Experts and users discuss intelligent design, evolution, religion in society, religion and science: Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.
Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology
- From Discovery Institute
By Discovery Institute - A Positive Vision of the Future
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
please explain
"In fact, the history of life shows a pattern of explosions where new fossil forms come into existence without any clear evolutionary precursors, concurring with design theory that predicts that species might appear abruptly."
Can someone that believes in ID please explain this "abrupt" design of species. When the design happens does a herd of the new species miraculously materialize into existence? Are they born to mothers of a completely different species?
I'll consider that ID is more than smoke and mirrors if someone can give me good answers to how these designed species come into existence.
- reckoner
September 10, 2008 11:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Cambrian 'Explosion'
"In fact, the history of life shows a pattern of explosions where new fossil forms come into existence without any clear evolutionary precursors, concurring with design theory that predicts that species might appear abruptly."
This is a good example of how ID creationists describe the scientific data of the Cambrian explosion. They even extensively quote mine expert Valentine who recently has argued that based on the evidence, he believes that Darwinian processes are quite sufficient to explain this so called 'explosion' which was neither an explosion nor without evolutionary precursors.
Weird stuff, but anyone familiar with the vast research in this area has to reject these simplistic and even erroneous representations of the Cambrian 'explosion'.
So why do we still hear about them?
- PvM
September 10, 2008 11:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So where are the calculations
-- Jay --
Intelligent design (ID) has scientific merit in paleontology because in many instances, it can be applied to the fossil record to detect where design has occurred in the history of life by finding the rapid introduction of large amounts of complex and specified information (CSI).(2) (CSI was described in greater detail in my first opening statement.)
---
First of all, no such calculations have ever been applied so it is at best a promissory note. Worse, CSI is not even a reliable detector of 'design' as it cannot preclude natural processes. Worse of course is that even if CSI could be calculated, it would have no relevance as it provides us with no explanations, no mechanisms, nothing. At best, a minor mystery for science to unravel.
What is fascinating to me is how Jay continues to quote mine Darwin and misrepresent the science when it comes for instance to intermediates. Worse, he continues a fine tradition of quote mining Gould. And then he claims that Gould somehow changed his position. While rhetorically understandable, I find it hard to understand why such arguments are made since they not only are trivially shown to be wrong or misleading. But lacking science of their own, what other choices are there for ID proponents?
Now it can be at least partially excused by observing that Jay is not a biologist and thus he may have failed to appreciate Gould's statements which are not contradictory. According to the DI's website, Richard is
--
Jay Wesley Richards has a Ph.D.(honors) in philosophy and theology from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he was formerly a Teaching Fellow.
--
I am sure that his theological backgrounds have found a good home with the center of Intelligent Design, the Discovery Institute. One may ask oneself what theology and philosophy have to contribute to the scientific status of ID. On the other hand, given that ID is scientifically without content, the theological angle may be more promising? Of course, even there ID has countered much opposition from Christians.
But perhaps Jay can help us understand how ID explains these observations? Was a God involved in all these species transitionals, although he was less involved in transitions between higher groups? How was such achieved? Why are species still following the expected nested hierarchies? Is the creator restricted in how he can create? Surely such questions seem perhaps more appropriate for a theology PhD to address?
- PvM
September 10, 2008 10:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Gould quote mines
---
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.
----
Part of the extensive resources at Talkorigins, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html
More after I do some more research, it's time to reject these arguments once and for all because they add no credibility to ID and they serve to do a disservice to these scientists.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 10:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Mining a quote
==Discovery Institute quote mines Mayr
What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities. All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed. ... The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories."(1)
====
He provides us with the link and what do we find? These are not necessarily Mayr's own beliefs but rather a description of
"The students of diversity raised some observational objections to natural selection. On the basis of the survival of superior individuals and the gradual change of populations, one would expect complete continuity in nature, they claimed"
This seems rather misleading especially since Mayr outlines the objections that faced early Darwinism and the tasks laid out for Darwinism's defenders.
I was thus not surprised to see how many creationist sources seem to similarly quote mine Mayr's quote.
Let's see how I can track down some of the other 'quotes' and see how they add to the 'arguments' by
- PvM
September 13, 2008 10:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Science is not "he-said" "she-said".
I was going to post a long reply discussing each quote in detail, but I decided this was SO much simpler.
--Insert ALL quotes from the argument here--
SO WHAT? Quoting other researchers is not science.
Analyze the data, and show how it supports your hypothesis, or go home.
Make a prediction based on your hypothesis, or go home.
Perform experiments, or find new data that validates your hypothesis, or go home.
ID has no merit in any scientific field because it is at best an unfinished hypothesis that makes no predictions.
- PStryder September 16, 2008 7:19PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ID predicts...?
"In fact, the history of life shows a pattern of explosions where new fossil forms come into existence without any clear evolutionary precursors, concurring with design theory that predicts that species might appear abruptly."
-------
Let me fix the end of Luskin's quote from above: "... concurring with design theory that predicts that species might or might not appear abruptly."
I would like for Luskin to explain why he thinks that ID should predict an abrupt rather than a non-abrupt appearance of species.
- Hawks September 18, 2008 10:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ID Minority
Perhaps the author can explain why, of all of the thousands of researchers in geology, biology (particularly evolutionary biologists), and paleontology.. in other words the people who are truly eperts in this area.... no more than a very tiny minority support ID.
Why so much emphasis on the fossil record, and little reference to what DNA tells us?
And, if a common ancestor is not incompatible with ID, then why is evolution incompatible with the concept of God? Couldn't God have created the evolutionary process as his way of propagating life?
Fundamental religious people often blindly call on faith to explain difficult or even paradoxical concepts (why do children die?). They appeal to God's mysterious ways, and cite mankind's hubris in attempting a rational explanation. But in the case of evolution, they turn around and claim to know that God does not favor this particular format for the creation of life. Presumably this is because the Bible provides evidence to the contrary. But now we hear that the Bible is subject to interpretation, as, instead of a 7 day process, the creation of life was done over eons, with new forms appearing spontaneously.
Do you believe in the Bible literally, or do you not? And if not, how can you use it to support ID?
- hitac
September 28, 2008 12:09AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Only until an appropriately intermediate fossil is found
The problem with your argument is that it simply depends on a certain kind of fossil not being found, and you have been repeatedly proven wrong over the last 3 or 4 decades when such a fossil is found. Sure, there are may gaps in available data at the moment, but ID proponents are just unwilling to look at the evolutionary pattern underlying the data that we have.
- krishashok December 25, 2008 10:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hold up
"The problem with your argument is that it simply depends on a certain kind of fossil not being found,"
That's part of the equation, it also relies on changes or progressions between fossils happening to quickly or too sudden in order for it to be accounted for by chance and necessity.
"...and you have been repeatedly proven wrong over the last 3 or 4 decades when such a fossil is found."
Examples please.
"Sure, there are may gaps in available data at the moment,"
I can agree with you if you mean that we can never declare once and for all the status of the fossil record.
"...but ID proponents are just unwilling to look at the evolutionary pattern underlying the data that we have."
What is it about the current paradigm in paleontology that ID proponents are ignoring?
- F2XL
December 29, 2008 9:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Intermediary fossils
For starters,
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33623/title/Fossil_helps_document_shift_from_sea_to_land
And of course,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
- krishashok December 29, 2008 9:58PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.