Evolution not the only thing to be taught anymore?

[TeleMad]

Your point?

 

Did you see how I started off my post? I quoted Freethinker's statement and your rejection of it. Freethinker said...

 

Freethinker: There is not a single other SCIENTIFIC process to challenge Evolution Not a single one.

 

Now look at the very first question and response in the poll.

 

1. Are you aware of any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution?

1. Yes -- 4%

2. No -- 93

3. Not Sure -- 2

[Biochemist]

So you are saying that ID does not advocate that life was created? Does that mean that abiogenesis is a valid beginning of life according to ID?

 

(Clay, I have to admit that you have the best trailing quote. I wish I had thought of that one.)

 

No. ID folks do contend that life was created. The "Creationist" label carries a lot of other baggage with it that is not broadly held by ID advocates (e.g., young earth, numerous literal interpretations of Genesis 1-2, etc.)

 

On your question, I would probably need to get a little more info on what you mean by abiogenesis, but I suspect the answer is "maybe".

 

ID folks tend to suggest that there has not been enough time for complex systems to have grown from the chemcal soup (or from the cooling of the earth, or whatever starting point they select). Some credible statistical calculation supports this notion. I think that even the core "irreducible complexity" arguments are statistical. In other words, many systems are so complex that the odds of random occurrence are vanishingly low. Speaking parochially as a biochemist and pharmacologist, I find these arguments quite seductive.

 

On the specifics of your abiogenesis question (you may have to train me here a bit) I suspect some ID folks would allow for that path to life if one were to acknowledge that the abiogenic path was nurtured by a Designer in real-time. Again, I don't think that ID folks are homogeneous, and I am sure some folks would not like that position.

 

Heck. That would make them just like scientists. Disagreeing on stuff.

[TeleMad]

Speaking parochially as a biochemist and pharmacologist ...

 

... the mamalian sodium ion cell wall pump ...

 

I'm surprised that a 'biochemist' slash 'pharmacologist' wouldn't know that mammalian cells don't have cell walls.

[Biochemist]

Did you see how I started off my post? I quoted Freethinker's statement and your rejection of it. Freethinker said...

 

 

 

Now look at the very first question and response in the poll.

 

Yes, but 4% said yes, there is evidence. If I understand Freethinker's original assertions, there was a stark absence of evidence. Your poll suggests that not only is there evidence, but that 4% of the academics are aware of it. That is more than I would have thought.

[Biochemist]

I'm surprised that a 'biochemist' wouldn't know that mammalian cells don't have cell walls.

 

Thanks, he says, cowed.

[lindagarrette]

The deity would be the creator, in biochemists statement, correct? therefore, it is creationism.

Also, IDers think the creator is still tweaking the "design" in which case all our scientific theories are wrong.

[Biochemist]

The deity would be the creator, in biochemists statement, correct? therefore, it is creationism.

 

Believing in a role for a creator does not make you a Creationist. There are lots of folks that believe in a creator yet still favor evolution. The ID argument is that a creator was involved, but the technique may not have been described explicitly in Genesis 1-2 (as a Creationists would suggest.)

[TeleMad]

Yes, but 4% said yes, there is evidence.

 

4%! Wow!

 

1) Remember that in science there is no such thing as universal agreement, even when all the scientists are from the same field, let alone when scientists from at least 5 different fields are included in the poll. 4% "oddballs" would show up in a vast array of polls if each poll included astronomers, biologists, chemists, geologists, physicists, and scientists from other natural sciences. I read a book by a physicist who still argues that the lumeniferous ether does exist!

 

2) Note that the profressors polled teach in OHIO ... possibly the world's hot bed of Creationism and anti-evolution! This surely indicates that the 4% is inflated compared to what it would be if the survey were of US science professors as a whole.

 

3) Note that the poll included professors that teach in PRIVATE colleges and universitiesin Ohio. Many private colleges and universities have religious affiliations: and in Ohio - Creationism capital of the world - oh yeah, there'd be a lot of them.

 

So getting a whopping 4% in any poll isn't something someone should boast about, and getting 4% in this poll means even less.

[Biochemist]

Excuse me, but if you are going to use Behe's term irreducible complexity, you should use it correctly ... and you're not.

 

You've just thrown the term IC around haphazardly.

 

Behe also says...

 

So where's your demonstration that glycolysis is IC, considering that Behe says the TCA cycle, and other A-->B-->C-->D metabolic pathways, aren't?

 

A valid critique. I do not mean to be haphazard, and I appreciate you pointing it out. I did not mean to suggest that a lone enzyme pathway is necessiarily irreducible, although it might be.

 

I probably should not have included my reference to glycolysis earlier without including the other parts of the "complex machine" in the framework (e.g., the signals to transcribe proteins from DNA when more glycolytic machinery is needed, the physical arrangement of glycolytic proteins within the cell, the multiple inhibitors and accelators of the glycolytic pathway, the paucity of inhibitors/accelators that are not directly involved in the glycolytic process, etc.) I appreciate your attention to this point.

[TeleMad]

I probably should not have included my reference to glycolysis earlier without including the other parts of the "complex machine" in the framework (e.g., the signals to transcribe proteins from DNA when more glycolytic machinery is needed, the physical arrangement of glycolytic proteins within the cell, the multiple inhibitors and accelators of the glycolytic pathway, the paucity of inhibitors/accelators that are not directly involved in the glycolytic process, etc.)

 

That still leaves the question. Are you claiming that glycolysis is irreducibly complex?

 

If yes, then you need to do as Behe states and demonstrate that it is. You can't just say "Wow look how complex and how many parts" and assert that it is IC ... you have to do an IC analysis to support such an assertion.

 

If no, then you can't use Behe's IC arguments against evolution to argue that glycolysis couldn't have evolved. And, you'd be back to the old "gee it's so complex, it couldn't have evolved" arguments: you'd lost the 'compelling force' of the IC argument.

[C1ay]

No. ID folks do contend that life was created. The "Creationist" label carries a lot of other baggage with it that is not broadly held by ID advocates (e.g., young earth, numerous literal interpretations of Genesis 1-2, etc.)

 

The belief that life was created is creationism even if you don't want to call it that. Creationism simply means that life was created, regardless of any extraneous baggage others maybe attach to it.

 

On your question, I would probably need to get a little more info on what you mean by abiogenesis, but I suspect the answer is "maybe".

 

I mean exactly what the dictionary defines the term as, "the spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter called also autogenesis, spontaneous generation."

[Biochemist]

4%! Wow! ......

So getting a whopping 4% in any poll isn't something someone should boast about, and getting 4% in this poll means even less.

 

Hmmm. It sound to me like you are trying really hard to discount the opinion with looking at the facts within it. I don't know what those folks in the survey thought. I don't know how many of the respondants were thoughtful at all. But I certainly can't discount it merely because it is only 4%. Remember the earlier assertion was that there is NO scientific evidence. I think that cliam is poorly supported.

[TeleMad]

The belief that life was created is creationism even if you don't want to call it that. Creationism simply means that life was created, regardless of any extraneous baggage others maybe attach to it.

 

I agree with Biochemist on this: (true) ID and Creationism are not the same.

 

“My” definition of a Creationist, which agrees with the common definition, is a person who:

 

1. Takes a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation in the Bible (a 24-hour-day, 6-day creation).

 

2. Claims that the creation was a purely divine action – that is, the Universe was created ex nihilo (“out of nothing”) and without the aid of any natural processes.

 

3. Claims that this 6-day creation occurred only about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.

 

4. Claims a global, catastrophic flood occurred as described in the Bible in relation to Noah (and that the fossil record can be interpreted accurately using such a non-evolutionary view).

 

 

These are the “core” attributes of a Creationist as the term is generally used. Intelligent Design does not share these Creationists’ beliefs.

 

Here are a couple of quotes that support “my” definition of a Creationist.

 

“’Because creationists believe that God created the universe, the Earth, and life in 6 days 10,000 years ago, any science that contradicts that view – including the big bang theory, the geologic timescale, and the validity of radioactive decay as a measure of great age – is vulnerable’, says Marshall Berman of Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico. ‘We have to realize that this is an assault on all science,’ he says.” (Bernice Wuethrich, Scientists Strike Back Against Creationism, Science, Oct 22, 1999, p 659)

 

“In formulating its position on scientific creationism in Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court cited the District Court in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. According to the court, scientific creationism is not just similar to the Genesis account of creation but is in fact identical to it and parallel to no other creation story. Because scientific creationism corresponds point for point with the creation and flood narratives in Genesis, the Supreme Court found scientific creationism to be a religious doctrine and not a scientific theory.” (Intelligent Design, William A. Dembski, InterVarsity Press, 1999, p248)

 

“Now while there are many different religious beliefs related to life and human origins, the doctrine most at odds with modern scientific theories is called Creationism. It’s an aspect of the fundamental Christian beliefs. Creationism is based on a literal interpretation of versions of the Bible, primarily as they have been translated into Latin or English, and Creationism rests upon three principle ideas.

 

The first of these is that the Earth and the rest of the Universe were created relatively recently, perhaps about 10,000 years ago. This is based on a literal reading of the Bible and its chronology.

 

The second precept of Creationism is that all life forms were created by God in a miraculous event, more or less in their modern forms. This comes from the first verses of Genesis and the description of the creation of life.

 

A third precept is that the present disrupted surface of the Earth and the distribution of the fossils are primarily consequences of one great catastrophic flood. And this corresponds to Biblical accounts of the great flood: the Noakian deluge.

 

Creationists accept these three statements on faith. They are not falsifiable by the scientific method. They’re not subject to modification based on observations of the natural world. These are religious beliefs.” (Dr. Robert Hazen, “The Great Principles of Science”, lecture 55 of 60 in the video lecture series, produced by The Teaching Company)

[Biochemist]

The belief that life was created is creationism even if you don't want to call it that. Creationism simply means that life was created, regardless of any extraneous baggage others maybe attach to it.

 

 

 

I mean exactly what the dictionary defines the term as, "the spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter called also autogenesis, spontaneous generation."

 

You have certainly redefined Creationism. Feel free to do so, but it does add to to work of responding to any questions in an articulate fashion from ID advocates.

 

With respect to the abiogenesis, I really thought that most folks do not include spontaneous generation within the concept (dictionary or not.) The classic examples of spontaneous generation were things like horsetail hairs falling into the water trough and generating worms. I recognize that these ideas wander a bit in normal useage, and that is why I asked for a little clarification. I suspect that you do not believe in spontaneous generation the way I described it, and that the contemporary usage of abiogenesis is much more narrow. I am certianly open to a critique of my understanding on this.

 

On the Creationism point, the reason that is is useful to be narrow in usage is to improve discussion. It would be unreasonable of me to attack your (potential) support of abiogenesis because you believe in spontaneous generation. All it does is create a false association.

[Biochemist]

I agree with Biochemist on this: (true) ID and Creationism are not the same.

 

“My” definition of a Creationist, which agrees with the common definition, is a person who:

 

1. Takes a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation in the Bible (a 24-hour-day, 6-day creation).

 

2. Claims that the creation was a purely divine action – that is, the Universe was created ex nihilo (“out of nothing”) and without the aid of any natural processes.

 

3. Claims that this 6-day creation occurred only about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.

 

4. Claims a global, catastrophic flood occurred as described in the Bible in relation to Noah (and that the fossil record can be interpreted accurately using such a non-evolutionary view).

 

 

Agreed

[Biochemist]

That still leaves the question. Are you claiming that glycolysis is irreducibly complex?

 

If yes, then you need to do as Behe states and demonstrate that it is. You can't just say "Wow look how complex and how many parts" and assert that it is IC ... you have to do an IC analysis to support such an assertion.

 

If no, then you can't use Behe's IC arguments against evolution to argue that glycolysis couldn't have evolved. And, you'd be back to the old "gee it's so complex, it couldn't have evolved" arguments: you'd lost the 'compelling force' of the IC argument.

 

We may have gotten wrapped around the axle here. I offered a set of complex systems as candidates for irreducible complexity. The candidates are legion. I agree with you that to promote a complex system from candidate to example takes some quantitative investigation to allow for credible refutative falsification. I did not mean to offer a list of systems that have progressed through that schema to the level of refutable example.

 

I think your critique of my argument is very productive.

[TeleMad]

Hmmm. It sound to me like you are trying really hard to discount the opinion with looking at the facts within it.

 

I've been through this with others here just a week or so ago. I started off as a Young-Earth Creationist, then gave up a young-Earth and changed to a hard-core anti-evolutionist, then finally graduated up to being an IDist, which is where I stayed for many years ... before becoming a full-fledged evolutionist. I've got hunderds of posts at ARN and at Infidels, and at other "evolution vs. creation" discussion forums, where I argued for ID. I've watched at least 4 ARN videos on ID and have read at least half a dozen books on ID. I know ID.

 

Biochemist: Remember the earlier assertion was that there is NO scientific evidence.

 

The statement was not that there was no scientific evidence against evolution, but rather...

 

Freethinker: There is not a single other SCIENTIFIC process to challenge Evolution Not a single one.

 

There is scientific evidence against the heliocentric universe (in a dichotomous geocentric/heliocentric model). That is, there's scientific evidence that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Go outside and take measurements every half hour of the position of the Sun. You are staying still but the Sun is moving across the sky throughout the day. Hence, empirical, scientific evidence that supports the notion that the Sun revolves around the Earth. But there is no valid scientific theory that says the Sun revolves around the Earth, and there is no scientific alternative to the Earth going around the Sun.

 

Also, it is largely agreed that intelligent design is not SCIENCE. Just because something is based on scientific concepts doesn't make it science (you've got physicists that claim there is scientific evidence of UFOs, but that doesn't make UFOlogy science). And note Freethinker's emphasis on SCIENTIFIC.

 

And 93% of science professors - in one of the worst possible places for support of evolution ... Ohio - agreed with Freethinker's statement.