Comments

Posted by: tackimosh On: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 3:29 PM

Comment Title: limits of evolution
To Glen Davidson: You said 'evolution is understood best according to its limitations, its inability to fully replicate anything that has come beforehand.' I say, why do you conclude that evolution has limitations? By observing nature? Don't you see the circular nature of that argument? You conclude that evolution has limitations because of your assumption of common ancestry. If you were to question common ancestry, then you could no longer 'know' that life evolved. Your interpretations of nature are dependent on your ideology, and you subjectively reject all other interpretations as being without reason or sense. What it looks like is you are holding up your ideology as truth, and any argument not based on your ideology is 'senseless', regardless of how intelligent or how well they fit the data. What are the limits of convergent evolution? Our only idea of this is derived from looking at nature, but this does not prove evolution. It only shows a logical thought process that is based on a 'If common ancestry and purely natural forces, then this...' scenario. It is hopelessly inadequate to prove that intelligent design is wrong or even inadequate. You say, 'Life's limitations are explained by the limits of evolution. There is no reason to think that they would exist under any design scenario, let alone one involving supreme intelligence.' But I could also say that life's limitations are explained by the physical properties of nature, and that the limits of evolution are frequently mistaken for the limits imposed by the physical properties of nature. No need for materialistic assumptions.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: B. J. Edwards On: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 3:21 PM

Comment Title: Jim's intellectual dishonesty does not fool anyone.
Jim, you don't fool anybody. I addressed your post by pointing out right off the bat that your definition of science is totally wrong. I've asked you to come back here with the correct definition and, not surprisingly, you won't. You know what doing so means: it destroys your whole argument. Fortunately, I have had many years of experience dealing with all manner of deniers from Holocaust deniers to 9/11 deniers to moon landing deniers to evolution deniers. They're easy to put on the spot by making them explain themselves. Like them, you have cornered yourself by evading the question. Like them, and Don McLeroy, you have no interest in any intellectual discourse because you don't want to play by the rules. Sorry, buddy, you outed yourself.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Jim On: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:49 PM

Comment Title: Jim to Edwards
You couldn't answer. Wonder why? Checkmate.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: B. J. Edwards On: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 12:21 PM

Comment Title: Jim: Please read carefully this time.
I shouldn't have to repeat this but I will. Please read carefully: "If you want to be serious, Jim, I suggest you do some basic research, come back here with the formal, objective definition of science and the scientific method." Read it as many times as you need to until you get it.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Jim On: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:28 AM

Comment Title: Question to Edwards from Jim
Edward, please answer this question. If it's not science to say something looks designed is it science to say something is not designed?
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Jim On: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:04 AM

Comment Title: Edwards You keep missing the point
You missed the point again. Are you trying not to understand? Your anwer did not address my comment. Your answer did not address anything! For example, you talk about objective vs. subjective definitions of science, but fail to give any definitions. Don't you think a definition of objective science would be in order so that your anwer would have some meaning? (even though it does not address my comment)
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: B. J. Edwards On: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:58 AM

Comment Title: Tim: Let me help you with your confusion
Tim wrote: "I will answer your questions in turn. 1. Is ID science? Depends on how you define science. When Dawkins says Darwinism allows him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist he thinks he’s talking science, but others would argue he’s really talking philosophy. When Crick says we have to keep reminding ourselves that the molecular machines appear designed but are not, he thinks he’s talking science but others would argue he’s really talking philosophy. When Carl Sagan says the universe is all there was, is and ever will be, he thinks he’s talking science but others would argue he’s really talking philosophy. The short answer, it’s science if science is a search for the truth. It’s not if science is limited to the study of the material." When someone says that the definition of science is a subjective one, dependent on eye of the beholder, or one which fits one's personal view, than that person can make up any "science" he wants. No, Jim, science is defined objectively. Without an objective standard by which everyone adheres to and agrees with, science can neither be conducted nor produce meaningful results. As a result of such wrong-headed thinking, Creationists like Don McLeroy think they can change the rules of scientific inquiry to fit their desired conclusions. They think they can claim that the scientific method is NOT self-regulating, that so-called "strengths and weaknesses" are not part of the process automatically. But thanks for clarifying your position. Ultimately, you reveal the thinking behind the falsehood of claiming "Intelligent Design" is in any way remotley "science." It is not; Intelligent Design is religion, NOT science. It produces no testable theories, no predictive results. IDists has no ability to discern truth from falsehoods, and no methodology to cull out the the false. If you want to be serious, Jim, I suggest you do some basic research, come back here with the formal, objective definition of science and the scientific method. Then we can watch your effort to squeeze the square peg of ID into the round hole of science. Don McLeroy is not succeeding. His intellectual dishonesty is readily apparent. The emperor, indeed, wears no clothes. That is why you need to urge him to step down from the SBOE and for you to respect science for what it really is.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:42 AM

Comment Title: with all due respect
Stephen: you already made that point clearly and eloquently. You posted these thoughts earlier and persuaded everyone already - you had us at . . . whatever
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Steven On: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 9:09 PM

Comment Title: kids are smart
I can only say that while the adults fight over what they should and should not tell the children, the children are finding out for themselves what they think is true and false. They are also learning that adults lie to them to control them. I remember being a child and having to find information myself on certain subjects because it wasn't deemed acceptable to learn certain things in school. I hope one day we will wake up and realize that knowledge is good and should not be kept from anyone because it can be hard to make a well informed proper decision when you are uninformed.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: plasmapal On: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 8:13 PM

Comment Title: It's simple really
You can get lost among the trees of an argument, but the forest is well defined. Many creationists begin with the premise that creation occurred and are looking for scientific explanations to support their conclusion. Likewise many scientists have innate and intense animosity to the very concept of the potential existence of a creator that they exclude the possibility outright without testing their own hypotheses, and that's not science. Each side could be working toward the same proven result, but that works better when you're defining a piece of furniture you want to duplicate (for instance) than when you're describing the origins of all the things that have ever been or that ever will be, in all directions at once.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Glen Davidson On: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 7:00 PM

Comment Title: Evolution is known through its limitations
I almost can't spend any more time on this forum, either, but I will slightly address one thing tackimosh said: "I say that you didn't understand my point. Let me try again. If evolutionary processes can develop all the wonderful things we see in the world of biology, why should we doubt that it is capable of producing exactly the same DNA sequence more than once? It's powers appear to be unlimited" I completely understood your point, and noted that evolution is understood best according to its limitations, its inability to fully replicate anything that has come beforehand. The bat wing could not be a replica of the bird wing, due to historical limitations and because of the stark limitations that mutations plus natural selection (and other mechanisms) impose upon evolution. And I looked up a familiar source which shows the importance of limits on convergence, namely, that fairly similar structures may be produced during evolution, but nothing can obscure the limitations of evolution which make homologies such dependable markers of evolution. It involves the eye, which evolved similar forms in cephalopods and in vertebrates, but which are constrained by heredity to develop very differently indeed: The eyes of the cuttlefish (...) grow from invaginations of the skin; those of the human grow in part out of the front of the brain; each uses completely different receptors to pick u p the light they focus. Yet cuttlefish and people see the world in the same way, through eyes whose similarities outweigh their deep differences. Simon Ings, p. 307 "An Eye for the Eye," NATURE 20 Nov., 2008 v. 456 pp. 304-309. Convergence happens, but the homologies always cause evolution to take different routes. This also is why index fossils are reliable markers for the geologists, since the pathways evolution can take are limited, and only a fairly small portion of "adaptive space" has been sampled by living and extinct forms (according to computer models). Life's limitations are explained by the limits of evolution. There is no reason to think that they would exist under any design scenario, let alone one involving supreme intelligence. Glen Davidson http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: BAMA GIRL On: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 6:52 PM

Comment Title: I LOVE OBAMA
ya'll need to keep your church out of school. a school is a place for education not to read and repeat some scifi novel ya'll call the bible. the rest of america is tired of the bible belt and their backward ways. recently an innocent doctor was shot by ppl who love the bible way too much. most of america realizes that you ppl are crazy. america is tired of you ppl, after dealing with a drunk lazy bush and now this crazy doctor killa. america is tired and refuses to acknowledge your craziness. gay marriage will pass and abortion is here to stay. ya'll need to just keep your crazy outdated ideas in your churches.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: tackimosh On: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 3:41 PM

Comment Title: to Glen Davidson
you say 'What you need to do is to explain why the vast majority of proteins actually are homologous with other proteins. We have the explanation, common ancestry and adaptation. You have no explanation at all.' I say that you didn't understand my point. Let me try again. If evolutionary processes can develop all the wonderful things we see in the world of biology, why should we doubt that it is capable of producing exactly the same DNA sequence more than once? It's powers appear to be unlimited, therefore why assume common ancestry when you see homology? Put another way, if DNA sequences are the result of mutation and natural selection only, then given enough time, mutations and a similar environment, such natural processes might be able to produce an almost identical DNA sequence in organisms that are not closely related. Has it never occurred to you that adaptation makes common ancestry redundant? In other words, homology alone in not enough evidence for common ancestry.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: tackimosh On: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 3:26 PM

Comment Title: Comment Title: Homologies revisited part 9--the end for now
To Glen Davidson I'm impressed that you are prepared to spend so much time on this debate. There is no way that I have the time to match you. So I'm only going to address a couple of points. You say 'Creationism evolves constantly, and wildly.' I'm actually not that interested in defending creationism or intelligent design. The issue here is whether students should be able to critically analyse evolutionary theory. If creation or ID was false, that wouldn't mean that we no longer should question evolutionary theory. Evolution theories (plural intended) do change frequently, and I've no problem with that. It is simply a reflection on a process of struggling to understand the natural world and how it came to be, so it should change as our knowledge increases. But compared with the theory that the earth revolves around the sun, which hasn't changed that much in hundreds of years, evolutionary theories don't (or shouldn't) enjoy the same level of confidence, particularly when they change so much. Until theories stop changing, they should be questioned. Changing the theory should only stop when the questioning (which should never be hindered) returns the same answers time and again. You seem to want to retain evolutionary theory by prevention of questioning, rather than testing it. That is heading towards dogma.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Dr. Wernher von Braun On: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 3:23 PM

Comment Title:
Must we really light a candle to see the Sun? …The electron is materially inconceivable, and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real, while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him? …The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which always will lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction. To simply dismiss the concept of a Creator as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Glen Davidson On: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:33 PM

Comment Title: Homologies revisited part 9--the end for now
"It should be obvious that truth doesn't change as much as evolutionary theories, changes that are made by the proponents of the theory, not the skeptics." Creationism evolves constantly, and wildly. They shift on what "microevolution" means, and there are no criteria for it. Some deny that the Big Bang happened, others claim that it "proves creationism." Dating methods are "explained" via miracles, light slowing down, god creating light (complete with evidence of supernovae explosions) in transit, while the correlations between methods are ignored. Of course evolutionary theory changes, but it has long been quite solid on what a species is, that natural selection is quite important, and the evolutionary predictions have only been refined, not changed in essence. And why the charge that evolutionary theory changes? Did you forget that it's supposed to be unchanging dogma, like creationism and "design" are (the dogma at their core remains regardless of evidence, while arguments orbit rapidly around to save the dogma from evidence)? Evolutionary theory improves, it does not simply look around for more and contradictory ways of faulting the other guys--without doing any science--as ID/creationism do. Physics has had dramatic changes at times, and is now seeking another revolution. Hence the popularity of string theory. Whether or not they'll get their revolution remains to be seen "When the only thing that the evolutionary proponents have in common is that they know evolution happened," And when will that be? Oh, you're saying it is that way? Again, your ignorance is what you throw at evolution, there are huge areas of evolutionary theory that are largely agreed upon by all biologists. "you can be sure that this is resting on an ideology, not scientific experiments." Yes, that describes the Discovery Institute, ID, and other forms of creationism to a "T." They won't even allow arguments over the age of the earth within ID forums, that's how much they know that various creationists disagree about very very fundamental issues. We all agree on the old earth, taxonomic structures (the same as evolutionary branches), the meaning of homologies and transitional fossils, the importance of natural selection upon genes (dissidents on that, like Lynne Margulis, are very few and far between), the predictions of evolutionary theory, and that these predictions are inescapably fulfilled to anyone not biased. Indeed, we're sometimes charged with being too much in agreement, but that's nothing unusual in settled science like evolution. "When evolutionary theories stop changing, then perhaps they can enjoy the same position as some astronomy theories." So you are unaware of how much astronomy has changed over the last 50 years. Once again, what you don't know is impressive, what you do know is not. "Until then, McLeroy is correct to insist that evolutionary theories are questioned." And when will astronomy quit changing? Why are astronomy textbooks updated so frequently? Indeed, why is astronomy so exciting now, other than the fact that it is often changing, revising ideas, and sometimes overthrowing past ideas? Is the hot solar corona soon to be explained definitively? Will we soon know how the magnetic field of Mercury is generated, especially when in the past Mercury was thought to be too cold to create a magnetic field? Will short gamma ray bursters be found to be due to colliding neutron stars as many theorize? Will long gamma ray bursters really be due to collimated jets coming from a hypernova? Is inflation really responsible for the "smoothness" of the universe? Importantly, will solar evolution theories come into line with observations which suggest that the sun is not especially metal-rich for its age, or will that remain a thorn in the side of stellar models? Oh, evolutionary theory is every bit as stable as astronomy theories are, probably more so. Not that this has anything to do with what is proper to teach, since teaching the best science is the only issue at any given time and in any given subject. But your depictions of astronomy vs. evolution and their relative stabilities is as bizarre as your notions about what causes homologies. Anyhow, McLeroy's claim was that "experiments" are necessary for science, not just observations, and I mentioned astronomy as something that in most cases relies upon observations and not experiment. Meaning that your nonsense about astronomy was another strawman, having nothing to do with the fact that considerable science (like stellar evolution models) is done without experiment, save the most basic physics experiments. Evolution has those physics experiments as well (really, trash evolution and you're trashing physics), and it has evolutionary experiments in addition. Geology would have served as another branch of science in which observation often has to be used rather than experiment for many phenomena, as is true of evolutionary theory. Glen Davidson http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Glen Davidson On: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 11:58 AM

Comment Title: Homologies revisited part 8
"You write: 'By the way, why isn't McLeroy pushing for children to analyze the claim that the sun is the center of our solar system, and the earth is not the center of the universe? Why not have children analyze Newtonian physics and relativity?' There is a difference between the location of the sun and the earth and evolutionary theory. That you don't see this" Perhaps you should revisit the definition of what an analogy is. It is a comparison of different things having similarities, hence my analogy. I see the difference, and the only meaningful difference is that evolution bothers some peoples' religious sensibilities, so that they wish to cast aspersions on just one of the crucial theories in science, and not the other "different" theories which do not tread on their biased toes. "suggests you think that evolutionary theory is as true as something like gravity." Of course it is, although gravity continues to have much more fundamental theoretical problems than does evolutionary theory. To bring up in schools ridiculous questions about evolution, while ignoring actual questions regarding quantum gravity and relativistic gravity, is to deceive trusting schoolchildren. That this is all creationists have in their arsenal indicates how truly bankrupt their ideas are. Glen Davidson http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Glen Davidson On: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 11:51 AM

Comment Title: Homologies revisited part 7
"But what is no longer 'odd', but simply short-sighted is the inability to see evolutionary developement is absolutely dependent on environment and function." That's a pathetic strawman, obviously a desperate attempt to salvage something from your faulty claims. Function evolves to fit the environment, and only creationists deny the clear evidence that it does. "I have become rather disappointed with evolutionary theory. In my view, it has a very long way to go before it can explain how new proteins and protein complexes (not to mention their regulation) can be routinely produced--a process that had to have happened more than a billion times over if evolutionary theory is true." What you need to do is to explain why the vast majority of proteins actually are homologous with other proteins. We have the explanation, common ancestry and adaptation. You have no explanation at all. "All it has now is a handful of cases, none of which are very convincing." You mean the fact that every living thing is related, and most proteins have identifiable homologies with other proteins (that ORFans exist is hardly more important than that the tuatara is the last of its clade) is a few cases, hardly convincing, eh? So let's see, the evolutionary predictions are fulfilled literally millions of times, and you don't see it. The magic man must have done it. Glen Davidson http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Glen Davidson On: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 11:40 AM

Comment Title: Homologies revisited part 6
"You write: 'Oddly enough, the difference in adaptive immune system maps out with other important differences. What functional or environmental factors account for this?' That would be an example of cherry picking, wouldn't it?" Not in the least, it's just one of many examples of where common ancestry provides an explanation, and nothing else does. I pick one example of thousands, and you call it "cherry picking," once again showing how creationism relies almost exclusively upon ignorance of the evidence for evolution. "If common ancestry was involved, would we logically expect that every important difference can be mapped to something like an immune system?" That is an amazingly naive and uneducated question. Even hagfish and lampreys (the agnathans) diverged, and the gnathostomes radiated to become amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Each evolutionary branching has characteristics which map out to a "clade." "What would it take to prove that there was no common ancestry?" Gee, how about some evidence for design, or anything that doesn't follow evolutionary predictions. It isn't our fault that the theory is so successful. "Something like an inability to even describe how important differences (which cannot be traced back) may have got there in the first place?" Except that evolution does explain it generally and, in many cases, specifically, as the modification of ancestral genes over the course of divergence and adaptation. What you lack is anything that is even slightly explanatory, let alone a good cause and effect predictive theory such as evolution. Glen Davidson http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Glen Davidson On: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 11:29 AM

Comment Title: Homologies revisited part 5
"Lets look as some of your questions: 'Why do humans, dolphins, and bats use the same bones for their hands, flippers, and wings?' The answer is quite easy, actually, and that is because they work!" Actually, I asked that because you said that common environment and common function could be the explanation, and you ignore the fact that homologies do not map out to common function or common environment. You say "they work" as if that were any kind of answer at all for why the same bones are used for such greatly different functions. Well of course they work, or the animals would be dead, or doing very badly. And of course you're avoiding the importance of the relatedness of the dolphin, the bat, and the human. I also asked why bats don't have homologies with birds and pterosaurs, even averring that this is "more to the point," since distantly related organisms do not share the homologies found in more closely related organisms. Birds' wings only have three fingers, like the "hands" of their dinosaur ancestors, and pterosaur wings were mainly supported by their fourth fingers. These also happen to function well. Bird wings are even more efficient (though not as maneuverable). If "they function very well" were any kind of explanation, it would apply at least as well to bird wings being the template for bat wings. I know that you probably have no concept of what I was getting at with what I wrote, as creationists almost never know the science that they malign. This is no excuse, though, because I specifically contrasted the homologies of the more closely related dolphin, human, and bat with the more distantly related bird and pterosaur, with which bat wings are only distantly homologous. "Are you really saying that evolutionary processes could never have produced such a useful set of bones more than once? Or is this too much of a coincidence that such bones are similar throughout the animal kingdom?" That particular set? Of course I'm saying that it would be too much of a coincidence--the chance of the same set of complexly interacting bones re-evolving when there is nothing essential about them is astronomically improbable. Unlike creationists, we actually do care about probabilities, too. "Maybe you don't have enough faith in evolutionary theory? Such a marvelous process capable of producing any and every wonderful thing in nature surely wouldn't have any trouble producing such structures more than once." Which shows just how ignorant you are of evolutionary theory. Evolution explains the constraints, by contrast with the many things that could have been designed by some super-intelligence, but could not have evolved, and which in fact do not exist. Your ignorance of evolutionary theory and your strange beliefs about it have nothing to do with the "rules" that actual evolutionary science rigorously follow. Glen Davidson http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Glen Davidson On: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 11:10 AM

Comment Title: Homologies revisited part 4
"Are you familiar enough with molecular biology to describe a satisfactory method for distinguishing between convergent evolution and divergent evolution? As clever as you probably are, I doubt that you could, because the experts are also having a pretty tough time over that one (although please feel free to prove me wrong)." It's done all of the time, and it's relatively simple to do in principle. All you have to do is to find similar strings of nucleotides at statistically significant levels within two genes in genetically separated species, and you've shown that the genes are homologous. With chimps and humans, there are few genes which are not thereby shown to be homologous. This involves basically the same techniques used to show relatedness of languages, and to discover additions and changes in textual families as well. There is nothing esoteric about it at all. Glen Davidson http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Glen Davidson On: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 10:54 AM

Comment Title: Homologies revisited part 3
"But I'm sure you have heard of convergent evolution, the idea that some homologies exist in nature that are not thought to be a result of common ancestry, eg. the bill of a platypus and that of a duck." No, you don't know the terms of science. The bill of the platypus is analogous (not very) with the bill of a duck. Richard Owen differentiated between the two before Darwin ever wrote up his theory. "How did that homology get there? According to evolutionary theory, through a long process involving function and the environment. OK, the homology involved in this example isn't that high, nevertheless, what separates the homology in this case and that between humans and chimps? A matter of degree?" What distinguishes them, first of all, is that the "duckbill" on the platypus and the duck's bill function similarly. Chimps and humans do not locomote similarly. Is this really so difficult to grasp? Secondly, the actual homologies of a platypus bill are with mammal anatomy and physiology, and the duck's homologies are with bird anatomy and physiology. The platypus "bill" is leathery, and juveniles grow teeth (fossils of adult platypuses show that they had teeth more recently than did birds), while a duck's bill is made of keratin and they do not grow teeth. That's just it, while convergent evolution occurs, the sources of the similarities that evolve are always what exists in the lineage (or which comes through lateral transfers of genetic information--mostly not happening in vertebrate lines), never does any "designer" step in to take a useful part from an organism and put it into an unrelated organism. Glen Davidson http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Glen Davidson On: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 10:52 AM

Comment Title: Homologies revisited part 2
"So you write all other arguments off as not being 'sensible'." Actually, I argue that they aren't even arguments in the scientific sense, although endless nonsense is written to obfuscate the issue. Again, I'd note that I brought up specifics, the heredity-constrained Archaeopteryx with its dinosaurian physique, platypus and baleen-whale teeth, upright humans vs. chimps, and the way that flippers, hands, and wings are all made of the same basic structures. Ancestry explains these magnificently, while all I get from creationists as "explanations" are sorry excuses and attacks on reasonable science. "This suggests that you are relying on the credibility argument." Science comes down to credibility, yes. What I'm not doing is relying on the "personal incredulity argument" of the creationists, which is bogus and based upon lack of understanding. Science can only rely upon credible mechanisms, by contrast, and so it doesn't distinguish between homologies that creationists accept ("microevolutionary," though they can never agree what that is) and the same sorts of homologies that link bird and reptile, reptile and amphibian, etc. Only if you could come up with some credible reason why homologies are sound where Darwin's finches are involved, but not where Archaeopteryx is involved, would you have any worthwhile argument. "Although other arguments exist, you find them too incredible." No, I discussed the ones you brought up and demostrated that they are not credible explanations, based on what we know of evolution and functional design. You, by contrast, ignore the specifics which are the business of science. Glen Davidson http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Glen Davidson On: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 10:25 AM

Comment Title: Homologies revisited, part 1
"'..can you explain to me why we, upright bipeds, have almost exactly the same bones as a quadrupedal chimps, if it is due to common function or common environment?' Your argument appears to be that because we share such a high level of similarity with chimps, we must share ancestry. This is a common argument, but it isn't the only argument." Then why don't you come up with an intelligent explanation for it? My argument specifically dealt with your claim that homologies might be due to common function or environment, but you ignored what I was addressing to attack what I was not addressing. Like this "later write that 'There is only one sensible reason for the homologies found throughout living organisms.'" Yes, there are magical "explanations," including design-meaningless claims that a "common designer" might not have enough sense to adapt humans better to upright walking, but they are indeed senseless. Glen Davidson http://tinyurl.com/6mb529
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Jim On: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 10:00 AM

Comment Title: Ben says 99%? Really?
Ben, your 99% figure is wrong. More than 1% of scientist are practicing Christians, Jews and Muslims, not to mention other theistic religions. It would be hard to believe it never occurred to them their religion would be incompatible with a purely materialistic universe. That we are the result of random collisions, time and natural selection, a process that did not involve God.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Jim On: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 9:33 AM

Comment Title: To "Who says these things?"
Whoever wrote to Jim and asked "Who says these things?" can you really be so clueless? Get on the internet and educate yourself on intelligent deisgn before you get into this discussion. JC
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Ben On: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 8:33 AM

Comment Title: The trolls are here
Why bother debating with dishonest creationists? They use the same tactic, over and over: They say, "All we want is a reasonable debate. All sides should be examined." There are no "sides." All they want to do is attempt to malign evolution with arguments that have been refuted over and over, successfully, by the mainstream scientific community (which means 99% of scientists). Evolution is a fact. It always has been and it always will be. Anyone who denies that is ignorant, usually willfully. Yeah, I know, evolution offends your idea of god and creation. Sorry. We're not going to rewrite the truth just to make you happy.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: tackimosh On: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 2:52 AM

Comment Title: The importance of homologies: to Glen Davidson
'..can you explain to me why we, upright bipeds, have almost exactly the same bones as a quadrupedal chimps, if it is due to common function or common environment?' Your argument appears to be that because we share such a high level of similarity with chimps, we must share ancestry. This is a common argument, but it isn't the only argument. You are aware of this, I think, because, you later write that 'There is only one sensible reason for the homologies found throughout living organisms'. So you write all other arguments off as not being 'sensible'. This suggests that you are relying on the credibility argument. Although other arguments exist, you find them too incredible. But I'm sure you have heard of convergent evolution, the idea that some homologies exist in nature that are not thought to be a result of common ancestry, eg. the bill of a platypus and that of a duck. How did that homology get there? According to evolutionary theory, through a long process involving function and the environment. OK, the homology involved in this example isn't that high, nevertheless, what separates the homology in this case and that between humans and chimps? A matter of degree? Are you familiar enough with molecular biology to describe a satisfactory method for distinguishing between convergent evolution and divergent evolution? As clever as you probably are, I doubt that you could, because the experts are also having a pretty tough time over that one (although please feel free to prove me wrong). Lets look as some of your questions: 'Why do humans, dolphins, and bats use the same bones for their hands, flippers, and wings?' The answer is quite easy, actually, and that is because they work! They function very well that way, and in each of their respective environments, such bones have allowed them to survive. Are you really saying that evolutionary processes could never have produced such a useful set of bones more than once? Or is this too much of a coincidence that such bones are similar throughout the animal kingdom? Maybe you don't have enough faith in evolutionary theory? Such a marvelous process capable of producing any and every wonderful thing in nature surely wouldn't have any trouble producing such structures more than once. You write: 'Oddly enough, the difference in adaptive immune system maps out with other important differences. What functional or environmental factors account for this?' That would be an example of cherry picking, wouldn't it? If common ancestry was involved, would we logically expect that every important difference can be mapped to something like an immune system? What would it take to prove that there was no common ancestry? Something like an inability to even describe how important differences (which cannot be traced back) may have got there in the first place? Apparently that is not enough, or we would have discared evolutionary theory a long time ago. I find it more 'odd' that you cannot see a possibility of design, that in a design scenario, similarities, even to a high level, would be expected, particularly in organims that live in similar environments and are faced with similar survival strategy challenges (function). But what is no longer 'odd', but simply short-sighted is the inability to see evolutionary developement is absolutely dependent on environment and function. What evironmental and functional factors account for this, you ask? That is a question for evolutionary theory, and unless it can provide the answers, its explanations will remain unsatisfactory. You write: 'Evolution actually explains things, while pseudoscience comes up with excuses which explain nothing, and produces attacks on evolution which only in their imaginations are "impossible" if evolution occurred.' I am relatively disgusted that evolutionary theory produces pseudoscience explanations, providing superficial answers to deep problems. I have become rather disappointed with evolutionary theory. In my view, it has a very long way to go before it can explain how new proteins and protein complexes (not to mention their regulation) can be routinely produced--a process that had to have happened more than a billion times over if evolutionary theory is true. All it has now is a handful of cases, none of which are very convincing. That doesn't mean I am an intelligent design proponent. I also view this with some skepticism. Nevertheless, the claims of evolutionary theory are far more overblown and overlaid with materialistic assumptions and produce a good deal more ire. You write: 'By the way, why isn't McLeroy pushing for children to analyze the claim that the sun is the center of our solar system, and the earth is not the center of the universe? Why not have children analyze Newtonian physics and relativity?' There is a difference between the location of the sun and the earth and evolutionary theory. That you don't see this suggests you think that evolutionary theory is as true as something like gravity. It should be obvious that truth doesn't change as much as evolutionary theories, changes that are made by the proponents of the theory, not the skeptics. When the only thing that the evolutionary proponents have in common is that they know evolution happened, you can be sure that this is resting on an ideology, not scientific experiments. When evolutionary theories stop changing, then perhaps they can enjoy the same position as some astronomy theories. Until then, McLeroy is correct to insist that evolutionary theories are questioned.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:33 AM

Comment Title: Who says these things?
Jim, you said "When Dawkins says Darwinism allows him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist he thinks he’s talking science, but others would argue he’s really talking philosophy. When Crick says we have to keep reminding ourselves that the molecular machines appear designed but are not, he thinks he’s talking science but others would argue he’s really talking philosophy. When Carl Sagan says the universe is all there was, is and ever will be, he thinks he’s talking science but others would argue he’s really talking philosophy." Who argues this? No respected academics do. People like you and McLeroy do. Don't try to pass off that cheap tactic here.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Jim On: Monday, June 08, 2009 10:19 PM

Comment Title: Jim to Edwards
I will answer your questions in turn. 1. Is ID science? Depends on how you define science. When Dawkins says Darwinism allows him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist he thinks he’s talking science, but others would argue he’s really talking philosophy. When Crick says we have to keep reminding ourselves that the molecular machines appear designed but are not, he thinks he’s talking science but others would argue he’s really talking philosophy. When Carl Sagan says the universe is all there was, is and ever will be, he thinks he’s talking science but others would argue he’s really talking philosophy. The short answer, it’s science if science is a search for the truth. It’s not if science is limited to the study of the material. 2. Do I think Don is exempt from the law? No. I think the judge is wrong. 3. What’s a materialist? Boy, you REALLY don’t understand intelligent design! A materialist believes (or assumes) that material, matter, energy, what can be weighed, measured, etc. is all there is. It’s an assumption that masquerades as scientific but is really philosophical. 4. A materialist wants you to hear one side. If you read my earlier comment you would have noted I said: Some people look at a system and say "It looks designed but it's not." Others say "It looks designed, maybe it is. Let's investigate." The first group call themselves scientists. When their statement is challenged by the second group you get comments like the 6 posted in this paper. Plus personal attacks about dishonesty and/or ignorance. Sorry you missed that. Means you missed the point. That’s what I mean by side, their side, and what I mean when they want you to hear one side, their side.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: B. J. Edwards On: Monday, June 08, 2009 8:36 PM

Comment Title: Jim: Please explain
You wrote: "So far the materialist only want the public to hear one side." What is a "materialist?" Who are you specifically referring to? Please demonstrate how and why they "only want the public to hear one 'side'" One side of what? . Please be specific so people can understand what you are trying to say.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: B. J. Edwards On: Monday, June 08, 2009 8:32 PM

Comment Title: Note to Jim
Jim, Why do you think "Intelligent Design" is science? Do you think Don McLeroy is exempt from the law? Please explain.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: WL Rubink On: Monday, June 08, 2009 7:23 PM

Comment Title: McElroy Almost
What is sad about the Texas legisature's formal disapproval of McElroy is not the fact of it but the extremely slim margin of rejectance. This suggests that nearly half our legislative body is of the same mind (small) as the medievel Bryan Dentist. Now that is a real pity. Isn't it?
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Jim On: Monday, June 08, 2009 5:06 PM

Comment Title: Sounds like a Debate
Davidson, you make a good point, debate is in order. Only problem is it takes two sides to have a good debate. So far the materialist only want the public to hear one side. Hence Mr. MCLeroy's article.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Jim On: Monday, June 08, 2009 4:53 PM

Comment Title: Note to B.J. Edwards
Mr. Edwards, why do you assume the court got it right? I will make the assumption you do not agree with every court ruling. You apparently do with this one. I do not.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Glen Davidson On: Monday, June 08, 2009 4:48 PM

Comment Title: The importance of homologies
"Perhaps another big blunder is to assume that homology is due to common ancestry rather than common function or common environment." OK, can you explain to me why we, upright bipeds, have almost exactly the same bones as a quadrupedal chimps, if it is due to common function or common environment? Why are fish bones used to make amphibians? Why do humans, dolphins, and bats use the same bones for their hands, flippers, and wings? More to the point, why don't bats share similarities (beyond those of a distant relation) as birds or pterosaurs? Why do hagfishes and lampreys have an entirely different adaptive immune system than other vertebrates do, and yet both our adaptive immune system and theirs utilize elements of the previously-existing (and still do) innate immune systems? "Oddly enough," the difference in adaptive immune system maps out with other important differences. What functional or environmental factors account for this? There is only one sensible reason for the homologies found throughout living organisms, and it has nothing to do with environment or function. How could the teeth in platypuses and baleen whales--which fall out of their jaws before they're eating solid food--have anything to do with function (save possible inherited developmental functions, as expected in evolution) or environment? That they're vestiges of functions of their ancestors is more than slightly obvious. That's the difference between actual science and the pseudoscience pushed by McLeroy. Evolution actually explains things, while pseudoscience comes up with excuses which explain nothing, and produces attacks on evolution which only in their imaginations are "impossible" if evolution occurred. By the way, why isn't McLeroy pushing for children to analyze the claim that the sun is the center of our solar system, and the earth is not the center of the universe? Why not have children analyze Newtonian physics and relativity? Why not have them figure out if quantum physics rules chemical reactions, or if chemical fairies don't design chemicals according to the conditions? The fact is that even if the "questions" McLeroy poses for evolution were genuine questions about evolution, rather than creationist canards, you're supposed to be teaching the basics of science at the grade levels targeted by the creationists. You teach them that languages and life may be inferred to have evolved (albeit differently) because of the incredible and non-essential similarities between the two, since those sorts of inferences are at the basis of good science. McLeroy wants to teach that these are not important, by bringing in false claims regarding evolution, such as that it would not support stasis (why not, when an organism is well-adapted to a relatively stable environment?) and does not undergo rapid change during adaptive radiations. The fact is that it would be shocking if remarkable adaptive radiation did not occur in the Cambrian, since oxygen levels were only then high enough to support the metazoa, so that once again evolution is explanatory, while ID/creationism has nothing to say except "goddidit." Glen Davidson http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: B. J. Edwards On: Monday, June 08, 2009 4:11 PM

Comment Title: We all understand what "Intelligent Design" is.
Jim wrote: "All comments negative. I doubt that any of the people who made comments have much of an understanding of intelligent design." Yes, we understand what ID is quite well. Intelligent Design has absolutely nothing to do with science and our courts have consistently ruled that ID is what we know it is: an attempt to introduce religion under the guise of "science." Therefore, it has consistently been ruled unconstitutional. See the Dover case for an understanding of what ID is and is NOT: "Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688, was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life."[1] The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District Don McLeroy is trying a new tactic to introduce religion into science classrooms.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: tackimosh On: Monday, June 08, 2009 3:06 PM

Comment Title: Interesting article
To Don, I found your article very interesting. And I am mostly in agreeance with your point of view, though I do differ in at least one regard. I do agree that the exploration of the natural world , i.e., science, should not be hindered by idealology. An example of this would be the 'junk' DNA story, and how the push to explain the evolution of genomes in purely naturalistic terms hindered the discovery of the important role that 'junk' DNA plays. Perhaps another big blunder is to assume that homology is due to common ancestry rather than common function or common environment. There are many more examples, and I agree that science would have been better served had the untestable ideology that everything can (or must) be explained in purely natural terms not been clung to with such determined belief. I would much rather our young people were spared being misled into thinking that there is no difference between science and such ideology. Nevertheless, I find myself at odds with your opening sentence, that 'there is no place for any ideology, religious or otherwise, in our science classrooms.' Because if that were true, you would have to also remove the human from the science classroom. In my opinion, no human is free from ideology of some sort, religious or otherwise. There isn't any such thing as a scientist that is free from ideology. And that means that every scientific explanation will, if traced far enough back to its roots, be shown to have a basis in an ideology. If this is true, then rather than attempting to remove all ideology from the classroom, it would be a better investment to try to ensure that our ideology doesn't distort our science. And for this to happen, I would advise that we keep our ideologies with us, but also allow for people of differing ideologies to criticise ours, and vice versa. So long as people were open and respectful of each other, everyone stands to benefit. Rather than having a dry monologue of boring science in the classroom, there would be a lively discussion that, if well managed by the teacher, could attract a good deal more interest in science among our young people. Isn't that something we would all want?
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Glen Davidson On: Monday, June 08, 2009 1:37 PM

Comment Title: Evolution allows for stasis, rapid radiations
"...Sudden appearance and stasis (staying the same) -- can be used to question evolution." This is exactly the kind of pseudoscientific nonsense coming from McLeroy to which we object. What about evolution prevents stasis, or "sudden appearance" in the sense of taking millions of years to evolve during the Cambrain radiation? In the creationist sense, there is absolutely no "sudden appearance," only an apparently rapid adaptation to dramatically increased oxygen levels (and other factors, likely) when the Cambrian radiation occurred. Plus, all life that appeared was related, a prediction of evolutionary theory. Explain how the modified dinosaur Archaeopteryx was constrained from being as good a flier as modern birds by design and then you have something worth talking about. Until then, it's just obscurantist nonsense. McLeroy denies that astronomy is science by claiming that experiments are necessary for science, not observations alone. He is obviously very opposed to science indeed. Glen Davidson http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Jim On: Monday, June 08, 2009 1:31 PM

Comment Title: Why so One sided
All comments negative. I doubt that any of the people who made comments have much of an understanding of intelligent design. Some people look at a system and say "It looks designed but it's not." Others say "It looks designed, maybe it is. Let's investigate." The first group call themselves scientists. When their statement is challenged by the second group you get comments like the 6 posted in this paper. Plus personal attacks about dishonesty and/or ignorance. The quote from Gould was appropiate and fair, considering the point the author was making. Sorry you don't like it. We are in a sorry state of affairs when one side of the debate shows no tolerance for the opposing view. The question is whether what we are seeing is designed or not. There has not been an answer to that question. Please, let's have a civil and reasonable discourse on this.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Monday, June 08, 2009 12:57 PM

Comment Title: Nut case, go home
McLeroy, We have the fossils. We win. Go back to dentistry.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Monday, June 08, 2009 12:40 PM

Comment Title: Still being discussed in London
Confirmation that we are world's laughingstock: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6425188.ece That McLeroy is not pushing his religion, and is insulting religious scientists everywhere, is his endorsement of "Sowing Atheism" which he recommended to the other school board members. How blatant. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6425188.ece
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Monday, June 08, 2009 12:33 PM

Comment Title:
Mr. McLeroy's use of a quotation by Dr. Stephen J. Gould further reflects his dishonesty or his lack of knowledge about basic biology. By quoting Dr. Gould out of context and selectively quote-mining, he makes it appears that Dr. Gould is arguing against evolution, when in fact he was discussing punctuated equilibrium as one of the processes by which evolution occurs. Unfortunately, the readers of this article either will not know enough to evaluate McLeroy's apparent ignorance (or dishonesty) in doing this, and so will come away believing that Dr. Gould is saying something which he did not, or they already realize what is going on and it will confirm the general viewpoint that McLeroy's reliance on a thoroughly debunked and marginally fringe belief system (yes, a belief system, not a scientific process) of Intelligent Design. Sprinkling his writing with the words "how" or "created" encased in quotation marks also reveals his thinly crafted attempts to make readers believe these concepts are in question. Mr. McLeroy did not lose the chairmanship because of his religious views (which are shared by the majority of Texans). He lost it because he pushed his religious beliefs over that of valid science, which had terrible consequences for the future of our science and medical education, and made Texas a laughingstock throughout the world. His objections to the science of evolution are the same tired, oft-debunked sound bites that are prominently displayed on the anti-science webs and blogs of Discovery Institute and their ilk. Good riddance and thank God for the future of our education.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Ben On: Sunday, June 07, 2009 1:37 PM

Comment Title: Quote mining
McLeroy, that's a despicable use of quote mining in your essay. You really should be ashamed. I truly don't understand how you can call yourself Christian and continue to use such dishonest tactics.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Ben On: Sunday, June 07, 2009 1:33 PM

Comment Title: Lying for Jesus™
McLeroy is a creationist, so he thinks Genesis is literally true. If anything appears to contradict Genesis, well, it must be wrong! That's why he's always attacking evolution. Sorry, McLeroy, but there is so much evidence in support of evolution, if you started reading now, you'd still be reading a thousand years from now. There is not one single piece of evidence against evolution. All of the "evidence" McLeroy attempts to use are old, worn-out fallacies that the mainstream scientific community (including Christian scientists) dismissed decades ago. McLeroy, quit Lying for Jesus™. You look silly.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: B. J. Edwards On: Sunday, June 07, 2009 12:03 PM

Comment Title: Both Good news and Bad News
There is both good news and bad news in Don McLeroy's continued misrepresentation of evolutionary biology, the scientific method, and what should be science textbook standards in the State of Texas. The good news is that there is now full documentation of that misrepresentation in the recent Texas State Board of Education hearings by eminent scientists. This documentation is available in the testimony of those scientists who clearly elucidate what constitutes science, the scientific method, and evolutionary biology. See the National Center For Science Education's excellent video series of the testimonies of scientists. It is clear that Don McLeroy's pronouncements are clearly at odds with science, are political in nature, and hurt the very educational standards and process he was appointed to uphold. Don McLeroy garnered national attention precisely for being anti-science. Don McLeroy has been persistently refuted on all of his misrepresentations. Anyone can find them without having to be repeated in this comment and everyone should educate themselves on how and why. The bad news is just how much political power Don McLeroy and the SBOE have to influence, misrepresent, and reverse objective scientific and educational standards to further a narrow political agenda. This point is all the more evident in that Don McLeroy's op ed above demonstrates that he still believes he can engage in constructing strawman arguments, red herrings, misrepresentation of evolutionary biology, the scientific method, and misrepresentations of statements by evolutionary biologists. How can this continue to be possible in this country in the 21st century, and how can it be corrected? The emperor wears no clothes and it is up to the citizens of Texas to tell the Don McLeroys of Texas that enough is enough, that they no longer can engage in such political shenanigans without consequence. It is a disgrace to Texas, to the United States, and to our children. It is time for Texas citizens to speak loud and clear: Don McLeroy, enough is enough. Step down now.
Report Abuse

---