re: Intelligent Design: Skeptical Thoughts about the Skeptic

[Erich Cranor]

Mr Grumm finds two points of criticism for Kettlewell's Peppered Moth experiment--or does he.

First he asserts that this is the sole example of natural selection. Amusingly he later comments on this being a "thin reed" on which to rest a theory--amusing because he is, of course, attacking a straw man. There are plenty of examples of natural selection. The Kettlewell's just came particularly early, was observed in the wild, and occurred on a macro scale (as compared to bacterium or even fruit flies)

But suppose that it were actually true that we had only this example. How many examples does Mr Brumm expect we should see? Consider that there are on the order of 10^8 species on earth, that there are 2x10^8 square miles of land and suppose (generously) that each of these species evolved in only the last 10 million years. Allow that a dedicated observer spending his life on the job might accomplish 30 years of observation time, and allow that he might accurately monitor 10 square miles. Even then our dedicated observer has only a 3 in 200,000 of even having a chance of observing speciation. So just how many successes would Brumm expect?

Moreover, even just one bit of clearly observed well defined evidence would resoundingly trump the diddly-squat that ID proponents have come up with when it comes to showing any direct evidence to support their assertions.

Brumm's second point is just silly. Having set out to look specifically for evidence of Natural Selection, he faults the Peppered Moth observations as evidence because they don't explain the source of mutation. This is like saying that Newton's apple is a poor example of gravity because it doesn't explain how the earth came into existence. Natural Selection explains how a new species can prosper once it exists.

For explanations of how the new species comes into existence in the first place one must look into mutation. Tangentially I'll observe that the ID proponants manufacture 'gaps' here too. For example their so called biologists ignore the existence of polyploidy. Most of their so called 'gaps in evolution' are merely gaps in either their knowledge or their honesty, depending on how generous you want to be in judging their behavior.

[Bob Ignizio]

Good post, Erich. On a simpler level, the debate about putting ID in science class is ridiculous from the get go. Scientific theories deal with testable, falsifiable claims. That's why it's so disingenuous when evolution's opponents say, "evolution is just a theory, it hasn't been proven". Technically, neither has the theory of gravity. Science [i]can't[/i] prove anything absolutely. It can only disprove.

Valid scientific theories make certain predictions which can be tested and repeated. If a theory is tested enough times by enough different people, we assign it a high degree of probability. If science discovers a circumstance where the predictions made by a given theory do not hold true, then that theory must either be modified or discarded.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, starts with an untestable, unfalsifiable hypothesis. Everything was created at some point by a "designer" (code word for God, preferably the Christian one). There's just no way to disprove that. It's irrelevant to science. It's a question for philosophy and/or theology. Therefore, you don't teach it in science class.

Lets also be clear that, despite their attempts at appearing otherwise, proponents of Intelligent Design really intend to put forth only the literal fundamentalist Christian account of creation. There are plenty of sincerely religious people who believe God/gods/whatever created the universe, and still believe in evolution. They simply view evolution as the mechanism through which the creator accomplished his/her/its work. But that's not good enough for proponents of ID. They want the whole ball of wax - all species (or in their terminology "kinds") created as they are now by a creator with only minor variations coming about through adaptation, the world is only a few thousand years old, the flood, etc. All the evidence to the contrary doesn't matter. They take their Bible very literally, and if the scientific findings don't mesh with the Bible, they don't accept them. Sorry, but that's just not the way to go about getting at the truth.

Anyone interested in more detailed information about this subject with sources noted should check out this [url=http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/]website[/url].

[ryan costa]

I'm never quite sure where the Creationists or Intelligent Designers are coming from.

It is enough to say that Archeological and Geological evidence doesn't jive with Old Testament explanations of human origins.

Are the Creationists waivering between Sunday Baptism and Weekday Deism? I'm sure both authorize tax breaks and lenient pollution control standards.

[Jacob Hilty]

Hey there, this is a first time post for me.

I am writing because, although i don't feel it is correct, intelligent design is not completely a crackpot theory. The true backers of this theory are people who believe the issue is with irreducible complexity, not with the irrevocable inconsistencies of the bible and evolution. Reducing this to a creationist argument not only is not true it devalues your argument, by not even granting the opposition the courtesy of learning their position.

For those who don't know irreducible complexity is the idea that certain aspects of species could not have evolved because there comes a point at which there components have no use. The eye is an example often put forth as such an irreducibly complex piece of biological equipment. The idea being something like what is the use of a lens in your eye that doesn't actually focus on to a specific part of the eye. It seems unlikely that the lens and photosensitive areas that respond to it could have evolved simultaneously so why did they evolve. What advantage did they garner?

Now, I would like to reiterate i don't agree with ID but I think you should at least give it a fair shake before blasting it.

[ryan costa]

The shortcomings of the irreducible complexity idea are that biology itself is more complex than than the simple framing of 'natural selection through survival of the fittest' can deal with. Greg Bear explored ideas related to this in his Darwin's Radio novel. The gist of it is that our Immune systems interact with viruses to record information about the environmental opportunities and stressors the species confronts in its environment for hundreds or thousands or more generations.

On another hand if some intelligent entity or collection of entities is guiding evolution, we're going to have to give it a name. Like Neptune or Barry. Then we will have to incorporate it into the religious or philosphical bodies through which we perpetuate morals and stuff.

[Charyn Compeau]

..