Good afternoon. I hope to be able to deliver to this forum a testable hypothesis according to the theory of "Intelligent Design" at some point in the near future. As one who holds with evolution, I was of course dismayed to find that schools in Pennsylvania intend to preach against evolution in order to present Intelligent Design as "an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view". (Thomas More.org) According to CNN.com: I have sent the following e-mail to the Thomas More Legal Center (info@thomasmore.org). The version presented here is enhanced with textual emphasis not included in the original communiqué. • • • I wanted to check with your organization regarding the validity of a quote which appeared in the news: • "The revolution in evolution has begun," said Richard Thompson, the law center's president and chief counsel. "This is the first step in which students will be given an honest scientific evaluation of the theory of evolution and its problems." The above comes from CNN.com (see below for link), and the quote does not appear in the TMLC's January 18 news story published at ThomasMore.org. Is the quote relayed by CNN.com accurate? Furthermore, if that quote is accurate, I was wondering what scientific hypothesis will be tested in support of Intelligent Design in order to establish an "honest scientific evaluation"? Are there any resources available to establish the criteria of that scientific evaluation? As a parent of a child who will not attend the affected school district, I am compelled to at least attempt to understand this idea of Intelligent Design which, for all I've heard it asserted, has never been presented in the form of a testable scientific hypothesis. Many have a poor perception of Intelligent Design largely because scientists who write in support of the idea do nothing more than criticize evolution for being a scientific experiment in progress. The perceived lack of any testable scientific hypothesis is, in fact, why many people snort derisively at the idea of teaching Intelligent Design as a counterpoint to evolution. After all, if the revolution has begun, it may eventually affect my child. As the legal counsel defending this "honest scientific evaluation", surely you are also aware of the contents of that evaluation, else you could not rightly call it either honest or scientific. Thus I am hoping you are able to assuage the concern that Intelligent Design, for all the favor some parents may show it, is not in fact a scientific theory at all. Thank you very much for your consideration. - B.D. Hilling, Bothell, Washington, USA baronszurke@hotmail.com (Reference Links) 1. CNN.com. "'Intelligent design' taught in Pennsylvania". January 19, 2005. See http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/19/evolution.debate.ap/index.html 2. Thomas More Law Center. "A Revolution in Evolution is Underway". January 18, 2005. See http://www.thomasmore.org/news.html?NewsID=281 • • • I will, of course, update the situation should conditions warrant. Note: The Thomas More Law Center can also be reached according to its contact page. And be nice!
Have you seen blogs like 'Pandas thumb" and "Pharyngula"? They have been ripping up ID arguments for ages, and make entertaining reading. And one of the interesting points is that Darwin didnt have much of a view on how life originated, as far as my limited knowledge goes. Evolution is about how different life forms arise, not really about how life originated in the first place, thats an area called abiogenesis. So its rather funny to be arguing against evolution when it doesnt have much to say about how life originated.
[Note to the reader: I eddited the bulk of Tiassa'a post leaving some of the links. My questions is not directed specifically to the evolution vs design controversy.] Tiassa, Assume hypothetically that the human being in its present form is due to accelerated rates of "evolution" using DNA manipulation, and cross DNA breeding using alien and domestic DNA by members of a technologically advanced race of aliens visiting earth for some practical economic reason. This says nothing of the evolutionary process resulting in the alien race. This is meaningful only for the purposes of disclaiming design by evolutionary forces and by supernatural forces we argue about and associate with a "God" described in a variety religious publications, including, but not limited to, the old testament. Please comment. Geistkiesel
1. What evidence is their for accelerated evolution associated with humans? 2. What practical economic reason? A single plausible example would do? 3. Why would such a fanciful notion deserve any serious consideration? 4. I'm all in favour of thinking three impossible thoughts before breakfast, but most should be discarded by lunchtime.
1. Not being an evolutonist I am referring to memory where the claim is that homo sapiens appearance and the comparison to earlier indicates a fairly recent and an accelerated leap. Perhaps in a general discussion of "punctuated equilibria" tre Gould, or Ayala ? I will have to dig out the source. 2. You and your 500 associates from "way up yonder" begin mining for gold. The rigors of the task cryout for more labor. The mission geneticist notices some native animals have near alien forms though mentally and intelectually the natives are in the basement. With some trial and error the native species have developed a new cousin withthe help of the visitors who decided to make some miners "in our image". 3. It isn't faniful to anyone in this conversation except yourself. Do you know that your ancest9or didn't come from out there? As a matter of fact? Or is it your belief system carefully constructed by others that 'fancifies' all those chapters in the book that aren't compatible with the latest scientific fad? 4. Now I remember, your the aphorismist, who classifies, sorts and describes her world in one line zingers. The three stories you are balancing need more attention than allowed from breakfast to lunch. You might even have to dig deep into the "espteric" literature. The difference (one difference anyway) between you and I is I don't discard ideas and structures. I scrutinized them for utility and use what is seemingly of value to me. . Guistkiesel
No arguments regarding Darwin's sated aim was not to explain the origins of lief but merely the devfelopmwent. Hiowever, Darwin may guity of some scintific fraud here as his tree of life model leads unabmbiguously back to a single entity organism, the first 'big momma'. So what is expressly desnied the model shows different. Darwin had studied for the ministry before becoming involved as a naturalist. He once replied to a critic that :he did want to sound like an "atheist" The point being hee that Darwin was more than casually aware aof the religious uissue initrinsic in his orign of the species, whcih when read at arnms lenfth was more story in the habits of nature rather than the eternal struggle where the fittest survive. I could never quite understant the "fittest" strugle in the form of competition for limited assests available for survival . It prompts em to consder that the evolving palnet hads always been on the brink of imminent starvation if that one little sparrow survives threer by producing the beginning of a massive imbalance in nature producing mass starvation, sparrow-blue jay wars, you know the drill. Such an imbalance seems ludiocrous. The planet has never been so stressed for survival assets to such an extent, has it? Darwin's book "Origins" is prefaced with a brief "Historical Sketch" which was confined to mentioning a dozen names or so of the current leading naturalists who were quoted in various forms of taking Darwin's evolution structure as the "only rational possibility". Huxley was quoted on the concluding pages of the 'Sletch' that "[evolution] cannot be proved",,,, In the Origin I was able to wade through I got go the distinct impression that Darwin was making as much a case against a Creator Force as much as making a case for evolution, as if there are only two options. But this is just my opinion. Geistkiesel
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No arguments regarding Darwin's sated aim was not to explain the origins of lief but merely the devfelopmwent. Hiowever, Darwin may guity of some scintific fraud here as his tree of life model leads unabmbiguously back to a single entity organism, the first 'big momma'. So what is expressly desnied the model shows different. Darwin had studied for the ministry before becoming involved as a naturalist. He once replied to a critic that :he did want to sound like an "atheist" The point being hee that Darwin was more than casually aware aof the religious uissue initrinsic in his orign of the species, whcih when read at arnms lenfth was more story in the habits of nature rather than the eternal struggle where the fittest survive. I could never quite understant the "fittest" strugle in the form of competition for limited assests available for survival . It prompts em to consder that the evolving palnet hads always been on the brink of imminent starvation if that one little sparrow survives threer by producing the beginning of a massive imbalance in nature producing mass starvation, sparrow-blue jay wars, you know the drill. Such an imbalance seems ludiocrous. The planet has never been so stressed for survival assets to such an extent, has it? Darwin's book "Origins" is prefaced with a brief "Historical Sketch" which was confined to mentioning a dozen names or so of the current leading naturalists who were quoted in various forms of taking Darwin's evolution structure as the "only rational possibility". Huxley was quoted on the concluding pages of the 'Sletch' that "[evolution] cannot be proved",,,, In the Origin I was able to wade through I got go the distinct impression that Darwin was making as much a case against a Creator Force as much as making a case for evolution, as if there are only two options. But this is just my opinion. Geistkiesel Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm fairly certain that Darwin didnt use words like "Big momman". Plus in his day we were missing a lot of evidence that we currently have. The point about a tree of life of common origins and the species origins from a common ancestor is that in the assertion of descent from a common ancestor, you dont have to say exactly how that ancestor started. So my point still holds. Such an imbalance does seem ludicrous. If you go look at nature, you do tend to find feast/ famine effects though. Not the kind of thing you seem to be saying, in which the entire world or ecosystem is threatened, but a limited weeding out of excess entities. THink of lemmings.
