Teaching Intelligent Design

**Quinn** · 06-19-2011

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

That, to me, is the real sin. By using the Bible for things which the Bible was never intended, these Creationists are defiling the Word of God.

When one reads that God took a rib from Adam and created a helper for Adam, and therefore concludes that God said a woman is her man's helper and therefore subservient to him, shows a blatant disregard for the original words and the intent of the Bible. Either that, or the reader must accept that God is also a man's helper and therefore subservient to man.

The Bible has a place in religion, but no serious religious scholar or responsible theologian holds with the idea of the Bible as literal truth,

Your response reminded me of the first witness, Kenneth Miller's testimony:

Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor from Brown University and noted author and commentator opposed to the intelligent design and creationist movements, was the first witness. He testified as an expert witness that "Intelligent design is not a testable theory and as such is not generally accepted by the scientific community." He said that the idea of intelligent design was not subject to falsification, but many claims made by intelligent-design advocates had been falsified. Asked what the harm was in reading the statement, Miller gave a two-fold response. 1) "[I]t falsely undermines the scientific status of evolutionary theory and gives students a false understanding of what theory actually means." And 2) "as a person of faith who was blessed with two daughters, who raised both of my daughters in the church, and had they been given an education in which they were explicitly or implicitly forced to choose between God and science, I would have been furious, because I want my children to keep their religious faith."

It is unnecessary to force a choice between the Gods & the Sciences.

Further, it's an example of the logical fallacy variously identified as:

false dilemma
false dichotomy
either-or fallacy
fallacy of false choice
black-and-white thinking
fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses

**Darth Hussein Omar** · 06-19-2011

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

What ius your point? where are you going with this thought? Are you suggesting that Margulis believes Darwin had selection of the species wrong? Or is it possible that she is expanding his line of thought, since she has relevant new information?

Lynn Margulis has described neo-Darwinism as 'a minor twentieth century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology'

(Science, Apr. 19, 1991 pp. 378-381 )

One of my points is that if you or I were a run of the mill biologist and we made such a statement we would be labeled 'Creationists' [whatever that means] and our work would never see the light of day.

But Margulis is untouchable on account of her work with endosymbiosis. She is free to speak her mind. Makes one wonder how many other working biologists there are that have their private suspicions about the theory.

The other point is that Margulis believes---as I do---that the creatiive power of natural selection is way over-blown. If you think I'm mis-quoting her, you can read the article for yourself.

Discover Interview: Lynn Margulis Says She's Not Controversial, She's Right | Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine

**Darth Hussein Omar** · 06-19-2011

Originally Posted by Quinn

Your response reminded me of the first witness, Kenneth Miller's testimony:

It is unnecessary to force a choice between the Gods & the Sciences.

Amen to that. Oddly, Miller never went on to explain exactly how ID forces that false dichotomy. I think it's basically an anti-ID talking point.

**Quinn** · 06-19-2011

Originally Posted by darth omar

Amen to that. Oddly, Miller never went on to explain exactly how ID forces that false dichotomy. I think it's basically an anti-ID talking point.

He was just the first witness. imho, it's really worth taking a look at what everyone had to say & what was eventually uncovered/revealed.

**Slartibartfas** · 06-19-2011

Originally Posted by darth omar

I was borrowing 'day 1' from your rhetoric in the previous post. The point I was making is this: There were already eukaryotes around during the pre-Cambrian and this is not entirely consistent [to be diplomatic] with abiogenesis or neo-Darwinisn; whereas, ID has no problem with it, since its not commited to gradualism.

Be precise, why is the fact that eukaryotes exist already for more than 500 mio years "not entirely consistent" with either abiogenesis or what you call "neo-Darwinism"? Because I can't figure out why that should be the case.

No one questions the existence of different cells. Different kinds of life have different DNA and these produce different kinds of cells. It comprises a mundane point.

I am not talking about different cells, but entirely new categories of cell types. So you are saying that the coming into existence of the whole category of eg insect cells is a "mundane point". Also the very coming into existence of animals took place only at the very end of the pre-cambrian ages, ie billion years after the advent of living cells. That "mundane point" for example meant entirely new cell organelles, not found outside animal cells. I guess for you nothing interesting from an evolutionary has happened since the advent of the first eukaryotic cell. While that might be compatible with ID it isn't with reality.

Concidentally, Lynn Margulis [originater of mitochondrial endosymbiosis] was interviewed by Discover Magazine this week. Margulis is an interesting thinker and definitely a character in the debate. If I understand her sufficiently, it's her position that we owe much more to symbiosis [even male sperm tails were symbiotically derived from ancient spirochetes] than we do natural selection.

I am not surprised by that statement, even though, this needs backing up by empirical data and evidence. The impact of symbiosis has indeed been terribly underestimated in the early days of the theory of evolution. All sorts of symbiosis (may it be mutualism, commensalism or parasitism) and their impact on evolution are no contradiction to the theory of evolution, they are an important addition.

It is not black and white at all. I already mentioned viruses above. They are normally described as parasites (if we accept that label for something that is not widely seen as life). But they act on various levels. On one side the excert classic pressure supporting the survival of the fittest, ie those who can survive viral attacks the best. On the other side, viruses, especially those that can integrate into genome, can supply organisms with genes of totally different organisms and possibly grant them an advantage in natural selection. You see, natural selection does not only works by competition but also by cooperation.

That said Margulis might push it too far on some extends. While the endosymbiotic theory of the coming into existence of mitochondria was her greatest contribution which is also generally accepted some other of her more recent claims were controversial and criticized for being not supported by enough evidence. I can't judge, it seems to be the usual forth and back that science lives from.

But lets see what Ms. Margulis has to say about Intelligent Design:

"They are ignorant. More precisely, they are dogmatic and should admit that they are a religious group. I have nothing against religion, I respect it. I think they should talk about their religious beliefs in religion class, but not in science class. Scientists try to argue based on evidence from experiments and results, not by trickery, and these people are either con men or naive, but definitely ignorant."
Darwin's God: Questions for Lynn Margulis (quote is from an anti evoluton blog)

Margulis' criticisms of evolution are identical to my own and Micheal Behe's: And among them is the idea that natural selection's contribution to the story is trivial in the sense it has no real creative power. In her version, it is symbiosis that is the real mover and shaker in terms of increasing complexity over time. And she may be correct, I don't pretend to know.

Natural selection is only part of the theory of evolution it is not the same as the theory of evolution, certainly not of the latest version of it. Of course "selection" alone can't create new things. It can create a pressure, a direction. Creating something new can be done for example by combining existing parts in a new way or by small changes in the make up of a part. The latter is not happening by mere chance either. Organisms often have mechanisms protecting certain genetic information from change while even encouraging it for others.

PS: I doubt Margulis sees herself in one boat with Behes when she is actually calling him indirectly an ignorant (She said ID supporters are ignorants and Behe is beyond any doubt a key ID supporter)

My objection to her view is this, though: With her criticism of natural selection, Margulis kicks the 'origin of information can' down the road, since horizontal gene transfer doesn't create anything new in terms of biological information. It basically boils down to one organism co-opting an already existent form of biological information and putting it to work at a different task.

I'll finish Margulis off with this bleat: She is free to be critical of Darwinism because her contributions to mitochondrial endosymbiosis have made her untouchable. However, if you are a run of the mill professor in the biology department---and the bank still holds your mortgage, it is best to toe the Darwinian line.

Completely wrong. It seems you simply fail to understand how science works. If Margulis should support unscientific theories, she will face the same consequences as anyone else. The point where it boils down to is that she is a critic of the theory of evolution. As that theory is a scientific one, it is only natural that there exist critics as well. Everything else would be unhealthy. But why not let Margulis answer herself what the difference between her and Behe is, shall we?

"The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or “God did it.” They have no alternatives that are scientific."

Margulis has scientific answers, or at least valid hypothesis to compete with the current consensus theory of evolution, ID supporters haven't. Thats why she is doing science and Behe and Co are not.

**Quinn** · 06-19-2011