Share your thoughts on the evolution debate

I.D. proponents are trying to poison the water of thought in the minds of children and the less-accepting of scientific principles. Rational thought will become rationed by these highly malicious organizations. They want it their way or no way. I certainly don't mind "out-of-the-box" thinking, but I.D. or any other supernatural inspired concept is way, way, way out of the box. When specific groups are motivated by preconceived ideas that results in non-scientific concepts, then they should accept them to be such and live with it. Unfortunately, in the U.S., these concepts gain traction due to the closed, already non-science accepting, minds of ~50% of the population (based on a recent survey).

Why are medical doctors and medical researchers so concerned about the controversy over macroevolution theory? This theory has little or no direct application in medicine. Also, scientists can continue to use the concepts and tools of macroevolution theory even while believing that all or part of the theory is untrue.

I was born at Stanford Hospital, while my father worked on a master's in biochemistry. He later represented Upjohn to Cal and Stanford medical schools. Having been a biology major; and having worked for Nobel Laureates Seaborg and Alvarez at the Super Heavy Ion Linear Accellerator, and having been called to become Episcopalian at 36, I can certainly understand that there are several points of view.

My daughter will be a junior at Palm Beach Atlantic University (formerly P.B. Bible College). Their spiritual dean is a leading debater on the side of Intelligent Design.

Carolyn has delighted me with the concision and beauty of her world view (her 8th grade "Christian science" project illustrated God's hand protecting humans: it was a paper on the magnetosphere!)

I find ignorance and willful misrepresentation equal. My own contact with Christian leaders has shown me men and women committed to their own power. These are the purveyors of ignorance whom we must resist. My own contact with Christians has shown me, on much rarer occasions, exceptional human beings whose example tells a much truer story. My wide contact with animists in Africa has shown me the same ratio; as has my wide contact with Muslims.

So, as Scoop Nisker says, "If you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own."

Fortunately, the scientifically unverifiable notion of Darwinism -- the idea that all life somehow evolved by blind processes only -- is now being widely criticized. I am niether a "creationist," nor a theist, nor a follower of any religion. But science properly deals with what is provable by experiments, and Darwinist fantasies do not qualify. You should realize that even Fred Hoyle, a life-long materialist and atheist, investigated Darwinism at length and rejected it. Hoyle was certainly a great scientist, and therefore a scientific controversy does exist.

I am fascinated by the creationist/intelligent design vs. Darwinian evolution controversy because it provides an excellent study in how assumptions and foundational beliefs/worldviews shape evaluations of evidence. The description of this controversy as "science vs. religion" is highly misleading. The debate is really between two fundamentally different philosophical worldviews--naturalism (the idea that matter, energy, the laws of physics, etc., are all that exists or all the affect reality) and some form of supernaturalism, especially theistic supernaturalism (the belief that there is a God who can and not unlikely does intervene as a real force in the natural world). That is why this is such a highly charged debate on both sides. Both parties see it as a symptom of the bigger question of what kind of worldview will be adopted by society as true. This is why this article, for example, contains quotes like the one from Dr. Philip Pizzo:

"However, when faith denies scientific data, a serious risk emerges which, in my opinion, extends beyond evolution or creationism, since it moves closer to theocracy and moral judgments that can challenge tolerance, open-mindedness and free thinking -- and freedom itself."

He hits the nail right on the head. The scientific establishment tends to assume, as a body, that reality is limited to the natural, which has implications for the place of science and religion in the society. When someone starts to challenge accepted scientific ideas on the basis of the supernatural, they show that they are accepting the supernatural as real in the same sense that the natural is real, and this reveals a deep worldview difference that also has enormous implications for the place of science and religion in society, and many other things. This issue is bigger than many people realize!

Jim S. in his short paragraph displays two of the most common misperceptions about science. One is that science is based solely on experimentation and the second that science relies on the weight of authority.

Reliance on indirect evidence is a key component of many sciences including, among many others, historical geology, archaeology, cosmetology, and criminology. No one witnessed the rise of the Rockies and yet geologists with a high degree of confidence can tell us how and when they formed. No one has been to the center of the earth, and yet we know much about it's composition. No one saw Scott Peterson murder his wife and unborn child. Yet, he is sitting on death row because of indirect, powerful circumstantial evidence.

Evolutionary biology is partly (though by now means strictly) an observational science in the same vein.

The historical sense of evolution is elucidated by the fossil record (yes, Virginia there are many transitions) and homologies. Of the latter, there are structural, behavioral, embryonic, and (the strongest of them all) genetic homologies. If all of these disparate bits coalesce on a single point, there is a consilience of evidence that is irrefutable. And so it does! Evolution happened historically and continues inexorably onward into the future.

Fred Hoyle was a great scientist, more precisely a great physicist. He proposed an alternative theory to the Big Bang called the Steady-State. The Steady-State theory is rejected by modern cosmologists because it fails to explain multiple observed phenomena. If science can reject one theory of Hoyle's because it does not pass scientific muster, why not another? Hoyle was wrong about the steady-state universe and he was wrong about evolution. No scientist, however great, is ever given carte blanche. It's the ideas that matter and the strength of evidence for and against them.

The person quoted in this article displays exactly the problem with the poorly back theory of evolution.

He says he feels a moral obligation.

If evolution has any validity, morals have all gone out the window. We should be evolved enough by now to know that whatever gets us to where we are wanting to go is morally acceptable. The rest is culture which may or may not be convenient. So if Greg Clark professes to have any morals, he is a fool to follow them because they are arbitrary and I would be a fool to believe them for the same reason. Which would cause me also to doubt much of his research as only being biased as to self-substatiate his own being.

I must agree with Larry F. in the his observation above that questions why those whose scholarship is focused on medicine would be so concerned about macroevolution. It displays a concern not salient to, or within the purview of, the practice of medicine. I must disagree with Gerry B., however, in his leap to call Evolution based on irrefutability. Even if the different points "coalesce" toward an inference that evolution is a possible outcome, there are huge remaining gaps (which punctuated equilibrium, Stephen Jay Gould's unsubstantiated theory, attempts to answer) unanswered by the theory. No, evolution is not proven, or irrefutable "science" any more than Intelligent Design. They are both attempts to fill a gap of knowledge that fails to explain such things as the fact that there has simply not been enough time for the development of radical complexities such as DNA and its encoding. Science ought to now and forever be unafraid of whatever answers it may reveal. ID, though it may have been initiated by the faithful, does not demand a specific end to its search in the form of a Judeo/Christian God; rather, it asks whether there was an intelligent entry that could explain why these super-accelerated gaps of acceleration on the evolutionary scale infer interference by intelligence, or arose another way. Science should not be apprehensive of such investigation unless there is protectionism of an underlying religious viewpoint (such as strict atheism) on their part. Science, if it is true inquiry, should be unafraid until all the data is in; which, it is not.

The fundamental problem with this whole debate is that it is so often reduced to a nonsensical argument over the existence or denial of a supernatural solution. However, when speaking in terms of science, there exists no reason for inclusion of the supernatural as a variable in the discussion. By definition, the supernatural exists outside of nature and therefore the scope of science, there is no point in discussing it in such terms as there is no verifiable way to prove anything in one direction or the other. This is not to say that the question is not valid, but it must be relegated to discussions of logic, metaphysics, and the realms of philosophy.

Science too is merely a world view belief, but unlike the supernatural, it exists upon a track of measurable probabilities. You cannot measure God.

In truth I fully support the questioning of scientific postulations as that is the truest form of science. We would not be at the level of scientific understanding and technology that we are today if everyone went on believing such scientific "laws" as Newton's laws of motion, or the homogeneity of the universe with respect to the observer. We know now that these principles apply only to very simplified cases and are incomplete theories, point of view of the observer DOES matter in relativistic realms and gravity is FAR more complex than Newton could have ever dreamed.

However, I.D. has many flaws beyond the mere argument over its proposed "intelligence". Even were we to say that it is not talking about a supernatural force but, say perhaps a more verifiable extraterrestrial answer, I.D. does not propose any true methods for uncovering proof of its ideologies, it merely pokes holes in evolution. This is all well and good and is useful for a more complete understanding of the topic but is absolutely useless for proving its argument. All I.D. accomplishes is pointing out the fact that evolution is not a complete theory and still needs to be developed, a fact that no proponent of evolution would ever deny. Such arguments as irreducible complexity though, so heavily touted by the I.D crowd, are absurd. It simply says that because life is so difficult to understand and so complicated in function, its not worth trying to figure it all out, God did it! It is a lazy way of copping out on the scientific process. Information theory seeks to "prove" that certain objects are naturaly created while others must be intelligently made, i.e. one can reasonably say that a cell phone found in the desert was not made by nature but lost by an intelligent being there. This is nice and works to a "reasonable" degree in simple cases, but it is still an unprovable conjecture unless you can find the "intelligence" itself. We have all seen shapes in clouds and in trees that evoke intense likenesses to known objects or people, but just because you see an image of Elvis on a piece of toast does not mean that someone put it there.

To summarize, there is no reason not to discuss the flaws in evolutionary theory in the science classroom, but I.D. has no place there. It is an affront to the scientific method disguising itself as science.

In terms of the argument that ID appeals to the supernatural, that is only partially correct. If supernatural qualities of God (by that I assume you would mean those outside of the observable three-dimensional universe) are all one would pursue in terms of empirical science, then the argument holds. But after all, one must assume (if one assumes an omnipotent God) that such deity is capable of operating both within material boundaries and outside of them. ID considers both that possibility and others. It is not a "cop-out" to consider intelligent interference or generation, merely an open-ended question, one which the mere math of genetic development begs for. One does not need to identify the source of the intelligence necessarily either, to authenticate that indeed, an intelligent agent has been involved. The signs of intelligent design should at some point become self-evident. It that is not true, why have we spent so much on SETI, looking for evidence of intelligence via radio wave in some sort of form that would denote intelligent source? And how is it we examine those signals from amongst the plethora of them all? By knowing first the sender? No, but by their architecture. The image of Elvis on a piece of toast is a far cry from the incredible mechanistic architecture of say, a bacterial flagellum. Irreducible Complexity does not "simply say" that since life is so difficult, or complicated, that God must have done it. If it did, it would stand guilty of Stephen Jay Gould's pejorative "God of the Gaps" accusation. Instead, evolutionary theory has become for some, a mythological dogma more entrenched than Faith in Deity, invoking stubbornly an "evolution of the gaps" to explain the unexplainable. If methodological naturalism could provide proof for some of the sophistication we observe both in micro and macro complexities of the universe, we might be able to grant it exclusive rights. Until it does, evolutionary theory has not proven itself unassailable, or intellectually sacred. And don't imagine second-hand knowledge of ID will provide insight; it can only perpetuate uninformed prejudice. Religious folk were once (and still are) accused of the same thing.) As I suggested in an earlier post, those in truly honest intellectual pursuit should not be afraid of what unknown territory should reveal. I would suggest Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box", William Dembski's "Uncommon Dissent", and others before a "lazy" rush to judgment.

Your recent article on the evolution/ID debate is palpably defensive. Saying over and over that it is a religion vs. science debate doesn't make it so. Sure, you can find politicians and creationists to bash, but to be taken seriously, you must address the critics of Darwin who hold prestigious scientific positions within our universities and science organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences. Over 600 such scientists have signed the Dissent from Darwinism statement in spite of a professional environment extremely hostile to this position.

An unwillingness to address irreducible complexity, for example, in a point/counterpoint fashion demonstrates an extreme insecurity on your part. When your magazine has the courage to allow critics from the scientific community to be heard, you will gain the respect you seek. Be bold.

ID has nothing to do with religion. Here is the challenge -- watch 2 ID videos: "The Privileged Planet" and "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" and then tell us how ID=religion, without lying.

As for the "supernatural"-- well even the anti-ID side requires something outside of nature because natural processes CANNOT account for the origin of nature as natural processes only exist in nature.

Years of scientific research led Max Planck to announce (during his Nobel Prize acceptance speech):

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together .... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."

Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, Linne, Mendell, Pasteur, Galileo and a host of other great scientists, perhaps the best to ever grace this planet, all saw the data pointing to some creative intelligence.

Of Newton, Kepler, & Galileo in the book "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty" by Morris Kline, Kline states that these scientist-mathematicians believed that "God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomenon."

So I take it that means that IDists and Creationists only have the scientific potential they had. I can live with that.

BTW I am an IDist but not a Christian or any other religious denomination. However I do say that even if "God" did it, then so be it -- that is if science is about finding the reality to our existence. Because if it isn't then it is, in reality, science fiction.

Missing from all of these posts is the defining function of science, which is to explain the natural world in terms of potentially disprovable natural processes. Science seeks not to prove, but to disprove. If reasoned and discriminating predictions, based on a tentative explanation, are confirmed by subsequent testing or observation, then that tentative explanation is strengthened. If not confirmed, it is weakened. Supernatural forces, by definition, work outside nature, so they are a priori unpredictable. To a supernatural force, anything is possible. That's why supernatural forces cannot be productively or reliably tested; they can never be disproven, making their use pointless.

Note that science can neither deny not confirm the existence of a supernatural force; it just has to be ignored. If an alleged supernatural phenomenon is suspected to be just an illusion of a natural process, then that condition can be assumed as a working hypothesis, and tested accordingly, subject to all the critical rules of science.

In science, nothing can ever be completely proven. Everything is a matter of probability. The practical power of scientifically demonstrated explanations is the reliability of their predictions. After a reasonable period of demonstrated success in effective predictive power, scientific concepts become widely accepted with increasing confidence, because they work! All relevant observations fit the paradigm. If a growing number of critical challenges to the concept can point to specific cases where the concept fails, then the concept can be modified, or replaced with one that encompasses all new data.

What is so very sad is that these critical features of the nature of working science are virtually never taught in school! Much of the science illiteracy in our country can be traced to that omission. Somehow, this has got to be corrected, fast! The Nature of Science lessons on the ENSIweb site attempt to fill that need, but they have to be used by teachers in the classroom!

In many ways, this article is over-the-top. Buried within is the following valid observation: "As a legal strategy, intelligent design is dead," says Eugenie Scott of the pro-evolution National Center for Science Education. "The Dover decision is so complete, and the $1 million payment is so large, that other school districts will be reluctant to argue I.D." Yet you couldn't tell this from reading the rest of the article.

What you have in this article is a classic example of propaganda. First, take a complex issue and make it seem very simple by casting the dispute in absolutist, binary terms: religion vs. science or evolution vs. anti-evolution. Second, saturate the article with fear-mongering, warning people that Science and the American Way is under some dire Threat. After the reader has been appropriately frightened, you get the third, and most important, piece that typically defines how most propagandistic appeals close -- the Call to Action: "It's hard for me to imagine a bigger threat that all of us face. It's time to take action. Get involved in politics and take a stand for science."

What's most ironic about all this is that those who preach about "taking a stand for science" rely on propagandistic labels, black-and-white thinking, and an appeal to raw emotions.

I have a learned friend who is an actual (not associate) professor of bioengineering at a major university. He sees things very differently to the way Clark sees it.

It is impossible for someone who knows there is no God to accept that ID has anything at all to offer. Only believers may assess the evidence without bias.

Dear Larry F,

You must read a book entitled "Why we get sick: the new science of darwinian medicine" to understand that your question of relevance to the medical field is asinine.

Lawl @ the religious trolls. C'mon, you could at least a little more original than screaming, "science propaganda oh the noes!" New strategy time, fellas, if you aim to irritate the followers of logic over faith. =)

This article is a shame. It starts out with a blatant lie calling ID a religious ID. A Google search will show results for ID supporters ranging from ALL major religions (Islamic, Christian, Jewish, and more...), AND sites from self-identified agnostics who support ID.

ID sure is a funny "religious idea" if it can be supported by such a wide group of people who are both religious and non-religious!

One easily knows propaganda when they see it -- this is an example of propaganda.

I notice that the writer constantly says that ID is "anti-evolution." This is, of course, nonsense. ID is anti-DARWINIAN in SOME aspects. ID takes issues with the basic claim that DARWINIAN evolution (unguided, by chance) can account for the diversity of life. So, seeing the canard that ID is "anti-evolution" solidifies this article's place in the propaganda bin.

Then there's this lie:

---------------------
Clark was all too familiar with the war on evolution. Public schools in Kansas and Pennsylvania were already embroiled in highly publicized anti-evolution campaigns led by advocates of intelligent design (known as I.D.), who claim that living things are so complex, they must have been purposefully designed by a supernatural intelligence. I.D. backers reject the fundamental tenets of evolutionary theory -- namely, that species evolve over time through natural selection and random genetic mutations.
---------------------

ID says NO SUCH THING. ID NEVER says that something could not have possibly evolved via Darwinian evolution, thus it was the result of supernatural design. ID never identifies the designer, and it says that supernatural design is out of the realm of science. Even the book "Of Pandas and People" makes this clear in the first ten pages where it says that we cannot look to "supernatural" explanations, because it's outside the realm of science.

ID supporters also DO NOT reject what this article claims. They accept RM+NS in that it can account for some changes, but nowhere near ALL the changes we see and it cannot result in ALL the diversity we see in life. Stop putting bogus words into the mouths of ID proponents!

How many lies can one article contain? Let's continue...

Then there's this lie:

--------------
"Since 2001, the teaching of evolution has been challenged in more than 40 states, from Pennsylvania to California. In many places, including Utah, the anti-evolution movement has been led by religious ideologues who consider Darwin's theory antithetical to the biblical version of creation. At the same time, they tout intelligent design as a legitimate scientific theory, not a theological concept."
--------------

Once again, there's that lie that there's a war on evolution. Not so. ID never rejects evolution...it merely rejects DARWINIAN evolution and says that it cannot account for ALL the variety in nature. This claim that it's anti-evolution is made simply to claim it's "creationism," but this is a bald-faced lie, and the writer should be ashamed.

The writer then goes onto quote Eugenie Scott, but makes no mention that Scott is a very hardcore atheist and that the only thing her group does is go around the nation demanding that no criticism of DARWINIAN evolution take place.

I still see no ID supporters being quoted. Biased? You make the call.

The writer then says that drug resistance in viruses are the result of evolution and that ID is waging a war against this. Too bad no ID proponent I've EVER read has denied drug resistance! ID proponents, in general, reject the MAJOR changes (ie, those between phyla)!!

Continuing with the nonsense:

-----------------
In January, Kroemer wrote a pro-evolution editorial, warning that religiously motivated attacks on science "threaten the continued prosperity and security of our nation in a world where we increasingly have to compete with other nations that have developed strong science-based technologies in areas that were once unchallenged domains of the United States."
-----------------

Now, this is complete and utter nonsense. The U.S., as a nation, rejects DARWINIAN evolution. Polls constantly show that a MAJORITY of Americans don't buy it. This has been the same feeling for many many decades...yet the U.S. is tops in science and has been for a long time. Seems that there's been no harm at all, even when the majority of the nation's people actually give more credence (according to all the polls) to young earth creationism then DARWINISM. I will capitalize that, as even in this paragraph and the one above, the article continues to claim ID is against "evolution", rather than the truth -- that ID rejects DARWINIAN evolution to account for ALL the diversity of life on earth.

More lies:

------------------
The term "intelligent design" was virtually unknown until the 1990s. That's when the Discovery Institute, a well-funded conservative think tank in Seattle whose supporters include wealthy, ultraconservative Christians, launched a national anti-evolution campaign.
------------------

Again, ID is NOT "anti-evolution." I'm shocked that a prestigious university would allow such lies to be written in their publications! I also like the ad-hominems used in saying that ID is full of "unltraconservative Christian," when in fact there are many agnostics that have signed onto DI's list of scientists that aren't convinced that DARWINIAN evolution can explain it all.

The article goes onto constantly use the term "anti-evolution," and I pointed out how bogus this notion is. Then they quote Matthew Scott who says:

---------------
"There is overpowering evidence for evolution," says Matthew Scott. "There's absolutely no question about it in any serious biologist's mind. Evolution remains the unifying principle of modern biology. We can observe evolution happening now, we can trace an ever-clearer fossil record, and there is vast knowledge of the molecular mechanisms that make gradual change in animal and plant forms possible. Of course there is still more to learn. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is essentially magic."
---------------

I guess he doesn't consider any of the PhD holding biologists on this list [http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/] "serious" in any way. Too bad he has no respect for this with dissenting views. Same goes for the author of this entire article.

More nonsense and more claims that ID is against bacterial resistance, which no ID proponent I know of rejects! Then, you have a quote from E.O. Wilson, without mentioning that he's also a hardcore atheist who is on record saying that life has no purpose whatsoever, and we know that because of Darwinism. Funny how anyone challenging Darwinism is labelled "utlraconservative Christian" or something similar, yet no one took the time to quote ANY ID proponent, and every Darwinist quoted is given no label...no mention of the fact that most quoted are outright atheists and against religion in general. Bias? You decide!

This is by far one of the most dishonest pieces I've read in quite a while. Mark Shwartz should be ashamed of himself, as should the university for allowing so many bald-faced lies to appear in their medical magazine.

With so much dishonesty being spread, no wonder Americans, when polled side not with the Darwinian establishment but rather with those who are skeptical of all the claims made in Darwin's name.

It IS simple. Goddidit is not an explanation. It is not science. It adds exactly nothing to our understanding of the universe around us. The entire political movement that is the Intelligent Design Creationism Hoax has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. Feel free to ask an actual scientist. You know, one that actually does science, rather than sit around whining that his religion was unmasked.

Or, you can ask any of the CDesign Proponentists "What exactly IS the scientific theory of Intelligent Design?" Surprise, there isn't one.

I've never seen so many uneducated comments about evolution from people who are supposedly intelligent and educated ....

1st off, there is no controversy within the scientific community about evolution as both macrevolution and microevolution have been observed .....

2nd point, the entire history of modern medicine is based on evolutionary principles....starting with Jenner's smallpox vaccination over 250 years ago ...that wouldn't have worked except for the common descent of both cowpox and the smallpox viruses ....the nutritional studies using rats ...based on common descent .....heart surgery on dogs used to find human cures ...common descent ...

It's just ignorance to claim that evolution isn't factual or that we don't use it in medicine ....

on another topic

ID is a sophisticated way of saying that our ignorance is God ....it's merely insulting if you are a theist like me

The image of Elvis on a piece of toast is a far cry from the incredible mechanistic architecture of say, a bacterial flagellum.

btw all of Behe's "Irreduceable Complexity" arguments have been refuted ....the Dover trial transcripts are online at TALKORIGINS.org

Nerves in teeth? *Intelligent* Design? I don't think so.
--

I don't understand why there have to be "sides" in this debate. I also don't understand why there is such debate on what is science and what isn't. "Science" is clearly defined. Anything that falls under the term "science" must have proof, and the proof must withstand provable, evidential challenges. Belief in I.D. requires no proof. It is strictly faith.

Yes, there is faith in science. A scientist must have faith that, to connect two pieces of evidence, there must be more evidence, and s/he builds a theory to cover the gap until proof is found (or until it is disproved.) In the meantime, that scientist and others try to find the proof needed.

I.D. requires only faith. This is not a bad thing, although I hear many scientists say it is. A big part of the problem here is that scientists and their science are under attack in the public venue by people who believe that God created the universe. As a result, they defend science and forget that all this (science and a belief that God create the universe) can work together. In the meantime, the public face of I.D. tends to attempt to discredit science and scientists.

Maybe God DID create the universe and gave it all the rules that scientists are uncovering. Maybe God made it all tough to figure out for a reason. Who is to say it didn't happen that way? Maybe this is all a game and the real reasoning behind it is an experiment to see how we react to it all. I wonder if we are passing or failing the test?

Mike Gene - Scientists DO NOT appeal to raw emotion. They appeal to reason and clear, logical thinking. I.D. is about faith and emotions. Each of us is capable of all of those characteristics. However, when we exclude any of these traits, we become blind to our own shortcomings, which we then deny and use to attack others.

If you want to teach I.D. in schools, approach it from a different angle. It just ain't science.

Here's a convenient index to common creationist/IDist claims about evolution: www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

The research is thorough and the references complete. Anyone with any questions about the "controversy" over evolutionary theory can find an answer here.

On June 21st, Dan made a comment mentioning a document, the "dissent from darwinism", which included 600 global signatures of scientists detesting the validity of Evolutionary theory. (Information found here at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732 ). And while it has already been stated that a theory's validity isn't determined by who or how many back it, I would like to remind you that the NCSE has half-jokingly made their own list. It is called Project Steve, and includes over 600 scientists named 'Steve' who support evolutionary theory. (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp). Of course, the difference is that all signatures are Steve or a variation of, which according to the website only represents 1% of the scientific community.

To correct Kevin F., ID isn't thinking "way, way out of the box," ID is a denial that the box exists.

I wonder what makes Charles from Washington think that morallity could not evolve in an intelligent, social creature such as humans. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution common among its detractors. Individuals do not evolve; populations evolve. "Survival of the fittest" is a gross over-simplification, and a social species will evolve behaviors that benefit the group at the expense of the individual. Examples of this abound in nature, and "me uber alles" vs. "tablets in stone from God" is a false dichotomy. Perhaps someone should explain to Charles (and George W. and his dad) that atheists have consciences, too; they just disagree with theists as to why they have them.

For more responses to creationist strawmen, see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

Dan wrote "Over 600 such scientists have signed the Dissent..."

Useless list. Even the DI admits that only a quarter of the signers are actual biologists. And of those, only a few actually study evolution. The petition doesn't even mention ID. It just says "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." Hardly a blow to evolution. Last year, one of the signers even removed his name from the list when he realized that it, along with the Discovery Institute is an "elaborate, clever marketing program to tear down evolution for religious reasons". Finally, even a full list of 600 people is a tiny fraction of the scientific community (note: many signers are not scientists either).

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10A1FFA3A5A0C728EDDAB0894DE404482

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002450329_danny24.html

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/05/lists_of_dissenting_scientists.php

The high proportion of antievolution comments on this article is sad.

"Darwinism" is scientifically unverifiable? Only if you're willing to ignore the vast amount of evidence for it, from the fossil record, the DNA record, the geological record, and from other independent branches of science. Although in a way you might be correct--no one accepts Darwinist evolution any more because the theory has (ahem) evolved so much from when it began. As a scientific theory, it's fine-tuned over time as new information comes available and as parts of it are found to be inadequate or incomplete.

ID has nothing to do with religion? Then why is it backed mostly by creationists, and why does it seek to bypass the scientific process and go straight for the political arena and school system?

Over 600 scientists have signed the Dissent from Darwinism statement? Six hundred some out of the tens of thousands of scientists worldwide? If we're going to argue from authority (which is a faulty premise, but if you insist), and if you prefer an apples-to-apples comparison, let's not forget that Project Steve, a statement affirming the validity of evolution, has the signatures of over 700 scientists, and only scientists named Steve (or variations thereof)--which is a mere 1% of the population.

The biggest misconception here, though, is Charles' concerning morality. Just opposite what he expects, morality evolved because it was beneficial to the species. Social animals have an evolutionary edge because they help each other and the whole troupe has a better chance of survival. Remember the old saying about strength in numbers. Ants wouldn't be nearly so successful if they became solitary animals. So while yes, selfish, narcissistic behavior can be helpful to an individual, it's not favorable to our species as a whole.

I had the pleasure of working in the field of cancer genetics for 10 years. During this time I had fun looking at the genes of hundreds of organisms. Lining up the sequence of each them against each other demonstrated one simple thing: Genes have changed gradually over time and have a common origin. I challange anyone to find a single organism that cannot be proven to be related to another by genetic mutation! Did you know that some genes in plants are identical to genes in humans. Every organism on this planet is related to one another through a common ancestor. That's a scientific theory that has been proven. Go on....go out and look for that lonely organism...you won't find it.

The marriage of science and spirituality (as opposed to religion) is, in itself, an evolutionary process. One only has to look at the world's current events to assure ourselves that we are not only helpless, but hopeless, without our planet moving in the direction of it trying to become more in tune with the concepts of God's love, to treat other people as we wish to be treated, and to not kill. Science will help save our planet, with the understanding that the ability to save our planet (and our species) through scientific inquiry and problem-solving is itself yet another gift from God. Time, of course, is a man-made phenomena, and it is not, as is known, what we think it to be.

Whatever the merits of keeping Intelligent Design out of the science classrooms, your issue devoted to Darwinian evolution displayed more than a defense of the theory. A center-left and far-left bias couldn't resist more than a few gratuitious swipes at those of us who oppose embryonic stem cell research, the morning after pill (an anti-zygotic, courtesy of modern science) and the hubristic tendency of so many who believe, intolerantly, that no view but there own can be tolerated. God forbid a scientist should wax philosophic and surmise, as with the Big Bang, that something came before. Anathema to the true believer but more than a bit ironic.

Terence O'Flanagan M.D.

I read with great interest the summer 2006 issue of "Stanford Medicine." I hope you will share an alternative view with your readers.

I believe in creation by more than intelligent design. I believe in creation by Divine intent which includes the belief in only one God existing in a supernatural realm that existed before time and space existed, who created the original black hole of superimposed concentric atomic particles and energy which lacked time and space, and who made it explode into an ever expanding universe. I also believe that one God had and still has a plan (Divine intent) for an overall universe and is responsible for most of what exists and happens, but leaves some of the details up to chance (including random processes like mutations) and delegates some of the choices to intelligent beings. Consequently, some of creation is in fact due to intelligent design by humans. For example, many breeds of animals and plants exist because of inbreeding, cross-breeding and now genetic engineering by intelligent humans. In that light, we can all agree that some of creation is by intelligent design while disagreeing on creation by Divine intent.

Do we have any other common ground? To find out, please go to http://mednews.stanford.edu/stanmed/2006summer/tolan-letter.html.

Bruce wrote:

"In terms of the argument that ID appeals to the supernatural, that is only partially correct. If supernatural qualities of God (by that I assume you would mean those outside of the observable three-dimensional universe) are all one would pursue in terms of empirical science, then the argument holds."

Utter hogwash (as was virtually everything you wrote). Science by definition does not concern itself with investigating the supernatural. No verbal gymnastics, however deft, can negate the fact that ID carries no scientific weight. It is, as the article states, nothing but noise served up by religiously motivated opponents of evolution.

Kevin wrote: "Bruce wrote: In terms of the argument that ID appeals to the supernatural, that is only partially correct. If supernatural qualities of God (by that I assume you would mean those outside of the observable three-dimensional universe) are all one would pursue in terms of empirical science, then the argument holds."

Kevin wrote: Utter hogwash (as was virtually everything you wrote).

Bruce wrote: Whoa, I was under the impression that these discussions were to be held in a civil manner! No matter. I assure you, I am not alone as either a philosopher, or in terms of science in considering extra-dimensionalities as a viable source for both creation itself, (string theory being a strong contender, and requiring "super-natural" dimensions, eleven in all) and maintenance of that creation. Though there are more elaborate discussions, see Brian Greene's "Elegant Universe" or Stephen Hawking's "Brief History of Time" for credible arguments.

Kevin wrote: Science by definition does not concern itself with investigating the supernatural.

Bruce wrote: Au contraire! Science has long concerned itself with investigating the supernatural. It is only in doing so we find the boundaries of natural versus truly super-natural. The notion of electricity, radio waves, quarks, germ theory, etc. were at one time beyond our natural understanding. The greatest discoveries ever made have generally revealed themselves first in the imagination, and generally to the chagrin of those who preferred the status quo. As theoretical psychologist Nicholas Humprey stated, "Great minds can sometimes guess the truth before they have either the evidence or arguments for it." It is in the very spirit of science that ID ventures the question. To suggest that ID is solely the realm of persons of faith or at least deists is to miss the broader question. There are questions that beg answers, such as, why is there symmetry throughout the universe?

Kevin wrote: No verbal gymnastics, however deft, can negate the fact that ID carries no scientific weight. It is, as the article states, nothing but noise served up by religiously motivated opponents of evolution.

Bruce wrote: Well, Kevin, I truly am not trying to perform "verbal gymnastics." Just trying to be precise. In terms of whether ID carries scientific weight, you would have to debate with a growing cadre of well-respected scientists I suspect neither of us could hold a candle to. I personally do not categorically reject evolution from any sense of a religiously wrought repulsion, but remain unconvinced out of evolution's wanting case. There is not room here for an expose of my reasons. But I am not alone, and a host of evolutionists abandoning the idea bolsters the argument.

In my 50-year-long clinical research in Biophysical Semeiotics (www.semeioticabiofisica.it), I meet a large number of "mythical," surprising numbers -- Lyapounov's exponents, Feigenbaum's number, golden mean, a.s.o. -- in deterministic chaos of biological systems. In my opinion, neither man nor his forefather ape did that!

As you see, a theory should have overwhelming observational and experimental evidences. Where are they?

There are no fossils; Miller and Fox really did nothing more than fiction. So, you should defend your words. Show us the proofs of your 'theory'...

I have read of this controversy between some scientists who believe in evolution and theologists who believe in the Bible's account of creation. I have read the statements of the scientists quoted above and I marvel at the lack of objectivity in their ranks!

If they truly believe in their theory of evolution, let them present their scientific proof sans the politics, the overemotional, reactive attacks on Intelligent Design. Let's keep it within the confines of objective science and not let it become just another close-minded dogma.

As a matter of fact, there are many highly regarded scientists, past and present, that have determined that life is the result of the design and creation and sustaining power of a superior intelligence. How many scientists have been able to duplicate any significant life forms yet?

It is inappropriate to make the debate between evolutionists and people that believe in creation a political issue. I was appalled to see that several of the above-quoted "scientists" were more concerned that the belief in creation was bringing about the destruction of the Constitution and the American way of life as we know it!

The much-maligned Bible uses a good illustration to provide a simple explanation for creation. At Hebrews 3:4 it says, "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God." We all know how houses come into existance. Who will argue that houses just evolve? We know there is a designer, an architect, a building supplier, and an owner. Don't you think that you can find the very same support systems in all life forms?

I ask the question to evolutionary scientists, "If the explanation for life on earth and in the universe was found in an ancient book of science rather than theology, would you accept it - or not?"