Put another nail in the coffin for the creationist/ID perspective:
When scientists announced last month they had determined the exact order of all 3 billion bits of genetic code that go into making a chimpanzee, it was no surprise that the sequence was more than 96 percent identical to the human genome. Charles Darwin had deduced more than a century ago that chimps were among humans’ closest cousins.
But decoding chimpanzees’ DNA allowed scientists to do more than just refine their estimates of how similar humans and chimps are. It let them put the very theory of evolution to some tough new tests.
If Darwin was right, for example, then scientists should be able to perform a neat trick. Using a mathematical formula that emerges from evolutionary theory, they should be able to predict the number of harmful mutations in chimpanzee DNA by knowing the number of mutations in a different species’ DNA and the two animals’ population sizes.
“That’s a very specific prediction,” said Eric Lander, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., and a leader in the chimp project.
Sure enough, when Lander and his colleagues tallied the harmful mutations in the chimp genome, the number fit perfectly into the range that evolutionary theory had predicted.
Their analysis was just the latest of many in such disparate fields as genetics, biochemistry, geology and paleontology that in recent years have added new credence to the central tenet of evolutionary theory: That a smidgeon of cells 3.5 billion years ago could — through mechanisms no more extraordinary than random mutation and natural selection — give rise to the astonishing tapestry of biological diversity that today thrives on Earth.
But I thought man and dinosaur co-existed until the floods? [/sarcasm]
John S.
They very well may have, but that doesn’t neccessarily mean a few of them didn’t evolve into other species. I mean, have you ever seen an alligator up close?
Those things are downright prehistoric.
Mike
But what if a creator just used the mechanism of evolution to achieve his goals? Do you allow for this argument?
John S.
I would. I can’t really fathom why creationism and evolution must be viewed as mutually exclusive concepts.
Unless someone has any thoughts to the contrary…
MN Politics Guru
Yeah, everybody who knows their book-learnin’ will see this as yet another piece of evidence that evolution is the best theory to explain the diversity and change of species, but a bunch of wackos are still going to be arguing in front of a judge that if the community wants to teah hocus-pocus, they should be able to.
jg
In science? No. In reality? Maybe. Science will NEVER say a process was started, or controlled by the supernatural. It can’t. Its no longer science.
Walker
Good scientists do not refute this argument. There are some well-known scientists that do, but they are confusing metaphysical naturalism with pragmatic naturalism.
In pragmatic naturalism, we do not allow supernatural explanations — like God — because we cannot predict them. Even the most devout religious person will tell you that he/she does not fully know God’s will. Science is all about predicting things, so if we cannot use it to reliably predict something, we ignore it. God may be there, but he ain’t useful in the study of science, so we don’t rely on him.
Metaphysical naturalism is the jump that says that, since science is so useful, we might as well assume there is no God. This is not a scientific belief, and scientists who hold it as such are just as dangerous as creationists.
Jon H
“Those things are downright prehistoric.”
I once worked at a company with a sizable population of geese who took up residence on the lawn separating the back parking lot from the building.
I could absolutely believe those things used to be carnivorous reptiles.
demimondian
Because the battle isn’t really over truth, of course. The Creationism/ID/next week’s bogus nonsense theories are attempts to push empiricism out of the center of power it is assuming over ethics in our society.
If you accept that the appropriate measure for whether a law or an action is good or not good is based on demonstable benefit or harm, then a number of classical mores simply fall apart. To the more power-hungry among the traditionalists, this is a threat to their power. To the less powerful in our society, this is a threat to the few advantages they have. The result is a demonic alliance of the worst with the worst.
Jon H
“But what if a creator just used the mechanism of evolution to achieve his goals? Do you allow for this argument?”
As long as it’s not put forward as science, I have no problem with it.
Another issue, of course, is if you mean that God tweaked evolution of various species over time. I don’t find that likely, because it means he was using trial and error, which implies that God would make mistakes.
Unfortunately, the anti-evolution people prefer a weak God who fits in a very small box, so they can’t allow a concept of God who set off a big bang billions of years ago then stepped back to watch, knowing that people would turn up eventually, but without having to meddle in the meantime.
A God who meddles with evolution to get the ‘right outcome’ would be as lame as a billiards trick-shot artist who has to guide the balls step by step by hand, rather than just taking a shot with the cue and watching the balls collide, jump, and fall into the pockets.
srv
I’m all for teaching ID at school on one condition: ID believers must reject use of all technologies that have been derived by scientific method.
None of this pick-and-choose relativism. If Archeologists, Biologists, Chemists, Geologists, Astronomers and Geneticists are all involved in a massive conspiracy, then so must all the Engineers, Doctors, Physicists, etc.
Unless someone left me off the memo, that is.
John S.
I would agree. However, I don’t see it as God utilizing evolution to attain a goal. I think as the Divine receded from the scene, things changed over time, which as a concept is both highly scientific (and measurable) as well as spritual/religious (free will and all).
Also, I think it worth mentioning that de-evolution really isn’t distinguished from evolution. Our shift from the Biblical concept of ‘perfection’ into the humans we are today is really just an evolutionary change, and one which incidentally is catalogued in the Bible.
jg
Me too.
John S.
I think I should mention (before anyone starts jumping to conclusions) that I do not think any form of ID or creationism should be taught in school, unless it’s in a philosophy class.Evolution is science, and should be taught in a science class.
At the end of the day, the Christian or religiously minded parents that are pushing for “alternatives” to be taught are simply admitting that they are too damn lazy to teach their own children about these things themselves and would prefer it to be relegated to the authority of the schools.
jg
Or at least that their kids stop coming home less likely to believe the tales of creation they might learn about in appropriate places.
rilkefan
Proves nothing. A competent G*d would of course have sown the chimp genome with the due imperfections, just like she gave us the Blinddarm (can’t think of the English word, little thing in the gut that gets infected). And ID is about how aliens built eukaryotes, not apes.
Aaron
I think this argument is fundamentally mistaken. ID/Creationism has nothing whatever to do with teaching children alternate ideas or being too lazy to do so yourself — it has everything to do with a tiny group of people trying to enforce a set of ideas that the rest of society has soundly rejected. This, like Christian conservative attacks on homosexuality is about furthering the ancient Christian concept of Satan (“saved” in-groups and “demonic,” actively evil out-groups) into the twenty-first century. It should have been left in the first. Check out Elaine Pagels’ “The Origin of Satan” for a very interesting discussion on the origin of Christian feelings of persecution (even when none exist) and vilification of others.
TallDave
Come on, everyone knows from The Flintstones that men and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
John S.
Aaron-
I think you missed the point of my statement, and made some erroneous ones of your own.
I specifically typed “alternatives” (think finger parentheticals) because I don’t think they care about multiple ideas, either. I think they care about teaching only what they think is a sound belief in the the Bible. But the irony is that they don’t get it themselves. Many have never actually read the Bible themselves (save the few passages they are spoon fed by their clergy), and therefore are not equipped to teach it to anyone. This is evident by many of the notions (assassination) they seem to hold true.
And here is the greatest irony of all. As far as I am concerned, the “Christian conservative attacks” and the ones who make them are proof of “the ancient Christian concept of Satan”. Check out Matthew 7:15-23. Quite frankly, anything that they think is right, I am inclined to think otherwise.
stickler
Rilkefan: Blinddarm heißt “appendix” auf Englisch.
Re: geese. Yes, they are inherently evil (in behavior and in what emissions they leave behind on our municipal beaches). This why it is such a sublime pleasure to hunt them, kill them, clean them, and cook them in a nice beer and bacon preparation which renders their flesh so delectable. Um, I mean wild geese, of course. In season. With both federal and state permits. Hypothetically speaking.
Re: ID proponents (or, as my pastor calls them, “Hellbound Schismatics”). These people want society to conform to their ideal — whether they actually admit this to themselves or not. Many are certainly convinced that the ID thing is just about science classes and will stop there. But of course it won’t. Puritans never stop themselves. They can’t; they’re trying to create the new Jerusalem on earth.
Mike
“jg Says:
In science? No. In reality? Maybe. Science will NEVER say a process was started, or controlled by the supernatural. It can’t. Its no longer science.”
I see your point.
Glad to see that many here are open minded though (no I’m NOT being snarky either). Note also that I’m not trying to turn the argument into “well we should be teaching ID in schools, but I CAN see an opening for a teacher saying, “well scientists think there was this spark that started life in the deep past, but we don’t know where the spark came from”.
kenB
Re the study, I’ve read enough bad science articles and seen enough poorly-designed studies not to take it at face value. Note that I’m not at all an ID proponent, just saying that studies like these that reinforce dominant beliefs tend to get less scrutiny than they deserve.
To be honest, I don’t see anything horribly wrong with the ID “theory” getting class time — I think it could serve as an excellent springboard for discussion of the scientific method. Since the ID proponents are out in force, better to teach the kids how to recognize the snake oil rather than pretend it doesn’t exist.
SeesThroughIt
“I’ll make sure you get a copy of that memo, mmmkay?”
Oh, and if you could go ahead and pledge your life to that ongoing conspiracy that only Evangelicals know about and promise to use all forms of logical thought and scientific inquiry to eradicate religion and replace it with godless heathenism even when working on something that has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, that would be greeaaat.
demimondian
If the study were a fact in isolation, you might have a leg to stand on. I haven’t read it, so I can’t evaluate the quality of the paper or papers involved.
But it isn’t an isolated study. There are a series of studies about deleterious genes, and the data keeps piling up. And that ignores the hundred year’s worth of data accumulated before this.
kenB
But it isn’t an isolated study.
Well, there are any number of studies that purport to reinforce Chomsky’s innateness hypothesis, but they generally just show the researchers’ preconceived notions and ignorance of linguistics. But in this case I guess there’s no cross-discipline element, so it’s probably more reliable.
you might have a leg to stand on
Again, not arguing for ID, just making the point that people tend to be quick to accept results that they’re inclined to agree with at face value.
Big E
ID is a fraud…..
——————–
from an article by Barbra Forrest:
key phrase:
The Wedge aims to “renew” American culture by grounding society’s major institutions, especially education, in evangelical religion. In 1996, Johnson declared: “This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science. It’s about religion and philosophy.”—————————————————————————————-
“Phillip E. Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial (1991), the intelligent-design movement crystallized in 1996 as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), sponsored by the Discovery Institute, a conservative Seattle think tank. Johnson, a law professor whose religious conversion catalyzed his antievolution efforts, assembled a group of supporters who promote design theory through their writings, financed by CRSC fellowships. According to an early mission statement, the CRSC seeks “nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies.”
Johnson refers to the CRSC members and their strategy as the Wedge, analogous to a wedge that splits a log—meaning that intelligent design will liberate science from the grip of “atheistic naturalism.” Ten years of Wedge history reveal its most salient features: Wedge scientists have no empirical research program and, consequently, have published no data in peer-reviewed journals (or elsewhere) to support their intelligent-design claims. But they do have an aggressive public relations program, which includes conferences that they or their supporters organize, popular books and articles, recruitment of students through university lectures sponsored by campus ministries, and cultivation of alliances with conservative Christians and influential political figures.
The Wedge aims to “renew” American culture by grounding society’s major institutions, especially education, in evangelical religion. In 1996, Johnson declared: “This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science. It’s about religion and philosophy.” According to Dembski, intelligent design “is just the Logos of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.” Wedge strategists seek to unify Christians through a shared belief in “mere” creation, aiming—in Dembski’s words—“at defeating naturalism and its consequences.” This enables intelligent-design proponents to coexist in a big tent with other creationists who explicitly base their beliefs on a literal interpretation of Genesis.”
srv
I had a seizure during Office Space.
I used to work at NASA. Our major form was the Test Preparation Sheet (TPS).
One of my coworkers was Milton’s clone.
Another coworker had a nervous breakdown over the copying machine.
I dated a girl who worked at Chili’s.
I was thinking Judge was god, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory is pretty compelling.
demimondian
A hundred years of supported predictions sort of beats Chomsky’s fifty years of failed ones, don’t you think?
demimondian
One of my people at Microsoft has a neon FSM ideograph in his window. His office is right below BillG’s.
demimondian
Fooey — that’s a bad typo. “my poeple” should absolutely read “the people”. He/she/it is not in my group.
Patrick Carver
Just FYI: Dr. William Dembski, who’s perhaps one of the most prominent ID advocate, has a brief comment on the findings WaPo reports on:
uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/353
jobiuspublius
If my under standing of ID is correct, it has nothing to do with God. ID is about an Intelligant Designer. The Intelligant Designer(s) is/are left unspecified. So, it’s funny to see so much support for ID by Christians. It doesn’t support the majority of their beliefs.
jobiuspublius
I’ve been reading thru Dembski’s site. This guy reads like a smear merchant.
This crap, and this.
Shygetz
You can believe this study (and I have read it). Genome projects are like jigsaw puzzles–they are very hard to do, but they are also VERY hard to screw up. Either you get the right answer, or the pieces don’t fit. Not to say that there aren’t any errors (there is almost certainly about a 0.1% to a 1% error in the sequence), but the magnitude of the error isn’t large enough to invalidate the conclusions. You can take this one to the bank.
Lines
From Demski:
Anyone that has studied genetic sequence or genetic algorithm’s realizes that mutation isn’t beneficial or degradory, its just mutation. Trying to claim that Darwin’s theory only requires beneficial mutation is a simplification that can only come from a simple, but obsessed, mind.
John S.
As I have already pointed out, there is no distinction between “positive” and “negative” evolution. All mutation over time is evolution, regardelss of what form it takes.
It is similar to the classification of “gifted” used to classify the learning potential of children. There is no distinction between being extremely adept or woefully challenged when it comes to the application of the term.
Marcos
John, do not make the sky fairy angry! She is a vengeful spirit and will smite thee down to an eternity of pain! Hmmm…bondage fairies…
Off Colfax
See, that’s the beauty of the plan. At least as far as they are concerned.
1) Get folks to see Intelligent Design as plausible.
2) Allow them to make the logical leap from ID to straight Creationism on their own.
3) Use the grassroots movement to eliminate Darwinian evolution completely from the curriculum.
4) Man creates dinosaurs.
5) Dinosaur destroys man.
6) Woman takes over the earth.
…
Okay. No more listening to Jurrasic Park while typing. I totally got the two lists confused.
BARRASSO
If only we could get more people to understand evolutionary theory we would die less.
as this article seems to afirm
timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html