Letters: Evolution backer disrespects others

What I like about James Houk’s letter of Aug. 25 (in response to mine of Aug. 20) is his description of science. He said, among other things, that “Standard science ... is our best attempt to understand the world as it actually is.” I could not agree more.

Where Professor Houk and I diverge is on the treatment of scientists and scientific findings that cast doubt on the adequacy of Darwin’s theory. He disrespects anyone who disagrees with his pro-Darwin position, including the 800 highly credentialed scientists who have endorsed the statement “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” He belittles all of the signatories by referring to them as “scientists,” adding the quotation marks.

Houk also accuses all who question Darwin as having an “anti-evolution agenda.” Actually, I find the reality of evolution is not in doubt by any of the scientists who have published books and articles on the subject. The controversy (and it is indeed a controversy) is over the mechanisms involved. The actual mechanisms that drive evolution have not been found, and the quest for the truth remains one of the great unsolved problems in science. Another rhetorical ploy used persistently by many Darwinists in general and by Houk in particular is to brand all who question Darwin as pushing “a religious agenda.” While there are indeed a few people with that motive, it is quite wrong to assume that all the scientists who question Darwin have that view. My reading of their books indicates that they are keenly focused on the scientific issues. To accuse them all of having a hidden agenda is disrespectful and contemptuous.

I urge interested readers, including Houk, to judge for themselves by looking up some of the leading authors and their books on the weaknesses in Darwin’s theory, including Stephen C. Meyers, Donald E. Johnson, Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Jerry Fodor, Michael Denton, Lee Spetner, Thomas Woodward, and Geoffrey Simmons.

Cecil R. Phillips

management consultant

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by potkcalb - 05/09/2012

You're right nimby, and it was not a legitimate science topic to begin with.

2) Comment by nimby? - 05/09/2012

the chicken , or the egg , or ???? the Advocate is getting a lot of mileage out of this topic ....

3) Comment by 1ryben - 04/09/2012

The causation argument can't end there. Who then, created the "creator?" if you can believe that this Creator can "just exist" then just believe that matter has always "just existed." ----When you reach the limit of your knowledge you can't just input a deity there and call it a day. Mankind has done that for ages, and for ages mankind has proven that it was some other natural mechanism in place and not a god. ----Something from nothing? I bet that'll make a great book....oh wait, it is. Lawrence Krauss, "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing"

4) Comment by krl777 - 04/09/2012

Simplest definition of evolution: What happens when you have a set of characteristics which vary across a population, are heritable, and confer differential reproductive success on entities or organisms that carry them, depending on conditions in the environment. A Dawkins-eye view of this: Originally, the characteristics are characteristics of replicator molecules (e.g., survive and replicate well in acidic environments, or in warm environments). Later, the replicators build bodies to carry through the world. At that point, the relevant characteristics are characteristics of those bodies (e.g., survives and reproduces well when water is scarce, attracts or repels potential mates, etc). On this view, we are just gene carriers, and they dispense with us when they no longer need us.

5) Comment by chem - 04/09/2012

RickK: Good input to the discussion. Technically, you are correct that anything can evolve. For example, a glacier that is moving and melting is evolving and it is certainly not alive. But in the context of the ongoing discussion, we are talking about evolution in the sense that Darwin put forth. While very interesting in and of itself, the origin of life is very different from evolution, which is the change in living species over time. I may be splitting hairs but I do see your point. Certain molecules have a propensity to self-assemble and by evolving, they spring forth rudimentary life, so in that sense, evolution is continuous from that point to the present. Very interesting concept. ***** I think it will be within the next decade that someone will create life from non-life. And when that happens, where does that leave the apologists regarding "god"?

6) Comment by RickK - 04/09/2012

chem said: "Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life". While I agree with most of what you say, chem, I have to disagree with you there. We've demonstrated that self-replicating molecules (that nobody would call "life") actually evolve - the more efficient replicators replicate more, and minor variations that improve replication efficiency get passed to greater numbers of "offspring". The most likely scenario is that evolution started before there was anything like what we would call "life", and the first life was an emergent property of evolving replicators. And the line between what was "alive" and not "alive" was probably pretty fuzzy in the early days. This is not a "just so" story - it is the best interpretation of the data we currently have and of the experiments we've run to date. And I personally think it's a pretty cool idea.

7) Comment by RickK - 04/09/2012

Fjsteven: "No effect can be greater than its cause" - WHAT? Where did you get that? The universe is full of examples of tiny recurring causes that result in massively complex effects: the interaction of water molecules at low temperatures resulting in fabulously complex ice crystals; tiny calcium-producing animals resulting in islands, atols, and barrier reefs; the relatively simple mechanisms of evolution resulting in spectacular diversity of life. These are just a few examples. Where did you get this odd statement?

8) Comment by RickK - 04/09/2012

Fjsteven said: "it is a scientific impossibility that matter created itself from nothing" Please name the cosmologist that says the universe came from "nothing". Since I've only ever heard the "something from nothing" statement from religiously-motivated creationists, I sincerely doubt that ANY cosmologist has said "the universe came from nothing". So please cite your source. And if you can't cite a non-creationist source for that statement, I suggest you cease using it.

9) Comment by chem - 04/09/2012

And let's not forget that it was a catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, that proposed the "big bang" theory.

10) Comment by krl777 - 04/09/2012

I'm delighted to see Fjsteven revive arguments of Thomas Acquinas from 1260-75, even without attribution. But keep two things in mind. First, Thomas Acquinas would have been burned at the stake if he had arrived at conclusions substantially different from the ones he argued for. (He got into enough trouble as it was just by employing Aristotelian logic.) Second, the leading intellectuals of the Catholic Church today, the modern counterparts to Saint Thomas Acquinas, accept modern evolutionary theory and cosmology. They just don't see the existence of God as hinging on the outcome of temporal scientific investigation.

11) Comment by chem - 04/09/2012

Protean hit the nail on the head. Just because something is not known is no reason to invoke gods into the mix. That is precisely how religion was started -- by primitive people that knew essentially nothing about the world and started all of this nonsense to explain natural phenomena such as rain, thunder, lightning, floods, earthquakes, etc. Many kindergarten children know more about the world than the primitive, ignorant people who started all of this religious claptrap. Proof is something tangible that can be reproduced by others. Simply stating there is a god is not proof. Simply stating that the bible said it is not proof. And simply invoking a god because you don't understand something is not proof. fjsteven, you have not offered anything except some statements that do not even follow the rules of logic and reason. You are the one who keeps asserting that there is a god, so prove it. Show me, and everyone else, the proof that a god exists. And please don't repeat the nonsense about causation.

12) Comment by Chucky - 04/09/2012

So i gave him the $ and let him sort out the creation, not a soul saving thing is it?

13) Comment by krl777 - 04/09/2012

The discussion created by Fjsteven, which indifferently mixes philosophy and theology with science, and questions about the origins and development of species with questions about the origins and development of the cosmos, is too rich for my blood. A few comments to help simmer this unruly stew down into something people might reasonably address. Our best current science tells us that the universe we observe emanated from a big bang event. That's a solid empirical inference to the best explanation, regardless of how uneasy you are with the idea of the big bang. Science may or may not eventually elucidate the circumstances of the big bang, and whether it even makes sense to talk of a moment "before" the big bang. If time started at that point, as some cosmologists suggest, there is no sense to the question of what happened before the big bang. That question presupposes that time is a fixed backdrop to events in the universe, a presupposition that some modern cosmology challenges. If there is no time "before" the big bang, and no space outside it, the question of what caused the big bang may be literally meaningless. Anyway, whether or not science does elucidate that matter, it isn't clear that positing a First Mover who caused the big bang is doing anything other than putting a label on our ignorance. Turning to the completely separate topic of speciation, evolutionary theorists argue among themselves about whether natural selection always increases information in the genome, or what that even means. The view of the Dawkins camp is that the space of evolutionary possibilities is an equipotential space of possibilities, and that selecting one possible feature over another "adds information," in much the same way that you "add information" to a uniform log by carving a bear out of it instead of carving a person out of it. Others are more inclined to stress that hopping from one species to another on the space is a CHANGE in what is encoded in the associated genomes, but not necessarily an ADDITION. Again, a grape has as many genes by most counts as a human being. The presumption that we know what genes are, we know how much information is in a genome, we know that complexity regularly and uniformly increases through natural selection -- these are all false, or naive at best. They are assumptions that emerge from reading popular science literature, and not very good popular science literature at that.

14) Comment by Protean - 04/09/2012

You misunderstand ad ignoratiam.  That part arises with your choice of either natural or supernatural causation.   In effect, you’re merely putting a new set of emperor’s clothes on the old and pointless claim that “if we don’t know how it happened, then god did it”.   You also claim that the natural world argument seems ad ignoratiam.  Incorrect.  The scientific approach is that if we don’t know the answer – yet – then we simply don’t yet know the answer.  No need to conveniently assign a supernatural agent just to make ourselves feel good.  No need for faith.  Just keep on studying the problem.  An answer may arise tomorrow.  Then a better one next year.  Will the final version arise in the year 2525?   Maybe never.  But claiming that “god did it” remains nothing more than a cheap excuse to carry on worshipping fear and intellectual laziness.  As for “no effect is greater than its cause” … what does that mean, if anything?  Seems to me you’re making up stuff as you go along.  Well, try turning your argument on yourself.  If everything has a beginning and a cause, then when did your god begin, and who caused it to happen?  Then what caused the god-creating entity to spring into existence, along with how and when?  As for the claim that the universe was created from “nothing”, that’s yet another creationist strawman.   The proper claim is that we don’t yet know what brought the universe into existence or if this is a meaningful question.  Saying “god did it” is too easy and absolutely unproductive.   Since you enjoyed the logic course so much, here’s another bit of homework.  Look up “false analogy” and then reconsider your airplane-from-a-junkyard situation.

15) Comment by grimcity - 04/09/2012

Fjsteven, like the Violent Femmes, forgot what the 8 is for.

16) Comment by potkcalb - 04/09/2012

No Psteven it is nonsense. It is not evidence of anything much less proof. You are claiming to know more than you know. Repeating the same thing over and over again is not going to convince anyone of anything other than your religious commitment. .

17) Comment by Fjsteven - 04/09/2012

1) anything that has a beginning has a cause 2) the universe had a beginning 3) therefore the universe had a cause 4) the cause could be natural or supernatural 5) the cause must be supernatural because natural can't create itself from nothing. 6) no effect is greater than its cause 7) the effect is loaded with information, energy, design, intelligence, beauty, order, mathematical equations, etc 9) therefore the supernatural cause must be intelligent, powerful, beautiful, etc,

18) Comment by potkcalb - 04/09/2012

"Then when a proof is suggested" What proof? Please cite. Creationists remind me of conspiracy theorists who believe that absence of evidence of a conspiracy is further evidence of a conspiracy.

19) Comment by Fjsteven - 04/09/2012

chem, I read the refutation. However, I'm not persuaded by it. If I understood it correctly, it basically stated that everything we know about causation is found in the natural world. Therefore, one can't argue that a cause existed outside of the natural world that began the natural world. This seems to be an argument from ad ignorantum. Essentially this argument is stating that the universe had a beginning, but it created itself from nothing without a cause. That's takes a lot of faith to believe. More than I have. Also, to Protean, thanks for the link. Very informative, however, I don't believe that I committed the fallacy of ad ignorantium as you suggest. I argued that there must be a first cause, and that no effect is greater than its cause. Since we know the material properties of the effect, it provides clarity to the properties of the cause. Does it not? And to potkalb. You guys say, we don't have to prove anything. Chem says, you prove it. Then when a proof is suggested, you guys claim it's unprovable. If it is unprovable, then why are you guys asking for proof? It's mighty convenient to say, we don't have to offer any proof, and any proof that you may offer is illegitimate.

20) Comment by chem - 04/09/2012

Here is a link to the cause and effect argument. I picked this one because it is succinct, cogent, and lucid. There are many more such refutations to be found. http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/God-Causation- Time.htm

21) Comment by chem - 04/09/2012

The rant about "causation" from fjsteven sounds like a rehash from thomas aquinas, first postulated in the 13th century. There are many refutations to this argument. Simply look it up. What fjsteven said does not, in any way, prove that a god exists. As for fjsteven's assertion that it is atheists (or science?) that has the obligation to prove that god does not exist, that is nonsense. Science is not in the business of proving or disproving gods and since atheists do not believe in such things, it is up to those that do believe to show that a god does exist. In any endeavor, it is always up to the person putting forth a postulate to prove the postulate. One does not throw out some notion and then say to everyone else, prove me wrong. The onus is on the originator of the postulate.

22) Comment by potkcalb - 04/09/2012

Psteven what do you expect me to say in response to the absurd assertion that the burden of proof that "God" does not exist is on the unbelievers? That is a cop out. There is no evidence nor has there ever been evidence of a god. The fact that one can not be validated or that there are scientific questions that have not been answered does not indicate the existence of one. I don't consider it scientifically provable either way since no one can claim to know more than they know. To entertain the question strikes me as foolish speculation.

23) Comment by grimcity - 04/09/2012

"The actual mechanisms that drive evolution have not been found, and the quest for the truth remains one of the great unsolved problems in science." ...this quote is simply not true. Changes in an allele frequency over time have demonstrably been shown to be a result of random mutation and natural selection. We use human-caused mutation and selection in nearly every bio, pharma, and agricultural trade as a tool. There's no argument inside the scientific community about this. I'd also add that Darwin has as much to do with our current understanding of biological evolution that Henry Ford does to a 2012 F-250.

24) Comment by Protean - 04/09/2012

There isn't any evidence for theism: hence the utter dependence of its victims on the word faith. As for the alleged proof of your god, it's still not there. Maybe this will help: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx. See how many logical fallicies you've invoked. You can start with Ad Ignorantium and work down from there. Of course, you can always argue "we don't need no steeenkin logic". That being the case, why bother to fake it?

25) Comment by Fjsteven - 04/09/2012

As I predicted in one of my earlier posts, Potkalb never offers positive evidence for evolution, nor does he ever refute positive evidence for theism. He is content to ridicule and demean but never offer anything of substance.

26) Comment by potkcalb - 04/09/2012

There is no point in anyone trying to responding intelligently to Psteven. Let him ramble.

27) Comment by Fjsteven - 04/09/2012

chem in response to your question about proving God's existence. You state that the burden of proof is not on the atheist to prove that God doesn't exist, but on the theist to prove that he does. I would disagree with that since it is a scientific impossibility that matter created itself from nothing. Furthermore, if you or anyone else were to look at a machine, painting, etc., you would automatically conclude that someone designed and created it. You would never assume that an airplane in a junkyard built itself. Yet, the simplest single called organism is more complex than any machine a human has ever built, but you assume that it had no designer or intelligent agent behind its construction. This is illogical, and pits the burden of proof on you to prove that time and random chance can create complex machines loaded with information codes. However, since you are asking for proof, here it is. 1) anything that has a beginning has a cause 2) the universe had a beginning 3) therefore the universe had a cause 4) the cause could be natural or supernatural 5) the cause must be supernatural because natural can't create itself from nothing. 6) no effect is greater than its cause 7) the effect is loaded with information, energy, design, intelligence, beauty, order, mathematical equations, etc 9) therefore the supernatural cause must be intelligent, powerful, beautiful, etc,

28) Comment by Fjsteven - 04/09/2012

No attempt to deceive. I wasn't aware of the background information related to the video. However, Im still interested in your understanding of my original question as it relates to natural selection and its inability to move evolution in the right direction? I did read the blog that chem posted, and I do not understand Dawkins' response, however, that natural selection adds information to the genome. How is this possible when natural selection eliminates the less fit and removes information from the genome? In other words as natural selection does it's magic resulting in new species, the new species has less variability and less ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions. This is the exact opposite of what would need to occur if natural selection was the mechanism responsible for evolving simple forms into more complex forms. All it does is remove the less fit from an existing population. It doesn't create anything.

29) Comment by Fjsteven - 04/09/2012

No attempt to deceive. I wasn't aware of the background information related to the video. However, Im still interested in your understanding of my original question as it relates to natural selection and its inability to move evolution in the right direction? I did read the blog that chem posted, and I do not understand Dawkins' response, however, that natural selection adds information to the genome. How is this possible when natural selection eliminates the less fit and removes information from the genome? In other words as natural selection does it's magic resulting in new species, the new species has less variability and less ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions. This is the exact opposite of what would need to occur if natural selection was the mechanism responsible for evolving simple forms into more complex forms. All it does is remove the less fit from an existing population. It doesn't create anything.

30) Comment by krl777 - 03/09/2012

Thanks chem. There is an obvious discontinuity in the Dawkins interview, which the producers attempt to paper over. No idea what happened there, but the Skeptic article gives Dawkins' version. Whatever it was, the interview was clearly not what it purports to be. Fjsteven, were you trying to deceive us, or were you actually gullible enough to be fooled by this?

31) Comment by chem - 03/09/2012

This is a response to the very peculiar youtube link given by fjsteven. I watched that "interview" and it struck immediately as not being legitimate. The question posed to Dr. Dawkins is about a topic in which he is an expert. The following link clarifies what happened and that it was a deceptive hatchet-job by an Australian fundamentalist group. Read this: http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/creationistdeceptionexpose d.htm

32) Comment by krl777 - 03/09/2012

Yes, it is POSSIBLE that genomes were designed, or that there were occasions of "guided causation" in the evolution of current genomes. It is even logically possible that there are interventions at certain points in every instance of ontogenetic development. Aliens, gods, mysterious supernatural forces, genies, etc. Every scientist should exercise his or her judgment whether the facts merit recourse to such hypotheses, and science shouldn't dismiss these possibilities out of hand. Reality is whatever it is, and if genies lie behind the work of genes, or the evolution of functioning genomes, we can only hope that we will eventually find overwhelming evidence of them. But we have no right to ignore the fact that the invocation of ultra-naturalistic forces has a dismal track record, and has traditionally been the preserve of peddlers of superstitious nonsense. The exceptions are those cases when what seemed like ultra-naturalistic turned out to be an aspect of nature which was not previously recognized or understood (e.g., quantum theory). But the ID theorist should not pin too much hope on that -- if it turns out that something mysterious and apparently ultra-naturalistic turns out to be involved in ontogenetic development, or the evolution of genomes, causing an appearance of "guided causation," the chances are that that mysterious force will turn out, upon inquiry, to just be a previously undiscovered chapter of the book of nature. Perhaps the ID theorist will claim vindication in that event. More likely, I suspect, the ID theorist will slink on to the next frontier of science, where some other fundamental facet of nature is ill-understood, opening up new opportunities for otherworldly agents.

33) Comment by leebowman - 03/09/2012

Yes, "guided causation" is ID, but also [prediction] simply a form of genetic engineering, or recoding of a particular genome. For us to do that, it would involve capturing an egg from an ovary using a gonadotropin drug for inducement, which is currently done for In Vitro fertilization. - - - Then, altering its genomic coding to produce a progeny with an altered physiology. Done multiple times, while comparing the outcomes with the coding modifications, in time, it might be possible to establish a method of producing altered phyla [radically new species]. - - - While we may have no motive to do such, other intelligences may have in the distant past. And using different techniques, it may well have been done In Vivo as well. - - - And now the question of who/when/where ... unanswerable, but consider not just aliens [a current hypothesis, but untestable]. Consider also the valid possibility of MDT, since the competitive nature of earthly bioforms would fit that scenario. - - - http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/09/introduction-to.html

34) Comment by chem - 03/09/2012

It seems to me that if someone is going to argue for intelligent design, that is, a god made everything, then it is up to that person to first prove their is a god -- an intelligent designer. Otherwise, all of their stupid suppositions are utterly worthless. So go ahead. Prove it.

35) Comment by chem - 03/09/2012

"guided causation" -- another way of stating "intelligent design". All of the nonsense that has been put forward by the religious cartel has been rebutted many times and each time shown to be wrong. Evolution is linked to the origin of life? How so? While living things obviously have to be available for evolution to occur, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. One cannot simply redefine terms just to satisfy ones beliefs. You know what: I think I'll redefine what 5 is. From now on 5+5=8. Voila. That now fits my world view.

36) Comment by krl777 - 03/09/2012

Fjsteven plagues us with a simplistic conception of the genome as encoding a fixed "quantity" of information, and gives an argument from lack of imagination that the "quantity" of information doesn't increase with mutation. I am not aware of any reputable formulation of genomic information "quantity". There is certainly no such quantification based on the number of genes, since we don't really know how many genes humans or other organisms have, but on most estimates, grapes seem to have more genes than humans (see http://news.discovery.com/human/human-gene-count.html). All bow to the mighty grape!

37) Comment by krl777 - 03/09/2012

The rest of leebowman's argument is the usual prejudice against historical sciences because their primary phenomena are not readily isolated in a lab. It has to be acknowledged that geology and paleontology (as well as cosmology) are historical sciences which make inferences to the best explanation about what happened in the past, with predictions concerning what we have found and will find (and a very good track record of such predictions, at that), but not predictions concerning replicable experiments. This may change with advances in genomics.

38) Comment by krl777 - 03/09/2012

leebowman oversimplifies ontogenesis in calling it a "precoded assemblage routine." This fails to get at the fact that the timing of assemblages can be pre-coded to vary depending on environmental conditions in the womb, and in some cases, small changes in timing can lead to drastic changes in body plan or proteins available. Also, not just timing, but different options of assemblage, can be coded to be triggered by different environmental conditions. As a result of failing to be explicit about the variables involved, leebowman is led to view ontogenesis as somehow different from physical processes. But there's no reason to regard it as such. It is, as far as we can tell, just a very complex physical process. But on the other hand, the complexity and subtlety of ontogenesis from a genome can give us a handle on the evolution of new genomes, capable of building fundamentally new but viable organisms, from previous ones. That too is a very complex physical process. But as we begin to understand the functioning of the genome and control genes in epigenetic processes, there is finally a prospect to understand how small changes in a genome can produce radical changes in organisms produced from them. And as far as not being able to predict outcome states from initial conditions, this happens even in fluid mechanics and plasma physics. The natural world, following "natural law," is very complex and non-linear, not so different from ontogenesis. Complex physical systems are IN PRINCIPLE predictable in their behavior, based on natural law, but some of them are just too dang complex for us to be able to compute those predictions. Likewise, the course of ontogenesis is in principle predictable, given a specification of the genome and a detailed specification of ongoing environmental conditions in the womb. Again, it is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE that there is some sort of guided causation going on in ontogenesis, or in fluid mechanics or plasma behavior. But we wouldn't take guided causation seriously in fluid mechanics or plasma physics, and we should no more do so in ontogenesis from a genome, or the evolutionary development of genomes.

39) Comment by potkcalb - 03/09/2012

If you want to believe in "creationism" that's your choice. You can continue to juggle the jargon or come up with new variations like "guided causation," but creationists are a dying breed. It is only a matter of time..

40) Comment by Fjsteven - 03/09/2012

Funny how Potkalb sees himself as the educator who needs to enlighten the rest of us. I've noticed that you never refute positive evidence for theism and never provide positive evidence for naturalism. You always resort to ridicule and attacks. Yet your worldview is not based on direct observation or empirical science. Your worldview believes that matter originated from nothing (scientifically impossible), and that life originated from non life. Wasn't spontaneous generation disproven decades ago? Oh, I forgot, you now call it abiogenesis to make it appear scientifically credible. Oh, and please spare me the tired argument that evolution doesn't have anything to do with origins, but only concerns itself with what happened after life appeared. Origiins and evolution are linked. However, if you only want to focus on the processes to explain what happened after life appeared then please explain how Mutations and natural selection could account for the upward progress from a single called organism to something as complex as a human being? For evolution to be true mutations and natural selection would have to add information to the genome over time, or do you believe that the first single called organism contained the instructions for creating a human heart, brain, etc? If the instructions were not present in the common ancestor where did they come from? Mutations act upon existing information and are copying mistakes. They never add information and are almost never ever beneficial. NS also acts upon existing species and deletes the less fit. It removes information from the genetic code. It doesn't add it. Has a process ever been observed that added information to the genome? Let's ask your hero Richard Dawkins. http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DzaKryi3 605g&gl=US Also, where are the ancestors to the cambrian fossils in the fossil record? Way about the intermediates between invertebrates and vertebrates? What about between reptiles and birds? According to your theory are a millions of years of time in these gaps. There should be hundreds thousands of these fossils. I'm sure your response will offer a handful of obscure intermediates that are highly debatable. If evolution were true there shouldn't be handfuls there should be hundreds of thousands. In fact, the evidence in the fossil record shows fully formed distinct kinds of animals that without any evidence of transitions ancestral forms? The evidence, then, supports a creationist worldview, not a Darwinian worldview. Whose position is really the faith position?

41) Comment by potkcalb - 03/09/2012

"Guided causation," how ridiculous can you get? What a howler! I'll say one thing for the creationists they are the best when it comes to creating terms that make their arguments sound science based: "Creation science...intelligent design...irreducible complexity...critical thinking." I've know all along how difficult it is to educate true believers, but I wanted to think, perhaps foolishly of me, that it was possible. I think the only remedy is time. They will eventually pass away, hopefully to be replaced by future generations not guided by myths and legends.

42) Comment by leebowman - 03/09/2012

One other point, which should be obvious, but maybe not. - - - 'Guided causation' is not continual, since the reproductive processes self propagate. - - - It is only done to reprogram a gene to alter its phenotypic outcome. And on multiple [as required] occasions. IOW, cut-and-try. - - - This is a sterling example of why most 'Creationists' staunchly disagree with me (and ID). . "It belittles God", (in their view).

43) Comment by leebowman - 03/09/2012

IOW, unlike physical properties, evolutionary concepts cannot be empirically replicated, or even done by simpler, parallel studies in similar fashion. - - - That is why its ongoing comparison to the 'theory of gravity' is the most absurd, sophmoric, and nonsensical comparison ever drawn. No similarity whatsoever.

44) Comment by leebowman - 03/09/2012

To krl777: . RM → NS is currently *IN* a state of falsification. No radically new [and functional] species yet with drosophila, 100+ yrs of attempts. ID will soon be falsified or verified by our own lab experiments to *radically* alter a species. - - - But as stated [forensic studies are NOT empirically verifiable], evolution of all prior species [genera, taxa] cannot be verified by the application of either hypothesis [RM → NS or ID], nor falsified empirically. Deductive logic only.

45) Comment by leebowman - 03/09/2012

"I invite leebowman to explain why biology is fundamentally different from physics in this respect." - - - Different in this regard. Natural phenomenon operate solely according to natural laws. Same conditions; same outcome every time. - - - But embryogenesis is more complex, following a pre-coded assemblage routine. It is the *coding* that results in a progeny; not just physical laws alone. - - - The formation of upward complexity *beyond* a certain level will, and by willy nilly, will never solve the *functional* requirements of a higher complexity.

46) Comment by krl777 - 03/09/2012

leebowman claims to be "proposing rational new investigative hypotheses based on observable data only." Good. Then please enlighthen us. Which hypotheses? Which observable data? How are these hypotheses to be investigated? What would disconfirm them, or cast doubt on them? If you cannot state conditions under which your "new investigative hypotheses" would be empirically discredited, then they have no empirical content.

47) Comment by krl777 - 02/09/2012

leebowman asks why I put forth an example in fluid mechanics to comment on appeals to "guided causation" in the study of speciation. Well, I did that because, for some reason, the absurdity of the appeal to guided causation is more obvious in the case of physical science. But the principle is the same. The hypothesis of "guided causation" is scientifically worthless in addressing a difficult problem in fluid mechanics and just as worthless in addressing a difficult problem in the study of speciation. If leebowman recognizes the worthlessness of this gambit in fluid mechanics, then perhaps he or she will be encouraged to ponder its equal worthlessness in the study of biology. The point is, biology and physics are both sciences. If no physicist would consider invoking "guided causation," then why should any biologist consider it? I invite leebowman to explain why biology is fundamentally different from physics in this respect. I think that physical sciences are just a bit more immune to the sort of cant that leebowman is peddling, so they are a useful corrective to it.

48) Comment by leebowman - 02/09/2012

"with a gun in your face you ask the kid do you think it is intelligent intervention or evolution ? duh, give me your money." - - - I *love* that analogy! - - - A parallel: With tenure, grant money and job security on the table you ask the Dean if ID is a viable alternate hypothesis. - - - Duh, mention ID again and be up for review.

49) Comment by leebowman - 02/09/2012

"There is no "data" for intelligent intervention and no way to collect any." - - - Nor is there any "data' in support of natural causation to produce upward complexity, to put it in a few broad terms. - - - Lacking: Confirmatory data to substantiate undirected causes to produce complex structures with multiple parts, multiple functions, and multi-dependent systems [need ea other to function]. - - - Adaptive changes are the only phenotypic changes in evidence via natural selection. And not just from mutations, many are from an extant gene pool. - - - Summary: *Both* hypotheses depend on forensic studies, and cannot be empirically replicated.

50) Comment by Chucky - 02/09/2012

with a gun in your face you ask the kid do you think it is intelligent intervention or evolution ? duh, give me your money.

51) Comment by potkcalb - 02/09/2012

There is no "data" for intelligent intervention and no way to collect any. Are you unable to grasp that leeboman? Stop acting as if you are talking about science. Yes Phil it is one of many problems with education, but I think it is a major concern when pseudo-science adulterates the science curriculum.

52) Comment by nimby? - 02/09/2012

the creation/evolution debate is on of those subjects that stirs conversation . the advocate is aware of this and takes advantage as much as possible . what should be taken more serious , the 30 percent local drop out rate . kids aren't going to school , learning to read , write , simple math . perhaps more attention should be paid to getting the kids into school , keeping them there , then worry about this ....

53) Comment by leebowman - 02/09/2012

prior typo: 'impinging' upon physical laws. - - - @potkcalb - - - Religion(s) may or may not have relevance, but the data for intelligent intervention trumps the chance philosophy of NS, which would *never*, in all of the brief 5 plus bya time span, have the options to select upon to achieve the outcomes observed. - - - Correct that environmental factors impose selective pressures, and correct that some adaptive changes have occurred, but INCORRECT that the novelty and diversity observed would ensue from pressures only. - - - The true 'engine' of variation [or evolution] is the mechanistic process to *add* information, not just to produce it by allowing in NS. - - - As stated elsewhere, most intermediates offer NO selective advantage.

54) Comment by leebowman - 02/09/2012

"Suppose I have a problem in fluid mechanics. There's a certain phenomenon in non-laminar fluid flow that I can't quite understand, and the mathematical equations are really complex." - - - As you stated, no physicist would propose invoking supernatural [non physical] intervention to explain perplexing results, so who even consider that? - - - The implication of gene tweaking to radically alter a species has no correlation with present day intervention to imping upon physical laws. Newton or Kepler might have proposed an 'intelligent ghost' hypothesis, but none today. - - - My hypothesis of genetic engineering in the past, ALONG WITH natural selection and the embryo process to subsequently 'produce' an altered phyla has no correlation with a present day 'god interaction'.

55) Comment by leebowman - 02/09/2012

"Why do some people feel so compelled to do this [invoke guided causation] for speciation and human origins?" - - - " They seem to be threatened by the possibility that there might be a purely naturalistic explanation of these things." - - - Reply: The few that do, me for one, have *absolutely* no motives. Not religiously motivated [science only], but proposing rational new investigative hypotheses based on observable data only. And these do NOT threaten the objective pursuit and perusal of science.

56) Comment by potkcalb - 02/09/2012

But it is "taken seriously" nimby. That's why there are 60 comments on this thread. It must be taken seriously when concerted, organized efforts are made to undermine science by infusing religion disguised as science into educational programs.

57) Comment by krl777 - 02/09/2012

Given the absurdity of invoking guided causation or intelligent ghosts to "solve" by fiat any difficult problem science encounters, we are forced to ask: Why do some people feel so compelled to do this for speciation and human origins? They seem to be threatened by the possibility that there might be a purely naturalistic explanation of these things. The vast majority seem to be religious fundamentalists who feel they need God to be involved actively in speciation and human origins in order to interpret human existence within a framework of a patriarchical god, with humanity as its progeny, without which they imagine there will be no basis for morality. The Young Earth Creationists seem intellectually timid -- they need a small, cozy earth because it is intellectually challenging and daunting to contemplate a vast, cold universe. There is some remnant who are not religious fundamentalists or YECs. What motivates them? Possibly just impatience: they want the answers now, and the only way to get answers immediately is to just make them up. Humans are very good at making up stories, and it pleases us to do so. But it is irritating when the story-tellers try to get in the way of science, or to have their confabulations taught as "scientific" alternatives to public school children.

58) Comment by krl777 - 02/09/2012

Suppose I have a problem in fluid mechanics. There's a certain phenomenon in non-laminar fluid flow that I can't quite understand, and the mathematical equations are really complex. It is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE that what is happening there is due to the intervention of an intelligent ghost, moving the fluid in a particular agitated way. But no scientist would take that as a serious hypothesis. The intelligent ghost hypothesis isn't constrained enough to provide empirically testable predictions. It fact, the intelligent ghost hypothesis amounts to the abdication of science. That is the situation in the study of speciation and the origins of life. And it is compounded by the fact that historical sciences like paleontology generally can't test hypotheses and predictions in the lab -- they have to make predictions concerning what we have found, or will find, in the historical geological and paleontological records. Nevertheless, the chances are that I or somebody else will eventually solve my problem in fluid mechanics, and not by postulating the intervention of an intelligent ghost. But I am sure that if there were religious fundamentalists who felt they had a stake in God's presence in fluid mechanics, they would form a Fluid Discovery Institute in order to line up all the marginal scientists, pseudo-scientists and fake scientists they could find to argue for the "guided causation" of fluid motion.

59) Comment by nimby? - 02/09/2012

Spector567 , I'm not finished with my evaluation , but that is what I'm coming up with . a business marketing itself feigning a veil of religion , ala Scientology . it would only be a threat if taken seriously . there is the business of religion , then there is religion ; for every Jimmy Swaggart there are a thousand Mother Teresa s , existing in deplorable conditions , healing the sick , feeding the hungry , teaching reading writing . I pray for them .

60) Comment by Spector567 - 02/09/2012

@nimby? "started doing some investigating into the D I . while I can tell their motivation , where they're coming from" Your absolutely right there is no conspiracy. In reality DI is a MARKETING PLOY. Both there supporters and detractors fully and completely know what they are trying to achieve and how they plan to do it. There is no secret. They are just "re branding" creationism and like any good lawyer talking out of both sides of there mouth.

61) Comment by leebowman - 02/09/2012

"Stephen Meyer, and Paul Nelson in particular are YECs." - - - Steven Meyer is not a YEC, and bases his views regarding evolution on scientific data. - - - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGFWH6Okgl8 - - - Now are there 'closet YEC's' out there? Perhaps. But I've seen no evidence of that with most ID'sts. The two philosophies just don't mesh together. One of RD's reasons given for not debating SM hinges on the same subject. - - - http://www.stephencmeyer.org/news/2009/10/dawkins_dodges_meyer_wont_deba.html

62) Comment by Dr_GS_Hurd - 02/09/2012

While I have no respect for the Disco'tute, or their goals, they are not officially Young Earth creationists. In fact, founding guru Phil Johnson purposefully blocked any age of earth discussions. Various "fellows" are young earth creationists, YECs. Stephen Meyer, and Paul Nelson in particular are YECs. William Dembski recently had to publicly appologise to the Southern Baptists for daring to suggest that Noah's Flood might have been less than a global slaughter of all life. In spite of his humiliation and groveling, he still lost his seminary job.

63) Comment by potkcalb - 02/09/2012

You are right nimby conspiracy theories usually are associated with the "right wing." An example of that is "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," a ludicrous propaganda film presented by talk show host Ben Stein. Its thesis is that "creationism" is a legitimate subject for science classes but that it is being denied to science students by a dark cabal of scientists engaged in a conspiracy to restrict science education. It mirrors the kinds of claims promulgated by the "Discovery Institute."

64) Comment by nimby? - 02/09/2012

chem ; as said the Discovery Institutes' message is easily noted to anyone of moderate intelligence , sounds like you have little faith in your fellow man . you have apparently done thorough research and formed your opinion , I will continue mine . a weak mind can be compelled by many things , it is not limited to either side of the fence . I will stand by my previous comment ...

65) Comment by chem - 02/09/2012

nimby?: The Discovery Institute is a blatantly fundamentalist religious organization that has attempted, since its inception in 1990, to have religious dogma taught in public school. Its “scientists” - yes, in quotes - are openly fundamentalist, preaching a young Earth and all of the other nonsense that fundamentalists, and unfortunately, many “moderate” religious people believe. Michael Behe, one of their “scientists” works at Lehigh University. Go to that site and you will see that there is an official disclaimer about Behe’s work. His colleagues strongly disagree with his motives and conclusions. Behe may have a degree in biochemistry, but his fundamentalist beliefs have so clouded his mind that he is a pariah to his own university and other scientists around the world. The discovery institutes cloaks itself in the trappings of a legitimate scientific organization, even in its name, but make no mistake, it is there for one thing and one thing only -- to promote a fundamentalist religious interpretation being taught in school in place of science. Their silly notions have been debunked manifold. What i find interesting about the fundamentalist group is that for people who claim to be so full of religion and god, they continually deceive and lie to attain their goal. They are masters at twisting the words of legitimate scientists, by taking comments completely out of context, to make it seem as though their is agreement with their nutty propositions. But when the remark is read in context, it is clear that the opposite is true. Strange behavior for people who believe in god.

66) Comment by nimby? - 02/09/2012

started doing some investigating into the D I . while I can tell their motivation , where they're coming from , I never felt compelled or threatened . their message is fairly obvious , no hidden political or religious agenda as far as I can see , no more than any number of groups who pose a supposed threat , unless you believe everything on the internet is true . a weak mind is just that ; the silver tongued orator will confuse , then coerce . I am a bit confused , usually thoughts of conspiracy theories come from the right wing ...

67) Comment by Bouncer - 02/09/2012

I simply cannot give anything that a "management consultant" might say about science any serious consideration. I would not consult my plumber for a medical opinion were I to begin having chest pains, either.

68) Comment by Cousin Dave - 01/09/2012

Cecil Phillips is a total jerk who is more at home with a whoopee cusion than science.

69) Comment by chem - 01/09/2012

Ask yourself: Can I enunciate a hypothesis about something? Can an experiment be designed to confirm or deny the hypothesis? If you answered "yes" to both questions, you are doing science. If no, you are not.

70) Comment by nimby? - 01/09/2012

potkcalb , such a course would study many religions , cause and effect ; it would not be taught by a minister nor a man of science . rather a history scholar , preferably an atheist ...

71) Comment by potkcalb - 01/09/2012

nimby in case there is some misunderstanding about my previous comment on a survey course in religion I am most certainly not advocating the presentation of any program that advocates religion, or that like the "Discovery Institute," tries to undermine science..

72) Comment by potkcalb - 01/09/2012

In reference to an earlier comment of yours nimby, and as I have said a number of times on these sites, I would be in favor of an elective, survey course on world religions at the high school level because I think it important that students learn about other cultures including their religions. Presentation should be no different than in any other social studies course.

73) Comment by nimby? - 01/09/2012

Spector567 , as I said earlier I am not familiar . rather than trust your opinion I will investigate and form my own , no offense . over the course of time facts will change , opinions rarely do ...

74) Comment by Spector567 - 01/09/2012

Equal time for Equal effort. If you don't put in the effort why do you deserve the time.

75) Comment by Spector567 - 01/09/2012

@ nimby? You are 100% right it is about silencing voices who differ. ONLY CREATIONISTS ARE THE ONES DOING THE SILENCING. The major organizations and even the political arm of the Discovery institute spend the vast majority of there time attacking The theory of evolution and rarely if ever talk about there own theory. (because they don't have a finished one yet). They encourage parents and students to disrupt teachers who try to teach evolution while standing behind religious protection laws. They continue to try to strip Evolution from the text books. This is purely destructive and often bigoted behavior. You are allowed to ask as many questions as you want. But you are now allowed to make up or lie about the answers or refuse to answer any questions of your own.

76) Comment by potkcalb - 01/09/2012

It has nothing to do with "silencing voices." This is the second time on this post that you have made that charge. Everyone is free to speak, to doubt, to ask questions. What it has to do with is the deliberate and intentional conflating of science with religion thereby making a mockery of both. Science can not investigate or shed any light on the supernatural. What creationists should do is stick to religion and not the hypocritical ploy of trying to make it sound science based.

77) Comment by nimby? - 01/09/2012

"silence those whose voices differ" .

78) Comment by potkcalb - 01/09/2012

One despairs at the seemingly hopeless task of educating creationists about science. But we have no alternative given their agenda of returning us to the Dark and Middle Ages of ignorance and superstition.

79) Comment by Dr_GS_Hurd - 01/09/2012

rgeraldwallace -08/31/2012- requested directly observed examples of new species that have (or are) emerging from common ancestors. We of course have such examples available. I have compiled a list of dozens of examples. See: "The Emergence of New Species" http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2009/03/emergence-of-new-species.html

80) Comment by krl777 - 01/09/2012

leebowman suggests that "directed causation" of genomic change in evolution is indicated by "statistical improbabilities." Two problems with this. First, without knowing more about how a genome works to create a "body plan," and to make the difference between one body plan and another, we can't even estimate the probabilities involved in the mutational transition from, say, a genome for an early species of horse to the genome for the next species of horse in the rich fossil record for that lineage. That part is pseudo-scientific hogwash. You can't say that a physical change is statistically improbable if you don't know the physical mechanisms behind the change. (Compare: black holes would be "statistically improbable," if not impossible, if we didn't have General Relativity and subsequent work to understand how they work.) Second, even if we could compute those probabilities and decided that the development of the next horse species was statistically improbable, what would we do? A scientist would say, "Hmm, there's something we don't understand here. Let's investigate it." To "solve" the mystery by positing supernatural intervention is the most stultifying hypothesis we could entertain, and is historically the recourse of anti-scientific superstition. Sure, it's LOGICALLY POSSIBLE that genomic evolution is subject to occasional instances of guided causation . But to take that seriously is to essentially give up scientific investigation, since science doesn't deal in logical possibilities -- it's too cheap and easy to dream up logical possibilities, and vanishingly few of them have any relation to reality. Logical possibilities must have some empirical, predictive potential before we take them seriously in science.

81) Comment by Dr_GS_Hurd - 01/09/2012

RickK - 08/31/2012- pointed out "experts" recommended by Mr. Phillips had religious motivations. To RickK's list I can add Lee Spetner (ex-lawyer and Christian apologist author), Thomas Woodward (a professor of theology). In fact, only Jerry Fodor lacked a specifically religious motivation to reject science in favor of supernaturalism. Fodor (a professor of philosophy) views evolutionary theory as too reductionist and a direct challenge to his notions of an emergent "mind" as a theory of consciousness. The signatories of the Discovery Institute sponsored "Dissent from Darwin" are a mixed bag of people, and very few have any professional understanding of, or involvement with evolutionary biology. (I exclude professional anti-evolution propagandists like Steven Meyer, etc... from the ranks of professional scientists. Meyer for example has a doctorate in "history of science." By analogy, would you undergo surgery from a professor of history of medicine?) There are several other failures of this Disco'tute list of "scientists." One is that even Darwin could have signed it. See: http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2012/03/discotute-dissent-from-darwin.html The other is that there is a notable lack of people named "Steve." For an explanation of why that is such a failure, see "Project Steve" at the National Center for Science Education. http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

82) Comment by nimby? - 01/09/2012

it is in mans general nature to question , offer dissent , from whence emerged the atheist . I'm not that familiar with the Discovery Institute or the authors suggested . so if you don't mind I'll do some reading , research as Mr. Phillips suggested , and judge for myself whether there is promotion of a hidden religious agenda ....

83) Comment by Chucky - 01/09/2012

leebowman- thanks, have a lot to google but that was somewhat simpler as i am of a simple mind.

84) Comment by chem - 01/09/2012

It is clear from some of the anti-evolution comments that those making them do not have a clue about science in general, and how it works, and evolution, specifically. I would suggest enrolling in a biology course or two and read the PEER REVIEWED articles on evolution as a start. Once again, over 150 years have lapsed since the publication of "On the Origin of Species" and evolution is still going strong. With the advent of DNA analysis, the mechanisms involved in evolution are becoming clearer. There is no "one" mechanism for evolution. I think the anti-evolutionist crowd is trying to say that because more than one mechanism exists, there is turmoil and doubt about evolution. Nonsense! Mutations, environment, natural selection and others play a part in evolution. So I will reiterate: Rather than just cutting and pasting snippets from the discovery institute or other such sites, go out and actually learn how science is done before making comments about science.

85) Comment by leebowman - 01/09/2012

"gerald both you and I [potkcalb] are examples of one species evolving into another. All living things are evolving although some more slowly than others because the environment, not "random mutation," is the major engine of change." - - - Allen MacNeill covers it pretty well - - - http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-is-engine-of-evolution.html

86) Comment by potkcalb - 01/09/2012

leebowan the more you write the more incoherent you become. Give us a break and stop taking up space with all the rambling nonsense.

87) Comment by leebowman - 01/09/2012

Rick, (1) I have nothing to do with DI, (2) I do not, nor have I ever espoused a 'Divine' entity as causative, just intelligent input a various stages of biologic progressions. - - - But Rick, you never get your 'facts' straight. Your links are purely UYA.

88) Comment by leebowman - 01/09/2012

correction: hard to digest (make sense of) - - - IOW, none of the experiments comprise empirical testing of evo processes, and the evidence that evolution (upward complexity) has occurred, while verifiable, does NOT verify 'natural causation'. - - - The question of causation (the mechanisms of change) are IN PART understood, but not in the sense of uncaused cause, or 'totally natural causation'.

89) Comment by leebowman - 01/09/2012

To both of you guys: - - - Saying quite a bit in a relatively short space, and without paragraph breaks and the occasional use of bolding or italics for emphasis, does *indeed* make it hare to digest. Take it one sentence at a time. - - - And Chucky, regarding the part you cited, boils down to this - - - While nylonase synthesis evolved in Flavobacterium is presented as a demonstration of evolution, it does not meet the *requirements* of evolution to produce a revised body plan, or a novel (new/ revised) phyla (species to some).

90) Comment by potkcalb - 01/09/2012

nimby I'm not sure where your comment "facts have to be accepted without question" is directed. All theories should be questioned. There is no question that can not be asked. The modern theory of evolution is an example of that. Although the basic tenets of the theory are supported by every branch of science, the theory has evolved, an appropriate use of the term, and has accommodated significant revisions (see NOVA Science Now, "What Darwin Never Knew")

91) Comment by RickK - 01/09/2012

leebowman is a mouthpiece for the Discovery Institute, the same right-wing, Christian creationist propaganda organization where Cecil Phillips gets his reading material. What Lee is saying (what Lee is always saying) is that the formation of the first life is improbable, so it's reasonable to think a divine force was involved. It's the same "God of the gap" argument that's failed thousands of times in the past. But since Lee is, like the Discovery Institute, motivated by political and social agenda and not by science or a search for truth, he has bless us with his copy and paste skills. For more coherent information on Lee's position, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute_intelligent_desig n_campaigns and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

92) Comment by potkcalb - 01/09/2012

I'm an educated person , but can anyone tell me what leebowman is saying if anything?

93) Comment by Chucky - 01/09/2012

leebowman- " causation of the process at selected junctures is a distinct possibility due to known statistical improbabilities. Further, since empirical replication of an evolutionary process to produce a novel alteration of a phyla, and NOT just a prokaryote adaptation " hey what you say ? still to long , spread it out and "novel alteration" is just alteration.

94) Comment by leebowman - 01/09/2012

OK, I see where separate paragraphs aren't allowed. Sorry for the double post.

95) Comment by leebowman - 01/09/2012

A repost of my rather long comment, easier to read, and with a better link: . A key question raised by all three letters, of which this one and Prof. Houk's are the only ones I have access to, is 'Is it acceptable to question the purely natural causation tenet of the current theory without being labeled as an "anti-evolutionist"? If so, then the signers of the dated SDFD statement are not necessarily "anti-evolutionists", nor is religion the likely basis for their descent. Although unlike a survey where actual questions are posed, it does state in the FAQ (#5) that "Signing does not indicate agreement or disagreement with any other scientific theory" and "It does indicate skepticism about modern Darwinian theory's central claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life." . It doesn't state or infer a total rejection of ToE, just a tentative questioning of natural causation, a blanket phrase to include RM, NC, gene flow and genetic drift, and any other non-directed mechanisms of change. Therefore, Phillips appears to be correct in inferring that Houk views any and all dissenters as having an anti-evolution agenda, but incorrect in that assumption in toto, or in all instances. As well, noting that DI initiated the statement, and that DI "push[es] a religious agenda" infers that their use of "skepticism about … NS / RM" is religiously motivated. . I view the statement as more of possibly an 'unknown' consensus view, due to the virtual prohibition of questioning *any* aspect of the theory publicly by a working scientist, by emeriti profs, and some with fixated tenure. For precisely that reason, it is impossible to know the true percentage of scientists who question natural causation as the sole source of novelty and complexity. . But hey, as Houk stated, "Are there problems or even flaws with evolutionary theory as it now stands?" and "The theory of evolution has been revised, fine-tuned and altered on a number of occasions." True of all theories, and thus as long as a tentative falsification of totally natural causation is a possibility, then it is not only acceptable to consider that [if data supports that], but a rejection of science to refuse to even consider it. . To summarize, although there are those who oppose ToE for religious motivation, they are a non-sequitur, since directed causation of the process at selected junctures is a distinct possibility due to known statistical improbabilities. Further, since empirical replication of an evolutionary process to produce a novel alteration of a phyla, and NOT just a prokaryote adaptation result, has yet to be empirically observed, the theory remains tentative in the totality of its mechanistic functions. . And as the horizon broadens, more questioning of that particular tenet is likely to emerge. . http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Philosophy/Science/?ci=9780199919758&view=usa

96) Comment by leebowman - 01/09/2012

A key question raised by all three letters, of which this one and Prof. Houk's are the only ones I have access to, is 'Is it acceptable to question the purely natural causation tenet of the current theory without being labeled as an "anti-evolutionist"? If so, then the signers of the dated SDFD statement are not necessarily "anti-evolutionists", nor is religion the likely basis for their descent. Although unlike a survey where actual questions are posed, it does state in the FAQ (#5) that "Signing does not indicate agreement or disagreement with any other scientific theory" and "It does indicate skepticism about modern Darwinian theory's central claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life." It doesn't state or infer a total rejection of ToE, just a tentative questioning of natural causation, a blanket phrase to include RM, NC, gene flow and genetic drift, and any other non-directed mechanisms of change. Therefore, Phillips appears to be correct in inferring that Houk views any and all dissenters as having an anti-evolution agenda, but incorrect in that assumption in toto, or in all instances. As well, noting that DI initiated the statement, and that DI "push[es] a religious agenda" infers that their use of "skepticism about … NS / RM" is religiously motivated. I view the statement as more of possibly an 'unknown' consensus view, due to the virtual prohibition of questioning *any* aspect of the theory publicly by a working scientist, by emeriti profs, and some with fixated tenure. For precisely that reason, it is impossible to know the true percentage of scientists who question natural causation as the sole source of novelty and complexity. But hey, as Houk stated, "Are there problems or even flaws with evolutionary theory as it now stands?" and "The theory of evolution has been revised, fine-tuned and altered on a number of occasions." True of all theories, and thus as long as a tentative falsification of totally natural causation is a possibility, then it is not only acceptable to consider that [if data supports that], but a rejection of science to refuse to even consider it. To summarize, although there are those who oppose ToE for religious motivation, they are a non-sequitur, since directed causation of the process at selected junctures is a distinct possibility due to known statistical improbabilities. Further, since empirical replication of an evolutionary process to produce a novel alteration of a phyla, and NOT just a prokaryote adaptation result, has yet to be empirically observed, the theory remains tentative in the totality of its mechanistic functions. As the horizon broadens, more questioning of that particular tenet is likely to emerge, even among skeptics, of which I am one (non capitalized). http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-professor-intelligent-design-arguments-should-be-taken-seriously-80427/

97) Comment by nimby? - 31/08/2012

so they facts have to be accepted without question , examination , counterpoint ?

98) Comment by phil - 31/08/2012

I know I have been missed here (kidding), but my electricity just came on. I will keep this short. There is a God and God created science and evolution and the universe and all things. That's all folks.

99) Comment by chem - 31/08/2012

nimby?: that's apples and oranges. Mr. Phillips is talking about teaching religious dogma in school in place of real science. Teaching kids that humans roamed the earth with dinosaurs, that the earth is 6000 years old, that there was a flood that killed everything off, or would have, had some guy on a wooden boat not put enough of every living thing on this planet in it to reproduce once the flood waters receded. **** A comparative religion course, pointing out the differences (?) between religions would be interesting. It would show, (1) just how silly they all are, and (2) there isn't a hill of beans difference between them.

100) Comment by nimby? - 31/08/2012

I remember a sociology course while at LSU . an elective , the influence of religions around the world , in different societies thru out history . needless to say there was much discussion , the teacher rarely interfered . always thought such a course on the high school level would be a good thing ....

101) Comment by potkcalb - 31/08/2012

Let the children decide between evolution and creationism? It is absurd to suggest that students in science classes should decide between science and religion. That is an oxymoron. Belief in the supernatural is not science. Students imbued with fundamentalist religious explanations of how life evolves are going to opt for religion no matter how overwhelming the scientific evidence from genetics, biology, paleoanthropology and other basic sciences. Science teachers can and do acknowledge that many explanations, including a multitude of religious ones, have been posited. But religious explanations are not amenable to evidence gathering or scientific analysis no matter how clothed in scientific jargon such as "creation science...irreducible complexity...intelligent design...or critical thinking" to make them sound science based.

102) Comment by krl777 - 31/08/2012

Critical questioning of the mechanisms of evolution is fully merited. In particular, we don't know much yet about epigenetic effects -- the control mechanisms encoded in a genome which turn genes on and off during embryonic and fetal development. These may play a bigger role vis-a-vis natural selection than is currently assumed, which is what Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini argue. But two points must be stressed. First, the parameters of this debate are purely naturalistic, and thus thoroughly Darwinian in spirit, and do not open the door to intelligent design or other explanations of life by divine fiat. Mr. Phillips does us a disservice by mixing credible, serious critiques of Darwinism with bogus ones. Second, primary and secondary schoolchildren do not have the scientific background to follow this debate and "make up their own minds." Before they can do that, they need to be solidly educated in current science, which, for these topics, means Darwinian evolutionary theory and modern genetics.

103) Comment by chem - 31/08/2012

The quote that Mr. Phillips put in his letter --- “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” --- is a quote from the fundamentalist "Discovery Institute", first put forth about 10 years or so ago. Perhaps he did or did not know that. If he didn't, then that was a mistake on his part, but if he did, than that is strong evidence Mr. Phillips himself is a religious fundamentalist and is simply trying to advance his own religious agenda. ***** The second sentence of the above quote is obviously nonsense. It has been over 150 years since Darwin published his seminal work, "On the Origin of Species." Does Mr. Phillips understand that there has been rigorous investigation into evolution during those 150 years, tens of thousands of papers published, and not once in all of that time has there been any legitimate research that overturns the theory of evolution. Not sure what else could be asked for in a rock-solid theory. Not wanting to believe, refusing to believe, is the the only reason someone would not agree with the 150 years of evidence in support of it.

104) Comment by potkcalb - 31/08/2012

Well said Spector.

105) Comment by Spector567 - 31/08/2012

No matter how nicely you say it the simple reality is that the author is calling several hundred million people incompetent, or suggesting they are lying for not recognizing some rather basic facts. I think at some point people have the right to be disrespectful to those who ignorantly and arrogantly disrespect them. Especially when they don’t even provide the hard working scientists and simple high school students enough respect to fact check their own work before attacking others as others have pointed out. As the author agreed “Standard science ... is our best attempt to understand the world as it actually is.” Maybe the author should consider coming up with his own explanation, doing experiments answering the billion questions that evolution answers. Maybe the discovery institute should hire some researchers and instead of lawyers and PR reps and actually complete there ID theory. (They admit that they haven’t completed it yet). Once all that is complete than can ask for equal time. For me. Equal time for Equal effort.

106) Comment by chem - 31/08/2012

Firstly, I should point out that it is amazing that we have as many fossils as we do. Rather than list just “one” transitional species as was asked for, here are several . Tiktaalik roseae, Eusthenopteron, Acanthostega, Ambulocetus, Pezosiren. Secondly, there has never been a fossil found outside of the correct era. This one simple proposition would overturn evolution in an instant, but not one fossil has ever been found out of the correct date sequence. Those that continue to argue, irrationally, against evolution are simply being led blindly by their own religious biases and by quoting psuedoscientists such as Dembski and Behe, themselves avowed religious fundamentalists.

107) Comment by RickK - 31/08/2012

Mr. Phillips criticizes those who think that questioning the fact that species evolve is often driven by a religious agenda. Fair enough. Maybe these scientists that Mr. Phillips likes are not driven by a religious agenda. LET'S DO A TEST! Let's see how many of the authors that Mr. Phillips quotes are members ("fellows") of the Discovery Institute, a right-wing religious advocacy organization dedicated to promoting the idea that humans were created by the Christian God: Stephen C. Meyers, Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Michael Denton, and Geoffrey Simmons. That's quite a lot of your authors, Mr. Phillips. I see a theme here, and I'll wager that your agenda is just as religiously driven as theirs.

108) Comment by quirkmaguirk - 31/08/2012

Out of the more than 3.2 million Ph.D.'s worldwide they, creationists, have found that 2% of 1% (0.0002) of people with advanced academic degrees agree with them, big whoop. If there really was evidence against evolution the discoverers would be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and collect millions of dollars for funding their research.

109) Comment by potkcalb - 31/08/2012

gerald both you and I are examples of one species evolving into another. All living things are evolving although some more slowly than others because the environment, not "random mutation," is the major engine of change.

110) Comment by [e-mail] - 31/08/2012

potkcalb failed to give an example of one species mutating into another; does anybody have such a proven example?

111) Comment by [e-mail] - 31/08/2012

An excellent riposte Mr. Phillips; you've pointed out the one glaring problem with the explanation that the Theory of Evolution gives for the complexity of life, i.e. that the random mutation of genes accounts for it all. What they never try to answer is why it happened only once and why it never happened again.

112) Comment by potkcalb - 31/08/2012

I might have added that it was not long ago when creationists rejected all aspects of evolution. Now that the evidence is irrefutable they acknowledge evolution within species and blithely claim that they knew all along it was God's plan. It is only a matter of time before they will acknowledge that one species can transition into another and that too was God's plan. I will give creationists credit for one thing. They are experts at moving the goal posts.

113) Comment by potkcalb - 31/08/2012

The mechanisms that drive evolution have been found and are quite well understood. Over many generations animals on small islands get smaller and birds on Pacific islands of the same species as those on land masses hundreds of miles away may be left with vestigial wings at most. Can you figure that out Mr. Phillips? Citing creationists like Behe and Dembski as legitimate scientific sources of information on evolution is embarrassing.

114) Comment by Bighug - 31/08/2012

Great response, chem. I'll listen to arguments against evolution when they come up with an answer that has been studied as closely as the process of evolution. As long as their only argument is "I don't know, so it must be magic," I will reject it.

115) Comment by Chucky - 31/08/2012

So Mr. Cecil R. Phillips you are saying that space aliens seeded this world with advanced DNA thus causing the rise of our species ?

116) Comment by chem - 30/08/2012

Mr. Phillips, not being a scientist, must get his misinformation from the nonsense written by the fundamentalists that he lists at the end of his letter. That silly site that he keeps touting with the "800 scientists" is nothing more than an outlet for religious fundamentalists, many of whom believe in a 6000 year old earth and that man roamed the planet with dinosaurs, a la the Flintstones. Those people are NOT scientists. Real biologists agree on evolution. As for Mr. Phillips stating that people like Dr. Houk brand those that do not believe in Darwinian evolution as having a religious agenda, all I can say is, duh. They ARE people who have a religious agenda. These are the same people, associated with the religious fundamentalist "Discovery Institute." This is the same group that has been trying to get creationism taught in public schools. Their "theories" are moronic and have been shown so in several trials over creationism in school, all of which they have lost. In the much publicized Pennsylvania case, a conservative Republican judge ruled against their crazy theories and said as much in his opinion. Creationism, intelligent design, or whatever else you want to call it, is nothing more than religion. It is not science.