Not-So-Intelligent Design of the Species
The Chinese are ecstatic. As they sit on the sidelines watching the leaders of the USA hurtle the country at warp speed into the Second Dark Age, the graduate engineers who lead the Chinese Politburo Bureau including Hu Jintao, the president of China, sit back, relax, have some quality green tea, and laugh heartily at the decline of the world’s only so called superpower.
What might inspire the leaders of
It is ludicrous to believe that American students, who the majority have trouble with basic arithmetic skills, will have the intellectual ability to intelligently decide between a well-established scientific theory with 150 years of experimental support in peer-reviewed journals, and “intelligent design,” which is nothing more than creationism in wolf’s (no pun intended) clothing. An intelligent American student would ask “show me just one scientific experiment that supports “intelligent design” of the species.” Of course, he will hear the sound of silence because none have ever been undertaken, and no experiment will ever be done to support a religious idea. What about that burning bush? The same student who is still not convinced should ask “who designed the “designer?”
The most common argument of the so called “intelligent design” aficionado is that the evolutionary record has “holes.” Quick American students will realize that science and math always have “holes.” How would they know that? Well, they may watch two or three CSI programs on TV. Just watching one CSI episode will beautifully illustrate that science always encounters holes (gaps in the evidence) that given enough time and money will probably be filled. However, some murders are never solved through forensic evidence no matter how clever and intelligent the forensic scientists may be and how high-tech the instruments that they use.
My recommendation is that the “intelligent design” people should have convention with the Flat Earth Society to decide on a scientific plan to disavow both evolution of species through natural selection and the myth of a spherical earth. That should be fun. I bet they will be awarded many hours-a-day of TV coverage on Fox News!
So what is one solution to this problem—traveling at warp speed to the next Dark Age? We need to just follow the constitution of the
Bill Gates
Hu Jintao
Evolution of species through natural selection
Darwin
Intelligent Design
Flat Earth Society
posted by Drew H. Wolfe @ 10:01 AM
4 Comments:
I am going to in what little time I have here try and do a complex subject some justice. First and foremost I will not be discussing the seperation of church and state which is a judicial issue that if researched is not a matter of the US constitution as the phrase does not appear in the US constitution. Do your research.
In regards to the decline of the education system. I appreciate your point of view on the matter but the decline of the education system can hardly be attributed to the teachings of Darwinism or, as you are more closely targeting, Creationism. These two subjects are most closely covered in Biology leaving Algibra, Geomotry, PreCalculous, Calculous, Chemistry, Physics, which do not focus on these issues all though you can find some slight interplay. I'm sorry but to say that education is failing because of one, possibly two classes if you want to count Earth Science, shows ignorance and flys in the face of common sense.
This leads me to believe that the real issue here is that you dislike the concept of Creationism. You are of course welcome to your opinion but lets take a look at some hard facts.
First you are correct in that there will not be an experiment to prove the presence of Deity. What method, or as we say in my field algorithm, would one use to test for Deity. The prospect is obsurd. Instead what happens is we look at our data and notice that it appears to be intelligently designed. For example as we look at the complexity of even what has been labeled "the simple cell" and look at the probability of it coming into existence through a serious of random events and find that the probability is greater than 10 to the 50th power. This is not a random number is the number that science has choosen as the cutoff for things that are possible. In other words anything 10 to the 50th power has been defined as impossible because it is statistically obsurd. There are many examples of this. I will give you two and leave it to your research. The mechanism that causes the flagelim of a bacteria to spin which is what gives it a means of movement. Another is the system by which a cell devides or specifically the way in which DNA and RNA are stored and reproduced. We can look at DNA. I come at this from the Information sciences and I can tell you that DNA is a digital code used to convey information. Anything Digital conforms to a set of rules and procedures that allow it to processed or manipulated and cannot by deffanition conform to randomness. Meaning it can not be analog. Since this is so we have to ask where did the information come from? Information systems must have designers or else information is not conveyed. There could be no way to interpret the information because there were not rules set in place for interpreting them yet DNA is interpreted everytime a cell is reproduced. I can continue in this matter but I would also like to address Darwinism.
In your enthusiasm to show creationism to be wrong you hardly even looked at the issues with the theory of evolution which I refer to as Darwimism. There is a concept called irreducable complexity. This concept is that some systems are worthless and do not work without multiple pieces. For example the mouse trap. A mouse trap needs no fewer than 5 parts: A base, spring, latch, bar, and trigger. Without anyone of these parts you do not catch fewer mice you catch no mice at all. Hence the old addage about "build a better mouse trap". There are many biological systems that fit this discription. Sight is one of them. I would do a poor job of going through this so I will give you the book that I am refering too for this part. It is Darwins Black Box by Behe. It is excellent reading by a man who is not pushing for creationism but simply recognizing the fact that Evolution as a theory no longer cuts the educational mustard. Another point he covers is clotting of the blood which is a string of events any one of which if not present causes the organism to die. Again I dont have the book infront of me and the process is far to technical for me to have it commited to memory in its entirety.
There is also the problem of time. If you work out the mathmatical calculations for the amount of time they say the earth has been around through a reasonable guess of how many mutations would need to take place inorder to provide the great variety of plants and animals that exist it quickly becomes apparent that there simply hasnt been enough time.
Finally lets also have this understanding. There is a difference between Micro Evolution and Macro Evolution. Micro Evolution is undoubtably true. The fact that a brown feathered chicken survives better than a white feathered chicken in places where it doesn't snow allowing the brown feathered chicken to survive while all the white feathered chickens get eaten works. We understand this. What does not work is Fish becoming an Iguana through a bunch of small mutanagenic steps (Macro-Evolution).
Although I do ascribe to Creationism I will not say that you have to. But as an educator you should know your facts well enough to say that Evolution (Macro Evolution or Darwinism) no longer fits the bill and should be speaking out on it as well instead of hearalding its mythologies. I hope you will continue this conversation with me as I would like to hear a response. Although it is possible to track back to my blog I would ask that you reply here and not at my blog as I write there for entertainment purposes and don't want this issue to over cloud it. If you would like an email address I can give you one upon request. I will be checking this site for your response.
Thank you,
The Lumpy
Hi Lumpy.
Thanks so much for commenting on my thoughts on Not So Intelligent Design on my new fledgling blog. Your comments are very welcome and please stop by from time to time.
I will not dispute each point that you present in your arguments because people believe what they want to believe in spite of the facts. Often people rely on beliefs because the facts and concepts are far too difficult for them to understand; hence, it is easier to make a gross simplification that fits into the mythology that they subscribe to. This makes them feel good about the problem and about their intelligence to understand a really difficult problem.
You have fallen into one of the abysses that unknowing people often fall. It is not your fault. You site meaningless numbers that have no basis in the real world. It does not matter what degrees the mathematicians have or if they teach in the Ivy League, the results of their calculations are wrong if the basic premises for the numbers use are incorrect. Let’s just consider regular statistical tests. To support a hypothesis or more frequently reject the null hypothesis, the researcher must have a randomly selected population. In practical terms this is not possible when dealing with humans. Therefore, just about all statistics you read in the paper or a magazine are not real for lack of randomization of the tested population. I will not bore you with the other requirements needed to validate statistical tests. That is not my point. Please go back and substantiate that the fundamental numbers you have given me are valid before doing the so called calculations that you have done; e.g., the probability of producing a cell, 1e50. A good thing for you to calculate is the probability that you would be born on the day that you born to the people who are your parents in the country that you were born. I bet that is a very small number, approaching zero. However, you are with us despite the slim odds.
I apparently did not get my most salient point across in my short diatribe regarding “creationism.” I will consider what you (the collective “you”) say if you can show me one valid scientific experiment to support your ideas. Until then, you have absolutely nothing more than a belief. I should point out that your belief is in the minority because it is not held outside the borders of the US and mainly Christians support your ideas within our borders.
Along with creationism you must also accepts the myths of the bible—people being swallowed up by whales, a flood that covered the earth with a ship that contains all of hundreds of thousands of animals aboard, a six-thousand year old universe, a flat earth, humankind descending from two people (one who was cloned from a rib), . . . It is fine to believe such things but they have nothing to with the universe that you inhabit.
Only religions have all of the answers. Those of us who have devoted our lives to understanding nature, scientists and mathematicians, know our limitations. We see this as part of being human. If humankind continues as it is today, which is unlikely, we will fill in the gaps that I have discussed. Today we are like ants. Yes, people are like ants. Invite an ant into your house and show him your computer and tell him about the operating system that you use. Well I can tell you it will fall on deaf ears, if ants even have ears—I am a chemist, not a biologist. Nothing in the world of ants can allow him to understand Windows. People have not evolved far enough to understand totally their universe and even themselves. We do not even understand our brains! But have no fear, through evolution, people will change and potentially will fill more of those gaps.
Finally, you were correct that you have not done your homework. I recommend that you look at the literature, pro and con, that discusses “phylogeny recapitulate phylogeny ontogenies” as well as the comparative biochemistry of the molecules such as cytochrome c. It may open your eyes to many things that you, at this point, cannot even image.
Lumpy, thanks again for posting such a literate response to my blog entry.
Drew Wolfe
Mr. Wolfe,
Lets do the superficials first. Welcome to the blogosphere. I'm rather new myself. I hope I haven't made you feel targeted. I was flipping through the next blog button and happened across your sight by accident. Nor is this my usuall Modus Operandi when it comes to blogs but for one reason or another I felt compelled to write. I think it is because I like to see balanced views presented. Be that as it may nothing says your views must be balanced on your own blog but still here I am.
I have reread my previous post and I came on a bit more aggressive than I ment too. I recognize that some of the things I said could be considered inflamatory but that was not my intent. If I have offended I'm sorry.
In regards to Christianity. Lets be up front that is the religious system that I ascribe too yes and yet it is completely irrelevent to the subject at hand. Beliefe in a deity isn't necessary inorder to believe Inteligent Design. Granted the implication is there; however, disregarding something because you don't like the implications you have already done a good job of shooting down in your post on Bill Gates email. That is more or less what a person who claims something isn't fair is saying. I don't like the consequences therefore the root issue can not be true.
Whereas it may be comfortable to believe that creationism comes only from the US and only from Christians in the US this fact is not accurate. I can easily site newspapers and magazines in the UK dealing with this issue. I have friends who believe this that I met in college. The friends I'm refering to in particular come from Canada and Africa. It would also fairly easy to find a creation story in nearly every religion that exists today. These facts give me the impression that you have a problem with Christianity. I submit that I do not know you so if I am wrong that wonderful. This is simply the feeling I get from the tone of the remarks.
Should you decide to I am prepared to argue Christianity. In fact I'm more comfortable with that as it is my strong point but if you do not wish to argue Christianity please lets leave it out of the discussion as I have already said nearly any religion can be put in that slot so an argument involving a particular religion is ultimatly useless for the discussion.
OK all of that said... You said I did not do my homework (I checked my comments and I did not say that) so I've taken the liberty of locating the book I refered to before and will be quoting from it. In regards to the articles you offered if you would be kind enough to give me a little more information to help me locate them I'll be happy to read them.
Irreducible Complexity - The Cilium
Michael J. Behe - DARWINS BLACK BOX exerpts from pages 63-65
"Experiments of this sort have given biochemists clues to how the cilium works. The first clue comes from isolated cilia. Nature has kindly arranged it so that cilia can be separated from cells by vigorous shaking. The shaking breaks off the projections cleanly and by spinning the solution at high speed one can obtain a solution of pure cilia in a test tube. If the cilia are stripped of their membrane and then suppliedwith a chemical form of energy called ATP, they will beat in charactersitic whip-like fashion. This result shows that the motor to power ciliary motion resides in the cilium itself -- not in the interior of the now-missing cell. The next clue is that if the dynein arms are removed but the rest of the cilium is left intact then the cilium is paralyzed, as if in rogor mortis. Adding back fresh dynein to the stiffeneed cilia allows motion to resume. So it appears that the motor of the cilium is contained in the dynein arms... When a small amount of a protease is added for a short time to a solution containing cilia, the protease quickly slices up the nexin linkers at the edge of the structure. the rest of the cilium remains intact... When biochemical energy was supplied to the ciliuum, instead of bending, it rapidly unraveled. The inidividualmicrotubules began to slide past one another like the segments of a radio antenna slide pas t one another when it is opened. They continued to slide until the length of the cilium had increased by almost tenfold. From thsi result biochemists concluded that the motor was working, since something had to move the individual microtubules. They also concluded that the nexin likers are needed to keep the cilium together when it is trying to bend." Here we have 3 parts without any one of which the desired function can not occur. dynein, the Microtubules, and the nexin linkers all must be present. Please explain using single evolutionary steps how this system occured.
pgs 51-53 talk about catalizing enzyms, amino acids, and proteins. I can type it out but being a chemist I'm certain you know the process.
I have sitting before me 275 pages of information full of biochemical examples that darwinism is unable to come up with an answer for. By the way the author does an excellent job of trying to explain how a cilia may come about through evolutionary steps and then going back and showing how each of these would either destroy the cell or prove useless to the organism there by eliminating any competative edge that cell would have.
You see I don't demand that anyone become a creationist but I do believe that Darwinism is now disprovable and it is time to come up with another theory. Darwinism is totally unequipped to explain things at the microscopic biochemical level. What is more you keep telling me to give you an experiment that proves creationism. I turn that around to you now. Give me an experiment that proves the cilia can come from a cell that had no cilia before and provide that cell with the necessary competative edge to make evolutionary theory work.
I'll keep an eye should you wish to comment but I will not be posting on your site again. I think a man should get the last word on his own blog. It only seams right. Should you wish to continue the conversation I can provide you with an email address. I appreciate you taking the time to respond.
Oh and you have your name here so I guess it only fitting that I give mine.
Chris Reffner
Hi Chris. Thanks again for your comments. No you did not offend me at all. I am an old pro when it comes to debating inflammatory issues. I remember debating life, religion, and the impending war in Vietnam when I was an undergraduate the University of Maryland in the early 1960s. Being an academic I have continued such debates ever since.
You mention that a belief in a deity is not needed for understanding not-so-intelligent design. Again, I ask who designed the designer? I guess this is the same whatever that designed the Milky Way galaxy. Did you know that our star is only one of 100 billion stars in our local galaxy and that we have about 100 billion galaxies with 100 billion stars? Was the designer responsible for the design of all the galaxies, their stars, and their planets? Did you know that matter/energy as we know it only comprises about 30% of the know universe? About 70% of the universe is what we call dark matter and dark energy? Did your designer do this as well? Finally, where is your designer? I would really be interested in your responses to my queries. Since you said that you would not post again, then it is just a rhetorical question.
Being a world traveler I can tell you that the common folk that I run into in Europe and Asia as me how the US can be in the dark ages when it comes to denial of the facts and the acceptance of religious beliefs. They know the US as a forward looking, reasonably high-tech country and cannot fathom our collective ignorance regarding evolution. Of course, you can find fringe scientific elements in other countries with radical views for just about anything.
I was not trying to discuss Christianity at all. I am just stating the fact that religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and Islam do not subscribe to what you call intelligent design.
Again, you site a study that attacks Darwinism. Much of what you present is totally unintelligible to you; thus, you have know idea if it is factual or not. It just sounds good. I asked you to provide one scientific experiment that supports intelligent design of the species. Really, I would be interested in reviewing such a study. That is what I do as an organic chemist. We look at the work of our colleagues and we repeat their experiments to see if they are valid or not. We take nothing on faith. You better hope we do not or you may find that the next drug you put into your body or the next genetically modified food that you eat may cause you problems.
Did you check out some of work on cytochrome c across the species? I think you will find this bit of evolutionary biochemistry enlightening.
Take care.
Drew Wolfe
Post a Comment
<< Home