can evolve into human ?
    the evolution say that small steps for milions years become a big steps. but according to this a lots of small steps in self replicat car (with dna) will evolve into a airplan.
    but there is no step wise from car to airplan
    evolution say that common similarity is evidence for common descent. but according to this 2 similar self replicat car are evolve from each other
    according to evolution a car can evolve in a close room, beacuse a human can evolve in a close room and make a car

    checl also creation.com

    • Timothy Horton

      we know that a self replicate robot that made from dna need a designer

      We don’t ‘know’ that. That’s the hypothesis you’re trying to demonstrate.

      if we will find a self replicat watch we need to say that is made by itself

      Why?

      plus: if a self replicate car cant evolve into an airplan, how can a bacteria can evolve into human ?
      the evolution say that small steps for milions years become a big steps.
      but according to this a lots of small steps in self replicat car (with dna) will evolve into a airplan. but there is no step wise from car to airplan

      If you have replicars that reproduce with heritable variations, why couldn’t one evolve the ability to fly with enough time and small steps?

      Terrafugia – Flying Car

    • Rolf Aalberg

      Creationists make one fundamental error: They claim that life is comparable with non-living, non replicating manufactured objects.

      Come on, there is a fundamental difference, don’t you think? The only problem that one might point to is the question of how it got started – but that is irrelevant wrt evolution because we know it got started somehow.

      From then on, evolution from single celled to multi celled life was inevitable and that is what we see around us every day: All multi celled life forms starts as a single cell.

      Isn’t it marvelous how a single cell is capable of developing into a complete being – a tree or an animal, all by itself?

      When I see an argument like about “self replication cars with dna” I know we have hit rock bottom and am tearing my hair out, imitating Edvard Munch’s Scream.

    • BornRight

      From your nonsense statements it doesn’t seem like you’re studying biology. The comparison of living things with non-living man-made things itself is flawed as I said below. We know cars and planes are designed because they don’t exist naturally & they can’t function naturally. They don’t grow or evolve naturally. Instead, we know humans design them. We know the designers. But living things exist & function naturally, grow & evolve naturally without any external intervention. No designer is known to design living things. There is design in nature, of course, but the designer of nature is nature itself.

  • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

    I’ll reiterate my offer to address the UC Irvine’s Ratio Christi group on why ID creationism is a failure. It is a failure scientifically, and theologically.

    It is quite easy to contact me- the Alumni group seems to find me all the time. Just leave a message on my blog, Stones and Bones, http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/

    • DD

      Since you don’t make sense here and have to resort to ad hominem, why should we waste time giving you a base to spew your venom?

      • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

        What did you fail to understand?

  • Vick Cherey

    If you don’t believe God built everything perfectly you’re a God-damn sinful retard. That he designed.

  • allessior

    Why are so many who refer to themselves as “Scientists” get so upset when others would like to discuss ID in an academic setting? After all, most universities in the USA have majors in “Human Communication” and “Art History”, to name a few of the questionable areas of academic pursuit, so why not open the doors to ID, which is a science-based discipline? It is the height of arrogance to say that if you don’t have a PhD in Biology that you can’t debate Darwinism and evolution, but, it shows the ignorance of those who would say this because many ID researchers have degrees in Biology.

    There are also many engineers who have become proponents of ID. Are engineers scientists? I would argue that they are, since 95% of their curriculum is science and math. They are slightly different than scientists in that they use real-world boundary conditions when describing solutions.

    What is the fear Darwinians? If the evolution theories turn out to be true, it is more likely to win the day in the Academic setting. If ID is stronger, it will win the day.

    In the end, if we restrict the debate to areas only a select few people have decided are the “Right Areas “, then the competition of ideas to drive out the “bad ones” will have been lost. So relax Darwin-ites, if ID is a “bad idea”, then it will be eliminated from the academic debate by “Natural Selection”.